Optimization in the utility maximization framework for conservation planning: a comparison of solution procedures in a study of multifunctional agriculture

被引:6
作者
Kreitler, Jason [1 ]
Stoms, David M. [2 ]
Davis, Frank W. [2 ]
机构
[1] US Geol Survey, Western Geog Sci Ctr, Reston, VA 20192 USA
[2] Univ Calif Santa Barbara, Bren Sch Environm Sci & Management, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 USA
来源
PEERJ | 2014年 / 2卷
关键词
Spatial conservation prioritization; Multifunctional agriculture; Conservation planning; Utility maximization; Central Valley; California; Farmland conservation; RESERVE SELECTION ALGORITHMS; BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; EFFICIENT CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; MAXIMIZING RETURN; OPEN-SPACE; OPTIMALITY; INVESTMENT; MODELS; COSTS;
D O I
10.7717/peerj.690
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Quantitative methods of spatial conservation prioritization have traditionally been applied to issues in conservation biology and reserve design, though their use in other types of natural resource management is growing. The utility maximization problemis one formof a covering problemwheremultiple criteria can represent the expected social benefits of conservation action. This approach allows flexibility with a problem formulation that is more general than typical reserve design problems, though the solution methods are very similar. However, few studies have addressed optimization in utility maximization problems for conservation planning, and the effect of solution procedure is largely unquantified. Therefore, this study mapped five criteria describing elements of multifunctional agriculture to determine a hypothetical conservation resource allocation plan for agricultural land conservation in the Central Valley of CA, USA. We compared solution procedures within the utility maximization framework to determine the difference between an open source integer programming approach and a greedy heuristic, and find gains from optimization of up to 12%. We also model land availability for conservation action as a stochastic process and determine the decline in total utility compared to the globally optimal set using both solution algorithms. Our results are comparable to other studies illustrating the benefits of optimization for different conservation planning problems, and highlight the importance of maximizing the effectiveness of limited funding for conservation and natural resource management.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 81 条
  • [61] Counterpart models in facility location science and reserve selection science
    ReVelle, CS
    Williams, JC
    Boland, JJ
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELING & ASSESSMENT, 2002, 7 (02) : 71 - 80
  • [62] Optimisation in reserve selection procedures - why not?
    Rodrigues, ASL
    Gaston, KJ
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2002, 107 (01) : 123 - 129
  • [63] HEDONIC PRICES AND IMPLICIT MARKETS - PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION IN PURE COMPETITION
    ROSEN, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1974, 82 (01) : 34 - 55
  • [64] Stewart B., 2009, Landscape Journal, V28, P181, DOI DOI 10.3368/LJ.28.2.181
  • [65] The power of information for targeting cost-effective conservation investments in multifunctional farmlands
    Stoms, David M.
    Kreitler, Jason
    Davis, Frank W.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2011, 26 (01) : 8 - 17
  • [66] Strategic targeting of agricultural conservation easements as a growth management tool
    Stoms, David M.
    Jantz, Patrick A.
    Davis, Frank W.
    DeAngelo, Gregory
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2009, 26 (04) : 1149 - 1161
  • [67] Where and when to revegetate: a quantitative method for scheduling landscape reconstruction
    Thomson, J. R.
    Moilanen, A. J.
    Vesk, P. A.
    Bennett, A. F.
    Mac Nally, R.
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2009, 19 (04) : 817 - 828
  • [68] Protecting Biodiversity when Money Matters: Maximizing Return on Investment
    Underwood, Emma C.
    Shaw, M. Rebecca
    Wilson, Kerrie A.
    Kareiva, Peter
    Klausmeyer, Kirk R.
    McBride, Marissa F.
    Bode, Michael
    Morrison, Scott A.
    Hoekstra, Jonathan M.
    Possingham, Hugh P.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2008, 3 (01):
  • [69] Evaluating conservation spending for species return: A retrospective analysis in California
    Underwood, Emma C.
    Klausmeyer, Kirk R.
    Morrison, Scott A.
    Bode, Michael
    Shaw, M. Rebecca
    [J]. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2009, 2 (03): : 130 - 137
  • [70] USACE, 2002, INT REP SACR SAN JOA