patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
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
Land 2022, 11, 2182 11 of 23
developed improperly, assumably protecting nearly 30% of cells from misemployment and
risk of degradation. Using the same compact land-use patterns, about 20% of low-richness
areas suitable for development and 14.2% of other potential greenspace are planned to be
reserved sustainably for the more distant future. To sum up, the conservation effects of the
Alternative scenarios are exceptional vis-à-vis the Trend scenario and explicitly address the
idea of impact avoidance and the compact city under the inverse assessments of SCP.
Table 2. Related area changes assessed by lowest 40% ranking.
Lowest 40% Trend Alternative Proportion of Changes
Area developed unsuitably
(above lowest 40%) 3209.1 km2 2262.9 km2 −29.5% of Trend scenario
Area developed suitably
(lowest 40%) 7279.1 km2 5772.0 km2 −20.1% of Trend scenario
Potential area (lowest 40%) 10,588.3 km2 12,095.4 km2 +14.2% of Trend scenario
3.4. Close-Up Assessment and Analysis
The density of conservation lands in the southwest corner of the Florida peninsula is
generally higher than the rest of our study site, which might overlap with highly urbanized
areas (such as Lee County mentioned in Section 2.1). Conservation conflicts between
human settlements and wildlife habitats can be exaggerated and appear more severe within
such places. As Figure 7 shows, the area between Lee County (northwest) and Collier
County (southeast) clearly uncovers the differences between two regional land use patterns
and their corresponding influences, resulting in violating the territories of top 20% priority.
As the business-as-usual development scenario shows in Figure 7b, human beings would
possibly conquer adjacent tracts of conservation lands, inevitably leading to habitat loss
of Florida panthers, American alligators and other major fauna [48]. On the contrary,
following the Alternative compact development pattern, these ecologically significant
patches are precisely identified and well reserved in an attempt to combat excessive urban
expansion (Figure 7a).
For the sake of sustainability, ecologically less crucial areas should be prioritized for
future development rather than occupying other existing greenfield sites. Without the
awareness of sustainable development, people tend to exploit land resources at the cost
of ecological values. In Figure 8, an example of areas across Desoto County (north) and
Charlotte County (south) presents a pronounced contrast between Florida 2070 projections
from the viewpoint of inverse conservation prioritization. Figure 8b can be regarded as
the ramifications in which the current development pattern might result, where Desoto
County’s vast acreage of suitable lands for new construction is neglected. However,
substantial areas with higher biodiversity value are intensively affected by anthropogenic
activities in Charlotte County. To differ from the Trend scenario, an increased proportion
of future development does occur within cells with low conservation priority under the
Alternative plan (Figure 8a). Unfortunately, some valuable greenfield sites close to the
metropolitan border may nonetheless be invaded by humans and likely transformed into
suburban and exurban residential areas.
Given the above, close-up assessment and analysis are intended to insinuate detailed
planning conflicts no matter whether in the top 20% or lowest 40% priority areas and henceforth unfold the merits and demerits of two scenarios: the ecosystem-wise effectiveness of
Alternative Florida 2070 projection could indeed be evaluated and verified by Zonation
analysis results; on the other hand, conservation threats and challenges that Trend Florida
2070 projection might bring about are equally unignorable and undeniable. Ranging from
identification of valuable lands (protected & agricultural) to excluding them in potential
development, these two projection assumptions of the Alternative process explain why the
compact development pattern can plausibly contribute more to Florida conservation efforts
and in terms of BEBR’s population projection, offering a planning-wise resolution for the
ongoing human–wildlife conundrum.
Land 2022, 11, 2182 Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 2313 of 25
Figure 7. Close-comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative.
(a) 2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority.
For the sake of sustainability, ecologically less crucial areas should be prioritized for
future development rather than occupying other existing greenfield sites. Without the
awareness of sustainable development, people tend to exploit land resources at the cost
of ecological values. In Figure 8, an example of areas across Desoto County (north) and
Charlotte County (south) presents a pronounced contrast between Florida 2070 projections from the viewpoint of inverse conservation prioritization. Figure 8b can be regarded
as the ramifications in which the current development pattern might result, where Desoto
County’s vast acreage of suitable lands for new construction is neglected. However, substantial areas with higher biodiversity value are intensively affected by anthropogenic activities in Charlotte County. To differ from the Trend scenario, an increased proportion of
future development does occur within cells with low conservation priority under the Alternative plan (Figure 8a). Unfortunately, some valuable greenfield sites close to the metropolitan border may nonetheless be invaded by humans and likely transformed into suburban and exurban residential areas.
Given the above, close-up assessment and analysis are intended to insinuate detailed
planning conflicts no matter whether in the top 20% or lowest 40% priority areas and
henceforth unfold the merits and demerits of two scenarios: the ecosystem-wise effectiveness of Alternative Florida 2070 projection could indeed be evaluated and verified by Zonation analysis results; on the other hand, conservation threats and challenges that Trend
Florida 2070 projection might bring about are equally unignorable and undeniable. Ranging from identification of valuable lands (protected & agricultural) to excluding them in
potential development, these two projection assumptions of the Alternative process explain why the compact development pattern can plausibly contribute more to Florida conservation efforts and in terms of BEBR’s population projection, offering a planning-wise
resolution for the ongoing human–wildlife conundrum.
Figure 7. Close-comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative.
(a) 2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the top 20% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario overlapped
with the top 20% priority.
Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25
Figure 8. Close-comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative. (a) 2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario
overlapped with the lowest 40% priority.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study is to compare the human-wise development projections
with ecosystem-wise conservation needs in map formats, whereas it historically displays
a timeline of Florida’s land cover and land use shifts, underscoring current ecologically
vital areas along with the highest potential and safest parcels for new constructions. Application of GIS and Zonation 4 software, integrating multi-dimensional aspects of key
variables comprehensively, can precisely reveal Florida’s struggling situation between
Figure 8. Close-comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative. (a) 2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario
overlapped with the lowest 40% priority.
Land 2022, 11, 2182 13 of 23
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study is to compare the human-wise development projections
with ecosystem-wise conservation needs in map formats, whereas it historically displays a
timeline of Florida’s land cover and land use shifts, underscoring current ecologically vital
areas along with the highest potential and safest parcels for new constructions. Application
of GIS and Zonation 4 software, integrating multi-dimensional aspects of key variables
comprehensively, can precisely reveal Florida’s struggling situation between wildlife conservation and human development. Based on this analysis, our study serves as a reminder
informing Florida conservation efforts about the crucial necessity of balancing or mitigating
the conflicts between conservation and anthropogenic activities.

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

Land 2022, 11, 2182 11 of 23

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

risk of degradation. Using the same compact land-use patterns, about 20% of low-richness

areas suitable for development and 14.2% of other potential greenspace are planned to be

reserved sustainably for the more distant future. To sum up, the conservation effects of the

Alternative scenarios are exceptional vis-à-vis the Trend scenario and explicitly address the

idea of impact avoidance and the compact city under the inverse assessments of SCP.

Table 2. Related area changes assessed by lowest 40% ranking.

Lowest 40% Trend Alternative Proportion of Changes

Area developed unsuitably

(above lowest 40%) 3209.1 km2 2262.9 km2 −29.5% of Trend scenario

Area developed suitably

(lowest 40%) 7279.1 km2 5772.0 km2 −20.1% of Trend scenario

Potential area (lowest 40%) 10,588.3 km2 12,095.4 km2 +14.2% of Trend scenario

3.4. Close-Up Assessment and Analysis

The density of conservation lands in the southwest corner of the Florida peninsula is

generally higher than the rest of our study site, which might overlap with highly urbanized

areas (such as Lee County mentioned in Section 2.1). Conservation conflicts between

human settlements and wildlife habitats can be exaggerated and appear more severe within

such places. As Figure 7 shows, the area between Lee County (northwest) and Collier

County (southeast) clearly uncovers the differences between two regional land use patterns

and their corresponding influences, resulting in violating the territories of top 20% priority.

As the business-as-usual development scenario shows in Figure 7b, human beings would

possibly conquer adjacent tracts of conservation lands, inevitably leading to habitat loss

of Florida panthers, American alligators and other major fauna [48]. On the contrary,

following the Alternative compact development pattern, these ecologically significant

patches are precisely identified and well reserved in an attempt to combat excessive urban

expansion (Figure 7a).

For the sake of sustainability, ecologically less crucial areas should be prioritized for

future development rather than occupying other existing greenfield sites. Without the

awareness of sustainable development, people tend to exploit land resources at the cost

of ecological values. In Figure 8, an example of areas across Desoto County (north) and

Charlotte County (south) presents a pronounced contrast between Florida 2070 projections

from the viewpoint of inverse conservation prioritization. Figure 8b can be regarded as

the ramifications in which the current development pattern might result, where Desoto

County’s vast acreage of suitable lands for new construction is neglected. However,

substantial areas with higher biodiversity value are intensively affected by anthropogenic

activities in Charlotte County. To differ from the Trend scenario, an increased proportion

of future development does occur within cells with low conservation priority under the

Alternative plan (Figure 8a). Unfortunately, some valuable greenfield sites close to the

metropolitan border may nonetheless be invaded by humans and likely transformed into

suburban and exurban residential areas.

Given the above, close-up assessment and analysis are intended to insinuate detailed

planning conflicts no matter whether in the top 20% or lowest 40% priority areas and henceforth unfold the merits and demerits of two scenarios: the ecosystem-wise effectiveness of

Alternative Florida 2070 projection could indeed be evaluated and verified by Zonation

analysis results; on the other hand, conservation threats and challenges that Trend Florida

2070 projection might bring about are equally unignorable and undeniable. Ranging from

identification of valuable lands (protected & agricultural) to excluding them in potential

development, these two projection assumptions of the Alternative process explain why the

compact development pattern can plausibly contribute more to Florida conservation efforts

and in terms of BEBR’s population projection, offering a planning-wise resolution for the

ongoing human–wildlife conundrum.

Land 2022, 11, 2182 Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 2313 of 25

Figure 7. Close-comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative.

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

For the sake of sustainability, ecologically less crucial areas should be prioritized for

future development rather than occupying other existing greenfield sites. Without the

awareness of sustainable development, people tend to exploit land resources at the cost

of ecological values. In Figure 8, an example of areas across Desoto County (north) and

Charlotte County (south) presents a pronounced contrast between Florida 2070 projections from the viewpoint of inverse conservation prioritization. Figure 8b can be regarded

as the ramifications in which the current development pattern might result, where Desoto

County’s vast acreage of suitable lands for new construction is neglected. However, substantial areas with higher biodiversity value are intensively affected by anthropogenic activities in Charlotte County. To differ from the Trend scenario, an increased proportion of

future development does occur within cells with low conservation priority under the Alternative plan (Figure 8a). Unfortunately, some valuable greenfield sites close to the metropolitan border may nonetheless be invaded by humans and likely transformed into suburban and exurban residential areas.

Given the above, close-up assessment and analysis are intended to insinuate detailed

planning conflicts no matter whether in the top 20% or lowest 40% priority areas and

henceforth unfold the merits and demerits of two scenarios: the ecosystem-wise effectiveness of Alternative Florida 2070 projection could indeed be evaluated and verified by Zonation analysis results; on the other hand, conservation threats and challenges that Trend

Florida 2070 projection might bring about are equally unignorable and undeniable. Ranging from identification of valuable lands (protected & agricultural) to excluding them in

potential development, these two projection assumptions of the Alternative process explain why the compact development pattern can plausibly contribute more to Florida conservation efforts and in terms of BEBR’s population projection, offering a planning-wise

resolution for the ongoing human–wildlife conundrum.

Figure 7. Close-comparison between top 20% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative.

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

with the top 20% priority.

Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 25

Figure 8. Close-comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative. (a) 2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario

overlapped with the lowest 40% priority.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study is to compare the human-wise development projections

with ecosystem-wise conservation needs in map formats, whereas it historically displays

a timeline of Florida’s land cover and land use shifts, underscoring current ecologically

vital areas along with the highest potential and safest parcels for new constructions. Application of GIS and Zonation 4 software, integrating multi-dimensional aspects of key

variables comprehensively, can precisely reveal Florida’s struggling situation between

Figure 8. Close-comparison between lowest 40% prioritization and Florida 2070 Trend and Alternative. (a) 2070 Alternative scenario overlapped with the lowest 40% priority; (b) 2070 Trend scenario

overlapped with the lowest 40% priority.

Land 2022, 11, 2182 13 of 23

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study is to compare the human-wise development projections

with ecosystem-wise conservation needs in map formats, whereas it historically displays a

timeline of Florida’s land cover and land use shifts, underscoring current ecologically vital

areas along with the highest potential and safest parcels for new constructions. Application

of GIS and Zonation 4 software, integrating multi-dimensional aspects of key variables

comprehensively, can precisely reveal Florida’s struggling situation between wildlife conservation and human development. Based on this analysis, our study serves as a reminder

informing Florida conservation efforts about the crucial necessity of balancing or mitigating

the conflicts between conservation and anthropogenic activities.