See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318669780

Ecohydrology to harmonize industrialization and ecological safety in urban

environment: Case of Hawassa Lake, industries and Cheleleka wetland

Article  in  Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology · July 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2017.07.003

CITATIONS READS

2 307

1 author:

Mulugeta Dadi Belete

Hawassa University Ethiopia
10 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated Environmental Research for Sustainable Management of Lake Hawassa Ecosystem View project

Waste management of Hawassa City View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mulugeta Dadi Belete on 17 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecohyd

Original Research Article

Ecohydrology to harmonize industrialization and ecological

safety in urban environment: Case of Hawassa Lake, industries
and Cheleleka wetland
Mulugeta Dadi Belete
Hawassa University, Institute of Technology, School of Water Resources Engineering, P.O. Box 005, Ethiopia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: In response to the recent efforts of the government to foster industrial transformation, the
Received 15 January 2017 number of industries in Ethiopia have been growing, and ensuring ecological safety is
Received in revised form 27 June 2017 becoming a challenge as a consequence. This study assesses the sustainability potential of
Accepted 17 July 2017 industries in Hawassa City, Lake Hawassa and the Cheleleka wetland, Ethiopia.
Available online 24 July 2017 The study investigates the shrinkage rate of the open water portion of the Cheleleka
wetland over the last 45 years. Effluents from three large industries were collected and
Keywords: analyzed to measure the degree of stress on the ecosystem. In addition, the potential
Cheleleka wetland
functional performance of the wetland was modeled based on fifteen field indicators. In
Ecohydrology
addition, a scheme of the proposed constructed wetland system is conceptualized and the
Hawassa city
industries
required theoretical treatment area of the proposed system is estimated using volumetric
Lake Hawassa and areal-based process design models.
The temporal trend analysis found that the open water portion of the Cheleleka wetland
to fall from 12 km2 in 1972 to 5 km2 in 1986, 3 km2 in 1995 and 1 km2 in 2000; very little
area remained in 2007 and 2016. The current functional performance is estimated to be
high for water quality improvement (2.3 out of 3 points  77%); medium for ground water
recharge (2 out of 3 points  67%) and peak flood attenuation (1.2 out of 3 points  40%). To
purify a BOD5 of 463 mg/l (actual) to a BOD5 of 50 mg/l (design target), a total required
treatment area of  20,689 m2 is required according to the volumetric process design
model, and 64,276 m2 by the areal-based model.
ß 2017 European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.
Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction industries has also presented a challenge for the country

Ethiopia has seen a steady increase in the number of
industries following the efforts of the Ethiopian govern-
ment to foster a market-based and socially-inclusive
industrial transformation (Altenburg, 2010). However,
the environmental pollution associated with these
E-mail address: mulugetad@hu.edu.et.
(Ghebretekle, 2015). Harmonizing such opposing interests
calls for the use of logical strategic initiatives intended for
the reduction or elimination of point and non-point
pollution sources, which is not yet fully guaranteed in
Ethiopia, and for the enhancement of the carrying capacity,
resistance and resilience of the environment, which is
usually neglected (Zalewski et al., 1998).
This situation can be considered from the perspective
of decision-making theory, which is based on two

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2017.07.003
1642-3593/ß 2017 European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200
fundamental conditions for successful strategic actions:
reducing threats and amplifying opportunities. In this
context, controlling the water quality status of industrial
effluents (primary and secondary treatments) is analo-
gous to the elimination of threats whereas improving the
carrying capacity of the ecosystem to the amplification of
chances. This study focuses on the latter, and argues in
favor of the use of Ecohydrology to create harmony
among the three components of the studied urban
ecosystems. These are: Hawassa City, the capital city of
the Southern Regional State of Ethiopia, Lake Hawassa, a
hydrologically-closed urban lake, and the Cheleleka
wetland, located a few kilometers upstream of the lake.
The study assesses the existing wetland and proposes an
alternative constructed wetland to supplement each
other. Wetlands have been described as a living machine
(MacDonald, 1994) and the kidneys of the planet
(Wallance, 1998).
Recently, Hawassa city has been rapidly expanding,
industrial plants have been increasing in number, and the
natural wetland (called Cheleleka) has been shrinking
(Belete, 2013). Zalewski (1996) contends that Ecohydrol-
ogy allows those threats to be reduced and opportunities
amplified in a system, as noted above. A strategy that
addresses only one of these components cannot be
successful (Kolodziejski, 1995).
The objective of this study is, therefore, to analyze the
status of the wetland system over time and assess its
ability to perform its expected natural functions. From the
input side, the water quality status of three large industries
(brewery, textile, and soft drinks factories) were analyzed
with respect to the EPA (2003) standard of the Ethiopian
Fig. 1. Location of the study area.
193
government, thus providing an understanding of the
prevalent environmental stress occurring in the study
area. The study conceptualizes the application of ecohy-
drological solutions for the harmonization of industriali-
zation with ecological safety in an urban environment.
Finally, it estimates the required theoretical treatment
area of the proposed wetland system using volumetric and
areal-based process design models.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The study area
The wetland under study is delineated according to its
hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. As
shown in Fig. 1, Cheleleka Wetland is located upstream of
Lake Hawassa and at the outlet of the Tikur Wuha Sub-
catchment in the Ethiopian Rift Valley Basin within the
coordinates of 447,290 m and 453,980 m (Easting) and
774,465 m and 785,800 m (Northing). Based on the
wetland delineation procedure used in this study, its size
is about 34 km2.
Cheleleka wetland qualifies as riverine flow-through
type wetland as defined by hydrogeomorphic classification
(Smith et al., 1995; Brinson, 1993). The predominant
hydrophytic vegetation types found in the studied wetland
are Typha (cattail), which is emergent and herbaceous, and
Nymphaea odorata (water lily), which is of the floating-
leaved type. The vegetation prevailing in the buffer zone is
listed in Table 1.
It was observed that all of the types of vegetation within
the delineated boundary are facultative wetland plants
194 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200

Table 1 1998). Hydrophytes have specific morphological and

Existing vegetation (woody and herb species) at buffer zone.
physiological adaptations that allow their roots to tolerate
Family Species Indigenous/exotic and grow in oxygen-deficient conditions (Sorrell et al.,
Verbenaceae Lantana camara Exotic 2000). This assumption is associated with the concept of
Fabaceae Acacia etabaica Indigenous continuum (Curtis, 1959; Whittaker, 1967), which holds
Senna didymobotrya Indigenous that vegetation changes gradually in response to environ-
Milletia ferruginea Indigenous mental gradients, in our case changes in hydrology, and it is
Sesbania sesban Indigenous
a useful basis for analyzing wetland boundaries (Null et al.,
Acanthaceae Justica schimperiana Indigenous
Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia candelabrum Indigenous 2000). Moreover, changes in plant communities are related
Euphorbia tirucalli Indigenous to competition among species (Pennings and Callaway,
Solanaceae Solanium indicum Indigenous 1992; Bertness, 1991).
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis Exotic
The vegetational and hydrological data together would
Casuarina equisetifolia Exotic
Pinus patula Exotic be used to indicate the soil condition of the area and hence,
its status as wetland. This assumption is supported by
NCSU (accessed in 3/15/2017) which argues that for an
ecological determination of the presence of a wetland, all
that usually occur in wetlands (67–99% of the time) but are that may be required is the presence of hydrophytic
occasionally found in upland areas (Jackson, 1995). vegetation that requires flooded or saturated conditions
for survival.
2.2. Transect data and geographic information for wetland
delineation 2.3. The semi-quantitative method for performance
assessment
Prior to defining the geographic coordinates of the
wetland under study, its area was first determined based on Numerous methods have been developed to assess
the three attributes: wetland hydrology, where the water is the potential function (services) of wetlands, which call
at or near the surface or the land itself is covered by shallow for different level of effort and expertise (Sutula et al.,
water, and which supports hydrophytic vegetation, i.e. 2006); these include the Synoptic Approach (Leibowitz
vegetation typically adapted to live in hydric soil (saturated et al., 1992), the Hydrogeomorphic Method (HGM)
soil conditions). Delineation of the wetlands was first (Smith et al., 1995), the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
approximated by remote sensing (off-site identification) (Karr, 1981), the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure
using aerial photographs and satellite images. This was (WRAP) (Miller and Gunsalus, 1999), the Descriptive
followed by on-site identification of the actual boundary by Approach (USACE, 1995), the Habitat Evaluation Proce-
a transect walk along the likely boundaries, assisted by the dure (HEP) (USFWS, 1980), the New Jersey Watershed
local community and the geographic information system Method (Zampella et al., 1994), and the Watershed
(GIS). The on-site observation was performed by identifying Science Approach (Collins et al., 1998). Rapid assessment
the hydrologic breaks (Fig. 2), defined as boundaries methods have to rely on easily observed characteristics
between saturated and unsaturated conditions. In addition, that are correlated with actual environmental processes
breaks in vegetation communities differentiating hydro- (Hruby et al., 1999). Most indicators are fixed char-
phytes from terrestrial plants were identified; this being acteristics that describe the structure of the ecosystem
the most obvious characteristic of wetlands (Tobe et al., or its physical, chemical, and geological properties

Fig. 2. Hydrological break and the corresponding changes in vegetative community used to delineate wetland boundary.
 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200 195

Table 2
Variables and their acquisition techniques.

Variables Definition and acquisition techniques

1 Size of the wetland From the map of the wetland based on key parameters
2 Wetland loss in the basin This considers the size of the land which has already been converted to residential area,
agricultural land or other development interventions
3 Relative size of the wetland in the basin From the map of the wetland
4 Buffer size This parameter expresses how far the buffers extend and is assessed by field inspection with the
support of aerial photos
5 Buffer condition Based on the percentage of the disturbed wetland perimeter which affect the integrity of
wetland to other features
6 Location and type of wetland Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classification procedure
7 Forest cover Field observation and estimation
8 Outlet condition Presence/absence of flow constrained from exiting wetland
9 Position in drainage basin Identified from the basin topographic map to determine whether the wetland is in the upper,
middle, or lower third of the drainage
10 Soils Based on sieve analysis for textural classification
11 Frequency of flooding (saturation) Level of cleared area/paved area
12 Duration of flooding/saturation Determined from the composition of plant species (percentage of obligate species)
13 Speed of flow The speed of water flow through the wetland inspected by degree of channel scour
14 Amount of vegetation cover From wetland delineation data
15 Level of basin development From pre-visit research, and from wetland delineation experience. It determines how much
development exists within 250 feet of the shoreline.

(Brinson et al., 1995). The present study uses Semi- 2.5.1. Volumetric process design model
quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM), which is Basic models:
one of the rapid methods developed by Cooke Scientific
Services (2002) based in turn on a system developed by C out
¼ exp½K T t (1)
Reppert et al. (1979) for qualitatively determining which C in
functions are being performed, and to what degree.
ðT w 20Þ
Table 2 shows the field indicators and acquisition K T ¼ K 20 ðuÞ (2)
techniques employed in this study
Treatment area:
 
2.4. Analysis of temporal variation in the open water portion lnðC in =C e Þ
AS ¼ Q A (3)
of the wetland K T ðyÞðnÞ

A topographic map with a scale of 1:50,000 was used to
delineate the surface area of the open water portion of the
Cheleleka wetland in 1972. Satellite images of the thematic
mapper (TM) were used for 1986 and 1995; ETM for 2000;
Spot5 for 2007 and google mapper for 2016.
2.5. Determination of the required treatment area
where Cout = wetland effluent concentration (mg/l); Cin = -
wetland influent concentration (mg/l); KT = rate constant
at temperature T (d1); u = temperature coefficient at
20 8C; Tw = average water temperature in the wetland
during period of concern (8C); As = treatment area (bottom
area) of the wetland (m2); QA = average flow in the wetland
(m3/d); y = average depth of water in the wetland (m);
n = porosity of the wetland (% as a decimal).

All constructed wetland systems can be considered as 2.5.2. Areal-based process design models
attached-growth biological reactors, and their perfor- Basic Models:
mance can be estimated with first-order plug-flow kinetics  
for BOD and nitrogen removal (Reed et al., 1995). The C out C  K T
¼ exp (4)
parameter that requires the largest treatment area for C in C  HLRA
removal, such as Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5), is the
Treatment area:
limiting design factor (Reed et al., 1995) and that area is
used for the design of our proposed system. By this  
Q 0 C e ðzÞC 
consideration, the wetland should then provide acceptable AS ¼ ln  (5)
KT C O C
treatment for all other parameters of concern. The present
study assesses the water quality of effluents and the where Cout = wetland effluent concentration (mg/l) (target
corresponding release rate of the three major industries: concentration); Cin = wetland influent concentration (mg/l);
textile, brewery, and soft drinks. Among the water quality C* = background concentration (mg/l); HLRA = annual hy-
parameters, BOD5 was used as a targeting parameter. The draulic loading rate (m/yr); KT = rate constant at tempera-
two design models used in this study are the volumetric ture T (m/yr); K20 = rate constant at 20 8C (m/yr);
process design model (Reed et al., 1995) and areal-based u = temperature coefficient; As = treatment area of the
process design model (Kadlec and Knight, 1996) as shown wetland (m2); Q0 = annual influent wastewater flow rate
below. (m3/yr); z = safety factor.
196 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200

3. Results and discussion 3.2. Degree of stress on the ecosystem by industrial effluents

3.1. Temporal variation in open water portion of Cheleleka
wetland
As shown in Fig. 3, in 1972, the surface area of open-
water portion of the Cheleleka wetland was 12 km2. In
1986, it had shrunk to 5 km2. The 1995 image shows that
the surface was reduced to 3 km2, and the 2000 image
shows that it had shrunk to 1 km2. The 2007 and 2016
images show complete disappearance.
In order to measure the stress on the ecosystem,
industrial effluents from three large industries (brewery,
soft drinks and textiles) were collected and analyzed using
standard procedures. Table 3 presents the actual minimum
and maximum concentrations of industrial effluents
averaged over five consecutive working days. The table
also shows the acceptable values set by Ethiopian EPA
(2003) and Fig. 4 shows raw data of the water quality
parameters.

Fig. 3. Temporal variation in open water portion of Cheleleka wetland.

 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200 197

Table 3
Minimum, maximum, and acceptable limits of the water quality parameters from the three industries.

Acceptable value Min. value Max. value

Conductivity (mS/cm) 1000 1920 2533

Salinity (mg/l) (–) 1000 1200
TDS (mg/l) 15% from normal 1154 1516
pH 6 to 9 but 0.2 unit from natural level 7.55 8.9
Temperature (8C) 5–30 8C 21.1 32
1.5 8C from downstream
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)(mg/l) 5 mg/l 275 656
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) (mg/l) 150 mg/l 1169 1808
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/l) 4 0 156
PO4-P (ppm) 0.005 mg/l 1.17 12.16
NO3-N (ppm) 50 mg/l 6.45 12.03
SO42 (ppm) 200 mg/l 12 16.03
Ca (ppm) (–) 6.3 9
Mg (ppm) (–) 24.5 30
Na (ppm) (–) 485 544
K (ppm) (–) 85 165
Pb (ppm) 50 mg/l 0.044 0.05
Co (ppm) (–) – 0.054
Cr (ppm) 50 mg/l 0.04 0.089
Zn (ppm) 30–500 mg/l @hardness 10–500 0.062 0.19
Cu (ppm) 5–112 mg/l 0.063 0.154
Mn (ppm) 300 mg/l 0.106 0.163

N.B. Acceptable limits are adapted from Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority (2003); (–) no criteria were set for the parameter.

Fig. 4. Conceptual scheme of the proposed ecohydrological system and the associated theoretical processes responsible for pollution removal (not to scale
both dimensionally and spatially).
198 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200

As shown in the above table, conductivity, temperature,
BOD, COD, and sulphate concentration in the industrial
effluents are quite far from the acceptable limits set by
Ethiopian EPA (2003) implying that the industries do not
conform with the expected standards. The existing
wastewater treatment infrastructure used by industries
no longer seems sufficient to maintain environmental
safety. In terms of strategic actions, it is evident that the
‘elimination of threat’ is found to be insufficient to protect
the environment against pollution; and the other element
of successful strategy, ‘amplification of opportunities’, is
urgently needed.
To this end, this study proposes the use of a constructed
wetland that employs the concept of Ecohydrology, as it
would be an effective approach to reduce the impact of the
pollution. In other words, the traditional wastewater
treatment plants need to be coupled with constructed
wetlands to meet the basic standards, which is a
justification of the mentioned decision theory that implies
amplification of opportunities, in our case, through
application of Ecohydrology. The subsequent sub-sections
discuss the proposed ecohydrological system that poten-
tially harmonizes industrialization, urbanization, and
environmental safety.
3.3. Result of semi-quantitative scoring for indicative
performance evaluation
Table 4 shows the wetland characteristics and the
corresponding semi-quantitative scorings. The models are
fundamentally equivalent and expected to produce similar
result. However, that is not the case partly due to the fact
that they are developed from different datasets, and also
there are differences in the structure and content of the
models (Crites et al., 2006).
The assessment effort implies that the Cheleleka
wetland has high potential for water quality improvement
(2.3 out of 3 points  77%), and medium potential for both
ground water recharge (2 out of 3 points  67%) and peak
flood attenuation (scores 1.2 out 3 points  40%). As shown
in Table 4, some of the key attributes that favor better
performance are related to the large size of the wetland as
compared to its catchment (about 5.44%) and high
vegetation coverage. Despite of this, the wetland scores
lower points due to its highly disturbed buffer condition;
location of the wetland at the lower end of the catchment
and the condition of the outlet, which is unconstrained and
lets the water freely leave the wetland.
3.4. Conceptualizing the proposed wetland system
As shown in Table 4 above, effluents of the tested
industries were not fully purified by the existing primary
and secondary treatments and so failed to comply with the
national ambient water quality standards. The stream that
directly receives the industrial effluents (13 km length
with average flow velocity of 0.6 m/s) directly drains
into Lake Hawassa (Fig. 4) without joining the proper
wetland (Cheleleka) thus failing to receive this natural
treatment. From the perspective of decision-making

Table 4
Summary of wetland characteristics and scores.

Wetland function Field indicators of the functions Measured/estimated Semi-quantitative score

to be assessed values
High Medium Low
potential potential potential
(3 pts.) (2 pts.) (1 pts.)

Potential for flood 1. Absolute size of the wetland 34 km2 U

attenuation/flood 2. Wetland loss in the basin <20% U
flow alteration 3. Relative size of the wetland in the basin >200% U
4. Buffer size >200 ft U
5. Buffer condition >60% U
Size cumulative score U
6. Location and type of wetland Riverine U
7. Forest cover <10% U
8. Outlet condition Unconstrained U
9. Position in drainage basin Lower stream U
10. Soils >40% coarse textured U
Average score for this function = 1.2 out of 3 pts.

Potential for ground Size cumulative score U

water recharging 11. Location and type of wetland Riverine U
12. Position in drainage basin Lower stream U
13. Frequency of flooding/saturation Perennial standing water U
14. Duration of flooding/saturation >40% obligate species U
[Based on plant composition]
Average score for this function = 2 out of 3 pts.

Potential for water 15. Speed of flow Partial scour of flow channels U
quality improvement 16. Amount of vegetation cover 93% U
17. Level of basin development <20% developed U
18. Soils >40% coarse textured U
Average score for this function = 2.3 out of 3 pts.
 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200 199

Table 5
Summary of model input and output parameters.

Input variables and constants

Variable Symbol Value Remarks

Background concentration (mg/l) (volumetric) C* 6 Reed et al. (1995)

Background concentration (mg/l) (areal-based) C* 28 Kadlec and Knight (1996)
Wetland effluent concentration (mg/l) (design target) Cout 50 Should be >28 mg/l (background conc.)
Wetland influent concentration (mg/l) Cin 463 Average of the three industries
Average water temperature in wetland during period of concern (8C) Tw 26.5 Field measurement
Temperature coefficient at 20 8C (volumetric) u 1.06 Reed et al. (1995)
Temperature coefficient at 20 8C (areal-based) u 1.00 Kadlec and Knight (1996)
Rate constant at 20 8C temperature (volumetric) K20 0.678 Reed et al. (1995)
Rate constant at 20 8C temperature (m/yr) (areal-based) K20 34 Kadlec and Knight (1996)
Average daily flow in the wetland (m3/d) QA 2343 Data from industries
Annual influent wastewater flow rate (m3/yr) Qo 733,359 Computed from daily rate
(off-days are not considered)
Porosity of the wetland (% as a decimal) n 0.7–0.9  0.8 Reed et al. (1995)
Recommended water depth (m) y 0.3–0.6  0.45 To allow macrophyte growth
Safety factor (areal-based) z 0.59 For BOD5 removal
Intermediate outputs:
Rate constant at temperature T (d1) (volumetric) KT 0.99 Eq. (2)
Rate constant at temperature T (d1) (areal-based) KT 34 Eq. (2)
Final outputs
Result of volumetric process model:
Treatment area (volumetric process model) (m2). As 20,689 Eq. (3)
Treatment area (areal-based process model) (m2) (safety factors are ignored) As 64,276 Eq. (5)

Background calculations:
KT = 0.678(1.06)(26.520) = 0.678 * 1.46 = 0.99 [volumetric].
KT = 34(1)(26.520) = 34 [areal-based].
C* = 3.5 + 0.053 (463) = 28 mg/l.
h i  
lnð463=50Þ
AS ¼ 2343 0:99ð0:45Þð0:8Þ ¼ 2343 3:142 2
0:356 ¼ 2343  8:83 ¼ 20; 689 m [Volumetric process design model].
h i  
733;359 ð5028
AS ¼ 34 ln 46328 ¼ 21569 ln 435 ¼ 21569  2:98 ¼ 64; 276 m2 (without safety factor) [areal-based].
22

theory, the ‘elimination of threat’ through the reduction of 4. Conclusions

industrial point sources and its subsequent treatment by
the conventional hydrotechnical solutions seems unreal-
istic for two reasons: the excessive use of technology in
the environment and the corresponding excessive costs.
This scenario should give way to ‘amplification of
opportunities’ by using natural systems as a management
tool on the basis of understanding evolutionary estab-
lished resistance and resilience to stress. Natural systems
for the treatment and management of municipal and
industrial wastewaters and residuals feature processes
that use minimal energy and minimal or no chemicals, and
they produce relatively lower amounts of residual solids
(Crites et al., 2006; Reed et al., 1995). Ecohydrology can
reconcile the two often contradictory approaches to water
resources management, i.e., (1) hydrotechnical, and (2)
ecological (Zalewski, 2015). It is an example of low-cost
and low-energy green infrastructure. It has also low
greenhouse effects and requires little maintenance and
operation.
Fig. 4 presents the conceptual scheme of the proposed
ecohydrological system. Some of the expected processes
responsible for pollutant removal in the proposed system
include sedimentation, chemical precipitation and adsorp-
tion, microbial activities and macrophyte uptake (Vyma-
zal, 2001; Kadlec and Wallace, 2009).
3.5. Result of treatment area determination
Table 5 presents the input and output variables of the
volumetric and areal-based process design model.
Our findings confirm that the existing wastewater
treatment infrastructure of the local industries is insuffi-
cient for significantly reducing or eliminating point-source
pollutants, as is the case in many parts of developing
countries. Regardless of the basic reasons for this failure, this
study employs the other side of decision theory to amplify
the chance of wastewater treatment by constructed wet-
lands. Implementing the principles of ecohydrology to
develop a second line of defence appears to be feasible in this
regard. While determining the theoretically required
treatment area, it was found that the proposed wetland
system will require a relatively large area of land.
Fortunately, land is not a limiting factor in the locality
and the proposed system can be implemented. In addition to
wastewater purification, correct implementation of the
proposed system can also provide considerable aesthetic
benefits, wildlife habitats, enhancement of the physical
landscape, and add a new tourism site. The strategic location
of the proposed site at the very back and lower part of
elevated land, can also be regarded as a favorable condition.
The hypothetical physical, chemical, and biological
processes shown in the conceptual diagram are based on
theoretical analyses and are not supported by evidence in
this specific study area. However, those key processes are
widely reported by previous studies around the globe and
assumed to work in the study area as well.
However, detailed environmental impact assessment is
required before any further action. In addition, since
ecohydrological processes are highly variable in both space
200 M.D. Belete / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 18 (2018) 192–200
and time, actual direct quantification of the rates of
ecosystem processes is recommended. The economic value
of wetlands or the importance of individual functions is
also worth significant consideration.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Ethical statement
Authors state that the research was conducted accord-
ing to ethical standards.
Acknowledgment
I am grateful to the Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and
Electricity as well as Ethiopian Rift Valley Lakes Basin
Authority for funding this research. Moreover, I am
indebted to the editor and reviewers of this article for
their constructive comments.
Funding body
Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Electricity as well as
Ethiopian Rift Valley Lakes Basin Authority.
Extended copy editing of this article has been per-
formed thanks to the support of the Polish Ministry of
Science and Higher Education, funds for science dissemi-
nation activities, task: ‘‘Extended copy editing of the
articles accepted for publication in Ecohydrology &
Hydrobiology’’ (770/P-DUN/2017).
References
Altenburg, T., 2010. Industrial Policy in Ethiopia, Discussion Paper.
Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, Germany, Bonn ISBN
978-3-88985-477-3.
Belete, M.D., 2013. The Impact of Sedimentation and Climate Variability
on the Hydrological Status of Lake Hawassa. Ph.D. DissertationUni-
versity of Bonn, Germany.
Bertness, M.D., 1991. Interspecific interactions among high marsh per-
ennials in a New England salt marsh. Ecology 72, 125–137.
Brinson, M.M., 1993. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands.
Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brinson, M.M., Hauer, F.R., Lee, L.C., Nutter, W.L., Rheinhardt, R.D., Smith,
R.D., Whigham, D., 1995. Guidebook for Application of Hydrogeo-
morphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands (Operational Draft). US
Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report
WRP-DE-11, Vicksburg, MS.
Collins, J., Collins, L., Hoenicke, R., 1998. Bay Area Watersheds Science
Plan. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California.
Cooke Scientific Services Inc., 2002. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-
quantitative Assessment Methodology (SAM). Final Working Draft
User’s Manual. Cooke Scientific Services Inc., Seattle, WA.
Crites, R.W., Middlebrooks, E.J., Reed, S.C., 2006. Natural Wastewater
Treatment Systems. Taylor and Francis, New York, pp. 537.
Curtis, J.T., 1959. The Vegetation of Wisconsin: An Ordination of Plant
Communities. University of Wisconsin Press.
EPA, 2003. Guideline: Ambient Environment Standards for Ethiopia. The
Environmental Protection Authority And The United Nations Indus-
trial Development Organization, Addis Ababa.
Ghebretekle, T.B., 2015. Industrial Pollution Control and Management in
Ethiopia: A Case Study on Almeda Textile Factory and Sheba Leather
Industry in Tigrai Regional State. Ph.D. ThesisUniversity of Warwick.
Hruby, T., Granger, T., Brunner, K., Cooke, S., Dublanica, K., Gersib, R.,
Reinelt, L., Richter, K., Sheldon, D., Teachout, E., Wald, A., Weinmann,
F., 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions Volume I: Riverine
and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington.
WA State Department Ecology Publication, , pp. 99–115.
View publication stats
Jackson, S., 1995. Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Under the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection Division of Wetlands and Waterways,
Boston, MA.
Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2009. Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Karr, J.R., 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities.
Fisheries 6, 21–27.
Kolodziejski, J., 1995. Uwarunkowania ekorozwoju w okresie transfor-
macji systemowej Polski. In: Kozlowski, S. (Ed.), Prognoza ostrze-
gawcza zmian srodowiskowych warunków zycia czlowieka w Polsce
na poczatku XXI wieku. Zeszyty Nauk. PAN. Komitet Naukowy przy
prezydium PAN ‘‘Czlowiek i Srodowisko’’ 10, (in Polish), pp. 9–34.
Leibowitz, S.G., Abbruzzese, B., Adamus, P.R., Hughes, L.E., Irish, J.T., 1992.
A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Proposed
Methodology. EPA/600/R-92/167. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
MacDonald, L., 1994. Water pollution solution: build a marsh. J. Am. For.
100 (7/8), 26–30.
Miller, R.E., Gunsalus, B.E., 1999. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure.
Technical Publication REG-001. Natural Resource Management Divi-
sion, Regulation Department, South Florida Water Management Dis-
trict, West Palm Beach, FL.
NCSU Water Quality Group. NC State University. http://www.water.ncsu.
edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/onsite.html (accessed 03.15.17).
Null, W.S., Skinner, G., Leonard, W., 2000. Wetland Functions Characteri-
zation Tool for Linear Projects. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office, Olympia.
Pennings, S.C., Callaway, R.M., 1992. Salt marsh plant zonation: the
relative importance of competition and physical factors. Ecology
73, 681–690.
Reed, S.C., Crites, R.W., Middlebrooks, E.J., 1995. Natural Systems for
Waste Management and Treatment, 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stackhiv, E., Messman, L., Meyers, C., 1979.
Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods of Wetland Evaluation.
IWR Res. Rep. 79-R-1. U.S. Army Engineers, Fort Belvoir, VA.
Smith, R.D., Ammann, A., Bartoldus, C., Brinson, M.M., 1995. An Approach
for Assessing Wetland Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classifica-
tion, Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices. Technical Report
WRP-DE-9. Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Vicksburg, MS.
Sorrell, B.K., Mendelssohn, I.A., McKee, K.L., Woods, R.A., 2000. Ecophysi-
ology of wetland plant roots: a modelling comparison of aeration in
relation to species distribution. Ann. Bot. 86, 675–685.
Sutula, M.A., Eric, D.S., Joshua, N.C., Elizabeth, F., Ross, C., 2006. A practical
guide for the development of a wetland assessment method: the
California experience. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. (JAWRA) 42 (1),
157–175.
Tobe, J.D., Burks, K.C., Cantrell, R.W., Garland, M.A., Sweeley, M.E., Hall,
D.W., Wallace, P., Anglin, G., Nelson, G., Cooper, J.R., Bickner, D.,
Gilbert, K., Aymond, N., Greenwood, K., Raymond, N., 1998. Florida
Wetland Plants: An Identification Manual. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.
USACE, 1995. The Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement. Wet-
lands Functions and Values: A Descriptive Approach. NENEP-360-1-
30a. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, Concord,
MA.
USFWS0, 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) Manual. No. 870 FW
1, Washington, DC.
Vymazal, J., 2001. Transformations of Nutrients in Natural and Con-
structed Wetlands. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Wallance, S., 1998. Putting wetlands to work. J. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 68 (7),
57–59.
Whittaker, R.H., 1967. Gradient analysis of vegetation. Biol. Rev. 42, 207–
264.
Zalewski, M., 1996. Perspektywy w ykorzystania biotechnologii ekesys-
temalnych dla poprawy jakosciwód sródladowych. In: Zeszyty Nauk.
PAN. Komitet Naukowy przy Prezydium PAN ‘‘Czlowieki Srodowisko’’
(in Polish).
Zalewski, M., 2015. Ecohydrology and hydrologic engineering: regulation
of hydrology biota interactions for sustainability. J. Hydrol. Eng. 20 (1) .
Zalewski, M., Bis, B., Lapinska, M., Frankiewicz, P., Puchalski, W., 1998. The
importance of the riparian ecotone and river hydraulics for sustain-
able basin scale restoration scenarios. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar. Freshw.
Ecosyst. 8, 287–307.
Zampella, R.A., Lathrop, R.G., Bognar, J.A., Craig, L.J., Laidig, K.J., 1994. A
Watershed-Based Wetland Assessment Method for the New Jersey
Pinelands. Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ.