Indicators of global sustainable sourcing as a set covering problem: an integrated approach to sustainability

Huber, Patrick R.; Springer, Nathaniel P.; Hollander, Allan D.; Haden, Van R.; Brodt, Sonja; Tomich, Thomas P.; Quinn, James

doi:10.1890/ehs14-0008.1

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We therefore selected additional lands from the top scored areas of the summed solution of 100 Marxan runs until the area closely matched the extent targets for each case in our study. We used the Marxan ‘‘irreplaceability” scores for planning units, and selected the target extents in descending order from the highest ranked location [ 28 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing shortfalls and complementary conservation areas for national plant biodiversity in South Korea

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas (PAs) are often considered the most important biodiversity conservation areas in national plans, but PAs often do not represent national-scale biodiversity. We evaluate the current conservation status of plant biodiversity within current existing PAs, and identify potential additional PAs for South Korea. We modeled species ranges for 2,297 plant species using Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines and compared the level of mean range representation in South Korea’s existing PAs, which comprise 5.7% of the country’s mainland area, with an equal-area alternative PA strategy selected with the reserve algorithm Marxan. We also used Marxan to model two additional conservation scenarios that add lands to approach the Aichi Biodiversity Target objectives (17% of the country). Existing PAs in South Korea contain an average of 6.3% of each plant species’ range, compared to 5.9% in the modeled equal-area alternative. However, existing PAs primarily represent a high percentage of the ranges for high-elevation and small range size species. The additional PAs scenario that adds lands to the existing PAs covers 14,587.55 km2, and would improve overall plant range representation to a mean of 16.8% of every species’ range. The other additional PAs scenario, which selects new PAs from all lands and covers 13,197.35 km2, would improve overall plant range representation to a mean of 13.5%. Even though the additional PAs that includes existing PAs represents higher percentages of species’ ranges, it is missing many biodiversity hotspots in non-mountainous areas and the additional PAs without locking in the existing PAs represent almost all species’ ranges evenly, including low-elevation ones with larger ranges. Some priority conservation areas we identified are expansions of, or near, existing PAs, especially in northeastern and southern South Korea. However, lowland coastal areas and areas surrounding the capital city, Seoul, are also critical for biodiversity conservation in South Korea.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing shortfalls and complementary conservation areas for national plant biodiversity in South Korea

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At its current scope of 44 integrated issues, 318 component issues and 2000+ indicators, it remains practically difficult for stakeholders to consider, compare, and choose a reasonable set of indicators for all these issues. Corresponding research has led to the development two optimization approaches–one using the heuristic model MARXAN [ 86 ] and the other using the exact linear programming model–that can be used to help choose a small set of indicators to represent a diverse set of issues [ 87 ]. Parallel research has also produced a prototype GIS platform for viewing spatial data associated with the selected issues and indicators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable Sourcing of Global Agricultural Raw Materials: Assessing Gaps in Key Impact and Vulnerability Issues and Indicators

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how to source agricultural raw materials sustainably is challenging in today’s globalized food system given the variety of issues to be considered and the multitude of suggested indicators for representing these issues. Furthermore, stakeholders in the global food system both impact these issues and are themselves vulnerable to these issues, an important duality that is often implied but not explicitly described. The attention given to these issues and conceptual frameworks varies greatly—depending largely on the stakeholder perspective—as does the set of indicators developed to measure them. To better structure these complex relationships and assess any gaps, we collate a comprehensive list of sustainability issues and a database of sustainability indicators to represent them. To assure a breadth of inclusion, the issues are pulled from the following three perspectives: major global sustainability assessments, sustainability communications from global food companies, and conceptual frameworks of sustainable livelihoods from academic publications. These terms are integrated across perspectives using a common vocabulary, classified by their relevance to impacts and vulnerabilities, and categorized into groups by economic, environmental, physical, human, social, and political characteristics. These issues are then associated with over 2,000 sustainability indicators gathered from existing sources. A gap analysis is then performed to determine if particular issues and issue groups are over or underrepresented. This process results in 44 “integrated” issues—24 impact issues and 36 vulnerability issues —that are composed of 318 “component” issues. The gap analysis shows that although every integrated issue is mentioned at least 40% of the time across perspectives, no issue is mentioned more than 70% of the time. A few issues infrequently mentioned across perspectives also have relatively few indicators available to fully represent them. Issues in the impact framework generally have fewer gaps than those in the vulnerability framework.

show abstract

“…The PPOD ontology contains 112 classes, 75 object properties, and 8 data properties [45]. It draws upon a number of existing ontologies including FOAF, VIVO, Agri-VIVO [47], the Relation Ontology [48], an ontology describing sustainability issues and associated indicators [49], and an ontology describing expertise [44]. As reflected in the title, central classes include Person (the who), Project (a way resources are organized), Organization (a way people are organized for work), Program (a way that projects are organized), and Dataset (one example of what work produces).…”

Section: Ppodmentioning

confidence: 99%

People, Projects, Organizations, and Products: Designing a Knowledge Graph to Support Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Planning and Design

Gordon

Murphy²,

Gallo

et al. 2021

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the need for more broad-scale solutions to environmental problems is increasingly recognized, traditional hierarchical, government-led models of coordination are being supplemented by or transformed into more collaborative inter-organizational networks (i.e., collaboratives, coalitions, partnerships). As diffuse networks, such regional environmental planning and design (REPD) efforts often face challenges in sharing and using spatial and other types of information. Recent advances in semantic knowledge management technologies, such as knowledge graphs, have the potential to address these challenges. In this paper, we first describe the information needs of three multi-stakeholder REPD initiatives in the western USA using a list of 80 need-to-know questions and concerns. The top needs expressed were for help in tracking the participants, institutions, and information products relevant to the REDP’s focus. To address these needs, we developed a prototype knowledge graph based on RDF and GeoSPARQL standards. This semantic approach provided a more flexible data structure than traditional relational databases and also functionality to query information across different providers; however, the lack of semantic data expertise, the complexity of existing software solutions, and limited online hosting options are significant barriers to adoption. These same barriers are more acute for geospatial data, which also faces the added challenge of maintaining and synchronizing both semantic and traditional geospatial datastores.

show abstract

Indicators of global sustainable sourcing as a set covering problem: an integrated approach to sustainability

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Assessing shortfalls and complementary conservation areas for national plant biodiversity in South Korea

Assessing shortfalls and complementary conservation areas for national plant biodiversity in South Korea

Sustainable Sourcing of Global Agricultural Raw Materials: Assessing Gaps in Key Impact and Vulnerability Issues and Indicators

People, Projects, Organizations, and Products: Designing a Knowledge Graph to Support Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Planning and Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About