patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
protected by reserving substantial biodiversity-wise sites.
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25
Thus, the highly urbanized east coast generally receives the least spatial prioritization
ranking from the Zonation analysis results.
Figure 3. Zonation 4 prioritization result of study area.
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
Figure 3. Zonation 4 prioritization result of study area.
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25
with the most ecological significance. The threshold of the lowest 40% is vital for upwards
inverse prioritization, 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 protected by reserving substantial biodiversity-wise sites.
Figure 4. Zonation 4 performance curve.
3.3. Assessing Florida 2070 Projections
By combining the above Zonation results with Trend and Alternative land-use scenarios from the Florida 2070 project in the ArcGIS platform, we saw two marked turning
pointsontheperformancecurveasappropriatethresholds,thendeterminedproportionsFigure 4. Zonation 4 performance curve.
Land 2022, 11, 2182 9 of 23
3.3. Assessing Florida 2070 Projections
By combining the above Zonation results with Trend and Alternative land-use scenarios from the Florida 2070 project in the ArcGIS platform, we saw two marked turning points
on the performance curve as appropriate thresholds, then determined proportions of landscape with the given priority and modeled two sets of assessment maps (Figures 5 and 6)
normally and inversely, comparing different conflicting areas of expected future development and ecosystem-wise top 20% priority landscapes, as well as the lowest 40%, which
are highlighted in red.
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 25
Figure 5. Comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a) 2070
Alternative scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with
the top 20% priority.
As shown in Figure 5a,b and Table 1, the top 20% priority areas (in green) highly
coincided with ecological-substantial areas and are mainly located west of the study area.
In the Trend scenario, the developed areas collided with the top 20% priority account for
1169.916 km2, whereas that of the Alternative scenario merely takes up 891.113 km2, which
means the alternative plan could prevent 23.8% of ecologically valuable land from being
threatened. Spatially, aggressive urban sprawl is expected to consume space around Lake
Okeechobee as well as the vast middle-west of the study area, where considerable
amounts of spare greenfield sites would be lost. Even though the Alternative can spare
22.3% of greenspace for future exploitation, it is upsetting to apprehend that those conflicting parcels (in red) with high ecological values in the Alternative scenario, which are
scattered among south-eastern Florida’s highly-urbanized coastal areas, might be inevitable and constant. Acknowledging that reserving the top 20% of the priority area can retain
approximately 60% of biodiversity features, the Alternative could consist of only a few
more ecologically significant wildlife habitats (+3.6%).
Table 1. Related area changes assessed by the top 20% of the ranking.
Top20%TrendAlternativeProportion of
Figure 5. Comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a) 2070
Alternative scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with
the top 20% priority.
As shown in Figure 5a,b and Table 1, the top 20% priority areas (in green) highly
coincided with ecological-substantial areas and are mainly located west of the study area.
In the Trend scenario, the developed areas collided with the top 20% priority account for
1169.916 km2
, whereas that of the Alternative scenario merely takes up 891.113 km2
, which
means the alternative plan could prevent 23.8% of ecologically valuable land from being
threatened. Spatially, aggressive urban sprawl is expected to consume space around Lake
Okeechobee as well as the vast middle-west of the study area, where considerable amounts
of spare greenfield sites would be lost. Even though the Alternative can spare 22.3% of
greenspace for future exploitation, it is upsetting to apprehend that those conflicting parcels
(in red) with high ecological values in the Alternative scenario, which are scattered among
south-eastern Florida’s highly-urbanized coastal areas, might be inevitable and constant.
Acknowledging that reserving the top 20% of the priority area can retain approximately
Land 2022, 11, 2182 10 of 23
60% of biodiversity features, the Alternative could consist of only a few more ecologically
significant wildlife habitats (+3.6%).
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 25
Collided developed
area (top 20%) 1169.9 km2 891.1 km2 −23.8% of Trend scenario
High Priority Area
(top 20%) 7763.8 km2 8042.6 km2 +3.6% of Trend scenario
Figure 6. Comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a)
2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority.
From another perspective of upcoming regional development, the assessment of
land-use planning in South Florida should also look into potential areas of new construction by evaluating the relationship between biodiversity features and landscape inversely
[35]. Based on the Zonation performance curve, the lowest 40% priority cells are of only
9% of the overall ecological value, which are the safest and most suitable places to fulfill
upcoming development needs [14]. A significant part of the low-biodiversity lands is naturally distributed within or around metropolitan areas due to anthropogenic influences.
Besides, agricultural land is another primary land use type of low-biodiversity landscape
[30]. Conflicting areas of inverse assessment maps (Figure 6a,b) imply fields with relatively high value, but which can nevertheless be occupied, and are distributed in a pattern
similar to that of overlapped areas in the top 20% assessment (Figure 5a,b). As shown in
Table 2, under the Trend scenario, 3209.1 km2 of unsuitable area (in red) are estimated to
be taken and developed, while in the Alternative scenario, only 2262.9 km2 of lands would
be developed improperly, assumably protecting nearly 30% of cells from misemployment
and risk of degradation. Using the same compact land-use patterns, about 20% of lowrichness areas suitable for development and 14.2% of other potential greenspace are
Figure 6. Comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a) 2070
Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped
with the lowest 40% priority.
Table 1. Related area changes assessed by the top 20% of the ranking.
Top 20% Trend Alternative Proportion of Changes
Developed area (below top 20%) 9318.3 km2 7143.8 km2 −22.3% of Trend scenario
Collided developed area (top 20%) 1169.9 km2 891.1 km2 −23.8% of Trend scenario
High Priority Area (top 20%) 7763.8 km2 8042.6 km2 +3.6% of Trend scenario
From another perspective of upcoming regional development, the assessment of landuse planning in South Florida should also look into potential areas of new construction
by evaluating the relationship between biodiversity features and landscape inversely [35].
Based on the Zonation performance curve, the lowest 40% priority cells are of only 9% of the
overall ecological value, which are the safest and most suitable places to fulfill upcoming
development needs [14]. A significant part of the low-biodiversity lands is naturally

protected by reserving substantial biodiversity-wise sites.

Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25

Thus, the highly urbanized east coast generally receives the least spatial prioritization

ranking from the Zonation analysis results.

Figure 3. Zonation 4 prioritization result of study area.

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

Figure 3. Zonation 4 prioritization result of study area.

Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 25

with the most ecological significance. The threshold of the lowest 40% is vital for upwards

inverse prioritization, 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 protected by reserving substantial biodiversity-wise sites.

Figure 4. Zonation 4 performance curve.

3.3. Assessing Florida 2070 Projections

By combining the above Zonation results with Trend and Alternative land-use scenarios from the Florida 2070 project in the ArcGIS platform, we saw two marked turning

pointsontheperformancecurveasappropriatethresholds,thendeterminedproportionsFigure 4. Zonation 4 performance curve.

Land 2022, 11, 2182 9 of 23

3.3. Assessing Florida 2070 Projections

By combining the above Zonation results with Trend and Alternative land-use scenarios from the Florida 2070 project in the ArcGIS platform, we saw two marked turning points

on the performance curve as appropriate thresholds, then determined proportions of landscape with the given priority and modeled two sets of assessment maps (Figures 5 and 6)

normally and inversely, comparing different conflicting areas of expected future development and ecosystem-wise top 20% priority landscapes, as well as the lowest 40%, which

are highlighted in red.

Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 25

Figure 5. Comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a) 2070

Alternative scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with

the top 20% priority.

As shown in Figure 5a,b and Table 1, the top 20% priority areas (in green) highly

coincided with ecological-substantial areas and are mainly located west of the study area.

In the Trend scenario, the developed areas collided with the top 20% priority account for

1169.916 km2, whereas that of the Alternative scenario merely takes up 891.113 km2, which

means the alternative plan could prevent 23.8% of ecologically valuable land from being

threatened. Spatially, aggressive urban sprawl is expected to consume space around Lake

Okeechobee as well as the vast middle-west of the study area, where considerable

amounts of spare greenfield sites would be lost. Even though the Alternative can spare

22.3% of greenspace for future exploitation, it is upsetting to apprehend that those conflicting parcels (in red) with high ecological values in the Alternative scenario, which are

scattered among south-eastern Florida’s highly-urbanized coastal areas, might be inevitable and constant. Acknowledging that reserving the top 20% of the priority area can retain

approximately 60% of biodiversity features, the Alternative could consist of only a few

more ecologically significant wildlife habitats (+3.6%).

Table 1. Related area changes assessed by the top 20% of the ranking.

Top20%TrendAlternativeProportion of

Figure 5. Comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a) 2070

Alternative scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with

the top 20% priority.

As shown in Figure 5a,b and Table 1, the top 20% priority areas (in green) highly

coincided with ecological-substantial areas and are mainly located west of the study area.

In the Trend scenario, the developed areas collided with the top 20% priority account for

1169.916 km2

, whereas that of the Alternative scenario merely takes up 891.113 km2

, which

means the alternative plan could prevent 23.8% of ecologically valuable land from being

threatened. Spatially, aggressive urban sprawl is expected to consume space around Lake

Okeechobee as well as the vast middle-west of the study area, where considerable amounts

of spare greenfield sites would be lost. Even though the Alternative can spare 22.3% of

greenspace for future exploitation, it is upsetting to apprehend that those conflicting parcels

(in red) with high ecological values in the Alternative scenario, which are scattered among

south-eastern Florida’s highly-urbanized coastal areas, might be inevitable and constant.

Acknowledging that reserving the top 20% of the priority area can retain approximately

Land 2022, 11, 2182 10 of 23

60% of biodiversity features, the Alternative could consist of only a few more ecologically

significant wildlife habitats (+3.6%).

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

Collided developed

area (top 20%) 1169.9 km2 891.1 km2 −23.8% of Trend scenario

High Priority Area

(top 20%) 7763.8 km2 8042.6 km2 +3.6% of Trend scenario

Figure 6. Comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a)

2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority.

From another perspective of upcoming regional development, the assessment of

land-use planning in South Florida should also look into potential areas of new construction by evaluating the relationship between biodiversity features and landscape inversely

[35]. Based on the Zonation performance curve, the lowest 40% priority cells are of only

9% of the overall ecological value, which are the safest and most suitable places to fulfill

upcoming development needs [14]. A significant part of the low-biodiversity lands is naturally distributed within or around metropolitan areas due to anthropogenic influences.

Besides, agricultural land is another primary land use type of low-biodiversity landscape

[30]. Conflicting areas of inverse assessment maps (Figure 6a,b) imply fields with relatively high value, but which can nevertheless be occupied, and are distributed in a pattern

similar to that of overlapped areas in the top 20% assessment (Figure 5a,b). As shown in

Table 2, under the Trend scenario, 3209.1 km2 of unsuitable area (in red) are estimated to

be taken and developed, while in the Alternative scenario, only 2262.9 km2 of lands would

be developed improperly, assumably protecting nearly 30% of cells from misemployment

and risk of degradation. Using the same compact land-use patterns, about 20% of lowrichness areas suitable for development and 14.2% of other potential greenspace are

Figure 6. Comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Alternative/Trend. (a) 2070

Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped

with the lowest 40% priority.

Table 1. Related area changes assessed by the top 20% of the ranking.

Top 20% Trend Alternative Proportion of Changes

Developed area (below top 20%) 9318.3 km2 7143.8 km2 −22.3% of Trend scenario

Collided developed area (top 20%) 1169.9 km2 891.1 km2 −23.8% of Trend scenario

High Priority Area (top 20%) 7763.8 km2 8042.6 km2 +3.6% of Trend scenario

From another perspective of upcoming regional development, the assessment of landuse planning in South Florida should also look into potential areas of new construction

by evaluating the relationship between biodiversity features and landscape inversely [35].

Based on the Zonation performance curve, the lowest 40% priority cells are of only 9% of the

overall ecological value, which are the safest and most suitable places to fulfill upcoming

development needs [14]. A significant part of the low-biodiversity lands is naturally