MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392295675 · doi:10.1002/ldr.5075

Toward an operational tool to integrate land degradation neutrality into land use planning: <scp>LUP4LDN</scp>

2024· article· en· W4392295675 on OpenAlex
Claudio Zucca, Quang Bao Le, Pythagoras Karampiperis, Tatenda Lemann, Richard J. Thomas, Boundia Alexandre Thiombiano, Taoufik Hermassi, Enrico Bonaiuti, Panagiotis Zervas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLand Degradation and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Land degradationLand-use planningComputer scienceLand useIdentification (biology)Environmental resource managementLand managementProcess managementCitizen journalismEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceBusinessGeographyCivil engineeringEngineeringWorld Wide WebEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Land use planning (LUP) to achieve Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) needs methods and tools that support the identification of best LUP solutions in terms of transitions from current degradative land use (LU) and land management (LM) practices to better LU and LM options. A crucial need is the identification of context specific sustainable land management (SLM) options. Addressing this need must aim at not only reversing/recovering past degradation (e.g., via restoration or rehabilitation in land degradation hotspots), but also avoiding “new” degradation possibly caused by unsuitable LU and LM. This requires SLM planning based on anticipated impact assessment of the LU‐LM transition scenarios set to achieve LDN, which can be achieved through a participatory planning process that integrates interests/needs and knowledge of stakeholders with science‐based supportive tools to identify rational, plausible, and socially relevant options. The geoinformatics Land Use Planning for LDN (LUP4LDN) conceptual procedure and tool have been designed for this purpose. Their aim is to support national and subnational planners by (i) mapping geographic patterns of past land degradation (LD) utilizing the LDN indicators adopted by the UNCCD (SDG 15.3.1 indicator) for user‐defined regions of interest (RoI); (ii) helping users anticipate future LD by identifying land that is unsustainably managed and that will likely become degraded during the planning period; (iii) partitioning the LD areas into spatial domains of socio‐ecological contextual similarity (i.e., contextual similarity units) to which the LU‐LM transitional options will be fitted; and (iv) providing an interactive procedure for participatory LU‐LM transitional scenario development over selected contextual similarity units and timeframes. LUP4LDN uses the Global Database of the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT), ICARDA's Geoinformatics Options by Context (GeOC) tool, and ELD (Economics of Land Degradation) indicators to identify context‐relevant SLM that are available in the RoI, suggests candidate SLM options, and visualizes related expected levels of impacts on ecosystem services via maps and graphs. The generated maps inform users about trade‐offs upon which users can discuss or negotiate transitional pathways. LUP4LDN has been codeveloped with national stakeholders in Tunisia and Burkina Faso. The piloting implementation in the two countries assessed how LUP4LDN fits with existing LUP processes and the benefits achieved by using the tool to support LUP for LDN.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it