<?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%">Regan, Helen M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, Frank W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andelman, Sandy J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Widyanata, Astrid</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Freese, Mariah</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comprehensive criteria for biodiversity evaluation in conservation planning</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Biodiversity and Conservation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">AHP</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Biodiversity value</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">conservation planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Group decision making</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MCDM</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MCE</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Multi-criteria decision making</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/bioc/2007/00000016/00000009/00009100DOI	10.1007/s10531-006-9100-3</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2715-2728</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">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’ 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.</style></abstract></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, David M.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Davis, Frank W.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andelman, Sandy J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Carr, Mark H.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gaines, Steven D.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Halpern, Benjamin S.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hoenicke, Rainer</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leibowitz, Scott G.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Leydecker, Al</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Madin, Elizabeth M. P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tallis, Heather</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Warner, Robert R.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Integrated coastal reserve planning: making the land-sea connection</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">coastal ecosystems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">integrated planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">open ecosystems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">reserve selection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">spatial interactions</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&amp;issn=1540-9295&amp;volume=003&amp;issue=08&amp;page=0429&lt;Go to ISI&gt;://000232295800016</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">429-436</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">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.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>