River Ecosystem Health Assessment Using a Combination Weighting Method: A Case Study of Beijing Section of Yongding River in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Reach and Data Collection
2.2. Evaluation Index System
2.3. Determination of Index Weights
2.3.1. AHP
2.3.2. Entropy Weight Method
2.3.3. Combination Weighting Method
2.4. Evaluation Standards
3. Results
3.1. Weighting of Evaluation Indices
3.2. Evaluation Criteria
3.3. Evaluation Results
3.3.1. Evaluation Results of the Criterion Level
3.3.2. Comprehensive Evaluation Results
4. Discussion
4.1. Evaluation Method Reliability Analysis
4.2. Suggestions on River Ecological Restoration
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- The river health evaluation indices were assigned using a combination of hierarchical analysis and entropy weighting methods. The weight was ranked as riparian condition > river water environment > river morphology > social service function. It shows that the river water environment has the most significant influence on the health status of the Beijing section of Yongding River.
- (2)
- The evaluation results using the continuous metrics scoring method show that the overall health index for the study reach of Yongding River is 3.805, which is at a sub-healthy level. For the 35 segments, the percentages of excellent, healthy, sub-healthy, unhealthy, and sick river segments are 0%, 11%, 69%, 20%, and 0%, respectively.
- (3)
- Combining the actual situation of Yongding River, factors affecting the health of Yongding River include mainly human disturbance activities, such as industrial and agricultural development, construction of water conservancy projects, tourism and sightseeing, and so forth. In order to improve the health condition, Yongding River channel and riparian regulation need to be strengthened.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Valero, E.; Alvarez, X.; Picos, J. An assessment of river habitat quality as an indicator of conservation status. A case study in the Northwest of Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grizzetti, B.; Liquete, C.; Pistocchi, A.; Vigiak, O.; Zulian, G.; Bouraoui, F.; De Roo, A.; Cardoso, A.C. Relationship between ecological condition and ecosystem services in European rivers, lakes and coastal waters. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 452–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, Y.T.; Chen, Y.F. River health assessment in a large river: Bioindicators of fish population. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 26, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.H.; An, K.-G. Integrative restoration assessment of an urban stream using multiple modeling approaches with physical, chemical, and biological integrity indicators. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 62, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Z.L.; Zuo, Q.T.; Shao, Q.X. A new framework for assessing river ecosystem health with consideration of human service demand. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 640, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Casatti, L.; Ferreira, C.P.; Langeani, F. A fish-based biotic integrity index for assessment of lowland streams in southeastern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 2009, 623, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stenger-Kovacs, C.; Lengyel, E.; Crossetti, L.O.; Uveges, V.; Padisak, J. Diatom ecological guilds as indicators of temporally changing stressors and disturbances in the small Torna-stream, Hungary. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 24, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haase, R.; Nolte, U. The invertebrate species index (ISI) for streams in southeast Queensland, Australia. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8, 599–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vollmer, D.; Shaad, K.; Souter, N.J.; Farrell, T.; Dudgeon, D.; Sullivan, C.A.; Fauconnier, I.; MacDonald, G.M.; McCartney, M.P.; Power, A.G.; et al. Integrating the social, hydrological and ecological dimensions of freshwater health: The Freshwater Health Index. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladson, A.R.; White, L.J.; Doolan, J.A.; Finlayson, B.L.; Hart, B.T.; Lake, P.S.; Tilleard, J.W. Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, R.C., Jr. The RCE: A Riparian, Channel, and Environmental Inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Freshw. Biol. 1992, 27, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, X.J.; Xu, Y.P.; Han, L.F.; Yu, Z.H.; Yang, M.N.; Pan, G.B. Assessment of river health based on an improved entropy-based fuzzy matter-element model in the Taihu Plain, China. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.X.; Cheng, C.T.; Chau, K.W.; Pei, Y.Z. A hybrid adaptive time-delay neural network model for multi-step-ahead prediction of sunspot activity. Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 2006, 28, 364–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chau, K.-W.; Muttil, N. Data mining and multivariate statistical analysis for ecological system in coastal waters. J. Hydroinformatics 2007, 9, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Y.W.; Yang, Z.F. Integrative fuzzy hierarchical model for river health assessment: A case study of Yong River in Ningbo City, China. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2009, 14, 1729–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramanathan, R. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 63, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liang, R.; Song, S.; Shi, Y.; Shi, Y.; Lu, Y.; Zheng, X.; Xu, X.; Wang, Y.; Han, X. Comprehensive assessment of regional selenium resources in soils based on the analytic hierarchy process: Assessment system construction and case demonstration. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 605, 618–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, R.-J.; Fan, X.-C.; He, Y. Comprehensive evaluation index system for wind power utilization levels in wind farms in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, E.; Birch, G.F.; Shen, J.; Yuan, H.; Zhang, E.; Cao, Y. Comprehensive evaluation of heavy metal contamination in surface and core sediments of Taihu Lake, the third largest freshwater lake in China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 67, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, C.J.; Dong, Z.C.A.; Lu, D.B.; Xu, C.D.; Wang, H.; Ling, Z.; Liu, Q. Study on river health assessment based on a fuzzy matter-element extension model. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 127, 107742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, T.; Zhang, L.Q.; Li, X.P.; Chen, J. River health assessment: Proposing a comprehensive model based on physical habitat, chemical condition and biotic structure. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 103, 446–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaad, K.; Souter, N.J.; Vollmer, D.; Regan, H.M.; Bezerra, M.O. Integrating Ecosystem Services Into Water Resource Management: An Indicator-Based Approach. Environ. Manag. 2022, 69, 752–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Available online: https://www.mrcmekong.org/our-work/functions/basin-monitoring/water-quality-monitoring/ (accessed on 3 October 2022).
- Liu, L.; Xu, Z.; Yin, X.; Li, F.; Dou, T. Development of a multimetric index based on benthic macroinvertebrates for the assessment of urban stream health in Jinan City, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silva, D.R.O.; Herlihy, A.T.; Hughes, R.M.; Callisto, M. An improved macroinvertebrate multimetric index for the assessment of wadeable streams in the neotropical savanna. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 81, 514–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, L.; Li, Y.; Wang, P.; Zhang, W.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Wu, H. Development of a microbial community-based index of biotic integrity (MC-IBI) for the assessment of ecological status of rivers in the Taihu Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Li, Y.; Qian, B.; Niu, L.; Zhang, W.; Cai, W.; Wu, H.; Wang, P.; Wang, C. Development and validation of a bacteria-based index of biotic integrity for assessing the ecological status of urban rivers: A case study of Qinhuai River basin in Nanjing, China. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 196, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L.; Bennett, J.P. A theory of analytical hierarchies applied to political candidacy. Behav. Sci. 2010, 22, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuemmerlen, M.; Reichert, P.; Siber, R.; Schuwirth, N. Ecological assessment of river networks: From reach to catchment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 650, 1613–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Chan, F.T.S.; Ran, W.X. Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: An improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 55, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.Z. A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2004, 156, 530–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Li, L. An approach to determining the integrated weights of decision makers based on interval number group decision matrices. Knowl. Based Syst. 2015, 90, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Target Level | Criterion Level | Index Level | Basic Description | Calculation Method/Data Resource |
---|---|---|---|---|
River health | River morphology (B1) | Planar morphology (C1) | The degree of meandering rivers | The number of sharp bends and river islands |
Riverbed material permeability (C2) | The permeability of riverbed materials | Qualitative description, assigning a score of 1–4 from low to high according to the degree of water permeability | ||
Water width to river width ratio (C3) | Water width as a percentage of overall river width | Measurement with portable range finder | ||
Sheltered water surface to overall water width ratio (C4) | Proportion of water surface with shade to the whole water surface | Measurement with portable range finder | ||
River water environment (B2) | Odor (C5) | Describe whether the river water has a fishy smell | Qualitative description, assigning a score of 1–4 from low to high according to the degree of odor emitted | |
Flow rate ratio (C6) | Ratio of maximum to minimum river flow velocity | Measurement with a flow meter | ||
TDS(μs/cm) (C7) | Conductivity of the river | Measurement by handheld conductivity meter | ||
TP (C8) | Total phosphorus content of the river | Measurement by Multi-parameter Water Quality Analyzer | ||
DO (C9) | Dissolved oxygen content of the river | Measurement with Seven2Go Pro S9 portable dissolved oxygen meter | ||
Riparian condition (B3) | erosion degree (C10) | Extent of riparian erosion | Qualitative description, assigning a score of 1–4 from low to high depending on the degree of erosion | |
vegetation cover (C11) | Percentage of vegetation zones on riparian zones | Qualitative description, assigning a score of 1–4 from lowest to highest according to the percentage of vegetation zones | ||
vegetation diversity (C12) | Diversity level of riparian vegetation species | Calculation of Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index | ||
vegetation width/m (C13) | Width of riparian vegetation zone | Measurement with portable range finder | ||
Slope (C14) | Slope of the riparian zone | Measurement by slope meter | ||
Water conservancy projects(C15) | The extent of construction of hydraulic engineering measures in the riparian zone that affect water flow | Number of artificial engineering measures affecting water flow | ||
Social services (B4) | Ornamental and recreation value (C16) | The level of recreational value provided by the river system | Calculation with Romme Landscape Richness Index |
Quantile | ≥95% | 75–95% | 50–75% | 25–50% | <25% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
Health level | Excellent | Healthy | Sub-healthy | Unhealthy | Morbid |
Index | River Morphology (B1) | River Water Environment (B2) | Riparian Condition (B3) | Social Services (B4) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | C11 | C12 | C13 | C14 | C15 | C16 | |
Weight obtained by AHP | 0.0406 | 0.0575 | 0.0218 | 0.0141 | 0.1354 | 0.0487 | 0.0704 | 0.0869 | 0.1239 | 0.0265 | 0.0354 | 0.075 | 0.0582 | 0.0439 | 0.0882 | 0.0736 |
Weight obtained by entropy method | 0.0371 | 0.0237 | 0.1409 | 0.1364 | 0.0026 | 0.0942 | 0.0879 | 0.0294 | 0.0142 | 0.0257 | 0.0247 | 0.0374 | 0.1728 | 0.0809 | 0.0424 | 0.0501 |
Comprehensive weight (Wi) | 0.0309 | 0.028 | 0.0631 | 0.0395 | 0.0072 | 0.0949 | 0.1264 | 0.0525 | 0.0361 | 0.014 | 0.018 | 0.0576 | 0.2067 | 0.0729 | 0.0768 | 0.0757 |
Index | Quantile | Score Standard | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5% | 95% | 8 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | ||
River morphology (B1) | C1 | 0.25 | 1 | ≥1.000 | 0.750–1.000 | 0.500–0.750 | 0.250–0.500 | <0.250 |
C2 | 0.25 | 1 | ≥1.000 | 0.750–1.000 | 0.500–0.750 | 0.250–0.500 | <0.250 | |
C3 | 0.013 | 0.862 | ≥0.862 | 0.421–0.862 | 0.182–0.421 | 0.093–0.182 | <0.093 | |
C4 | 0.02 | 0.748 | ≥0.748 | 0.281–0.748 | 0.184–0.281 | 0.103–0.184 | <0.103 | |
River water environment (B2) | C5 | 0.25 | 1 | ≥1.000 | 0.750–1.000 | 0.500–0.750 | 0.250–0.500 | <0.250 |
C6 | 0.056 | 0.899 | ≥0.899 | 0.506–0.899 | 0.337–0.506 | 0.174–0.337 | <0.174 | |
C7 | 0.048 | 0.82 | ≥0.820 | 0.424–0.820 | 0.337–0.424 | 0.163–0.337 | <0.163 | |
C8 | 0.333 | 0.833 | ≥0.833 | 0.833–1.000 | 0.667–0.833 | 0.500–0.667 | <0.500 | |
C9 | 0.585 | 0.94 | ≥0.940 | 0.849–0.940 | 0.806–0.849 | 0.764–0.806 | <0.764 | |
Riparian condition (B3) | C10 | 0.25 | 1 | ≥1.000 | 0.750–1.000 | 0.500–0.750 | 0.250–0.500 | <0.250 |
C11 | 0.25 | 1 | ≥1.000 | 0.750–1.000 | 0.500–0.750 | 0.250–0.500 | <0.250 | |
C12 | 0.153 | 0.948 | ≥0.948 | 0.827–0.948 | 0.665–0.827 | 0.484–0.665 | <0.484 | |
C13 | 0.022 | 0.336 | ≥0.336 | 0.141–0.336 | 0.090–0.141 | 0.055–0.090 | <0.055 | |
C14 | 0.025 | 0.916 | ≥0.916 | 0.750–0.916 | 0.484–0.750 | 0.282–0.484 | <0.282 | |
C15 | 0.16 | 0.953 | ≥0.953 | 0.817–0.953 | 0.667–0.817 | 0.467–0.667 | <0.467 | |
Social services (B4) | C16 | 0.25 | 1 | ≥1.000 | 0.750–1.000 | 0.500–0.750 | 0.250–0.500 | <0.250 |
Health Level | Excellent | Healthy | Sub-Healthy | Unhealthy | Sick |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RHI Value | 8.0–6.4 | 4.8–6.4 | 3.2–4.8 | 1.6–3.2 | 0–1.6 |
Health Level | River Morphology | River Water Environment | Riparian Condition | Social Service |
---|---|---|---|---|
Excellent | 0% | 6% | 0% | 20% |
Healthy | 23% | 40% | 17% | 26% |
Sub-healthy | 26% | 40% | 29% | 17% |
Unhealthy | 37% | 14% | 46% | 37% |
Sick | 14% | 0% | 9% | 0% |
Cluster | Segments | Criterion Level | Mean | Skewness | Kurtosis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 9 (S1, S2, S3, S4, S8, S9, S20, S22, S23) | River_morphology | 2.162 ± 0.916 | −0.285 ± 0.661 | −1.312 ± 1.279 |
River_water_environment | 4.735 ± 1.066 | −0.415 ± 0.661 | −0.189 ± 1.279 | ||
River_bank_condition | 2.367 ± 1.012 | 0.537 ± 0.661 | 0.068 ± 1.279 | ||
Social_service | 7.091 ± 1.044 | −0.213 ± 0.661 | −2.444 ± 1.279 | ||
2 | 12 (S5, S10, S13, S14, S16, S17, S18, S19, S30, S33, S34, S35) | River_morphology | 4.663 ± 0.504 | 0.201 ± 0.913 | 0.578 ± 2.000 |
River_water_environment | 4.817 ± 1.120 | −0.489 ± 0.913 | 1.815 ± 2.000 | ||
River_bank_condition | 3.414 ± 1.523 | 0.224 ± 0.913 | −2.207 ± 2.000 | ||
Social_service | 6.400 ± 0.894 | 2.236 ± 0.913 | 5.000 ± 2.000 | ||
3 | 9 (S6, S7, S15, S21, S24, S25, S26, S27, S29) | River_morphology | 2.767 ± 1.015 | 0.807 ± 0.661 | 0.61 ± 1.279 |
River_water_environment | 4.056 ± 0.924 | 0.644 ± 0.661 | −0.804 ± 1.279 | ||
River_bank_condition | 3.130 ± 0.965 | 0.494 ± 0.661 | −1.036 ± 1.279 | ||
Social_service | 2.909 ± 1.044 | 0.213 ± 0.661 | −2.444 ± 1.279 | ||
4 | 2 (S11, S12) | River_morphology | 4.824 ± 0.817 | 1.330 ± 0.913 | 2.307 ± 2.000 |
River_water_environment | 4.191 ± 1.068 | 0.114 ± 0.913 | −1.465 ± 2.000 | ||
River_bank_condition | 5.103 ± 0.899 | 0.125 ± 0.913 | −2.351 ± 2.000 | ||
Social_service | 2.400 ± 0.894 | 2.236 ± 0.913 | 5.000 ± 2.000 | ||
5 | 3 (S28, S31, S32) | River_morphology | 5.312 ± 0.734 | 1.732 ± 1.225 | - |
River_water_environment | 6.604 ± 0.782 | −0.263 ± 1.225 | - | ||
River_bank_condition | 3.68 ± 1.392 | 1.728 ± 1.225 | - | ||
Social_service | 2.000 ± 0 | - | - |
Health Level | River Segment Number | Flow Rate Ratio | TDS (μs/ cm) | TP (mg/L) | DO (mg/L) | Riparian Zone Vegetation Diversity | Riparian Slope (°) | Riparian Vegetation Width (m) | Ornamental and Recreation Value | Erosion Degree | Vegetation Cover |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Healthy | S16 | 9.588 | 1417 | 0.02 | 9.45 | 0.9555 | 54.6 | 154 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
S17 | 6.520 | 1495 | 0.01 | 10.62 | 1.1955 | 38.4 | 34 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
S15 | 1.746 | 1467 | 0.03 | 4.77 | 1.1829 | 51.4 | 56 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
S27 | 4.952 | 1498 | 0.01 | 10.03 | 1.3015 | 10.4 | 30 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
Sub-healthy | S28 | 1.000 | 1495 | 0.01 | 10.18 | 1.0696 | 17.4 | 50 | 4 | 2 | 3 |
S31 | 4.110 | 1496 | 0.01 | 9.99 | 1.1629 | 69.2 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
S18 | 6.210 | 1461 | 0.01 | 10.75 | 1.1283 | 55.6 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
S32 | 3.894 | 1483 | 0.01 | 10.08 | 1.0113 | 73.6 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 4 | |
S13 | 2.676 | 1473 | 0.02 | 10.44 | 1.1371 | 18.8 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
S14 | 6.271 | 1469 | 0.03 | 10.50 | 0.9835 | 41.0 | 18 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
S19 | 1.532 | 1466 | 0.01 | 10.48 | 0.8510 | 60.2 | 28 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
S23 | 3.496 | 1474 | 0.01 | 10.31 | 0.7954 | 26.2 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
S26 | 3.490 | 1490 | 0.04 | 9.83 | 1.2218 | 19.0 | 23 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
S33 | 3.246 | 1494 | 0.02 | 10.71 | 0.8509 | 49.4 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
S7 | 1.531 | 1476 | 0.01 | 7.34 | 1.0084 | 78.0 | 26 | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
S29 | 1.679 | 1490 | 0.02 | 10.38 | 0.9842 | 33.8 | 16 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
S1 | 1.359 | 1429 | 0.01 | 10.67 | 1.1247 | 43.5 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
S10 | 4.961 | 1468 | 0.03 | 10.25 | 0.9825 | 20.6 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
S25 | 4.497 | 1485 | 0.01 | 9.63 | 0.5679 | 26.2 | 29 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
S12 | 4.235 | 1472 | 0.01 | 11.26 | 0.8887 | 44.0 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
S24 | 3.420 | 1483 | 0.01 | 9.76 | 0.6623 | 20.0 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
Unhealthy | S11 | 4.725 | 1475 | 0.00 | 11.69 | 1.1663 | 68.2 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
S22 | 2.560 | 1472 | 0.02 | 10.18 | 0.8004 | 11.8 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |
S34 | 3.487 | 1501 | 0.03 | 10.54 | 0.6623 | 72.0 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
S2 | 2.195 | 1445 | 0.02 | 10.42 | 0.7872 | 69.2 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 2 | |
S21 | 1.588 | 1482 | 0.06 | 10.09 | 0.9959 | 29.4 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
S30 | 2.435 | 1488 | 0.01 | 10.35 | 0.8610 | 57.0 | 14 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
Average value | 4.191 | 1474 | 0.02 | 10.15 | 0.9856 | 42.6 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chen, L.; Ma, L.; Jiji, J.; Kong, Q.; Ni, Z.; Yan, L.; Pan, C. River Ecosystem Health Assessment Using a Combination Weighting Method: A Case Study of Beijing Section of Yongding River in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114433
Chen L, Ma L, Jiji J, Kong Q, Ni Z, Yan L, Pan C. River Ecosystem Health Assessment Using a Combination Weighting Method: A Case Study of Beijing Section of Yongding River in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):14433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114433
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Linglong, Lan Ma, Jiamen Jiji, Qingqi Kong, Zizhao Ni, Lin Yan, and Chengzhong Pan. 2022. "River Ecosystem Health Assessment Using a Combination Weighting Method: A Case Study of Beijing Section of Yongding River in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 14433. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114433