Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Teeffelen, M. Cabeza, A. Moilanen (2006)
Connectivity, Probabilities and Persistence: Comparing Reserve Selection StrategiesBiodiversity & Conservation, 15
Alexander Moffett, S. Sarkar (2006)
Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendationsDiversity and Distributions, 12
G. Eken, L. Bennun, T. Brooks, W. Darwall, L. Fishpool, Matt Foster, D. Knox, P. Langhammer, P. Matiku, Elizabeth Radford, P. Salaman, W. Sechrest, M. Smith, S. Spector, Andrew Tordoff (2004)
Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets, 54
Et. Hammermaster, J. Saunders (1995)
Forest Resources and Vegetation Mapping of Papua New Guinea
(2002)
Country programme outline for Papua New Guinea ( 2003 – 2007 )
(2002)
C - Plan module . Version 3 . 31 . NSW DEC , Sydney
W. Turner, D. Wilcove (2006)
Adaptive Decision Rules for the Acquisition of Nature ReservesConservation Biology, 20
(2000)
A rapid marine biodiversity assessment of Milne Bay Province
S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt, Mario Vecchi (1983)
Optimization by Simulated AnnealingScience, 220
C. Margules (1989)
Introduction to some Australian developments in conservation evaluationBiological Conservation, 50
Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. U.N. Environment Programme
2002. C-Plan module. Version 3.31. NSW DEC, Sydney
(1997)
Addendum to agricultural land use of Papua New Guinea. Map with explanatory notes
(1997)
Addendum to agricultural land use of Papua New Guinea . Map with explanatory notes , scale 1 : 1 , 000 , 000
Sarkar Sarkar, Moffett Moffett, Sierra Sierra, Fuller Fuller, Cameron Cameron, Garson Garson (2004)
Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networksEndangered Species Update, 21
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
(2006)
Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future
Australian Agency for International Developmen, Canberra. Conservation International. 2002a. Melanesia Center for Biodiversity Conservation factsheet. Conservation International, Washington
Auction for Landscape Recovery. Final Report for MBI project 21
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
D. Faith, P. Walker (2002)
The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: Linking local management, regional planning and global conservation effortsJournal of Biosciences, 27
Romola Stewart, H. Possingham (2005)
Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system designEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment, 10
L. Marshall (1953)
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganizationNature, 184
W. Adams, Rosalind Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B. Vira, W. Wolmer (2004)
Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of PovertyScience, 306
D. Faith, S. Ferrier, K. Williams (2007)
Getting biodiversity intactness indices right: ensuring that ‘biodiversity’ reflects ‘diversity’Global Change Biology, 14
(2002)
Country programme outline for Papua New Guinea
K. Williams, Mitchell D.K, R. James, S. Cameron, F. D.P, R. Storey, Y. Fretes, H. Sumantri, C. Margules (2006)
Milne Bay Province Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation Outcomes: A pilot for the New Guinea Wilderness
D. Fairclough, A. Nakazono (2004)
Choerodon schoenleinii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2
F. D.P, P. Walker (1996)
Integrating conservation and development: effective trade-offs between biodiversity and cost in the selection of protected areasBiodiversity & Conservation, 5
H. Possingham, I. Ball, S. Andelman (2000)
Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks
Alexander Moffett, Justin Garson, S. Sarkar (2005)
MultCSync: a software package for incorporating multiple criteria in conservation planningEnviron. Model. Softw., 20
D. Faith, P. Walker, J. Ive, L. Belbin (1996)
Integrating conservation and forestry production: exploring trade-offs between biodiversity and production in regional land-use assessmentForest Ecology and Management, 85
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
C. Kremen, V. Razafimahatratra, R. Guillery, J. Rakotomalala, Andrew Weiss, Jean-Solo Ratsisompatrarivo (1999)
Designing the Masoala National Park in Madagascar Based on Biological and Socioeconomic DataConservation Biology, 13
MARXAN (V1.8.2): marine reserve design using spatially explicit annealing, a manual. Department of Ecology
(1993)
Agricultural land use of Papua New Guinea. Map with explanatory notes
Abstract: Scarce resources and competing land‐use goals necessitate efficient biodiversity conservation. Combining multicriteria analysis with conservation decision‐support tools improves efficiency of conservation planning by maximizing outcomes for biodiversity while minimizing opportunity costs to society. An opportunity cost is the benefit that could have been received by taking an alternative course of action (i.e., costs to society of protecting an area for biodiversity rather than developing it for some other use). Although different ways of integrating multiple opportunity costs into conservation planning have been suggested, there have been no tests as to which method is most efficient. We compared the relative efficiency of 3 such procedures (, , and a procedure of our own design) in a systematic conservation‐planning framework for the Milne Bay Province of Papua New Guinea. We devised 14 opportunity costs and assigned these to 3 scenarios representing different conservation planning concerns: food security, macro‐economic development, and biodiversity persistence. For each scenario, we compared the efficiency of the 3 methods in terms of amount of biodiversity protected relative to total expenditure for each opportunity cost. All 3 methods captured similar amounts of biodiversity, but differed in total cost. Our method had the least overall cost and was therefore most efficient. Nevertheless, there was a high correlation and geographical concordance among all 3 methods, indicating a high degree of spatial overlap. This suggests that choosing an appropriate approach may often depend on contextual factors related to the design of the planning question, rather than efficiency alone.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Aug 1, 2008
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.