Next Article in Journal
Water Sensitive Planning for the Cities in the Global South
Previous Article in Journal
Ecological and Human Health Risks of Metal–PAH Combined Pollution in Riverine and Coastal Soils of Southern Russia
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Water Resource Carrying Capacity and Obstacle Factors Based on GRA-TOPSIS Evaluation Method in Manas River Basin

1
College of Water Conservancy & Architectural Engineering, Shihezi University, Shihezi 832000, China
2
Key Laboratory of Cold and Arid Regions Eco-Hydraulic Engineering of Xinjiang Production & Construction Corps, Shihezi 832000, China
3
Key Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology and Environment, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
4
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
5
College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Yangling 712100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(2), 236; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020236
Received: 18 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published: 5 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Water Resources Management, Policy and Governance)

Abstract

:
The investigation of water resource carrying capacity (WRCC) in oasis cities in Northwest China is useful for guiding the sustainable development of arid regions. To quantify the WRCC of Shihezi, an oasis city in the Manas River Basin (MRB), Northwest China, a total of 21 indicators from three subsystems were selected to construct an evaluation index system based on the theory of the water resource–socio-economic–ecological complex system. Our study utilized a combination of the CRITIC method and the entropy weight method to determine the synthesis weight, the GRA-TOPSIS approach to comprehensively evaluate the WRCC, and the obstacle degree model to identify its main obstacle factors. Our results showed that the WRCC of Shihezi showed an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with the compositive index increasing from 0.3454 to 0.5210. The carrying capacities of the ecological environment and socio-economic subsystems were generally on the rise, but the rate of change was relatively gentle from 2017 to 2020. The carrying capacity index of the water resource subsystem dropped significantly from year to year from 2016 to 2020. The irrigation coverage rate, the proportion of agricultural water, water consumption per 10,000 CNY of GDP, the modulus of water production, water resource development and its utilization ratio, the water supply modulus, and the proportion of ecological water were the seven most significant obstacles. Our findings could serve as scientific references for enhancing WRCC and promoting the sustainable development of oasis cities in arid regions.

1. Introduction

Water resource carrying capacity (WRCC) refers to the reasonable scale of water resources that can support regional sustainable economic, social, and ecological development [1]. The evaluation and analysis of WRCC are key to solving the contradiction between the supply of and demand for regional water resources and maintaining coordinated economic, social, and ecological development [2]. WRCC significantly impacts the prevention of environmental degradation and the spatial balance of water resources. Therefore, an in-depth study of regional WRCC and an accurate assessment can promote the full scientific utilization of regional water resources and the sustainable development of the regional social economy [3,4].
The concept and research of WRCC first began abroad. In the 1990s, Engelman et al. [5] selected factors such as population size, growth rate, distribution, and consumption pattern, and analyzed the contradiction between supply and demand of the tertiary industry and freshwater resources according to the influence of the selected factors on WRCC. In the 21st century, research on WRCC mainly focuses on assessing and managing urban water resource security and intelligent city water. Michiel et al. [6] studied the evaluation and management systems of urban water resource security and proposed that urban WRCC guarantees urban water resource security. In 2015, Steven H. A. Koop et al. [7] established an international evaluation index system for climate change, urbanization, and water pollution, which made research more inclined toward clean city water. WRCC research in China has shifted from the water resource system to the water resource–economic society–ecological complex system [8] Yue et al. [9] built a rating index system of Wuhan’s water ecological carrying capacity based on DIPSIR and used the TOPSIS method to conduct a quantitative evaluation of the city’s water ecological carrying capacity. Based on the interaction of the water resource–socio-economic–ecological complex system, Yang et al. [10] comprehensively evaluated the carrying capacity of water resources in Gongyi City, and analyzed the key factors affecting the carrying capacity of urban water resources by combining the state-space and hierarchical analysis methods. Zeng et al. [11] proposed a hybrid land–water–environment (LWE) model to identify the ecological risks and impacts of agroforestry ecosystems under uncertain meteorological and precipitation conditions. Ma et al. [12] calculated the WRCC of Yunnan Province from 2005 to 2018 using the GRA-TOPSIS method and obstacle degree model, and diagnosed the main obstacle factors. Zeng et al. [13] developed a hybrid stochastic-fuzzy model with a Green-Z scenario (HFSG) to alleviate the conflict between regional irrigation production and environmental protection under the pressure of water and soil resources. Yang et al. [14] applied the CRITIC-GR-TOPSIS method to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of WRCC in Yantai City from 2003 to 2018. In addition to the above research methods, regional WRCC research mainly uses the principal component analysis method, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, the multi-criteria compromise solution sorting method, and the grey correlation degree [15,16].
The Manas River Basin (MRB) is located in the arid area of Northwest China, an important development area on the north slope of the Tianshan Mountains’ economic belt. The water resource is the main limiting factor that restricts the evolution and development of ecological and economic systems. In recent years, with the rapid development of industrial and agricultural production and urban construction, regional water resources have been developed and utilized to a greater degree [17]. Furthermore, the “three red lines” of water resources have restricted the reduction of water supply from sewage resources, resulting in an increasingly severe water shortage phenomenon [18]. For example, the regional water supply in 2018 was 13.89 × 108 m3, but the total water demand of various industries was 19.47 × 108 m3. Thus, the water shortage was as high as 5.58 × 108 m3. The contradiction between the supply and demand of water resources is increasingly prominent, and significantly restricts sustainable economic, social, and ecological development [19]. Therefore, our study took Shihezi, an oasis city in the MRB, as an example and constructed a comprehensive evaluation index system of WRCC based on the theory of the water resource–socio-economic–ecological complex system. In order to provide scientific reference for the rational allocation, exploitation, and sustainable development of water resources in oasis cities, we determined the synthesis weight by combining the CRITIC method [20] and the entropy weight method [21], and evaluated the WRCC of Shihezi oasis city using the GRA-TOPSIS method. Additionally, the obstacle degree model was used to diagnose the main obstacle factors. The specific framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

2. Methods

2.1. Overview of the Study Area

Shihezi city is located in the middle part of the northern foot of the Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang, in the MRB, on the southern edge of the Junggar Basin (Figure 2). The study area (43°26′–45°20′ N, 84°58–86°24′ E) covers an area of 7529 km2. The territory has four rivers (Manas, Ningjia, Taxi, and Bayingou), forming six irrigated areas (Shihezi, Mosowan, Xiaidi, Anjihai, Jingou, and Ningjia). The average annual runoff of the four rivers in 1956–2020 was 20.811 × 108 m3, and the region’s annual divisible water volume was 12.17 × 108 m3. The study area has a typical continental semi-arid climate. The average precipitation from 2009 to 2019 was 260.7 mm, while the average annual evaporation was 1500 mm. In recent years, the rapid development of the industrial and agricultural economies has aggravated the problem of water resources in Shihezi. The deterioration in water quality and the scarce quantity of water are growing increasingly severe, posing a threat to the long-term growth of the area’s economy and society.

2.2. Data Sources

The data were mainly sourced from the “Xinjiang Statistical Yearbook” (2011–2020), the “Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Statistical Yearbook” (2011–2020), (http://tjj.xinjiang.gov.cn/ (accessed on 1 April 2021); http://www.yearbookchina.com (accessed on 7 April 2021)) the “Statistical Bulletin of Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps on National Economic and Social Development” (2011–2020), the “Shihezi Water Conservancy Annual Report” (2011–2020), and the “Xinjiang Water Resources Bulletin” (2011–2020).

2.3. Research Methods

2.3.1. Index Standardization

The min–max normalization method is adopted to carry out the linear transformation of the original data and realize dimensionless processing of the original data. The calculation formula is as follows:
Standardization of positive indicators:
g i j = x i j min x j max x j min x j  
Standardization of reverse indicators:
g i j = max x j x j max x j min x j
where: g i j is the standardized value of the index; x i j is the original data of the j evaluation index in the i year; and max x j and min x j are the maximum and minimum values of the j evaluation index, respectively.
After the index standardization, we construct the decision matrix G .
G = g i j m × n ( i = 1 , 2 , , m ; j = 1 , 2 , , n )

2.3.2. Determination of Indicator Weights

The CRITIC method, proposed by Diakoulaki in 1995, is an objective weight method. This method determines the objective weight of each indicator by calculating the variability and conflict of evaluation indicators, which can ensure that the information in the original data of each indicator can be fully divided and utilized [22]. The single CRITIC method does not fully consider the discrete types among indicators, but the entropy weight rule effectively makes up for the deficiency in this method. Therefore, this analysis is based on the combined weight of the entropy weight method and the CRITIC method [23].
(1) Entropy weight method. The entropy weight method is a method used to determine the dispersion degree of an index by using the entropy value, and thus, the index’s weight [24]. If the index data value is 0 after standardization, to avoid ln0, the standardized value is replaced by 0.0000001. The specific calculation steps are as follows:
Calculate the proportion q i j of the sample value of the i year in the j index
q i j = g i j i = 1 m g i j
Calculate the entropy e j of the j index
e j = k i = 1 m ( q i j · ln q i j )
where: k = 1 ln m .
Calculate the weight w e j of the j index
w e j = 1 e j j = 1 n 1 e j
(2) CRITIC method. The CRITIC method comprehensively measures the weight of each indicator through the variability and conflict among indicators [22]. The specific calculation steps are as follows:
Calculate the standard deviation σ j of the j index.
Calculate the correlation coefficient   r i j   between the indicators:
r i j = i = 1 m g i g i ¯ g j g j ¯ i = 1 m g i g i ¯ 2 i = 1 m g j g j ¯ 2
The conflict between indicators is based on the correlation coefficient between indicators and can be expressed by R j . The calculation formula is:
R j = i = 1 m 1 r i j
Calculate the weight w c j of the j indicator:
w c j = c j j = 1 n c j
c j = σ j R j
where: c j is the amount of information contained in the j index. The larger the value, the greater the amount of information the index contains, and the greater the relative importance of the index.
(3) Portfolio empowerment. The comprehensive weight calculation adopts the “multiplication” integrated method to realize the complementary advantages between the entropy weight and CRITIC methods [23]. The formula for calculating the synthesis weight is as follows:
w j = w e j w c j j = 1 m w e j w c j

2.3.3. GRA-TOPSIS Model

TOPSIS is a multi-objective decision-making method that sorts evaluation objects based on their proximity to idealized objects [25]. The relative proximity is calculated and sorted by calculating the distance between each evaluation object and positive or negative ideal solutions to judge the relative merits of evaluation objects. The introduction of grey correlation theory into TOPSIS can compensate for the method’s shortcomings. The grey correlation method (GRA) is based on the sample data of evaluation indicators [26]. We use grey relational analysis to describe the relationship’s strength, magnitude, and order among evaluation indicators. The GRA-TOPSIS method can more systematically and accurately reflect the degree of proximity between alternative schemes and ideal schemes, make the analysis results more reasonable and reliable, and provide a basis for the final decision [27,28]. Based on the GRA-TOPSIS method, this paper builds an evaluation model of WRCC in Shihezi city in the MRB. The specific calculation steps are as follows:
(1) Construct the weighted decision matrix. Establish a normal-weighted decision matrix   Y according to the weight of each index:
Y = y i j m × n = w i j · g i j m × n
(2) Determine the positive ideal solution and negative ideal solution of each index.
Positive ideal solution:
y j + = max y i j | i = 1 , 2 , , m
Negative ideal solution:
y j = max y i j | i = 1 , 2 , , m
(3) Determine the European distance between each evaluation object and the positive and negative ideal solutions:
D i + = j = 1 n y i j y j + 2
D i = j = 1 n y i j y j + 2
(4) Calculate the grey correlation degree.
Calculate the grey correlation coefficient between the   i   year sample and the positive ideal solution of the j index:
u i j + = min i min j Δ y i j + ρ max i max j Δ y i j Δ y i j + ρ max i max j Δ y i j
Δ y i j = y j + y i j
where: min min Δ y i j is the minimum difference between the two levels; max max Δ y i j   is the maximum difference between the two levels; and ρ is the resolution coefficient, and its value ranges from 0 to 1 ( ρ = 0.5 in our study).
Calculate the correlation degree K i + between the i year sample and the positive ideal solution:
K i + = 1 n j = 1 n u i j +
Similarly, the correlation degree K i between the i year sample and the negative ideal solution can be calculated.
(5) Calculate the relative closeness.
The Euclidean distance and correlation degree are treated as dimensionless
φ i = i max i
where: i is the Euclidean distance D i + , D i , and the grey correlation degree K i + , K i ; φ i is the dimensionless European distance d i + , d i , and the grey correlation degree k i + , k i .
Calculate the relative stick progress T i :
T i = α 1 d i + α 2 k i + α 1 d i + α 2 k i + + α 1 d i + + α 2 k i
where: α 1 , α 2 is the bias coefficient, reflecting the bias degree of decision-makers; for α 1 + α 2 = 1 , the values in this article are α 1 = 0.6 and α 2 = 0.4 . The larger the   T i   value, the higher the WRCC in the   i   year.

2.3.4. Obstacle Degree Model

The change in WRCC is the result of the combined action of various index factors. However, the GRA-TOPSIS method cannot be analyzed concretely to influence the degree of each index factor of WRCC. The obstacle degree model makes a pathological diagnosis of the level or degree of the evaluation target and determines the main obstacle factors by mining the factors that hinder the development trend and degree of things [29]. Therefore, we utilize the obstacle degree model to measure the obstacle degree of the index layer of WRCC, to provide a basis for the future improvement of WRCC. The diagnostic results are of great significance in guiding and adjusting the utilization of regional water resources. The obstacle degree mainly involves three measurement indexes: the factor contribution degree, the index deviation degree, and the obstacle degree [30].
(1) Calculate the factor contribution degree F j :
F j = w j · b i j
where: w j is the comprehensive weight of the j single index, and b i j is the weight of the criterion layer to which the i single index belongs.
(2) Calculate the index deviation degree I j :
I j = 1 g i j
(3) Calculate the degree of computational handicap Q j :
Q j = F j · I j j = 1 n F j · I j × 100 %
where: Q j is the obstacle degree (%) of the j index to the carrying capacity of water resources, and its size represents the constraint of the index to the carrying capacity of water resources. The greater the value of Q j , the greater the constraint.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Evaluation Index System

Taking the water resource subsystem, ecological environment subsystem, and social and economic system as the criterion layers of the WRCC of Shihezi. The concept of WRCC considers the comprehensive influence of the water resource system, ecological environment system, and social and economic system. Therefore, when measuring or evaluating the status of regional WRCC, the influences of the regional water resource conditions, social scale, economic structure and technical level, ecological environment, and other factors are mainly considered. Therefore, we selected evaluation indexes from the three subsystems comprehensively. The selection of evaluation indicators followed the principles of comprehensiveness, hierarchy, operability, and data availability [31]. By referring to the evaluation index system and standard of the national WRCC, consulting experts, and referring to relevant research results at home and abroad, and combining these with the actual situation of Shihezi city, a total of 21 indexes were selected to establish the evaluation index system of Shihezi WRCC, as shown in Table 1.

3.2. Evaluation of WRCC of Oasis Cities in MRB

As shown in Figure 3, we analyzed the changes in the regional WRCC as follows:
(1) Analysis of changes in comprehensive WRCC. The comprehensive WRCC of Shihezi in the MRB showed a partial decrease in some years but, on the whole, showed an upward trend. The relative sticking progress increased from 0.3454 in 2011 to 0.5210 in 2020, with an annual average growth rate of 1.76%. The changes in the regional research period can be roughly divided into two stages combined with the relative progress:
The first stage was from 2011 to 2016, and the WRCC showed a fluctuating upward trend. The relative sticking progress increased from 0.3454 to 0.6714, with an annual average growth rate of 6.52%. Compared with the previous period, the WRCC decreased slightly in 2014–2015 and significantly increased in 2015–2016. At this stage, Shihezi vigorously implemented new urbanization construction and adjusted the regional economic structure. The proportion of the tertiary industry in the region’s total GDP increased from 31.46% in 2011 to 41.39% in 2016, and the sewage treatment rate increased from 31.8% to 70%. The second stage was from 2016 to 2020. The regional WRCC shows a trend of fluctuation decline, and the relative closeness degree decreases from 0.6714 to 0.5210. It is worth noting that the carrying capacity decreased from 0.6714 in 2016 to 0.5275 in 2017 and showed a slight upward trend for two consecutive years. Under the combined pressure of water resources, ecological environment, and the economy and society, the WRCC showed a downward trend.
(2) Analysis of bearing capacity changes in each subsystem. From 2011 to 2020, the carrying capacity of the water resource subsystem in Shihezi showed a trend of first rising, and then, decreasing. From 2011 to 2016, the relative closeness degree ranged from 0.3552 to 0.6342, with a maximum increase of 26.2%. During 2016–2020, the carrying capacity of the water resource subsystem decreased from 0.6342 to 0.4632. The carrying capacity of the eco-environmental subsystem showed an upward trend on the whole, with an annual average growth rate of 16.14% from 2011 to 2016. In 2016–2017, the carrying capacity of the eco-environmental subsystem showed a significant decrease and an annual growth trend from 2017 to 2020. The carrying capacity of the socio-economic subsystem of Shihezi showed a fluctuating upward trend from 2011 to 2017. During 2015–2017, there was a significant fluctuation, with an increased rate of 33.83% during 2015–2016 and a decrease rate of 21.18% during 2016–2017. From 2018 to 2020, the changing trend of the socio-economic subsystem was relatively flat.

3.3. Obstacle Factor Analysis of WRCC of Oasis Cities in MRB

The obstacle degree model was used to estimate the obstacle degree of the WRCC of Shihezi, an oasis city in the MRB, during 2011–2020. The WRCC is characterized by the 21 indicators of obstacle degree Q j ≥ 5% and its frequency of determining the primary and secondary relationships of the obstacle factors. The frequencies of the ten main obstacle factors are shown in Figure 4.
As can be seen from Figure 3, the obstacle degree of water resource development and its utilization ratio (C2), the modulus of water production (C3), the water supply modulus (C4), the proportion of agricultural water (C6), the proportion of ecological water (C10), water consumption per 10,000 CNY of GDP (C19), and the irrigation coverage rate (C21) are all greater than 5% for ten consecutive years. Regarding the proportion of secondary industry economy (C20), the frequency of obstacle degree greater than 5% was 70%, the frequency of GDP per capita (C16) was 60%, and the frequency of forest coverage rate (C9) was 10%. After comparison, the final diagnosis of water resource development and its utilization ratio (C2), the modulus of water production (C3), the water supply modulus (C4), the proportion of agricultural water (C6), the proportion of ecological water (C10), water consumption per 10,000 CNY of GDP (C19), and the irrigation coverage rate (C21) are the main obstacle factors affecting regional water resource carrying capacity. Among them, four belong to the water resource subsystem, one to the ecological environment subsystem, and two to the economic and social subsystem.
Figure 5 shows the relationship between the WRCC of Shihezi from 2011 to 2020 and the main obstacle factors. It can be seen that the most significant obstacle factor for the overall obstacle degree of Shihezi from 2011 to 2020 is irrigation coverage, with a moderate obstacle degree of 12.28% in ten years. This is followed by the proportion of agricultural water consumption, with a moderate obstacle degree of 9.68%. The smallest is the ecological water proportion at 5.68%. From 2011 to 2020, irrigation coverage was the first obstacle affecting the WRCC of Shihezi. Additionally, it has been increasing year by year since 2017. Water consumption per 10,000 CNY of GDP ranked as the second obstacle factor in 2011–2012 and 2014–2016. However, from 2017 to 2020, its obstacle degree decreased yearly. In this stage, the obstacle degree of agricultural water consumption proportion increased yearly, becoming the second largest obstacle affecting regional WRCC. By 2020, its obstacle degree was 12.36%, and the 2015–2020 modules of water production ranked third, from 8.82% in 2015 to 9.57% in 2020. Although the proportion of ecological water use is smaller than other obstacle factors, its obstacle degree has been increasing yearly since 2017.

4. Discussion

(1) Discussion on the changes in the comprehensive carrying capacity of water resources. Based on the existing research, this paper constructs a comprehensive evaluation index system based on the theory of the water resource–socio-economic–ecological hybrid system. It uses the GRA-TOPSIS model to quantify the WRCC of Shihezi city. The evaluation results show that the WRCC of Shihezi increased from 2011 to 2016 and fluctuated from 2016 to 2020, which is consistent with the research results of Cheng et al. [32] on the water resource vulnerability of the northern slope of the Tianshan Mountain Cluster. The higher the carrying capacity, the lower the vulnerability. The WRCC of Shihezi showed a fluctuating downward trend from 2016 to 2020, which may be closely related to the regional resource situation and development status at this stage. At this stage, except for an increase of 38.9% compared with the annual average level in 2016, the inflow of river water within the region decreased year by year from 2017 to 2020. The average rainfall was 28.2% less than the annual average, and the population and COD emissions increased year by year. Moreover, WRCC is a coupling system of water resources, the ecological environment, and the economy and society, and each factor has mutual restrictions and influence. If the index value of positive factors decreases or the value of pressure factors increases, the regional water resource carrying capacity will decrease.
(2) Discussion of main obstacle factors. The obstacle degree model identifies the main obstacle factors affecting regional carrying capacity, including the irrigation coverage rate, the agricultural water proportion, water consumption per 10,000 CNY of GDP, the water production modulus, the ecological water proportion, etc. This is mainly because agriculture is still the main body of urban development in Shihezi, and the area of agricultural farmland is large. The average ratio of regional agricultural water consumption to total water consumption was 90.06% from 2011 to 2020. However, the average GDP generated by agriculture only accounts for 19.97% of the total regional GDP. Figure 6 shows a change chart of agricultural water consumption and production value in Shihezi from 2011 to 2020. Its development has a significant impact on the carrying capacity of water resources. At the same time, Shihezi is located in an arid area, which has a relatively significant disadvantage in water resource endowment and is subject to the inherent constraints of resources. In addition, the reduction in regional water resource supply under total water consumption control will increase the bearing pressure of the water resource subsystem, thus affecting the comprehensive bearing capacity of the whole region. Therefore, local governments must take measures to adjust the water use structure, implement land reclamation plans, and implement water resource protection policies.

5. Conclusions

(1) Combining CRITIC and GRA-TOPSIS can be an effective means of comprehensive evaluation of urban WRCC. This method can coordinate the relationships between water resources, the ecological environment, and socio-economic carrying capacity through the data analysis of indicators, to make the evaluation results more realistic and reasonable.
(2) The WRCC of Shihezi City in the MRB showed an upward trend from 2011 to 2020. There is little difference between the carrying capacity of socio-economic and ecological environment subsystems. However, there is a great difference between them and the water resource subsystem, which affects further improvement of the comprehensive WRCC of Shihezi. Therefore, Shihezi should pay attention to the coordinated development of the three subsystems of the region to improve the regional WRCC.
(3) According to the results of the obstacle degree model, regional water resources and socio-economic factors have more significant impacts on carrying capacity than ecological and environmental factors. They have become the main obstacle factors affecting the comprehensive WRCC of Shihezi. Therefore, they should serve as references and crucial points for further improving the WRCC of Shihezi city in the MRB.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.Y. and A.G.; methodology, G.Y.; software, Y.P.; validation, X.X. and Z.H.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, G.Y.; resources, Y.P.; data curation, A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; writing—review and editing, A.G. and L.T.; visualization, X.X. and Y.G.; supervision, Z.H. and Y.L.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, G.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 52269006, U1803244); The third scientific expedition project in Xinjiang (grant number 2021xjkk0804); Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (grant numbers 2021AB021, 2022BC001); and Shihezi University (grant numbers CXRC201801, RCZK2018C22).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge support from Key Laboratory of Cold and Arid Regions Eco-Hydraulic Engineering of Xinjiang Production & Construction Corps.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zuo, Q.; Guo, J.; Ma, J.; Cui, G.; Yang, R.; Yu, L. Assessment of regional-scale water resources carrying capacity based on fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making and scenario simulation. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 130, 108034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wu, X.L.; Hu, F. Analysis of ecological carrying capacity using a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wu, Y.; Ma, Z.Y.; Li, X.; Sun, L.; Sun, S.H.; Jia, R.B. Assessment of water resources carrying capacity based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation—Case study of Jinan, China. Water Supply 2021, 21, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lv, A.; Han, Y.; Zhu, W.B.; Zhang, S.F.; Zhao, W.H. Risk Assessment of Water Resources Carrying Capacity in China. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2021, 57, 539–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Engelman, R.; Leroy, P.J.W.D. population and the future of renewable water supplies. Sustain. Water 1993, 23, 296. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rijsberman, M.A.; Van de Ven, F.H. Different approaches to assessment of design and management of sustainable urban water systems. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2000, 20, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Koop, S.; Leeuwen, C.J. Assessment of the Sustainability of Water Resources Management: A Critical Review of the City Blueprint Approach. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 5649–5670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, B.; Qin, X.; Zhang, F. System-dynamics-based scenario simulation and prediction of water carrying capacity for China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yue, Q.M.; Wen, Q.; He, Y.; Wang, Q.Y. Influence of water ecological civilization city construction on urban water ecological carrying capacity: A case study of Wuhan City. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 5586–5597. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. Yang, Y.; Hou, K.X.; Yue, W.F.; Ye, W. Water resource carrying capacity as judged by interaction of composite system. J. Beijing Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2019, 55, 669–676. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zeng, X.; Li, T.; Chen, C.; Si, Z.; Huang, G.; Guo, P.; Zhuang, X. A hybrid land-water-environment model for identification of ecological effect and risk under uncertain meteorological precipitation in an agroforestry ecosystem. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 633, 1613–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ma, J.M.; Tuo, Y.F.; Wang, Q.; Wang, F. Evaluation of water resources carrying capacity in Yuannan Province based on GRA-TOPSIS and diagnosis of its obstacle factors. J. Water Resour. Water Eng. 2022, 33, 11–17. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zeng, X.; Chen, C.; Liu, A.; Wei, H.; Zhang, H.; Huang, G.; Wu, Y.J.J.o.C.P. Planning a sustainable regional irrigated production and forest protection under land and water stresses with multiple uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 751–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, H.Y.; Fu, K.; Sun, X.B.; Tan, Y.N. Comprehensive Evaluation and Obstacle Factor Diagnosis of Water Resources Carrying Capacity in Yantai City Based on CRITIC-GR-TOPSIS Method. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 41, 215–221, 305. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  15. Yang, Y.H.; Liu, Y.; Cao, S.L.; Cheng, Y.F. A Method of Evaluating Water Resource Assets and Liabilities: A Case Study of Jinan City, Shandong Province. Water 2017, 9, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kong, X.; Zeng, X.; Chen, C.; Fan, Y.; Huang, G.; Li, Y.; Wang, C. Development of a Maximum Entropy-Archimedean Copula-Based Bayesian Network Method for Streamflow Frequency Analysis—A Case Study of the Kaidu River Basin, China. Water 2018, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, R.; Dong, X.; Wang, X.-c.; Zhang, P.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Y. Study on the relationship among the urbanization process, ecosystem services and human well-being in an arid region in the context of carbon flow: Taking the Manas river basin as an example. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 132, 108248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jang, Y.C.; Li, Y.X. Analysis and Countermeasures of the Current Situation of the Development and Utilization of Water Resources in Shihezi City of the Eighth Division. Shaanxi Water Resour. 2020, 53–57. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, G.; Tian, L.; Li, X.; He, X.; Gao, Y.; Li, F.; Xue, L.; Li, P. Numerical assessment of the effect of water-saving irrigation on the water cycle at the Manas River Basin oasis, China. Sci Total Env. 2020, 707, 135587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, R. A novel plithogenic TOPSIS- CRITIC model for sustainable supply chain risk management. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, M.; Sun, H.; Singh, V.P.; Zhou, Y.; Ma, M. Agricultural Water Resources Management Using Maximum Entropy and Entropy-Weight-Based TOPSIS Methods. Entropy 2019, 21, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Krishnan, A.R.; Kasim, M.M.; Hamid, R.; Ghazali, M.F. A Modified CRITIC Method to Estimate the Objective Weights of Decision Criteria. Symmetry 2021, 13, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhong, X.F.; Li, L.H.; Xu, H. A research on measure of regional agricultural economic development level based on Entropy-CRITIC method and K-Means. Acad. J. Bus. Manag. 2022, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, T.; Chen, J.S.; Li, L. Entropy analysis of stable isotopes in precipitation: Tracing the monsoon systems in China. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 30389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Li, X. TOPSIS model with entropy weight for eco geological environmental carrying capacity assessment. Microprocess. Microsyst. 2021, 82, 103805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ebrahimi, M.; Rahmani, D. A five-dimensional approach to sustainability for prioritizing energy production systems using a revised GRA method: A case study. Renew. Energy 2019, 135, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Quan, H.; Li, S.; Wei, H.; Hu, J. Personalized Product Evaluation Based on GRA-TOPSIS and Kansei Engineering. Symmetry 2019, 11, 867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhong, S.; Yang, K.; Wang, Y.; Song, G. A Novel Evaluation Method of Hydrogen Production from Coal Based on AHP and GRA-TOPSIS. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, S.; Zhou, Q.; Zhuo, Y.; Wen, X.; Guo, Z. Evaluating urban ecological civilization and its obstacle factors based on integrated model of PSR-EVW-TOPSIS: A case study of 13 cities in Jiangsu Province, China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qian, X.Y.; Liang, Q.M. Sustainability evaluation of the provincial water-energy-food nexus in China: Evolutions, obstacles, and response strategies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, P.; Lü, S.; Han, Y.; Wang, F.; Tang, L. Comprehensive evaluation on water resources carrying capacity based on water-economy-ecology concept framework and EFAST-cloud model: A case study of Henan Province, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 143, 109392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cheng, G.B.; Zheng, W.F. Empirical Analysis of the Water Resources Carrying Capacity of the Urban Agglomerations in the Northwest China. J. Shihezi Univ. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2017, 31, 73–82. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. General framework of this paper.
Figure 1. General framework of this paper.
Water 15 00236 g001
Figure 2. Geographical map of the study area.
Figure 2. Geographical map of the study area.
Water 15 00236 g002
Figure 3. The comprehensive WRCC of Shihezi from 2010 to 2020 and the evaluation results of the carrying capacity of each subsystem.
Figure 3. The comprehensive WRCC of Shihezi from 2010 to 2020 and the evaluation results of the carrying capacity of each subsystem.
Water 15 00236 g003
Figure 4. Frequency diagram of main obstacles to WRCC in Shihezi.
Figure 4. Frequency diagram of main obstacles to WRCC in Shihezi.
Water 15 00236 g004
Figure 5. Analysis of the main obstacles to the WRCC of Shihezi from 2011 to 2020.
Figure 5. Analysis of the main obstacles to the WRCC of Shihezi from 2011 to 2020.
Water 15 00236 g005
Figure 6. Comparison of agricultural water use and production with total water use and total production value of Shihezi from 2011 to 2020.
Figure 6. Comparison of agricultural water use and production with total water use and total production value of Shihezi from 2011 to 2020.
Water 15 00236 g006
Table 1. Evaluation index system of WRCC in Shihezi.
Table 1. Evaluation index system of WRCC in Shihezi.
Target LayerStandard LayerIndex LayerUnitWeight
Entropy Weight MethodCRITIC MethodComprehensive Weight
WRCCWater
Resource
Subsystem
B1
Per capita water resources C1m3/person0.03750.0530.0409
Water resource development
and utilization ratio C2
%0.07180.04510.0666
Modulus of water production C3104 m3/km20.08890.04010.0733
Water supply modulus C4104 m3/km20.06960.04470.0640
Total water resources C5108 m30.08850.040.0728
Proportion of agricultural water C6%0.0610.05270.0661
Mean annual precipitation C7mm0.02120.03750.0163
The overall water quality of the water function zone reaches the standard rate C8%0.02790.04620.0265
Ecological
environment
Subsystem
B2
Forest coverage rate C9%0.04810.05550.0549
Proportion of ecological water C10%0.02740.03480.0196
Per capita green area C11m20.03520.05040.0365
Total wastewater discharge C12104 t0.07960.0590.0966
COD emission volume C13104 t0.02230.03730.0171
Sewage treatment rate C14%0.0310.04640.0296
Area under comprehensive control of soil erosion C15103 hm20.04420.05420.0493
Socio-
economic subsystem
B3
GDP per capita C16yuan0.02790.04930.0283
Density of population C17person/km20.03460.05410.0385
Urbanization rate C18%0.02360.04570.0222
Water consumption per 10,000 CNY of GDP C19m30.02290.04510.0212
The proportion of secondary industry economy C20%0.04330.0480.0427
Irrigation coverage rate C21%0.09340.0610.1171
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gulishengmu, A.; Yang, G.; Tian, L.; Pan, Y.; Huang, Z.; Xu, X.; Gao, Y.; Li, Y. Analysis of Water Resource Carrying Capacity and Obstacle Factors Based on GRA-TOPSIS Evaluation Method in Manas River Basin. Water 2023, 15, 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020236

AMA Style

Gulishengmu A, Yang G, Tian L, Pan Y, Huang Z, Xu X, Gao Y, Li Y. Analysis of Water Resource Carrying Capacity and Obstacle Factors Based on GRA-TOPSIS Evaluation Method in Manas River Basin. Water. 2023; 15(2):236. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020236

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gulishengmu, Anfuding, Guang Yang, Lijun Tian, Yue Pan, Zhou Huang, Xingang Xu, Yongli Gao, and Yi Li. 2023. "Analysis of Water Resource Carrying Capacity and Obstacle Factors Based on GRA-TOPSIS Evaluation Method in Manas River Basin" Water 15, no. 2: 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020236

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