Next Article in Journal
An Empirical Research of Students’ Perceptions Regarding M-Commerce Acquisitions during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Next Article in Special Issue
Study on the Influence of Seismic Wave Parameters on the Dynamic Response of Anti-Dip Bedding Rock Slopes under Three-Dimensional Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Residency, Site Fidelity, and Regional Movement of Tiger Sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) at a Pupping Location in the Bahamas
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Morphological Assessment of River Stability: Review of the Most Influential Parameters

by
Nor Azidawati Haron
1,*,
Badronnisa Yusuf
1,
Mohd Sofiyan Sulaiman
2,
Mohd Shahrizal Ab Razak
1 and
Siti Nurhidayu
3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
2
School of Ocean Engineering Technology and Informatics, University Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu 21030, Malaysia
3
Faculty of Forestry, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 10025; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610025
Submission received: 14 July 2022 / Revised: 8 August 2022 / Accepted: 11 August 2022 / Published: 12 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Slope Stability Monitoring and Evaluation)

Abstract

:
River health assessments in the form of morphological approaches are crucial to determining the stability of a river system. Human interference in the natural river landscapes has altered the regime of river flows in the past. The catastrophes arising from the regime alteration are varied: excessive erosion and sedimentation, low carrying capacity, depletion of water yield, and many more. Past researchers have formulated numerous assessments to examine the stability of a river system. Still, arguments are prevalent due to the opinionated nature of the evaluation and a lack of parameters about river equilibrium. This paper reviews the past approaches to assessing channel stability by revisiting the most influential parameters adopted in the assessment process. An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to find the prioritization of the selected parameters. This study found that a field survey is the most preferred method of river assessment instead of the other techniques such as remote sensing, modeling, and rapid field assessment. The most influential parameters (top 5) that determine the stability of a river system are (1) channel forms, (2) channel dimensions, (3) channel substrates, (4) channel pattern, and (5) bank profile. Those parameterizations are crucial to determining the stability of a river system.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

It is crucial to understand morphological assessment as an alternative way to maintain the river landscape and promote sustainable restoration of morphological appearance and aquatic and riparian habitats [1]. This branch of science involves studying how rivers shape the Earth’s surface and its dynamics [2,3]. In recent decades, the hydrology and geomorphology fields of study integrated by imposing a morphological approach to account for the physical characteristics and stream processes simultaneously [4]. The EU Water Framework Directive [5] introduced the need for a morphological approach to assessing rivers within Europe by incorporating hydrological regime, river morphology, and river continuity. In Malaysia, the Department of Irrigation and Drainage [6] has implemented a National Water Balance Management System for Peninsular Malaysia to strengthen integrated water resources management in the Muda River Basin to replicate the system in other basins in the future. It is a computerized system based on several investigative studies into water demand and water. However, an assessment of river stability has not been discussed thoroughly, yet water availability by a stable channel is crucial and in dire need. Thus, abundant reports and literature showed the importance of preserving the river landscape through river assessment of channel stability. An in-depth review of available river assessments is given by [4]. They recommended that river condition assessment integrates with a few disciplinary approaches such as hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, biology, and ecology. As a result of this, river health assessment can be broken down into four main groups: physical habitat assessment [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14], riparian habitat assessment [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22], hydrological regime alteration assessment [23,24,25,26,27,28,29], and morphological assessment [9,20,30,31,32,33,34,35]. These assessments differ due to the river section of interest and multiple integrations between fields of study.
Nevertheless, the parameters in each assessment are almost the same: a combination of hydraulics, hydrology, and geomorphology of the river landscape. In a nutshell, these assessments can represent hydro-morphological assessment methods. However, [1] criticizes hydro-morphological assessment methods, which emphasize qualitative approaches and are open to criticism because they are highly subjective and may appear to be opinionated. Thus, the role of quantitative and statistical analysis seems more realistic in validating and providing a check and balance for hydro-morphological assessments. The significance of these assessments may have an impact on future restoration work. The available project risk screening matrix for river management and restoration [36,37,38] employs parameters that have the potential to reduce or increase project impact potential. Those parameters are somehow in-line with the existing hydro-morphological assessment. Therefore, the parameters that controlled the geomorphic changes must be given full attention.
The main aim of this paper is to find the most influential parameters that control channel stability. The specific purposes of this paper are: (1) to review the existing parameters of hydro-morphological assessment and their associated categorical data, and (2) to assess the most influential parameters based on weightage segmentation. A review of the influential parameters was commenced by inferring from the previous report of [4]. A ready-made checklist by [4] will be used as a ground base to find the most influential parameters. The descriptions for each parameter are discussed based on the European Method for Water Framework Directive [39]. The morphological assessment group has given special attention to four river health assessment categories. Each parameter’s prioritization and associated weightage were assessed using the analytical hierarchal process (AHP) methodology. The highest weightage indicates the most influential parameters in their sub-indexes. The most influential parameters provide a basis for controlling the factors in river landscape changes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Inventory of Influential Parameters

Channel forms, geomorphic adjustments, and human alterations are the main criteria in morphological assessment [4]. Morphological assessment emphasizes the degree of deviation from unaltered rivers, which can be referred to as a reference condition. The reference condition is the condition of the river in an unaltered or least-degraded and most ecological dynamic state. An in-depth discussion on reference conditions was given by [20]. It can be concluded that inferring the reference condition from the past landscape is impractical. The rivers might continuously change on a temporal scale due to the persistent interrelationship between human activities and natural phenomena. Many authors have removed the past landscape as a reference condition [20]. As previously described by [40], the reference condition is best described by looking at the least degraded and most ecologically dynamic state. They claimed that a river system must be more autonomous and resilient to external perturbations. [41] proposed a reference condition designated as an expected state, the best shape the river can achieve to balance human alteration given the state of the catchment condition—data collection for previous morphological indexes or assessments based on the reference sites. Therefore, the obtained data at those most minor degraded sites best describe parameters that influence landscape changes.
A total number of 22 morphological methods that fall under the morphological assessment group was selected to find the weightage and ranking for each criterion, as shown by [4]. The inventory of the parameters was divided into three categories: data collection methods, recorded features, and physical river process features.

2.1.1. Data Collection Method

The data collection method (Table 1) is a theme that relates to gathering the data (source of information), the mechanism of storing the data (type of assessment), lengthwise variability, transverse variability, and time variability. Remote sensing includes a preliminary desk study providing topographic, geomorphology, groundwater maps, surveyed reach, land cover, geology, river network, the extent of riparian distribution, historical changes on planform/pattern, and information on artificial pressures [42,43,44,45,46]. The field survey sub-criteria measure several physical variables at the reach (transects) scale [47]. This task is time-consuming but a highly sought-after method to obtain ground databases. Ref. [44] argued that a field survey must cover 10% of the investigated river to verify the results of the desk studies protocol. Rapid field assessment requires well-trained operators and surveyors who know the morphology of a river system [48,49]. Modeling encompasses a gauged station’s water level, discharge, and other hydraulic computations [50]. The percentage of occupied field survey is the highest and stood at 91%, while the modeling approach as a source of data information is the least and stood at 5% among 22 morphological methods.
This assessment consisted of three sub-criteria: inventorying, assessment by index, and general assessment. Inventorying is a feature based on a river system’s frequency, extent, absence/presence, and morphological aspects [43,45,51,52,53]. Assessment by index mainly uses a functional-unit score system, where scores are assigned following a hierarchical/stepwise approach [52]. As such, [46] proposed that morphological parameters (for channels and banks) be assessed on a 5-point scale from 1 (natural) to 5 (anthropogenic). The general assessment is a method that aims to give a comprehensive evaluation of morphological conditions [7,50]. Each parameter is examined individually by the frequency, percentage, occurrences, etc. The rate of occupied space for each sub-criteria is almost the same, where assessment by an index is the highest compared to the other two. Spatial scale refers to the extent of a study area’s land or geographical distance. Longitudinal spatial scale infers the streamwise extent of a river section. The proposed survey was conducted on segments 500 m long [45]. Instead, [43] suggested that for the 10 m width of a channel, the proposed longitudinal survey should cover 100 m long, 30 m width for 500 m long, and a width >30 m, the longitudinal survey should account for 1 km. However, both of them differed in the lateral survey. [45] proposed that the left and right banks must be surveyed together, while [43] suggested otherwise. Temporal scale refers to the time frame of data collection for assessment. Most researchers utilize the present state of data for river assessment.

2.1.2. Recorded Features

Recorded features are parameters that were assessed in the field. Those parameters included the channel features, riparian zone features, floodplain features, and large-scale characteristics. These features were stratified according to the active channel, bank and riparian unit, floodplain, and mega form unit. Channel pattern, form, and substrate dominate the channel features for assessment purposes (82%, 86%, and 82%, respectively). Channel patterns entail the longitudinal shape of a river system, such as a straight, meandering, or braided channel. This parameter assesses the variability of channel width both currently and in the past [42,43], synonymously using the term “channel plan form” to illustrate the channel pattern parameter. Channel form is a recorded feature on the river bank or the main channel section [54]. The erosion and depositional characters, including bars and islands, were recorded in channel form. Two schools of thought exist on measuring the channel substrate; the dominant substrate in the river bed [51,52] and the degree of naturalness of bed substrate composition (compared to the reference) [50]. The bank and riparian unit feature close to the water’s edge. The bank profile scored the highest preference frequency, 82%, while species composition achieved the least, at 18%. The bank profile and shape measure the bank extent and slope, variability of cross-section, and eroding/stable cliff features [55,56]. Floodplain features are the width of the whole floodplain and potentially erodible corridors [20]—all sub-criteria share almost the same frequency, as depicted in Table 2. The mega form unit and its associated flow regimes record large-scale characteristics. Ref. [20] emphasized the segmentation phase of geology, geomorphology, climate, and land use in large-scale settings. The channel-forming discharges, which influence morphological processes, were considered in the hydrological regime.

2.1.3. River Processes

River processes as tabulated in Table 3 are the themes that relate to the physical and geomorphic form of a river landscape resulting from fluvial processes. These criteria somehow overlapped with the other parameters in the recorded feature’s inventory. Bank erosion and channel adjustment share the highest degree of frequency in the river process criteria. Bank erosions were assessed in a few manners: observation of cross-section naturalness and presence of protection structure [50,54,57,58]; determination of unit stream power to assess the capacity of the river to erode river bank [47], and bank profile and retreat [20,44,52,55]. They set the channel adjustment by looking at the historical changes to the channel form due to the introduction of hydraulic structures [20,50,58,59].

2.2. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

This study used Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the most influential parameter for morphological assessment. The AHP is a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons and relies on the judgments of experts to derive priority scales [60]. As illustrated by [61], the AHP process involves four main steps: (1) Knowing the problem statement and the type of decision to be made; (2) creating the decision hierarchy by segregating different levels of judgment; (3) constructing a set of pairwise comparison matrices; (4) assigning the weightage priorities for each element. The AHP method performed a pairwise comparison before eigenvalue computation. Table 4 gives the fundamental scales of pairwise comparison to prioritize different elements in the hierarchy process. The eigenvalues were then designated as the weightage or rank for each element and were computed using the following principles:
  • The values (prioritize numbers as in Table 4) in each column of the pairwise comparison matrix were summed;
  • Column total divided each element of the matrix. This operation will normalize all column values in the pairwise matrix;
  • The elements in each row (previously converted into a decimal form) were then averaged to obtain a priority vector. The row average is the weightage of each component, which can then be translated into a ranking classification (the highest the weightage, the greater the rank).

3. Results

3.1. Weightage and Ranking at Criteria Level

The AHP assessed three primary inventories separately and used normalized eigenvalue computation before ranking classification. Those inventories are data collection methods, recorded features, and river processes. Before executing the eigenvalue computation, it is crucial to determine the priority number between each pairwise. The priority number can be extracted from the frequency percentage as stipulated in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. For example, the source of information criteria consists of four sub-criteria, namely remote sensing (73%), field survey (91%), rapid field assessment (9%), and modeling (5%). As shown in Table 5, the baseline for normalization took the highest total frequency for any criteria; in this case, the channel feature criteria stood at 536%. After normalization, the frequencies for the source of information and type of assessment were 33.20% and 29.6%, respectively. Thus, the percentage difference was 3.5%, which falls under the preference scale of 1, favoring the source of the information criteria. Executing the AHP steps as mentioned in the previous section reveals that the weights for the source of information, type of assessment, longitudinal spatial scale, lateral spatial scale, and temporal scale were 4.3%, 4.3%, 2.6%, 9.7%, and 4.7%, respectively. The final weightage of 4.3% was assigned to all sub-criteria within the source of information criteria and vice versa. This set of weights at the criteria level is called global weightage (GW), which accounts for 100% of the total eigenvalues. The ranking in Table 5 reveals that data collection methods focusing on lateral spatial scale governed the most effective techniques in assessing river stability patterns. The lateral spatial scale encompasses the permanently flowing channel and the zone of the full bank state [48]. Recorded features inventory reveals that channel features are the most influential criteria in assessing the morphological assessment of a river system. The sub-criteria in Table 2 for channel features indicated the parameters acquired to set spanning from microform to the mega form of a river system.

3.2. Weightage and Ranking at Sub-Criteria Level

An assessment must be conducted separately since two hierarchy levels are involved (criteria and sub-criteria). The difference in frequency percentage served as a benchmark for selecting a preference scale, as discussed in Section 3.1. The bi-polar questionnaire was prepared as a tool for pairwise comparison. Pairwise comparison is a technique of comparing elements in pairs or aspects of the same criterion. The number of questions for each measure can be determined using n ( n 1 ) 2   where; n represents the number of sub-criteria for each main criterion.
For source of information sub-criteria, the number of bi-polar questions is 4 ( 4 1 ) / 2 = 6 . An excel spreadsheet determines the preference for each criterion. Figure 1 shows an example of a bipolar question for each measure.
Columns A and B are elements of the same criterion. As discussed, preference must be made between A and B to choose the essential component between these two. Then, the preference scale was assigned from 1 to 9. A matrix of 4 × 4 was created to find the eigenvalues for the bi-polar questionnaire. Numbers 1 to 4 on both axes represent the elements in the sub-criteria. From Table 5, it is well understood that a field survey was the preferred choice instead of remote sensing, with a scale of 2. Thus, a preference scale of 2 and the typical value of that scale were assigned, as shown in Figure 2.
The following eigenvector values were obtained for the source of information sub-criteria (see Figure 3) using the procedure previously discussed in methods (Section 2). The normalized principal eigenvector for the field survey is the highest and stood at 52.98%. This weightage is herein inferred as “local weightage” (LW). It can be concluded that the field survey was the most effective data collection method compared to the other ways (i.e., remote sensing, modeling, etc.). Performing field surveys for river assessment was the most reliable source of data from the river system. The normalized principal eigenvector can be translated into a ranking system, as shown in Figure 4. As a rule of thumb, the highest weightage represents rank one among the studied sub-criteria and vice versa. This process was performed for the other sub-criteria for the entire inventories. The highest multiplication between GW and LW gave the overall rank that represented the most influential criteria across the inventories to obtain the overall rank. Table 6 summarises all sub-criterias’ global weight, local weight, and overall rank. The channel form, dimension, substrate material, channel pattern, bank profile, bank erosion/stability, channel adjustment, channel constriction, artificial feature, and riparian zone sat in the top 10 for the most influential parameters among 47 parameters.

3.3. Consistency Checking

The quality of the ultimate decision relates to the consistency of judgments demonstrated during the pairwise comparisons. A consistency ratio (CR) exceeding 0.10 is indicative of inconsistent rulings. A sample of inconsistency is given: If, A > B; B > C, then A > C. If A < C, then inconsistency is said to exist. Each value in the first column of the pairwise comparison matrix was multiplied by the normalized eigenvector of the first item. Other criteria incurred the same procedures. Sum the values across the rows to obtain a vector of “weighted sum” values.
0.348 [ 1 2 1 / 6 1 / 7 ] + 0.53 [ 1 / 2 1 1 / 7 1 / 8 ] + 0.063 [ 6 7 1 1 ] + 0.059 [ 7 8 1 1 ] = [ 0.348 0.696 0.058 0.049 ] + [ 0.265 0.53 0.076 0.066 ] + [ 0.378 0.441 0.063 0.063 ] + [ 0.413 0.472 0.059 0.059 ] = [ 1.404 2.139 0.256 0.237 ]
The corresponding eigenvector value divided the elements of the vector of weighted sums such that
[ 1.404 / 0.348 2.139 / 0.53 0.256 / 0.063 0.237 / 0.059 ] = [ 4.034 4.036 4.063 4.016 ]  
The lambda maximum averaged the ratios in Equation (2) as follows:
λ m a x = 4.034 + 4.036 + 4.063 + 4.016 4 = 4.037
The Consistency Index (CI) can be obtained as follows:
CI = λ m a x n n 1 = 4.037 4 4 1 = 0.0123
Consistency Ratio (CR) was calculated by dividing CI and Random Index (RI) given by [60]:
CR = CI RI = 0.0123 0.89 = 0.014 < 0.10
Since CR for the source of information criteria is less than 0.10, the pairwise comparison is consistent and correct. Overall, the pairwise comparison for all criteria and sub-criteria was shown in Table 7.

4. Discussion

The main essence of this paper is to review the plausible parameters that lead to the identification of river stability status and restoration works. The outcomes from the AHP analysis were presented in the form of weightage and ranking. Two conditions of weightage exist, global weightage (GW) and local weightage (LW). GW represents the eigenvalues for the main criteria, while LW represents the eigenvalues for sub-criteria. The highest weightage is denoted as rank 1 for both GW and LW. As [62] discussed, the GW and LW are multiplied to obtain the highest weightage. Thus, the first rank in the influential parameters finds the overall rank.
The data collection method entails gathering the data and info, ways of keeping the data, and the spatial and temporal scale of data collection. The data collection method theme assessed five (5) criteria and sixteen (16) sub-criteria. The main criteria were the source of information, type of assessment, longitudinal spatial scale, lateral spatial scale, and temporal scale. Under the source of information, four (4) sub-criteria were reviewed: remote sensing, field survey, rapid field assessment, and modeling approaches. A field survey is the most preferred approach to identifying hydro-morphological data as opposed to remote sensing, rapid assessment, and modeling. Inventorying, assessment by index, and general evaluation shared equal preference due to their flexibility and ease of data-keeping. For longitudinal scale, the variable length of data sampling is the most preferred to extract the morphological condition data instead of fixed length. It is a plausible approach due to the variability of river reach, and the selection of fixed length may skip the apparent dynamics of river morphology at different scales.
The channel constriction for the lateral scale seems critical for stability assessment. The constriction may induce regime alteration downstream or upstream from the constriction point. Thus, the stead on river constriction instead of floodplain or riparian zone is more prevalent at the lateral scale. The temporal scale states the time window of data analysis or collection to assess morphological changes. Four major temporal scales were considered: present (last year), recent (1–10 year), historical (10–50 years), and monthly. The most present data are preferred instead of the recent or historical record to assess the morphological condition or selected site. It is true if the baseline data are needed to formulate the long-term stability of river conditions. The criteria for data collection formed the best approach to the data sampling regime and the data collection scale to represent the study area’s overall condition.
Recorded features form the primary essence in the morphological assessment of river stability. The influential parameters can be perused from these categories, which can be divided into four (4) main categories: channel feature, vegetation regeneration, floodplain feature, and large-scale flow and river landscape. Based on global weightage, channel features, vegetation regeneration, large-scale features, and floodplain features formed the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rank. The sub-categories in channel features, channel forms, channel dimensions, substrate, channel pattern, and woody debris are ranked in the top 5 based on the LW values.
River processes represent the action of water on the river geometry and the impact thereof. The sub-categories in river processes are longitudinal continuity, lateral continuity, large-scale sediment connectivity, bank erosion/stability, channel adjustment, and vertical connection. Based on LW values, bank erosion and channel adjustment are the most preferred parameterization in the river processes category.
The higher rank in the sub-criteria does not necessarily represent the same rank should the overall be considered. As such, the first rank for the sub-criteria in vegetation regeneration can have a lower overall rank than the third in the channel features category.

5. Conclusions

A few conclusions can be drawn concerning the optimum assessment of river stability in the future. The findings are as follows:
iv.
Regarding data collection methods, lateral spatial scales are the most common place for researchers to look for data instead of horizontal spatial scales in the past;
v.
Field sampling dominates the information source compared to remote sensing, modeling, and rapid field assessment techniques;
vi.
The most sought-after parameters in the morphological assessment are channel features (cross-sectional features), followed by river bank sections (including their properties), large-scale features, and floodplain features;
vii.
The most influential parameters that control the river stability following the weightage and ranking are (1) channel form; (2) channel dimension; (3) substrate material; (4) channel pattern; (5) bank profile; (6) bank erosion/stability; (7) channel adjustment; (8) channel constriction; (9) artificial features and, (10) riparian zone.
Based on the top ten (10) most influential parameters for determining channel stability, there is no parameter on the flow and sediment dynamics that shape the river landscape. Therefore, morpho-dynamic parameters should play a key role in assessing channel stability. Future river assessment can incorporate the riverine threshold, regime equation, and stable channel carrying sediment. These parameters emphasize the dynamics of flow and deposit in the riverine system. Regime equations highlight the best hydraulic geometry for a stable channel because a stable channel design stresses the best river width and slope to maintain the incoming and outgoing sediment. Including morpho-dynamic parameters is expected to shift the future river assessment paradigm.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.H. and M.S.S.; methodology, N.A.H. and M.S.S.; validation, B.Y. and S.N.; formal analysis, N.A.H.; investigation, N.A.H.; resources, N.A.H.; data curation, M.S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A.H.; writing—review and editing, M.S.S. and B.Y.; supervision, M.S.S., B.Y. and M.S.A.R.; funding acquisition, B.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Putra Graduate Initiative Grant grant number GP-IPS/2018/9654200, and The APC was funded by Putra Graduate Initiative Grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Putra Graduate Initiative Grant (GP-IPS/2018/9654200) from the University of Putra Malaysia. The author highly appreciated the continuative support, guidance, and thoughtful comments from the Supervisor and Co-Supervisors from the University Putra Malaysia and the University Malaysia Terengganu on completing this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Thorne, C.; Allen, R.G.; Simon, A. Geomorphological River Channel Reconnaissance for River Analysis, Engineering and Management. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 1996, 21, 469–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, Z.Y.; Lee, J.H.W.; Melching, C.S. River Dynamics and Integrated River Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rhoads, B.L. River Dynamics: Geomorphology to Support Management; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Belletti, B.; Rinaldi, M.; Buijse, A.D.; Gurnell, A.M.; Mosselman, E. A review of assessment methods for river hydromorphology. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 2079–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Commission. Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Brussels; Official Journal L 327, 22/12/2000; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  6. Department of Irrigation and Drainage. Program Pembangunan Water Balance bagi Pengurusan Sumber Air Negara (Fasa 1); National Water Balance Management System (NAWABS) bagi Lembangan Sg. Muda: Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran; Department of Irrigation and Drainage: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2019; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tavzes, B.; Urbanic, G. New indices for assessment of hydromorphological alteration of rivers and their evaluation with benthic invertebrate communities; Alpine case study. Rev. Hydrobiol. 2009, 2, 133–161. [Google Scholar]
  8. Harding, J.; Clapcott, J.; Quinn, J.; Hayes, J.; Joy, M.; Storey, R.; Boothroyd, I. Stream Habitat Assessment Protocols for Wadeable Rivers and Streams of New Zealand; School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. A Citizen’s Guide to Basic Watershed, Habitat, and Geomorphology Surveys in Stream and River Watersheds; Maine Department of Environmental Protection: Augusta, ME, USA, 2009; Volume I. [Google Scholar]
  10. Natural Resources Conservation. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Portland; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; Version 2. [Google Scholar]
  11. Northern Ireland Environment Agency. River Hydromorphology Assessment Technique (RHAT); Northern Ireland Environment Agency: Lisburn, Northern Ireland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  12. Andrew, J.B.; Scott, A.S.; Ronald, J.K.; Anthony, P.P.; John, D.S.; Michael, T.K.; Patrick, H.G. Maryland Biological Stream Survey’s Sentinel Site Network, A Multi-Purpose Monitoring Program. 2010. Available online: www.marylandwatermonitoring.org (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  13. Xia, T.; Zhu, W.; Xin, P.; Li, L. Assessment of urban stream morphology: An integrated index and modelling system. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 167, 447–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gonzalez del Tanago, M.; Garcia de Jalon, D. Riparian Quality Index (RQI): A methodology for characterizing and assessing the environmental conditions of riparian zones. Limnetica 2011, 30, 235–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oregon Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board Watershed Professionals Network. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual: Governor’s Watershed Enhancement Board; OWEB: Salem, OR, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  16. Winward, A.H. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas (RMRS-GTR-47). 2000. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/5452 (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  17. Ward, T.A.; Tate, K.W.; Atwill, E.R. Visual Assessment of Riparian Health. Retrieved from California. 2003. Available online: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8089LR.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2020).
  18. Dixon, I.; Douglas, M.; Dowe, J.; Burrows, D.; Townsend, S. A Rapid Method for Assessing the Condition of Riparian Zones in the Wet/Dry Tropics of Northern Australia. In Proceedings of the 4th Australian Stream Management Conference, Launceston, TAS, Australia, 19–22 October 2004; pp. 173–178. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jansen, A.; Robertson, A.; Thompson, L.; Wilson, A.; Flanery, F. Rapid Appraisal of Riparian Condition Technical Guideline for the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales; Land & Water Australia: Canberra, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rinaldi, M.; Surian, N.; Comiti, F.; Bussettini, M. A method for the assessment and analysis of the hydromorphological condition of Italian streams: The Morphological Quality Index (MQI). Geomorphology 2013, 180–181, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Healey, M.; Raine, A.; Parsons, L.; Cook, N. River Condition Index in New South Wales: Method Development and Application; NSW Office of Water: Sydney, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kleynhans, C.; Louw, M. Module A: EcoClassification and EcoStatus determination in river EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (Version 2); Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  23. Richter, B.D.; Baumgartner, J.V.; Powell, J.; Braun, D.P. A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Olden, J.D.; Poff, N.L. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res. Appl. 2003, 19, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kleynhans, C.; Louw, M.; Thirion, C.; Rossouw, N.; Rowntree, K. River Eco Classification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (Version 1); Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Report (WRC Report No. KV 168/05); Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  26. Black, A.R.; Rowan, J.S.; Duck, R.W.; Bragg, O.M.; Clelland, B.E. DHRAM: A method for classifying river flow regime alterations for the EC Water Framework Directive. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2005, 15, 427–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mathews, R.; Richter, B.D. Application of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Software in Environmental Flow Setting1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 1400–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shiau, J.T.; Wu, F.C. A Histogram Matching Approach for assessment of flow regime alteration: Application to environmental flow optimization. River Res. Appl. 2008, 24, 914–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Martínez Santa-María, C.; Anastasio Fernández Yuste, J.; Magdaleno Mas, F. IAHRIS 2.2 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration in Rivers. User’s Manual; Ministry of the Environment, Polytechnic University of Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pfankuch, D.J. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation; Region 1; US Department of Agriculture Forest Service: Missoula, MT, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  31. Simon, A.; Downs, P.W. An interdisciplinary approach to evaluation of potential instability in alluvial channels. Geomorphology 1995, 12, 215–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rosgen, D. Warsss—Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply—An Overview. In Proceedings of the 2007 American Institute of Hydrology Annual Meeting and International Conference, Reno, Navada, 22–25 April 2007. [Google Scholar]
  33. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Channel Condition and Stability Index (CCSI): Mpca Protocol for Assessing the Geomorphic Condition and Stability of Low-Gradient Alluvial Streams; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. Heeren, D.M.; Mittelstet, A.R.; Fox, G.A.; Storm, D.E.; Al-Madhhachi, A.T. Using rapid geomorphic assessments to assess streambank stability in oklahoma ozark streams. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 957–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wyżga, B.; Amirowicz, A.; Radecki-Pawlik, A.; Zawiejska, J. Hydromorphological conditions, potential fish habitats and the fish community in a mountain river subjected to variable human impacts, the Czarny Dunajec, Polish Carpathians. River Res. Appl. 2009, 25, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cluer, B.; Thorne, C.; Castro, J.; Pess, G.; Beechie, T.; Shea, C.; Skidmore, P. Tools and Science Base for Evaluating Stream Engineering, Management, and Restoration Proposals. In Federal Interagency Sediment Conference 2010; Cowx, I., Welcomme, R., Eds.; Fishing News Books: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  37. Skidmore, P.B.; Thorne, C.R.; Cluer, B.L.; Pess, G.R.; Castro, J.M.; Beechie, T.J.; Shea, C.C. Science Base and Tools for Evaluating Stream Engineering, Management, and Restoration Proposals, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-112. 2011. Available online: http://www.restorationreview.com/downloads/Science_and_Tools_for_Stream_Projects_2011.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2020).
  38. Thorne, C.; Castro, J.; Cluer, B.; Skidmore, P.; Shea, C. Project Risk Screening Matrix for River Management and Restoration. River Res. Appl. 2015, 31, 611–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. REFORM. Restoring Rivers for Effective Catchment Management. 2019. Available online: http://wiki.reformrivers.eu/index.php/European_methods_for_WFD (accessed on 11 October 2020).
  40. Palmer, M.A.; Bernhardt, E.S.; Allan, J.D.; Lake, P.S.; Alexander, G.; Brooks, S.; Sudduth, E. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brierley, G.J.; Fryirs, K.A. Geomorphology and River Management: Applications of the River Styles Framework; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pedersen, M.; Baattrup-Pedersen, A. National Monitoring Programme 2003–2009. Assessment Methods Manual; National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  43. Langhammer, J. Applicability of hydromorphological monitoring data to locate flood risk reduction measures: Blanice River basin, Czech Republic. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 152, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Ilnicki, P.; Gołdyn, R.; Soszka, H.; Górecki, K.; Grzybowski, M.; Krzemińska, A.; Marcinkiewicz, M. Development of Methodologies for 528 Monitoring and Classification of Hydromorphological Quality Elements of River and Lake Water Bodies in Accordance with the 529 R equirements of the Water Framework Directive; Stage I–II. Tasks 1, 2 and 3; CPV: Warsaw, Poland, 2009; CPV code: 9071 1500–9. CPV nomenclature: 530 90711500–9. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mühlmann, H. Leitfaden zur Zustandserhebung in Fliessgewässern–Hydromorphologie; Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: Wien, Austria, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mühlmann, H.; Mauthner-Weber, R. Leitfaden zur Hydromorphologischen Zustandserhebung von Fließgewässern; Bundesministerium für Land-und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft: Wien, Austria, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  47. ONEMA. Référentiel National des Obstacles à l’Ecoulement: Une Cartographie Nationale des Obstacles sur les Cours d’eau. In Les Fiches de l’Onema; ONEMA: Vincennes, France, 2010; p. 2. [Google Scholar]
  48. Munné, A.; Solá, C.; Prat, N. QBR: Un Índice Rápido Para la Evaluación de la Calidad de los Ecosistemas de Ribera. Tecnol. Agua 1998, 175, 20–37. [Google Scholar]
  49. UK Technical Advisory Group on the WFD (UKTAG). UK Environmental Standards and Conditions (Phase 1)—Final; UKTAG: London, UK, 2008; Volume SR1-2006. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Dam, O.; Osté, A.; De Groot, B.; Van Dorst, M. Handbook Hydromorphology: Monitoring and Distraction Hydromorphological Parameters Water Framework Directive Rijkswaterstaat; Under Section Water Quality: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  51. Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA). Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Verfahren für kleine und Mittelgroße Fließgewässer; Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser: Schwerin, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  52. Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA). Gewässerstrukturgütekartierung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland—Übersichtsverfahren, Empfehlungen Oberirdische Gewässer; Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser: Schwerin, Germany, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  53. ONEMA. Des étapes et des outils, Les Outils de Connaissance de l’hydromorphologie des Cours d’eau Français. In Restauration Physique des Cours d’eau—Connaissance; ONEMA: Vincennes, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Murphy, M.; Toland, M. River Hydromorphology Assessment Technique (RHAT). Training Guide Version 2; Department of the Environment; Northern Ireland Environment Agency: Belfast, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  55. Raven, P.; Fox, P.; Everard, M.; Holmes, N.; Dawson, F. River Habitat Survey: A New System for Classifying Rivers According to their Habitat Quality. In Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Boon, P., Howell, D.L., Eds.; The Stationery Office: Edinburgh, UK, 1997; pp. 215–234. [Google Scholar]
  56. Buffagni, A.; Erba, S.; Ciampittiello, M. Il rilevamento idromorfologico e degli habitat fluviali nel contesto della Direttiva Europea sulle Acque (WFD): Principi e schede di applicazione del metodo CARAVAGGIO. IRSA-CNR Not. Metod. Anal. 2005, 2, 32–46. [Google Scholar]
  57. National Environmental Research Institute (NERI); Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (SHMI). Establishment of the Protocol on Monitoring and Assessment of the Hydromorphological Elements (Slovakia)—Final Report; SHMI: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Valette, L.; Chandesris, A.; Malavoi, J.; Suchon, Y.; Willet, B. Protocole AURAH-CE Audit Rapide de l’Hydromorphologie des Cours d’Eau. Méthode de Recueil D’informations Complémentaires à SYRAH-CE sur le Terrain. In Pôle Hydroécologie des Cours d’eau-Onema/Cemagref; ONEMA: Vincennes, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  59. Chandesris, A.; Mengin, N.; Malavoi, J.; Souchon, Y.; Pella, H.; Wasson, J. Système Relationnel d’Audit de l’Hydromorphologie des Cours d’Eau. In Principes et Methodes; Cemagref: Lyon, France, 2008; Volume 3, p. 81. [Google Scholar]
  60. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  61. Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sulaiman, M.S.; Goh, Q.Y.; Sang, Y.-F.; Sivakumar, B.; Ali, A.; Rasit, N.; Abood, M.M. Development of river morphologic stability index (RMSI) to assess mountain river systems. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2021, 7, 100918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. -Bi–polar questionnaires.
Figure 1. -Bi–polar questionnaires.
Sustainability 14 10025 g001
Figure 2. Comparison matrix at the same criteria for the source of information criteria.
Figure 2. Comparison matrix at the same criteria for the source of information criteria.
Sustainability 14 10025 g002
Figure 3. Normalized principal eigenvector for the source of information criteria.
Figure 3. Normalized principal eigenvector for the source of information criteria.
Sustainability 14 10025 g003
Figure 4. Ranking for the source of information sub-criteria.
Figure 4. Ranking for the source of information sub-criteria.
Sustainability 14 10025 g004
Table 1. Inventory for Data Collection Method [4].
Table 1. Inventory for Data Collection Method [4].
InventoryCriteriaSub-CriteriaFrequency%
Data Collection MethodSource of informationRemote sensing73
Field survey91
Rapid field assessment9
Modeling5
Type of AssessmentInventorying50
Assessment by index59
General Assessment50
Longitudinal Spatial ScaleFixed Length9
Length vs. width14
Variable-length64
Lateral Spatial ScaleChannel100
Riparian Zone96
Floodplain86
Temporal ScalePresent (last year)100
Recent (1–10 year)7
Historical (10–50 year)7
Table 2. Inventory for Recorded Features criteria [4].
Table 2. Inventory for Recorded Features criteria [4].
InventoryCriteriaSub-CriteriaFrequency%
Recorded FeaturesChannel featuresChannel pattern82
Channel form86
Channel dimension73
Flow type27
Substrate82
Physical parameters32
In-channel vegetation27
Woody debris50
Artificial features and structures77
Banks/riparian zone featuresBank profile/shape82
Bank material36
Riparian vegetation structure64
Riparian vegetation continuity32
Riparian vegetation width27
Species composition18
Artificial features and structures77
Land use46
Floodplain featuresFluvial forms46
Floodplain dimensions41
Floodplain features32
Land use46
Large scale characteristicsLarge scale pressure68
Hydrological regime/discharge82
Valley form64
Table 3. Inventory for River Processes criteria [4].
Table 3. Inventory for River Processes criteria [4].
InventoryCriteriaSub-CriteriaFrequency%
River ProcessesRiver ProcessesLongitudinal continuity55
Lateral continuity68
Large-scale sediment connectivity36
Bank erosion/stability82
Channel adjustments82
Vertical connection (groundwater)16
Table 4. Prioritize number [61].
Table 4. Prioritize number [61].
Intensity of ImportanceDefinitionExplanation
1Equal ImportanceTwo activities contribute equally to the objective
2Weak or slight
3Moderate importanceExperience and judgment slightly favor
4Moderate plus
5Strong importanceExperience and judgment strongly favor
6Strong plus
7Very strong or
demonstrated importance
An activity is favored very strongly over
another; its dominance demonstrated in practice
8Very, very strong
9Extreme importanceThe evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation
Table 4 was reproduced with permission from Saaty, T. L, International Journal of Services Sciences; published by Inderscience, 2008. Inderscience retains the copyright of the table from which it is taken.
Table 5. The percentage of frequency for each criterion.
Table 5. The percentage of frequency for each criterion.
Data Collection MethodRecorded FeaturesRiver Process
CriteriaSource of
Information
Type of Method/
Assessment
Longitudinal Spatial ScaleLateral Spatial ScaleTemporal ScaleChannel FeaturesRiparian Zone FeaturesFloodplain FeaturesLarge Scale CharacteristicsRiver Process
Sub1735091001008282466855
291591496368636418268
3950686467364326436
45 4 273246 82
5 8227 82
6 3218 18
7 2777
8 5046
9 77
Total percentage17815933282182536382165214341
Normalization (%)33.2029.6611.9452.6133.9510071.2630.7839.9263.62
Eigenvalues (%)4.34.32.69.74.735.416.14.65.113.2
Ranking for Main Criteria3351212431
Table 6. Summary of global weight, local weight, and overall rank.
Table 6. Summary of global weight, local weight, and overall rank.
InventoryCriteriaSub-CriteriaGW%RankLW%RankOverall
Ranking
Data Collection MethodSource of InformationRemote Sensing4.3335.0221
Field Survey53.0117
Rapid Field Assessment6.0345
Modeling6.0345
Type of AssessmentInventorying4.3333.33123
Assessment by Index33.33123
General Assessment33.33123
Longitudinal Spatial ScaleFixed Length2.6514.3243
Length vs. Width14.3243
Variable Length71.4119
Lateral Spatial ScaleChannel Constriction9.714118
Riparian Zone33210
Floodplain26315
Temporal ScalePresent (last year)4.7265111
Recent (1–10 year)14.5340
Historical (10–50 year)15239
Monthly4.7447
Recorded FeaturesChannel FeatureChannel Pattern35.4116.944
Channel Form22.611
Channel Dimension19.322
Flow Type3.8727
Substrate17.233
Physical Parameter4.5620
In Channel Vegetation3.8727
Woody Debris8.1512
Artificial Features3.8727
Vegetation RegenerationBank Profile16.1228.515
Bank Material6.4534
Riparian Vegetation Structure13.6418
Riparian Vegetation Continuity5.3636
Riparian Vegetation Width4.8738
Species Composition3.5841
Artificial Feature and Structure20.629
Land Use17.2313
Floodplain FeatureFluvial Form4.6430126
Floodplain Dimension25232
Floodplain Features21435
Land Use25232
Large ScaleLarge Scale Pressure5.1325230
Hydrological Regime50114
Valley Form25230
River ProcessRiver ProcessLongitudinal Continuity3.2111.3422
Lateral Continuity17.9316
Large Scale Sediment Connectivity6.2537
Bank Erosion/Stability30.416
Channel Adjustment30.426
Vertical Connection3.9642
Table 7. Consistency ratio for Sub-criteria.
Table 7. Consistency ratio for Sub-criteria.
Sub-CriteriaNumber of Sub-CriteriaLambdaConsistency Ratio
Source of Information44.0371.40 × 10−2
Type of assessment33.0000.00
Longitudinal Spatial Scale33.0000.00
Lateral Spatial Scale33.0546.00 × 10−2
Temporal Scale44.1043.80 × 10−2
Channel Feature99.7156.18 × 10−2
Vegetation Regeneration88.7387.53 × 10−2
Floodplain Feature44.0602.22 × 10−2
Large Scale Characteristics33.0000.00
River Process66.0741.18 × 10−2
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Haron, N.A.; Yusuf, B.; Sulaiman, M.S.; Razak, M.S.A.; Nurhidayu, S. Morphological Assessment of River Stability: Review of the Most Influential Parameters. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610025

AMA Style

Haron NA, Yusuf B, Sulaiman MS, Razak MSA, Nurhidayu S. Morphological Assessment of River Stability: Review of the Most Influential Parameters. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Haron, Nor Azidawati, Badronnisa Yusuf, Mohd Sofiyan Sulaiman, Mohd Shahrizal Ab Razak, and Siti Nurhidayu. 2022. "Morphological Assessment of River Stability: Review of the Most Influential Parameters" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610025

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop