ARTICLE IN PRESS

ECOLEC-03319; No of Pages 8
Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n

Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach

Ines Omann ⁎, Andrea Stocker, Jill Jäger
Sustainable Europe Research Institute, Garnisongasse 7/21, 1090 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Climate change and its consequences present one of the most important threats to biodiversity and the
Received 21 April 2008 functions of ecosystems. The stress on biodiversity is far beyond the levels imposed by the natural global
Received in revised form 3 January 2009 climatic changes occurring in the recent evolutionary past. It includes temperature increases, shifts of climate
Accepted 7 January 2009
zones, melting of snow and ice, sea level rise, droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events. Natural
Available online xxxx
systems are vulnerable to such changes due to their limited adaptive capacity. Based on an analysis using the
Keywords:
DPSIR framework, this paper discusses some of the important socio-economic driving forces of climate
Climate change change, with a focus on energy use and transportation. The paper also analyses observed and potential
DPSIR changes of climate and the pressures they exert on biodiversity, the changes in biodiversity, the resulting
Biodiversity impacts on ecosystem functions, and possible policy responses. The latter can be divided into mitigation and
Adaptation adaptation measures. Both strategies are needed, mitigation in order to stabilise the greenhouse gas
Mitigation concentrations in the atmosphere, and adaptation in order to adjust to changes that have already occurred or
Sustainability cannot be avoided. One mitigation option, increased biofuel production, which is also a response to oil
depletion, would change land use patterns and increase human appropriation of net primary production of
biomass, thereby threatening biodiversity. By considering the first order and second order impacts of climate
change on biodiversity when developing policy measures, it will be possible to integrate ecosystem and
biodiversity protection into decision-making processes.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Current climate change combined with other human develop-

ments is stressing biodiversity far beyond the changes caused by
According to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), natural global climatic changes that occurred in the recent evolu-
biodiversity “includes all plants, animals, microorganisms, the tionary past (IPCC, 2001; Steffen et al., 2004). From climate science
ecosystems of which they are part, and the diversity within species, we know about the different possible and far- reaching threats of
between species, and of ecosystems” (CBD, 2003, p. 1). anthropogenic climate change, including temperature increases, shift
Human well-being and development strongly depend on biodi- of climate zones, sea level rise, droughts, floods, and other extreme
versity and ecosystem services (UNEP, 2007). A wide range of weather events (see for instance Latif, 2007; Kromp-Kolb and
biological materials not only provides the resources we need for Formayer, 2005; Dow and Downing, 2006). These threats will
food, clothing and shelter, but also contributes to other elements of potentially have wide-ranging effects on the natural environment as
human well-being, such as health. These resources are being lost due well as on human societies (see, for example, Millennium Ecosystem
to damage to ecosystems as a result of multiple and interacting Assessment, 2005).
pressures. Biodiversity is decreasing and ecosystem services are Natural systems are especially vulnerable to climate change
reduced (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). because of their limited adaptive capacity1 and some of these systems
The most important pressures on biodiversity and ecosystem may undergo significant and irreversible damage. In this paper we aim
services are habitat change (such as land use changes, physical to identify the links between climate change as one major threat to
modification of rivers or water withdrawal from rivers, and loss of biodiversity and its underlying socio-economic driving forces as well
coral reefs), climate change, invasive species, overexploitation, and as the resulting impacts on ecosystem goods and services and human
pollution. Driving forces behind those pressures are among others
demographic, economic, socio-political, cultural, religious, scientific,
and technological changes. Although biodiversity may also change
due to natural causes, current change is dominated by the anthro- 1
The adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change, to
pogenic driving forces (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the
consequences. Stronger adaptive capacity decreases the vulnerability (inability of a
system to cope with adverse effects of a change) and herewith increases resilience
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 9690728; fax: +43 1 9690728 17. (ability of a system to cope with adverse effects of a change; susceptibility to harm/
E-mail address: ines.omann@seri.at (I. Omann). stress) (UKCIP, 2004).

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

responses. This analysis is based on existing literature about links 3. Climate change and biodiversity
between climate change and biodiversity and it considers these links
within the framework of the adapted DPSIR (Drivers–Pressures– 3.1. Driving forces
State–Impacts–Responses) framework used in the ALARM2 project
and in this special section. The intention is not to develop all elements Climate change is a pressure that leads to biodiversity change. This
of the framework completely, but to illustrate each of the elements section explores some of the driving forces for climate change in order
with particular reference to the climate change implications for to illustrate this element of the DPSIR framework. Human economic
biodiversity. In this way, the usefulness of the framework for activity is a major underlying cause of rapid changes in atmospheric
discussion of complex policy issues is illustrated. Other pressures on composition (in particular emissions of greenhouse gases and
biodiversity are considered in other papers of this volume: loss of aerosols) and changing land cover and land use. Socio-economic
pollinators (Kuldna et al., 2009-this issue), biological invasions development, resulting behaviour, policies, actions and underlying
(Rodríguez-Labajos et al., 2009-this issue), use of GMOs (Binimelis et ideologies and religious, cultural or political beliefs underlie driving
al., 2009-this issue), use of chemicals (Maxim, 2009-this issue). forces of climate change.
In order to reduce the pressures on biodiversity stemming from Some socio-economic activities are directly linked to climate
climate change, (socio-economic) driving forces behind climate change. Underlying the causes of climate change are basic societal
change have to be identified, influenced and reduced (Spangenberg, trends that can be influenced partly by policy, however only in the
2007). In this respect it is important to analyse driving forces of climate long term (see also Rodriguez-Labajos et al., 2009-this issue). These
change as well as the pressure of climate change on biodiversity and trends include demographic, economic, socio-political, scientific and
the resulting impacts and possible responses. Based on this analysis technological, cultural and religious factors (CBD, 2003). They can be
policies and strategies could be developed to reduce the anthropogenic seen as the basic driving forces for any human-induced development
impacts on climate (and biodiversity) by modifying the trends in the in natural and socio-economic systems.
underlying causes. This allows the integration of biodiversity protec- Energy use, transport practices, land use practices, trade and
tion into climate change policies, thus enhancing its political influence tourism strongly determine the magnitude of climate change as a
and improving the chances for effective political action to be taken. pressure on biodiversity. In Europe, the use of energy is the most
In the following section we first describe the methodological significant driving force for climate change: greenhouse gas (GHG)
framework developed by Maxim et al. (2009-this issue), which emissions result primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels (oil,
provides an adapted definition for the DPSIR categories (Section 2). coal, natural gas)3 for energy use in the energy production, transport,
Based on this framework Section 3 discuss all elements of the DPSIR industry and residential sectors. Rather than discussing all of these
framework in the context of climate change and biodiversity, where sectors, the focus here is on transport as an important energy-
we focus on the socio-economic driving forces, the links between consuming sector.
climate change and biodiversity and possible policy responses that Transport is responsible for 22% of greenhouse gas emissions in
might decrease or alternatively increase the threats to biodiversity. the EU15 (excluding international aviation and marine transport)
Section 4 provides some brief conclusions from this analysis. (EEA, 2008a). Between 1990 and 2005 emissions from domestic
transport increased by about 26%. Road transport is the biggest
2. The DPSIR approach transport emission source (93% share) and emissions increased
continuously both for passenger transport (increase of 27% between
The DPSIR approach is discussed by Maxim et al. (2009-this issue). 1990 and 2004) and for freight transport (EEA, 2006). Energy use and
From that paper we take the following definitions: carbon emissions from freight transport grew faster than in almost
any sector between 1995 and 2005. The road freight segment had the
Driving forces are changes in the social, economic and institutional greatest percentage increase (38%) (EEA, 2008a). CO2 emissions from
systems (and/or their relationships) which are triggering, directly and international aviation are growing fastest with an increase of 73%
indirectly, Pressures on biodiversity. between 1990 and 2005 (EEA, 2008a).
Pressures are consequences of human activities (i.e. release of The growth in transport's GHG emissions and energy use can be
chemicals, physical and biological agents, climate change, extraction and explained to a large extent by increasing transport volumes (EEA,
use of resources, patterns of land use, creation of invasion corridors) which 2006). The number of cars has tripled in the last 30 years, with an
have the potential to cause or contribute to adverse effects (impacts). increase of 3 million cars each year. Although the level of car
The state of biodiversity is the quantity of biological features ownership is likely to stabilise in most countries of the EU15, this will
(measured within species, between species and between ecosystems), not be the case in the new EU countries (European Commission, 2001).
of physical and chemical features of ecosystems, and/or of environmental Regarding goods transport, changes in the system of production
functions, vulnerable to (a) pressure(s), in a certain area. are to a large extent responsible for transport growth. Road freight
Impacts are changes in the environmental functions, affecting transport growth in the EU is projected to continue, resulting in an
(negatively) the social, economic and environmental dimensions, and increase in energy demand of more than 15% between 2000 and 2020
which are caused by changes in the State of the biodiversity. (EEA, 2006). The transport situation is to a large extent the result of
A response is a policy action, initiated by institutions or groups policies and measures over recent years that were focused on
(politicians, managers, consensus groups) which is directly or individual mobility and construction of infrastructure. This has led
indirectly triggered by [the societal perception of] Impacts and to higher mobility in the private as well as in the business sector and
which attempts to prevent, eliminate, compensate, reduce or adapt thus a strongly increasing number of (air) trips. More transport is also
to them and their consequences. necessary due to a still increasing demand for goods and services
globally, for example in agricultural products or raw materials.
In the following we apply this approach – based on the definitions Maritime transport is responsible for 13% of the world's total transport
above – to the issues of climate change (pressure) and biodiversity loss GHG emissions at the present time (EEA, 2006). Projections estimate a
(state). The causal chain starting from driving forces down to impacts growth of 35–45% in absolute levels between 2001 and 2020, based on
on human well-being and responses is demonstrated. expectations of continued growth in world trade (Eyring et al., 2005).

2 3
For more about this 6th Framework EU project see www.alarmproject.net. Fossil fuels dominate the fuel mix with a share of 80% (UNEP, 2005).

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3

In addition, lifestyle changes in recent decades have led to a higher widespread changes in extreme temperatures over the last 50 years.
demand for mobility. Even in highly industrialized countries car As discussed below, these changes affect biodiversity.
ownership is still seen as a “symbol of freedom”. Furthermore, in the In addition to changes in averages of temperature, precipitation or
last few decades the share of women in the labour market has been sea-level, anthropogenic climate change is also linked to changes in
increasing in Europe. This has increased the need for mobility and the frequency and intensity of extreme events, which can also affect
flexibility, with the consequence that families often have at least two biodiversity. More intense and longer droughts have been observed
cars. Higher incomes and improved infrastructure have led to leisure over wider areas since the 1970s, particularly in the tropics and
travel becoming a significant contributor to the increased passenger subtropics (IPCC, 2007a). Long spells of drought contributed, for
travel volumes (EEA, 2006). Out-of-town shopping malls have also example, to forest fires in the Amazon basin, Indonesia and Central
created increased transport demand. America in 1997–1998. In Indonesia alone, an estimated 45,600 km2 of
The changes in transportation have led to an increase of GHG forest were destroyed (UNEP, 2007).
emissions and concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere, which There is also evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone
are causing climate change. Furthermore, climate change (here activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970 and there are also
considered as a pressure on biodiversity) is leading to changes in suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some
biodiversity, which have an impact on ecosystems functions. other regions, but the data quality in these regions is not so high so the
evidence is not conclusive (IPCC, 2007a). The frequency of heavy
precipitation events has increased over most land areas and wide-
3.2. Climate change as a pressure on biodiversity spread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed over the
last 50 years. Cold days, cold nights and frost have become less
Global climate change is taking place due to the increase in the frequent, while hot days, hot nights and heat waves have become
atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The gases more frequent. All of these changes in extreme events can be expected
that contribute most to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect are to affect biodiversity.
carbon dioxide (CO2)4, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and Scenarios for temperature rise and other climate variables vary
fluorine compounds (SF6, 2PFCs). Although most of these gases occur considerably, depending on the emissions scenarios but also on
naturally in the atmosphere, their recent significant atmospheric uncertainties in climate models. According to the Intergovernmental
accumulation is the result of human activities. The emissions of Panel on Climate Change (2007a) the globally averaged surface
greenhouse gases have altered the composition of the Earth's temperature could increase by 2.0–2.4 °C above pre-industrial levels
atmosphere and this has changed the energy balance of the earth by 2100, if emissions are stabilized before 2015. If emissions are not
system, leading to warming at the earth's surface. These changes will stabilized until after 2060, the temperature rise above pre-industrial
also have an impact on future global climate (Steffen et al., 2004). levels would be 4.9–6.1 °C by 2100. Even if the concentrations of all
According to the IPCC Working Group 1 report (IPCC, 2007a) the greenhouse gases were kept constant at the levels observed at the
global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased from a beginning of the 21st century, a further warming of about 0.1 °C per
pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005. The global decade is expected (IPCC, 2007a). About twice as much warming is
atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre- expected if emissions are within the range of the IPCC scenarios. So at
industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s and least over the next two decades, the IPCC scenarios suggest a warming
was 1774 in 2005. The global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration rate that is at least twice as large as the estimated natural variability
increased from a pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in during the 20th century.
2005. The combined radiative forcing due to increases in carbon The scenarios also suggest that it is very likely that hot extremes,
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is +2.3 [range of uncertainty: heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become
+2.07 to +2.53] Wm− 2 and the rate of increase is very likely to have more frequent and it is likely that future tropical cyclones will become
been unprecedented in more than 10,000 years. more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy
The IPCC report (2007a) concludes that warming of the climate precipitation. These changes in extremes would affect biodiversity.
system is unequivocal. It is observed in increases of global average air The projected sea level rise by 2090–2099, relative to levels
and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and between 1980 and 1999, is between 0.18 and 0.38 m for the scenario
rising global sea-level. Furthermore, “most of the observed increase in with low greenhouse gas emissions and 0.26–0.59 m for the scenario
globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very with highest emissions (IPCC, 2007a). Even a small sea-level rise can
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase the risk of storm surges. Flooding of coastal areas will affect
concentrations” (IPCC, 2007a). The observed climatic changes include: the biodiversity in these regions. Precipitation is expected to increase
a globally averaged temperature increase between 1850–1899 and in high latitude and equatorial areas, decrease in the subtropics, but
2001–2005 of 0.76 °C [Range of uncertainty: 0.57 to 0.95 °C]; an increase in heavy precipitation events.
increase of the average temperature of the ocean to depths of at least A further indirect threat to biodiversity as a result of climate
300 m; widespread decreases in glaciers and ice caps; global average change is the increasing acidification of the oceans as a result of
sea-level rise of 1.8 mm per year [Range of uncertainty 1.3 to 2.3 mm increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Projections
per year]; average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the based on IPCC scenarios give a reduction of the average global surface
global average rate during the past 100 years; annual average Arctic ocean pH of between 0.14 and 0.35 U over the 21st century, adding to
sea-ice extent shrank by 2.7 [2.1–3.3]% per decade; increased the present decrease of 0.1 U since pre-industrial times (IPCC, 2007a).
temperatures at the top of the permafrost layer by up to 3 °C since The impacts of ocean acidification are speculative, but could be
the 1980s; significant changes in precipitation amount in some profound, constraining or even preventing the growth of marine
regions; more intense and longer droughts over wider areas since the animals such as corals or plankton (UNEP, 2007).
1970s, particularly in the tropics and sub-tropics; the frequency of Frei et al. (2006) have quantified the possible changes in
heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas; and exceptionally strong precipitation events over the next 100 years in
Europe using regional climate model simulations and statistical
4
analysis tools. The results show that Alpine regions and northern
CO2 emissions account for approximately 82% of total greenhouse gas emissions in
the EU and 95% of these are energy-related. The energy-related share of emissions has
European locations above 45° latitude (including major cities such as
increased slightly from 79% in 1990 to 81% in 2002 and this share is expected to remain London, Berlin, and Stockholm) are likely to have more frequent and
approximately constant over the period to 2010 (EEA, 2004). intense extreme precipitation events during fall, winter, and

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

springtime by the year 2100. In Scandinavia, for example, unusual Climate change is already affecting birds in a number of different
strong events that are now supposed to happen once per century will ways (see, for example, http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/sowb/
occur every 20–40 years. Snow cover will contract, sea ice in both the pressure/46.html and Birdlife International (2008)).
Arctic and the Antarctic is projected to shrink; heat waves and heavy These include changes in distribution and population density. For
precipitation events will very likely become more frequent (IPCC, example, in the UK breeding birds extended their ranges by 19 km on
2007a). average between 1968 and 1988 in association with increasing
The changes discussed above are generally thought of as gradual temperatures. Behaviour and phenology changes are also observed
incremental changes. For the arguments in this paper we have mostly with earlier nesting times, delayed migration to the South, and
used the IPCC results, but there are other sources of information. changes in the times of breeding and the size of eggs. A recent study of
“Shock scenarios” can be used to examine which complex adaptation 122 terrestrial bird species concluded that since about 1985 climate
strategies might be needed and which consequences they might have change has influenced population trends across Europe and the
(for shock scenarios in the ALARM project see Carter and Rounsevell impacts appear to be stronger over time; the populations of 92 species
(2004)). Examples for such climate change shocks are the collapse of have declined as a result of climate change, while the populations of
the West-Antarctic ice sheet (see for instance Van der Sluijs and 30 species increased (Gregory et al., in press).
Turkenburg, 2006; Tol et al., 2006) or the shut-down of the In tropical or sub-tropical regions, longer dry periods are a threat
thermohaline ocean circulation in the North Atlantic (see for instance to the elephant population in sub-Saharan Africa (CBD, 2007). Some of
Vellinga and Wood, 2002). A particular risk associated with climate the largest remaining areas where tigers occur are the mangrove
change are so-called “tipping points” (see, for example, the discussion forests of Asia. The projected rise of sea-level could lead to the
in EEA, 2008b) beyond which large and rapid changes in the behaviour disappearance of the tiger's habitat, threatening the survival of the
of natural and socio-economic systems can occur. Some of these species (CBD, 2007).
potential non-linear changes are related to positive feedbacks in the An important source of biodiversity that is being affected by
climate system (Jaeger, 2007). Going beyond “tipping points” in the climate change is soil biodiversity. EEA (2008b) points out that climate
climate system would have major consequences for biodiversity. change alters the habitats of soil biota, which changes the diversity
and structure of species and their abundance.
3.3. State of biodiversity and changes due to the pressure of climate The synthesis volume of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
change summarises the observed impacts of climate change with the
conclusion that there is very high confidence that recent warming is
The Convention on Biodiversity finds that “the current levels strongly affecting terrestrial biological systems, including the kinds of
of human impact on biodiversity are unprecedented, affecting the examples given above. Furthermore, the IPCC (2007c) points to the
planet as a whole, and causing large-scale loss of biodiversity” (CBD, observations of changes in marine and freshwater biological systems
2003, p. 2). Many subsequent studies have documented changes of due to the increasing temperature of the water as well as related
biodiversity as a result of climate change, most recently, for example, changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation.
EEA (2008b). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) points Thuiller et al. (2005) conclude from their research within ALARM
out that climate change may have been a contributing factor in the that many European plant species could become severely threatened
extinction of at least one species, the golden toad (Pounds et al., 1999). under different climate change scenarios. They examined the threat
Present evidence also suggests strong and persistent effects of climate for 1350 plants species for the period from 2051 to 2080 for the four
change on both plants and animals, evidenced by substantial changes main IPCC scenarios. Furthermore, it has been estimated that a 2 °C
to the phenology and distribution of many taxa (Parmesan and Yohe, temperature increase poses a limit for ecosystems, beyond which they
2003; Root et al., 2003). For example, there have been substantial suffer severe damage and non-linear responses increase (Van der
advances in the dates of bird nesting, budburst and migrant arrivals Sluijs and Turkenburg, 2006). Thomas et al. (2004) estimate that 15–
across the Arctic and in this region both birds and butterflies have 37% of a sample of 1103 land plants and animals would eventually
shown considerable northward range expansions (Parmesan et al., become extinct as a result of climate changes expected by 2050.
1999; Walther et al., 2002). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Potential changes of ecosystems and biodiversity due to climate
(2005) points out that certain species or communities will be more change are (IPCC, 2002; CBD, 2003):
prone to extinction than others. Vulnerable species often have one
or more of the following features: limited climatic ranges, restricted - Ecosystem boundaries can move due to changes in precipitation
habitat requirements, reduced mobility, or isolated or small and temperature; some ecosystems are able to expand into new
populations. areas, while others diminish.
Some of the observed changes of biodiversity attributed to climate - Habitats of many species might move poleward from their current
change include examples in the Arctic, mountain ecosystems and coral locations. If, when, where and how fast they migrate varies
reefs. In the Arctic, shorter periods of sea ice coverage are endangering strongly among species. Species that live together in an ecosystem
the polar bear's habitat and existence by giving them less time to hunt. are unlikely to move together, thus the composition (biodiversity)
In 1960 the average weight of polar bears in western Hudson Bay, of many ecosystems will change.
Canada, was 650 lb. In 2004, their average weight was only 507 lb. It is - A drought or disease can kill off a small population, which is
believed that the progressively earlier break-up of the Arctic sea ice is unlikely to be replenished.
responsible for this change (CBD, 2007). Climate change has also been - The reproduction time of species will change the length of the
observed to have serious impacts on mountain ecosystems. For growing season in some regions.
example, in the Alps, some plant species have been migrating upwards - Diseases might spread more easily and pests might reproduce
by one to four meters per decade and some plants previously only faster.
found on mountain tops have disappeared (CBD, 2007). Rising ocean - Sea-level rise threatens coastal wetlands (20% by 2080 according to
temperatures have been cited as one of the causes of massive coral IPCC (2002)), including salt marsh habitats and mangroves, as well
bleaching episodes (Buddemeier et al., 2004). Widespread coral as coral reefs, which are vulnerable and ecologically valuable areas.
bleaching was unknown before the 1980s and there is evidence that It could also increase coastal erosion and salinization of soil.
warming together with intense El Nino events have resulted in a - Some ecosystems are very vulnerable to climate change and might
dramatic increase since then. The largest coral bleaching event was in thus respond fast. Among these are coral reefs, mangroves, high
1998 (Wilkinson, 2002). mountain ecosystems, and permafrost areas.

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 5

- Endemic mountain plant species are threatened by the upward Cultural services of ecosystems are strongly connected to the
migration of more competitive sub-alpine shrubs and tree species, species living in such ecosystems. If they are lost or changed, such
to some extent because of climate change. services cannot be offered any longer or are provided in another way,
- Projected changes in European annual average temperature are which might but need not always lead to a reduction of human well-
outside the tolerance range of many mountain species. Projections being. The recreational service of coral ecosystems is a good example
suggest that these species would be replaced by more competitive of an ecosystem service that is threatened by climate change.
shrub and tree species, leading to considerable loss of endemic Increases in sea-surface temperature of about 1–3 °C are projected
species in mountain regions. to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread
- The survival rate of most bird species is likely to improve further mortality, unless there is thermal adaptation or acclimatization by
because of the projected rise in winter temperature. However, it is corals (IPCC, 2007b).
not yet possible to determine what impact this increasing survival Supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling are
will have on bird populations. changed if species are lost and if regulating services are changed. The
net primary productivity of some species will increase due to a higher
IPCC (2007c) finds that the resilience of many ecosystems is likely concentration of CO2. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
to be exceeded this century by the combination of climate change and also suggests that if multiple dimensions of biodiversity are driven to
associated disturbances, such as floods, droughts, wildfires, and very low levels, both the level and stability of supportive services may
insects, together with other global change pressures on biodiversity decrease.
such as land use change. The IPCC notes that for increases in global Changes of ecosystems' functions and losses of biodiversity due to
temperature exceeding 1.5–2.5 °C major changes in ecosystem the pressure of climate change can themselves affect the regional and
structure and function are projected to occur, with mainly negative global climate, for example through changes of uptake and release of
consequences for biodiversity. greenhouse gases; these feedbacks can be negative or positive (CBD,
The combination of the projected climate change, land use change 2003).
and spread of alien species might limit the migration capability of
species and their ability to survive in fragmented habitats (CBD, 2003). 3.5. Responses
Certain drivers of climate change, in particular energy sources, can
directly change the state of ecosystems. This is well described in the This paper focuses on the pressure of climate change on
4th Global Environmental Outlook of UNEP (2007, chapter on biodiversity. This section therefore focuses on responses related to
biodiversity). For instance, oil spills have enormous impacts on the pressure of climate change.
aquatic and marine ecosystems, the use of biomass leads to the Since greenhouse gases have long residence times in the atmo-
monoculture of fuel plants which increase soil and water pollution sphere, the earth will be affected for many decades or even centuries
from fertilizer and pesticide use, soil erosion and water run-off with by the atmospheric burden that humans are creating today. This is
subsequent loss of biodiversity, or building large dams for water especially true for so-called long-lived greenhouse gases (i.e. CO2, N2O,
power plants leads to loss of forests, habitat and species populations. PFCs, SF6; CO2 has an atmospheric life time of up to 200 years or CF4
more than 50,000 years). For several centuries after the CO2 emissions
occur, about one quarter of the increase in CO2 concentrations caused
3.4. Impacts of ecosystem and biodiversity change by these emissions is still present in the atmosphere (IPCC, 2001).
Model experiments show that even if all greenhouse gas concentra-
Functions, goods and services of ecosystems are strongly con- tions were held constant at the levels of the year 2000, a further
nected to the biodiversity of these systems and are a basis for human warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about
survival and well-being (for a description of these goods and services 0.1 °C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans (IPCC,
see, for example, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)). These 2007a).
ecosystem functions are divided into supporting, provisioning, Because the oceans respond more slowly to global warming than
regulation and cultural functions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the atmosphere does, the thermal expansion of the oceans, a major
2005). cause for sea-level rise, would continue for many centuries after the
If species are lost or migrate to other areas they cannot provide atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were stabilized. For
food, water, fuelwood, fiber, biochemicals or genetic resources any example, IPCC (2007a) shows that if radiative forcing were stabilized
longer, or only to a limited extent, although the ecosystem as a whole in 2100 at the levels of the A1B scenario (one of the SRES emission
could continue to function. Climate change influences the climate scenarios5), thermal expansion alone would lead to 0.3 to 0.8 m of sea-
regulation function of an ecosystem directly, but also indirectly via the level rise by 2300 compared with the level in 1980–1999. The thermal
change of the land cover and plants in a given area. An important expansion would continue for many centuries due to the time
regulating function of ecosystems is the uptake of carbon dioxide. required to transport heat into the deep ocean.
Over the course of this century, it is estimated that net carbon uptake There are basically two main strategies for tackling the issue of
by terrestrial ecosystems is likely to peak before mid-century and then climate change: mitigation of greenhouse gases and adaptation to
weaken or reverse, thus amplifying climate change (IPCC, 2007a). The impacts. Both of them are addressed in the following.
climate regulation function of forests is another example of a service
threatened by climate change. Forests have a higher evapotranspira- 5
SRES is the Special report on emissions scenarios published by the IPCC. In 1992
tion than other ecosystems, such as grasslands. Thus forests have a the IPCC released for the first time emission scenarios to be used for driving global
moistening effect on the atmosphere and become a moisture source circulation models to develop climate change scenarios. These scenarios were path
breaking. They were the first global scenarios to provide estimates for the full suite of
for downwind ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
greenhouse gases. In 1996 the next generation of SRES scenarios was released. The
The decline of forests, such as the Amazon forest, as a result of new scenarios also provide input for evaluating climatic and environmental
changed precipitation patterns will severely affect this regulating consequences of future greenhouse gas emissions and for assessing alternative
service. Other regulating services, such as the regulation of disease, mitigation and adaptation strategies. They include improved emission baselines and
are also influenced and altered by climate change and by the change of latest information on economic restructuring throughout the world, examine different
rates and trends in technological change and expand the range of different economic-
land cover and plant composition. For example, warming and development pathways, including narrowing of the income gap between developed
increased precipitation support the spread of disease vectors such as and developing countries. The scenarios were used as input fort he 3rd and 4th IPCC
the mosquito. assessment reports. See for instance: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission.

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

Mitigation is the “anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources to renewable energy technologies is of course strongly dependent on
or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases” (IPCC, 2002, p. 69). Any the potential given in a country. Austria or Switzerland, for example,
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions contributes to a mitigation or at are countries with a high proportion of rivers and a high share of
least deceleration of climate change, which reduces threats and biomass and can thus more easily produce energy from hydropower
pressures on humans and non-humans. Adaptation is the “adjustment than other European countries. This has to be considered when
in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic requiring certain shares of renewable energy. Besides switching to
stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial renewables, incentives to increase energy efficiency and saving play
opportunities”, (IPCC, 2002, p. 62). an important role in responses to climate change. Although in recent
These strategies can be seen as complementary. On the one hand, years adaptation to climate change was an important topic on the
even if emissions are reduced to allow the achievement of a stable agenda of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
level of atmospheric GHG concentration, as indicated above, adapta- Change (UNFCCC) and IPCC and a lot of literature has been devoted to
tion would be necessary due to the fact that the impacts of increased this issue, the discussion about adaptation and concrete policy
GHG concentrations on climate and ecosystem functions occur with measures is lagging behind that about mitigation (Levina and Tirpak,
an extreme time lag. On the other hand, adaptation alone would not 2006).6 Annex I member countries of the UNFCCC7 are required to
be sufficient for ecosystems to further evolve or stay resilient. There report about their mitigation and adaptation activities on a regular
are limits to the adaptive capacity of ecosystems and of social systems basis. These reports show clearly that adaptation is not seen to be as
to new states such as increased temperature or reduced precipitation relevant as mitigation and only a few countries worldwide report on
(on resilience, adaptation and adaptive capacity, see for example actual implementation of adaptation measures. Measures are mainly
Adger, 2000; Berkes and Folke, 1998; Brooks, 2003; Brooks et al., taken or planned in coastal zone management because of the threat of
2005; Gallopin, 2006; Smit and Wandel, 2006). These considerations a sea level rise, natural hazards management (due to avalanches,
introduce an important time dimension into the discussion of floods, landslides), water resource management, flood defence
adaptation and mitigation strategies. If action is taken within the planning, land-use planning, agriculture, health, protection of areas
next 8 years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, drastic affected by floods, drought, and desertification (Gagnon-Lebron and
climate changes can be avoided (IPCC, 2007a). For example, the IPCC Agrawala, 2006). However, no country has a comprehensive approach
(2007a) calculates that a stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse to implement adaptation in policies and projects.
gases at the levels of the year 2000 would lead to a global temperature Mitigation is able to reduce impacts on all systems, while
increase of 0.3–0.9 °C at the end of the present century, while a high adaptation is targeted at selected systems. As the results of adaptation
emissions scenario shows temperature increases of 2.4–6.4 °C during policies can also depend strongly on local socio-economic and
the same time period. The stabilization would strongly reduce the institutional contexts, the effectiveness of adaptation measures is
need for adaptation but not eliminate it. less certain than that of mitigating GHG by for instance using less
Mitigation activities influence biodiversity. Depending on the fossil fuels, which directly reduces the causes or driving forces of
design and implementation of those strategies, their temporal and climate change. The success of adaptation measures is not directly
spatial scale and the ecosystem in question, they can have positive, measurable and difficult to evaluate, because effects often cannot be
neutral or negative impacts (UNEP, 2007). Examples of such strategies related to specific measures.
are provided by IPCC (2000) and include land use, land use change and In developing countries adaptation is often regarded as priority, as
forestry activities (LULUCF) such as afforestation, reforestation and a large proportion of their population is dependent on resources that
land management practices, as well as the use of renewable energy are climate sensitive and as their adaptive capacity is lower. The
sources (biomass, wind power, solar power etc.) instead of fossil fuels. potential for adaptation or adaptive capacity of human-environment
Some of these strategies may lead to loss of biodiversity, for instance systems is dependent on various factors (Toman and Bierbaum, 1996):
by substituting rapidly growing tree plantations for diversified forests
- the level of understanding of processes in these systems and
in order to increase carbon uptake, or by growing biofuel crops (see
options for preserving the flows of services provided by them;
also UNEP, 2007).
- the diffusion of this knowledge among the affected decision
Other mitigation activities, leading to the reduction of fossil fuel
makers and stakeholders;
use or activities using fossil fuels or enhancing sequestration by sinks,
- the financial and human resources available for adaptation
are taxes on emissions, carbon and/or energy subsidies favouring
measures.
renewable energy sources, (non-)tradable permits, regulations and
laws restricting the use of fossil fuels, voluntary agreements, The potential is quite large in countries with high levels of capital,
technology and performance standards, support of energy efficiency stores of human knowledge, high levels of technology, good
improvement, road pricing, etc. (see IPCC, 2001; Working Group III infrastructure and social institutions available for adaptation efforts.
Mitigation and IPCC, 2007b). Their impact on biodiversity is rather Activities that enhance the capacity are often the same as those
indirect via a reduced or mitigated climate change. promoting sustainable development (IPCC, 2001).
The reduction of GHG emissions not only has effects on According to the definition, adaptation involves adjustments in
biodiversity but could also have various impacts on the economy, as systems as a response to impacts of climate change. These adjust-
briefly explained here using the example of renewable energy. Despite ments can be changes in processes, practices or structures to reduce
the well-known positive economic effects of an increased use of the damages or to benefit from opportunities (IPCC, 2001). Different
renewable energies (e.g. the creation of additional jobs, the reduction forms of adaptation can be distinguished, e.g. (1) autonomous
of dependency on fossil fuels, etc.) and their potential to reduce GHG adaptation of human and natural systems, which are usually not
emissions there may also be some negative impacts on the economy. sufficient to counteract all negative impacts of climate change,
An abrupt switch to an energy system depending mainly on renew-
able energy sources would lead to severe problems in many economic 6
At COP 11 (2005) a five-year programme of work on impacts, vulnerability and
sectors (e.g. high investments, missing or low potentials for expanding adaptation to climate change was adopted. It should assist the UNFCCC in making
renewables, problems of electricity storage, alternative usages of crops decisions on adaptation measures.
7
like food or wood), but also for individuals (heating, mobility). Thus, Annex I Parties of the UNFCCC include the industrialized countries that were
members of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in
some authors argue that the energy systems can only be changed over 1992, plus countries with economies in transition (the EIT Parties), including the
several decades and therefore suggest reducing the emissions of GHG Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and several Central and Eastern European States
by up to 4% per year (Van der Sluijs and Turkenburg, 2006). The switch (http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php).

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 7

especially in the case of extreme weather events; and (2) planned are geared to reducing CO2 emissions (and subsidizing farmers) but they
adaptation (either reactive or anticipatory), which is costly and still present a risk for biodiversity (either in Europe or in exporting countries).
leaves damages. The impacts of biofuels on biodiversity have been discussed by Russi
Adaptation aims at moderating the adverse effects of climate (2007, 2008). The new European energy strategy, presented on 10th
change through a set of actions. The general term adaptation has to be January 2007, says that biofuels should represent at least 10% of the
qualified for specific cases by specifying who or what adapts to which energy used for transport. The main argument behind the policies in
stimulus and in which process or form (IPCC, 2001). A package of favour of biofuels is that biofuels would not increase the concentration of
different measures is more effective than a single measure (Levina and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, the amount of carbon
Tirpak, 2006). The objectives of adaptation policies should be dioxide emitted by biodiesel in the combustion phase is the same as that
embedded in the overall objectives of a nation/region. absorbed by the plant during its growth. However, a more careful analysis
Adaptation measures can have positive (e.g., adaptation of of the life cycle of biodiesel reveals that the energy (and CO2) savings is
agriculture by using more crop varieties) or negative (e.g., building not as high as it might seem at first sight, and in some cases might even be
of dams that can dissect landscapes or submerge ecosystems) impacts negative. In fact, the raw materials for biofuels are normally obtained with
on biodiversity. Measures, such as maintaining and restoring native intensive agriculture, which imply a high use of fertilizers, pesticides and
ecosystems, protecting and enhancing ecosystem services, establish- machinery. Also, fossil fuels are used in the processing phase (oil pressing,
ing nature reserves, integrated land and water management activities, trans-esterification) and for transporting the oil seeds to the processing
and paying attention to traditional knowledge, are likely to have plant and from there to the final users.
positive effects. The introduction of new species or certain manage- There are also disadvantages of large-scale biodiesel production. Due
ment practices is likely to have negative impacts with various levels of to the low yield, the land requirement is enormous. The Biomass Action
severity (see, for example, Rodriguez-Labajos et al., 2009-this issue). Plan calculates that in order to achieve the 5.75% target (18.6 million tons
Measures that increase the species-richness or genetic diversity of biofuels) about 17 million hectares would be needed, i.e. one fifth of the
ecosystems can be important as they can lead to an increase of the European tillable land. Since there is not so much marginal and
potential to adapt to climate change (CBD, 2003; IPCC, 2002) and thus abandoned land in Europe, the consequence would be the substitution
increase the adaptive capacity of a system. However, the advantages of of food crops and a huge increase of food imports.9
such measures can be outweighed by the introduction of invasive For this reason, both in the Biomass Action Plan and in the EU Strategy
species. There are opportunities for adaptation in agriculture and for Biofuels it is stressed that Europe will promote the production of raw
forestry that could, however, be costly (IPCC, 2001). material for biofuels in extra-European countries. This means that the
Recently, in other countries, such as Ecuador and Nigeria, a form of impacts of energy farming would be exported to Southern countries. It is
mitigation with positive impacts on biodiversity initiated by civil society is easily foreseeable that if the European demand for biofuels increased
heavily discussed. One can distinguish two activities here: leave oil or coal because of biofuel obligations and other supporting policies, Southern
in the ground to prevent CO2 emissions and also to preserve biodiversity countries may be stimulated to replace if not food crops at least native
and avoid deforestation, which increases the CO2 uptake and thus forests with large monocultures.
decreases its concentration in the atmosphere and maintains ecosystems Energy farming would presumably have a big role in deforestation,
and their functions. For both options payments should be provided. because pristine forests would be cut down in order to cultivate energy
An example is the ITT Yasuni proposal, in Ecuador. This proposal was crops. The consequences would include a reduction of wild biodiversity.
developed by the civil society. The idea, first expressed in the Oilwatch Moreover, taking into account the CO2 emissions due to inter-continental
position paper in Kyoto in 1997, is to keep fossil fuels in the ground and transport and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to deforestation
thus to receive carbon credits. In the ITT oil field in the Yasuni national (forests are CO2 sinks), the final result might be an overall increase of the
park, about 920 million barrels of heavy oil would remain in the ground in greenhouse emissions instead of the intended reduction. Also, a large
perpetuity or in a moratorium sine die. This maintains an area that is scale biodiesel production would imply a strong environmental impact in
inhabited by indigenous groups and that is rich in unique biodiversity. the agricultural phase: the huge monocultures of energy crops would
The avoided emissions of CO2 are on the order of 410 million tonnes from dramatically reduce agricultural biodiversity, with strong environmental
the oil, plus some more from the avoided gas flaring and avoided impact in terms of soil erosion, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and water
deforestation. Keeping the oil in the ground and thus not profiting from requirement. Also, one of the consequences may be an increase in the use
this resource financially would mitigate climate change and reduce the of GMOs.
biodiversity loss. For this, Ecuador is asking for monetary compensation
(Martinez-Alier and Temper, 2007). 4. Conclusions
Synergies exist between mitigating climate change, adapting to
climate change and enhancing conservation of biodiversity (CBD, 2003) This paper has shown that the DPSIR framework is useful for
and these synergies can be seen as an opportunity to implement mutually structuring the analysis of the linkages between climate change as a
beneficial activities in response to climate change and loss of biodiversity. pressure on biodiversity and the resulting consequences for biodiversity,
For example, setting up a biological corridor, which is a measure to ecosystem services and policy responses. As a result of a wide range of
conserve biodiversity, can also increase the uptake of CO2 by the new human activities, or driving forces, the concentrations of greenhouse
plants. gases in the atmosphere are increasing. This is leading to global and
With its “European Climate Change Programme II: Impacts and European surface air temperature increases (IPCC, 2001, 2007a). The
Adaptation”8 (launched in October 2005) the European Union has already potential consequences of further increased emissions are still not fully
recognized that Europe must adapt to the climate change impacts that are explored, but further temperature increases are expected, as well as rising
already inevitable (see above) in addition to avoiding and reversing sea levels, changes of precipitation, and more frequent occurrences of
climate change through mitigation. However, so far, climate change “extreme” weather events such as floods and droughts. All of these
considerations were not integrated into key EU environmental policies, changes are pressures on biodiversity. Changes of climate together with
such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the Habitats Directive and the Water other human activities will lead to the extinction or migration of species,
Framework Directive, to any great extent (EEA, 2005). On the other hand, loss of habitats, and fragmentation. Changes of biodiversity lead to
European policies on increasing the biofuel content in transportation fuels
9
Brown, L.R. 2006. Supermarkets and service stations now competing for grain. Earth
Policy Institute Eco-Economy Updates. July 13. Available at http://www.earth-policy.org/
8
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/eccp_impacts.htm. Updates/2006/Update55.htm.

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 I. Omann et al. / Ecological Economics xxx (2009) xxx–xxx

changes of ecosystem services and thus have impacts on human well- IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002. Climate Change and
Biodiversity. IPCC Technical Paper V. Geneva. Gitay, H., Suárez, A., Watson, RT.,
being. The response options are to mitigate climate change and to adapt to Dokken, DJ. (Eds).
it. It is important, however, to ensure that climate mitigation and IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007a. Climate Change 2007: The
adaptation strategies are developed and implemented with the issue of Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge UK.
biodiversity in mind. Climate adaptation and mitigation strategies that IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007b. Climate Change 2007:
ignore the issue of biodiversity run the risk of undermining social and mitigation of climate change. Summary for Policy Makers. Cambridge University
natural resilience. Linking biodiversity and climate change strategies offers Press, Cambridge UK.
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007c. Climate change 2007: synthesis
co-benefits.
report. Summary for Policy Makers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Jaeger, J., 2005. Was verträgt unsere Erde noch? Wege in die Nachhaltigkeit. Frankfurt,
Fischer Verlag.
Acknowledgements Kromp-Kolb, H., Formayer, H., 2005. Schwarzbuch Klimawandel. Wie viel Zeit bleibt uns
noch?. Ecowin Verlag der TopAkademie GmbH, Salzburg.
Kuldna, P., Poltimäe, H., Luig, J. and Peterson, K., 2009-this issue. Human pressures on
We are grateful to Laura Maxim, Iliana Monterroso, Joan Martinez- pollinators: an application of DPSIR model. Ecological Economics.
Alier and Joachim Spangenberg for comments on different versions of this Latif, M., 2007. Bringen wir das Klima aus dem Takt. Forum für Verantwortung. Fischer.
paper. Levina, E., Tirpak, D., 2006. Adaptation to Climate Change. Key Terms. COM/ENV/EPOC/
IEA/SLT(2006)1. OECD, Paris.
The work for this paper was carried out within the 6th Framework Martinez-Alier, J., Temper, L., 2007. Oil and climate change: voices from the south.
Project ALARM, Number GOCE-CT-2003-506675. Economic and Political Weekly 16–19 Dec. 15.
Maxim, L., 2009-this issue. Driving Forces of chemicals risks for the European
biodiversity.
Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J.H. and O'Connor, M., 2009-this issue. An analysis of risks for
References
biodiversity under the DPSIR framework.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Adger, W.N., 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human
Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Geography 24 (3), 347–364.
Parmesan, C., Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42.
sustainability. In: Berkes, F., Folke, C. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems.
Parmesan, C., et al., 1999. Poleward shifts in geographical ranges of butterfly species
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–25.
associated with regional warming. Nature 399, 579–583.
Binimelis, R., Monterroso, I., and Rodríguez-Labajos, B., 2009-this issue. Catalan
Pounds, J.A., Fogden, M.P.L., Cambell, J.H., 1999. Biological response to climatic change
agriculture and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). An application of DPSIR
on a tropical mountain. Nature 398, 611–615.
model.
Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Binimelis, R. and Monterroso, I., 2009-this issue. Multi-level
Birdlife International, 2008. Birdlife International's Position on Climate Change. Birdlife
driving Forces of Invasive Species. A Literature Review. Universitàt Autonoma de
International, Cambridge, UK.
Barcelona.
Brooks, N., 2003. Vulnerability, risk and adaptation: a conceptual framework. Tyndall
Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C., Pounds, J.A., 2003.
Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich. Working Paper 38.
Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421, 57–60.
Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and
Russi, D., 2007. Social Multi-Criteria Evalutacion and Renewable Energy Policies. UAB, Bar-
adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global
celona. retrieved June 2007 at http://www.uab.es/servlet/Satellite?cid=1096481466574&
Environmental Change 15, 151–163.
pagename=UABDivulga%2FPage%2FTemplatePageDetallArticleInvestigar&param1=
Buddemeier, R.W., Kleypas, J.A., Aronson, R.B., 2004. Coral Reefs and Global Climate
1096483480228.
Change. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington DC. http://www.
Russi, D., 2008. An integrated assessment of a large-scale biodiesel production in Italy:
pewclimate.org/docUploads/Coral_Reefs.pdf (2004).
Killing several birds with one stone? Energy Policy 36 (3), 1169–1180.
Carter, T. and Rounsevell, M., 2004. Scenario Strategy Document. Interim document
Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
outlining a climate and land use scenarios strategy for use in ALARM. Deliverable
Environmental Change 16 (3), 282–292.
1.1.2 of the FP6 project ALARM. Contract Number: GOCE-CT-2003-506675.
Spangenberg, J.H., 2007. Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind. Ecological
CBD, Convention on Biological Diversity, 2003. Interlinkages between biological
Economics 61, 146–158.
diversity and climate change. CBD Technical Series 10 Montreal.
Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P.D., Jäger, J., Matson, P.A., Moore, B., Oldfield, F.,
CBD, 2007. Climate Change and Biodiversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity,
Richardson, K., Schellnhuber, H.J., Turner, B.L., Wasson, R.J., 2004. Global Change
Bo, Germany. http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2007/ibd-2007-booklet-01-en.pdf.
and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Dow, K., Downing, T.E., 2006. The Atlas of Climate Change. Earthscan.
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., et al., 2004. Extinction risk from climate change.
EEA, European Environmental Agency, 2004. Greenhouse gas emission trends and
Nature 427, 145–148.
projections in Europe 2004. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. EEA
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araujo, M.B., Sykes, M.T., Prentice, I.C., 2005. Climate change
report No. 5/2004.
threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of
EEA, 2005. Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Europe. European
Sciences 2, 8245–8250.
Environment Agency Briefing 2005/03. http://reports.eea.europa.eu/briefing_2005_3/
Tol, R.S.J., Bohn, M., Downing, T.E., Guillerminet, M.L., Hizsnyik, E., Kasperson, R.,
en/briefing_3_2005.pdf.
Lonsdale, K., Mays, C., Nicholls, R.J., Olsthoorn, A.A., Pfeifle, G., Poumadere, M., Toth,
EEA, 2006. Transport and the environment: facing a dilemma. European Environment
F.L., Vafeidis, A.T., van der Werff, P.E., Yetkiner, I.H., 2006. Adaptation to five metres
Agency, Copenhagen. EEA Report No. 3/2006.
of sea level rise. Journal of Risk Research 9, 467–482.
EEA, 2008a. Climate for a transport change. European Environment Agency, Copenha-
Toman, M.A., Bierbaum, R., 1996. An overview of adaptation to climate change. In:
gen. EEA Report No 1/2008.
Smith, J.B., et al. (Ed.), Adapting to Climate Change: An International Perspective.
EEA, 2008b. Impacts of Europe's Changing Climate – 2008 Indicator-based Assessment.
Springer, New York.
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. EEA Report No 4/2008.
UKCIP, Technical report, 2004. Costing the impacts of climate change in the UK. Oxford.
European Commission, 2001. White Paper: European transport policy for 2010: time to
UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme, 2005. Towards a UNEP Environment
decide. 12.9.2001, COM(2001) 370 final.
Watch System; DRAFT, DEWA. Retrieved at http://www.unon.org/docs/K0582296%
Eyring, V., Köhler, H.W., Lauer, A., Lemper, B., 2005. Emissions from international
20%20Environment%20Watch%20Framework%20Proposal%20-%2011%20Jul%2005.
shipping – Part 2: Impact of future technologies on scenarios until 2050. DLR-
pdf.
Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Wessling, Germany.
UNEP, 2007. Global Environment Outlook GEO-4: Environment for Development.
Frei, C., Scholl, R., Fukutome, S., Schmidli, J., Vidale, P.L., 2006. Future change of
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. (www.unep.org/geo/geo4).
precipitation extremes in Europe: intercomparison of scenarios from regional
Van der Sluijs, J.P., Turkenburg, W., 2006. Climate change and the precautionary
climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D06105. doi:10.1029/2005JD005965.
principle. In: Fisher, E., Jones, J., von Schomberg, R. (Eds.), Implementing The
Gagnon-Lebron, F., Agrawala, S., 2006. Progress on Adaptation in Climate Change in
Precautionary Principle, Perspectives and Prospects. Edward Elgar.
Developed Countries: An analysis of Broad Trends. OECD, Paris. ENV/EPOC/GSP
Vellinga, M., Wood, R.A., 2002. Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic
(2006)1/FINAL.
Thermohaline Circulation. Climatic Change 54, 251–267.
Gallopin, G.C., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity.
Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T.J.C., Fromentin, J.-M.,
Global Environmental Change 16, 293–303.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Bairlein, F., 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change.
Gregory, R.D., Willis, S.G., Jiguet, F., et al., in press. An indicator of the impact of climatic
Nature 416, 389–395.
change on European bird populations (in press, cited in EEA 2008b).
Wilkinson, C., 2002. Coral bleaching and mortality — the 1998 event 4 years later and
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000. Special Report on Land-Use,
bleaching to 2002. In: Wilkinson, C. (Ed.), Status of coral reefs of the world: 2002.
Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Watson, RT., Noble JR:, Bolin, B., Verardo
Australian Institute of Marine Science. Retrieved at http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/
RJ:, Dokken, DJ (Eds.).
research/coral-bleaching/scr2002/scr-00.html.
IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Climate Change 2001 - Third
Assessment Report (TAR). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.

Please cite this article as: Omann, I., et al., Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: An application of the DPSIR approach, Ecological
Economics (2009), doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.01.003