Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 229–238 | Cite as

A comparison of fixed-site and non-fixed-site approaches for species protection

  • Darek J. Nalle
  • Jeffrey L. Arthur
Article

The efficacy of simultaneously advancing two distinct conceptual designs (referred to here as fixed-site and non-fixed-site) for species conservation and protection is addressed. In the literature, numerous models can be found that typically stem from a particular design, but rarely are comparisons made between approaches. This paper presents a more integrated optimization framework that models landowner behavior and species viabilities at a landscape scale. Regional demand for resource extraction is used as the economic driver, a variant of simulated annealing is used to solve the model under different species protection approaches, and a detailed species population simulator is utilized to measure biological responses. When directly comparing the outcomes of different species protection strategies from a case study in Oregon (USA), it was found that neither approach was universally superior in terms of financial value or degree of protection for two late seral forest dependent species.

Keywords

species conservation operations research resource economics landscape ecology forestry land use nature reserve design forest certification 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the thorough reviews from the guest editor and anonymous referees. Their comments have resulted in a tighter, more focused presentation of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky and A. Solow, Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation, Science 279 (1998) 2126–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.M. Adams, R.A. Schillinger, G. Latta and A. VanNalts, Timber Harvest Projections for Private Land in Western Oregon, Research Contribution 37 (Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 2002) http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/people/westor/.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Adamus, Terrestrial Vertebrate Species of the Willamette River Basin: A Species–Habitat Relationship Matrix and Spatial Modeling Approach, Database Appendix (US EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, 2000).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.A. Briers, Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures, Biol. Conserv. 103 (2002) 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Atlantic Stock Assessment Secretariat, Report on the Status of Groundfish Stocks in the Canadian Northwest Atlantic, (1994).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.D. Cocks and I.A. Baird, Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: an example from the Eyre Pennisula, South Australia, Biol. Conserv. 49 (1989) 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.B. Cohen, T.A. Spies and M. Fiorella, Estimating the age and structure of forests in a multi-ownership landscape of western Oregon, USA, Int. J. Remote Sens. 16 (1995) 721–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Glover, Tabu search – part I, J. Comput. 1 (1989) 190–260.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Glover, Tabu search – part II, J. Comput. 2 (1989) 4–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.W. Hann, A.S. Hester and C.L. Olson, ORGANNON User's Manual: Edition 6.0 (Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 1997).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Hof and M.G. Raphael, Optimization of habitat placement: a case study of the northern spotted owl in the Olympic Peninsula, Ecol. Appl. 7 (1997) 1160–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Hof and M. Bevers, Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems (Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1998).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial and Systems (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt and M. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing, Science 220 (1983) 671–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MATLAB, v5.3 (The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, 1999).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M.E. McDill and J. Braze, Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age–class distributions, For. Sci. 46 (2000) 423–436.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. Metropolis, A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21 (1953) 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Murray and R. Church, Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems, OR Spektrum 17 (1995) 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Murray and R. Church, Analyzing cliques for imposing adjacency restrictions in forest models, For. Sci. 42 (1996) 166–175.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D.J. Nalle, Optimizing Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Nature Reserve Design Under Economic and Ecological Objectives, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 2002).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife List of Sensitive Species, (1997), http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/Diversity/senspecies.pdf.
  23. 23.
    Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium, Willamette River Basin Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, 2001).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    S. Polasky, J. Camm and B. Garber-Yonts, Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon, Land Econ. 77 (2001) 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R.L. Pressey and K.H. Taffs, Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplacibility and vulnerability to vegetation loss, Biol. Conserv. 100 (2001) 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    C.F. Row, F. Kaiser, J. Sessions, Discount rate for long-term Forest Service investments, J. For. 79 (1981) 367–369, 376.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    N.H. Schumaker, EPA/600/R-98/135 (1998).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Sessions, D. Johnson, J. Ross and B. Sharer, The Blodgett plan, a non-reserve based landscape approach to developing mature forest habitat, J. For. 98 (2000) 29–33.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S.A. Snyder and C.S. ReVelle, Dynamic selection of harvests with adjacency restrictions: the share model, For. Sci. 43 (1997) 213–222.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S.A. Snyder and C.S. ReVelle, Multiobjective grid packing problem: an application in forest management, Location Sci. 5 (1997) 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    J.W. Thomas, Team Leader, Forest Ecosystem Management: an Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. (U.S. Government Printing Office, Document 1993- 793-071 Washington, D.C., 1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J.C. Williams and C.S. ReVelle, A 0–1 programming approach to delineating protected reserves. Environ. Plann., B 23 (1996) 607–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    J.C. Williams and C.S. ReVelle, Reserve assemblage of critical areas: a zero–one programming approach, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 104 (1998) 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Natural ResourcesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations