DOI: 10.5061/dryad.s4m5q53
title: Data from: Trans-National Conservation and Infrastructure Development in The Heart of Borneo

description: The Heart of Borneo initiative has promoted the integration of protected
 areas and sustainably-managed forests across Malaysia, Indonesia, and
 Brunei. Recently, however, member states of the Heart of Borneo have begun
 pursuing ambitious unilateral infrastructure-development schemes to
 accelerate economic growth, jeopardizing the underlying goal of
 trans-boundary integrated conservation. Focusing on Sabah, Malaysia, we
 highlight conflicts between its Pan-Borneo Highway scheme and the regional
 integration of protected areas, unprotected intact forests, and
 conservation-priority forests. Road developments in southern Sabah in
 particular would drastically reduce protected-area integration across the
 northern Heart of Borneo region. Such developments would separate two
 major clusters of protected areas that account for one-quarter of all
 protected areas within the Heart of Borneo complex. Sabah has proposed
 forest corridors and highway underpasses as means of retaining ecological
 connectivity in this context. Connectivity modelling identified numerous
 overlooked areas for connectivity rehabilitation among intact forest
 patches following planned road development. While such
 ‘linear-conservation planning’ might theoretically retain up to 85% of
 intact-forest connectivity and integrate half of the conservation-priority
 forests across Sabah, in reality it is very unlikely to achieve meaningful
 ecological integration. Moreover, such measure would be exceedingly costly
 if properly implemented – apparently beyond the operating budget of
 relevant Malaysian authorities. Unless critical road segments are
 cancelled, planned infrastructure will fragment important conservation
 landscapes with little recourse for mitigation. This likelihood reinforces
 earlier calls for the legal recognition of the Heart of Borneo region for
 conservation planning as well as for enhanced tri-lateral coordination of
 both conservation and development.
description: All data for Sloan et al
 2019 Plos OneThe following summarily
 describes GIS data files produced in for the following article: Sloan, S.,
 Campbell, M.J., Alamgir, M., Lechner, A., Engert, J., Laurance, W.F.
 Trans-national conservation and infrastructure development in the Heart of
 Borneo. 2019. PLoS One. References to sections, figures, and header titles
 below are with respect to this article. These data are free to use for
 non-commercial purposes, provided that the source article above is duly
 cited. ------------------------------------------------ Heart of
 Borneo.shp The boundary areas of the Heart of Borneo conservation region.
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------ Intact Forests
 Currently.shp Intact Forests After Planned Roads.shp Intact forest areas
 are as described in Section 2.1.4 (Intact Forest Patches).
 'Current' patches are those unaffected by planned roads of the
 Sabah Structure Plan 2033, as per Figure 1. Patches 'after planned
 roads' are those considered bisected by the planned new and upgrade
 roads (see 'Roads_of_Sabah_Structure_Plan.shp' below), buffered
 by 1 km, as described in Section 2.1.1 (Counts and areas of protected
 areas). ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------ Protected Areas.shp These
 were defined by the World Database on Protected Areas and supplemented by
 additional ‘totally protected’ forest designations of the Sabah Forestry
 Department (e.g., protection forest reserves, virgin jungle reserves,
 wildlife reserves and conservation sanctuaries). See Section 2.1.3
 (Protected areas). The field [Int_HoB] notes with yes/no values whether a
 given protected area intersects the Heart of Borneo region defined by
 'Heart of Borneo.shp'.
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 Linages_2km_After_Planned_Roads.shp Linkages are connections of &lt; 2 km
 long, between intact forest patches defined after planed roads are
 developed (as described above and represented by
 'intact_forest_patches_2km_can_cross_rds.shp). These post-development
 intact forest patches exclude patches of &lt; 10 ha (see Section 2.2
 Intact forest structural connectivity). Linkages merely show which patches
 are connected to which where 2 km is the dispersal distance specified
 (Section 2.2). This file is as presented in Figure 6 and Figure S3 of the
 article. ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 Roads_of_Sabah_Structure_Plan.shp Roads digitised from the Sabah Structure
 Plan 2033, as described in Section 2.1.2 (Planned road infrastructure
 development). The field [Type] labels roads by type, as described by
 legend of the Sabah Structure Plan. The field [Class] is a simplified road
 classification derived on the basis of [Type]. In the [Class] field, roads
 that are 'planned new roads' or 'planned upgrade
 roads' represent the planned roadways analysed in the article, as per
 Figure 1 and Figure 4. ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 intact_forest_patches_2km_can_cross_rds.shp
 intact_forest_patches_2km_cannot_cross_rds.shp Intact forest patches as
 presented in Figure 4. These are as described by Section 2.1.4 (Intact
 forest patches), excluding patches of &lt; 10 ha as described in Section
 2.2 (Intact forest structural connectivity), used to model structural
 forest connectivity according to two scenarios (Section 2.2): (i) linkages
 of &lt; 2 km between patches can cross planned roadways, and (ii) linkages
 of &lt; 2 km between patches cannot cross planned roadways. Planned
 roadways are as defined above for
 'Roads_of_Sabah_Structure_Plan.shp'. These two intact forest
 patch files are spatially identical but differ with respect to their
 attribute data, which describes the connectivity of the forest patches,
 due to the fact that each file pertains to a different connectivity
 scenario (above). The field [id] presents a nominal unique identification
 value for each intact forest patch. For the first of the two files above
 (can cross roads), the field [top15_e2km] codes intact forest patches with
 a nominal integer value, as per Figure 4a and 4b. Each unique value
 represents a single network of intact forest patches that are
 inter-connected with each other by a particular set of 15 inter-patch
 linkages of highest importance to connectivity in scenario (i), as
 described below for the file 'edges_2km_can_cross_rds.shp. For the
 second of the two files above (cannot cross roads), the field [top15Be2km]
 codes intact forest patches with a nominal integer value, as per Figure 4c
 and 4d. Each unique value represents a single network of intact forest
 patches that are inter-connected with each other by a particular set of 15
 inter-patch linkages of highest importance for scenario (ii), as described
 below for the file 'edges_2km_cannot_cross_rds.shp.
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 patch_nodes_2km_can_cross_rds.shp patch_nodes_2km_cannot_cross_rds.shp
 Centroid 'dots' at the center of each intact forest patch
 described immediately above, for the same two scenarios (i) and (ii) as
 described immediately above, as depicted in Figure 4. In both files, the
 field [top15_edge] codes with a 1 value each node (i.e., intact forest
 patch as described immediately above) that is connected to another
 node/patch via those 15 inter-patch linkages noted immediately above and
 described below, according to either scenario (i) or (ii) as appropriate.
 The fields [area] and [perimeter] as pertain to the intact forest patch
 represnted by a node and are therefore the same as in the files
 'intact_forest_patches_2km_can_cross_rds.shp' and
 'intact_forest_patches_2km_cannot_cross_rds.shp'. The units are
 in square meters and meters, respectively.
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 edges_2km_can_cross_rds.shp edges_2km_cannot_cross_rds.shp Lines (aka
 'edges') depicted partially in Figure 4b and 4d, connecting
 intact forest patches according to scenario (i) or (ii), respectively.
 Each edge line features in these files graphically represents the
 inter-patch connections formed by the much shorter linkages of &lt; 2km,
 which span the distance between the boundary of one intact forest patch
 and another, nearby intact forest patch. These linkages are as described
 in Section 2.2 (Intact forest structural connectivity) Each edge feature
 represents a single connection between two patches that are connected to
 each other via a linkage of &lt; 2 km, according to scenario (i) or (ii)
 (Section 2.2). For each such pairwise inter-patch connection, the fields
 [id1] and [id2] code the ID values of the two intact forest patches so
 connected. The field [id] concatenates the values of [id1] and [id2] into
 a single unique ID field for each edge feature. These values of [id1] and
 [id2] are those ID vales described above for the intact forest patches in
 files 'intact_forest_patches_2km_can_cross_rds.shp' and
 'intact_forest_patches_2km_cannot_cross_rds.shp' The field
 [d_IIC_Gr] codes the delta-IIC value of each edge feature. The delta-IIC
 value is a measure of the connectivity importance of each edge feature, as
 described in Section 2.2 (Intact forest structural connectivity). The
 field [top15_diic] codes with a 1 those 15 edge features that: (a) for the
 applicable scenario (i) or (ii), have the 15 greatest delta-IIC values;
 and (b) pertain to inter-patch linkages with a distance dispersal distance
 of &lt; 2 km (Section 2.2).
 ------------------------------------------------
 ------------------------------------------------
 -----------------------------------------------Sloan et al 2019 Plos
 One.zip