Spatial attributes and reserve design models: A review

Abstract

A variety of decision models have been formulated for the optimal selection of nature reserve sites to represent a diversity of species or other conservation features. Unfortunately, many of these models tend to select scattered sites and do not take into account important spatial attributes such as reserve shape and connectivity. These attributes are likely to affect not only the persistence of species but also the general ecological functioning of reserves and the ability to effectively manage them. In response, researchers have begun formulating reserve design models that improve spatial coherence by controlling spatial attributes. We review the spatial attributes that are thought to be important in reserve design and also review reserve design models that incorporate one or more of these attributes. Spatial modeling issues, computational issues, and the trade-offs among competing optimization objectives are discussed. Directions for future research are identified. Ultimately, an argument is made for the development of models that capture the dynamic interdependencies among sites and species populations and thus incorporate the reasons why spatial attributes are important.

Beyond connectivity: how empirical methods can quantify population persistence to improve marine protected‐area design

“…Consequently, quantitative estimates of connectivity between habitat patches are essential to the successful design of spatial networks of protected areas (Williams et al 2005). This is particularly true in benthic marine systems, where many species have a pelagic larval stage that allows potential large-scale dispersal among habitat patches (Cowen and Sponaugle 2009).…”

Old concepts, new challenges: adapting landscape-scale conservation to the twenty-first century

“…More sites Metapopulation persistence (higher turnover of local extinction and recolonization) (Drechsler and Wissel 1998) More connected Metapopulation persistence (Drechsler and Wissel 1998) Low Homogeneity Higher population growth (Thomas et al 2001;Griffen and Drake 2008;Ye et al 2013) Bigger Greater population carrying capacity (Griffen and Drake 2008) Landscape attributes a Fragmented Heterogeneity Less vulnerable to climate change and extreme events in fragmented landscapes (Opdam and Wascher 2004) More sites Species will be more adapted to live in fragments (Schnell et al 2013) More connected Movement between habitats is important (Isaak et al 2007;Dennis et al 2013) Continuous Bigger Species are poorly adapted to live in small fragments (Schnell et al 2013) More sites Spreads risk of extinction (Groeneveld 2005;Dover and Settele 2009;Oliver et al 2010) and encourages recolonization through ''stepping stone'' habitat (Schnell et al 2013) Less connected Spreads risk of extinction and reduce impact (Simberloff and Cox 1987;Williams et al 2005) Low variability ? high vulnerability Homogeneity Location for colonization and thus range shift (Hodgson et al 2011a;Thomas et al 2012) Bigger Larger source populations to facilitate ra...…”

“…Current financial resources available to meet these targets are insufficient (McCarthy et al 2012) and in consequence there is urgent need for conservation planners and practioners to have sufficient information to select and employ efficient, cost-effective actions (Williams et al 2005). Nevertheless, there is much debate regarding the most effective means for adapting conservation to accelerating environmental change (Hodgson et al 2009c), leading to an extensive literature that presents some apparently conflicting messages to those involved in conservation planning and decision-making.…”

Integrating Land Market Feedbacks into Conservation Planning—A Mathematical Programming Approach

“…If a species' minimum area requirement cannot be fulfilled within a single planning unit, the model selects further habitat area in adjacent planning units. This approach differs from previous conservation planning studies where either total planning units (e.g., [53,57,58]) or fractions of them (e.g., [10]) are chosen. Rationale for our method is to overcome the problem of scale difference between grid dimension and land area available for conservation purposes.…”

“…Systematic conservation planning can effectively prioritize conservation activities [22,23,35]. The set-covering problem determines the minimum resources needed to fulfill exogenously specified representation targets of biodiversity features [35,58].…”