Abstract
The process of selecting candidate areas for inclusion in a regional conservation network should include not only delineating appropriate land units for selection and defining targets for representing features of interest, but also determining the suitability of land units for conservation purposes. We developed an explicit rating of conservation suitability by applying fuzzy-logic functions in a knowledge base to ecological condition and socio-economic attributes of land units in the interior Columbia River basin, USA. Suitability was converted to unsuitability to comprise a cost criterion in selecting regional conservation networks. When unsuitability was the sole cost criterion or was combined with land area as cost, only about one-third of the area selected was rated suitable, due to inclusion of unsuitable land to achieve representation of conservation targets (vegetation cover-type area). Selecting only from land units rated suitable produced networks that were 100% suitable, reasonably efficient, and most likely to be viable and defensible, as represented in our knowledge-based system. However, several conservation targets were not represented in these networks. The tradeoff between suitability and effectiveness in representing targets suggests that a multi-stage process should be implemented to address both attributes of candidate conservation networks. The suitability of existing conservation areas was greater than that of most alternative candidate networks, but 59% of land units containing conservation areas received a rating of unsuitable, due in part to the presence of units only partially occupied by conservation areas, in which unsuitability derived from conditions in non-conserved areas.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- KB:
-
Knowledge base
- ECA:
-
Existing conservation area
- ICRB:
-
Interior Columbia River basin
- EMDS:
-
Ecosystem Management Decision Support
References
Ahamed TRN, Rao KG, Murthy JSR (2000) GIS-based fuzzy membership model for crop-land suitability analysis. Agric Syst 63:75–95
Andelman S, Ball I, Davis F, Stoms D (1999) Sites V 1.0: an analytical toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios. Manual prepared for The Nature Conservancy. University of California, Santa Barbara
Ando A, Camm J, Polasky S, Solow A (1998) Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279:2126–2128
Baja S, Chapman DM, Dragovich D (2002) A conceptual model for defining and assessing land management units using a fuzzy modeling approach in GIS environment. Environ Manage 29:647–661
Bedward M, Pressey RL, Keith DA (1992) A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biol Conserv 62:115–125
Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC (in revision) Evaluating the performance of ecological land classifications: Do they represent variability in patterns central to conservation goals? Biol Conserv
Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Reynolds KM (2001) Representativeness assessments. In: Jensen ME, Bourgeron PS (eds) A guidebook for integrated ecological assessments. Springer, New York
Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Reynolds KM (to be submitted) A regional framework for evaluating the suitability of land areas for conservation. Biol Conserv
Braimoh AK, Pyke PLG, Stein A (2004) Land evaluation for maize based on fuzzy set and interpolation. Environ Manage 33:226–238
Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Rodrigues ASL (2004) Protected areas and species. Conserv Biol 18:616–618
Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2001) Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 16:242–248
Cabeza J, Araújo MB, Wilson RJ, Thomas CD, Cowley MJR, Moilanen A (2004) Combining probabilities of occurrence with spatial reserve design. J Appl Ecol 41:252–262
Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Desmet PG, Ellis AG (1999) From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich Mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Divers Distrib 5:51–71
Csuti B, Polansky S, Williams PH, Pressey RL, Camm JD, Kershaw M, Kiester AR, Downs B, Hamilton R, Huso M, Sahr K (1997) A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol Conserv 80:83–97
Dai JJ, Lorenzato S, Rocke DM (2004) A knowledge-based model of watershed assessment for sediment. Environ Modell Softw 19:423–433
Davidson DA, Theocharopoulos SP, Bloksma RJ (1994) A land evaluation project in Greece using GIS and based on Boolean and fuzzy set methodologies. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 8:369–384
Davis FW, Costello C, Stoms D (2006) Efficient conservation in a utility-maximization framework. Ecol Soc 11:33 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art33
Davis FW, Stoms DM, Andelman S (1999) Systematic reserve selection in the USA: an example from the Columbia Plateau ecoregion. Parks 9:31–41
Davis FW, Stoms DM, Church RL, Okin WJ, Johnson NL (1996) Selecting biodiversity management areas. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress, vol II. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, pp 1503–1528
Eyre FH (ed) (1980) Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC
Fairbanks DHK, Reyers B, van Jaarsveld AS (2001) Species and environment representation: selecting reserves for the retention of avian diversity in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Biol Conserv 98:365–379
Fischer DT, Church RL (2005) The SITES reserve selection system: a critical review. Environ Model Assess 10:215–228
Gravenmier RA, Wilson AE, Steffenson JR (1997) Information system development and documentation. In: Quigley TM, Arbelbide SJ (eds) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, vol II. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 2011–2067
Groenemans R, Van Ranst E, Kerre E (1997) Fuzzy relational calculus in land evaluation. Geoderma 77:283–298
Hall GB, Wang F, Subaryono (1992) Comparison of Boolean and fuzzy classification methods in land suitability analysis by using geographical information systems. Environ Plan A 24:497–516
Hann WJ, Jones JL, Karl MG, Hessburg PF, Keane RE, Long DG, Menakis JP, McNicoll CH, Leonard SG, Gravenmier RA, Smith BG (1997) Landscape dynamics of the Basin. In: Quigley TM, Arbelbide SJ (eds) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, vol II. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 337–1055
Humphries HC, Bourgeron PS, Reynolds KM (in revision) The effect of data availability on the determination of suitability of land units for conservation using a knowledge-based system. Environ Modell Softw
Jensen M, Goodman I, Brewer K, Frost T, Ford G, Nesser J (1997) Biophysical environments of the basin. In: Quigley TM, Arbelbide SJ (eds) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, vol I. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 99–314
Kelley C, Garson J, Aggarwal A, Sarkar S (2002) Place prioritization for biodiversity reserve network design: a comparison of the SITES and ResNet software packages for coverage and efficiency. Divers Distrib 8:297–306
Kollias VJ, Kalivas DP (1998) The enhancement of a commercial geographical information system (ARC-INFO) with fuzzy processing capabilities for the evaluation of land resources. Comput Electron Agr 20:79–95
Lombard AT, Nicholls AO, August PV (1995) Where should nature reserves be located in South Africa? A snake’s perspective. Conserv Biol 9:363–372
Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253
Margules CR, Pressey RL, Williams PH (2002) Representing biodiversity: data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. J Biosci 27:309–326
McDonnell MD, Possingham HP, Ball IR, Cousins EA (2002) Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environ Model Assess 7:107–114
Nantel P, Bouchard A, Brouillet L, Hay S (1998) Selection of areas for protecting rare plants with integration of land use conflicts: a case study for the west coast of Newfoundland, Canada. Biol Conserv 84:223–234
Noss RF (1987) From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy. Biol Conserv 41:11–37
Noss RF, Beier P, Covington WW, Grumbine RE, Lindenmayer DB, Prather JW, Schmiegelow F, Sisk TD, Vosick DJ (2006) Recommendations for integrating restoration ecology and conservation biology in ponderosa pine forests of the southwestern United States. Restor Ecol 14:4–10
Oetting JB, Knight AL, Knight GR (2006) Systematic reserve design as a dynamic process: F-TRAC and the Florida Forever program. Biol Conserv 128:37–46
Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133–46
Possingham H, Ball I, Andelman S (2000) Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S, Burgman M (eds) Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York, 291–305
Pressey RL (2004) Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling the best data for the job. Conserv Biol 18:1677–1681
Pressey RL, Logan VS (1994) Level of geographic subdivision and its effects on assessments of reserve coverage: a review of regional studies. Conserv Biol 8:1037–1046
Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in conservation evaluation-scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol Conserv 50:199–218
Pressey RL, Humphries CJ, Margules CR, Vane-Wright RI, Williams PH (1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection. Trends Ecol Evol 8:124–128
Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Day JR (1997) Effectiveness of alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for conservation reserves. Biol Conserv 80:207–219
Pressey RL, Possingham HP, Margules CR (1996) Optimality in reserve selection algorithms: when does it matter and how much? Biol Conserv 76:259–267
Pyke CR (2005) Assessing suitability for conservation action: prioritization interpond linkages for the California tiger salamander. Conserv Biol 19:492–503
Quigley TM, Arbelbide SJ (eds) (1997) An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, vol I. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland
Ray D, Reynolds K, Slade J, Hodge S (1998) A spatial solution to ecological site classification for British forestry using Ecosystem Management Decision Support. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on geocomputation, Bristol, September 17–19, 1998, http://www.fsl.orst.edu/emds/geocomp/geopap3.html
Reid MS, Bourgeron PS, Humphries HC, Jensen ME (eds) (1995) Documentation of the modeling of potential vegetation at three spatial scales using biophysical settings in the Columbia River basin assessment area. URL: http://www.icbemp.gov/science/reid_1.pdf
ReVelle CS, Williams JC, Boland JJ (2002) Counterpart models in facility location science and reserve selection science. Environ Model Assess 7:71–80
Reynolds KM (1999a) EMDS users guide (version 2.0): knowledge-based decision support for ecological assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR 470, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland
Reynolds KM (1999b) NetWeaver for EMDS version 2.0 users guide: a knowledge base development system. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR 471, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland
Reynolds KM (2001) Using a logic framework to assess forest ecosystems sustainability. J Forest 99:26–30
Reynolds KM, Hessburg PF (2005) Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. For Ecol Manage 207:263–278
Reynolds KM, Jensen M, Andreasen J, Goodman I (2000) Knowledge-based assessment of watershed condition. Comput Electron Agr 27:315–334
Reynolds KM, Johnson KN, Gordon SN (2003) The science/policy interface in logic-based evaluation of forest ecosystem sustainability. Forest Policy Econ 5:433–446
Rodrigues ASL, Tratt R, Wheeler BD, Gaston KJ (1999) The performance of existing networks of conservation areas in representing biodiversity. P Roy Soc Lond B 266:1453–1460
Rouget M (2003) Measuring conservation value at fine and broad scales: implications for a diverse and fragmented region, the Agulhas Plain. Biol Conserv 112:217–232
Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annu Rev Env Resour 31:123–159
Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie RG, Wright RG, Groves C, Estes J (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecol Appl 11:999–1007
Shafer CL (2001) Inter-reserve distance. Biol Conserv 100:215–227
Sicat RS, Carranza EJM, Nidumolu UB (2005) Fuzzy modeling of farmers’ knowledge for land suitability. Agric Syst 83:49–75
Snyder SA, Tyrrell LE, Haight RG (1999) An optimizing approach to selecting Research Natural Areas in National Forests. Forest Sci 45:458–469
Stewart RR, Possingham HP (2005) Efficiency, costs and trade-offs in marine reserve system design. Environl Model Assess 10:203–213
Stoms DM, Borchert MI, Moritz MA, Davis FW, Church RL (1998) A systematic process for selecting representative research natural areas. Nat Area J 18:338–349
Stoms DM, McDonald JM, Davis FW (2002) Fuzzy assessment of land suitability for scientific research reserves. Environ Manage 29:545–558
Triantafilis J, Ward WT, McBratney AB (2001) Land suitability assessment in the Namoi Valley of Australia, using a continuous model. Aust J Soil Res 39:273–290
USDA Forest Service (1992) Preparing for the future: Forest Service research natural areas. FS-503
Van Langevelde F, Schotman A, Claassen F, Sparenburg G (2000) Competing land use in the reserve site selection problem. Landscape Ecol 15:243–256
Van Ranst E, Tang H, Groenemans R, Sinthurahat S (1996) Application of fuzzy logic to land suitability for rubber production in peninsular Thailand. Geoderma 70:1–19
Van Teeffelen AJA, Cabeza M, Moilanen A (2006) Connectivity, probabilities and persistence: comparing reserve selection strategies. Biodiv Conserv 15:899–919
Wessels KJ, Freitag S, Van Jaarsveld AS (1999) The use of land facets as biodiversity surrogates during reserve selection at a local scale. Biol Conserv 89:21–38
Wessels KJ, Reyers B, Van Jaarsveld AS (2000) Incorporating land cover information into regional biodiversity assessments in South Africa. Anim Conserv 3:67–79
Westphal MI, Possingham HP (2003) Applying a decision-theory framework to landscape planning for biodiversity: follow-up to Watson et al. Conserv Biol 17:327–329
Williams PH (1998) Key sites for conservation: area-selection methods for biodiversity. In: Mace GM, Balmford A, Ginsberg JR (eds) Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 269–287
Williams JC, ReVelle CS, Levin SA (2004) Using mathematical optimization models to design nature reserves. Front Ecol Environ 2:98–105
Williams JC, ReVelle CS, Levin SA (2005) Spatial attributes and reserve design models: a review. Environ Model Assess 10:163–181
Acknowledgments
Primary funding was provided to P.S. Bourgeron and H.C. Humphries by a Science To Achieve Results grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“Multi-scaled Assessment Methods: Prototype Development within the Interior Columbia Basin”). Additional funding to P.S. Bourgeron to complete the work and manuscript was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Analysis and Monitoring program and the International Visiting Blaise Pascal Chair based at Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris, France. We thank Frank W. Davis for early discussions on the structure of the knowledge bases and selection algorithms.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Humphries, H.C., Bourgeron, P.S. & Reynolds, K.M. Suitability for conservation as a criterion in regional conservation network selection. Biodivers Conserv 17, 467–492 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9245-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9245-8