Incorporate ecosystem services into the determination and promotion of protected areas based on multi-criteria decision-making method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing protected areas (PAs) is recognized as an effective measure to prevent ecological degradation and maintain biodiversity. The goal of 30 by 30 is ambitiously proposed in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which commits governments around the world to protect 30% of the world's land and ocean by 2030. However, there is still a significant gap in the current PAs. As an effective guarantee of human well-being, incorporating ecosystem services (ESs) conservation into the goals of PAs is being acknowledged. How to better incorporate ESs into management decisions to balance the negative trade-offs between services is a concern when considering the benefits of PAs. The ordered weighted average algorithm (OWA) provides an effective method of providing multiple benefits simultaneously. However, we noticed that the results are highly dependent on the input. We have noticed the different results of studies in the literature. Differences may represent regional differences and come from different scales and analysis methods. In general, we suggest that selecting service types based on regional differences and redundancy of service functions, selecting a reasonable number of services based on algorithm characteristics, and calibrating model parameters based on field research to improve the accuracy of service simulation are key issues. We continue to explore what problems exist in the selection of PAs in which regions, i.e., time and space scale determination, interaction relationship analysis, and subsequent management policy formulation, to make the research more insightful and policy-relevant. We believe that this article can provide strong insights when selecting and promoting PAs from around the world. • Proposes an OWA-based multi-criteria decision framework to integrate ESs into PA planning, mitigating their spatial trade-offs. • Establishes key criteria for ES selection (type, quantity, quality) to ensure robust PA decision-making. • Emphasizes that spatiotemporal scale selection critically impacts PA connectivity and management effectiveness. • Managing PAs avoid becoming “paper parks” and instead serve as effective multifunctional landscapes. • Provides a scientific and scalable approach to support the global 30×30 conservation goal.
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 | 0.001 | 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".