Code and data for "Systematic conservation prioritization with the prioritizr R package"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plans for expanding protected area systems (prioritizations) need to fulfill conservation objectives. They also need to account for other factors, such as economic feasibility and anthropogenic land use requirements. Although prioritizations are often generated with decision support tools, most tools have limitations that hinder their use for decision-making. We outline the prioritizr R package (https://prioritizr.net) for systematic conservation prioritization. This decision support tool provides a flexible interface to build conservation planning problems. It can leverage a variety of commercial (e.g., Gurobi) and open source (e.g., CBC and SYMPHONY) exact algorithm solvers to identify optimal solutions in a short period. It is also compatible with a variety of spatially explicit (e.g., ESRI Shapefile, GeoTIFF) and nonspatial tabular (e.g., Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet) data formats. Additionally, it provides functionality for evaluating prioritizations, such as assessing the relative importance of different places selected by a prioritization. To showcase the prioritizr R package, we applied it to a case study based in Washington State (United States) for which we developed a prioritization to improve protected area coverage of native avifauna. We accounted for land acquisition costs, existing protected areas, places that might not be suitable for protected area establishment, and spatial fragmentation. The prioritization identified 12,400 km2 of priority areas for increasing the percentage of species’ distributions covered by protected areas. We also conducted a benchmark analysis to examine the performance of different solvers. Although open source and commercial solvers were able to quickly solve large-scale conservation planning problems, commercial solvers were required for complex, large-scale problems. The prioritizr R package is available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). In addition to reserve selection, it can inform habitat restoration, connectivity enhancement, and ecosystem service provisioning. It has been used in numerous conservation planning exercises to inform best practices and aid real world decision-making.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.139 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".