Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Charles Chester (2003)
Responding to the Idea of Transboundary ConservationJournal of Sustainable Forestry, 17
A. Moilanen, M. Cabeza (2007)
Accounting for habitat loss rates in sequential reserve selection : Simple methods for large problemsBiological Conservation, 136
Moilanen Moilanen, Franco Franco, Early Early, Fox Fox, Wintle Wintle, Thomas Thomas (2005)
Prioritizing multiple‐use landscapes for conservationProceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 272
P. Harrison, Daniel Spring, Michael Mackenzie, R. Nally (2008)
Dynamic reserve design with the union-find algorithmEcological Modelling, 215
Alexander Pfaff, G. Sánchez-Azofeifa (2004)
Deforestation pressure and biological reserve planning: a conceptual approach and an illustrative application for Costa RicaResource and Energy Economics, 26
C. Costello, S. Polasky (2004)
Dynamic reserve site selectionResource and Energy Economics, 26
R. Hobbs, L. Kristjanson (2003)
Triage: How do we prioritize health care for landscapes?Ecological Management and Restoration, 4
G. Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. Daily, A. Pfaff, Christopher Busch (2003)
Integrity and isolation of Costa Rica's national parks and biological reserves: examining the dynamics of land-cover changeBiological Conservation, 109
R. Brereton, S. Bennett, I. Mansergh (1995)
Enhanced greenhouse climate change and its potential effect on selected fauna of south-eastern Australia: A trend analysisBiological Conservation, 72
R. Pressey, M. Cabeza, Matthew Watts, R. Cowling, K. Wilson (2007)
Conservation planning in a changing world.Trends in ecology & evolution, 22 11
J. Hof, M. Bevers (2000)
Direct spatial optimization in natural resource management: Four linear programming examplesAnnals of Operations Research, 95
K. Wilson, R. Pressey, A. Newton, M. Burgman, H. Possingham, C. Weston (2005)
Measuring and Incorporating Vulnerability into Conservation PlanningEnvironmental Management, 35
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
Mary Finley-Brook (2007)
Green Neoliberal Space: The Mesoamerican Biological CorridorJournal of Latin American Geography, 6
Lucía Pascual-Hortal, S. Saura (2006)
Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservationLandscape Ecology, 21
D. Faith, C. Margules, P. Walker, J. Stein, G. Natera (2000)
Practical application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in Papua New GuineaPacific Conservation Biology, 6
R. Sabbadin, Daniel Spring, Charles‐Elie Rabier (2007)
Dynamic reserve site selection under contagion risk of deforestationEcological Modelling, 201
E. Dijkstra (1959)
A note on two problems in connexion with graphsNumerische Mathematik, 1
J. Blake, Bette Loiselle (2000)
DIVERSITY OF BIRDS ALONG AN ELEVATIONAL GRADIENT IN THE CORDILLERA CENTRAL, COSTA RICA, 117
M. Soulé, J. Terborgh (1999)
Conserving nature at regional and continental scales—a scientific program for North AmericaBioScience, 49
A. Moilanen, A. Franco, R. Early, R. Fox, Brendan Wintle, C. Thomas (2005)
Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problemsProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272
N. Myers, R. Mittermeier, C. Mittermeier, G. Fonseca, J. Kent (2000)
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation prioritiesNature, 403
R. Pressey, I. Johnson, Peter Wilson (1994)
Shades of irreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goalBiodiversity & Conservation, 3
Abstract: Habitat connectivity is required at large spatial scales to facilitate movement of biota in response to climatic changes and to maintain viable populations of wide‐ranging species. Nevertheless, it may require decades to acquire habitat linkages at such scales, and areas that could provide linkages are often developed before they can be reserved. Reserve scheduling methods usually consider only current threats, but threats change over time as development spreads and reaches presently secure areas. We investigated the importance of considering future threats when implementing projects to maintain habitat connectivity at a regional scale. To do so, we compared forward‐looking scheduling strategies with strategies that consider only current threats. The strategies were applied to a Costa Rican case study, where many reserves face imminent isolation and other reserves will probably become isolated in the more distant future. We evaluated strategies in terms of two landscape‐scale connectivity metrics, a pure connectivity metric and a metric of connected habitat diversity. Those strategies that considered only current threats were unreliable because they often failed to complete planned habitat linkage projects. The most reliable and effective strategies considered the future spread of development and its impact on the likelihood of completing planned habitat linkage projects. Our analyses highlight the critical need to consider future threats when building connected reserve networks over time.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Jun 1, 2010
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.