patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
Taking Florida as an entire social-ecological system, none of the two dimensions, nature and human, ought to be disregarded since they intricately interact and intertwine,
shaping the state’s future collectively. Aimed at resolving or mitigating ongoing conservation conflicts involving both human beings and other beings, previous literature suggests that it is imperative for conservation scholars to link natural and social science to
create holistic and solid underpinnings for comprehending human–wildlife relationships
and impacts [7]. Hence, taking advantage of and integrating data from these two sides
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
Taking Florida as an entire social-ecological system, none of the two dimensions,
nature and human, ought to be disregarded since they intricately interact and intertwine,
shaping the state’s future collectively. Aimed at resolving or mitigating ongoing conservation conflicts involving both human beings and other beings, previous literature
suggests that it is imperative for conservation scholars to link natural and social science
to create holistic and solid underpinnings for comprehending human–wildlife relationships and impacts [7]. Hence, taking advantage of and integrating data from these two
sides would certainly ameliorate our landscape planning strategies, and thus ultimately
remediate the disharmony between humans and wildlife [2,7,14]. This paper uniquely
links natural values with development preferences [16,25] by analyzing and evaluating the
Land 2022, 11, 2182 16 of 23
population-data-based Florida 2070 future scenarios under the matrix by which we assess
species-oriented ecological values and prioritize conservation areas spatially. To research
the social-ecological “ecology of city” paradigm [23] or study further fundamental elements
of human-animal conflict [24] might necessitate more knowledge of the socioeconomic
dimension, other than population data, possibly coming from public preferences [60], social
expert professional opinions [14], recreational values of sensory perception [61] and particularly vital economic concerns [62]. Over the past decades, a variety of spatial social values
analysis methods have been developed and matured [63], including small spatial scale
experience mapping [10], sociotope mapping [64] and experience classes (REC-mapping)
with different spatial contexts spanning from urban park level identification, or city district
level to large-scale regional social feature evaluation [60]. Previously validated processes
of gaining information from relevant stakeholders and other social data sources can ensure the availability and credibility of needed human information through approaches
like questionnaire surveys, investigation, personal interviews and expert evaluation [60].
Especially, social-economic data may also be involved in the use of spatial conservation
prioritization tools, GIS and Marxan, where human-dimensional data can be added as a
weighted feature, cost, penalty, or condition layer to see how potential human factors would
affect the assessment results [43,65–67]. Initially designed for processing spatial biological
data, current SCP tools are not compatible with processing dual dimensions data [25] and
may result in emphasizing conservation efforts in lands with high recreational values but
low biodiversity richness [8]. Another critical limitation of including more aspects is the
arbitrary differentiation and determination of corresponding weightings for data from various categories, which should be tailored and assigned accordingly in relation to deliberate
multicriteria approaches involving expert elicitation [8]. Based on the above issues, this
study integrated two dimensions by explicitly overlapping and comparing, boldly mapping trade-offs between different land-use needs for city planners. Above all, the relevant
reverse design will become much more sophisticated if a later work could be capable of
accounting ecological and social criteria discretionarily in a more appropriate manner.
5. Conclusions
Not limited to Florida’s landscape planning, globally intractable conflicts of conservation versus development ought to be recognized and evaluated in the planning phase of
landscape conflict reconciliation [10,68], as we have done here. This study aims to lay a
concrete foundation of ecological and social evidence [7,22] to comprehensively reassess
plausible development scenarios and inform decision-makers about the significance of
restricting human influences when intending to tackle conservation conflicts. By applying the same conflict reassessment and reconciliation framework here, which combines
human and natural factors into spatial analysis and accordingly gives out land use suggestions, future relevant scholars and planning activity practitioners can configure and weigh
trade-offs within more compendious social-ecological contexts. Nevertheless, like much
available literature, our landscape planning analysis project does not include the further
succeeding implementations and eventual enhancements of [69], inevitably leaving cognitive inconsistencies between methodological studies and practical effectiveness in such
conservation activities. Acknowledging procedural shortcomings in our present studies,
we sincerely recommend including sufficient evidence of outcomes in future conservation
planning work.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.L. and M.Z.; methodology, F.L., M.Z. and F.C.; software,
F.L. and F.C.; validation, F.L.; formal analysis, F.L.; investigation, F.L. and F.C.; resources, M.Z.; data
curation, F.L. and F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, F.L.; writing—review and editing, M.Z.
and F.L.; visualization, F.L.; supervision, M.Z.; project administration, M.Z. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was founded by Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (2020A1515011072).
The APC was funded by Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (2020A1515011072).
Land 2022, 11, 2182 17 of 23
Data Availability Statement: [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2010 BASE SCENARIO DEVELOPED
LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2010 BASE SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2010
BASE SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA
2070 PROJECT: 2010 BASE SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library.
[FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS] University of Florida
GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS;
Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO PROTECTED
LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017.
FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO PROTECTED
LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [Land Use and Cover (FLUCCS
Level 3) by Water Management District in Florida 2014–2019] University of Florida GeoPlan Center.
2017. Land Use and Cover (FLUCCS Level 3) by Water Management District in Florida 2014–2019;
Florida Geographic Data Library. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018,
U.S. Geological Survey—Gap Analysis Project Species Habitat Maps CONUS_2001: U.S. Geological
Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7V122T2 (accessed on 2 November 2022). NatureServe.
2021. NatureServe Network Biodiversity Location Data accessed through NatureServe Explorer [web
application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/ (accessed
on 10 November 2021).
Acknowledgments: We thank Design School, South China University of Technology for technical
computational supports and thank Graduate Writing Center, UC Berkeley for writing suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1. South Florida focal species list.
Common Name Scientific Name Type Global Rank * State Rank **
American
Alligator
Alligator
mississippiensis Amphibian and reptile G5 S4
American
crocodile Crocodylus acutus Amphibian and reptile G2 S2
American
oystercatcher Haematopus palliates Bird G5 S2
Atlantic salt marsh
snake

Taking Florida as an entire social-ecological system, none of the two dimensions, nature and human, ought to be disregarded since they intricately interact and intertwine,

shaping the state’s future collectively. Aimed at resolving or mitigating ongoing conservation conflicts involving both human beings and other beings, previous literature suggests that it is imperative for conservation scholars to link natural and social science to

create holistic and solid underpinnings for comprehending human–wildlife relationships

and impacts [7]. Hence, taking advantage of and integrating data from these two sides

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

Taking Florida as an entire social-ecological system, none of the two dimensions,

nature and human, ought to be disregarded since they intricately interact and intertwine,

shaping the state’s future collectively. Aimed at resolving or mitigating ongoing conservation conflicts involving both human beings and other beings, previous literature

suggests that it is imperative for conservation scholars to link natural and social science

to create holistic and solid underpinnings for comprehending human–wildlife relationships and impacts [7]. Hence, taking advantage of and integrating data from these two

sides would certainly ameliorate our landscape planning strategies, and thus ultimately

remediate the disharmony between humans and wildlife [2,7,14]. This paper uniquely

links natural values with development preferences [16,25] by analyzing and evaluating the

Land 2022, 11, 2182 16 of 23

population-data-based Florida 2070 future scenarios under the matrix by which we assess

species-oriented ecological values and prioritize conservation areas spatially. To research

the social-ecological “ecology of city” paradigm [23] or study further fundamental elements

of human-animal conflict [24] might necessitate more knowledge of the socioeconomic

dimension, other than population data, possibly coming from public preferences [60], social

expert professional opinions [14], recreational values of sensory perception [61] and particularly vital economic concerns [62]. Over the past decades, a variety of spatial social values

analysis methods have been developed and matured [63], including small spatial scale

experience mapping [10], sociotope mapping [64] and experience classes (REC-mapping)

with different spatial contexts spanning from urban park level identification, or city district

level to large-scale regional social feature evaluation [60]. Previously validated processes

of gaining information from relevant stakeholders and other social data sources can ensure the availability and credibility of needed human information through approaches

like questionnaire surveys, investigation, personal interviews and expert evaluation [60].

Especially, social-economic data may also be involved in the use of spatial conservation

prioritization tools, GIS and Marxan, where human-dimensional data can be added as a

weighted feature, cost, penalty, or condition layer to see how potential human factors would

affect the assessment results [43,65–67]. Initially designed for processing spatial biological

data, current SCP tools are not compatible with processing dual dimensions data [25] and

may result in emphasizing conservation efforts in lands with high recreational values but

low biodiversity richness [8]. Another critical limitation of including more aspects is the

arbitrary differentiation and determination of corresponding weightings for data from various categories, which should be tailored and assigned accordingly in relation to deliberate

multicriteria approaches involving expert elicitation [8]. Based on the above issues, this

study integrated two dimensions by explicitly overlapping and comparing, boldly mapping trade-offs between different land-use needs for city planners. Above all, the relevant

reverse design will become much more sophisticated if a later work could be capable of

accounting ecological and social criteria discretionarily in a more appropriate manner.

5. Conclusions

Not limited to Florida’s landscape planning, globally intractable conflicts of conservation versus development ought to be recognized and evaluated in the planning phase of

landscape conflict reconciliation [10,68], as we have done here. This study aims to lay a

concrete foundation of ecological and social evidence [7,22] to comprehensively reassess

plausible development scenarios and inform decision-makers about the significance of

restricting human influences when intending to tackle conservation conflicts. By applying the same conflict reassessment and reconciliation framework here, which combines

human and natural factors into spatial analysis and accordingly gives out land use suggestions, future relevant scholars and planning activity practitioners can configure and weigh

trade-offs within more compendious social-ecological contexts. Nevertheless, like much

available literature, our landscape planning analysis project does not include the further

succeeding implementations and eventual enhancements of [69], inevitably leaving cognitive inconsistencies between methodological studies and practical effectiveness in such

conservation activities. Acknowledging procedural shortcomings in our present studies,

we sincerely recommend including sufficient evidence of outcomes in future conservation

planning work.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.L. and M.Z.; methodology, F.L., M.Z. and F.C.; software,

F.L. and F.C.; validation, F.L.; formal analysis, F.L.; investigation, F.L. and F.C.; resources, M.Z.; data

curation, F.L. and F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, F.L.; writing—review and editing, M.Z.

and F.L.; visualization, F.L.; supervision, M.Z.; project administration, M.Z. All authors have read

and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research was founded by Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (2020A1515011072).

The APC was funded by Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (2020A1515011072).

Land 2022, 11, 2182 17 of 23

Data Availability Statement: [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2010 BASE SCENARIO DEVELOPED

LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2010 BASE SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2010

BASE SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA

2070 PROJECT: 2010 BASE SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library.

[FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS] University of Florida

GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS;

Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO PROTECTED

LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 TREND SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017.

FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO DEVELOPED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO PROTECTED

LANDS] University of Florida GeoPlan Center. 2017. FLORIDA 2070 PROJECT: 2070 ALTERNATIVE

SCENARIO PROTECTED LANDS; Florida Geographic Data Library. [Land Use and Cover (FLUCCS

Level 3) by Water Management District in Florida 2014–2019] University of Florida GeoPlan Center.

2017. Land Use and Cover (FLUCCS Level 3) by Water Management District in Florida 2014–2019;

Florida Geographic Data Library. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018,

U.S. Geological Survey—Gap Analysis Project Species Habitat Maps CONUS_2001: U.S. Geological

Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7V122T2 (accessed on 2 November 2022). NatureServe.

2021. NatureServe Network Biodiversity Location Data accessed through NatureServe Explorer [web

application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/ (accessed

on 10 November 2021).

Acknowledgments: We thank Design School, South China University of Technology for technical

computational supports and thank Graduate Writing Center, UC Berkeley for writing suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. South Florida focal species list.

Common Name Scientific Name Type Global Rank * State Rank **

American

Alligator

mississippiensis Amphibian and reptile G5 S4

American

crocodile Crocodylus acutus Amphibian and reptile G2 S2

American

oystercatcher Haematopus palliates Bird G5 S2

Atlantic salt marsh

snake