Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 184, Issue 5, pp 2939–2945 | Cite as

Using the analytical hierarchy process to assess the environmental vulnerabilities of basins in Taiwan

  • Chia-Ling Chang
  • Yu-Chi Chao
Article

Abstract

Every year, Taiwan endures typhoons and earthquakes; these natural hazards often induce landslides and debris flows. Therefore, watershed management strategies must consider the environmental vulnerabilities of local basins. Because many factors affect basin ecosystems, this study applied multiple criteria analysis and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate seven criteria in three phases (geographic phase, hydrologic phase, and societal phase). This study focused on five major basins in Taiwan: the Tan-Shui River Basin, the Ta-Chia River Basin, the Cho-Shui River Basin, the Tseng-Wen River Basin, and the Kao-Ping River Basin. The objectives were a comprehensive examination of the environmental characteristics of these basins and a comprehensive assessment of their environmental vulnerabilities. The results of a survey and AHP analysis showed that landslide area is the most important factor for basin environmental vulnerability. Of all these basins, the Cho-Shui River Basin in central Taiwan has the greatest environmental vulnerability.

Keywords

Analytical hierarchy process Multiple criteria analysis Environment Vulnerability analysis 

References

  1. Briguglio, L. (1995). Small islands states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Development, 23, 1615–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chang, C. L., & Lo, S. L. (2005). Corresponding watershed management strategies for each subbasin with different land-use. The landuse management and development conference. Tainan, Taiwan, R.O.C. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  3. Chang, C. L., Chiueh, P. T., & Liou, Y. T. (2008a). Applying VIKOR to determine the land-use restraint strategies in a watershed. Environmental Engineering Science, 25(9), 1317–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang, C. L., Chiueh, P. T., & Peng, Y. S. (2008b). A vulnerability analysis in the Fei-tsui reservoir watershed in Taiwan. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 143(1–3), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of the TMDL Approach to Water Pollution (2001). Assessing TMDL approach to water quality management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Craig, E. H., & Karen, A. K. (1995), To normalize or not to normalize? Fat is the question. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 14(5), 801–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downs, P. W., Gregory, K. J., & Brookes, A. (1991). How integrated is river basin management? Environmental Management, 15(3), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gomontean, B., Gajaseni, J, Edwards-Jones, G., & Gajaseni, N. (2008). The development of appropriate ecological criteria and indicators for community forest conservation using participatory methods: A case study in northeastern Thailand. Ecological Indicators, 8, 614–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jaspers, F. G. W. (2003). Institutional arrangements for integrated river basin management. Water Policy, 5, 77–90.Google Scholar
  10. Kaly, U., & Pratt, C. (2000). Environmental Vulnerability Index: Development and provisional indices and profiles for Fiji, Samoa, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. SOPAC Technical Report, 306.Google Scholar
  11. Kaly, U., Briguglio, L., McLeod, H., Schmall, S., Pratt, C., & Pal, R. (1999). Environmental vulnerability index (EVI) to summarise national environmental vulnerability profiles. SOPAC Technical Report, 275.Google Scholar
  12. Kaly, U., Pratt, C., & Howorth, R. (2002). A framework for managing environmental vulnerability in Small Island Developing States. Development Bulletin, 58, 33–38.Google Scholar
  13. Lin, J. S., Yu, S. L., & Lee, T. C. (2000). Managing Taiwan’s reservoir watersheds by zoning approach. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 36(5), 989–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lu, S. Y., Cheng, J. D., & Brooks, K. N. (2001). Managing forests for watershed protection in Taiwan. Forest Ecology and Management, 143, 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2000). Development of a methodology for selecting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management: a case study on participatory assessment. Envrionemntal Management, 26(6), 659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mostaghimi, S, Park, S. W., Cooke, R. A., & Wang, S. Y. (1997). Assessment of management alternatives on a small agriculture watershed. Water Research, 31(8), 1867–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Noble, E. E., & Sanchez, P. P. (1993). A note on the information content of a consistent pairwise comparison judgment matrix of an AHP decision maker. Theory and Decision, 34(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Resaerch, 156, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pantin, D. (1997). Alternative ecological vulnerability indicators for developing countries with special reference to small island developing states (SIDS). Report to UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 22.Google Scholar
  20. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tzeng, G. H., Lin, C. W., & Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33, 1373–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991). Guidance for water quality-based decisions: The TMDL process. Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  25. Villa, F., & McLeod, H. (2002). Environmental vulnerability indicators for environmental planning and decision-making: guidelines and applications. Environmental Management, 29(3), 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wang, X. (2001). Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. Journal of Environmental Management, 61, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Resources Engineering and ConservationFeng Chia UniversityTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations