Frontiers of Earth Science

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 578–589 | Cite as

Eco-environmental vulnerability assessment for large drinking water resource: a case study of Qiandao Lake Area, China

  • Qing Gu
  • Jun Li
  • Jinsong Deng
  • Yi Lin
  • Ligang Ma
  • Chaofan Wu
  • Ke Wang
  • Yang Hong
Research Article


The Qiandao Lake Area (QLA) is of great significance in terms of drinking water supply in East Coast China as well as a nationally renowned tourist attraction. A series of laws and regulations regarding the QLA environment have been enacted and implemented throughout the past decade with the aim of negating the harmful effects associated with expanding urbanization and industrialization. In this research, an assessment framework was developed to analyze the eco-environmental vulnerability of the QLA from 1990–2010 by integrating fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) and geographical information systems (GIS) in an attempt to gain insights into the status quo of the QLA so as to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the related policies. After processing and analyzing the temporal and spatial variation of eco-environmental vulnerability and major environmental issues in the QLA, we found that the state of eco-environmental vulnerability of the QLA was acceptable, though a moderate deterioration was detected during the study period. Furthermore, analysis of the combination of vulnerability and water quality indicated that the water quality showed signs of declination, though the overall status remained satisfactory. It was hence concluded that the collective protection and treatment actions were effective over the study period, whereas immediately stricter measures would be required for protecting the drinking water quality from domestic sewage and industrial wastewater. Finally, the spatial variation of the eco-environmental vulnerability assessment also implied that specifically more targeted measures should be adopted in respective regions for long-term sustainable development of the QLA.


eco-environment vulnerability assessment drinking water source fuzzy AHP GIS Qiandao Lake Area 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adger W N (2006). Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change, 16(3): 268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bockelmann B N, Fenrich E K, Lin B, Falconer R A (2004). Development of an ecohydraulics model for stream and river restoration. Ecol Eng, 22(4–5): 227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buckley J J (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst, 17(3): 233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang D Y (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res, 95(3): 649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen B, Chen G Q (2009). Emergy-based energy and material metabolism of the Yellow River basin. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul, 14(3): 923–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen G Q, Ji X (2007). Chemical exergy based evaluation of water quality. Ecol Modell, 200(1–2): 259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen ZM, Chen G Q (2013). Virtual water accounting for the globalized world economy: national water footprint and international virtual water trade. Ecol Indic, 28: 142–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Z M, Chen G Q, Xia X H, Xu S Y (2012). Global network of embodied water flow by systems input-output simulation. Front Earth Sci, 6(3): 331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chou T Y, Liang G S (2001). Application of a fuzzy multi-criteria decisionmaking model for shipping company performance evaluation. Marit Policy Manage, 28(4): 375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eakin H, Luers A L (2006). Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour, 31(1): 365–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisele M, Steinbrich A, Hildebrand A, Leibundgut C (2003). The significance of hydrological criteria for the assessment of the ecological quality in river basins. Phys Chem Earth Parts ABC, 28(12–13): 529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enea M, Piazza T (2004). Project Selection by Constrained Fuzzy AHP. Fuzzyoptimization and Decision Making (Vol. 3). New York: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  13. Ertuǧrul Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N (2009). Performance evaluation of Turkish cementfirms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl, 36(1): 702–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang Z F (2000). Introduction of coordinated development countermeasures of tourism and the environment in Qiandao Lake area. Administration and Technique of Environmental Monitoring, 12(B12): 12–13 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  15. Ford J D, Smit B, Wandel J (2006). Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: a case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. Glob Environ Change, 16(2): 145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gowrie M N (2005). Environmental vulnerability index for the Island of Tobago, West Indies. Conservation Ecology, 7(2): 11–28Google Scholar
  17. Guo R J, Chen F R, Zhu Q (2001). Evaluation and analysis of capacity of forestry sustainable development in Chunàn County. Journal of Zhejiang Forestry College, 18(4): 337–344 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  18. Hu S J (2005). Present situation and management countermeasures of soil and water loss in Qiandaohu watershed. Soil and Water Conservation Science and Technology in Shanxi, (2) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Isidori M, Lavorgna M, Nardelli A, Parrella A (2004). Integrated environmental assessment of Volturno River in South Italy. Sci Total Environ, 327(1–3): 123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jessop A (2004). Minimally biased weight determination in personnel selection. Eur J Oper Res, 153(2): 433–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jiang Y (2009). China’s water scarcity. J Environ Manage, 90(11): 3185–3196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jiang Z, Su S, Jing C, Lin S, Fei X, Wu J (2012). Spatiotemporal dynamics of soil erosion risk for Anji County, China. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess, 26(6): 751–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krivtsov V (2004). Investigations of indirect relationships in ecology and environmental sciences: a review and the implications for comparative theoretical ecosystem analysis. Ecol Modell, 174(1–2): 37–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levy J K (2005). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess, 19(6): 438–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li A N, Wang A S, Liang S L, Zhou W (2006). Eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation in mountainous region using remote sensing and GIS-A case study in the upper reaches of Minjiang River, China. Ecol Modell, 192(1–2): 175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li L, Shi Z H, Yin W, Zhu D, Ng S L, Cai C F, Lei A L (2009). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco-environmental vulnerability assessment for the Danjiangkou reservoir area, China. Ecol Modell, 220(23): 3439–3447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li T S, Huang H H (2009). Applying TRIZ and Fuzzy AHP to develop innovative design for automated manufacturing systems. Expert Syst Appl, 36(4): 8302–8312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li ZW, Zeng G M, Zhang H, Yang B, Jiao S (2007). The integrated ecoenvironment assessment of the red soil hilly region based on GIS—A case study in Changsha City, China. Ecol Modell, 202(3–4): 540–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu J, Diamond J (2005). China’s environment in a globalizing world. Nature, 435(7046): 1179–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu Y, Li R, Song X (2005). Grey associative analysis of regional urbanization and eco-environment coupling in China. Acta Geogr Sin, 60(2): 237–247 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Locantore N W, Tran L T, O’Neill R V, McKinnis P W, Smith E R, O’Connell M (2004). An overview of data integration methods for regional assessment. Environ Monit Assess, 94(1–3): 249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lv H C, Xue S G, Fang Z F (2004). Influence of different land use patterns upon nitrogen and phosphorus loss in the Qiandaohu drainage area. Geology in China, 31(z1) (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  33. Mendoza G A, Prabhu R (2000). Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. For Ecol Manage, 131(1–3): 107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meng J, Chen G Q, Shao L, Li J S, Tang H S, Hayat T, Alsaedi A, Alsaadi F (2014). Virtual water accounting for building: case study for E-town, Beijing. J Clean Prod, 68(0): 7–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MWR (Ministry of Water Resources, P.R. China) (2007). The 11th Five-Year Plan of National Water Resources Development, Gazette of the Ministry of Water Resources of the P.R. China, 34–48Google Scholar
  36. Popp J H, Hyatt D E, Hoag D (2000). Modeling environmental condition with indices: a case study of sustainability and soil resources. Ecol Modell, 130(1–3): 131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2009). Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IFAHP). Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess, 23(1): 75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. SC (State Council, P.R. China) (2006). The 11th Five-Year National Plan for Social and Economic Development. Beijing: People’s Publishing HouseGoogle Scholar
  39. Shao L, Chen G Q (2013). Water footprint assessment for wastewater treatment: method, indicator, and application. Environ Sci Technol, 47(14): 7787–7794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shao L, Wu Z, Zeng L, Chen ZM, Zhou Y, Chen G Q (2013). Embodied energy assessment for ecological wastewater treatment by a constructed wetland. Ecol Modell, 252: 63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Su S, Chen X, DeGloria S D, Wu J (2010). Integrative fuzzy set pair model for land ecological security assessment: a case study of Xiaolangdi Reservoir Region, China. Stochastic Environ Res Risk Assess, 24(5): 639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Laarhoven P J M, Pedrycz W (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s prioritytheory. Fuzzy Sets Syst, 11(1–3): 199–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Villa F, Mcleod H (2002). Environmental vulnerability indicators for environmental planning and decision-making: guidelines and applications. Environ Manage, 29(3): 335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wen J (2004). Study on ecological risk assessment in Qiandao Lake area. Dissertation for PhD degree. Changsha: Central South University of Forestry and Technology (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  45. Yang T, Liu J L, Chen Q Y (2013). Assessment of plain river ecosystem function based on improved gray system model and analytic hierarchy process for the Fuyang River, Haihe River Basin, China. Ecological Modeling, 268(24): 37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhao Y (1999). Distribution and Comprehensive Repair of Chinese Environmental Vulnerability Types. Beijing: Chinese Environmental Sciences Press, 1–30 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  47. Zhao Y Z, Zou X Y, Cheng H, Jia H K, Wu Y Q, Wang G Y, Zhang C L, Gao S Y (2006). Assessing the ecological security of the Tibetan plateau: methodology and a case study for Lhaze County. J Environ Manage, 80(2): 120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhu Z Y, Zhou H Y, Ouyang T P, Deng Q L, Kuang Y Q, Huang N S (2001). Water shortage: a serious problem in sustainable development of China. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol, 8(3): 233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institution of Remote Sensing and Information System ApplicationZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences and School of MeteorologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations