patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
computational planning approach, Zonation, to process species-based data, then conducting (inverse) spatial conservation prioritization; (4) comparison between Trend/Alternative development plan with the Top/Lowest ranking maps and close-up analysis for synFigure 1. Study area.
Even with large areas of agriculture and other types of greenfield sites, rapid urban
development and population growth in recent years have collectively put unprecedented
pressure on Florida, especially in the South region [34,36,40]. Historically, the population
of our study area has increased speedily from 6,092,509 to 8,852,679 during the period of
30 years between 1990 and 2020, with an incredible percentage increase of 45.3% [32,41].
Nearly 9 million (8,959,286) people currently live in this area of great wealth in 2021 [42]
and it is credibly predicted that over 4 million people will be added by 2070 with a growth
Land 2022, 11, 2182 4 of 23
rate of 50.12% as stated in the Population Projection of FDOT (Florida Department of
Transportation) [32]. In line with the Florida 2070 report [34], this region is expected to see
not just a population explosion but also intensive land resources exploitation that the former
relies on. Aside from this, it is noteworthy that an extremely uneven population distribution
pattern occurs in our study area, where highly urbanized areas such as Broward (2), MiamiDade (6), Lee (8) and Sarasota (9) rank among the top 10 most dense counties statewide
whereas Glades (66) and Hendry (56) are occupied mainly by reserve areas and agricultural
land reasonably supporting the least population per square mile [41].
In the Southern region, a high percentage of wildlife habitat reserves and agricultural land are deemed crucial to Florida’s ecosystem, which conflicts with the extensive
metropolitan area, high population densities and future population rise [30]. Such a tug
of war significantly influenced two projections of Florida 2070 and provoked our further conservation-wise assessment of current population-based simulations. Synthesizing
the ecological importance of natural communities and social urban development needs,
we want to focus on the dynamic relationship between conservation and development
and thus find South Florida compelling in reassessing the legitimacy of Florida’s existing
development and conservation trajectory, as well as explicating and disclosing severe
human–wildlife conflicts within Florida and even worldwide.
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 computational planning approach, Zonation, to process species-based data, then conducting
(inverse) spatial conservation prioritization; (4) comparison between Trend/Alternative development plan with the Top/Lowest ranking maps and close-up analysis for synthesizing
two-sided plannings; (5) further discussion and justification of achieved work along with a
future vision for future implementation.
2.3. Zonation 4 Analysis for the Florida 2070 Project Scenarios
In this paper, we implemented the spatial prioritization for the study area’s current
conservation status using the Zonation 4 software [11], with Florida 2070 projection maps
and focal species habitat map as input files. The features and strength of Zonation software
are that it can generate complementarity-driven conservation ranking of the landscape by
literately removing grid cells in various rules of conservation value aggregation and tries to
maintain a balanced coverage of all input biodiversity components throughout the ranking
to ensure the complementary balance between different species.
Technically, Zonation 4 software provides four options for aggregating conservation
value that determines the removal order of cells and how the balance between features is
implemented, while conducting priority ranking: (1) core-area Zonation (CAZ), (2) additive
benefit function (ABF), (3) target-based benefit function, and (4) the generalized benefit
function. In our case, we employed the additive benefit function method of ranking because
the ABF rule tends to produce a more balanced feature distribution map without bias for
the highly-weighted features, compared to core-area Zonation [43]. The ABF cell removal
method is appropriate for our study area of South Florida, which needs to be equally
evaluated as a whole, as it takes into account all biodiversity feature proportions in a given
cell rather than focusing on a single feature that has the highest, as core-area Zonation rule
does [43].
Land Land 2022 2022,, 1111, x FOR PEER REVIEW , 2182 5 of 25 5 of 23
Figure 2. Reassessment Procedure.
2.3. Zonation 4 Analysis for the Florida 2070 Project Scenarios
In this paper, we implemented the spatial prioritization for the study area’s current
conservation status using the Zonation 4 software [11], with Florida 2070 projection maps
and focal species habitat map as input files. The features and strength of Zonation software are that it can generate complementarity-driven conservation ranking of the landscape by literately removing grid cells in various rules of conservation value aggregation
and tries to maintain a balanced coverage of all input biodiversity components throughout the ranking to ensure the complementary balance between different species.
Technically, Zonation 4 software provides four options for aggregating conservation
value that determines the removal order of cells and how the balance between features is
implemented, while conducting priority ranking: (1) core-area Zonation (CAZ), (2) additive benefit function (ABF), (3) target-based benefit function, and (4) the generalized benefit function. In our case, we employed the additive benefit function method of ranking
because the ABF rule tends to produce a more balanced feature distribution map without
bias for the highly-weighted features, compared to core-area Zonation [43]. The ABF cell
removal method is appropriate for our study area of South Florida, which needs to be
equally evaluated as a whole, as it takes into account all biodiversity feature proportions
in a given cell rather than focusing on a single feature that has the highest, as core-area
Zonation rule does [43].
To conduct a Zonation analysis, there are some compulsory input files needed for
further software processing, including (a) a biodiversity feature distribution map (59 species’ distribution map in South Florida for this study) as a GIS raster file; (b) a run settings
file that contains all basic Zonation settings; (c) a biodiversity feature list file that contains
a list of selected species together with their parameters, including species weightings and
Figure 2. Reassessment Procedure.
To conduct a Zonation analysis, there are some compulsory input files needed for
further software processing, including (a) a biodiversity feature distribution map (59 species’
distribution map in South Florida for this study) as a GIS raster file; (b) a run settings file
that contains all basic Zonation settings; (c) a biodiversity feature list file that contains a
list of selected species together with their parameters, including species weightings and
α value of the biodiversity feature-specific scale of landscape use (dispersal capability
or the home range sizes of species for this study). Precisely for this study, we acquire
reliable species distribution maps from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as
the biodiversity feature map. Endangered species is one of the most influential factors
considered in conservation planning analysis [44]. Therefore, this study’s 59 focal species of
the South Florida region were selected based on (1) expert opinions from Southwest Florida
Conservation Design [41], (2) FFWCC Technical Report (2009) [45] and (3) FFWCC Florida
Endangered and Threatened Species List (2022) [46]. The chosen 59 endangered species
are composed of 34 birds, 13 reptiles, 11 mammals and 1 amphibian. Distribution maps of
these 59 species from USGS were included in the biodiversity feature list file and different
weightings for involved species were referred to their global and state conservation status
on NatureServe Explorer, as well as the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (see
Table A1). The α value, which indicates dispersal capability, separation distance, or home
range sizes of species, should always be specified. In our case, the α values were calculated
based on each of the 59 species’ average dispersal capability, sourcing from convincing
expert knowledge from NatureServe Explorer and FFWCC (see Table A2). There is a need
to justify that separation distances are estimated by wildlife occurrences, while occurrences
are of practical size for conservation purposes and do not necessarily represent discrete
populations or metapopulations. The α value of certain species should be deemed as a
Land 2022, 11, 2182 6 of 23
reasonably compromised parameter between the structural requirement for conservation

computational planning approach, Zonation, to process species-based data, then conducting (inverse) spatial conservation prioritization; (4) comparison between Trend/Alternative development plan with the Top/Lowest ranking maps and close-up analysis for synFigure 1. Study area.

Even with large areas of agriculture and other types of greenfield sites, rapid urban

development and population growth in recent years have collectively put unprecedented

pressure on Florida, especially in the South region [34,36,40]. Historically, the population

of our study area has increased speedily from 6,092,509 to 8,852,679 during the period of

30 years between 1990 and 2020, with an incredible percentage increase of 45.3% [32,41].

Nearly 9 million (8,959,286) people currently live in this area of great wealth in 2021 [42]

and it is credibly predicted that over 4 million people will be added by 2070 with a growth

Land 2022, 11, 2182 4 of 23

rate of 50.12% as stated in the Population Projection of FDOT (Florida Department of

Transportation) [32]. In line with the Florida 2070 report [34], this region is expected to see

not just a population explosion but also intensive land resources exploitation that the former

relies on. Aside from this, it is noteworthy that an extremely uneven population distribution

pattern occurs in our study area, where highly urbanized areas such as Broward (2), MiamiDade (6), Lee (8) and Sarasota (9) rank among the top 10 most dense counties statewide

whereas Glades (66) and Hendry (56) are occupied mainly by reserve areas and agricultural

land reasonably supporting the least population per square mile [41].

In the Southern region, a high percentage of wildlife habitat reserves and agricultural land are deemed crucial to Florida’s ecosystem, which conflicts with the extensive

metropolitan area, high population densities and future population rise [30]. Such a tug

of war significantly influenced two projections of Florida 2070 and provoked our further conservation-wise assessment of current population-based simulations. Synthesizing

the ecological importance of natural communities and social urban development needs,

we want to focus on the dynamic relationship between conservation and development

and thus find South Florida compelling in reassessing the legitimacy of Florida’s existing

development and conservation trajectory, as well as explicating and disclosing severe

human–wildlife conflicts within Florida and even worldwide.

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 computational planning approach, Zonation, to process species-based data, then conducting

(inverse) spatial conservation prioritization; (4) comparison between Trend/Alternative development plan with the Top/Lowest ranking maps and close-up analysis for synthesizing

two-sided plannings; (5) further discussion and justification of achieved work along with a

future vision for future implementation.

2.3. Zonation 4 Analysis for the Florida 2070 Project Scenarios

In this paper, we implemented the spatial prioritization for the study area’s current

conservation status using the Zonation 4 software [11], with Florida 2070 projection maps

and focal species habitat map as input files. The features and strength of Zonation software

are that it can generate complementarity-driven conservation ranking of the landscape by

literately removing grid cells in various rules of conservation value aggregation and tries to

maintain a balanced coverage of all input biodiversity components throughout the ranking

to ensure the complementary balance between different species.

Technically, Zonation 4 software provides four options for aggregating conservation

value that determines the removal order of cells and how the balance between features is

implemented, while conducting priority ranking: (1) core-area Zonation (CAZ), (2) additive

benefit function (ABF), (3) target-based benefit function, and (4) the generalized benefit

function. In our case, we employed the additive benefit function method of ranking because

the ABF rule tends to produce a more balanced feature distribution map without bias for

the highly-weighted features, compared to core-area Zonation [43]. The ABF cell removal

method is appropriate for our study area of South Florida, which needs to be equally

evaluated as a whole, as it takes into account all biodiversity feature proportions in a given

cell rather than focusing on a single feature that has the highest, as core-area Zonation rule

does [43].

Land Land 2022 2022,, 1111, x FOR PEER REVIEW , 2182 5 of 25 5 of 23

Figure 2. Reassessment Procedure.

2.3. Zonation 4 Analysis for the Florida 2070 Project Scenarios

In this paper, we implemented the spatial prioritization for the study area’s current

conservation status using the Zonation 4 software [11], with Florida 2070 projection maps

and focal species habitat map as input files. The features and strength of Zonation software are that it can generate complementarity-driven conservation ranking of the landscape by literately removing grid cells in various rules of conservation value aggregation

and tries to maintain a balanced coverage of all input biodiversity components throughout the ranking to ensure the complementary balance between different species.

Technically, Zonation 4 software provides four options for aggregating conservation

value that determines the removal order of cells and how the balance between features is

implemented, while conducting priority ranking: (1) core-area Zonation (CAZ), (2) additive benefit function (ABF), (3) target-based benefit function, and (4) the generalized benefit function. In our case, we employed the additive benefit function method of ranking

because the ABF rule tends to produce a more balanced feature distribution map without

bias for the highly-weighted features, compared to core-area Zonation [43]. The ABF cell

removal method is appropriate for our study area of South Florida, which needs to be

equally evaluated as a whole, as it takes into account all biodiversity feature proportions

in a given cell rather than focusing on a single feature that has the highest, as core-area

Zonation rule does [43].

To conduct a Zonation analysis, there are some compulsory input files needed for

further software processing, including (a) a biodiversity feature distribution map (59 species’ distribution map in South Florida for this study) as a GIS raster file; (b) a run settings

file that contains all basic Zonation settings; (c) a biodiversity feature list file that contains

a list of selected species together with their parameters, including species weightings and

Figure 2. Reassessment Procedure.

To conduct a Zonation analysis, there are some compulsory input files needed for

further software processing, including (a) a biodiversity feature distribution map (59 species’

distribution map in South Florida for this study) as a GIS raster file; (b) a run settings file

that contains all basic Zonation settings; (c) a biodiversity feature list file that contains a

list of selected species together with their parameters, including species weightings and

α value of the biodiversity feature-specific scale of landscape use (dispersal capability

or the home range sizes of species for this study). Precisely for this study, we acquire

reliable species distribution maps from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as

the biodiversity feature map. Endangered species is one of the most influential factors

considered in conservation planning analysis [44]. Therefore, this study’s 59 focal species of

the South Florida region were selected based on (1) expert opinions from Southwest Florida

Conservation Design [41], (2) FFWCC Technical Report (2009) [45] and (3) FFWCC Florida

Endangered and Threatened Species List (2022) [46]. The chosen 59 endangered species

are composed of 34 birds, 13 reptiles, 11 mammals and 1 amphibian. Distribution maps of

these 59 species from USGS were included in the biodiversity feature list file and different

weightings for involved species were referred to their global and state conservation status

on NatureServe Explorer, as well as the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (see

Table A1). The α value, which indicates dispersal capability, separation distance, or home

range sizes of species, should always be specified. In our case, the α values were calculated

based on each of the 59 species’ average dispersal capability, sourcing from convincing

expert knowledge from NatureServe Explorer and FFWCC (see Table A2). There is a need

to justify that separation distances are estimated by wildlife occurrences, while occurrences

are of practical size for conservation purposes and do not necessarily represent discrete

populations or metapopulations. The α value of certain species should be deemed as a

Land 2022, 11, 2182 6 of 23

reasonably compromised parameter between the structural requirement for conservation