Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 307–310 | Cite as

Conservation of Sarawak peat swamp in an urban landscape by fuzzy inference system

  • Darrien Yau Seng Mah
Rapid Communication


Freshwater habitats are one of the planet’s most important, yet most manipulated, environments. This is what happens in Sarawak that the environment has been radically changed due to urban developments. This paper is promoting the idea that we do not need a complicated but a simple tool like fuzzy inference system to strike a balance between the existence of peat swamp and the humans who live nearer and nearer to it. Conditions vital to the survival and continuity of a natural wetland system can be adapted as fuzzy rules. These rules are capable of providing indicators of how much wetland can be exploited and at the same time still allow the system to properly functioning as a wetland.


Disappearing wetlands Ecological–social interaction Habitat Indicator Natural landscape Nature conservation 


  1. Benedict MA, McMahon ET (2001) Green infrastructure: smart conservation for the twenty-first century. Sprawl Watch Clearing House Monograph Series, Washington DC, p 32Google Scholar
  2. Bentrup G (2009) Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors and greenways. General technical report SRS-109. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, p 110Google Scholar
  3. Booth DT, Cox SE, Simonds G (2007) Riparian monitoring using 2-cm GSD aerial photography. Ecol Indic 7(3):636–648. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosserman RW, Ragade RK (1982) Ecosystem analysis using fuzzy set theory. Ecol Model 16(2–4):191–208. doi: 10.1016/0304-3800(82)90008-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duarte CM, Dennison WC, Orth RJW, Carruthers TJB (2008) The charisma of coastal ecosystems: addressing the imbalance. Estuaries and Coasts 31(2): 233–238. doi: 10.1007/s12237-008-9038-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ecological Solutions Group (ESG) (2010) US lentic wetland health assessment (survey) user manual (current as of 5/20/2010). Accessed 7 Sept 2010
  7. Elektorowicz M, Qasaimeh A (2004) Fuzzy modelling estimation of mercury removal by wetland components. Fuzzy Inf 1:37–40. doi: 10.1109/NAFIPS.2004.1336245 Google Scholar
  8. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33(1):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lei Z-Y, Yan Y-X (2010) Fuzzy assessment of estuarine wetland health. Manag Serv Sci 35:1–4. doi: 10.1109/ICMSS.2010.5577550 Google Scholar
  10. Ocampo-Duque W, Ferré-Huguet N, Domingo JL, Schuhmacher M (2006) Assessing water quality in rivers with fuzzy inference systems: a case study. Environ Int 32(6):733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Prichard D (1998) Riparian area management: a user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. Technical reference 1737-15, US Department of the Interior and partnersGoogle Scholar
  12. Rich TD (2002) Using breeding land birds in the assessment of western riparian systems. Wildl Soc Bull 30(4):1128–1139Google Scholar
  13. Salski A, Holsten B, Trepel M (2009) A fuzzy approach to ecological modeling and data analysis. In: Jorgensen SE, Chon T-S, Recknagel F (eds) Handbook of ecological modeling and informatics. ISBN 978-1-84564-207-5. WIT Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Tay KM, Lim CP (2008a) On the use of fuzzy inference techniques in assessment models: part I: theoretical properties. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 7(3):269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tay KM, Lim CP (2008b) On the use of fuzzy inference techniques in assessment models: part II: industrial applications. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 7(3):283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Townsend L (2009) Urban watershed health and resilience, evaluated through land use history and eco-hydrology in Swan Lake watershed (Saanich, British Columbia, Canada). M Sc thesis. Canada: School of Environmental Studies, University of VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  17. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2006) Malaysia’s peat swamp forests, conservation and sustainable use, 33 p. ISBN 983-40995-5-XGoogle Scholar
  18. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2010) Natural infrastructure, updated July 2010. Accessed 16 Aug 2010
  19. Ward TA, Tate KW, Atwill ER, Lile DF, Lancaster DL, McDougald N, Barry S, Ingram RS, George HA, Jensen W, Frost WE, Phillips R, Markegard GG, Larson S (2003) A comparison of three visual assessments for riparian and stream health. J Soil Water Conser 58(2):83–88Google Scholar
  20. Zadeh LA (2002) Fuzzy logic toolbox user’s guide, for use with MATLAB®. Version 2. MathWorks, US, pp 2-1–2-116. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.River Engineering and Urban Drainage Research Centre (REDAC)Universiti Sains MalaysiaNibong TebalMalaysia

Personalised recommendations