24 Sep 2025
We choose WHERE to act and WHAT nature to establish
A) Ecological first principles (rules of thumb)
- Prefer large, connected, high-quality areas; avoid fragmentation.
- Ensure a portfolio of habitats. Works even where species data are missing.
B) Empirical estimates (data-driven)
- Score each cell/type using biodiversity potential (Richness, PD, Rarity) and carbon (AGB + soils, avoided peat).
- Optimize under policy constraints (rewetting, afforestation, contiguity).
Parameters for Each Cell
Equation 1:
\[ CS_1 = \frac{\text{pEN} + \text{pF} + \log(A_{\text{sum}})}{3} \]
Equation 2:
\[ CS_2 = \frac{\text{pEN}^f + \text{pF} + \log(A_{\text{sum}})}{3} \]
These equations ensure that each cell’s score ranges from 0 to 1, encapsulating both the proposed area and its quality.
\[ \text{maximize CI} = \color{Red}{W_1 \times \text{Biodiversity}} + \color{Purple}{W_2 \times \text{Carboon}} \times \color{Blue}{W_3 \times\text{Contiguity}_n} \]
We are being very conservative
Sørensen and Jaccard weigh overlap differently but here they agree on the elbow near w≈0.4.
Interpretation: around that weight you still retain high between-site distinctness while boosting carbon—after that, extra carbon comes with rapidly diminishing \(\beta\) diversity.
|
Structure
|
Moisture
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
band_lab
|
||||
| weight | Forest | Open | Dry | Wet |
| 0.0 | 29.6% | 70.4% | 47.8% | 52.2% |
| 0.1 | 70.5% | 29.5% | 56.4% | 43.6% |
| 0.2 | 74.1% | 25.9% | 62.4% | 37.6% |
| 0.3 | 74.9% | 25.1% | 67.6% | 32.4% |
| 0.4 | 75.1% | 24.9% | 71.6% | 28.4% |
| 0.5 | 75.5% | 24.5% | 74.1% | 25.9% |
| 0.6 | 75.8% | 24.2% | 75.2% | 24.8% |
| 0.7 | 76.0% | 24.0% | 75.8% | 24.2% |
| 0.8 | 76.3% | 23.7% | 76.3% | 23.7% |
| 0.9 | 76.6% | 23.4% | 76.6% | 23.4% |
| 1.0 | 76.9% | 23.1% | 76.9% | 23.1% |
| 1.1 | 77.1% | 22.9% | 77.1% | 22.9% |
| 1.2 | 77.2% | 22.8% | 77.2% | 22.8% |
| 1.3 | 77.3% | 22.7% | 77.3% | 22.7% |
| 1.4 | 77.4% | 22.6% | 77.4% | 22.6% |
