@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 {799,
	title = {Integrated coastal reserve planning: making the land-sea connection},
	journal = {Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2005},
	month = {2005},
	pages = {429-436},
	abstract = {Land use, watershed processes, and coastal biodiversity can be strongly coupled. Land-sea interactions are ignored, however, when selecting terrestrial and marine reserves with existing models, with the risk that reserves will fail to achieve their conservation objectives. The conceptual model underlying existing reserve selection models presumes each site is a closed ecological system, unaffected by inputs from elsewhere. As a short-term objective, we recommend extending land conservation analyses to account for effects on marine biodiversity by consideration of linkages between them. This level of integration seems tractable and directly relevant to agencies and conservancies engaged in protecting coastal lands. We propose an approach that evaluates terrestrial sites based on whether they benefit or harm marine species or habitats. We then illustrate the approach with an example on the Central Coast of California, USA. Whether the effort will produce more effective terrestrial reserves needs to be proven.},
	keywords = {coastal ecosystems, integrated planning, open ecosystems, reserve selection, spatial interactions},
	url = {http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract\&issn=1540-9295\&volume=003\&issue=08\&page=0429<Go to ISI>://000232295800016},
	author = {Stoms, David M. and Davis, Frank W. and Andelman, Sandy J. and Carr, Mark H. and Gaines, Steven D. and Halpern, Benjamin S. and Hoenicke, Rainer and Leibowitz, Scott G. and Leydecker, Al and Madin, Elizabeth M. P. and Tallis, Heather and Warner, Robert R.}
}
