Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR
Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.005
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Waetzold, Frank
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Svarstad, Hanne;Petersen, Lars Kjerulf;Waetzold, Frank
驱动因素-压力-状态-影响-响应（DPSIR）框架已经发展成为一个跨学科的工具，提供和交流关于环境问题的状态和因果因素的知识。基于社会建构主义和话语分析的视角。本文对DPSIR方法的理论基础进行了批判性的考察。我们关注的是生物多样性的例子，但我们的结论与环境研究的其他领域有关。DPSIR框架是通过四种主要类型的生物多样性话语的“镜头”来看待的：保护主义、双赢、传统主义和普罗米修斯。基于这个检查。我们认为DPSIR框架不是一个生成中立知识的工具。相反，这个框架的应用再现了申请人带入其中的话语立场。我们发现，当以传统形式应用于生物多样性领域的研究时，该框架与保护主义者的话语类型最兼容，并且倾向于支持保护主义者而忽视其他立场。因此，与经常声称的相反，我们发现DPSIR框架作为一种工具在研究人员与利益相关者和决策者之间建立良好的沟通方面存在缺陷。该框架的问题是，迄今为止，缺乏努力寻找一种令人满意的方式来处理利益攸关方和公众对问题的多种态度和定义。(c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
The Drivers-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses (DPSIR) framework has evolved as an interdisciplinary tool to provide and communicate knowledge on the state and causal factors regarding environmental issues. Based on a social constructivist and discourse analytic perspective. this paper provides a critical examination of theoretical foundations of the DPSIR approach. We focus on the example of biodiversity, but our conclusions are relevant to other fields of environmental research. The DPSIR framework is viewed through the 'lenses' of four major types of discourses on biodiversity: Preservationist, Win-win, Traditionalist and Promethean. Based upon this examination. we argue that the DPSIR framework is not a tool generating neutral knowledge. Instead, application of this framework reproduces the discursive positions the applicant brings into it. We find that when applied in its traditional form to studies in the field of biodiversity, the framework is most compatible with the Preservationist discourse type and tends to favour conservationist and to neglect other positions. Thus, contrary to what is often claimed, we find that the DPSIR framework has shortcomings as a tool for establishing good communication between researchers, on the one hand, and stakeholders and policy makers on the other. The problem with the framework is the lack, so far, of efforts to find a satisfactory way of dealing with the multiple attitudes and definitions of issues by stakeholders and the general public. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.