Evaluates ecological revetment options for urban rivers, suggesting improved selection methods.
This study aimed to develop a method to mitigate the limitations of single evaluation methods, and account for the lack of quantifiable indicators in the selection of ecological revetments for urban rivers. Accordingly, a combination of qualitative analysis and quantitative evaluation techniques was used to perform multi-dimensional evaluations. Using a typical project as an example, five types of revetment structures underwent a preliminary qualitative comparison. To further quantify the comparison and determine the merits of the proposed recommendations, an evaluation model for ecological river revetments and a specialized indicator system were developed. A dual-evaluation method, incorporating the analytic hierarchy process (AHP)-fuzzy evaluation and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), was used for mutual verification. Using this approach, a comprehensive, multi-dimensional evaluation framework, integrating ecological, economic, and construction-related aspects, was established. Based on the evaluation results, the options were ranked as follows: riprap + gabion > riprap + hydraulic retaining wall > wood-like concrete pile. The two evaluation methods yielded consistent results, demonstrating good applicability. A sensitivity analysis revealed that two main factors—ecological effects and construction quality control—significantly affected the evaluation results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: