Two paths to a suboptimal solution – once more about optimality in reserve selection

Two paths to a suboptimal solution – once more about optimality in reserve selection Several studies have compared the performances of exact algorithms (integer programming) and heuristic methods in the solution of conservation resource allocation problems, with the conclusion that exact methods are always preferable. Here, I summarize a potentially major deficiency in how the relationship between exact and heuristic methods has been presented: the above comparisons have all been done using relatively simple (linear) maximum coverage or minimum set models that are by definition solvable using integer programming. In contrast, heuristic or meta-heuristic algorithms can be applied to less simplified nonlinear and/or stochastic problems. The focus of this study is two kinds of suboptimality, first-stage suboptimality caused by model simplification and second-stage suboptimality caused by inexact solution. Evidence from comparisons between integer programming and heuristic solution methods suggests a suboptimality level of around 3%–10% for well-chosen heuristics, much depending on the problem and data. There is also largely anecdotal evidence from a few studies that have evaluated results from simplified conservation resource allocation problems using more complicated (nonlinear) models. These studies have found that dropping components such as habitat loss rates or connectivity effects from the model can lead to suboptimality from 5% to 50%. Consequently, I suggest that more attention should be given to two topics, first, how the performance of a conservation plan should be evaluated, and second, what are the consequences of simplifying the ideal conservation resource allocation model? Factors that may lead to relatively complicated problem formulations include connectivity and evaluation of long-term persistence, stochastic habitat loss and availability, species interactions, and distributions that shift due to climate change. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biological Conservation Elsevier

Two paths to a suboptimal solution – once more about optimality in reserve selection

Biological Conservation, Volume 141 (7) – Jul 1, 2008

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/two-paths-to-a-suboptimal-solution-once-more-about-optimality-in-cFUw7HQ9Nv
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0006-3207
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.biocon.2008.04.018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Several studies have compared the performances of exact algorithms (integer programming) and heuristic methods in the solution of conservation resource allocation problems, with the conclusion that exact methods are always preferable. Here, I summarize a potentially major deficiency in how the relationship between exact and heuristic methods has been presented: the above comparisons have all been done using relatively simple (linear) maximum coverage or minimum set models that are by definition solvable using integer programming. In contrast, heuristic or meta-heuristic algorithms can be applied to less simplified nonlinear and/or stochastic problems. The focus of this study is two kinds of suboptimality, first-stage suboptimality caused by model simplification and second-stage suboptimality caused by inexact solution. Evidence from comparisons between integer programming and heuristic solution methods suggests a suboptimality level of around 3%–10% for well-chosen heuristics, much depending on the problem and data. There is also largely anecdotal evidence from a few studies that have evaluated results from simplified conservation resource allocation problems using more complicated (nonlinear) models. These studies have found that dropping components such as habitat loss rates or connectivity effects from the model can lead to suboptimality from 5% to 50%. Consequently, I suggest that more attention should be given to two topics, first, how the performance of a conservation plan should be evaluated, and second, what are the consequences of simplifying the ideal conservation resource allocation model? Factors that may lead to relatively complicated problem formulations include connectivity and evaluation of long-term persistence, stochastic habitat loss and availability, species interactions, and distributions that shift due to climate change.

Journal

Biological ConservationElsevier

Published: Jul 1, 2008

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off