In Case 2, the wetlands identified in Case 1 are included as a factor or target with other information compiled as part of the Florida regional assessment for biodiversity. This information is used as input in Marxan to identify a set of natural areas that may most efficiently meet objectives for conserving biodiversity and mitigating coastal hazards.
Caution: The results of these examples, like all similar model outputs, provide decision support for managers and other stakeholders and should never be assumed to represent final results or “the answer.”
Data on Coastal Wetlands and Coastal Hazards
Compare the Marxan results: In the first two cases there is not a great change in the results when the data on Biodiversity are analyzed first alone and the together with the data on wetlands with mitigation value (WMV). When the WMV data are added there is little change in the total number of cells selected (only 2 percent greater in second analysis) and only minor change in the sites that are selected. These results suggest that goals can be jointly met for both hazard mitigation and biodiversity conservation with little change in total priority area (spatial efficiency). In the third analysis, all the WMV are locked in to the analysis (i.e., 100 percent goals for potential hazard mitigation) and then the biodiversity targets are included. Locking targets creates solutions that are much less spatially efficient (total area in the third analysis increases by more than 36 percent from the first two analyses); the results are clumped in to fewer sites.
Marxan Results for Coastal Biodiversity and Coastal Hazards