IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i1p254-d1036136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Meeting Human and Biodiversity Needs for 30 × 30 and beyond with an Iterative Land Allocation Framework and Tool

Author

Listed:
  • John A. Gallo

    (Botany Department, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), Eastern Cape 6031, South Africa
    Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, OR 97333, USA)

  • Amanda T. Lombard

    (Botany Department, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), Eastern Cape 6031, South Africa)

  • Richard M. Cowling

    (Botany Department, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), Eastern Cape 6031, South Africa)

  • Randal Greene

    (Feaver’s Lane Enterprises Inc., St. John’s, NL A1C1T6, Canada)

  • Frank W. Davis

    (Bren School, UC Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93117, USA)

Abstract

Spatial conservation prioritization does not necessarily lead to effective conservation plans, and good plans do not necessarily lead to action. These “science-action” gaps are pernicious and need to be narrowed, especially if the international goal of conserving 30% of the planet by 2030 is to be realized. We present the Earthwise Framework, a flexible and customizable spatial decision support system (SDSS) architecture and social process to address the challenges of these science-action gaps. Utilizing case study experience from regions within California, South Africa, and British Columbia, we outline the framework and provide the Little Karoo, South Africa SDSS data, code and results to illustrate five design strategies of the framework. The first is to employ an “open science” strategy for collaborative conservation planning and action. Another is that marginal value functions allow for the continuous accounting of element (e.g., habitat) representation in prioritization algorithms, allowing for an SDSS that is more automated and saves valuable time for stakeholders and scientists. Thirdly, we program connectivity modeling integrated within the SDSS, with an algorithm that not only automatically calculates all the least cost corridors of a region, but prioritizes among them and removes the ones that do not make ecological sense. Fourth, we highlight innovations in multi-criteria decision analysis that allow for both cost-efficient plan development, like representative solution sets, but also land-use planning requirements, like site specific valuation, in what appears to be a more transparent, understandable, and usable manner than traditional approaches. Finally, strategic attention to communicating uncertainty is also advocated. The Earthwise Framework is an open science endeavor that can be implemented via a variety of software tools and languages, has several frontiers for further research and development, and shows promise in finding a better way to meet the needs of both humans and biodiversity.

Suggested Citation

  • John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling & Randal Greene & Frank W. Davis, 2023. "Meeting Human and Biodiversity Needs for 30 × 30 and beyond with an Iterative Land Allocation Framework and Tool," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:254-:d:1036136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/254/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/1/254/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerrie A Wilson, 2007. "Conserving Biodiversity Efficiently: What to Do, Where, and When," Working Papers id:1202, eSocialSciences.
    2. John A. Gallo & Gregory H. Aplet & Randal Greene & Janice L. Thomson & Amanda T. Lombard, 2020. "A Transparent and Intuitive Modeling Framework and Software for Efficient Land Allocation," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-29, November.
    3. Kerrie A Wilson & Emma C Underwood & Scott A Morrison & Kirk R Klausmeyer & William W Murdoch & Belinda Reyers & Grant Wardell-Johnson & Pablo A Marquet & Phil W Rundel & Marissa F McBride & Robert L , 2007. "Conserving Biodiversity Efficiently: What to Do, Where, and When," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-12, August.
    4. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    5. Jean-David Gerber & Adena R Rissman, 2012. "Land-Conservation Strategies: The Dynamic Relationship between Acquisition and Land-Use Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(8), pages 1836-1855, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreas Tolk & Jennifer A. Richkus & F. LeRon Shults & Wesley J. Wildman, 2023. "Computational Decision Support for Socio-Technical Awareness of Land-Use Planning under Complexity—A Dam Resilience Planning Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John A. Gallo & Amanda T. Lombard & Richard M. Cowling, 2022. "Conservation Planning for Action: End-User Engagement in the Development and Dual-Centric Weighting of a Spatial Decision Support System," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Brad H McRae & Sonia A Hall & Paul Beier & David M Theobald, 2012. "Where to Restore Ecological Connectivity? Detecting Barriers and Quantifying Restoration Benefits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-12, December.
    3. James Brazill-Boast & Moira Williams & Beth Rickwood & Thalie Partridge & Grant Bywater & Bronwyn Cumbo & Ian Shannon & William J M Probert & Julie Ravallion & Hugh Possingham & Richard F Maloney, 2018. "A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Boyd, James & Epanchin-Niell, Rebecca & Siikamaki, Juha, 2012. "Conservation Return on Investment Analysis: A Review of Results, Methods, and New Directions," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-01, Resources for the Future.
    5. Josie Carwardine & Kerrie A Wilson & Matt Watts & Andres Etter & Carissa J Klein & Hugh P Possingham, 2008. "Avoiding Costly Conservation Mistakes: The Importance of Defining Actions and Costs in Spatial Priority Setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. Álvarez-Miranda, Eduardo & Salgado-Rojas, José & Hermoso, Virgilio & Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi & Weintraub, Andrés, 2020. "An integer programming method for the design of multi-criteria multi-action conservation plans," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. McBride, Marissa F. & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Burger, Jutta & Fang, Yi-Chin & Lulow, Megan & Olson, David & O’Connell, Mike & Possingham, Hugh P., 2010. "Mathematical problem definition for ecological restoration planning," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(19), pages 2243-2250.
    8. John A. Gallo & Gregory H. Aplet & Randal Greene & Janice L. Thomson & Amanda T. Lombard, 2020. "A Transparent and Intuitive Modeling Framework and Software for Efficient Land Allocation," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-29, November.
    9. Salgado-Rojas, José & Álvarez-Miranda, Eduardo & Hermoso, Virgilio & Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi & Weintraub, Andrés, 2020. "A mixed integer programming approach for multi-action planning for threat management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 418(C).
    10. Alper Ozpinar, 2023. "A Hyper-Integrated Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to Gamification and Carbon Market Enterprise Architecture Framework for Sustainable Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, March.
    11. Drechsler, Martin & Hartig, Florian, 2011. "Conserving biodiversity with tradable permits under changing conservation costs and habitat restoration time lags," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 533-541, January.
    12. Carissa J Klein & Natalie C Ban & Benjamin S Halpern & Maria Beger & Edward T Game & Hedley S Grantham & Alison Green & Travis J Klein & Stuart Kininmonth & Eric Treml & Kerrie Wilson & Hugh P Possing, 2010. "Prioritizing Land and Sea Conservation Investments to Protect Coral Reefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-8, August.
    13. Fred A. Johnson & Mitchell J. Eaton & James H. Williams & Gitte H. Jensen & Jesper Madsen, 2015. "Training Conservation Practitioners to be Better Decision Makers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-20, June.
    14. Stephen T Garnett & Liana N Joseph & James E M Watson & Kerstin K Zander, 2011. "Investing in Threatened Species Conservation: Does Corruption Outweigh Purchasing Power?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    15. Liwei Zhang & Yihe Lü & Bojie Fu & Yuan Zeng, 2017. "Uncertainties of Two Methods in Selecting Priority Areas for Protecting Soil Conservation Service at Regional Scale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-12, September.
    16. Chuan Yang & Mingfeng Li & Ziqi Wang, 2022. "A Bibliometric Analysis on Conservation Land Trust and Implication for China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Arjun Srivathsa & Divya Vasudev & Tanaya Nair & Stotra Chakrabarti & Pranav Chanchani & Ruth DeFries & Arpit Deomurari & Sutirtha Dutta & Dipankar Ghose & Varun R. Goswami & Rajat Nayak & Amrita Neela, 2023. "Prioritizing India’s landscapes for biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 568-577, May.
    18. Busch, Jonah & Cullen, Ross, 2009. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of yellow-eyed penguin recovery," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 762-776, January.
    19. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    20. Tamara S. Wilson & Benjamin M. Sleeter & Rachel R. Sleeter & Christopher E. Soulard, 2014. "Land-Use Threats and Protected Areas: A Scenario-Based, Landscape Level Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-28, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:1:p:254-:d:1036136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.