patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
analysis and these birds’ high mobilities in nature.
The output files of a Zonation analysis include one prioritization ranking map generated by the cell removal algorithm regarding inputted features (species distribution in our
case), as well as one feature-specific representation loss curve/performance curve [43]. The
prioritization map and curve are two intuitive visual representations of local conservation
planning analysis, which also unfold quantitative relationship between viability of 59 focal
species and simulated overall landscape ecological performance.
2.4. Assessing Florida 2070 Development Scenarios
Florida 2070 is a collective project conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and 1000 Friends of
Florida. The Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) conservatively
estimates that Florida will accommodate about 15 million new residents in 50 years [42],
which becomes the engine of succeeding mappings. Apart from BEBR population projections, the actual Florida 2010 development distribution map (Baseline 2010) serves as the
foundation for upcoming development scenarios.
In order to cope with expected population growth and corresponding exploitation
of limited land resources, the project aims to present and visualize the state’s potential
development challenges with varying solutions, respectively represented by two land-use
scenarios: 2070 Trend and 2070 Alternative. The former planning follows current development strategies to accommodate new residents, which suggests an easy but inefficient
land-use model without acknowledging the significance of green space and animals dependent on it [31]. In comparison, the alternative projection stimulates a more sustainable
pathway where parts of the joining population will be allocated to existing urban areas
while ensuring wildlife’s viability and persistence through adequate protection methods
for conservation areas.
Florida Trend 2070 and Alternative 2070 are distinguished inherently by the technical
simulation assumptions below. The same suitability criteria are established and shared for
two development plans, considering factors such as ongoing regional planning programs,
availability of natural resources and conditions of or proximity to urban infrastructures.
The Trend scenario only follows the current extensive development pattern, distributing
new population outside of existing urban areas and possibly allocating new population
to current agricultural lands. Nevertheless, the Alternative scenario assumes measurable
proportions of the new population for infill development or redevelopment [34] and a
20% increase in gross development densities over the Trend scenario. Especially in the
Alternative scenario, our study areas’ mean redevelopment percentage is less than 24%
(ranging from 10% to 60%). Therefore, limited proportions of the new population can be
accommodated within South Florida, unfolding competing land-use situations in our study
site. In terms of the protected lands, no new conservation land would be protected in the
Trend projection, whereas the Alternative scenario is expected to reserve more greenfield
sites, including the 2015 Florida Forever Project Areas, 2015 Florida Managed Areas and
Florida Ecological Greenways Network Priorities 1 & 2 [31].
The Florida 2070 Project provides transparent mapping files publicly and we obtained
relevant land use datasets (2010 Baseline, 2070 Trend, 2070 Alternative) from the Florida
Geographic Data Library (FGDL). The land use map is divided into five categories: developed, agriculture, protected not agriculture, protected agriculture and others. Specifically,
the scope of developed areas includes buildings, roads, interstates and vacant platted
parcels [34].
The 2070 Trend scenario persists with a business-as-usual development pattern [3]
while the 2070 Alternative scenario designs a compact and durable urban planning solution.
Based on the above resources and the study site of South Florida, the very first step in reassessment of the 2070 project was to identify ecological core areas or high-richness habitats
(top priority sites) and greenfield sites that have the potential to be exploited at a low eco-
Land 2022, 11, 2182 7 of 23
logical cost (lowest priority areas) according to focal-species-based Zonation prioritization
results. Secondly, we focused on GIS-driven overlapping and further evaluated the future
land use scenarios with Zonation prioritization rankings directly and inversely. The Florida
2070 project was solely motivated by population growth and the need to combine with
biodiversity conservation identification outcomes for resolving human–wildlife conflicts.
Based on the focal-species-based ecological prioritization results (top 20% and lowest 40%),
relevant categories of land changes were discussed under Trend and Alternative scenarios.
Regarding the top 20% high-priority areas, comparisons of developed areas colliding with
top 20% priority and top 20% greenfield sites were conducted to address the discrepancy
between the two scenarios; whereas, from the view of impact avoidance, the two scenarios’ varying composition of related land was revealed, which includes areas improperly
developed, suitable areas for development and potential areas for future development.
Apart from statistical comparisons, we dived deep into small-scale regions and presented
close-up case studies to directly elaborate and emphasize the spatial contrast of the two
projections. Insightfully, this study particularly examined land use distribution shifts in the
past 10 years, showing a gap between 2070 scenarios and the current rapid urbanization
trend and emphasizing the necessity and urgency for balanced conversation planning.
3. Results
3.1. Landscape Prioritization with Zonation 4 Software
As Figure 3 shows, mapped at a 30 m resolution, the priority ranking map of the
study area in southern parts of Florida was generated by Zonation 4 software with a color
gradation symbology indicating the prioritized ecological value from low to high and
zero to one, with the current reserve areas overlaid and displaying as black hatching cells.
Considerations should be given to high-priority areas as well as ecologically low-richness
sites. Most high-priority areas are distributed along the southwestern coastline and the
Florida Keys islands, which contain several existing critical protected areas. In addition,
some medium to high-priority patches remain at the urban fringe of the central-north parts
of the study area and even overlap with dense metropolitan areas. Referring to hatching
cells of Florida’s current conservation areas on the map, it is evident that managed reserve
areas already covered most of the high-priority areas. On the other hand, low-biodiversityfeature lands include city impermeable surfaces and residential areas. Thus, the highly
urbanized east coast generally receives the least spatial prioritization ranking from the
Zonation analysis results.
3.2. Zonation Performance Curve Result
Regarding 59 focal species and their habitat distribution maps, the constraint performance curve (Figure 4) generated by Zonation 4 is the graphical representation of the
mathematical relationship between the fraction of landscape lost and corresponding remaining biodiversity, meanwhile describing and visualizing conservation priority ranking [47].
Starting from the original intact state of the landscape, the performance curve retains
its high-level occurrence of biodiversity features until roughly 40% of the landscape has
been lost, which can surely relate to the amount of highly developed urban areas within
South Florida. Following that, a slightly steeper shape can be seen on the curve until it
reaches approximately 40% of the ranking, depicting the fact that, with small proportions
of wildlife-distributed lands lost, almost 90% of species-based biodiversity features can
still be preserved. The next noteworthy changing point is that, even after 80% of the
landscape has been excluded, the region can keep about 60% of the biodiversity feature
compared to the original distribution. Subsequently, the vulnerable ecosystem is estimated
to experience dramatic biodiversity degradation once the priority ranking exceeds 80%.
Therefore, the top 20% high-priority area and the lowest 40% low-priority area are selected
as two thresholds for further analysis. Specifically, the top 20% threshold can be used for
conducting conventional spatial conservation prioritization to identify areas with the most
ecological significance. The threshold of the lowest 40% is vital for upwards inverse priori-
Land 2022, 11, 2182 8 of 23
tization, which would determine the least important sites in terms of biodiversity features,
which humans can utilize for future development without disturbing the vulnerable local
ecosystem in South Florida. To sum up, South Florida’s ecological features are scattered
among this region unevenly and the resulting fragmented landscape can be effectively

analysis and these birds’ high mobilities in nature.

The output files of a Zonation analysis include one prioritization ranking map generated by the cell removal algorithm regarding inputted features (species distribution in our

case), as well as one feature-specific representation loss curve/performance curve [43]. The

prioritization map and curve are two intuitive visual representations of local conservation

planning analysis, which also unfold quantitative relationship between viability of 59 focal

species and simulated overall landscape ecological performance.

2.4. Assessing Florida 2070 Development Scenarios

Florida 2070 is a collective project conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services, the University of Florida GeoPlan Center and 1000 Friends of

Florida. The Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) conservatively

estimates that Florida will accommodate about 15 million new residents in 50 years [42],

which becomes the engine of succeeding mappings. Apart from BEBR population projections, the actual Florida 2010 development distribution map (Baseline 2010) serves as the

foundation for upcoming development scenarios.

In order to cope with expected population growth and corresponding exploitation

of limited land resources, the project aims to present and visualize the state’s potential

development challenges with varying solutions, respectively represented by two land-use

scenarios: 2070 Trend and 2070 Alternative. The former planning follows current development strategies to accommodate new residents, which suggests an easy but inefficient

land-use model without acknowledging the significance of green space and animals dependent on it [31]. In comparison, the alternative projection stimulates a more sustainable

pathway where parts of the joining population will be allocated to existing urban areas

while ensuring wildlife’s viability and persistence through adequate protection methods

for conservation areas.

Florida Trend 2070 and Alternative 2070 are distinguished inherently by the technical

simulation assumptions below. The same suitability criteria are established and shared for

two development plans, considering factors such as ongoing regional planning programs,

availability of natural resources and conditions of or proximity to urban infrastructures.

The Trend scenario only follows the current extensive development pattern, distributing

new population outside of existing urban areas and possibly allocating new population

to current agricultural lands. Nevertheless, the Alternative scenario assumes measurable

proportions of the new population for infill development or redevelopment [34] and a

20% increase in gross development densities over the Trend scenario. Especially in the

Alternative scenario, our study areas’ mean redevelopment percentage is less than 24%

(ranging from 10% to 60%). Therefore, limited proportions of the new population can be

accommodated within South Florida, unfolding competing land-use situations in our study

site. In terms of the protected lands, no new conservation land would be protected in the

Trend projection, whereas the Alternative scenario is expected to reserve more greenfield

sites, including the 2015 Florida Forever Project Areas, 2015 Florida Managed Areas and

Florida Ecological Greenways Network Priorities 1 & 2 [31].

The Florida 2070 Project provides transparent mapping files publicly and we obtained

relevant land use datasets (2010 Baseline, 2070 Trend, 2070 Alternative) from the Florida

Geographic Data Library (FGDL). The land use map is divided into five categories: developed, agriculture, protected not agriculture, protected agriculture and others. Specifically,

the scope of developed areas includes buildings, roads, interstates and vacant platted

parcels [34].

The 2070 Trend scenario persists with a business-as-usual development pattern [3]

while the 2070 Alternative scenario designs a compact and durable urban planning solution.

Based on the above resources and the study site of South Florida, the very first step in reassessment of the 2070 project was to identify ecological core areas or high-richness habitats

(top priority sites) and greenfield sites that have the potential to be exploited at a low eco-

Land 2022, 11, 2182 7 of 23

logical cost (lowest priority areas) according to focal-species-based Zonation prioritization

results. Secondly, we focused on GIS-driven overlapping and further evaluated the future

land use scenarios with Zonation prioritization rankings directly and inversely. The Florida

2070 project was solely motivated by population growth and the need to combine with

biodiversity conservation identification outcomes for resolving human–wildlife conflicts.

Based on the focal-species-based ecological prioritization results (top 20% and lowest 40%),

relevant categories of land changes were discussed under Trend and Alternative scenarios.

Regarding the top 20% high-priority areas, comparisons of developed areas colliding with

top 20% priority and top 20% greenfield sites were conducted to address the discrepancy

between the two scenarios; whereas, from the view of impact avoidance, the two scenarios’ varying composition of related land was revealed, which includes areas improperly

developed, suitable areas for development and potential areas for future development.

Apart from statistical comparisons, we dived deep into small-scale regions and presented

close-up case studies to directly elaborate and emphasize the spatial contrast of the two

projections. Insightfully, this study particularly examined land use distribution shifts in the

past 10 years, showing a gap between 2070 scenarios and the current rapid urbanization

trend and emphasizing the necessity and urgency for balanced conversation planning.

3. Results

3.1. Landscape Prioritization with Zonation 4 Software

As Figure 3 shows, mapped at a 30 m resolution, the priority ranking map of the

study area in southern parts of Florida was generated by Zonation 4 software with a color

gradation symbology indicating the prioritized ecological value from low to high and

zero to one, with the current reserve areas overlaid and displaying as black hatching cells.

Considerations should be given to high-priority areas as well as ecologically low-richness

sites. Most high-priority areas are distributed along the southwestern coastline and the

Florida Keys islands, which contain several existing critical protected areas. In addition,

some medium to high-priority patches remain at the urban fringe of the central-north parts

of the study area and even overlap with dense metropolitan areas. Referring to hatching

cells of Florida’s current conservation areas on the map, it is evident that managed reserve

areas already covered most of the high-priority areas. On the other hand, low-biodiversityfeature lands include city impermeable surfaces and residential areas. Thus, the highly

urbanized east coast generally receives the least spatial prioritization ranking from the

Zonation analysis results.

3.2. Zonation Performance Curve Result

Regarding 59 focal species and their habitat distribution maps, the constraint performance curve (Figure 4) generated by Zonation 4 is the graphical representation of the

mathematical relationship between the fraction of landscape lost and corresponding remaining biodiversity, meanwhile describing and visualizing conservation priority ranking [47].

Starting from the original intact state of the landscape, the performance curve retains

its high-level occurrence of biodiversity features until roughly 40% of the landscape has

been lost, which can surely relate to the amount of highly developed urban areas within

South Florida. Following that, a slightly steeper shape can be seen on the curve until it

reaches approximately 40% of the ranking, depicting the fact that, with small proportions

of wildlife-distributed lands lost, almost 90% of species-based biodiversity features can

still be preserved. The next noteworthy changing point is that, even after 80% of the

landscape has been excluded, the region can keep about 60% of the biodiversity feature

compared to the original distribution. Subsequently, the vulnerable ecosystem is estimated

to experience dramatic biodiversity degradation once the priority ranking exceeds 80%.

Therefore, the top 20% high-priority area and the lowest 40% low-priority area are selected

as two thresholds for further analysis. Specifically, the top 20% threshold can be used for

conducting conventional spatial conservation prioritization to identify areas with the most

ecological significance. The threshold of the lowest 40% is vital for upwards inverse priori-

Land 2022, 11, 2182 8 of 23

tization, which would determine the least important sites in terms of biodiversity features,

which humans can utilize for future development without disturbing the vulnerable local

ecosystem in South Florida. To sum up, South Florida’s ecological features are scattered

among this region unevenly and the resulting fragmented landscape can be effectively