Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(2002)
Open space protection: conservation meets growth management
R. Church, R. Gerrard, A. Hollander, D. Stoms (2000)
Understanding the tradeoffs between site quality and species presence in reserve site selection.Forest Science, 46
D. Fischer, R. Church (2003)
Clustering and Compactness in Reserve Site Selection: An Extension of the Biodiversity Management Area Selection ModelForest Science, 49
A. Rodrigues, K. Gaston (2002)
Optimisation in reserve selection procedures—why not?Biological Conservation, 107
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
C. Revelle, Justin Williams, J. Boland (2002)
Counterpart Models in Facility Location Science and Reserve Selection ScienceEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment, 7
S. Snyder, C. Revelle, R. Haight (2004)
One- and two-objective approaches to an area-constrained habitat reserve site selection problemBiological Conservation, 119
James Miller, R. Hobbs (2002)
Conservation Where People Live and WorkConservation Biology, 16
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
K. Rothley (1999)
DESIGNING BIORESERVE NETWORKS TO SATISFY MULTIPLE, CONFLICTING DEMANDSEcological Applications, 9
D. Schilling, A. McGarity, C. Revelle (1982)
Hidden Attributes and the Display of Information in Multiobjective AnalysisManagement Science, 28
J. Kirkpatrick (1983)
An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature reserves: An example from TasmaniaBiological Conservation, 25
S. Snyder, R. Haight, C. Revelle (2004)
A Scenario Optimization Model for Dynamic Reserve Site SelectionEnvironmental Modeling & Assessment, 9
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
C. Revelle (1987)
Urban Public Facility LocationHandbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 2
C. Margules, A. Nicholls, R. Pressey (1988)
Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversityBiological Conservation, 43
J. Ruliffson, R. Haight, P. Gobster, F. Homans (2003)
Metropolitan natural area protection to maximize public access and species representationEnvironmental Science & Policy, 6
R. Noss, C. Carroll, K. Vance‐Borland, G. Wuerthner (2002)
A Multicriteria Assessment of the Irreplaceability and Vulnerability of Sites in the Greater Yellowstone EcosystemConservation Biology, 16
J. Williams, C. Revelle (1996)
A 0–1 Programming Approach to Delineating Protected ReservesEnvironment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 23
C. Margules, R. Pressey (2000)
Systematic conservation planningNature, 405
J. Camm, Susan Norman, S. Polasky, A. Solow (2002)
Nature Reserve Site Selection to Maximize Expected Species CoveredOper. Res., 50
R. Haight, C. Revelle, S. Snyder (2000)
An Integer Optimization Approach to a Probabilistic Reserve Site Selection ProblemOper. Res., 48
C. Costello, S. Polasky (2004)
Dynamic reserve site selectionResource and Energy Economics, 26
Hayri Önal, R. Briers (2002)
Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve network selectionProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269
J. Arthur, J. Camm, R. Haight, Claire Montgomery, S. Polasky (2004)
WEIGHING CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES: MAXIMUM EXPECTED COVERAGE VERSUS ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONEcological Applications, 14
J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow, B. Csuti (1996)
A note on optimal algorithms for reserve site selectionBiological Conservation, 78
(1990)
General algebraic modeling system. Version 2.25.090. GAMS Development Corporation
M. Cabeza, A. Moilanen (2001)
Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity.Trends in ecology & evolution, 16 5
H. Possingham, J. Day, M. Goldfinch, F. Salzborn (1993)
The mathematics of designing a network of protected areas for conservation
(1999)
Applications of irreplaceability analysis to planning and management problems
Shabbir Ahmed, A. Shapiro (2002)
The Sample Average Approximation Method for Stochastic Programs with Integer Recourse
J. Cohon (2004)
Multiobjective programming and planning
J. Ruliffson, P. Gobster, R. Haight, Francis Homans (2002)
Niches in the urban forest: Organizations and their role in acquiring metropolitan open space.Journal of Forestry, 100
(1999)
Under pressure : land consumption in the Chicago region 1998 – 2028
J. Lawler, D. White, L. Master (2003)
INTEGRATING REPRESENTATION AND VULNERABILITY: TWO APPROACHES FOR PRIORITIZING AREAS FOR CONSERVATIONEcological Applications, 13
R. Church, D. Stoms, F. Davis (1996)
Reserve selection as a maximal covering location problemBiological Conservation, 76
Abstract: Urban planners acquire open space to protect natural areas and provide public access to recreation opportunities. Because of limited budgets and dynamic land markets, acquisitions take place sequentially depending on available funds and sites. To address these planning features, we formulated a two‐period site selection model with two objectives: maximize the expected number of species represented in protected sites and maximize the expected number of people with access to protected sites. These objectives were both maximized subject to an upper bound on area protected over two periods. The trade‐off between species representation and public access was generated by the weighting method of multiobjective programming. Uncertainty was represented with a set of probabilistic scenarios of site availability in a linear‐integer formulation. We used data for 27 rare species in 31 candidate sites in western Lake County, near the city of Chicago, to illustrate the model. Each trade‐off curve had a concave shape in which species representation dropped at an increasing rate as public accessibility increased, with the trade‐off being smaller at higher levels of the area budget. Several sites were included in optimal solutions regardless of objective function weights, and these core sites had high species richness and public access per unit area. The area protected in period one depended on current site availability and on the probabilities of sites being undeveloped and available in the second period. Although the numerical results are specific for our study, the methodology is general and applicable elsewhere.
Conservation Biology – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2005
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.