July, 2017 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol. 8 No.4 J. Resour. Ecol. 2017 8(4) 315-324 DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.04.002 www.jorae.cn Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems ZHEN Lin 1,2,*, YAN Huimin 1,2, HU Yunfeng 1, XUE Zhichao 1,2, XIAO Yu 1,2, XIE Gaodi 1,2, MA Jianxia 3, WANG Jijun 4 1. Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China; 2. College of Resource and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China; 3. Lanzhou Center for Literature and Information of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China; 4. Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling shaanxi 712100, China Abstract: Ecological degradation is a global problem, and ecological restoration technologies have played and will continue to play an important role in its mitigation. However, the lack of systematic research and evaluations of ecological technologies has thus far affected their effective application in vulnerable ecological regions. This study therefore provides an overview of the main technologies for remediating soil and water erosion, desertification, and rock desertification in China and throughout the world. It addresses key issues and recommends approaches for evaluating ecological restoration technologies. Restoration technology emerged as early as 1800. Over the years such technology has changed from single objective applications to multi-purpose, multi-objective applications employing strategies that take into account ecosystem rehabilitation and integrated ecological and socioeconomic development. Along with this technological evolution, different countries have taken pertinent actions as part of their restoration initiatives. However, key issues remain, including the lack of location-specific restoration technologies and a methodological strategy to assess and prioritize existing technologies. This study proposes a four-level analytical hierarchical framework in conjunction with an indicator system that highlights the establishment and adaptation of associative indicators, while also recommending a three-phase evaluation method (TheMert), targeting TheMert to qualitative (quick and extensive) and quantitative (detailed) evaluations in order to select the most appropriate restoration technologies available. This study can also be used as a basis for understanding the evaluation and prioritization of restoration technologies, while increasing the awareness of decision makers and the public on the role of technology in restoring degraded ecosystems. Key words: vulnerable ecological regions; ecological restoration technologies; evolution; indicator framework; Three-Phase evaluation method 1 Introduction The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) found that 60% of a group of 24 ecosystem services were degraded, revealing the significance of the anthropogenic impact on Earth s natural capital (Ma, 2005; UNEP, 2014). Land area stricken by desertification, soil and water erosion, and rocky desertification accounts for more than one-fourth of the total area of the Earth (Lal, et al., 2012). The extent of anthropo- genic-induced change and damage makes ecosystem reparation an essential part of a survival strategy for the future (Hobbs and Harris, 2001). Biotechnology is widely believed to play a key role in restoring degraded ecosystems that are still able to be restored (Hobbs and Harris, 2001; Hobbs and Norton, 1996; Dong et al., 2009). It will, however, be stakeholder expectations and goals that decide which restoration option is chosen, and the extent to which a restoration Received: 2017-05-02 Accepted: 2017-06-20 Foundation: National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0503700) *Corresponding author: ZHEN Lin, E-mail: zhenl@igsnrr.ac.cn Citation: ZHEN Lin, YAN Huimin, HU Yunfeng, et al. 2017. Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 8(4): 315 324.
316 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol. 8 No. 4, 2017 plan is implemented will depend on the degree of financial and resource input from various sectors, including individual investments and public subsidies or incentives (Hobbs and Saunders, 2001). Thus, the exploration and application of site-specific, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly technologies to mitigate anthropogenic-induced changes and damages to Earth s ecosystems are key to attaining sustainable development goals (UNDP, 2015), as well as to achieving the target of zero increases globally in degraded land area by 2030. Ecological restoration technology has been developed on the basis of theories that explain the processes and mechanisms that damage ecosystems. This development has focused on mechanisms of ecological degradation, methodologies for monitoring degradation processes, and the development of rehabilitation and restoration techniques and technologies (Cairns, 1980). Beginning in the last century, many ecosystem protection projects have been initiated in developed countries, including the United States of America and European countries (Nearing, et al. 1989; Thomas, et al. 2012). The principles for optimized land management (Jacobs, et al. 2013), bio-suitability (Weeks, et al. 2011), and eco-stability (Bullock, et al., 2011) have been developed for the integrated management of degraded zones and natural recovery protection (Williams, 2015). The implementation of such projects has resulted in the creation of a series of restoration technologies, which have contributed significantly to the restoration of degraded ecosystems. China s ecosystems and environments are extremely fragile, with ecologically-fragile land area accounting for 55% of the total land area of the country (NDRC, 2015). Due to the impact of climate and natural geographic conditions, the distribution of vulnerable ecological regions over the past decades has covered different regions of the country, including arid deserts in the northwest, high elevation cold areas in the Qinghai Tibet Plateau and the Loess Plateau, karst areas in the southwest, mountainous regions in the southwest, dry valley regions in the southwest, and agro-pastoral zones in the north (Fu, et al., 2013). With increasingly intensive anthropogenic activity, ecosystem degradation in these regions has become critical, leading to soil and water erosion, grassland sandification, rock desertification, and mud slides (Liu, et al., 2000; Liu, et al., 2015). The total land area stricken by these degradation processes accounts for approximately 22% of China s total land area (NDRC, 2015), threatening the provision of ecosystem services as well as human welfare (Liu, et al., 2006; Zhen, et al., 2009). To tackle such problems, the Chinese government began initiating ecological restoration projects as early as the 1950s. In China, studies related to the mechanisms of degradation and demonstrations of restoration technologies have been conducted on the ecological restoration of dryland areas in the western region of the country, soil and water erosion in the Loess Plateau, and rocky desertification areas in southern China. These initiatives have led to the development of many ecosystem restoration modes and technologies (Cheng, 2012; Wang, et al., 2009). The most recent initiative by the Chinese government is a special research and development program to restore degraded ecosystems entitled The methodology and indicator system for assessing ecological restoration technologies and evaluation of global ecosystem rehabilitation technologies (grant number: 2016YFC0503700) and included in China s 13th Five- Year Plan (2016 2020). This program addresses national needs for assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of the technologies applied to the restoration of degraded ecosystems in China and around the world in order to understand the current status and future trends of ecosystem governance and associated restoration technologies, and to recommend best practices and technologies for long-term ecological rehabilitation (Zhen, et al., 2016). The objectives of this study are to provide an overview of the main technologies to remediate soil and water erosion, desertification, and rock desertification in China and throughout the world, to address the key issues associated with the development and application of these technologies, and to recommend the main approaches and indicator systems to evaluate ecological restoration technologies. This study is intended to increase the awareness of decision makers and the public at large concerning the role of restoration technologies for sustainable management and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. 2 Overview of ecological restoration technologies 2.1 Development and evolution of ecological degradation and restoration practices Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group, 2004). It is commonly recognized that good ecological restoration entails negotiating the best possible outcome for a specific site based on ecological knowledge and the diverse perspectives of interested stakeholders (Higgs, 1997). This argues for an adaptive approach to restoration (Fig. 1), which garners ecological knowledge from as many sources as possible (including on-the-ground practitioners), and uses this knowledge to develop ecological response models which can indicate the likely outcomes of restoration activities. In conformity with this conceptual framework, many restoration technologies can be identified from past practices, and some of these can be traced back to as early as the 1800s in the United States and the 1950s in China (Fig. 2). The development and evolution of these restoration technologies and the actions taken by different countries are associated with and are driven by specific degradation problems. Land degradation, especially that which is caused by
ZHEN Lin, et al.: Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems 317 Fig.1 A conceptual framework for identifying restoration options based on response models (modified from Hobbs and Harris. 2001) Abbreviation Full Name Abbreviation Full Name CSCOSC, AUS. SWP, USA USDA-SCS Australian Commonwealth Standing Committee on Soil Conservation Small Watershed Program of the United States of America United States Department of Agriculture s Soil Conservation Service CSSWC 149th Annual Meeting of AAAS National key construction project of SWC Chinese Society of Soil and Water Conservation 149th Annual meeting of American Association for the Advancement of Science (Karst and Desert Margin) National key construction project of Soil and Water Conservation SWCS The Soil and Water Conservation Society WSC Law of China Water and Soil Conservation Law of China UNCOD The United Nations Conference on Desertification RDCCD Research and Development Centre for Combating Desertification WASWAC World Association of Soil and Water Conservation SLCP Sloping Land Conversion Program UNCCD The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification NFPP Natural Forest Protection Program IRCK- The International Research Center on Karst under Eco-clean small Ecological and clean small watersheds UNESCO the Auspices of UNESCO watersheds DesertLand I The First Conference on Desertification and Land Degradation SAC/TC 365 TNSFP The Three-North Shelter Forest Program Anti-DT Antidesertification WSC Water and Soil Conservation National Technical Committee 365 on the Desert Prevention and Control of Standardization Administration of China Fig.2 Development and evolution of ecological degradation and restoration practices on desertification, soil and water erosion, and rock desertification soil and water erosion, was generally perceived to be severe in the late nineteenth century (Liu, et al., 2003). The most extensive erosion loss measurements, as influenced by various factors, are those of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station undertaken in 1917 (Miller, 1926). In the 1930s, the experience of the Dust Bowl in the United States proved to be highly influential to world policy thinking (Scoones, et al., 1996; Kassas, 1995). During this period, the term desertification was first made widely known by Aubréville (Aubréville, 1949), and the United States was the leader in soil and water conservation projects. Under the auspice of eco-governance, national agencies were established, such as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Magleby, 1995) and the Australian Commonwealth Standing Committee on Soil Conservation. The birth
318 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol. 8 No. 4, 2017 of eco-restoration technology was a response to the devastation of the Dust Bowl, when a reduction in soil disturbances from agricultural tillage practices began on the Great Plains in the United States. Initial research on conservation or reduced tillage as it was known at that time involved early versions of a chisel plough and stubble mulch farming, and this collection of practices was soon adopted in other countries (Kassam, et al., 2014; Derpsch, 2004). The development of equations to quantitatively calculate field soil loss began around 1940 in the Corn Belt in the United States, and the analysis of accumulated data and the refinement of early methods for predicting soil losses resulted in the 1965 introduction of a universal equation to estimate rainfall-erosion losses, which was known as the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) (Wishmeier and Smith, 1965). In the 1970s, the governance of soil erosion research was more tied to regional problems. In southern Africa, the soil erosion problem was compounded by drought. With failed attempts to implement soil and water conservation (SWC) technologies while concurrently raise yields during 1960s and 1970s, links between environmental degradation and famine became more and more prominent. At this point, the term desertification was revived and entered into the international development lexicon. On a policy level, growing concern culminated in the 1977 United Nations Conference on Desertification (UNCOD) held in Nairobi, Kenya, where delegates from around the world committed themselves to a global plan to combat desertification, and subsequently major international investments were made in environmental protection in Africa. Anti-desertification projects became commonplace in Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, and SWC measures were central to their design (UNCOD, 1978; Scoones, et al., 1996). This conference provided a spur for the establishment of regional organizations and their activities, among which the 1992 Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) enshrined the definition of desertification as being land degradation in arid, semi-arid, and dry subhumid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities (Reynolds, et al., 2007; Kassas, 1995). The First Conference on Desertification and Land Degradation (DesertLand I) was held in June 2013 to commemorate The World Day to Combat Desertification and remind us that the key tools to this achieving this aim lay in strengthening community, school, and stakeholder participation and cooperation on all levels (Kosaki and Gabriels, 2015). In 1979, Legend described the ecological environment problems in the karst area, and the 149 th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science officially designated both karst and desert edge regions as vulnerable environments, which helped raise widespread awareness of land degradation. From this point forward, international studies emerged focused mainly on the environmental vulnerability of different karst areas (Jia, 2011). In the early 1990s, the International Geological Correlation Programme (IGCP) Project 299 (geology, climate, hydrology and karst formation) studied distribution characteristics of karst areas with different environmental backgrounds (Yuan and Liu, 1998) and this was followed by a series of IGCP research projects. These actions promoted global research processes related to environmental problems in karst areas, with the term rock desertification being proposed by Yuan (Yuan, 1994; 1993; 2008) and popularized by the international community of karst researchers from 1991 to 1997. Karst rock desertification studies in China and associated technology for integrated governance have had a demonstrable effect on international karst research. In 2008, the International Research Center on Karst (IRCK) for rocky desertification was established in Guilin, China (Yuan, 2008), and it remains the only karst-related interdisciplinary international organization of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), playing an important global role in the better understanding of karst systems, while promoting the sustainable socioeconomic development of karst areas. In China, a wide array of soil and water conservation concerns emerged in the 1920s, and these concerns led to a focus on observations and experiments. The soil erosion experimental research at the Tianshui Station marked the start of China s efforts to develop quantitative analyses of soil erosion (Yang and Li, et al., 1998; Liu, 1954). The study of desertification in China arose in the early 1950s (Wang, 2009). Accordingly, from the 1950s to the 1960s soil erosion and desertification research focused on prevention and governance control in typical areas. The 1970s marked the beginning of a new stage in China s land degradation governance. National integrated projects, such as The Three-North Shelter Forest Program and the Sloping Land Conversion Program were widely implemented. The establishment of the Chinese Soil and Water Conservation Society and the promulgation of the Law of the People s Republic of China on Water and Soil Conservation also marked a level of disciplinary maturity as well as a continuous improvement in the prevention and control of soil and water conservation. Since the twenty-first century began, the management of land degradation in China has become more integrated with the inclusion of the prevention and control of rock desertification. Chinese researchers first recognized the environmental vulnerability of karst areas during the 1980s (Yuan, 2008). The Karst Dynamics Laboratory of the Ministry of Land and Resources has continuously engaged in work on karst issues with the implementation of the IGCP299, IGCP379, and IGCP448 projects, which are a series of IGCP projects that have continued to expand towards a global vision and a new stage of exploration (Yuan, 2001). From a governance perspective, rock desertification was fully integrated into the second Pearl River Basin Shelter Forest Program and the Yangtze River Shelter-Forest
ZHEN Lin, et al.: Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems 319 Project in 2001. The Sloping Land Conversion Program and small watershed management programs are the basis of efforts to control rock desertification in the karst areas. Local governance has made certain achievements and has developed a group of rock desertification control technologies and modes (Jia, 2011). In 2006, the Ministry of Water Resources of the People s Republic of China enacted new requirements to govern small eco-friendly watersheds. These requirements were based on the urgent need to sustain a balance between rapid economic growth and ecological environmental improvements, as well as to improve upon the principle of simple managerial development for human-oriented governance (Li, et al., 2012). Therefore, the historical governance of China s land degradation, which mainly originated from soil and water conservation with a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of land degradation, developed into the control of desertification in arid regions and rock desertification management in karst areas, for which measures and methods of governance have evolved from single and simple strategies to comprehensive and ecological harmonious strategies. 2.2 Evolution of location-specific restoration technology in China: an example of desertification restoration technology Site-specific restoration technology is an essential and effective means of restoration, given that ecological degradation and its driving factors are location specific. In this regard, the Chinese experience is a good example. As early as 1949, after the foundation of the People s Republic of China, many site-specific restoration technologies were used to combat soil and water erosion and desertification. The earliest technology used was the planting of a wind break and sand fixation forest to reduce desertification in eroded coastal lands of Guangdong Province in South China; approximately 1835 km of forest belts had been constructed by the end of the 1950s in inland regions of the country. One remarkable technology is the straw checkerboard barrier, which was developed in 1957 and has been applied since then. This technology consists of a composite of sand damage control methods using wheat straw, rice straw, or reeds to build square grass barriers (typically 1 m 1 m) in order to prevent wind erosion in desert and desertification stricken areas of western China. Since the late 1950s, several other landmark technologies have been used to remediate desertification by fixing sand and reducing wind erosion. These include implementing afforestation and grass planting initiatives through the use of aerial seeding (1958); instigating clay and gravel sand barriers (1974 and 1981), fencing off grassland (1992), and investing in water-saving irrigation techniques (2000); and the application of mixed sand particles (2007), ecological fixing agents (2014), and polyethylene mesh fixation (2015) (Fig. 3). These technologies have played a significant role in reducing soil erosion and desertification in China. 3 Extant ecological restoration technology issues in China There are, however, several issues that must be resolved with respect to the ecological restoration of China s vulnerable ecological zones, of which the prioritization and selection of the most suitable technologies is the principle one. In this regard, two key points are summarized below. (1) The development of location-specific ecological restoration strategies and technologies According to statistics, since the implementation of the 10th Five-Year Plan in 2000, approximately 214 core technologies, developed and integrated in China (Fu, et al., 2013), and the country is immersed in summarizing best practices for ecological restoration (Jiang, 2008). Some restoration technologies and modes suitable to Chinese ecosystem rehabili64 modes, and more than 100 technological systems associated with ecological restoration have been tation have been developed; for instance, for the reforestation of dryland, for hedgerows, combinations of engineering and biological technologies, water-saving technologies, and integrated fruit tree and forest plantations to combat rock desertification (ETFGC, 2015). However, China has lagged behind the United States and European countries by approximately 10 to 15 years in the development and application of technologies associated with ecosystem monitoring and evaluation, and has also lagged behind by approximately 5 to 10 years in technological developments for the restoration of wetland, forest, and grassland ecosystems (ETFGC, 2015). At the same time, Fig.3 Location-specific technologies applied for the restoration of desertified land in China
320 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol. 8 No. 4, 2017 approximately 80% of ecosystem restoration technologies remain in the pilot phase in China, and only 20% are in the development stage, while in developed countries, these two percentages are 43.7% and is 56.3%, respectively (ETFGC, 2015). This suggests that, although hundreds of existing restoration technologies have been developed and applied in China, these technologies are fragmented and lack relevance to problem solving solutions. Therefore, the development of appropriate regional-and site-specific ecosystem restoration strategies and the identification and application of suitable technologies for the restoration of degraded ecosystems in accordance with causes and mechanisms of degradation processes, as well as principles of restoration technologies, remain issues that require resolution in China. (2) The evaluation and prioritization of the roles and effectiveness of restoration technologies There is no methodology designed to assess restoration technologies because ecological degradation and restoration methods vary spatially and temporally. However, as the impact of climate change on natural and human systems increases, many mitigation and adaptation technologies have been developed and adopted in different countries. Thus, by the early 2000s, the need to evaluate such technologies had arisen (CTI, 2002). The most influential and pertinent literature addressing this issue is the updated Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) Handbook developed by United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2010) and designed to assist countries in making informed decisions with respect to their technological choices. The TNA offers a systematic approach to conduct technology assessments in order to identify, evaluate, and prioritize technological means for both the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. It provides a systematic approach to conduct technology assessments, which include technology identification, assessments, prioritization, gaps, and barrier analyses. Multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA), marginal abatement costs (MAC), and cost-benefit analysis have been applied to assess technologies and facilitate robust decision making (CCAP, 2006). Under IPCC s assessment framework, some researchers have assessed technology needs for low-carbon cities (Xu and Zou, 2003; Zhuang, et al., 2015), and a long list of mitigation and adaptation technologies and assessment frameworks has been developed. This list of recommendations and suggestions associated with mitigation technologies is playing an important role in choosing appropriate technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Over the past couple of decades, however, existing research on ecological technologies has not done an effective job of monitoring and evaluating the restoration technologies applied. The regional and economic suitability of ecological technology applications has often been ignored and this greatly influences the effects of long-term ecosystem management. Therefore, there is a great need to establish methodology packages that can assess existing technologies, evaluate their effectiveness, and recommend the most applicable and effective technologies. 4 Ways forward and recommendations Due to the lack of evaluation methods for restoration technology, the status of technology development and whether technologies are effective in China remains unclear in comparison to the situation in other parts of the world. It is critical to make such types of assessments and judgments in order to identify the needs for ecological restoration technology based on the spatial distribution of global ecological degradation and changing trends, as well as to select the most appropriate technologies for ecosystem restoration, while increasing the global competitiveness of Chinese restoration technologies. This type of technology evaluation and assessment requires the establishment of analytical and assessment frameworks, as well as the application of indicator systems and evaluation methods to assess ecological technologies on different spatial and temporal scales. The involvement of different stakeholders in indicator development and evaluation processes is essential. Principles, criteria, and reference values An analytical framework should be established prior to assessment and evaluation. This framework should depend on hierarchical levels based on several principles, criteria, and indicators in order to facilitate the formulation of evaluation indicators in a consistent and coherent manner. Four hierarchical levels have been proposed for consideration (Van Cauwenbergh et al. 2007; Zhen et al. 2009) (Fig. 4). After setting an overall goal (in this case, the evaluation and prioritization of restoration technologies), the principles Fig.4 An analytical framework illustrating the hierarchical evaluation levels
ZHEN Lin, et al.: Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems 321 that will guide indicator selection are defined; these could include consistency, measurability, independence, and the ability to conduct comparisons. The second level defines these criteria more explicitly. The third hierarchical level is comprised of a set of indicators that can provide a representative picture of the technologies under evaluation. The fourth and lowest level of the hierarchical framework comprises reference values that provide guidance associated with the status (at any given point in time, for instance, before and after the application of the restoration technology in question) of the indicators. Reference values can be obtained from various sources, including literature, development plans, and expert knowledge. Criteria for selecting indicators The selection of effective indicators is a key to the overall success of any monitoring program (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). An indicator must be selected carefully so that it can explicitly measure and describe the effects of the technology. The selection of indicators representing each aspect of the issues under study should be prioritized according to the spatial and temporal characteristics under consideration (Zhen and Routray, 2003; Zhen, et al., 2005; Zhen, et al., 2007). At the same time, the involvement of local stakeholders in the development of indicators is essential in achieving an operational indicator system (Zhen, et al., 2009). Based on the literature review and the issues under assessment, this study proposes that the criteria for selecting ecological indicators should: be easily measurable support both quantifiability and data availability be relevant to the target restoration technology be capable of system readjustment to make results comparable between indicators possess threshold values and guidelines be sensitive to system stress and responsive to stress in a predictable manner be integrative, which means that the full suite of indicators provides a measure of coverage of the key gradients across the ecological systems (such as soil, vegetation type, and temperature) Indicator systems designed and recommended to evaluate restoration technologies Indicator systems are needed to evaluate restoration technologies. Because these technologies cover a wide range of areas and are adapted for different types of degraded ecosystems, different levels of indicators are needed in order to include all of the different types of technologies under evaluation. To meet this need, and considering the criteria for indicator selection, four levels of indicators have been designed and recommended (Fig. 5). The first level of indicators are easy to use, quick, and cost-effective, and can be used for the assessment of all types of technologies, especially those with no available quantitative data. Based on findings from UNDP (2010), this level of indicators could include but not be limited to technology readiness levels (TRL), effectiveness, cost, barriers, and the potential for future extension and transfer. Secondary level indicators are an elaboration on the primary indicators, and are thus closely associated with each of the first level of indicators defined. These indicators can be used to evaluate the technologies that are selected based on results of the primary evaluation. A minimum number of indicators can be used at this stage, such as technological integrity, stability, useful lifespan, distribution, ecological and socioeconomic effects, equipment and material costs, operation and maintenance costs, human resource costs, complexity, required resources and constraints, diversity, and the willingness of the public to accept and demand the technologies. Third level indicators are actually the interpretation of fourth level indicators. Each of the third level indicators can be further divided into several fourth level indicators. Thus, fourth level indicators are the lowest level indicators and the ones that can be used to make quantitative evaluations of selected and prioritized technologies based on the evaluations of secondary level indicators. Such technologies are important and representative of the methods used to restore degraded ecosystems. Each of the fourth level indicators should be clearly defined and interpretative, possess available data and threshold values or be able to be identified using expert knowledge. However, as addressed Fig.5 An indicator framework for evaluating restoration technology
322 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol. 8 No. 4, 2017 in the criteria for indicator selection, a least set of operational indicators must be designed and used for assessments, and the calculation and aggregation of indicators are required to achieve concrete results (Zhen, et al., 2009). Methodology to evaluate restoration technology Given the large number of restoration technologies already available and the fact that more will be available in the future, it is necessary to have a methodology package that can be used for assessment and evaluation. In this regard, this study proposes a three-phase evaluation method for ecological restoration technologies (TheMert). By using TheMert, different types of technologies can be covered, different qualitative or quantitative evaluation purposes can be achieved, and the long list of available technologies can be listed and prioritized so that users can select the technologies that are most relevant and effective for their particular needs. The Rapid Appraisal Method (RAM) is the first phase of the evaluation method. It is a qualitative method that has been taken from Rapid Rural Appraisal approach (Young, 2000) and can be broadly used for the evaluation and prioritization of restoration technologies in order to meet the needs for rapid and extensive evaluation of many types of technologies. RAM can be used to assess first level indicators of targeted restoration technologies (Fig. 4). Each indicator can be evaluated by choosing one of five values, such as very good, good, neutral, poor, and very poor. The semi-quantitative method is the second phase of the evaluation and can be used to evaluate secondary level indicators for selected technologies based on the results of the first-phase evaluation. Each secondary level indicator can be assigned a score within a predesignated range of scores, from 0 to 4, for example, where the numerical values represent relevance (0), little relevance (1), relevant (2), strongly relevant (3), to very strongly relevant (4), using expert knowledge or the TRIZ method (Tan, 2010). A weight that ranges up to 0 to 10 can be provided depending on the importance of the indicator for technology evaluation. The weighted sum of score values will help to rank the technologies being evaluated. The third-phase evaluation method is a quantitative method for the restoration technologies selected and prioritized on the basis of the secondary phase evaluation. Fourth- level indicators are the lowest level indicators; these can be measured quantitatively, and they can be applied for evaluation. For this phase, quantitative data and information from monitoring stations, experimental tests, field surveys, and statistics are required, and threshold values of indicators must be set in order to make judgments. 5 Conclusions Given that ecological degradation has historically been a critical issue affecting regional sustainable development, ecological restoration technologies play an important role in rehabilitating ecological degradation. This study has conducted a review of restoration technologies for soil and water erosion, desertification, and rock desertification in China and throughout the world. The following conclusions can be made: (1) Since the 1800s in the United States and the 1920s in China, many ecological degradation problems have been identified and restoration technologies have subsequently been developed and adopted. Over time, these technologies have evolved from single purpose to multi-purpose objectives through the integration of ecological factors and socioeconomic development factors. In association with technological development and its evolution, systems of ecosystem governance have been established and actions have been taken to improve management practices. (2) Since the founding of the People s Republic of China in 1949, certain location-specific technologies that take advantage of and use local resources have been developed and used in China to combat desertification. (3) The main issues related to technological applications include the lack of location-specific restoration strategies and technologies and the unavailability of evaluation methodology packages from which to assess the effectiveness of restoration technologies. (4) Based on characteristics of restoration technologies, this study recommends the development and application of a four-level evaluation indicator system as well as the establishment and adoption of a three-phase evaluation method in order to meet the assessment needs of technologies targeted at different degradation problems and different locations. References Aubréville A. 1949. Climate, forests and desertification in tropical Africa. Paris: Societe of geographical, maritime and colonial editions. (in Franch) 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. Cairns J Jr. 1980. The Recovery Process in Damaged Ecosystems. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers. Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). 2006. Greenhouse gas mitigation in Brazil, China and India: Scenarios and opportunities through 2025. In International Developing Country Analysis and Dialogue, Washington, D C: CCAP. Cheng G D. 2012. Integration of Ecological Restoration Experiment and Demonstration Research in Western China. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese) Climate Technology Initiative (CTI). 2002. Methods for climate change technology transfer needs assessments and implementing activities, developing and transition country approaches and experiences. Available at http://unfccc.int/ttclear/misc_/staticfiles/gnwoerk_static/tna_hab_ infobox_3/74504a75eb474215a5216bd319737e78/0d8134cd09604f6a 9492ccf0cb6b92e8. pdf Dale V H, and Beyeler S C. 2001. Challenges in the development and use
ZHEN Lin, et al.: Overview of Ecological Restoration Technologies and Evaluation Systems 323 of ecological indicators. Ecological indicators, 1 (1): 3 10. Derpsch R. 2004. History of crop production, with and without tillage. Leading Edge, 3(1): 150 154. Dong S K, Liu S L, Shao X Q, et al. 2009. Restoration Ecology. Beijing: Higher Education Press. (in Chinese) Environmental Technology Forecasting Group in China (ETFGC). 2015. Global Technology Competition in Environmental Area. Working paper, Beijing. (in Chinese) Fu B J, Liu G H, and Ouyang Z Y. 2013. Study of Ecological Regionalization of China. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese) Higgs E S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology, 11 (2): 338 348. Hobbs R J, and Harris J A. 2001. Restoration ecology: repairing the earth's ecosystems in the new millennium. Restoration Ecology, 9(2): 239 246. Hobbs R J, and Norton D A. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4 (2): 93 110. Hobbs R J, and Saunders D. 2001. Nature conservation in agricultural landscapes: real progress or moving deckchairs. Nature Conservation, 5: 1 12. Jacobs D F, Dalgleish H J, and Nelson C D. 2013. A conceptual framework for restoration of threatened plants: the effective model of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) reintroduction. New Phytologist, 197 (2): 378 393. Jia Z B. 2011. Reform and Development: Research Reports on China's Major Forestry Issues in 2010. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House. (in Chinese) Jiang Z H. 2008. Best Practices for Land Degradation Control on Dry Land Areas of China: PRC-GEF Partnership on Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems, and China-land Degradation Assessment in Drylands. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House. Kassam A, Derpsch R, and Friedrich T. 2014. Global achievements in soil and water conservation: The case of Conservation Agriculture. International Soil & Water Conservation Research, 2(1): 5 13. Kassas M. 1995. Desertification: a general review. Journal of Arid Environments, 30(2): 115 128. Kosaki T, and Gabriels D. 2015. Preface to special section Desertification and land degradation (DesertLand I). Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 61(3): 371 371. Lal R, Lorenz K, Hüttl R F, et al. 2012. Recarbonization of the Biosphere: Ecosystems and the Global Carbon Cycle. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Li J H, Yuan L, Yu X X, et al. 2012. Current situation and the prospect of ecological clean small watershed construction. Soil And Water Conservation In China, (6): 11 13. (in Chinese) Liu G, Bojie F, Chen L, et al. 2000. Characteristics and distributions of degraded ecological types in China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 20(1): 1 6. (in Chinese) Liu J S. 1954. Preliminary analysis of soil erosion in Tianshui Yellow River, (1): 59 65. (in Chinese) Liu J Y, Yue T X, Ju H B, et al. 2006. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of Western China. Beijing: China Meteorological Press. (in Chinese) Liu X, Zhou S, Qi S, et al. 2015. Zoning of rural water conservation in China: A case study at Ashihe River Basin. International Soil & Water Conservation Research, 3 (2): 130 140. Liu X Y, Wang G, Chen Y H, et al. 2003. Development of soil and water conservation in America and inspirations to China. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 1 (2): 102 107. (in Chinese) MA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Response, Findings of the Responses Working Group. Washington D C: Island Press. Magleby R S. 1995. Soil erosion and conservation in the United States: an overview. Agriculture Information Bulletin, 82 (111): 726 734. Miller M F. 1926. Waste through soil erosion. Agronomy Journal, 18: 153 160. NDRC. 2015. The Main Functional Area Planning. Beijing: People s Publishing House. (in Chinese) Nearing M, Foster G, Lane L, et al. 1989. A process-based soil erosion model for USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project technology. Trans. Asae, 32(5): 1587 1593. Reynolds J F, Smith D M, Lambin E F, et al. 2007. Global desertification: Building a science for dryland development. Science, 316(5826): 847 851. Scoones I, Reij C, Toulmin C, et al. 1996. Sustaining the soil: indigenous soil and water conservation in Africa. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 123 (1): 29 35. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration: www. ser. org & Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International. Available at https://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/littonc/pdfs/682_se- RPrimer. pdf Tan R H. 2010. TRIZ and Its Application. Beijing: Higher Education Press. ( in Chinese) Thomas H, Dieter G, and Li H. 2012. Environmetal Governance in China and Germany from a Comparative Perspective. Beijing: Central Compilation & Translation Press. (in Chinese) UNDP. 2010. Handbook for Conducting Technology Needs Assessment for Climate Change. New York: UNDP. Available at http://unfccc. int/ ttclear/misc_/staticfiles/gnwoerk_static/tnr_hab/b87e917d96e9403 4bd7ec936e9c6a97a/1529e639caec4b53a4945ce009921053. pdf UNDP. 2015. UNDP in Focus 2014/2015 Time for Global Action. New York: UNDP. UNEP. 2014. UNEP Yearbook 2014: Emerging Issues in Our Global Environment. Nairobi: UNEP. United Nations Conference on Desertification (UNCOD). 1978. United Nations Conference on Desertification: round-up, plan of action and resolutions. New York: United Nations. Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, et al. 2007. SAFE A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 120(2): 229 242. Wang J J, Jiang Z D, Lian P, et al. 2009. Coupling analysis of the agricultural ecological economic system over 70 years in the Zhifanggou Watershed, Shaanxi Province. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 29(9): 5130 5137. (in Chinese) Wang T. 2009. The progress of research on Aeolian desertification. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 24(3): 290 296. (in Chinese) 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. Williams J. 2015. Soils governance in Australia: challenges of cooperative federalism. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy, (1): 1 12. Wishmeier W H, and Smith D D. 1965. Predicting Rainfall-erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains: Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water conservation. Agriculture Handbook No 282. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Available at https://www.ars.usda.gov/arsuser- Files/50201000/USLEDatabase/AH_282. pdf Xu Y, and Zou J. 2003. Technology needs assessment of China under IPCC s framework. In Proceeding of the 2nd National Climate Change Conference. (in Chinese) Yang Q K, and Li R. 1998. Review of quantitative assessment on soil erosion in China. Bulletin of Soil and Water Conservation, 18(5): 13 18. (in Chinese) Young P V. 2000. Scientific Social Surveys and Research (4th Ed.). New
324 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol. 8 No. 4, 2017 Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. Yuan D X. 1993. Environmental change and human impact on karst in southern China. Catena, 25(suppl. ): 268. Yuan D X. 1994. Karstology in China. Beijing: Geological Publishing House. (in Chinese) Yuan D X. 2001. World correlation of karst ecosystem: Objectives and implementation plan. Advances in Earth Science, 16(4): 461 466. (in Chinese) Yuan D X. 2008. Global view on karst rock desertification and integrating control measures and experiences of China. Pratacultural Science, 25 (9): 19 25. (in Chinese) Yuan D X, and Liu Z. 1998. Global karst correlation. Utrecht: VSP. Zhen L, Cao S Y, Wei Y J, et al. 2009. Land use functions: Conceptual framework and application for China. Resources Science, 31(4): 544 551. (in Chinese) Zhen L, and Routray J K. 2003. Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Environmental Management, 32(1): 34 46. Zhen L, Routray J K, Zoebisch M A, et al. 2005. Three dimensions of sustainability of farming practices in the North China Plain: a case study from Ningjin County of Shandong Province, PR China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 105(3): 507 522. Zhen L, Wang J J, Jiang Z D, et al. 2016. The methodology for assessing ecological restoration technologies and evaluation of global ecosystem rehabilitation technologies. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(22): 7152 7157. (in Chinese) Zhen L, Xie G, Yang L, et al. 2007. Land use dynamics, farmers' preferences and policy implications in the Jinghe watershed of remote north-western China. Outlook on Agriculture, 36(2): 127 135. Zhuang G Y, Zhang X M, Xie H S, et al. 2015. Method for low carbon technology needs assessment and application in urban areas. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 32(1): 50 54. (in Chinese) 甄霖 1,2, 闫慧敏 1, 胡云锋 1, 薛智超 1,2, 肖玉 1, 谢高地 1, 马建霞 3, 王继军 4 1. 中国科学院地理科学与资源研究所, 北京 100101; 2. 中国科学院大学资源与环境学院, 北京 100049; 3. 中国科学院兰州文献情报中心, 兰州 730000; 4. 中国科学院水利部水土保持研究所, 陕西杨凌 712100 摘要 : 近百年来, 中国乃至全球生态退化日趋严峻 根据联合国千年生态系统服务评估报告, 全球约 60% 的生态系统处于退化与不可持续状态 我国中度以上生态脆弱区面积占陆地总面积的 55%, 荒漠化 水土流失 石漠化等土地面积占国土总面积的 22% 左右 生态技术在遏制生态退化进程中发挥着重要作用 本文旨在系统梳理和分析国内外生态脆弱区水土流失 荒漠化以及石漠化治理技术, 提炼目前生态技术及其应用存在的核心问题, 并提出针对性建议 分析表明, 近百年来国内外在典型脆弱生态区退化生态系统治理方面做出了巨大努力, 积累了数量众多的生态技术 ; 生态技术的演化表现出从单一目标向兼顾生态 经济 民生等多目标复合模式演进的特点 ; 在生态技术演变的同时, 生态治理及生态系统管理政策和措施也发生了巨大变革 生态治理存在的主要问题包括 : 生态技术缺乏地域针对性 ; 缺乏用于评价生态技术的指标体系以及技术优选与配置方法模型 针对生态技术数量庞大和应用范围广泛等特点, 本文建议首先确定包含四个层次的总体分析框架, 在此基础上, 制定四级评价指标体系, 采用三阶段评估方法 (TheMert), 基于利益相关者参与式评估 专家知识 退化生态系统监测 国家重大生态治理工程效果监测 国内外近百年生态技术分析等手段, 实现对生态技术从广泛到深入 从定性 / 快速到定量 / 精细的逐级评估和优选的目标 关键词 : 脆弱生态区 ; 生态技术 ; 演化 ; 指标体系 ; 三阶段评估方法