A Treatment Wetland Park Assessment Model for Evaluating Urban Ecosystem Stability using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

Journal web link: http://www.jett.dormaj.com

A Treatment Wetland Park Assessment Model

for Evaluating Urban Ecosystem Stability using

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

3,4,5*

, Amir Jamshidnezhad , M. Salim Ferwati ,

2 5

Arezou Shafaghat , Ooi Jin Ying , Ali Keyvanfar

Hamidah Ahmad , Sapura Mohamad , Majid Khorami

MIT-UTM MSCP Program, Institute Sultan Iskandar, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Malaysia

Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310, Malaysia

Department of Construction Management, Kennesaw State University, Marietta, GA 30060, United States

Center for Energy Research, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, United States

Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Calle Rumipamba s/n y Bourgeois, Quito 170508,

Ecuador

Faculty of Civil Engineering, Khajeh Nasir Toosi University of Technology (KNTU), Tehran,1969764499 Iran

Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, College of Engineering, Qatar University, 2713, Doha, Qatar

Received: 20/09/2018

Accepted: 05/01/2019

Published: 30/03/2019

Abstract

The increased impervious and built-up urban areas threat ecosystem stability through major environmental problems, such as

surface runoff, flooding, and wildlife habitat resource depletion. Hence, urban ecologists and planners are attempting to enhance

the capacities of wetlands parks in urban ecosystem stabilization. They need an assessment tool to evaluate and quantify the

performance of wetland parks on these issues, hereof this study has developed the Urban Wetland Park (UWP) index assessment

model. The research conducted three phases; the requirement study to identify the features of wetland park design, formulating

index model using Analytical Hierarchy Process method, and model validation using expert input. The UWP model identified

eighteen features clustered into three criteria and fifteen sub-criteria and then determined the weights of features. For model

validation, the UWP model was applied in Putrajaya wetland park. The UWP resulted with grade B (Good) for Putrajaya wetland

park. It means the Putrajaya wetland park performs well in ecosystem stabilization, although the experts recommended few minor

improvements regarding site selection (W_C₁_.₁_.= 0.588), multi-cell and multi-stage design (W_C₁_.₅_.= 0.604), depth proportion

(

W_C₁_.₆_.= 0.652), and biodiversity (W_C₂_.₁_.= 0.691). Study proposed the UWP as a universal decision support tool to help urban

authorities, urban planners and ecologists to assess the ecosystem stabilization of wetland parks.

Keywords: Urban Ecology, Treatment Wetland, Wetland Park, Decision Support Tool, Analytical Hierarchy Process

water, and flooding [3]. A continuously increasing runoff

Introduction

eventually erodes watercourses (i.e., streams and rivers)

and causes flooding if the flow exceeds the maximum

capacity of the stormwater collection system [4]. Runoff

more often occurs in such developed than undeveloped

urban areas. Before urban and land development (e.g.,

buildings, roads, highways, and other land construction),

the runoff may occur in a site which is called „pre-

development runoff.‟ The natural site may expect low ratio

runoff if rainfall intercepts and absorbed by the ground and

vegetation (Figure 1). The runoff may also occur in a site

during urban growth which is called „post-development

runoff.‟ Urban growth essentially converts the green

landscape into impervious surfaces with compacted soils

(e.g., parking lots, roads, and buildings), and this scenario

prevents rainfall absorption by the ground. As a result,

Rapid population growth and built-up areas have

increased demand for residential, commercial, industrial,

and agricultural land users [1,2]. The increased impervious

and built-up areas can restrict infiltration to the ground,

which then results in major issues, such as increased

surface runoff volume and speed, untreated channeled

Corresponding authors: (a) Arezou Shafaghat: MIT-UTM

MSCP Program, Institute Sultan Iskandar, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, JB 81310, Malaysia. E-mail:

arezou.shafaghat@gmail.com.

(b)

Ali

Keyvanfar:

Department of Construction Management, Kennesaw State

University, Marietta, GA 30060, United States, E-mail:

akeyvanf@kennesaw.edu.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

rainfall flows within site quickly. Hence the accumulated

high-volume runoff may move in the site very rapidly

parks. For example, Chen et al. [14] developed an

ecological wetland risk assessment tool based on the

information-based network method for environmental

analysis. Cui et al. [18] designed a coastal wetland

assessment model to evaluate the impact of coastal

wetlands on the rising sea levels by using the spatial

assessment method and by adopting the source–pathway–

receptor–consequence (SPRC) model. Guo et al. [19]

assessed wetland‟s ecosystems through empirical

geochemical analysis, and Garg [20] applied geospatial

technology and landscape ecological metrics for wetland

management. Chatterjee et al. [21] have applied the fuzzy

Analytical Network Process (ANP) for analyzing the causes

of wetland degradation.

(Figure 1).

These issues have led to developing the urban wetlands.

In summary,

development of

crucial limitation exists in the

scientific assessment model for

measuring and evaluating urban wetland park‟s

performances in ecosystem stabilization. In this regard, this

research has developed the Urban Wetland Park (UWP)

assessment model. The UWP model has applied the

Waterfall Process method. Accordingly, the UWP model

has been developed into three phases. Phase one is features

identification through a critical literature review on the

features of wetland park design. Phase two is a model

design which develops the UWP index model and conducts

AHP analysis to obtain the weight of each feature. And,

phase three is model validation that implements the UWP

model in a real case.

Figure 1 Comparison of runoff behavior before and after

urban development (Source: Adopted from PUB, Managing

Urban Runoff – Drainage Handbook [5])

Urban wetland‟s functions and ecological processes are

various with different services (e.g., habitat, hydrology, and

water quality, etc.). Urban wetlands contribute significantly

to flood reduction, groundwater recharge, stream bank

stabilization, and fish and wildlife habitat resource

conservation [6,7]. The urban wetlands typically aid to

microclimate control, biodiversity support flood control,

and pollutant removal from wastewater, aesthetic and

recreation [8]. Regarding the structure and functionality,

urban wetlands differ from constructed/natural wetlands

Materials and Methods

.1 UWP Model Features

This section presents the features involved in the UWP

assessment model. The UWP model as a decision support

tool must constitute comprehensive features to evaluate the

wetland park cases comprehensively and properly. The

features have been investigated through reviewing the

wetland park management literature. The features have

been identified by the critical literature review applying the

combinations of keywords; included, wetland assessment,

wetland ecosystem, wetland park, wetland ecology, wetland

physical design, wetland environmental design, and

ecosystem stability in the available references. The critical

literature review is a replicable and scientific method

helped us to deal with a manageable number of references

that critically studied these topics. Also, the critical

literature review helped to identify the features with a

minimize bias and errors. The references were extracted

from our available sources; included, ScienceDirect,

Scopus, Taylor and Francis, Emerald, Google Scholar, and

the relevant journals, named, Wetlands, Wetlands ecology

and management, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,

Science of the Total Environment, Aquatic Conservation,

Journal of environmental management, and Water Science

and Technology, in addition to government reports. The

features are clustered into three criteria based on physical,

ecological and environmental aspects as; Wetland Park

Physical Design (C1), Wetland Park Ecological

Approaches (C2), and Landscape Environmental Elements

to Support the Wetland Park (C3). Each criterion involves a

series of sub-criteria, totally fifteen sub-criteria have been

[

9,10]. Most of the natural urban wetlands are remnants of

larger wetlands where have been destroyed or modified

through housing development, agricultural infills, drainage

or other types of anthropogenic actions [11,12].

The environment and urban planners are practicing the

wetland park design where can simultaneously play the

wetland and park roles. Such wetland park mimics the city

parks and water park. The wetland park has aquatic plants

and equipment. Literature shows that the ecological

functions of urban wetland parks were often neglected,

whereas the social (i.e., recreation and entertainment)

function is over-emphasized. These issues convey the

essential need for urban wetland parks development where

they can emulate the environmental and ecological

functions of the natural wetlands.

The public and political knowledge of wetland park

values have been increased. However, environmental

planners and landscape designers need to enhance their

knowledge in the assessment of capabilities and

performances of urban wetland parks for ecosystem

stabilization. Reviewing the literature shows that there are

only few wetland assessment models (e.g., [13-17]) while

no model for wetland park assessment. Those wetland

assessment models differ in approaches and analytical

methods, that are not specifically applicable for wetland

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

identified as follows;

C1. Wetland Park Physical Design

habitat and resting purposes; thus, biodiversity is rich along

shorelines [33].

C1.1. Site Selection: The urban wetland parks depend on

the physical attributes of a site to function not only for

human but also for wildlife habitat. Land use, access, and

topography play key roles in the selection of a suitable site

for wetland [22].

C1.2. Wetland Shape Configuration: The shape of a

wetland park not only considers aesthetic value but also

mimics the image of natural wetlands which can enhance

the ecology of wetland parks [23]. Additionally, irregular

shorelines should be maximized to enhance water quality

by increasing the contact sites for sediments and

contaminant removal. Regarding habitat and floating island

issues, the allocation of islands for wildlife habitat must be

positioned away from the shoreline and separated from

permanent water flooding [23].

C3. Landscape Environmental Elements to Support the

Wetland Park

C3.1. Safety: Safety consideration is critical to good park

design, not only from the viewpoint of liability but also

because dangerous conditions may distract wildlife habitat

[34].

C3.2. Vegetation and Greening: Wetlands have diversity

and beauty, and host various vegetation communities (e.g.,

planting native flowering herbs or shrubs are common in

these areas [35]).

C3.3. Route Accessibility: The route for bicycles and

walking should be designed as these options 201can

minimize air pollution [34,36].

C3.4. Site Furniture: Site furniture is needed to meet

visitors‟ comfort, but the natural-made furniture is

recommended as they can complement the natural identity

of the wetland parks [37,38]. Furniture is normally

incorporated to suit the surroundings, and the materials

used should be made of natural materials [39].

C1.3. Wetland Zoning and Water Treatment Processes: The

integration of different spatial distributions of wetlands can

affect stormwater treatment and ecosystem stabilization in

different zones of the wetland park. In case of overflow or

emergencies, water should be directed to an outlet zone

through a bypass or spillway [24].

.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The UWP model has applied the analytic hierarchy process

AHP) decision-making method. The AHP conducts a

C1.4. Wetland Surface Flow (SF) and Subsurface Flow

(SSF) Systems: Water quality conservation and treatment

(

performance are meaningful in the practice of urban

wetland parks (Bao et al., 2007). In wetland park water

treatment, the SF and SSF systems can conserve the water

area, especially for wildlife habitat [9].

C1.5. Wetland Multi-cell and Multi-stage Design: Urban

wetlands can be designed based on the desired plant

community and landscape position (linear or basin) [25].

C1.6. Wetland Park Depth Proportion: The different water

depths in each wetland cell should have different

functionalities. For instance, stormwater retention,

contaminant removal, and wildlife habitat are the main

planning aspects of depth proportion designs [26,27].

C2. Wetland Park Ecological Approaches

series of pairwise comparisons to determine the weight of

features and can prioritize ranking for decision-making

situations [40]. The research has executed the following

AHP steps to determine the weights of features (i.e., criteria

and sub-criteria);

Step 1. Hierarchy decomposition: Any decision-making

problem must be interpreted into a hierarchy structure.

Accordingly, the hierarchical structure of an urban wetland

park design for ecosystem stabilization was formed based

on the AHP structure. The top layer is the decision-making

goal (i.e., developing an urban treatment wetland), the

middle layer involves the urban treatment wetland criteria

(

i.e., Wetland Park Physical Design (C1), Wetland Park

Ecological Approaches (C2), and Landscape

Environmental Elements to Support the Wetland Park

C3)), and the bottom layer includes the sub-criteria of each

C2.1. Biodiversity:

It is defined as the variety of living organisms in the aquatic

ecosystems (such as marine and terrestrial, and ecological

complexes) [28].

(

criterion.

C2.2. Air Pollution Reduction: The landscape planting and

Step 2. Pairwise comparison: To develop the UWP model,

the research evaluated and rated the features through the

AHP algorithm. The features were compared to each other

pairwisely. An expert input study was conducted that five

experts were involved. The experts have been selected

based on the purposive sampling method of GGDM

vegetation can help reduce CO and other hazardous gases

emission in the atmosphere which contributes to climate

change [29].

C2.3. Wetland Plant Selection: The plant environment in

urban wetland parks must incorporate wetland species,

which are classified according to their ecological features

and indigenous plants, which play an important role in

increasing the wetland biodiversity [30,31].

C2.4. Wetland Wildlife Habitat: The urban wetland design

techniques involve the factors to enhance the surrounding

wildlife habitat, such as the provision of nesting boxes,

identification of depth zones to support plant and animal

communities, and provision of buffers planted with

buttonbush [32].

(Grounded Group Decision-making) method [41].

According to Dehdasht et al. [42] and Shafaghat [43] the

MCDM techniques, such as AHP, do not need a big sample

size while in-depth interviews will be performed with the

experts. The experts had approximately ten years of

experience in urban ecology, wetland park design, and

decision-making from the United States, Malaysia, and

Ecuador. We asked the experts to prioritize their judgments

(e.g., valid importance) toward each pairwise comparison

C2.5. Wetland Ecological Shoreline Revetment: Shoreline

revetment is important for protection against floods,

ecological compensation, and water purification [22]. The

shoreline environment often becomes areas for wildlife

criterion and sub-criterion. In this research, the n value for

the features is 18 (3 criteria and 15 sub-criteria). The

ꢄ

experts‟ inputs were plotted as a ꢀ matrix. In ꢁ , ꢅꢆꢇis

ꢂꢃ

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

the influence level of feature ꢅon feature ꢆ. The matrix size

for the criteria is 3 ꢀꢇ3, and for the sub-criteria is 15 ꢀ15.

Each feature was rated by the experts using AHP 9-point

scaling (9=extremely important to 1=equally important)

through the input study questionnaires. For instance, the

questionnaire asked them “to rate the importance degree of

where, n, is the rating value and ꢧꢇ ꢇmaximum

eigenvalue

ꢝꢨꢩ

Table 2: Random Inconsistency (RI) indices for n nodes

(Adopted from Alonso and Lamata [45])

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

„

site selection‟ in respect to „biodiversity‟ in urban wetland

RCI

park design for ecosystem stabilization purpose”.

Step 3. Supermatrix development: The Output of

comparisons has constructed the supermatrix. The AHP‟s

supermatrix was developed using the AHP SCBUK

software (which was developed by SCB Associates Ltd.

2.3 Weighted Sum Method (WSM)

The UWP model was implemented in a real case study

(Putrajaya Wetland Park) for validation through an expert

input. The same group of experts involved in phase two

were invited for validation. The experts were asked to

assess the Putrajaya Wetland Park by applying the

Weighted Sum Method (WSM). The WSM method can

convert the multi-objective optimization to a single-

objective optimization [41,46]. Indeed, these experts were

such end-users of the UWP model and would apply it

practically. According to the WSM method instructions, the

experts have rated the features in 5-point Likert scaling

[44]). The AHP SCBUK software is a stand-alone AHP

software for conducting decision-making analysis. The

experts‟ pair-wise comparisons have been transformed

from the survey forms to the software to construct the

relative supermatrix and analyze them. The Wj is the

weight of the feature. The AHP supermatrix has been

developed by applying Equation 1;

ꢌ

ꢐ

ꢎꢑꢒ ꢌꢎ ꢎ

ꢈ

=∑ ꢍ ꢏ

for i=1,2,3,..., n

(1)

ꢉꢊꢋ

(

5=excellent to 1=weak). The WSM equations are as

Table 1: AHP decision-making supermatrix of urban

following;

wetland park design

Sub-criteria

ꢰ

ꢪꢫꢬꢠꢭꢥꢮꢠ∑ ꢯ ꢥꢭꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇꢇfor i=1,2,3,…,n

(5)

ꢂ

ꢃꢑꢒ ꢃꢇ

ꢂ

...

Alt. W1

where, „ꢱ „, the assigned weight by the expert number „j‟

in for the feature of discussion,„ꢇꢍ‟, is a feature of

discussion with the given ordering number of ꢲꢳand „n‟, is

the number of features of discussion. Equation 6 indicates

the consensus of WSM method. The consensus is accepted

if more than 0.70 saturation on experts‟ judgments was

observed.

ꢎꢇ

C11

C12

C13

A1,15

A2,15

ꢌ

ꢴ

3,15

Step 4. Normalization: It is to normalize the comparison

supermatrix by summing up entries of the columns. First,

each column entry will be divided to the column sum; then

the normalization will be conducted by making the sum of

ꢇꢪꢫꢬꢠꢭꢥ/ ꢪꢫꢬꢠꢭꢥ

= Consensus

(6)

ꢂ

ꢵꢶꢷ

each column equal to 1 (i.e., each entry ꢓ_ꢎ_ꢔof the matrix of

normalization) using Equation 2;

where, ꢏꢸꢹꢠꢍꢥ_ꢝ_ꢨ_ꢩ, is the maximum sum of possible

weight can be assigned for the feature. This research has

applied the WSM to the Putrajaya Wetland Park in

Malaysia. The Putrajaya wetland park is the first urban

wetland park in Malaysia and largest fully constructed

freshwater wetland in tropic (Figure 2). The Putrajaya

wetland park also has received the Excellence Award in

Green City Category in 2011 and 2012. It was mainly

constructed to remove pollutants, and to clean catchment

before entering the lake. The environmental management

and modern technologies have implemented in the design

and construction of this wetland [47].

ꢕꢖꢗ

^ꢓ^ꢎ^ꢔ⁼^∑ꢙ

(2)

^ꢕꢘꢗ

ꢘꢚꢛ

The criterion weight vector „w‟ will be calculated by

averaging the entries each row using Equation 3;

ꢙ

∑

ꢕ_ꢖ_ꢜ

ꢜꢚꢛ

ꢝ

ꢏ=

ꢎ

(3)

where Cij: entry of ith row and jth column of the

normalized matrix and vi: ith feature v.

UWP Model Development

Step 5. Consistency analysis: It is to ensure that the initial

rating is consistent. If the corresponding consistency ratio

This section presents the model development phase of

the UWP model. By applying the Equations 2 and 3 of the

AHAP, first, the normalized supermatrices were computed

for criteria, next for sub-criteria, and then for sub-criteria

with respect to each criterion (Table 5). According to Table

(CR) is less than 10% [40], then AHP output will be

consistent. According to Table 2, dividing CI to RI will

generate the CR (Equation 4);

, the criterion Ecological Approach received the highest

ꢕꢞ

ꢟꢞ

ꢠꢡꢇꢙꢢꢣꢤꢇꢔꢥꢦꢠꢔꢇꢤꢇꢒꢥ

ꢟꢞꢇ

CR =

(4)

normalized weight (WC.2=1.1035); in opposite the

Landscape Elements (W_C_.₃=0.8521).

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

were

Site

Furniture

and Route Accessibility,

W_C₃_.₂_.=19.9885 and W_C₃_.₃=18.0280, respectively. The

outputs of Table 5 were transferred to the linear equation

index of the UWP model.

Table 5: Integrated Normalized Supermatrix of Urban

wetland park design sub-criteria with respect to criteria

Criteria Sub-

Criteria

Sub-criteria

integrated

Normalized

Weightage vs.

Criteria

Criteria Normalized Normalized

Weightage Weightage

C1.

C1.1.

C1.2.

C1.3.

C1.4.

C1.5.

C1.6.

C2.1.

C2.2.

C2.3.

C2.4.

C2.5.

C3.1.

C3.2.

C3.3.

C3.4.

1.0532

25.2759

27.7670

24.6267

23.7204

24.7539

23.2589

27.8401

25.4756

24.1702

24.5783

23.8753

24.3286

25.6431

21.1561

23.4568

26.6206

29.2454

25.9380

24.9835

26.0709

24.4964

30.7227

28.1135

26.6719

27.1234

26.3476

20.7313

21.8514

18.0280

19.9885

C2.

C3.

1.1035

0.8521

Figure 2 The Putrajaya wetland park, lake, and catchment area

(Source: Adopted from Hassan et al. [47])

The Consistency Index (CI) has been calculated (CI =

Table 3: Normalized Supermatrix of wetland park design

criteria

0.139). According to Table 2, RI is 1.58; hence CR

coefficient was calculated as CI/RI = 0.087. The result of

AHP is consistent enough because this ratio is less than

0% (< 0.10). Equation 7 presents the UWP index

assessment model. The weights of sub-criteria have been

extracted from Table 5 and applied as the coefficients in the

UWP model;

C1.

C2.

C3.

0.6774

0.0968

0.2258

0.5385

0.0769

0.3846

0.7143

0.0476

0.2381

1.9302

0.2213

0.8485

1.0532

1.1035

0.8521

Urban Wetland Park (UWP) Index Model

= ꢺꢇ[Index Design+ Index Ecological Approaches+ Index

Landscape Environmental Elements]

(7)

UWP Index = ∑ꢻꢠꢭ ꢽꢥꢾ(ꢭ ꣀ)ꢾꢠꢭ ꣂꢥꣃ

Note C1. Wetland Park Physical Design, C2. Wetland Park Ecological

Approaches, C3. Landscape Environmental Elements to Support the

Wetland Park

ꢒꢼꢂ

ꢿꢼꢃ

ꣁꢼꢄ

where, a is coefficient of sub-criterion (Extracted from

Table 5 column of Sub-criteria integrated Normalized

Weight vs. Criterion), i is Physical Design sub-criterion

Table 4 shows the normalized weight of sub-criteria.

Table 4 determines that biodiversity is the most important

sub-criterion (W_C₁_.₁_.=27.8412). It was followed by Wetland

Shape Configuration (W_C₁_.₂_.=27.7681), and Vegetation and

Greening (W_C₃_.₁_.=25.6442). In contrast, the Depth

Proportion and Route Accessibility have received the least

important values among all sub-criteria, W_C₁_.₅_.=23.2590

and W_C₁_.₆_.=21.1572, respectively. Indeed, the normalized

weight of sub-criteria presented in Table 4 are not the final

weights. The sub-criteria normalized weights must multiply

to the corresponding criteria normalized weights. In this

regard, Table 5 used the outputs of Table 3 and Table 4 to

compute the integrated normalized supermatrix. According

to Table 5, biodiversity and wetland shape configuration

are the most important sub-criteria in urban wetland park

design, W_C₁_.₁_.=30.7227, and W_C₁_.₂_.=29.2454, respectively.

It was followed by Reducing Air Pollution

(

for:1,2,3,4,5,6), j is Ecological Approaches sub-criterion

for:1,2,3,4,5), k is Landscape Environmental Elements

sub-criterion (for:1,2,3,4), X is Weight of Physical Design

sub-criterion „i‟ assigned by the experts in the case survey,

Y is Weight of Ecological Approaches sub-criterion „j‟

assigned by the experts in the case survey and Z is Weight

of Landscape Environmental Elements sub-criterion „j‟

assigned by the experts in the case survey.

(

W_C₂_.₂_.=28.1135). Contrary, the least important sub-criteria

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

Table 4: Normalized Supermatrix of Urban wetland park design sub-criteria

C1.6 C2.1. C2.2. C2.3. C2.4. C2.5. C3.1.

Sub-

criteria

C1.1.

C1.2.

C1.3.

C1.4.

C1.5.

C3.2.

C3.3.

C3.4.

Weight Normalized

vs.

Weight vs.

goal

criteria

C1.1.

C1.2.

C1.3.

C1.4.

C1.5.

C1.6.

C2.1.

C2.2.

C2.3.

C2.4.

C2.5.

C3.1.

C3.2.

C3.3.

C3.4.

0.0374

0.0120

0.0331

0.0264

0.1175

0.1194

0.1104

0.2178

0.0941

0.1225

0.0933

0.0780

0.1979

0.0825

0.1215 0.1002

0.0321 0.0769

0.2541 0.1283

0.0984 0.0770

0.0054 0.0641

0.0053 0.0342

0.1215 0.0484

0.0046 0.0239

0.0045 0.0614

0.0984 0.1032

0.0082 0.0277

0.1215 0.0413

0.0054 0.0250

0.0039 0.0476

0.0652 0.1261

25.2759

27.7670

24.6267

23.7204

24.7539

23.2589

27.8401

25.4756

24.1702

24.5783

23.8753

24.3286

25.6431

21.1561

23.4568

0.0374

0.3743

0.0374

0.0132

0.0374

0.0473

0.0213

0.0183

0.0158

0.0213

0.0120

0.0132

0.0110

0.0860

0.1727

0.0104

0.1038

0.0348

0.0035

0.0104

0.1267

0.1138

0.0065

0.0104

0.0103

0.0120

0.1727

0.0184

0.0773

0.0284

0.0210

0.0284

0.0166

0.0136

0.0210

0.0873

0.0210

0.0219

0.0165

0.5301

0.0172

0.1087

0.0530

0.3733

0.0126

0.0265

0.0109

0.0264

0.1537

0.0172

0.0126

0.0077

0.0109

0.1087

0.1026

0.1175

0.0730

0.0048

0.1075

0.1026

0.0127

0.0730

0.0878

0.0137

0.0020

0.0285

0.0434

0.1021

0.1194

0.1104

0.0042

0.0161

0.0075

0.1104

0.0850

0.0670

0.0056

0.1021

0.0161

0.0333

0.0678

0.0070

0.0547

0.0039

0.0825

0.0268

0.0039

0.1104

0.1383

0.0092

0.0547

0.1383

0.0547

0.0136

0.1084

0.0536

0.0126

0.0145

0.1084

0.0208

0.0145

0.2178

0.0208

0.0227

0.0465

0.1902

0.0306

0.0189

0.0227

0.0108

0.1902

0.0227

0.0306

0.0125

0.0941

0.1902

0.1472

0.0483

0.0978

0.0483

0.0236

0.0071

0.0030

0.1629

0.0731

0.0113

0.1472

0.0236

0.0113

0.0483

0.0932

0.1079

0.0707

0.0461

0.0046

0.0028

0.1079

0.0933

0.0225

0.0707

0.0706

0.0065

0.1300

0.1044

0.0780

0.0043

0.0700

0.0254

0.1043

0.1044

0.0087

0.0253

0.0043

0.0516

0.1835

0.1721

0.1720

0.0484

0.1226

0.0034

0.0061

0.0048

0.0236

0.0989

0.0048

0.0061

0.0048

0.0040

0.1126

0.1561

0.0546

0.0039

0.0268

0.0128

0.1840

0.0825

0.0055

0.1004

0.0128

0.0092

0.1004

0.0055

0.1003

Note: C1.1. Site Selection, C1.2. Wetland Shape Configuration, C1.3. Wetland Zoning and Water Treatment Processes, C1.4. Wetland Surface Flow (SF) and Subsurface Flow (SSF) Systems, C1.5. Wetland Multi-cell and Multi-stage

Design, C1.6. Wetland Park Depth Proportion, C2.1. Biodiversity, C2.2. Reducing Air Pollution, C2.3. Wetland Plant Selection, C2.4. Wetland Wildlife Habitat, C2.5. Wetland Ecological Shoreline Revetment, C3.1. Safety, C3.2.

Vegetation and Greening, C3.3. Route Accessibility, C3.4. Site Furniture.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

UWP Model Validation

This section presents the model validation phase of the

Table 7: UWP index score calculation for the case study

UWP model. The validation was to seek the unforeseen

biases and errors of the UWP model. Although the UWP

model could be applied in any wetland park, it was applied

to Putrajaya Wetland Park. The same group of experts has

been invited to for model validation. They were asked to

evaluate the Putrajaya Wetland Park in respect to eighteen

features of the UWP model using WSM method. According

to the WSM instructions, the experts rated each feature using

(

Putrajaya wetland park)

Criteria

C1.

Sub-

Sub-criteria

Case

study

weights

0.588

0.846

0.883

0.604

0.652

Sub-criteria

index score

Criteria Coefficient*

C1.1.

C1.2.

C1.3.

C1.4.

C1.5.

C1.6.

26.6206

29.2454

25.9380

24.9835

26.0709

24.4964

15.65291

24.74161

21.94355

22.06043

15.74682

15.97165

-point scaling. The experts‟ inputs have been individually

collected and then synthesized based on Equation 5 and

Equation 6 (see Table 6). In Table 6 column „expert input‟

presents the individual experts‟ judgments, and column

UWP Index score C1. = 116.117

C2.

C3.

C2.1.

C2.2.

C2.3.

C2.4.

C2.5.

30.7227

28.1135

26.6719

27.1234

26.3476

0.691

0.846

0.729

0.809

0.729

21.22939

23.78402

19.44382

21.94283

19.2074

„consensus‟ shows that cumulative judgment of all experts.

The last column reveals the WSM final weight for each sub-

criterion by multiplying the consensus values of criteria to

the corresponding sub-criteria. Referring to WSM

instructions, the features are approved with the saturation of

more than 0.70. In the case of Putrajaya wetland park,

almost all features have received the threshold saturation,

except site selection (W_C₁_.₁_.= 0.588), wetland multi-cell and

UWP Index score C2. = 105.607

C3.1.

C3.2.

C3.3.

C3.4.

20.7313

21.8514

18.0280

19.9885

0.739

0.772

0.883

15.32043

16.86928

13.91762

17.64985

UWP Index score C3. = 63.757

Total UWP index score = 285.481

multi-stage design (W_C₁_.₅_.= 0.604), depth proportion (W_C₁_.₆_.

.652), and biodiversity (W_C₂_.₁_.= 0.691).

The UWP model calculates the index score for the

Putrajaya wetland park. The weights of sub-criteria were

extracted from Table 6 and then applied to Equation 7. Table

01<s<380; Grade A: Superior (Well-designed urban

wetland park where can effectively stabilize

the ecosystem)

51<s<300; Grade B: Good (Well-designed urban

wetland park where can stabilize the

ecosystem, but minor improvement is needed)

01<s<250; Grade C: Fair (The urban wetland park can

presents the index score calculation steps for the Putrajaya

wetland park. Table 7 has extracted the coefficients from

Table 5, and the case study weights from Table 6. The

calculation results that Putrajaya wetland park received 285

index scores.

stabilize

the

ecosystem,

but

major

Urban Wetland Park (UWP) Index = ꢺꢇIndex _D_e_s_i_g_n+ Index

Ecological Approaches⁺^Iⁿ^d^e^xLandscape Environmental Elements

improvement is needed)

01<s<200; Grade D: Poor (Usable urban wetland park

where can stabilize the ecosystem, but very

significant improvement is needed)

6<s<100; Grade E: Very Poor (Non-usable urban

wetland park where cannot stabilize the

ecosystem)

UWP =

26.6206*0.588)+(29.2454*0.846)+(25.9380*0.846)+(24.98

5*0.883)+(26.0709*0.604)+(24.4964*0.652)=116.117

Index

implementation

Design

Features

(

UWP

Index

implementation

Ecological

Approaches

(30.7227*0.691)+(28.1135*0.846)+(26.6719*0.729)+(27.12

4*0.809)+(26.3476*0.729)= 105.607

Index

Landscape

UWP

implementation

Elements

As Putrajaya Wetland Park has earned 285 scores, it

achieved grade B (Good). Means, it is a well-designed

wetland park, while some features do not perform well for

stabilizing the ecosystem. Accordingly, the evaluator experts

had some corrective comments (see Discussion section).

Moreover, the research has drawn a multi-scatter plot which

depicts the correlation between sub-criteria coefficients

(

20.71138*0.739)+(21.8514*0.722)+(18.0280*0.722)+(19.9

85*0.883)= 63.757

UWP Index _i_m_p_l_e_m_e_n_t_a_t_i_o_n

116.117+105.607+63.757=285.481꣄285

The UWP model labels the wetland park as grade A to E,

(

AHP outputs) and sub-criteria consensus (WSM outputs)

see Figure 3). The multi-scatter plot benchmarks the

based on the index scores. As the maximum consensus for

all sub-criteria (X, Y, and Z) can be 1, the maximum UWP

index score equals to 380. The minimum index score is 0.2

of the maximum index score which equals to 76. The UWP

model has established the following grades for different

score ranges;

ecosystem stabilization performance of the wetland case

study (here, Putrajaya wetland park) against ideal wetland

park (i.e., the best practice). As can be seen in Figure 3, the

association between sub-criteria coefficients and consensus

was approximated with a straight line; thus, the result

identifies the linear relationship (y=-0.004x+0.8607).

UWP Index ꣄160+154+65=380

Max

UWP Index _M_i_n= UFA Index _M_a_x= 380* 0.2= 76

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

Table 6: WSM data collection and analysis process of criteria and sub-criteria evaluation of UWP index model in Putrajaya wetland park

Experts inputs Sum of Experts ꢏꢸꢹꢠꢍꢥ_ꢝ_ꢨ_ꢩConsensus Experts inputs Sum of Experts ꢏꢸꢹꢠꢍꢥ_ꢝ_ꢨ_ꢩof Consensus for WSM final

Input for

Criteria

of Criterion For criteria

Input for Sub- Sub-criterion

criteria

sub-criteria

Cons. of

Sub-criterion

Criteria

Sub-criteria

C1. Wetland

Park Physical

Design

0.92

C1.1. Site Selection

0.64

0.92

0.588

0.846

C1.2. Wetland Shape Configuration

C1.3. Wetland Zoning and Water

Treatment Processes

C1.4. Wetland Surface Flow (SF)

and Subsurface Flow (SSF) Systems

C1.5. Wetland Multi-cell and Multi-

stage Design

C1.6. Wetland Park Depth

Proportion

0.96

0.72

0.68

0.883

0.604

0.652

C2. Wetland

Park Ecological

Approaches

0.96

0.84

C2.1. Biodiversity

0.72

0.76

0.88

0.76

0.691

0.846

0.729

0.809

0.729

C2.2. Reducing Air Pollution

C2.3. Wetland Plant Selection

C2.4. Wetland Wildlife Habitat

C2.5. Wetland Ecological Shoreline

Revetment

C3.1. Safety

C3.2. Route Accessibilityy

C3.3. Site Furniture

C3. Landscape

Environmental

Elements to

Support the

Wetland Park

0.88

0.92

0.84

0.92

0.739

0.772

0.883

C3.4. Vegetation and Greening

Note. EX: Expert; Cons.: It refers to consensus calculated based on formula 6.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

The case study regression coefficient (R ) was

calculated as 0.0225 which shows the weak impact of

measured sub-criteria in the regression analysis. The

regression line for the ideal wetland (y=1) was calculated

assuming all sub-criteria consensus equal to 1.000, means,

all criteria and sub-criteria received the maximum rating

value (i.e., 5) in the WSM survey. The comparison of two

regression lines shows that Putrajaya consensus has a minor

deviation with the ideal wetland park. The maximum

deviation is 0.412 (by C1.1. Site Selection), and minimum

deviation is 0.117 (by C1.4. Wetland Surface Flow (SF)

and Subsurface Flow (SSF) Systems and C3.4. Vegetation

and Greening), while the average deviation is 0.240.

maximizing the shoreline length will benefit wildlife

habitat, wildlife nesting, and resting areas.

Besides, wetland parks have a positive impact on

reducing air pollution levels and increasing carbon

sequestration, which is essential in environmental

protection. Urban wetland parks can bring much higher

cooling to the residential areas [50], and reducing urban

heat islands. Moreover, suitable site and planting selection

can enhance the efficiency of wetland function. The

wetland park design is integral to the planning process, as

the parkland can infuse human–nature interactions.

By the end of UWP model validation, the experts have

highlighted some bias in the model. The experts

recommended the following comments should be

incorporated in the revised UWP model;

Discussion

i) to amend the questionnaire survey form to semi-

structured questionnaire form; hence, the model users

can add some sub-criteria not included in the UWP list,

and rate them as well. This amendment aids to adapt the

UWP model much properly to each wetland cases.

An urban wetland park can enhance the efficiency of

wetland functions and indirectly attract aquatic and wildlife

habitats to form a balanced ecosystem. An urban wetland

park design essentially provides interactions between

humans and nature through ecosystem stabilization, flood

reduction, water quality improvement, stormwater

treatment, and the creation of spaces for wildlife habitat, as

well as recreational and educational facilities and

amenities.

ii) to develop the stand-alone or web-based UWP model

(using Excel, Python, C++, etc.) to compute the real-

time data for the wetland cases, and thus, to compare

the computation results with the benchmark wetland.

iii) to visualize the data manipulation of the wetland case

through stand-alone or web-based UWP model, which

aids to compare the real-time scatterplot results with the

benchmark wetland.

iv) to draw a table that sorts the outputs of wetland case

y = 1

(

i.e., outputs of WSM-survey form) to indicate the

weights of the feature from maximum to minimum. The

users then can understand strong to weak features of the

wetland case.

y = -0.004x + 0.8607

R² = 0.0225

v) to outline some recommendations/suggestions to release

weaknesses of the wetland case.

vi) to prepare a database based on the wetlands‟ survey

reports and share them with local authorities, municipal,

or other respected organizations for their future

corrective actions.

In the case of Putrajaya wetland park, the UWP model

found out that Putrajaya wetland park is not functioning

well in some aspects (according to Table 7); included, site

selection, multi-cell and multi-stage design, depth

proportion, and biodiversity. In this regard, the experts have

suggested the following recommendations which can

release the weaknesses at Putrajaya wetland park;

Sub-criteria coefficient

Case Study Benchmark

Figure 3 The multi-scatter plot for benchmarking Putrajaya

wetland park with the ideal wetland park

The research found that biodiversity is one of the major

benefits of wetland parks. Hansson et al. [47] state that the

relationship between the environment and biodiversity in

urban wetlands has a great value. Also, the research found

that wetland shape can intensively affect ecosystem

stabilization. Mitsch and Gosselink [48] state that wetland

convoluted or irregular shapes can further enhance edge

habitats as opposed to edges in a rectangular shape and

regular morphology. Hence, hard edges, which are straight

and lack transition in their design, are discouraged. Soft

edges with convoluted shapes have more ecological

benefits compared with straight boundaries [49]. The

convoluted shapes eliminate right-angled corners may lead

to the dead water areas for contaminant removal. Moreover,

manipulating the inlet width and outlet zones must facilitate

certain functions (i.e., food source provision). Indeed,

Putrajaya wetland parks can follow a single cell

strategy, known as a constructed wetland basin with a

forebay and micropool outlet which has a uniform

water depth, length/width ratio and flow path equal to

:1 or more, and an emergent wetland design.

Putrajaya wetland parks can follow a multi-cell strategy

in two forms, either Multi-cell wetland or

combination that has diverse micro-topography with

varying depths, length/width ratio and a flow path equal

to 3:1 or more.

For cell separation, each cell must be separated by a

weir or earth bund (200 meters width and 2-3 meters

height).

The buffer width needs a minimum of 25 feet for

wildlife habitat purposes.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

Putrajaya wetland park must provide the mudflat areas

to attract shorebirds and waders.

Putrajaya wetland park must increase lands for safe

nesting areas.

Putrajaya wetland park needs vertical revetment walls

which require regular maintenance and inspection for

those edge treatments.

References

Keyvanfar, A., Shafaghat, A., Mohamad, S., Abdullahi, M. A.

M., Ahmad, H., Mohd Derus, N. H., & Khorami, M. (2018). A

Sustainable Historic Waterfront Revitalization Decision

Support Tool for Attracting Tourists. Sustainability, 10(2),

215.

Shafaghat, A., Ghasemi, M. M., Keyvanfar, A., Lamit, H., &

Ferwati, M. S. (2017). Sustainable riverscape preservation

strategy framework using goal-oriented method: Case of

historical heritage cities in Malaysia. International Journal of

Sustainable Built Environment, 6(1), 143-159.

Conclusion

The research has developed the UWP index assessment

model to measure and quantify the performances of

wetland parks in ecosystem stabilization. The model

evaluates the urban wetland parks physically,

environmentally, ecologically, and socially. The UWP

model covers the ecosystem stabilization align with wildlife

habitat conservation and recreational and educational

activity improvements. The UWP model established a

comprehensive list of wetland park design features

clustered into three criteria (i.e., design application,

ecological approaches, and landscape environmental

elements), and fifteen sub-criteria. The UWP model has

been designed based on the AHP methodology to measure

the weight of each feature. The AHP analysis determined

that the ecological approach is the most important criteria

which play an essential role in ecosystem stabilization.

Besides, the AHP analysis resulted that biodiversity and

wetland shape configuration is the most important sub-

criteria in urban wetland park design, while site furniture

and route accessibility have minor effects on ecosystem

stabilization. The UWP model has been validated through a

case study to minimize the unforeseen biases. While it can

be applied in many cases, it was implemented at Putrajaya

wetland park. As UWP model rates the wetland parks in

five grades, A to E, the validation study resulted that the

Putrajaya wetland park rated as grade B (i.e., Good).

Konrad, C. P. (2003). Effects of Urban Development on

Floods. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/pdf/fs07603.pdf

accessed by September 2015.

Hoyer, J., Dickhaut, W., Kronawitter, L., & Weber, B.

2011). Water sensitive urban design: principles and

(

inspiration for sustainable stormwater management in the city

of the future. Hamburg, Germany: Jovis.

PUB, Managing Urban Runoff – Drainage Handbook, 2013,

https://www.pub.gov.sg/Documents/managingUrbanRunoff.pd

f Accessed by June 2018.

Eagles-Smith, C. A., & Ackerman, J. T. (2014). Mercury

bioaccumulation in estuarine wetland fishes: Evaluating

habitats and risk to coastal wildlife. Environmental

Pollution, 193, 147-155.

Lait, Michael. Preserving Ottawa‟s Metropolitan Nature: How

the 1970 Gatineau Park Planning Controversy Transformed the

National Capital Commission and its Conservation

Park. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, [S.l.], v. 25, n. 1,

sep. at:

https://cjur.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/cjur/article/view/27>.

Davis, L. (1995). A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands (Vol.

). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Bao, D. M., Dan, X. Q., Wu, H. J. (2007). Water quality and

its restoration of Xinghu lake national wetland park in

Guangdong Province. Wetland Science and Management, 3(3):

18-22.

10 Craig, S.C. and Michael H. O. (1999). Constructed Wetlands

in the Sustainable Landscape. United States: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

Importantly, the UWP model is such a „qualitative‟

model, since it is an opinion-based model incorporates

direct observation, field notes (including, descriptions of

activities, actions, interactions, and processes), and

subjective features into wetland park assessment. This

1 Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2000). Evaluating wetlands within an urban

context. Ecological Engineering, 15(3), 253-265.

2 Verlicchi, P., & Zambello, E. (2014). How efficient are

constructed wetlands in removing pharmaceuticals from

untreated and treated urban wastewaters? A review. Science of

the Total Environment, 470, 1281-1306.

„qualitative‟-based UWP model measures the weight of

features through experts‟ judgmental, iterative expert group

process, consensus panel approach, experts, and in-depth

expert group discussion. While, the authors plan to

develop the „quantitative‟-based UWP model in future

works. The „quantitative‟-based UWP model would

measure the ecosystem quantity impacts (e.g., increased

runoff, reduced infiltration, reduced base flow, stream

geomorphology changes, aquatic habitat effects, pollutant

loads, etc.). The „quantitative‟-based UWP model shall be

an experimental model to measure the ecosystem

stabilization of wetland parks based on laboratory tests,

numerical data, data manipulation, time-series, and causal

forecasting methods.

13 Stein, E. D., Fetscher, A. E., Clark, R. P., Wiskind, A.,

Grenier, J. L., Sutula, M., Jashua NC, Grosso, C. (2009).

Validation of a wetland rapid assessment method: use of EPA's

level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and

refinement. Wetlands, 29(2), 648-665.

4 Chen, T. S., & Lin, H. J. (2013). Development of a framework

for landscape assessment of Taiwanese wetlands. Ecological

indicators, 25, 121-132.

5 Zsuffa, I., Van Dam, A. A., Kaggwa, R. C., Namaalwa, S.,

Mahieu, M., Cools, J., & Johnston, R. (2014). Towards

decision support-based integrated management planning of

papyrus wetlands: a case study from Uganda. Wetlands

ecology and management, 22(2), 199-213.

Also, as future works, the AHP method can be coupled

with other methods to reduce its inconsistencies and errors,

in turn increasing coefficients accuracy. In the future, the

UWP model can be designed as standalone or web-based

software for comparatively more convenient usage by more

users around the world.

16 Wentzell, B. M., Boylen, C. W., & Nierzwicki-Bauer, S. A.

(2016). Wetland ecosystem comparison using a suite of plant

assessment measures. Ecological Indicators, 67, 283-291.

7 Odgaard, M. V., Turner, K. G., Bøcher, P. K., Svenning, J. C.,

Dalgaard, T. (2017). A multi-criteria, ecosystem-service

value method used to assess catchment suitability for potential

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 81-91

wetland reconstruction in Denmark. Ecological Indicators, 77,

36 Lamit, H. B., Shafaghat, A., Majid, M. Z., Keyvanfar, A.,

Ahmad, M. H. B., & Malik, T. A. (2013a). The Path

Walkability Index (PAWDEX) Model: To Measure Built

Environment Variables Influencing Residents' Walking

Behavior. Advanced Science Letters, 19(10), 3017-3020.

37 Lindberg, M., & Schipperijn, J. (2015). Active use of urban

park facilities–Expectations versus reality. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 14(4), 909-918.

51-165.

8 Cui, L., Ge, Z., Yuan, L., Zhang, L., 2015. Vulnerability

assessment of coastal wetlands in the Yangtze Estuary, China

to sea-level rise. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 156, 42–51.

9 Guo, X., Wang, X., Cui, Q., 2012. An ecosystem health

assessment method integrating geochemical indicators of soil

in Zoige wetland, southwest China. Procedia Environ. Sci. 13,

527–1534.

38 Shafaghat, A., Keyvanfar, A., Manteghi, G., & Lamit, H. B.

(2016). Environmental-conscious factors affecting street

microclimate and individuals‟ respiratory health in tropical

coastal cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 21, 35-50.

39 Choi, J., Maniquiz-Redillas, M. C., Lee, S., Mercado, J. M. R.,

& Kim, L. H. (2013). Application of a gravel wetland system

for treatment of parking lot runoff. Desalination and Water

Treatment, 51(19-21), 4129-4137.

0 Garg, J. K. (2015). Wetland assessment, monitoring and

management in India using geospatial techniques. Journal of

environmental management, 148, 112-123.

1 Chatterjee, K., Bandyopadhyay, A., Ghosh, A., Kar, S. (2015).

Assessment of environmental factors causing wetland

degradation, using Fuzzy Analytic Network Process: A case

study on Keoladeo National Park, India, Ecological Modelling,

16, 1–13.

40 Saaty TL. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh:

RWS Publications.

41 Lamit, H., Shafaghat, A., Majid, M. Z., Keyvanfar, A.,

Ahmad, M. H. B., & Malik, T. A. (2013b). Grounded group

decision making (GGDM) model. Advanced Science

Letters, 19(10), 3077-3080.

2 Wu, H., Zha, K., Zhang, M., & Yang, X. (2009). Nest site

selection by Black-necked Crane Grus nigricollis in the

Ruoergai Conservation

International, 19(03), 277-286.

3 Saeki, I., Murakami, N. (2009). Chloroplast DNA

Wetland,

China. Bird

phylogeography of the endangered Japanese red maple (Acer

pycnanthum): the spatial configuration of wetlands shapes

genetic diversity. Diversity and Distributions, 15(6), 917-927.

4 Reed, S. C., Crites, R. W. & Middlebrooks, E. J. 1995. Natural

systems for waste management and treatment. Second edition.

McGraw-Hill Inc. New York, NY. 433.

5 Wang, J. L., Che, W., & Li, J. Q. (2011). Application of

Constructed Wetland to Stormwater Management in New

Urban Catchments. China Water & Wastewater, 27(6), 54-57.

6 Schrage, L. J., & Downing, J. A. (2004). Pathways of

increased water clarity after fish removal from Ventura Marsh;

a shallow, eutrophic wetland. Hydrobiologia, 511(1-3), 215-

42 Dehdasht, G., Mohamad Zin, R., Ferwati, M. S., Mohammed

Abdullahi, M. A., Keyvanfar, A., & McCaffer, R. (2017).

DEMATEL-ANP risk assessment in oil and gas construction

projects. Sustainability, 9(8), 1420.

43 Shafaghat, A. (2013). Path Walkability Assessment

Framework Based on Decision Tree Analysis of Pedestrian

Travelers' Retail Walking (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia.

44 SCB Associates Ltd., 2016. Stoneleigh Abbey Mews,

Kenilworth

CV8

2LF,

England

http://www.scbuk.com/index.html. Accessed by June 2018.

45 Alonso, J. A., & Lamata, M. T. (2006). Consistency in the

31.

analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. International

7 Casanova, M. T., & Brock, M. A. (2000). How do depth,

duration and frequency of flooding influence the establishment

of wetland plant communities?. Plant Ecology, 147(2), 237-

journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledge-based

systems, 14(04), 445-459.

46 Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S. (2010). The weighted sum method for

multi-objective optimization: new insights. Structural and

Multidisciplinary Optimization, 41(6):853-862.

50.

8 Hansson, L. A., Brönmark, C., Anders Nilsson, P.,

Åbjörnsson, K. (2005). Conflicting demands on wetland

ecosystem services: nutrient retention, biodiversity or

both?. Freshwater Biology, 50(4), 705-714.

47 Hassan, D. M. H., John, J. L., Ahammu, H., Arffin, H. S.J.,

Loon, C. W. and Mohanlall, P. (1999). Putrajaya Wetlands.

Perbadanan Putrajaya, Putrajaya, Malaysia.

9 Dockery, D. W., & Stone, P. H. (2007). Cardiovascular risks

from fine particulate air pollution.

0 Xu, L.P. and Liu, H.C. (2006). Application of Ground Cover

Plants in Xixi National Wetland Park of Hangzhou. Chinese

Landscape Architecture, 11: 72-76.

1 Ishikawa, N., & Fukushige, M. (2012). Effects of street

landscape planting and urban public parks on dwelling

environment evaluation in Japan. Urban Forestry & Urban

Greening, 11(4), 390-395.

48 Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). The value of

wetlands:

importance

scale

and

landscape

setting. Ecological economics, 35(1), 25-33.

49 Robert L.F. (2003). Wetland Design Principles and Practices

for Landscape Architects and Land Use Planners. Havard

Design School.

50 Sun, R., Chen, A., Chen, L., & Lü, Y. (2012). Cooling effects

of wetlands in an urban region: the case of Beijing. Ecological

Indicators, 20, 57-64.

2 Knight, R. L. (1997). Wildlife habitat and public use benefits

of treatment wetlands. Water Science and Technology, 35(5),

5-43.

3 Wang, Y. H., & Wang, H. X. (2011). Analysis of types and

selection of ecological-type revetment in town's river channel

construction. In Advanced Materials Research. 225, 678-683.

4 Raychaudhuri, S., Mishra, M., Salodkar, S., Sudarshan, M., &

Thakur, A. R. (2008). Traditional aquaculture practice at East

Calcutta Wetland: the safety assessment.

5 Ishikawa, N., & Fukushige, M. (2012). Effects of street

landscape planting and urban public parks on dwelling

environment evaluation in Japan. Urban Forestry & Urban

Greening, 11(4), 390-395.