Framework Design of Eco-Technology Evaluation Platform and Integration System

  • 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China;
    2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Received date: 2017-04-28

  Revised date: 2017-06-20

  Online published: 2017-07-30

Supported by

National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0503706, 2016YFC0503403)


Global ecological degradation is a matter of enormous concern. In the early 20st century, the United States, Europe and China began to apply eco-technology to ecosystem management and restoration in order to slow down or stop ecological degradation. To date, there has been neither a systematic summary and scientific evaluation, nor is there a unified platform to describe ecological degradation problems in different areas and existing eco-technologies. These shortcomings have hindered the popularization and application of technologies. This study intends to build an eco-technology evaluation platform and integration system that brings together heterogeneous data from multiple sources. The key technology of the eco-technology evaluation platform and integration system is information integration technology. We will establish a metadata engine based on metadata storage to achieve access to and integration of metadata and heterogeneous data sources. The information integration mode based on a metamodel addresses information heterogeneity at four levels: system, syntax, structure and semantics. We develop the framework for an eco-technology evaluation platform and integration system to integrate eco- technology databases, eco-technology evaluation model databases, eco-technology evaluation parameter databases and spatial databases of ecological degradation and eco-technology with metadata and metamodel integration mode. This system can support functions for the query and display of global and typical ecological degradation and the query, display, evaluation and prioritization of eco-technologies, which can realize the visualization of global and Chinese ecological degradation and eco-technology evaluation and prioritization. This system will help government decision makers and relevant departments to understand ecological degradation and the effects of eco- technology implementation.

Cite this article

XIAO Yu, XIE Gaodi, ZHEN Lin . Framework Design of Eco-Technology Evaluation Platform and Integration System[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2017 , 8(4) : 325 -331 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.04.003


[1] Bullock J M, Aronson J, Newton A C, et al. 2011. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 26(10): 541-549.
[2] Chen G D. 2012. Integration of Ecological Restoration Experiment Demonstration in West China . Beijing: Science Press. (In Chinese)
[3] Defries R S, Ellis E C, Chapin F S, et al. 2012. Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience , 62(6): 603-606.
[4] Field J P, Breshears D D and Whicker J J. 2009. Toward a more holistic perspective of soil erosion: Why aeolian research needs to explicitly consider fluvial processes and interactions. Aeolian Research , 1(1): 9-17.
[5] Gao J X. 2014. Evaluation and Restoration of a Degraded Ecosystem in Southwest Mountainous Area . Beijing: Science Press. (In Chinese)
[6] Guerrero J I, García A, Personal E, et al. 2017. Heterogeneous data source integration for smart grid ecosystems based on metadata mining. Expert Systems with Applications , 79:254-268.
[7] Gurkan Z, Zhang J and Jørgensen S E. 2006. Development of a structurally dynamic model for forecasting the effects of restoration of Lake Fure, Denmark. Ecological Modelling , 197(1): 89-102.
[8] Harrington J L. 2016. Relational Database Design and Implementation . San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
[9] Heberer T, Grunow D and Li H B. 2012. Environmental Governance in China and Germany from a Comparative Perspective . Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press. (In Chinese)
[10] Jacobs D F, Dalgleish H J and Nelson C D. 2012. A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: the effective model of American chest nut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytologist , 197(2): 378-93.
[11] Lal R. 2003. Soil erosion and the global carbon budget. Environment International , 29(4): 437-450.
[12] Lenihan M H and Brasier K J. 2010. Ecological modernization and the US Farm Bill: the case of the Conservation Security Program. Journal of Rural Studies , 26, 219-227.
[13] Li H Y and Ma C. 2010. Case Analysis of Multi - channel Ecological Restoration in Foreign Countries . Beijing: Chemical Industry Press. (In Chinese)
[14] Ma Y S, Zhou H K, Shao X Q, et al. 2016. Recovery techniques and demonstration of degraded alpine ecosystems in the source region of three rivers. Acta Ecologica Sinica , 36(22): 7078-7082. (In Chinese)
[15] Maree M and Belkhatir M. 2015. Addressing semantic heterogeneity through multiple knowledge base assisted merging of domain-specific ontologies. Knowledge-Based Systems , 73: 199-211.
[16] Morsy M M, Goodall J L, Castronova A M, et al. 2017. Design of a metadata framework for environmental models with an example hydrologic application in HydroShare. Environmental Modelling & Software , 93: 13-28.
[17] Nearing M A, Foster G R, Lane L J, et al. 1989. A process-based soil erosion model for USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project technology. Transactions of the Asae , 32(5): 1587-1593.
[18] Othman S H and Beydoun G. 2016. A metamodel-based knowledge sharing system for disaster management. Expert Systems with Applications , 63: 49-65.
[19] Pedersen M L, Andersen J M, Nielsen K, et al. 2007. Restoration of Skjern River and its valley: Project description and general ecological changes in the project area. Ecological Engineering , 30(2): 131-144.
[20] Peng W X, Wang K L, Song T Q, et al. 2008. Controlling and restoration models of complex degradation of vulnerable Karst Ecosystem. Acta Ecologica Sinica , 28(2): 811-820. (In Chinese)
[21] Seefeldt S S, Conn J S, Zhang M, et al. 2010. Vegetation changes in Conservation Reserve Program lands in interior Alaska. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment , 135(1-2): 119-126.
[22] Sheth A P. 1999. Changing focus on interoperability in information systems: From system, syntax, structure to semantics. Springer International , 495(4): 5-29.
[23] Weeks A R, Sgro C M, Young A G, et al. 2011. Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective. Evolutionary Applications , 4(6): 709-725.
[24] Wiederhold G. 1992. Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. Computer , 25(3): 38-49.
[25] Williams J. 2015. Soils Governance in Australia: challenges of cooperative federalism. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy , (1): 1-12.
[26] Xiao Y, An K and Xie G D. 2009. Discuss on the integration of area function information and geographic information based on meta-data. Resources Sciences , 31(5): 867-874. (In Chinese)
[27] Xu S, Liu K, Tang L C M, et al. 2016. A framework for integrating syntax, semantics and pragmatics for computer-aided professional practice: With application of costing in construction industry. Computers in Industry , 83(C): 28-45.
[28] Zerbe S. 2002. Restoration of natural broad-leaved woodland in Central Europe on sites with coniferous forest plantations. Forest Ecology & Management , 167(1): 27-42.