Evaluation of ecological revetments shows excellent performance in a canal project, indicating effective methodologies.
Traditional evaluations of revetment projects primarily focus on structural safety and economic analysis, which cannot comprehensively reflect the overall effectiveness of such projects. To address this issue, this paper establishes a comprehensive evaluation index system for ecological revetments based on ecosystem theory and sustainable development principles. The system is tailored for the Pinglu Canal Ecological Revetment Demonstration Project. It assesses three key aspects: structural stability, ecological health, and socioeconomic benefits. Subjective weights were calculated using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP). Objective weights were determined by optimizing the Projection Pursuit (PP) model with the Tent-improved Crocodile Ambush Optimization Algorithm (TCAOA). Game theory was employed to compute the combined weights. The evaluation grade of the ecological revetment project was subsequently determined using a cloud model. The results show that the cloud eigenvalues of the project’s comprehensive evaluation are (1.096, 0.209, 0.047), and the application effectiveness is rated as “Excellent”. The cloud expected values for structural stability, ecological health, and socioeconomic benefits are 1.02, 1.18, and 1.15, respectively. All of these values are at the “Excellent” level. Compared with GA-PP and PSO-PP, TCAOA-PP converges faster and more stably. It requires only 347 iterations, achieves a coefficient variation of 3.8%, and reduces computation time by 23%. By revealing the nonlinear coupling relationships among indicators, the model presented in this paper provides a methodological foundation for establishing an evaluation framework that is ecologically interpretable for bank protection. This study has important practical significance for promoting the high-quality development of inland waterways and the construction of ecological revetments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: