Locating and protecting critical reserve sites to minimize expected and worst-case losses

被引:33
作者
O'Hanley, Jesse Rush
Church, Richard L.
Gilless, J. Keith
机构
[1] Univ Kent, Kent Business Sch, Ashford TN25 5AH, Kent, England
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Dept Geog, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
[3] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Environm Sci Policy & Management, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
关键词
reserve selection; habitat loss; site loss uncertainty; expected loss; worst-case loss; maximum covering; reserve scheduling; bilevel programming;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.009
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
There has been much recent interest in the development of systematic reserve selection methods that are capable of incorporating uncertainty associated with site destruction. This paper makes a contribution to this line of research by presenting two different optimization models for minimizing species losses within a planning region. Given limited acquisition budgets, the first minimizes expected species losses over all possible site loss patterns outside the reserve network while the second minimizes maximum species losses following the worst-case loss of a restricted subset of nonreserve sites. By incorporating the uncertainty of site destruction directly into the decision planning process, these models allow a conservation planner to take a less defensive and more strategic view of reserve selection that seeks to minimize species losses through the targeted acquisition of high-value/high-risk sites. We compare both of these methods to a more standard approach, which simply maximizes within reserve representation without regard for the varied level of threat faced by different sites and species. Results on a realistic dataset show that significant reductions in species losses can be achieved using either of these more intelligent modeling frameworks. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:130 / 141
页数:12
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning [J].
Abbitt, RJF ;
Scott, JM ;
Wilcove, DS .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2000, 96 (02) :169-175
[2]   The value of biodiversity in reserve selection: Representation, species weighting, and benefit functions [J].
Arponen, A ;
Heikkinen, RK ;
Thomas, CD ;
Moilanen, A .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2005, 19 (06) :2009-2014
[3]  
Bard JF, 1998, Practical Bilevel Optimization: Algorithms and Applications
[4]  
Birge J.R., 1997, INTRO STOCHASTIC PRO
[5]  
Bradley S. P., 1977, APPL MATH PROGRAMMIN, P573
[6]   A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selection [J].
Camm, JD ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, A ;
Csuti, B .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 78 (03) :353-355
[7]   Nature reserve site selection to maximize expected species covered [J].
Camm, JD ;
Norman, SK ;
Polasky, S ;
Solow, AR .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2002, 50 (06) :946-955
[8]   Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problem [J].
Church, RL ;
Stoms, DM ;
Davis, FW .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1996, 76 (02) :105-112
[9]   Dynamic reserve site selection [J].
Costello, C ;
Polasky, S .
RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2004, 26 (02) :157-174
[10]   BEYOND HOTSPOTS - HOW TO PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION [J].
DINERSTEIN, E ;
WIKRAMANAYAKE, ED .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 1993, 7 (01) :53-65