patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
This study can contribute to conservation planning in a multitude of aspects. Firstly,
it is unusual to encourage stakeholders to rethink development planning, especially in
the Florida 2070 project, from the angle of ecological value and sustainability. Driven by
the Florida population estimation in 2070, Trend and Alternative scenarios were generated, implying two distinct land use patterns. Even though the more durable example
is recommended, we respect the invaluable environment by effective means such as increasing development densities, as well as protecting reserve areas; all corresponding map
projections and strategies were produced and elaborated from a biased perspective of
development. Human–wildlife conflicts, as one of the most important subtopics of global
biodiversity conservation [2], are widely discussed in the published literature, deeply correlating conservation interventions and conflict management [7,12,22], whereas previous
scholars and land-use planners preferably suggested ecosystem-wise spatial planning,
rarely addressing intractable ongoing conflicts between biodiversity conservation and social development [19,20]. This study brought in the planning topic of ‘Development versus
Conservation’ and could be referred to as an example of incorporating and considering
two sides of human–wildlife conflicts right from the planning stage: the demands of accelerating urban sprawl and prioritization rankings representing the need for biodiversity
conservation.
Secondly, we firmly convey ideas on environmental impact avoidance via spatial
planning processes for solving conservation conflicts harnessing methodologies of inverse
spatial conservation prioritization [35]. Aggregating and constraining human activities
to some regions of low ecological merit is the basis of impact avoidance theory; where
these impacts need to be prevented are synonymous with the party of environmentally
destructive human influences in human–wildlife conflicts [16,35]. To gain more insights
into Florida 2070 and its underlying conflicts, our close-up analysis of inverse prioritization assessment is accordingly conducted by comparing conservation ranking maps and
development plans. The business-as-usual Trend planning follows Florida’s current urban
development pattern, aggressively conquering undeveloped greenfield sites regardless
of wildlife homeland. In contrast, the Alternative scenario highlights the importance of
top-priority areas by delineating ecologically vital areas and encouraging infill and redevelopment [33,34], which reflects the idea of impact avoidance (from the conservation side)
and a compact city approach (from the development side) by preferably utilizing land of
least biodiversity value but suitable for exploitation, especially around the existing urban
fringe (Figure 8a). After all, impact avoidance is convincingly a more effective measure
than other conservation prioritization applications [13].
Attention should also be paid to several limitations of the present study. The first
issue that needs to be considered and justified is the data and related data process methods
underpinning our research. In our study, we substantially employed species data and
accordingly relied on the quantitative computational tool (Zonation) generated maps, which
should be questioned to some degree. Errors and uncertainty constantly occur throughout
different stages of software-assisted conservation planning analysis due to either the quality
of underlying data sets or mechanisms of habitat allocation models [11,49,50]. Using
static species distribution data as surrogates of existing wildlife occurrences ignores some
inherent traits of species activities, such as unpredictable population dynamics and complex
Land 2022, 11, 2182 14 of 23
species interactions [21,49,51]. Available species distribution data used here merely act
as the role of indicator or subset of the whole population occurring in South Florida [52].
In addition, generally collected via VHF or GPS collars [36,53,54], a species location data
downside of hysteresis is intractable and unsolvable, which leads to common dilemmas in
planning processes, in that regional biodiversity status or ecological planning issues have
not been analyzed and presented to governors or other stakeholders until vital planning
strategies and development decisions are grounded [55]. With the purpose of reminding
urban planners or decision-makers of Florida’s regional ecological value, the result of data
analysis, such as the conservation prioritization ranking map in our case, is not sufficiently
the best surrogate of Florida’s representation of biodiversity resources, acknowledging that
there are other alternative conservation planning methods with other concentrations which
are also worth being explored (the choice between protecting already endangered species
or potentially endangered species) [20].
Concerning human-based population data, Florida 2070 Project’s projections laid the
foundation for our further overlay analysis, which was incorporated with Zonation SouthFlorida-species-based results to undertake top-priority and lowest-priority reassessment
and inform us of the battle between wildlife conservation and human development shown
by the above maps. Even so, 2070 projections are not undoubtedly perfect and to some
extent, the predictions would never become a reality. Essentially, urban planning scholars
tested and used different assumptions for Trend 2070 and Alternative 2070 regarding
different population and development aspects [34]. However, Trend 2070 and Alternative
2070 share the same criteria and weights for examining each cell for determining its
suitability for future urban development outwards or infill, which implies the two plans’
identical one-sided intentions for human development, rather than regarding conservation
value. For sure, the compact scenario would do less harm to the environment by selectively
preserving necessary habitats, most of which are constituted by large or connected managed
areas, while preferably overlooking the irreplaceable biodiversity importance of small,
isolated habitat patches [56]. Besides, the outdated 2010 Baseline is one of the primary
data sources for 2070 projections, on which established information mainly includes 2010
gross development density, 2010 land cover pattern and 2010 population distribution.
As Figure 9 and Table 3 show, by comparing 2014–2019 land use and cover map (data
from Florida Geographic Data Library, University of Florida GeoPlan Center) with 2010
Baseline, the increase in developed area (+61.5%) is beyond astounding in less than twenty
years, much higher than the 2070 Trend has expected (+38.3%). Trend 2070 failed to
foresee the dramatic infill development that already occurred within urban regions in
recent years, which is the plausible main driver of excessive growth in developed lands.
Even though Trend 2070 has plotted the extensive conversion of unused land resources to
future developed lands, without thoughts of urban redevelopment, the sum of Trend 2070
developed lands (11,735.0 km2
) is still less than that of Current 2014–2019 (13,698.0 km2
) (in
order to present the full map of the study site, the nuances of infill developed land increase
might seem implicit in Figure 9). In addition to unplanned area increase, current land use
conditions spatially matched the ‘leap-frog’ urban sprawl pattern [57–59]: human beings
have aggressively exceeded the domain of developed lands in Baseline 2010 and even went
beyond the estimated future developed area projected in 2070 Trend projection, as well as
recklessly infecting harm on several of the most critical reserved areas in South Florida,
including the Florida Keys. Unexpected current development conditions and random
habitat loss seen below not just uncover underestimations and drawbacks of the Florida
2070 project but also disclose an accelerating pace of landscape conversion, in the sense
that actual development pattern and progress should always be deemed sophisticated,
dynamic, changeable and unpredictable to some extent. The social preferences reflected by
the Florida 2070 project are inevitably restricted by its out-of-date information sources and
slightly arbitrary propositions for different land-use patterns.
Land 2022, 11, 2182 15 of 23 Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25
Figure 9. Comparison among Florida 2010 Baseline, Florida 2070 Trend and 2014–2019 land-use
map.
Table 3. Area comparison among Florida 2010 Baseline, Florida 2070 Trend and 2014–2019 land-use
map.
Developed Area Area Proportion of Changes
Baseline 2010 8482.3 km2 Same
Current 2014–2019 13,698.0 km2 +61.5% of Baseline 2010
Trend 2070 11,735.0 km2 +38.3% of Baseline 2010

This study can contribute to conservation planning in a multitude of aspects. Firstly,

it is unusual to encourage stakeholders to rethink development planning, especially in

the Florida 2070 project, from the angle of ecological value and sustainability. Driven by

the Florida population estimation in 2070, Trend and Alternative scenarios were generated, implying two distinct land use patterns. Even though the more durable example

is recommended, we respect the invaluable environment by effective means such as increasing development densities, as well as protecting reserve areas; all corresponding map

projections and strategies were produced and elaborated from a biased perspective of

development. Human–wildlife conflicts, as one of the most important subtopics of global

biodiversity conservation [2], are widely discussed in the published literature, deeply correlating conservation interventions and conflict management [7,12,22], whereas previous

scholars and land-use planners preferably suggested ecosystem-wise spatial planning,

rarely addressing intractable ongoing conflicts between biodiversity conservation and social development [19,20]. This study brought in the planning topic of ‘Development versus

Conservation’ and could be referred to as an example of incorporating and considering

two sides of human–wildlife conflicts right from the planning stage: the demands of accelerating urban sprawl and prioritization rankings representing the need for biodiversity

conservation.

Secondly, we firmly convey ideas on environmental impact avoidance via spatial

planning processes for solving conservation conflicts harnessing methodologies of inverse

spatial conservation prioritization [35]. Aggregating and constraining human activities

to some regions of low ecological merit is the basis of impact avoidance theory; where

these impacts need to be prevented are synonymous with the party of environmentally

destructive human influences in human–wildlife conflicts [16,35]. To gain more insights

into Florida 2070 and its underlying conflicts, our close-up analysis of inverse prioritization assessment is accordingly conducted by comparing conservation ranking maps and

development plans. The business-as-usual Trend planning follows Florida’s current urban

development pattern, aggressively conquering undeveloped greenfield sites regardless

of wildlife homeland. In contrast, the Alternative scenario highlights the importance of

top-priority areas by delineating ecologically vital areas and encouraging infill and redevelopment [33,34], which reflects the idea of impact avoidance (from the conservation side)

and a compact city approach (from the development side) by preferably utilizing land of

least biodiversity value but suitable for exploitation, especially around the existing urban

fringe (Figure 8a). After all, impact avoidance is convincingly a more effective measure

than other conservation prioritization applications [13].

Attention should also be paid to several limitations of the present study. The first

issue that needs to be considered and justified is the data and related data process methods

underpinning our research. In our study, we substantially employed species data and

accordingly relied on the quantitative computational tool (Zonation) generated maps, which

should be questioned to some degree. Errors and uncertainty constantly occur throughout

different stages of software-assisted conservation planning analysis due to either the quality

of underlying data sets or mechanisms of habitat allocation models [11,49,50]. Using

static species distribution data as surrogates of existing wildlife occurrences ignores some

inherent traits of species activities, such as unpredictable population dynamics and complex

Land 2022, 11, 2182 14 of 23

species interactions [21,49,51]. Available species distribution data used here merely act

as the role of indicator or subset of the whole population occurring in South Florida [52].

In addition, generally collected via VHF or GPS collars [36,53,54], a species location data

downside of hysteresis is intractable and unsolvable, which leads to common dilemmas in

planning processes, in that regional biodiversity status or ecological planning issues have

not been analyzed and presented to governors or other stakeholders until vital planning

strategies and development decisions are grounded [55]. With the purpose of reminding

urban planners or decision-makers of Florida’s regional ecological value, the result of data

analysis, such as the conservation prioritization ranking map in our case, is not sufficiently

the best surrogate of Florida’s representation of biodiversity resources, acknowledging that

there are other alternative conservation planning methods with other concentrations which

are also worth being explored (the choice between protecting already endangered species

or potentially endangered species) [20].

Concerning human-based population data, Florida 2070 Project’s projections laid the

foundation for our further overlay analysis, which was incorporated with Zonation SouthFlorida-species-based results to undertake top-priority and lowest-priority reassessment

and inform us of the battle between wildlife conservation and human development shown

by the above maps. Even so, 2070 projections are not undoubtedly perfect and to some

extent, the predictions would never become a reality. Essentially, urban planning scholars

tested and used different assumptions for Trend 2070 and Alternative 2070 regarding

different population and development aspects [34]. However, Trend 2070 and Alternative

2070 share the same criteria and weights for examining each cell for determining its

suitability for future urban development outwards or infill, which implies the two plans’

identical one-sided intentions for human development, rather than regarding conservation

value. For sure, the compact scenario would do less harm to the environment by selectively

preserving necessary habitats, most of which are constituted by large or connected managed

areas, while preferably overlooking the irreplaceable biodiversity importance of small,

isolated habitat patches [56]. Besides, the outdated 2010 Baseline is one of the primary

data sources for 2070 projections, on which established information mainly includes 2010

gross development density, 2010 land cover pattern and 2010 population distribution.

As Figure 9 and Table 3 show, by comparing 2014–2019 land use and cover map (data

from Florida Geographic Data Library, University of Florida GeoPlan Center) with 2010

Baseline, the increase in developed area (+61.5%) is beyond astounding in less than twenty

years, much higher than the 2070 Trend has expected (+38.3%). Trend 2070 failed to

foresee the dramatic infill development that already occurred within urban regions in

recent years, which is the plausible main driver of excessive growth in developed lands.

Even though Trend 2070 has plotted the extensive conversion of unused land resources to

future developed lands, without thoughts of urban redevelopment, the sum of Trend 2070

developed lands (11,735.0 km2

) is still less than that of Current 2014–2019 (13,698.0 km2

) (in

order to present the full map of the study site, the nuances of infill developed land increase

might seem implicit in Figure 9). In addition to unplanned area increase, current land use

conditions spatially matched the ‘leap-frog’ urban sprawl pattern [57–59]: human beings

have aggressively exceeded the domain of developed lands in Baseline 2010 and even went

beyond the estimated future developed area projected in 2070 Trend projection, as well as

recklessly infecting harm on several of the most critical reserved areas in South Florida,

including the Florida Keys. Unexpected current development conditions and random

habitat loss seen below not just uncover underestimations and drawbacks of the Florida

2070 project but also disclose an accelerating pace of landscape conversion, in the sense

that actual development pattern and progress should always be deemed sophisticated,

dynamic, changeable and unpredictable to some extent. The social preferences reflected by

the Florida 2070 project are inevitably restricted by its out-of-date information sources and

slightly arbitrary propositions for different land-use patterns.

Land 2022, 11, 2182 15 of 23 Land 2022, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25

Figure 9. Comparison among Florida 2010 Baseline, Florida 2070 Trend and 2014–2019 land-use

map.

Table 3. Area comparison among Florida 2010 Baseline, Florida 2070 Trend and 2014–2019 land-use

map.

Developed Area Area Proportion of Changes

Baseline 2010 8482.3 km2 Same

Current 2014–2019 13,698.0 km2 +61.5% of Baseline 2010

Trend 2070 11,735.0 km2 +38.3% of Baseline 2010