National Ecosystem Representation & 30x30 Benchmark (GBF Target 3)
Evaluated 210 USNVC ecosystem groups across PAD-US to benchmark GBF Target 3; revealed severe geographic bias (Western 4.1x, Eastern 3.3x vs Great Plains) and metric sensitivity.
Project Overview
Compared 210 natural USNVC ecosystem Groups with PAD-US, verifying results across six hierarchical classification levels. Discovered that larger ecosystems receive proportionally less strict protection: a 10-fold larger ecosystem holds ~7.3 times strictly protected area (log-log slope 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.93), a finding that held across all classification checks. Demonstrated that ecosystem geography drives protection far more than endangerment: at identical size and rank, Western ecosystems hold 4.1x and Eastern 3.3x the strict protection of Great Plains ecosystems (Great Plains types cover 21.7% of the landscape but only 5.0% of the strict estate; conservation rank explains only 0.1% of variation). Revealed that protection definitions drastically alter compliance: 63% of ecosystem types reach 30% if multiple-use land counts, but only 19% under strict protection. Applying the species target rule to ecosystems would mandate protecting 58% of the U.S. landscape because 113 of 210 types are under 10,000 km², underscoring why ecosystems need targets of their own.
My Role
Doctoral Researcher & Lead Quantitative Analyst. Conceived the research design, built automated data pipelines reconciling heterogeneous federal and NGO spatial layers, audited legacy literature equations, and briefed conservation leaders.
Tools / Stack
Project Details
Implementation Roadmap
Development Process.
Reconcile 210 natural USNVC ecosystem Groups with PAD-US v4.1 spatial layers and NatureServe conservation status.
Verify empirical scaling patterns across six hierarchical levels of the USNVC classification system.
Model strict protection scaling against total ecosystem extent, estimating strict protection elasticities (slope 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.93).
Decompose geographic and endangerment effects across Western, Eastern, and Great Plains ecoregions (revealing rank explains only 0.1% of variation).
Assess definition sensitivity: contrast strict GAP 1–2 protection (19% compliance) against multiple-use GAP 1–3 lands (63% compliance).
Simulate the species target rule on ecosystems (showing a 58% national land requirement due to 113 small-range types under 10,000 km²).
Translate findings for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) annual meeting to support adding ecosystem status to forest certification standards.
Case Study Analysis
Challenges & Outcomes.
Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework asks for representative protection, but current indicators (like the Species Protection Index) measure it only for species. Concurrently, official domestic figures often mask protection definitions, creating discrepancy risks where 63% of ecosystems appear protected under permissive definitions versus only 19% under strict protection.
Designed a comprehensive 6-level assessment framework integrating USNVC with PAD-US, audited legacy literature equations to retract flawed inferences, established empirical scaling baselines, and modeled species-versus-ecosystem target dynamics.
Delivered the first national-scale evaluation of U.S. ecosystem representation for GBF Target 3; provided figures directly to the Forest Stewardship Council for forest certification standards; gave invited presentations at George Wright Society and the U.S. Biosphere Network; and advanced longleaf pine modeling with ASU collaborators.