Skip to main content

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

Environmental Management volume 38, pages 316–326 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Literature Cited

  • Abbruzzese B., S. G. Leibowitz. 1997. A synoptic approach for assessing cumulative. impacts to wetlands. Environmental Management 21:457–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartoldus, C. 1999. A comprehensive review of wetland assessment procedures: A guide for wetland practitioners. Environmental Concern Inc., St. Michaels, Maryland. 196 pp

  • Bartoldus C. 2000. The process of selecting a wetland assessment procedure: Steps and considerations. Wetlands Journal 14:4–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Braglia M., M. Frosolini, R. Montanari. 2003. Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for failure mode, effects and criticality analysis. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 19:425–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 94:9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, D. T. 1998. Clarence catchment wetlands survey. Department of Land and Water Conservation report. NSW, Australia, 60 pp

  • 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 23:300–313

    Google Scholar 

  • 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–S113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 pp

  • 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 64:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finlayson M. 2003. The challenge of integrating wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13:281–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons J.D. 1976. Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 463 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 pp

  • Herath G. 2004. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management 70:263–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hruby T. 1999. Assessments of wetland functions: what they are and what they are not. Environmental Management 23:75–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang C. L., K. Yoon. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsford R. K. 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25:109–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubo T., T. Kohyama. 2005. Abies population dynamics simulated using a functional– structural tree model. Ecological Research 20:255–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 249–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson D. L. 2004. Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 40:721–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolander, N., A. Ceci, and M. Berdugo. 2003. A framework to MCDM method selection. Georgia Institute of Technology report, 171 pp

  • 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 32:322–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:379–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel S., J. Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprent P. 1998. Data driven statistical methods. Chapman & Hall, London, 146 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 27:407–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou E., C.-L. Lin. 1996. Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute decision-making methods. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 14: 281–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 175–186

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zar J. H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecosystem Management School of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources Management, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia

    Canran Liu, Paul Frazier, Lalit Kumar & Catherine Macgregor

  2. Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, PO Box 618, Grafton, NSW 2460, Australia

    Nigel Blake

Authors
  1. Canran Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Frazier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lalit Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Macgregor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nigel Blake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Canran Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liu, C., Frazier, P., Kumar, L. et al. Catchment-Wide Wetland Assessment and Prioritization Using the Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method TOPSIS. Environmental Management 38, 316–326 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0151-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0151-0

Keywords

  • Wetlands
  • Assessment
  • Prioritization
  • Multi-criteria decision making
  • Clarence River
  • Australia