@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}
}
@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.}
}
