Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Finding the Tradeoffs Between the Reserve Design and Representation

  • FORUM
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many reserve selection tools have been created to solve the minimum representation problem, selecting the least costly set of sites such that all conservation surrogate targets are met. However, there are practical problems and risks associated with this method for finding reserve network alternatives, including the treatment of persistence-promoting design considerations as secondary objectives. Here, reserve networks are generated for a hypothetical landscape where the objectives are to maximize representation and to maximize conformance with persistence-promoting design principles, subject to a constraint on the number of sites in the networks. The efficiency of potential networks is calculated as the total number of species captured in the included sites. Effectiveness is measured as a function of the size of individual patches, total reserve size, and extent of interpatch connectivity. A series of tradeoff curves are produced showing the nondominated compromise alternatives between representation and design for organisms with varying dispersal capabilities. Each alternative comprises a list of selected sites and covers species, as well as the identities and locations of the interpatch edges connecting the sites. Potential ways to use the results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Airame S., J. E. Dugan, K. D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D. A. McArdle, R. R. Warner. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications 13:S170–S184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andelman, S. J., I. Ball, F. W. Davis, and D. M. Stoms. 1999. SITES: An analytic toolbox for ecoregional conservation portfolios. The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC, USA. Available from < http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/projects/tnc/toolbox.html>

  • Andelman S. J., M. R. Willig. 2002. Alternative configurations of conservation reserves for Paraguayan bats: considerations of spatial scale. Conservation Biology 16:1352–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ando A., J. Camm, S. Polasky, A. Solow. 1998. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bender D., T. A. Contreras, L. Fahrig. 1998. Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briers R. A. 2002. Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures. Biological Conservation 103:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M. 2003. Habitat loss and connectivity of reserve networks in probability approaches to reserve design. Ecology Letters 6:665–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M., A. Moilanen. 2001. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:242–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza M., A. Moilanen. 2003. Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conservation Biology 17:1402–1413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll C., R. E. Noss, P. C. Paquet, N. H. Schumaker. 2003. Use of population viability analysis and reserve selection algorithms in regional conservation plans. Ecological Applications 13:1773–1789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Channell R., M. V. Lomolino. 2000. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403:84–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X., B.-L. Li, T.A. Scott, T. Tennant, J. T. Rotenberry, M. F. Allen. 2005. Spatial structure of multispecies distributions in southern California, USA. Biological Conservation 124:169–175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohon J. L. 1978. Multiobjective programming and planning. Academic Press, New York, 333 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohon J. L., K. D. Rothley. 1997. Multiobjective methods. In: C. ReVelle A. E. McGarity (eds.) Design and operation of civil and environmental engineering systems. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Pages 513–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies K. F., C. R. Margules, K. F. Lawrence. 2000. Which traits of species predict population declines in experimental forest fragments? Ecology 81:1450–1461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond J. M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural preserves. Biological Conservation 7:129–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith D. P., P. A. Walker. 2002. The role of trade-offs in biodiversity conservation planning: linking local management, regional planning, and global conservation efforts. Journal of Bioscience 27:393–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freitag S., A. O. Nicholls, A. S. van Jaarsveld. 1998. Dealing with established reserve networks and incomplete distribution data sets in conservation planning. South African Journal of Science 94:79–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Garson J., A. Aggarwal, S. Sarkar. 2002. Birds as surrogates for diversity: an analysis of a data set from southern Quebec. Journal of Bioscience 27:347–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah L., G. Midgley, G. Hughes, B. Bomhard. 2005. The view from the cape: extinction risk, protected areas, and climate change. BioScience 55:231–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heijnis C. E., A. T. Lombard, R. M. Cowling, P. G. Desmet. 1999. Picking up the pieces: a biosphere reserve framework for a fragmented landscape: the Coastal Lowlands of the Western Cape, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:471–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley C., J. Garson, A. Aggarwal, S. Sarkar. 2002. Place prioritization for biodiversity reserve network design: a comparison of the SITES and ResNet software packages for coverage and efficiency. Diversity and Distributions 8:297–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland S. E. 2002. Creating a science of nature reserve design: perspectives from history. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 7:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler J. J., D. White, L. L. Master. 2003. Integrating representation and vulnerability: two approaches for prioritizing areas for conservation. Ecological Applications 13:1762–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindo Systems. 1995. Lindo/386 5.3. Lindo Systems, Chicago, Illinois

  • Linehan J., M. Gross, J. Finn. 1995. Greenway planning: developing a landscape ecological network approach. Landscape and Urban Planning 33:179–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules C. R., R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCann K. S. 2000. The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meir E., S. Andelman, H. Possingham. 2004. Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world? Ecology Letters 7:615–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen A. 2005. Methods for reserve selection: Interior point search. Biological Conservation 124:485–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalle D. J., J. L. Arthur, J. Sessions. 2002. Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic approach. Forest Science 48:59–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R. F. 2004. Conservation targets and information needs for regional conservation planning. Natural Areas Journal 24:223–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss R. F., E. Dinerstein, B. Gilbert, M. Gilpin, B. J. Miller, J. Terborgh, S. Trombulak. 1999. Core areas: where nature reigns. In M. E. Soulé J. Terborgh (eds.) Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Pages 99–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Önal H., R. A. Briers. 2002. Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve network selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 296:2437–2441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Önal H., R. A. Briers. 2003. Selection of a minimum-boundary reserve network using integer programming. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 270:1487–1491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possingham H., I. Ball S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In S. Ferson M. Burgman (eds.) Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York. Pages 291–305

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey P. L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems? Conservation Biology 8:662–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey P. L., R. M. Cowling. 2001. Reserve selection algorithms and the real world. Conservation Biology 15:275–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey R. L., M. E. Watts, T. W. Barrett. 2004. Is maximizing protection the same as minimizing loss? Efficiency and retention as alternative measures of the effectiveness of proposed reserves. Ecology Letters 7:1035–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport E. H., G. Borioli, J. A. Monjeau, J. E. Puntieri, R. D. Oviedo. 1986. The design of nature reserves: a simulation trial for assessing specific conservation value. Biological Conservation 37:269–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ReVelle C. S., J. C. Williams, J. J. Borland. 2002. Counterpart models in facility location science and reserve selection science. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 7:71–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues A. S., J. O. Cerdeira, K. J. Gaston. 2000a. Flexibility, efficiency, and accountability: adapting reserve selection algorithms to more complex conservation problems. Ecography 23:565–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues A.S.L., R. D. Gregory, K. J. Gaston. 2000b. Robustness of reserve selection procedures under temporal species turnover. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 267:49–55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rothley K. 1999. Designing bioreserve networks to satisfy multiple, conflicting demands. Ecological Applications 9:741–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothley, K. 2005. Finding and filling the “cracks” in resistance surfaces for least-cost modeling. Ecology and Society 10:4 [online]

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothley K. D. 2002. Dynamically-based criteria for the identification of optimal bioreserve networks. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 7:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothley K. D., C. Rae. 2005. Working backwards to move forwards: graph-based connectivity metrics for reserve network selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10:107–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez-Cordero V., V. Cirelli, M. Munguial, S. Sarkar. 2005. Place prioritization for biodiversity content using species ecological niche modeling. Biodiversity Informatics 2:11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S., A. Aggarwal, J. Garson, C. R. Margules, J. Zeidler. 2002. Place prioritization for biodiversity content. Journal of Bioscience 27(Supplement 2): 339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S., C. Pappas, J. Garson, A. Aggarwal, S. Cameron. 2004. Place prioritization for biodiversity conservation using probabilistic surrogate distribution data. Diversity and Distributions 10:125–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J. M., M. L. Morrison, F. B. Samson, P. J. Heglund, W. A. Wall, M. G. Raphael, J. B. Haufler. 2002. Predicting species occurrences: issues of accuracy and scale. Island Press, Covelo, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé M. E. 1991. Conservation: tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253:744–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D. 2000. Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature 405:208–211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tischendorf L., L. Fahrig. 2000. How should we measure landscape connectivity? Landscape Ecology 15:633–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams P., D. Gibbons, C. R. Margules, A. Rebelo, C. Humphries, R. Pressey. 1996. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British Birds. Conservation Biology 10:155–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson K. A., M. I. Westphal, H. P. Possingham, J. Elith. 2005. Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches to using predicted species distribution data. Biological Conservation 122:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodraffe R., J. Ginsburg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:2126–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to E. Chamberlain, R. Harrold, M. Justice, C. Kereki, S. Marshall, and L. McBlane, and T. Rozan for excellent discussion. This work was partially funded by an NSERC Discovery Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, TASC I, Room 8239, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Kristina D. Rothley

Authors
  1. Kristina D. Rothley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina D. Rothley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rothley, K.D. Finding the Tradeoffs Between the Reserve Design and Representation. Environmental Management 38, 327–337 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0258-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0258-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation