Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The residential lakeshore access allocation problem: Minimizing barrier effects on shoreline habitat buffers

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Residential lakeshore development is causing increasing pressure on the lacustrine environment. Traditional landscaping patterns produce lakes ringed with lawns at the expense of the naturally occurring shoreline habitat. In this work, we present a mathematical model to select path locations to minimize impacts on the lakeshore environment, while providing convenient access to the landowners.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Lemberg, R. Fraser and J. Marsch, Perceptions of lakeshore living: implications for planning sustainable lakeshores, Mich. Riparian 37(4) (2002) 8–10, 38(1) (2003) 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Q. Gillard, The effect of environmental amenities on house values: the example of a view lot, Prof. Geogr. 33(2) (1981) 216–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. B.H. Smith, The effect of ocean and lake coast amenities on cities, J. Land Econ. 33 (1993) 115–123.

    Google Scholar 

  4. F. Spalatro and B. Provencher, An analysis of minimum frontage zoning to preserve lakefront amenities, Land Econ. 77(4) (2001) 469–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J.I. Nassauer, S.E. Kosek and R.C. Corry, Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 37(6) (2001) 1439–1443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. B.S. Jorgensen and R.C. Stedman, Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties, J. Environ. Psychol. 21 (2001) 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. T.V. Stein and D.H. Anderson, Combining benefits-based management with ecosystem management for landscape planning: leech Lake watershed, Minnesota, Landsc. Urban Plan. 60 (2002) 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. N.H. Lansford and L.L. Jones, Marginal price of lake recreation and aesthetics: an hedonic approach, J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 27(1) (1995) 212–223.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Siderelis and G. Perrygo, Recreation benefits of neighboring sites: an application to riparian rights, J. Leis. Res. 28(1) (1996) 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  10. T. Reed-Anderson, E.M. Bennett, B.S. Jorgensen, G. Lauster, D.B. Lewis, D. Nowacek, J.L. Riera, B.L. Sanderson and R. Stedman, Distribution of recreational boating across lakes: do landscape variables affect recreational use, Freshw. Biol. 43 (2000) 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. P. Cheshire and S. Sheppard, On the price of land and the value of amenities, Economica 62 (1995) 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Geoghegan, The value of open spaces in residential land use, Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. C.G. Leggett and N.E. Bockstael, Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land prices, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 39 (2000) 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. W. Kriesel, A. Randall and F. Lichtkopper, Estimating the benefits of shore erosion protection on Ohio's Lake Erie housing market, Water Resour. Res. 29(4) (1993) 795–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. A.S.L. Rodrigues and K.J. Gaston, Optimization in reserve selection procedures – why not, Biol. Conserv. 107 (2002) 123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. C.S. ReVelle, J.C. Williams and J.J. Boland, Counterpart models in facility location science and reserve selection science, Environ. Model. Assess. 7 (2002) 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. K.D. Cocks and I.A. Baird, Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: an example from the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, Biol. Conserv. 49 (1989) 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. R.L. Church, D.M. Stoms and F.W. Davis, Reserve selection as a maximal covering problem, Biol. Conserv. 76 (1996) 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. R.L. Pressy, H.P. Possingham and J.R. Day, Effectiveness of alternative algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reserves, Biol. Conserv. 80 (1997) 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. K.E. Rosing, C.S. ReVelle and J.C. Williams, Maximizing special representation under limited resources: a new and efficient hueristic, Environ. Model. Assess. 7 (2002) 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. R. Briers, Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures, Biol. Conserv. 103 (2002) 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. M.A. Clemins, C.S. ReVelle and J.C. Williams, Reserve design for species preservation, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 112(2) (1999) 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. M.D. McDonell, H.P. Possingham, I.R. Ball and E.A. Cousins, Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design, Environ. Model. Assess. 7 (2002) 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. R.G. Haight, C.S. ReVelle and S.A. Snyder, An integer optimization approach to a probabilistic reserve site selection problem, Oper. Res. 48(5) (2000) 697–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. S. Polasky, J.D. Camm, A.R. Solow, B. Csuti, D. White and R. Ding, Choosing reserve networks with incomplete species information, Biol. Conserv. 94 (2000) 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. J.C. Williams and C.S. RaVelle, A 0–1 programming approach to delineating protected reserves, Environ. Plann., B 23(5) (1996) 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. J.C. Williams and C.S. RaVelle, Reserve assemblage of critical areas: A zero–one programming approach, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104 (1998) 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. D.J. Nalle, J.L. Arthur, C.A. Montgomery and J. Sessions, Economic and spatial impacts of an existing reserve network on future augmentation, Environ. Model. Assess. 7 (2002) 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. S.A. Malcolm and C.S. ReVelle, Rebuilding migratory flyways using directed conditional covering, Environ. Model. Assess. 7 (2002) 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. H. Önal and R.A. Briers, Incorporating spatial criteria in optimum reserve network selection, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B Biol. Sci. 269 (2002) 2437–2441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. J. Cohon, Multiobjective Programming and Planning (Academic, New York, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  32. S. Hakimi, Optimum locations of switching centers and the absolute centers and medians of a graph, Oper. Res. 12 (1964) 462–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. A.T. Murray and R.L. Church, Using proximity restrictions for locating undesirable facilities, Stud. Locat. Anal. 12(1) (1999) 81–99.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. E. Dijkstra, A note on two problems in connexion with graphs, Numer. Math. 1 (1959) 269–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by U.S. EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Program Grant #R-82758401 with additional funding from a Kalamazoo Foundation Community Watershed Grant. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviews for their illuminating and constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Western Michigan University, 3529 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA

    David S. Lemberg

  2. Thomas Jefferson School, 3401 E Newman Rd., Joplin, MO, 64801, USA

    Rolland Fraser

Authors
  1. David S. Lemberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rolland Fraser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David S. Lemberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lemberg, D.S., Fraser, R. The residential lakeshore access allocation problem: Minimizing barrier effects on shoreline habitat buffers. Environ Model Assess 10, 265–276 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-005-9000-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-005-9000-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation