<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Kreitler, J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prioritizing farmland preservation cost-effectively for multiple objectives</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Soil and Water Conservation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">amenities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bay Delta bioregion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">California Legacy Project</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conservation planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cost-effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">decision analysis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ecosystem services</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">farmland preservation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">GIS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">marginal value</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">public preferences</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">social welfare</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">urban growth boundary</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">urban growth management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">utility</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;Go to ISI&gt;://000242001800007</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">61</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">250-258</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">American society derives many benefits from farmland and is often willing to pay to preserve it from urbanization. We present an innovative framework to support farmland preservation programs in prioritizing conservation investments. The framework considers the full range of social benefits of farmland and improves the application of decision analysis methods to the process. Key factors for ranking farms are: 1) social objectives and priorities 2) how much farmland value is expected to be lost to development if not preserved, 3) how much farmland value is already secured in the agricultural region; and 4) how much it will cost to secure the farm&#039;s benefits. The framework can be applied strategically over an entire region or to rank a set of applications from landowners. We demonstrate our framework using three criteria in the Bay Area/Delta bioregion of California, USA.</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Costello, C. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metz, J.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Murphy, Dennis D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stine, Peter A.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A framework for setting land conservation priorities in the Sierra Nevada</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">California Legacy Project</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conservation planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">decision support system</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">GIS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">marginal value</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">prioritization</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr193/psw_gtr193_5_4_Davis_and_others.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Albany, CA</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">General Technical Report PSW-GTR-193</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">195-206</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The California Legacy Project (CLP) mission is &quot;to enable the State and its partners in conservation to develop and implement a strategic and inclusive approach to conserving and restoring California&#039;s lands and natural resources.&quot; Here we provide a brief overview of a framework that we developed to serve the dual purpose of helping decision makers to evaluate current opportunities (e.g., current proposal applications for State conservation funds) and to help planners develop longer term conservation strategies that highlight general areas, species and communities for more focused analysis and collaborative planning. Site prioritization depends on the resources the site contains, the threat to those resources, and the conservation cost of mitigating that threat. We illustrate our framework using relatively coarse, readily available data for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Preliminary results suggest that many of the private lands of the region contribute important conservation value for terrestrial biodiversity. However, inter-site disparities in degree of threat and in conservation costs make the conservation &quot;bang for buck&quot; especially high in a smaller number of sites.</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">presented at Sierra Nevada Science Symposium 2002 October 7-10; Kings Beach, CA.</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Costello, C. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metz, J.</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Murphy, Dennis D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stine, Peter A.</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A framework for setting land conservation priorities in the Sierra Nevada</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">California Legacy Project marginal value conservation planning prioritization decision support system GIS</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Albany, CA</style></pub-location><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">General Technical Report PSW-GTR-193</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">195-206</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The California Legacy Project (CLP) mission is &quot;to enable the State and its partners in conservation to develop and implement a strategic and inclusive approach to conserving and restoring California&#039;s lands and natural resources.&quot; Here we provide a brief overview of a framework that we developed to serve the dual purpose of helping decision makers to evaluate current opportunities (e.g., current proposal applications for State conservation funds) and to help planners develop longer term conservation strategies that highlight general areas, species and communities for more focused analysis and collaborative planning. Site prioritization depends on the resources the site contains, the threat to those resources, and the conservation cost of mitigating that threat. We illustrate our framework using relatively coarse, readily available data for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Preliminary results suggest that many of the private lands of the region contribute important conservation value for terrestrial biodiversity. However, inter-site disparities in degree of threat and in conservation costs make the conservation &quot;bang for buck&quot; especially high in a smaller number of sites.</style></abstract><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">presented at Sierra Nevada Science Symposium 2002 October 7-10; Kings Beach, CA.</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Costello, C. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metz, J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A framework to extend gap analysis to multi-objective conservation planning</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gap Analysis Program Annual Bulletin</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Bulletins/12/A%20Framework%20to%20Extend%20Gap%20Analysis.htm</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">42-44</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Costello, C. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metz, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gerrard, R.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andelman, S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Regan, H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Church, R.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A framework for setting land conservation priorities using multi-criteria scoring and an optimal fund allocation strategy</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">marginal value conservation planning cost-effectiveness GIS Sierra Nevada California Legacy Project</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The California Legacy Project (CLP) mission is &quot;to enable the State and its partners in conservation to develop and implement a strategic and inclusive approach to conserving and restoring California&#039;s lands and natural resources.&quot; In Spring 2001 The Resources Agency of California contracted with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara to convene a working group to help bring systematic conservation planning theory and methods to bear on the design and implementation of CLP. The framework described in this report is one of the products from that working group. The framework is intended to serve the dual purpose of helping decision makers to evaluate current opportunities (e.g., current proposal applications for State conservation funds) and to help planners develop longer term conservation strategies that highlight general areas, species and communities for more focused analysis and collaborative planning. We do not present a plan or &quot;blueprint&quot; for future conservation activities. Instead, we offer an analytical, data-driven planning process that could be applied to ongoing conservation assessments and evaluations by State conservation planning staff and collaborating organizations over the State or regions of the State. We organize the planning framework based on a hierarchy of conservation goals and objectives, each of which is further elaborated in terms of specific objectives, criteria, and sources of evidence. At the highest level we distinguish three categories of conservation goals: Resource Production Capacity, Natural Capital, and Public Open Space. Under Natural Capital we distinguish terrestrial biodiversity from wetland and aquatic biodiversity. This report focuses on terrestrial biodiversity. The framework applies GIS technology to map conservation value and investment priorities based on available spatial data, derived indices and simple algebraic functions. A planning region is divided into sites and each site is scored in terms of its marginal conservation value, that is, the incremental value added to the current system of conservation lands by making the next conservation investment in that site. Site prioritization depends on the resources the site contains, the threat to those resources, and the conservation cost of mitigating that threat. The strategic objective is to allocate conservation funds among a set of candidate sites such that there is the greatest possible resource value remaining at the end of the planning period. We present a measure of ecological condition based on land use, land cover, roads, housing density and forest structure. The condition index is mapped for 2000 A.D. and 2040 A.D. (based on projected patterns of housing development) and the difference between the two is applied as a measure of threat to biodiversity. We then present formal measures for five different values that places can have for conserving terrestrial biodiversity: 1) hotspots of rare threatened and endangered species, 2) areas supporting vulnerable habitat types, 3) unique landscapes, 4) wildlands for area dependent species, and 5) areas to expand the size of existing reserves. We apply the framework to prioritize new conservation investments on private lands in the Sierra Bioregion. Our purpose is to demonstrate the end-to-end use of the framework and attention should be focused on the process, not the actual products. We first use existing, readily available data to map resource values and threats to produce maps of marginal conservation value without consideration of site cost. Spatial patterns in site value differ considerably among the five conservation criteria. We then use a crude estimate of land prices and allocate a hypothetical budget of $44 million to 50 sites scattered across the region. The framework can also be applied to other conservation concerns such as aquatic biodiversity, production lands, public open space, cultural resources and recreational opportunities. In a separate report we demonstrate its application for cropland conservation in the Bay Delta Bioregion. Our initial experiences in applying the framework to terrestrial biodiversity and cropland are very encouraging, but testing and refinement of the indices and value functions models are still needed and are currently underway.</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Report to the Resources Agency of California</style></work-type></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>13</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A systematic framework for prioritizing farmland preservation</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">marginal value conservation planning cost-effectiveness GIS Bay Delta bioregion farmland preservation California Legacy Project</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis</style></publisher><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The California Legacy Project (CLP) mission is &quot;to enable the state and its partners in conservation to develop and implement a strategic and inclusive approach to conserving and restoring California&#039;s lands and natural resources.&quot; In 2001 The Resources Agency of California contracted with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara to convene a working group to help bring systematic conservation planning theory and methods to bear on the design and implementation of CLP. The conservation planning framework for farmland described in this report for is one of the products from that working group. The framework is intended to serve the dual purpose of helping decision makers to evaluate current opportunities (e.g., current proposal applications for State conservation funds) and to help planners develop longer term conservation strategies that highlight areas for more focused analysis and collaborative planning. We do not present a plan or &quot;blueprint&quot; for future conservation activities. Instead, we offer an analytical, data-driven planning process that could be applied to ongoing conservation assessments and evaluations by State conservation planning staff and collaborating organizations over the State or regions of the State. We organize the planning framework based on a hierarchy of conservation goals and objectives, each of which is further elaborated in terms of specific objectives, criteria, and sources of evidence. For farmland preservation, we summarize these goals as retaining farmlands: 1) with the greatest sustained production capacity, 2) that provide high amenity values (e.g., habitat, open space, floodplain management, and scenic values), and 3) whose location reduces the risk of urban sprawl. The framework applies GIS technology to map farmland conservation value and investment priorities based on available spatial data, derived indices and simple algebraic functions. A planning region is divided into sites, and each site is scored in terms of its marginal conservation value, that is, the incremental value added to the current system of conservation lands by making the next conservation investment in that site. Site prioritization depends on the farmland resources the site contains, the threat to those resources, and the conservation cost of mitigating that threat. The strategic objective is to allocate conservation funds among a set of candidate sites such that there is the greatest possible farmland value remaining at the end of the planning period. We demonstrate the framework for preservation of farmlands in the Bay Area/Delta Bioregion. Because the criteria for measuring objectives 2 and 3 require spatial and nonspatial data that are not readily available statewide or even for a bioregion, we only develop and demonstrate the framework for objective 1. Existing data are used to map resource values and threats to arrive at maps of marginal conservation value without consideration of site cost. We use a crude estimate of the cost of conservation easements to demonstrate how the framework could then be used to prioritize conservation investments subject to a fixed budget.</style></abstract><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Report to the Resources Agency of California</style></work-type></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Machado, E. A.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stoms, D. M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, F. W.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A systematic framework for prioritizing farmland preservation</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bay Delta bioregion</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">California Legacy Project</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conservation planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cost-effectiveness</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">farmland preservation</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">GIS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">marginal value</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/nceas-web/projects/4040/Farmland_framework_report.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Santa Barbara</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">52</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The California Legacy Project (CLP) mission is &quot;to enable the state and its partners in conservation to develop and implement a strategic and inclusive approach to conserving and restoring California&#039;s lands and natural resources.&quot; In 2001 The Resources Agency of California contracted with the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara to convene a working group to help bring systematic conservation planning theory and methods to bear on the design and implementation of CLP. The conservation planning framework for farmland described in this report for is one of the products from that working group. The framework is intended to serve the dual purpose of helping decision makers to evaluate current opportunities (e.g., current proposal applications for State conservation funds) and to help planners develop longer term conservation strategies that highlight areas for more focused analysis and collaborative planning. We do not present a plan or &quot;blueprint&quot; for future conservation activities. Instead, we offer an analytical, data-driven planning process that could be applied to ongoing conservation assessments and evaluations by State conservation planning staff and collaborating organizations over the State or regions of the State. We organize the planning framework based on a hierarchy of conservation goals and objectives, each of which is further elaborated in terms of specific objectives, criteria, and sources of evidence. For farmland preservation, we summarize these goals as retaining farmlands: 1) with the greatest sustained production capacity, 2) that provide high amenity values (e.g., habitat, open space, floodplain management, and scenic values), and 3) whose location reduces the risk of urban sprawl. The framework applies GIS technology to map farmland conservation value and investment priorities based on available spatial data, derived indices and simple algebraic functions. A planning region is divided into sites, and each site is scored in terms of its marginal conservation value, that is, the incremental value added to the current system of conservation lands by making the next conservation investment in that site. Site prioritization depends on the farmland resources the site contains, the threat to those resources, and the conservation cost of mitigating that threat. The strategic objective is to allocate conservation funds among a set of candidate sites such that there is the greatest possible farmland value remaining at the end of the planning period. We demonstrate the framework for preservation of farmlands in the Bay Area/Delta Bioregion. Because the criteria for measuring objectives 2 and 3 require spatial and nonspatial data that are not readily available statewide or even for a bioregion, we only develop and demonstrate the framework for objective 1. Existing data are used to map resource values and threats to arrive at maps of marginal conservation value without consideration of site cost. We use a crude estimate of the cost of conservation easements to demonstrate how the framework could then be used to prioritize conservation investments subject to a fixed budget.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>