DPSIR IN COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA: APPLICATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Submitted December 8, 2009
Liz Brown, Michelle Covi, Coley Hughes, Deanna Swain
Contents
Introduction
Methodology
Case Studies
Agriculture
Fisheries
Construction
Tourism
Analysis
References
1
DPSIR IN COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA: APPLICATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework was developed to describe the
causal relationships and interactions between society and the environment (Gabrielsen and
Bosch, 2003). The framework arranges appropriate environmental indicators into categories that
can help communicate and illustrate what is understood about the relationships between
indicators within the conceptual model. Issues of particular interest to environmental
management are the description of relationships between policy actions and indicators being
addressed throughout the model. Drivers (D) are forces that exert pressures (P) on the system and
affect the states (S) or measurable conditions. This leads to impacts (I) on the socialenvironmental system that may have societal responses (R) which feedback to address drivers,
pressures, states and impacts. (Figure 1) (Smeets and Wetering,1999).
The DPSIR framework evolved from several other Stress-Response models, the first of which
was the STRESS framework developed by Rapport and Friend in 1979 at Statistics Canada
(Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003). The European Environment Agency (EEA) and EUROSTAT, the
European Commission Statistics Office, codified the above version of DPSIR in 1995 to
encourage its use throughout agencies in European countries performing environmental
assessments (Maxim 2009). The DPSIR framework has been most intensely used in Europe, to
analyze water systems (Smeets and Wetering, 1999; Borja et al. 2006; Pirrione, 2005), offshore
wind energy (Elliot, 2002), climate change (Omann et al., 2009), biodiversity (Maxim et al.,
2009, Spangenberg et al., 2009), and coastal ecosystems (Nobre, 2009; Ojeda-Martinez et al.,
2009). The DPSIR framework has been used in the United States to determine research priorities
for coastal systems by the South Atlantic Regional Research Priorities (LaPorte, 2007) and to
evaluate environmental indicators by the Puget Sound Partnership (ONeill et al., 2008).
The DPSIR approach is based on causality in which human activities cause a change in the
environment, which in turn stimulates a management response, typically a policy. Although it is
widely used, the conceptual model has been criticized for its bias towards a preservationist
worldview, which may limit its use by managers (Svarstad, 2008) and also for its analytical
2
weakness (Maxim et al., 2009). One approach used in DPSIR studies is to redefine the
framework according to the purposes of its application. For example, in applying a revised model
to the analysis of risks for biodiversity, Maxim et al. (2009) merged DPSIR with a “four spheres"
model of sustainability to create a tetrahedral DPSIR which can go beyond linear causality to
effectively analyze possible policy options. This particular framework has been applied to
biodiversity threats from climate change (Omann et al., 2009), invasive species (RodriguezLabajos et al., 2009) and loss of pollinators (Kuldna, 2009). Another version of DPSIR which
addresses analytical weaknesses to use empirical data to evaluate policy actions in coastal
ecosystem management, both present and future, is the differential DPSIR (Nobre, 2007). This
version of DPSIR uses scientific data within a specific time frame to assess the management
actions in a case study in a Southwest European coastal lagoon and make recommendations for
the most effective future actions to achieve specific goals. Enhanced DPSIR (also called
eDPSIR) was developed to assess the selection of appropriate environmental indicators
(Niemeijer and de Groot, 2008). In eDPSIR a causal network replaces simple linear
relationships and once a problem is defined and relationships are illuminated by the DPSIR
framework, the key indicators can be determined.
To test the application of DPSIR to integrated coastal management in North Carolina we took a
case study approach, examining coastal problems in relation to important economic sectors that
have the potential to cause environment changes on the coast: agriculture, commercial fishing,
urban development, and tourism. Each section focuses on important social, economic, and
environmental indicators in the coastal areas and watersheds affecting the coastal counties of
North Carolina.
Figure 1: Smeets and Wetering, 1999
3
Methodology
Our working group chose to apply the DPSIR framework to the coast of North Carolina to focus
attention on the issues particular to the coast. We included the twenty North Carolina counties
covered by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) as a cohesive management unit. The
CAMA counties include Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven,
Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender,
Perquimans, Tyrell, Washington. (Figure 2) The region adjacent to the coast has separate issues
from the inland regions of the state. Recognizing that data availability varies by county we were
free to select sites for each sector case study within this area.
Figure 2: Map of North Carolina with CAMA Counties highlighted in yellow.
Based on our review of DPSIR literature, notably Borja (2006), Kristensen (2004), Nobres
(2009), Pirrone (2005), Smeets and Wetering (1999), Ojeda-Martinez et al. (2009), Elliott (2002)
we brainstormed definitions for the five terms.

Drivers can cause change in the systems. Types include social, economical, and
ecological and all can be either positive or negative.

Pressures are human activities that affect the system.

States are the condition of the system at a specific time.

Impacts are the effects on human health and/or ecosystems.
4

Responses are the efforts made by society as a result of the changes manifested, any legal
measure.
We then brainstormed sectors in the CAMA counties that are important to local economies. Each
team member chose one of these sectors to use as a case study, resulting in agriculture,
construction, fisheries, and tourism. We also considered industry, transportation, government and
manufacturing. Each team member chose the sector she was most interested in researching.
All team members compiled indicators for each of the five DPSIR components of their sectors
based on existing models, research of the case studies and including personal experience.
We compiled a matrix of the definitions of the five terms from the collected DPSIR model
papers and used this matrix to update our definitions.

Drivers: Social and economic forces that cause environmental pressures

Pressures: Human activities caused by drivers that affect the state of the system.

States: The condition of the system at a specific time.

Impacts: Ecological, social and economic changes in the state caused by drivers and
pressures.

Responses: Measures taken to address impacts, rivers and pressures.
These definitions were used to search the literature and internet for data available to use as an
example for each term and demonstrate relationships among the model.
Agriculture in North Carolina
Agriculture is essential when considering the relationship between society and the environment
in North Carolina, both historically and today. Agriculture is North Carolina’s largest industry,
accounting for over $70.8 billion dollars brought to the state each year, 19% of the state’s
income. There are over 52,000 farms on 8.6 million acres, about 28% of the total land area of the
state (NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2009). The most profitable type of
agriculture in North Carolina are meat animals with broilers (chickens) and hogs, the top
commodities representing $4,963 million in receipts. The counties with the largest cash receipts
5
are in the coastal plain, particularly the Cape Fear and Neuse River watersheds (NC Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2009).
Agriculture in North Carolina has changed in recent years as farmers have shifted from row
crops to animal agriculture, which are raised in high density indoor facilities. Changes in
agricultural technology and trends in the marketplace have shifted both the type and location of
agriculture in the state. Today, the number of farms has declined from its peak in 1948 of over
300,000 farms to 52,000 (Figure 3). The amount of land in agriculture has also reduced by about
16% from its peak in 1948 and now is concentrated in the eastern part of the state with 16 of the
top 20 counties with the highest cash receipts in agriculture found in the coastal plain, adjacent
or with watersheds leading to CAMA counties, but not within them. (NC Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services). Although there is less land in agriculture in North Carolina
today on larger farms, yields are higher due to greater inputs of fertilizer and pesticides (Lilly,
n.d.). Farm consolidation has been a major factor in North Carolina. The NC Department of
Agriculture reported that in its last census from 2002 to 2006 the number of tobacco farms
dropped 70%, yet harvests have not reduced and 5% of farms made over $1 million which
accounted for 74% of all sales in the state.
Figure 3: Change in number of farms and land in farms 1999-2008
Data from North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences
(http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/2009AgStat/Page007_012.pdf)
6
USEPA’s 2004 National Water Quality Inventory determined that agriculture was the most
common cause of water pollution in streams and rivers in the United States. Agriculture is
considered a potential source of the leading causes of water quality impairment in the United
States such as siltation, pathogens, nutrients, oxygen-depleting substances and metals (USEPA,
2004). In much of eastern North Carolina the alteration of natural hydrology was necessary to
convert swampland to farming and, in addition to erosion and farm chemicals, that has led to
degradation in water quality. Eutrophication, primarily caused by agriculture in most areas, is
considered one of the most serious threats to coastal marine ecosystems in the world (Boesch and
Brinsfield, 2000). USDA staff, cooperative extension agents and private farmers are critical
managers to include in discussions of coastal environmental resource issues, especially those
related to water quality.
DPSIR Case Study: Agriculture in the Neuse River Basin
The Neuse River watershed is one of 17 major river basins in the state of North Carolina
included in the North Carolina Division of Water Quality’s (NCDWQ) Basinwide Planning
Program. The program is a non-regulatory, multi-agency, collaborative approach to assessing
and protecting water quality in the watersheds (NCDWQ, 2009). The Neuse River is of particular
interest to coastal ecosystem based management because it is the third largest basin at 6,235
square miles (approximately 9% of the state) and is one of only 4 major watersheds that can be
managed entirely within the state. The Neuse River Basin has both fresh water streams and
estuarine portions, and flows into the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound. It provides spawning areas for
many fish and habitat for many estuarine species. The Neuse River estuary has been well
described, particularly in regard to nutrient cycling, and like many other coastal systems, is
greatly influenced by human activities upstream (Christian, et al., 1995).
Environmental indicator sets have become an important way to assess the changing state of the
environment and can be used to evaluate the results of policy actions (Neimeijer and de Groot,
2008). Since agriculture is closely associated with eutrophication in coastal areas (Boesch and
Brinsfield, 2000), the environmental indicators chosen for the case study are related water
quality. While the data presented here relates directly to eutrophication, other water quality
7
issues associated with agriculture include sedimentation, pathogens, pesticide and other chemical
contamination. The primary source of data used in this case study comes from the final Neuse
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, completed in July 2009. The data used in this plan span the
time from 1987 through 2006. Data included in this case study is from the most recent 20 years.
Drivers
Agriculture is an important socioeconomic driver causing environmental degradation in the
North Carolina coastal environment. The area of land used for agriculture within the basin, the
amount and types of agricultural production, and management practices are all critical factors in
determining the severity of agriculture as a driver of environmental impacts. Agriculture in North
Carolina has changed over the past 20 years and is expected to change in the future to reflect
economic and other social changes. Farmland is being lost to urban development and the kinds of
crops and livestock grown and the practices will probably change with the advent of new
technologies. Market forces as well as governmental policies that determine farm payments and
management have a significant influence on agricultural practices. For the purposes of this case
study, we will consider agricultural practices as an economic sector within which there are
several drivers that can be addressed by policy either as a group or individually.
The Neuse River Basin is highly agricultural, with 35% of the land in agriculture (Osmond, et al.
1998). The primary crops grown in the Neuse River basin are tobacco, corn for grain, soybeans,
wheat, cotton, peanuts, barley, corn for silage, hay, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, sorghum, and
oats. Livestock produced include broilers, hogs, turkeys, and cattle (Osmond, et al. 1998). The
markets reflect a high demand for the livestock, with poultry and hogs as an increasingly
profitable agricultural commodity, while crops have a stable income over the last 10 years
(Figure 4). Five out of the top 10 counties in North Carolina for agricultural cash receipts are
part of the Neuse River Basin. Wayne County, located almost entirely within the river basin, was
number 4 in 2008 with cash receipts of $370,547,190, with $260,313,000 from livestock,
especially poultry and $ 92,775,000 from crops (NC Department of Agriculture). Changing
patterns of production, such as the rapid increase of high density swine facilities in eastern North
Carolina in the 1990s was an important socioeconomic driver that led to increased nutrients in
8
rivers (Mallin and Cahoon, 2003). One policy response that limited this driver was a moratorium
on the construction and expansion of new swine facilities in 1997.
Figure 4: Driver: Cash Receipts for Agricultural Products in North Carolina
Data from North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Pressures
The Neuse River Basin and adjacent coastal areas are heavily affected by the agriculture
upstream. Environmental effects of agriculture in the Neuse River basin include changes in the
riparian and associated wetland habitats as they were converted to farmland through both the
manipulation of the local hydrology and clearing of natural habitats. Agricultural methods
employed including the amounts and timing of application of pesticides, herbicides, inorganic
fertilizer or compost can have an effect on water quality (USEPA, 1998). Animal production
practices including how animals are housed, their density and how animal waste is managed also
affect the magnitude of the pressure.
9
Current rates of application of fertilizer for the major agricultural crops in the Neuse River Basin
show a significant reduction since the average from 1991-1995 (Figure 5). The reduction is due
to the implementation of the Neuse Agriculture Rule implemented in 1998 which includes the
promotion and funding of best management practices (BMPs), fertilizer application reduction
and shifting patterns of crop production. BMPs that reduce water pollution include riparian
buffer strips of various widths, planting of crops that absorb nitrogen, specialized tillage
practices, such as conservation tillage or no-till, field borders, livestock exclusion from
waterways and stream bank stabilization to reduce erosion. Markets for corn due to government
policies promoting grain based fuels encouraged farmers to grow more corn and increase
fertilizer use for that crop in 2008, the only increase over the one year period (NCDWQ, Neuse
Annual Report 2008).
Figure 5: Pressure: Average Nitrogen Fertilizer Use for Major Agricultural Crops in the Neuse
River Basin in 2006 and 2007 compared to the Baseline Period (1991-1995)
Data from NCDWQ, Neuse Annual Report 2008
10
States
The condition of the Neuse River ecosystem is measured by a number of physical, chemical and
biological water quality parameters, such as measures of nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen, pH, salinity, water flow, turbidity, chlorophyll a and the distribution of organisms
including pathogenic bacteria. The health of stretches of the river are listed as impaired, meaning
that there is a loss of use or ecological integrity, when these measures do not meet water quality
standards set by the USEPA. Indices, such as biological integrity, combine a number of physical
and biological measurements to give an assessment of how these parameters interact with the
ecology of the river system and therefore are an indicator of ecosystem health. The USEPA has
determined agriculture is the potential source of most of the five leading pollutants causing water
quality impairment in the US including nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, siltation,
bacteria, metals and oxygen-depleting substances.
Agriculture in the Neuse River Basin is considered one of the leading causes of impaired river
miles (NCDWQ, 2008). Some studies have found significant elevation of nitrogen in streams
adjacent to swine waste lagoons (Duke and Evans 2006). The majority of the freshwater stream
miles in the Neuse River basin were designated impaired by the NCDWQ in 2008 due to low
biological integrity, low dissolved oxygen levels, and elevated turbidity, all associated with
elevated nutrient levels. Saltwater miles were impaired as a result of high bacteria levels. In
estuaries and fresh water impoundments, excessive loading of nutrients, associated with
agriculture, resulted in the majority of acres impaired as a result of high chlorophyll a and pH
(Figure 6). The water quality trend in the Neuse River has shown some improvement in some
areas in the last 10 years. Eighty-five freshwater stream miles were removed from the North
Carolina 2008 Impaired Waters list due to specific water quality improvement (NCDWQ, Neuse
Basinwide Plan, Appendix V).
11
Figure 6: States: Neuse River Basin Impaired Acres
Data from NCDWQ, Neuse Basinwide Plan 2008 Summary
Impacts
The state of the water quality of the Neuse River has many impacts including the loss and
degradation in both riverine and wetland habitats. The loss of fisheries and recreation due to
contamination by pathogens is an important socio-economic impact generally coming from nonpoint source pollution, which may be agricultural in origin. Eutrophication is another wide
reaching impact which in turn causes algal blooms including harmful algae, oxygen depletion,
loss of submerged aquatic vegetation, and contributes to fish kills. If eutrophication is severe and
long lasting, it can cause a decline in coastal fish populations due to changes in the ecology of
the estuary. (Boesch and Brinsfield, 2000).
Fish kills are one of the most prominent impacts in the Neuse River associated with
eutrophication, oxygen depletion and nutrient loading, some of which is due to agriculture. Since
12
1996, the Neuse River has had almost 200 fish kills (Figure 7). The total number of fish killed in
2008 was the highest since reporting started in 1996 with the Lower Neuse contributing the most
to these fish kills. The lower Neuse fish kill events in 2008 were characterized by involving large
number of individuals, up to 1.1 million, and the causes were low dissolved oxygen, which
accompanied meteorological events, such as rainfall and wind conditions, however in many
cases algal blooms were also observed which may indicate eutrophic conditions.
Figure 7 - Impacts: Fish Kill Events in the Neuse River
Data from NCDWQ, Annual Report of Fish Kill Events, 2008
Responses
Responses to the drivers, pressures and impacts within the Neuse River basin concerning
agriculture include planning, monitoring, regulations, education/ incentive programs, and
restoration of wetland habitats. North Carolina has an extensive basinwide planning program
within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources which is a watershed-based
approach to protecting the quality of North Carolina's surface waters. The planning process
works in cooperation with monitoring, which includes USGS and NCDWQ monitoring stations.
The NCDWQ has a Rapid Response Team for the Neuse River that is charged to investigate
acute impacts such as fish kills and algal blooms.
13
Although most regulation of water pollution addresses the pressures caused by agriculture, some
areas have a moratorium on new and expanded confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
addressing this socioeconomic driver directly by limiting amount of production of that type
within the basin. A far reaching response to the impacts of declining water quality from
agriculture is the Neuse Agriculture Rule, which is a regulatory, education and promotion
program established by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to
encourage BMPs by farmers to reduce nutrient run-off and wastewater discharges. In 1998,
effective nutrient management practices were lacking and it was common practice to overfertilize crops. Traditional animal waste fertilizer application lacked precision and was at above
recommended levels (Osmond, et al. n.d.). Riparian buffers were not effective and cattle were
not restricted from waterways (Osmond, et al. n.d.). The Neuse Agriculture Rule has changed
the nutrient management practices of farmers, including the use of riparian buffers and
appropriate fertilization practices (see Figure 8). In 2007, agriculture achieved an estimated 39%
nitrogen reduction compared to the 1991-1995 baseline. Other governmental programs have
provided financial and technical assistance such as the Farm Bill, the North Carolina Agriculture
Cost Share Program (ACSP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).
(Neuse Agriculture Rule Annual Report, 2009)
Figure 8: Factors Influence on Nitrogen Reduction by Percentage on Agricultural Lands in the
Neuse River Basin
Data from Neuse Agriculture Rule Annual Report, 2009
14
Limitations of DPSIR
While the DPSIR framework helps to communicate the relationships between indicators that
make up the components of the ecological and social systems, it does not necessarily provide
easy policy solutions or detailed economic comparisons of cost-benefits or other criteria for the
selection of different possible responses. It can be helpful to consider how responses that may be
addressing impacts or pressures might be more efficient when addressing drivers, but is not
easily used to quantify the difference. As an analytic tool, DPSIR has been developed in Europe
to link watershed management and coastal resource management and has been used in
conjunction with modeling software to show that changes in agricultural practices can have a
substantial benefit to water quality (Pirrone, et al. 2003). DPSIR is a holistic conceptual model
and helps to organize thinking about the multiple stressors on a system using data that
emphasizes causal relationships, depicted as links between DPSIR categories to help answer
questions about potential results of policy actions, but cannot predict the outcome of a policy.
DPSIR was most easily applied to water quality issues in the Neuse River basin because of the
extensive data available due to very active water quality monitoring programs. Agriculture is a
heavily regulated and researched socioeconomic sector, but little data was available to examine
changes in habitat and hydrology as compared with water quality. The data that was available to
measure the socioeconomic costs of regulatory responses was limited to cost that could be
extrapolated from actions taken by farmers in the area. There was no measure of indirect costs,
such as a reduction in yields due to reduced use of fertilizers as part of the nutrient management
program. The assumption was that over-application was for convenience rather than increased
yields. The biases in the data are toward easily assessed measurements of water quality, but
other indicators may be more meaningful that are not assessed. DPSIR is simplistic and does not
necessarily convey the complexities of interactions that cause environmental change. While
responses feed back to drivers, pressures and impacts, other feedbacks such as impacts to states
are not usually included. In the Neuse River basin one impact, fish kills, may be caused by
eutrophication, but is also heavily influenced by meteorological events such as rainfall and wind.
The causal relationship is not simple.
15
While my case study of agriculture in the Neuse River basin has relied on quantitative data,
qualitative data, such as a measure of acceptance of regulatory policies would have been useful.
In one European qualitative study examining the perceptions of people in a watershed being
managed to reduce the impact of eutrophication on an adjacent coastal zone, the researchers
found that technical feasibility, the specificity of the nutrient being targeted and acceptance
played a greater role in determining an appropriate response. The DPSIR approach was used to
show how the multi-perspective point of view can be established at several DPSIR categories
(i.e. Drivers, Response and Impact) (Nunneri and Hoffman 2005).
Construction in Coastal North Carolina
The construction sector is composed of “establishments primarily engaged in the construction of
buildings and other structures,” including additions, alterations, reconstruction, repair, and land
clearing operations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). While general construction activities impact
environmental and social quality, construction of sprawl development in coastal areas is both
widespread and troubling. While construction carried out in a sprawl pattern bring economic
benefits to a region, it also brings a host of environmental risks.
The construction sector in North Carolina has a relatively small economic impact but a sizable
quality of life impact within the state. The end product of construction impacts the state’s
economy, environment, and landscape. How a community builds illustrates that community’s
priorities of that community and determines the daily environment in which its residents live,
work, and play. Whether residential or commercial, construction is associated with increased
population, changes in land cover and morphology, increased impervious surfaces, and demand
for resources. The selection of construction sites and techniques, especially on the coast, can
impact significantly both environmental and social systems.
Statewide, the construction sector employed an estimated 255,000 people in 2008, which was 6%
of total state employment (N.C. Dept. of Commerce, 2008). It should be noted that construction
employment varies significantly according to the state of the economy. In 2007, the construction
16
sector contributed 3.2% of the North Carolina Gross Domestic Product (NC Dept. of Commerce,
2008). In 2008, construction contributed $16.5 billion dollars to the state economy.
Beyond the economic impact, the construction sector is closely connected with population
growth. As population increases, new residential and commercial construction is needed to
accommodate additional people. The choice of construction sites and techniques in response to
demand for housing and commercial buildings can determine the degree of impact the
development has on local land cover and resources. Nationally, one of the most prevalent
patterns of construction in urban and coastal areas is sprawl development. More than 25% of all
land converted from rural to suburban/urban uses since the first European settlement in the New
World occurred in the 15 years between 1982 and 1997 (Beach, 2002).
Figure 8 Source: Data adapted from U.S. Census
As Figure 8 shows, there is a general parallel in population growth and number of housing units.
As population increases, so does the number of housing units. In recent decades, much of the
population and housing growth has been accommodated through sprawl development. Sprawl
development occurs when land consumption for residential and commercial construction
outpaces population growth (Beach, 2002). It is characterized by low density communities with
considerable per capita space. In inland areas, there may be an abundance of land available for
17
residential and commercial development. As sprawl occurs, metro areas simply grow larger and
larger. In coastal areas, on the other hand, there are often geographic and environmental
boundaries on the land available for expansion. The combination of sprawling development and
limited land area results in limited open space and increased density of single-family houses on
smaller areas.
In 2003, an estimated 153 million people lived in the nation’s coastal counties, meaning that
53% of the population occupied 17% of the land area. While the rate of population growth is
similar in coastal and inland areas, the effects of growth in coastal areas are more concentrated
because of space constraints. The average U.S. coastal county had a population density of 300
persons per square mile in 2003, as contrasted to 98 persons per square mile nationally. For the
past 40 years, the population density on the coast has been roughly five times that of the interior
(Crossett et al., 2004).
Population alone is not a problem, but instead the concern is in how the population occupies the
land. This occupation is characterized by the choice of construction sites and techniques. While
the construction of low-density developments increase the tax base and economic activity of an
area, it also intensifies landscape fragmentation, habitat loss, resource demand, amount of
impervious surfaces, and both point and non-point source discharges into coastal waters.
Construction of sprawl development is particularly prevalent at the coast, where affluent
residents increase demand for large single-family homes instead of high-density multi-family
units (Beach, 2002).
DPSIR case study: Construction in New Hanover County/Wilmington, NC
New Hanover County is the most urbanized CAMA county. In 2008, an estimated 192,538
people lived in the county, which was a 20.1% increase from 2000. This growth rate outpaced
statewide population growth (NC: 14.6%). In Wilmington, New Hanover’s largest city, the
2006 estimated population was 95,944, which marked a 7.1% increase from 2000 (U.S. Census,
2009). Both Wilmington and New Hanover County have experienced rapid growth and
development within recent decades. Indeed, there was a 50% increase in the county population
18
between 1990 and 2006 (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 2009). The construction activity
associated with this population increase contributed significantly to the local economy. In 2008,
8,095 people were employed in construction, or nearly 8% of the county workforce. The
construction sector contributed an estimated $802 million to the Wilmington metro area Gross
Domestic Product in 2008 (N.C. Dept. of Commerce, 2008).
In both city and county, there has been an increase in construction of multi-family housing units
in the past decade, largely due to an increase in the college student population and ‘empty
nesters’ (Wilmington-New Hanover Co., 2006). Furthermore, there has been a significant
increase in land values, which have priced single-family homes outside the reach of many
residents. Despite the relative increase in multi-family dwellings, construction of single-family
housing in the county continued at a rapid pace between 1999 and 2004. In that period, 50% of
the construction within the city and 81% within the county was single-family homes
(Wilmington-New Hanover Co., 2006). After 2004, all growth slowed due to economic and
housing market conditions.
Development in the unincorporated county has outpaced development within the cities. The
construction of sprawl development was encouraged by the availability of rural water and sewer
services as well as county policies favorable to low-density, suburban style residential
developments (Wilmington-New Hanover Co., 2006). Construction of these sprawling
developments has encouraged conversion of land cover, increased impervious surfaces, increased
resource demand, and resulted in greater point and non-point discharges. These associated
effects contribute to change in coastal systems in complex ways. The simplification of the
interactions between societal activities and ecological processes through the DPSIR framework
is useful to understand what is happening in the study area.
Drivers
The drivers are the socio-economic and socio-cultural forces promoting sprawl-style construction
activity. As coastal population increases, the demand for housing, infrastructure, and
commercial development also increases. When this demand is combined with institutional
incentives, there is a formula for rapid conversion of land through sprawling development.
19
Institutional incentives for sprawl development take several forms. Land conversion or
redevelopment may increase the county tax base through increased property values as well as
open new economic opportunities, including retail and service industries. Local governments,
therefore, have a financial incentive to encourage sprawl development. Development patterns
are controlled by local land use regulations, which designate in which areas certain types of
development are permitted. New Hanover County has a history of disorganized land use control
within the unincorporated parts of the county (Wilmington-New Hanover Co., 2006). This has
facilitated construction of sprawling development. Furthermore, the county has an agreement for
the City of Wilmington to provide water and sewer throughout the county. This ready access to
public facilities is significant encouragement to sprawl development.
The demand for single-family housing partly drives the amount and site choice for coastal
construction.
As demand for single-family housing increases with population growth, the
economic incentive for developers to build large developments with the maximum number of
single-family homes possible increases. As shown in Figure C2, new construction housing
values have been steadily increasing in both New Hanover County and Wilmington. This
financial incentive to develop new land into housing developments and retail strips drives coastal
sprawl in the study area.
Figure C2: Average value of new residential construction in Wilmington and unincorporated
county
Source: Graph taken from New Hanover County Planning Dept. (2009)
20
Pressures
The institutional, population/housing, and economic drivers behind coastal development
stimulate human activities to carry out construction of sprawling development. These activities
put pressure on the coastal environment. The activities associated with sprawl construction in
the study area take multiple forms. The most obvious indicator of these pressures is the
conversion of land to single-family residential property. As shown in Figure C3, the number of
single family housing units permitted in New Hanover County far outpace the number of multifamily dwellings. While a higher density of people can be accommodated in fewer multi-family
dwellings, sprawl development is characterized by low-density development. Thus, the
construction of single-family dwellings at two to four times the rate of multi-family dwellings is
in keeping with a sprawl pattern.
Figure C3: Source: Data adapted from Wilmington-New Hanover County CAMA Plan. (2006)
Low-density residential and commercial development requires certain infrastructure to be built.
As mentioned previously, New Hanover County arranged for county-wide water and sewer
service. While this encourages development, the increased population allowed by this
infrastructure means increased demand on water and sewer treatment plants, as well as increased
need for point-source discharges into coastal waters. Unlike high-density cluster development,
21
the low-density sprawl development requires automobile transportation to reach employment,
shopping, educational, etc. facilities. This means the construction of new roads, driveways,
parking lots, and sidewalks. Together with the buildings themselves, these impervious surfaces
place significant pressure on water quality and increase flooding and drainage problems. The
increased population that both drives and is accommodated by sprawl development also place
increased demand on resources like aquifers and surface waters. New Hanover County and
Wilmington use the Castle Hayne aquifer, several shallow surface aquifers, and surface water as
the drinking water supply. Increased demand on the aquifers can lead to salt water intrusion and
depletion of the aquifer.
States
The states describe the condition of the environment that may be affected by sprawl construction
pressures. As the defining characteristic of sprawl construction is the change in land use to
accommodate low-density development, the relevant states largely relate to the land cover itself.
The conversion of open land to residential development may impact coastal habitats. The
change in land cover alters the distribution and total area of various habitats and landscapes. Site
clearing activities affect land morphology and drainage patterns. Increased demand for
groundwater places stress on aquifers.
Each of these states are important, but the most easily tracked state is the amount of land
converted to impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces include buildings, roofs, driveways,
sidewalks, parking lots, streets, patios, etc. They are most often characterized as actual concrete
or paved surfaces, but also include soils that are so compacted that they have effectively been
sealed to rainwater infiltration (Scalenghe and Mason, 2009). As the amount of impervious
surface coverage increases, run-off, stream flow, and the amount of pollutants reaching surface
waters increases. The impervious surface coverage is closely linked to the water quality in the
study area. Studies show that once 10% of the land surface is converted to impervious surfaces,
water quality becomes degraded. At 30% coverage, the water quality impairment becomes
severe (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996) (Figure C4). A number of pollutants, including nutrients,
gasoline, oils, chemicals, and bacteria can be transmitted into area streams and rivers through
22
non-point source runoff. Water quality is affected by sprawl construction through both point and
non-point source discharge and run-off.
Figure C4
Source: Graph taken from Coastal Planning and Engineering of North Carolina, 2009.
Impacts
While the construction and associated pressures of sprawl can have economic benefits on the
community, including increased tax base and commercial opportunity, the environmental
impacts are not positive. The pressures of sprawl development on the states lead to
environmental degradation. Initially, the expansion of development into a previously rural area
may be spotty. Although the overall impact of isolated development may not be severe, patchy
conversion of land cover leads to landscape fragmentation, which can alter behavior patterns of
wildlife. The pressure to build more and more single-family housing can consume the limited
land area in the coastal region. As a result, development is pushed into more marginal areas,
which can lead to loss of unique coastal habitat. As land cover is altered, the newly residential
land often must be altered for construction. Site clearing and grading or hardening of shorelines
to prevent erosion alters land morphology, shoreline dynamics, and drainage patterns. While a
good percentage of the county uses the county water system, there are still private wells.
Between private and county water, 53% of the county gets water from groundwater aquifers
23
(Wilmington-New Hanover Co., 2006). Both private wells and the county water system can
place demand on the aquifers, which can lead to drawdown and salt water intrusion.
As with the States compartment, impervious surface coverage is critical to gauging the impacts
of sprawl development on New Hanover County and Wilmington. The percent of impervious
coverage is a widely recognized indicators for water quality run-off issues (Arnold and Gibbons,
1996). The percentage of impervious surface coverage is directly linked to a number of negative
impacts, including decreased water filtration of surface water into the groundwater system,
increased risk of flooding in storm events (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996), thermal pollution as
water heated from contact with impervious surfaces enters streams, and increased transport of
sediment and contaminants into surface waters (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 2009). There
are strong correlations between the mean fecal coliform bacterial counts and the level of
watershed population, percent of developed area and percent of impervious surfaces (Young and
Thackston, 1999). Studies have shown that approximately 70% of the variability in annual
shellfish area closed due to fecal coliform bacteria in some areas can be attributed to increases in
human population (Young and Thackston, 1999).
In New Hanover County, there is a strong correlation between impervious surface coverage and
levels of fecal coliform bacteria in county tidal creeks. From June 2008 to May 2009, New
Hanover County operated a water quality monitoring program. From June to September 2008,
22 monitoring stations in seven tidal creeks were monitored monthly on physical, chemical, and
biological water quality parameters. From October 2008 to May 2009, three sites were
monitored on the same parameters. The sampling stations were given good (exceeded state
standards less than 10% of times samples), fair (exceeded standards in 11-25% of samples), or
poor (exceeded standards in more than 25% of samples). The two tidal creeks that were
monitored for fecal coliform were both rated ‘poor’ during the monitoring period (Coastal
Planning and Engineering, 2009). (See Figure C5). It is important to note that fecal coliform is
a good indicator for aquatic microbial pollution, but does not indicate pathogenic microbes such
as viruses and protozoans. Nonetheless, fecal coliform is one of the most commonly used
organisms in water quality regulatory standards (Coastal Planning and Engineering, 2009).
24
The transport of sediment and nutrients through impervious surface run-off impacts water
quality, which also impacts biological integrity in county waters. Run-off has adverse effects on
fish, animals, people, and plants, including contributing to algae blooms (Coastal Planning and
Engineering, 2009). The transmission of bacteria from septic tanks, animal pens, pet waste, and
urban runoff creates human health hazards from direct exposure to pathogen contaminated
waters and indirect exposure from shellfish consumption (Coastal Planning and Engineering,
2009).
Figure C5:
Water Quality Parameters for New Hanover County Watersheds
Source: Graph taken from Coastal Planning andand Engineering of North Carolina, 2009.
Responses
New Hanover County has a number of responses in place, with varying degrees of effectiveness.
As one of the 20 designated coastal counties under North Carolina’s Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA), the county is required to prepare a land use plan that takes into consideration areas
of environmental concern as well as development impacts on the coastal environment. New
Hanover County chose to complete a joint CAMA land use plan with Wilmington and the beach
towns within the county. This land use plan requires the county to consider the patterns of
development, but does not require them to limit sprawl growth. The county does not have a
comprehensive land use plan outside of the CAMA land use plan, but there is county zoning.
Under the zoning ordinance, the two largest land classification categories are conservation and
resource protection, totaling approximately 64,000 out of a total 101,000 acres (Wilmington25
New Hanover Co., 2006). While the CAMA plan mandates that provisions be made to protect
designated areas of environmental concern, federal regulations mandate permitting for any
dredge or fill of coastal wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. There are parallel
state water quality regulations to limit conversion of wetlands to development.
Since 1993, New Hanover County has undertaken periodic water quality monitoring programs in
conjunction with non-governmental organizations and the University of North Carolina Wilmington. The county also participates in the Lower Cape Fear River Program, which is a
broad-scale regional water sampling program. In addition, in 2000 the county adopted a
stormwater management ordinance. Under this ordinance, any development must limit the postdevelopment discharge rates of stormwater to the same rate of 25 year storm discharge that
existed prior to development. The ordinance has stormwater retention design requirements that
encourage non-direct discharges to limit the discharge of oil and floating debris.
The City of
Wilmington maintains a large stormwater system including catch basins, manholes, pipes, open
drainage, retention ponds, culverts, and tide gates. The maintenance of the stormwater system is
funded by a service fee on utility bills.
The county has a program to purchase and preserve riparian buffers along the Cape Fear River
and county creeks. The goal is to preserve the few remaining undeveloped shoreline areas in the
county. Since 1984, the county has had a conservation overlay district that can require
stormwater retention, setbacks, wetland protection, and buffer strips. A floodplain hazard
ordinance regulates development within flood hazard areas (Crossett, et. al, 2004). In addition,
the county has adopted a ‘low impact development’ (LID) approach to site development and
stormwater management. The LID approach utilizes site level planning and control with the goal
of optimizing the land’s ability to absorb water and capture and filter pollutants through natural
filtration. In addition, the county has crafted an Exceptional Design Zoning District. (Figure C6)
This district is designed for county areas with sufficient urban features to allow for high density
projects, preserve natural resources, and minimize use of vehicular traffic.
26
Figure C6: Exceptional Design Zoning District illustration
Source: New Hanover County Planning website, 2009.
Limitations of DPSIR
The application of the DPSIR framework to the New Hanover County/Wilmington case study
was difficult on some levels. The most significant issue was the organization of the case studies
as sectors. Throughout the majority of the case study, the sector was identified as
‘development’. On a practical level, ‘development’ was too broad a topic to constrain within the
DPSIR framework. A decision was made to arbitrarily limit ‘development’ to ‘sprawl
development’, as it characterized much of modern coastal development. While ‘sprawl
development’ as a sub-set of ‘development’ was still somewhat unwieldy to fit within the
framework, the working group belatedly recognized that ‘development’ is a process, not a sector.
This is a prime example of the inappropriateness of organizing the case studies into sectors.
Development plainly impacts the coastal environment and quality of life in serious and tangible
ways, but it cannot be considered in a sector-based DPSIR framework. As an attempt to salvage
the case study, sprawl development was reorganized as an off-shoot of the construction sector.
Conceptually, it remains an awkward fit, although the DPSIR framework was more workable
within a more narrow focus.
Another issue with constructing a DPSIR framework for the development/sprawl/construction
sector was lack of available data. A number of potential case study sites were considered before
27
a selection of New Hanover County.
The choice of study areas was primarily based on two
factors: (1) the degree of urbanization and (2) the availability of data. While a framework could
be constructed from data available for New Hanover County, the same cannot be said for a
number of other coastal counties. The problem of data gaps forces an artificial selection of
indicators and study areas. It was somewhat of a challenge to assemble data for the example
indicators that could flow in a causal chain. Ultimately, the DPSIR framework was driven more
by the data available than a true analysis of the most significant areas or indicators.
Commercial Fisheries in North Carolina
North Carolina’s commercial and recreational fishing industries are important to the state’s
economy with commercial landings valued in the range of $60 million to $100 million annually,
without including the seafood processing activities, and recreational fishing valued at more than
$1 billion annually (Waterfront Access Guide Committee, 2007). Fishing is especially important
to coastal counties not only in economic gain to individuals but also in the culture of the
participants who have ranged from the earliest days of Native American inhabitation throughout
the immigration of Europeans and to the present day. Commercial fishing is declining in North
Carolina, with the number of active standard commercial fishing licenses in the state declining in
the past decade from 7,009 in 1998 to 4,076 in 2007 (Crosson, 2009),
DPSIR applied to the Commercial Fishing Industry
To understand the causes of the current status and trends of the North Carolina fishing industry
we constructed a model. Modeling can have several purposes: to give managers a framework to
make predictions or test different management scenarios; or to assess and analyze pressures and
impacts on the system (e.g. Borja et al., 2005); or as a tool to provide and communicate
knowledge about a system (e.g. Svarstad et al., 2007); or as a means to give structure to present
indicators needed to enable feedback to policy makers (e.g. Kristensen, 2004). A useful model
may create a framework to prioritize and categorize important indicators in assessing interactions
between the environment and human activities. We applied the DPSIR framework to help
28
identify issues affecting fisheries management and help communications among stakeholders
including managers, fishermen, scientists and the public.
After wide acceptance in the European Union for application to water quality assessment and
management since 1995 (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003) the DPSIR model was adapted for other
environmental sectors including offshore wind power (Elliott, 2002) and marine protected areas
(Ojeda-Martinez et al., 2009). Several fisheries related DPSIR models have been produced
including application to clams in Italy (Viaroli et al., 2007), illegal fishing in Malaysia (APEC,
2008), coastal community management in the United States (Laporte and Bryant, 2008), and reef
fisheries in Kenya (Mangi et al., 2007). Each model uses unique criteria to select indicators
worth considering and the selection of those criteria is vital to shaping the model.
Indicators for fishing industry
Criteria for selection of indicators varies from requesting prioritization from end-users (Viaroli et
al., 2007), surveying regional stakeholders (Laporte and Bryant, 2008), creating a working group
to develop indicators to be presented to an inter-regional forum (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003),
with some studies failing to indicate how they selected criteria (Mangi et al., 2007; APEC,
2008).
For this fisheries sector we are adopting the criteria for the fisheries sector produced by a survey
conducted by Laporte and Bryant (2008) (Table F1) as their geographic focus , the Southern
United States, overlaps our focus area and the intent of their model is, like ours, intended to
identify and prioritize the factors in coastal management. The survey was formed using the
factors identified in a review of more than 140 documents then disseminated through websites, emails, and hard copies to members of a variety of professions throughout the region, including
forestry, fishing, agriculture, tourism, environmental organizations, construction, state
government, federal government, and academia. The project was overseen by an advisory group
called the South Atlantic Regional Research Priorities (SARRP).
29
Driving forces
Fishing Human
industry population
growth
Watershed
activities,
Marine
activities
Commercial
fishing
Recreational
fishing
Pressures
Overfishing
Habitat loss
/ disruption
Point, nonpoint
pollution
State
Impact
Decrease in
Fishery
appropriate
decline
habitat
Increased
contaminant
load including
pathogens and
pharmaceuticals
Impacts
Response
International legislation
Modeling
Monitoring
National management
Catch limits
Ecosystem based
management
Marine protected areas
Improved fishing
technology
Diversification, rotation of
targeted species
Table F1 DPSIR Indicators for fishing industry sector from Laporte and Bryant, 2008
There may be some utility in emulating the SARRP survey for use in the North Carolina coastal
counties. Our working group adopted definitions of each model term (Drivers, Pressures, States,
Impacts, Responses), from the SARRP model then modified the definitions within the working
group. The results are below.
Drivers
Drivers are driving forces that can cause change in the systems, can include social, economical,
and ecological aspects and can be either positive or negative. The SARRP survey selected human
population growth, watershed activities, marine activities, commercial fishing and recreational
fishing as drivers for the commercial fishing sector. Additional drivers might arise from the
influence of climate change, such as water temperature rise, sea level rise, and ocean
acidification. The disappearance of ‘working waterfronts’ has been brought to national forefront
recently (Roberts 2008, Sheehan & Cowperthwaite, 2002) and is a driving force in the demise of
the fishing industry as fishermen have reduced options for delivering catch, taking on fuel,
loading supplies, boat repair and mooring. The decreased number of fish houses in North
Carolina is an indicator of the diminishing seafood industry which is partially driven by
diminishing waterfront access. Figure F1 shows a 37% reduction in the number of operating fish
houses in North Carolina from 2000 to 2006 (Garrity-Blake and Nash, 2007).
30
Figure F1 – North Carolina Fish House Closures
Pressures
Pressures are human activities that affect the system. The survey considered overfishing, habitat
loss, disruption, point and non-point pollution. Additional pressures include details of fishing
such as bycatch, waste, fuel and maintenance costs, decreasing price due to foreign imports, gear
effects such as scraping the ocean floor or ghost-fishing. In addition to water pollution are debris
and noise and the interruptive presence of fishing vessels, which affects behaviors. Rising costs
and lower prices can cause fishermen to focus on trips at the height of the fishing season,
bringing the maximum profit, or to give up fishing entirely. This is illustrated in Figure F2,
which shows a trend of decreasing number of trips for the commercial fleet.
31
Figure F2 – North Carolina Fishing Trips
States
States are the condition of the system at a specific time. The survey lists some states pertaining to
fisheries found in the ocean: decrease in appropriate habitat, and increased contaminant load,
both pathogenic and pharmaceutical. Additional states might include populations of target and
non-target species, the condition of the surrounding flora and the abiotic environment, the
various inputs from other environments and, on land, the culture of fishing families and the
health of the seafood industry. Figure F3 illustrates the effects of increasingly polluted near shore
waters on the commercial shellfish harvest in North Carolina (Division of Marine Fisheries,
2005).
Figure F3 – Shellfish Closures 1990-2000 Division of Marine Fisheries, 2005
32
Impacts
Impacts are the effects on human health and/or ecosystems. The ORPP model listed fishery
decline as the overarching impact. The impact of fishery decline is demonstrated by a graph of
the catch statistics reported to NOAA for the state of North Carolina 1950-2008. (Figure F4)
Figure F4 – Catch Statistics for North Carolina Commercial Fisheries
Responses
Responses are the efforts made by society as a result of the changes manifested. The SARPP
survey listed international legislation, modeling, monitoring, national management, catch limits,
ecosystem based management, marine protected areas, improved fishing technology,
diversification of, and rotation of targeted species. Fishery management by single species tools
such as catch limits and gear restrictions and seasons are giving way to considering non-target
flora and fauna in ecosystem based management. In addition to the managers, the response can
also originate with the fishermen. Figure F5 shows a decrease of commercial fishing licenses,
illustrating the decisions by fishermen to withdraw from the occupation.
33
Figure F5- Total Number of Commercial Licenses Issues by Fiscal Year
Limitations to DPSIR
A problem with the DPSIR model is the overlapping of the terms. Many of the factors could be
put in several or all the categories; for instance, lack of waterfront access is a state of the fishery
but it is also a driver for reduction in the fishing fleet, and an impact of competition by other user
groups and a response to that competition. DPSIR was developed from the DPR model and the
fewer categories in this simpler model would be more useful than trying to distinguish among
five overlapping definitions.
Does the DPSIR model “work” for North Carolina fisheries? The model is a suitable framework
for fisheries managers to use to address the variety of factors needed to consider when creating
management strategies and communicating those factors to a variety of stakeholders. However,
DPSIR is not a cookbook with a recipe for solving environmental problems for managers. The
model works best when simplified to minimal environmental factors and as more social and
economic factors are included the usefulness of the framework diminishes.
34
Tourism in North Carolina
Management of interactions between the environment and economic conflict requires a set of
indicators to drive analytical review, communication, and proper decision making between
managers and scientists alike. The sector of tourism will utilize the economic, environmental,
and socio-cultural state of the industry to establish a level of concern and sensitivity to
parameters set by indicators. In order to advance sustainability in tourism it is necessary to
establish trends and monitor progress towards more effective management strategies. The
practical assessment of the tourism industry will allow discussion for the development of policies
and protection of resources. Following the review of tourism in North Carolina, a case study will
utilize the driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework (DPSIR) to evaluate Dare County,
North Carolina. The purpose of this case study is to introduce the cause and effect relationship
between driving forces that exert pressures on the environment, the current state of the
environment, the impacts that tourism has on resources, and the response that has been taken to
mitigate these conditions. The use of indicators used in this research based on the DPSIR
framework will work to assist management in strategic planning and impact prediction.
The importance of tourism from an economic perspective is the first step in understanding the
level of influence and impacts it has on the state of North Carolina. The tourism industry in the
state of North Carolina is recognized as one of the largest industries and is a major contributor to
the state’s economy. In 2008, the tourism industry generated almost $16.9 billion dollars in
revenue (a 2.1 percent increase over 2007) and $1.4 billion in state and local tax revenues. This
same year, a total of 44.4 million travelers visited North Carolina and spent $12.13 billion across
the state, giving North Carolina the sixth in person-trip volume nationwide. Annually, visitors
to North Carolina generate over 190,000 jobs, contribute 4.18 billion to the states payroll, and
reduce the tax burden of each household by $374 dollars. The tourism industry has continued to
grow exponentially over the past ten years. The annual North Carolina visitor expenditures have
grown from 10.87 billion dollars in 1998 to 16.86 billion dollars in 2008 (North Carolina
Department of Commerce, 2009).
35
While the tourism industry plays an important role in the economic viability of the state, it can be
directly correlated with negative environmental impacts. Increased levels of visitation as a result
of the tourism industry in North Carolina can produce several land use effects presented by
development. Crawford (2007) observes, “land use behaviors associated with coastal
development contribute to land cover change that increases impervious surface; alters
hydrological regimes; impairs water quality; disturbs natural habitats through areal reduction,
fragmentation and degradation; alters aesthetic viewscapes; and alters regional sense of place.”
This change in landscape could have grave implications on land use and the ability of the state to
support further tourism growth. North Carolina will continue to face population pressure on
coastal ecosystems as a result of the state’s destinations. According to the 2000 U.S. census, the
population in North Carolina's coastal counties grew from approximately 658,000 to 773,000
from 1990-2000 (17.5% increase) and “74% of this population resided within 2 miles (3.2 km) of
ocean or estuary shorelines in 2000” (Crawford, 2007). An even greater demand on coastal
resources becomes apparent once the figures for seasonal visitors are calculated with population
growth. The coastal counties experienced a 45.6% increase in visitors during the summer
months of the 2008 travel season (North Carolina Department of Commerce, 2009). The tourism
industry clearly has great impacts on land use while creating pressure for further coastal
development to support the population growth.
Coastal development in North Carolina is also driven by the attraction of socio-cultural sites and
events that influence the tourism industry. The socio-cultural activities of the coastal areas in
North Carolina provide community well-being, cultural assets, community participation and
tourist satisfaction. Tourist satisfaction in North Carolina has been directly correlated with the
amount of time and money spent by cultural tourists (North Carolina Arts Council, 2009). The
North Carolina Arts Council (NCAC) reports that “in North Carolina, $102.28 is spent per
person, per day which is one third more than the national average of cultural and heritage
travelers of $70.80, and nearly twice the $59.83 per day spending of North Carolina’s general
traveler”. Additionally, forty percent of travel in North Carolina is cultural tourism and seventy
seven million dollars were spent on socio-cultural events (NCAC, 2009). The tourism industry is
driven by the desire for travelers to experience the historic and cultural resources of the
community and is the fastest growing segment in the state.
36
Elected officials, public managers, and various stakeholders are always seeking better ways to
make informed decisions about the changes they are facing and the ability to generate long-term
sustainability of their community. Dare County, North Carolina, plays a major role in the tourism
industry and faces significant impacts related to the economic, environmental, and socio-cultural
characteristics of the area. The following section assesses the impacts resulting from the tourism
industry and utilizes a driver-pressure-state-impact-response framework to create awareness and
assist managers in making effective coastal resource management policy.
DPSIR Case Study: Tourism Impacts on Dare County
The case study location was specifically chosen because tourism is the number one industry in
Dare County (Dare County Planning Department, 2009). Additionally, the area is designed to
support direct impact from the tourism industry. Long et al. (2009) states,
It [Dare County]is structured to support the tourist orientation and demand particularly as they
relate to 1) construction, where homes and businesses have been built to meet the needs of the
ever-growing visitor and retiree population; 2) retail trade, including souvenir shops to grocery
stores; 3) real estate, rental and leasing, including the sale of second homes and rental of beach
houses; and, 4) leisure and hospitality services, to meet the recreation, accommodations, and
food service needs of both residents and visitors.
The following case study presents the impacts of tourism on Dare County by utilizing a driverpressure-state-impact-response framework. The purpose of this case study is to introduce the
cause and effect relationship between driving forces that exert pressures on the environment, the
current state of the environment, the impacts that tourism has on resources, and the response that
has been taken mitigate these conditions. The DPRSIR framework assists with “the description
of environmental problems by defining the relationships between anthropogenic activities and
the environment” (Pacheco et al., 2007). This framework is chosen to provide a communication
tool for scientists and managers to address coastal management issues using a framework that is
flexible and applicable over various spatial and temporal scales.
37
Drivers
The impacts of tourism on an area can be attributed to transportation, recreation, entertainment,
accommodations, retail, food and beverage. While each of these indicators individually
contributes to the environmental degradation of the area, seasonal population growth is the key
indicator utilized in this framework as the driving force resulting from tourism. Dare County
sustains an estimated seasonal population of 220,000 during daytime hours within the peak
season and while permanent residents are estimated to be only 33,584 (NCDOC, 2009). This
population influx results in challenges to the current infrastructure and services to support nearly
seven times the size of its resident population. Tourism in Dare County is considered to be the
major economic driver and is continually being designed to handle the demand of visitors. For
example, it was estimated in 2006 that the construction of second homes to meet the increasing
amount of visitors and retiree population increased by 8.6%. Figure T1 shows a comparison of
second home owners to full time or year round permanent resident home owners (Long et al.,
2009).
38
The increasing rate of second home owners in Dare County results in fewer resources available
to accommodate the influx of visitors to the area. Land use becomes strained because an
increase in residency means that several services impacted by the population growth would have
to increase and require more land to improve services. The services impacted by the population
growth would include: transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, ferries, etc.) waste water
collection and treatment, public water supply, energy facilities, emergency management, law
enforcement and detention, animal control, and parks and recreation areas. Services provided by
the local government are required to support an increase in visitors but the availability of land in
Dare County cannot support the driving forces caused by the seasonal population growth.
Pressures
The pressures being imposed on the environment as a result of tourism are resource limitation,
pollution and emissions, production of waste, and others. The indicator used in this sector of
resource limitation is a direct result of the impacts produced by seasonal population growth
resulting from tourism. As the seasonal population each year continues to rise, the demand on
the purchase of commercial property to build residential housing will put pressure on land use.
As the permanent population of Dare County continues to grow the commercial and residential
development will shift to meet the needs of the year-round population. As a result, the main issue
with increased development is that the area does not have enough land to support the additional
infrastructure for the increasing population of full-time residents. The 2003 Dare County Land
Use Plan (Dare County Planning Department, 2009) states that “over 80% of the land in Dare
County is under federal, state or otherwise protected ownership that precludes its development.”
This means that with over 80% of unincorporated total land area being unavailable for future
development a great deal of pressure is put forth to use and develop the remaining 20%. State
and Federal regulatory programs put even further limitations on how this land can be developed.
Additionally, as mentioned above, public services such as schools, recreation facilities, and
transportation improvements will compete for the remaining undeveloped land. In order to be
able to maintain the population increases each year, public services and facilities must be able to
accommodate the peak levels of demand. As the seasonal population continues to rise, the
demand on land use to support infrastructure and housing will continue while the availability of
undeveloped land ceases to exist. The second home owners and infrastructure requirements to
39
support the seasonal population growth creates an increase pressure that will sustain an ever
growing pressure on land use. Figure T2 (Dare County Planning Department, 2009) depicts the
land classification map of classes and subclasses.
State
The state is an assessment of the current conditions of the environment. The state sets a baseline
for whether policy and management is either improving or diminishing available natural,
estuarine, and coastal resources. The current conditions are usually presented in the form of
biological or physical assessment such as water quality, air quality, or soil and sediment quality.
Pressure for increased development continues the realization that a balance must ensue to protect
the resources that drives the pressure created by the tourism industry. It has already been
determined that land is in high demand in Dare County, NC. While land use is important in
detailing the pressure that is being put on the system, the development of land can have huge
detrimental effects on water quality. Land development along the land-sea interface can produce
40
large amounts of storm water runoff that can threaten water quality. The Dare County Planning
Department (2009) states that “water quality, both surface and groundwater plays a key role in
the natural and economic development of Dare County. Surface water quality is important to
fisheries resources, boating, all recreational water sports, and as an indicator of the overall health
of the area’s ecosystem.” Additionally, research findings by the Dare County Planning
Department in land use plan survey and workshops identified surface water quality as a high
priority. As a result, water quality will be used as an indicator for the state of the environment in
Dare County. Figure T3 (Division of Water Quality, 2009) provides the most recent
environmental sensitivity map that indicates the current state of water quality for Dare County,
North Carolina.
Impacts
Impacts are the changes in the state that can be expressed by the quantification of the loss and
degredation of the habitat created by tourism (Pancheco et al., 2007). The indicators for impacts
on the Dare County ecosystem would be land use changes that result in storm water runoff,
41
habitat destruction, nutreint loading, and loss of recreational resources. As a result of the
pressure for development and the current state of water quality, it is adventagous to evaluate the
impacts of storm water runoff. As communities develop, more impervious surfaces are created
and less rainfall can soak into the ground. Storm water runoff is the rain that runs off streets,
rooftops, parking lots, lawns, and other land surfaces. “In 2007, seventy-three percent of the
beaches in North Carolina identified storm related runoff as a known potential source of
pollution” (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). In many cases the storm
water runoff carries bacteria and pollutants, fecal coliforms and heavy metals, into the estuaries
and surface waters off the coast. Once the concentration of these pollutants become too high,
waters are permanently closed to shellfish harvesting and can also be closed for recreational
swimming and surfing. Impaired water quality would result in the loss of recreational
opportunity for activites that include primary contact such as boating and swimming. Protecting
adjacent waters from storm water runoff is an ongoing impact of the forces and pressures
resulting from the tourism sector. Figure T4 provides a visual assessment of impaired class SA
waters that would include areas closed for secondary recreation such as fishing, boating, and
other activities that involve minimal skin contact (North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
2009).



Approved
Prohibited/Restricted
42
Responses
The response indicators are a result of the impact assessment that works to mitigate the impact of
the driving forces on the pressures of the state of the environment (Pancheco et al., 2007). In this
case study the increased visitation from tourism was the driving force that created the pressure of
resource limitation and the state of water quality served as a baseline for the impact of storm
water runoff that results in shellfish and beach closures. The responses required to regulate and
minimize the driving forces and pressures are to create limitations on development, restoration
and renourishment, and land use planning with monitoring and mapping resources. For the
purpose of this case study the response to tourism impacts would best be served by reviewing the
policies and regulations on development. There are several important Federal, State and local
documents and regulations that are used to manage growth in Dare County. The following is a
modified list of local plans, policies, and regulations developed by the Dare County Planning
Department (2009):
1. Oceanfront shoreline development should continue to be managed to protect and preserve
the natural and recreational resources along the oceanfront. Dare County reserves the
right to review, comment, advocate, or oppose any proposed regulations or programs that
may affect the regulation of ocean hazards areas of environmental concern.
2. Estuarine shoreline development should continue to be managed to protect and preserve
the natural resources of the estuarine waters and the estuarine shoreline. The appropriate
tool for this is the existing CAMA permit program and the Areas of Environmental
Concerns (AECs) designated under the CAMA program. Dare County reserves the right
to review, comment, advocate, or oppose any proposed regulations or programs that may
affect the regulation of estuarine waters and/or the estuarine shoreline.
3. Development projects shall be designed and constructed to minimize detrimental impacts
on surface water quality, groundwater quality and air quality. Structures should be
designed to fit the natural topographic conditions and vegetation versus modifications to
natural conditions to accommodate structures.
43
The local plans, policies, and regulations are supported by State regulatory programs that are
responsible for the development of coastal counties within the state of North Carolina. The State
plans that direct local regulation include:
1. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) is responsible for developing the Coastal Area Management Act of
1974. This state regulatory program is responsible for the development of the twenty
coastal counties within North Carolina. All development within the CAMA Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs) must be reviewed and approved under these standards.
The adoption of 30-foot buffer regulations along all estuarine water bodies in 2000 by the
State has had significant impact on development in Dare County.
2. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
is responsible for statewide regulatory programs in groundwater and surface water
protection, including the issuance of storm water management permits and water quality
monitoring programs. Dare County is affected by the Coastal Storm water Rule that is
intended to regulate new development activities so that storm water runoff does not
pollute and degrade the public trust surface waters.
3. Department of Environment and Natural Resources - Division of Environmental Health
(DEH) is responsible for the regulation of on-site wastewater treatment, enforcement of
public water supply rules, safe harvesting of shellfish and sanitation of shellfish
processing establishments. Dare County has several estuary and coastal areas that are
continuously being monitored for the closing of shellfish growing areas or beaches that
could be potentially harmful to the public.
The response of local and state level policy makers is to monitor and evaluate the drivers,
pressures, and impacts that could be detrimental to the environment of Dare County, North
Carolina. The responses at the state and local level address the driving forces created by an
increase in visitation from tourism, the pressures that result in resource limitation, the state of
water quality, and impacts of declining water quality from storm water runoff and its effects on
44
shellfish harvesting and overall human health in coastal resources. NCDWQ has declared that
storm water runoff is the most critical water quality issue in coastal North Carolina. The Coastal
Storm Water Rule was determined outdated and ineffective in 2005. Analysis of statewide water
quality data and development trends made the conclusions that the low-density limit in the
current storm water rules, 25% to 30% impervious surface density, is set to high. Scientific
studies note that low density levels above 10% to 15% impervious surface density result in water
quality degradation. The existing rule has resulted in a continual increase in impaired coastal
waters and more runoff needs to be controlled and treated to further minimize storm water runoff
impacts. While it is clear that policy and regulations are developed to respond to growing issues
related to environmental concern, the approach is not always effective in meeting the goals and
objectives. The local and state level policies have always been reactive versus proactive in
providing effective and efficient management plan. The driver-pressure-state-impact-response
framework can assist policy makers by establishing trends and monitor progress to promote
strategic planning that will evaluate coastal resources today, and effectively manage them for
tomorrow.
Conclusion
The DPSIR framework can serve as a useful tool for communication between scientists and
managers, but would fall short of providing an effective analytical assessment of environmental
impacts. The impacts of tourism are largely defined in terms of economic impacts but lack the
research detailing the industries influence on the environment. Inferences have to be made on
which indicators play a larger role in environmental degradation and often social research is used
to determine what is important in policy making. An example of this in the case study is that
water quality was determined to be important to the residents of Dare County and subsequently
more emphasis has been put on storm water runoff policy and regulation. As a result, the DPSIR
framework can be manipulated to fit as a communication tool for education and policy making
but would be limited from an analytical perspective. The main reason for the lack of systematic
reasoning is because there is minimal data available to prove or disprove a position. An example
of this is in the tourism sector is that we know tourism causes an increase in population but
defining the temporal scale can be troublesome. Furthermore, obtaining data to determine the
long term effects of tourism can be attributed to several impacts not solely caused by tourism.
45
For example, storm water runoff can be attributed to the amount of increased impervious surface
cause by second homes but there is currently no data available on land use effects on water
quality in Dare County. We can easily assess water quality but the indicators required for this
particular analysis cannot be measured at this time. Another issue related specifically to water
quality is that it could never effectively be determined by examining a single sector. Water
quality degradation from storm water runoff can be attributed to a number of different landscape
altering techniques (i.e. grading, soil compaction, ditching, draining and vegetation removal) in
addition to increasing impervious surfaces that can alter the environment. The point is that the
framework is simplistic in meeting the goals of communication but would not be an effective
resource in finding every causal relationship in the environment.
Analysis and Discussion
The application of the DPSIR framework to the four North Carolina case studies revealed that
significant limitations in its utility. These limitations ranged from fundamental questions over its
practicality as an analytical tool to strategic issues such as selection of appropriate scale,
indicators, and audience. Despite these limitations, the framework was useful on a number of
fronts, including as a communication tool and a means of identifying data gaps. As such, the
determination of the intended audience and use for the framework largely determines whether it
is an effective tool for a particular case.
The appropriate scale of analysis appears to be crucial to an effective use of the DPSIR
framework. A review the DPSIR literature did not yield clear guidance to the appropriate scale
for application of the framework. Without a clear guide, the research area was framed initially in
terms of socio-economic sectors, in keeping with the sectoral management approach currently
used in coastal management. As the case studies proceeded, this sector division was revealed to
be an artificial construct that limited the effectiveness of the framework. While economic and
regulatory systems can be reasonably categorized as sectors, the constraint of complex ecological
and social interactions into narrow sectors was awkward. The Impacts identified in one sector
were not caused solely by the Pressures within that sector. The multiple sectors all exist within
46
an ecosystem, where changes in one part of the system may be felt throughout the system. By
separating the coastal ecosystem into sectors, each with its own model, the interactions between
activities and ecological elements is oversimplified. Despite the apparent problems of applying
DPSIR in sectors, no better categorization was found during the research. A feasible alternative
would be to narrow the research focus from multiple issues considered on a broad scale to a
problem-driven approach to a single issue such as water quality or fisheries decline.
To work well, the DPSIR framework requires data sufficient both in quality and quantity. In
each of the four case studies, there was major difficulty with data availability. The data gaps
eventually shaped the case studies themselves, as the selection of sites and indicators was
determined by the availability of data. The case studies were compiled using publicly available
data that could reasonably be accessed by coastal managers. Overall, data availability was
spotty. Some specific locations, such as the Neuse River Basin, were the subject of extended and
focused water quality monitoring, which yielded a surfeit of data. Despite the breadth of data,
some of the Neuse River data was difficult to reconcile with Department of Agriculture county
data, which varied in both spatial boundary (basin vs. county) and temporal scale from the water
quality data.
In contrast to the Neuse River data, the same categories of water quality data may
have been more limited in other waterways within the study area. Other types of data, such as
land cover analyses, were widely unavailable due to the difficulty and expense in completing
such analyses. Alternatively, an attempted application of the model could be used by managers
to identify gaps in necessary data that had previously gone unrecognized.
While the DPSIR framework appeared simple when first approached, it became far more
complex in application. The definitions of the Drivers-Pressures-States-Impacts-Responses
compartments were a matter of some contention through the studies. A review of the literature
revealed a multiplicity of definitions (Borja, 2006; Elliot, 2002; Kristensen, 2004; OjedaMartinez, et al., 2009; Nobre, 2009; Pirrone, 2005; Smeets and Wetering, 1999). Once a set of
definitions was adopted, the parceling out of interconnected environmental and cultural
indicators into these compartments was problematic. In practice, the Drivers and Pressures
components tended to collapse together, as did the States and Impacts. The dividing line
between these compartments remained fuzzy throughout the study. As the compartmentalization
47
of sociocultural and environmental features is a fundamental part of the framework, the
conceptual vagueness of the definitions severely limited the clarity and usefulness of the
framework within the case studies.
Another limitation of the framework was the reliance on indicators to gauge the status of the
individual compartments. While the literature recognizes the usefulness of indicators to
constructing the framework (Burgess and Bianchi, 2004; Gabrielson and Bosch, 2003; Neijeijer
and de Groot, 2008), there appears to be no established criteria for selection of indicators.
Indicator selection methods in prior applications of DPSIR in the literature range from repeated
convening of expert panels to offhand determinations by researchers. The framework is unclear
whether the indicators are intended to be true proxies for the DPSIR components or only
measurements of change within a system. There is some concern whether the use of individual
indicators captures the complexity of ecological systems, most especially in multiple-stressor
situations where it is unclear how to gauge the relative contribution of one of a suite of stressors
to change observed in an indicator (Niemi, et al., 2004). The relationship of stressors to
indicators are usually “many-to-one”, “many-to-many”, or “one-to-many” (Neimeijer and de
Groot, 2008).
As applied in the case studies, the DPSIR framework failed to allow for the complexity of
ecological and social interactions. The most commonly used DPSIR frameworks (and the one
used in these studies) describes a causal chain relationship between the compartments. While the
framework does depict feedbacks from the responses to the other compartments, it is
questionable whether this system of causation and feedback adequately explains complex coastal
ecosystems. Some have suggested a networked version of the DPSIR framework with
bidirectional links between the compartments, which may be a more satisfactory version
(Neimeijer and de Groot, 2008).
Within the four case studies, the DPSIR framework was very limited in it usefulness as an
analytical tool for determining environmental policy. The framework forces a simplification of
interactions and feedbacks that is untenable for policy formulation. Without considerable
institutional funding and research manpower, the data required to identify and support an
48
appropriate set of indicators for anything beyond a very narrow and specific coastal issue is not
possible. With the constraints of the selected case studies, the framework was unsuitable for
analytical purposes.
The framework does appear to have some utility as a communication tool. It provides a clear
graphical conceptual model for illustrating the complexities of coastal systems and the range of
impacts of human activities. The simplicity of the model may clarify connections between
ecosystems elements that are managed within different systems, so the framework may be
particularly useful for audiences that are highly sectoral in focus. The model may be particularly
useful for providing a common framework for different management groups to identify
overlapping areas of concern and impacts. It may also be useful in communicating policy
responses and how they are designed to interact with other components to audiences unfamiliar
with a particular coastal problem.
In summary, the DPSIR framework is useful to communicate interactions between
environmental and social systems, especially to a sectoral audience or one unfamiliar with an
issue. The framework has more limited utility as an analytical tool. In practical application,
gaps in data and vagueness in definitions make the framework awkward to use. The focus on
causal chains instead of more complex feedback interactions may limit its capacity to describe
coastal ecosystems. Finally, the dependence on indicators is a stumbling block, given the lack of
consensus on selection criteria for and appropriateness of indicators to describe the
compartments. Due to these factors, the framework’s usefulness to coastal management
decision-making appears limited.
49
References
Asia-Pacific Economic Corporation. (2008, October). Case study on illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing off the east coast of peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved from
http://www.imcsnet.org/imcs/docs/apec_2008_iuu_fishing_assessmt_se_asia.pdf.
Alberti, M., Booth, D., Hill, K., Coburn, B., Avolio, C., Coe, S., et al. (2007). The impact of
urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins
[Electronic version]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80, 345-361.
Arnold Jr., C., Gibbons, C. (1996) Impervious surface coverage. [Electronic version]. Journal
of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243-258.
Beach, Dana. (2002). Coastal sprawl: The effects of urban design on aquatic ecosystems in the
United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.
Bellini, G. (2001). Agri-environmental indicators to describe agriculture sustainability.
Conference of European Statistics Working paper no. 21. Commission of the European
Communities EUROSTAT.
Boesch, D.F. and R.B. Brinsfield. (2000). Coastal eutrophication and agriculture: Contributions
and solutions, p. 93-115. In: E. Balázs, E. Galante, J.M. Lynch, J.S. Schepers, J.P.
Toutant, E. Werner, and P.A.Th.J. Werry (eds.), Biological Resource Management:
Connecting Science and Policy. Springer, Berlin.
Borja, A., Galparsoro, I., Solaun, O., Muxika, I. Tello, E. M., Uriarte, A.& Valencia, V. (2006).
The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to
assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf
Science, 66, 84-96. Retrieved from
http://www.monae.org/documents/borja%20DPSIR%20WFD%20ECSS.pdf.
Bowen, R. E., & Riley, C. (2003). Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal
management [Electronic version]. Ocean and Coastal Management, 46, 299-312.
Burgess, C. C., & Bianchi, A. J. (2004). An economic profile analysis of the commercial fishing
industry of North Carolina including profiles for the coastal fishing counties. Retrieved
from http://www.ncfisheries.net/download/EconomicProfile2.pdf.
Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. (2009). New Hanover County water
quality monitoring program 2008-2009 final report. Prepared for: New Hanover County,
North Carolina.
50
Crossett, K, Culliton, T, Wiley, P, & Goodspeed, T. (2004) Population trends along the coastal
United States: 1980-2008. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Duke, M D. and Evans R. O. (2006). Impact of agriculture on water quality in North Carolina
middle coastal plain. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 3, 250-262.
Elliot, M., (2002). The role of the DPSIR approach and conceptual models in marine
environmental management: an example for offshore wind power. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 44: iii–vii.
Gabrielsen, P., & Bosch, P. (2003, August). Environmental Indicators: Typology and use in
reporting. Retrieved from http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionetcircle/core_set/library?l=/management_documentation/indicator_typology/_EN_1.0_&a=
d
Kristensen, P. (2004). The DPSIR framework. Retrieved from
http://enviro.lclark.edu:8002/rid=1145949501662_742777852_522/DPSIR%20Overview
.pdf.
Kuldna, P., Peterson, K., Poltimae, H. &, Luig, J. (2009). An application of DPSIR framework to
identify issues of pollinator loss. Ecological Economics, 69, 32-42.
Laporte, C. (2007). Memo to advisory group, South Atlantic Regional Research Priorities
(SARRP) Retrieved from
http://www.gcrc.uga.edu/SARRP/Documents/Dec6_BackgroundMemo.pdf.
Laporte, C., & Bryant, D. (2008). South Atlantic Regional Research Project Survey. Retrieved
from
http://www.gcrc.uga.edu/SARRP/Documents/SARRP%20Survey%20Summary.pdf.
Lilly, J. Paul, (n.d.) Agricultural history of North Carolina, North Carolina Department of
Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.agr.stat.e.nc.us/stats/general/history.htm,
October 26, 2009.
Mallin, M. A., Ensign, S. H., Melver, M. R., Shank, G. C., & Fowler, P. K. (2001).
Demographic, landscape, and meteorological factors controlling the microbial pollution
of coastal waters [Electronic version]. Hydrobiologia, 460, 185-193.
Massachusetts Department of Energy & Environmental Affairs (2009). Development of
evaluation measures for the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan - draft. Retrieved
from http://commpres.env.state.ma.us/mop/draft_plan/v2/draft-v2-em.pdf.
51
Mangi, S. C., Roberts, C. M., & Rodwell, L. D. (2007). Reef fisheries management in Kenya:
Preliminary approach using the driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) scheme
of indicators. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50(5-6), 463-480.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VG5-4MHPBNG1&_user=634873&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_s
earchStrId=1052465642&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000033758
Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J., & O'Connor, M. (2009). An analysis of risks for biodiversity under
the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics, 69, 12–23.
New Hanover County Planning Department. (2009). 1999-2008 construction activity report.
New Hanover County Planning Department website. Retrieved from
http://www.nhcgov.com/AgnAndDpt/PLNG/Pages/DeptInfo.aspx
New Hanover County Planning Website. (2009) Retrieved from
http://www.nhcgov.com/AgnAndDpt/PLNG/Pages/EDZD.aspx
Niemeijer, D., & de Groot, R. S. (2008). A conceptual framework for selecting environmental
indicator sets. Ecological Indicators, 8, 14-25.
Niemi, G., Wardrop, D., Brooks, R., Anderson, S., Brady, V., Paerl, H., et al. (2004). Rationale
for a new generation of indicators for coastal waters [Electronic version]. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 112(9), 979-986.
Nobre, A. M. (2009). An ecological and Economic Assessment Methodology for Coastal
Ecosystem Management. Environmental Management 44, 185-204.
Nunneri, C. & Hofmann, J. (2005) A participatory approach for integrated river basin
management in the Elbe catchment. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 62: 521-537.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2009). Annual statistics
book. Retrieved from http://www.agr.state.nc.us/stats/2009AgStat/index.htm
North Carolina Department of Commerce. EDIS (2008). Retrieved from
http://edis.commerce.state.nc.us/Portal/main.do
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (2009). Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
Retrieved from
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/2008/NeuseRiverBasinPlanDRAFT.htm
52
Ojeda-Martinez, C., Casalduero, F. G., Bayle-Sempere, J. T., Cebrian, C. B., Valle, C., SanchezLizaso, J. L., Forcada, A. (2009). A conceptual framework for the integral management
of marine protected area. Ocean and Coastal Management, 52, 89-101.
Omann, I., Stocker, A.& Jager, J. (2009). Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: an
application of the DPSIR approach. Ecological Economics 69, 24-31.
O’Neill, S. M., Bravo, C.F., Collier, T. K. (2008). Environmental indicators for the Puget Sound
Partnership: A regional effort to select provisional indicators (Phase 1). NOAA Fisheries
Northwest Fisheries Science Center.
Osmond, D.L., Hardy, D., Johnson, L.H., Lord, W.G, Pleasants, R.H., Regans, M.E. (1998).
Agriculture and the Neuse River Basin. Retrieved from
http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/agriculture.html
Paerl, H. W., Valdes, L. M. , Joyner, A. R., Piehler, M. F. and Lebo M. E. (2004). Solving
problems resulting from solutions: Evolution of a dual nutrient management strategy for
the eutrophying Neuse River Estuary, North Carolina. Environmental Science &
Technology 38 (11), 3068-3073.
Pirrone, N., Trombino, G, Cinnirella, S, Algeri, A., Bendoricchio, G, and Palmeri, L. (2005). The
Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach for integrated catchmentcoastal zone management: preliminary application to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea
coastal zone system. Reg. Environ. Change 5: 111-137.
Rodriguez-Labajos, B., Binimelis, R. and Monterroso, I. (2009). Multi-level driving forces of
biological invasions. Ecological Economics 69: 63-75.
Scalenghe, R., & Marsan, F. A. (2009). The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas
[Electronic version]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90, 1-10.
Seager, J. (2001). Perspectives and limitations of indicators in water management. Regional
Environmental Change 2, 85-92.
Smeets, E., Weterings, R., (1999). Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical
report No. 25. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 19 pp.
Spangenberg, J.H., Martinez-Alier, J., Omann, I., Monterroso, I., Binimelis. (2009). The DPSIR
scheme for analyzing biodiversity loss and developing preservation strategies. Ecological
Economics 69, 9-11.
53
Svarstad, H., Petersen, L., Rothman, D., Siepel, H., & Watzold, F. (2008). Discursive biases of
the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy, 25, 116-125. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VB04NRMDBJ1&_user=634873&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&
view=c&_searchStrId=1052937318&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000033758
United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2009). Regional Economic Accounts. Retrieved
from http: www.bea.gov/regional/quick.cfm
United States Census Bureau. New Hanover County QuickFacts. (2009). Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37129.html
United States Census Bureau. Wilmington, North Carolina QuickFacts. (2009). Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/3774440.html
United States Census Bureau. NAICS. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/naics
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004). National Water Quality Inventory:
Report to Congress 2004 Reporting Cycle. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/owow/305b/2004report
United States Geological Survey (1997). National summary of wetland resources: State summary
highlights. Retrieved from
http://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/state_highlights_summary.html, October, 26,
2009.
Utz, R. M., Hildebrand, R. H., & Boward, D. M. (2009). Identifying regional differences in
threshold responses of aquatic invertebrates to land cover gradients [Electronic version].
Ecological Indicators, 9, 556-567.
Viaroli, P., Marinov, D., Bodini, A., Giordani, G., Galbiati, L., Somma, F., Bencivelli, S. (2007).
Analysis of clam farming scenarios in the Sacca di Goro lagoon. Transitional Waters
Monographs, 1, 71-92. Retrieved from
http://siba2.unile.it/ese/issues/56/685/twm_07v1n1p71.pdf
Wilmington-New Hanover County. (2006). Wilmington - New Hanover County Joint Coastal
Area Management Plan 2006 Update.
Young, K. D., & Thackston, E. L. (1999). Housing density and bacterial loading in urban
streams [Electronic version]. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Dec, 1177-1180
54
Zenetos, A., Streftaris, N., & Larsen, L. (2002). An indicator-based approach to assessing the
environmental performance of European marine fisheries and aquaculture. Retrieved
from http://library.coastweb.info/775/1/technical_report_2003_87.pdf.
55
For tourism section
References
Crawford, T. W. (2007). Where does the coast sprawl the most? Trajectories of residential
development and sprawl in coastal North Carolina, 1971–2000. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 83(4), 294-307.
Dare County Planning Department. (2009). 2003 Dare County Land Use Plan. Retrieved
October 25, 2009 from http://www.darenc.com/depts/Planning/procedures.htm
Long P., Hao, H., Kleckley J., Wright, B., Lysenko, T. (2009). Impact of Tourism on
Community Life in Dare County Executive Summary. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/sustainabletourism/Community-Sense-of-Place-Initiative.cfm
North Carolina Arts Council Department of Cultural Resources. (2009). The artful traveler:
Cultural Tourism in North Carolina. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from
http://www.ncdcr.gov/research/ArtfulTraveler.pdf
North Carolina Department of Commerce. (2009). Fast facts 2008 Economic Impact of
Tourism. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from
http://www.nccommerce.com/NR/rdonlyres/E7CAAD1D-34A8-4309-A03BB65A3376668F/3369/2008EIFastFacts.pdf
North Carolina Department of Commerce. (2009). Fast facts about NC travel and tourism.
Retrieved October 25, 2009, from http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/econ/facts.asp.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. (2009). Environmentally Sensitivity Map 2007 Dare
County, North Carolina. Retrieved October 25, 2009, from
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/documents/dare_2007.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. (2009). Pasquotank River Water Quality Plan.
Retrieved December 7, 2009, from
56http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Pasquotank/2002/documents/PAS_SecB7.pdf
Pacheco, A., Carrasco, A. R., Vila-Concejo, A., Ferriera, O., Dias, J.A. (2007). A Coastal
management program for channels located in backbarrier systems. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 50, 119-143.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Dare County Quickfacts. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37055.html
56
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Beach and Monitoring Notification. Retreived
October 25, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2007/nc.html
57