The SITES reserve selection system: A critical review
- 138 Downloads
Numerous models have been put forth to help with the growing demand for the establishment of biodiversity reserves. One site selection model that has been used in several recent studies is SITES [S.J. Andelman, I. Ball, F.W. Davis and D.M. Stoms, SITES V 1.0: an analytical toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios, Unpublished manual prepared for the nature conservancy, 1999, 1–43. (available at http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/toolbox.html)]. SITES includes two heuristic solvers: based on Greedy and Simulated Annealing. We discuss the formulation of the SITES model, present a new formulation for that problem, and solve a number of test problems optimally using off-the-shelf software. We compared our optimal results with the SITES Simulated Annealing heuristic and found that SITES frequently returns significantly suboptimal solutions. Our results add further support to the argument, started by Underhill [L.G. Underhill, Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms, Biol. Conserv. 70 (1994) 85–87], continuing through Rodrigues and Gaston [A.S.L. Rodrigues and K.J. Gaston, Optimization in reserve selection procedures – why not?, Biol. Conserv. 107 (2002) 123–129], for greater integration of optimal methods in the reserve design/selection literature.
Keywordsreserve site selection optimization integer programming heuristics model formulation Simulated Annealing
During this work, Douglas Fischer was supported in part by grants from the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. We would like to acknowledge the support of the Western Ecological Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey and thank Judd Howell and Deborah Maxwell there. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also provided support. We would also like to thank Frank Davis, David Stoms, and Chris Pyke for providing data and comments. Finally, thanks are due to both Pete Stine and Klaus Barber of the U.S. Forest Service for their help and support. The comments of Justin Williams and three anonymous reviewers were very helpful in improving this manuscript.
- 1.S.J. Andelman, I. Ball, F.W. Davis and D.M. Stoms, SITES V 1.0: an analytical toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios, Unpublished manual prepared for the nature conservancy, 1999, 1–43. (available at http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/toolbox.html).
- 5.R. Gerrard, R.L. Church, D.M. Stoms and F.W. Davis, Selecting conservation reserves using species-covering models: adapting the Arc/Info GIS, Trans. Geol. Inf. Sci. 2 (1997) 45–60.Google Scholar
- 6.R. Church, D. Stoms, F. Davis and B.J. Okin, Planning management activities to protect biodiversity with a GIS and an integrated optimization model, in: Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, NM, January 21–26, 1996 (National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, CA, 1996) http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/conf/SANTA_FE_CD-ROM/main.html.
- 9.J.G. Hof and L.A. Joyce, A mixed integer linear programming approach for spatially optimizing wildlife and timber in managed forest ecosystems, For. Sci. 39 (1993) 816–834.Google Scholar
- 11.M. Bevers, J. Hof, D.W. Uresk and G.L. Schenbeck, Spatial optimization of prairie dog colonies for black-footed ferret recovery, Oper. Res. 45 (1997) 495–507.Google Scholar
- 15.R.L. Church, R. Gerrard, A. Hollander and D.M. Stoms, Understanding the tradeoffs between site quality and species presence in reserve site selection, For. Sci. 46 (2000) 157–167.Google Scholar
- 16.D.J. Nalle, J.L. Arthur and J. Sessions, Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic algorithm, For. Sci. 48 (2002) 59–68.Google Scholar
- 17.D.T. Fischer and R.L. Church, Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the biodiversity management area selection model, For. Sci. 49 (2003) 555–565.Google Scholar
- 21.C. Groves, L. Valutis, D. Vosick, B. Neely, K. Wheaton, J. Touval and B. Runnels, Designing a Geography of Hope: A Practitioners' Handbook for Ecoregional Conservation Planning (The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 2000).Google Scholar
- 25.I.R. Ball, Mathematical applications for conservation ecology: the dynamics of tree hollows and the design of nature reserves, Ph.D. thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 2000.Google Scholar
- 31.D.T. Fischer, Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the Biodiversity Management Area Selection Model, MA thesis, Univ. of Calif. Santa Barbara, 2001, p. 48.Google Scholar
- 33.ILOG. ILOG CPLEX 6.5 User's Manual, Ilog Corp. Incline Village, NV, 1999.Google Scholar
- 34.F.W. Davis, D.M. Stoms, R.L. Church, W.J. Okin and K.N. Johnson, Selecting biodiversity management areas, in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options (Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources, University of California, Davis, 1996) pp. 1503–1527.Google Scholar
- 35.Willis Linn Jepson, The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, ed. James C. Hickman (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1993) p. 1400.Google Scholar
- 36.W. Okin, The biodiversity management area selection model: constructing a solution approach, MA Thesis, Univ. of Calif. Santa Barbara, 1997, p. 67.Google Scholar
- 39.Watershed Environmental, Rural resource protection project sensitive biological resources study, prepared for County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department, 2003.Google Scholar