Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 October 2013
Received in revised form 25 January 2014
Accepted 29 January 2014
Keywords:
Ecological risk assessment (ERA)
Risk factor
Risk zoning
Risk management
Iran Shadegan Wetland
a b s t r a c t
Nowadays, wetlands are at risk from a wide range of stress factors. Practical application of wetland
ecological risk assessment will result in a better understanding of how physical, chemical, and biological stressors impinge on wetlands and will provide a framework for prudent wetland management. An
important aspect of wetland management is to identify ecological risks affecting the area and to develop a
wetland-zoning map based on those risks. This study uses a process of ecological risk assessment (ERA) to
identify stress factors and responses within the framework of an ecosystem-based approach. All potential
environmental factors, physical, chemical and biological need to be examined in context. This study aims
to present a systematic methodology for risk assessment and zoning of wetland ecosystems. Initially,
the most important risks threatening wetlands are identied in an ecosystem-based approach. Endpoint
assessments are dened according to values and functions of the wetland and the ecological risks associated with these endpoints are identied. In the characteristics step, risks are analyzed according to
severity, probability and a range of consequences. A Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method is
used to prioritize these risks on the basis of experts opinions. Geographic Information System (GIS) is
used to develop a zoning map with a combination of risk layers according to importance. Finally, management strategies are proposed to deal with the risks. The proposed methodology was applied to Shadegan
International Wetland, located in southwestern Iran. This wetland is in the Montero list and is currently
threatened by various risks. According to the results, high-ranking potential risks and areas with different
levels of risk and management strategies were proposed for this wetland.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Wetlands are one of the three major types of ecosystem on
the Earth; they are formed through the interaction of land and
water systems and provide an irreplaceable ecological service
as an ecosystem for human society (Zedler and Kercher, 2005;
Kim et al., 2011). Wetland ecosystems have an important role
in maintaining biological diversity, they are also important for
biochemical transformation, storage, production of living plants
and animals and for decomposition of organic materials (USEPA,
2002; Clarkson et al., 2003). Wetlands have been exposed to a
range of stress-causing alterations from activities such as dredging
and lling operations, hydrologic modications, pollutant runoff,
eutrophication, impoundment, and fragmentation by roads and
ditches (Klemas, 2011). These activities cause disruption to the
ecological balance of animal and biotic reservoirs in wetlands
(Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004).
134
and Chau, 2006; Muttil and Chau, 2006). ERA evaluates the likelihood of potential adverse effects on ecosystems as a result
of exposure to one or more stress factors (USEPA, 1992). Currently, ecosystem-oriented models of ERA have proved efcient
in evaluating structural and functional responses within a variety of ecosystems to enable better environmental management
(Christian et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010, 2011). Applications of
ERA include assessments that range from screening-level (qualitative) to detailed (quantitative) or a combination of both (i.e. tiered
ERA); predictive to retrospective in temporal scale; local to global
in spatial scale; and single threat to multiple threats (USEPA, 1998;
Burgman, 2005). ERA involves examining an areas environmental conditions by means of environmental risk assessment analyses
that consider various aspects of the hazards as well as the vulnerability and specic environmental values of the studied area under
(Heller, 2006).
ERA of wetlands involves estimating potential hazards or threats
posed by stressors (chemical, physical, or biological) to biotic
and/or abiotic components of the wetland. This assessment forms
the information base that drives important environmental management decisions on a local, national, and international levels
worldwide. Practical application of this tool will result in a better
understanding of how physical, chemical, and biological stressors
impinge on wetlands and will provide a framework for prudent
wetland management. An important aspect of wetland management is to identify ecological risks affecting the area and to develop
a wetland-zoning map based on those risks. Wetlands can be
viewed as complex temporal and spatial mosaics of habitats with
distinct structural and functional characteristics. Because of the
unique characteristics of wetlands the key stressors and receptors
in the wetlands under study should be clearly identied and, if
necessary, prioritized in order to guide the risk assessment process. Risk characterization requires an understanding of the major
external and internal factors regulating the operational conditions
of a wetland. Furthermore, an ecosystem-based approach involves
determining links between these factors and identifying the way in
which stress factors affect the wetland.
Lemly (1997) examined the ERA of wetlands as a managerial
tool. The study developed an ecosystem-based approach toward
risk assessment in freshwater wetlands. Suter (2000) presented
an argument for developing generic assessment endpoints in ERA
that measured the ecological characteristics essential for protection
against risks by quantication, measurement and modeling. Kellett
et al. (2005) provided an analysis of ERA workshops for wetlands
of the Lower Burdekin, and recommended strategies for the execution of ERA for irrigation planning and assessment. Hanson et al.
(2008) evaluated ecological functions of the wetlands. This project
demonstrated that assessment of wetland functions provides key
information for wetland environmental assessment.
Wang and Cheng (2011) applied ERA in zoning of the Baiyangdian Basin in China. Using Geographic Information System (GIS) and
Remote Sensing (RS) technology, a region-wide environmental risk
visualization was produced that enhanced the effectiveness of environmental risk management. Zhang and Huang (2011) employed
a GIS-based multi-criteria method to evaluate potential nitrogen
loss at the basin level, and applied the model to the Huai River
Basin. The results helped to examine the complex responses of wetland systems to changes in land use under different socio-economic
circumstances.
A review of previous ERA studies reveals that the most recent
studies have used structural features and functions of wetlands
as valuable and important ecological features. Chen et al. (2013)
reviewed state-of-the-art models that were developed for ERA and
presented a system-oriented perspective for holistic risk evaluation and management. They concluded that assessing ecological
risk with system-based models at different levels of organization
(1)
In Tables 14, severity, probability, range of consequences and range of risks are classied from very low
to very high with scoring according to that taken from a
review of related literature, engineering judgments and
information gathered from brainstorming sessions with
135
Table 1
Classication and scoring of the severity in the wetland ecological risk assessment.
Table 2
Classifying range of the consequences in the wetland ecological risk assessment.
Expected consequence
Scores range
Class
Class
1513
1210
High (4)
97
Moderate (3)
64
Low (2)
<4
Table 3
Classifying of the probability in the wetland ecological risk assessment.
Expected probability
Class
Very likely
High (4)
Equal to 50%
Moderate (3)
Low (2)
136
Table 4
Classication and description of the risks in the wetland ecological risk assessment.
Risk range
Classication
Description
125101
10076
7551
Very high
High
Moderate
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Acceptance with
conditional control
Acceptable
Negligible
5026
<26
Low
Very low
assessment according to degree of importance and inuence. Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is used to
prioritize risks and effective indicators to estimate risk
levels. MCDM were applied in different EIA and ERA
studies such as Zhao et al. (2006) and Zhang et al.
(2009). MCDM is a class of decision-making methodology based on the premise of assisting a decision-maker
through the decision process via explicit formalized models
(Figueria et al., 2005). Belton and Stewart (2002) and Kiker
et al. (2005) presented a review of the available literature
and provide some recommendations for applying different
MCDM techniques. These include the AHP, ELimination and
Choice Expressing the REality (ELECTRE), Multi Attribute
Utility Theory (MAUT), Preference Ranking Organization
METHod for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE), and
various combinations of these methods.
AHP is a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons that relies on the judgments of experts to derive
Fig. 2. Location and specication of the Shadegan Wetland and related basin in Iran.
Wi Xi
(2)
137
Table 5
Different regions of the Shadegan Wetland (Pandam Consulting Engineers, 2002).
Shadegan Wetland
zones
Freshwater
Tidal
Coastal (Mosa
estuary)
Other and marginal
lands
Total
Total
Wildlife Refuge
Area (ha)
Percent
Area (ha)
120,378
222,252
115,978
22.4
41.3
21.6
75,310
252,455
23
77
79,123
14.7
327,765
100
537,731
100
Percent
(3) The coastal zone or saltwater wetland, which includes the Persian Gulf coastline to at the water depth of 6 m. The Mosa
estuary and several small islands are also in this area.
Wetland vegetation is a vital characteristic of such an environment, it is important in terms of sustainability of the ecological
and economic values of the wetland. The Shadegan Wetland, in
addition to its global value was granted status as Wildlife Refuge
by the Iran Department of Environment. Table 5 presents freshwater and tidal zones of the Wildlife Refuge areas in the wetland.
The most signicant human activities affecting the Shadegan Wetland are those of dam construction and irrigation projects in the
Jarahi catchment, oil and gas platforms, industrial projects, infrastructure projects, exploitation of wetland resources and tourism.
Recently, human activities such as water pollution, indiscriminate exploitation of biological products of the wetland, drought
and change in natural habitats have directly or indirectly affected
the wetland functions (Rahimi Blouchi, 2012). This wetland is
in the Montero list and is now threatened by several risks.
Despite its unique values, this wetland is now far removed from
Table 6
Assessment of ecosystem functions and values of Shadegan Wetland (Behan Dam
Consulting Engineers, 2010, according to IUCN booklet, Dugan, 1990).
Function
Values
Statues of
values in
Shadegan
Wetlanda
Hydrologic ux and
storage
Groundwater recharge
Groundwater discharge
Flood control and protection
Water supply
Biological productivity
Food storage
Forest resource
Wildlife resources
Aquatic
Forage resources
Agricultural resources
Historical and cultural
resources
Biogeochemical cycling
and storage
Biodiversity
Tourism/recreation
Preservation of ora and fauna
(refuge)
Threatened, rare, and
endangered species
Community/wildlife
habitat (ecological)
a
() absent or exceptional, () present, () common and important value of
wetland.
138
Table 7
Characteristics of the risk factors in Shadegan Wetland.
Risk factor
Receivers
Range of consequences
Drought/low water
occurrence
Freshwater zone
- Reduces denitrication,
biological uptake and
photosynthesis
- Diminishes species richness
- Freshwater zone
- Tidal zones in the south of
Abadan Mahshahr road
Over exploitation of
natural resources
Organisms dependent to
natural resources
Entrance of agricultural
and livestock wastewater
- Short-term: increases
productivity
- Long-term: encourages
invasive species, decreases
species
- Reduces diversity and
production
- Enhances adsorption of some
chemicals
- Eutrophication
Oil pollution
- Biological magnication
- Soil pollution and
contamination of groundwater
Change in ow regime
Freshwater zone
- Reduces groundwater
recharge
- Increases evapotranspiration
- Increases concentration of
inorganic
Road construction
- Reduces biodiversity
- Disturbing hydrological ows
- Reduces the water quality
- Habitat loss
- Northern part
- North of the Wildlife Refuge
Entrance of industrial
wastewater
its natural condition. This study aimed to identify and manage the most stress inducing risks that threaten the wetland
and to maintain its ecological balance and to protect the study
area.
4. Results and discussion
Prior to modeling an ERA, it is important to identify previously
developed information for the wetland under consideration in the
study. Information from aerial photographs, historical maps and
139
Table 8
Results of calculation of the risks in the Shadegan Wetland.
Risk factor
Severity
Range of
consequence
Probability
Risk level
Importance
weight in
AHP
Weighted
risk
Risk
ranking
number
4
2
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
2
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
5
5
3
3
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
60
20
60
40
60
60
80
80
60
80
80
60
0.064
0.090
0.061
0.056
0.098
0.072
0.087
0.082
0.089
0.099
0.12
0.082
3.84
1.8
3.66
2.24
5.88
4.32
6.96
6.56
5.34
7.92
9.6
4.92
9
12
10
11
5
8
3
4
6
2
1
7
140
Fig. 4. Risk zoning layers for risk factors in Shadegan Wetland. (a) High temperatures and high evaporation, (b) salinity, (c) over exploitation of biological resources, (d) water
pollution, and (e) change in natural habitat
141
Table 9
Percentages of categories in each layer in the ecological risk zoning of Shadegan Wetland.
Category of risk
Very high
High
Moderate
Low
Very low
Risk factor
High temperatures and
high evaporation
Salinity of
wetland water
Over exploitation of
natural resources
Water
pollution
Change in natural
habitats
Final zoning
map
10.07
7.67
6.37
5.48
70.41
6.9
5.9
6.22
4.25
76.7
5.54
1.05
2.25
17.02
86.44
12
15
33
30
10
16.59
8.81
5.87
7.82
60.91
10.4
11.56
14.88
44.09
19.07
142
Table 10
Management strategies (control measures) for reducing effects of risk factors in Shadegan Wetland.
Risk factor
Risk level
Affected zone
Category
Rating
High
Change in ow regime
High
Freshwater zone
Entrance of industrial
wastewater
High
High
Medium
Oil pollution
Medium
Road construction
Medium
- Constructing culverts
- Maintaining the wetland habitat
corridors
Medium
Freshwater zone
Medium
Medium
10
(1) High temperature and high evaporation (Fig. 4a): due to high
temperature, the greatest inuence was on the shallow parts of
the wetland. To produce this layer, water depth in the freshwater zone was used as an index. Water depth in different parts of
the wetland varied from a few centimeters to about 3 m. Zoning of the wetland was done with regards to the adverse effects
of high temperature on wetland ora and fauna. Shallow parts
were determined as having a high level of risk and the deep
parts with lower levels.
(2) Salinity of wetland water (Fig. 4b): This map was produced from
data on electrical conductivity of wetland water in the freshwater zone. Electrical conductivity changed at different parts
of the wetland water ranging from 1.4 to 21 dS/m. Those parts
with high salinity were considered as high risk and vice versa.
(3) Over exploitation of natural resources (Fig. 4c): the likely extent
of impact of the over exploitation are considered as zoning
criteria. The buffer extension in GIS software was used to produce this map. The inuence of distance for direct and indirect
impacts was considered at 50 and 2000 m, respectively. In locations that had been over exploited, distance of the buffer zone
increased from the centers of points, lines or polygons. Areas
with risk level ranked as very high and high were those of freshwater wetland in the vicinity of villages due to road access roads
in those areas.
(4) Water pollution (Fig. 4d): Data on source pollution and entrance
points to the wetland were used to develop this layer. The main
sources of water pollution were those of upstream irrigation
development projects, the sugar cane industry in the northern
part of wetland, petrochemical activity in Mahshahr, shipping,
carbon and steel industries in Ahvaz, Maroon desalination,
wastewater from surrounding cities and villages in the east
area of freshwater wetland and burst pipes that leaked oil into
the wetland. Wastewater outlets from agricultural and livestock farms, industrial, rural and urban areas, and oil pollution
were considered in this layer. Due to lack of data on amounts
of pollution concentrations in the wetland, sources of pollution and their relative entrance points; these values were rated
according to experts opinions, judgments of engineers and
information collected from eld studies. Industrial pollution,
rural and urban pollution, oil pollution, agricultural and livestock pollution and other pollutions were rated as very high,
high, moderate, low, and very low, respectively. The Spatial
Analyst interpolation was used in GIS software to produce this
layer. The Spatial Analyst interpolation was used in GIS software
to produce this layer.
(5) Change in natural habitat (Fig. 4e): This layer was prepared
from a map of existing land-use in the wetland. Zoning was
done according to the inuence distance of change in land-use.
The inuence distance was determined as the spatial extent
or footprint of change in the natural habitat on the wetland
and represents the maximum distance at which a feature has
a negative impact on the wetland. For example, adverse effects
of roads within the wetlands ecological range were considered
to have a range of impact extending to 1000 m (Forman et al.,
2003). The inuence distances for direct and indirect impacts
were considered as 200 and 1000 m, respectively. The buffer
extension was used in GIS software to produce this map. The
zones that were evaluated as having very high and high levels
of risk were in areas disturbed by human activities.
Percentage of categories in each layer that were used for ecological risk zoning of the Shadegan Wetland are given in Table 9. Based
on Step 4 of the methodology, by applying importance weights from
Table 8, the nal ecological risk-zoning map of the Shadegan Wetland was produced and is shown in Fig. 5. As can be seen in this
gure, the area that was evaluated with the least risk was that of
the southern wetland in the saltwater area, probably because it
was a pristine environment inaccessible to humans. Evaluations
determined the area most at risk was the northern area of the wetland, a freshwater area with access roads that facilitated of human
access to the wetland. This map enables decision makers and environmental planners to regulate human activities in and around the
wetland.
Results of sensitivity analysis on the nal risk-zoning map show
that classication of the nal risk-zoning map did not change
with variation of important weights of up to 30% change, on
these weights. These results show acceptable stability in classication of risk-zoning layers. In addition, the nal risk-zoning map
was sensitive to the elimination of each layer and more sensitivity was observed for elimination of the layer representing over
exploitation. Based on the results of risk analysis and the ecological risk-zoning map, strategies to manage and reduce the ecological
risks of Shadegan Wetland are abstracted in Table 10. The proposed
management strategies for the wetland were determined by the
above-mentioned ecosystem-based approach. In Table 10, risk factors were ordered according to the ranking number of each risk
143
from Table 8. Zones relating to each risk factor are described with
regards to the risk-zone maps.
5. Conclusions
Development projects such as road construction, thermal power
plants, transmission lines, oil and petrochemicals and factories
threaten the life of wetlands. In order to protect and manage
wetlands in a sustainable way, it is necessary to reduce ecological risks that impact on the wetlands. The best approach toward
applying ERA in wetland studies is ecosystem-based management.
In this study, an ecosystem-based approach was considered to
present a methodology for identifying and characterizing risks and
to develop management strategies. Experts opinions were used to
prioritize risks according to the AHP. A zoning map of the risks that
threaten the wetland was developed using GIS.
Risk zoning is an important measure in environmental risk management. It involves dividing an area into sub-areas according to
general risk characteristics. Identifying the similarities and differences of risk factors between sub-areas by making comparisons
between sub-areas can help to determine the most appropriate
environmental risk management policies. The GIS that was used in
this article constitutes a powerful tool for decision-makers in conservation to establish preferences, which need to identify human
activities in terms of spatial interactions and other factors that
inuence the health and viability of critical habitats and key species
in a wetland.
ERA can provide a description of the actual situation of ecological, health status or risks that threaten wetlands. The presented
methodology can be redeveloped to apply to different types of
wetlands to identify and manage the risks. This method focuses
on identication of wetland endpoints and conservation of values
associated with these endpoints. This target is obtained by identication of hazards/threats to values of the wetland endpoints.
Results of this study for Shadegan Wetland reveal that the stressors inicted on the environment of this wetland causes adverse
effects on characteristics of the wetland. Alteration in natural habitats, changes in the water balance of wetland, water pollution,
over exploitation of biological resources, and drought are the main
stressors of this wetland. All of these factors are interrelated and
due to the complexity of wetland ecosystems, it is difcult to separate the effects and consequences of these factors.
For Shadegan Wetland, management strategies are suggested on
the basis of the results of this research. Preventing change in wetland land-use, providing sufcient water for the wetland, ensuring
water quality of the wetland, protecting biodiversity, sustainable
use of wetland resources, increasing awareness of wetland values
and threats, and promoting public participation are the main goals
of the proposed strategies. Most threats in the study area were
found to be in the northern region and in areas of freshwater that be
attributed to the existence of access roads in such areas that facilitate increased human access to the wetland. The lowest risk zone
was identied in the southern part of the wetland in a saltwater
region that is a pristine environment inaccessible to humans.
The key stressors and receptors in a wetland under consideration must be clearly identied in order to make properly targeted
risk assessment and to provide useful data. However it is very difcult to assess and determine the threshold of permitted reserves
of these resources and to identify stress factors in those wetlands,
in which potential reserves of biological components do not have
any scientic data or documentation. Further development of the
proposed methodology can focus on risk assessment of wetland
functions to manage the activities that reduce capacity of the wetland ecosystem. Assessment of wetland functions through standard
quantitative risk assessment can be used to restore wetlands and
144
Holland, C.C., Honea, J., Gwin, S.E., Kentula, M.E., 1995. Wetland degradation and
loss in the rapidly urbanizing area of Portland, Oregon. Wetlands 15 (4),
336345.
Kellett, B.M., Walse, T., Baristow, K.L., 2005. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Wetlands of the Lower Burdekin, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 26/05.
Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Applications of
multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management 1 (2), 95108.
Kim,.K.G., Lee, H., Lee, D.H., 2011. Wetland restoration to enhance biodiversity in
urban areas a comparative analysis. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 7,
2732.
Klemas, V., 2011. Remote sensing of wetlands: case studies comparing practical
techniques. Journal of Coastal Research 27 (3), 418427.
Kotze, D.C., Ellery, W.N., Macfarlane, D.M., Jewitt, G.P.W., 2012. A rapid assessment
method for coupling anthropogenic stressors and wetland ecological condition.
Ecological Indicators 13, 284293.
Lemly, A.D., 1997. Risk assessment as an environmental management tool: considerations for freshwater wetlands. Environmental Management 21 (3), 343358.
Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Progress in Planning 62 (1), 365.
McPherson, M., Schill, S., Raber, G., John, K., Zenny, N., Thurlow, K., Sutton, A.H.,
2008. GIS-based modeling of environmental risk surfaces (ERS) for conservation
planning in Jamaica. Journal of Conservation Planning 4, 6089.
Muttil, N., Chau, K.W., 2006. Neural network and genetic programming for modelling coastal algal blooms. International Journal of Environment and Pollution
28 (3/4), 223238.
Pandam Consulting Engineers, 2002. Planning and management studies of Shadegan
Wetland. rst volume, Report of the workshop on Shadegan Wetland Ecosystem
Approach.
Pastorok, R.A., Bartell, S.M., Ferson, S., Ginzburg, L.R. (Eds.), 2002. Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems, and
Landscapes. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Radu, L.D., 2009. Qualitative, semi-quantitative and, quantitative methods for risk
assessment: case of the nancial audit. Analele Stiintice ale Universitatii
Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi 56, 643657.
Rahimi Blouchi, L., (Masters thesis) 2012. Environmental Risk Assessment of Shadegan International Wetland in order to provide management strategies. Faculty
of Environment, University of Tehran.
Ralph, W.T., 2003. Geographically isolated wetlands of the United States. Wetlands
23 (3), 494516.
Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63, 2735.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004. Ramsar Handbooks for the Wise Use of Wetlands, 3rd ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
Saaty, T.L., 2000. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International
Journal of Services Sciences 1 (1), 8398.
Shadegan City Department of Environment, 2010. Shadegan Wetland Environmental Status Report on the First Half, 13 pp.
Spieles, D.J., 2005. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25 (1), 5163.
Suter, G.W., 2000. Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk
assessment. Risk Analysis 20 (2), 173178.
Tiner, R.W., 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-92/001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Introduction to Wetland Biological Assessment. Ofce
of Water, Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-02-014.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1998. Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, USA,
EPA/630/R-95/002F.
Wang, B., Cheng, H., 2011. Environmental risk zoning research in Baiyangdian Basin.
Procedia Environmental Sciences 10 (Part C), 22802286.
Wu, C.L., Chau, K.W., 2006. Mathematical model of water quality rehabilitation
with rainwater utilization a case study at Haigang. International Journal of
Environment and Pollution 28 (3/4), 534545.
Yang, Z., Mao, X., 2011. Wetland system network analysis for environmental ow
allocations in the Baiyangdian Basin, China. Ecological Modelling 222 (2022),
37853794.
Zedler, J.B., Kercher, S., 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30,
3974.
Zhang, H., Huang, G.H., 2011. Assessment of non-point sources pollution using
a spatial multicriteria analysis approach. Ecological Modelling 222 (2),
313321.
Zhang, K., Kluck, C., Achari, G., 2009. Comparative approach for ranking contaminated sites based on the risk assessment paradigm using fuzzy PROMETHEE.
Environmental Management 44 (5), 952967.
Zhao, M.Y., Cheng, C.T., Chau, K.W., Li, G., 2006. Multiple criteria data envelopment
analysis for full ranking units associated to environment impact assessment.
International Journal of Environment and Pollution 28 (3/4), 448464.