An Urban River Park Restoration Assessment Model using Analytical Network Process (ANP)

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

J. Environ. Treat. Tech.

ISSN: 2309-1185

Journal weblink: http://www.jett.dormaj.com

An Urban River Park Restoration Assessment

Model using Analytical Network Process (ANP)

3,4,5*

, Amir Jamshidnezhad , Hasanuddin Lamit ,

Arezou Shafaghat , Kiu Sue Jing , Ali Keyvanfar

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, Johor,

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

Received: 10/07//2018

Accepted: 30/12/2018

Published: 30/03/2019

Abstract

The urban planners and developers are attempting to restore the river parks through sustainable and ecological approaches

which return the encroached habitats and degraded ecosystems to a stable and healthy condition. However, they need an

assessment model to measure and quantify the urban river park‘s ecological restoration performances and capabilities.

Accordingly, this research has developed the Urban River Park Restoration (URPR) Assessment Model. The UPRP assessment

model has been developed using the Analytical Network Process (ANP) method. The URPR model is a multi‐ layered decision-

making model involving four criteria and thirty sub-criteria. Among the criteria, the river slope stabilization techniques have

gained the highest limited weight (W =0.844), followed by the stream buffer (W_C₁=0.0841). Within all sub-criteria, the

vegetated geogrid has gained the highest limited weight (W_C₂_.₆=0.0442), followed by the vegetated gabion (W_C₂_.₂=0.037). The

UPRP model aids urban professional to assess and improve the urban river park‘s ecosystem. This model can be applied to any

river parks around the world, and this research implemented it to Bishan River Park in Malaysia. According to URPR model

assessment results, the Bishan River Park earned Grade B (Good), means, some minor restoration improvements are needed.

Keywords: River Park, Restoration, Ecological Assessment, Decision Making, Assessment Model, Analytical Network Process

(

ANP)

Introduction

An urban revolution can be invasive, irrevocable and

river ecosystems. The transition of river park management

practice in the urban area presented in Figure 1.

sometimes unrecognizable [1-3]. River transformation

intends to achieve better management of the runoff water in

order to prevent flooding in the urban areas. However, this

is only for short-term effect. As the space along river parks

is then occupied by parking lots, roads and other purposes,

the river park‘s ecosystem is rapidly degraded. Urban

ecologists are attempting to restore the river parks in a

sustainable and ecological way in order to rehabilitate the

Occupied

Stream

Disaster

Ecological

Natural

Stream

Prevention

Stream

Park

Stream

Figure 1: The management practice of river park transition

Restoration is defined as ―reestablishment of the

structure and function of ecosystems‖ [4]. The restoration

process re-establishes function, structure and dynamic by

sustaining ecosystem behavior [5,6]. River restoration

seeks to return encroached habitats and degraded

ecosystems to a stable and healthy condition [7]. Landscape

designers and planners are increasingly turning the rivers

from hard engineering features to ecologically based using

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: 92-102

restoration strategies [8]. The ecological restoration of the

urban river can promote long-term sustainable economic

growth that extends beyond tourism. Thus, the river parks

restoration through ecological landscape approach is

beneficial to both human and environment. In recent years,

some countries carried out the practice of river restoration

by returning the concrete canals to an eco-corridor river or

ecological river park where is accessible to public users as

well [9]. The ecological river park is a string of parks near

or along to the river linked by open space, pathways, and

green corridors; it is a multi‐ layered system that enhances

the natural quantities of the river, and serves a variety of

needs, offering recreational, environmental and habitat

benefits [10]. The ecological restoration of river parks is to

preserve and enhance the ecological function of the river.

Furthermore, an ecological river park in an urban

context functions to expand public connections and access

into the city. In the United Kingdom, river restoration is

also known as river reclamation,

park assessment model adopted multi-criteria decision

making (MCDM) method. According to the reviewed

MCDM adopted studies, Analytical Network process

(ANP) can properly evaluate problems involving a set of

uncertain indicators. Accordingly, this study research has

aimed to develop a scientific river assessment model, called

‗An Urban River Park Restoration (URPR) Assessment

Model‘, to measure and evaluate the urban river parks‘

functionalities using ANP method. The ANP method

conducts a pairwise comparison on urban river park

restoration features with respect to the goal, urban river

park restoration assessment, and pairwise comparison of

sub-criteria with respect to the criteria and determining the

weight value of each one. This research has two phases.

Phase one will identify and investigate the urban river park

restoration criteria and sub-criteria, and phase two will

determine the weight value of each criterion and sub-

criterion to develop the URPR assessment model. The

URPR model will be implemented in a real study to be

tested. The URPR model is a decision support tool which

aids the urban ecologist and landscape designers and

planners to benchmark and assesses the urban river park

restoration around the world.

The awareness of urban river park values is being

increased. Landscape designers and planners need an

assessment model to quantify and evaluate the ecological

and biological restoration performances in urban river parks

[11-13]. Reviewing the literature shows that although there

are a few river assessment models. The previous research

has applied value-based and Goal-Oriented decision-

making process for strategic river assessment. Pflüger [14]

has applied the value-based river‘s decision making for

visitor management purpose. Pflüger [14] has particularly

used GIS (Geographic Information System) spatial

planning to identify the ecological and recreational values

in the river‘s visiting area. Pflüger [14] has applied this

methodical approach to analyze the current and future risks

and conflicts of the river‘s visitor infrastructure. The

similar approach has been conducted by Cerny [15] and

Landmann [16] to analyze the sensitivity of the habitat and

wildlife of the area through geographical map data

Materials and Methods

.1 Urban River Park Ecological Restoration Features

The URPR model has to involve a comprehensive list

of sustainability decision making criteria for both

qualitative and quantitative analysis of urban river parks. In

this section features for urban River Ecological Restoration

is presented. All these features will be involved in phase

two, weight analysis through ANP, and then be involved in

the assessment model development. The features have been

classified into four classes (i.e., Criteria), and each class

included numbers of sub-classes (i.e., Sub-criteria) as

following;

C1. Stream Buffer: Stream buffers play an important role in

river restoration, management, reducing the degrading

effects of non-point pollution, flood control, and preserving

wildlife habitat [22]. The C1. Stream Buffer includes these

sub-criteria; C1.1. Minimum buffer width, C1.2. Three-

zone buffer system, C1.3. Pre-development vegetative

target, C1.4. Buffer expansion and contraction, C1.5.

Buffer delineation, C1.6. Buffer crossings, C1.7.

Stormwater runoff treatment.

integration. Shafaghat et al. [17] have developed

sustainable river development decision support tool. The

tool has been developed based on goal-oriented

knowledge-sharing assessment system. Using this tool aids

urban developers in systematic decision making for

riverscape rehabilitation and preservation. Moreover,

Gwinnett County Parks and Recreation Division (GCPR)

conducted a trail system sustainability assessment for

Yellow River Park [18]. The purpose of this assessment

process was to aid the County in management decisions

C2. River Slope Stabilization Techniques: The individual or

systematic slope stabilization techniques have been

developed to reduce, offset or protect the impacts of urban

development to river corridors. These are the most

practiced techniques in support of river corridor restoration

making

and

redevelopment

recommendations

identification. In particular, the river‘s water quality has

been intensively studied using different decision-making

methods and techniques. On the effect of anthropogenic

influences and pollution on river‘s water quality the

multivariate statistical decision-making methods have been

applied; included, artificial neural networks, artificial

intelligence, and Principal Component Analysis-PCA [19].

Some researchers have studied the ecological quality

assessment of the rivers and wetlands (e.g. [20]), and some

of the research on the ecological and biodiversity integrity

in riverscape preservation and rehabilitation assessment

(

see Figure 2). The C2. River Slope Stabilization

Techniques includes these sub-criteria; C2.1. Bank shaping

and planting, C2.2. Vegetated gabion, C2.3. Tree-

revetment, C2.4. Joint plantings on Riprap, C2.5. Live crib

wall, C2.6. Vegetated geogrid, C2.7. Live stakes and live

fascine, C2.8. Joint planting, C2.9. Brush mattress, C2.10.

Branch packing, C2.11. Coconut fiber roll.

C3. River Park Environmental Design: According to San

Diego River Park Master Planning [23], there are five

principles that have been identified in order to guide

(

e.g. [21]).

Reviewing the literature indicated that no urban river

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

ecological, social, cultural, and economic development of

the river parks as following; C3.1. Restore and maintain a

healthy river system, C3.2. Unify fragmented lands and

habitats, C3.3. Create a connected continuum, C3.4. Reveal

the river valley history, C3.5. Reorient development of

river to create value.

questionnaire. The questionnaire collects the experts‘

judgments based on nine-point scaling (from equal

importance to extreme importance).

Step 2: Supermatrix development; this step the 1 step

outputs will develop an unweighted supermatrix which

indicates the priorities of all pairwise comparisons. The

C4. River Park Landscape Architectural Design: There are

a few landscape elements or features commonly proposed

in ecological river park by the Council of the City of San

Diego [23]. They are listed down as the follows; C4.1. Path

corridor, C4.2. River pathway, C4.3. Pedestrian trails, C4.4.

Connecting pathway, C4.5. Bridges, C4.6. Boardwalks,

C4.7. Picnic areas and overlooks.

supermatrix of the current research is shown as Figure 3.

presents m cluster, ꢁ_ꢀ_ꢂpresents the ꢃth element in

ꢀ

the ꢃth cluster, and ꢄ_ꢅ_ꢆis the principle eigenvector of the

influence of the elements that are compared between the ꢇth

cluster and the ꢈth cluster [28].

...

…

...

(

(b)

(e)

(c)

…

...

(

(f)

(i)

…

(

(h)

(k)

Figure 3: The ANP supermatrix of UPRP assessment model

Step 3: Weighted supermatrix calculation; this step, firstly,

normalizes the matrix by the sum to the value of each

column to get unweighted supermatrix which the clusters

are with equal weight. (since the clusters usually are

interdependent in a network and elements in the columns

are separated by the number of clusters). Next, the weight

supermatrix will be calculated by multiplying the

corresponding priority of each cluster to the unweighted

values.

(

Figure 2: River Slope Stabilization Techniques: a) Bank shaping and

planting; b) Vegetated gabion; c) Tree-revetment; d) Joint plantings

on riprap; e) Live crib wall; f) Vegetated geogrid; g) Lives stakes

and live fascines; h) Joint planting; i) Brush mattress; j) Branch

packing; k) Coconut fiber roll (Source: Adapted from [24])

Step 4: Limit supermatrix calculation. As the final step, the

weighted supermatrix will be raised to the sufficient power

ꢉ by using Equation 1 until stable enough to obtain overall

priorities or donated ANP weight.

.2 Analytic Network Process (ANP)

The Analytic Network Process (ANP) as an MCDM

method was developed by Saaty [25] used for complex and

complicated decision-making problems. It can be used for

developing a decision support tool, as well. ANP deals with

the network of the decision-making components. The ANP

is an advanced method of AHP resolves limitations of

dependency among criteria in a system by dividing them

into different decision clusters as well as embedded criteria

lim

(1)

k  

2.3 Weighted Sum Method (WSM) application

(

[25]. Hence, the ANP makes a connection network

The research conducted an expert input study to

validate the URPR index model through implementing it in

a case study (here, Bishan River Park). The expert input

study has performed the close group discussions with the

same group of experts invited in phase one. The experts

have followed the WSM instructions and 5-point scaling to

rate the features for the Bishan River Park. The WSM

formula used in the calculation procedure is shown in

between clusters and criteria which indicates the

dependencies (either, inner or outer dependencies).

Dependencies among components (i.e., nodes) in a cluster

indicates the inner dependencies; while the dependencies

among criteria in a cluster as well as in other clusters

express the outer dependencies [26]. So, the ANP copes

with the complex interaction between criteria while several

decision problems involve in the dependencies components

equation 2 and equation 3 [29,30]:

[27]. The research has followed the following ANP steps:

W SM (a )  (

w )a

(for i=1,2,3,…, m)

(2)

Step 1: Pairwise comparison; this step will compare the

interactions of elements pairwise using the ANS-formatted



j 1

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

where, ‗ꢄ ‗ is it extends to the assigned weight by the

3.1 Developing the URPR Assessment Model

ꢆꢊ

expert for feature ‗j‘ and ‗ꢊꢋ ‘, is the feature with the

ordering number ꢌꢇ .

To develop the URPR index assessment model, the

research had to determine the weight value of all criteria

and sub-criteria. The ANP technique was applied to

determine the weight value of four (4) river park restoration

criteria and their sub-criteria. The following presents the

ANP analysis steps.

ꢅ

ꢍ

W SM (a ) / W SM (a )  C onsensus

(3)

m ax

where, ꢎꢏꢐꢑꢋꢒ_ꢀ_ꢓ_ꢔ, extends to the maximum sum of

possible weight can be assigned for the feature ‘j’.

The ANP decision model of the URPR index model

was constructed based on the interactions between goal,

criteria,

and

sub-criteria

(see

Figure

4).

Figure 4: The ANP structure of URPR assessment model

important than C1.2. Three-zone buffer system?‖

After completing all pairwise comparisons the

weighted supermatrix was calculated, and then the

limited supermatrix was computed which determined

the weight value of each criterion and sub-criterion.

During data computing, the software was analyzing

the Consistency ratio (CR). The CR can confirm

whether the original ratings by experts were consist

Analysis and Results

The Super Decisions software is an established

platform developed by Saaty and colleagues to

conduct the ANP decision model. The output from

each expert in direct relation of a ꢕꢖꢕ matrix was

designated ꢗ , where ꢇꢈꢊis the influence level of

criterion ꢇ on criterionꢊꢈ. The ANP questionnaire with

ꢘ

ꢅꢆ

-point rating scale (1 refers to equally important to 9

(

the CR should be less than or equal to 0.10). The

Consistency Index (CI) has been calculated as CI/RI

0.0876 (< 10%). Referring to Saaty [25]

refers to extremely important) was distributed

between the experts who had knowledge and

experience in urban landscape design and planning

urban ecology, natural source management, and

urban resilience. The questionnaire survey has

followed the ANP model instructions and network

structure among criteria with six experts. According

to Dehdasht et al. [31], Uygun et al. [32], and Lamit

et al. [29], the sampling size of the ANP comparison

procedure can be small if in-depth close-group

discussions are conducted and well-knowledgeable

experts are selected. Referring to ANP method the, an

example of pairwise comparison question was ―With

suggestion, the ratio was less than 10% (< 0.10), thus,

the decision-making result is consistent enough.

Following the ANP instruction, the pairwise

comparison was firstly conducted for the criteria (C1.

Stream Buffer, C2. River Slope Stabilization

Techniques, C3. River Park Environmental Design,

and C4. River Park Landscape Architectural Design).

Accordingly, the unweighted supermatrix matrix has

been developed (see Table 1).

respect to C1.

Minimum buffer width is (between

Stream Buffer criterion, C1.1.

to 9) more

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

Table 1: Normalized Weighted Supermatrix of URPR assessment model

goal C1 C2 C3 C4 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 C1.7 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6 C2.7 C2.8 C2.9 C2.10 C2.11 C3.1 C3.2 C3.3 C3.4 C3.5 C4.1 C4.2 C4.3 C4.4 C4.5 C4.6 C4.7

0.2545 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.2555 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.2460 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.2438 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.1370 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.1430 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.1352 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.1470 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.1352 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.1406 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

C1.1

C1.2

C1.3

C1.4

C1.5

C1.6

C1.7

C2.1

C2.2

C2.3

C2.4

C2.5

C2.6

C2.7

C2.8

C2.9

0.0000 0.0000 0.2909 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.3109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0906 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.1504 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.1305 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.3201 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.2602 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.1700 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.2702 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

C2.10 0.0000 0.0000 0.1807 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

C2.11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0908 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

C3.1

C3.2

C3.3

C3.4

C3.5

C4.1

C4.2

C4.3

C4.4

C4.5

C4.6

C4.7

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2152 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2159 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1829 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1856 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1431 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1517 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1485 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1392 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1360 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1362 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

0.0000

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

Next, pairwise comparisons have been conducted

for the sub-criteria, then so, the unweighted

supermatrix matrix has been computed (see Table 1).

After computing the unweighted supermatrices, the

limited supermatrices have been computed as shown in

Table 2. The limited supermatrix shows the final weight

values of sub-criteria with respect to the corresponding

criterion. According to Table 2, among the criteria, the

River Slope Stabilization Techniques has received the

River, which used to be confined by a straitjacket of

concrete had much worried by the local authority in term of

the water management system and rapid urbanization. This

is because the public had realized the importance of water.

Therefore, the design approaches are first, restoring the

concrete canal and second, soil bioengineering innovations.

Through restoring and reclaiming the concrete canal into

naturalized river park, it demonstrates the exciting changes

that such revitalization could bring to both the environment

and the communities around the park. It also can be known

as a holistic approach that not only meets the functional

drainage requirements of the river but also leverages on the

integration of river and park to bring biodiversity back into

the heart of a city and create open recreational spaces for

the community. Next, the other approach of Bishan – Ang

Mo Kio Park transformation is the soil bioengineering

techniques for river embankment stabilization. Plants play

an aesthetic role; plants have an important structural

component in soil bioengineering in this park- their roots

help stabilize the riverbanks. As a result, Kallang River is

transformed into a linear stretch of ecological river park

along the river plains.

highest weight (W =0.844)), followed by the Stream

Buffer (W_C₁₌0.0841), and River Park Environmental

Design, and Landscape Architectural Design respectively

(

W =0.0813 and W_C₄₌0.0806). Also, Table 4 shows that

among the sub-criteria, the Vegetated geogrid has gained

the highest weight (W_C₂_.₆=0.0442), followed by the

Vegetated gabion (W_C₂_.₂=0.037)), In contrast, the Coconut

fiber roll has received the lowest weight (W_C₂_.₁₁=0.0154).

Referring to the limit supermatrix results in Table 1 and

Table 2, the URPR index model was developed (see

Equation 4). This URPR index is a linear formula involving

sub-criteria and their corresponding coefficients (see

Equation 4). The Limited weights were translated as a

coefficient of each sub-criterion (see Table 3).

U R P R Index 

__[₍_a₁_._iX )  (a₂_._jY )  (a₃_._kZ )  (a₄_._lW )]

(4)

where,

a; coefficient of urban river park restoration sub-criterion

Extracted from Table 2)

(

i; Stream Buffer sub-criterion (for:1,2,3, ...,7)

j; Slope Stabilization Techniques sub-criterion (for:1,2,3,

..,11)

k; Environmental Design sub-criterion (for:1,2,3,…,5)

l; Landscape Architectural Design sub-criterion

(for:1,2,3,…,7)

X; Limit weight value of criterion ‘i’ of Stream Buffer sub-

criterion assigned by the experts

Y; Limit weight value of criterion ‘j’ of Slope Stabilization

Techniques sub-criterion assigned by the experts

Z; Limit weight value of criterion ‘j’ of Environmental

Design sub-criterion assigned by the experts

Figure 5: Key plan and location map of Bishan – Ang Mo

Kio river park (Source: Adapted from One Map [33])

A questionnaire form was designed and filled up by the

experts who have consecutively rated the criteria and sub-

criteria. The experts had knowledge and experience in river

park restoration, rehabilitation, reclamation, and

revitalization. The URPR assessment model was calculated

for the Bishan River Park referred to Table 3. As a result,

Bishan River Park was received a 0.58183 index score.

W; Limit weight value of criterion ‘j’ of Landscape

Architectural Design sub-criterion assigned by the experts

.2 Validating the URPR Assessment Model

In this section, the research has tested and validated the

URPR model by implementing it in a real case. URPR

model applies to any city around the world. In this research,

the URPR index was applied in the Bishan – Ang Mo Kio

river park, Singapore (see Figure 5). It is one of the largest

urban parks in Singapore having greenways and unique

waterways. The Bishan river park has two main sites;

Bishan Park 1 (Pond Gardens) and Bishan Park 2 (River

Plains). Under the PUB‘s Active, Beautiful and Clean

Waters programme [33], Bishan river park has a sustainable

environment where integrates waterbodies, ecological

environment, and community. The design concept of

Bishan – Ang Mo Kio river park is ―Going with the Flow‖.

The concept is formed based on the natural element: water.

This is because the Kallang River is the significance water

body in the park and it is in constant motion. The Kallang

U R P R Indexim plem enttaion



[(a1.i X )  (a2. jY )  (a3.k Z )  (a4.lW )]



U P R P Index _I_m_p_l_e_m_e_n_t_a_t_i_o_n_S_t_r_e_e_m_B_u_f_f_e_r



(0.0203*0.588)+(0.0212*0.846)+(0.0200*0.846)+(0.0218*

.883)+(0.0200*0.604)+(0.0208*0.652)+(0.0208*0.883)=0

11004

UPRP Index



Im plementati onSlopeSta bilization Techniques

(

0.0335*0.691)+(0.0379*0.846)+(0.0157*0.729)+(0.0218*

.809)+(0.0199*0.729)+(0.0442*0.691)+(0.0321*0.729)+(

.0175*0.614)+(0.0223*0.883)+(0.0189*0.691)+(0.0154*0

691)=0.20680

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

Table 2: Limited Supermatrix of URPR assessment model

C1 C2 C3 C4 C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 C1.6 C1.7 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C2.4 C2.5 C2.6 C2.7 C2.8 C2.9 C2.10 C2.11 C3.1 C3.2 C3.3 C3.4 C3.5 C4.1 C4.2 C4.3 C4.4 C4.5 C4.6 C4.7

0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841 0.0841

0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844 0.0844

0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813 0.0813

0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806 0.0806

0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203 0.0203

0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212 0.0212

0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200

0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218 0.0218

0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208

0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335 0.0335

0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379 0.0379

0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157 0.0157

0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199 0.0199

0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442 0.0442

0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321 0.0321

0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175 0.0175

0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223 0.0223

C1.1

C1.2

C1.3

C1.4

C1.5

C1.6

C1.7

C2.1

C2.2

C2.3

C2.4

C2.5

C2.6

C2.7

C2.8

C2.9

C2.10 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189 0.0189

C2.11 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154 0.0154

C3.1

C3.2

C3.3

C3.4

C3.5

C4.1

C4.2

C4.3

C4.4

C4.5

C4.6

C4.7

0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373 0.0373

0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375 0.0375

0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317 0.0317

0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322

0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347 0.0347

0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248 0.0248

0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263 0.0263

0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257

0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241

0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236 0.0236

0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252 0.0252

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

UPRP Index



within the river valley. Moreover, the ecological river park

benefits to social and cultural aspects. The river park itself

Im plementati onEnvironm entalDesig

(

0.0373*0.739)+(0.0375*0.772)+(0.0317*0.772)+(0.

322*0.883)+(0.0347*0.729)=0.13471

plays as

a linkage to connect within and adjacent

neighborhoods in an urban context by connecting the

isolated pockets of development along the river with

established neighborhoods, knitting the valley as a whole

and cultivating a river valley identity. Apart from that, it

offers many opportunities to educate communities about the

river‘s natural systems and its historical significance. At the

same time, it helps to become engaged with improving

river resources by increasing visibility, access, and

awareness. On the other hand, the economic benefited by

increasing the land values by promoting the built

environment quality and facilities. It can be rated by

evaluating their contribution to the business, sales, and

tourism tax revenues, and financial return on privately‐

funded projects.

In order to achieve ecological success in a river park,

the process of the changes of riparian species structure with

an ecological community is a long-term effect. The time

scale is varied, depending on the scale of the river park.

River restoration is rather a phenomenon or process by

which river ecological community undergoes more

vigorous growth of biodiversity of a specific area. First of

all, a river must be restored or improved through technical

aspects such as stream buffer, slope stabilization, and

riparian restoration approaches. Then, the ecology result

after the restoration such as the increase of biodiversity

level has to be measured, or river rehabilitation is needed

for the area where is less achieving ecological success.

Once the ecology status of the river has reached its

stability, park development into an ecological river park

can proceed. However, only developments which caused

minimal impact to the environment are allowed. The beauty

and history of the restored river ecosystem are

recommended to be preserved and conserved. Therefore, in

order to transform urban rivers into ecological river park,

three stages of restoration, rehabilitation, and reclamation

are involved.

UPRP Index



Im plementati onArchitec turalDesig

(

0.0248*0.809)+(0.0263*0.652)+(0.0257*0.883)+(0.0241*

.652)+(0.0236*0.604)+(0.0236*0.809)+(0.0252*0.846)=0

13028

UPRP Index



Im plementati on

.11004+0.20680+0.13471+0.13028=0.58183

The UPRP model has five grading levels. Grade A has

the maximum limited weight value; while grade E has the

lowest limited weight value. The maximum (Max) and

minimum (Min) values calculation are presented as follows.

For maximum value, if the limited weight of all sub-criteria

is appointed as 1, then the maximum value equals to 0.750.

The minimum (Min) value is 0.2 of the maximum (Max)

value. Hence, the minimum value equals to 0.150.

URPR model _M_a_xꢙ160+154+65=380 =

.170+0.260+0.165+0.155=0.750

URPR model _M_i_n= URPR model _M_a_x* 0.2 = 0.750* 0.2=

0.150

According to URPR model‘s grading interpretations,

Bishan River Park has earned Grade B: Good; this means

that Bishan River Park is a constructed urban river park

where accommodates users properly, but minor

improvement is needed.

.600 < G < 0.750: Grade A: Superior; Well-designed

urban river park.

.450 < G < 0.600: Grade B: Good; Constructed urban

river park where minor improvements

needed.

.300 < G < 0.450: Grade C: Fair; Usable urban river

park where major improvements needed.

.150 < G < 0.300: Grade D: Poor; Usable urban river

park numerous improvements needed.

.000 < G < 0.150: Grade E: Very Poor; Non-usable

urban river park.

Conclusion

It is important to restore, rehabilitate and reclaim the

river and promote human activities with the naturalized

river. Hence, ecological river park is strongly

recommended to replace the concrete canal nowadays. A

successful ecological river park helps to increase the

biodiversity level in an urban context, introduce a series of

recreational activities for the park users to enjoy the beauty

of the naturalized river, and at the same time to educate the

public in landscape appreciation. The study has come out

with recommendation and design guideline of three stages

of river restoration, rehabilitation and reclamation into an

ecological river park.

This research developed the Urban River Park

Restoration (URPR) Assessment Model for measuring and

quantifying the urban river park‘s ecological restoration

performances and capabilities. The URPR model is a

decision support tool aids urban designers and planners to

assess and improve the river park‘s ecosystem by offering

recreational, environmental and habitat benefits.

Discussion

Ecological river park can provide benefits for both

residents and visitors. Benefits can be measured through the

environmental, social and cultural, and economic value

added to a community. Firstly, the environmental benefits

added by improvements to the river can be measured by the

degree to which the improvements add to the sustainability

of the river corridor. A river park creates a healthy river

system as it improves the water quality, sediment transport,

and groundwater recharge. Also, the river park can

encounter the large floods in heavy precipitation period

rendering eco-engineering approach. Besides, it expands

riparian habitat and reconnects existing wildlife habitats

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

Table 3: WSM data collection and analysis process of criteria and sub-criteria evaluation of URPRIndex model in Bishan – Ang Mo Kio river park

Expert Panels

ꢚꢛꢜꢑꢝꢒ_ꢞ_ꢟ_ꢠCons.

of Criterion

Expert Panel

ꢚꢛꢜꢑꢝꢒꢞꢟꢠ

Sub-Criterion

Cons.

WSM final Cons. Integrated URPR

coefficients to

Sub-Criterion

Criterion

Sub-criterion

Sub-Criterion

C1. Stream Buffer 5

0.92 C1.1. Minimum buffer width

C1.2. Three-zone buffer system

C1.3. Pre-development vegetative target

C1.4. Buffer expansion and contraction

C1.5. Buffer delineation

0.64

0.92

0.96

0.72

0.68

0.96

0.72

0.76

0.88

0.76

0.72

0.76

0.640

0.92

0.72

0.88

0.588

0.846

0.883

0.604

0.652

0.883

0.691

0.846

0.729

0.809

0.729

0.691

0.729

0.614

0.883

0.691

0.739

0.0119

0.0179

0.0169

0.0192

0.0121

0.0136

0.0184

0.0231

0.0321

0.0114

0.0176

0.0145

0.0305

0.0234

0.0107

0.0197

0.0131

0.0106

C1.6. Buffer crossings

C1.7. Stormwater runoff treatment

0.96 C2.1. Bank shaping and planting

C2.2. Vegetated gabion

C2. River Slope

Stabilization

Techniques

C2.3. Tree-revetment

C2.4. Joint plantings on Riprap

C2.5. Live crib wall

C2.6. Vegetated geogrid

C2.7. Live stakes and live fascine

C2.8. Joint planting

C2.9. Brush mattress

C2.10. Branch packing

C2.11. Coconut fiber roll

0.84 C3.1. Restore and maintain a healthy

river system

C3. River Park

Environmental

Design

0.0276

C3.2. Unify fragmented lands and

habitats

C3.3. Create a connected continuum

C3.4. Reveal the river valley history

C3.5. Reorient development of river to

create value

0.92

0.772

0.0290

0.0245

0.0284

0.84

0.92

0.76

0.772

0.883

0.729

0.0253

0.0201

0.0171

0.0227

0.0157

0.0143

0.0191

0.0213

C4. River Park

Landscape

Architectural

Design

0.72 C4.1. Path corridor

C4.2. River pathway

0.88

0.68

0.96

0.68

0.72

0.88

0.92

0.809

0.652

0.883

0.652

0.604

0.809

0.846

C4.3. Pedestrian trails

C4.4. Connecting pathway

C4.5. Bridges

C4.6. Boardwalks

C4.7. Picnic areas and overlooks

Note. EX: Expert; Cons.: refers to consensus calculated based on Equation 3.

Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques

2019, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages: 92-102

The URPR model has identified that urban river park

design criteria can be considered from four points of view;

stream buffer, river slope stabilization techniques, river

park environmental design, and river park landscape

architectural design as each criterion involves numbers of

sub-criteria. The research has applied the ANP method to

determine the limited weight of criteria and sub-criteria.

Among the sub-criteria, the vegetated geogrid and

vegetated gabion have gained the highest limited weights.

The URPR model can be applied to any urban river

parks around the world, and this research implemented it to

Bishan River Park in Malaysia. The URPR model verifies

the river park base on five-layered grading index. As the

model was implemented in Bishan River Park, it was

earned Grade B; means Bishan River Park accommodates

users properly, but minor improvement is needed. In future

works, ANP may be merged with other decision making

and planning methods to reduce uncertainties and errors.

13 Peng, F. J., Pan, C. G., Zhang, M., Zhang, N. S., Windfeld, R.,

Salvito, D., ... & Ying, G. G. (2017). Occurrence and

ecological risk assessment of emerging organic chemicals in

urban rivers: Guangzhou as a case study in China. Science of

the Total Environment, 589, 46-55.

4 Pflüger Y. 2004, Value based decision making process for

strategic

5 Cerny, K. 2000. Ergebnisse der Biotopkartierung von

schutzwürdigen Flächen im Tiroler Lechtal. Biotopkartierung

6 Landmann, A. 2002. Ökologische Grundlagen der

Besucherlenkung im Natura 2000 Gebiet Lechtal. Im Auftrag

der Tiroler Landesregierung, unveröff.

17 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.

8 Diaz, M, 2012, Yellow River Park, Trail System

Assessmentand Redevelopment Plan,

https://www.gwinnettcounty.com/static/departments/parks_rec

pdf/YellowRiverTARP_FINAL_3.pdf

References

19 Saxena, S., Gangal, S., 2010. Assessment of drinking water of

different localities in Brij region: a physico-chemical study.

Arch. Appl. Sci. Res. 2 (4), 157-174.

20 Williams, K.J.H., Cary, J., 2002. Landscape preferences,

ecological quality, and biodiversity protection. Environ.

Behav. 34, 257–274.

21 Duelli, P., Baur, P., Buchecker, M., Gugerli, F., Holderegger,

R., Wohlgemuth, T., 2007. The role of value systems in

landscape research. In: Kienast, F., Ghosh, S., Wildi, O. (Eds.),

A Changing World: Challenges for Landscape Research.

Springer Landscape Series.

22 Wenger, S. and Fowler, L. (2000). Protecting stream and river

corridors. 1st ed. [Athens, GA]: Carl Vinson Institute of

Government, the University of Georgia.

Liang, Y., & Liu, L. (2014). Modeling urban growth in the

middle basin of the Heihe River, northwest China. Landscape

ecology, 29(10), 1725-1739.

Garcia, X., & Pargament, D. (2015). Rehabilitating rivers and

enhancing ecosystem services in a water-scarcity context: the

Yarqon River. International journal of water resources

development, 31(1), 73-87.

Ouyang, T., Zhu, Z., & Kuang, Y. (2006). Assessing impact of

urbanization on river wter quality in the Pearl River Delta

Economic Zone, China. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment, 120(1-3), 313-325.

Department Of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special

Repor,

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/KalamazooRA_text_tabl

es_117809_7.pdf

Szałkiewicz, E., Jusik, S., & Grygoruk, M. (2018). Status of

and Perspectives on River Restoration in Europe: 310,000

Euros per Hectare of Restored River. Sustainability, 10(1),

23 Council of the City of San Diego, (2010). San Diego River

Park Master Plan. The City of San Diego.

24 Morgan, R. P., & Rickson, R. J. (2003). Slope stabilization and

erosion control: a bioengineering approach. Taylor & Francis.

25 Saaty, T.L. Theory and applications of the analytic

29.

networkprocess:

opportunities,costs, and risks. RWS publications 2005.

26 Chemweno, P., Pintelon, L., Van Horenbeek, A., & Muchiri,

P. (2015). Development of risk assessment selection

decision

making

with

benefits,

Miguez, M. G., Veról, A. P., de Sousa, M. M., & Rezende, O.

M. (2015). Urban floods in lowlands—levee systems,

unplanned urban growth and river restoration alternative: a

case study in Brazil. Sustainability, 7(8), 11068-11097.

methodology for asset maintenance decision making: An

analytic network process (ANP) approach. International

Journal of Production Economics, 170, 663-676.

Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Makhdoum, M. F., &

Koyama, L. (2013). Assessment of the effectiveness of

protected areas management in Iran: Case study in Khojir

National Park. Environmental management, 52(2), 514-530.

Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Allan, J., Lake, P., Alexander, G.,

Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad Shah, J.

and others, (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river

restoration. Journal of applied ecology, 42(2), pp.208--217.

Kim, C. and Woo, H. (2006). River Restoration in Korea - The

past, the present and the future.

27 Fazli, S., Mavi, R. K., & Vosooghidizaji, M. (2015). Crude oil

supply chain risk management with DEMATEL–ANP.

Operational Research, 15(3), 453-480.

28 Chen, I. S. (2016). A combined MCDM model based on

DEMATEL and ANP for the selection of airline service

quality improvement criteria: A study based on the Taiwanese

airline industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 7-

18.

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

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

decision making (GGDM) model. Advanced Science

Letters, 19(10), 3077-3080.

0 Kainzinger, S., Arnberger, A., & Burns, R. C. (2016). Setting

Preferences of High and Low Use River Recreationists: How

Different are They?. Environmental management, 58(5), 767-

79.

1 Yang, T., Liu, J., & Chen, Q. (2013). Assessment of plain river

ecosystem function based on improved gray system model and

analytic hierarchy process for the Fuyang River, Haihe River

Basin, China. Ecological modelling, 268, 37-47.

2 Wurbs, R. A. (2003). Modelling river basin management: an

institutional perspective. Water Resources Development, 19(4),

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

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

Walkability Index (PAWDEX) Model: To Measure Built

Environment Variables Influencing Residents' Walking

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

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

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

23-534.