@article {742,
	title = {Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning},
	journal = {Biodiversity and Conservation},
	volume = {16},
	year = {2007},
	month = {2007},
	pages = {2715-2728},
	abstract = {In this paper we present the results of a multi-criteria decision analysis used to identify a comprehensive set of criteria for assigning biodiversity value to sites for conservation planning. For effective conservation management, biodiversity value needs to be a composite of biotic and abiotic factors. However, in the reserve design literature, conservation value is assigned with a limited set of metrics usually based on comprehensiveness, representativeness and persistence which may be insufficient at fully capturing biodiversity value. A group of conservation specialists in California, USA, used a multi-criteria decision making framework to elucidate and weight criteria for scoring biodiversity value at sites. A formal model for consensus and negotiation was applied to aggregate individuals{\textquoteright} criteria weights across all group members. The group identified ecological condition, followed by biotic composition as the most important contributors to site conservation value. Long- and short-term threats causing fragmentation and degradation are also important criteria to consider. Key criteria are identified for which further data collection would serve the greatest purpose in prioritizing sites and the role of prioritization criteria in the larger context of systematic conservation planning is discussed. With the recognition that biodiversity value plays an important role in conservation decisions, the criteria presented here represents a comprehensive suite of factors to consider when assigning biodiversity value to sites for conservation planning. These can serve as an encompassing list which other groups can customize for the purpose of biodiversity evaluation for alternative conservation planning contexts.},
	keywords = {AHP, Biodiversity value, conservation planning, Group decision making, MCDM, MCE, Multi-criteria decision making},
	url = {http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/bioc/2007/00000016/00000009/00009100DOI	10.1007/s10531-006-9100-3},
	author = {Regan, Helen M. and Davis, Frank W. and Andelman, Sandy J. and Widyanata, Astrid and Freese, Mariah}
}
@article {745,
	title = {Biodiversity conservation planning tools: Present status and challenges for the future},
	journal = {Annual Review of Environment and Resources},
	volume = {31},
	year = {2006},
	month = {2006},
	pages = {123-159},
	abstract = {Species extinctions and the deterioration of other biodiversity features worldwide have led to the advocacy of systematic conservation planning for many regions of the world. This process has encouraged the development of various software tools for conservation planning during the last twenty years. These tools implement algorithms designed to identify conservation area networks for the representation and persistence of biodiversity features. Budgetary, ethical, and socio-political constraints dictate that the prioritized sites represent biodiversity economically with minimum impact on human interests. Planning tools are typically used also to satisfy these criteria. This paper reviews both the concepts and technical choices that underlie the development of these tools. The former concepts include complementarity, persistence, irreplaceabilty, and various concepts of economy and efficiency. Planning problems can be formulated as mathematical programs and this paper also evaluates the suitability of different algorithms for their solution. Methods are assessed using the criteria of economy, efficiency, flexibility, transparency, genericity, and modularity. The paper also reviews some key research questions pertaining to the use of these software tools such as computational efficiency, the effectiveness of taxa and abiotic parameters as surrogates for biodiversity, and the problem of setting explicit targets of representation for biodiversity surrogates. Multiple-criteria decision analysis for conservation planning is also discussed. Finally, areas for future research are identified. These include the scheduling of conservation action over extended time periods and the incorporation of data about site vulnerability into place prioritization.},
	keywords = {bidiversity surrogates, conservation area networks, conservation planning, MCDM, MCE, reserve selection, surrogates},
	url = {http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/eprint/SEiSEyzQeURDDzshKdNj/full/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042606.085844},
	author = {Sarkar, Sahotra and Pressey, Robert L. and Faith, Daniel P. and Margules, Christopher R. and Fuller, Trevon and Stoms, David M. and Moffett, Alexander and Wilson, Kerrie A. and Williams, Kristen J. and Williams, Paul H. and Andelman, Sandy}
}
