Next Article in Journal
Occurrence, Potential Risk Assessment, and Source Apportionment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water from Beiluo River
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis and Prediction of Poyang Lake’s Navigable Conditions under a New Hydrological Regime
Previous Article in Journal
Agricultural Use of Urban Sewage Sludge from the Wastewater Station in the Municipality of Alexandria in Romania
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Study on the Local Scour of Submerged Spur Dike Heads under the Protection of Soft Mattress in Plain Sand-Bed Rivers
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Quantitative Evaluation Method for Construction Disturbance and Ecological Restoration of Waterway Engineering and Its Application

State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing 210024, China
Key Laboratory of Ocean Space Resource Management Technology, MNR, Hangzhou 310012, China
Key Laboratory of Integrated Regulation and Resource Development on Shallow Lake of Ministry of Education, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(3), 460;
Received: 10 December 2022 / Revised: 17 January 2023 / Accepted: 20 January 2023 / Published: 23 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of Inland Waterways)


With the increasing emphasis on the ecology and environment of rivers, the construction of ecological waterway projects has become a development trend in China. In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the ecological effects of ecological waterway construction. Based on pressure-state-response (PSR) and driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) logical frameworks, this paper established a state-pressure-impact-response (SPIR) conceptual model. The model took the river ecology and environment state as the main line, and described the disturbance pressure of the engineering construction on the river state, the impacts of the project on the river comprehensive function, and the positive responses taken in the full lifetime cycle of the project. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy evaluation model were used to study the changes of the river ecosystem status after suffering from the construction pressure and taking positive responses. Taking the 12.5 m deep water waterway project in the Taicang-Nantong section of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River as an example, the disturbance on the ecology and environment at different stages of the project construction and the effort of relieving the negative impacts of the project on the ecology and environment were evaluated by the health level of the ecosystem. The paper can provide a scientific method for the evaluation of ecological projects in river ecosystems.

1. Introduction

With the rapid development of the social economy and people’s increasing interest in environmental protection, the concept of ecology and environment has been integrated into the construction of traditional waterway projects in China. Therefore, ecological waterway projects have been proposed and become a trend and development direction in waterway project construction in the future [1]. During the full lifecycle of ecological waterway projects, the relationship between shipping development and river hydrodynamics, aquatic organisms and habitats are considered comprehensively. Eco-friendly technology, project management and ecological restoration measures have been adopted to realize the coordination between waterway construction and surrounding aquatic ecosystem [2]. The Yangtze River is known as China’s significant waterway, connecting east and west, and the concept of ecology and the environment has been applied throughout the waterway project construction process in the middle reaches [3,4], the lower reaches [5,6], and the estuary [7] of the Yangtze River. These ecological waterway projects on the Yangtze River have relieved the adverse effects of the projects on hydrology, sediment, water environment quality and aquatic life, and have partly played a positive role in promoting the improvement of local habitat quality.
With the further development of ecological waterway projects, how to quantitatively evaluate the ecological effect of the projects has become an important research direction for scholars at present and in the future [8,9]. The current evaluation methods are as follows: (1) comparative analysis of the effects of ecological projects on improving water quality and increasing biomass through on-site ecological monitoring data [10,11]; (2) taking water depth, velocity, sediment and water temperature, which constitute aquatic habitat elements, as variables, the habitat fitness index model of target species was established to simulate the changes of habitat suitability values and ranges before and after the project [12,13]; (3) the ecological footprint method was adopted to evaluate the positive and negative effects of waterway engineering in the social economy, ecology and environment, and the comprehensive benefits and sustainability of engineering construction were analyzed by comparing the ecological footprint and ecological carrying capacity increment of the project [14,15]; (4) a multilevel ecosystem health assessment system was constructed for rivers with a navigation function to evaluate the river ecosystem health level at different time points [16,17]; and (5) an evaluation index system was established based on the pressure-state-response (PSR) model and its improved driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) model [18] to integrate project construction with the surrounding environment, organisms, social economy, policy measures and others according to causal relationships, reflecting the interactions between the projects and the regional ecosystem.
The pressure-state-response (PSR) model is a popular environmental assessment model throughout the world. It is considered by many governments and organizations as the most effective framework for environmental indicator organization and environmental assessment. It was originally proposed to analyze the relationship between human and environmental pressure, status, and response [19]. On this basis, the European Environment Agency (EEA) proposed the driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) model framework [20] to establish evaluation indicators at different levels, such as driving indicators (population growth, climate change); pressure indicators (resource utilization, pollution discharge); environmental state indicators (hydrology, geomorphology, water quality); impact indicators (individual organisms, populations, communities, ecosystems); social response indicators (policy system, environmental protection, ecological restoration); etc. However, the causal chain of the evaluation process of the ecological waterway project is as follows: (1) before the waterway regulation project is carried out, the state of the river ecosystem is taken as the background; (2) the waterway project is constructed in the river, which is a kind of artificial disturbance pressure; (3) with the completion of the project, the impact of the engineering then becomes apparent, including the aspects of environment, ecology, economy and society; and (4) in order to relieve the pressure and the negative impact of the engineering construction on the river ecology and environment, positive response measures are proposed and carried out, which creates a new state. Therefore, the abovementioned conceptual models (PSR and DPSIR) should be improved to be made suitable for the evaluation of the project before and after construction, as well as the ecological effects of the positive response during the project construction.
Taking a 12.5-m deep water waterway project in the Taicang-Nantong section of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River as the study object, this paper established a state-pressure-impact-response (SPIR) conceptual model based on the logical framework of PSR and DPSIR, which provided a clear idea for selecting relevant factors and indicators, organizing data and information, and ensuring that key factors and information are not ignored. It is helpful for systematic analysis and quantitative evaluation of the ecological effect after the policy measures are taken in the whole process of engineering design, construction, and operation to mitigate the adverse impact on river ecology and environment.

2. Assessment Indicator System

2.1. SPIR Conceptual Model

The research object of this paper is the 12.5 m deep water waterway project in the Taicang-Nantong section of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, which was designed as an ecological waterway project. The specific methods of ecological construction included: (1) considering eco-friendly materials and structures in the design process; (2) the construction process strictly implemented the relevant environmental protection requirements; and (3) after construction, appropriate ecological compensation and restoration measures were actively carried out [21]. The evaluation mainly covered the whole process of the project construction (before, during and after the project) for about two years, and the spatial scope was the river section where the project is located.
Based on the engineering characteristics and the spatio-temporal scale of evaluation, the conceptual model took the river ecology and environment state as the main line, and described the disturbance pressure of the engineering construction on the river state, the impacts of the project on the river comprehensive function, and the positive responses taken in the full lifetime cycle of the project. Therefore, a state-pressure-impact-response (SPIR) was established including four criterion layers. In the model, the state refers to the situation of social and natural systems at a certain moment., including hydrology, water quality, organisms, habitats, engineering body and so on. The pressure refers to the stress of waterway construction on regional ecology and environment. The impact refers to the influence of the state of the system on human health, social and economic structure, and river ecosystem. The response process represents the countermeasures and policies taken by humans to reduce the negative effects of the project.

2.2. Indicator System

Based on the SPIR model of waterway engineering ecological effect evaluation, an evaluation index system was established by means of layer-by-layer refinement and then overall planning. The selection of indicators in the system considers the integrity, pertinence, and feasibility of the system, and pays attention to the main characteristic elements of each level and the effect evaluation function of the indicators. The first layer is the target layer, and that is the ecological effect evaluation of waterway engineering. The second layer is the criterion layer, including state, pressure, impact, response. The third and fourth layers are the element layer and the index layer, respectively. The hydrology element layer of the state includes two indicators: fluidity of water body and connectivity of rivers. The environment element layer includes composite water quality index, suspended sediment concentration, and sediment quality. Biological elements refer to the species diversity index. Habitat includes bank revetment type, riparian zone state, beach surface state and river morphology. The pressure mainly comes from the construction of the project, which is reflected in the discharge of pollutants, the destruction of vegetation, and the loss of benthic organisms by dredging. The impact includes the impact on the capacity of water bodies to carry pollution and the improvement of the navigation grade brought about by waterway construction. Based on the above pressures, the project construction made a positive response, including considering eco-friendly materials and structures in the design process, implementing strict environmental protection measures and management in the construction process, and ecological restoration and ecological compensation after construction. The evaluation index system of waterway engineering ecological effects based on the SPIR conceptual model is shown in Table 1.

3. Construction of Evaluation Model

3.1. Data Normalization

The evaluation indexes of ecological effects of waterway engineering include qualitative and quantitative indexes, each of which has different dimensions and different impacts on the ecosystem. Therefore, the indexes cannot be compared directly. By normalizing the eigenvalue matrix of the evaluation index and the standard eigenvalue matrix of the index [22], the relative membership matrix can be obtained and the dimensionless of each index factor can be realized. The method is as follows.
With n sample groups identified by fuzzy set A, each sample is represented by m index eigenvalues, then the sample set can be represented as index eigenvalue matrix X = ( x i j ) , where x i j is the eigenvalue of index i of sample j, i = 1, 2, …, m; j = 1, 2, …, m. The sample set is identified according to m indexes and c levels of index standard eigenvalues, then there is index standard eigenvalue matrix Y = ( y i h ) , where y i h is the standard eigenvalue of index i of level h.
Normalize the eigenvalue matrix X of the evaluation index and the standard eigenvalue matrix Y to calculate the relative membership degree r i j of the eigenvalue of the index i of sample j to A [22]. Similarly, obtain the relative membership degree s i h of the standard value of the index i of level h to A. Therefore, the index eigenvalue matrix X and index standard eigenvalue matrix Y are normalized to obtain the relative membership matrix R = ( r i j ) , S = ( s i h ) .

3.2. Weight by Analytic Hierarchy Process

The weighting of indicators involved in multi-indicator evaluation is an important part of evaluation. The rationality and accuracy of indicator weights affect the reliability of evaluation results directly. Index weight determination methods can be divided into subjective weighting method, objective weighting method and combination weighting method [23]. The subjective weighting method is a method for decision-makers to determine the weight of each index according to their subjective value judgment, such as the Delphi method, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), etc. [24,25]. The objective weighting method determines the weight of each index by mathematical and statistical methods based on the original information of each index, such as the entropy method, coefficient of variation method, etc. [26,27]. As a decision-making and intelligence-based empowerment method, the analytic hierarchy process [25] can make use of less quantitative data to mathematize and systematize people’s thinking processes and solve the problem of multi-level and multi-objective evaluation of ecological effects of waterway engineering. The process of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to determine the weight is as follows.
Building a hierarchy
The construction of the evaluation index system considers the interaction between waterway engineering and river ecosystem and adopts the SPIR framework to divide the factors contained in the evaluation object into four levels: target level, criterion level, element level, and index level. See Section 2.2 for details.
Construct judgment matrix
The index of the same level is compared in pairs, and the judgment matrix is constructed. The 1–9 scaling method [28] is used to assign the importance degree, and the consistency test is carried out. The feature vector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue of the judgment matrix is the weight vector of each index. The weights of each index are obtained after the normalization of each value in the feature vector. Finally, the weight set of the first-level index and the hierarchical total ranking weight set of the second-level index are established.
Calculate the weight
Calculate the weight vector of each judgment matrix and the composite weight vector of all judgment matrices. The sum value method is used to calculate the weight vector as follows.
① Normalize each column of the judgment matrix
a ¯ i j = a i j j = 1 n a i j             i , j = 1 , 2 , , n
② The normalized judgment matrix of each column is added by row
w ¯ i = j = 1 n a ¯ i j             i , j = 1 , 2 , , n
③ Normalization the vector quantity w = ( w 1 , w 2 , , w n ) T
w ¯ g = w ¯ i j = 1 n w ¯ j             i , j = 1 , 2 , , n

3.3. Fuzzy Evaluation Model

The fuzzy evaluation method approximates the qualitativeness of elements to quantification through fuzzy scale and simulates the human brain’s judgment of fuzzy phenomena [29]. This method solves a series of problems, such as the complexity of evaluation factors, the hierarchy of evaluation objects, the fuzziness of evaluation criteria, and the uncertainty of evaluation influencing factors. The qualitative factors are processed quantitatively, and the combination of qualitative and quantitative factors is achieved, which not only takes into account the hierarchy of objects to reflect the fuzziness of evaluation criteria and influencing factors, but also gives full play to people’s experience in the evaluation, so that the evaluation results are more in line with the actual situation.
By comparing the relative membership degree r 1 j , r 2 j , , r m j of sample j with the row vectors of the line 1, 2, , m in the relative membership matrix S of the standard value one by one, the upper-level limit bj and lower-level limit aj of sample j can be obtained.
Let the relative membership matrix of the sample set for each level of A be U = ( u h j ) c × n , which satisfies the constraint conditions:
h = a j b j u h j = 1
where u h j is the relative membership degree of sample j to level h of set A, j = 1, 2, , n; h = 1, 2, , c.
If for different j, the weight of index i in the sample set is the same, that is w = ( w 1 , w 2 , , w n ) , and the constraint conditions are satisfied i = 1 m w i = 1 , j = 1, 2, , n, the weighted generalized distance between sample j and level h can be defined as D h j = u h j d h j = u h j { i = 1 m [ w i ( r i j s i h ) ] p } 1 p , where p is distance parameter.
In order to solve the optimal relative membership degree of sample j to level h of fuzzy set A, the objective function is established as:
min { F ( u h j ) = h = a j b j D h j 2 }
According to objective function (Equation (2)) and constraint condition (Equation (1)), the Lagrangian function is constructed, and the equation constraint extremum is changed into unconditional extremum problem. Let λ j be the Lagrangian constant, then the corresponding Lagrangian function is as:
L ( u h j , λ j ) = h = a j b j u h j 2 d h j 2 λ j ( h = a j b j u h j 1 )
The fuzzy evaluation model is obtained as:
u h j = { 1                                                                               h < a j or   h > b j 1 k   =   a j b j { i   =   1 m [ w i ( r i j s i h ) ] p i   =   1 m [ w i ( r i j s i k ) ] p } 2 p             a j h b j , d h i 0 1                                                                               d h i = 0

4. Model Application

4.1. Data Sources

The aquatic ecological survey data before (September 2012), during (July 2013) and after (July 2014) construction of the waterway engineering were adopted, including water quality, sediment, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic organisms, intertidal organisms and fishery resources, river flow and sediment, conditions of riparian zone, engineering design and management data of the waterway, etc. The above data were applied to carry out ecological effect evaluation of waterway construction. Among them, water quality is represented by the water quality composite index; the sediment quality was compared with the Standard for Soil Environmental Quality (GB15618-1995), and was divided into level I, level II and level III. The Shannon–Weiner index was used to calculate the species diversity index. The other indexes are given values by qualitative analysis.

4.2. Evaluation Criterion

The evaluation criteria adopted 5-level scores, which were mainly formulated according to relevant national, regional and industrial standards and norms, as well as the current ecology and environment status of the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, and then combined with the literature and expert knowledge. See Table 2 for details.

4.3. Evaluation Results

The values of 18 indexes were compared with the evaluation criteria, and the data of different dimensions were normalized to obtain the characteristic values and relative membership of each index before, during, and after the project (Table 3). Similarly, the standard values were normalized, and the corresponding eigenvalues of the index standard excellent, good, medium, poor and very poor are, respectively, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1, and the relative membership degrees are, respectively, 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.
According to the principle of the analytic hierarchy process, the importance of the first level-state, pressure, impact, and response was calculated and the judgment matrix was obtained as Equation (5). The weight of the criterion layer and indicator layer were calculated, and the results are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that the weights of state, pressure, impact and response are 0.261, 0.177, 0.157, 0.405, respectively, where response has the most weight. In other words, environmental protection and ecological restoration measures have a very obvious promoting effect on the ecological waterway project. In terms of pressure, the main disturbance source was the pollutant discharge during the project construction.
{ 1                 3                 5             1 / 4 1 / 3         1                 3             1 / 7 1 / 5         1 / 3         1             1 / 8 4                 7                 8             1 }
The weight was substituted into the fuzzy identification model to obtain the membership degree corresponding to each ecosystem level before, during, and after the project. The maximum membership principle was adopted for the evaluation. The results are shown in Table 5. Prior to the project, the maximum membership was 0.368, corresponding to level 3/medium. During the project construction, the corresponding level of the maximum membership is level 2/poor. After the project, the ecosystem quality rises to level 4/good.
It can be seen from the evaluation results that the background the of river ecosystem quality is medium. During the construction, the system quality is reduced due to the discharge of wastewater, vegetation destruction, and the loss of benthic animals caused by dredging. After the project, with the gradual disappearance of the influence of the construction period, the positive effects of the ecological materials and structures, and the adoption of appropriate ecological restoration measures, the health of the ecosystem has been improved. In addition, the increase of the navigation guarantee rate after the project is also a part of its comprehensive effect. In general, the evaluation results are consistent with our expectation, which indicates that the SPIR model can be used for ecological effect evaluation of the ecological waterway project.

5. Conclusions

Among the conceptual models of the environmental assessment index system, PSR and DPSIR are the most commonly used models. However, their structure is not suitable for the effect evaluation of ecological waterway engineering. A conceptual state-pressure-impact-response (SPIR) was derived from PSR and DPSIR, and improved with the following features: (1) regarding the state as the logical starting point; (2) taking project construction as a disturbance pressure on the regional ecosystem; (3) with the construction of the project, the impact includes positive and negative effects, covering the scope of ecology, environment, economy, and society; and (4) the response reflects the efforts of the ecological waterway project compared to traditional waterway projects. The SPIR model was applied to evaluate the ecological effects of the ecological waterway project. Detailed conclusions can be drawn from this study as follows:
(1) A conceptual state-pressure-impact-response (SPIR) model of four criterion layers was constructed, and accordingly, an evaluation index system of the eco-environmental effects of waterway engineering was established for the lower reaches of the Yangtze River. According to the features of ecological waterway engineering and the characteristics of the aquatic ecosystem of the Yangtze River, a fuzzy AHP method combining qualitative and quantitative analysis was adopted to evaluate the ecological effects of the engineering. Taking the state as the main line, the changes to the river ecosystem health level under construction disturbance and its subsequent ecological restoration were analyzed;
(2) Before the project, the health level of the aquatic ecosystem was medium. Although strict environmental management measures were adopted during the construction period, it is still inevitable that the construction would cause wastewater discharge, vegetation destruction, benthic loss, and other conditions, leading to a slight decline in the health level of the ecosystem. After the project, with the influence of the construction period gradually subsiding, the application of ecological technology and the gradual implementation of ecological compensation measures, the health of river ecosystem was improved. The results of the evaluation explain the stress effect of different stages of project construction on the ecology and environment and the contribution of reducing the negative impact of the project to improve the health level of the system;
(3) In this paper, the state-pressure-impact-response model was established according to the logical relationship of the followings: the river background status; the disturbance pressure from the project; and the project’s impact and the positive response to reduce the influence, which was well revealed in the criterion layer. However, the selection of evaluation indicators, and the formulation of evaluation level and evaluation criteria are still subjective, which brings uncertainty to the evaluation results. In future research, a multi-factor sensitivity analysis should be carried out as a reference basis for the identification of key indicators. In addition, the accumulation of long-term monitoring data for the project’s reach is also crucial for the ecological effect evaluation of an ecological waterway project.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.S.; methodology, X.S. and P.W.; model, X.S.; formal analysis, R.X.; investigation, Y.W. and C.J.; writing—original draft preparation, X.S. and P.W.; revision, X.S. and H.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded by Jiangsu Province Ocean Science and Technology Innovation Project (JSZRHYKJ202214), National Key Research and Development Plan Project (2021YFB2600204), Open Funds of Key Laboratory of Ocean Space Resource Management Technology, MNR (KF-2021-108).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.


We thank everyone who helped us during the completion of the thesis. We also thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Liu, H.H.; Lei, G.P.; Yin, S.R. Ecological measures and technology prospect for trunk waterway management in the Yangtze River. Port Waterw. Eng. 2016, 511, 114–118. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liu, J.W. Discussion on ecological waterway development of the Changjiang River. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2015, 24 (Suppl. S1), 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yang, F.L.; Geng, J.L.; Fu, Z.M. Exploration on application of eco-technology in waterway regulation project at midstream of Yangtze River. Yangtze River 2012, 43, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, Y.R. Practice and reflection on green waterway construction on Jingjiang River section in the middle reaches of Yangtze River. Technol. Econ. Chang. 2021, 5, 51–53. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cao, M.X.; Shen, X.; Ying, H.H. Study on ecological structures of water way regulation in the Yangtze River below Nanjing. Port Waterw. Eng. 2018, 538, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cao, M.X.; Shen, X.; Huang, Z.B. Techniques of ecological construction and protection based on deepwater navigation channel project in the Yangtze River below Nanjing. Port Waterw. Eng. 2018, 544, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, W.Z. Experience and Enlightenment of Ecological Environmental Protection Construction of Yangtze Estuary Waterway. J. Transp. Manag. Inst. Minist. Transp. 2014, 24, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu, H.H.; Liu, Q.; Lei, G.P. Research progress and prospect of ecological waterway technology in Yangtze River. Yangze River 2020, 51, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  9. Li, M.; Liu, Q. Research on the theory and practice of ecological waterway construction. China Water Transp. 2021, 21, 80–82. [Google Scholar]
  10. Li, J.P.; Wu, L.; Liu, S. Research on terrestrial vegetation restoration of ecological riverbank in the deep waterway regulation scheme of Yangtze River. J. Yangtze River Sci. Res. Inst. 2021, 38, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guo, J. Preliminary Study on the Ecological Effect of Ten Penetrating Frame Constructions in Channel Regulation; Nanjing Agricultural University: Nanjing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  12. Xu, S.D.; Li, R.; Yin, K. Habitat evaluation for target species following deep-water channel project in the Yangtze River. J. Southeast Univ. 2015, 31, 559–565. [Google Scholar]
  13. Jiang, N.; Jiang, B.; Lei, G.P. Influence of waterway regulation project on habitat suitability index of Four Major Chinese Carps in Dongliu channel in lower Yangtze River. Yangtze River 2019, 50, 5–9, 14. [Google Scholar]
  14. Zhang, S.Y.; Xie, X.R.; Lv, Z.F. Evaluation of waterway regulation project of Wuhan-Anqing section of Yangtze river main stream based on ecological footprint method. Shipp. Manag. 2019, 41, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, Y.Q.; Chen, X.W. Evaluation of inland waterway project by “Ecological Footprint Method”. China Water Transp. 2017, 17, 154–156. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, T.H.; Ding, Y.; Ni, J.R. Ecological waterway assessment of the Jingjiang River reach. J. Basic Sci. Eng. 2017, 25, 221–234. [Google Scholar]
  17. Liu, N.; Li, T.H.; Kuang, S.Y. Ecological waterway assessment of Wuhan-Anqing reach of the Yangtze River. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Pekin. 2021, 57, 489–495. [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, Z.L.; Xing, Y.; Lv, B. Study on key ecological indicator system of inland waterway project based on DPSIR model. China Water Transp. 2020, 20, 81–83. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rainer, W. Development of environmental indicator systems: Experiences from Germany. Environ. Manag. 2000, 25, 613–623. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hanne, S.; Lars, K.P.; Dale, R. Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 116–125. [Google Scholar]
  21. Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute. Study on Construction Technology of Ecological Waterway between Taicang and Nantong of the Yangtze River; Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute: Nanjing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhou, L.F.; Xu, S.G.; Sun, W.G. Healthy water circulation assessment of Zhalong wetland based on PSR model. Adv. Water Sci. 2008, 19, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
  23. Yang, Y. Evaluation and analysis of weighting method in multi-index comprehensive evaluation. Stat. Decis. 2006, 217, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  24. Liu, W.T.; Gu, H.; Li, C.H. Expert evaluation method based on Delphi method. Comput. Eng. 2011, 37 (Suppl. S1), 89–191. [Google Scholar]
  25. Process, A.H. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 19–28. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jiang, J. A Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model Based on the Combination of Entropy Weight and Coefficient of Variation; Capital Normal University: Beijing, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shu, C.K.; Yang, K.; Wang, Q.M. Study on weighting method in river health evaluation. Water Resour. Power 2017, 35, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
  28. Saaty, T. Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; pp. 15–35. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wang, P.Z. Introduction to fuzzy mathematics (II). Math. Pract. Theory 1980, 10, 52–63. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Evaluation index system of ecological effect of waterway engineering based on SPIR conceptual model.
Table 1. Evaluation index system of ecological effect of waterway engineering based on SPIR conceptual model.
Target LayerCriterion LayerElement LayerIndex Layer
Evaluation on ecological effect of waterway engineeringStateHydrologyFluidity of water body
Connectivity of rivers
EnvironmentComposite water quality index
Suspended sediment concentration
Sediment quality
BiologySpecies diversity index
HabitatBank revetment type
Riparian zone state
Beach surface state
River morphology
PressureEngineering constructionPollutant discharge
Vegetation destruction rate
Benthic loss rate
ImpactEnvironmentAssimilative capacity
SocietyGuarantee rate of navigation
ResponseEngineering design periodEcological materials and structures
Engineering construction periodEnvironmental protection measures during construction
Engineering operation periodEcological restoration after the project
Table 2. Evaluation criteria for ecological effect of waterway engineering in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River.
Table 2. Evaluation criteria for ecological effect of waterway engineering in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River.
Criterion LayerIndex LayerVery PoorPoorMediumGoodExcellent
StateFluidity of water bodyNo water body flows, forming stagnant waterWater flows slowly, making it difficult to tell if it is flowingWater flow is slow, lack of changeWater flow is goodThe water body is very fluid, varied and close to nature
Connectivity of riversVery low (blocked)lowMediumHighVery high (unblocked)
Composite water quality index>2.01.5~2.01.0~1.50.5~1.0<0.5
Suspended sediment concentration (mg/L)15060302520
Sediment qualityLevel IIILevel II~IIILevel IILevel I~IILevel I
Species diversity index<0.750.75~1.51.5~2.02.0~2.25>2.25
Bank revetment typeVertical reinforced concrete revetmentStepped artificial revetment or masonry revetmentHydrophilic platform revetmentNear- inartificial slope revetmentInartificial soil revetment
Riparian zone stateNon-vegetationOne layer vegetationTwo layers vegetationThree layers vegetationVarious vegetation (more that three layers)
Beach surface stateCompletely artificial masonryMost artificial masonrySmall part of artificial masonryNear- inartificial beach protectionInartificial soil beach surface
River morphologyStraight line, horizontal no changeSlight bending, convection state has no obvious effectMore tortuous, there are deep pools and shoalsMeandering, there are deep grooves and shoals in the convex and concave banksIt is a serpentine distribution with abundant variations, obvious changes in velocity, and interphase distribution of beach trough
PressurePollutant discharge (COD, kg/d)5040302010
Vegetation destruction rate20%15%10%5%0%
Benthic loss rate20%15%10%5%0%
ImpactAssimilative capacityNo environmental capacity20% environmental capacity left50% environmental capacity left80% environmental capacity leftAdequate environmental capacity and self-cleaning capacity
Guarantee rate of navigation50%60%70%80%90%
ResponseEcological materials and structuresTraditional materials and structures are used, regardless of ecologyA small part uses ecological materials and structuresMost of them use ecological materials and structuresBasically can use ecological materials and structuresThe construction is carried out with ecological materials and ecological structure to the maximum extent
Environmental protection measures during constructionDo not take any environmental protection measures, pollutants directly dischargedPollutants are discharged directly after initial treatmentEnvironmental protection measures have been taken, and some pollutants are still discharged beyond the standardAble to implement various environmental protection measures, various pollutants to meet the standardsStrictly implement to ensure zero emission of all pollutants
Ecological restoration after the projectNo ecological restoration measuresA small number of ecological restoration measuresHalf of the ecological restoration measures will be takenMost ecological restoration measuresEcological restoration measures will be taken and full ecological compensation will be provided
Table 3. Normalized index eigenvalue and relative membership degree.
Table 3. Normalized index eigenvalue and relative membership degree.
Criterion LayerIndex LayerEigenvalueRelative Membership Degree
Prior to the ProjectDuring the ProjectAfter the ProjectPrior to the ProjectDuring the ProjectAfter the Project
StateFluidity of water body4440.250.250.25
Connectivity of rivers4440.250.250.25
Water quality4340.250.500.25
Suspended sediment concentration3230.500.750.50
Sediment quality4440.250.250.25
Species diversity index2230.750.750.50
Bank revetment type2230.750.750.50
Riparian zone state4440.250.250.25
Beach surface state5540.000.000.25
River morphology4440.250.250.25
PressurePollutant discharge5340.000.500.25
Vegetation destruction rate5340.000.500.25
Benthic loss rate5220.000.750.75
ImpactAssimilative capacity5340.000.500.25
Guarantee rate of navigation4450.250.250.00
ResponseEcological materials and structures1151.001.000.00
Environmental protection measures during construction1511.000.001.00
Ecological restoration after the project1151.001.000.00
Table 4. The weight calculation results of different levels of evaluation indexes.
Table 4. The weight calculation results of different levels of evaluation indexes.
Criterion LayerWeightIndex LayerWeight
State0.261Fluidity of water body0.026
Connectivity of rivers0.026
Water quality0.026
Suspended sediment concentration0.026
Sediment quality0.026
Species diversity index0.027
Bank revetment type0.026
Riparian zone state0.026
Beach surface state0.026
River morphology0.026
Pressure0.177Pollutant discharge0.071
Vegetation destruction rate0.053
Benthic loss rate0.053
Impact0.157Assimilative capacity0.063
Guarantee rate of navigation0.094
Response0.405Ecological materials and structures0.162
Environmental protection measures during construction0.081
Ecological restoration after the project0.162
Table 5. Membership degrees corresponding to different ecosystem levels at each time node of waterway construction.
Table 5. Membership degrees corresponding to different ecosystem levels at each time node of waterway construction.
LevelPrior to the ProjectDuring the ProjectAfter the Project
Level 1/Very poor0.1130.2210.045
Level 2/poor0.2690.346 *0.081
Level 3/Medium0.368 *0.2440.175
Level 4/Good0.1730.1230.377 *
Level 5/Excellent0.0770.0660.322
Evaluation resultsMediumPoorGood
* Represents the maximum membership degree.
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

Shen, X.; Wang, H.; Wang, P.; Xie, R.; Wang, Y.; Ji, C. Quantitative Evaluation Method for Construction Disturbance and Ecological Restoration of Waterway Engineering and Its Application. Water 2023, 15, 460.

AMA Style

Shen X, Wang H, Wang P, Xie R, Wang Y, Ji C. Quantitative Evaluation Method for Construction Disturbance and Ecological Restoration of Waterway Engineering and Its Application. Water. 2023; 15(3):460.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shen, Xia, Haipeng Wang, Peng Wang, Rui Xie, Yongping Wang, and Changhui Ji. 2023. "Quantitative Evaluation Method for Construction Disturbance and Ecological Restoration of Waterway Engineering and Its Application" Water 15, no. 3: 460.

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