1. Introduction
This paper reports on a specific approach to a method for ecological and environmental risk assessment, which leverages the potential of geographic information systems (GIS) for processing related geo-spatial data. Habitats and species are protected by the following European Directives: 92/43/EEC (on the conservation of natural habitats (listed in Annex I and II)) [
1] and 2009/147/EC (on wild fauna, flora and wild birds (listed in Annex I) [
2]. The elements in the Natura 2000 network are influenced by several factors, derived from natural and anthropic sources that originate directly or indirectly from human activities in the territory. They are defined as threats, pressures and activities with impact on a site [
3] and are listed in tabular format in a specific document by the European Environmental Agency (EEA) [
4]. Human activities that legally register for land-use change are defined in official projects, which have several spatial components (e.g., building plans) and, thus, intrinsically contain information on potential threats, pressures and activities; plans and project must be evaluated to avoid risk for habitats and species. Risk can be defined as the product of the likelihood that something will happen and the consequence suffered if it happens [
5]. In this sense, risk is correlated to the expected number of injuries, damages or harm due to a particular phenomenon [
6]. It is a product of a specific hazard, vulnerability and element of risk [
7,
8,
9]; it is a function between indicators regarding exposure and effects [
10], which may impact on habitats and species. Each of these elements is commonly analyzed using indicators.
A wide variety of environmental indicators, representing physical, biological or chemical factors, are currently in use. They support analysis on trends in the state of the environment, and they monitor the progress of the effects of environmental policies; they are therefore deemed indispensable for policy and decision-makers. Indicators reflect a series of causes and effects on network-made relations between two systems: anthropological and environmental. According to this systems’ analysis, EEA in 1999 introduced the DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework, in order to analyze cause-effect relationships between these parts and managing the information flow [
11]. Many studies about ecology, environmental and sustainability management of socio-economic activities apply the DPSIR framework [
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22]. This framework helps to structure a paradigm about the interplay between the environment and socio-economic activities [
13]. In the DPSIR framework, social and economic developments are the drivers (D) that exert pressure (P) on the environment. Pressure produces, as a consequence, the changes of state (S) of the environment. Finally, this leads to impacts (I) on human health, ecosystems and materials that may elicit a societal response (R) that feeds back on the driving (D) forces or on the state (S) or impacts (I) directly, through adaptation or curative action (
Figure 1).
Figure 1.
The DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework [
11].
Figure 1.
The DPSIR (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts, Responses) framework [
11].
Applying the DPSIR framework in ecological and environmental risk assessment, the drivers can be modeled by plans and projects (e.g., an urban development plan or a project for a new road track). They can potentially produce pressures on habitats and species, called threats, pressures and activities by the Commission Implementing Decision 2011/484/EU [
3]. Each of them may have a possible influence and interference on the state and have an impact, which is verified with the risk assessment. Whenever the interference cannot be determined with sufficient significance or the lack of scientific data do not allow the evaluation, the “element of caution principle” is applied, as in Point 4 [
23] (
Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Comparison of the risk model between the proposed framework with the DPSIR framework.
Figure 2.
Comparison of the risk model between the proposed framework with the DPSIR framework.
Using the list in [
4] and defining threats, pressures and activities as pressure in the DPSIR framework, the analysis is not one dimensional, but it is multidimensional, because it must be applied for each element of threats, pressures and activities that could affect each single habitat or species (
Figure 3). This is one of the aspects where geo-spatial tools are able to bring significant added value, as the dimensionality can be stored and represented as joins between tables related to a certain reference on the Earth’s surface (point, line or area).
The measures taken for the conservation of habitats and species are spatially defined in the Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and in the Special Protection Areas (SPAs), but other measures may need to be implemented outside such areas, for example, in the case of a pressure, whose source is external to an SAC or an SPA, but has an important effect, due to it being spatially near to such areas. All measures taken should avoid the deterioration of the habitat and the disturbance of the species that are present in the area. Deterioration is a physical degradation affecting habitat and must be avoided. Disturbance concerns species, and it occurs at the spatial or temporal scale. It is often limited and has characteristics of intensity, duration and frequency, and it might or might not be significant. In order to be significant, a disturbance must affect the conservation status [
24]. The protection of valuable natural resources requires a better understanding of how the scale of the environmental hazard affects ecological processes and over what time the effects should be monitored and examined [
14]. The assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting the Natura 2000 network is also compatible with general Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures and can be easily integrated into the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) [
25].
Figure 3.
Multidimensional analysis by application of ecological risk assessment in the DPSIR framework.
Figure 3.
Multidimensional analysis by application of ecological risk assessment in the DPSIR framework.
Ecological impact assessments need multidisciplinary skills and especially require geo-spatial data. For example, they need information about the environment, soil, geomorphology, ecology, toxicology and chemistry and how these factors are distributed over the Earth’s surface (as well as below and above it in some cases), and so on. Sometimes, the data are open, thus easily accessible and of good quality; in other cases, they are partial, incomplete or not accessible. In this case, we suggest applying an element of caution, because the decision-makers are faced with the dilemma of balancing the freedom and the rights of the individual with the necessity of reducing the risk of adverse effects on both the environment and on human, animal or plant health. All should be considered within a structured approach to the analysis of risk [
23]. It is important to also consider a degree of uncertainty about the data as the starting point for risk management purposes [
26]. Many studies were done to assess the risk for the ecosystem, and it is crucial to know the spatial distribution of the species and population or community at risk [
27]. Populations are what are taken into account in this study, as they are the elements used in the Natura 2000 documents [
3]. The U.S. EPA uses the term Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) to define a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more “stressors” and evaluates human-induced changes that are considered undesirable [
28]. The EPA uses the term, stressor, to describe any chemical, physical or biological entity that can induce adverse effects on individuals, populations, communities or ecosystems [
29,
30]. Habitat and species are vulnerable to a certain degree to threats, pressures and activities, and such vulnerability is an intrinsic property, resulting in susceptibility to a risk source that brings about an event that has a consequence [
7].
The paper is organized with the following structure: (i) the Methodology Section describes the theoretical aspect of anthropic risk assessment on biodiversity; (ii) the Results Section describes a simulation of the method for defining the impact of new buildings on a specific habitat and species, shows the practical results, which are reported as spatially-explicit overlapping areas, highlighting the major risk areas; and (iii) finally, the conclusions will define the future applications and potential benefits of the approach.
4. Conclusions
The methodology proposed in this paper is in an experimental phase. It is a prototype and needs to be further tested in real test cases. Nevertheless, we have reported on the methodology to provide a roadmap to readers that might be interested in an implementation of the process with a wider array of data. Habitat and species, protected by European legislation, are a vulnerable element of the overall environment. The necessity to minimize risk created by anthropic activities has led to a definition of this procedure that includes the element of caution as an important part of the method. In classic risk analysis, the risk is the product of elements of risk, vulnerability and hazards. In an ecological context, the elements of risk are habitats and species, and we define the risk as the product of vulnerability and pressure. Vulnerability is an intrinsic property of habitats and species and denotes their susceptibility to suffer from specific threats, pressures or activities. Pressure means the probability that threats, pressures or activities may have a significantly negative influence, in a spatial and temporal context, on habitat or species. It is the product of influence (the intensity of a single threat, pressure or activity) and interference (the spatial and temporal overlap of threat, pressure or activity with habitat and species). The application of the DPSIR framework to ecological risk assessment shows clearly how the process is multidimensional, because it must be applied for each element of threats, pressures and activities that are identified and listed by European legislation [
3,
4] and that could affect each single habitat or species. The driving forces are the plans and projects that the public administration needs to assess. Plans and projects can potentially create many threats, pressures and activities. They have two components: the spatial extension of the object that produces the effects at a local spatial scale and a polluting component; both produce effects in both the spatial and temporal scale. Threats, pressures and activities could affect the ecological state of habitats and species and could produce an impact. The responses are expressed in actions (
Table 4) to limit the impact for habitats and species. They are given at the risk management stage (
Figure 2 and
Figure 3). The “element of caution” principle has been applied in the manner described in the method, and a general precautionary principle is used at the “risk management” stage (
Figure 3) and is part of political choice, and is eminently a political responsibility [
23], applicable if the uncertainty of risk assessment is too high and does not exclude the possibility of very high risk.
This analysis is always multidimensional, because it is applied to each single pollutant that manifests its effects in the spatial and temporal context for each single habitat and species identified by the planner as an element of risk. The method requires information on the spatial area and localization of plans and projects in order to assess spatial and temporal overlap with habitats and species. It is important to note that the threats, pressures and activities may exist, but if they do not overlap with habitat and species, they do not produce risk. When a single threat, pressure or activity (also with low intensity) is identified, in conformity with the precautionary principle, risk always occurs. The method is developed for the public administration of the Veneto Region, with the scope of excluding significant negative impact, in order to simplify and improve the quality of European EIA. Further developments can be foreseen in the integration with collaborative web-GIS platforms [
39] to include public participation fitting the view of Digital Earth (DE) [
46]. Furthermore, a professional can use this instrument to simplify and improve his work. The future development may be improving the semi-automatic interpretation of the matrix in a full automatic procedure to build a full spatial data infrastructure (SDI), actively online, to support the decision system process. In this method, there is only one case where the assessment will not reach the stage of “risk management”, that is where there is either no spatial overlap between polygons and/or no temporal overlap (
Figure 6); all other cases produce a certain degree of risk, thus a certain relative action (
Table 4).