Confronta i metodi

	Tapio Decoupling Analysis	IPAT Decomposition
Campo	Environmental Sociology	Environmental Sociology
Famiglia	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Anno di origine	2005	1971
Ideatore	Petri Tapio (building on OECD decoupling indicators)	Paul R. Ehrlich & John P. Holdren (IPAT); Yoichi Kaya (Kaya identity)
Tipo	Elasticity-based classification of growth-versus-pressure trajectories	Multiplicative accounting identity and decomposition of environmental impact
Fonte seminale	Tapio, P. (2005). Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transport Policy, 12(2), 137-151.	Ehrlich, P. R., & Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth. Science, 171(3977), 1212-1217.
Alias	Decoupling Elasticity Analysis, Tapio Decoupling Index, OECD Decoupling Indicator, Growth-Pressure Decoupling	IPAT Identity, Ehrlich-Holdren Identity, Kaya Identity Decomposition, Impact Equation
Correlati	3	4
Sintesi	Decoupling analysis measures whether economic growth can proceed without a proportional increase in environmental pressure such as emissions, energy use, or resource consumption. The elasticity-based formulation introduced by Petri Tapio in 2005, refining the earlier OECD decoupling indicator, expresses the relationship as the ratio of the percentage change in environmental pressure to the percentage change in an economic driving force, typically GDP. This single decoupling elasticity is then sorted into a logical scheme of states — strong and weak decoupling, expansive and recessive coupling, and strong and weak negative decoupling — that distinguishes the desirable case where pressure falls while the economy grows from the undesirable case where pressure grows faster than the economy. Tapio's scheme has become a standard diagnostic for tracking progress toward green growth and sustainability.	IPAT decomposition expresses environmental impact as the product of three factors, population, affluence, and technology, providing a simple accounting framework for attributing degradation to its proximate human drivers. The identity was crystallized in the debate between Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Barry Commoner around 1971, with Ehrlich and Holdren's Science article on the impact of population growth a foundational statement. In the equation, affluence is output per person and technology is impact per unit of output, so the three factors multiply back exactly to total impact, making IPAT a definitional identity rather than an empirical claim. Its best-known specialization, the Kaya identity, decomposes carbon emissions into population, GDP per capita, energy intensity of output, and carbon intensity of energy, and underpins much emissions-scenario work. By taking growth rates, IPAT also yields a clean additive decomposition that apportions the change in impact among its drivers. Because the identity assumes each factor contributes proportionally, it was the stimulus for the stochastic STIRPAT model, in which Dietz and Rosa relaxed that assumption to test the drivers statistically.