Developing indicators for wetlands conservat on using DPSIR framework: A systematic review in Ethiopia

Bealemlay Abebe Melake^*, Salie Mulat Endalew and Tamagnu Sintie Alamirew ^*Correspondence: Bealemlay Abebe Melake, Department of Environmental Health Science, College of Health and Medical Science, Haramaya University, P.O.BOX 235, Harar, Ethiopia, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Wetlands account for 890 million hectares (6%) of the global land surface. However, an estimated 50% of the world's wetlands have been lost in the last 50 years [1]. Ethiopia's landmass is made up of 2% of wetlands [2]. The country has two main freshwater resources: Surface water and groundwater. Surface water is composed of lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Gebresilassie et al., reported that Ethiopia has more than 58 wetlands that are composed of various landscapes, such as grasslands, grazing land, ground forest, woodland, and swamps (Figure 1). Ethiopia has a vast variety of wetlands, with the only exceptions being coastal and marine-related and wide swamp forest complexes [3-5].

Figure 1) Geographical distribution of Ethiopian wetlands

The supply of wetlands resources, which provide provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services, is crucial for riparian communities [6-8]. For example, wetlands provide or serve as a food source, water source, income source (eco-tourism), crop production, fish livestock, plant medication, fuel wood source; regulating services such as water purification, water storage and supply, sediment accretion, coastal flood control, pollutants retentions (microclimate regulation; carbon sequestration); supporting services like biogeochemical cycling, soil formation, pollination, shelter and care for diverse flora and fauna such as fungi, bacteria, phytoplankton, macrophytes, weed bed fauna, zooplankton, amphibians, reptiles and waterfowl and important for biodiversity and wildlife conservation [9-12]. Wetlands products are utilized as sources of cultural resources, spiritual services, house construction, educational and research services [13].

However, Ethiopian wetlands are facing many challenges and become heavily degraded due to wide driving forces or socioeconomic activities held on or nearby their catchments and driving factors include anthropogenic and natural forces [14]. In Ethiopia, the management of wetlands was compromised by the general public and decision-makers [15]. Different approaches can be used to model environmental problems and socio-economic factors. The Driver- Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework is the most commonly used model as a tool for integrating socioeconomic activities that could affect the wetlands ecosystem by identifying all driving factors (Figure 2). The DPSIR framework has a limited application in developing countries. The DPSIR framework has the potential to be utilized effectively as a systematic tool for decision and policymakers in wetlands conservation. More efforts are being made to address the degradation of wetlands in Ethiopia. Developing indicators for wetlands conservation using the DPSIR framework is not suggested by any evidence. This study is the first to develop DPSIR indicators for wetlands conservation in Ethiopia. Therefore, the aim of this review was; to highlight the importance of integrating the DPSIR framework with environmental indicators for wetlands conservation and to identify the current gaps in scientific investigations and provide suggestions for further studies that will promote a detail understanding of wetlands conservation through the application of DPSIR indicators.

Figure 2) A self-creation of DPSIR framework of wetlands degradation

Literature Review

The study has been conducted between May 12-August 16, 2022. Google Scholar, PubMed and SCOPUS were mainly used for web searching of peerreviewed articles. Totally, 135 papers were collected (Figure 3). To collected data, important keywords mainly “Wetlands”, “Wetlands in Ethiopia”, “Wetlands degradation” and “Wetlands ecosystem service” were used in the search engines databases. The focus of this study was published papers. The study period of peer-reviewed articles was left open-ended to permit for an applicable amount of literatures to be included. Throughout the review, all searches and the review may have a limitation according to the following considerations; published literatures may be omitted due to a lack of a linkage with the keywords, all used literatures were only in the English versions, some papers may not available due to closed or limited access to articles, others were not catalogued in these electronic databases and lastly online available MSc and PhD thesis works were not included.

Figure 3) A personal creation of the flowchart representing the methodology of the review

Results and Discussion

Depending on the scientific knowledge and documented literatures, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework analysis of Ethiopian wetlands degradation is analyzed. Drivers are hydrological and socioeconomic forces such as climate change, population growth, economic growth and government initiative (policy changes) [16,17]. This could be the reason for high cost of intervention on degraded wetlands, no quick and one-off solution to alleviate problems, little or lack of research, community awareness, knowledge of planners and resource managers and why Ethiopia has yet to ratify and implement the Ramsar convention. Pressures entertain human activities which directly contribute to wetlands degradation include deforestation or improper agricultural practices and expansions, urbanization, industrialization, recurrent drought, over extrapolation of wetland water, increase fish harvesting, lack of knowledge and awareness and weak policies on wetlands [18,19]. This may be due to the absence of a stand-alone national wetlands policy or strategy and the existing policies and laws have not adequately addressed the wetlands issue, and even some laws are contradicting the wise use of wetlands.

State changes of wetlands are existing environmental conditions affected by driving forces and may include wetlands size reduction, reduced water quality, habitat modification, reduced biodiversity richness, reduced fish livestock, biological invasions (invasive alien species), eutrophication and siltation or sedimentation [20]. This would happen due to improper intervention of the driving forces. The possible impacts of wetland degradation are direct and indirect effects of wetlands degradation and comprise loss of biodiversity, lack of food and food insecurity or malnutrition, climatic disturbance, low precipitation pattern and effect on the health of organisms (humans and animals). Absence of adequate protocols for assessment, monitoring and inventory of wetlands, sufficient formal institutional setup and legal framework and lacks of specialized experts in wetlands assessment and management may aggravate wetlands degradation. Finally, response to wetlands fragmentation includes human mitigation measures to overcome wetlands degradation and conserve wetlands are preferable to be applied to driving forces to alleviate pressures, state and impact. Ways used to reverse existing wetlands degradation which may include intervening in Driver-Pressure-Impact-State change factors as well as implementing sustainable resource management and conservation practice, technical support, funding, training and awareness creation or adequate knowledge on the status and functioning of wetlands, sufficient information database on wetlands, national inventories and National directory of wetlands, political conviction, prioritization and management plan for wetlands, continuous monitoring plan for wetlands and upstreamdownstream users relation, carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for developmental activities and strengthening and building partnership with stakeholders.

Following reviewing of literatures, to develop some important and applicable environmental indicators, DPSIR model was applied. The first outcome of DPSIR model and developed indicators was a conceptual framework of the DPSIR components and interaction between each identified component of the model (Figure 4 and Table 1). The conceptual framework was done in a way which enables an understanding of the causalrelationships between driving forces and socioeconomic impacts. Then, the preliminary list of environmental indicators for sustainable management and conservation of wetlands were identified. This was done based on professional experience and literature review and first, some steps were used for developing relevant indicators such as, identifying all the proxies which state a specific management challenge or wetlands degradation, sorting these identified proxies into DPSIR framework categories, establishing a linkage between the different components of DPSIR in terms of a conceptual model, assigning an indicator for each category of the developed conceptual model. Then, each component of the conceptual framework, not all, was taken as environmental indicator. Generally speaking, the overall effectiveness of the DPSIR framework can be maximized and should be integrated with a set of developed indicators for each category of DPSIR framework. However, further studies are necessary to build a concrete base of applicable and wise indicators for wetlands conservation.

Figure 4) The conceptual DPSIR framework components developed for wetlands conservation

TABLE 1 DPSIR framework components and developed indicators for wetlands conservation

Conclusion

Ethiopian wetlands are facing many challenges. Depending on the scientific knowledge and documented literatures, the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact- Response (DPSIR) framework analysis of Ethiopian wetlands degradation are analyzed. This review has shown studies deal with scientific information on Ethiopian wetlands status is much needed. Some steps were used for developing relevant environmental indicators based on professional experience and literature review. The application DPSIR framework can be enhanced by developing environmental indicators. The review will contribute to indicating the effectiveness of developed DPSIR framework indicators for wetlands conservation. Through the application of the DPSIR approach, this review may be important for future investigators and stakeholders, managers, planners and policymakers in Ethiopia and other parts of the world to implement either short-term or long-term plans, policies, programmers and strategies in wetlands degradation intervention and conservation. Therefore, these developed DPSIR indicators would be an input for planners and decision-makers for wetlands conservation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: BAM.

Developing methods: BAM, SME and TSA.

Data analysis: BAM, SME, TSA.

Preparation of figures and tables: BAM. Writing: BAM, SME, TSA.

All the authors have read and agreed to the final version in the publication of the review.

Funding

The review did not receive any external funding.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that, no conflict of interest.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

1. Geheb K, Abebe YD. Wetlands of Ethiopia: Proceedings of a Seminar on the Resources and Status of Ethiopia's Wetlands. IUCN; 2003.

   [Google Scholar]

2. Abebe T, Seyoumb A, Feyssac DH. Benefits of wetland conservation interventions to local households in southwestern Ethiopia: Empirical evidence from attributes-based valuation. J Environ Sci Water Resour. 2014;3(3):60-68.
3. Abera L. Current ecological scenario of some Rift Valley Lakes of Ethiopia: a review. Sustainable Systems. 2023;6(2).

   [Google Scholar]

4. Leykun Abunie LA. The distribution and status of Ethiopian wetlands: An overview. 2003:12-17.
5. Afework Hailu AH. Wetlands research in south-western Ethiopia: The experience of the Ethiopian Wetlands Research Programme. 2003:37-48.
6. Amsalu T, Addisu S. A review of wetland conservation and management policy in Ethiopian. Int J Sci Res. 2014;4(9):656.

   [Google Scholar]

7. Belete MD. Ecohydrology to harmonize industrialization and ecological safety in urban environment: Case of Hawassa Lake, industries and Cheleleka wetland. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. 2018;18(2):192-200.

   [Google Scholar]

8. Dabassa GB. The Challenges and Opportunities of Wetlands Management in Ethiopia: The Case of Abijiata Lake Wetlands. Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University. 2010.
9. Bezabih B, Mosissa T. Review on distribution, importance, threats and consequences of wetland degradation in Ethiopia. Int J Water Res Environ Eng. 2017;9(3):64-71.

   [Google Scholar]

10. Shibru D, Amera A. Socio-Economic Aspects of Cheleleka Wetland: Current Status and Future Prospects. IOSR J Humanities Soc Sci. 2019;24(8):79-89.

    [Google Scholar]

11. Deribe S. The Ramsar Convention on wetlands and the status of Ethiopia. InProceedings of the public meetings on harnessing the water resources of Ethiopia for sustainable development in the New Ethiopian Millennium Forum for Environment. Forum for Environment, Addis Ababa 2007:13-16.
12. Desta Z. Challenges and opportunities of Ethiopian wetlands: The case of Lake Awassa and its feeders. Wetlands of Ethiopia. 2003:67.

    [Google Scholar]

13. Dixon AB, Wood AP. Wetland cultivation and hydrological management in eastern Africa: Matching community and hydrological needs through sustainable wetland use. InNatural resources forum 2003:27(2):117-129.

    [Google Scholar]

14. Dixon AB, Wood AP. Local institutions for wetland management in Ethiopia: Sustainability and state intervention. InCommunity-based water law and water resource management reform in developing countries. Wallingford UK: CABI. 2007:130-145.

    [Google Scholar]

15. Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority (EEPA). Proceedings of the “National consultative Workshop on the Ramsar convention and Ethiopia”. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2004.
16. Eshete D. Wetland and Fishery Resources the Impact of Wetland Degradation on Fishery Resources Director for Livestock Research. Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute. 2008.
17. EWNRA. Proceedings of the National Stakeholders’ Workshop on Creating National Commitment for Wetland Policy and Strategy Development in Ethiopia. 2008.
18. Getachew M, Ambelu A, Tiku S, et al. Ecological assessment of Cheffa Wetland in the Borkena Valley, Northeast Ethiopia: Macroinvertebrate and bird communities. Ecol Indic. 2012;15(1):63-71.

    [Google Scholar]

19. Hailu A. An overview of wetland use in Illubabur Zone, South-western Ethiopia. A Woreda survey. Ethiopian Wetlands Research Project. 1998.
20. Hailu A. Wetlands research in south-western Ethiopia: The experience of the Ethiopian Wetlands Research Programme. Wetlands of Ethiopia. 2003:37.

    [Google Scholar]