Meeting Human and Biodiversity Needs for 30 × 30 and beyond with an Iterative Land Allocation Framework and Tool
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".