Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Newburn, S. Reed, P. Berck, A. Merenlender (2005)
Economics and Land‐Use Change in Prioritizing Private Land ConservationConservation Biology, 19
J. Hof, L. Joyce (1992)
Spatial optimization for wildlife and timber in managed forest ecosystemsForest Science, 38
Magne Sætersdal, J. Line, H. Birks (1993)
How to maximize biological diversity in nature reserve selection: Vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous woodlands, western NorwayBiological Conservation, 66
R. Pressey, K. Taffs (2001)
Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation lossBiological Conservation, 100
Second thoughts for a designer of software that aids conservation. The New York Times
R. Pressey, A. Nicholls (1989)
Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approachesBiological Conservation, 50
R. Pressey, Matthew Watts, T. Barrett (2004)
Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reservesEcology Letters, 7
R. Pressey, H. Possingham, C. Margules (1996)
Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: When does it matter and how much?Biological Conservation, 76
(2004)
MATLAB Version 7 Release 14. The Mathworks, Natick
(2002)
Marxan v 1 . 8 . 2 : marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing
Justin Williams, C. Revelle, S. Levin (2004)
Using mathematical optimization models to design nature reservesFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2
J. Kirkpatrick (1983)
An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from TasmaniaBiological Conservation, 25
K. Cocks, I. Baird (1989)
Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: An example from the Eyre Peninsula, South AustraliaBiological Conservation, 49
S. Ferrier, R. Pressey, T. Barrett (2000)
A new predictor of the irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinementBiological Conservation, 93
L. Underhill (1994)
Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithmsBiological Conservation, 70
C. Margules, A. Nicholls, R. Pressey (1988)
Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversityBiological Conservation, 43
(1997)
Regional sustainability and protected areas-biodiversity protection as part of regional integration of conservation and production. Pages 271-296 in
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
R. Pressey, I. Johnson, Peter Wilson (1994)
Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goalBiodiversity & Conservation, 3
A. Balmford, A. Bruner, Philip Cooper, R. Costanza, S. Farber, R. Green, R. Green, M. Jenkins, Paul Jefferiss, Valma Jessamy, J. Madden, K. Munro, N. Myers, S. Naeem, J. Paavola, M. Rayment, S. Rosendo, J. Roughgarden, Kate Trumper, R. Turner (2002)
Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild NatureScience, 297
J. Hof, M. Bevers (1998)
Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems
(2002)
Vanishing Florida scrub
M. Drechsler (2005)
Probabilistic approaches to scheduling reserve selectionBiological Conservation, 122
C. Costello, S. Polasky (2004)
Dynamic reserve site selectionResource and Energy Economics, 26
D. Faith, G. Carter, G. Cassis, S. Ferrier, L. Wilkie (2003)
Complementarity, biodiversity viability analysis, and policy-based algorithms for conservationEnvironmental Science & Policy, 6
J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow, B. Csuti (1996)
A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selectionBiological Conservation, 78
R. Fourer, B. Kernighan (1993)
AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming
E. Meir, S. Andelman, H. Possingham (2004)
Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain worldEcology Letters, 7
Mark McDonnell, Hugh Possingham, Ian Ball, Elizabeth Cousins (2002)
Mathematical Methods for Spatially Cohesive Reserve DesignEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment, 7
H. Possingham, I. Ball, S. Andelman (2000)
Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks
H. Possingham, J. Day, M. Goldfinch, F. Salzborn (1993)
The mathematics of designing a network of protected areas for conservation
(2000)
Regional sustainability and protected areas — biodiversity protection as part of regional integration of conservation and production
Leanna Warman, A. Sinclair, G. Scudder, B. Klinkenberg, R. Pressey (2004)
Sensitivity of Systematic Reserve Selection to Decisions about Scale, Biological Data, and Targets: Case Study from Southern British ColumbiaConservation Biology, 18
B. Csuti, S. Polasky, P. Williams, R. Pressey, J. Camm, M. Kershaw, A. Kiester, Brian Downs, Richard Hamilton, M. Huso, K. Sahr (1997)
A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in OregonBiological Conservation, 80
S. Polasky, J. Camm, A. Solow, B. Csuti, D. White, Rugang Ding (2000)
Choosing reserve networks with incomplete species informationBiological Conservation, 94
W. Turner (2003)
Citywide biological monitoring as a tool for ecology and conservation in urban landscapes: the case of the Tucson Bird CountLandscape and Urban Planning, 65
M. Cabeza, A. Moilanen (2003)
Site‐Selection Algorithms and Habitat LossConservation Biology, 17
Amy Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow (1998)
Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservationScience, 279 5359
Abstract: Although reserve‐design algorithms have shown promise for increasing the efficiency of conservation planning, recent work casts doubt on the usefulness of some of these approaches in practice. Using three data sets that vary widely in size and complexity, we compared various decision rules for acquiring reserve networks over multiyear periods. We explored three factors that are often important in real‐world conservation efforts: uncertain availability of sites for acquisition, degradation of sites, and overall budget constraints. We evaluated the relative strengths and weaknesses of existing optimal and heuristic decision rules and developed a new set of adaptive decision rules that combine the strengths of existing optimal and heuristic approaches. All three of the new adaptive rules performed better than the existing rules we tested under virtually all scenarios of site availability, site degradation, and budget constraints. Moreover, the adaptive rules required no additional data beyond what was readily available and were relatively easy to compute.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.