patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
and imply a sustainable win-win strategy in the stage of regional landscape planning.
Keywords: conservation conflict; spatial conservation prioritization; inverse prioritization; regional
planning evaluation; zonation software
1. Introduction
Human population increases and corresponding unprecedented global biodiversity
declines have escalated a looming social and environmental dual-crisis that may trigger
dreadful consequences for human society as well as global and regional ecosystems [1–4].
In the past few decades, the framework or paradigm of human–wildlife conflict has been
extensively applied by scholars and relevant literature has increased considerably [5],
nonetheless inherently addressing the opposing positions of we human beings and nature [6]. The seeming dichotomy between development and conservation ignores genuine,
intertwined sophisticated relationships and interactions between humans and nature [6].
Thus it is a more rational and arguable viewpoint to recognize two parties of conflict as
a whole. Humans can take conservation actions to reconcile conservation conflicts rather
than resolving or eliminating them [7]. To balance society development and biodiversity
conservation and accomplish a ‘win-win’ situation for humans and nature [7,8], it is necessary to identify underlying objectives held in both ecological and social dimensions,
especially for the commonly imperceptible human–human conflicts that interactively shape
social values [9].
Conflict reconciliation involves processes in multiple aspects, including conflict mapping, conflict planning, demonstrations of strategies and evaluation of outcomes [10],
among which spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) is an effective land-use planning
tool that can be capable of the evaluating biodiversity status of specific regions in a balanced approach and utilized for mitigating conflicts in advance [2,11,12], through specific
Land 2022, 11, 2182. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122182 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land
Land 2022, 11, 2182 2 of 23
measures such as ranking for high-priority areas, identifying green corridors, ecological
network delineation, allocation of habitat restoration and offsetting distribution [13–16].
Underpinned by previous landscape planning studies which employed traditional conservation prioritization methods [2,17–19], their contributions are indisputable in informing
ecological protection efforts with transparent trade-offs [17,20], but these studies neglected
the flip side of urban planning zoning issues, which are precisely the non-biodiversity or
human-dimensional aspects [8,14,17,21]. These social dimensions should be considered,
along with interests in biodiversity conservation in the policy-making stage. Once the
natural and social science factors are connected [22,23], assessment of human–animal conflicts [24] can assist urban planners to explore trade-offs effectively and explicitly from a
more comprehensive perspective [8,25].
With highly urbanized areas and ecologically-valuable reserves, the sunshine state
urgently requires effective conservation planning solutions to manage and diminish continued human–wildlife conflicts under the background of continuous biodiversity loss, future
sea level rise scenarios and competing land use [19,26,27]. Florida’s severe human–animal
conflicts are provoked by the tension between its exceptional position as a harbor for many
global biodiversity hotspots [28,29] and decades of high-speed population increase [30].
Within such a particular context, the Florida 2070 joint project was collectively implemented
by local governors and academic research groups intending to explore distinct developmental pathways to accommodate projected human population growth by 2070 [31,32]. In the
Florida 2070 projections, two different scenarios (Trend and Alternative) were generated
based on varying human development assumptions, where one follows the present inefficient urban sprawl pattern and the other stands for the compact development approach.
Although these two variable projections are hypothetical and with stochasticity, they can
certainly be comprehended as a synthesis of general human development preferences [8],
or, in other words, crucial social science evidence for potential land-use planning analysis.
The Alternative 2070 scenario suggests a land-use planning method using the ’compact city approach’ [33] by assuming a new population for redevelopment or infill development [34]. Compact land-use pattern aims to spare considerable greenfield sites
for conservation purposes, which has similar outcomes to another conservation planning
application, impact avoidance [16,33]. As an efficient environmental zoning approach,
impact avoidance can be easily achieved by techniques of inverse spatial conservation
prioritization [13,35]. In this study, we took advantage of this robust approach to make our
SCP identification and succeeding analysis more complete.
This paper uniquely combined scientific evidence from the human and nature conservation sides by reassessing Florida’s future development projections with a two-sided
spatial conservation prioritization analysis method to help acknowledge a holistic view
of conservation conflicts in Florida. Linking impact avoidance with conflict reconciliation
within the study area of South Florida, our approach identified and analyzed highest and
lowest priority areas and integrated with different land use patterns to reveal intractable
development–conservation conflicts early in the planning phase and seek a durable winwin scenario for all parties of the ecosystem. As long as relevant multi-dimensional data are
available, we encourage future conservationists and decision-makers elsewhere to adapt
our reassessment methods and contribute to sustainable regional planning strategies to
minimize further biodiversity loss.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Florida hosts the most significant biodiversity among all U.S. states and has more
than 16,000 kinds of native species found nowhere else on the planet [27]. However, the
sunshine state suffers the most from booming population growth and aggressive urban
sprawl. Unlike most existing literature on Florida conservation, our studies focused on
South Florida to address land-use issues and human–wildlife conflict, which are common
Land 2022, 11, 2182 3 of 23
global problems. South Florida distinguishes itself from other ecoregions in Florida by its
uniqueness in natural and human-dimensional factors.
The southern region of Florida, our study site (Figure 1), covers 55,604.4 km2 and
ranges from the upper Lake Okeechobee to the end of the Florida Peninsula along with
Florida Keys islands, consisting of 16 counties: Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Desoto, Glades,
Highlands, Hendry, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Palm
Beach, Sarasota and St. Lucie. South Florida mainly encompasses subtropical and tropical
climate zones, with annual average precipitation of 59 inches and temperatures ranging
from 47◦
to 90◦ F [36]. The study area of our assessment involves 4 substantial National
Parks administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and 70 wildlife management areas
(WMA) preserved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC),
respectively taking up 91.43% of National Park area and 36.3% WMA (Florida Geographic
Data Library). Many unique ecosystems and corresponding wildlife habitats are located
within these protected areas in South Florida, such as Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades
Wetland, the Big Cypress Swamp and the Florida Keys islands [37]. With such a robust
ability to support an amazingly diverse group of flora and fauna, our study area should
undeniably receive recognition as one of the most vital biodiversity hot spots statewide and
be among the highest global rankings for ecological conservation [27,38,39]. The species
richness of our study areas has not been quantified and collected by reliable literature.
However, there are more than 68 threatened animal species (USFWS 1999) merely within
the Greater Everglades ecosystem that comprehend a total of 1033 plant taxa, 59 reptile
taxa, 76 mammal taxa, 432 fish taxa, 349 bird taxa, 38 amphibian taxa and 459 bird taxa [37].
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 25
and conservation trajectory, as well as explicating and disclosing severe human–wildlife
conflicts within Florida and even worldwide.
Figure 1. Study area.
2.2. Framework of Reassessment Procedures
With the goal of resolving conservation conflict in Florida, available data sets of the
study area and advanced quantitative planning tools were preferred as our pieces of evidence and methods underpinning advanced studies. In order to clarify and confirm the
following research procedures, we articulate a reassessment framework for our study in
Figure 2, including five successive stages: (1) collection of land cover data and Florida
2070 Project data as social science evidence; (2) acquisition of biodiversity distribution
data from listed focal species in our study site as nature-side data; (3) using a quantitative

and imply a sustainable win-win strategy in the stage of regional landscape planning.

Keywords: conservation conflict; spatial conservation prioritization; inverse prioritization; regional

planning evaluation; zonation software

1. Introduction

Human population increases and corresponding unprecedented global biodiversity

declines have escalated a looming social and environmental dual-crisis that may trigger

dreadful consequences for human society as well as global and regional ecosystems [1–4].

In the past few decades, the framework or paradigm of human–wildlife conflict has been

extensively applied by scholars and relevant literature has increased considerably [5],

nonetheless inherently addressing the opposing positions of we human beings and nature [6]. The seeming dichotomy between development and conservation ignores genuine,

intertwined sophisticated relationships and interactions between humans and nature [6].

Thus it is a more rational and arguable viewpoint to recognize two parties of conflict as

a whole. Humans can take conservation actions to reconcile conservation conflicts rather

than resolving or eliminating them [7]. To balance society development and biodiversity

conservation and accomplish a ‘win-win’ situation for humans and nature [7,8], it is necessary to identify underlying objectives held in both ecological and social dimensions,

especially for the commonly imperceptible human–human conflicts that interactively shape

social values [9].

Conflict reconciliation involves processes in multiple aspects, including conflict mapping, conflict planning, demonstrations of strategies and evaluation of outcomes [10],

among which spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) is an effective land-use planning

tool that can be capable of the evaluating biodiversity status of specific regions in a balanced approach and utilized for mitigating conflicts in advance [2,11,12], through specific

Land 2022, 11, 2182. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122182 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land

Land 2022, 11, 2182 2 of 23

measures such as ranking for high-priority areas, identifying green corridors, ecological

network delineation, allocation of habitat restoration and offsetting distribution [13–16].

Underpinned by previous landscape planning studies which employed traditional conservation prioritization methods [2,17–19], their contributions are indisputable in informing

ecological protection efforts with transparent trade-offs [17,20], but these studies neglected

the flip side of urban planning zoning issues, which are precisely the non-biodiversity or

human-dimensional aspects [8,14,17,21]. These social dimensions should be considered,

along with interests in biodiversity conservation in the policy-making stage. Once the

natural and social science factors are connected [22,23], assessment of human–animal conflicts [24] can assist urban planners to explore trade-offs effectively and explicitly from a

more comprehensive perspective [8,25].

With highly urbanized areas and ecologically-valuable reserves, the sunshine state

urgently requires effective conservation planning solutions to manage and diminish continued human–wildlife conflicts under the background of continuous biodiversity loss, future

sea level rise scenarios and competing land use [19,26,27]. Florida’s severe human–animal

conflicts are provoked by the tension between its exceptional position as a harbor for many

global biodiversity hotspots [28,29] and decades of high-speed population increase [30].

Within such a particular context, the Florida 2070 joint project was collectively implemented

by local governors and academic research groups intending to explore distinct developmental pathways to accommodate projected human population growth by 2070 [31,32]. In the

Florida 2070 projections, two different scenarios (Trend and Alternative) were generated

based on varying human development assumptions, where one follows the present inefficient urban sprawl pattern and the other stands for the compact development approach.

Although these two variable projections are hypothetical and with stochasticity, they can

certainly be comprehended as a synthesis of general human development preferences [8],

or, in other words, crucial social science evidence for potential land-use planning analysis.

The Alternative 2070 scenario suggests a land-use planning method using the ’compact city approach’ [33] by assuming a new population for redevelopment or infill development [34]. Compact land-use pattern aims to spare considerable greenfield sites

for conservation purposes, which has similar outcomes to another conservation planning

application, impact avoidance [16,33]. As an efficient environmental zoning approach,

impact avoidance can be easily achieved by techniques of inverse spatial conservation

prioritization [13,35]. In this study, we took advantage of this robust approach to make our

SCP identification and succeeding analysis more complete.

This paper uniquely combined scientific evidence from the human and nature conservation sides by reassessing Florida’s future development projections with a two-sided

spatial conservation prioritization analysis method to help acknowledge a holistic view

of conservation conflicts in Florida. Linking impact avoidance with conflict reconciliation

within the study area of South Florida, our approach identified and analyzed highest and

lowest priority areas and integrated with different land use patterns to reveal intractable

development–conservation conflicts early in the planning phase and seek a durable winwin scenario for all parties of the ecosystem. As long as relevant multi-dimensional data are

available, we encourage future conservationists and decision-makers elsewhere to adapt

our reassessment methods and contribute to sustainable regional planning strategies to

minimize further biodiversity loss.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Florida hosts the most significant biodiversity among all U.S. states and has more

than 16,000 kinds of native species found nowhere else on the planet [27]. However, the

sunshine state suffers the most from booming population growth and aggressive urban

sprawl. Unlike most existing literature on Florida conservation, our studies focused on

South Florida to address land-use issues and human–wildlife conflict, which are common

Land 2022, 11, 2182 3 of 23

global problems. South Florida distinguishes itself from other ecoregions in Florida by its

uniqueness in natural and human-dimensional factors.

The southern region of Florida, our study site (Figure 1), covers 55,604.4 km2 and

ranges from the upper Lake Okeechobee to the end of the Florida Peninsula along with

Florida Keys islands, consisting of 16 counties: Broward, Charlotte, Collier, Desoto, Glades,

Highlands, Hendry, Indian River, Lee, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Palm

Beach, Sarasota and St. Lucie. South Florida mainly encompasses subtropical and tropical

climate zones, with annual average precipitation of 59 inches and temperatures ranging

from 47◦

to 90◦ F [36]. The study area of our assessment involves 4 substantial National

Parks administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and 70 wildlife management areas

(WMA) preserved by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC),

respectively taking up 91.43% of National Park area and 36.3% WMA (Florida Geographic

Data Library). Many unique ecosystems and corresponding wildlife habitats are located

within these protected areas in South Florida, such as Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades

Wetland, the Big Cypress Swamp and the Florida Keys islands [37]. With such a robust

ability to support an amazingly diverse group of flora and fauna, our study area should

undeniably receive recognition as one of the most vital biodiversity hot spots statewide and

be among the highest global rankings for ecological conservation [27,38,39]. The species

richness of our study areas has not been quantified and collected by reliable literature.

However, there are more than 68 threatened animal species (USFWS 1999) merely within

the Greater Everglades ecosystem that comprehend a total of 1033 plant taxa, 59 reptile

taxa, 76 mammal taxa, 432 fish taxa, 349 bird taxa, 38 amphibian taxa and 459 bird taxa [37].

Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 25

and conservation trajectory, as well as explicating and disclosing severe human–wildlife

conflicts within Florida and even worldwide.

Figure 1. Study area.

2.2. Framework of Reassessment Procedures

With the goal of resolving conservation conflict in Florida, available data sets of the

study area and advanced quantitative planning tools were preferred as our pieces of evidence and methods underpinning advanced studies. In order to clarify and confirm the

following research procedures, we articulate a reassessment framework for our study in

Figure 2, including five successive stages: (1) collection of land cover data and Florida

2070 Project data as social science evidence; (2) acquisition of biodiversity distribution

data from listed focal species in our study site as nature-side data; (3) using a quantitative