@article {775,
	title = {Choosing surrogates for biodiversity conservation in complex planning environments},
	journal = {Journal of Conservation Planning},
	volume = {1},
	year = {2005},
	month = {2005},
	pages = {44-63},
	abstract = {The coarse filter/fine filter hypothesis suggests that by conserving high-quality examples of all ecological systems along with imperiled species and communities, we could protect the majority of native biodiversity. Given the cost of data collection, conservation planners might wonder how large this set of elements must be. We conducted an analysis of the sensitivity of selecting a set of reserves to the choice of surrogates in Napa County, California, USA. The study evaluated the extent to which conservation goals for the coarse/fine-filter elements were met by surrogates and whether the same general locations were being selected. Napa County represents a data-rich setting, whereas the test surrogates portrayed a range of circumstances where less data are available. A worst (data-poor) case, based only on landscape condition with no biological data, was tested to identify the value of improved information. Our results suggest that in complex planning environments, there are no simple shortcuts in collecting data. None of the surrogate sets was particularly effective at meeting all the goals for the full set of baseline elements. There was also relatively low spatial congruence between the test solutions and the baseline. However, we did find that all combinations of surrogates provided some degree of protection in notional reserves, suggesting that in less complex planning problems, simpler surrogates can serve a useful function. Studies like this will help planners gauge how much effort it is prudent to spend in compiling spatial data relative to the risks and irreplaceability to native biodiversity.},
	keywords = {coarse-filter, conservation planning, fine-filter, Napa County, reserve selection, sensitivity analysis, Sites, surrogates},
	url = {http://www.journalconsplanning.org/2005/volume1/issue1/stoms/manuscript.pdf},
	author = {Stoms, D. M. and Comer, P. J. and Crist, P. J. and Grossman, D. H.}
}
@article {769,
	title = {Linking GIS and reserve selection algorithms: Towards a geospatial data model},
	year = {2003},
	month = {2003},
	pages = {37},
	institution = {Biogeography Lab, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California Santa Barbara},
	abstract = {Most reserve selection algorithms used in research or conservation practice are only loosely coupled with geographic information system technology. This paper argues that formalizing a core geospatial data model would benefit algorithm developers, researchers, and practitioners through standardized data management and ease of database development with any reserve selection algorithm.},
	keywords = {conservation planning, data model, object-oriented, reserve selection},
	url = {http://www.biogeog.ucsb.edu/pubs/Technical\%20Reports/Reserve_Selection_Data_Model.pdf},
	author = {Stoms, D. M.}
}
@inbook {395,
	title = {Selecting biodiversity management areas},
	booktitle = {Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {1503-1528},
	publisher = {University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources},
	organization = {University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlands Resources},
	address = {Davis, California},
	abstract = {Here we present and evaluate a conservation strategy whose objective is to represent all native plant communities in areas where the primary management goal is to sustain native biodiversity. We refer to these areas as Biodiversity Management Areas (BMAs), which we define as specially designated public or private lands with an active ecosystem management plan in operation whose purpose is to contribute to regional maintenance of native genetic, species and community levels of biodiversity, and the processes that maintain that biodiversity. Our purpose in this chapter is to explore opportunities for siting BMAs in the Sierra Nevada region. The strategic goal is to design a BMA system that represents all major Sierran plant community types, which we use as a coarse surrogate for ecosystems and their component species. We consider a community type to be represented if some pre-defined fraction of its mapped distribution occurs in one or more BMAs. We use a multi-objective computer model to allocate a minimum of new land to BMA status subject to the constraints that all community types must be represented, and that the new BMA areas should be located in areas of highest suitability for BMA status. Our purpose in this exercise is not to identify the optimal sites for a Sierran BMA system; instead it is to measure some of the likely dimensions of plausible, alternative BMA systems for the Sierra Nevada and to develop a rationale that would guide others in formulating such a system. Thus we examine a wide range of possible BMA systems based on different assumptions, constraints, target levels for representation, and priorities. If one ignores current land ownership and management designations and sets out to represent plant communities in a BMA system based on Calwater planning watersheds (which average roughly 10,000 acres in size), an efficient BMA system requires land in direct proportion to the target level, at least over the range of target levels examined in this study. In other words, it takes roughly 10\% of the region to meet a 10\% goal, and 25\% of the region to meet a 25\% goal. The pattern of selected watersheds is very different from the current distribution of parks and wilderness areas, which are concentrated at middle and high elevations in the central and southern portion of the range. Public lands alone are insufficient to create a BMA system that adequately represents all plant community types of the Sierra Nevada. Many of the foothill community types occur almost exclusively on private lands. Terrestrial vertebrates are reasonably well represented in a BMA system selected for plant communities. A BMA system selected for vertebrates alone, however, has little overlap with the one for plant communities. Areas selected by the BMAS model show only a modest amount of overlap with areas selected by other SNEP working groups as focal areas for conserving aquatic biodiversity or late successional/old growth forests. However, the BMAS model can be formulated to favor these areas with little loss of efficiency, especially in the northern Sierra.},
	keywords = {biodiversity management area, BMAS model, California, representation, reserve selection, Sierra Nevada},
	author = {Davis, F. W. and Stoms, D. M. and Church, R. L. and Okin, W. J. and Johnson, K. N.}
}
@inbook {391,
	title = {A spatial analytical hierarchy for Gap Analysis},
	booktitle = {Gap Analysis: A Landscape Approach to Biodiversity Planning},
	year = {1996},
	pages = {15-24},
	publisher = {American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing},
	organization = {American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing},
	address = {Bethesda, MD},
	abstract = {Representation in the nature reserve system is determined by comparing the distribution of vegetation and vertebrates with that of land ownership and management over a region of interest. Locating potential places to increase representation is typically done by a systematic selection algorithm over a set of spatial units larger than the landscape units of the vegetation map. The landscape is thus the basic spatial unit at which biodiversity data are compiled for Gap Analysis. However, it is only one of four levels of spatial entity that must be explicitly defined in order to complete a Gap Analysis. We refer to these entities as the planning region, the planning unit, the landscape, and the landscape feature. The objective of this paper is to describe a spatial analytical hierarchy for Gap Analysis based on these four entities. Within this broader theme we also present results of a more focused analysis on the effect of planning unit size on the selection of priority conservation areas in southwestern California.},
	keywords = {gap analysis, reserve selection, scale},
	author = {Davis, F. W. and Stoms, D. M.},
	editor = {Scott, J. M. and Tear, T. H. and Davis, F. W.}
}
