Environmental Management

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 316–326 | Cite as

Catchment-Wide Wetland Assessment and Prioritization Using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method TOPSIS

  • Canran LiuEmail author
  • Paul Frazier
  • Lalit Kumar
  • Catherine Macgregor
  • Nigel Blake


It is widely accepted that wetland ecosystems are under threat worldwide. Many communities are now trying to establish wetland rehabilitation programs, but are confounded by a lack of objective information on wetland condition or significance. In this study, a multi-criteria decision-making method, TOPSIS (the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), was adapted to assist in the role of assessing wetland condition and rehabilitation priority in the Clarence River Catchment (New South Wales, Australia). Using 13 GIS data layers that described wetland character, wetland protection, and wetland threats, the wetlands were ranked in terms of condition. Through manipulation of the original model, the wetlands were prioritized for rehabilitation. The method offered a screening tool for the managers in choosing potential candidate wetlands for rehabilitation in a region.


Wetlands Assessment Prioritization Multi-criteria decision making Clarence River Australia 



This project was funded by the National Heritage Trust of Australia through the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. C. Liu is funded by the University of New England Vice-Chancellor’s postdoctoral fellowship.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbruzzese B., S. G. Leibowitz. 1997. A synoptic approach for assessing cumulative. impacts to wetlands. Environmental Management 21:457–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartoldus, C. 1999. A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures: A guide for wetland practitioners. Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland. 196 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartoldus C. 2000. The process of selecting a wetland assessment procedure: Steps and considerations. Wetlands Journal 14:4–40Google Scholar
  4. Braglia M., M. Frosolini, R. Montanari. 2003. Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 19:425–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks R. P., D. H. Wardrop, J. A. Bishop. 2004. Assessing wetland condition on a watershed basis in the Mid-Atlantic Region using synoptic land-cover maps. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budge, D. T. 1998. Clarence catchment wetlands survey. Department of Land and Water Conservation report. NSW, Australia, 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Çaldag B., L. Saylan. 2005. Sensitivity analysis of the CERES – wheat model for variations in CO 2 and meteorological factors in Northwest Turkey. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 23:300–313Google Scholar
  8. Carletti A., G. A. De Leo, I. Ferrari. 2004. A critical review of representative wetland rapid assessment methods in North America. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:S103–S113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fennessy, M. S., A. D. Jacobs, and M. E. Kentula. 2004. Review of Rapid methods for Assessing Wetland Condition. EPA/620/R-04/009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 75 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Findlay S. E. G., E. Kiviat, W. C. Nieder, E. A. Blair. 2002. Functional assessment of a reference wetland set as a tool for science, management and restoration. Aquatic Science 64:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finlayson M. 2003. The challenge of integrating wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbons J.D. 1976. Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 463 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris M. 1999. Upland Wetlands of the Clarence Catchment, North Coast New South Wales: Condition and Threats. Department of Land and Water Conservation report. NSW, Australia, 23 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Herath G. 2004. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management 70:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hruby T. 1999. Assessments of wetland functions: what they are and what they are not. Environmental Management 23:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hwang C. L., K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Kingsford R. K. 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25:109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kubo T., T. Kohyama. 2005. Abies population dynamics simulated using a functional– structural tree model. Ecological Research 20:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levin S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Locantore N. W., L. T. Tran, R. V. O’Neill, P. W. Mckinnis, E. R. Smith, M. O’Connell. 2004. An overview of data integration methods for regional assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94: 249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milani A.S., A. Shanian, R. Madoliat, J.A. Nemes. 2005. The effect of normalization norms in multiple attribute decision making models: a case study in gear material selection. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 29:312–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitsch W. J., R. H. Mitsch, R. E. Turner. 1994. Wetlands of the Old and New worlds: ecology and management. In W. J. Mitsch (eds.), Global wetlands: Old World and New. Elsevier Press, New York. Pages 3–56Google Scholar
  23. Olson D. L. 2004. Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 40:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rolander, N., A. Ceci, and M. Berdugo. 2003. A framework to MCDM method selection. Georgia Institute of Technology report, 171 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Saloranta T. M., J. Kamari, S. Rekolainen, O. Malve. 2003. Benchmark criteria: A tool for selecting appropriate models in the field of water management. Environmental Management 32:322–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schweiger E. W., S. G. Leibowitz, J. B. Hyman, W. E. Foster, M. C. Downing. 2002. Synoptic assessment of wetland function: a planning tool for protection of wetland species biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 11:379–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Siegel S., J. Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Sprent P. 1998. Data driven statistical methods. Chapman & Hall, London, 146 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Tong, L.-I., C.-H. Wang, and H.-C. Chen. 2005. Optimization of multiple responses using principal component analysis and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 27:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Triantaphyllou E., C.-L. Lin. 1996. Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 14: 281–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Triantaphyllou E., B. Shu, S. Nieto Sanchez, T. Ray. 1998. Multi-criteria decision making: an operations research approach. In J.G. Webster (eds.), Encyclopedia of electrical and electronics engineering, Vol. 15. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Pages 175–186Google Scholar
  32. Tzionas P., I. Ioannidou, S. Paraskevopoulos. 2005. A hierarchical fuzzy decision support system for the environmental rehabilitation of Lake Koronia, Greece. Environmental Management 34:245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zar J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Canran Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Frazier
    • 1
  • Lalit Kumar
    • 1
  • Catherine Macgregor
    • 1
  • Nigel Blake
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem Management School of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources ManagementUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  2. 2.Northern Rivers Catchment Management AuthorityGraftonAustralia

Personalised recommendations