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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky and A. Solow, Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation, Science 279 (1998) 2126–2128.
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/.
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).
R.A. Briers, Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures, Biol. Conserv. 103 (2002) 77–83.
Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Atlantic Stock Assessment Secretariat, Report on the Status of Groundfish Stocks in the Canadian Northwest Atlantic, (1994).
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.
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.
F. Glover, Tabu search – part I, J. Comput. 1 (1989) 190–260.
F. Glover, Tabu search – part II, J. Comput. 2 (1989) 4–32.
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).
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.
J. Hof and M. Bevers, Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems (Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1998).
J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial and Systems (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975).
S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt and M. Vecchi, Optimization by simulated annealing, Science 220 (1983) 671–680.
MATLAB, v5.3 (The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, 1999).
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.
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.
A. Murray and R. Church, Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems, OR Spektrum 17 (1995) 193–203.
A. Murray and R. Church, Analyzing cliques for imposing adjacency restrictions in forest models, For. Sci. 42 (1996) 166–175.
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).
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.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife List of Sensitive Species, (1997), http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/Diversity/senspecies.pdf.
Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium, Willamette River Basin Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, 2001).
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.
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.
C.F. Row, F. Kaiser, J. Sessions, Discount rate for long-term Forest Service investments, J. For. 79 (1981) 367–369, 376.
N.H. Schumaker, EPA/600/R-98/135 (1998).
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.
S.A. Snyder and C.S. ReVelle, Dynamic selection of harvests with adjacency restrictions: the share model, For. Sci. 43 (1997) 213–222.
S.A. Snyder and C.S. ReVelle, Multiobjective grid packing problem: an application in forest management, Location Sci. 5 (1997) 165–180.
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)
J.C. Williams and C.S. ReVelle, A 0–1 programming approach to delineating protected reserves. Environ. Plann., B 23 (1996) 607–624.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nalle, D.J., Arthur, J.L. A comparison of fixed-site and non-fixed-site approaches for species protection. Environ Model Assess 10, 229–238 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-005-9004-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-005-9004-8