MDD vs. traditional software development: a practitioner’s subjective perspective

Context: Today’s project managers have a myriad of methods to choose from for the development of software applications. However, they lack empirical data about the character of these methods in terms of usefulness, ease of use or compatibility, all of these being relevant variables to assess the developer’s intention to use them. Objective: To compare three methods, each following a different paradigm (Model-Driven, Model-Based and Code-Centric) with respect to their adoption potential by junior software developers engaged in the development of the business layer of a Web 2.0 application. Method: We have conducted a quasi-experiment with 26 graduate students of the University of Alicante. The application developed was a Social Network, which was organized around a fixed set of modules. Three of them, similar in complexity, were used for the experiment. Subjects were asked to use a different method for each module, and then to answer a questionnaire that gathered their perceptions during such use. Results: The results show that the Model-Driven method is regarded as the most useful, although it is also considered the least compatible with previous developers’ experiences. They also show that junior software developers feel comfortable with the use of models, and that they are likely to use them if the models are accompanied by a Model-Driven development environment. Conclusions: Despite their relatively low level of compatibility, Model-Driven development methods seem to show a great potential for adoption. That said, however, further experimentation is needed to make it possible to generalize the results to a different population, different methods, other languages and tools, different domains or different application sizes.

Ecological restoration across the Mediterranean Basin as viewed by practitioners

Restoration efforts in the Mediterranean Basin have been changing from a silvicultural to an ecological restoration approach. Yet, to what extent the projects are guided by ecological restoration principles remains largely unknown. To analyse this issue, we built an on-line survey addressed to restoration practitioners. We analysed 36 restoration projects, mostly from drylands (86%). The projects used mainly soil from local sources. The need to comply with legislation was more important as a restoration motive for European Union (EU) than for non-EU countries, while public opinion and health had a greater importance in the latter. Non-EU countries relied more on non-native plant species than EU countries, thus deviating from ecological restoration guidelines. Nursery-grown plants used were mostly of local or regional provenance, whilst seeds were mostly of national provenance. Unexpected restoration results (e.g. inadequate biodiversity) were reported for 50% of the projects and restoration success was never evaluated in 22%. Long term evaluation (> 6 years) was only performed in 31% of cases, and based primarily on plant diversity and cover. The use of non-native species and species of exogenous provenances may: i) entail the loss of local genetic and functional trait diversity, critical to cope with drought, particularly under the predicted climate change scenarios, and ii) lead to unexpected competition with native species and/or negatively impact local biotic interactions. Absent or inappropriate monitoring may prevent the understanding of restoration trajectories, precluding adaptive management strategies, often crucial to create functional ecosystems able to provide ecosystem services. The overview of ecological restoration projects in the Mediterranean Basin revealed high variability among practices and highlighted the need for improved scientific assistance and information exchange, greater use of native species of local provenance, and more long-term monitoring and evaluation, including functional and ecosystem services' indicators, to improve and spread the practice of ecological restoration.