3种河流健康综合性评价方法的比较

Comparison of Three River Health Assessment Methods

针对澳大利亚的溪流状况指数(ISC)、瑞典的农业景观区域河岸带与河道环境评估方法(RCE)、国内的城市河流健康评价体系(URHA)等河流健康评价方法,从理论及实证两方面系统比较了其在应用对象、指标选择、权重设定、标准设定、结果表达等方面的异同。结果显示,3种评价方法均采用综合指标表征河流健康状况,但指标选择、权重设定及标准制定均有所不同;就城市河流而言,RCE的评估准确度较低,ISC的个别指标难以准确评估,URHA则具有较好的适用性,但在指标选择的针对性、评估权重和标准设定的适宜性以及结果表达的丰富性等方面仍有一定的改进空间。

A theoretical and empirical comparison of river health assessment methods of ISC from Australia, RCE from Sweden and URHA from China was made in respects of application objects, index selection, weight setting, standard enactment and results presentation. The results show that ISC, RCE and URHA differ by index selection, weight setting and standard enactment while they all apply comprehensive indices. For urban rivers, the assessment by RCE method is inaccurate, and some indices in ISC method prove difficult to make accurate assessment. URHA method is suitable for evaluating urban river, however, there are some respects to be improved, such as objective of index selection, adaptability of weight setting and standard enactment and variety of results presentation.