A comparison of fixed-site and non-fixed-site approaches for species protection
- 53 Downloads
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.
Keywordsspecies conservation operations research resource economics landscape ecology forestry land use nature reserve design forest certification
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.
- 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
- 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
- 8.F. Glover, Tabu search – part I, J. Comput. 1 (1989) 190–260.Google Scholar
- 9.F. Glover, Tabu search – part II, J. Comput. 2 (1989) 4–32.Google Scholar
- 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
- 12.J. Hof and M. Bevers, Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems (Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1998).Google Scholar
- 13.J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial and Systems (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975).Google Scholar
- 15.MATLAB, v5.3 (The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, MA, 1999).Google Scholar
- 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
- 19.A. Murray and R. Church, Analyzing cliques for imposing adjacency restrictions in forest models, For. Sci. 42 (1996) 166–175.Google Scholar
- 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
- 22.Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife List of Sensitive Species, (1997), http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrWild/Diversity/senspecies.pdf.
- 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
- 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.N.H. Schumaker, EPA/600/R-98/135 (1998).Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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