CN112734267A - AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method - Google Patents
AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN112734267A CN112734267A CN202110064567.5A CN202110064567A CN112734267A CN 112734267 A CN112734267 A CN 112734267A CN 202110064567 A CN202110064567 A CN 202110064567A CN 112734267 A CN112734267 A CN 112734267A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- factor
- decision
- plant
- evaluation
- layer
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 96
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 25
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 claims abstract description 6
- 241000196324 Embryophyta Species 0.000 claims description 131
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 27
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 claims description 19
- 238000000746 purification Methods 0.000 claims description 19
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 claims description 15
- 241000195493 Cryptophyta Species 0.000 claims description 11
- 239000003344 environmental pollutant Substances 0.000 claims description 11
- 231100000719 pollutant Toxicity 0.000 claims description 11
- 238000005202 decontamination Methods 0.000 claims description 10
- 230000003588 decontaminative effect Effects 0.000 claims description 10
- 239000002028 Biomass Substances 0.000 claims description 9
- 238000001514 detection method Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 238000012423 maintenance Methods 0.000 claims description 8
- 239000002699 waste material Substances 0.000 claims description 8
- 238000004737 colorimetric analysis Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 238000005070 sampling Methods 0.000 claims description 3
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 claims description 2
- 230000001629 suppression Effects 0.000 claims 2
- 238000010276 construction Methods 0.000 claims 1
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 abstract description 15
- 238000013210 evaluation model Methods 0.000 abstract description 2
- 238000004904 shortening Methods 0.000 abstract 1
- 230000006978 adaptation Effects 0.000 description 6
- 230000005764 inhibitory process Effects 0.000 description 5
- IJGRMHOSHXDMSA-UHFFFAOYSA-N Atomic nitrogen Chemical compound N#N IJGRMHOSHXDMSA-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- 238000004364 calculation method Methods 0.000 description 4
- 244000292211 Canna coccinea Species 0.000 description 3
- 235000005273 Canna coccinea Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 240000003826 Eichhornia crassipes Species 0.000 description 3
- 241001113556 Elodea Species 0.000 description 3
- 244000207867 Pistia stratiotes Species 0.000 description 3
- 235000006440 Pistia stratiotes Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 239000000356 contaminant Substances 0.000 description 3
- 241001517093 Iris lactea Species 0.000 description 2
- 240000002853 Nelumbo nucifera Species 0.000 description 2
- 235000006508 Nelumbo nucifera Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- OAICVXFJPJFONN-UHFFFAOYSA-N Phosphorus Chemical compound [P] OAICVXFJPJFONN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000012851 eutrophication Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000002401 inhibitory effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 229910052757 nitrogen Inorganic materials 0.000 description 2
- 229910052698 phosphorus Inorganic materials 0.000 description 2
- 239000011574 phosphorus Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 description 2
- 244000001632 Acorus gramineus Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000013073 Acorus gramineus Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000001674 Agaricus brunnescens Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000202566 Hydrocotyle vulgaris Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000015916 Hydrocotyle vulgaris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000071493 Iris tectorum Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001491708 Macrocystis Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000204970 Myriophyllum brasiliense Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000004234 Myriophyllum brasiliense Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001244589 Myriophyllum verticillatum Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000006510 Nelumbo pentapetala Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- XKMRRTOUMJRJIA-UHFFFAOYSA-N ammonia nh3 Chemical compound N.N XKMRRTOUMJRJIA-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- QVGXLLKOCUKJST-UHFFFAOYSA-N atomic oxygen Chemical compound [O] QVGXLLKOCUKJST-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000010586 diagram Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012854 evaluation process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004880 explosion Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000013305 food Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000007689 inspection Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012067 mathematical method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 229910052760 oxygen Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 239000001301 oxygen Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000004445 quantitative analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000003903 river water pollution Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000007787 solid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000006467 substitution reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
- G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
- G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
- G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
- G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q50/00—Information and communication technology [ICT] specially adapted for implementation of business processes of specific business sectors, e.g. utilities or tourism
- G06Q50/06—Energy or water supply
Landscapes
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Human Resources & Organizations (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Educational Administration (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Tourism & Hospitality (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Operations Research (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
- Public Health (AREA)
- Water Supply & Treatment (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Primary Health Care (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The invention discloses an AHP-based method for evaluating the plant selection rationality of a river ecological island, which comprises the following steps of firstly establishing a hierarchical structure model, wherein the hierarchical structure model comprises a target layer, a decision layer and a factor layer, then determining the relative weight of the influence degree of an evaluation factor on the corresponding decision factor by using an AHP analysis method, and determining the relative weight of the influence degree of each decision factor on the target layer; and evaluating and scoring each evaluation factor to obtain a factor evaluation score, and obtaining a total plant score L according to the factor evaluation score, the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor and the relative weight of the decision factor on the influence degree of the target layer, wherein the higher the total plant score L is, the higher the rationality for selecting the plant by the river ecological island is. The invention can establish a uniform evaluation model to scientifically and accurately evaluate the rationality of the alternative plants, thereby improving the plant design efficiency of the ecological island and shortening the design period.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of river ecological management, in particular to an AHP-based method for evaluating the plant selection reasonability of an ecological island of a river.
Background
With the rapid development of global industrialization and urbanization, water eutrophication has become a serious urban environmental problem. The plants have an efficient removal effect on eutrophic substances in the water body, the water quality can be obviously improved, and in view of the advantages of wide action field, low purification cost, landscape effect and the like of the water body purification by the plants, the selection of the plants with better purification effect on the ecological island of the river channel also becomes the key point of the design in the landscape design of the river channel. However, the existing plants are various in variety, landscape designers lack the standard for evaluating plant rationality, usually can only select plants by means of self experience, so that the phenomenon of river secondary pollution caused by massive death due to selection of plant inadaptable environment is easily caused, and the requirement of water purification cannot be met.
Disclosure of Invention
The invention aims to provide an AHP-based method for evaluating the plant selection rationality of a river ecological island, which can be used for establishing a uniform judgment model to scientifically and accurately evaluate the rationality of alternative plants so as to improve the plant design efficiency of the ecological island and shorten the design period.
In order to solve the technical problems, the technical scheme provided by the invention is as follows:
an evaluation method for the plant selection rationality of an AHP-based river channel ecological island comprises the following steps:
1) establishing a hierarchical structure model which comprises a target layer, a decision layer and a factor layer,
the decision layer represents plant selection rationality, the decision layer represents decision factors influencing the plant selection rationality of the target layer, and the factor layer represents evaluation factors influencing the decision factors of the decision layer; the factor layer comprises at least one evaluation factor, and each decision factor corresponds to at least one evaluation factor of the factor layer;
2) determining the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor by using an AHP analysis method, and determining the relative weight of the influence degree of each decision factor on a target layer;
3) evaluating and scoring each evaluation factor to obtain a factor evaluation score, and obtaining a total plant score L according to the factor evaluation score, the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor and the relative weight of the decision factor on the influence degree of the target layer;
the higher the total plant score L is, the higher the reasonableness of selecting the plant in the river ecological island is.
In one embodiment, the total plant score L is calculated by the following formula:
wherein,
in one embodiment, when 20< L ≦ 30, it indicates that the river ecological island is evaluated as excellent in the rationality for selecting the plant;
when L is more than 10 and less than or equal to 20, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is good;
when L is more than 0 and less than or equal to 10, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is poor.
In one embodiment, the decision layer comprises a plurality of decision factors, wherein the decision factors are purification capacity, ecological environment adaptability or application cost.
In one embodiment, the evaluation factor is the decontamination pollutant diversity, biomass, algae inhibition capacity, climate adaptation, plant tolerance, plant aggressiveness, plant variety cost, management maintenance cost or waste yield, the decontamination pollutant diversity, biomass and algae inhibition capacity corresponds to the decontamination capacity of the decision layer, the climate adaptation, plant tolerance and plant aggressiveness correspond to the ecological environment adaptability of the decision layer, and the plant variety cost, management maintenance cost and waste yield correspond to the application cost of the decision layer.
In one embodiment, before performing step 1), a list of plants to be selected is further determined according to a water body detection result, where the list of plants to be selected includes a plurality of plants having a water body purification effect.
In one embodiment, when the water detection is performed, a target water sample is obtained by adopting a five-point sampling method, and the content of pollutants in the target water sample is determined according to a colorimetric method.
In one embodiment, before performing step 2), a judgment matrix is further required to be constructed and consistency check is performed, where the judgment matrix is used to compare the importance degree of the decision factor for the target layer, or compare the importance degree of the evaluation factor for the corresponding decision layer.
In one embodiment, a nine-stage scaling method is used in constructing the decision matrix.
The invention has the following beneficial effects: the AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method establishes a unified evaluation standard, can scientifically and accurately evaluate the rationality of alternative plants, enables plant design of an ecological island to be more efficient, improves plant design efficiency, and shortens the design period of the ecological island.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the structure of the AHP-based method for assessing plant selection rationality of an ecological island of a river channel;
Detailed Description
The present invention is further described below in conjunction with the following figures and specific examples so that those skilled in the art may better understand the present invention and practice it, but the examples are not intended to limit the present invention.
As shown in fig. 1, the present embodiment discloses an AHP-based method for evaluating the rationality of plant selection in a river ecological island, which includes the following steps:
1) establishing a hierarchical structure model, wherein the hierarchical structure model comprises a target layer, a decision layer and a factor layer;
the decision layer represents plant selection reasonability, the decision layer represents decision factors influencing the plant selection reasonability of the target layer, and the factor layer represents evaluation factors influencing the decision factors of the decision layer; the factor layer comprises at least one evaluation factor, and each decision factor corresponds to at least one evaluation factor of the factor layer;
2) determining the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor by using an AHP analysis method, and determining the relative weight of the influence degree of each decision factor on the target layer;
AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) is a multi-criterion decision method for carrying out quantitative analysis on qualitative problems, and can calculate the weight reflecting the relative importance order of each layer element by using a mathematical method and calculate the relative weight of all elements through the total ordering among all layers;
3) evaluating and scoring each evaluation factor to obtain a factor evaluation score, and obtaining a total plant score L according to the factor evaluation score, the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor and the relative weight of the decision factor on the influence degree of the target layer;
and judging whether the plant is a suitable plant for the river ecological island according to the total plant score condition, wherein the higher the total plant score L is, the higher the rationality for selecting the plant by the river ecological island is.
In one embodiment, the total plant score L is calculated by the following formula:
wherein,
in the formula, a plurality of evaluation personnel can evaluate the layer structure model, so that errors can be reduced.
Further, when L is more than 20 and less than or equal to 30, the rationality of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is evaluated to be excellent;
when L is more than 10 and less than or equal to 20, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is good;
when L is more than 0 and less than or equal to 10, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is poor.
When the ecological island is used for plant selection, plants with excellent plant rationality evaluation are recommended to be selected so as to achieve the optimal river channel purification and restoration effect; the selection of plants whose rationality is evaluated as good is not recommended; plants with poor rationality rating cannot be used as plants in this ecological island.
Referring to fig. 1, in one embodiment, the decision layer includes a plurality of decision factors, wherein the decision factors are purification capacity B1, ecological environment adaptability B2 or application cost B3.
In one embodiment, the evaluation factors are decontamination contaminant diversity C1, biomass C2, algae inhibition capacity C3, climate adaptation C4, plant tolerance C5, plant aggressiveness C6, plant variety cost C7, management maintenance cost C8 or waste yield C9, decontamination contaminant diversity C1, biomass C2 and algae inhibition capacity C3 correspond to decontamination capacity B1 of the decision floor, climate adaptation C4, plant tolerance C5 and plant aggressiveness C6 correspond to ecological environment adaptation B2 of the decision floor, plant variety cost C7, management maintenance cost C8 and waste yield C9 correspond to application cost B3 of the decision floor.
The decision factor types and the type selection of the corresponding evaluation factors are more beneficial to scientifically judging the comprehensive purification effect and the application effect of the plants to be selected on the river channel, and the effectiveness and the accuracy of the selection of the plants to be selected are improved.
In one embodiment, before performing step 1), a list of plants to be selected is further determined according to a water body detection result, where the list of plants to be selected includes a plurality of plants having a water body purification effect, so as to facilitate subsequent selection of the plurality of plants to be selected.
In one embodiment, during water body detection, a target water sample is obtained by adopting a five-point sampling method, and the content of pollutants in the target water sample is determined according to a colorimetric method, wherein the pollutants mainly refer to total phosphorus and total nitrogen so as to judge the eutrophication degree of the water body.
In one embodiment, before performing step 2), a judgment matrix is further required to be constructed, consistency check is performed, and weight calculation is performed after the consistency check is qualified. The judgment matrix is used for comparing the importance degree of the decision factors to the target layer or comparing the importance degree of the evaluation factors to the corresponding decision layer.
The judgment matrix is used for judging the relative importance of each factor of each layer, and comparing and judging every two elements of each layer, and the judgments are represented by numerical values and written into a matrix form.
Specifically, as shown in tables 1 to 4, determination matrices of the importance degree of each layer factor on the upper layer influence are respectively established. Wherein, table 1 is a judgment matrix and a one-time check table of rationality a of plant selection for three decision factors of purification capacity B1, ecological environment adaptability B2 and application cost B3 relative to a target layer, table 2 is a judgment matrix and a one-time check table of three evaluation factors of purification pollutant diversity C1, biomass C2 and algae inhibition capacity C3 relative to purification capacity B1, table 3 is a judgment matrix and a one-time check table of three evaluation factors of climate adaptability C4, plant tolerance C5 and plant aggressiveness C6 relative to ecological environment adaptability B2, and table 4 is a judgment matrix and a one-time check table of three evaluation factors of plant variety cost C7, management maintenance cost C8 and waste yield C9 relative to application cost B3.
TABLE 1A-B judgement matrix and Disposable inspection Table
| A/B | B1 | B2 | B3 | Weighted value |
| B1 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 0.37 |
| B2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 0.46 |
| B3 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 1 | 0.17 |
TABLE 2B 1-C decision matrix and one-time checklist
TABLE 3B 2-C decision matrix and Disposable test sheet
| B2/C | C4 | C5 | C6 | Weighted value |
| C4 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/2 | 0.13 |
| C5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0.64 |
| C6 | 2 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.23 |
TABLE 4B 3-C decision matrix and one-time checklist
| B3/C | C7 | C8 | C9 | Weighted value |
| C7 | 1 | 1/5 | 1/5 | 0.1 |
| C8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0.45 |
| C9 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0.45 |
In one embodiment, a nine-stage scaling (Satty1-9 scaling) is used in constructing the decision matrix. The nine-stage scaling is the current scaling method. The scaling method for the nine-stage scale is shown in table 5.
TABLE 5 Scale method Table of nine-level scale method
Specifically, the evaluation factor scores are obtained according to tables 6 and 7, table 6 being a score index of the evaluation factors, and table 7 being a score criterion of the evaluation factors.
TABLE 6 Scoring index for evaluation factor
TABLE 7 scoring criteria for evaluation factors
| Superior food | Factor evaluation was scored as: 7 to 10 |
| Good wine | Factor evaluation was scored as: 3 to 6 |
| Difference (D) | Factor evaluation was scored as: 0 to 3 |
Tables 6 and 7 were obtained empirically and were obtained by a skilled practitioner through extensive search analysis. When the evaluation factor score is obtained, the evaluation factor is determined to be "excellent", "good" or "poor" according to table 6, and then the evaluation factor score is determined according to the scores corresponding to "excellent", "good" and "poor" in table 7, and the score is made by ten.
The calculation method of the total plant score L is described below by taking the hierarchical structure model shown in fig. 1 as an example:
wherein,
the standardized scores of the 1 st decision factor B1 of the ith evaluation personnel are expressed, and correspond to three evaluation factors of pollutant purification diversity C1, biomass C2 and algae inhibiting capacity C3; weight values of 0.37, 0.46, and 0.17 for B1, B2, and B3, respectively, obtained from table 1;
the normalized scores of the 2 nd decision factor and B2 of the ith panellist are expressed and correspond to the climate Adaptation C4, plant tolerance C5 and plant aggressivenessThe three evaluation factors of C6 are,
the standardized scores of the 3 rd decision factor B3 by the ith assessment personnel are shown, and correspond to three evaluation factors, namely plant variety cost C7, management and maintenance cost C8 and waste yield C9.
Wherein,
corresponding to the factor evaluation score of the decontamination contaminant diversity C1,
the factor evaluation score corresponding to biomass C2,
according to the evaluation score of the factor corresponding to the algae inhibiting ability C3, according to the table 6, if the score index corresponding to the C1 is "excellent", according to the table 7, the evaluation score of the evaluation factor C1 is 7-10, and similarly, the scores of the evaluation factors C2 and C3 can be obtained; obtained from Table 2
And
values of 0.41, 0.11 and 0.48, respectively, if the evaluation factors C1, C2 and C3 have a score of 8, 6, 3, respectively, and the panelists have 5, then:
then
Obtained in the same manner as described above
Value of (A)And thus the value of L can be calculated.
The evaluation process of the above evaluation method for the rationality of plant selection in the river ecological island based on AHP is described as follows by specific application examples:
firstly, carrying out detection on a river water body, wherein the detection result shows that the river water pollution index is TN (total nitrogen) 27.6-159.3 mg/L, TP (total phosphorus) 1.58-7.16 mg/L, CODCr (chemical oxygen demand) 80.9-313.2 mg/L, NH3-N (ammonia nitrogen) 21.3-148.9 mg/L, SS (suspended solid) 151.0-685.0 mg/L; confirming that the water is a serious overproof water body with main pollution sources of TP and TN, listing a landscape type ecological floating island plant variety table to be selected aiming at the problem, and referring to a table 8;
TABLE 8 candidate aquatic plant species
And (3) performing literature retrieval on 12 plants in the table 8 under the concentration of the river pollutants to know the purification capacity of the plants, determining evaluation index conditions of nine evaluation factors C1-C9 in the table 6, inviting multiple practitioners to score each plant according to the table 7, and taking an average value after removing limit values of multiple scoring data to be introduced into a calculation formula of a total plant score L to calculate and obtain respective L values. When L is more than 20 and less than or equal to 30, the rationality of the plant selected by the river ecological island is evaluated to be excellent; when L is more than 10 and less than or equal to 20, the rationality of the plant selected by the river ecological island is evaluated to be good; when L is more than 0 and less than or equal to 10, the rationality of the plant selected by the river ecological island is evaluated to be poor. The final L value calculation results are shown in table 9.
Table 912 evaluation ranking table for purification ability of candidate plants
| Name of plant | Plant appraisalIs divided into | Evaluation of |
| Canna indica (Canna indica) | 27.27 | Is excellent in |
| Iris (Iris pseudoorus) | 22.1 | Is excellent in |
| Iris (Iris tectorum) | 18.46 | Good effect |
| Elodea algae (Elodea nuttallaii) | 16.33 | Good effect |
| Mushroom (Hydrocotyle vulgaris) | 16.19 | Good effect |
| Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) | 15.7 | Good effect |
| Macrocystis (Myriophyllum aquaticum) | 15.4 | Good effect |
| Iris lactea (Iris lactea) | 8.61 | Difference (D) |
| Fox algae (Myriophyllum verticillatum) | 4.21 | Difference (D) |
| Lythraustochem (Lythram salicia) | 4.11 | Difference (D) |
| Pistia stratiotes (Pistia stratiotes) | 4.02 | Difference (D) |
| Eichhornia crassipes (Eichhornia crassipes) | 4.58 | Difference (D) |
As can be seen from table 9, the difference of the scoring conditions of the plants is large, the plants have higher scores of canna, acorus gramineus, iris and waterweed, which indicates that the plants have higher purifying effect on the eutrophic water body than other plants, and the use of the plants is more considered when the design is recommended; the plants with lower scores are water lettuce and water hyacinth, the plants have good capacity of purifying eutrophic plants, but the expansion and the explosion of the plants can cause secondary pollution of water, so the scores are lower, and the selection of plant varieties is not recommended during the design of the ecological island.
By utilizing the method for evaluating the plant selection rationality of the AHP-based river channel ecological island, a proper purification plant can be selected quickly and accurately so as to carry out water quality restoration on river reach which is inconvenient for ecological wetland restoration in the river channel of the old urban area.
According to the evaluation method for the plant selection rationality of the ecological island of the river based on the AHP, an AHP hierarchical analysis method is introduced into the initial stage of plant design, a uniform judgment standard is established, the rationality of alternative plants can be scientifically and accurately evaluated, the plant design of the ecological island is more efficient, the plant design efficiency is improved, and the design period of the ecological island is shortened; in addition, compared with the judgment standard which is biased to be strictly and difficultly mastered in botany, the evaluation model is simplified into three main layers, so that the application range and the universality of the model are improved.
The above-mentioned embodiments are merely preferred embodiments for fully illustrating the present invention, and the scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. The equivalent substitution or change made by the technical personnel in the technical field on the basis of the invention is all within the protection scope of the invention. The protection scope of the invention is subject to the claims.
Claims (9)
1. An evaluation method for the rationality of plant selection of an AHP-based river channel ecological island is characterized by comprising the following steps:
1) establishing a hierarchical structure model which comprises a target layer, a decision layer and a factor layer,
the decision layer represents plant selection rationality, the decision layer represents decision factors influencing the plant selection rationality of the target layer, and the factor layer represents evaluation factors influencing the decision factors of the decision layer; the factor layer comprises at least one evaluation factor, and each decision factor corresponds to at least one evaluation factor of the factor layer;
2) determining the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor by using an AHP analysis method, and determining the relative weight of the influence degree of each decision factor on a target layer;
3) evaluating and scoring each evaluation factor to obtain a factor evaluation score, and obtaining a total plant score L according to the factor evaluation score, the relative weight of the evaluation factor on the influence degree of the corresponding decision factor and the relative weight of the decision factor on the influence degree of the target layer;
the higher the total plant score L is, the higher the reasonableness of selecting the plant in the river ecological island is.
2. The AHP-based method for assessing plant selection reasonableness of river ecological islands according to claim 1, wherein said total plant score L is calculated from the formula:
wherein,
3. the AHP-based method for assessing the rationality of plant selection in river ecological islands according to claim 2,
when L is more than 20 and less than or equal to 30, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is excellent;
when L is more than 10 and less than or equal to 20, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is good;
when L is more than 0 and less than or equal to 10, the rationality evaluation of selecting the plant by the river ecological island is poor.
4. The AHP-based method for assessing the plant selection reasonableness of ecological islands in river channels of claim 1, wherein said decision-making layer comprises a plurality of decision-making factors, said decision-making factors being purification capacity, ecological environmental suitability or application cost.
5. The AHP-based method for assessing plant selection rationality in the river ecological island, according to claim 4, wherein said assessment factors are decontamination pollutant diversity, biomass, algae suppression capacity, climate suitability, plant tolerance, plant aggressiveness, plant variety cost, management maintenance cost or waste yield, said decontamination pollutant diversity, biomass and algae suppression capacity correspond to the decontamination capacity of said decision-making layer, said climate suitability, plant tolerance and plant aggressiveness correspond to the ecological environment suitability of said decision-making layer, and said plant variety cost, management maintenance cost and waste yield correspond to the application cost of said decision-making layer.
6. The AHP-based method for assessing the plant selection reasonableness of the ecological island of a river channel according to claim 1, wherein a list of plants to be selected is confirmed according to the detection result of the water body before the step 1), wherein the list of plants to be selected comprises a plurality of plants with a water body purification effect.
7. The AHP-based method for assessing the plant selection reasonableness of ecological islands in riverways according to claim 6, wherein during detection of water, a target water sample is obtained by a five-point sampling method, and the content of pollutants in the target water sample is determined according to a colorimetric method.
8. The AHP-based method for assessing the plant selection reasonableness of the ecological island of a river channel according to claim 1, wherein before the step 2), a judgment matrix is further constructed and consistency check is performed, wherein the judgment matrix is used for comparing the importance degree of the decision factors to the target layer or comparing the importance degree of the evaluation factors to the corresponding decision layers.
9. The AHP-based method for assessing the plant selection reasonableness of ecological islands in river channels of claim 8, wherein a nine-level scaling method is used in the construction of the decision matrix.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110064567.5A CN112734267A (en) | 2021-01-18 | 2021-01-18 | AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110064567.5A CN112734267A (en) | 2021-01-18 | 2021-01-18 | AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN112734267A true CN112734267A (en) | 2021-04-30 |
Family
ID=75592232
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN202110064567.5A Pending CN112734267A (en) | 2021-01-18 | 2021-01-18 | AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN112734267A (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN115049317A (en) * | 2022-08-12 | 2022-09-13 | 中国长江三峡集团有限公司 | Selection method and device of wind power resource assessment tool and electronic equipment |
Citations (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN105913324A (en) * | 2016-03-30 | 2016-08-31 | 中国农业大学 | Organic plant type product species evaluation method |
| CN105912871A (en) * | 2016-04-25 | 2016-08-31 | 中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所 | Comprehensive evaluation method for northern riparian plant screening |
-
2021
- 2021-01-18 CN CN202110064567.5A patent/CN112734267A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN105913324A (en) * | 2016-03-30 | 2016-08-31 | 中国农业大学 | Organic plant type product species evaluation method |
| CN105912871A (en) * | 2016-04-25 | 2016-08-31 | 中国科学院沈阳应用生态研究所 | Comprehensive evaluation method for northern riparian plant screening |
Non-Patent Citations (1)
| Title |
|---|
| 张崇军: ""北京山区高速公路边坡绿化植物筛选及配置模式研究"", 《硕士电子期刊》, no. 4, pages 16 - 27 * |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN115049317A (en) * | 2022-08-12 | 2022-09-13 | 中国长江三峡集团有限公司 | Selection method and device of wind power resource assessment tool and electronic equipment |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Abid | Does economic, financial and institutional developments matter for environmental quality? A comparative analysis of EU and MEA countries | |
| Pyšek et al. | Trends in species diversity and composition of urban vegetation over three decades | |
| Feng et al. | A risk assessment model of water shortage based on information diffusion technology and its application in analyzing carrying capacity of water resources | |
| Harley et al. | Genetic variation and population structure in remnant populations of black rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, in Africa | |
| WO2023098239A1 (en) | River ecosystem health assessment method based on microbial community specific response | |
| CN108629502A (en) | A kind of Assessment of wetland ecosystem health method based on microbiological integrity index | |
| CN111680890A (en) | Surface water environment quality evaluation method suitable for river growth system | |
| Albarrán-Lara et al. | Low genetic differentiation between two morphologically and ecologically distinct giant-leaved Mexican oaks | |
| CN112801460B (en) | Groundwater pollution monitoring network optimization method based on two-step TOPSIS method | |
| CN112734267A (en) | AHP-based river channel ecological island plant selection rationality evaluation method | |
| Simon et al. | Development of multimetric indices of biotic integrity for riverine and palustrine wetland plant communities along Southern Lake Michigan | |
| CN115774953A (en) | Pollution space-time risk supervision and evaluation system and method based on data processing | |
| Li et al. | Genetic, geographic, and climatic factors jointly shape leaf morphology of an alpine oak, Quercus aquifolioides Rehder & EH Wilson | |
| Wang et al. | Research on the impact mechanism of multiple environmental regulations on carbon emissions under the perspective of carbon peaking pressure: A case study of China's coastal regions | |
| Fahey et al. | Habitat preference differentiates the Holocene range dynamics but not barrier effects on two sympatric, congeneric trees (Tristaniopsis, Myrtaceae) | |
| Tanganco et al. | Forecast of Potential Areas of Urban Expansion in the Laguna de Bay Basin and Its Implications to Water Supply Security. | |
| CN116523336A (en) | Ecological restoration space identification method | |
| Arnbjerg-Nielsen et al. | The importance of inherent uncertainties in state-of-the-art urban storm drainage modelling for ungauged small catchments | |
| Leorri et al. | A foraminifera-based transfer function as a tool for sea-level reconstructions in the southern Bay of Biscay | |
| Pryor | An empirical note on the tipping point | |
| CN112766790A (en) | Steel enterprise green degree evaluation method based on AHP-entropy | |
| Faucheux et al. | Economic globalisation, competitiveness and environment | |
| Krug et al. | Applying population genetics to define the units for conservation management in the European Tree Frog, Hyla arborea | |
| Dai et al. | Spatiotemporal Variations of Water Pollution‐Intensive Enterprises and Influencing Factors in China’s “Two Control Zone” Policy Using Spatial Statistics and Spatial Autoregressive Models | |
| CN111210166B (en) | Robustness assessment method of urban functional system |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination |