IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v312y2015icp222-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian belief network models to analyse and predict ecological water quality in rivers

Author

Listed:
  • Forio, Marie Anne Eurie
  • Landuyt, Dries
  • Bennetsen, Elina
  • Lock, Koen
  • Nguyen, Thi Hanh Tien
  • Ambarita, Minar Naomi Damanik
  • Musonge, Peace Liz Sasha
  • Boets, Pieter
  • Everaert, Gert
  • Dominguez-Granda, Luis
  • Goethals, Peter L.M.

Abstract

Economic growth is often based on the intensification of crop production, energy consumption and urbanization. In many cases, this leads to the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. Modelling water resources and the related identification of key drivers of change are essential to improve and protect water quality in river basins. This study evaluates the potential of Bayesian belief network models to predict the ecological water quality in a typical multifunctional and tropical river basin. Field data, expert knowledge and literature data were used to develop a set of Bayesian belief network models. The developed models were evaluated based on weighted Cohen's Kappa (κw), percentage of correctly classified instances (CCI) and spherical payoff. On top, a sensitivity analysis and practical simulation tests of the two most reliable models were performed. Cross-validation based on κw (Model 1: 0.44±0.08; Model 2: 0.44±0.11) and CCI (Model 1: 36.3±2.3; Model 2: 41.6±2.3) indicated that the performance was reliable and stable. Model 1 comprised of input variables main land use, elevation, sediment type, chlorophyll, flow velocity, dissolved oxygen, and chemical oxygen demand; whereas Model 2 did not include dissolved oxygen and chemical oxygen demand. Although the predictive performance of Model 2 was slightly higher than that of Model 1, simulation outcomes of Model 1 were more coherent. Additionally, more management options could be evaluated with Model 1. As the model's ability to simulate management outcomes is of utmost importance in model selection, Model 1 is recommended as a tool to support decision-making in river management. Model predictions and sensitivity analysis indicated that flow velocity is the major variable determining ecological water quality and suggested that construction of additional dams and water abstraction within the basin would have an adverse effect on water quality. Although a case study in a single river basin is presented, the modelling approach can be of general use on any other river basin.

Suggested Citation

  • Forio, Marie Anne Eurie & Landuyt, Dries & Bennetsen, Elina & Lock, Koen & Nguyen, Thi Hanh Tien & Ambarita, Minar Naomi Damanik & Musonge, Peace Liz Sasha & Boets, Pieter & Everaert, Gert & Dominguez, 2015. "Bayesian belief network models to analyse and predict ecological water quality in rivers," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 312(C), pages 222-238.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:312:y:2015:i:c:p:222-238
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380015002227
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.05.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marcot, Bruce G., 2012. "Metrics for evaluating performance and uncertainty of Bayesian network models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 50-62.
    2. Berenger, Valerie & Verdier-Chouchane, Audrey, 2007. "Multidimensional Measures of Well-Being: Standard of Living and Quality of Life Across Countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1259-1276, July.
    3. Gert Everaert & Jan De Neve & Pieter Boets & Luis Dominguez-Granda & Seid Tiku Mereta & Argaw Ambelu & Thu Huong Hoang & Peter L M Goethals & Olivier Thas, 2014. "Comparison of the Abiotic Preferences of Macroinvertebrates in Tropical River Basins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-16, October.
    4. Everaert, Gert & Boets, Pieter & Lock, Koen & Džeroski, Sašo & Goethals, Peter L.M., 2011. "Using classification trees to analyze the impact of exotic species on the ecological assessment of polder lakes in Flanders, Belgium," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(14), pages 2202-2212.
    5. Hajkowicz, Stefan, 2006. "Multi-attributed environmental index construction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 122-139, April.
    6. Ramin, Maryam & Labencki, Tanya & Boyd, Duncan & Trolle, Dennis & Arhonditsis, George B., 2012. "A Bayesian synthesis of predictions from different models for setting water quality criteria," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 127-145.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruce G. Marcot & Anca M. Hanea, 2021. "What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis?," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 2009-2031, September.
    2. Forio, Marie Anne Eurie & Villa-Cox, Gonzalo & Van Echelpoel, Wout & Ryckebusch, Helena & Lock, Koen & Spanoghe, Pieter & Deknock, Arne & De Troyer, Niels & Nolivos-Alvarez, Indira & Dominguez-Granda,, 2020. "Bayesian Belief Network models as trade-off tools of ecosystem services in the Guayas River Basin in Ecuador," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    3. Marcot, Bruce G., 2017. "Common quandaries and their practical solutions in Bayesian network modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 358(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Guo, Kai & Zhang, Xinchang & Kuai, Xi & Wu, Zhifeng & Chen, Yiyun & Liu, Yi, 2020. "A spatial bayesian-network approach as a decision-making tool for ecological-risk prevention in land ecosystems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 419(C).
    5. Oleson, Kirsten L.L. & Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Fezzi, Carlo & Barnes, Megan D. & Donovan, Mary K. & Falinski, Kim A. & Gorospe, Kelvin D. & Htun, Hla & Lecky, Joey & Villa, Ferdinando & Wong, Tamara M., 2020. "Linking Land and Sea Through an Ecological-Economic Model of Coral Reef Recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    6. Chengyan Tang & Jing Li & Zixiang Zhou & Li Zeng & Cheng Zhang & Hui Ran, 2019. "How to Optimize Ecosystem Services Based on a Bayesian Model: A Case Study of Jinghe River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Feng, Zhe & Jin, Xueru & Chen, Tianqian & Wu, Jiansheng, 2021. "Understanding trade-offs and synergies of ecosystem services to support the decision-making in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Sirgy, 2011. "Theoretical Perspectives Guiding QOL Indicator Projects," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 103(1), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Ewa Lechman, 2012. "Technology convergence and digital divides. A country-level evidence for the period 2000–2010," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 31.
    3. Moe, S. Jannicke & Haande, Sigrid & Couture, Raoul-Marie, 2016. "Climate change, cyanobacteria blooms and ecological status of lakes: A Bayesian network approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 337(C), pages 330-347.
    4. Cook, David & Proctor, Wendy, 2007. "Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 594-604, August.
    5. Lotte Yanore & Jaap Sok & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2024. "Do Dutch farmers invest in expansion despite increased policy uncertainty? A participatory Bayesian network approach," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 93-115, January.
    6. Talita Greyling & Fiona Tregenna, 2017. "Construction and Analysis of a Composite Quality of Life Index for a Region of South Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 887-930, April.
    7. Jhonny Villafuerte & Eder Intriago, 2016. "Productive Matrix Change in Ecuador and the Petroleum Crisis. Case Study: Entrepreneurs and Productive Associations," Journal of Business, LAR Center Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-11, March.
    8. Viccaro, Mauro & Romano, Severino & Prete, Carmelina & Cozzi, Mario, 2021. "Rural planning? An integrated dynamic model for assessing quality of life at a local scale," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    9. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    10. H. K. Millington & J. E. Lovell & C. A. K. Lovell, 2013. "Using Fieldwork, GIS and DEA to Guide Management of Urban Stream Health," CEPA Working Papers Series WP072013, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    11. Leonel Lara-Estrada & Livia Rasche & L. Enrique Sucar & Uwe A. Schneider, 2018. "Inferring Missing Climate Data for Agricultural Planning Using Bayesian Networks," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, January.
    12. Mehmet Pinar, 2019. "Multidimensional Well-Being and Inequality Across the European Regions with Alternative Interactions Between the Well-Being Dimensions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 31-72, July.
    13. Matthys, Marie-Luise & Acharya, Sushant & Khatri, Sanjaya, 2021. "“Before cardamom, we used to face hardship”: Analyzing agricultural commercialization effects in Nepal through a local concept of the Good Life," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    14. Francesca Giambona & Mariano Porcu & Isabella Sulis, 2023. "Does education protect families' well-being in times of crisis? Measurement issues and empirical findings from IT-SILC data," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 32(1), pages 299-328, March.
    15. O'Brien, G. C. & Dickens, Chris & Hines, E. & Wepener, V. & Stassen, R. & Landis, W. G., 2017. "A regional scale ecological risk framework for environmental flow evaluations," Papers published in Journals (Open Access), International Water Management Institute, pages 22(2):957-9.
    16. Meyer, Spencer R. & Johnson, Michelle L. & Lilieholm, Robert J. & Cronan, Christopher S., 2014. "Development of a stakeholder-driven spatial modeling framework for strategic landscape planning using Bayesian networks across two urban-rural gradients in Maine, USA," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 291(C), pages 42-57.
    17. Anna Sperotto & Josè Luis Molina & Silvia Torresan & Andrea Critto & Manuel Pulido-Velazquez & Antonio Marcomini, 2019. "Water Quality Sustainability Evaluation under Uncertainty: A Multi-Scenario Analysis Based on Bayesian Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-34, August.
    18. Anto, Mb Hendrie, 2011. "Introducing an Islamic Human Development Index (I-HDI) to Measure Development in OIC Countries," Islamic Economic Studies, The Islamic Research and Training Institute (IRTI), vol. 19, pages 69-95.
    19. Bruce G. Marcot & Anca M. Hanea, 2021. "What is an optimal value of k in k-fold cross-validation in discrete Bayesian network analysis?," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 2009-2031, September.
    20. Thomas Dufhues & Gertrud Buchenrieder & Zhanli Sun, 2021. "Exploring Policy Options in Regulating Rural–Urban Migration with a Bayesian Network: A Case Study in Kazakhstan," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(3), pages 553-577, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:312:y:2015:i:c:p:222-238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.