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 a b s t r a c t
Article history: Nowadays, wetlands are at risk from a wide range of stress factors. Practical application of wetland
Received 18 October 2013 ecological risk assessment will result in a better understanding of how physical, chemical, and biologi-
Received in revised form 25 January 2014 cal stressors impinge on wetlands and will provide a framework for prudent wetland management. An
Accepted 29 January 2014
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
Keywords:
identify stress factors and responses within the framework of an ecosystem-based approach. All potential
Ecological risk assessment (ERA)
environmental factors, physical, chemical and biological need to be examined in context. This study aims
Risk factor
Risk zoning
to present a systematic methodology for risk assessment and zoning of wetland ecosystems. Initially,
Risk management the most important risks threatening wetlands are identied in an ecosystem-based approach. Endpoint
Iran Shadegan Wetland assessments are dened according to values and functions of the wetland and the ecological risks asso-
ciated 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, manage-
ment 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.
1470-160X/$ see front matter 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.038
134 B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144
and Chau, 2006; Muttil and Chau, 2006). ERA evaluates the like- in a combined way, presents an evolutionary step for application
lihood of potential adverse effects on ecosystems as a result of risk evaluation in environmental management.
of exposure to one or more stress factors (USEPA, 1992). Cur- This study presents a systematic methodology in an ERA for wet-
rently, ecosystem-oriented models of ERA have proved efcient land ecosystems to identify stresses and responses. The method
in evaluating structural and functional responses within a vari- used in this study applies all physical, chemical and biological
ety of ecosystems to enable better environmental management stress factors affecting the environment in a semi-quantitative risk
(Christian et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2010, 2011). Applications of assessment approach. For this purpose, the most important envi-
ERA include assessments that range from screening-level (qualita- ronmental risks are identied. In the characteristics step, risks are
tive) to detailed (quantitative) or a combination of both (i.e. tiered analyzed according to severity, probability and range of conse-
ERA); predictive to retrospective in temporal scale; local to global quence. These indicators are then used to determine scope and
in spatial scale; and single threat to multiple threats (USEPA, 1998; extent of each risk. The determinations of proposed measures to
Burgman, 2005). ERA involves examining an areas environmen- be applied in environmental control were made from gathering
tal conditions by means of environmental risk assessment analyses experts opinions. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is used to
that consider various aspects of the hazards as well as the vulnera- prioritize risks. A zoning map of risks threatening the wetland is
bility and specic environmental values of the studied area under developed using GIS. This map identies wetland parts according to
(Heller, 2006). level of risk to achieve optimum planning with an ecosystem-based
ERA of wetlands involves estimating potential hazards or threats approach. Finally, management strategies are proposed to deal with
posed by stressors (chemical, physical, or biological) to biotic these risks. The methodology has been subsequently applied to
and/or abiotic components of the wetland. This assessment forms Shadegan International Wetland, located in the southwest of Iran.
the information base that drives important environmental man- This wetland is in the Montero list and is now threatened by various
agement decisions on a local, national, and international levels factors.
worldwide. Practical application of this tool will result in a better
understanding of how physical, chemical, and biological stressors 2. Methodology
impinge on wetlands and will provide a framework for prudent
wetland management. An important aspect of wetland manage- A framework was developed for assessing the ecological risks
ment is to identify ecological risks affecting the area and to develop for wetland areas using a semi-quantitative approach. Semi-
a wetland-zoning map based on those risks. Wetlands can be quantitative methods are used to describe the relative risk scale.
viewed as complex temporal and spatial mosaics of habitats with For example, risks can be classied into categories like very low
distinct structural and functional characteristics. Because of the low, moderate, high and very high. In a semi-quantitative
unique characteristics of wetlands the key stressors and receptors approach, different scales are used to characterize the likelihood
in the wetlands under study should be clearly identied and, if of adverse events and their consequences. Analyzed probabilities
necessary, prioritized in order to guide the risk assessment pro- and their consequences do not require accurate mathematical data
cess. Risk characterization requires an understanding of the major (Radu, 2009). In semi-quantitative methods, risk indicators and val-
external and internal factors regulating the operational conditions ues are determined according to information on real available data
of a wetland. Furthermore, an ecosystem-based approach involves as well as using judgments made by experts. Fig. 1 presents a struc-
determining links between these factors and identifying the way in tural illustration of the methodology applied to wetland ecological
which stress factors affect the wetland. risk assessment. This structure was formed with a combination of
Lemly (1997) examined the ERA of wetlands as a managerial risk assessment technique, the AHP method and the GIS tool. The
tool. The study developed an ecosystem-based approach toward method was according to the following steps:
risk assessment in freshwater wetlands. Suter (2000) presented
an argument for developing generic assessment endpoints in ERA Step 1: Identication of ecological endpoints and ecological risks
that measured the ecological characteristics essential for protection associated with these endpoints. In order to set the ecolog-
against risks by quantication, measurement and modeling. Kellett ical endpoints, according to the International Conversation
et al. (2005) provided an analysis of ERA workshops for wetlands Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) booklet (Dugan,
of the Lower Burdekin, and recommended strategies for the exe- 1990), the most important wetland values and functions
cution of ERA for irrigation planning and assessment. Hanson et al. and the main related endpoints are identied. Assessment
(2008) evaluated ecological functions of the wetlands. This project endpoints are the functions and associated values that need
demonstrated that assessment of wetland functions provides key to be protected, enhanced, or created through risk man-
information for wetland environmental assessment. agement (Lemly, 1997). The focus of ecological endpoint
Wang and Cheng (2011) applied ERA in zoning of the Baiyang- assessment is to determine ecological endpoints that are
dian Basin in China. Using Geographic Information System (GIS) and threatened (Pastorok et al., 2002).
Remote Sensing (RS) technology, a region-wide environmental risk Step 2: Risk characterization step. In this step risks are analyzed
visualization was produced that enhanced the effectiveness of envi- according to severity, probability and consequence. A risk
ronmental risk management. Zhang and Huang (2011) employed index is calculated by analyzing severity, exposure and
a GIS-based multi-criteria method to evaluate potential nitrogen probability (SEP) in a semi-quantitative approach with Eq.
loss at the basin level, and applied the model to the Huai River (1).
Basin. The results helped to examine the complex responses of wet-
land systems to changes in land use under different socio-economic Risk = Probability of the risk range of consequences
circumstances.
of risk severity of the risk (1)
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) In Tables 14, severity, probability, range of conse-
reviewed state-of-the-art models that were developed for ERA and quences and range of risks are classied from very low
presented a system-oriented perspective for holistic risk evalua- to very high with scoring according to that taken from a
tion and management. They concluded that assessing ecological review of related literature, engineering judgments and
risk with system-based models at different levels of organization information gathered from brainstorming sessions with
B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144 135
Table 1 Table 2
Classication and scoring of the severity in the wetland ecological risk assessment. Classifying range of the consequences in the wetland ecological risk assessment.
Expected consequence Scores range Class Wetland exposed area (portion of total area) Class
Destroying the integrity and 1513 Very high (5) All of the wetland and the surrounding ecosystems Very high (5)
existence (5) Three quarter () High (4)
Changes in the hydrological 1210 High (4) Half () Moderate (3)
balance and regime (4) One quarter () Low (2)
Disruption of the biological 97 Moderate (3) Less than one quarter () Very low (1)
balances (3)
Changes in physical and 64 Low (2)
chemical parameters (2) Table 3
Disruption of the <4 Very low (1) Classifying of the probability in the wetland ecological risk assessment.
biogeochemical cycles (1)
Expected probability The likelihood of the Class
consequence
Fig. 2. Location and specication of the Shadegan Wetland and related basin in Iran.
B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144 137
Wetland is about 537,731 ha, of which almost 61% is protected as a Biological productivity Food storage
Wildlife Refuge (Environmental Protection Agency of Iran, 2010). Forest resource
Wildlife resources
This natural wetland has important hydrological, biological and
Aquatic
ecological signicance in terms of maintaining normal functions of Forage resources
the basin and coastal system. There are more than 100,000 water Agricultural resources
bird species with ve of the worlds rare species of bird in this Historical and cultural
wetland. The unique diversity of this wetland includes plant and resources
animal species specic to freshwater, brakish and saltwater envi- Biogeochemical cycling Stabilize the shoreline/erosion
ronments. Specications of different parts of the Shadegan Wetland and storage control
are given in Table 5 (Pandam Consulting Engineers, 2002; Shadegan Sediment control/toxic
materials
City Department of Environment, 2010). As can be seen in Fig. 2 and Protection from storm/wind
Table 5, the Shadegan Wetland consists of three distinct parts: break
Wastewater treatment
(1) A freshwater zone, which is located in the upper part of the wet- Water quality
land. This area is fed by the Jarahi River and has lush vegetation Community/wildlife Biodiversity
cover. habitat (ecological) Tourism/recreation
Preservation of ora and fauna
(2) A tidal zone, which is located in the southern part of the wet-
(refuge)
land (downstream of the Abadan-Mahshahr highway). The area Threatened, rare, and
is inuenced by the tides of the Persian Gulf and involves multi- endangered species
ple waterways (estuaries). Upstream freshwater is mixed with a
() absent or exceptional, () present, () common and important value of
downstream saltwater as freshwater passes through the land. wetland.
138 B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144
Table 7
Characteristics of the risk factors in Shadegan Wetland.
Drought/low water - Reduction in productivity and - All organisms in the soil and All of the wetland and the
occurrence survival of the wetland aquatic life surrounding ecosystems
- Reduction of hydrological - Humans dependent to
stability wetland
High temperature and high - Increase of chemical and All organisms in aquatic life Freshwater zone
evaporation biological functions rates
- Reduction in species richness
Salinity of wetland water - Reduces denitrication, All organisms in the soil and - Freshwater zone
biological uptake and aquatic life - Tidal zones in the south of
photosynthesis Abadan Mahshahr road
- Diminishes species richness
Sedimentation and lling - Depresses biological uptake, All organisms in the soil and Freshwater zone (sediment
processing and photosynthesis aquatic life entrance from the northern
- Diminishes species richness rivers)
- Reduces groundwater
recharge
- Changes in sediment particle
size
Over exploitation of - Increases erosion potential Organisms dependent to - Freshwater zone (The vicinity
natural resources - Establishment of invasive natural resources villages)
species - Northeastern Wildlife Refuge
- Reduces the interception,
condensation, evaporation and
surface roughness - Reduces
sediment stabilization
Entrance of agricultural - Short-term: increases - All organisms in the soil and Freshwater zone (from
and livestock wastewater productivity aquatic life northern part)
- Long-term: encourages - Humans dependent to
invasive species, decreases wetland
species
Entrance of industrial - Reduces diversity and - All organisms in the soil and Freshwater and tidal zones
wastewater production aquatic life (from industries on the north
- Enhances adsorption of some - Humans dependent to and northwest)
chemicals wetland
- Eutrophication
Entrance of rural and urban - Diminishes habitat suitability - All organisms in the soil and Freshwater and tidal zones
waste water - Reduces photo-oxidation and aquatic life (from central and southwest)
increases denitrication rate - Humans dependent to
wetland
Oil pollution - Biological magnication - All organisms in the soil and - Northern boundary of the
- Soil pollution and aquatic life Wildlife Refuge
contamination of groundwater - Humans dependent to - A part of tidal zone in
wetland southern
Change in ow regime - Reduces in water inow - All organisms in the soil and Freshwater zone
- Reduces in water ow aquatic life
purication - Humans dependent to
wetland
Change in natural habitats - Reduces groundwater All organisms in the soil and All of the wetland and the
recharge aquatic life in wetland surrounding ecosystems
- Increases evapotranspiration
- Increases concentration of
inorganic
Road construction - Reduces biodiversity All organisms in the soil and - Northern part
- Disturbing hydrological ows aquatic life in wetland - North of the Wildlife Refuge
- Reduces the water quality
- Habitat loss
its natural condition. This study aimed to identify and man- land-use documents are useful for gaining an understanding of the
age the most stress inducing risks that threaten the wetland history and status of an area. It is also important to gain an under-
and to maintain its ecological balance and to protect the study standing of the hydrologic and geologic forces affecting a wetland.
area. Understanding a wetlands function and determining its values is
an important part of ERA for wetlands. These functionvalue rela-
4. Results and discussion tionships provide an important conceptual framework that can
formulate the operations goals and objectives.
Prior to modeling an ERA, it is important to identify previously Application of ERA methodology on the Shadegan Wetland
developed information for the wetland under consideration in the rstly used important values and functions of Shadegan Wetland
study. Information from aerial photographs, historical maps and to determine endpoints. Assessment of the Shadegan Wetland in
B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144 139
Table 8
Results of calculation of the risks in the Shadegan Wetland.
Risk factor Severity Range of Probability Risk level Importance Weighted Risk
conse- weight in risk ranking
quence AHP number
terms of its ecosystem functions and values was done according probability and to determine the range of consequences for each
to the method cited in the IUCN booklet by Behan Dam Con- risk from the step that evaluated risk analysis. According to the
sulting Engineers (Behan Dam Consulting Engineers, 2010). The severity index, drought (low water occurrence), sedimentation and
booklet includes eld studies and information on environmen- over exploitation of plant resources of the wetland were evalu-
tal characteristics of the wetland and this information was used ated as having the greatest level of risk (very high). Also, factors of
to complete the IUCN checklist for values of the Shadegan Wet- high temperatures and high evaporation were evaluated as having
land. Results of this assessment are presented in Table 6. Then, the lowest level of the risk. According to the consequence index,
the most important ecological endpoints were identied according drought, change in ow regime and change in the natural habi-
to these values and functions. All of the parameters (hydrological tat were evaluated as having the greatest amount of risk (very
and ecological) that were considered critical to long-term sus- high). In addition, factors of high temperatures and high evapo-
tainability of the wetland were considered as possible ecological ration, gradual sedimentation and lling and over exploitation of
endpoints. Biogeochemical processes such as hydrological regime, plant resources of the wetland were evaluated as having the lowest
primary productivity (food web stability), biodiversity (abundance, level of risk (low). According to the probability index, almost all of
species richness), sensitive and natural habitats, integrity and the stressors have continuous impact and as such are associated
existence of wetland, were determined as the most important end- with a very high level of risk.
points. Table 8 shows calculations of risk level based on Eq. (1). Results
Risks and stressors imposed on Shadegan Wetland were iden- of risk calculation for each of the risk factors show that almost all
tied in accordance with the ecological endpoints and shown in of the risks were evaluated as having high and medium level risk.
Table 7. This table describes harmful potential effects, receivers Table 8 shows the industrial wastewater outlets, rural and urban
and the range of consequences for each risk factor. The most impor- waste-water outlets, and changes in natural habitats that were had
tant consequences of determined by evaluation of risk factors were the maximum degree of risk. Also, the lowest amounts of the risk
identied as destroying the integrity and existence of the wetland, were calculated for factors of high temperatures and high evapora-
changes in its hydrological balance and regime, biological imbal- tion. Results of sensitivity analysis on the risk assessment values in
ance, changes in physical and chemical parameters and disruption Table 8 show the evaluations for elimination of the criteria range
of biogeochemical cycles of the wetland. of consequence, probability, and severity that contribute to a
The risk factors threatening Shadegan Wetland were analyzed change in risk level of about 31.4, 22.4, 26 and risk ranking numbers
according to step 2 of the methodology and are presented in Table 8. of about 91%, 41.7%, 8%, respectively. These evaluations show the
The information shown in Table 7 was used to calculate severity, importance of considering these three criteria, especially that of
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
B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144 141
Table 9
Percentages of categories in each layer in the ecological risk zoning of Shadegan Wetland.
High temperatures and Salinity of Over exploitation of Water Change in natural Final zoning
high evaporation wetland water natural resources pollution habitats map
range of consequence in wetland ecological risk assessment. Also, the risk assessment in the study region. It is essential that those
variation evaluations for these three criteria show changes of up individuals that contribute to process of wetland ecological risk
to 27% but evaluations for risk level and risk ranking number are assessment have a common understanding of some basic princi-
stable. These evaluations demonstrate an acceptable level of stabil- ples from both disciplines. Thus, access to experts with scientic
ity in calculations of risk values in the proposed methodology for knowledge of the area was difcult in this particular case study. In
wetland ecological risk assessment. Sensitivity analysis on impor- total, contributions from the opinions 15 experts were considered
tance of weights, based on average weights, shows that risk ranking and conrmed by the AHP Consistency Ratio. Five environmen-
number is dependent on about 33.3% in terms of importance talists, ve water resources experts, and ve agricultural experts
weights. were used in brainstorming session and to answer a questionnaire.
A hierarchical structure of the ecological risks, according to the Expert Choice software (www.expertchoice.com) was used for cal-
indexes of the risks (severity, range of consequences and proba- culations of AHP weights. Final weights of AHP for the risk factors
bility) is shown in Fig. 3. Information on experts opinions was are presented in Table 8. Risk factors were prioritized by multi-
used to weight the criteria and alternatives of the risks through plying risk level and importance weight of each risk. Rankings of
Pairwise Comparison according to the hierarchical structure. In risks are shown in the last column of Table 8, and represent the
this study, national experts were selected from different organi- priority of each risk factor, for the wetland. Based on these priori-
zations in the region. There was a lack of communication and ties, change in natural habitat factor was high ranking factors and
understanding between the wetland community and those doing sedimentation and lling factor was low ranking factors.
Table 10
Management strategies (control measures) for reducing effects of risk factors in Shadegan Wetland.
Category Rating
Change in natural habitats High 1 All of the wetland and - Developing a legal regional
surrounding ecosystems binding guideline to prevent land
use changes
- Avoid or minimize wetland
disturbance by applying wetland
setback regulation
Entrance of industrial High 3 Freshwater and tidal zones - Industrial wastewater treatment
wastewater - Continuous monitoring of
wetland water quality and
applying water quality standards
Entrance of rural and urban High 4 Freshwater and tidal zones - Keeping the canebrakes in the
wastewater entrance
Over exploitation of natural Medium 5 Freshwater zone and - Identifying the capacity of grazing
resources Northeastern of Wildlife and harvesting of hays and straws
Refuge - Establishing buffer strips for
arable lands
- Developing wetland operation
guidelines
Oil pollution Medium 6 Northern boundary of the - Insulating the oil transfer pipes
Wildlife Refuge and a part of
tidal zone
Entrance of agricultural and Medium 8 Freshwater zone - Controlling the time and amount
livestock wastewater of using agricultural materials
Drought/low water occurrence Medium 9 All of the wetland and - Designing a drought monitoring
surrounding ecosystems network in the Jarahi Basin
Salinity of wetland water Medium 10 Freshwater and tidal zones - Usage of halophyte plants
- Transfer of agro-industrial
complexes of saline drainage water
to Persian Gulf (at 6 m depth of sea)
Table 8 shows changes in natural habitats, changes in upstream (1) High temperature and high evaporation (Fig. 4a): due to high
ow regimes (such as dam building in the catchment of Jarahi), temperature, the greatest inuence was on the shallow parts of
industrial wastewater outlets, rural and urban wastewater outlets, the wetland. To produce this layer, water depth in the freshwa-
over exploitation of natural resources of the wetland, oil pollution, ter zone was used as an index. Water depth in different parts of
agricultural and livestock wastewater outlets, road construction in the wetland varied from a few centimeters to about 3 m. Zon-
and around the wetland, and drought occurrence in recent years ing of the wetland was done with regards to the adverse effects
were determined as the main risks threatening the Shadegan Wet- of high temperature on wetland ora and fauna. Shallow parts
land respectively. were determined as having a high level of risk and the deep
Based on the importance of risk factors and available infor- parts with lower levels.
mation, ve layers were selected for consideration in wetland (2) Salinity of wetland water (Fig. 4b): This map was produced from
ecological risk zoning. Change in natural habitat, water pollution data on electrical conductivity of wetland water in the fresh-
(by wastewater outlets), over exploitation of biological resources, water zone. Electrical conductivity changed at different parts
salinity of wetland water, and high temperature and high evapora- of the wetland water ranging from 1.4 to 21 dS/m. Those parts
tion are the layers that were developed in ecological risk zoning. with high salinity were considered as high risk and vice versa.
Wetland risk-zoning layers were produced using spatial analyst (3) Over exploitation of natural resources (Fig. 4c): the likely extent
tools in Arc-GIS 9.3 software (Environmental Systems Research of impact of the over exploitation are considered as zoning
Institute ESRI, 2008). Each layer was reviewed, classied and ranked criteria. The buffer extension in GIS software was used to pro-
according to the degree of threat that was considered for each in duce this map. The inuence of distance for direct and indirect
relation to the habitat or species in question. Data in the past 10 impacts was considered at 50 and 2000 m, respectively. In loca-
years were used for developing the layers. These layers are pre- tions that had been over exploited, distance of the buffer zone
sented in Fig. 4 and explained according to the following: increased from the centers of points, lines or polygons. Areas
B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144 143
with risk level ranked as very high and high were those of fresh- from Table 8. Zones relating to each risk factor are described with
water wetland in the vicinity of villages due to road access roads regards to the risk-zone maps.
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 5. Conclusions
sources of water pollution were those of upstream irrigation
development projects, the sugar cane industry in the northern Development projects such as road construction, thermal power
part of wetland, petrochemical activity in Mahshahr, shipping, plants, transmission lines, oil and petrochemicals and factories
carbon and steel industries in Ahvaz, Maroon desalination, threaten the life of wetlands. In order to protect and manage
wastewater from surrounding cities and villages in the east wetlands in a sustainable way, it is necessary to reduce ecologi-
area of freshwater wetland and burst pipes that leaked oil into cal risks that impact on the wetlands. The best approach toward
the wetland. Wastewater outlets from agricultural and live- applying ERA in wetland studies is ecosystem-based management.
stock farms, industrial, rural and urban areas, and oil pollution In this study, an ecosystem-based approach was considered to
were considered in this layer. Due to lack of data on amounts present a methodology for identifying and characterizing risks and
of pollution concentrations in the wetland, sources of pollu- to develop management strategies. Experts opinions were used to
tion and their relative entrance points; these values were rated prioritize risks according to the AHP. A zoning map of the risks that
according to experts opinions, judgments of engineers and threaten the wetland was developed using GIS.
information collected from eld studies. Industrial pollution, Risk zoning is an important measure in environmental risk man-
rural and urban pollution, oil pollution, agricultural and live- agement. It involves dividing an area into sub-areas according to
stock pollution and other pollutions were rated as very high, general risk characteristics. Identifying the similarities and differ-
high, moderate, low, and very low, respectively. The Spatial ences of risk factors between sub-areas by making comparisons
Analyst interpolation was used in GIS software to produce this between sub-areas can help to determine the most appropriate
layer. The Spatial Analyst interpolation was used in GIS software environmental risk management policies. The GIS that was used in
to produce this layer. this article constitutes a powerful tool for decision-makers in con-
(5) Change in natural habitat (Fig. 4e): This layer was prepared servation to establish preferences, which need to identify human
from a map of existing land-use in the wetland. Zoning was activities in terms of spatial interactions and other factors that
done according to the inuence distance of change in land-use. inuence the health and viability of critical habitats and key species
The inuence distance was determined as the spatial extent in a wetland.
or footprint of change in the natural habitat on the wetland ERA can provide a description of the actual situation of ecolog-
and represents the maximum distance at which a feature has ical, health status or risks that threaten wetlands. The presented
a negative impact on the wetland. For example, adverse effects methodology can be redeveloped to apply to different types of
of roads within the wetlands ecological range were considered wetlands to identify and manage the risks. This method focuses
to have a range of impact extending to 1000 m (Forman et al., on identication of wetland endpoints and conservation of values
2003). The inuence distances for direct and indirect impacts associated with these endpoints. This target is obtained by iden-
were considered as 200 and 1000 m, respectively. The buffer tication of hazards/threats to values of the wetland endpoints.
extension was used in GIS software to produce this map. The Results of this study for Shadegan Wetland reveal that the stress-
zones that were evaluated as having very high and high levels ors inicted on the environment of this wetland causes adverse
of risk were in areas disturbed by human activities. effects on characteristics of the wetland. Alteration in natural habi-
tats, changes in the water balance of wetland, water pollution,
over exploitation of biological resources, and drought are the main
Percentage of categories in each layer that were used for ecolog- stressors of this wetland. All of these factors are interrelated and
ical risk zoning of the Shadegan Wetland are given in Table 9. Based due to the complexity of wetland ecosystems, it is difcult to sep-
on Step 4 of the methodology, by applying importance weights from arate the effects and consequences of these factors.
Table 8, the nal ecological risk-zoning map of the Shadegan Wet- For Shadegan Wetland, management strategies are suggested on
land was produced and is shown in Fig. 5. As can be seen in this the basis of the results of this research. Preventing change in wet-
gure, the area that was evaluated with the least risk was that of land land-use, providing sufcient water for the wetland, ensuring
the southern wetland in the saltwater area, probably because it water quality of the wetland, protecting biodiversity, sustainable
was a pristine environment inaccessible to humans. Evaluations use of wetland resources, increasing awareness of wetland values
determined the area most at risk was the northern area of the wet- and threats, and promoting public participation are the main goals
land, a freshwater area with access roads that facilitated of human of the proposed strategies. Most threats in the study area were
access to the wetland. This map enables decision makers and envi- found to be in the northern region and in areas of freshwater that be
ronmental planners to regulate human activities in and around the attributed to the existence of access roads in such areas that facil-
wetland. itate increased human access to the wetland. The lowest risk zone
Results of sensitivity analysis on the nal risk-zoning map show was identied in the southern part of the wetland in a saltwater
that classication of the nal risk-zoning map did not change region that is a pristine environment inaccessible to humans.
with variation of important weights of up to 30% change, on The key stressors and receptors in a wetland under consider-
these weights. These results show acceptable stability in classi- ation must be clearly identied in order to make properly targeted
cation of risk-zoning layers. In addition, the nal risk-zoning map risk assessment and to provide useful data. However it is very dif-
was sensitive to the elimination of each layer and more sensitiv- cult to assess and determine the threshold of permitted reserves
ity was observed for elimination of the layer representing over of these resources and to identify stress factors in those wetlands,
exploitation. Based on the results of risk analysis and the ecologi- in which potential reserves of biological components do not have
cal risk-zoning map, strategies to manage and reduce the ecological any scientic data or documentation. Further development of the
risks of Shadegan Wetland are abstracted in Table 10. The proposed proposed methodology can focus on risk assessment of wetland
management strategies for the wetland were determined by the functions to manage the activities that reduce capacity of the wet-
above-mentioned ecosystem-based approach. In Table 10, risk fac- land ecosystem. Assessment of wetland functions through standard
tors were ordered according to the ranking number of each risk quantitative risk assessment can be used to restore wetlands and
144 B. Malekmohammadi, L. Rahimi Blouchi / Ecological Indicators 41 (2014) 133144
to improve environmental assessment programs. Quantitative risk Holland, C.C., Honea, J., Gwin, S.E., Kentula, M.E., 1995. Wetland degradation and
assessment of wetlands can focus on chemical substances (such as loss in the rapidly urbanizing area of Portland, Oregon. Wetlands 15 (4),
336345.
nutrients and contaminants) by only incorporating assessments of Kellett, B.M., Walse, T., Baristow, K.L., 2005. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Wet-
toxicity. In this kind of assessment, indicators such as pollution con- lands of the Lower Burdekin, CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 26/05.
centration at outlet points and diffusion in a wetland, the impact Kiker, G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P., Linkov, I., 2005. Applications of
multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated
of wastewater on the food chain, and concentrations of metals or Environmental Assessment and Management 1 (2), 95108.
other pollutants in soil and water are used for making assessments. Kim,.K.G., Lee, H., Lee, D.H., 2011. Wetland restoration to enhance biodiversity in
It should be noted that this study has examined major risk factors urban areas a comparative analysis. Landscape and Ecological Engineering 7,
2732.
of environmental impacts on the wetland but cumulative impacts Klemas, V., 2011. Remote sensing of wetlands: case studies comparing practical
of these risk factors have not been considered. Clearly, more work techniques. Journal of Coastal Research 27 (3), 418427.
needs to be done on the development of a holistic environmental 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.
risk assessment for wetlands that includes qualitative and quanti-
Ecological Indicators 13, 284293.
tative risk assessment approaches. Lemly, A.D., 1997. Risk assessment as an environmental management tool: consid-
erations for freshwater wetlands. Environmental Management 21 (3), 343358.
Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Acknowledgments
Progress in Planning 62 (1), 365.
McPherson, M., Schill, S., Raber, G., John, K., Zenny, N., Thurlow, K., Sutton, A.H.,
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, 2008. GIS-based modeling of environmental risk surfaces (ERS) for conservation
for their constructive comments on correction and improvement of planning in Jamaica. Journal of Conservation Planning 4, 6089.
Muttil, N., Chau, K.W., 2006. Neural network and genetic programming for mod-
the manuscript. Contributions by Ms. Azadeh Zarkar, Ph.D. student elling coastal algal blooms. International Journal of Environment and Pollution
of the University of Tehran are hereby acknowledged. 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
References Approach.
Pastorok, R.A., Bartell, S.M., Ferson, S., Ginzburg, L.R. (Eds.), 2002. Ecological Mod-
Behan Dam Consulting Engineers, 2010. Review the Current Status of the Natural eling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems, and
Environment in the Jarahi and Zohreh Catchments. Department of Energy of Landscapes. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Iran. Radu, L.D., 2009. Qualitative, semi-quantitative and, quantitative methods for risk
Belton, V., Stewart, T., 2002. Multicriteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. assessment: case of the nancial audit. Analele Stiintice ale Universitatii
Kluwer, Boston. Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iasi 56, 643657.
Burgman, M.A., 2005. Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Man- Rahimi Blouchi, L., (Masters thesis) 2012. Environmental Risk Assessment of Shade-
agement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. gan International Wetland in order to provide management strategies. Faculty
Chau, K.W., 2007. Integrated water quality management in Tolo Harbour, Hong of Environment, University of Tehran.
Kong: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (16), 15681572. Ralph, W.T., 2003. Geographically isolated wetlands of the United States. Wetlands
Chen, B., Chen, Z.M., Zhou, Y., Zhou, J.B., Chen, G.Q., 2009. Emergy as embodied 23 (3), 494516.
energy based assessment for local sustainability of a constructed wetland in Ramanathan, R., 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environ-
Beijing. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 14 (2), mental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63, 2735.
622635. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2004. Ramsar Handbooks for the Wise Use of Wet-
Chen, S., Chen, B., Fath, B.D., 2013. Ecological risk assessment on the system scale: a lands, 3rd ed. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.
review of state-of-the-art models and future perspectives. Ecological Modelling Saaty, T.L., 2000. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the
250, 2533. Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Chen, S., Fath, B.D., Chen, B., 2010. Ecological risk assessment of hydropower dam Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International
construction based on ecological network analysis. Procedia Environmental Sci- Journal of Services Sciences 1 (1), 8398.
ences 2, 725728. Shadegan City Department of Environment, 2010. Shadegan Wetland Environmen-
Chen, S., Fath, B.D., Chen, B., 2011. Information-based network environ analysis: a tal Status Report on the First Half, 13 pp.
system perspective for ecological risk assessment. Ecological Indicators 11 (6), Spieles, D.J., 2005. Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mit-
16641672. igation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25 (1), 5163.
Christian, R.R., Brinson, M.M., Dame, J.K., Johnson, G., Peterson, C.H., Baird, D., Suter, G.W., 2000. Generic assessment endpoints are needed for ecological risk
2009. Ecological network analyses and their use for establishing reference assessment. Risk Analysis 20 (2), 173178.
domain in functional assessment of an estuary. Ecological Modelling 220 (22), Tiner, R.W., 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends.
31133122. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Clarkson, B.R., Sorrell, B.K., Reeves, P.N., Champion, P.D., Partridge, T.R., Clarkson, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1992. Framework for Eco-
B.D., 2003. Handbook for Monitoring Wetland Condition. Coordinated Moni- logical Risk Assessment. USEPA, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-92/001.
toring of New Zealand Wetlands, A Ministry for the Environment Sustainable United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2002. Methods for Evalu-
Management Fund Project. ating Wetland Condition: Introduction to Wetland Biological Assessment. Ofce
Cui, B.S., Tang, N., Zhao, X.S., et al., 2009. A management-oriented valuation method of Water, Washington, DC, EPA-822-R-02-014.
to determine ecological water requirement for wetlands in the Yellow River United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1998. Guidelines for
Delta of China. Journal for Nature Conservation 17 (3), 129141. Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, USA,
Dahl, T.E., 2000. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States EPA/630/R-95/002F.
1986 to 1997. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Wang, B., Cheng, H., 2011. Environmental risk zoning research in Baiyangdian Basin.
Dugan, P.J., 1990. Wetland Conservation: A Review of Current Issues and Required Procedia Environmental Sciences 10 (Part C), 22802286.
Action. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Wu, C.L., Chau, K.W., 2006. Mathematical model of water quality rehabilitation
Environmental Protection Agency of Iran, 2010. Comprehensive Management Plan with rainwater utilization a case study at Haigang. International Journal of
of Shadegan Wetland. Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project. UNDP/GEF. Environment and Pollution 28 (3/4), 534545.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), 2008. Arc-GIS 9.3. Geographic Yang, Z., Mao, X., 2011. Wetland system network analysis for environmental ow
Information System (GIS) Software, 380 New York Street, Redlands, CA 92373- allocations in the Baiyangdian Basin, China. Ecological Modelling 222 (2022),
8100, USA http://www.esri.com 37853794.
Figueria, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott,.M., 2005. Introduction in Multiple Criteria Deci- Zedler, J.B., Kercher, S., 2005. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem ser-
sion Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., vices, and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30,
Boston, pp. 2136. 3974.
Forman, R., Sperling, T., Bissonette, J., Clevenger, A., Cutshall, C., Dale, V., Fahrig, L., Zhang, H., Huang, G.H., 2011. Assessment of non-point sources pollution using
France, R., Goldman, C., Heanue, K., Jones, J., Swanson, F., Turrentine, T., Winter, a spatial multicriteria analysis approach. Ecological Modelling 222 (2),
T., 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA. 313321.
Hanson, A., Swanson, L., Ewing, D., Grabas, G., Meyer, S., Ross, L., Wat- Zhang, K., Kluck, C., Achari, G., 2009. Comparative approach for ranking contam-
mough, M., Kirkby, J., 2008. Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: inated sites based on the risk assessment paradigm using fuzzy PROMETHEE.
An Overview of Approaches, Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Environmental Management 44 (5), 952967.
Series No. 497. Atlantic Region, 59 pp. Zhao, M.Y., Cheng, C.T., Chau, K.W., Li, G., 2006. Multiple criteria data envelopment
Heller, S., 2006. Managing industrial risk-having a tested and proven system to analysis for full ranking units associated to environment impact assessment.
prevent and assess risk. Journal of Hazardous Material 130 (2), 5863. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 28 (3/4), 448464.