- Email: [email protected]
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
Journal of Integrative Agriculture
July 2013
2013, 12(7): 1292-1299
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China ZHOU Shu-dong1, Felix Mueller2, Benjamin Burkhard2, CAO Xing-jin1 and HOU Ying2 1 2
Jiangsu Research Base of Rural Development and Land Policy, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, P.R.China Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Department of Ecosystem Management, University of Kiel, Kiel D-24118, Germany
Abstract According to the contemporary ecosystem approach, the linkages of human actions with their environment have to be assessed in an integrative manner. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is applied to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems. An example application from a research project dealing with the development of sustainable management strategies for the agriculture in Jiangsu, China, illustrates the potentials and limitations of its sustainable development. The concept and indicators of ecological integrity are used to assess the indicators in the dimensions of DPSIR between 2003 and 2006. The main drivers included population growth which caused increasing demand for food, growing environmental demands, and rapidly decreasing of land and other natural resources. The main environmental problem was water pollution. The results show that in the dimension of driver, total grain output and agricultural land productivity both increased. Labor intensive agriculture has been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity. In the dimension of pressure, on the positive side, infrastructure got greatly improved, the input level such as total power of machinery, and level of fertilizer use increased, and level of pesticides use decreased, but on the negative side, cultivated land per capita and irrigation rate decreased, natural resources keep decreased. Environmental pollution indicators such as industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate increased in Jiangsu Province. In the aspect of state, ecosystem state was improved, plant coverage index increased, biological abundance index increased, fertilizer productivity increased, eco-environmental quality index increased, but land degradation index also increased. In the aspect of impact, output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmer’s social economic benefit improved. In the aspect of response, social support was greatly improved, input for environmental governance increased. To assess the effects of environmental governance, Jiangsu government was successful to increase compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions, but not so efficient in compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge. Key words: agricultural sustainable development, DPSIR, ecosystem, China
INTRODUCTION Compared to other industries, agriculture is more dependent on natural environment, environmental factors make great contribution to agricultural production. Ag-
ricultural production is a source of food and clothing for human, agricultural sustainable development does not only closely related to economic development, but also related to the issue of human survival. In the middle of the last century, many developed countries carried out policies to support agricultural with industrial
Received 29 January, 2013 Accepted 18 March, 2013 ZHOU Shu-dong, Tel: +86-25-84396289, Fax: +86-25-84396289, E-mail: [email protected]
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60434-7
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
accumulation, promote agricultural industrialization, modernization, but most developing countries were still dependent on the consumption of natural resources to solve the food problem. However, developing countries have paid huge ecological and environmental costs for their energy-intensive pathway of development, so that sustainable development of agriculture is being challenged. Therefore, the concept of sustainable development has been developed and extended in developed countries. The California State Assembly firstly proposed the concept of “sustainable agriculture” in 1985 by “Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Act”. The World Environment and Development Council presented “towards sustainable agriculture in the global policy in 2000”. U.S. Department of Agriculture took “ sustainable agriculture with low consumption” as a key research project in 1988. The Food and Agriculture Organization of UN (FAO) developed documents to promote sustainable agricultural production. FAO defined SARD (sustainable agriculture and rural development) as a process which meets the following criteria: (1) Ensures that the basic nutritional requirements of present and future generations, qualitatively and quantitatively are met while providing a number of other agricultural products. (2) Provides durable employment, sufficient income, and decent living and working conditions for all those engaged in agricultural production. (3) Maintains and, where possible, enhances the productive capacity of the natural resource base as a whole, and the regenerative capacity of renewable resources, without disrupting the functioning of basic ecological cycles and natural balances, destroying the socio-cultural attributes of rural communities, or causing contamination of the environment. (4) Reduces the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to adverse natural and socio-economic factors and other risks, and strengthens self-reliance (FAO 1995). Sustainable use of agro-ecological resources is a prerequisite for sustainable development of agriculture, and human being must ensure reasonable use of agroecological resources, otherwise it is difficult to achieve the goal of sustainable agricultural development. In China, sustainable agriculture development has three basic objectives: (1) to maintain self-sufficiency and the development of appropriate and sustainable bal-
1293
ance in order to achieve food security; (2) employment and income of the rural areas, in particular the eradication of rural poverty; (3) to maintain natural resources and environment. Sustainable agriculture has achieved economic growth and high input-output ratio, optimized resource allocation, and maintaining the environment, maintaining the continuity of the ecological benefits, reflecting the characteristics of social justice, which includes three aspects such as economic sustainability, ecological sustainability and social sustainability. The aim of this paper is to assess the agricultural sustainable development in Jiangsu, China. An indicator framework based on the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is applied to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems.
LITERATURE REVIEW Sustainability is now a core element of government policies, of university research projects, and of corporate strategies (Spedding 1995; WRR 1995; Graaf and Musters 1998; Mebratu 1998). Sustainability implies an ongoing dynamic development, driven by human expectations about future opportunities, and is based on present economic, ecological and societal issues and information. Sustainability refers to “sustainable development” (Bossel 1999). “Agricultural sustainability”, which is sustainability in reference to agricultural production systems, invokes concern that in the future, also in the near future, current agricultural activities might endanger the continuity of agricultural production systems (WRR 1995). This concern is expressed through economic, ecological and societal (EES) issues, which can range from meeting a need for sufficient, safe, and inexpensive food products to achieving agricultural production practices without undesirable side effects. Possible undesirable side effects include erosion of the soil, nutrient emission to the environment, exhaustion of non-renewable resources, decline of rural communities, and a negative impact on the welfare of animals (e.g., Ikerd 1993; Stockle et al. 1994; Steinfeld et al. 1997; Kelly 1998). There has been concern to address the declining trends and deteriorating ecological elements and their functions in productive agricultural landscapes. The
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1294
efforts to revive the ecological functions needs multiple scale approach, which include scientific understanding, time dependent restorative activities and incorporation of wisdom of the stakeholders (Kumaraswamy 2012). Bockstaller established a set of agro-ecological indicators (AEI) to estimate the impact of cultivation practices on the agrosystem and its environment. AEI are aimed at being used as decision aid tools, to help farmers to adapt their cultivation practices to IAFS requirements, from one cropping year to the next (Bockstaller 1997).
METHODOLOGY Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is a tool that can be used to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems. It is conducive to the specific cause-effect relationships in past, most recently, as well as the future developments. This approach is based on the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model, which was developed by Canadian statistician Anthony Fried in the 1970s. PSR model assumes a certain amount of stress or pressure system is followed by an appropriate response. Afterwards, the researchers of OECD’s state of the Environment (SOE) adopted and improved PSR method. DPSIR model provides a good basis for the explanation of mainly environmental problems. It simplifies complex systems relations to one-to-one linkages (Burkhard 2008). A certain human demand for goods and products is assumed to be a driving force of human actions in the DPSIR approach. These actions cause pressure on the environment and particular ecosystem. This may affect the state of the ecosystems, and the ecosystems would have impact on human health, ecosystem health, or financial value. According to the type and degree of the impacts, decision makers and the responsible stakeholders would determine appropriate response measures to counteract these impacts (Mueller 2004).
DPSIR model structure The use of indicators for the description, quantification, and monitoring of the individual process components
ZHOU Shu-dong et al.
improves the performance of the DPSIR approach. Drivers Drivers refers to various factors which may led to the change or lead the behavior of a system. They may be caused by natural or by human being. Drivers can be divided into direct and indirect drivers. Direct drivers impose an explicit impact on the system, typical direct drive factor refers to the human demand for goods and services, health, social relations, security, and education. The indirect drivers act by changing the conditions of one or more direct drivers in the system. Indirect drivers include components such as economic and social conditions, the state of the environment, or political situations. Appropriate driver indicators should describe the phenomena closely linked with the socioeconomic conditions and forces. As drivers describe the current situation and development trend, they can be used as a basis to evaluate the type and extent of pressure on the system . Pressure Pressure indicators represent the first stage to illustrate the consequences of various, mainly human-induced actions, which can be considered as the results of specific constellations of driving force. Pressure indicators are often associated with specific reasons. The different forms of human activities, such as certain spatial use patterns of land or waters constitute classic forms of pressure in the human-environment systems. Under most circumstances, all human activities affecting the environment can be classified as pressures. However, the socio-economic causes and effects of global change are very manifold and complex. Therefore, pressure can be considered as an exogenous factor acting on the human-environmental system. Compared with the driving factor, pressure indicators can be more easily identified and measured. Indicators and the corresponding parameters could be derived from social, economic and environmental database. As pressures and human actions are closely linked, pressures are more responsive to the changes and developments in the system. In addition to the spatial extension of the land use types, their intensities have to be considered. For example, some single point activities (such as an industrial plant) can have stronger effects on the whole system than spatially wide-stretching forms of land use. State The result of the human actions are defined as
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
the pressures, environmental conditions are often changed, which can be defined as state. Environmental condition change is passively generated. Sometimes conditions and changes in environment state are often related to pressures that occurred in the past (e.g., acidification caused by former SO 2 emissions) owing to delayed reactions in natural systems. Other changes may suddenly appeared, and initiate significant changes in the environment (for example, floods, droughts). The environmental state indicators should be reactive to changes in pattern of pressures. In addition, they must be suitable for the elaboration of appropriate action (such as reducing emissions, habitat restoration). The linkage of state indicators to environmental monitoring system would improve their applicability. To assess the state of the environment in a holistic manner, the process (energy, matter and water circulation) and components (diversity of species, habitats) must be taken into account and integrated in an ecosystem-based approach. Impact Changes in the state of environmental conditions will affect the situation of human life. Important social components such as health and well-being, and economic conditions are closely related to an intact environment. For example, water pollution can cause serious diseases and increase restoration costs. The degradation of arable land leads to a decreased provision of ecosystem services which reduces social and economic values. The reaction of impact indicators is often delayed, because their actions are response to changes in the state of the environment variable. To determine the appropriate and direct relationships among pressure states, and impacts could be difficult because of a series of possible indirect and non-environmental effects. In the DPSIR approach, impact assessment often deals with a high degree of conceptual and non-quantitative modeling. Impact indicators are important for the management and decision-making, because they are directly describe the environmental and social consequences of human actions. Response The response is taken by human as a consequence of specific problems, in an optimal process, the response would produce influence on the driver and the pressures, it could also improve the environmental state. In most cases, the professional managers,
1295
decision makers, politicians are responsible for solving environmental and social problems. There are many kinds of response possibility, depending on the application areas (environmental, social and economic), the temporal and spatial context, and the available choices and instruments. Typical response instruments include: legislative procedures (law, ban and production standard), planning (construction and development planning and landscape planning), market or public-oriented instruments (taxes, bills and subventions), cooperation, information, education, and participation. Although response indicators are directly related to these different measures, the success of these responses measures is basically monitored by pressure and state indicators. Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response The intrinsic value of the DPSIR model is reflected from the interaction between its components. As DPSIR model contains a chain of different causes and effects, and it is intended as an iterative loop, this model could be adaptive to change and development. This adaptation potential includes environmental changes as well as social economic changes within the system. DPSIR method is very useful in concept modeling and analysis of the causes and effects of human activities. Although it needs to obtain detailed information to describe the relationship between indicator-indicating relations, DPSIR framework can be used as basis for alternative model derivations (Burkhard 2008). A conceptual model of DPSIR approach is given in Fig. 1.
Indicators The indicator derivation is carried out on two levels, (a) by an intensive quantitative characterization of the key environmental features, and (b) by coupling these facts with semi-quantitative information about the socioeconomic frame conditions. Indicators and indices in the DPSIR framework are listed in Table. Indicators for drivers The drivers come from two sides, the first is that population growth caused increasing demand for food, therefore this province needs to increase total grain output to meet the increasing demand for food. The second is the growing land and resource scarcities, therefore this province needs to
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
ZHOU Shu-dong et al.
1296
Fig. 1 DPSIR model of human-environmental system.
increase agricultural land productivity. Indicators for pressure The pressures come from four sides: infrastructure, natural resources (resource endowment), input level, and environmental pollution. At recent stage, road construction is an effective activity for infrastructure. Cultivated land is the most important natural resource for agricultural sustainable
development. To consider the input level, total power of machinery per ha, level of fertilizer use (pure), level of pesticides use (pure), and irrigation rate are taken into account. To depict environmental pollution, industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate are chosen, these two indices are closely related to agricultural production. Indicators for state Ecosystem state indicators should be suitable for the elaboration of appropriate actions. To assess the state of the ecosystem, relevant processes should be considered, following indices have to be taken into account: biological abundance index, land degradation index, environmental quality index, eco-environmental quality index, plant coverage index, and fertilizer productivity. Indicators for impact Three indicators have been chosen to depict the impact, i.e., output level, output efficiency, and farmer’s social economic impact. Output level indicators include two indices, i.e., grain production yield, and agricultural output per capita. Agricultural labor productivity is chosen to depict output efficiency. Three indices such as farmer’s net
Table Indicators and indices in the DPSIR framework1) DPSIR Drivers Pressure
Indicator Demand on agricultural products Growing land and resource scarcities Infrastructure Natural resources (resource endowment) Input level
Environmental pollution State
Ecosystem state
Impact
Output level Output level Output efficiency Farmer’s social economic impact
Response
Social support
Input for environmental governance Effects of environmental governance 1)
Indices
Units
Total grain output Agricultural land productivity Road density Cultivated land per capita Total power of machinery per ha Level of fertilizer use (pure) Level of pesticides use (pure) Irrigation rate Industrial wastewater discharge per ha Acid rain rate Biological abundance index Land degradation index Environmental quality index Eco-environmental quality index Plant coverage index Fertilizer productivity Grain production yield Agricultural output per capita Agricultural labor productivity Farmer’s net income Farmer’s expenditure level per capita Rural Engel coefficient Government agricultural expenditure per ha Agricultural loans per ha Number of agricultural science and technology personnel Fund for agriculture Years of rural education of rural labor The proportion of pollution control investment in GDP Compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge Compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions
10 000 t CNY ha-1 Coefficient Ha per capita Horsepower ha -1 kg ha -1 kg ha -1 Percentage t ha-1 Percentage Index Index Index Index Percentage CNY kg -1 kg ha-1 CNY CNY per capita CNY per capita CNY per capita Coefficient CNY ha-1 CNY ha-1 Person per 10 000 people 100 million CNY Year Percentage Percentage Percentage
Source: Authors’ research.
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
income, farmer’s expenditure level per capita, and rural Engel coefficient have been taken into account to depict farmer’s social economic impact. Indicators for response Three indicators have been chosen to depict the impact, these are social support, input for environmental governance, and effects of environmental governance. For the first indicator, social support, five indices such as government agricultural expenditure, agricultural loans, number of agricultural science and technology personnel, fund for agriculture, and years of rural education of rural labor have been taken into account. The proportion of pollution control investment in GDP is used to depict input for environmental governance. Effects of environmental governance include two indices, i.e., compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge, and compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions.
1297
Fig. 2 Comparison on drives in Jiangsu. Source: Chinese Agricultural Yearbook 2004-2007. The same as below.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The DPSIR model was used to make comparison on agricultural sustainable development in Jiangsu Province, China, between 2003 and 2006.
Drives It can be found that demand for agricultural products in Jiangsu increased from 20.07 to 21.742 million t, with an increase of 8.34%. Agricultural land productivity increased from 27 655.15 to 39 701.90 CNY ha-1 between 2003 and 2006, with an increase of 43.56%. This indicated that land and resource scarcities became more important, labor intensive and capital intensive agriculture have been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity which can be found in Fig. 2.
Pressure From Fig. 3 it can be found that infrastructure got greatly improved, Chinese local governments considered the highway construction as a fundamental infrastructure, the road density increased by 89.90% between 2003 to 2006. Natural resources (cultivated
Fig. 3 Comparison on pressure in Jiangsu.
land per capita) decreased by 3.76%. In the aspect of input level, total power of machinery increased by 10.11%, level of fertilizer use increased by 1.22%. Level of pesticides use decreased by 50.8%, and irrigation rate decreased by 0.33%. In the aspect of environmental pollution, industrial wastewater discharge increased by 18.03%, and Acid rain rate increased by 26.56%.
State Fig. 4 shows that ecosystem state was improved between 2003 to 2006 in Jiangsu. Plant coverage index increased by 201.67%, biological abundance index increased by 47.86%, fertilizer productivity increased by 32.06%, ecoenvironmental quality index increased by 6.53%, but land degradation index also increased by 65.48%.
Impact Remarkable impacts have been found since 2003 to
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
ZHOU Shu-dong et al.
1298
2006. Output level such as grain production yield increased by 13.82%, and agricultural output per capita increased by 26.83%. Output efficiency such as agricultural labor productivity increased by 35.25%. In the aspect of farmer’s social economic impact, farmer’s net income increased by 37.13%, farmer’s expenditure level increased by 59.55%, and rural Engel coefficient increased by 0.97% (Fig. 5). These results indicated that output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmer’s social economic benefit improved.
Response Enormous responses have been made since 2003 to
Fig. 4 Comparison on state in Jiangsu.
Fig. 5 Comparison on impact in Jiangsu.
2006. In the aspect of social support, agricultural loans increased by 48.68%, number of agricultural science and technology personnel increased by 110.59%, fund for agriculture increased by 94.27%. In the aspect of input for environmental governance, the proportion of pollution control investment in GDP increased by 963.22%. In the aspect of effects of environmental governance, compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions increased by 14.97%, but compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge decreased by 0.01% (Fig. 6).
CONCLUSION The DPSIR model proved to be a tool that helps to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems, and to assess agricultural sustainable development. Jiangsu Province is one of the developed regions in China, we take it as an example to evaluate agricultural sustainable development between 2003 to 2006. The results show that in the aspect of drives, total grain output and agricultural land productivity both increased. Labor intensive agriculture has been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity. In the aspect of pressure, infrastructure got greatly improved, the input level such as total power of machinery, and level of fertilizer use increased, but level of pesticides use, and irrigation rate decreased. Natural resources keep decreased. Environmental pollution indicators such as industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate increased in Jiangsu Province.
Fig. 6 Comparison on response in Jiangsu.
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
In the aspect of state, ecosystem state was improved between 2003 to 2006 in Jiangsu, plant coverage index increased, biological abundance index increased, fertilizer productivity increased, eco-environmental quality index increased, but land degradation index also increased. In the aspect of impact, output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmer’s social economic benefit improved. In the aspect of response, social support was greatly improved, input for environmental governance increased. To assess the effects of environmental governance, Jiangsu government was successful to increase compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions, but not so efficient in compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Key Projects of National Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of China (11&ZD046), The Key Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China (70833001), China Agricultural Research System (CARS-14-10B), Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (20120097110034), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (6J0546).
References Burkhard B, Mueller F. 2008. Driver-Pressure-State-ImpactResponse. In: Jorgensen S E, Brian D F, eds. Ecological Indicators. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Vol. 2. Elsevier, Oxford. pp. 967-970. Bockstaller C, Girardin P, van der Werf H M G. 1997. Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 7, 261-270. Bossel H. 1999. Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications. In: A Report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winipeg.
1299
Editorial Board of China Agricultural Yearbook. 2004-2007. China Agricultural Yearbook. China Agriculture Press, Beijing, China. (in Chinese) FAO. 1995. Sustainability issues in agricultural and rural development policies. In: FAO Trainer’s Manual. vol. 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. de Graaf H J, Musters C J M. 1998. Opportunities for sustainable development - Theory, methods, and regional applications. Ph D thesis, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Ikerd J E. 1993. The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 46, 147-160. Kelly K L. 1998. A systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable development. European Journal of Operational Research, 109, 452-464. Kumaraswamy S. 2012. Sustainability issues in agroecology: socio-ecological perspective. Agricultural Sciences, 3, 153-169. Mebratu D. 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 493-520. Mueller F. 2004. Ecosystem indicators for the integrated management of landscape health and integrity. In: Joergensen S E, Costanza R, Xu F L, eds., Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton. Spedding C R W. 1995. Sustainability in animal production systems. Journal of Animal Science, 61, 1-8. Steinfeld H, de Haan C, Blackburn H. 1997. LivestockEnvironment Interactions, Issues and Options. FAOWorldbank, Rome. Stockle C O, Papendick R I, Saxton K E, Campbell G S, van Evert F K. 1994. A framework for evaluating the sustainability of agricultural production systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9, 4550. WRR 1995. Sustained Risks: A Lasting Phenomenon. Reports to the Government 44. Sdu Uitgeverij, The Hague. (Managing editor WENG Ling-yun)
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
July 2013
2013, 12(7): 1292-1299
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China ZHOU Shu-dong1, Felix Mueller2, Benjamin Burkhard2, CAO Xing-jin1 and HOU Ying2 1 2
Jiangsu Research Base of Rural Development and Land Policy, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, P.R.China Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Department of Ecosystem Management, University of Kiel, Kiel D-24118, Germany
Abstract According to the contemporary ecosystem approach, the linkages of human actions with their environment have to be assessed in an integrative manner. The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is applied to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems. An example application from a research project dealing with the development of sustainable management strategies for the agriculture in Jiangsu, China, illustrates the potentials and limitations of its sustainable development. The concept and indicators of ecological integrity are used to assess the indicators in the dimensions of DPSIR between 2003 and 2006. The main drivers included population growth which caused increasing demand for food, growing environmental demands, and rapidly decreasing of land and other natural resources. The main environmental problem was water pollution. The results show that in the dimension of driver, total grain output and agricultural land productivity both increased. Labor intensive agriculture has been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity. In the dimension of pressure, on the positive side, infrastructure got greatly improved, the input level such as total power of machinery, and level of fertilizer use increased, and level of pesticides use decreased, but on the negative side, cultivated land per capita and irrigation rate decreased, natural resources keep decreased. Environmental pollution indicators such as industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate increased in Jiangsu Province. In the aspect of state, ecosystem state was improved, plant coverage index increased, biological abundance index increased, fertilizer productivity increased, eco-environmental quality index increased, but land degradation index also increased. In the aspect of impact, output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmer’s social economic benefit improved. In the aspect of response, social support was greatly improved, input for environmental governance increased. To assess the effects of environmental governance, Jiangsu government was successful to increase compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions, but not so efficient in compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge. Key words: agricultural sustainable development, DPSIR, ecosystem, China
INTRODUCTION Compared to other industries, agriculture is more dependent on natural environment, environmental factors make great contribution to agricultural production. Ag-
ricultural production is a source of food and clothing for human, agricultural sustainable development does not only closely related to economic development, but also related to the issue of human survival. In the middle of the last century, many developed countries carried out policies to support agricultural with industrial
Received 29 January, 2013 Accepted 18 March, 2013 ZHOU Shu-dong, Tel: +86-25-84396289, Fax: +86-25-84396289, E-mail: [email protected]
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60434-7
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
accumulation, promote agricultural industrialization, modernization, but most developing countries were still dependent on the consumption of natural resources to solve the food problem. However, developing countries have paid huge ecological and environmental costs for their energy-intensive pathway of development, so that sustainable development of agriculture is being challenged. Therefore, the concept of sustainable development has been developed and extended in developed countries. The California State Assembly firstly proposed the concept of “sustainable agriculture” in 1985 by “Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Act”. The World Environment and Development Council presented “towards sustainable agriculture in the global policy in 2000”. U.S. Department of Agriculture took “ sustainable agriculture with low consumption” as a key research project in 1988. The Food and Agriculture Organization of UN (FAO) developed documents to promote sustainable agricultural production. FAO defined SARD (sustainable agriculture and rural development) as a process which meets the following criteria: (1) Ensures that the basic nutritional requirements of present and future generations, qualitatively and quantitatively are met while providing a number of other agricultural products. (2) Provides durable employment, sufficient income, and decent living and working conditions for all those engaged in agricultural production. (3) Maintains and, where possible, enhances the productive capacity of the natural resource base as a whole, and the regenerative capacity of renewable resources, without disrupting the functioning of basic ecological cycles and natural balances, destroying the socio-cultural attributes of rural communities, or causing contamination of the environment. (4) Reduces the vulnerability of the agricultural sector to adverse natural and socio-economic factors and other risks, and strengthens self-reliance (FAO 1995). Sustainable use of agro-ecological resources is a prerequisite for sustainable development of agriculture, and human being must ensure reasonable use of agroecological resources, otherwise it is difficult to achieve the goal of sustainable agricultural development. In China, sustainable agriculture development has three basic objectives: (1) to maintain self-sufficiency and the development of appropriate and sustainable bal-
1293
ance in order to achieve food security; (2) employment and income of the rural areas, in particular the eradication of rural poverty; (3) to maintain natural resources and environment. Sustainable agriculture has achieved economic growth and high input-output ratio, optimized resource allocation, and maintaining the environment, maintaining the continuity of the ecological benefits, reflecting the characteristics of social justice, which includes three aspects such as economic sustainability, ecological sustainability and social sustainability. The aim of this paper is to assess the agricultural sustainable development in Jiangsu, China. An indicator framework based on the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is applied to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems.
LITERATURE REVIEW Sustainability is now a core element of government policies, of university research projects, and of corporate strategies (Spedding 1995; WRR 1995; Graaf and Musters 1998; Mebratu 1998). Sustainability implies an ongoing dynamic development, driven by human expectations about future opportunities, and is based on present economic, ecological and societal issues and information. Sustainability refers to “sustainable development” (Bossel 1999). “Agricultural sustainability”, which is sustainability in reference to agricultural production systems, invokes concern that in the future, also in the near future, current agricultural activities might endanger the continuity of agricultural production systems (WRR 1995). This concern is expressed through economic, ecological and societal (EES) issues, which can range from meeting a need for sufficient, safe, and inexpensive food products to achieving agricultural production practices without undesirable side effects. Possible undesirable side effects include erosion of the soil, nutrient emission to the environment, exhaustion of non-renewable resources, decline of rural communities, and a negative impact on the welfare of animals (e.g., Ikerd 1993; Stockle et al. 1994; Steinfeld et al. 1997; Kelly 1998). There has been concern to address the declining trends and deteriorating ecological elements and their functions in productive agricultural landscapes. The
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1294
efforts to revive the ecological functions needs multiple scale approach, which include scientific understanding, time dependent restorative activities and incorporation of wisdom of the stakeholders (Kumaraswamy 2012). Bockstaller established a set of agro-ecological indicators (AEI) to estimate the impact of cultivation practices on the agrosystem and its environment. AEI are aimed at being used as decision aid tools, to help farmers to adapt their cultivation practices to IAFS requirements, from one cropping year to the next (Bockstaller 1997).
METHODOLOGY Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is a tool that can be used to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems. It is conducive to the specific cause-effect relationships in past, most recently, as well as the future developments. This approach is based on the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model, which was developed by Canadian statistician Anthony Fried in the 1970s. PSR model assumes a certain amount of stress or pressure system is followed by an appropriate response. Afterwards, the researchers of OECD’s state of the Environment (SOE) adopted and improved PSR method. DPSIR model provides a good basis for the explanation of mainly environmental problems. It simplifies complex systems relations to one-to-one linkages (Burkhard 2008). A certain human demand for goods and products is assumed to be a driving force of human actions in the DPSIR approach. These actions cause pressure on the environment and particular ecosystem. This may affect the state of the ecosystems, and the ecosystems would have impact on human health, ecosystem health, or financial value. According to the type and degree of the impacts, decision makers and the responsible stakeholders would determine appropriate response measures to counteract these impacts (Mueller 2004).
DPSIR model structure The use of indicators for the description, quantification, and monitoring of the individual process components
ZHOU Shu-dong et al.
improves the performance of the DPSIR approach. Drivers Drivers refers to various factors which may led to the change or lead the behavior of a system. They may be caused by natural or by human being. Drivers can be divided into direct and indirect drivers. Direct drivers impose an explicit impact on the system, typical direct drive factor refers to the human demand for goods and services, health, social relations, security, and education. The indirect drivers act by changing the conditions of one or more direct drivers in the system. Indirect drivers include components such as economic and social conditions, the state of the environment, or political situations. Appropriate driver indicators should describe the phenomena closely linked with the socioeconomic conditions and forces. As drivers describe the current situation and development trend, they can be used as a basis to evaluate the type and extent of pressure on the system . Pressure Pressure indicators represent the first stage to illustrate the consequences of various, mainly human-induced actions, which can be considered as the results of specific constellations of driving force. Pressure indicators are often associated with specific reasons. The different forms of human activities, such as certain spatial use patterns of land or waters constitute classic forms of pressure in the human-environment systems. Under most circumstances, all human activities affecting the environment can be classified as pressures. However, the socio-economic causes and effects of global change are very manifold and complex. Therefore, pressure can be considered as an exogenous factor acting on the human-environmental system. Compared with the driving factor, pressure indicators can be more easily identified and measured. Indicators and the corresponding parameters could be derived from social, economic and environmental database. As pressures and human actions are closely linked, pressures are more responsive to the changes and developments in the system. In addition to the spatial extension of the land use types, their intensities have to be considered. For example, some single point activities (such as an industrial plant) can have stronger effects on the whole system than spatially wide-stretching forms of land use. State The result of the human actions are defined as
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
the pressures, environmental conditions are often changed, which can be defined as state. Environmental condition change is passively generated. Sometimes conditions and changes in environment state are often related to pressures that occurred in the past (e.g., acidification caused by former SO 2 emissions) owing to delayed reactions in natural systems. Other changes may suddenly appeared, and initiate significant changes in the environment (for example, floods, droughts). The environmental state indicators should be reactive to changes in pattern of pressures. In addition, they must be suitable for the elaboration of appropriate action (such as reducing emissions, habitat restoration). The linkage of state indicators to environmental monitoring system would improve their applicability. To assess the state of the environment in a holistic manner, the process (energy, matter and water circulation) and components (diversity of species, habitats) must be taken into account and integrated in an ecosystem-based approach. Impact Changes in the state of environmental conditions will affect the situation of human life. Important social components such as health and well-being, and economic conditions are closely related to an intact environment. For example, water pollution can cause serious diseases and increase restoration costs. The degradation of arable land leads to a decreased provision of ecosystem services which reduces social and economic values. The reaction of impact indicators is often delayed, because their actions are response to changes in the state of the environment variable. To determine the appropriate and direct relationships among pressure states, and impacts could be difficult because of a series of possible indirect and non-environmental effects. In the DPSIR approach, impact assessment often deals with a high degree of conceptual and non-quantitative modeling. Impact indicators are important for the management and decision-making, because they are directly describe the environmental and social consequences of human actions. Response The response is taken by human as a consequence of specific problems, in an optimal process, the response would produce influence on the driver and the pressures, it could also improve the environmental state. In most cases, the professional managers,
1295
decision makers, politicians are responsible for solving environmental and social problems. There are many kinds of response possibility, depending on the application areas (environmental, social and economic), the temporal and spatial context, and the available choices and instruments. Typical response instruments include: legislative procedures (law, ban and production standard), planning (construction and development planning and landscape planning), market or public-oriented instruments (taxes, bills and subventions), cooperation, information, education, and participation. Although response indicators are directly related to these different measures, the success of these responses measures is basically monitored by pressure and state indicators. Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response The intrinsic value of the DPSIR model is reflected from the interaction between its components. As DPSIR model contains a chain of different causes and effects, and it is intended as an iterative loop, this model could be adaptive to change and development. This adaptation potential includes environmental changes as well as social economic changes within the system. DPSIR method is very useful in concept modeling and analysis of the causes and effects of human activities. Although it needs to obtain detailed information to describe the relationship between indicator-indicating relations, DPSIR framework can be used as basis for alternative model derivations (Burkhard 2008). A conceptual model of DPSIR approach is given in Fig. 1.
Indicators The indicator derivation is carried out on two levels, (a) by an intensive quantitative characterization of the key environmental features, and (b) by coupling these facts with semi-quantitative information about the socioeconomic frame conditions. Indicators and indices in the DPSIR framework are listed in Table. Indicators for drivers The drivers come from two sides, the first is that population growth caused increasing demand for food, therefore this province needs to increase total grain output to meet the increasing demand for food. The second is the growing land and resource scarcities, therefore this province needs to
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
ZHOU Shu-dong et al.
1296
Fig. 1 DPSIR model of human-environmental system.
increase agricultural land productivity. Indicators for pressure The pressures come from four sides: infrastructure, natural resources (resource endowment), input level, and environmental pollution. At recent stage, road construction is an effective activity for infrastructure. Cultivated land is the most important natural resource for agricultural sustainable
development. To consider the input level, total power of machinery per ha, level of fertilizer use (pure), level of pesticides use (pure), and irrigation rate are taken into account. To depict environmental pollution, industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate are chosen, these two indices are closely related to agricultural production. Indicators for state Ecosystem state indicators should be suitable for the elaboration of appropriate actions. To assess the state of the ecosystem, relevant processes should be considered, following indices have to be taken into account: biological abundance index, land degradation index, environmental quality index, eco-environmental quality index, plant coverage index, and fertilizer productivity. Indicators for impact Three indicators have been chosen to depict the impact, i.e., output level, output efficiency, and farmer’s social economic impact. Output level indicators include two indices, i.e., grain production yield, and agricultural output per capita. Agricultural labor productivity is chosen to depict output efficiency. Three indices such as farmer’s net
Table Indicators and indices in the DPSIR framework1) DPSIR Drivers Pressure
Indicator Demand on agricultural products Growing land and resource scarcities Infrastructure Natural resources (resource endowment) Input level
Environmental pollution State
Ecosystem state
Impact
Output level Output level Output efficiency Farmer’s social economic impact
Response
Social support
Input for environmental governance Effects of environmental governance 1)
Indices
Units
Total grain output Agricultural land productivity Road density Cultivated land per capita Total power of machinery per ha Level of fertilizer use (pure) Level of pesticides use (pure) Irrigation rate Industrial wastewater discharge per ha Acid rain rate Biological abundance index Land degradation index Environmental quality index Eco-environmental quality index Plant coverage index Fertilizer productivity Grain production yield Agricultural output per capita Agricultural labor productivity Farmer’s net income Farmer’s expenditure level per capita Rural Engel coefficient Government agricultural expenditure per ha Agricultural loans per ha Number of agricultural science and technology personnel Fund for agriculture Years of rural education of rural labor The proportion of pollution control investment in GDP Compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge Compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions
10 000 t CNY ha-1 Coefficient Ha per capita Horsepower ha -1 kg ha -1 kg ha -1 Percentage t ha-1 Percentage Index Index Index Index Percentage CNY kg -1 kg ha-1 CNY CNY per capita CNY per capita CNY per capita Coefficient CNY ha-1 CNY ha-1 Person per 10 000 people 100 million CNY Year Percentage Percentage Percentage
Source: Authors’ research.
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
income, farmer’s expenditure level per capita, and rural Engel coefficient have been taken into account to depict farmer’s social economic impact. Indicators for response Three indicators have been chosen to depict the impact, these are social support, input for environmental governance, and effects of environmental governance. For the first indicator, social support, five indices such as government agricultural expenditure, agricultural loans, number of agricultural science and technology personnel, fund for agriculture, and years of rural education of rural labor have been taken into account. The proportion of pollution control investment in GDP is used to depict input for environmental governance. Effects of environmental governance include two indices, i.e., compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge, and compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions.
1297
Fig. 2 Comparison on drives in Jiangsu. Source: Chinese Agricultural Yearbook 2004-2007. The same as below.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The DPSIR model was used to make comparison on agricultural sustainable development in Jiangsu Province, China, between 2003 and 2006.
Drives It can be found that demand for agricultural products in Jiangsu increased from 20.07 to 21.742 million t, with an increase of 8.34%. Agricultural land productivity increased from 27 655.15 to 39 701.90 CNY ha-1 between 2003 and 2006, with an increase of 43.56%. This indicated that land and resource scarcities became more important, labor intensive and capital intensive agriculture have been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity which can be found in Fig. 2.
Pressure From Fig. 3 it can be found that infrastructure got greatly improved, Chinese local governments considered the highway construction as a fundamental infrastructure, the road density increased by 89.90% between 2003 to 2006. Natural resources (cultivated
Fig. 3 Comparison on pressure in Jiangsu.
land per capita) decreased by 3.76%. In the aspect of input level, total power of machinery increased by 10.11%, level of fertilizer use increased by 1.22%. Level of pesticides use decreased by 50.8%, and irrigation rate decreased by 0.33%. In the aspect of environmental pollution, industrial wastewater discharge increased by 18.03%, and Acid rain rate increased by 26.56%.
State Fig. 4 shows that ecosystem state was improved between 2003 to 2006 in Jiangsu. Plant coverage index increased by 201.67%, biological abundance index increased by 47.86%, fertilizer productivity increased by 32.06%, ecoenvironmental quality index increased by 6.53%, but land degradation index also increased by 65.48%.
Impact Remarkable impacts have been found since 2003 to
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
ZHOU Shu-dong et al.
1298
2006. Output level such as grain production yield increased by 13.82%, and agricultural output per capita increased by 26.83%. Output efficiency such as agricultural labor productivity increased by 35.25%. In the aspect of farmer’s social economic impact, farmer’s net income increased by 37.13%, farmer’s expenditure level increased by 59.55%, and rural Engel coefficient increased by 0.97% (Fig. 5). These results indicated that output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmer’s social economic benefit improved.
Response Enormous responses have been made since 2003 to
Fig. 4 Comparison on state in Jiangsu.
Fig. 5 Comparison on impact in Jiangsu.
2006. In the aspect of social support, agricultural loans increased by 48.68%, number of agricultural science and technology personnel increased by 110.59%, fund for agriculture increased by 94.27%. In the aspect of input for environmental governance, the proportion of pollution control investment in GDP increased by 963.22%. In the aspect of effects of environmental governance, compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions increased by 14.97%, but compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge decreased by 0.01% (Fig. 6).
CONCLUSION The DPSIR model proved to be a tool that helps to identify and describe processes and interactions in human-environmental systems, and to assess agricultural sustainable development. Jiangsu Province is one of the developed regions in China, we take it as an example to evaluate agricultural sustainable development between 2003 to 2006. The results show that in the aspect of drives, total grain output and agricultural land productivity both increased. Labor intensive agriculture has been promoted to increase agricultural land productivity. In the aspect of pressure, infrastructure got greatly improved, the input level such as total power of machinery, and level of fertilizer use increased, but level of pesticides use, and irrigation rate decreased. Natural resources keep decreased. Environmental pollution indicators such as industrial wastewater discharge and acid rain rate increased in Jiangsu Province.
Fig. 6 Comparison on response in Jiangsu.
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Assessing Agricultural Sustainable Development Based on the DPSIR Approach: Case Study in Jiangsu, China
In the aspect of state, ecosystem state was improved between 2003 to 2006 in Jiangsu, plant coverage index increased, biological abundance index increased, fertilizer productivity increased, eco-environmental quality index increased, but land degradation index also increased. In the aspect of impact, output level increased, output efficiency enhanced, farmer’s social economic benefit improved. In the aspect of response, social support was greatly improved, input for environmental governance increased. To assess the effects of environmental governance, Jiangsu government was successful to increase compliance rate of sulfur dioxide emissions, but not so efficient in compliance rate of industrial wastewater discharge.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Key Projects of National Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of China (11&ZD046), The Key Projects of National Natural Science Foundation of China (70833001), China Agricultural Research System (CARS-14-10B), Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (20120097110034), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China (6J0546).
References Burkhard B, Mueller F. 2008. Driver-Pressure-State-ImpactResponse. In: Jorgensen S E, Brian D F, eds. Ecological Indicators. Encyclopedia of Ecology. Vol. 2. Elsevier, Oxford. pp. 967-970. Bockstaller C, Girardin P, van der Werf H M G. 1997. Use of agro-ecological indicators for the evaluation of farming systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 7, 261-270. Bossel H. 1999. Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications. In: A Report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winipeg.
1299
Editorial Board of China Agricultural Yearbook. 2004-2007. China Agricultural Yearbook. China Agriculture Press, Beijing, China. (in Chinese) FAO. 1995. Sustainability issues in agricultural and rural development policies. In: FAO Trainer’s Manual. vol. 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. de Graaf H J, Musters C J M. 1998. Opportunities for sustainable development - Theory, methods, and regional applications. Ph D thesis, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Ikerd J E. 1993. The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 46, 147-160. Kelly K L. 1998. A systems approach to identifying decisive information for sustainable development. European Journal of Operational Research, 109, 452-464. Kumaraswamy S. 2012. Sustainability issues in agroecology: socio-ecological perspective. Agricultural Sciences, 3, 153-169. Mebratu D. 1998. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 493-520. Mueller F. 2004. Ecosystem indicators for the integrated management of landscape health and integrity. In: Joergensen S E, Costanza R, Xu F L, eds., Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health. Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton. Spedding C R W. 1995. Sustainability in animal production systems. Journal of Animal Science, 61, 1-8. Steinfeld H, de Haan C, Blackburn H. 1997. LivestockEnvironment Interactions, Issues and Options. FAOWorldbank, Rome. Stockle C O, Papendick R I, Saxton K E, Campbell G S, van Evert F K. 1994. A framework for evaluating the sustainability of agricultural production systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9, 4550. WRR 1995. Sustained Risks: A Lasting Phenomenon. Reports to the Government 44. Sdu Uitgeverij, The Hague. (Managing editor WENG Ling-yun)
© 2013, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.