UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara

Engaged Conservation Planning and uncertainty mapping as means towards effective implementation and monitoring

A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Geography

by John A. Gallo

Committee in charge: Professor Michael F. Goodchild, Chair Professor Frank W. Davis Professor Helen Couclelis Professor Richard L. Church Dr. Luis Bojorquez-Tapia

March 2007

The dissertation of John A. Gallo is approved.

____________________________________________ Michael F. Goodchild, Committee Chair

____________________________________________ Frank W. Davis

____________________________________________ Helen Couclelis

____________________________________________ Richard L. Church

____________________________________________ Luis Bojorquez-Tapia

March 2007

ii

Engaged Conservation Planning and uncertainty mapping as means towards effective implementation and monitoring

Copyright © 2007 by John A. Gallo

iii

Acknowledgements
This research was supported in countless ways, by too many people to thank. Regardless, I’d like to give some special thanks… Thanks to a great mentor, advisor, and role model, Mike Goodchild. Special thanks to the committee, Helen Couclelis, Frank Davis, Rick Church, and Luis Bojorquez-Tapia for a wealth of constructive criticism that catalyzed my growth to the next level of scholarship. Thanks to the sponsors: the U.C. Regents, Philipp Aida Siff Foundation, the UCSB Department of Geography, and the Jack Dangermond Fellowship. Thanks to Conception Coast Project, all of its staff and volunteers, and its underwriters, namely the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Money-Arenz Foundation, Lawson-Valentine Foundation, Patagonia, and the Wendy P. McCaw Foundation. Thanks to my collaborators on the Regional Conservation Guide: Elia Machado, Greg Helms, James Studarus, and David Stoms. And thanks to all the members if the focus groups, especially those that have provided extra effort along the way: Rachel Couch, Sharyn Main, Ralph Philbrick, Paul Jenkin, Liz Chattin, Paul Collins, and Cory Gallipeau. Thanks to helpful colleagues and mentors: Rod Nash, Mike McGinnis, Chris Bacon, Jenn Bernstein, Evan Girvetz, and Matt Rice. Thanks to my wonderful family: Mom, Dad, Sabre, Annie, Novia, and Diva And thanks to Wendy, for all of her love and support.

iv

Vita of John A. Gallo
National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Department of Geography University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106 gallo.ja@gmail.com

Education
Ph.D. (Candidate) Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). “Engaged Conservation Planning and uncertainty mapping as a means towards effective implementation and monitoring” Advisor: Professor Michael Goodchild. Completion Date: March 2007 Biological Sciences, Ecology and Evolution Emphasis. UCSB 1991-1995 Environmental Studies, Natural Science Emphasis. UCSB 1991-95

Bachelor of Science Bachelor of Arts

Research Positions
Conservation Scientist, John Gallo, Conservation Services and Department of Geography: Santa Barbara, Ca., 2000 to 2006. Used participatory action research to develop Conception Coast Project’s Regional Conservation Guide (see below professional position). Utilized local expert knowledge and optimization modeling to create this public reference that maps and communicates the landscape requirements for maintaining ecological integrity. Assisted with outreach efforts of the guide. Advised several other conservation planning analyses. Museum Associate, Cheadle Center for Biodiversity and Ecological Restoration: U.C. Santa Barbara, Ca.,1995 to 2002. Studied the ecology of local bird populations. Initiated long-term ecological monitoring program. Managed interns in bird database development and breeding season analysis. Print production.

Teaching Positions
Teaching Assistant, Geography 7: Oil and Water. For Dr. Catherine Gautier Winter 2006. Taught all labs, most of which entailed use of GIS for data viewing, mapping, and cursory analyses. Performed standard TA grading and individual assistance duties.

v

Undergraduate Research Facilitator, Geography 199: Group Studies. Spring 2003. Mentored six students from the 2003 Geog. 185a class (below) in enhancing the group project into a prototype of a “living” and interactive web-site for developing and implementing a community-based vision for sustainability. www.geog.ucsb.edu/~gallo/vision Teaching Assistant, Geography 185a: Planning Issues. For Dr. Helen Couclelis. Winter 2003. Designed and administered the term project: students simulated teams of local experts on different planning issues, and created an integrated vision for sustainability on the web. www.geog.ucsb.edu/~gallo/185a/Vision Performed standard TA duties for this upper division class. Teaching Assistant, Geography 185a: Planning Issues. For Dr. Helen Couclelis. Winter 2002. Taught bioregionalism, conservation planning and ‘smart growth’ in section. Developed term project: solicited local professionals in advance to identify their “real world” research needs; the nine community members then mentored students, provided information, guided the research, and in turn utilized the research findings. Performed normal TA duties for this upper division class. Teaching Assistant, Geography 167: Biogeography- The Study of Plant and Animal Distribution. For Doug Fischer. Fall 2001. Performed normal TA duties and co-directed field trips for this upper division class. Teaching Assistant, Geography 185a: Planning Issues. For Dr. Helen Couclelis. Winter 2001. Taught bioregionalism, conservation planning and ‘smart growth’ in section. Directed term research project: applied or case study research within one of these topics. Performed normal TA duties for this upper division class. Invited Lecturer and Keynote Speaker, See below section for details.

Professional Positions
Wildlife Biologist, John Gallo, Conservation Services: Santa Barbara, Ca., 1997 to 2007. Performed general avian surveys, point counts, wildlife surveys; and endangered species protocol surveys of southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, and Belding’s savannah sparrow. Clients include environmental consulting firms and U.S. Forest Service. Example:
www.geog.ucsb.edu/~gallo/Gallo_2007_HVP_Bird_Survey.pdf

Project Director, Conception Coast Project: Santa Barbara, Ca., 1996 to 2000. Founded a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting ecological integrity of region through science, community involvement, and long-term planning. Developed project strategy; recruited and managed staff, raised funds, educated public, built collaborative relationships. (www.conceptioncoast.org)

vi

Goldstein.. Gallo. J. M. 13 Gallo. W.edu/~gallo/sage_sparrow.. Santa Barbara Museum of Systematics and Ecology. P. California. January-February. Machado. Rosenberg. Habitat Classifications for Wetlands and Uplands of VAFB In above publication. June 27. Mapping Uncertainty to Ease the Tension between Public Participation GIS and Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology 13:1238 Gallo. 2003. B. Red River District. Gillespie. J. J.ucsb. Forest Service.. Merrick. Initiation of a Long term Ecological Monitoring Project: Avian Point Counts and Habitat Assessments in Riparian Communities at Vandenberg Air Force Base. U. G.conceptioncoast. Pyke. Issue 36. Surveyed for timber wolf and northern goshawk. 1999. N. Santa Barbara. Gallo. UCSB Journal of Undergraduate Research. J. Bierwagen. Honest Mapping: Communicating the Uncertainty Inherent to Conservation Planning as a Means Towards Implementation. California. Holmgren. J. 2005. and J. Amphispiza belli belli. Ohio Gallo. Alagona. and S. Cleveland State University.S. University of California. Quantitative Analysis of the Habitat Requirements for the Bell’s Sage Sparrow. P. CA. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) July 31 . Nez Perce National Forest. California.. 2005. C. J. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Public Participation GIS Conference.Wildlife Biologist. Regional Conservation Guide. vii . 1999. Environmental Report No. Gallo. Idaho. 1993 and 1994.) Distribution and Habitat associations of Six Special Concern Bird Species at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Helms. University of California. Santa Barbara. Discovery.. 1999. 1999. and J. Publications Gallo. and E. J.August 2. Museum of Systematics and Ecology. Studarus. Conception Coast Project. J. J. H. Species Account for the Bell’s Sage Sparrow In Holmgren. and Collins. CA www. CA. M. www. Scheeter. J. A Plan for Outreach: Defining the Scope of Conservation Education. San Jose.org/projects_rcg_report. Who Wants to Help Build a Stronger Sustainability Movement? Hopedance: Pathways to Sustainable Living and Positive Solutions. and J.geog. Environmental Report No.pdf Conference Presentations Gallo. 2006. Smart. (eds. 7 Ferren. Gallo. at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Rothstein. Society for Conservation GIS.html Santa Barbara. Cleveland. C. 1996.

2000. Environmental Sustainability and Policy Session. and C. CA. Conservation GIS in the Santa Barbara Region. Policy. Geography 176B: Intermediate Geographic Information Systems. Santa Barbara. Cleveland. and M. Agricultural Geography and Biogeography Poster Session. Conservation Planning and GIS. July Gallo. September 27 viii . Mapping Uncertainty to Ease the Tension in Public Participation GIS and Conservation Planning. Geography 176A: Introduction to Geographic Information Systems. New Orleans. Los Angeles. CA. J. and a Model Metadata Standard: Summary of the Human-Environment Workgroup. March 23. Gallo. OH. Annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers. Habitat Restoration Club. Annual meeting the Association of American Geographers. Reconnecting Society and Nature: Bioregionalism for a New Millennium. UCSB Museum of Systematics and Ecology. April Gallo. J. Feb.ppt] 2005. 2005. 2003. LA. 2005. Presenting Conservation Plans: the Role of Imperfection. March 8. J.Gallo. Annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers. 2006. Gallipeau. Place-based Conservation Planning. Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. October 26 [Link to 86 mb . Landscape Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors. 2001. J. March 3 2005. Denver. Environmental Studies 100: Environmental Ecology. Perspectives on Stakeholder Involvement. Phoenix. Modeling landscape Connectivity using a LeastCost Path Function for Puma (Puma concolor) Dispersal. Can the mapping of uncertainty ease the tension between PPGIS and Conservation Planning? Annual meeting the Association of American Geographers. Alberta. J. November 18 2005. The Web of Sustainable Progress: A Vehicle for Social Change? Antioch University: Community Psychology and Social Change. Association of Pacific Coast Geographers. AZ. J. Place-based Conservation Planning: A Case Study. Goodchild. Gallo. Annual Conference of Public Participation GIS sponsored by URISA. Banff. Gated Least-Cost-Path Modeling and Landscape Connectivity. Habitat Connectivity For Large Mammals. IL. Gallo. October 21. 28 2004. Geography 176C: Advanced Geographic Information Systems. Gallo. Invited Lectures and Keynotes 2006. 4th International Conference on Integrating Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Environmental Modeling. September 8. Gallo. 2002. May 27 2003. September 15. CO. 2005. Chicago. Landscape Connectivity and Multi-Criteria Conservation Planning. November 7 2003. J. March 5. Environmental Studies 20: Watershed Issues. and Research. J.

Winter 1999.1995. Outstanding intellectual promise. Top 2% of graduating class university-wide Excellence in Environmental Studies. November 2001. Bioregionalism: The Fourth Wave of Environmentalism. Biodiversity Conservation within a Planning Context. Most Valuable Student award.1991.. Business. The most outstanding student of high school graduating class ix . Outstanding undergraduate achievement Dean’s Scholar. The Fourth Wave of Environmentalism: A Ride Towards Sustainability? Environmental Studies 1: Introduction to Environmental Studies. University of California Mensa Society Award. Keynote Address at the Annual Banquet of the Shoreline Preservation Fund. Excellent academic performance Regent’s Fellowship. UCSB Arts and Lectures at Campbell Hall. 2001. Conception Coast Project: Bridging Academia. Geography 185A: Planning Issues. Geography 167: Biogeography.1991-1995. Developing “Common Ground” for the Gaviota Coast. “promise in Geographic Information Science” Regents Special Fellowship. The Wildlands Project and Conception Coast Project: Normative Conservation Planning.2002. Santa Barbara. Elks Club Fellowship.2000-2001. May 3 2000.1991. and Government towards a Community-Based Vision.1995. 2000. The Movement’s Two Front Strategy: Damage Control and the Paradigm Shift. UCSB Regional Experiences Program. proven and continued “service above self” Valedictorian. May 29. Highest College Honors. Environmental Studies 190: Current Topics in Environmental Studies. November 26 2001. Rotary International Award. Winter Honors and Awards Jack Dangermond Award – 2006.1991. Geography 185A: Planning Issues.2000-2005. Biodiversity Conservation and “Reserve Design” within a Planning Context. University of California The Philip and Aida Siff Educational Foundation Fellowship.1991. March 8 2001. Ecology and Evolution 192B: Shoreline Preservation Research. November 29. April 29 2002. Presented after Dave Forman presented The Wildlands Project. Conservation Planning Case Study.1991-1995.

At times was the only “environmentalist” among 20 ranchers and developers. Rod Nash.ucsb. CA 93106 (805) 893-2196 cook@geog. Professor Emeritus.edu x . Michael Goodchild. Santa Barbara. Professor. Frank Davis. Professor. University of California.edu Dr. and GIS section.geog. 4731 Calle Reina Santa Barbara. CA 93106 (805) 8933438 fd@bren. Santa Barbara. (805) 455-6529 good@geog. Santa Barbara. University of California.ucsb. University of California. References Dr.ucsb. Environmental Studies Curriculum Revision Committee: 1994 to 1995. Relevant editorial: www. 2002 Graduate Student Representative. University of California. Negotiated the terms and make-up of an eventual stakeholder group. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management. Professor. Stakeholder Representative.ucsb. Models. Environmental Studies Department.jpg Undergraduate Representative. Helen Couclelis. Earth-System Processes Faculty Search Committee 2001.Memberships and Societies Association of American Geographers Defenders of Wildlife Los Padres Forest Watch Mountain Lion Foundation National Geographic Society World Wildlife Fund Society for Conservation Biology Society for Conservation GIS The Wildlands Project Union of Concerned Scientists Californians for Electoral Reform Relevant Volunteer Service Peer-reviewer for Annals of the Association of American Geographers. Department of Geography. Methods. Santa Barbara. Department of Geography. CA 93106 (805) 893-8049.net Dr. CA 93110 (805) 964-7311 (h) (805) 455-1945 (c) canyondancer@earthlink. Gaviota Coast “Common Ground” Steering Committee: 2000 to 2002.edu Dr.edu/~gallo/commonground.

it would decrease the volatility of the maps and xi . or being held back. so they were either creating conflict. The purpose of this research is to help improve systematic conservation planning to better facilitate actual implementation of conservation action. A participatory action research (PAR) approach was used. resulting in a lack of knowledge-sharing. these communications are largely being ignored. Unfortunately. in what has been termed the ‘implementation crisis’ of conservation planning. After preliminary scoping. Gallo ABSTRACT Conservation planning attempts to ascertain and communicate the spatial needs of biodiversity in an effort to improve land-use decision-making. it became apparent that a critical problem was that the traditional conservation planning maps were controversial. requiring that the researcher was actively involved in a conservation planning case study. A design principle and corollary were derived and tested—if the uncertainty involved with implementation of conservation planning were quantified and mapped.Engaged Conservation Planning and uncertainty mapping as means towards effective implementation and monitoring by John A.

but the remaining products were considered superior to the traditional products in their expected ability to facilitate implementation. A conservation assessment was performed and a method for quantifying and mapping this ‘implementation uncertainty’ was developed and applied. Some of the uncertainty products were deemed unnecessary. Three advisory groups evaluated two sets of final products—those with and those without the uncertainty communicated. and 3) fosters understanding and actions to support biodiversity. citizen scientists) are able to engage in two-way knowledge-sharing network that builds the capacity of the regional institutions to achieve socio-ecological resilience. But the certainty of the finding was hindered by several other flaws in the assessment.increase their influence on implementation. conservation assessment. but that also 2) facilitates and monitors the implementation of these priorities.0.e. which dramatically increases participation by utilizing a novel blend of geospatial browsers. The PAR experience highlighted the need for a conservation planning framework that not only 1) identifies the spatial priorities of biodiversity conservation and management. and landscape observers (i. xii . Engaged conservation planning and management (ECPM) was derived. and the emerging culture of Web 2. Details and further research directions of ECPM are provided. Scientists. stakeholders.

..... 44 xiii ...... 40 Landscape Knowledge Network overview ... 32 Costs to be minimized ..................................................... 12 References ........................................................................................................... 7 Developing the ecological perspective as a response to the implementation crisis ............................................................................................................ 43 Conservation planning refinements................................................................ 1 References:..............................................................................................................Table of Contents Preface........................................................................................................ 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................ 31 Additional theory and practice to be selected from in addressing implementation. 27 Background to ECPM ......................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: Engaged Conservation Planning and Management: a team approach to science and implementation .............. 3 The implementation crisis in systematic conservation planning ........................................................................................................ 26 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Overview ................. 30 Emerging approaches for addressing implementation .......................................................................................................... 36 Stakeholder Collaboration Network............................. 34 Conceptual framework: overview of Engaged Conservation Planning and Management ...............................................

................................................................ 109 Methodology ................. 55 The people engaged.............................................. 55 Some expected benefits of this engagement ............................... 46 Suggestions for effective practice of the Landscape Knowledge Network ....... 100 Introduction .......................................................................... 104 The decision support hierarchy .................. 114 Methodology of Phase IA: Project Scoping........... 49 Discussion: the expected dimensions and benefits of increased engagement....................... 65 Chapter 3: Communicating the implementation uncertainty of spatial decision support systems to end-users ... 108 The issue of implementation uncertainty in a conservation planning SDSS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 References:.............................................. 59 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Background for examining implementation upncertainty....................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 The problem of implementation uncertainty................................................................................. 116 xiv ................ 114 Approach and Overview .......................... 115 Methodology of Phase IB: The Marginal Value Resource Allocation Model...........................................................................................An Initial operational model for The Landscape Knowledge Network......

............................................................................................................................. 156 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Methods of Phase III: Focus Groups....................... 202 The challenge of knowledge transfer in conservation planning ...................................................................... 141 Results of Phase III: Focus Groups and Questionnaires .......... 158 Chapter 4: Mapping the uncertainty of conservation planning as a means towards successful implementation ......Methodology of Phase IBi: Landscape Connectivity for the Marginal Value Model .......................................................................................................................... 209 Case Study: the Regional Conservation Guide ............................................................................................ 124 Methodology of Phase II: Products for Communicating Implementation Uncertainty................... 157 References .................. 203 Regional context and the proposed design principle ............... 150 Improvements to the approach via visualization............................................... 213 Discussion ......................... 142 Discussion .............. 154 Improvements to the approach by prioritizing efforts.................................... 217 Key lessons learned........................................ 217 xv ........................................................... 141 Results of Phase I and II: Conservation Planning Analysis and the Products for Communicating Implementation Uncertainty ................................ 206 Uncertainty in conservation planning and the proposed corrolary ............... 140 Results ................................... 151 Improving the uncertainty analysis and evaluation...........................

............................................................................................................ 234 The potential of uncertainty mapping as a means to improve implementation in ECPM...................... 220 Conclusion........................................................... 247 Appendix A: Additional material referred to by Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................ 234 A framework and operational model designed to improve the implemenation phase of conservation planning .................... 237 Future Research................ 223 Chapter 5: Conclusion............................................................Additional benefits to be explored ............................................................................................................................................... 252 xvi .. 222 References ............................................................................. 240 References ..........................

..g... ... 15 Figure 3: All three contexts of conservation assessment.... Fig 5)........................................... and also provides information for the Stakeholder Collaboration Network (i.................................... portraying iterative.............................................................................. two-way knowledge sharing to reduce the “knowing-doing” gaps......... 58 Figure 8c: The postulated shift in peoples’ stakeholder status resulting from Engaged Conservation Planning and Management.... 37 Figure 5: Engaged Conservation Planning and Management conceptual framework diagram B ....... .........................List of Figures Figure 1: Conservation Planning “knowing.. with the drivers for action portrayed ............................................ 38 Figure 6: The Stakeholder Collaboration Network is the two-way communication between and among scientists and stakeholders......... 56 Figure 8b: The postulated stakeholder cube for initial Engaged Conservation Planning and Management.................. 44 Figure 8a: The estimated stakeholder cube for traditional conservation planning.......... 19 Figure 4: Engaged Conservation Planning and Management conceptual framework diagram A.............................. 59 xvii .................................... 13 Figure 2b: The Second Context of conservation assessment ................... 14 Figure 2c: The Third Context of conservation assessment ............................................................doing” gaps........................................................ citizen scientists)............................................ 9 Figure 2a: The First Context of conservation assessment................... ....................... .........................e................................................................... ............................. 41 Figure 7: The Landscape Knowledge Network links the scientists and landscape observers (e....................

............................ 274 Figure18: Normative Comparisons of SDSS Semiotic Triangles....................................... 205 Figure 14: Simplified portion of the Implementation-Uncertainty Map............................................. 142 Figure 12: Grouped semiotic triangles of the Standard Map (top) and the Implementation-Uncertainty Map and animations (bottom). 277 Figure 20: Factors Affecting the wise use of an SDSS.... 149 Figure 13: An example conservation assessment map......... 62 Figure 10: The Standard Map showing the traditional resource allocation model output....................................... 245 Figure 17: The Role of Effective Presentation of Imperfect Information in Reducing Imperfect Knowledge and Improving Group Understanding ................................................................................... 214 Figure 15: The Web of Resilience can help the self-organization and cooperation among the different efforts working towards sustainability.................................................................................................................................................. ............... 242 Figure 16: Development and maintenance of Ecological Perspectives at various scales worldwide has the potential of providing a balance to the Economic Engine.. 276 Figure 19: Normative Comparisons of SDSS Semiotic Triangles........................................... ......................Figure 9: The preliminary operational model of ECPM.......... ... 106 Figure 11: Simplified portion of the Implementation-Uncertainty Map.. ............................. 279 xviii ....................

............List of Tables Table 1: Summary of focus group evaluations .................. 144 xix ............................

and eventually reverse this destruction of life. Aside from the ethical and aesthetic implications of this mass extinction. such as global climate change. humanity. this one is caused by one of the species themselves. 1 . Further. Leakey and Lewin 1996). the relevancy debate in the 1970’s and 80’s about the role of geography legitimized the use normative research (Johnston and Sidaway 2004).Preface Human society is growing while life on earth is experiencing its sixth mass extinction (Wilson 1992. The purpose of this research is to utilize the geographic perspective in furthering conservation science. and nature-humanity interactions in an effort to slow. Further. and deforestation. this problem is joined by a host of inter-related problems. humans (Pimm et al. as many aspects of humanity are still flourishing. Unlike the destruction of the dinosaurs and the four other events. Despite all of this momentum in such a bleak direction. Conservation science seeks to understand nature. Normative research is to not only to gather facts but also to point out in which respects the object of study can be improved. and the wonders of the human spirit and life itself still abound. namely. it is also a threat to human quality of life and basic “ecosystem services” such as clean air and water (Balmford and Bond 2005). Geography has much to offer through its rich tradition of examining what is where and why it interacts how it does. there is hope. global fisheries collapse. 1995).

S. Anchor Books. The sixth extinction : patterns of life and the future of humankind. Gittleman and T. E. E. New York. M. "Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. The diversity of life." Ecology Letters 8(11): 1218-1234. Arnold." Frontiers in Biology: Ecology (Cover Story) v269(n5222): p347(4). and R. A. J. Cambridge.REFERENCES: Balmford. J. L. Leakey. Johnston. Lewin (1996). Geography and geographers : AngloAmerican human geography since 1945. and W. Mass. (1992). Sidaway (2004). Pimm. D. J. L. R. Russell. G. Wilson.. Brooks (1995).. "The future of biodiversity. New York. and J. O. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. London . R. Bond (2005). 2 .

Systematic conservation planning is the scientific approach to prioritizing these areas. This is comprised of two objectives. implementing their conservation. For this and other reasons. The 3 . and much less effort has been given to the objectives of implementation or monitoring (Newburn et al. the implementation of conservation priority areas is occurring in a piecemeal and ineffective manner (Meir et al. and monitoring their contribution towards ecological goals (Margules and Pressey 2000). In review). But research in this field has focused primarily on the objective of prioritization. This disconnect between the emphasis of research and the end goal is being recognized as the implementation crisis of systematic conservation planning (Knight et al. 2006a. In Prep). 2005.Chapter 1: Introduction OVERVIEW The area-based strategy of conservation is to create reserves or special management areas in an effort to help biodiversity. 2006a)]. Knight et al. Pyke et al. 2006b). Knight et al. 2004. It begs the question: how can systematic conservation planning be improved to facilitate actual implementation of conservation priority areas? The first goal of this research is to improve the operational framework of systematic conservation planning. one is to develop a new conceptual framework and the second objective is to start the development of an associated operational model [a more context-specific consideration with an emphasis on methodologies (Knight et al.

and then putting all of the pieces together. This is a form of normative case study. so it is important to examine the big picture when searching for understanding. developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy. and applying it to an existing process or subject that is also to be 4 . Systems Inquiry includes not only identifying and characterizing the problem and context. when conservation planning maps are publicly released they can be quite controversial and inflammatory to the stakeholders involved. A participatory action research (PAR) method was utilized. As is apparent.second goal is to design and test an approach for hurdling one of the specific barriers to implementation. Reductionism is based on the opinion of Descartes that everything can be understood by reducing it to its smallest parts. but also the type of system that the problem is embedded. The first objective of this goal is to develop a methodology for communicating a unique type of uncertainty that arises in conservation implementation. The barrier is in the communication of conservation planning products to individual landowners and residents. Specifically. Holism is based on Aristotle’s view that the whole is often more than the sum of the parts. understanding them. thereby jeopardizing implementation. this research blends reductionism and holism in addressing the implementation crisis. The second objective is to evaluate if such communication is likely to ease the tension in publicly releasing the maps. which entails starting with a body of theory that is to be improved. where a system is a configuration of parts connected and joined together by a web of relationships. An excellent integration of these philosophies is General Systems Theory.

1997. Natori et al. This design allows novel improvements to both the theory and the activity. This non-profit organization in the south-central coast of California was developed to protect and restore the natural heritage of the region. PAR is growing in popularity among interdisciplinary researchers and entails that they are actively involved in the case study in question rather than studying it as outsiders (Weisenfeld et al.improved. with the activity of focus being one of CCP’s objectives: development of the Regional Conservation Guide (RCG). Gillham 2000). 2003. PAR was performed from this position. The purpose of the RCG was to communicate the landscape requirements for long-term biodiversity conservation in an effort to help guide community action. 2005). Fagerstrom et al. PAR also provides an opportunity for an interface between academia and the social entities participating (Castellanet and Jordan 2002. These landscape requirements would be derived from a qualitative analysis of the region’s biogeography. The novel improvements occur because PAR allows researchers to incorporate unexpected issues and concerns into their methods in a way that effectively bridges the gap between theoretical construct and practical application (Yin 1993. 2003). Smith et al. and would be 5 . After the organization attained legal status and adopted a long-term strategic plan. The organization that provided the vehicle for the case study was founded in 1995 and is called Conception Coast Project (CCP). the researcher resigned from his role as founding director and entered into the Department of Geography in 2000.

The framework is designed to dramatically increase the amount of public participation in systematic conservation planning without jeopardizing the scientific process. The costs of such an endeavor are minimized through the appropriate use of recent innovations in geographic information systems (GIS).communicated in text and in series of maps. and comes to findings by combining the initial theoretical background. and the current literature. Focus groups are used to examine how well the issue was conceptualized and communicated. a stochastic simulation is used to quantify and map the areas that are likely to become priorities after any future perturbations to the plan occur. The RCG has since been released to the public (Gallo et al 2005). Chapter four 6 . This uncertainty arises when a conservation assessment map is used as decision-support after the starting conditions have changed. It was written at the conclusion of the PAR cycle. and information and communications technology (ICT). The expected benefits of such an approach are detailed. This dissertation is the culmination of the PAR. To address this uncertainty. Chapter three addresses the second goal (the communication barrier) by developing an approach for communicating implementation uncertainty. The remainder of this chapter provides some background documenting the implementation crisis. making the certainty of the recommendations for priority areas unknown. and selecting one to be the focus of the dissertation. the “on the ground” experiences. identifying the three major contexts in which implementation occurs. as well as specific procedural and practical suggestions. Chapter two provides a new operational framework for systematic conservation planning.

Over the past two decades the discipline has largely centered around the complex and laudable question of what biodiversity needs.g. and will be critically evaluated before broader dissemination. It is only recently that conservation biologists started critically looking at human-environment relations in an effort to actually meet these needs of biodiversity (Mascia et al. the ecosystem-based management approach. Chapter five concludes the dissertation. Appendix A is a compilation of material and focus group quotes that were deemed too bulky to provide in the body. providing a summary of the major points and indicating some future research agendas. Early principles included 7 . systematic conservation planning is especially ripe for evolution. implementation uncertainty) and methods are placeholders at the moment. Conservation assessments efforts consider a variety of principles. the science also supports the species conservation approach. An important disclaimer is that the terms used for the new concepts (e. THE IMPLEMENTATION CRISIS IN SYSTEMATIC CONSERVATION PLANNING Conservation biology was born “to provide principles and tools for preserving biological diversity” (Soule 1985). Focus groups are used to examine this issue as well as to determine if the product is suitable for public release. In addition to the area-based approach mentioned before. 2003). The suite of systematic conservation planning approaches for prioritizing areas for conservation is collectively called conservation assessment.examines the supposition that communicating this implementation will decrease volatility. As alluded before. and thus increase conservation area implementation.

Much less attention has been given to ensuring implementation of these priorities. 2006b). efforts also attempt to minimize the cost (in area. New efforts at addressing feasibility via opportunity costs are also being explored (Stoms et al. Two criteria being increasingly included are vulnerability (i. threat of destruction) and irreplaceability (i. Knight et al. 1988. 1)(Knight et al. Margules et al.e.e. and is only one component of conservation planning. 2006). 2006a). the discipline has developed an impressive practice for assessing the spatial conservation priorities of a landscape. Noss and Cooperrider 1994). Davis et al. or estimated monetary value) required to attain these thresholds of biodiversity protection (Margules et al. connectivity. This overall task is considered conservation assessment. 2006).making sure that certain biodiversity indicators were well represented in a reserve system (Scott et al. efforts also seek to conserve ecological processes (Rouget et al. Further. 1988). while the science of conservation 8 . To be pragmatic. most conservation assessments have had only marginal impact towards biodiversity conservation (Cabeza and Moilanen 2001. Ideally. and adjacency of reserves (Noss and Harris 1986. A consequence of this result. Meir et al. In short. 2004). 2003. Cowling et al. There is a “knowing-doing gap” (Pfeffer and Sutton 1999) between assessment and planning and then again between planning and action (Fig. importance of a particular site to achieving all conservation criteria) (Margules and Pressey 2000. 1996) and that the reserve system has an effective spatial configuration regarding size. 2004.

This overall problem is being termed the implementation crisis in conservation planning (Knight et al. assessment is being developed and improved in an impressive rate. it is hardly being translated into practice by practitioners (Prendergast et al. These problematic gaps occur in conservation planning when the end goal is conservation assessment rather than implementation (Knight et al.doing” gaps.Figure 1: Conservation Planning “knowing. 2006a). 2006a). Further. Pyke et al. with limited 9 . not failures (Knight 2006). In review). 1999. It is difficult to determine how pervasive the problem is because there is a tendency to publish successes.

In review). initial efforts are underway to quantify the dimensions of the crisis.” Looking at the issue from another angle. which is strategically used in conserving private property from willing sellers. However. 19. Knight et al. Of the ones that did. 42% of them used a hybrid approach that considered the property characteristics and if it was within one of the general priority areas. the government creates a large allocation of money. Almost one fifth. only 13.0% of the actions were considered to be “highly effective”. More then two thirds of the assessments did not deliver action. Also. In these programs.4%. researchers at the US EPA and ICF International investigated the 406 voter approved biodiversity protection programs in the US. Individual landowners would submit an application to have their land conserved for compensation. be it through taxes or bonds. The majority of implemented actions – 58. most of the programs used a much larger variety of criteria than are found in the 10 .budgets and short funding cycles. and the application would be reviewed by a program board or decision-maker.3% – were considered only “fairly effective”. were reported as “poorly effective” and “ineffective. the monitoring of the success of plans is often limited or nonexistent. (In Prep) sent a questionnaire to 159 lead authors of peer reviewed articles that involved conservation assessment and were from the period 1998-2002. and only 4% used exact plans (Pyke et al. They found that 44% of the programs simply reviewed applications on a case-by case basis using the characteristics of the property. The researchers parsed this sample of 406 programs down to 19 that had sufficient information available for in-depth analysis.

As Assistant Secretary Lynn Scarlett states. accessibility. In review). Meanwhile. practitioners are often not utilizing the science of conservation assessment. In Prep). The science of conservation planning is especially ripe for critically looking at humanenvironment relations in an effort to actually meet the needs of biodiversity. recreational opportunities. the program is “rooted in bottom-up decision-making. planners and land trusts are not using systematic conservation planning assessment. in the local county of practice. and cooperation rather than conflict” (Christensen 2005). An emerging consensus was that assessment was easy compared to implementation. such as compatibility with zoning. and having a plan still does not guarantee effective action (Knight et al. It is clear that the conservation assessments alone are not enough to inspire action. and the availability of partnerships. During the late 1990’s many of the Conservation Area Designs (conservation plans) of the Wildlands Project were being completed. aesthetics. I attended several workshops and rendezvous meetings. As project director of a regional affiliate. and that science is not providing tools that meet the needs of practitioners (Pyke et al. Further. respect for private property. 11 .conservation planning literature. This ad hoc decision making will almost certainty increase with the “cooperative conservation” approach being promoted by the Department of the Interior through adjustments to existing programs and proposed legislation. and that the implementation strategy should be considered when designing the assessment. My personal experience corroborates these findings.

Here.S. which are then approached on a parcel by parcel basis to explore implementation options. and politics) to create formal land use plans and policies. The First Context is when the conservation assessment is merged with the socio-political culturescape (i. Examples of this include the government conservation programs outlined above. such as the U. The Second Context for conservation assessment operates at the parcel scale. society. These plans are then used to affect conservation action.DEVELOPING THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE AS A RESPONSE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION CRISIS Systematic conservation assessments are used to affect implementation in a variety of contexts. This is combined with non-spatially explicit ecological principles to 12 . and the designation of new Wilderness areas. The Nature Conservancy will often do a Phase one analysis to identify portfolio areas. Three of the general contexts that are in use today are outlined here. or similar programs that are privately fund and operate under general land-use policies (e. culture.g. the conservation assessments are used to communicate the ecological principles for biodiversity conservation in a spatially explicit manner. they use conservation planning in the First and Second Context. Most instances of conservation on public lands also fall into this context. or the Placer County Legacy (Fig 2a)(Duerksen and Snyder 2005). Examples of this context are habitat conservation plans. government. Thus. hereby called the eco-spatial perspective. conservation easements)(Fig 2b). Forest Service Management Plan Updates.e. The Third Context results in products that are not legally binding. and is in implementing conservation policies that are not spatially explicit.

These ecological perspectives can be used to guide individual action irrespective of formal laws. to create conservation vision and/or implementation strategy that has no legal standing initially. This perspective can then be integrated with community values and goals in the socio-political culturescape.Figure 2a: The First Context of conservation assessment create the ecological perspective (Fig 2c). or they can be navigated through the socio-political 13 .

Examples of this approach include The Wildlands Project. Foreman et al.Figure 2b: The Second Context of conservation assessment culturescape to either instigate Context One or Two conservation planning. EPA 2006). 14 . and the Green Vision program of the Environmental Protection Agency that was especially active in the late 1990’s (Foreman 2000. or to influence policy and land-use planning directly. 2000a.

Figure 2c: The Third Context of conservation assessment In addressing the implementation crisis in conservation planning. Research is needed in all three 15 . it is important to specify which context is being addressed.

S.contexts. or enrollment in a conservation easement which is a commitment not to develop the land until the law is changed. Practitioners in the Third Context choose from the tools. There are varying degrees of commitment. law that provides a tax incentive to landowners that promise not to develop their land in 10 years. such as the designation of a land as United States Wilderness Area. but what about the power of democracy. enrollment in Williamson Act (A U. An often overlooked form of commitment is stewardship. it is through the first two that the most secure conservation actions occur. but in turn cannot develop others until the plan expires (usually about 50 years). Granted. which will have a high likelihood of being in existence in 50 years. and penalizes them for developing sooner). or to go a step further and decrease current human impact. 16 . but really development inaction. techniques. and changes over time. as it is often not action at all. This is the commitment of the landowner not to develop their land. a Habitat Conservation Plan is an agreement that landowners can develop some lands with “no surprises”. especially generations. and practices developed in the other two contexts and then apply them. regardless of monetary incentives. The degree of commitment depends on the individual landowner. Nearly all research in conservation planning is directed at the first two contexts. Conservation action can be defined as a commitment to keep the degree of human impact on an area of land the same as it is. and of bottom-up pressure for policy change? What role does the Third Context play in instigating conservation action? Conservation action is an interesting phrase.

if carefully executed. but it has profound implications regarding the implementation crisis. he cites his earlier findings which are very significant to this discussion: “Many approaches toward changing individuals’ environmentally significant behavior have been tried. and even incentive. involving the establishment of shared rules and expectations. and community management. Gardner and Stern (1996) reviewed the evidence on four major types of intervention: religious and moral approaches that appeal to values and aim to change broad worldviews and beliefs. can change behavior. education to change attitudes and provide information. They found that each of these intervention types. emphasis added) This finding is common sense. By far. However. efforts to change the material incentive structure of behavior by providing monetary and other types of rewards or penalties.and community-based approaches rarely produce much change on their own. It is in the socio-cultural landscape that all four interventions occur to affect conservation 17 . the most effective behavior change programs involve combinations of intervention types.What are these different factors that affect environmental commitment besides money? Paul Stern (2000)of the National Resources Council provided a seminal paper toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Formal land use plans and policies almost exclusively use just one of these four interventions (monetary incentives/disincentives). moral and educational approaches have generally disappointing track records.” (Stern 2000. In it.

community-based.” Educational approaches include taking people on hikes. or nature shows on television. educational. Fig 2c) that systematic conservation assessment is used to affect implementation via moral.action. There is an untapped wealth of opportunity for conservation action that is feasible through Third Context conservation assessment. 18 . or the latest headlines of evangelical policy director Reverend Richard Cizik talking about “creation care. creating ecological perspectives.e. It is only the Third Context (i. Example economic approaches that are not part of formal land-use law are nature-based tourism on private game reserves or ranches. It is for this reason coupled with the paucity of research in this arena that the rest of this dissertation is focused on improving Third Context conservation assessment in order to better facilitate implementation. Community-based interventions are multiple-generation neighbors vowing to work together and to not sell their ranches for development like the folks in the next valley over. Examples of moral/religions intervention are the appeal to the intrinsic value of nature. and the concept of “predator friendly beef” sold at a premium price. and economic approaches (Fig 3). especially if strategic approach and long-term timeframe are adopted (20-50 years).

with the drivers for action portrayed 19 .Figure 3: All three contexts of conservation assessment.

M. Pressey.ecologyandsociety. (2003). Participatory action research in natural resource management : a critique of the method based on five years' experience in the Transamazãonica Region of Brazil. Costello and D." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(5): 242-248. Stoms. http://www. R. Jordan (2002)... Retrieved March 19." Ecology and Society 11(1): 33. 2007.newwest. Nature-friendly communities. R. J. 20 . (2005). New York. (2006).gov/greenkit/intro3. L. and C. "Green Communities: Where Do We Want To Be?" US EPA." Biological Conservation 112: 191-216. "Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. F. (2006). J. from http://www. Cowling.org/vol11/iss1/art33/ Duerksen. Taylor & Francis. Christensen.com/science/article/B6VJ1-42RMMHVR/2/991f89e2a2a73ea2fa11e082917da7bd Castellanet.sciencedirect. Washington DC. C. "Efficient conservation in a utility-maximization framework. M. New West Environment.php/topic/article/3003/C38/L38. Island Press EPA. Lombard. M. Christian and Carl F. "A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot-the Cape Floristic Region. South Africa.REFERENCES Cabeza. Davis. http://www.htm. White House Conservation Conference: Song of the Conservation Brain Trust. T. Rouget and A. W.epa. C. Snyder (2005). www. Mar and Atte Moilanen (2001).net/index. J.

Michael W." Wild Earth 10(1). M. "The Elements of a Wildlands Conservation Plan: An Example from the Sky Islands. http://dx. H. http://www.org/projects_rcg. Goleta. China . Jensen. Analysis and findings. http://links. Kent H. Groves. Conception Coast Project. Valutis. M. Bill (2000).1641%2F00063568%282002%29052%5B0499%3APFBCPC%5D2. J. Trouwborst. P. Foreman.org/10. Messng. X. Mark L.doi. Regional Conservation Guide. I. (1996). Zang. Michael Scott. <Go to ISI>://000187743900018 Foreman. London . Anderson (2002). J Humphrey. O. Z. Andersson (2003). Gallo. Higgins. Xu. Craig R.. Beck and Mark G. Dave (2000). K.jstor. Deborah B. Laura L. H. J. D. B Howard and A Holdsworth (2000)." Catena 54(1-2): 271-288. John.Part II.html Gillham. Wen. The Wildlands Project: A Vision for North America. Jonathan V. J." Ecological Applications 6(1): 27-29. C. Gallo. "Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice.Fagerstrom. M. Redford. Continuum." BioScience 52(6): 499-512. Santa Barbara. "Confronting Visions of a Sustainable Future.CO%3B2 Harte.0. Elia Machado and Greg Helms (2005).org/sici?sici=1051- 21 . Baumgartner. New York.. Shaffer. Case study research methods. James Studarus. CA. B Dugelby. "A participatory approach for integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau. Jeffrey V. X. Olsson and C.conceptioncoast.

C. Access restricted. "Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: Best practice from South Africa. Cowling and B. B. and R.0761%28199602%296%3A1%3C27%3ACVOASF%3E2. M. Campbell (2006a).. Dobson. R.com Knight. <Go to ISI>://000183077800001 22 . L. M. "An operational model for implementing conservation action.. <Go to ISI>://000239545500043 Knight. M. <Go to ISI>://000238313200033 Margules. T. Andrew Balmford. A. C.org/PID/16432 Mascia. Horowitz." Conservation Biology 20(2): 408419. L. "The implementation crisis in conservation planning. M. Nicholls and R. <Go to ISI>://A1988L700200005 Margules.T Lombard and M. O. Cowling." Biological Conservation 43(1): 63-76. A. (2006b). A. J." Conservation Biology 20(3): 739-750. "Conservation and the social sciences.CO%3B2-X http://www.html Knight. A. L. A. A. P." Nature 405(6783): 243-253.. T.jstor.0. Forbes.org/journals/10510761. "Selecting Networks of Reserves to Maximize Biological Diversity. J. B. "Failing but learning: Writing the wrongs after Redford and Taber." Conservation Biology 20(4): 1312-1314.. R. A. T. M. et al. Rouget (In Prep). <Go to ISI>://000236064200019 Knight. (2006). http://uclibs. B. Brosius. C." Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650." Corresponding author: AT Knight: tawnyfrogmouth@gmail. "Systematic conservation planning. McKean and N. M. R. A.. R. T. Campbell. Turner (2003). Pressey (1988). T. Pressey (2000).

Maintaining the ecological integrity of landscapes and ecoregions.Preserving Diversity at All Scales. "Knowing "What" to Do Is Not Enough: Turning Knowledge into Action. and Mums . <Go to ISI>://A1986C123900002 Noss. D.. E. Washington. Fukui and M. "Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives. Noss. http://plinks." Environmental Management 10(3): 299-309. <Go to ISI>://000232137900010 Noss. S. . L. Westra and R. Andelman and H. <Go to ISI>://000225313100013 Newburn. and health. Networks. Cooperrider (1994). R. D. conservation.. Saving nature's legacy : protecting and restoring biodiversity. "Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?" Ecology Letters 7(8): 615-622. Island Press." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1411-1420. Pfeffer. Noss. Island Press: xi. 428.. F. Y." Landscape and Urban Planning 70(3-4): 315-324.C. Hikasa (2005). "Nodes. P. Washington. Harris (1986). Reed F. Possingham (2004). Reed. Merenlender (2005). Ecological integrity : integrating environment.. J and RI Sutton (1999). "Economics and landuse change in prioritizing private land conservation. D. and L. F. D." California management review 42(1): 83-. <Go to ISI>://000222716600001 Natori.Meir. S. Berck and A. and Allen Y. Pimentel. P.C.ebscohost.com/ehost/results?vid=3&hid=2&sid=f172bc84-13334cb2-9bbb-7dea28482456%40sessionmgr7 23 . R (2000).. W. D.

." Conservation Biology 20(2): 549-561. Richard M. http://www. Johnson (1997). Rouget. Mathieu.com/doi/abs/10. Smith.. Kerley (2006). Asam and T. Soule. Knight and Graham I. H. Mande (In review). Lombard. Gap analysis : a landscape approach to biodiversity planning..C. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Bethesda. R. C. Davis (1996). Andrew T. (1985).Prendergast. "Designing Large-Scale Conservation Corridors for Pattern and Process.1111/j. "The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves. Ecola.x Scott." Conservation Biology 13(3): 484-492. Susan E. Choate.00297. The Apex Press . Quinn and John H. 416.blackwellsynergy. Tear and F. S. J. Michael. E.com/doi/abs/10. http://www. International Development Research Centre. D. 35). Md. Timothy H.15231739. Washington. 1994. W. What is Conservation Biology? (From Bioscience..x Pyke. Dennis George Willms and Nancy A.97428. Rachel M. IN: Environmental policy and biodiversity. R. vol. Amanda T. Nurtured by knowledge : learning to do participatory action-research. John R. Cowling. 24 . A. Island Press: xv. Lawton (1999). New York. M. L.blackwell-synergy.. "A review of conservation planning concepts and decision-making practices among state and local land protection programs in the United States. E.2006." Conservation Biology.1999.1046/j.1523-1739. Grumbine.

Stoms. Kenneth M.Stern. Garcâia Mira and J. Euclides Sanchez and Karen Cronick (2003). Chomitz and Frank W. Esther. MA . Robert K.sciencedirect. J. M.. (1993). (2000). 25 . environmental action and sustainability. Culture. Romay Martâinez. Paul C." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424." Landscape and Urban Planning 68(1): 95-108. Davis (2004).. SAGE Publications. Toronto. David M. Participatory action research as a participatory approach to addressing environmental issues. "TAMARIN: a landscape framework for evaluating economic incentives for rainforest restoration. 409. "Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Sabucedo Cameselle. Applications of case study research. http://www. Yin. R.com/science/article/B6V91-49TRNFJ2/2/897f589528f9650d66f32e018cb365c1 Weisenfeld. Hogrefe & Huber: vii. Newbury Park. Calif. Cambridge.

Citizens can engage in two primary ways: gathering biophysical information through sound citizen science. This framework combines conservation assessment and ecosystem-based management using the increased knowledge sharing capabilities of Web 2. Conservation scientists are creating increasingly sophisticated tools and algorithms for determining the spatially explicit needs of biodiversity. these needs are not actually being met by the institutions responsible for implementation. political. and/or helping the relevance of the scientific analyses and implementation strategies through a web-enabled collaborative environment.0 and geospatial technologies. no matter how daunting. It is increasingly clear that the complex social. and economic dimensions of humanenvironment relations. This paper synthesizes several literatures into a framework termed engaged conservation planning and management (ECPM). need to also be addressed. Conservation scientists have a window of opportunity to 26 . ECPM has the potential to affect immediate conservation action as well as a longterm shift in values. If effectively implemented.Chapter 2: Engaged Conservation Planning and Management: a team approach to science and implementation Abstract. But once determined.

In starting to look at the implementation process. resilience INTRODUCTION Despite much progress in the science of assessment. community-based natural resource management. PPGIS. This is being referred to as the implementation crisis in conservation planning (Knight et al. public participation GIS. citizen science. Keywords: systematic conservation planning. One reason for this is the imbalance of research—most is focusing on modeling the spatial needs of biodiversity and how to prioritize them amidst human land-use change. To be effective. new advances in GIS 27 . CBNRM.0. This Third Context of conservation assessment results in the creation of long-term visions and guidance that provide the ecological perspective to the different people in society that affect conservation action. (2) implementing land-use zoning and policies in an efficient manner.engage this emerging culture and technology to effectively benefit biodiversity. 2005). Fortunately. this ecological perspective should be accessible to a large number of people. Web 2. the principles of island biogeography and systematic conservation planning are being poorly implemented. while little focuses on the process of implementation (Newburn et al. it is useful to consider the three general contexts in which conservation assessment leads to conservation action—(1) integrating with formal land use planning. and (3) integrating with society irrespective of formal plans or policies (Chapter 1). 2006a).

conservation action. ECPM can be loosely defined as the scientific and team-based approach to priority area assessment. This leads to the guiding questions of this essay. (4) To briefly point to a variety of references and resources that conservation planners committed to implementation might find helpful. How can the engagement of society in systematic conservation planning be increased and managed effectively? Why is this worth the cost and hassle? The goal of this paper is to provide a starting point for this line of research and development hereby termed engaged conservation planning and management (ECPM). and monitoring. An underlying assumption of this line of research is that engaging more people in at least one stage of the process will lead to a more thorough outreach of the eventual products. but also pose new constraints and challenges. It has four objectives: (1) To provide a conceptual framework for ECPM that defines roles and communication channels for scientists and stakeholders. where stakeholders are defined as anyone with an interest in an issue. An initial benchmark of ECPM is to increase the number of people engaged in some 28 . (2) To propose some methodologies for the specific regional context in which many of the stakeholders have computers and/or broadband internet access.and information and communication technology (ICT) provide opportunities for this increased engagement. (3) To overview the expected benefits of ECPM.

A few lines of further research are provided in the conclusion. The many costs and constraints facing ECPM are also summarized. Additional bodies of theory and practice that influence ECPM are overviewed. a conservation planner should move between these two constructs in an action research cycle. and an operational model provides methods suitable for particular conditions (Knight et al. In practice. This essay begins with some background about emerging approaches to addressing the implementation crisis. and points to studies and essays that further detail each type of benefit. and include public participation GIS (PPGIS). The third section provides key methodological strategies and references for an operational model. (A conceptual framework is a general approach and understanding. So. the stakeholder collaboration network and the landscape knowledge network. with a focus on the landscape knowledge network. socio-ecological resilience. with the implicit goal of the essay being to find ways of minimizing them while achieving the engagement benchmark. although most further research is discussed 29 . there will be thousands to tens of thousands in an ECPM process. instead of the dozens to hundreds of people that are involved in a typical process. 2006a). introducing two networks of communication.) The discussion lists the expected benefits of the different types of engagement. its principles and practices can be applied to conventional Context One or Two processes in which public participation is beneficial. The second section provides the conceptual framework of ECPM.stage of any particular conservation planning process by two to three orders or magnitude. While ECPM was tailored for the Third Context of conservation planning.

” Similarly. by the effectiveness of our approaches to sustaining the diversity of life and the health of ecosystems. “Reversing [the trends of this disconnect] and encouraging people to care is an enormous but in our view. 2006) Despite the emphasis within the discipline on scientific inquiry of biodiversity needs. perhaps most generally in that a synthesis of systematic conservation planning with PPGIS and ICT in order to improve the practice has not previously been executed as far as the author is aware. and by the respect for the living world we are able to foster within our varied cultures and within the human heart. we are losing the war. The disconnect between people and nature is growing. This essay is novel in several ways. 30 . 2003). caused in a large part by the decreased direct contact people have with nature (Balmford and Cowling 2006).” (Meine et al. BACKGROUND TO ECPM Balmford and Cowling (2006) reflect on the past 20 years of conservation biology and report that while the discipline has won a few battles. inescapable challenge. the past presidents of the Society for Conservation Biology state that “success [of the discipline] will be measured by the degree to which we can integrate scientific understanding into our community life. these quotes and others indicate the growing mandate to include human values and institutional processes in the scope of inquiry (Mascia et al.at the conclusion of the dissertation (Chapter 5).

A common element in all of these efforts is the inclusion of stakeholders in the process. 2005. there is a growing emphasis on examining and addressing implementation strategies while performing conservation planning (Foreman et al. 2004. 2006). 2005. Younge and Fowkes 2003. Incorporating implementation into the purview of conservation planning requires a transdisciplinary approach to include both the natural and social sciences (Angelstam et al. Loucks et al. property rights. 2005). Davis et al. Pierce et al. relationships. Conservation planning efforts that formally or informally apply this technique are finding that it is essential to engage the “institutions” that will be involved in implementation (Angelstam et al. Angelstam et al. Song and M'Gonigle 2001. Fagerstrom et al. 2003. al.Emerging approaches for addressing implementation Fortunately. Natori et al. attention to social 31 . 2003. Knight et al. 2005. Fagerstrom et al. Angelstam et. Younge and Fowkes 2003. and agencies” (Angelstam et al. Loucks et al. 2003). 2003. and the vertical analysis is a critical evaluation of the institutions and other societal issues relevant to implementation. Natori et al. 2003). 2004. Application of this tool improves the implementation success of the conservation planning activity. 2003. Pierce et al. but are not limited to beliefs. Most efforts do this informally. 2000b. (2003) suggest a more formal Two-dimensional Gap Analysis in which the horizontal dimension is the traditional conservation planning approach.. “Institutions include. norms. (2006a) suggest four other interrelated hallmarks in addition to stakeholder collaboration: links to a conceptual framework.

Additional theory and practice to be selected from in addressing implementation Geographic information science and technology (GIScience) provides a key to dilemmas of environmental management such as the questions driving ECPM (Goodchild 2003). ECPM takes this concept and raises the bar to include interested community members as well. integrate and contextualize complex spatial information. and to empower individuals and groups” (Siebor 2006). It “provides a unique approach for engaging the public in decision making through its goal to incorporate local knowledge. 2005. 2002.learning and action research. Keen et al. allow participants to dynamically interact with input. development of an implementation strategy. 2002). Maarleveld and Dabgbegnon 1999. Of direct relevance is the sub-field of GIScience termed public participation GIS (PPGIS) (Weiner et al. 2006). Liu et al. The web also harbors a host of 32 . 2006b). The world wide web (web) has become a central component of PPGIS communication because of the interactivity and connectivity provided (Goodchild 2000a. and decision-makers to explore problems and their solutions (Daniels and Walker 1996. Knight et al. This essay seconds the need of these five hallmarks. analyze alternatives. and focuses on the issue of social learning institutions—the processes and structures for facilitating two-way knowledge sharing among scientists. Weiner et al. planners. and links with land-use planning. or simply participatory GIS (PGIS) (Rambaldi et al. 2006).

Socio-ecological resilience is the capability for society to self-organize. monitoring the environment. Many leading ecologists. The challenge lies in applying the principles to conservation planning in which the lan-use decision of development is more permanent the most adaptive management treatments. Engaged conservation planning and management also draws from the theory. and working with. Scharl 2004). embodied by the resilience alliance. see ecosystems as complex adaptive systems characterized by historical dependency. and supporting collaborative learning (Olsson et al. various organizations at different levels (Olsson et al. and trust. combining different kinds of knowledge. and hence ECPM. complex dynamics. Adaptive co-management systems are a central tenet to socio-ecological resilience. such as Levin (1999) and Holling (2001). Several factors need to be pursued for such a system including building vision. inherent uncertainty. if the associated threats are minimized (Levitt 2002.opportunities for conservation in general. These are flexible. enabling legislation to create political opportunities. 2004). successes and lessons of community-based or integrated natural resource 33 . community-based systems of resource management tailored to specific places and situations and supported by. The resulting research agenda. and multiple equilibria (Berkes 2004). learn and adapt within this complex system (Berkes et al. leadership. 2004). 2003). is one of the most exciting in conservation (Ostrom 2006). The concept of socio-ecological resilience is especially relevant to social learning institutions. multiple scales.

there is much less research funding and institutional support for systematic conservation assessment and PPGIS that is 34 . Costs to be minimized There are many direct and indirect costs associated with a participatory approach such as ECPM. The obvious cost is that increased participation is resource intensive.net 2006). 2004. Saunders et al. integrated conservation and development projects (Alpert 1996). from the landscape scale (kilometers-wide)(Forman 1995) to the global scale. If the goal of an effort is to adequately address the theory of island biogeography. requiring additional time. Finally. In other words. Systematic conservation planning can occur at many scales. cbnrm. then cost is an especially critical consideration. Because building the ecological perspective is not situated in the direct path of the economic engine (Chapter 1). (Daniels and Walker 1996) and a social learning approach to environmental management (Keen et al. and bioregionalism (McGinnis 1999). ECPM is designed to also answer the call for a more public ecology (Robertson and Hull 2001).management (Sayer and Campbell 2001. Weber 2003. community-based conservation (Western et al. Doing this dramatically increases the number of people that might want to engage and be heard. money and staff (Brechin 2003. it should be done at the regional scale (hundreds of kilometers wide) or coarser. 1994). Dalton 2005). conservation psychology provides guidance on how ECPM can best interface with society to bolster the non-formal implementation drivers discussed in Chapter 1 (Saunders 2003. 2005). and issues such as large carnivore landscape connectivity. 2006). Winter et al. collaborative learning.

Having the raw data available as part of ECPM can also be quite problematic. 2003. Weiss 2003. Conversely. Due to the coarse scale of the process. Cohen 2001. copyright and public acceptability of interpretations” (Froese et al.not within the context of formal land-use planning and policies. Environmental_Perspectives 2005). This fear and anger leads to resistance. Finally some raw data are sensitive. and public release can be problematic to the processes they represent 35 . Stoneham et al. the fear is that community-based projects will benefit local interests at the expense of ecological objectives (McClosky 1999). Secondly. confrontations. So money has to be spent wisely. In other words. maps of conservation priorities) can be used to incite fears or anger among landowners about “loss of liberty” to manage their property as they know is best (Environmental_Perspectives 2005). The fear is that the incompetence and irrationality of citizens will be problematic unless they are properly informed (as reported by Irwin 1995). making the systematic conservation planning process open to local knowledge and values is threatening to some scientists.g. such as “is it fair for anyone to know what species or habitats are on a persons property?” There are also concerns of data custodians. publication by others. the spatially explicit results of conservation assessments (e. 2004). land degradation. such as “loss of competitiveness. There are privacy issues to reconcile. and price gouging for conservation on private land (Foreman 1999. the scale of conflict can be very large and will need to be managed effectively.

(Gallo unpublished). For instance, the world’s oldest tree (about 4700 years old) is not represented on any public map because of the potential for vandalism, or worse (pers. com. Church). CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: OVERVIEW OF ENGAGED CONSERVATION PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ECPM utilizes the web to increase the level of participation in both stakeholder collaboration and in the gathering of knowledge, and then uses this information in performing iterative conservation assessments and developing implementation strategies (Fig 4). The primary communication channels are through the stakeholder collaboration network (SCN) and the landscape knowledge network (LKN); both of which utilize the same knowledge base, with the protocols for accessing and entering information and human values different for different groups (Fig 5). The structure for this process can be borrowed from comprehensive planning (Levy 2000) and/or from framework with roots in planning that was designed originally for landscape architects but has proven to be especially robust for conservation planning (Steinitz 1990, 1997). Decades of trial-and-error that have gone into developing the practice of comprehensive planning, which has evolved from having a small group of experts provide a final product to being centered around participatory planning (Levy 2000). The first of five phases is the research phase in which data and information are gathered to examine the current context and past trends. Next, the goals of the affected community are formulated based on a clear-eyed view of the facts, constraints, and options. Formulation of the plan follows, usually by developing and

36

Figure 4: Engaged Conservation Planning and Management conceptual framework diagram A; portraying iterative, two-way knowledge sharing to reduce the “knowing-doing” gaps.

evaluating alternative courses of action. The fourth phase is implementing the plan by using all of the mechanisms available. The fifth and crucial element is the review and updating of the plan, because deviations and surprises are inevitable. Steinitz (1990) provides an approach for conservation planning that parses the problem into several model: representation, process, evaluation, change, impact, and decision. In the scoping phase, the models are created by moving through them in the reverse order. Then the data needed for each is determined by looking at them in sequence, then the analysis is performed. After the analysis, the results are

37

Figure 5: Engaged Conservation Planning and Management conceptual framework diagram B

monitored and the process is either repeated or performed for a different scale or location. A key element of ECPM is Web 2.0—an emerging culture and set of tools that allow asynchronous, distributed, two-way interaction that is stimulating and does not require an intermediary (O'Reilly 2005; Rogers 2006). The culture emphasizes online collaboration and sharing. Example websites that embody Web 2.0 principles

38

include Wikipedia (an encyclopedia), Google Earth Community (geographic layers of information), and YouTube (videos). Users can even create information content automatically, such as the tallies of the number of visits to a particular item on a site (e.g. Amazon.com). These developments are more than just a fringe curiosity, but are instead a central component of the shift to the global knowledge economy and network society (Corey and Wilson 2006; Kriegman 2006). Scientists, planners, and stakeholders will all be better served by participating in and helping direct this shift (Butler 2005; Corey and Wilson 2006; Vinge 2006). With the adoption of Web 2.0 as an integral part of ECPM, communication can occur as never before between and among these groups, be they within a region, among regions, or between scales (i.e. from neighborhood to global contexts) (e.g. Stonich 2002). Adoption of the technological approach to participation is not a panacea by any means. It requires a careful and critical understanding of the shortfalls of such an approach. The digital divide between people with computers and those without is well known, but inadequate in its binary simplicity. Rather, there is a gradation, and the effectiveness of an endeavor is as much about hardware and broadband access as it is about social inclusion and context (Warschauer 2003). This is especially true now that a laptop computer that will cost only $150 is set to be released in mid-2007 (Gardner 2006). Social informatics provides a helpful tradition of examining the relationship between ICT and society (Kling 2000). Viewing ICT as a sociotechnical network rather than a tool encourages a more nuanced, sustainable approach to its development. Such development includes combining an ecological,

39

holistic view of social interaction with the conventional business model (Kling 2000). This view influences ECPM in several ways: 1) some regions lend themselves to ECPM more than others, 2) sociotechnical scoping should be used to determine an appropriate conservation planning operational model, and 3) in all ECPM applications, opportunities for meaningful engagement should also be available to people without computers or fast internet connections. Meaningful engagement can be through traditional communication channels, or through accessing ICT via libraries, other public places, internet café sponsors, and ECPM ambassadors. Stakeholder Collaboration Network One opportunity for public participation in ECPM is through the stakeholder collaboration network (SCN), a web-enabled collaboration environment in which stakeholder values and visions for the region are gathered and synthesized for incorporation into the scientific analyses and the creation of implementation strategies (Fig 6). In ECPM, the stakeholders can interact online from their own home, on their own time schedule. This can be in something as simple as an e-mail list-serve, or more structured such as the use of a web-portal linking to functions such as agenda management, concerns-values organization, alternatives generation, choice modeling, and reflective review (Dragicevic and Balram 2004; WebLab 2005; Nyerges et al. 2006a). It is also possible to use interactive television (Squire and Johnson 2000; Pagani 2003; Steinmann and Krek 2006) for some or all of these objectives. For instance, users can watch a documentary or actors simulating a

40

Figure 6: The Stakeholder Collaboration Network is the two-way communication between and among scientists and stakeholders. Clouds represent internet environments, rounded boxes are actions, boxes are people, and arrows show the predominate direction of information flow. Some information is transferred via hardcopy, but not depicted on these diagrams.

debate, and then the user can tally their vote and comments on the issue. Soon, these shows can also be available on the web. This web and/or television interaction environment can be termed the Web of Values and Teamwork. Mail-in and in-

41

Dalton 2005). Dalton 2005). Determining which of these stakeholders get to participate in a process is delicate.’ In PGIS. Figs 4. Experienced practitioners in natural resource management are finding that the best strategy in the long run is stakeholder self-selection (Jackson 2001). Summaries of mail-in surveys and online interactions can be used in the workshops.g. Weiner et al.person interactions (e. Lynam et.5) (Irwin 1995. The conservation scientists can use this information as it is developed in shaping and performing the conservation assessments. meetings. A useful conception is that everyone in a region is a stakeholder. 2006b). Schlossberg and Shuford 2005). Thus. and workshops) are also necessary. The conservation planning literature is often vague about the term ‘stakeholder. al (2007) provide an excellent review of several tools available. evaluation. there is a robust communication channel from the people formulating and using the implementing strategies to the people performing the scientific process (i. there is much discussion about stakeholders (e. efficient administration. surveys. Other important characteristics of effective stakeholder participation that should be included are fair decision making. 2002). and the workshop dialogue and results can in turn be added to the Web. but to varying degrees for various issues (Nyerges et al. Inviting everyone from the start to participate protects against individuals or groups derailing 42 . which stemmed from one of the initial concerns of the GIS and Society debate: the potential for continued marginalization of underprivileged people (Pickles 1995. Carver 2003. and use.e. which are then linked back to the community for review. and positive participant interactions (Haklay and Tobon 2003.g.

and revised (Fig 7). Landscape Knowledge Network overview Another opportunity for engagement is through the Landscape Knowledge Network (LKN).) The conservation scientists perform two major responsibilities: 1) they implement the scientific analyses (i. 43 . The direct actors in the LKN are the landscape observers and the conservation scientists.the process near completion because they were not included (Jackson 2001). etc. The use of the internet in ECPM minimizes these logistical and marginalizing factors. land-use modeling.). The landscape observers collect and review useful data. utilized. and knowledge generated by the landscape observers and the conservation scientists are organized and communicated to each other and the stakeholders via the internet and available upon request in hardcopy materials. outreach. (Landscape observers include citizen scientists. evaluated. and knowledge about the regional landscape are gathered. there can be factors (such as a large time commitment for midday meetings) that marginalize the participation of some groups of people. information. The definitions and distinction between the two will be made in the LKN section of the essay. The LKN is the portion of ECPM in which data. information. All of the data. and knowledge about the region. But this luxury is rarely an option for traditional conservation planning efforts due to logistical challenges (meeting spaces.). and even when it is. etc. conservation assessments.e. information. and 2) they facilitate all of the processes within the LKN and the SCN.

citizen scientists). Fig 5). it is recommended that the approach should lend itself to iterative updates using new data and knowledge due to the following logic. and also provides information for the Stakeholder Collaboration Network (i. Conservation planning refinements In theory.e.g. any of the existing conservation assessment approaches in the conservation biology literature can be used in the scientific assessment stage of ECPM. Traditional conservation planning uses complex algorithms to identify the comprehensive design of a large network of sites that minimizes cost and meets a set of biodiversity 44 .Figure 7: The Landscape Knowledge Network links the scientists and landscape observers (e. However.

). But a problem arises because the financial and political resources necessary to conserve such a network are usually enormous. other conditions change. and the understanding of ecological requirements changes. Meir et al. Haight et al.). new data are obtained.) i One approach to this problem of the “moving target” that is exacerbated by bottomup conservation has been to increase the complexity of the original analysis by including predictions of how this dynamic process is expected to unfold (Costello and Polasky 2004. Chomitz et al. cultural values change. conservancies. and this prevalence is likely to grow with the “cooperative conservation” approach being promoted by the Department of the Interior (Christensen 2005). In short. (And yet. In the U. Pyke et al.S. recent advances of GIS software such as ESRI’s ModelBuilder. 2004. In the meantime. in prep. 2005). in prep. so implementation occurs on a piecemeal basis (Faith et al. many of the priority areas get degraded or developed. or nomination by individuals) is occurring. However. the original set of conservation priorities becomes outdated and obsolete—it is a moving target. 2006). and generate an new network design based on current data. such bottom-up conservation is significantly more prevalent than top-down (Pyke 2006. 2003.. Pyke et al.thresholds. most of the conservation planning algorithms favor the far more uncommon top-down paradigm (Pyke 2006. 2004). The most straightforward approach is to simply re-run the conservation assessment after a period of time. The cost of this reiteration has traditionally been prohibitive (Meir et al. allow scientists to use drag-and-drop menu 45 . This issue is especially acute in areas where bottom-up conservation (locations identified by grant programs.

land-use) could be substituted for the old one and the complete analysis. given a short-term and realistic budget.g. AN INITIAL OPERATIONAL MODEL FOR THE LANDSCAPE KNOWLEDGE NETWORK 46 . that work best towards an eventual and unknown comprehensive network (Davis et al. As a result. In summary. It is also possible to turn the traditional optimization approach around. the iterative approach is now a viable option for conservation planning. the conservation assessments of ECPM should include algorithms that can also select off-reserve conservation areas (Possingham et al.interfaces to generate coded scripts of all of their analyses. greatly decreasing costs of reiteration. could be performed automatically overnight. For example. a newly minted base layer of data (e. and should provide the most useful information to society in the long run. Davis et al. The second suggestion for conservation assessment comes from the oftoverlooked recommendation of Margules and Pressey’s (2000) seminal paper on systematic conservation planning: “the realization of conservation goals requires strategies for managing whole landscapes including areas allocated to both production and protection”. 2003). by identifying a small set of sites. 2006). and doing so is much more feasible then relying on the reserve-only strategy (Pence et al. This is because many biodiversity elements can be conserved on landscapes that are also managed for human use as well (Binning 1997.g. Theobald 2004). and that quantify the relative value of these areas in contributing to biodiversity goals (e. which took weeks to perform the first time. 2001). 2006).

I will focus on the details of the LKN in starting to populate an operational model for ECPM. It is important to also distribute the videos and information via CD-ROMS. Grimm 2006). UNESCO 2006). this challenge can be organized through a web-portal collaboration environment (e. At the regional level. the end of its first year. or even computers. a user designed encyclopedia (a local wikipedia) and complemented by videos that showcase the portal. The data. Locals can also be empowered to generate videos.Because of all of the excellent and overlapping threads of research surrounding the concept of the SCN. Google Earth is an emerging example how the spatial information of a region can be communicated. with 100 million userdownloads by June 2006. and how they are used. images. and because of limited space here. information. and collectively called the Web of Landscape Knowledge. This free desktop client is very popular. The aspatial sites can have help documents and tutorials that are linked to a global glossary (EOEARTH 2006). Videos that describe the project principles and conservation actions such as ‘best management practices’ will also be linked from the web-portal (e. and knowledge generated or used by the landscape observers and the conservation scientists is distributed throughout the internet. VHS.g. and text for the portal (Nakashima 2005.g. Workman 2002. Users can now zoom into any 47 . and print-outs for those that don’t have internet. Sakai 2006) which can link to internet sites that provide spatial and aspatial information. Workman 2003. This web includes geospatial knowledge (the geospatial web) as well as aspatial landscape knowledge. its tools.

so systems like Google Earth will democratize GIS” (Goodchild in Butler 2006). view the high resolution aerial photograph. These GIS clients 48 .place on earth. all for free. users can query a catalogue (e. 3-D flyby’s through a region with the click of a mouse (e. change the viewing angle.g. Landscape observers can contribute content to the Web of Landscape Knowledge by using these GIS clients or through hard-copy entry forms. Further. Conservation scientists can make their GIS data viewable by Google Earth or any web-GIS client. explore the results of the model. and then post suggested changes on the communication network. A DVD or set of CD’s with World Wind on it and all of the data for the region (and some pre-programmed 3-D flybys) could be distributed to and usable by end-users with limited or no internet connection. turn on a roads layer. and create their own layers to share. Moore 2005). Conservation_Geoportal 2006) to find and import methodologies saved using the aforementioned Modelbuilder. but is open source and has the additional capability of viewing data saved locally. Zimmerman 2006) is similar to Google Earth. They can even access informative. ESRI’s new ArcExplorer is similar to Google Earth and has some additional analytical functions (but does not have the change in viewing angle). The end-user can then run the method with a click of the mouse.g. turn on any other layers of information that they have accessed through their queries. change weights and assumptions. An excellent summary article in Nature on the impact of this technology includes the claim: “just as the PC democratized computing. ii World Wind (Kim 2006.

But both of these approaches have little structure. it is now possible to use cell phone text messages while out in the field to enter location data directly onto the internet (Glennon 2006).g. it is often difficult to motivate people to participate and to garner their trust 49 . The Global Biodiversity Informatics Facility (GBIF 2006a) has a similar interface. Some sites provide more structure.allow the rapid development of point data layers. An example is Worldbirds (2006) which allows users in many parts of the world to log in and enter the birds they observed during a survey.com). Suggestions for effective practice of the Landscape Knowledge Network But with all of these opportunities come a host of interrelated challenges in developing an effective LKN. I will focus on four challenges that directly overlap with the ECPM goal of engaging significantly more people and still having the process scientifically sound. and knowledge provided by landscape observers have varying and often unknown levels of certainty and rigor. traditional ecological knowledge about the landscape is usually structured very differently than scientific knowledge. The first challenge of the LKN is that the data. and also has associated cultural values that are embedded and hard to map and analyze (Huntington 2000. has protocols on data collection and entry. Rambaldi 2006). Thirdly. and links directly with Google Earth. How do we know that “Joe Naturalist” really saw a mountain lion track at the headwaters of his home watershed? Secondly. requiring several attribute fields of data. is for all organisms. To make issues even more convenient. wikimapia. information. with at least one attribute field per point. Attributed polygon’s can also be created (e.

Conservation_Geoportal 2006. INSPIRE 2007) is a web gateway that organizes and communicates geographic content and services such as directories. can quickly access the information that meets their needs and standards. geodata. and the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure has perhaps the most comprehensive metadata standard. search tools. One of the current opportunities for conservation biologists is to prioritize the most 50 . Metadata provides the organizing structure of geoportals. gathering more and synthesizing it all in an ever-changing world requires new means of organization and communication.that the content they provide will be used responsibly. If all the spatial information in the Web of Landscape Knowledge has some similar metadata categories. A geoportal (e. and is loosely defined as the information describing the data. Tait 2005). community information. then any end-user. The effective development and use of geoportals is a key to meeting the challenges of knowledge organization and uncertainty. support resources. And lastly. the amount of information available is already overwhelming. But in many cases the effort required to populate such comprehensive metadata standards is daunting to the average information provider. GNO 2006. content or service.gov 2006. data. There is a long history of developing metadata standards within geography (Maguire and Longley 2005). be they a conservation scientist doing analysis or a landscape observer seeing what is already known for an area they are about to survey.g. and applications (Maguire and Longley 2005.

or scientific design (Noss 2001). Further. The threshold would depend on the analysis being performed.important minimum metadata standards for these geoportals such that ECPM is facilitated. citizen scientists. Such a framework would provide an easy and fun opportunity for “Joe Naturalist” or even “Jane Stakeholder” to get involved in observing and learning about their home region as a amateur geographer. Motivation to participate is challenging enough.) of their content is likely to discourage new people from getting engaged.e.e. etc. and would also effect the certainty of the knowledge that results from the analysis. Amateur geographers are not required to enter in any metadata information that would indicate the certainty of their observation. I suggest that the effective implementation of the LKN requires that the certainty metadata of content (i. Their data would be treated accordingly in subsequent analyses. they would not be required to follow any survey protocol. Once “hooked. and the scientists could easily extract and use only the information that meets a minimum certainty threshold. photograph available. and professional scientists. an observation of a rare species) is documented. This allows for the participation to occur in a scientifically sound manner because everyone could contribute to the knowledge web.” they will have the incentive to improve their skills and methods to become a citizen scientist if 51 . there are at least three ranks of landscape observer that correspond to increasing levels of certainty and rigor— amateur geographers. For this reason. But requiring every landscape observer to laboriously document the certainty metadata (i. with a GPS or not.

Lee et al. 2001. McCaffrey 2005). The first is a more robust approach to documenting survey effort.. But the conservation biology community has been relatively silent. Kelley and Tuxen 2003. Presence/absence data can be extremely effective in conservation analyses and is often more cost effective then demographic studies (Joseph et al. Certainty of any 52 . a minimum of two such protocols. The community has an opportunity to help guide an emerging culture such that it is most useful to science and biodiversity conservation. It is rapidly emerging worldwide as a very useful and viable data collection and engagement strategy (Irwin 1995. Fitzpatrick and Gill 2002. Mayfield et al. 2000. This would greatly increase the utility of citizen science for conservation assessments and other scientific analyses. especially in the U. The second suggested minimum protocol is an observer certification process of some sort. 2006). But there needs to be a requirement for documenting surveys that resulted in no observations for the species of note. Citizen science is generally defined as the participation of non-scientists in data collection for scientific investigations (Trumbull et al.they want their data to be more useful. 2006).S. in providing guidance in the development of citizen science. This is especially true if legions of volunteers are employed. for discussion. The term “amateur geographer” is used instead of “amateur naturalist” (Noss 2001) because it is has a broader scope and also invites people that do not consider themselves naturalists. I suggest. If every citizen scientist had a rank of qualification (which could be taxa specific) then any information they entered into the database would be associated with the observer’s rank.

The certification process could be based on a combination of written and field exams (e. Danielsen et al. 2005). the sharing of sensitive biological data can be problematic for many reasons (Froese et al. This is a research agenda in itself that is not addressed here.g. that have generally been reluctant. 53 . ground truthing remote sensing and observational databases. Focusing on monitoring might be the best way of managing citizen science in the initial stages of a citizen science program. On a related note. to finally start using such data and encouraging its collection. 2004. it is in monitoring applications that citizen science efforts seem to be the most developed (Lee 1994. Obviously. Hunsberger 2004. so it is important to recognize these and address them accordingly (Froese et al. These improved protocols should encourage professional scientists. 2001. Fleming and Henkel 2001. and include random ground-truth validation by professionals (Fleming and Henkel 2001). monitoring of conservation actions. GBIF 2006b). Citizen science can be used to fill in gaps of existing data. Monitoring is an imperative component of the adaptive management cycle. and hence ECPM. Mayfield et al. Biodiversity_and_Conservation_Journal 2005. Scientists could then easily query and use data that met a required threshold of certainty. 2004). Further. and for user-selected surveys of the region. it is most effective if it has a purpose and a design (Hunsberger 2004).information would then be a function of the person’s qualification and their certainty of the particular observation (which could be associated with digital photographs). FGASA 2006).

Drew and A. the best programs combine both ways of knowing to identify the areas of corroboration and contention. In my experience. What about knowledge.g. know the biodiversity hotspots of a region as well as or better than a multi-criteria analysis based on necessarily incomplete data (ICSU and UNESCO 2002. Moller et al. It is empirically proven that people find intrinsic satisfaction from participating in a community as well as gaining a sense of competence through an action (De Young 2000. People will need some motivational drivers to participate in the LKN. so creativity is a premium for this issue. Balram et al. 2001. the people that have walked the land for their whole life. The ongoing challenge is to document the values. and ways of knowing that is attached to such information (Tripathi and Bhattarya 2004. 2004). culture. UNESCO 2006). Kaplan 2000). 2004. The knowledge that emerges from such deliberation is arguably of higher quality then the knowledge from either approach individually (Irwin 1995. Most efforts will have a limited budget. P. Hunsberger 2004. and subsequently linked to the Web of Landscape Knowledge (Brodnig and MayerSchönberger 2000. Henne 2006). and especially the traditional ecological knowledge and expert knowledge of local people (TEK)? TEK can be mapped and stored in a GIS format. EDAW 2002). iii People pursue activities that give them intrinsic satisfaction (De Young 2000).These efforts are aimed primarily at data collection and communication. Further. and learned from generations before them. and people 54 . Cundill et al. and then looking in more detail at the sources of uncertainty in the areas of contention to better determine the situation (e. it makes people feel good to be needed. In many cases. 2005).

Hoerl 2001). Rather then metaphorical belts. In person community events should also be arranged. or helpless (Kaplan 1990. Wenger et al. a key motivational approach is to build a community of practice (Brown and Duguid 1991. 2005) that usually culminates in a potluck dinner in each region. 2002) around the LKN. 2005). such as public opinion leader trails (Muir 1999) with a landscape observer component. Stakeholders can be classified according to their degree of urgency. There can be a sense of community through wikis.com. and power regarding land-use decisions 55 . In short.net. Development of the LKN should occur such that these motivational drivers are in place.avoid situations that make them confused. DISCUSSION: THE EXPECTED DIMENSIONS AND BENEFITS OF INCREASED ENGAGEMENT The people engaged A three dimensional cube can illustrate the participation in traditional conservation planning versus ECPM. When people move up the ranks of citizen scientist. such as geocaching. actual lapel pins. web-blogs and e-mail listserves allowing for dialogue and updates. or earth patches can be distributed. legitimacy. such as the annual Christmas bird count (Dunn et al.org. and craigslist. One strategy for recruitment is to target already developed virtual communities (Bragge et al. tribe. they can have different rankings such as the “green belt” and “black belt” ratings of the revolutionary six sigma business management approach (Harry and Schroeder 2000. Special efforts should also be made to expose key stakeholders to nature. Kaplan 2000). Wenger and Snyder 2000.

used metaphorically. Each grey dot represents a person that has a certain degree of power. legitimacy. Government employees are part of the cube in this case. The cube can be populated using empirical data. 1997). The red dots represent the people participating in the conservation planning process. but a more nuanced 56 . These characteristics are socially defined. These metrics are the axes of a cube that represents a regional community (Fig 8a). change over time. and are sometimes not even consciously acknowledged (Mitchell et al. and urgency regarding the sustainability of the region. or. 1997). Figure 8a: The estimated stakeholder cube for traditional conservation planning.(Mitchell et al. in this case.

First. These two factors are expected to increase the number of people engaged by at least one order of magnitude. ECPM is expected to change this cultural landscape in two ways. This is especially true if landownership is one of the determinants of power and legitimacy. people with lower levels of urgency.conception may eventually be necessary. Secondly. thereby shifting their position from low to medium (Fig 8c). this change is expected to in turn lure some of the latent stakeholders (people with a “low” classification) into action. iv In traditional conservation planning that has a stakeholder component (usually as workshops or meetings) the stakeholders come from various interest groups but is usually a small group (Brown 2003) with have high degrees of these three metrics (Fig 8a). legitimacy. or power will be able to easily participate and know that the information and values they share will be used (Fig 8b). 57 . and hopefully two.

Figure 8b: The postulated stakeholder cube for initial Engaged Conservation Planning and Management 58 .

The costs were outlined in the end of the introduction. Some of these benefits have more empirical proof than others. and many of the expected benefits follow.Figure 8c: The postulated shift in peoples’ stakeholder status resulting from Engaged Conservation Planning and Management Some expected benefits of this engagement There are many implications to this increased engagement. and one of the ECPM 59 .

and hence behavior (De Young 2000. Stringer et al. 2005. 2004. and may be one of the cheapest long-term strategies for biodiversity protection (Yaffee 2006). Ostrom and Nagendra 2006). Schwartz 2006. It builds the trust between and among local experts. Main 2004). 2006). Danielsen et al. especially because local people are often more effective at advocacy then the scientists (Brewer 2002. Weber 2003. Bride 2006). Education is a known driver of a change of values. Jackson 2001. With a shift towards ecological values. 60 . Public participation in decisionmaking processes also helps in consensus building and reducing conflicts (Couclelis and Monmonier 1995. all sorts of conservation efforts are bolstered—such as ecological economics and energy conservation—not just the implementation of conservation plans. Having more people involved also helps in society’s understanding of conservation science (Trumbull et al. Stern 2000). To start with. Having more participants also helps navigate the science through the socio-political maze of implementation (Brooks et al. The Society for Conservation Biology has an oft-overlooked goal of public education (SCB 2005a. Sheil and Lawrence 2004). involvement in the process makes people more likely to use the final products of a conservation assessment because they have partial ownership and “buy-in.” and the products are more likely to suit their needs (Moller et al. 2000. stakeholders and the scientists that is vital for successful teamwork (Forester 1999. 2006). 2001).research agendas is to further evaluate these claims of conservation psychology and political ecology. 2006)(Holling 1998. Brosius and Russell 2003. Johns 2003. Stringer et al. Joerin et al.

Public participation in conservation planning and management has an element not available to public participation in other conservation efforts—fieldwork in nature. Carr 2004. The same mechanism provides scientists. conservationists and planners with the much needed opportunity to get out and see firsthand the landscape they are conceptualizing and/or trying to save (Warburton and Higgitt 1997. Noss 2001. This participation utilizes the economies of scale in attaining this goal(Fleming and Henkel 2001. and sharing of values among and between stakeholders. and landscape observers (Fig 9). Mayer and Frantz 2004. CONCLUSION: Engaged conservation planning and management is a web-enabled approach for increasing the collaboration. Carr 2004. knowledge. and the benefits they confer on society” (see also Armsworth et al. Miller 2005. habitats. Sheil and Lawrence 2004). and stewardship (Leopold 1949. The 61 . 2006. The approach could go by many names including a type of community-based natural resource management that incorporates conservation planning and uses the internet. 2005). students. 2003. It is clear that far better data are needed in the “quantity and quality of populations. Balmford and Cowling 2006). Fuller et al. 2005). and arise or are absent for unexpected reasons (Brossard et al. Balmford and Cowling 2006). All of these benefits are context specific. Fuller 2004). Giving people a purpose to be in nature leads to a connectedness to nature which enables attitude change—a concern for nature. A critical approach is needed in evaluating these propositions and determining specific forms of best practice (Brossard et al. conservation scientists.

It can start with a small number of participants and expand over time. With some more fortitude and vision. These are both interconnected with the shifting currents of the dominant social paradigm. nor does the implementation of the conservation plans. conservation planning can merge with ecosystem management efforts to have 62 . point is that conservation planning does not occur in a bubble.Figure 9: The preliminary operational model of ECPM.

status. Putnam 2000. and civic engagement. Hutchinson and Vidal 2004) in an effort to further conservation(Van Rijsoort and Zhang 2005.three interconnected goals: identifying the spatially explicit and management needs of nature. the “regional citizen” that emerges 63 . This builds upon the strategy of building the social capital among communities (Putnam 1995. It provides enticing opportunities for non-environmentalist fulfillments. personal expression. meeting those needs. and positively influencing the social paradigm by rejuvenating the values of ecological respect and action. These opportunities and sense of optimism will provide a lifeline to halt the very disturbing trend away from fulfillment values and towards survivalist values (American_Environics 2006). A conservation think-tank is analyzing years of extensive survey data regarding social values and providing advice on how conservation professionals can help achieve a more ecological society (American_Environics 2006). such as belonging. This builds the hope and security that are vital in the adoption of ecological values. The findings relevant to conservation scientists are that we need to: 1) develop strategies that more deeply engage fulfillment-oriented youth who don’t consider themselves environmentalists 2) inspire optimism among survival oriented citizens and 3) create Strategic Initiatives that activate values held more strongly than Ecological Concern — and that create new non-environmentalist ecological identities. learning. Schwartz 2006). It also builds the resilience of the region to withstand and adapt effectively to the uncertainties of the future. ECPM not only helps with the proximate issue of conservation plan implementation. but it also fulfills these broader strategic goals. Indeed.

so it is not appropriate everywhere. a more complete understanding can be gained regarding the region. and probably beyond the scope of any individual effort. the components of ECPM that give people a purpose to be in nature are also likely to bolster the Ecological Base. and is decidedly technocentric. and how the people of the region will meet those needs. ECPM is not just a social endeavor. By weaving the two perspectives together. It is also quite comprehensive. It is also designed to significantly bolster the conservation planning process.might be the new non-environmentalist ecological identity that is needed. ECPM is built around trust and ethics. The wealth of observation data that meets high quality standards can be used directly in analyses. A careful scoping of the study region is important to determine if and how ECPM or its components should be applied and/or researched. By doing this while adhering to 64 . Conservation scientists can learn from these perspectives and be able to better prioritize the improvements needed in their models and algorithms. Further. The local knowledge of the region also provides a counterpoint to the quantitative approach that is has its own set of uncertainties and weaknesses. or simply to help evaluate the uncertainty of the predictive models (such as wildlife habitat prediction) used in the conservation assessments. ECPM shows great promise and has a rich research and application agenda. the importance of which cannot be underestimated. its needs. By designing research carefully (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006) we can work on pieces of the ECPM vision for eventual synthesis. v Of course.

M. M. W. B. Lazdinis. A.com/Files_Publications/Road_Map_for_Ecol ogical_Majority_AE. Roberge. American Environics.pdf Angelstam. http://www. REFERENCES: Alpert. "From the Cover: Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. <Go to ISI>://000189317900006 Armsworth. Arnberg and J. American_Environics (2006). I. "Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation Biology. CA. Gretchen C." PNAS 103(14): 5403-5408. Ostman. Peter Kareiva and James N. 2002.pnas. P. Rambaldi et al. Toward a New Ecological Majority: Summary and Overview.relevant ethical guidelines (Clarke et al. Sanchirico (2006). http://www. J." Conservation Biology 20(3): 692-695. Ronnback.americanenvironics.. Andrew and Richard M. "Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Daily." Ambio 32(8): 527-534. and the Nathan Cummings Foundation. Olsson (2003). Mikusinski. "Two-dimensional gap analysis: A tool for efficient conservation planning and biodiversity policy implementation." BioScience 46(11): 845-855. Cowling (2006). Earthjustice. (1996). G.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/14/5403 Balmford. 65 . Oakland. Paul R. P. 2006) we can progress effectively towards this exciting vision of teamwork and biodiversity conservation.. SCB 2005b.

P.1111/j.blackwellsynergy.. "Rethinking Community-Based Conservation.00077. Fikret.K. 66 . U. <Go to ISI>://000189363400007 Berkes.2004.com/doi/abs/10. New York.15231739.1523-1739. Johan Colding and Carl Folke (2003). Biodiversity_and_Conservation_Journal (2005)." Conservation Biology 18(3): 621-630. Binning. (1997). Tuunanen (2005). Suzana and S. . Frontiers in Ecology: Building the Links. E.com/doi/abs/10. N. Bragge. J. "A collaborative GIS method for integrating local and technical knowledge in establishing biodiversity conservation priorities. Beyond reserves: options for achieving nature conservation objectives in rural landscapes. Cambridge." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2507-2820. Developing Innovative Information Systems Services Together with Wide Audience End-Users. Dragicevic (2004).1111/j. Fikret (2004). D. "Special Issue: Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. E. Marttiin and T. C. Lunt.00434. S. Oxford.2006.x Balram. Klomp and I.http://www. Navigating social-ecological systems : building resilience for complexity and change. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. http://www.x Berkes." Biodiversity and Conservation 13(6): 1195-1208.blackwell-synergy.. Elsevier Science: 155-168. Cambridge University Press.

Christopher M. West. http://www. Grote and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder (2006).00544.com/doi/abs/10.01613. 321. http://www. (2003). "Outreach and Partnership Programs for Conservation Education Where Endangered Species Conservation and Research Occur.2002.com/doi/abs/10.2006. Brewer. L.blackwell-synergy.1111/j. Carol (2002). State University of New York Press: xvi.x 67 . Mark N. Preface." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1337-1339.2006. Ian (2006). Albany. Jeremy S.x Brodnig.blackwellsynergy. Wilshusen.15231739. "Bridging the Gap: The Role of Spatial Information Technologies in the Integration of Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Western Science. R. Margaret A." The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries 1(1): 1-15. C. R.00506. "The Conundrum of Conservation Education and the Conservation Mission. G. http://www..Brechin. "Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. Brechin.com/doi/abs/10. Franzen.1523-1739. Mayer-Schönberger (2000)." Conservation Biology 16(1): 4-6. Holmes. P. and V. Brooks. Steven R.x Bride. Fortwangler and P.1523-1739." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1528-1538.blackwellsynergy.1111/j. C. Contested nature : promoting international biodiversity conservation with social justice in the twenty-first century.1046/j. S.

org/sici?sici=10477039%281991%292%3A1%3C40%3AOLACTA%3E2.doi. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working." Nature 439(7078): 776-778.doi. L. J." International Journal of Science Education 27(9): 1099-1121. Declan (2006). "Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation.0.1038/439776a Carr. "Conservation from Above: An Anthropological Perspective on Transboundary Protected Areas and Ecoregional Planning. Learning. http://dx. Position 68 . <Go to ISI>://000223843400005 Carver." Nature 438(7068): 548-549." Organization Science 2(1): 40-57.doi. Declan (2005)." Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17(1-2): 39-66. (2003). K. and D Russell (2003). John Seely and Paul Duguid (1991). A. Dominique. J. (2004). http://links. <Go to ISI>://000181396700001 Butler. "Science in the web age: Joint efforts." Global Ecology and Biogeography 12(2): 89-92.Brosius. "Why do we all need community science?" Society & Natural Resources 17(9): 841-849. "Virtual globes: The web-wide world.org/10.CO%3B2-3 Brown. http://dx.1080/09500690500069483 Brown.1038/438548a Butler. and Innovation. http://dx. "The Future of Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Information: developing a research agenda for the 21st Century. Brossard. Bruce Lewenstein and Rick Bonney (2005).org/10. Steve (2003).P.org/10. "Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project.jstor.

Church. Stoms." Capitol Research Center & Crowley-Offroad.. 69 . (2001). T." Retrieved Jan. New West Environment. M. (2006. E.. Stoms and F. Chomitz. Bonner. 6). K.ecologyandsociety." Biological Conservation 76(2): 105112. Spoleto Italy. "The Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network." Ecology and Society 11(2): 40. G. "Reserve Selection as a Maximal Covering Location Problem. C. B. L.net. Prentice Hall. B. P. K. M. Honzák.. 2001.php/topic/article/3003/C38/L38. Crane (2002). W. S. M. Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling. Parks and M. "The Green Land-Grabbers: It's Not Just the Feds Who Are After Your Land. NJ. www.Com. "Viable reserve networks arise from individual landholder responses to conservation incentives. Clarke. Charlotte Landau. P. Davis (2006). M. Da Fonseca. Upper Saddle River.. Davis (1996). Crane. R. A." URISA Journal 15(1): 61-71. (2005). Dec. 2007.org/vol11/iss2/art40/ Christensen.net. D. O. Alger. O. cbnrm. Cohen. Wayt Thomas and F.newwest. White House Conservation Conference: Song of the Conservation Brain Trust. Thomas. K. Chapter 12: The Banff Statement.cbnrm. Clarke. D. C.paper prepared for ESF-NSF Meeting on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information. Parks and M. [online] URL: http://www. B. 5. K. from www. J. W. December 5–9.net/index.

M F Goodchild. <Go to ISI>://000221071400005 Couclelis. C." Ecology and Society 10(2): -. 2003. Marti (2005)." Resource and Energy Economics 26(2): 157-174.envplan.com/abstract. R.msu. 10.htm." Geographical Systems 2: 83-101.cgi?id=b12831 Cundill. Corey. "Using SUSS to resolve NIMBY: How spatial support systems can help with the "not in my backyard" syndrome." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30(4): 487 . http://www.crowleyoffroad. Conservation_Geoportal. from http://www.Retrieved Dec. London .conservationmaps. Kenneth E. H and M Monmonier (1995). L L Hill and T R Smith (2003). "Developing an infrastructure for sharing environmental models. C.org. Crosier. <Go to ISI>://000234561400019 70 .html Costello. "Dynamic reserve site selection.. 2006. Routledge. S J. Urban and regional technology planning : planning practice in the global knowledge economy. 26. and Mark I. and S. Polasky (2004). N.501.com/green_land_grabbers. "Conservation Geoportal: Discover and Publish Conservation Maps and Data. Retrieved Oct. http://www. Fabricius and N. from www. "Foghorns to the future: Using knowledge and transdisciplinarity to navigate complex systems. New York." Conservation Commons. G. Wilson (2006).edu/user/wilsonmm/planningpractice. (2006).

" Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2633-2652. and Gregg B. M. Raymond (2000). Phillip A. http://dx. "Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. Steven E. Arne E. http://www." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 509-526. T.. F. (2005). W. M.com/doi/abs/10. "Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of US marine protected areas. Danilo S.1111/0022-4537. "Efficient conservation in a utility-maximization framework. J.blackwellsynergy.1007/s10531-0058392-z Davis. http://www. Anson Tagtag." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(2): 71-102. Balete.ecologyandsociety.org/10. C." Ecology and Society 11(1): 33. Stoms.doi. http://www. (2006).com/science/article/B6V9G-3VVT35H2/2/97b1a435e591074b56bd40517a19d772 Danielsen." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1392-1401. Jensen. Alviola.sciencedirect. "New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Expanding and Evaluating Motives for Environmentally Responsible Behavior.00181 71 . Costello and D. <Go to ISI>://000232137900008 Daniels. "Does Monitoring Matter? A Quantitative Assessment of Management Decisions from Locally-based Monitoring of Protected Areas. Finn. Carlo Custodio and Martin Enghoff (2005). Walker (1996).Dalton. Marlynn Mendoza.org/vol11/iss1/art33/ De Young.

Sauer and Kimberly G. (2005).asp Environmental_Perspectives. Smith (2005)." The Auk 122(1): 338-346. Kenneth V.1642%2F00048038%282005%29122%5B0338%3AETSVOT%5D2. from www. "Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice. "Taking Liberty.org/vol11/iss2/art34/ Dunn. Peter J. http://dx. Suzana and Shivanand Balram (2004). Retrieved September 13. and Community. (2002). Robbins.1007/s10109004-0130-7 Drew. Rosenberg.takingliberty. A Perspective on Gaviota Coast Resources.ecologyandsociety.doi. Inc. EOEARTH. P.. Planning and Development Department. http://www. County of Santa Barbara. [online] URL: http://www. Biological Resources. Erica H. J.countyofsb. Marshall A.Dragicevic." American Land Foundation and Stewards of the Range. Blancher. A. "Enhancing the Scientific Value of the Christmas Bird Count. 2006.org/10. John R. Chandler S.0. http://dx.us." Environmental Information Coalition and the National Council 72 . Credibility. Charles M. "The Encyclopedia of Earth: Content. "A Web GIS collaborative framework to structure and manage distributed planning processes.org/plandev/comp/planareas/gaviota/res_study. and A.CO%3B2 EDAW." Journal of Geographical Systems 6(2): 133-153. . Henne (2006).doi." Ecology and Society 11(2): 34. Denis Lepage. Francis. Susan Roney Drennan. (2006).org/10. Howe.

" Environmental Science and Policy 6(3). Zang. S. Retrieved Oct.. H. Andersson (2003). C. O. 2006. Cassis..com/doi/abs/10. M.za/memberlist. 26. <Go to ISI>://000187743900018 Faith.blackwellsynergy.1523-1739. P.Part II. Eleanor Abrams. Messng. J. Evans. 26.fgasa. P. "A participatory approach for integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau. China . "Membership and Naturalist Certification Level. G.00s01. biodiversity viability analysis. "Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments.asp 73 . Z. Laura Salmonsen and Peter P. from http://www. http://www.org. "The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project. "Complementarity. P.org. Karin Roux. and S. (2006). Robert Reitsma. I. from www. Ferraro. D.for Science and the Environment. Olsson and C. G.1111/j. Ferrier and L. X.eoearth." Field Guide Association of South Africa. Pattanayak (2006). 2006. M. Marra (2005). Carter." Plos Biology 4(4): 482488.2005. Wilkie (2003). <Go to ISI>://000237066500001 FGASA. H.x Fagerstrom." Conservation Biology 19(3): 589-594. K. X. Xu. Analysis and findings. Celia. and policy-based algorithms for conservation. M." Catena 54(1-2): 271-288. K. Retrieved Sept. Wen. Trouwborst.

"Implementation of a Wildlands Network: An Example from the Sky Islands. Pauly: 268-271. J Humphrey. The deliberative practitioner : encouraging participatory planning processes. D. D. Samb.uni-kiel. N. Johns and R Mondt (2000). M. "The wildlands project and the rewilding of North America." Denver University Law Review 76(2): 535-553. Richard T. B. R. Levitt." Journal of the American Planning Association 67(4): 456-465. New York.Fitzpatrick. Foreman. Foreman.D. and the Internet as Tools for Global Monitoring. Cambridge .A rapid appraisal approach. T. B. John F. B Howard.L. Fish Biodiversity: Local studies as basis for global inferences. Island Press: xx.. (1999). Washington. J. John (1999). and Frank P. Fleming. Diouf. D.pdf 74 . MIT Press. Birdsource: Using Birds. Land mosaics : the ecology of landscapes and regions. DC. http://filaman. Conservation in the Internet age : threats and opportunities. Citizen Science. concerns and possible solutions.de/ifm-geomar/rfroese/ConcernsDataowners. and D. Opitz (2004). T. Lloris and S. D. Mass.M. The need to make scientific data publicly available. Forman. (1995). J. Palomares.. M. Forester. "Community-based ecological monitoring . ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report 14. Cambridge." Wild Earth 10(1). 364. Froese. . B Dugelby. Gill (2002). Henkel (2001). Cambridge University Press. Vakily and D.

Nov.jhtml?articleID=196700914 GBIF.informationweek. 2007. David. Jan. (2004." Global Biodiversity Information Facility. S.grist. John (In Prep). Kathryn. answers Grist's questions.Fuller. 15. JA (unpublished)." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 27(1): 79-102." Daily Grist. 75 . Retrieved Jan. 19)." Gardner. "The Fuller Monty: Kathryn Fuller. from http://www.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/01/fuller/index.html http://www. 16). Gaskin and I. Dec. "Global Biodiversity Information Facility occurrence data and Google Earth. Retrieved November 11.gbif. I." contact: gallo.ja@gmail.. 16. from http://www. "ECPM Working Paper. from http://www. Scott (2003).com Gallo. from http://ge.gbif." Retrieved Oct. 2006. president of WWF.com/showArticle. (2006b. (2006. Retrieved Jan.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/01/fuller/index1.org/DataProviders/Agreements/. <Go to ISI>://000181682700007 Fuller. caused by Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK in 2001. W. Gallo. "Terms and conditions for sharing and using data through GBIF network. 26.html. 2006. (2006a).net/ GBIF. "Student perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork in the light of restricted access to the field. 4). "Mapping the uncertainty of conservation planning as a means towards successful implementation. "Ready To Demo: A $150 Laptop With A 'Complete Computing Experience' " Information Week: Business Innovation Powered by Technology. 2007.grist.

" BioScience 52(6): 499-512. Mark L. http://dx. Retrieved Jan.tv." Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28: 493-519. "Geographic information science and systems for environmental management.doi..geodata. Deborah B. Kent H. Dec. from http://tecproda01. (2006). Alan. 16.com/rapid/. 26.tv/file/113540 Groves. "Communicating geographic information in a digital age. "Geospatial One Stop: Your source of federal. F." fristgov. Glennon. 10). "Google Earth to River Menders video with music (Restoration). "Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: Putting Conservation Science into Practice. Laura L. (2006). Higgins.1641%2F00063568%282002%29052%5B0499%3APFBCPC%5D2. Shaffer. 26. M. 2006. "GeoNetwork Opensource: Geographic Datasharing for Everyone. (2000). Anderson (2002). Craig R.fao. Grimm. (2006). from http://gos2. Michael Scott." Retrieved Oct.org/10. Michael W. M. Baumgartner. Retrieved Jan.gov.gov/wps/portal/gos. 2007. (2006. Gary.0. Jeffrey V. from http://blip. 2007. Jonathan V. 17. Beck and Mark G. from http://www.geodata. J. Redford. <Go to ISI>://000167130300005 Goodchild .gov and e-gov. Valutis. state and local geographic data. Jensen." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(2): 344-355.org/geofoss_dvd/ Goodchild." Blip.CO%3B2 76 . "Virtual Globes: Rapid Reporting for Rapid Response.turnhole. GNO. (2003). 2006." Retrieved Oct.

http://link. and social systems. http://www." Conservation Biology 19(2): 327337. "Metropolitan open-space protection with uncertain site availability. Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations.springer-ny. R. Holling. E.Grumbine.springerny. (2001).com/link/service/journals/10021/index. Revelle (2005). A. G." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(6): 577-592. "Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach.S. ecological.. S.com/link/service/journals/10021/papers/1004005/10040390. W.htm Holling. (1998). <Go to ISI>://000185178000004 Harry. S. <Go to ISI>://000227647600010 Haklay. Snyder and C. R. Currency. S. C. (2001).org/vol2/iss2/art4/ 77 . "Six Sigma Black Belts: What Do They Need to Know?" Journal of Quality Technology 33(4): 391-406." Ecosystems 4(5): 390-405. "Two cultures of ecology. "Understanding the complexity of economic. Tobon (2003). C. "What Is Ecosystem Management. (1994). Hoerl.ecologyandsociety.pdf Access restricted.springerny.com/link/service/journals/10021/bibs/1004005/10040390. http://link. Access restricted. M. <Go to ISI>://A1994NC66200008 Haight." Conservation Biology 8(1): 27-38. R." Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2): 4. M. and R.htm Access restricted. M. http://link. and C. Schroeder (2000).

Hunsberger. Irwin. Routledge. Judy and Avis C Vidal (2004). from http://www. and Practice. 17. "Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences." Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1-18. "Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications.unesco. "Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory. http://hdl. 12). Science.html. and sustainable development. expertise. ICSU and UNESCO (2002)." Retrieved Jan. New York. Jan. Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development. University of Waterloo. Carol (2004). (2007. Hutchinson. (2000). http://pus. 142. Research. Alan (1995). London . H.ecgis.php?URL_ID=3521&URL_DO=DO_TOPI C&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1084527246 INSPIRE. Irwin.sagepub. Scientific and Cultural Organization. Exploring links between citizen environmental monitoring and decision making: three Canadian case examples.org/sc_nat/ev. Environment and Resource Studies. Citizen science : a study of people. Alan (2001). http://portal." Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): pg. P.org/inspire/home.handle. The International Council for Science and the United Nations Educational. "INSPIRE: INfrastructure for Spatial Infrastructure In Europe." Ecological Applications 10(5): 1270-1274.net/10012/970 Huntington.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/1 78 . 2007.

1111/j. Orland. Sterling. Joseph. Laurie (2001).2006. Environmental Design Research Association. Social learning in environmental management : towards a sustainable future. D. "Contemporary public involvement: toward a strategic approach. "Presence-Absence versus Abundance Data for Monitoring Threatened Species. Scott A. M. http://www.Jackson. Liana N.1111/0022-4537. Selby. Thériault and A. Joerin. Anthony. VA. Johns. "Growth. Brown and Rob Dyball (2005).gov/catdir/toc/ecip058/2005003303. Being needed.x Kaplan. F. Coming of age. http://www." International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 15(2): 153-174.00529.html 79 ." Local Environment 6(2): 135-147. Valerie A. Choi and B. (2003). "New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Kaplan.blackwellsynergy. Chris Wilcox and Hugh P. adaptive muddling and human-environment relationships. Possingham (2006).loc. Musy (2001). (1990). "Using GIS and Outranking Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Suitability Analysis. Stephen (2000). Field." Conservation Biology 20(6): 1679-1687. H.00180 Keen." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 491-508.blackwellsynergy. and the necessity of new alliances. J. OK. S. http://www..com/doi/abs/10. M.com/doi/abs/10. London . Earthscan." Conservation Biology 17(5): 1229-1237. Oklahoma City..1523-1739. conservation. Meg. K.

R. "Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: Best practice from South Africa. Andrew Balmford. A. T." NASA.arc.com Knight. Retrieved February 26." Corresponding author: AT Knight: tawnyfrogmouth@gmail. T. Cleveland (Topic Editor). 2007. D." Information Society 16(3): 217-232. [First published October 31." In: .ebscohost. Campbell (2006a). "World Wind. et al. T. "An operational model for implementing conservation action. ". Cowling and B.. Kim.. Retrieved Jan. A. Eds. 2007] 80 . R. <Go to ISI>://000238313200033 Kriegman. Rob (2000)." Urban Systems 5: 527-547." Conservation Biology 20(3): 739-750. from http://worldwind. (2006b).Kelley. 2006. Campbell. http://search. Cleveland (Washington. M.: Environmental Information Coalition. Cowling. Cutler J. Last revised January 28.nasa." Conservation Biology 20(2): 408419.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3533085& site=ehost-live Knight. M.gov/. Great Transition Initiative (Content Partner). (2006. National Council for Science and the Environment). "Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics. 16). Rouget (In Prep). Orion (Lead Author). Cutler J. 11.com/login. Kling. "The implementation crisis in conservation planning. Oct. A. <Go to ISI>://000236064200019 Knight. M. A. Randolph. M. "WebGIS for Monitoring "Sudden Oak Death" in coastal California. B..T Lombard and M.C. Maggi and Karin Tuxen (2003). N. 2007. 2007.

Contemporary urban planning. DC. Involving the public in spatial decision making using Internet GIS." Ecology and Society 11(1): -. Robin Mearns and Ian Scoones (1999).com/science/article/B6VC6-3X7VR3H1/2/913a12a6eda66454b8c57db6d8a15543 Lee. http://www. Sheng and L. and Sketches here and there. Upper Saddle River. Mass. New York. Wu and Q.sciencedirect. Island Press. Oxford University Press.. Liu. and wildlife: Using a web-based GIS to engage citizens in collecting wildlife information. A Sand County almanac... Levin. (1999). Simon A. G.. James N. Washington. (2002). 6421: 64211K. (2000). Levy.. Wang (2006). Quinn and D." Volunteer Monitor 6(1): 14-16. V (1994).eoearth.http://www. Leopold. "Global citizens movement." Encyclopedia of Earth. "Citizen. Conservation in the Internet age : threats and opportunities. Fragile dominion : complexity and the commons. science. Reading. Levitt.org/article/Global_citizens_movement. Leach. John M. Duke (2006). Prentice Hall. Zhu. Proceedings of SPIE: Geoinformatics 2006: Geospatial Information Technology. H. (2006). T. 81 . Perseus Books. M. "Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. S. <Go to ISI>://000239121300008 Lee. highways. Z.J. N." World Development 27(2): 225-247. Melissa. "Volunteer monitoring: brief history. Aldo (1949).

15231739. L. Jenny Springer. Evans. Marleen and Constant Dabgbegnon (1999). T. Rhind (2005).2004.doi.cfm Lynam.worldwildlife.Longley. (2007). D. Chichester." Urban Systems 29 (1): 3-14. "The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial data infrastructures. Loucks. Sue Palminteri. Martin B. http://uclibs.1111/j.org/PID/16432 82 .01801. From the Vision to the Ground: A guide to implementing ecoregion conservation in priority areas. "Systematic conservation planning. DJ and P Longley (2005)..com/doi/abs/10. Pressey (2000).1023/A:1007559903438 Maguire. and R. and values into decision making in natural resources management. "Managing natural resources: A social learning perspective.J. De Jong. Washington.. .blackwell-synergy.W. D." Ecology and Society 12(1): 5.C.ecologyandsociety. Main.x Margules. W.org/science/ecoregions/landscapes. R. http://www. Geographic information systems and science.. http://dx. T. Maguire and D. "Mobilizing Grass-Roots Conservation Education: the Florida Master Naturalist Program." Conservation Biology 18(1): 11-17.org/10. and K. Access restricted." Nature 405(6783): 243-253. "A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge. P.F." Agriculture and Human Values 16(3): 267-280. Sheil.org/vol12/iss1/art5/ Maarleveld. John Morrison and Holly Strand (2004). D. M. http://www. Goodchild. (2004). World Wildlife Fund: Conservation Science Program. Kusumanto. C. Wiley. http://www. Colby. preferences.

30. (1999). "References regarding the topic of enabling conditions for conservation success. B. 83 . Michael. "Conservation and the social sciences. Forbes. B.urbanhabitats. (2005). (2006). "The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. M. M." Ecology Law Quarterly 25(4): 624-629. "Local communities and the management of public forests. J.org McCauley." Urban Habitats 3(1).. Rachel E.Mascia. J. Bioregionalism. F. C. P. Turner (2003).intermedia." Advances in Environmental Research 5(4): 385-393." Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650. Michael Vincent (1999). "Selling out on nature. S. <Go to ISI>://000183077800001 Mascia.html. A. C. <Go to ISI>://000079928600008 McGinnis. Cowan (2001). M. <Go to ISI>://000227784800007 Mayfield. Frantz (2004). Routledge. (2006).. London . T. McKean and N. M. McClosky. 2006. New York. http://www. Horowitz. from http://mailman. "Using Citizen Science in Urban Bird Studies." Nature 443(7 September).net/pipermail/sswg/2006-September/000370. M. "The roles of community networks in environmental monitoring and environmental informatics." Social Sciences Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology. and C. McCaffrey. Dobson. Mayer. Douglas J. Retrieved Oct." Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4): 503-515. Brosius. A. L. Joliat and D.

"Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?" Ecology Letters 7(8): 615-622. E. ""A mission-driven discipline": the growth of conservation biology." Conservation Biology 20(3): 631-651. James R. C... Ronald K. Soule and R. S. "Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management. Possingham (2004). M. "Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience.CO%3B2-0 Moller. Noss (2006). Bradley R.Meine. "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.ecologyandsociety. Henrik.org/sici?sici=03637425%28199710%2922%3A4%3C853%3ATATOSI%3E2. Island Press. Agle and Donna J. http://www. <Go to ISI>://000222716600001 Millennium_Ecosystem_Assessment (2003).org/vol9/iss3/art2/ 84 . F. http://www. Fikret Berkes.com/science/article/B6VJ1-4GCWYY42/2/641cc7a9344abd6ba3ea42657dcda039 Mitchell.0. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for the Assessment Washington." Ecology and Society 9(3): 2 [online]. P. DC." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(8): 430-434.jstor. http://links. <Go to ISI>://000238313200012 Meir.. Wood (1997). (2005). Philip O'Brian Lyver and Mina Kislalioglu (2004). Miller.sciencedirect." The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853886. Andelman and H.

(2001). D. 2007.United Nations Educational.. (2005. Retrieved Jan. Douglas (2005)." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1411-1420. Fukui and M. Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) CD-ROMS.org/sc_nat/ev. "View the Logging Proposal using Google Earth. "Citizen Scientist or Amateur Naturalist?" Wild Earth 11(3/4): 14-17. from http://www.mountainresource.net/library/documents/muir. Hikasa (2005). W. Merenlender (2005). http://portal. 85 . A. France. "Economics and landuse change in prioritizing private land conservation.unesco." Mountain Resource Group. Y. The Canoe is the People: Indigenous Navigation in the Pacific. UNESCO.pdf Nakashima.wilderness.org/node/52. F." Landscape and Urban Planning 70(3-4): 315-324. Paris. <Go to ISI>://000225313100013 Newburn.. S. 11." International Journal of Wilderness 5(2).Moore. 11 2006). (1999). Scientific and Cultural Organization. R. Jan. http://www. <Go to ISI>://000232137900010 Noss. P. Berck and A. "The Wilderness Leadership School of South Africa’s Imbewu and Opinion Leader Programmes. Rebecca. "Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives. Reed. Muir.php?URL_ID=3543&URL_DO=DO_TOPI C&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1128099564 Natori.

Tuthill and K.Nyerges. Berkes (2004).. Brooks. from http://www. "Inaugural Article: Insights on linking forests. T. 2006. Jankowski. ." September 30. <Go to ISI>://000242221200002 O'Reilly. C. trees." Proceedings of the 2006 National Conference on Digital Government Research: 67-68. G. P. and people from the air.pnas.. on the ground. D. Folke and F.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/51/19224 86 . (2005).0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Jankowski. http://www. Elinor (2006). "What Is Web 2. Tim.html?page=1 Olsson. T. <Go to ISI>://000223464900007 Ostrom. T. "12 questions to ." GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 15(4): 246-247. P." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(4): 699-725. Ostrom. Retrieved November 17. S. Elinor and Harini Nagendra (2006)..com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20. Young (2006a). "Web portal implementation to support public participation in transportation decision making." PNAS 103(51): 19224-19231. . Rutherford and R. and in the laboratory. Ramsey (2006b). P. "Collaborative water resource decision support: Results of a field experiment. "Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems.oreillynet." Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90. Nyerges.

Pagani. Multimedia and interactive digital TV managing the opportunities created by digital convergence. M. Orians. Ground truth : the social implications of geographic information systems. H. Margherita (2003). Guilford Press. K. Lombard. M. G. Turpie (2003)." PS: Political Science and Politics 28(4): 664-683. Andelman. . K. "Tuning In. M. Noon.R. South Africa: a financial perspective. P. T.. PA. http://site. B. R. Putnam. Island Press: 225-244. Soule and G.ebrary. M. Botha and J. S. Wolf (2005). Pierce. S. <Go to ISI>://000182913800014 Pickles. M. New York. "Evaluating combinations of on-and off-reserve conservation strategies for the Agulhas Plain. Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. H." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 253-273. J. R. J. Pulliam (2001). Hershey. Cowling. A. Trombulak and H. Knight. Conservation biology : research priorities for the next decade. Rouget and T. Idea Group Pub. Washington D.C. E. <Go to ISI>://000230447100004 Possingham. Making smart conservation decisions.. Robert (1995).. A." Biological Conservation 125(4): 441-458. A.ebrary. (1995). T. S. "Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation.com/lib/ucmerced/Doc?id=10022507 http://site. 87 . Q.com/lib/ucsc/Doc?id=10022507 Pence.

. L.org. Presentation: A national review of priority setting and decision making by land protection programs. C. R Chambers. Hull (2001). Robertson. technology intermediaries and researchers. Ecola.cfm J. Ecola. Nov. "A review of conservation planning concepts and current decision-making practices among state and local land protection programs in the United States. "PGIS good practice. Simon & Schuster. Rambaldi. (2006). San Jose.conbio. http://www.iapad. C. R. Giacomo. and R. R. Choate. Mande (in prep. Pyke.). S. 17. Choate. . http://www. Mande (In review). R. 2006.. S. facilitators.com/excerpt. A. 88 . Retrieved Nov. Gallo. (2006." Conservation Biology 15(4): 970-979. "Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners." Participatory Learning and Action 54: 106-113. Knowledge and wisdom: inseparable twins?" PPGIS Listserve: www. B.cfm?isbn=0684832836 Pyke. Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. CA.org/Activities/Meetings/2006/Papers.simonsays. L. Asam and T. (2000). Rambaldi. 17." Conservation Biology. A. Asam and T. C. "A review of conservation planning concepts and decision-making practices among state and local land protection programs in the United States. "Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. The Society for Conservation Biology Conference. Robert D. 17).Putnam. A. Giacomo . New York. Nov. D." Pyke. M McCall and J Fox (2006). P.

msnbc. Myers (2006). Campbell (2001). Michael (2006. Carol D.2005.x 89 . 10. A. and B." Sakai.org/AboutUs/ SCB (2005b). 26. T. "Research to integrate productivity enhancement." Conservation Ecology 5(2): 32. <Go to ISI>://000238313200026 Saunders. A." Society for Conservation Biology.Rogers.com. The Practical Futurist. (2005a). from http://www.org/vol5/iss2/art32/ SCB.org/media2/2006/overview/overview. http://www. J. from http://www. E. "About us: Who we are. "Can Web 2. 9. environmental protection.blackwellsynergy.sakaiproject. "Society for Conservation Biology Code of Ethics. (2003)." Conservation Biology 19(1): 3-3.htm Saunders. Retrieved Oct." Human Ecology Forum 10(2): 137-149. Retrieved Oct." Conservation Biology 20(3): 702-705.msn. from http://www.consecol.. 2006). [online] URL: http://www. 2006. Brook and O. "Sakai: Collaboration and Learning for Education.com/id/13230538/ Sakai. "The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology.1523-1739. M.0 change the world? Nonprofits embracing technology that built MySpace and YouTube. C. June 13. 2006. Sayer.com/doi/abs/10. D. (2006)." MSNBC. 2007. Retrieved Jan.1874a. and human development. "Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being.conbio.1111/j.

Springer." URISA Journal 16(2): 15-26.2006." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(12): 634-638.com/science/article/B6VJ1-4DGD9SB2/2/43c069f8504aed2b7ae493fecfffac53 Siebor.loc. local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. Environmental online communication. http://www. http://www. Renee (2006)." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1550-1552. J.blackwell-synergy.C. power. 90 . London . D. Michael E.x Sheil. Island Press. and R. Arno (2004).1111/j." Conservation Biology 15(4): 980-989. and John Terborgh (1999). Song. Mark W. Schwartz. "Delineating “Public” and “Participation” in PPGIS. "Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Washington. (2006). http://www. and system dynamics: the political economy of conservation biology.00421. Douglas and Anna Lawrence (2004). Continental conservation : scientific foundations of regional reserve networks." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3): 491-507. Marc and Elliot Shuford (2005). New York. "Tropical biologists. Soule.sciencedirect. M.com/doi/abs/10..html Schlossberg. "How Conservation Scientists Can Help Develop Social Capital for Biodiversity.15231739.gov/catdir/toc/fy051/2004041729. "Science.Scharl. M'Gonigle (2001). S.

Susan (2002). C. Interactive television and map-based public participation. Renate and Alenka Krek (2006). Urban Data Management Symposium. PPGIS. B.pdf Stern. Arthur Ha and Loris Strappazzon (2003). <Go to ISI>://000086651200005 Steinitz. (2000). Vivek Chaudhri. Harris and D.harvard. Gary. "Alternative Futures for Monroe County. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. New York. (1990)." The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4): 477-500. Stonich. F.htm. F." Landscape Journal: 136-143." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424. D. from www.Squire. W. C.org/publications/ppgis/steinmann%20krek_vs_last. Taylor and Francis." Retrieved April 13. Aalborg.gsd. T. "Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. and advocacy: globallization of resistance to industrial shrimp farming." Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development 48(1): 23-43. www. "Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. Steinitz. Craig.iapad. 2002. K. Steinmann. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial*. "A framework for Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals). NY. Paul C. and C. Weiner. Pennsylvania. Information technologies. 91 . Stoneham. Johnson (2000). Denmark.edu/depts/larchdep/research/monroe/00. (1997).

org/ojs/include/getdoc. C.ecologyandsociety. A. http://dx. C. Traditional Knowledge. E. <Go to ISI>://000223960400017 Tripathi.ejisdc. Hubacek. Rick Bonney. D. M. . Scientific.CO.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ Tait. Environment and Urban Systems 29: 33-47. Derek Bascom and Anna Cabral (2000).2-5 UNESCO (2006). Deborah J. http://www.1002/(SICI)1098237X(200003)84:2<265::AID-SCE7>3.doi. (2004). "Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS. United Nations Educational.0. L. Fraser.Stringer. Theobald.org/10. Reed (2006). "Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. K. "Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Bhattarya (2004). Michael (2005). J. and Cultural Organization.. 92 . S." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(3): 139-144. and S. N. France." Science Education 84(2): 265-275." Ecology and Society 11(2): 39. [online] URL: http://www. "Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and GIS for Participatory Natural Resource Management: State-of-the-Practice. "Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of socialecological systems: a critical review. Prell and M." EJISDC 17(3): 1-13. Paris. Dougill.php?id=105&article=116&mode=p df Trumbull." Computers.

" Nature 440(7083): 411-411. New York. M. T. (2003). Daniel.weblab. Bringing society back in : grassroots ecosystem management.1038/440411a Warburton. F.Van Rijsoort. "2020 Computing: The creativity machine. Weiner. Craig. Weiner. Weber. Vernor (2006). Trevor Harris and William Craig (2002). and J. J. "Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in Yunnan. NY.pdf. accountability. "Improving the preparation for fieldwork with 'IT': two examples from physical geography. Mass. MIT Press. Harris and D. Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide. China.." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21(3): 333-347. http://dx. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. 93 . from http://www. Edward P. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. (2003). Higgitt (1997). Zhang (2005). <Go to ISI>://000232622700002 Vinge. J.0_weblab.weblab. MIT Press." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2543-2573." Weblab.doi.org/press/r1. 2007. and M. and sustainable communities. <Go to ISI>://A1997YH10500003 Warschauer. Retrieved Jan. Cambridge.org/10. WebLab. "Web Lab: Creating new ways to connect people and ideas. W.html see also: http://www. (2005). Taylor and Francis.org/home. 16.

. Retrieved Jan. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation.net/uswtrmap. Beth. and William M.6959390.html. N.latimes.J. Lawrence Erlbaum. Mahwah." Mountain Visions: Interactive Watersheds.. Wenger. Etienne C. Island Press. Etienne. (2003). D. Winter. (2002). Los Angeles.interactivewatersheds. Richard A. Mass. The psychology of environmental problems. Workman. http://www. Kenneth (2003). Koger and Deborah Du Nann Winter (2004). Snyder (2000). Santa Monica Mountains' Last Male Lion Hunted. McDermott and William Snyder (2002). M. from http://www.0. Strum and R. from http://www. S.uppersouthplatte." Harvard Business Review 78(1): 139. Wright (1994). Western. "Coalition for the Upper South Platte: Check Dams Help Capture Sediment..html 94 . 16. Workman. Susan M. Retrieved Jan. Beth." Mountain Visions. Deborah Du Nann. 2007. Cultivating communities of practice : a guide to managing knowledge. 2007. C. "Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. 16. "Interactive Watersheds: Showcasing the nation's community-based watershed restoration partnerships.story?coll=la-headlines-california Wenger.Weiss.com/news/local/la-melion5dec05.net/resource/mainplat/chees1hs. Los Angeles Times.

"Worldbirds: birding with a purpose. Steven Lewis (2006). Scott and F.worldbirds. county. Chad. "The Cape Action Plan for the Environment: overview of an ecoregional planning process. from http://www. i Researchers at the US EPA and ICF International investigated the decision- making systems used by US state.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0519/2005026419. (1999).org/WorldMap. <Go to ISI>://000182913800002 Zimmerman. Yaffee." Retrieved Oct. DC.loc. http://www. http://www. 26.Worldbirds. D. Island Press.1523-1739.php?title=World_Wind_To urs.1999. from http://www. "Three Faces of Ecosystem Management." Conservation Biology 13(4): 713-725. (2006). J. and municipal land protection programs and found that only 4% of the programs were top-down (when an agency or organization identifies all of the locations to be protected). 11.php?m=9. Goble." World Wind Central.x Yaffee. Fowkes (2003).html Younge. M.1046/j. Collaborative Decision Making.blackwellsynergy.98127. W.earthissquare.com/doi/abs/10. (2006). while 44% were bottom- 95 . Davis. Steven L." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 15-28. and S. A.com/WorldWind/index. 2006. "World Wind Tours. 2007. Retrieved Jan. The Endangered Species Act at thirty. Washington.

Key decision-support needs are: what incentives are available.). and management guidelines. Negotiations then ensue about eligibility and amount of incentive available. risks. Policy-makers design the incentive mechanisms for conservation and the penalties for illegal degredation. but most end their usefulness there. they assess their land. Most bottom-up conservation actions are then initiated by the landowners themselves. Pyke et al. in prep. These products are useful in designing the initial set of target areas 96 . and cooperation rather than conflict” (Christensen 2005). what are the ecological characteristics of significant value?) Most systematic conservation assessments only provide a partial answer to these questions. They find out about the incentive. Regarding the cooperative conservation program. and what opportunities for resource-use would still be available? Further. etc.e. Assistant Secretary Lynn Scarlett states that it is “rooted in bottom-up decision-making. The decision-support needs of a bottom-up institutional structure are diverse and distributed. They determine if the parcel is part of the optimal set of sites for conserving the region’s biodiversity with the least amount of cost. what is the relative ecological value of the particular parcel? Why? (i. and then apply to the NGO or agency with the ability to administer the program.up (locations identified by grant programs or nomination by individuals) and 42% used a hybrid approach (nominations within a set identified by a program)(Pyke 2006. respect for private property. personal and family values.

Of course.in the hybrid approach.g. Policy change can also be useful. Further. 1997). Pyke et al. 2003). iv In determining these values. the sustainability of the region is at stake. a huge majority of the costs are absorbed by the volunteers. it is also important to ask what is at stake (Mitchell et al. such a small (e. Really. thereby making it increasingly obsolete. . these assessments are best suited for top down institutional frameworks. deviations from the plan are inevitable(Meir et al.25%) increase or reallocation of property taxes or mitigation funds into a community organized cooperative designed to manage the LKN. engaged ecotourism can help finance the LKN. I maintain that this disconnect is one of the reasons for the implementation crisis. And after the target areas are set. 2006a). but these are becoming increasingly rare in this world. iii In many places. but even then they are often problematic because they are not at the parcel scale or do not account for other needs of the planners (Knight et al. 97 . ii This process of finding models will be facilitated by the use of model metadata (Crosier et al. In the case of ECPM. 2004). A draft approach of defining the relative values on each axis is as follows.). implementation has the same problem. in prep. It is clear that conservation planners are not addressing the full range of issues facing land protection practitioners and should attempt to conduct more directly relevant research(Pyke 2006.

The average citizen has a low degree of power. Someone with high a degree of urgency actively participates in the issue because the time –sensitivity or “criticality” (Mitchell et al. and also to define “perceived power” as part of the power axis. or participate. v Another way of looking at this whole issue is as follows: How do we foster this value of ecological concern? There are four major types of intervention that have 98 . A person with low legitimacy only has one of these two characteristics (urban resident or influencing sustainability). It may be better to define time-availability as a part of the definition of the power axis. or an urban resident of the region that influences the region’s sustainability more then the average urban resident. but does not typically participate in public hearings or submit written comments on an issue because the opportunity costs outweigh the perceived benefits of such participation. Someone with high degree of power has both of these characteristics. or is a direct policymaker. Someone with medium power can strongly influence policy creation or implementation.) A person with a high degree of legitimacy is a rural-land or reserve owner or manager (including public land managers). (It is important to note that this introduction of discouraging obstacles is really making the urgency axis have two variables. A person with a medium legitimacy is rural renter. A person with low urgency does not care about the issue. Someone with medium degree of urgency cares about the issue. 1997) is enough to make them overcome any discouraging obstacles.

2005). this satisfaction is another behavior-change driver (De Young 2000. Being a part of the process could entail contributing information/opinion. By far. and derive much satisfaction. Evans et al. Main 2004. If conservation planning could give people a sense of competence then they would have an incentive to be a part of the process. or implementing. 99 . Incentives are commonly monetary.been tried: education. Education and moral drivers have disappointingly low track records. from a sense of competence (De Young 2000). People also derive intrinsic satisfaction from being engaged in a process. incentives. the most effective approaches utilize a combination of these ways. moral drivers. but here is an incentive that is often overlooked and yet has the potential of making durable change in values and behaviors—appealing to people’s drive for intrinsic satisfaction (De Young 2000). further adding incentive to engage. A lot of people have a strong need. This line of argument points the extreme importance of having options for participation that are extremely easy and can show a sense of accomplishment. and community-based drivers (Stern 2000). In fact participation itself is another source of intrinsic satisfaction.

Chapter 3: Communicating the implementation uncertainty of spatial decision support systems to end-users Abstract. Conventional maps lacking uncertainty information were compared to products that communicated implementation uncertainty using animations and maps derived from a stochastic approach. but the end-user cannot re-iterate the model and get a new set every time conditions change. These findings indicate an opportunity for improving the utility of many spatial decision support systems. 100 . More work is needed in examining this new type of uncertainty. The uncertainty products were preferred. This ‘implementation uncertainty’ occurs when an optimal or near-optimal set is pursued incrementally. then they developed a more complete understanding of the model’s limitations. All products were evaluated by three pools of conservation end-users through focus groups. We developed and assessed a method for communicating an important type of uncertainty that has not been explicitly examined. The end-users were unaware of the uncertainty before it was presented. A conservation planning case study was performed. as they provided guidance and flexibility for the end-users’ dynamic implementation needs.

There is extensive research focused on defining. and their visualization and 101 . These data and model uncertainties often compound and amplify within the SDSS (Heuvelink 1999). Zhang and Goodchild 2002).INTRODUCTION Spatial decision support systems (SDSS) are designed to provide end-users with helpful information relevant to a decision (Densham 1991. the distinction between an SDSS and a GIS is becoming increasingly blurred (Yeh 1999). their impacts on the results of an analysis. Sklar and Hunsaker 2001). describing. or in the classification of the data (Goodchild and Case 2001. and visualization techniques (Aerts 2002). the challenges facing SDSS also face the emerging GIS technologies that are filling the traditional role of SDSS. uncertainty assessment. An SDSS usually addresses complex and challenging spatial problems that are illstructured and poorly defined (Yeh 1999). and modeling these uncertainties. As GIS technology advances. Ehler et al. 1995). It could be uncertainty in the exact location and boundaries of the data. It usually consists of a decision framework along with a GIS and several operational techniques. Regardless of the semantics. There is also uncertainty in how well the models in the SDSS represent what they are modeling (Goodchild and Case 2001. One of the foremost challenges in SDSS development is in the treatment of uncertainty. such as multicriteria decision making. One significant source of uncertainty is in the data itself.

MacEachren et al. 1994. Gahegan and Brodaric 2002. This goal is comprised of two 102 . This paper is about another kind of uncertainty. 1997. Ehlschlaeger et al. Aerts 2002. 2003b. MacEachren et al. The goal of this paper is to explore ideas and an approach for addressing implementation uncertainty such that the goal of decision support is furthered. The problem is further described and illustrated in the overview below. Goodchild et al. Buttenfield and Beard 1994. that may or may not materialize depending on the actual acquisitions.communication (MacEachren 1992. UCGIS 1996. Davis and Keller 1997. Once a decision occurs that is outside of the assumptions of the SDSS. Implementation uncertainty arises when the outcomes of each stage in the decision sequence cannot be fully anticipated. 1997. and the static map cannot be updated once the outcomes occur. How should the plan be portrayed and communicated when implementation uncertainty is expected? Traditionally it has taken the form of an ideal plan. then the decision support provided by the static map becomes outdated. 1994. An SDSS is often used to create a static map that is then used to support decisions that must be implemented incrementally. Such ideal plans can be misleading to decision-makers and counterproductive. Stine and Hunsaker 2001. Flather et al. (2005) emphasize that in addition to the widely researched forms of uncertainty there are other forms that have profound implications and deserve attention. Zhang and Goodchild 2002. Fisher 1999. Goodchild 2000b. Aerts et al. Van der Wel et al. 2005). The uncertainty examined here is termed implementation uncertainty.

some context is provided regarding uncertainty analysis in conservation planning. An unexpected result of the participatory action research process (PAR) is the drafting of a potential theoretical framework for SDSS research and development. This foray into the communication of uncertainty for end-users addresses several topics in GIScience: geovisualization. The results of the assessment are provided and discussed. The implementation-uncertainty products are assessed via focus groups. The unexpected framework that results might also appeal to geographers making a case for increased geographic education in general. 103 .objectives: 1) to communicate the issue of implementation uncertainty. and of course. A technique is then devised for modeling and communicating implementation uncertainty. resource allocation modeling. and especially within conservation planning. and is implemented in a real-world conservation planning application. conservation planning) to provide structure in pursuing this goal. This paper should also be of particular interest to SDSS developers in all application fields. Then. The following section illustrates the problem by presenting an example conservation planning SDSS application. and in the communication of uncertainty to improve knowledge. and 2) to estimate the implementation uncertainty of a resource allocation model. uncertainty.e. public participation GIS (PPGIS). The paper uses the field of systematic conservation planning (i.

and if it is exactly replicates the world. spatial and attribute uncertainty can be formally defined using the fundamental unit of measurement to study the geographic perspective.G’) is the statement (i. If it is an estimate. such as “any solution must have a set of sites that as a set. a map is a statement about the world. there is no uncertainty. Y. There is also a set of constraints that the solution must meet. and G stands for one or more properties. and could include maximizing biodiversity value. or heuristics that are faster to compute but only result in a near-optimal 104 .BACKGROUND FOR EXAMINING IMPLEMENTATION UPNCERTAINTY The problem of implementation uncertainty In the common vernacular. Resource allocation models are a type of SDSS that combine geographic data to identify a set of sites or resources across a landscape designed to maximize or minimize some combination of costs or benefits. This chapter uses the statistical definition: estimated amount or percentage by which an observed or calculated value may differ from the true value (uncertainty n.). then the information about how the estimate falls short is the uncertainty. or people served. X refers to a location in time and space.e. the tuple (X.d. the term “uncertainty” can mean an instance of doubt or a state of being doubtful. In other words. attributes or things. profits.G). if (X’. includes X. The goal chosen is known as the objective function. or minimizing cost. Thus. For instance.” Formal optimization models can be used to identify the solution sets. map) of the true real world tuple (X. then the differences X-X’ and G-G’ are the uncertainties (Zhang and Goodchild 2002).G). and Z characteristics.

Conversely. The concept of implementation uncertainty can be clarified through an illustration. Using the standard map. in total. The output could be a map of the set of 13 parcels in a landscape that. and management costs in providing its solution. The model could incorporate variables such as species locations. habitat types. the director starts trying to buy the standard-set sites or at least to buy their development rights so they are conserved. For instance. spatial configurations of habitat. far outperforming any human capacities. In short. see Fig 10). 105 . However. The director often conserves these bargain opportunities. and the resultant map the standard map.solution can be used. This optimal or near-optimal set of sites is hereafter termed the standard set. an impressive wealth of data can be included in the analysis. (For a simplified example of the standard map. the allocation model could be used to inform the director of a land trust of the best sites for conservation. some easy opportunities arise to conserve some of the non-standard-set sites. It can arise when the SDSS output is based on a resource allocation model. would have the highest estimated benefit for biodiversity. as time goes by. and then keeps working to conserve any of the 13 standard-set sites that are still available. some of the sites get developed before they can be conserved. purchase price. Implementation uncertainty arises when the SDSS output is implemented piecemeal over time rather than all at once.

Losing some of the standard-set sites to development may make some of the non-standard-set sites very important. then the implicit assumptions of the resource allocation problem are no longer met.Figure 10: The Standard Map showing the traditional resource allocation model output (In this case grid cells were used as potential sites rather than parcels. and that un-conserved sites will remain un-conserved unless identified in the standard set (Church et al. This standard-set site has become redundant and is no longer useful in achieving the objective function under the given set of 106 . These assumptions are that all undeveloped sites will be available for conservation. Conversely.) But there is a problem. As soon as either of these deviations occur. a newly conserved. 1996). non-standard-set site may have very similar characteristics to one of the standard-set sites still targeted.

2004). For instance. the wisdom of conserving a particular site will change over time. Secondly. The primary condition is that the resource allocation model cannot be reexecuted for the end-user after every change in initial conditions.constraints. land price. not just conservation planning. thereby undermining the entire premise of resource allocation modeling and the SDSS. population density. In summary. and so on. So. then a very poor allocation of resources could result. development policies of counties and cities. The uncertainty would arise after one of the cities denies the request to site a store. or a new store is located in a city that was not on the list. income class. If the director continues to diligently pursue the original standard-set sites despite these issues. These changes are quite feasible due to external changes such as policy changes in the target cities. external conditions that affect the cost and benefit of each site 107 . or at what rate. This problem is characteristic of other resource allocation applications. The model could incorporate variables such as the proximity of competitors. it could apply to Wal-Mart executives trying to locate 20 new stores in the western United States. implementation uncertainty arises when three general conditions are met. and other cities offering new bargains. land market fluctuations. or in which direction. This condition is especially common in conservation planning because the budget for planning is usually very small compared to the budget needed for land acquisition (Meir et al. and it cannot be known in advance how much it will change. The output would be a map of the 20 best sites for new stores.

A decision support hierarchy provides a useful starting point in studying how to enhance the beneficial influence of an SDSS (Roots 1992. 2005). This information is then presented to end-users. Many SDSS couple GIS technology with specific analytical modeling approaches with an emphasis on information display (Xuan Zhu et al. or symbols) in useful ways to form information. This problem is especially acute when the end-users include non-experts.change over time.” While 108 . as they do not have easy access to and understanding of the data and method driving the analysis. it is important to first look at the broader context in which the problem resides. Because the goal of SDSS development is to improve decisions. Longley et al. experience. 2005). text. 1998). These models must then be couple with human expertise in making a decision (Xuan Zhu et al. such that a point which is likely to retain its value has a low implementation uncertainty. It is interpreted by each end-user to enhance their knowledge. the end-user is allowed to select sites that are outside of the standard set. The decision support hierarchy In exploring approaches to address implementation uncertainty. The implementation uncertainty of a tuple is the quantitative estimate of how likely the tuple will retain its attribute value after future perturbations to the plan. in implementing the plan. 1998). it is important to consider the human element. “Knowledge can be considered as information to which value has been added by interpretation cased on a particular context. The inverse is used. Finally. An SDSS combines bits of geographic data (numbers. and purpose (Longley et al.

One of the early mainstays of conservation planning was the Gap Analysis Project (GAP).information can exist independently. GAP identifies biodiversity elements that are under represented (under protected) in reserve systems (Scott et al. can be written down and transferred easily) or tacit (i.e. while a group decision relies on the collective wisdom of the group. slowly acquired personal knowledge that is hard to transfer). Margules et al. The implicit goal of an SDSS is to facilitate wise decisions by organizing and communicating data and information to expand knowledge. 1988. In general. knowledge entails a knower. and is classified in two types: codified (i. A person’s knowledge of the issue is combined with their innate and intuitive understandings to form wisdom. Complementing this representation approach was the study of “reserve design” which utilizes an ecosystem approach and spatial relationships to identify a set of new reserve sites that would combine with current reserves to adequately protect biodiversity for a region (Noss and Harris 1986. This support hierarchy will be revisited. Noss 109 . It is the science behind the effort to create reserves or special management areas in an effort to help conserve biodiversity. For now the important message is that improving an SDSS can occur by improving the quality of the information. and/or by improving the quality of the communication of that information.e. A personal decision relies on the person’s wisdom. 1993). this issue is not as important as for more abstract forms such as implementation uncertainty. The issue of implementation uncertainty in a conservation planning SDSS Systematic conservation planning is a common application of SDSS. In straightforward types of uncertainty.

1997. this set of reserves should have the lowest cost to implement. it is extremely difficult if not impossible to model and communicate. 2005. including those regarding spatial uncertainty of species distribution data (Todd and Burgman 1998. 1992. Whittaker et al. “20% of each habitat type”). in total. Moilanen et al. It is another layer of complexity to examine how all these uncertainties propagate and interact in affecting the final uncertainty of the assessment. Regan and Colyvan 2000. (2006) provide a promising approach for addressing this complexity 110 . and model uncertainty in wildlife habitat models (Stoms et al. Regan et al. 2000). Grenyer et al. Examinations of many types of uncertainties in conservation planning have occurred. 2000. with some such as integer linear programming being more computer intensive but more accurate and able to define how far the solution is from true optimality (Church et al. Johnson and Gillingham 2004) and in the biogeographic assumptions of conservation assessments (Flather et al. Akcakaya et al. Mapping the uncertainties involved in conservation science was identified as one of the research priorities of the current decade (Possingham et al. Robertson et al. Thus.g. met a set of biodiversity criteria (e. 1999. There are various mathematical approaches for pursuing optimality. 2006). To be pragmatic. Loiselle et al. 2004) linguistic uncertainty confounded by parameter uncertainty in determining the conservation status of species (Burgman et al. 2001). the field jumped into optimization (Margules et al. minimizing the cost (usually total area) required to attain a set of sites that. 1996). For a more thorough overview of systematic conservation planning.and Cooperrider 1994). 1988). see Chapter 1. With standard project budgets. 2003.

Armsworth et al. An info-gap is “the disparity between what is known and what needs to be known in order to make a well founded decision (Ben-Haim and Ben-Haim 2006). 2006) examine how land market feedbacks affect conservation by using a macro-economic model of supply and demand. Haight et al. This can be in an area that was originally unthreatened and 111 . Secondly.” Meir. and hence. (Armsworth et al. future conservation. 2006. During these decades. 2006). Andelman. They point out that conventional methods of conservation assessment rely on a snapshot in time to identify the lands necessary for conservation. Armsworth et al. this implementation occurs over decades. thereby driving up their cost. and Possingham (2004) address the issue of implementation uncertainty. it often increases the amenity value of the nearby un-conserved lands. First of all. although the term was not used. and assume that these lands can be conserved immediately. 2005. Conserving lands has two impacts to the land markets. One response to this problem is to focus on improving the quality of the implementation uncertainty information in the SDSS (Costello and Polasky 2004. Newburn et al. thereby changing the priorities. some biodiversity is lost and the human dominated and natural landscapes change. conserving lands in one area often displaces development pressure to another area. They show that the ramification of this are such that optimal or near optimal resource allocation models do not perform any better that simple rules-of-thumb such as choosing the site of highest value at any given time. But in practice.based on info-gap theory (Ben-Haim and Ben-Haim 2006).

because it is a higher likelihood that in the next time step they won’t be available for conservation. The results are promising. Thus. Haight. They then look at heuristics that are sub-optimal. But doing so then increases the threat in other areas.had a higher biodiversity value than the original area conserved. and calls for the inclusion of land market feedbacks in conservation planning SDSS. to provide decision support based on the dynamic model. They use a dynamic linear programming to identify an optimal solution given a sample set of data for three sites. with added modules of realism. but need to be tested with large datasets over longer periods of time. Prioritizing the most important areas for conservation given these dynamic issues is quite complex. conservation has the potential of doing more harm than good. it is important to focus efforts on these areas of high implementation uncertainty. If conservation funds are limited and trickle in over time. but less computationally intensive. such as land market feedbacks. Snyder et al. yet they tackle it anyway. Conservation priority areas with a higher development threat have a higher implementation uncertainty. (2005) incorporate implementation uncertainty into the SDSS through probabilistic scenarios of site availability for two time steps. The study corroborates the need to consider implementation uncertainty. Costello et al. and utilize these and other data in a dynamic optimization model. (2004) examine the issue of how timing in development threat as well as the generation of conservation funds are critical elements of implementation uncertainty. By treating the issue as dynamic rather then static. the model can provide current site selection 112 .

(2006) illustrate the high importance of considering the probability of land conversion in identifying conservation priorities. It assumes the ability to immediately conserve all of the optimal sites exists if the budget is available. In such a response. irresolvable (Couclelis 2003). is that it does not look at probability of development. rather. while a 113 . A major difference though. An approach is developed that includes this as well as cost for conversion in addition to the standard issue of biodiversity value. Newburn et al. Dovers et al. 1996. it looks at the different types of development. and identifies the change in ecological impact that is expected to occur at a site for a given time period. The primary strategy of all of these efforts is to increase the usefulness of the SDSS by improving the quality of the information provided. But when the uncertainty is inherent to the problem. This focuses the limited resources of the SDSS development team on minimizing the uncertainty of the model. For instance. A similar approach is developed by Davis et al. a reasonable effort is made to reduce the uncertainty. or conservation of only a few of the sites and saving money in the hopes that some of the highest-quality sites will become available in the next time period. (2006) in the respect that cost of conservation and the threat of development are explicitly addressed. 2001).recommendations for a given budget and a given scenario of site availability. There is a complementary response that may be as effective in the long-run: to acknowledge that uncertainty is inevitable and in many cases. the model outputs can recommend immediate conservation of all the optimal sites that the total budget will allow. this is often a path of rapidly diminishing returns (Dovers et al.

if $1 million were available for improving the treatment of implementation uncertainty within SDSS. Smith et al.comparable effort is made in trying to communicate the uncertainty issue and repercussions to the end-users (Clarke et al. Gillham 2000). METHODOLOGY Approach and Overview To meet the research objectives. PAR allows researchers to incorporate real-world issues and concerns into their methods in a way that effectively bridges the gap between theoretical construct and practical application (Yin 1993. a participatory action research (PAR) case study approach was utilized. For instance. a majority of research and development should be in improving the information available. 2002). it may be prudent to spend $20.000. This is significant. 1997. but emphasizes the communication of the issue itself. Of course. Research about the relationship 114 . As discussed earlier. These considerations lead to the objectives of the paper paraphrased in the introduction: to devise and assess a method for estimating and communicating implementation uncertainty. or that it even exists (Keuper 2004). 2003). improving an SDSS is a function of both improving the information provided and the way that it is communicated. PAR is growing in popularity among interdisciplinary researchers and entails that they are actively involved in the case study in question rather than studying it as outsiders (Weisenfeld et al. as the end-users of the SDSS often do not understand the effects of uncertainty. on a study that provides a cursory approach to quantifying implementation uncertainty. just not all of it. at a minimum.

The product was to be released publicly to show the landscape requirements for longterm ecological sustainability. and.pdf . along with the CCP personnel. The Land and Resource Management group of 15 people was comprised of county planners. then developed a set of maps and explanatory animations to communicate implementation uncertainty to SDSS end-users. using focus groups. Methodology of Phase IA: Project Scoping The analysis was performed for a non-profit organization. land- 115 . (The Regional Conservation Guide can be viewed at http://conceptioncoast.) Two advisory groups were assembled to assist in the process. along with the map of the standard set. Conception Coast Project (CCP). provided the three pools of people for the focus groups used in Phase III (evaluation).org/Regional_Conservation_Guide. 2005). These new products were assessed. and to help guide community action towards achieving them (Gallo et al. A preliminary draft of this research was presented by Gallo (2005). community involvement. and long-term planning (CCP 2006). Fagerstrom et al. dedicated to protecting and restoring the natural heritage of the region through science. we performed a conservation planning resource allocation analysis. The Ecological Expert group was comprised of 12 biologists with a variety of taxonomic specialties and professional occupations. Natori et al.between GIS and society requires an interface between academia and the social entities participating. In this study. 2003. 2005). PAR provides an opportunity for such an interface (Castellanet and Jordan 2002.

see Gallo et al. 2006). 2005). The scoping meetings resulted in the call for the identification of 100.trust directors. Thus. cost of conservation. 400 km2) of conservation priority areas. It was based on an resource allocation modeling approach that integrates the threat of habitat degradation. and determining the relative weights among the multiple criteria leading to the cost layer. about how many acres should be targeted as conservation priorities? The working meetings held to parameterize the model involved identifying any major gaps in the model that could be filled. Davis et al. Initial scoping meetings were held to determine the general guidelines of the final product. identifying the relative weights among the five biodiversity measures.000 acres (approx.000 km2 region of the south-central coast of California (Figure 1 of Gallo et al. and resource-agency representatives (For a listing of individuals. and six ecological criteria (Davis et al. Methodology of Phase IB: The Marginal Value Resource Allocation Model A conservation planning process was performed for a 14. the model was used to identify the standard set of 180 sites (each 2. determining the ecological impact of various human land-uses. and similarly. 2003. Some of the questions asked during the scoping sessions include the following: Should the final product be a hardcopy map? What scale should the map(s) be at? What is the timeframe for implementation. 116 . 2005).25 km2) estimated to have the highest combined conservation value.

recalculating the values of all the other sites given that it will be conserved. The heuristic operates by assessing the marginal conservation value of all sites. selecting the one with the highest marginal value (a benefit/cost ratio). and estimates the marginal conservation value of each site by examining the threat of habitat degradation. and so on.The resource allocation framework was created by the Biogeography Lab of U. complete food webs). and 4) areas adjacent to small reserves. selecting the next site with the highest value. The relative cost of conservation of each site was modeled based on parameters that affect purchase price.e.C. tried to maximize the total conservation value given a defined budget of money or area. The number of sites in the set is defined by the user. Each site has a subset of cells that are aggregated in getting a score for the site. Santa Barbara and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis as part of their work with the State of California’s Legacy Project (Davis et al. 3) wildlands for area-dependent species (i. Davis et al. and includes: 1) hotspots of rare threatened and endangered species. This framework divides a study region into thousands of candidate sites. cost of conservation. This “multiple track” approach follows from Noss (2000). as a whole. A fifth objective was added: coarse-scale habitat connectivity. 117 . 2) areas supporting vulnerable habitat types. 2003. 2006). and six conservation objectives (which can be weighted differently) for all of the cells within each site. The framework used a resource allocation model based on a greedy heuristic (a sub-optimal solution) to identify a set of sites that.

adaptive management approach towards conservation (Termed ECPM in Chapter 1 and 2). they need to identify the entire set. there is no benefit of protecting the 21st percent. 1999) for several reasons. It incorporates the variance of human impact throughout the landscape. Also. Target based models cannot do this. 1 in Davis et al. Further. 2003). (And benefit is also a function of threat). all at a minimum cost. say. The exciting ramification of this is that the model provides valuable decision support for an iterative. that provides the highest benefit/cost ratio towards a conservation portfolio. In essence. It focuses conservation priorities in areas that are predicted to have increased human impact in the future if they are not protected. 20% of the remaining pine forest of a region. it is a target based model. while SITES uses the binary approach: either a cell is good habitat or it is not. it can provide a small solution set of sites. it considers it valuable to some degree if a site can be added to the portfolio and the total protection increases from 20 to 21% (Fig. which is problematic compared to the marginal value approach. along with other similar targets. The marginal value model has a decreasing value function which recognizes the need for targets to be fuzzy.. For example. Thus. or even just one. After the target is met. The marginal value model was also chosen because of some other appealing functions. A benefit of SITES is that it uses a simulated annealing algorithm which is more accurate than the greedy heuristic for most problems.This model was chosen over conventional resource allocation models like SITES (Andelman et al. it is programmed to conserve. the absolute 118 . However. the marginal value approach does a good job at considering “threat” and balancing this with cost.

3 and adapted to version 9.0. The model was written in VBA script within ArcGis 8. copied almost verbatim from the a working draft of Davis et al.e. it is advised to refer to Davis et al. B = funding available for conservation during the planning period.amount of change is considered (i. the expected change from rangeland use to urban being incorporated as a higher impact than from rangeland to low intensity agriculture). (2003). 0 otherwise. Objective Function: Max ∑i =1V i X i over sites i = 1. 2005) for the parameters. Ci = the conservation cost of site i. (2003) for the functions. and where V =∑ i J j =1 wM (∑ M j N i =1 ij ij ) 119 . The mathematical functions of the marginal value analysis are as follows. If repeating the methodology. and the RCG (Gallo et al. Vi = the conservation value of Site i.2 …N N subject to the constraint N ∑i =1 X i C i ≤ B where Xi = 1 if site is selected for conservation.

If the species occurred in an 80 m diameter circle then the underlying cell had a higher Q value then if it was seen somewhere in a larger circle. And 2 A = ∑a s i o∈i o o A = condition-weighted area of planning unit i o = observation area (100 m cell) a = area s = ecological condition indicated by human impact 3 1 See Table A3 in the appendix of the Regional Conservation Guide (Appendix B of the dissertation) 2 Quality is a function of the spatial accuracy of the observation. The value is a linear function of the area of the circle. 120 . The largest circles in the data were 8000 m in diameter. wj = weight associated with objective j And where M1 relates to Rare Species M = ∑e=1 i1 E Q ei * ui N ∑i = 1Q ei * Ai M1 = Marginal value based on rare species 1 Qej = the quality of occurrence of species e in planning unit i (0 Q 1).Mij = marginal value of conserving site i for conservation objective j.

u = ∑a s u i o∈i o o o ui = condition weighted area of unprotected land in the site uo = protection status of the cell. which is Appendix B of the dissertation. Higher impact is a lower value of s.…K) in the planning region R at future time t is a function of the area (a) and condition (s) of all observations (o = 1. 121 .…O) of type k in the planning region: A t Rk = ∑o=1 aok sok O t t The current value of site i for protecting habitat type k (vik) depends on the difference at the end of the planning period between the condition-weighted area of habitat type k in site i assuming conservation actions are taken ( Aik ) and the amount in future time t assuming that no additional conservation actions are taken in site i ( Aik ). protected (0) or unprotected (1) And where M2 relates to Habitat Representation The amount of the habitat type k (k = 1. see Table A1 from appendix A of the Regional conservation Guide. That is: t v 3 ik = A −A ik t ik For a list of human impact values. If a cell has several land-use categories. the one with the highest impact was used.

G of Fig. Let the difference in condition-weighted area of that part of wildland block W (W = 1. (i.e. (2006)) And where M4 relates to Wildlands If the goal is to maintain blocks above a minimum area Bl. and assuming there is diminishing return on additional conservation beyond that threshold up to a target area of BM (beyond which additional conservation has negligible marginal value).M i2 = ∑k =1 [1 − K ( ARk + 0.o ∈W ∑ (a s − a s ) t t o o o o If the condition-weighted area of block W in time t is calculated as A t W = ∑ a o so t t o∈B then the approximate marginal value of planning unit i for conserving wildlands is 122 .…n blocks in the region) in planning unit i between today and at the end of the planning period (time t. 1 in Davis et al.5 * vik ) t G k ] * vik Gk = Conservation goal for the particular habitat. a simple measure of wildland conservation value can be formulated similar to that for landscape-based conservation. assuming no conservation) be: v iW = o∈ i .

As with the other objectives. pa 1 km) from its nearest reserve.if if A A i4 t t W W B. and thus serves as that cell’s reference region for this objective. z D pa = 1 – c * a pa For this application we set c equal to 0. In this formulation.5 * viW ] B u ) * viW And where M5 relates to Adjacency to Reserves: reserve or protected area pa (apa) in hectares increases. The supply term for each available cell is calculated as: Supply o = D pa * 1 / d o . a cell only gets credit for buffering one protected area even though it may be located within the threshold distance of more than one protected area. Proximity to a small protected area is not sufficient to give a high conservation value to a site.0001845 [such that an area twice as large as the largest reserve in the region (1080325880 meters squared) would receive a demand of 0] and z equal to 0. we use a higher value such as would be expected for insular habitats.M ≥B . the conservation value is 123 . Although z is expected to be lower for mainland terrestrial environments. pa where the protected area pa is the one nearest the cell. however. We assume that the ability of a cell to meet demand for buffering decays with its distance ( d o .4.M ≤ L U n i4 = ∑W =1 viw else n i4 = 0 else t M = ∑W =1 (1 − [ AW + 0.

modified by the expected future condition in relation to present condition. in the sense of maintaining viable populations of animals and ecological and evolutionary processes (Noss and Harris 1986). (2005): connectivity is the concept that if two or more large areas of quality habitat are connected by a narrower area of habitat that facilitates animal movement. then the overall biodiversity value of the region is increased (Soule and Terborgh 1999). As per key portions of Gallo et al. a connectivity analysis was not in Davis et al. with males having a home range of nearly 400 square kilometers (Dickson 2001). individual core protected areas will not be able to function independently as whole ecosystems. The mountain lion was selected as the connectivity focal species because it operates at this coarse scale. M6 is described below. but if only one scale is feasible. it is best to use a coarse scale approach to ensure the core wild lands of a region are interconnected. and was added to the resource allocation model. The marginal value for site i is then calculated as: M i5 = ∑ (Supply s o∈ i o o − Supply o so) t And where M6 relates to landscape connectivity to Reserves. Methodology of Phase IBi: Landscape Connectivity for the Marginal Value Model As mentioned. The mountain lion is also a keystone species since it maintains the integrity of an ecosystem by controlling the population of large herbivores and “meso-predators” (medium sized 124 . A connectivity analysis is ideally performed at multiple scales. (2003). Unless a protected area is millions of acres in size.

The loss of such keystone species are more profound and far-reaching than others. For example.predators such as skunk and opossum). the following operating assumptions were used. The “gated” variety of least cost path analysis provides a value for each cell on the landscape that is equal to the total cost of the least cost path that must pass through the particular cell. In parameterizing this analysis.e. A “gated” least cost path analysis was utilized that indicates the path between two habitat areas with the lowest level difficulty of travel (i. leading eventually to loss of habitat and extirpation of other species in the food web (Noss and Soule 1999). A movement cost GIS layer is created such that the value of every location has a measure of how difficult or dangerous it is for a mountain lion to move across it. However. a path across highway 101 will have a very high cost. the output has a width rather than a very fine line of habitat connecting two wild lands. because their elimination from an ecosystem often triggers cascades of direct and indirect changes. It is also a fuzzy output. ECPM of Chapters 1 and 2). Thus. This type of analysis lends itself to projects in which a fast method is needed for identifying general corridors that are to be communicated to the public (i. “movement cost”) for a mountain lion (Lombard and Church 1993.e. it is also important to give a higher value to these 125 . This is based on the principle that all populations of mountain lion need to be connected to other populations. 2001). not just the ones that have high quality linkages already in place. whereas the path in the wilderness forest will have a very low cost. (1) It is assumed that it is important to maintain the connectivity between all pairs of wild lands. Singleton et al.

(3) To account for the “stepping stone effect. then they will be valued as equals (i. not the equally important fine scale connectivity for smaller species. and (4) “Landscape Connectivity” addresses coarse scale connectivity for large. Due to the time consuming nature of analyzing pairs of wild lands. standardize by distance).e. thus the term “destination” is used.higher quality linkages as a matter of pragmatism.” it is assumed that all cells along a linkage are not considered equal value. 126 . but because a meta-population analysis has not been performed. Identify Core and “Destination” Zones The first step in the connectivity analysis is to identify the pieces of land that will be connected. To be consistent with the rest of the RCG. these lands will be the Wild Lands identified in objective M4. as well as the quality of the overall linkage that the cell lies in. wide ranging species. These are often called cores and sinks. The connectivity value of a cell is a function of the habitat suitability and human impact value of that cell. the large wild lands in the center of the region that are nearly touching were combined together into one wild land. All the other wild lands are considered “destination” wild lands. peripheral zones are indeed classic sinks. it is not known if the smaller. (2) If two linkages are equal in all respects except for the distance they span between core wild lands.

and a constant. human impact value in general. These cells get a high value. Of the three categories of habitat suitability (cover. This is because roads are the primary source of death to mountain lions in southern California (Beier 1995. Beier et al. and then back to the core/destination area. The paths they were using passed through the core or destination areas went out into the cost surface and through the gate cell. making the output slightly problematic. cover was the factor used because the model is looking at mountain lion dispersal. After initial runs of the model it was realized that the gated least cost path algorithm is problematic for cells on the lee side of core/destination areas (M5 areas). The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) model was used in conjunction with the Multi-Source Land Cover Data (See Table A2). Solving the “bleeding” problem inherent to gated least cost path analyses. even though they are not between the two areas. The roadedness layer that went into the human impact layer was used on its own as well. roadedness specifically. 2005: Habitat Quality for Mountain Lion Dispersal. based on expert knowledge and literature review. 1995). 127 . movement cost is a function of mountain lion habitat suitability.] The human impact value layer developed earlier was used. [See Figure 13 of Gallo et al. This model predicts the suitability of a habitat for mountain lions.Create Movement “Cost” Surface In this analysis. feeding. Thus there was a “bleeding” effect that happened. and reproduction).

0. (The highest cost of movement was 1.05. and the one (0. Otherwise lions would be able to move an infinite amount of distance through ideal habitat. Several values were evaluated (0.1. This solved the bleeding problem. it was assumed that even ideal habitat has a small cost for movement. To account for this flaw. The aforementioned approach of adding movement cost to all cells was not needed. a mathematical constant was added to the movement cost equation.0. Thus.15). it still was apparent. 128 . every gated least cost path enters each zone just once rather than multiple times.and 0. 0. This constant simulates the energetic cost of movement. The two outer. boundary cells of each core and destination zone was given a very high value.03. the movement cost surface and core and destination zones were modified. 0. and that dispersal through perfect habitat also has a cost because it is likely through a hostile male’s territory.05) that balanced the benefits and detriments of using such a factor was used.07. This way. which caused the flaw.05 3 While this constant helped the “bleeding” problem.To address this. or “moat” of cost. The new core zone was then drawn inside this buffer.) The other three factors were combined with even weight for a contiguous 90 m cell resolution “movement cost” layer = (1 − [Habitat _ Suitability ]) + ([Human _ Im pact _ Value] + ([Roadedness _ Value])) + .

Perform Gated Least Cost Path Analysis For each core/destination wild land pair the following analysis was performed. depending on the pair of wild lands analyzed. In order to highlight the feasible wildlife linkages. After evaluating several threshold values and comparing them to knowledge of the landscape. All of the paired raw linkage layers were combined. even the cells in the middle of cities. The cost of traveling through the “moats” was then subtracted.04 times the minimum value were selected. This selected about a quarter to a half of the landscape. Next the layer was divided by the Euclidian distance between the two wild lands so that the analysis did not bias against linkages that had to span a large distance. For instance. The combined raw linkage layer had a wide variance in values between linkages. one linkage had values ranging from 606-630 cost units. and where values from two linkages overlapped. (In this analysis. lower cost is a better linkage). 129 .) The enhanced movement cost layer was used to create a cost distance surface to each wild land. and a narrow variance within a linkage. a new layer was created that selected just the good (low) values. This layer for each wild land pair was called a paired raw linkage layer. At this point the layer had a linkage value for every cell on the landscape.0 software. all values 1. The pair of cost distance surfaces were then used for the “corridor” analysis using ESRI ArcGIS 9. while another had values ranging from 100-104. the minimum value was chosen. (It was also performed between two “destination” wild lands: the Santa Monica Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains.

The paired relative linkage layers were combined in a similar fashion to create the relative linkage value. but because the variance of the raw linkage layer needed to be decreased. 130 . These are classified as “estimated linkages” and given a value of the mean plus one standard deviation of the linkage layer and added to that layer. along with multiplication. It was decided that rather than use one or the other technique. There are many mathematical approaches to combining these. Corridor _ Layer = relative _ corridor _ value × raw _ corridor _ value It was noticed after the analysis that seven important but short linkages had not been mapped because the corresponding pair of wild lands had been grouped together as the central core zone or had not been analyzed. with a higher emphasis on the relative linkage layer (see Theoretical Overview and Assumptions for justification). Finally. such that the best linkage value is 1 and the worst is 0. the square root was used. These short linkages were digitized by hand using the movement cost layer as a guide. a combination would be used. medium-high. medium. and low linkage value) to create the paired relative linkage value layers. [See Figure 14 of Gallo et al. the paired raw linkage layers were also classified into 5 categories of equal classes (high. 2005: Large Wildlife Linkages within the Conception Coast Region]. medium-low. the linkage layer was inverted and standardized.To address this variance.

Assign Connectivity Value to each Site i: M i6 = ∑ ( L s o o∈ i o − Lo s o ) t Again. and the one chosen had a good balance between maintaining the integrity of linkages. o = observation area (100 m cell) a = area s = ecological condition indicated by human impact 131 . with a slight bias toward habitat suitability as opposed to human impact. the highest possible habitat suitability score. but also allowing for the site specific importance to be accounted for.Combine results with Habitat Suitability and Human Impact Layers The “connectivity value” of a cell is a function of the linkage value as well as the habitat quality value of the cell and the human impact score of that cell (See Theoretical Overview and Assumptions). and the lowest possible human impact score. then it will receive a value of 1. Connectivi ty _ Layer = (6 × Corridor _ Layer + 3 × Habitat _ Suitabilit y + (1 − 2 × Human _ Im pact ) 11 Thus. A variety of different weighted combinations were evaluated. if a cell has the highest possible linkage score. L is as follows. Thus the value for a cell within the connectivity layer. All other cells will receive scores less than 1.

t = the time analysis used to predict future conditions (in this case. the year 2050) [See Figure 15 of Gallo et al. viewshed of the ocean (more is more expensive). Four products were designed to communicate implementation uncertainty and its implications. Methodology of Phase II: Products for Communicating Implementation Uncertainty The standard map is a static presentation of the original standard set. Each cell was given a value for each of these criteria. These four products are detailed below. and ignores the strong likelihood that the importance of these sites will change over time. the weighted sum was found for that cell. proximity to ocean (closer is more expensive). 2) a second introductory animation that illustrated implementation uncertainty. and then all of the cells were summed to get the value for the site. The tables of the exact thresholds and corresponding values for each of these criteria are available by request from the author. 2005: Connectivity Value within the Conception Coast Region]. distance to urban areas (less is more expensive). and are as follows: 1) an introductory animation that used a small sample grid to illustrate the concept of maximizing resource allocation. zoning (less protection is more expensive). Cost: Cost was a weighted summation of slope (less is more expensive). 3) an animation illustrating the methodology used to 132 . and viewshed of the mountains (view of more peaks is more expensive).

The animation also showed the running tally of the total number of individuals of each species conserved. along with the total number of sites. rather then just looking at each site in isolation. The animation illustrated that an resource allocation model considers how all the sites combine with each other.] 133 . (Product Four is described below before Product Three for clarity in this paper. A square grid of 36 sites was draped over a sample distribution of four species. shown by icons. and combining it with a resource allocation site selection algorithm makes it even more complex.estimate this uncertainty and 4) maps designed to visualize the uncertainty. The conservation objective was to conserve two individuals of each species in a set of reserves using the least amount of land. The resource allocation approach only needed three sites to meet the objective. [More detail about the introductory modules are in Appendix A. while the species diversity approach needed five. but during the focus groups. and the solution was mapped in place of the species diversity solution.) Animation of the Concept of Maximizing Resource Allocation The two minute introductory animation was created because multi-criteria conservation planning is a complex concept. It stopped once the objective was met. The resource allocation approach was then described. Product Three was shown first. An animation showed the sequential conservation of sites in which the next site selected was the one with the highest species diversity.

another could be getting developed. yielding a total of two individuals of each species) can be nearly as efficient in resource conservation as the original standardset solution (three sites. The animation showed the selection of sites and tallying as per the first animation. Thus. it became apparent that if two of the previously ignored sites were conserved. Given this development. the example showed that the actual solution (only three sites needed. Sites could only be conserved one at a time. they would combine with the first site conserved to meet the objective. These landowners were approached and agreed to enter into conservation easements. with a total of two individuals of three species. and while one was being conserved. due to the dynamic nature of the socio-political landscape (implementation uncertainty) the best actual solution can have a very different spatial configuration compared to the original standard-set solution.Animation of the Significance of Implementation Uncertainty A second animation illustrated the significance of implementation uncertainty by using a real-world scenario of land ownership and development. Further. Such an effective solution would not have been possible if the conservation implementation was not so flexible and adaptive. 134 . and three individuals of the fourth species). During the first step of the scenario one site was being conserved while one of the other landowners identified by the original standard-set solution decided to develop their site. The species distribution and the standard-set solution from the previous animation were overlaid with land-ownership boundaries.

Zhang and Goodchild 2002. Aerts et al. 2003a). the resource allocation model could be programmed to identify twice as many sites as is the target. In the other direction. For instance. but it is difficult to know which ones due to implementation uncertainty. This approach combines a large number of model runs. A common method is based on a stochastic approach. While the usefulness of such an approach is suspect. To illustrate the Monte Carlo 135 . It could then be communicated that only about half of the sites mapped are conservation priorities. 2003a). and the estimate cannot be improved. whereas the uncertainty estimate of the Monte Carlo approach can be improved by doing more model runs (Heuvelink 1999). each time with slightly different input parameters that are varied randomly within some pre-defined limitations (Davis and Keller 1997. the Monte Carlo stochastic simulation was chosen to estimate and visualize implementation uncertainty. a similar version is revisited in the discussion. Crosetto and Tarantola 2001. Crosetto and Tarantola 2001. A Taylor series method is an alternative.Estimating and mapping implementation uncertainty There are a number of methods for estimating geographic uncertainty (Heuvelink 1999. A benefit of the Taylor series is that it does not require all of the model runs of a Monte Carlo analysis. there are simple approaches that can be employed to communicate uncertainty. Heuvelink 1999. such as a Monte Carlo analysis. Aerts et al. polynomial based approach that can be used in estimating the uncertainty of non-linear GIS operations by using an estimate of what the linear GIS operation would have been (Heuvelink 1999). But its approach is less intuitive. Due to these considerations.

a large number of alternative point location data layers can be generated by randomly selecting a value for each point based on its distribution curve. The rest of the data in this layer represent points that are within 100 meters of the actual location. The resource allocation model was performed given this new constraint to provide a realization. consider a resource allocation problem that requires three themes of input data to select the standard set. Thus. a probability density function can be derived that indicates the range of potential values and their likelihood of being the actual value. standard-set sites was delineated 136 . One theme uses a data layer in which only 10% of the point locations are within 1 meter of the true locations. if one of the original. these distribution curves can be programmed to vary for different areas of the study region or to be spatially uniform. Depending on the amount of ground-truth data collected to examine this uncertainty. and synthesizing all of these realizations. The resource allocation model is performed using the two other themes of data and one of these alternative input layers to create an output. Using this information.analysis. One way to model this is to simulate what the new standard-set would look like after some portion of the sites become developed. or realization. This synthesis can be a map representing the number of times in which a site was part of the realization’s standard set. The power lies in running the model for every alternative input layer. Each one of these input layers has the same likelihood of being the truth. It was assumed that a site may or may not be available for conservation by the time it is actually considered for conservation. For each point. The input parameter that was perturbed was the sites available for selection.

the process was repeated 120 times. grazing expansion. generating them would have lessened the time available for the project objective of clearly elucidating the issue of implementation uncertainty to decisionmakers so they can use the SDSS more responsibly. This value was correlated to how many 137 . But probability data were not available for all five human impacts (predicted urban expansion. For the perturbation. The 120 realizations were combined to create a synthesis layer. The biodiversity composition of this alternative site might make other standard-set sites redundant. it was decided to keep both objectives and use the random approach. then the resource allocation model would identify an alternative site. [For the method of how the sites were randomly selected see Appendix A: Selecting 50% of the sites]. suburban expansion. The most robust Monte Carlo approach would be for these sites to be selected based on their likelihood of development. There are potential data distributions such that the more robust approach would develop a different. In this case. A less robust approach would be to randomly select those sites and have the allocation model itself address development likelihood through its use of cost and human impact in creating the realization. oil extraction expansion). Because this research is just a first step in improving the treatment of implementation uncertainty in SDSS. and more accurate answer. The more times the process is repeated the more robust the results. so other new sites would be chosen. the set of sites chosen as unavailable for conservation totaled 50% of the total sites. Further. such that each site had a single value (Equation 1).as unavailable for conservation. agricultural expansion.

there was additional information useful in scoring each site. some sites had more or less than 60 opportunities to be selected as a conservation priority) [See Appendix A: Monte Carlo Synthesis].e. and the sites selected first have a higher initial conservation value then the sites selected last. The synthesis layer formula was as follows: (1) Ui = 3 T ⋅ Ai ∑ r =1 R 3 T + 1 − Gir Ui = Implementation-uncertainty value of site i T = Number of standard sites selected in each realization A = Total number of realizations that site i was designated in the input layer as available for conservation R = Number of realizations G = The ranking of the site in the greedy analysis The implementation-uncertainty map was created based on this layer. The heuristic selects sites sequentially in deriving its solution set. as it assumes that all sites are available for conservation and thus biases against sites that are similar to the top ranked sites. With the particular resource allocation algorithm used for this model (a greedy heuristic). The last issue addressed was that counting the frequency and/or rank of site selection ignores the influence of random selection (i. This ranking influence was tempered though. There are several different cartographic approaches that could be used to map composite 138 .realizations had the site selected as a conservation priority.

pattern. Bertin (1983) identified six visual variables: shape. but also on understanding the Monte Carlo approach itself. orientation. and the alternative sites identified by the implementationuncertainty analysis were shown also. fog. and resolution (MacEachren 1992). and the solution of the standard run was shown. A grid of the entire region was shown. The standard-set sites were shown uniformly in highest saturation. in decreasing levels of saturation proportional to their certainty value. Saturation was used for this study. A reminder screen of the second animation in which some landowners are not willing sellers was provided. at some time in the future. hue.results of uncertainty. Then a random selection of 50% of 139 . 1994) as well as “focus. and gray-tone value. This value indicates the relative likelihood that. Other promising variables are “abstraction” (Van der Wel et al. Description of the Monte Carlo Animation A third animation was created to illustrate the Monte Carlo methodology. It was realized that understanding the implementation-uncertainty maps might hinge not only on understanding the problem. fill clarity. the site would be part of the new standard-set if the resource allocation model where performed at that time. Experimental results indicate that the variables of texture and saturation may be best utilized in expressing the issues of uncertainty (Leitner and Buttenfield 2000). The decision to have the standard-set sites with a uniform saturation rather than varied based on their certainty value was due to preliminary concerns from end-users about the complexity of the overall approach. size.” with its manipulations available in contour crispness.

findings from the focus groups may not generalize to the entire population of possible end-users. and to develop other hypotheses (Gibbs 1997. to suggest potential general findings that can be explored elsewhere. The agenda was designed to include assessment of the following questions: 1) How well do the three animations communicate the implementationuncertainty issue? 2) What is the perceived message and utility of the implementation-uncertainty map compared to the standard map? All members of the three advisory groups of Phase I were invited to a respective focus group meeting. and it was explained that they would be layered on top of each other to create the composite. Instead. implementation-uncertainty map. to develop theory. Methods of Phase III: Focus Groups Focus groups were used to explore and evaluate the research questions (Gibbs 1997. the new resource allocation solution was determined and shown (a realization). To be clear. focus groups are used to identify interpretations. Such generalizations were beyond the scope of this research. Then several other realizations were shown in increasingly rapid animated succession. Given this constraint. and are likely not even possible due to factors that are specific to each context.the sites were mapped and classified as eventually having unwilling sellers. Litosseliti 2003). Litosseliti 2003). The products of Phase II were presented to each group for 140 . The primary objective of the focus groups was to assess the method for communicating uncertainty.

with key words or questions (Litosseliti 2003). general questions preceding more difficult ones. [Appendix A insert available: Additional Focus Group Methodology] RESULTS Results of Phase I and II: Conservation Planning Analysis and the Products for Communicating Implementation Uncertainty The result of Phase I pertinent to this study was the standard map. Litosseliti 2003.discussion. The actual map portrayed the standard sites for the entire region. com. 3) carefully sequenced with easier. A simplified portion of the standard map was provided earlier as Fig 10. Phase II entailed development of the introductory animations and the implementation-uncertainty 141 . 2) neutral so that they did not influence the answer. Abridged coded transcripts with analytical categories were created from the video recordings (Litosseliti 2003). Goodchild 2004). and had several base layers for reference such as roads. Voluntary questionnaires and comment pages were provided to augment the focus groups. and 5) complemented with a similar question in case the original question did not invoke discussion (Proctor 1998a. One of the researchers was the focus group moderator. but not enough were completed to be useful. See Gallo (2006) for more information about the focus group methodology. and labels. The topic guide questions were 1) clearly formulated and easily understood. and followed a topic guide of issues to be explored during the session. cities. 4) ordered so that less intimate topics preceded the more personal questions. A. Langford and McDonagh 2003. pers. water bodies.

and described further along with a gleaning of relevant quotes. Draft versions of the three introductory animations were created in PowerPoint. Most users 142 .maps. with an associated soundtrack. A simplified portion of the implementation-uncertainty map is presented in Fig 11. [Appendix A insert available: Additional Details for the Results of Phase I and II] Figure 11: Simplified portion of the Implementation-Uncertainty Map Results of Phase III: Focus Groups and Questionnaires Summary The focus group results are summarized here in Table 1. The resource allocation model and implementation-uncertainty animations were considered quite helpful.

the consensus of each group was that the implementation-uncertainty map was a significant improvement to the standard map. The prevailing interpretation of the implementation-uncertainty map was that while there is an original set of the best sites to conserve at the moment. these alternative sites are worth considering for conservation. They also shared the knowledge that the information is less precise than originally presented. Further. This understanding was much more consistent with the reality of the situation. So. presenting the uncertainty caused people with varying level of expertise to get a similar and fuller understanding of the information. At that point they began to understand the implications. especially if some of the original standard-set sites turn out to not be available.were unaware the issue of implementation uncertainty until it was explained. 143 . depending on how things go. in essence. there is also a set of alternatives that might actually be the best sites in the future. Consequently.

the resource allocation animation was clearly understood.Table 1: Summary of focus group evaluations Ecological Product Animation of Resource Allocation Animation of Implementation Helpful Uncertainty Animation of Monte Carlo Method Implementation-Uncertainty Map compared to Standard Map Complex. The end-user was originally aware of this distinction. However. Complex. Specifically. unnecessary Substantial Improvement metaphor not clear. This mild confusion was not about the message being conveyed by the animation. Helpful. icons of oak trees and pine trees were used in the animation to symbolize rare species to be conserved. Limits to Helpful metaphor not clear. but then doubted their knowledge when the animation was shown. 144 . But the actual model does not consider individual locations of common trees such as pines and oaks. Limits to Helpful Not Evaluated unnecessary Substantial Improvement Substantial Improvement The Three Animations The three animations had mixed reviews. Overall. there was a question from a member of the CCP group requesting clarification about a minor detail. only rare plants. Land-use Group Helpful CCP Group Group Helpful.

“I don't grasp it though. with blacked out squares. Regarding the message of the animation itself. both new housing and oil fields. whereas strip mall development will. and the methodology could simply 145 .” Most importantly. which is not true. people felt it was useful in illustrating a problem they had not thought about before. was too complex. and was difficult to understand. and calculates the ecological impact of various development types (Davis et al. the participant erroneously assumed that the animation was acting as a complete metaphor for all of the detail of the model: “I'm not sure that oil field development is going to black out every species. Meanwhile.” More careful consideration of this metaphor issue should be employed in future iterations. the actual model addresses this nuance. As with the previous issue. The concept of the uncertainty animation was understood by all three groups. all biodiversity value of the site is lost. it seems to me that if you were to do random development that you would eliminate all of those sites eventually. The CCP focus group suggested that the problem was illustrated in the second animation. it was felt to be unnecessary. It was clear that people were confused. This implied that when development occurs. It provided too much information. but a member of the land-use group had some constructive criticism. The animation simulated all development.but by how far the metaphor of the animation extended to the detailed methodology of the actual model. especially by the notion that random selection in part of the process could still lead to a prioritization of sites. The CCP group and the ecological group both rejected the Monte Carlo animation for a variety of reasons. 2006).

The CCP focus group strongly preferred the implementationuncertainty map over the standard map. In an effort to allow for more time for discussion of the other focus group objectives and for applied issues. this animation was not shown in the land-use group. So you can get the bigger picture. The Ecological Advisors agreed with this suggestion. Similar to the CCP group.‘its that region.’ [or] ‘ its that area. it suggests that we can be a little choosy. because of the timing. the larger set of opportunities was preferred because it showed more opportunities: “When you have a [black] site surrounded by a bunch of [grey] sites. it seems like you would want to have first and second priorities for alternatives with the idea that some of your second tier selections. or maybe somebody’s particular interest or whether you can get wide public support for it. or funding for a particular property. it is useful to have bigger areas identified: "I like having alternatives like that defined. there was also much more support for the implementation-uncertainty map than the standard map. Implementation-uncertainty Map The three groups evaluated the implementation-uncertainty map in comparison to the standard map. Similarly. There was excitement that the implementation-uncertainty map showed opportunities for conservation if some of the standard-set sites were to be developed before they could be conserved.’" 146 . so yeah. “Opportunities will be based more on whether you have a cooperative land owner.” Further.’” In the Ecological focus group. support was based in part on the idea that it is useful to show alternatives. instead of saying ‘we have to have this ranch.be summarized by a bulleted slide and few sentences instead of its own animation.

when it comes down to it. you got a lot of invasives coming in because you have so much edge. can’t go in and do a whole lot. . and not for one of the [black] ones.you have an option for one of the [grey sites]. you wouldn't know unless you had this map. We like to bias ourselves towards large areas. you get to that minimum area issue where doing conservation on small areas is very costly. . Again. “For a very practical perspective. if you have a situation where . it depends on if someone wants to sell their property or not. For instance.The Land-Use focus group also strongly preferred the implementationuncertainty map over the standard map. you can’t really manage for natural processes. and the abridged coded transcript is available upon request. and say this is a high priority area. they perceived it as increasing the utility of the tool by providing alternatives.” [A more complete narrative of quotes is available in Appendix A. you could show this map. This gives us more options.” Again. “when you are trying to do conservation. they liked having bigger areas to target.] 147 . and if you were to go to a funder. and this is more of what we call the landscape scale than the other one. both due to economies of scale and for the ecological objective of core areas. Being a pragmatist.

it is the implementation-uncertainty map and the animations. This perception is not as simple and ‘black-and-white’ as it was before 148 . Interpretants 3 and 4 are not aware of the implementation uncertainty issue and have similar but slightly different interpretations of the map due to different cognitive abilities. Interpretant 1 could be the GIS modeler who performed the analysis. it is the conservation priorities of a region. In the top group the sign-vehicle is the standard map. In the top group of Fig 12. This similar understanding is especially useful in facilitating effective collaboration (MacEachren and Brewer 2004). in the bottom group. The signvehicle is the media representing the referent. understands implementation uncertainty. The interpretant is the meaning that the end-user derives from the sign-vehicle and referent relationship. but only has the final output and has no idea which other sites might be viable alternatives. Interpretant 2 could be the savvy end-user who understands resource allocation modeling and the concept of implementation uncertainty. A tight grouping of interpretants indicates a similar understanding among end-users about the referent. and also can look at intermediate data to estimate which sites might be viable alternatives.Visualization of Results: Grouped-Semiotic Triangles The results of the focus groups can be visualized by grouped semiotic triangles (MacEachren and Brewer 2004) (Fig 12). In this case. The referent signifies the real world issue in question. The bottom group illustrates how the end-users have a more similar and more accurate perception of the referent.

They made the assumption that if a particular standard site turns out to be unavailable for purchase in the real 149 .for interpretants 3 and 4. Note: The grid represents the maps. (Adapted from MacEachren and Brewer 2004). Figure 12: Grouped semiotic triangles of the Standard Map (top) and the Implementation-Uncertainty Map and animations (bottom). People did not seem to fully understand the solution set concept. There was one issue in which the communication approach fell short. and the video camera symbol represents the animations. but it is cognizant of the nuances of implementation uncertainty.

Improving such products and processes appears to be an under-estimated opportunity for easily enhancing the real world utility of SDSS. and of clearly identifying what part of the modeling process they illustrate. This study highlighted the importance of the animations. DISCUSSION The results indicate that the devised method for estimating and communicating implementation-uncertainty has several apparent benefits.world. The communication products and process used will have a significant influence on the end-user’s understanding. Further. then the nearby sites identified in the uncertainty analysis would be good alternatives. as in the case of landuse planning. it is not automatically the case. and thus.any uncertainty analysis must be presented somehow to endusers. Some of the nearby sites might be very different from the standard site. conservation of a standard site). very poor replacements. It allows end-users to better understand the limits of the SDSS and the alternatives to the suggested decisions (in this case. This understanding should lead to a more appropriate use of resource allocation outputs as well as facilitate communication and collaboration among end-users. At stake are millions of dollars in the example of retail location decisions. The results regarding the animations illustrate the importance of an obvious but oft-overlooked fact-. While Tobler’s first law of geography indicates that proximity is a good surrogate for similarity (Tobler 1970). if the scope 150 . or the public good.

Many people are skeptical or mistrusting of models. Modeling implementation uncertainty appeared to ease these tensions. The current method does not attempt to identify which of the non-standard-set sites are more strongly associated with each other and with particular standard-set sites. This empowerment likely leads to engagement and effective implementation.for designing the uncertainty analysis includes designing the communication process. they concede that their model is not immune to the unpredictable and dynamic complexity of humanenvironment interactions. This concession empowers the validity of the end-user’s common-sense and implicit knowledge. Preliminary research indicates that both this fuzziness and this concession of fallibility should calm situations where the release of traditional conservation priority maps were inflammatory to stakeholders with entrenched positions (Gallo In Prep). then there is a greater likelihood of cohesion between the two. Reflection upon the focus group experience led to a hypothesized benefit of the method. A related issue is that the implementation-uncertainty outputs are fuzzier then the traditional outputs. Perhaps this is because when scientists acknowledge such uncertainty by mapping it. The end-users seemed to view conservation of a high certainty alternative site as nearly equivalent to conserving a 151 . Improvements to the approach via visualization The misperception mentioned about proximal substitutability is indicative of what could be the weakest part of the method.

A larger set of model runs would be needed for this to draw from. It could be subtly reinforced by changing the label of “Alternative Sites” to “sites of the Alternative Solution Sets. A simple response to the solution set issue problem mentioned would be to provide a look-up table of the ecological values of each site. and encourage the enduser to look for similar matches when a site becomes unavailable. This is problematic though.” Regarding modeling. the only realizations synthesized in a computer generated implementation-uncertainty map are those with an input layer matching the changed conditions. when it could be completely redundant to some of the other sites already conserved and computationally useless. a script could be created such that when changes to the standard set are made. This could be done by overlaying all of the realizations that occurred when that site was randomly chosen as ‘not available for conservation. This problem could be addressed via better communication. and the cartographic designation of standard-set sites would need to be boundary only. One option briefly overviewed in the body and slightly expanded here. not fill.standard-set site. because several of the criteria are based on spatial variables which don’t translate well into look-up tables. An example communication approach would be a simple animation illustrating the issue. A visualization technique for identifying correlation could be used.’ 152 . would be to look at which set of sites would be best to attain if a particular optimal site becomes unavailable. The question would then be how to do it in such a way that the output is not too complex to be useful.

[A few other potential improvements are provided in Appendix A] 153 . rather then being mapped as black. it seems that visually similar groups of sites will emerge. each with their associated hue. it just postpones it one time step. The problem with this approach is that it does not negate the problem of implementation uncertainty. Thus. with a low saturation used. with the new overlay score determining the fill color. very common sites would again have high saturation.The standard-set sites. and minimizes it thereafter. Further. with an emphasis on the vertical hatching. but this would be due to overlapping of many different hatchings and background colors. but also which of the standard-set sites are no longer part of the solution. When hatching angles were the same. then the two sets of lines would overlap as one line. In such a technique. This output could be created for every optimal site and provided to the client. could be mapped as having a black and white dashed boundary. such as a group of sites that are varying shades of red and orange. One technique that might work for several time steps would be as follows. each one of the realizations would be represented by a unique combination of hatching angle and hue. A function could be programmed such that the new line represented would have an increased saturation and/or increased value (making a darker hue). This would indicating to the viewer that if one such site is conserved then others in that group should probably be targeted. This way the end-user could not only see which non-standard sites are part of the solution when the site in question is not available. Sites that were chosen in two realizations would be represented by two hatching angles.

To get these data. oil development. this second order uncertainty was not communicated to the end-users. just that it is more than 50% likely. it would be best to re-program the different threat sub-models (urban outgrowth. agricultural expansion. rather than a random sample. the selection of the sites used in the Monte Carlo analysis should have been based on the inverse of a modeled likelihood of development. As discussed in the methods. and grazing expansion) so that they provide an output indicating probability. The highest impact land use that is likely for that cell is the one assigned for the 2050 human impact layer. As an intermediate 154 . this implementation-uncertainty value was communicated as a relative indicator. and not a quantitative value. and threat to that cell is the difference in human impact from the year 2000 to the year 2050. sub-urban growth. The model does not indicate if the change is 99% likely or only 51% likely. Similar to the decision not to show the certainty value of the standard-set sites. Practitioners should be aware of these issued though. This would also require a larger number of realizations to get a sufficient sample size of runs in which the sites with high development potential were available for conservation. This is because there are several sources of uncertainty in the way it was derived.Improving the uncertainty analysis and evaluation Because this is a proof of concept application. The current threat model only looks at if the human land-use at particular 100 m cell is more likely to change to a higher impact use by the year 2050. Such a model would entail adding probabilities to the current threat model. or more likely to stay the same.

the focus group participants knew 155 . This is because the heuristic usually does not arrive at the true optimal solution and thus has some degree of uncertainty. then a sensitivity analysis of the heuristic should also be performed and integrated with the implementation-uncertainty analysis. such as the cost layer. rather then on a resource allocation model that uses a heuristic. the findings themselves have a degree of uncertainty. All of the results could then be overlaid to get a composite layer indicating the uncertainty of the greedy heuristic output. so the composite layer represents both the effects of this uncertainty and the effects of the implementationuncertainty. the animations might not have been as understandable. However. This could be repeated for the second to last site. Finally. If an end-user had no prior experience at all in planning. If a greedy heuristic needs to be used in an approach that is beyond a proof-of concept. a gross surrogate for threat could be used.alternative. Such an analysis could be to take the last site chosen in the standard set. using the assumption that areas of high cost are of high value. and so on. Secondly. it is assumed that most end-users with significant decision-making abilities would have some knowledge of land-use planning. and then using the last two sites to start off. The focus group participants knew the project and field. Secondly. and areas of high value are more likely to get developed then areas of low value. it would be best to perform such an analysis using an optimal resource allocation model that uses integer linear programming. This uncertainty propagates through the Monte Carlo analysis. and run the greedy algorithm again but forcing it to choose that site first.

a related cost and benefit evaluation could compare the implementation-uncertainty approach presented here with a simple surrogate for general uncertainty. For instance. Most of the findings are likely transferable. In the greedy heuristic. Further.each other and were working together also as advisors. it would be good to tally the costs for improving the visualization versus those of improving the accuracy of the uncertainty analysis. For instance. In both of these 156 . and they also identify sites that were close to being considered in this estimated standard set. In the other direction. the findings are region and context specific. In a simulated annealing heuristic (Murray and Church 1996). these are the next several sites that would be selected after the target number of sites have been reached. if the above two research directions were pursued. Thirdly.” This problem was anticipated and addressed: participants were reminded to ask any question at all. these near misses are the ones identified in the local optima solutions but not in the standard set. Improvements to the approach by prioritizing efforts Another research direction would be in comparing the costs and benefits of efforts in SDSS development towards communicating uncertainty to those of reducing it. most resource allocation heuristics provide a standard set that is an estimate of the true optimal set. but the contextual factors determining this transferability have not yet been clarified or valued. initial examples of such questions were praised as helpful and candid. and that asking a basic question is commendable. One of the repercussions of such a scenario was that they may be less likely to ask questions that might be perceived as “dumb.

cases. It occurs when a SDSS plan is implemented incrementally by end-users while conditions are changing. but they might have similar spatial distributions. It would be good to characterize the statistical similarity between these alternate approaches of displaying uncertainty. end-users were not consciously aware of implementation uncertainty or its effects on the original model outputs. End-users adapt to these dynamic conditions. We devised a method for communicating the issue and estimating the usefulness of alternative decisions. and the actual sites that it affected most. True to expectations. and deviations from the plan almost certainly occur. Presentation of the uncertainty and its effects through relatively straightforward techniques changed their understanding. 157 . This more accurate understanding facilitates wiser allocation of resources. these alternative sites were not identified based on implementation uncertainty per se. Re-iteration of the SDSS is often not feasible. CONCLUSION This paper explores a type of uncertainty that has not been explicitly addressed before. This implementation uncertainty can be ignored or acknowledged in some way. The similarity will likely be lower in cases where there is a high degree of irreplaceability among the standard set. so it becomes uncertain what the next best steps would be given the changed conditions. the overarching goal of a spatial decision support system. It brought all the end-users to a similar and more complete knowledge of the issue of implementation uncertainty.

Keith C. Akcakaya. Georgina M. "Making Consistent IUCN Classifications under Uncertainty.There are opportunities for further research in improving both the method and its evaluation. including a simple program that can provide updated outputs based on changing conditions. Burgman.] REFERENCES Aerts. and Visualization techniques. Clarke and Alex D. Keuper (2003b). Evaluation improvements include increasing the sample size of participants and regions evaluated. Todd (2000).. Mace and Charles R." Transactions in GIS 7(2): 211-230. and Wisdom is in Appendix A. Spatial Decision Support for Resource Allocation." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1001-1013.. Resit. J. David A. and better comparing the costs and benefits of the different approaches. H. Aerts. (2002). Enhancements vary in scope and complexity. Knowledge. Keith. Scott Ferson. "Testing Popular Visualization Techniques for Representing Model Uncertainty. Jeroen C. Netherlands. Heuvelink (2003a)." Cartography and Geographic Information Science 30(3): 249-261. Integration of Optimization. [Some preliminary Discussion about Uncertainty. Amsterdam. H. "Accounting for spatial uncertainty in optimization with spatial decision support systems. J. 158 . Aerts. University of Amsterdam. M. J. Evaluation would be most useful if it is based on the wisdom of decisions made or at least the improved knowledge of end users rather than simply the accuracy of the uncertainty analysis. Uncertainty analysis. Goodchild and G. Mark A.

W." BioScience 46(11): 845-855. CA. Gretchen C. Olsson (2003). Arnberg and J. Daily.. Ronnback.15231739. G. S.com/Files_Publications/Road_Map_for_Ecol ogical_Majority_AE. M. P." PNAS 103(14): 5403-5408. American_Environics (2006). Oakland. Lazdinis. and the Nathan Cummings Foundation.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/14/5403 Balmford. Ostman. I.. Andrew and William Bond (2005).2000. A. Angelstam. American Environics.http://www. B.. Toward a New Ecological Majority: Summary and Overview. "From the Cover: Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. Sanchirico (2006). "Two-dimensional gap analysis: A tool for efficient conservation planning and biodiversity policy implementation. http://www. The Nature Conservancy: 1-43. 159 .pnas. "Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Roberge. J.1046/j. F. (1996). M. P.99125. Davis and D Stoms (1999)." Ambio 32(8): 527-534. Mikusinski.americanenvironics. Paul R.blackwell-synergy.pdf Andelman. Peter Kareiva and James N. "Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being." Ecology Letters 8(11): 1218-1234. Earthjustice. http://www.com/doi/abs/10. I Ball. SITES V 1: An analytical Toolbox for developping conservation portfolios. <Go to ISI>://000189317900006 Armsworth.x Alpert.

" Journal of Wildlife Management 59(2): 228-237. Suzana and S.x 160 . Choate and R.1111/j. (1995). <Go to ISI>://000189363400007 Beier.15231739.x Balram. D.1111/j. E.x Balmford. Ben-Haim. http://www. http://www.2005. "A collaborative GIS method for integrating local and technical knowledge in establishing biodiversity conservation priorities. H..00434. "Movement Patterns of Mountain Lions During Different Behaviors.00814.2004.1523-1739. Beier.1111/j. D. Info-gap decision theory : decisions under severe uncertainty.http://www. Andrew and Richard M. Berkes. Dragicevic (2004).com/doi/abs/10." Journal of Mammalogy 76(4): 10561070." Conservation Biology 20(3): 692-695.blackwellsynergy. Yakov and Yakov Ben-Haim (2006). S.00077. "Dispersal of Juvenile Cougars in Fragmented Habitat." Biodiversity and Conservation 13(6): 1195-1208. P. "Rethinking Community-Based Conservation.14610248.2006. Barrett (1995).com/doi/abs/10." Conservation Biology 18(3): 621-630.blackwell-synergy. Cowling (2006). P. Academic. Oxford. "Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation Biology.com/doi/abs/10..blackwell-synergy. Fikret (2004).

.K. Cambridge. Biodiversity_and_Conservation_Journal (2005). S." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2507-2820. Wilshusen. Elsevier Science: 155-168. Developing Innovative Information Systems Services Together with Wide Audience End-Users." Conservation Biology 16(1): 4-6. C.blackwellsynergy. Marttiin and T. Tuunanen (2005). Frontiers in Ecology: Building the Links. Contested nature : promoting international biodiversity conservation with social justice in the twenty-first century. Bragge. State University of New York Press: xvi. P. New York.Berkes. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. R. J..com/doi/abs/10. Carol (2002). http://www. R. Fortwangler and P. Brechin. Fikret. Binning.x 161 . C. Brewer. (1997). "Special Issue: Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Albany. Brechin. 321. Steven R. (2003). Klomp and I. West. Lunt. Cambridge University Press. Beyond reserves: options for achieving nature conservation objectives in rural landscapes.01613. P. Oxford. Preface.1046/j. L.1523-1739. C. N. E. Johan Colding and Carl Folke (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems : building resilience for complexity and change. U.2002. "Outreach and Partnership Programs for Conservation Education Where Endangered Species Conservation and Research Occur.

and Innovation. Mayer-Schönberger (2000). Christopher M.." The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries 1(1): 1-15.blackwell-synergy.blackwellsynergy. Brooks.x Brosius. and D Russell (2003)." Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17(1-2): 39-66.1111/j. Learning. G. http://www. Dominique." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1337-1339." Organization Science 2(1): 40-57." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1528-1538. Ian (2006). http://dx. "Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. http://www. Bruce Lewenstein and Rick Bonney (2005).1080/09500690500069483 Brown. John Seely and Paul Duguid (1991).1523-1739.2006." International Journal of Science Education 27(9): 1099-1121.00506.15231739. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working. and V.1111/j. Mark N.x Brodnig. Grote and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder (2006). Margaret A.com/doi/abs/10.Bride.org/10. Jeremy S. "Bridging the Gap: The Role of Spatial Information Technologies in the Integration of Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Western Science.doi. Holmes. J. 162 .P. "The Conundrum of Conservation Education and the Conservation Mission.com/doi/abs/10. "Conservation from Above: An Anthropological Perspective on Transboundary Protected Areas and Ecoregional Planning. Brossard.00544.2006. "Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. Franzen.

" Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(5): 242-248. England . A. <Go to ISI>://000079378100012 Butler. http://www. Keith. Visualization in geographical information systems. Wiley & Sons: xiv.sciencedirect. http://dx. A.0. J. <Go to ISI>://000181396700001 Burgman. P. K." Biological Conservation 89(2): 227-231. Todd (1999). West Sussex.com/science/article/B6VJ1-42RMMHVR/2/991f89e2a2a73ea2fa11e082917da7bd Carr. Unwin. B.doi. 243. Declan (2005). "Probabilistic classification rules for setting conservation priorities. H.http://links.doi. M. "Why do we all need community science?" Society & Natural Resources 17(9): 841-849. (2004).org/sici?sici=10477039%281991%292%3A1%3C40%3AOLACTA%3E2. "Virtual globes: The web-wide world. F. <Go to ISI>://000223843400005 163 . L. (2003). New York. and M. R." Global Ecology and Biogeography 12(2): 89-92.. Hearnshaw and D. Graphical and geographical components of data quality. A. Rohlf and C.1038/439776a Buttenfield ." Nature 438(7068): 548-549. "Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation. Cabeza. Mar and Atte Moilanen (2001).CO%3B2-3 Brown. D. "Science in the web age: Joint efforts. J. "Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. J." Nature 439(7078): 776-778. Beard (1994).org/10. K. http://dx. M.org/10.jstor. Declan (2006). Chichester.1038/438548a Butler.

164 .conceptioncoast. CCP. "The Future of Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Information: developing a research agenda for the 21st Century. W. Davis (2006)." Retrieved Jan. Honzák. Steve (2003). Spoleto Italy. A. G.ecologyandsociety. "The Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network. Thomas. Castellanet. www. [online] URL: http://www. Position paper prepared for ESF-NSF Meeting on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information. D.cbnrm. Da Fonseca. Jordan (2002)..org/vol11/iss2/art40/ Christensen. "Viable reserve networks arise from individual landholder responses to conservation incentives.net. K. Charlotte Landau. T.Carver. Participatory action research in natural resource management : a critique of the method based on five years' experience in the Transamazãonica Region of Brazil. Alger.net/index.newwest.php/topic/article/3003/C38/L38." URISA Journal 15(1): 61-71. White House Conservation Conference: Song of the Conservation Brain Trust. E. Wayt Thomas and F. S. 2001. B. 5. New York. Taylor & Francis. (2005). (2006." Retrieved May 1. from www. M.org. December 5–9. 6). M. from www. 2007. J. "Conception Coast Project." Ecology and Society 11(2): 40. Chomitz.net. (2006). Stoms. M. New West Environment. Dec. 2006. K. Christian and Carl F. cbnrm.

B. Polasky (2004). W. Bonner. R. and Mark I. P. "Reserve Selection as a Maximal Covering Location Problem. 2006.. Crane. London .crowleyoffroad. Cohen." Conservation Commons. Retrieved Oct.htm.. Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling. O. Kenneth E. 2003. P. Crane (2002). Parks and M. 26. D. "The Green Land-Grabbers: It's Not Just the Feds Who Are After Your Land. B.org.conservationmaps. Clarke. "Conservation Geoportal: Discover and Publish Conservation Maps and Data. K. "Dynamic reserve site selection. from www." Resource and Energy Economics 26(2): 157-174.com/green_land_grabbers. Chapter 12: The Banff Statement.msu. Urban and regional technology planning : planning practice in the global knowledge economy.edu/user/wilsonmm/planningpractice. Wilson (2006). Corey. 10. C. Retrieved Dec. Upper Saddle River. K. Prentice Hall. Davis (1996). (2001). M. NJ." Biological Conservation 76(2): 105112. O. C. L. C. Clarke. Conservation_Geoportal." Capitol Research Center & Crowley-Offroad.html Costello. Stoms and F.Com. <Go to ISI>://000221071400005 165 . (2006). Routledge. Parks and M. and S. New York. from http://www.. http://www.Church.

Fabricius and N." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(5): 415-437. L L Hill and T R Smith (2003). H and M Monmonier (1995). "Using SUSS to resolve NIMBY: How spatial support systems can help with the "not in my backyard" syndrome. South Africa. http://uclibs. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS-based model implementation. R. http://dx. G. Crosetto. "Developing an infrastructure for sharing environmental models. <Go to ISI>://000234561400019 166 ." Geographical Systems 2: 83-101. Marti (2005). "Foghorns to the future: Using knowledge and transdisciplinarity to navigate complex systems.envplan. S J. R. Access restricted to subscribing institutions.org/10.com/abstract. "A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot-the Cape Floristic Region. Pressey.. M.doi.1080/13658810110053125 Crosier. M F Goodchild." Ecology and Society 10(2): -. M." Biological Conservation 112: 191-216. N. Rouget and A. R. H (2003). Lombard. Michele and Stefano Tarantola (2001).501. http://www.Couclelis. T.cgi?id=b12831 Cundill. L.. (2003)." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30(4): 487 . "The Certainty of Uncertainty: GIS and the Limits of Geographic Knowledge " Transactions in GIS 7(2): 165-175. Cowling. C.org/PID/12111 Couclelis.

C. J. Santa Barbara. Steven E. Ross Gerrard." Ecology and Society 11(1): 33. Finn. "Efficient conservation in a utility-maximization framework.Dalton. Danilo S. Stoms. Frank W. (2006). http://www. Carlo Custodio and Martin Enghoff (2005). Stoms. T. National Center for Ecological Analysis and 167 . Josh Metz. Costello and D. M. "Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. <Go to ISI>://000232137900008 Daniels. Balete." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1392-1401. David M. Phillip A. "Does Monitoring Matter? A Quantitative Assessment of Management Decisions from Locally-based Monitoring of Protected Areas. CA." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(2): 71-102. Anson Tagtag. Alviola. W. Helen Regan and Richard Church (2003). Jensen. A framework for setting land conservation priorities using multi-criteria scoring and an optimal fund allocation strategy. F. Sandy Andelman.ecologyandsociety. Costello. Elia A. Chris J. and Gregg B..com/science/article/B6V9G-3VVT35H2/2/97b1a435e591074b56bd40517a19d772 Danielsen." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2633-2652.doi..1007/s10531-0058392-z Davis. Walker (1996).sciencedirect. http://www. http://dx.org/vol11/iss1/art33/ Davis. Marlynn Mendoza. Santa Barbara. "Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of US marine protected areas. University of California.org/10. M. Arne E. (2005). Machado.

Tony Norton and John W." Biodiversity and Conservation 5(10): 1143-1167. Longman Scientific & Technical . Raymond (2000). (1991). Maguire.Synthesis. Keller (1997).pdf Davis. Report to The Resources Agency of California. http://www. Stephen. D. <Go to ISI>://A1996VT21200002 Dovers.com/doi/abs/10.ucsb. R." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 509-526. uncertainty and policy : 168 . W. P. Northern Arizona University.J. Brett (2001).. Dickson. http://www. Harlow. ecology. J. England. Essex. Handmer (1996). "Modelling uncertainty in natural resource analysis using fuzzy sets and Monte Carlo simulation: Slope stability prediction. Ignorance. Home range and habitat selection by adult cougars in the Santa Ana Mountain range of Southern California. M. Norton and J.00181 Densham. and C. Ecology. Goodchild and D. S. T. Spatial Decision Support Systems.biogeog. Geographical information systems : principles and applications. and ecology: key themes. "Uncertainty.1111/0022-4537. "New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Expanding and Evaluating Motives for Environmentally Responsible Behavior.edu/pubs/Technical%20Reports/TerrBiod_framewo rk-report. uncertainty. F. W. Wiley. Handmer (2001)." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 11(5): 409-434. sustainability and policy. P. T. <Go to ISI>://A1997XJ76400001 De Young. J. Rhind.blackwellsynergy. Dovers.

Robbins. and A.1007/s10109004-0130-7 Drew. J." Ecology and Society 11(2): 34. "A Web GIS collaborative framework to structure and manage distributed planning processes. "Enhancing the Scientific Value of the Christmas Bird Count. Rosenberg.managing ecosystems for sustainability.org/plandev/comp/planareas/gaviota/res_study. J. Planning and Development Department. Washington DC. Smith (2005). A Perspective on Gaviota Coast Resources. Howe.0. Francis. http://dx.org/10." The Auk 122(1): 338-346. . Chandler S. P. John R. (2002).countyofsb.CO%3B2 EDAW. Peter J.asp 169 . T. Marshall A. Sauer and Kimberly G. C. http://www. Henne (2006). Prentice Hall: xv. Dragicevic." Journal of Geographical Systems 6(2): 133-153. Dovers. Denis Lepage. "Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice. [online] URL: http://www. Nature-friendly communities.doi. Kenneth V. Susan Roney Drennan. New York.doi. http://dx. and C. Inc. Snyder (2005). County of Santa Barbara. Charles M. England . Erica H.org/10. A. Biological Resources. Handmer. Island Press Dunn. J.ecologyandsociety. Blancher. Norton and S.1642%2F00048038%282005%29122%5B0338%3AETSVOT%5D2. 320. Suzana and Shivanand Balram (2004).org/vol11/iss2/art34/ Duerksen. Harlow.. W.

com/doi/abs/10.us. Retrieved Oct. Geoffrey. Palm Springs. "The Encyclopedia of Earth: Content.org.epa.2005. and Community.blackwellsynergy. Retrieved September 13.takingliberty. M..1111/j. http://gis. Shortridge and M. from www. David Cowen and Halkard Mackey (1995). (2006). from http://www.1523-1739. Environmental_Perspectives. http://www. R.esri. Laura Salmonsen and Peter P. 2006.eoearth. 26. 2007. California.00s01. Evans.htm.com/library/userconf/proc95/to100/p100. A. Goodchild (1997)." Conservation Biology 19(3): 589-594. "The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project. 2006. "Taking Liberty.html#Author Ehlschlaeger." Environmental Information Coalition and the National Council for Science and the Environment. Celia. Karin Roux. Design and Implementation of a Spatial Decision Support System for Site Selection. C. (2006). ESRI User Conference. Eleanor Abrams. "Visualizing Spatial Data Uncertainty Using Animation." American Land Foundation and Stewards of the Range. EOEARTH.Ehler. Retrieved March 19. Credibility. Robert Reitsma. from www. Marra (2005).x 170 . EPA. F. "Green Communities: Where Do We Want To Be?" US EPA." Computers & Geosciences 23(4): 387-395.gov/greenkit/intro3. (2005).

Ferraro.. H. 26. O. Carter. Conservation in the Internet age : threats and opportunities. M. N. and policy-based algorithms for conservation. (1999). J. DC. Fitzpatrick. Pattanayak (2006). Cassis. Island Press: xx. S. I.. <Go to ISI>://000237066500001 FGASA. Retrieved Sept. biodiversity viability analysis. Zang. D. Z." Field Guide Association of South Africa. John F. F. Geographical information systems. J. X. K. Messng." Catena 54(1-2): 271-288. Gill (2002). "Complementarity. P. "Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. 2006. D. "Membership and Naturalist Certification Level. Rhind. Wilkie (2003). New York. P. Andersson (2003). "A participatory approach for integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau. M. Olsson and C. P. Wen. Longley. Citizen Science. P. and S. and Frank P. Analysis and findings. G. M. Xu. from http://www. Birdsource: Using Birds. Goodchild. 364.fgasa. C.asp Fisher. G.Fagerstrom. Levitt. 171 . P." Plos Biology 4(4): 482488. John Wiley & Sons Inc. K. (2006). M.Part II. Models of uncertainty in spatial data. Ferrier and L. X. Maguire and D. and the Internet as Tools for Global Monitoring. Trouwborst.org. J. H." Environmental Science and Policy 6(3). <Go to ISI>://000187743900018 Faith.za/memberlist. China .: 219-233. Washington.F.

Flather, C. H., K. R. Wilson, D. J. Dean and W. C. McComb (1997). "Identifying Gaps in Conservation Networks - of Indicators and Uncertainty in Geographic-Based Analyses." Ecological Applications 7(2): 531-542. Fleming, B. and D. Henkel (2001). "Community-based ecological monitoring - A rapid appraisal approach." Journal of the American Planning Association 67(4): 456-465. Foreman, D, B Dugelby, J Humphrey, B Howard and A Holdsworth (2000a). "The Elements of a Wildlands Conservation Plan: An Example from the Sky Islands." Wild Earth 10(1). Foreman, D, B Dugelby, J Humphrey, B Howard, D. M. Johns and R Mondt (2000b). "Implementation of a Wildlands Network: An Example from the Sky Islands." Wild Earth 10(1). Foreman, D. (1999). "The wildlands project and the rewilding of North America." Denver University Law Review 76(2): 535-553. Foreman, Dave (2000). The Wildlands Project: A Vision for North America. J. Gallo. Goleta. Forester, John (1999). The deliberative practitioner : encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press. Forman, Richard T. T. (1995). Land mosaics : the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press. Froese, R., D. Lloris and S. Opitz (2004). The need to make scientific data publicly available; concerns and possible solutions. Fish Biodiversity: Local studies as

172

basis for global inferences. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report 14, . M.L.D. Palomares, B. Samb, T. Diouf, J.M. Vakily and D. Pauly: 268-271. http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/ifm-geomar/rfroese/ConcernsDataowners.pdf Fuller, I., S. Gaskin and I. Scott (2003). "Student perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork in the light of restricted access to the field, caused by Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK in 2001." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 27(1): 79-102. <Go to ISI>://000181682700007 Fuller, Kathryn. (2004, Nov. 4). "The Fuller Monty: Kathryn Fuller, president of WWF, answers Grist's questions." Daily Grist. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/01/fuller/index1.html http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/01/fuller/index.html. Gahegan, M. and B. Brodaric (2002). Examining Uncertainty in the Definition and Meaning of Geographical Categories. Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Melbourne, AU. http://www.geovista.psu.edu/publications/Brodaric/Accuracy2002_Gahegan Brodaric_Revised2.pdf Gallo, JA (unpublished). "ECPM Working Paper." contact: gallo.ja@gmail.com Gallo, J (2005). Mapping Uncertainty to Ease the Tension between Public Participation GIS and Conservation Planning. Proceedings of the 4th Annual

173

Public Participation GIS Conference, Cleveland State University. Cleveland, Ohio, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Gallo, John (2006). Reconnecting Society and Nature through Engaged Conservation Planning and Uncertainty Mapping. Department of Geography. Santa Barbara, California, University of California Santa Barbara. Gallo, John (In Prep). "Mapping the uncertainty of conservation planning as a means towards successful implementation." Gallo, John, James Studarus, Elia Machado and Greg Helms (2005). Regional Conservation Guide. Santa Barbara, CA, Conception Coast Project. http://www.conceptioncoast.org/projects_rcg.html Gardner, W. David. (2006, Dec. 19). "Ready To Demo: A $150 Laptop With A 'Complete Computing Experience' " Information Week: Business Innovation Powered by Technology. Retrieved Jan. 16, 2007, from http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196700914 GBIF. (2006a). "Global Biodiversity Information Facility occurrence data and Google Earth." Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006, from http://ge.gbif.net/ GBIF. (2006b, Jan. 16). "Terms and conditions for sharing and using data through GBIF network." Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Retrieved Jan. 15, 2007, from http://www.gbif.org/DataProviders/Agreements/. geodata.gov. (2006). "Geospatial One Stop: Your source of federal, state and local geographic data." fristgov.gov and e-gov. Retrieved Jan. 17, 2007, from http://gos2.geodata.gov/wps/portal/gos.

174

Gibbs, Anita (1997). Social Research Update. Focus Groups. Guildford, University of Surrey. 1: 7. Gillham, Bill (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York, Continuum. Glennon, Alan. (2006). "Virtual Globes: Rapid Reporting for Rapid Response." Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006, from http://www.turnhole.com/rapid/. GNO. (2006). "GeoNetwork Opensource: Geographic Datasharing for Everyone." Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006, from http://tecproda01.fao.org/geofoss_dvd/ Goodchild, Anne (2004). Phone Conversation about Focus Groups: Lessons from Experience. J. Gallo. Santa Barbara. Goodchild, M. (2000a). "Communicating geographic information in a digital age." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(2): 344-355. <Go to ISI>://000167130300005 Goodchild, M. F. (2000b). "Introduction: special issue on 'Uncertainty in geographic information systems'." Fuzzy Sets & Systems 113(1): 3-5. Goodchild , M. F. (2003). "Geographic information science and systems for environmental management." Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28: 493-519. Goodchild , M. F., B. Buttenfield and J. Wood (1994). Introduction to visualizing data validity. Visualization in geographical information systems. H. M. Hearnshaw, D. J. Unwin and Association for Geographical Information. Chichester, West Sussex, England ; New York, Wiley & Sons: xiv, 243.

175

Goodchild, M.F. and Ted J. Case (2001). Introduction. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. C. T. Hunsaker, M. F. Goodchild, M. A. Friedl and T. J. Case. New York, Springer: xiii, 402. Grenyer, Richard, et al. (2006). "Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates." Nature 444(7115): 93-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05237 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/suppinfo/nature05237_S1.html Grimm, Gary. (2006, Dec. 10). "Google Earth to River Menders video with music (Restoration)." Blip.tv. Retrieved Jan. 16, 2007, from http://blip.tv/file/113540 Haight, R. G., S. A. Snyder and C. S. Revelle (2005). "Metropolitan open-space protection with uncertain site availability." Conservation Biology 19(2): 327337. <Go to ISI>://000227647600010 Haklay, M. M. and C. Tobon (2003). "Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(6): 577-592. <Go to ISI>://000185178000004 Harry, M. and R. Schroeder (2000). Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations, Currency. Heuvelink, G.B.M. (1999). Propagation of error in spatial modeling with GIS. Geographical information systems. P. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire and D. Rhind. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.: 207-217.

176

Hoerl, R. W. (2001). "Six Sigma Black Belts: What Do They Need to Know?" Journal of Quality Technology 33(4): 391-406. Holling, C. S. (2001). "Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems." Ecosystems 4(5): 390-405. Access restricted. http://link.springerny.com/link/service/journals/10021/bibs/1004005/10040390.htm Access restricted. http://link.springerny.com/link/service/journals/10021/papers/1004005/10040390.pdf Access restricted. http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/10021/index.htm Holling, C.S. (1998). "Two cultures of ecology." Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2): 4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss2/art4/ Hunsberger, Carol (2004). Exploring links between citizen environmental monitoring and decision making: three Canadian case examples. Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/970 Huntington, H. P. (2000). "Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications." Ecological Applications 10(5): 1270-1274. Hutchinson, Judy and Avis C Vidal (2004). "Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice." Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): pg. 142. ICSU and UNESCO (2002). Science, Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development, The International Council for Science and the United Nations

177

"INSPIRE: INfrastructure for Spatial Infrastructure In Europe. New York. Alan (1995)." Journal of Applied Ecology 41(6): 1032-1041. Laurie (2001). "Contemporary public involvement: toward a strategic approach. Joerin. Musy (2001).sagepub." Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1-18. Johns.Educational. and sustainable development. Alan (2001). from http://www. conservation. "Using GIS and Outranking Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Suitability Analysis. M. "Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion. Irwin. <Go to ISI>://000225632800002 178 . 17. (2007.php?URL_ID=3521&URL_DO=DO_TOPI C&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1084527246 INSPIRE. "Growth. and the necessity of new alliances. Routledge. "Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Citizen science : a study of people. F.html.ecgis. D. (2003).com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/1 Jackson. J.. Scientific and Cultural Organization. and M." International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 15(2): 153-174. Johnson.unesco. Jan. P. Gillingham (2004). M." Local Environment 6(2): 135-147. Thériault and A. 2007. expertise." Retrieved Jan.org/inspire/home. Irwin.org/sc_nat/ev. http://portal. C. 12). http://pus." Conservation Biology 17(5): 1229-1237. London .

"WebGIS for Monitoring "Sudden Oak Death" in coastal California. VA.blackwellsynergy. Geography and geographers : AngloAmerican human geography since 1945. "New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. D. adaptive muddling and human-environment relationships. Selby. Scott A. R. Sidaway (2004). Oklahoma City. http://www. Chris Wilcox and Hugh P.html Kelley. Anthony.loc. 179 . Arnold.com/doi/abs/10. J. H. Joseph. London . J. and J. Geography. Possingham (2006). Kaplan. OK. (1990).00180 Keen. London .gov/catdir/toc/ecip058/2005003303. University of California. Meg.com/doi/abs/10.blackwellsynergy.00529. http://www. Santa Barbara. New York. Field.1523-1739. (2004). Study II: The Interpretation and Use of Uncertainty Metadata by Novices and Experts. Keuper. Alex D. Valerie A. Environmental Design Research Association." Conservation Biology 20(6): 1679-1687." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 491-508.2006. Coming of age. Doctoral Dissertation.1111/0022-4537. Sterling.1111/j. K. Being needed. Maggi and Karin Tuxen (2003). Social learning in environmental management : towards a sustainable future. N. Liana N.. http://www. Choi and B. Earthscan. S.x Kaplan. "Presence-Absence versus Abundance Data for Monitoring Threatened Species. Chapter 5.Johnston." Urban Systems 5: 527-547. Brown and Rob Dyball (2005). Stephen (2000). Orland.

Cowling. M. (2006b). M. Kling. Orion (Lead Author). 11. Cutler J. Rouget (In Prep). T. T. http://search. A. (2006. B. ". [First published October 31. "Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: Best practice from South Africa. "Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics. T. "Failing but learning: Writing the wrongs after Redford and Taber. M. Great Transition Initiative (Content Partner). T.ebscohost.gov/. R.nasa. "The implementation crisis in conservation planning." Conservation Biology 20(3): 739-750." Conservation Biology 20(4): 1312-1314.Kim. 16). A.. M. "An operational model for implementing conservation action." Corresponding author: AT Knight: tawnyfrogmouth@gmail.com Knight. Cowling and B. Eds. Cleveland (Washington. National Council for Science and the Environment). A. <Go to ISI>://000236064200019 Knight. D.: Environmental Information Coalition.. 2007. Rob (2000). <Go to ISI>://000238313200033 Kriegman. Retrieved Jan.com/login." In: .C. <Go to ISI>://000239545500043 Knight. 2006. A. Campbell. (2006). 2007. Cutler J. from http://worldwind.T Lombard and M. Last 180 . Randolph. "World Wind.." Information Society 16(3): 217-232." Conservation Biology 20(2): 408419." NASA. Oct. A. Cleveland (Topic Editor).aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3533085& site=ehost-live Knight. Campbell (2006a). Andrew Balmford. et al.arc. R.

and Deana McDonagh (2003). Joseph D. N. Levy. Island Press. (2000). Buttenfield (2000)." Volunteer Monitor 6(1): 14-16. Taylor & Francis. Levitt. "Global citizens movement. Oxford University Press. Reading.org/article/Global_citizens_movement. (2006). and B. Langford. 181 . London . Anchor Books. "Volunteer monitoring: brief history. V (1994). Conservation in the Internet age : threats and opportunities. Mass. and Roger Lewin (1996). science. Leakey. Leitner. T. Leopold. M. Retrieved February 26. (2002). Simon A. and wildlife: Using a web-based GIS to engage citizens in collecting wildlife information. John M.. James N. Aldo (1949). Fragile dominion : complexity and the commons. (1999). and Sketches here and there. Lee. S. Focus groups : supporting effective product development.J. The sixth extinction : patterns of life and the future of humankind.eoearth." Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 27(1): 3-14. 2007.revised January 28. Levin. Quinn and D. highways. A Sand County almanac. New York. Perseus Books. M. Upper Saddle River. Washington. Duke (2006). Richard E." Ecology and Society 11(1): -. New York. <Go to ISI>://000239121300008 Lee." Encyclopedia of Earth. DC... "Guidelines for the display of attribute certainty. Contemporary urban planning.. New York. Prentice Hall. "Citizen. 2007] http://www.

.F.C. G. Z. Maguire and D. http://www. Wu and Q. W. Loiselle. T. Jaqueline M. D. T. Using focus groups in research. John Morrison and Holly Strand (2004).J.blackwellsynergy. Jenny Springer. "The gateway shortest path problem: generating alternative routes for a corridor location problem.1523-1739. Sheng and L. From the Vision to the Ground: A guide to implementing ecoregion conservation in priority areas... 6421: 64211K.com/doi/abs/10.x Lombard.. Colby. Bette A. "A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge. H. Chichester. D. K.Litosseliti. Longley. Kusumanto. and values into 182 . Thomas Brooks. http://www. Evans. Wang (2006). Involving the public in spatial decision making using Internet GIS. Continuum. Sheil. Williams (2003)..W. preferences. D. Liu.2003. Washington." Geographic Systems 1(1): 25-45. Lia (2003). (2007).1111/j.cfm Lynam.00233. De Jong. Goodchild. "Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning. Zhu. Loucks. Sue Palminteri." Conservation Biology 17(6): 1591-1600. Kimberly G. and K. World Wildlife Fund: Conservation Science Program.org/science/ecoregions/landscapes. P. and R. New York. Christine A. London . Geographic information systems and science. Church (1993). Wiley. Howell. Catherine H. Goerck. M. Proceedings of SPIE: Geoinformatics 2006: Geospatial Information Technology. Graham. Rhind (2005). Smith and Paul H.worldwildlife.

"Mobilizing Grass-Roots Conservation Education: the Florida Master Naturalist Program.org/10. M. http://www. MacEachren. S. Marleen and Constant Dabgbegnon (1999)." Agriculture and Human Values 16(3): 267-280.1023/A:1007559903438 MacEachren. A. "Visualizing uncertain information." Urban Systems 29 (1): 3-14. Hetzler (2005). . http://www. R. Martin B.2004. A.. (2004). Gardner. Murray. Robinson.ecologyandsociety. Main. <Go to ISI>://000187841300001 MacEachren." Conservation Biology 18(1): 11-17." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18(1): 1-34." Ecology and Society 12(1): 5.decision making in natural resources management. "Visualizing Geospatial Information Uncertainty: What We Know and What We Need to Know.org/vol12/iss1/art5/ Maarleveld. DJ and P Longley (2005). M. Gahegan and E.01801.15231739. "Developing a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geocollaboration. A.x 183 . "The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial data infrastructures. http://dx. "Managing natural resources: A social learning perspective. and I. M. Brewer (2004). S.1111/j. A." Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32(3): 139-160. Hopper." Cartographic Perspectives 13: 10-19. Maguire. (1992).blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10. M.doi.

" Advances in Environmental Research 5(4): 385-393. London . Pressey (1988)." Urban Habitats 3(1). T. "Conservation and the social sciences. C. <Go to ISI>://000079928600008 McGinnis. C." Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650. "Using Citizen Science in Urban Bird Studies." Ecology Law Quarterly 25(4): 624-629.Margules. http://www. Frantz (2004). L. L." Nature 405(6783): 243-253. Brosius. "Local communities and the management of public forests. B. Dobson. Forbes. Pressey (2000). F. M. 184 . McKean and N. (2005). J. S. A. A.org/PID/16432 Mascia. <Go to ISI>://000227784800007 Mayfield.urbanhabitats. http://uclibs. A. Michael Vincent (1999). C. Bioregionalism. Horowitz.. "The roles of community networks in environmental monitoring and environmental informatics. <Go to ISI>://000183077800001 Mayer. "The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. R. Rachel E. C.. M. Access restricted. L. McCaffrey. M. B.. M. J. M. <Go to ISI>://A1988L700200005 Margules. O." Biological Conservation 43(1): 63-76. "Systematic conservation planning." Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4): 503-515. Nicholls and R. and C. Cowan (2001). Routledge. "Selecting Networks of Reserves to Maximize Biological Diversity.org McClosky. P. Joliat and D. New York. R. and R. Turner (2003). (1999).

(2005). "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. <Go to ISI>://000238313200012 Meir. M. Bradley R." Conservation Biology 20(3): 631-651.CO%3B2-0 Moilanen.x Moller. Henrik. Wintle. Agle and Donna J. Ronald K.0. Brendan A. Wood (1997).com/science/article/B6VJ1-4GCWYY42/2/641cc7a9344abd6ba3ea42657dcda039 Mitchell. http://www. F. <Go to ISI>://000222716600001 Miller. E.sciencedirect. P.. Possingham (2004). "Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience.Meine. ""A mission-driven discipline": the growth of conservation biology. "Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring 185 . Andelman and H. James R.com/doi/abs/10. "Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?" Ecology Letters 7(8): 615-622. Fikret Berkes." Conservation Biology 20(6): 1688-1697. Soule and R.jstor..00560.. http://links. S." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(8): 430-434. Philip O'Brian Lyver and Mina Kislalioglu (2004).blackwellsynergy. C. http://www.org/sici?sici=03637425%28199710%2922%3A4%3C853%3ATATOSI%3E2. Atte.1523-1739.1111/j.2006." The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853886. Noss (2006). Jane Elith and Mark Burgman (2006). "Uncertainty Analysis for Regional-Scale Reserve Selection.

T. Jan." 186 . "Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives.net/library/documents/muir.org/vol9/iss3/art2/ Moore.United Nations Educational. P. Douglas (2005).L. A.wilderness. Church (1996). Hikasa (2005).Populations for Co-Management. 11. and R." International Journal of Wilderness 5(2). 2007." Landscape and Urban Planning 70(3-4): 315-324.unesco." Journal of Hueristics 2: 31-53. Y. from http://www. Fukui and M. "Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: Targeting strategies for land conservation. Muir. A. <Go to ISI>://000225313100013 Newburn. (1999).org/sc_nat/ev.pdf Murray.ecologyandsociety.mountainresource. Retrieved Jan. (2005. Berck and A. http://portal.. "Applying simulated annealing to locationplanning models. UNESCO. Nakashima. D.org/node/52. France." Mountain Resource Group. The Canoe is the People: Indigenous Navigation in the Pacific. "The Wilderness Leadership School of South Africa’s Imbewu and Opinion Leader Programmes. 11 2006).php?URL_ID=3543&URL_DO=DO_TOPI C&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1128099564 Natori. M. http://www. Merenlender (2006). "View the Logging Proposal using Google Earth. Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) CD-ROMS." Ecology and Society 9(3): 2 [online]. A. Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://www.. W. Paris. Rebecca.

<Go to ISI>://000232137900010 Noss. Saving nature's legacy : protecting and restoring biodiversity." Proceedings of the 2006 National Conference on Digital Government Research: 67-68. and L. S. Westra and R.. R. Nyerges. Island Press: xi. R. Washington.C. Young (2006a). D. Noss. "Economics and landuse change in prioritizing private land conservation. D. R (2000). F. Nyerges. F. Noss. Brooks. L. Reed. Rutherford and R. and Mums . <Go to ISI>://A1986C123900002 Noss.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(1): 28-42. P.Preserving Diversity at All Scales." Annals of the 187 .. Tuthill and K. Harris (1986). S. T. and Allen Y. Ramsey (2006b). "Citizen Scientist or Amateur Naturalist?" Wild Earth 11(3/4): 14-17.. Jankowski." Environmental Management 10(3): 299-309. Reed F. Washington. Merenlender (2005). T. Cooperrider (1994). "Collaborative water resource decision support: Results of a field experiment. Maintaining the ecological integrity of landscapes and ecoregions. Pimentel. 428. Ecological integrity : integrating environment.C. Noss. <Go to ISI>://000234734700003 Newburn. D. P." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1411-1420. G. D. D. T. conservation. "Web portal implementation to support public participation in transportation decision making. F. P. (2001). "Nodes.. Networks. Jankowski. Berck and A.. Island Press. and health. D.

.ebrary. Ostrom. A. Idea Group Pub. and in the laboratory. "Inaugural Article: Insights on linking forests..pnas. G. Elinor and Harini Nagendra (2006). K. Turpie (2003). "What Is Web 2.com/lib/ucsc/Doc?id=10022507 Pence. <Go to ISI>://000242221200002 O'Reilly. K. "Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. trees.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/51/19224 Pagani.com/lib/ucmerced/Doc?id=10022507 http://site. Elinor (2006)." PNAS 103(51): 19224-19231. http://site. Multimedia and interactive digital TV managing the opportunities created by digital convergence.html?page=1 Olsson. Botha and J.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20.Association of American Geographers 96(4): 699-725. M. PA.ebrary. Retrieved November 17." Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90.oreillynet. Folke and F. Hershey. P. 2006." September 30." GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 15(4): 246-247. and people from the air. South 188 . "Evaluating combinations of on-and off-reserve conservation strategies for the Agulhas Plain. on the ground. http://www.. C. Q. (2005). Tim. Berkes (2004). <Go to ISI>://000223464900007 Ostrom. Margherita (2003). "12 questions to . from http://www. .0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.

T. http://find. Noon. A. "Knowing "What" to Do Is Not Enough: Turning Knowledge into Action.com/itx/infomark. M. Guilford Press. Cowling. (1995). S. J. Pierce. Pulliam (2001). Gittleman and Thomas M. Trombulak and H.0 Possingham.ebscohost." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 253-273. <Go to ISI>://000182913800014 Pfeffer. Making smart conservation decisions. New York. Lombard. T." Biological Conservation 125(4): 441-458. M.Africa: a financial perspective. Rouget and T. Ground truth : the social implications of geographic information systems. John L. H. http://plinks. Wolf (2005). Stuart L. B. . Andelman.. S.. "The future of biodiversity." Frontiers in Biology: Ecology (Cover Story) v269(n5222): p347(4). "Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation. R.galegroup. Gareth J.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A1709733 5&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=ucsantabarbara&version =1. S. R. J and RI Sutton (1999). Conservation biology : 189 ." California management review 42(1): 83-. P. Russell.R. Brooks (1995). <Go to ISI>://000230447100004 Pimm. . J. M.com/ehost/results?vid=3&hid=2&sid=f172bc84-13334cb2-9bbb-7dea28482456%40sessionmgr7 Pickles. Knight. A.

Asam and T.1046/j. Putnam. Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community. Gallo. http://www. L. Rachel M. Island Press: 225-244. "A review of conservation planning concepts and decision-making practices among state 190 . http://www. M.research priorities for the next decade. H. American Statistical Association. Choate. R. "A review of conservation planning concepts and current decision-making practices among state and local land protection programs in the United States. CA. C. Ecola.C. The Society for Conservation Biology Conference. Quinn and John H. New York. C.. L.1999.97428.blackwellsynergy.cfm?isbn=0684832836 Pyke.conbio. Robert (1995). S. Presentation: A national review of priority setting and decision making by land protection programs.). Mande (in prep. Pyke. Prendergast.. San Jose.cfm J. Choate." Pyke. VA. R. E. Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. A. (1998). Robert D. S. Mande (In review)." PS: Political Science and Politics 28(4): 664-683. http://www.org/Activities/Meetings/2006/Papers. "Tuning In.simonsays. (2006).com/doi/abs/10. Asam and T. Alexandria. (2000). C." Conservation Biology 13(3): 484-492. Lawton (1999). C. What Are Focus Groups? Section on Survey Research Methods. Orians..x Proctor.com/excerpt. John R. "The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves. R. A. Simon & Schuster. Soule and G.. Putnam. Ecola.1523-1739. Washington D. A.

M. <Go to ISI>://000083856800010 Robertson." Biological Conservation 92(1): 101-108. M. B." Conservation Biology.and local land protection programs in the United States. Villet and A. Robertson. 17. "Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. Burgman (2000). P. Rambaldi.iapad. Palmer (2004). R." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1197-1199. (2006. and M. R Chambers. Nov. "A proposal for fuzzy International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories and criteria. "PGIS good practice.org. 2006. . H. M McCall and J Fox (2006). M. Nov." Diversity and Distributions 10(5-6): 461-474. <Go to ISI>://000088442400031 Regan... "Fuzzy sets and threatened species classification. D. P. Knowledge and wisdom: inseparable twins?" PPGIS Listserve: www. 17)." Conservation Biology 15(4): 970-979. A. Giacomo . Hull (2001). M. and R. 17. technology intermediaries and researchers. <Go to ISI>://000223744500016 191 . facilitators. H. Colyvan (2000). Colyvan and M. Giacomo. "A fuzzy classification technique for predicting species' distributions: applications using invasive alien plants and indigenous insects. M. Regan. H. Rambaldi." Participatory Learning and Action 54: 106-113. "Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners. Retrieved Nov.

(2006).com/id/13230538/ Roots. Lombard. and human development. "The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology." Human Ecology Forum 10(2): 137-149. D. 2006. T. Retrieved Oct. H. J.a Step to Knowledge and Understanding . June 13.com." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 20(2-3): 87-94. Mathieu. 2006).org/media2/2006/overview/overview. <Go to ISI>://A1992HR82000002 Rouget." 192 . Myers (2006). "Designing Large-Scale Conservation Corridors for Pattern and Process.2006. Amanda T. Campbell (2001). (1992).x Sakai. Sayer." Conservation Biology 20(2): 549-561.Rogers. Retrieved Oct.. E. F. Andrew T. Knight and Graham I. Carol D. (2003). environmental protection. http://www.com/doi/abs/10.0 change the world? Nonprofits embracing technology that built MySpace and YouTube.00297.15231739. 26. Cowling. A. from http://www. "Sakai: Collaboration and Learning for Education. A. from http://www. C.htm Saunders.1111/j.blackwell-synergy. "Research to integrate productivity enhancement. Kerley (2006)." Sakai. and B. Michael (2006.msn. "Environmental Information . Brook and O. "Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being. E." Conservation Biology 20(3): 702-705. <Go to ISI>://000238313200026 Saunders.Opening Comments. 10." MSNBC. 2006. The Practical Futurist.sakaiproject. "Can Web 2. Richard M.msnbc. M.

blackwell-synergy.1523-1739. Butterfield. Anderson. Bethesda. London .com/doi/abs/10. from http://www. Davis (1996). J. T. F. Springer.conbio.. B. Timothy H. S. Mark W. "How Conservation Scientists Can Help Develop Social Capital for Biodiversity.html Schlossberg. Arno (2004). Derchia. M. 2007. Edwards. J. (2005a).consecol.x Scharl. http://www. C.00421.1874a. [online] URL: http://www.x Scott.gov/catdir/toc/fy051/2004041729. 9.Conservation Ecology 5(2): 32.a Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1550-1552. C.blackwellsynergy. Davis.. Csuti. 193 .com/doi/abs/10. <Go to ISI>://A1993KH00900001 Scott." Society for Conservation Biology. http://www. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Environmental online communication. Michael." URISA Journal 16(2): 15-26. Md. New York.2005.15231739. J. Noss. G.1111/j. R. Schwartz. Retrieved Jan.2006. http://www. H. Marc and Elliot Shuford (2005). "About us: Who we are.loc. (2006). Caicco. "Society for Conservation Biology Code of Ethics.org/vol5/iss2/art32/ SCB. Groves.org/AboutUs/ SCB (2005b). W. Tear and F. Wright (1993). Gap analysis : a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Ulliman and R.1111/j. F. "Delineating “Public” and “Participation” in PPGIS." Wildlife Monographs(123): 1-41." Conservation Biology 19(1): 3-3. "Gap Analysis . B.

International Development Research Centre. New York. Using weighted distance and leastcost corridor analysis to evaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat connectivity in Washington. J. International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET). Dennis George Willms and Nancy A. 194 . local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. J. Springer: xiii. Friedl and T.Sheil. M." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3): 491-507. "Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Lehmkuhl and W. New York. Renee (2006).. Nurtured by knowledge : learning to do participatory action-research." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(12): 634-638. A. Fred and Carolyn T. C. Hunsaker (2001). Goodchild. M. Johnson (1997). Gaines (2001).com/science/article/B6VJ1-4DGD9SB2/2/43c069f8504aed2b7ae493fecfffac53 Siebor. The use and uncertainties of spatial data for landscape models: an overview with examples from the Florida Everglades. 402. Sklar. The Apex Press . "Tropical biologists. Case. F. Singleton. P.. Smith. http://www.sciencedirect. Susan E. Hunsaker. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. T. Douglas and Anna Lawrence (2004).

Renate and Alenka Krek (2006). Interactive television and map-based public participation. <Go to ISI>://000086651200005 Steinitz. F. S." Conservation Biology 15(4): 980-989." Landscape Journal: 136-143. and system dynamics: the political economy of conservation biology. What is Conservation Biology? (From Bioscience.org/publications/ppgis/steinmann%20krek_vs_last. (2000). 35). Michael E. Aalborg. C. D.pdf Stern. IN: Environmental policy and biodiversity. 1994.edu/depts/larchdep/research/monroe/00.C. "A framework for Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals). E. Washington. K. Steinmann. D." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424. Soule. Squire. Washington. "Alternative Futures for Monroe County. Continental conservation : scientific foundations of regional reserve networks.Song. and R." Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development 48(1): 23-43. 195 .gsd. and C. E. Pennsylvania. (1997). R. "Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. B.C.harvard.. Paul C. Urban Data Management Symposium. Soule. Island Press. (1985). "Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. vol. F. from www. Grumbine. (1990). 2002. J. Johnson (2000). Denmark. Island Press: xv.htm. M. www.. M. D. C. Steinitz.iapad. M'Gonigle (2001). 416. "Science. power." Retrieved April 13. and John Terborgh (1999).

Friedl and T. Dougill.. D. New York. Vivek Chaudhri. M. "Sensitivity of Wildlife Habitat Models to Uncertainties in GIS Data. C. Prell and M. New York. C. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial*. "TAMARIN: a landscape framework for evaluating economic incentives for rainforest restoration. J. L. Information technologies. A. Fraser. An introduction to uncertainty issues for spatial data used in ecological applications. Stringer. Peter and Carolyn T. K. Stoms." Landscape and Urban Planning 68(1): 95-108. A. Chomitz and Frank W. Hunsaker (2001). Kenneth M. Gary. and advocacy: globallization of resistance to industrial shrimp farming. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. M. Reed (2006). Stoms. 402. Arthur Ha and Loris Strappazzon (2003). Taylor and Francis. F. Springer: xiii. T.. E.. Susan (2002). C. T. Harris and D. S. Cogan (1992). W. J.com/science/article/B6V91-49TRNFJ2/2/897f589528f9650d66f32e018cb365c1 Stoneham. Hunsaker. "Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social- 196 .Stine." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58(6): 843-850. Stonich. B. Goodchild. W. Davis (2004). Davis and C." The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4): 477-500. M. NY. Craig. F. http://www. Case. Weiner. Hubacek. David M. PPGIS.sciencedirect.

" Ecology and Society 11(2): 39. http://dx." Computers. Theobald. "Assessment of threat and conservation priorities under realistic levels of uncertainty and reliability.CO.2-5 UCGIS (1996). N. Deborah J. "Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS. Todd. Rick Bonney. W. R. A. (2004). (1970).ecological systems: a critical review.ecologyandsociety. http://www. Michael (2005). "Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework." Cartography and Geographic Information Science 23: 115-127. "Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(3): 139-144. and M.org/10.org/ojs/include/getdoc." EJISDC 17(3): 1-13.doi. Environment and Urban Systems 29: 33-47." Science Education 84(2): 265-275. and S. Derek Bascom and Anna Cabral (2000). "Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and GIS for Participatory Natural Resource Management: State-of-the-Practice. Burgman (1998). . [online] URL: http://www. "Research priorities for GIScience.ejisdc.0." Conservation Biology 12(5): 966-974. "A computer movie. <Go to ISI>://000076272800010 Tripathi.php?id=105&article=116&mode=p df Trumbull. 197 ." Economic Geography 46: 234-40.1002/(SICI)1098237X(200003)84:2<265::AID-SCE7>3. Bhattarya (2004). D. <Go to ISI>://000223960400017 Tobler. M. C.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ Tait.

. and sustainable communities. J. Paris. Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide. M. France. "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21(3): 333-347. Mass. from http://dictionary. and Cultural Organization. M. F.1038/440411a Warburton.). "2020 Computing: The creativity machine.com Retrieved March 18. Oxford.doi. "Improving the preparation for fieldwork with 'IT': two examples from physical geography.. Bringing society back in : grassroots ecosystem management. Weber." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2543-2573." Dictionary. (2003). Van der Wel. Traditional Knowledge. M. Ormeling (1994).com/browse/uncertainty UNESCO (2006). U.reference. Edward P. J. R.d. Zhang (2005). MIT Press. China.uncertainty. (n. Van Rijsoort. and J. Vernor (2006). Taylor. 345. New York. Fourth Edition. M. <Go to ISI>://A1997YH10500003 Warschauer. United Nations Educational. F. 198 .K. Pergamon/Elsevier Science: xviii. F. J. Visualization in modern cartography. Hootsman and F. 2007. R. MacEachren and D. (2003). and M. <Go to ISI>://000232622700002 Vinge. MIT Press.. http://dx. A. Cambridge. Scientific. accountability.org/10. Visualization of data quality. J." Nature 440(7083): 411-411. "Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in Yunnan. Higgitt (1997).

Taylor and Francis. T. Snyder (2000).WebLab. J. Craig.org/press/r1. Hogrefe & Huber: vii. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation.0_weblab. Western. D. Daniel." Harvard Business Review 78(1): 139. M. 16. Culture. environmental action and sustainability. Mass. Harris and D. M. Etienne. Participatory action research as a participatory approach to addressing environmental issues. Cultivating communities of practice : a guide to managing knowledge.6959390. Los Angeles Times. http://www. Weiss.weblab. "Web Lab: Creating new ways to connect people and ideas. "Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Esther. 199 . Kenneth (2003).story?coll=la-headlines-california Wenger.com/news/local/la-melion5dec05. NY. Garcâia Mira and J.pdf.0." Weblab. Euclides Sanchez and Karen Cronick (2003). Romay Martâinez.html see also: http://www. Island Press. Sabucedo Cameselle. (2005). Weiner. C. Wright (1994). Cambridge.org/home. S. New York. Weisenfeld. 2007.. Weiner.weblab. 409. from http://www. R. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. Trevor Harris and William Craig (2002). Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. Santa Monica Mountains' Last Male Lion Hunted. Retrieved Jan. W. Toronto. Etienne C.latimes. Strum and R. and William M. McDermott and William Snyder (2002). MA .. Wenger. Harvard Business School Press. Los Angeles. Boston. Richard A.

Richard G. Retrieved Jan. (2002). Lawrence Erlbaum. Xuan Zhu." Retrieved Oct. "Coalition for the Upper South Platte: Check Dams Help Capture Sediment." Mountain Visions. E. 2007. Retrieved Jan. from http://www. Susan M. Paul.net/uswtrmap. 2006. (2003).net/resource/mainplat/chees1hs. Watson and K. Araujo.J. 26.worldbirds. M. "Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect. Aspinall (1998). J. Healey and Richard J..com/content/6p88h3ujpuuctw2g 200 .. Winter. M. N. The psychology of environmental problems. (2006).org/WorldMap." Mountain Visions: Interactive Watersheds. J. from http://www. "Interactive Watersheds: Showcasing the nation's community-based watershed restoration partnerships.Whittaker. "Worldbirds: birding with a purpose. J. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. <Go to ISI>://000226348100002 Wilson.html. Mahwah. Edward Osborne (1992). Mass. J." Diversity and Distributions 11(1): 3-23. Koger and Deborah Du Nann Winter (2004).uppersouthplatte. Cambridge. "A Knowledge-Based Systems Approach to Design of Spatial Decision Support Systems for Environmental Management. Beth. Beth. http://www.interactivewatersheds.html Worldbirds. Ladle. 16. Willis (2005). 2007. B. J. R.php?m=9.. R." Environmental Management 22(1): 35-48. 16. Workman. Deborah Du Nann.springerlink. Workman. The diversity of life. from http://www.

"The Cape Action Plan for the Environment: overview of an ecoregional planning process.html Yeh. Younge. F. Collaborative Decision Making. <Go to ISI>://000182913800002 Zhang." World Wind Central.Yaffee. and S. Zimmerman.. J. Yin. Applications of case study research. M.php?title=World_Wind_To urs. 2007. from http://www. A. Taylor & Francis. (2006). (1993). DC. W. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Goodchild.com/WorldWind/index. Newbury Park. P. SAGE Publications. Geographical information systems. 11.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0519/2005026419. Calif. Island Press. D. Davis. Uncertainty in geographical information. Rhind. J. Steven Lewis (2006). Urban Planning and GIS. The Endangered Species Act at thirty. A. Retrieved Jan. Washington." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 15-28. London . Maguire and D. Goble. Robert K.: 879-887. Longley. 201 .loc. New York. Chad. G-O (1999). M. D. http://www. Jingxiong and Michael F. Scott and F. "World Wind Tours. Fowkes (2003). New York. Goodchild (2002).earthissquare.

and guiding adaptive management. where communication of spatially explicit results has been extremely contentious and often counter-productive. A proposed design principle is that quantifying the uncertainty of conservation assessment and visualizing this as part of the final map product is expected to decrease volatility and facilitate implementation. Maps with and without implementation uncertainty were evaluated by focus groups to assess the proposed design principle and associated corollary. Biodiversity conservation is suffering due especially to poor implementation of scientific findings. 202 . Indications are that the design principle is true in this case. instigating the desire to learn. A case study was performed. A corollary is that visualizing the uncertainty involved in implementation is expected to further bolster implementation. but confounding factors limited the certainty of this finding.Chapter 4: Mapping the uncertainty of conservation planning as a means towards successful implementation Abstract. The groundwork is laid for further verification and research. This is very prevalent in conservation planning. including the discovered hypotheses that mapping uncertainty may help implementation through the building of trust.

Meir et al. 2003. 2003. 1999. “Institutions include. 2006a. relationships. 2005. “Conservation is primarily not about biology. 2003). Angelstam et al. Knight et al. Davis et al. including three interrelated findings: (1) It is essential to engage the institutions that will be involved in implementation from the start and throughout the process (Angelstam et al. and not enough on how to implement these findings in the complex real-world (Prendergast et al. Angelstam et al. 2004). Pierce et al. 2003. Younge and Fowkes 2003. Balmford and Cowling 2006. 2003. 2005. 2001. Knight et al. norms. Efforts addressing implementation are coming to several conclusions. Knight et al. Younge and Fowkes 2003. 2003. Natori et al. (2) It may be more important to set up an enduring process that allows for updated information and adaptive management amidst changing socio-ecological conditions than it is to identify an optimal solution snapshot (Salafsky et al.g. property rights. Pierce et al. Fagerstrom et al. 2006a). 2006a). 2006b).. As a result of this implementation crisis there is a growing emphasis on examining and addressing implementation strategies as part of the conservation planning research agenda (e. 2005. but about the choices that people make” (Balmford and Cowling 2006). Natori et al. (3) Considering both 203 .THE CHALLENGE OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN CONSERVATION PLANNING Conservation planning has been only marginally effective at conserving biodiversity because too much emphasis and research is channeled towards identifying what nature needs (conservation assessments). Knight et al. 2005. and agencies” (Angelstam et al. 2006. but are not limited to beliefs. Fagerstrom et al.

There are other problematic responses to mapping conservation priorities. Fig 13) (see also Fig. they respond with fear and suspicion.g. Thus. 2001. a global environmental conspiracy. 2003). Pence et al. In some cases there is a fear expressed by local governments of a loss in property-tax revenue (Cohn and Lerner 2003). Further. Scott et al. thereby blocking any knowledge transfer or subsequent collaborations. 2 in Margules and Pressey 2000). however. A fundamental implication of all three of these findings is the need for effective knowledge-transfer from the conservation scientists to the various stakeholders in the implementation process (Theobald et al. They see a land-grab. These maps typically show areas (e. 2003).g. Environmental_Perspectives 2005). 2000). This essay examines specifically the public release of conservation assessment maps (e. Hurley and Walker 2004). or at least a huge increase in environmental restrictions (Cohen 2001. this ideal of knowledge-transfer can be quite problematic. success for many regions throughout the world is highly dependent upon the establishment of institutions. etc) of land (both public and private) designated as conservation priorities. Subsequently. hexagons. In practice. squares. government 204 . mechanisms. and incentives for private participation in conservation (Pence et al. Some private property rights activists are livid when they see these maps (Cohen 2001. parcels.formal reserves and the working landscape (areas that are managed simultaneously for biodiversity conservation and resource use) is more feasible and cost effective for society than solely relying on reserves for biodiversity conservation (Knight 1999.

when property owners see their land mapped as high ecological significance.Figure 13: An example conservation assessment map agencies tasked with multiple-use mandates are thrust into a hotbed of controversy and confronted with jurisdictional conflicts. Some entrepreneurs are even buying inexpensive land with high conservation value and then selling it later to the government or land trusts for a large profit (Weiss 2003). Stoneham et al. Finally. they sometimes rush to develop or degrade it before any new ecosystem-based policy gets enacted. or they simply increase the selling price to land-trusts (personal communication with Michael Feeney 2002. 205 . 2003).

2004) that involve spatial decision support. 14. The approach was implemented in the case study and evaluated through focus groups. but also to other elements of socio-ecological resilience (Olsson et al. but the findings should transfer to most other areas where public release of conservation priorities is volatile. 2005: Conception Coast 206 . Background regarding this general approach is provided. The findings point out the positive aspects of the proposed approach. Subsequently. not to empirically prove or disprove a hypothesis. This leads to the research question: given that the traditional approach to presenting results to the public jeopardizes the implementation process. The findings apply not only to conservation planning. the ideals of institutional engagement. and a proposed design principle for presenting conservation planning results. The essay continues with an overview of the case study. the lead organizations and agencies involved are typically forced to keep the results in-house as much as is allowed. adaptive management. in what form can the results be presented so they have a less negative impact and still maintain their usefulness? This qualitative study was designed to explore answers this question. REGIONAL CONTEXT AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN PRINCIPLE The case study occurred on a watershed-defined. along with a corollary regarding the specific approach taken. as well as the shortfalls and lessons learned.As a consequence of these and similar issues. 1 of Gallo et al. The problem is framed around the culture of the American west.000 km2 region on the southcentral coast of California [See also Fig. and working landscape collaborations are difficult to implement.

Heritage Area. Four recent land-use initiatives illustrate this tension. culture and population pressure. Lastly. but it was entirely up to the local community to conserve it. While the initiative failed. The NPS obliged. or some other similar designation. Conservationists lobbied the National Park Service to study the feasibility of adding a rural stretch of coast into the national park system as a public and private National Seashore. the vote occurred after a pro-development change in the majority of the Board of Supervisors. Secondly. Santa Barbara County Planning Department initiated a rural resources program designed to better identify the ecologically sensitive areas in the county. Thirdly. As with many areas of the rural and semi-rural American west. and to allow for streamlined permitting and regulation in the other areas. property-rights activists organized an initiative to split the county in half because they felt misrepresented in land-use and business issues. a stakeholder-based collaborative 207 . but was met with such vehement opposition by some of the landowners that the conclusion of the study was that the Gaviota Coast had global significance. The effort involved public meetings and stakeholder collaboration. The drivers of land-use change are especially strong here due to the appealing climate and proximity to the Los Angeles wealth.Region and Watersheds]. and was derailed when the agricultural block of stakeholders left the process in protest. this region is a hotbed of controversy regarding land-use. Attempts to manage the burgeoning growth in an ecologically and socio-economically responsible manner have been extremely contentious.

One of these maps was to show the locations of conservation priorities. a local non-governmental organization was formed in 1998 to help “protect and restore the natural heritage of the region through science. Any of these techniques will result in a conservation priorities map that is fuzzier and/or less precise looking than the traditional conservation 208 . Clarity can be mapped by variations in “crispness” (MacEachren 1995) or “abstraction” (Van der Wel et al. the vehicle for this essay’s case study. Amidst this backdrop. There are many approaches to visually representing uncertainty. the organization began creating the Regional Conservation Guide (RCG). The researcher proposed a design principle: if the uncertainty involved in the scientific analyses is estimated and then visualized as part of the conservation priorities map. The RCG was to result from a conservation assessment of the region. In 2003. then the information could be publicly released and should have a less negative impact then the traditional approach while still maintaining usefulness. and would publicly release maps estimating the landscape requirements for long-term ecological integrity in an effort to help guide community action. This is the agenda that generated the aforementioned research question. The key argument of the principle regards how the uncertainty results will look. but the new board majority rolled back the provisions after gaining power. community involvement. 1994). with variations in color saturation and clarity being particularly suited (MacEachren 1992). and long-term planning” (Conception_Coast_Project 2004).process designed an oak tree protection compromise.

g. 2002. It was reasoned that this would diffuse the threat felt by some stakeholders upon seeing the map. Oftentimes users will be unaware of sources of uncertainty unless explicitly presented with them (Keuper 2004). categorical disparities. Rejeski 1993. Taylor 1995. Sketchy and less polished looking graphics tend to encourage public participation. Brown 2004).g.assessment map. Flather et al. 1997. Krygier 2002). making decisions without the uncertainty information is downright irresponsible and leads to biodiversity loss (e. Bradshaw and Borchers 2000). and hence. ambiguity. and boundary issues. UNCERTAINTY IN CONSERVATION PLANNING AND THE PROPOSED CORROLARY Several taxonomies exist that can classify the many sources of uncertainty in conservation planning (e. and context 209 . These types of maps are also less dogmatic. make a more informed decision (e. (2) linguistic uncertainty arises due to issues of vagueness in thresholds. as they infer that the proposal is still in the undecided stage and open for comment (MacEachren 1995.g. Goodchild and Case 2001. Regan et al. In some cases. These expectations join the common motivation for uncertainty visualization—to allow end-users to understand which results are more reliable. This was expected to be more palatable to the landowner or manager of the site that would normally be marked as absolutely a priority area. Rejeski (1993) offers a comprehensive and straightforward taxonomy comprised of four general categories: (1) spatial uncertainty includes locational error. Beissinger and Westphal 1998). rather than being a priority area or not. Any particular site would have a relative certainty of being a priority area.

2004) (2) linguistic uncertainty confounded by parameter uncertainty in determining the conservation status of species (Burgman et al. (2006) provide one of the most promising approaches to date of addressing this complexity. so it is another layer of complexity to examine how all these uncertainties propagate and interact in affecting the final uncertainty of the assessment. species presence and connectivity models feeding into optimization models). and (4) parameter uncertainty arises and propagates because the uncertainty of each parameter value is often unknown or unarticulated. Akcakaya et al. 2000). 2006). (3) model uncertainty results from the inevitable simplification that occurs when using mathematical metaphor to mimic the enormous complexity of human. Systematic conservation planning involves a multi-criteria hierarchy of interconnected models (i. or human-natural systems. 1999. Johnson and Gillingham 2004) and in the biogeographic assumptions of conservation assessments (Flather et al. Moilanen et al.specificity. 210 . 2003. Robertson et al. 2005. Examinations of these types of uncertainties in conservation planning have occurred. including those regarding (1) spatial uncertainty of species distribution data (Todd and Burgman 1998. 2000. Loiselle et al. 1997. and (3) model uncertainty in wildlife habitat models (Stoms et al. Whittaker et al.e. With standard project budgets. it is extremely difficult if not impossible to model and communicate all of the uncertainties of an effort. natural. Regan et al. Regan and Colyvan 2000. Grenyer et al. 1992.

In order to maximize the associated benefits and minimize costs. this implementation occurs over decades. The corollary proposed is that mapping implementation uncertainty gains the postulated benefits of uncertainty mapping outlined above. but an approach that might be consistently useful is preliminarily evaluated here. what kind of uncertainty(ies) in conservation planning should be estimated and communicated? The answer is almost certainly context specific and best achieved through cost/benefit scoping. They point out that conventional methods of conservation assessment rely on a snapshot in time to identify the lands necessary for conservation. A similar approach would be visualize the opportunity uncertainty alluded to in Moilanen et al. (2006). But in practice. and assume that these lands can be conserved immediately. During these decades. Gallo and Goodchild Unpublished)[see chapter 3]. and Possingham (2004) uncover an important type of model uncertainty related directly to the implementation crisis. and evaluates how effectively the different visualization techniques communicate the uncertainty (Gallo 2006. The emphasis here is on the implications of communicating such uncertainty. Meir. thereby changing the priorities. some biodiversity is lost and the human dominated and natural landscapes change. the author examines this “implementation uncertainty” in more detail. Andelman. and two additional 211 . devises methods for visualizing it.An assumption of this paper is that only one or a few uncertainties need to be modeled in order to communicate the issue and attain most of the desired benefits. In other research.

Mapping implementation uncertainty should calm this fear by implicitly reaffirming landowner control-. 2003). Environmental_Perspectives 2005). the driving value is usually the fear of the loss of liberty in general. Politicians have to make decision every day in the face of uncertainty. and the scientists do not know when or how this will change. Similarly.it acknowledges that the scientists do not know which landowners will explore conservation or development opportunities. If there is a land-owner backlash to traditional conservation planning maps. In other words.benefits unique to this type of uncertainty. It would be disingenuous for property-rights activists to cite model uncertainty as a reason for discrediting or stalling the process. what the landowners do with their land is in their hands and cannot be mandated or controlled by the conservation planning process. Friedman et al. 2003). Arguments for the status-quo are often based on the belief values of the person involved. and private property rights specifically (Hurley and Walker 2004.” In this case the source of implementation uncertainty is the cherished value of liberty. and the flexibility for land-owners to determine their future. people that disagree with scientific findings can focus on uncertainty as a means of discrediting the science. 1999). for they would be pointing to the value of liberty as the cause. The proposed corollary is also designed to address one of the drawbacks of mapping uncertainty—the strategy used by naysayers of encouraging the status-quo until the uncertainty is “solved” (Stocking and Holstein 1993. and move forward regardless (Kinzig et al. not the uncertainty (Kinzig et al. 212 . All of these examples have been illustrated by the global warming “debate.

000 acres). Gallo and Goodchild Unpublished) [see chapter 3]. cost of conservation. The implementation-uncertainty map resulted (Fig 14).000 acres) conserved per decade. be at about 1:500.CASE STUDY: THE REGIONAL CONSERVATION GUIDE A conservation assessment was performed based on an optimization modeling approach that integrates the threat of habitat degradation. and should identify conservation priorities for the next twenty years. and five ecological criteria (Davis et al. A simplified version of the standard-run map that resulted was provided in Fig 13. it was determined that the final maps should be hardcopy. the conservation priority areas comprised 3% of the region. A sixth ecological criterion was added: coarse-scale habitat connectivity (Gallo et al. 213 . A group of ecological advisors and a group of advisors with extensive knowledge and experience in the region’s land-use politics provided guidance through a series of meetings and workshops. In the full color version complete with landmarks and land-use. 2005) (Ch 3). Working meetings were also held to gather expert ecological knowledge and to parameterize the model. 2006).000 scale (11” X 17” maps). In the initial scoping workshops. The experts estimated a background rate of conservation of about 200 km2 (50. so the target acreage for the conservation priorities map was set at ~400 km2 (100. The implementation uncertainty of the model output was quantified and visualized using a stochastic approach (Gallo 2006.

or about 9% of the region. Another objective was to explore how these products would affect conservation implementation. 214 .300 km2. the issue of implementation uncertainty. Advisory focus groups were used to assess these uncertainty products. The solutionspace (the combined area of all the standard-set sites and the uncertainty alternatives) was approximately 1. One of the objectives was to determine if the conservation priorities map released to the public should be the standard-run map or the implementation-uncertainty map.Figure 14: Simplified portion of the Implementation-Uncertainty Map along with three animations created to help communicate the concept of optimality. and why. Abridged coded transcripts with analytical categories were created from the video recordings and evaluated (Gallo 2005) [see also chapter 3]. and how it was modeled.

The implementation-uncertainty map “takes the ‘gun’ away from pointing at one particular spot” and was expected to lead to a “lower panic button” among landowners fearful of conservation priorities. The groups also wanted to see a much larger solution-space than the resultant 9%. but also because it was felt that mapping more gaps then “hot spots would dissuade people that are in the gaps from conserving their land. there was hesitation regarding the release of the map. This was not only because of the volatility issue. as the resolution of the sites (1.” Some people also felt that the map should better reflect “continuity. ranging from the needs of land-trusts to prioritize which parcels to target for purchase. focusing on the decrease in volatility. where a lot of ground got ripped real quick.” The land-use advisors felt that although the implementationuncertainty map was better.The consensus within all three focus groups was that the implementationuncertainty map was more suitable for public release than the conservation priorities map. 215 .5 km2) was still too close to the parcel scale. it was still not suitable for public release given the acrid socio-political climate. It was felt that the map was still not fuzzy enough.” It became clear that the map was trying to fulfill too many agendas. namely that it was expected that some landowners would still feel threatened and/or degrade their land. However. Reasons cited were as expected. to the need of education organizations wanting to show a long-term vision of conservation. “We had this with the listing of the tiger salamander. contiguity and functioning ecosystems.

In addition to the desire of the larger solution-space. and all groups wanted to see the results both with and without threat. or (b) removing cost and determining the relative priority of each site both with and without threat incorporated. thereby getting rid of 216 . 15% instead of 3% of the region) and then doing the uncertainty analysis. Unfortunately the project timeline was nearing termination. As is sometimes the case with action research in participatory GIS. the needs of the community had suddenly diverged from the needs of the researcher. Further. 2006).e. Both threat and cost were embedded deep within the model. The conservation priorities map would incorporate threat. So it was decided that the maps would indicate that there was uncertainty in the analyses by simply being blurred uniformly. and option b was pursued. which was implemented one command at a time. It became a choice of (a) leaving the model as is and running the optimization model for a larger target (e. how important the site would be to conservation goals if it was the next one conserved). the participants wanted the final results to be free of the error prone cost analysis. the participants wanted to see the uncertainty concept in some incarnation. A biodiversity-value map would show a synthesis of the six ecological layers by depicting the relative marginal value of each site (i. and would require months to rerun. so the timeframe would be 50-100 years rather than 20 years. The uncertainty analysis would then need at least another month of computer processing time. It was also decided that the goal would be to provide a long-term vision for conservation of the region.g. This is what was done. The ethical path at such a crossroads is to cater to the needs of the community (Rambaldi et al.

While certainty of these results have much to be desired. This call is corroborated by the editor’s note on Knight’s article. one was to provide a long term vision of the ecological requirements of the landscape. and the other was to provide decision support for conserving priorities areas for the next 217 . In this case study there were conflicting objectives. maps can have the objective of exploration. Cartographic and representation needs are different for different objectives (Board and Taylor 1977. communication. For instance. DISCUSSION There are strong indications that in this case. Knight (2006) encourages the sharing of pitfalls encountered in order to build the quality of a discipline. com. there were conflicting objectives. The result was the smoothed marginal-value map (Fig 25 of Gallo et al. or visioning (pers. thereby making the proposed product unacceptable. 2005). the research highlighted the repercussions of not having all parties involved come to a consensus about the objective of the map(s) produced. MacEachren 1994). Further. negotiation. Couclelis. the quantification and visualization of uncertainty as part of the conservation priorities map would facilitate implementation. However. an idea about the corollary and several other hypothesized benefits of mapping uncertainty were discovered and are shared below. In this case. Key lessons learned First. and thus deeming the principle less conclusive. decision-support. MacEachren 1994).the grid pattern and making a smooth pattern of values. participatory research allows for submersion into a topic that can provide new hypotheses and framings.

twenty years. While on the surface these seem compatible, the objective of visioning and decision support ended up clashing. The decision-support map was deemed too detailed and deterministic to be released as a publicly available vision. 4 MacEachren (1994) and DiBiase (1990) provide a framework for considering the role of maps and how they match with the prescribed use and user. First, it should be determined if the map is to be used for visual thinking or visual communication. Visual thinking is usually in the private realm and includes uses such as exploration and confirmation. These uses can often include higher order cognitive tasks (or data sensitivity) designed for users of a particular expertise or objective. Visual communication is more often the directive in dealing with the public realm, and includes objectives such as synthesis and presentation. Maps are not objective (Harley 1989; Wood and Fels 1992). By the time the map gets to the synthesis stage, the “expert makes informed decisions about what to emphasize, what to suppress, and which relationships to show (MacEachren 1994).” The issue of matching the objectives(s) of the map with these cartographic and analytical decisions becomes even more essential at the presentation stage.

4

Some may wonder if the decision-support map that was generated for the focus

groups was used or still exists. Because of the uproar that this could have caused, and its inherent uncertainty due to the cost analysis and several other parameters, it was never printed and the GIS file has since become corrupted.

218

The lesson learned is that if there are multiple and conflicting objectives, especially for a presentation stage map, they should be prioritized. Further, the limiting factor of the priority objective should be identified, and the threshold of acceptance should be determined in order to at least partially meet the secondary objective. In this case the limiting factor of the primary objective (visioning) was volatility. To meet this objective and also partially meet the usefulness factor of decision support, then the community’s tolerance for volatility should have been scoped before the analyses were planned, performed, and mapped. This could have been done by showing focus groups and/or stakeholders generic map products that had varying degrees of crispness, resolution, spatial extent, solution space. This scoping phase can also try to examine the cultural values for uncertainty of the issue at hand. The influence of values in decision-making is unavoidable, but at least it should be made transparent. It is possible to separate values from uncertainties by having people communicate their opinion regarding the consequences of a type I error (doing something when it is not necessary) versus a type II error (doing nothing when action is necessary) and comparing these with the associated probabilities (Kinzig et al. 2003). Thirdly, it is important to expect the unexpected in participatory mapping. A suggested guideline is to build in allowances for the community process to take extra time (Rambaldi et al. 2006). One suggested approach is to negotiate the unlimited rollover of unspent foundation funds into subsequent years (Rambaldi et al. 2006). On a related note, if ESRI ArcGIS is being used, any model should be built in the

219

newly available modelbuilder. This drag-and-drop, menu based interface allows the creation of model scripts which provide massive timesaving gains when the model needs to be revised or re-parameterized.
Additional benefits to be explored

Several other benefits of mapping uncertainty and of the corollary were revealed through the focus groups and submersion in the topic. One such benefit is the apparent building of trust. Many people view scientific models with a level of mistrust, knowing that the model cannot incorporate their own innate or local knowledge (Wynne 1992; Gregory and Miller 1998). Acknowledging the uncertainties of a model improves its honesty (Rejeski 1993), which can build the trust that is essential in addressing the implementation crisis (Knight 2006). This trust issue is largely ignored or unknown to scientists (Wynne 1992). When the constraints are such that a spatially explicit uncertainty analysis is not feasible, then this study indicates that portraying the presence of uncertainty through a uniform fuzziness is preferred and more honest than portraying exact boundaries for an uncertain result. When confronted with uncertainty, the end-user is required to apply some of their innate knowledge in making a decision. Consequently, if they have a little or no knowledge about the issue then they will be motivated to learn more about it if they are to make an informed decision (Epstein 1992, in Freidman 1999, page 42). This will increase the demand by decision-makers for conservation science educational material, driving the goal to mainstream conservation biology. (The

220

alternative response of frustration by the lack of clarity is also possible, and can be mitigated by also having simpler information resources available.) Increased emphasis on uncertainty also could help drive the adaptive management cycle. It identifies the ways that the conservation planning initiative needs to improve knowledge through better data collection, more monitoring, model improvements, etc. (Rejeski 1993). It also provides a mechanism for prioritizing future research based on real world needs (Kinzig et al. 2003). This reflexive process can help make ecological modeling more useful for management and policy decisions (Taylor et al. 2000). With regards to the issue of volatility and the corollary, one of the negative repercussions of visualizing ecological uncertainties (as opposed to implementation uncertainty) in the conservation priority map is that there will inevitably be areas of high certainty. Landowners/managers of these areas will likely feel even more threatened then if the certainty was not mapped and all priority areas were targeted equally. This may be the biggest reason for estimating and mapping implementation uncertainty as at least one of the uncertainties modeled. Only the areas where the landowners/managers have expressed a desire for conservation will be able to receive scores of highest certainty. This may be perhaps the most fruitful line of research to come out of this study. There are similar uncertainties that address feasibility, such as the opportunity uncertainty alluded to in Moilanen et al. (2006). It may be quite interesting to use their info-gap approach to modeling opportunity cost uncertainty and seeing if it has the expected effects on volatility.

221

CONCLUSION

It is a very different perspective viewing the field of conservation planning with an emphasis on actual implementation rather than on figuring out the spatial needs of biodiversity. It results in the conservation planner considering how their products will be communicated, and the implications of these communication choices. Visualizing some of the uncertainties of the conservation planning analysis has some subtle yet profound implications. Indications are that the fuzzier map decreases volatility by being less threatening to individual landowners and by indicating that there is still room for discussion. The degree to which this is needed and effective is doubtless context specific. In this particular context, the design principle appears to be true, but is not empirically proven. This essay is more about exploring a new mode of practice then it is about proving a hypothesis. In doing so it lays the groundwork for several directions of future research. Empirical and comprehensive evaluations of the effectiveness of mapping uncertainty to improve implementation are needed. Especially important is considering the need to use implementation uncertainty (i.e. the effects of uncertainty in landowner willingness) as one of the uncertainties modeled. Not only could the volatility issue be examined, but so could the trust-building, educational and priority guiding aspects as well. It would be best to evaluate the counterfactual, i.e. comparing the release and use of the implementation-uncertainty map by some stakeholders to the release and use of only the standard map by others (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006). A critical issue only touched upon here is determining the direct

222

and indirect costs of communicating implementation uncertainty. Future studies can also examine how well mapping uncertainty affects other components of successful implementation, such as the building of trust, instigating the desire to learn, and guiding adaptive management. It would also be good to better understand the dimensions of the problem (e.g. volatility, usefulness, land-use paradigm etc.), leading ideally to a way of rapidly assessing the best approaches for knowledge sharing in a particular regional context. In closing, society faces quite a challenge regarding biodiversity conservation and in attaining the full potential of life on Earth. The approach presented here will hopefully improve the teamwork that is imperative.
REFERENCES

Akcakaya, H. Resit, Scott Ferson, Mark A. Burgman, David A. Keith, Georgina M. Mace and Charles R. Todd (2000). "Making Consistent IUCN Classifications under Uncertainty." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1001-1013. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.15231739.2000.99125.x Angelstam, P., G. Mikusinski, B. I. Ronnback, A. Ostman, M. Lazdinis, J. M. Roberge, W. Arnberg and J. Olsson (2003). "Two-dimensional gap analysis: A tool for efficient conservation planning and biodiversity policy implementation." Ambio 32(8): 527-534. <Go to ISI>://000189317900006 Balmford, Andrew and Richard M. Cowling (2006). "Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation Biology." Conservation Biology 20(3): 692-695.

223

" Conservation Ecology (online) 4(1): [online] URL: http://www. D. Taylor (1977). J. "Probabilistic classification rules for setting conservation priorities. <Go to ISI>://000074988000001 Board. and M.htm. "Perception and Maps: Human Factors in Map Design and Interpretation. C. D. 10. Bradshaw. M. R. G. G." Biological Conservation 89(2): 227-231. (2001)." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29(3): 367-381.crowleyoffroad." Capitol Research Center & Crowley-Offroad. R.. and R.00434. Todd (1999). Keith. 2003. Retrieved Dec. uncertainty and physical geography: towards the development of methodologies for questioning belief.x Beissinger. from http://www. A.blackwell-synergy. F.consecol. I. <Go to ISI>://000079378100012 Cohen.2006.1111/j. A. "The Green Land-Grabbers: It's Not Just the Feds Who Are After Your Land." Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3): 821-841. "Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. J. "Knowledge. S. Westphal (1998)." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2(1): 19-36. and J. Burgman.15231739.Com. Bonner. "On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management.com/doi/abs/10. M. Rohlf and C.org/vol4/iss1/art7/ Brown.http://www.com/green_land_grabbers. A. (2004). Borchers (2000). 224 .

" American Land Foundation and Stewards of the Range. "Visualization in the earth sciences. M.Cohn. Davis. 2005. K. "Efficient conservation in a utility-maximization framework. Pattanayak (2006). C. and S. from www. M. Analysis and findings. http://www. Andersson (2003).. 2004).ecologyandsociety. Bulletin of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences 59(2): 13-18. Zang.org/Pubs/landuse/01. I. "Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. 2006. C. Lerner (2003). "Taking Liberty. W.conceptioncoast." Ecology and Society 11(1): 33... from www. H.biodiversitypartners. P. Retrieved September 13. O. X. "Conception Coast Project Homepage. J. (2004. Stoms.org.Part II." Earth & Mineral Sciences. Wen. Costello and D. Fagerstrom. Messng. F." Retrieved July 20. J. X. Integrating Land Use Planning and Biodiversity. M.shtml Conception_Coast_Project. P.us. Washington D. H.C.org/vol11/iss1/art33/ DiBiase. M. K. Defenders of Wildlife: 1-62. Environmental_Perspectives. (2005). China . D." Catena 54(1-2): 271-288. Z. "A participatory approach for integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau. http://www. Olsson and C. <Go to ISI>://000187743900018 Ferraro. (2006). J. Trouwborst.takingliberty. (1990). <Go to ISI>://000237066500001 225 ." Plos Biology 4(4): 482488. Xu. and J.

of Indicators and Uncertainty in Geographic-Based Analyses. California. Mahwah. CA. C. Santa Barbara. Department of Geography. Rogers (1999).com/urlapi.J.. Regional Conservation Guide.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=2425 9 Gallo. Cleveland. http://www. John (2006). JA and MF Goodchild (Unpublished).html 226 .. Mapping Uncertainty to Ease the Tension between Public Participation GIS and Conservation Planning. Communicating uncertainty : media coverage of new and controversial science. Gallo. D." Ecological Applications 7(2): 531-542. N.org/projects_rcg. J (2005). John. Cleveland State University. McComb (1997). James Studarus.conceptioncoast. http://www. Elia Machado and Greg Helms (2005). Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. J. H. Conception Coast Project." Gallo. Santa Barbara. Erlbaum Associates. "Identifying Gaps in Conservation Networks . R.netLibrary. Friedman. Sharon M. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Gallo. C. K. Wilson. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Public Participation GIS Conference. Reconnecting Society and Nature through Engaged Conservation Planning and Uncertainty Mapping. University of California Santa Barbara. Ohio.. "Communicating the implementation uncertainty of spatial decision support systems to end-users.Flather. Dean and W.

. 402.nature. Gregory. New York. Walker (2004). C. Introduction. M. Study II: The Interpretation and Use of Uncertainty Metadata by Novices and Experts. et al. Hunsaker. P. J. Friedl and T. Gillingham (2004).com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/suppinfo/nature05237_S1. "Deconstructing the map. et al." Nature 444(7115): 93-96. http://dx. (2003). and P. Goodchild. Springer: xiii." Environment and Planning A 36(9): 1529-1547. P. A. B. and credibility. and Ted J. University of California.1038/nature05237 http://www. "Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates." Cartographica 26(2): 1-20. Plenum Trade.doi." Journal of Applied Ecology 41(6): 1032-1041. J. Santa Barbara. Richard. P. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. Kinzig. Jane and Steve Miller (1998). <Go to ISI>://000185431000002 227 . culture. (1989). Alex D. T. (2006). (2004). T. A. Geography. Science in public : communication.F. Doctoral Dissertation. C. Grenyer. <Go to ISI>://000225632800002 Keuper. Chapter 5. html Harley.Goodchild.org/10." Ambio 32(5): 330-335. Case. J. "Whose vision? conspiracy theory and landuse planning in Nevada County. New York. California. "Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion. <Go to ISI>://000224057100002 Johnson. Hurley. M. Case (2001). F. "Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new sciencepolicy forum. M. A. and M.

T. <Go to ISI>://000236064200019 Knight. et al. NY.. Christine A. Graham. Howell. Smith and Paul H.1523-1739.1523-1739.com/doi/abs/10.013002223. M. M. Craig.blackwellsynergy. M.com/doi/abs/10." Conservation Biology 17(6): 1591-1600. Williams (2003)." Conservation Biology 20(2): 408419. "Failing but learning: Writing the wrongs after Redford and Taber. (2006b). http://www. John (2002). Catherine H. A.1046/j. Kimberly G. New York. Goerck. A. Richard L. T. "Private Lands: The Neglected Geography.x Krygier. 228 . Harris and D. Taylor and Francis. <Go to ISI>://000239545500043 Knight.blackwellsynergy. T.. R." Conservation Biology 13(2): 223-224.1111/j.x MacEachren. W. Thomas Brooks. "Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: Best practice from South Africa. (1992).00233. A. "Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems.. Cowling and B. Weiner. Loiselle. Jaqueline M. Bette A. "Visualizing uncertain information. (2006). <Go to ISI>://000238313200033 Knight.1999. "An operational model for implementing conservation action." Conservation Biology 20(3): 739-750. http://www." Cartographic Perspectives 13: 10-19.2003." Conservation Biology 20(4): 1312-1314. T. (1999). A. A praxis of public particiption GIS and visualization. Campbell (2006a).Knight.

org/PID/16432 Meir. E. C. Guilford Press. "Uncertainty Analysis for Regional-Scale Reserve Selection. "Evaluating combinations of on-and off-reserve conservation strategies for the Agulhas Plain. Pressey (2000).x Natori..blackwellsynergy.2006. http://uclibs. Brendan A.1111/j. Y. Folke and F. <Go to ISI>://000225313100013 Olsson. Wintle. Andelman and H. K.1523-1739. Berkes (2004). P. C. Margules. MacEachren. Atte. Access restricted. (1995). http://www. Hikasa (2005). (1994). Q. Some truth with maps : a primer on symbolization and design. visualization. K. Jane Elith and Mark Burgman (2006).. How maps work : representation. M. A. "Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. "Systematic conservation planning. "Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?" Ecology Letters 7(8): 615-622. South 229 . Fukui and M." Nature 405(6783): 243-253.MacEachren. P. Botha and J. G. "Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives." Conservation Biology 20(6): 1688-1697.. Alan M. Possingham (2004). S. W. <Go to ISI>://000222716600001 Moilanen. Association of American Geographers. and design. D. L. Alan M. New York. and R." Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90..C.com/doi/abs/10. <Go to ISI>://000223464900007 Pence." Landscape and Urban Planning 70(3-4): 315-324.00560.. Washington. R. Turpie (2003).

" Biological Conservation 125(4): 441-458. Giacomo . Wolf (2005). M. A.. M. "The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves. Lawton (1999)." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1197-1199. Regan. A. S. Burgman (2000). H. Cowling. technology intermediaries and researchers. "A proposal for fuzzy International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories and criteria. Rachel M. Quinn and John H. M. R. T. M. M. <Go to ISI>://000083856800010 230 . A." Participatory Learning and Action 54: 106-113.Africa: a financial perspective.97428. M.1046/j. Colyvan and M." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 253-273. facilitators.. Rouget and T. Lombard. "Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners.1999.. M McCall and J Fox (2006). "Fuzzy sets and threatened species classification. . "Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation.blackwellsynergy. R Chambers.1523-1739. Colyvan (2000). Knight. http://www. H.com/doi/abs/10. <Go to ISI>://000088442400031 Regan. <Go to ISI>://000182913800014 Pierce. <Go to ISI>://000230447100004 Prendergast." Biological Conservation 92(1): 101-108. and M. T." Conservation Biology 13(3): 484-492. John R.x Rambaldi.

"A fuzzy classification technique for predicting species' distributions: applications using invasive alien plants and indigenous insects. "A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology.Regan. Estes (2001)." Ecological Applications 12(2): 618-628. Biodiversity Support Program. Burgman (2002). M. and L. Villet and A.. <Go to ISI>://A1993MJ39200004 231 ." Diversity and Distributions 10(5-6): 461-474. Palmer (2004).Ignorance Claims in Science and Journalism. Wright. 488. O. Colyvan and M. A. Parks and L. Groves and J. H.. W. http://www. W. Adaptive management : a tool for conservation practitioners. Stocking. H. C.org/publications/showhtml. New York. M. "Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity?" Ecological Applications 11(4): 999-1007. "Constructing and Reconstructing Scientific Ignorance . Environmental modeling with GIS. M. Goodchild.php3?97 and/or http://www.htm Scott. M. GIS and risk: a three-culture problem. Washington.bsponline. G. DC." Knowledge-Creation Diffusion Utilization 15(2): 186-210. <Go to ISI>://000174457800025 Rejeski. Oxford University Press: xxiii.org/bsp/publications/aam/112/titlepage. Steyaert.. B. Robertson. J. Davis. M. F. Nick. T. R. Richard Margoluis and Kent Redford (2001). David (1993). H. <Go to ISI>://000223744500016 Salafsky. Holstein (1993). G. F. S. M.worldwildlife. P. McGhie. R. R.

Bearly. B. <Go to ISI>://000089816800010 Theobald. De Master and J. T.Stoms.. "The Reliability of Using Population Viability Analysis for Risk Classification of Species. P. Gary. Shenk and W. "Sensitivity of Wildlife Habitat Models to Uncertainties in GIS Data. M. T. (1995). Ormeling (1994). T. R." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58(6): 843-850. Vivek Chaudhri. A. M. Hobbs. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial*. "Incorporating uncertainty into management models for marine mammals." Conservation Biology 14(5): 1243-1252. L. F. C. Visualization in modern cartography. "Assessment of threat and conservation priorities under realistic levels of uncertainty and reliability. <Go to ISI>://000083830400004 Todd." Conservation Biology 12(5): 966-974.. Barlow (2000). A. J. Hootsman and F. L. 232 . Riebsame (2000). B. Cogan (1992)." The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4): 477-500. F. Arthur Ha and Loris Strappazzon (2003). W. M. A. Stoneham. <Go to ISI>://A1995RB70400013 Taylor. M. "Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. D. <Go to ISI>://000076272800010 Van der Wel. B. D. D. R. M.. Taylor. Burgman (1998)." Landscape Ecology 15(1): 35-45. J. Davis and C. R. E. Wade. MacEachren and D. J. P. N. and M. Zack." Conservation Biology 9(3): 551-558.. Visualization of data quality.

gov/catdir/description/guilford051/92023443. J. Taylor.html Wynne. <Go to ISI>://000226348100002 Wood. Fowkes (2003). Santa Monica Mountains' Last Male Lion Hunted. J. "Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect. Ladle." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 15-28. http://www. New York. Weiss. http://www. Los Angeles. J. . Watson and K. Pergamon/Elsevier Science: xviii. New York. B.6959390. "Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. M.K. (1992). J. B. Kenneth (2003). M. R. F. E. Oxford.com/cgi/content/abstract/1/3/281 Younge.. The power of maps.sagepub.R. <Go to ISI>://000182913800002 233 . R. http://pus. Paul. 345.com/news/local/la-melion5dec05. Guilford Press." Diversity and Distributions 11(1): 3-23. Denis and John Fels (1992). U. J." Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281-304.latimes. Willis (2005). A. Los Angeles Times.loc. and S. "The Cape Action Plan for the Environment: overview of an ecoregional planning process.story?coll=la-headlines-california Whittaker.0. Araujo.

developing ecologically sound land-use policies and plans. A huge majority of the research emphasis in the discipline has been on assessment. There are three phases to systematic conservation planning (hereafter “conservation planning”) namely conservation assessment. This is done through Context One.e. and even less on monitoring.e. nature-based tourism on the ranch. and the commitment can be of varying degrees. understanding the value of ecosystem services to livelihoods).e. and monitoring. the intrinsic value of “nature”). or predator friendly beef sold at a premium). it is helpful to consider that conservation action is a commitment to conserve.e. Context Three is often overlooked by academia. implementation. and incentives (i. educational (i. an agreement with neighbors to preserve a rural livelihood).Chapter 5: Conclusion A FRAMEWORK AND OPERATIONAL MODEL DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENATION PHASE OF CONSERVATION PLANNING There is a large margin for improvement in the influence that systematic conservation planning has on actual conservation action. supporting the wise purchase or tax easement of individual parcels of land. community-based (i. legal commitment which is almost always achieved through economic incentives or disincentives. This can be a formal. with much less on implementation. and/or Context Two. and is the development of conservation plans 234 . and can occur due to all four mechanisms of behavior change: moral (i. Commitments to conserve can also be on the personal level. Conservation planning is primarily used to support the formal form of implementation. In looking at implementation.

such as the increased cost of public participation. The second communication network is between the conservation planners and the community members. A conceptual framework was devised that combines systematic conservation planning with findings from public participation GIS (PPGIS) and socio-ecological resilience. and knowledge about the region). and the abuse of sensitive data and knowledge.) will also be increased. ECPM as presented. termed the Community Collaboration Network (CCN). information. The first is termed the Landscape Knowledge Network (LKN) between the conservation planners and the landscape observers (ecologists of varying skills that collect and review useful data. A working assumption was made that if the amount of public participation could be dramatically increased in Context Three conservation planning. To do this effectively. 235 . The placeholder name for this concept is engaged conservation planning and management (ECPM). The focus of the dissertation was on Context Three. consists of two key communication networks. several constraints need to be minimized. the threats to “sound” science. Nonetheless.that do not have any legal standing. then the strength of the four drivers for informal conservation action (moral etc. these plans can be used to influence conservation action on all four levels of behavior change. It is based on a two-way flow of knowledge and values in an iterative approach to making science-based and pragmatic conservation plans and implementation strategies. and can also be generate the momentum needed for more formalized conservation planning.

specifically the collaborative software and the geospatial technologies such as Google Earth. All told. By providing a careful look at Third Context conservation planning. and broad-band internet access is common among those. The operational model utilizes benefits of the emerging culture and software of Web 2. as a detailing of the CCN.0. Landscape observers provide the core of the LKN. The data and knowledge provided to the ecospatial web will be ranked based on the qualifications of the observer and the observer’s self-reported confidence about the particular knowledge object. the dissertation also implies a point that is made explicit here. The conservation planners also provide data and knowledge. as well as providing a purpose for being in nature. The emphasis of the operational model was on the LKN. they will use several 236 . and are comprised of at least three groups of increasing rigor: amateur ecologists.An operational model for ECPM was derived for the regional contexts in which a lot of the interested community members have access to computers. It was also written to provide practitioners and researchers embarking on its development with references. when choosing between two different models/algorithms/theories to enhance or develop into software. and professional ecologists. was beyond the scope of the dissertation. For instance. Conservation planners that are doing research and development in one of the two other contexts can now keep this third context in mind. and practical suggestions. this provides a framework for utilizing economies of scale to keep the ecospatial knowledge of a region up-to-date and verified. with its growing body of knowledge. citizen scientists.

THE POTENTIAL OF UNCERTAINTY MAPPING AS A MEANS TO IMPROVE IMPLEMENTATION IN ECPM Communicating conservation planning products to the community can be especially problematic. This is the quantitative estimate of how likely a site is to retain its attribute value (i. etc. so need to be created responsibly and carefully. Especially promising is the mapping of implementation uncertainty. A case study was used as a platform for the initial stages of a technique for quantifying and communicating this type of uncertainty. software requirements. Related to the portability issue. the sharing of modules and scripts is going to become increasingly important approach at decreasing costs.e. Maps are inherently political objects. Soon they will be able to be shared to people that have free or nearly free versions of the GIS software. but such a metric includes aspects of portability. and the expected change in human impact (i. such as the ability to do simple analyses using the new ArcExplorer. transparency. the human impact. A resource allocation model was used that identifies conservation priority areas based on their ecological value.e. and ease of understanding. Mapping the uncertainty that is inherent to the conservation planning process shows promise in decreasing the volatility of the map. Now. such as data requirements.different evaluation metrics. accuracy. 237 . processing time. and is one of the challenging constraints of Third Context conservation planning. ease of application. not being a conservation priority) after future perturbations to the plan occur. the cost of conservation. they are encouraged to also ask “what is the engagement potential of the object under consideration?” How to exactly quantify this needs to be developed.

the results provided much more useful information to the end-users. Nonetheless. leading to a hypothesis that can be tested in the conservation planning arena: mapping uncertainty can build trust between scientists and 238 . Indications are that the fuzzier products that emerge from implementation uncertainty mapping act to dissuade fears. The analysis is a starting point only. It was not possible to provide the products to the broad spectrum of stakeholders. effectively communicate both the issue and an indication of its quantitative values. new techniques for modeling habitat connectivity were derived. and when combined with the implementation-uncertainty map. The uncertainty map also portrays the message that the results are not exact. as it did not use probabilities of development potential in driving the Monte Carlo analysis. Because implementation-uncertainty is an abstract form of uncertainty.“threat”). Two of the three animations proved useful. The animations and the different maps were evaluated and discussed using focus groups. (In populating this model. efforts were made to illustrate it to the end-users using simple animations. They imply that a particular landowner will not be pressured to conserve their land because there are alternatives identified.) A Monte Carlo approach was used to identify the sites that acted as good alternatives to the conservation priorities identified in the resource allocation model. They were very familiar with the politics and the sentiments of the region thought. only the ones with experience in conserving lands and/or with ecosystem management.

several actions could have been done differently. the product was still deemed unsuitable for public release. and the concept of uncertainty was portrayed by uniformly blurring all of the values of the layer. The focus groups did not trust the results.community members. In hindsight. Despite the benefits of the implementation uncertainty map. In retrospect it would have been much more valuable to focus on a multi-criteria model that identified the conservation value of all sites and that could be updated as new data became available. rather then an approach requiring manual implementation. One of the unexpected findings to come out of this research is along the lines of building trust. it is probably wisest to use a resource allocation model only after the end-users are familiar with and endorse the base data layers and initial analyses. this latter approach could have been used. Secondly. focus groups comprised of 239 . Or. thereby allowing for easy removal of model components as per land-management advisor request. Similarly uncertainty mapping can aid implementation by providing an incentive for learning. and helping set priorities for future research. but should have been performed through the ESRI Modelbuilder interface. A map that portrayed the conservation value of every site of the region was released instead. The lesson learned was that in community processes. Because the conservation assessment method was not being explicitly researched. It was still too volatile. An underlying tension in the evaluation of the product was the uncertainty of the resource allocation model itself did not match the type of output that it provided. This was also a learning experience in other ways as well. ‘canned’ software could have been used.

FUTURE RESEARCH What is the conceptual framework that integrates all three contexts of conservation assessment most effectively? How does Context Three conservation planning lead to policy change? How are the three contexts performed so that the knowledge bases are linked to reduce duplication of effort? It may be that the community can emphasize one at a time. Is this indeed a good sequence. For instance. com. As a result. Efforts should be made to work with planners such that their needs are better met 240 . In most instances of Context One conservation planning. 2006a). 2005). as would be more ideal (pers. Similarly. efforts should have been made upon initiation to prepare the participants and funders for a delayed timetable if the initial products did not meet expectations. instead of integrated. Thus a sequence of Three-One-TwoThree-Three that is then repeated may be a wise approach at integrating the three context in a unified approach to improving conservation implementation. these two fields are separated as is illustrated.individuals without any decision making authority should have complemented those that included community advisors. with Context Three iterating more frequently due to its emphasis on resilience. 74 conservation assessments were examined to see how well they supported implementation. and how that is done? A related research question is in bridging the disconnect between conservation planning and land-use planning. and only two incorporated parcel boundaries in the spatial models (Newburn et al. Davis). conservation planning practice and products are not geared towards the needs of land-use planners (Knight et al.

The Digital Earth movement (ISDE 2006) is founded on a similar idea. and transportation planning have more financial resources.e. This more comprehensive web that includes the earthscape knowledge network and these other bioregional domains can be called the Web of Resilience (Fig 15). and a “green business” directory. are leaders in participatory GIS approaches. and Teamwork can be linked to other bioregionally focused web domains such as a living database of sustainability oriented events and project support (i. and it can eventually be the earthscape knowledge network. It might also increase the application of reconciliation ecology (Rosenzweig 2003) in urban areas(Miller 2005). and might be the logical partner with ECPM. farmer’s markets and roof-top gardens). Such an alliance would likely increase engagement by one or two more orders of magnitude given the large and growing proportion of people living in cities. Further. and at least in the U. or some other name that encompasses complete coverage of the planet at multiple scales. Visions. com Couclelis). 241 . Similarly the Web of Community Values. the converse is also true. This research angle is a ripe opportunity. The principles of the LKN can be applied to the cityscape as well. There is a wealth expertise in the planning literature about issues regarding implementation that is hardly tapped by the conservation planning community (pers. 2005). regional planning. The more government-based urban planning.(Pierce et al. comprehensive planning. ECPM can realize economies of scale and reduce duplication of effort if it effectively integrates with other sustainability efforts and other online communities.S..

Figure 15: The Web of Resilience can help the self-organization and cooperation among the different efforts working towards sustainability. 242 .

2006). which was then serviced by a web-crawler search engine (personal communication Goodchild). and needs to be recognized as such. and especially the apathy surrounding it. In many cases. Xiujun et al. One subtle but profound implication is that when people are recording their outdoor experience they cannot completely live the moment. A starting point for this goal could be to have all WMS servers submit a link to a central web page.kml layers. These have the potential of weakening the connection that people have with nature. people will spend more time in front of a computer exploring the world. it is this connection and 243 . An initial challenge is streamlining the search for all of the geospatial information at various scales that is available for a place of study and/or residence. especially regarding the geospatial web.A good complement to this cross-topic research would be cross-scale research (Cash et al. So embracing information and communications technology as a centerpiece of the solution is playing with fire. The cognitive and ethical implications of the web-enabled emphasis ECPM should also be explored. The universal Web Mapping Service (WMS) interface (OGC 2006) allows use of the data in Google Earth and all other browsers. 2006). vi How can all of this already burgeoning information be catalogued? With focused research in GIScience then we may be able to move beyond geoportals to a more dynamic and all encompassing approach where users are able to search all registered WMS data in the world by keywords and/or bounding box (Egenhofer 2002. it is the faith in technology that is fueling the biodiversity crisis. Further. In many respects. The standard way of sharing data in Google Earth is by converting GIS layers into .

These perspectives will provide a much needed balance to the engine of economic growth that is prevalent in all three contexts (Fig 16). “Missing from most scholarly writings and public debate about the economy and the environment are workable visions of the future (Harte 1996). (Ecology and economy each come from the root word “home” and are arguably two sides of the same coin. This has special potential in development of vision. How can ECPM be implemented How can ECPM be implemented to fuel rather than extinguish this passion and wonder for creation? As indicated by Fig 8c (Ch 2). As per my bias stated in the preface.) This has indications of being a very good approach at shifting the economic growth engine out of overdrive into drive. A very interesting line of research will be to examine if this is a key to Rawlsian democracy. humanity included. I think this will be a good thing for life on earth.resulting passion that motivates people towards environmentally responsible behavior. A greater emphasis should be placed on developing and 244 . and of Habermasian dialogue. ECPM has the potential of dramatically increasing the public participation in the welfare of society and nature. One side is the study of the home.” Third Context conservation planning has the potential of addressing this glaring weakness of society by providing a platform for development of ecological perspectives at various scales from the landscape level to the global. In moving forward with these and other exciting research agendas. and one is the management of the home. lessons should be learned from one of the big shortcomings of previous research in conservation planning. It doesn’t seem wise to have one without the other.

245 .Figure 16: Development and maintenance of Ecological Perspectives at various scales worldwide has the potential of providing a balance to the Economic Engine.

The taxonomy could be used to identify regions with the best enabling conditions for new conservation efforts (Mascia 2006). ecological. much of this research is underway. Further. and economic characteristics affecting conservation implementation. The effects of the conservation planning treatment and the counterfactual would be associated with the particular taxonomy. There are so many exciting directions to go that it is difficult to choose one. What would such a taxonomy look like and how could it be populated? At this stage of the action-reflection cycle the participatory action researcher asks. correlations among regions should emerge. Case-studies will also be more useful if a conservation taxonomy of regions can be developed.testing operational models (Knight et al. and over time. A taxonomy of regions would allow a quick and standard classification of the key social. and it could be used in the evaluation of an effort. but with only marginal cohesion. because time and funding for such endeavors is often scarce in applied research. Thus. “what is next?” (McNiff and Whitehead 2006). 2006a). In doing this. political. On the other hand. one of the next steps in this line 246 . the difficult task of examining the counterfactual (how effective conservation would have been in the absence of the treatment) needs to be performed (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006). What are the dimensions of the socio-political culturescape? Every region is unique but has some characteristics that are the same as other regions. the taxonomy cannot be too complicated or resource intensive to populate for any given region.

USA. Lebel. it is a wiki in which members can begin forging ahead. W.net. collaborative planning. P. and monitoring. L. We hope to “see” you there. citizen science. geovisualization. community-based conservation and natural resource management.ecologyandsociety.of inquiry is to communicate with the community of practice (the group of people bound by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise). "Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. (2002). It will link to a more mature collaborative environment.br/cursos/ser303/egenhofer_geospatial_semantic_web. J. L. Adger. D. adaptive co-management towards resilience. Olsson.dpi. Virginia. iterative conservation assessment. Pritchard and O. http://www. M. [online] URL: http://www.inpe. a staging ground for this community of practice has been set up at engagedconservation. P. W. McLean. In this spirit of communication. Garden. REFERENCES Cash. Berkes.netcipia.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ Egenhofer.p df 247 ." Ecology and Society 11(2): 8. Proceedings of the tenth ACM international symposium on advances in geographic information systems. F. In this case the joint enterprise is the engaged approach to conservation planning and management which includes development of the geospatial web. Young (2006). For the moment. Toward the semantic geospatial web..

2006.html.org/sici?sici=10510761%28199602%296%3A1%3C27%3ACVOASF%3E2. "International Society for Digital Earth. M." Retrieved Jan. R. http://links. (2006).. "An operational model for implementing conservation action. Weiner (1998).net/pipermail/sswg/2006-September/000370.org/ISocDE. J. <Go to ISI>://000237066500001 Foster. 30." Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2): 67-76. J.0. marginalization. (1996).isde5. T. http://dx.intermedia." Plos Biology 4(4): 482488. "Empowerment. and S." Social Sciences Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology. from http://www.1038/440419a Harris. Retrieved Oct. M.html ISDE. Ian (2006)." Nature 440(7083): 419-419. T.CO%3B2-X http://www.jstor. 2007. "Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. P. (2006). Michael. A.htm Knight. and D. "Confronting Visions of a Sustainable Future. <Go to ISI>://000236064200019 Mascia." Conservation Biology 20(2): 408419. 248 . 17.M. from http://mailman. "References regarding the topic of enabling conditions for conservation success. K. and "community-integrated" GIS. "2020 Computing: A two-way street to science's future.jstor. Cowling and B. Campbell (2006).org/10.Ferraro.doi.org/journals/10510761." Ecological Applications 6(1): 27-29. Harte. Pattanayak (2006).

za/nephp/?m=show&id=3440.org/standards/wcs. James R. T. J. (1995). A. S. Retrieved Jan. 26). S. Merenlender (2005). http://www. 29." Biological Conservation 125(4): 441-458. 25. D. (2006.. "Economics and landuse change in prioritizing private land conservation.. All you need to know about action research.. from http://www.mybroadband. Wolf (2005). Ground truth : the social implications of geographic information systems.McNiff. Pickles. "Is there any hope for SA broadband?" Retrieved Jan. London . R. Miller. Knight. Jean and Jack Whitehead (2006).sciencedirect." OpenGIS Consortium.co. 1). from http://www." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1411-1420. P. Pierce. New York. "Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. SAGE. Cowling." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(8): 430-434. 2007. A. (2005). M. Jan. "Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation.com/science/article/B6VJ1-4GCWYY42/2/641cc7a9344abd6ba3ea42657dcda039 MyADSL. (2007. Reed. 2007. Thousand Oaks.opengeospatial. Rouget and T. T. Guilford Press. <Go to ISI>://000230447100004 249 . M. Lombard. Sept. Newburn. Calif. <Go to ISI>://000232137900010 OGC. Berck and A. "OpenGIS® Web Coverage Service (WCS) Implementation Specification. M.

Meng (2006). Kunqing and S. part of a for profit company. INFOSCALE '06. http://www. Hong Kong. A Developing Connection: Bridging the Policy Gap between the Information Society and Sustainable Development. Towards a Sustainable Development View of Local Content using ICTs in South Africa: A Key Priority in the National Information Society Strategy. does not allow the manual creation or transfer of the memory cache. Steve (2005). Maja Andjelkovic. Michael L. Win-win ecology : how the earth's species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Terri Willard. For instance.Rosenzweig. Oxford University Press. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Scalable Information Systems. (This is primarily to protect the proprietary 250 . Google Earth. Oxford . and very slow with dial-up connectivity. International Institute for Sustainable Development. M. Vosloo. New York.pdf#search= %22Towards%20a%20Sustainable%20Development%20View%20of%22 Xiujun.org/pdf/2005/networks_dev_connection_africa. Gang. (2003). Steve Voslooet al. X.. data. vi Indications are that the geospatial web would be best able to support resilience if it was comprised of open-source software. L. making it impossible to use without internet access.iisd. and standards. A peer-to-peer approach to Geospatial Web Services discovery.

This scenario was one of the fears expressed by the early GIS and Society discourses (Pickles 1995. In South Africa. but actual vector and raster datasets. broadband is available only to the elite for much of the world.000% more of the average person’s income than the same service in the U. broadband is about 1. In considering the merits of the OGC WMS protocol. it is important to know that it is not just map images that can be shared. which is supposed to have embraced ICT technology(Vosloo 2005). (MyADSL 2007). and World Wind is an open source alternative to Google Earth that also allows manual creation and transfer of the memory cache. Harris and Weiner 1998).S. The supposedly democratizing function of GIS is actually used to empower the cultural elite and to propagate the inequality of wealth… The OpenGIS Consortium (OGC 2006) is the hub of open source software for GIS.2.) Meanwhile.000.interests of the for-profit companies providing high resolution data. 251 .

On the one hand it was important not to set 252 . Insert: The Introductory Modules The resource allocation animation illustrated the concept of optimization and related issues such as complementarity. as per the Shannon-Wiener Index (Krebs 1985). This material is pasted in the order of which it is referred to in the body.] Insert: Selecting 50% of the sites The number of sites chosen as unavailable needed to reflect a compromise between two opposing considerations. Complementarity is a measure of the extent to which a new area could contribute unrepresented features to the reserve system (Margules and Pressey 2000). The maximum species diversity used for the nonoptimal approach was a function of the number of species and individuals. or reflect later terminology changes to the body. It also will be a reference for the researcher in future years.Appendix A: Additional material referred to by Chapter 3 The material in this appendix was in the original draft of chapter 3. so the sections do not flow together. An resource allocation approach was illustrated by the greedy heuristic that selected a site by how well it would contribute to the objective function. [Back to main body. This material has been cut and pasted here in case a reader desires to dive completely into the subject matter.

For each realization. As a result of these considerations. of a site was simply: (1) S i = ∑ p ir r =1 R (“Binary Approach”) 253 . [Back to main body.] Insert: Monte Carlo Synthesis Initially. pir indicates that the conservation priority score is for a particular realization of a particular site. as either yes (1) or no (0). r. setting this value too low produces outputs that are very similar. p. the value of 50% was chosen. Achieving thousands of runs would have been a logistical challenge for this particular study. On the other hand. and implemented using Microsoft Excel’s random number generator linked to the GIS with a look-up table. thereby requiring thousands of runs to get a useful variance of outputs. a site i had a conservation priority score. The initial Monte Carlo score. Excel’s random number generator identified x/2 integers between 1 and x. the realizations were overlaid using a binary approach. requiring 12 hours of computer time to run in initial trials. The optimization model was computationally intensive. R is the total number of realizations.this value too high. and a GIS layer was made of just those sites. S. The identification numbers of all the potential sites were exported to Microsoft Excel and correlated with a number in an integer sequence from 1 to x where x was the number of sites. The results were correlated back to the site numbers. as this increases the influence of the random number generator in selecting the target sites.

the first synthesis product created was through the refined binary approach. the possible score ranged from 0 to 1.g. there was a variance among the sites for the highest possible value of S. the order in which the priority sites are selected is telling. A score of 120 would mean the site was available in every realization. In this approach. and was chosen in each Monte Carlo run. thereby leading to an unfair bias in the final value of S. due to the random selection of the sites not available for conservation for all of the Monte Carlo input layers. with the higher score indicating a higher importance. If a site is consistently selected near the beginning of the greedy selection process. T was the number of target sites being selected (in this case 180): 254 . However. in which Ai is the total number of times that site i was actually available for conservation: (2) Si = ∑p r =1 R ir Ai (“Refined Binary Approach”) In this approach. Another way the outputs were combined was with a ranking approach. with a 1 indicating that the site was chosen every time it was available. and it could be argued that the end-user should know this. Thus. if it was the second site selected in the greedy heuristic it got a value of 2). g was the rank in which a site was chosen (e.S had a possible score between 0 and 120 for each site. then it is arguably very important to conservation. Because the greedy heuristic (described in Insert: Conservation Planning Analysis) chooses the sites with the highest initial marginal conservation value first.

Because there is a large correlation between rank and the percentage of times a site will be chosen when it is available. Thus. but that it was chosen first every time as well. there is a large correlation between the values of Si generated by equations (2) and (3). The one that seemed to balance the two equally was used: (4) Si = ∑ r =1 R 3 T + 1 − g ir 3 T ⋅ Ai (“Compromise Approach”) 255 . the fourth approach was a compromise between the concepts of the second and third approaches. some discrepancies are always likely. Equation (3) biases against sites that are more important after deviations from the initial conditions have occurred (i. However. Several transformations were performed on a simple data set: some with the root taken before the sum.(3) Si = ∑ (T + 1 − g ) ir r =1 R T ⋅ Ai (“Ranking Approach”) The possible score again ranges from 0 to 1. the variance of (3) was reduced by using a root transformation. The outputs were examined to see how well they tempered the two opposing forces. later in the implementation period).e. some after the sum. To do this. Equation (2) biases against sites that are more important at the start of the implementation period. and some with different powers. with 1 indicating that the site was not only chosen every time it was available.

Again. However. These maps are henceforth called the implementation-uncertainty maps. one of the ranking approach. and that the compromise approach balanced the factors of each. The participants were able to understand the difference between the binary approach and the ranking approach. they felt that the question of which one is best was relatively unimportant compared to the other questions at hand. possible scores range from 0 to 1. For these maps. They recommended that we should choose the approach that best met the objectives of the uncertainty quantification. Further. they felt that it was mathematically cumbersome and had the potential of negatively side-tracking the subsequent focus groups. and one of the compromise approach. and the other sites had a decreasing level of saturation proportional to their composite value. and that it had a high average rank during these selections. 256 . the standard sites were shown in highest saturation. Several maps were created for the focus groups in addition to the standard map: one that showed the Monte Carlo composite using the refined binary approach. Accordingly. with the higher scores indicating the site was selected quite often when it was available. The Three Representations of the Monte Carlo Results The three different implementation-uncertainty maps and their corresponding methodologies for quantifying the Monte Carlo results were presented to the CCP focus group. the compromise-approach map was presented as the one and only implementation-uncertainty map to the subsequent focus groups.

Ideally. an ocean conservation organization employee. but there was no funding to reimburse participants. focus groups would have been comprised of strangers. Participants volunteered to participate in the focus groups because they were joined with advisory business. The CCP personnel that attended the first focus group were a Santa Barbara County official. The landuse advisor focus group was attended by three land trust directors. 5) to explore how these products would affect conservation implementation. 2) the ecological expert advisors focus group. and 3) the land and resource management advisors focus group. and a state wildlife agency representative. two members of local natural history museums. 257 .] Insert A: Additional Focus Group and Questionnaire Methods The three focus groups in order of presentation were 1) CCP board of directors and staff focus group. The ecological advisor focus group was attended by four environmental consultants. Parallel objectives of the focus groups were targeted for another chapter of the dissertation: 4) to determine if the conservation priorities map released to the public should be the standard-run map or the implementation-uncertainty map. an environmental historian. two county planners. and why.[Back to main body. a watershed recovery program coordinator. and two CCP staff. and a conservation GIS analyst.

Goodchild 2004). the time on the tape was noted. in both the questions and the approach with the different groups (Proctor 1998b).5 hours each. as needed. from 1-9. For the coded transcript. as it was not known which ones would invoke much discussion and which ones would be flat (Goodchild 2004). and any comment that might be related to the research questions was documented. The focus groups met for 3. In that row. it was decided to make the questionnaires optional. This allowed participants that were shy or hesitant to express an opinion to do so (Litosseliti 2003.The meetings also provided an opportunity for participants to provide feedback on other aspects of the model and suggestions for model enhancement if a second iteration of the process were to be performed. and one of several columns was filled in. More questions were listed than were possible to address. Only 258 . Questions were designed to look at issues on the topic guide and elicit a response. and had a meal provided. and a prompt for any specific feedback was also provided. The feedback was structured as a questionnaire. a spreadsheet was created. ranging from “disagree strongly” to “I’m not sure” to “agree strongly. Questionnaire response was low (N=6) so the results were tallied and only examined for trends to provide anecdotal information for the revision process. the topic guide was loose to allow for differences. The columns were headed by the different themes of the research.” Because participants were not paid to attend the groups. Also. . Participants were also given an opportunity to provide written. anonymous feedback.

etc) as a whole are sufficient to yield long term conservation of the region’s biodiversity. about 20 years. 259 . then they would be better able to make “voluntary” decisions (not forced by environmental regulation) in other topic areas (such as transportation or housing) that would also benefit biodiversity” was answered with an agreement level of 7. The only other statement with a standard deviation less than one was “The environmental regulatory mechanisms currently in place (i. The statement “As a whole. It was determined by the land-use advisors to have the final product be in the form of a report with hardcopy maps. if decision-makers and landowners had an improved ecological knowledge.000. It was also determined that a medium range timeframe for implementation should be employed.” Everyone disagreed with this statement with an average value of 2 and a standard deviation of 0.] Insert: Additional Results for Phase 1. The detailed ecological and land-use parameter values of the model are provided in Gallo. and the maps would be no bigger than 11” X 17” and would encompass the entire region.8 (out of 9) and a standard deviation of 0. [Back to main body. and performing the standard run. et al. This worked out to be a scale of a little coarser than 1:500. (2005). setting the parameters and context of the model. and 3 Phase 1 entailed developing the advisory groups.two of the nine questions had a strong consensus and strong opinion about the answer. Studarus. It was difficult to estimate the amount of land that would be conserved in that time frame.000 acres was set as the target area for conservation priorities.e. endangered species act.43. 2.707. local grading ordinance. but a figure of 100.

The second module was appreciated by the CCP group and the Ecological group. Due to the nature of focus groups. but had mixed reviews from the Land Use group. this information is not treated as “the truth” but rather indications of the truth as well as development of new ideas. then the final soundtrack could be made for final release. Once approved.The soundtracks of the modules were created so that each focus group received the same message.] A more complete narrative of quotes. The focus groups provided a wealth of information. They felt that rather then fix the soundtrack before presenting to the other focus groups. and it was not shown to the third group in order to allow for more time on other discussion. the first module was appreciated by all three groups. The Introductory Modules The three introductory modules had mixed reviews. and so the modules could eventually be part of a web site available to people not able to attend live presentations. The following material was provided by Gallo (2005) in a previous document. The CCP group and the Ecological group both felt it was not necessary to show the third module to the public. It had some skips in the narration. On a technical note. The second module had mixed reviews from the Land Use group because it inferred that all development had equal impact 260 . it would be better to simply narrate the modules in person until they were approved by all parties. and the goals of the focus groups were met. [Back to main body. there was criticism from the CCP group about the audio playback of the module. In summary.

whereas strip mall development will. too complex. In summary. it was felt that when the presentation is in a live forum. and be more concise by using a script. Regarding the audio narration of all three modules. “I'm not sure that oil field development is going to black out every species.” They were able to understand the concept of uncertainty and alternatives being communicated though.e. rather then having an audio recording. i. In an effort to allow for more time for discussion of higher priority issues. and difficult to understand. Some of the ecological advisors did not understand how the random approach could lead to a useful outcome. The third module was rejected for a variety of reasons. and they suggested that the concept is illustrated in the second module. blacking it out. it seems to me that if you were to do random development that you would eliminate all of those sites eventually. and module three could simply be summarized by a bulleted slide and few sentences instead. “I don't grasp it though. such as “the model understands the dynamic nature of land-use patterns. the first introductory module that illustrated the concept of optimality was the only one that met with all positive reviews. the narration should be live as well. this module was not shown in the Land Use group.” The Ecological Advisors agreed with this suggestion. The Three Representations of the Monte Carlo Results 261 .” There was a similar negative reaction in the CCP focus group. It was too much information. and the second one would be acceptable with slight color modifications. It incorporates that by using dozens of runs or hundreds of runs to account for the potential to lose priority sites.on biodiversity.

it would have been a good question for an academic advisor group. the joint approach that balanced the binary approach with the ranking approach was presented as the only option for representing the Monte Carlo analysis.The three different methodologies for quantifying the Monte Carlo results were presented to the CCP focus group. does not mess things up. Some respects it is. Instead. I like it in that respect” Further. Model and Map Evaluation—CCP Focus Group The CCP focus group preferred the uncertainty map over the map solely showing the optimal sites. In an effort to allow for more time for discussion of higher priority issues. they liked how it had a larger spatial extent of priority areas: “I feel like the other one is more narrow. it is like… fuzzy lines. They were able to understand the difference between the binary approach versus the ranking approach. In short. this issue was not discussed in the subsequent discussion groups. and it was felt that that this level of evaluation was beyond the scope and expertise of the focus groups. and that the loss of a site in year two of your 20 year plan. I like how the uncertainty 262 . that indicate opportunity. The sentiment about complexity corroborated predictions by an academic advisor that it was most important to choose an approach that the researcher best feels meets the objectives and simply document it as it as the method used for synthesizing the uncertainty results. There was excitement that the model shows the type of uncertainty that it does. “Is this a mitigator for someone who lives in a red square? And thus development there in year 2 does not mess up the whole house of cards. and that it was largely a scientific question.

It is more powerful to do it this way. Don't want to tell people that it is an awkward approximation of reality when what it is a means to give long term guidance and a set of workable options into the future. One talking about the downside of this approach. you don't want to cut off your legs. "I like having alternatives like that defined. and that it is uncertain. or maybe somebody’s particular interest or whether you can get wide public support for it. In the ecological advisor focus group." Another reason the uncertainty map was preferred is that 263 . and that is uncertain.” Another reason for support is that it has a greater area of priorities. so yeah. . So you can get the bigger picture. “To me people know this is a model. loss of optimality. Model and Map Evaluation—Ecological Advisors Focus Group Uncertainty: was good. . Two quotes. So people know it is a model. it seems like you would want to have first and second priorities for alternatives with the idea that some of your second tier selections. there was also more support for the uncertainty map then the optimal map. but by calling it uncertainty it makes it sound like it is less powerful. Support was based in part on the idea that it is useful to show alternatives.” Similarly they liked how it decreased the volatility of the map: "It is a lower panic button. “Opportunities will be based more on whether you have a cooperative land owner. Alternatives.” A variety of other term were identified and the term “alternatives” was recommended.its that region." The focus group had concerns with the term “uncertainty” though. (Olson). . or funding for a particular property. its that area. because of the timing.map shows more spots.

there was hesitation regarding the release of the map.” Similarly. so it would dissuade people that are in the gaps from conserving their land. and contiguity and functioning ecosystems.” It was also felt that the output of the model should better reflect the ecological requirements of the region: “To me when you think about broad scale land use planning for the long term. and to try to think about all these miscellaneous little squares. you are specifying too much. namely that landowners would still feel threatened and/or degrade their land. “the power of the earlier elements of the model is that they show you the entire landscape and how it works together. it doesn't lead me in that direction. 264 . “We had this with the listing of the tiger salamander. and not giving enough weight to the connectivity objective. where a lot of ground got ripped real quick. I think by the time you present individual pixels.” Suggested mitigations for this included further increasing the spatial extent of the solution space.” The idea of increasing the spatial extent was supported for other reasons as well. “I see more gaps on this map then hot spots. you are not thinking about individual little squares you are thinking about continuity. “Why not [run the analysis to] put twice as many boxes on the map and maybe not even specify which ones are the alternatives.” Along these lines the advisors felt that the model was giving too much weight to the objective of expanding small reserves.comparatively. it seems to lesson the threat to landowners “it takes the gun away from pointing at one particular spot.” However.

but you don’t let cost be a controlling factor to that initially. You build off of that. That should be your driving force to start with. “Maybe you need to show two different model outputs. and the ecological advisors wished for an additional result that would show the conservation priorities based solely on the ecological characteristics of the region." There was also some concern about the assumption that certain areas are not considered threatened. where you might have a red on a $200. one with cost factored in and one without.” And there was a question about the assumption that more expensive areas are harder to conserve. "Cost be damned in some situations.000 project that is not nearly as passionate. Model and Map Evaluation—Land Use Advisors Focus Group The land use advisors also preferred the uncertainty map over the optimal map." "A lot of us might be more than willing to pound pavement to raise $2 million. and thereby not an opportunity for conservation. you get to that minimum area issue where doing conservation on small areas is very costly. They seemed to prefer it for the larger spatial extent of the areas of priority. you can’t really manage for natural 265 . what is of most significance and that is worth protecting the most in our region. Let people decide based on the merits of the ecological value without the purchase price attached to it. and also because it provided alternatives. These layers were viewed as large sources of uncertainty. mainly because threat changes over time and is difficult to predict.” “You need to present.Another theme of the meeting was frustration that the final results had the threat layer and cost layer embedded within. “when you are trying to do conservation.

if people can see the dots in a non-dot way. and you have an option for one of the pink guys. I hate to see those squares. I don't know if it is the Gaviota coast or wherever. “You have a fairly fine scale. the sites were criticized for their grid like appearance.I can tell you where the mountain lions run. . and say this is a high priority area. and if you were to go to a funder. . if you have a situation where. you could show this map. These squares are like the Jeffersonian land coordinates. . you got a lot of invasives coming in because you have so much edge. can’t go in and do a whole lot. you wouldn't know unless you had this map. it depends on if someone wants to sell their property or not. One of the con’s was that even the uncertainty map still had a tendency to identify specific 1. rather then identifying one landowner .” Similarly. and the output was still not blurry enough.5 km square sites which was still seen as too close to the parcel scale. later in the discussion. . and not for one of the red ones. dividing the nation up like that. Its better to identify a region. This gives us more options.” There was a lot of discussion about the pro’s and con’s of releasing the map as it stood. and this is more of what we call the landscape scale than the other one. A blurry way. and share that information. when it comes down to it. showing areas where there is a concentration of these things (sites). “. Being a pragmatist. We like to bias ourselves towards large areas. I think those maps can work on a broader scale sometimes better. furthermore. I know that’s what you have to work with here. but that’s not 266 . they don't stay in one place.processes.” and "For a very practical perspective.

even before the hardest part of dealing with sensitive species. you gotta see how you can bring those people together. I would question our ability to do conservation in this region. there was discussion about the history of volatility in the region. and not polarize the stakeholders?” Similarly. Namely. one guy is looking at it from an ecological standpoint purely. and another guy wants a place to ride his horse. How do we use this to promote conservation? What can we put in front of the public that will facilitate conservation. or a river.” This discussion lead to a critique of the conservation priorities map. one of the members stated “If that went public. it helps start the discussion towards consensus: "By putting the priorities out there. nor did they support the social interactions towards conservation of that web.thinking like a mountain.’ Then the farmers walked out. “They will be very upset if they see that map." So it was felt that the squares did not represent the ecological web very well. and not around squares. it opens up a discussion as to what our priorities are in the community. Perhaps most importantly for the research question on hand.” On the other hand. there was an extensive discussion about the benefits of providing conservation planning information to the community. with special focus on the lessons learned from the rural resource study. I fear. just like we had the discussion 267 . because if we are all coming from six different places one guy is looking at it form an ORV. where the goals slowly got changed around to become “an issue of ‘how to avoid the county. and what we've learned from decades of thought is that you plan around watersheds.

Further. there was a lot of support for sharing the conservation planning information. similar to the ecological focus group. and shared vision to help make collaboration among groups more efficient and to make fundraising more successful “You can use the planning effort to build interest put it all into a regional context. but the feeling was that the iteration on the table was not appropriate. it shows you what the end-run looks like." "It gets back to the collaborative thing. it what we want to achieve.today. it was felt that conservation provides a valuable regional context.” “Yeah." In summary. and that helps to channel dollars. It can also help build a shared vision among public agency groups and private groups." Further. the vision. but through these conservation planning efforts we can rally around a shared vision and shared commonalities. It also gives you a good picture at what success looks like. There was a lot of support for the intermediate maps that showed the ecological value of every site on the landscape. the land use advisors suggested having additional products that did not have cost and 268 . and hopefully some consensus-building of the kind of places that a community really does want to protect. so it doesn't look like you are always asking for money for yet another thing. The challenge is that you'll never get everyone to buy into one blueprint. and to say 'wait a minute. We all have slightly different missions and different ways of prioritizing our actions. why isn't there anything over there or how did this come about' and I think that can lead to a deeper discussion.

if a species is found in only one site. This is an important component in many conservation planning efforts. but in a degraded area that is not very threatened and have a relatively low marginal value. then the irreplaceability of the sites would be indicated indirectly. For example. The discussion about cost centered around the difficulty of modeling cost. and other issues. and is the extent to which the loss of the area will compromise regional conservation targets (Margules and Pressey 2000). and the optimization criteria includes representation of that species in at least one site. Irreplaceability helps define priorities. Insert: Discussion: Visualizing the solution set issue. One of the shortcomings of the marginal value model is that it does not measure irreplaceability explicitely. that site has the highest irreplaceability score possible. Thus. such as Pressey and Taffs (2001). 2006 #350}. of comparing cost of conserving private land to that of conserving public land. a standard-set site could have several different rare species. and thus a low ranking in the greedy selection process.threat embedded within. Back to main body. If the Monte Carlo results were shown for the standardset sites. and of comparing cost of acquisition versus cost of management. only total marginal value relative to the total for a region {Davis. this site will show up in nearly every Monte Carlo run that the site is available for conservation. This could be visualized by having a thick 269 . not just the sub-optimal ones as shown here. Because of the rarity of these species. irreplaceability. Meanwhile this site would have a high irreplaceability value if it were measured.

available upon request. no border for suboptimal sites. For more information. the algorithm did not recalculate these values as sites become conserved. Here are the key parts: 270 . to identify the sites not available for conservation in each Monte Carlo realization. and the saturation variation displayed for all sites. In short. Even though connectivity and proximity were used in determining initial conservation value. This issue could be accounted for by using a clumping algorithm for identifying the sites not available for conservation. it is important to carefully choose the stochastic variable for the Monte Carlo analysis so that it not only illustrates the effect of the uncertainty present. the Monte Carlo results would have biased against these objectives compared to the composition objectives. see that draft.border for optimal sites. It is important to note that the stochastic variable chosen for this particular Monte Carlo analysis would not have worked if the greedy heuristic was updating the value of sites based on their spatial context. not just the sub-optimal ones. and then wisdom. It might be ideal to use a cellular automata process on seed sites that are selected based on their probabilities. and Wisdom The June 2006 draft of Chapter 3 had a large emphasis on the role of uncertainty and imperfect information in the development of knowledge.] Insert: Discussion about Uncertainty. If it did. but also yields outputs with equal probability of occurring. Knowledge. due to the salt and pepper nature of the random selection. such as habitat type. [Back to main body.

1987. Gershon 1998. The resulting information output is imperfect due to error propagation and problem simplification. All of these studies lack an actual working definition of imperfect knowledge. an SDSS is driven by data which are imperfect due to varying degrees of spatial accuracy. 2001. 2001. Dovers et al. 2005). Brown 2004. thereby ignoring some important processes. An important distinction here is that uncertainty is a sub-category of imperfect knowledge (Suter et al. It combines these data using models which are imperfect because they have to simplify the real-world somehow. There are a variety of taxonomies that define types of imperfect knowledge (Suter et al. 1996. imperfect knowledge can be defined as the discrepancy between a person’s understanding of something. or of their utility (ignorance) 3) accuracy issues (i. Duckham et al. For the purpose of this paper. Duckham et al. and truth). Gershon 1998. the discrepancy is often immeasurable due to the fuzziness of the endpoints (the person’s understanding.An emerging Semiotic Framework for SDSS development Meanwhile. The knowledge gained from absorbing this imperfect information must also be imperfect. uncertainty) 4) or not being able to know the actual thing (indeterminacy) (Brown 2004). 1996. For example. 1987. Imperfect knowledge can be caused by 1) closing a problem (act of ignoring) 2) being unaware of alternative views of the world. imperfection exists at all levels of the hierarchy.e. Dovers et al. and the complete truth. Brown 2004). MacEachren et al. Of course. but it exists nonetheless. The key is that the 271 .

We know that differences among individuals exist.Q. A figure was created to illustrate a new set of relationships. A Portion of the Framework Results and Discussion: In performing the participatory action research it became increasingly apparent that “imperfect presentation” of Gershun’s (1998) hierarchy has different implications then the other forms of imperfect knowledge. tests have been made to estimate how accurately people understand the uncertainty (a type imperfect information) of mapped information (Leitner and Buttenfield 2000.discrepancy not only exists. This concept of a magnitude of imperfect knowledge might not be immediately intuitive. confidence. but it has a relative magnitude for each end-user. Effective presentation of the imperfect information will lead to 272 . 2003b). poorly. and we have developed surrogates. Aerts et al. such as I. The relative magnitude can vary over time. The bottom of the figure is the placeholder for the different sources of imperfect information that might be present in an SDSS. Presentation of this information is performed effectively. People that correctly interpreted the uncertainty information on the map had a lower magnitude of imperfect knowledge then those that interpreted it incorrectly. and time needed among end users in understanding different communication techniques (Leitner and Buttenfield 2000). Consider first the concept of intelligence. or not at all. and to also include the concepts of imperfect information magnitude and variance among users (Figure). which use tests to try to quantify these differences.. and also vary among different end-users. Similarly. Tests can be used to understand the degree of correctness.

using inappropriate spatial metaphors. Figure 17 also incorporates the gist of the grouped semiotic triangles by indicating that good presentation of imperfect information decreases the disparity among end-users. including trying to present too much information. most people will be aware that imperfect information exists. Poor presentation can be caused many factors. Similarly.a much lower degree of imperfect knowledge among most end-users. but will not fully understand it. or the wrong device (Gershon 1998). If poor presentation of the information occurs. if the information is not presented most end-users will have a higher magnitude of imperfect knowledge. 273 .

Figure 17: The Role of Effective Presentation of Imperfect Information in Reducing Imperfect Knowledge and Improving Group Understanding 274 .

But the framework as laid out is missing an important concept: that imperfect knowledge can be reduced in two major ways. text. A potential answer to this need of an expanded framework is proposed here. animations. with less being better. This is not to belittle the importance and necessity of the second approach. The interpretant (point C) is the end-user’s understanding of the real world issue. It starts with the metaphor of the “SDSS semiotic triangle” illustrated in the chapter in the body of the dissertation. The goal is for the end-user’s understanding to match the actual issue as close as possible. and presentations that are used to present the model outputs. and requires further evaluation and refinement.Discussion of the Conceptual Framework The framework provided illustrates a variety of concepts regarding the treatment of imperfect knowledge in SDSS. The signvehicle (point B) is the combination of maps. 275 . The length BC represents how well the products communicate the results and the imperfections of the model. The referent (point A) is the real world issue that is under study (Fig 18). The length AB represents how well the model matches the complexity of reality. One of the messages of this paper is that this first approach is largely ignored by the GIScience community. The first is as discussed and is through the effective presentation of the imperfections of the SDSS. not just one. The second is the traditional approach of making the SDSS more accurately reflect the real world through better data and modeling. The distance in conceptual space between the interpretant and the referent (length AC) represents the imperfect knowledge of the end-user.

(Note. then the grouped semiotic triangles figure in the body of the paper would need to be revised accordingly). and/or angle ACB should approach 90 degrees (Fig 19). An extremely obtuse angle indicates that the issue is not even mentioned. theta minimized.Angle ABC (theta) represents how well the concept of the imperfect information at hand is communicated. Efforts to minimize the imperfect knowledge of the end-user can be achieved with three approaches: the length of AB can be minimized. if this metaphor is used. Figure18: Normative Comparisons of SDSS Semiotic Triangles 276 .

Figure 19: Normative Comparisons of SDSS Semiotic Triangles The hypothesis emerging from this study is that the most cost-effective approach to decreasing the amount of imperfect knowledge is to address all three of these 277 .

the assumption is that the wisdom of the spatial decision making will be improved. and may even be 2Y. (The implicit goal of an SDSS is to improve the wisdom of decisions. 278 . 2005). they relate to the education. 2006a). and values of the end-user (Fig 20). it might take Y amount of resources to decrease the length of AB by 50%. To improve the overall success of the SDSS. The challenge is to determine these thresholds within any given context. decreasing the angle of theta or the length of BC will be much more cost effective then continuing to decrease the length of AB. goals. and thus should be within the purview of SDSS research. Both a conceptual framework of this context and an operational model could be developed and linked (Knight et al.) These other factors are highly individualistic and are based on some understanding of the likely consequences (Longley et al. But there are a variety of other factors that are involved in determining the wisdom of decisions. This is because the law of diminishing returns appears to be present for each one. At some point.. not simply to reduce the amount of imperfect knowledge among end-users. A related component of the framework that needs further development is the treatment of wisdom. By reducing the imperfect knowledge among end users.approaches in developing the SDSS. For example. it may behoove the SDSS developer to take a hard look at the social context in which it will be placed. But the amount of resources to decrease it by another 50% is usually greater. Further.

Progress in our ability to communicate the concept of imperfect information and visualize its effects is 279 .Figure 20: Factors Affecting the wise use of an SDSS. These frameworks suggest that there are a variety of forms of imperfect information that lead to imperfect knowledge. get everyone “on the same page”). A high quality presentation will decrease the magnitude of an individual’s imperfect knowledge (i. This better understanding will merge with each person’s tacit knowledge in effecting the wisdom of the final decisions. The imperfect information can be communicated to end-users or ignored.e. as well as decrease the variance among individuals (i. improve their understanding).e.

Toward a New Ecological Majority: Summary and Overview. J. Andrew and William Bond (2005). H. (2002). Georgina M." Ecology Letters 8(11): 1218-1234. Davis and D Stoms (1999). Resit." BioScience 46(11): 845-855. References Aerts." PNAS 103(14): 5403-5408. and Visualization techniques. Daily. American Environics. "Two-dimensional gap analysis: A tool for efficient conservation planning and biodiversity policy implementation. Goodchild and G. CA. University of Amsterdam. Jeroen C. Aerts. M. "Integrated Conservation and Development Projects." Ambio 32(8): 527-534. Back to main body.expected to yield significant improvements to the success of SDSS theory and use. Olsson (2003).. Amsterdam.com/Files_Publications/Road_Map_for_Ecol ogical_Majority_AE. Gretchen C. P. Roberge. http://www.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/14/5403 Balmford.com/doi/abs/10. Keuper (2003b).15231739. Aerts.99125. Spatial Decision Support for Resource Allocation. J." Cartography and Geographic Information Science 30(3): 249-261. Todd (2000). S. "Accounting for spatial uncertainty in optimization with spatial decision support systems.. American_Environics (2006).1046/j. B..pdf Andelman. Heuvelink (2003a). and the Nathan Cummings Foundation. I. http://www. Akcakaya. Integration of Optimization.americanenvironics." Transactions in GIS 7(2): 211-230. David A. Ostman.blackwell-synergy. Ronnback. Keith C.pnas. Mikusinski. Mace and Charles R. 280 . "Testing Popular Visualization Techniques for Representing Model Uncertainty. (1996). The Nature Conservancy: 1-43. Oakland. Netherlands. A. J. G. I Ball. W." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1001-1013.. Sanchirico (2006).x Alpert. Lazdinis. "Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Burgman. Scott Ferson. Keith. <Go to ISI>://000189317900006 Armsworth.. SITES V 1: An analytical Toolbox for developping conservation portfolios. Mark A. Paul R. "From the Cover: Land market feedbacks can undermine biodiversity conservation. F. Peter Kareiva and James N.2000. Uncertainty analysis. P. J. "Making Consistent IUCN Classifications under Uncertainty. M. Clarke and Alex D. M. Arnberg and J. Angelstam. H. Earthjustice. http://www.

Board. "Special Issue: Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches." Biodiversity and Conservation 13(6): 1195-1208. Beissinger. D. Barrett (1995). . R. E.consecol. Steven R. (1997). Andrew and Richard M.blackwell-synergy. "Fusion or Failure? The Future of Conservation Biology. Westphal (1998). A. Preface. Navigating social-ecological systems : building resilience for complexity and change.com/doi/abs/10. Cowling (2006)." Journal of Wildlife Management 59(2): 228-237.. Yakov and Yakov Ben-Haim (2006).com/doi/abs/10.x Berkes. Beyond reserves: options for achieving nature conservation objectives in rural landscapes." Conservation Biology 18(3): 621-630." Conservation Ecology (online) 4(1): [online] URL: http://www. "On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. Oxford. http://www. Contested nature : promoting international biodiversity conservation with social justice in the twenty-first century. Choate and R. Oxford.00434. <Go to ISI>://000189363400007 Beier. J.com/doi/abs/10. and J. Dragicevic (2004).org/vol4/iss1/art7/ Bragge." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 2(1): 19-36.http://www. "Movement Patterns of Mountain Lions During Different Behaviors. P. Brechin.K. S. S. P.2006.2004. C. Fikret. "A collaborative GIS method for integrating local and technical knowledge in establishing biodiversity conservation priorities. 281 . D. New York. Elsevier Science: 155-168. Info-gap decision theory : decisions under severe uncertainty. and M. Borchers (2000). Taylor (1977). P. Developing Innovative Information Systems Services Together with Wide Audience End-Users. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.x Balmford. N. Suzana and S.00077. C.1523-1739." Conservation Biology 20(3): 692-695.00814. Klomp and I. Cambridge. Lunt. H. <Go to ISI>://000074988000001 Ben-Haim.1111/j. "Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Beier. U.14610248.2005. G. S. Frontiers in Ecology: Building the Links.blackwell-synergy. Binning. Johan Colding and Carl Folke (2003). and R. Tuunanen (2005).1111/j. Biodiversity_and_Conservation_Journal (2005). http://www. G..blackwellsynergy.15231739. Academic. R. Berkes.1111/j. E. "Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Cambridge University Press. (1995)." Journal of Wildlife Management 62(3): 821-841. Fikret (2004). Bradshaw. "Dispersal of Juvenile Cougars in Fragmented Habitat. M.. Marttiin and T." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2507-2820. "Perception and Maps: Human Factors in Map Design and Interpretation.x Balram." Journal of Mammalogy 76(4): 10561070. (2003). I.

"Bridging the Gap: The Role of Spatial Information Technologies in the Integration of Traditional Environmental Knowledge and Western Science." Conservation Biology 16(1): 4-6. http://www." Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17(1-2): 39-66. K. A.com/doi/abs/10. F.00544. "Knowledge.x Brosius. Brewer.P. Todd (1999). Brossard.jstor." Biological Conservation 89(2): 227-231. Rohlf and C.2006. R. "Virtual globes: The web-wide world. Fortwangler and P. and Innovation.00506. G.0. (2003). http://dx.1111/j. Albany. John Seely and Paul Duguid (1991). Brooks. (2004). Margaret A." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1528-1538.2006.. "Science in the web age: Joint efforts." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1337-1339. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working. P.CO%3B2-3 Brown. http://links. K." Global Ecology and Biogeography 12(2): 89-92.doi. State University of New York Press: xvi. West.org/sici?sici=10477039%281991%292%3A1%3C40%3AOLACTA%3E2. D." International Journal of Science Education 27(9): 1099-1121. J. Dominique.15231739. Declan (2005). "Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation.." Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29(3): 367-381. Ian (2006). C. 321. M. "The Conundrum of Conservation Education and the Conservation Mission.x Bride." Nature 439(7078): 776-778. Keith.1080/09500690500069483 Brown. http://www. Mark N.doi.blackwellsynergy. Jeremy S. Christopher M. Grote and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder (2006). B. D. Carol (2002). "Outreach and Partnership Programs for Conservation Education Where Endangered Species Conservation and Research Occur.2002. "Conservation from Above: An Anthropological Perspective on Transboundary Protected Areas and Ecoregional Planning. L.01613. J.1046/j. Mayer-Schönberger (2000). M. Graphical and geographical components of data quality. "Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project.org/10.org/10. Brown. http://dx." Organization Science 2(1): 40-57. H. C.blackwell-synergy.1038/439776a Buttenfield . A.blackwellsynergy. Holmes. <Go to ISI>://000079378100012 Butler.org/10. and M." Nature 438(7068): 548-549. Bruce Lewenstein and Rick Bonney (2005). <Go to ISI>://000181396700001 Burgman. J. "Probabilistic classification rules for setting conservation priorities. P. "Testing Hypotheses for the Success of Different Conservation Strategies. and V. Franzen. Beard (1994). uncertainty and physical geography: towards the development of methodologies for questioning belief. and D Russell (2003). R.1111/j. http://www.1038/438548a Butler.Brechin. 282 .com/doi/abs/10.x Brodnig. http://dx. Learning.com/doi/abs/10.1523-1739. Wilshusen. Declan (2006)." The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries 1(1): 1-15. Visualization in geographical information systems.1523-1739.doi.

Taylor & Francis. 2006. Adger. http://www. "Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. www. C. W. Unwin. E.org/vol11/iss2/art40/ Christensen.com/science/article/B6VJ1-42RMMHVR/2/991f89e2a2a73ea2fa11e082917da7bd Carr.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ Castellanet. Cash. L. "The Community-Based Natural Resource Management Network." Ecology and Society 11(2): 8. December 5–9. 2003.. A.ecologyandsociety. "Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity.Com. J. M. "Viable reserve networks arise from individual landholder responses to conservation incentives.crowleyoffroad. B.htm. from www. M." Biological Conservation 76(2): 105112. from www. Position paper prepared for ESF-NSF Meeting on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information." Ecology and Society 11(2): 40." Retrieved Jan." URISA Journal 15(1): 61-71.Hearnshaw and D. [online] URL: http://www. (2004). Alger.conceptioncoast. L. P. Pritchard and O. G." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(5): 242-248. Crane. Davis (1996). P. Chichester.ecologyandsociety. Berkes. Upper Saddle River.sciencedirect. L. Clarke. O. "Conception Coast Project. Cohen. White House Conservation Conference: Song of the Conservation Brain Trust. P. T. cbnrm. Parks and M. New York. B.. Dec. "The Future of Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Information: developing a research agenda for the 21st Century. S.net. L. Olsson. Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling. NJ. C.org. B. Christian and Carl F. Chomitz. Thomas. 5. <Go to ISI>://000223843400005 Carver. Prentice Hall. A. Wayt Thomas and F. Parks and M. Charlotte Landau. O.net.newwest. R. (2006. 2007. M. (2005). Wiley & Sons: xiv. F. W. 6).php/topic/article/3003/C38/L38. 2001. Cabeza. Davis (2006)." Capitol Research Center & Crowley-Offroad. "The Green Land-Grabbers: It's Not Just the Feds Who Are After Your Land. West Sussex. [online] URL: http://www. Chapter 12: The Banff Statement. 10. Lebel. Honzák. Steve (2003). Young (2006). D. from http://www. W.cbnrm. Stoms. Bonner. Spoleto Italy. Da Fonseca. K. K. Mar and Atte Moilanen (2001). England . M. W. 243. 283 .. Church. "Reserve Selection as a Maximal Covering Location Problem. Garden. J.com/green_land_grabbers. New West Environment. Jordan (2002). J." Retrieved May 1. New York. Participatory action research in natural resource management : a critique of the method based on five years' experience in the Transamazãonica Region of Brazil. (2001). Retrieved Dec. P. D. K. D. (2006). "Why do we all need community science?" Society & Natural Resources 17(9): 841-849. K.. Clarke.net/index. Crane (2002).. Stoms and F. CCP.

doi. 2004)." Resource and Energy Economics 26(2): 157-174. Carlo Custodio and Martin Enghoff (2005)." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1392-1401. Conservation_Geoportal. http://uclibs. Integrating Land Use Planning and Biodiversity." Retrieved July 20. "Dynamic reserve site selection. (2005). H (2003). "Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of US marine protected areas.org.Cohn.shtml Conception_Coast_Project.biodiversitypartners. http://www. R. "Collaborative learning: Improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based management. "Developing an infrastructure for sharing environmental models. "Foghorns to the future: Using knowledge and transdisciplinarity to navigate complex systems." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(2): 71-102. M.sciencedirect. and S. "Using SUSS to resolve NIMBY: How spatial support systems can help with the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Washington D." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(5): 415-437.com/science/article/B6V9G-3VVT35H2/2/97b1a435e591074b56bd40517a19d772 Danielsen. Corey. Michele and Stefano Tarantola (2001).envplan. Cowling..org/PID/12111 Couclelis. T. http://dx.org/Pubs/landuse/01. "The Certainty of Uncertainty: GIS and the Limits of Geographic Knowledge " Transactions in GIS 7(2): 165-175.1080/13658810110053125 Crosier. M. R. Finn. Access restricted to subscribing institutions. Defenders of Wildlife: 1-62. Urban and regional technology planning : planning practice in the global knowledge economy.com/abstract. M. 2005. "Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis: tools for GIS-based model implementation.conceptioncoast. Routledge. and J. Danilo S. http://www. "Conception Coast Project Homepage. Pressey." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30(4): 487 . London . H and M Monmonier (1995). Kenneth E.cgi?id=b12831 Cundill. from www." Geographical Systems 2: 83-101. Walker (1996). 26. Marlynn Mendoza. <Go to ISI>://000232137900008 Daniels. S J. from www. (2003). (2004. Rouget and A. South Africa. R. Marti (2005). Retrieved Oct. Wilson (2006). Lerner (2003). Crosetto. L.html Costello. G. M F Goodchild. Steven E. J. and Mark I. "Conservation Geoportal: Discover and Publish Conservation Maps and Data. C. N.. Phillip A.org. Balete." Biological Conservation 112: 191-216.501. "A conservation plan for a global biodiversity hotspot-the Cape Floristic Region. Anson Tagtag. "Does 284 . Polasky (2004).edu/user/wilsonmm/planningpractice. http://www. C. T. Jensen.org/10. L L Hill and T R Smith (2003)." Ecology and Society 10(2): -. Arne E.conservationmaps. Fabricius and N.C." Conservation Commons. 2006. (2006). <Go to ISI>://000234561400019 Dalton. Alviola..msu. and Gregg B. Lombard. http://www. New York. <Go to ISI>://000221071400005 Couclelis.

http://dx. Handmer.org/vol11/iss1/art33/ Davis.1007/s10531-0058392-z Davis. Maguire. J. <Go to ISI>://A1997XJ76400001 De Young.edu/pubs/Technical%20Reports/TerrBiod_framewo rk-report. Ignorance. Santa Barbara. http://www. England. Ross Gerrard." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 11(5): 409-434. Dragicevic. Elia A. S.Monitoring Matter? A Quantitative Assessment of Management Decisions from Locally-based Monitoring of Protected Areas. J. and ecology: key themes. Rhind. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. University of California. Dovers. sustainability and policy. Santa Barbara. http://www. Dickson. "Efficient conservation in a utility-maximization framework. P. http://dx. Spatial Decision Support Systems.doi.. P." Earth & Mineral Sciences. Home range and habitat selection by adult cougars in the Santa Ana Mountain range of Southern California. C. Dovers. New York. "Uncertainty. Costello. CA. "A Web GIS collaborative framework to structure and manage distributed planning processes. D.blackwellsynergy. Handmer (2001). D. J. Wiley. <Go to ISI>://A1996VT21200002 Dovers. ecology. (2006). Goodchild and D. Costello and D. (1990).org/10. England .com/doi/abs/10. 320. F. Stephen. W. (1991). A framework for setting land conservation priorities using multi-criteria scoring and an optimal fund allocation strategy." Biodiversity and Conservation 5(10): 1143-1167. M. F. Tony Norton and John W.ecologyandsociety. Keller (1997). T. "New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Expanding and Evaluating Motives for Environmentally Responsible Behavior." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 509-526. T. uncertainty. Suzana and Shivanand Balram (2004).00181 Densham. Bulletin of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences 59(2): 13-18." Ecology and Society 11(1): 33.biogeog.ucsb. W.doi. Essex. W. J. W. J. Northern Arizona University. and C. P. Frank W.1111/0022-4537. Ecology. Helen Regan and Richard Church (2003). Brett (2001). Raymond (2000). David M. Machado. Norton and J." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2633-2652. Stoms. uncertainty and policy : managing ecosystems for sustainability.J. M.org/10. Henne (2006). Sandy Andelman. Josh Metz. Chris J.1007/s10109004-0130-7 Drew. Geographical information systems : principles and applications. Handmer (1996). R. "Modelling uncertainty in natural resource analysis using fuzzy sets and Monte Carlo simulation: Slope stability prediction.. Longman Scientific & Technical . Harlow. T. http://www. "Visualization in the earth sciences. "Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: integrating academic disciplines for better 285 . Norton and S. Harlow.pdf Davis. Report to The Resources Agency of California. DiBiase. A." Journal of Geographical Systems 6(2): 133-153. Stoms.. Prentice Hall: xv. and A.

J. (2006).2005. F.com/doi/abs/10.eoearth. Howe.org/vol11/iss2/art34/ Duckham.1642%2F00048038%282005%29122%5B0338%3AETSVOT%5D2. A Perspective on Gaviota Coast Resources. Marshall A.countyofsb. K. http://gis. 2007.takingliberty. (2002). X.org/plandev/comp/planareas/gaviota/res_study. John R. www.1111/j. and Community. Rosenberg. Worboys (2001). M. Island Press Dunn. (2005). 2006. Environmental_Perspectives. EOEARTH.elsevier. Geoffrey. I. M. Toward the semantic geospatial web. from www. County of Santa Barbara.gov/greenkit/intro3.conservation practice. Retrieved Oct. K. M. California. X.br/cursos/ser303/egenhofer_geospatial_semantic_web. "Green Communities: Where Do We Want To Be?" US EPA. Trouwborst. from www. Olsson and C. Peter J. "Enhancing the Scientific Value of the Christmas Bird Count. Robbins. Marra (2005). Celia. Messng. Mason. A.com/locate/compenvurbsys Duerksen.ecologyandsociety.0. "Taking Liberty. http://dx. O. Susan Roney Drennan." American Land Foundation and Stewards of the Range. Retrieved September 13. Z. C. and C. 2006. M.epa. Sauer and Kimberly G. Wen. "A formal approach to imperfection in geographic information. Karin Roux. Erica H. David Cowen and Halkard Mackey (1995). Goodchild (1997)." Conservation Biology 19(3): 589-594. Chandler S.p df Ehler." Computers & Geosciences 23(4): 387-395. Charles M.1523-1739. Washington DC. C. (2002).. J. USA. Eleanor Abrams.com/library/userconf/proc95/to100/p100. "The Encyclopedia of Earth: Content.org. Robert Reitsma. EPA. J. Laura Salmonsen and Peter P.inpe. Nature-friendly communities..org/10. Stell and M. [online] URL: http://www.dpi. from http://www. Snyder (2005).asp Egenhofer. ESRI User Conference. H. "A participatory approach for 286 . Retrieved March 19.. Xu. Planning and Development Department. http://www.CO%3B2 EDAW. Virginia. Inc." The Auk 122(1): 338-346.esri. Denis Lepage. M. Proceedings of the tenth ACM international symposium on advances in geographic information systems.00s01. H. C." Computers." Ecology and Society 11(2): 34. Francis. (2006). Andersson (2003).x Fagerstrom. Smith (2005). Kenneth V.doi.html#Author Ehlschlaeger. R.blackwellsynergy. 26. Blancher. "Visualizing Spatial Data Uncertainty Using Animation. Palm Springs. McLean. http://www. Evans. Zang.htm. Credibility. "The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project. Biological Resources. Shortridge and M. P.. . Design and Implementation of a Spatial Decision Support System for Site Selection. http://www.us. M. Environment and Urban Systems 25: 89-103." Environmental Information Coalition and the National Council for Science and the Environment.

Foreman. Erlbaum Associates. Cambridge. C. Henkel (2001). Conservation in the Internet age : threats and opportunities. H. Carter. (1995). D. Dean and W. Gill (2002). N. http://www. T. B. Forester." Wild Earth 10(1). "Community-based ecological monitoring . McComb (1997). and the Internet as Tools for Global Monitoring." Environmental Science and Policy 6(3)." Plos Biology 4(4): 482488. and policy-based algorithms for conservation.of Indicators and Uncertainty in Geographic-Based Analyses. China . Dave (2000)." Field Guide Association of South Africa. D. Ferrier and L. M. and D. Ferraro. Mass. D. K. J Humphrey." Denver University Law Review 76(2): 535-553. Rogers (1999). P. C. Models of uncertainty in spatial data. Wilson.asp Fisher. R. Levitt. Gallo. B Howard and A Holdsworth (2000a). P..A rapid appraisal approach. MIT Press.integrated conservation planning in a small catchment in Loess Plateau.com/urlapi. Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. Island Press: xx. New York.F. Johns and R Mondt (2000b). J Humphrey. Goodchild. Birdsource: Using Birds. "The Elements of a Wildlands Conservation Plan: An Example from the Sky Islands." Wild Earth 10(1). Foreman. D. John Wiley & Sons Inc. <Go to ISI>://000237066500001 FGASA.. (1999). Pattanayak (2006). Citizen Science. J. Fitzpatrick. J.J. B Dugelby. Foreman. "Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. G." Ecological Applications 7(2): 531-542. and Frank P. (2006). "Implementation of a Wildlands Network: An Example from the Sky Islands. Goleta. J. 26.fgasa.za/memberlist. Foreman. G. N. Sharon M. Flather. Land mosaics : the ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge . Analysis and findings. Communicating uncertainty : media coverage of new and controversial science.org. Washington. Richard T. Maguire and D. B Dugelby. Forman. (1999). John F.. M. K. "The wildlands project and the rewilding of North America. Friedman. Fleming. from http://www. Wilkie (2003). Longley. B Howard. F.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=2425 9 287 . The deliberative practitioner : encouraging participatory planning processes. P. and S. New York. Retrieved Sept. J. 2006. "Identifying Gaps in Conservation Networks .. Mahwah. "Complementarity. biodiversity viability analysis.Part II. S." Journal of the American Planning Association 67(4): 456-465.: 219-233. Rhind. <Go to ISI>://000187743900018 Faith." Catena 54(1-2): 271-288. The Wildlands Project: A Vision for North America. D.netLibrary. J. Geographical information systems. DC. D. "Membership and Naturalist Certification Level. John (1999). D. Cassis.. Cambridge University Press. 364. P.

Froese, R., D. Lloris and S. Opitz (2004). The need to make scientific data publicly available; concerns and possible solutions. Fish Biodiversity: Local studies as basis for global inferences. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report 14, . M.L.D. Palomares, B. Samb, T. Diouf, J.M. Vakily and D. Pauly: 268-271. http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/ifm-geomar/rfroese/ConcernsDataowners.pdf Fuller, I., S. Gaskin and I. Scott (2003). "Student perceptions of geography and environmental science fieldwork in the light of restricted access to the field, caused by Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK in 2001." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 27(1): 79-102. <Go to ISI>://000181682700007 Fuller, Kathryn. (2004, Nov. 4). "The Fuller Monty: Kathryn Fuller, president of WWF, answers Grist's questions." Daily Grist. Retrieved November 11, 2006, from http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/01/fuller/index1.html http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/01/fuller/index.html. Gahegan, M. and B. Brodaric (2002). Examining Uncertainty in the Definition and Meaning of Geographical Categories. Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Melbourne, AU. http://www.geovista.psu.edu/publications/Brodaric/Accuracy2002_Gahegan Brodaric_Revised2.pdf Gallo, J (2005). Mapping Uncertainty to Ease the Tension between Public Participation GIS and Conservation Planning. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Public Participation GIS Conference, Cleveland State University. Cleveland, Ohio, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Gallo, JA (unpublished). "ECPM Working Paper." contact: gallo.ja@gmail.com Gallo, JA and MF Goodchild (Unpublished). "Communicating the implementation uncertainty of spatial decision support systems to end-users." Gallo, John (2006). Reconnecting Society and Nature through Engaged Conservation Planning and Uncertainty Mapping. Department of Geography. Santa Barbara, California, University of California Santa Barbara. Gallo, John (In Prep). "Mapping the uncertainty of conservation planning as a means towards successful implementation." Gallo, John, James Studarus, Elia Machado and Greg Helms (2005). Regional Conservation Guide. Santa Barbara, CA, Conception Coast Project. http://www.conceptioncoast.org/projects_rcg.html Gardner, W. David. (2006, Dec. 19). "Ready To Demo: A $150 Laptop With A 'Complete Computing Experience' " Information Week: Business Innovation Powered by Technology. Retrieved Jan. 16, 2007, from http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196700914 GBIF. (2006a). "Global Biodiversity Information Facility occurrence data and Google Earth." Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006, from http://ge.gbif.net/ GBIF. (2006b, Jan. 16). "Terms and conditions for sharing and using data through GBIF network." Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Retrieved Jan. 15, 2007, from http://www.gbif.org/DataProviders/Agreements/.

288

geodata.gov. (2006). "Geospatial One Stop: Your source of federal, state and local geographic data." fristgov.gov and e-gov. Retrieved Jan. 17, 2007, from http://gos2.geodata.gov/wps/portal/gos. Gershon, N. (1998). "Visualization of an imperfect world." IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 18(4): 43-45. <Go to ISI>://000074420000012 Gibbs, Anita (1997). Social Research Update. Focus Groups. Guildford, University of Surrey. 1: 7. Gillham, Bill (2000). Case study research methods. London ; New York, Continuum. Glennon, Alan. (2006). "Virtual Globes: Rapid Reporting for Rapid Response." Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006, from http://www.turnhole.com/rapid/. GNO. (2006). "GeoNetwork Opensource: Geographic Datasharing for Everyone." Retrieved Oct. 26, 2006, from http://tecproda01.fao.org/geofoss_dvd/ Goodchild, Anne (2004). Phone Conversation about Focus Groups: Lessons from Experience. J. Gallo. Santa Barbara. Goodchild, M. (2000a). "Communicating geographic information in a digital age." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(2): 344-355. <Go to ISI>://000167130300005 Goodchild, M. F. (2000b). "Introduction: special issue on 'Uncertainty in geographic information systems'." Fuzzy Sets & Systems 113(1): 3-5. Goodchild , M. F. (2003). "Geographic information science and systems for environmental management." Annual Review of Environmental Resources 28: 493-519. Goodchild , M. F., B. Buttenfield and J. Wood (1994). Introduction to visualizing data validity. Visualization in geographical information systems. H. M. Hearnshaw, D. J. Unwin and Association for Geographical Information. Chichester, West Sussex, England ; New York, Wiley & Sons: xiv, 243. Goodchild, M.F. and Ted J. Case (2001). Introduction. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. C. T. Hunsaker, M. F. Goodchild, M. A. Friedl and T. J. Case. New York, Springer: xiii, 402. Gregory, Jane and Steve Miller (1998). Science in public : communication, culture, and credibility. New York, Plenum Trade. Grenyer, Richard, et al. (2006). "Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates." Nature 444(7115): 93-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05237 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7115/suppinfo/nature05237_S1.html Grimm, Gary. (2006, Dec. 10). "Google Earth to River Menders video with music (Restoration)." Blip.tv. Retrieved Jan. 16, 2007, from http://blip.tv/file/113540 Haight, R. G., S. A. Snyder and C. S. Revelle (2005). "Metropolitan open-space protection with uncertain site availability." Conservation Biology 19(2): 327337. <Go to ISI>://000227647600010 Haklay, M. M. and C. Tobon (2003). "Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 17(6): 577-592. <Go to ISI>://000185178000004

289

Harley, J. B. (1989). "Deconstructing the map." Cartographica 26(2): 1-20. Harris, T.M. and D. Weiner (1998). "Empowerment, marginalization, and "community-integrated" GIS." Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2): 67-76. Harry, M. and R. Schroeder (2000). Six Sigma: The Breakthrough Management Strategy Revolutionizing the World's Top Corporations, Currency. Harte, J. (1996). "Confronting Visions of a Sustainable Future." Ecological Applications 6(1): 27-29. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=10510761%28199602%296%3A1%3C27%3ACVOASF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X http://www.jstor.org/journals/10510761.html Heuvelink, G.B.M. (1999). Propagation of error in spatial modeling with GIS. Geographical information systems. P. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire and D. Rhind. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.: 207-217. Hoerl, R. W. (2001). "Six Sigma Black Belts: What Do They Need to Know?" Journal of Quality Technology 33(4): 391-406. Holling, C. S. (2001). "Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems." Ecosystems 4(5): 390-405. Access restricted. http://link.springerny.com/link/service/journals/10021/bibs/1004005/10040390.htm Access restricted. http://link.springerny.com/link/service/journals/10021/papers/1004005/10040390.pdf Access restricted. http://link.springer-ny.com/link/service/journals/10021/index.htm Holling, C.S. (1998). "Two cultures of ecology." Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2): 4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss2/art4/ Hunsberger, Carol (2004). Exploring links between citizen environmental monitoring and decision making: three Canadian case examples. Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/970 Huntington, H. P. (2000). "Using Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Science: Methods and Applications." Ecological Applications 10(5): 1270-1274. Hurley, P. T. and P. A. Walker (2004). "Whose vision? conspiracy theory and landuse planning in Nevada County, California." Environment and Planning A 36(9): 1529-1547. <Go to ISI>://000224057100002 Hutchinson, Judy and Avis C Vidal (2004). "Using Social Capital to Help Integrate Planning Theory, Research, and Practice." Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): pg. 142. ICSU and UNESCO (2002). Science, Traditional Knowledge and Sustainable Development, The International Council for Science and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://portal.unesco.org/sc_nat/ev.php?URL_ID=3521&URL_DO=DO_TOPI C&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1084527246 INSPIRE. (2007, Jan. 12). "INSPIRE: INfrastructure for Spatial Infrastructure In Europe." Retrieved Jan. 17, 2007, from http://www.ecgis.org/inspire/home.html.

290

Irwin, Alan (1995). Citizen science : a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London ; New York, Routledge. Irwin, Alan (2001). "Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences." Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 1-18. http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/1 ISDE. (2006). "International Society for Digital Earth." Retrieved Jan. 17, 2007, from http://www.isde5.org/ISocDE.htm Jackson, Laurie (2001). "Contemporary public involvement: toward a strategic approach." Local Environment 6(2): 135-147. Joerin, F., M. Thériault and A. Musy (2001). "Using GIS and Outranking Multicriteria Analysis for Land-Use Suitability Analysis." International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 15(2): 153-174. Johns, D. M. (2003). "Growth, conservation, and the necessity of new alliances." Conservation Biology 17(5): 1229-1237. Johnson, C. J. and M. P. Gillingham (2004). "Mapping uncertainty: sensitivity of wildlife habitat ratings to expert opinion." Journal of Applied Ecology 41(6): 1032-1041. <Go to ISI>://000225632800002 Johnston, R. J. and J. D. Sidaway (2004). Geography and geographers : AngloAmerican human geography since 1945. London ; New York, Arnold. Joseph, Liana N., Scott A. Field, Chris Wilcox and Hugh P. Possingham (2006). "Presence-Absence versus Abundance Data for Monitoring Threatened Species." Conservation Biology 20(6): 1679-1687. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00529.x Kaplan, S. (1990). Being needed, adaptive muddling and human-environment relationships. Coming of age. K. Selby, H. Anthony, J. Choi and B. Orland. Oklahoma City, OK, Environmental Design Research Association. Kaplan, Stephen (2000). "New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 491-508. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0022-4537.00180 Keen, Meg, Valerie A. Brown and Rob Dyball (2005). Social learning in environmental management : towards a sustainable future. London ; Sterling, VA, Earthscan. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip058/2005003303.html Kelley, N. Maggi and Karin Tuxen (2003). "WebGIS for Monitoring "Sudden Oak Death" in coastal California." Urban Systems 5: 527-547. Keuper, Alex D. (2004). Doctoral Dissertation. Chapter 5, Study II: The Interpretation and Use of Uncertainty Metadata by Novices and Experts. Geography. Santa Barbara, University of California. Kim, Randolph. (2006, Oct. 16). "World Wind." NASA. Retrieved Jan. 11, 2007, from http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/. Kinzig, A. P., et al. (2003). "Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new sciencepolicy forum." Ambio 32(5): 330-335. <Go to ISI>://000185431000002 Kling, Rob (2000). "Learning About Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics." Information Society 16(3): 217-232.

291

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=3533085& site=ehost-live Knight, A. T. (2006). "Failing but learning: Writing the wrongs after Redford and Taber." Conservation Biology 20(4): 1312-1314. <Go to ISI>://000239545500043 Knight, A. T., Andrew Balmford, B. M. Campbell, R. M. Cowling, A.T Lombard and M. Rouget (In Prep). "The implementation crisis in conservation planning." Corresponding author: AT Knight: tawnyfrogmouth@gmail.com Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling and B. M. Campbell (2006a). "An operational model for implementing conservation action." Conservation Biology 20(2): 408419. <Go to ISI>://000236064200019 Knight, A. T., et al. (2006b). "Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: Best practice from South Africa." Conservation Biology 20(3): 739-750. <Go to ISI>://000238313200033 Knight, Richard L. (1999). "Private Lands: The Neglected Geography." Conservation Biology 13(2): 223-224. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.013002223.x Krebs, Charles J. (1985). Ecology : the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. New York, Harper & Row. Kriegman, Orion (Lead Author); Great Transition Initiative (Content Partner); Cutler J. Cleveland (Topic Editor). 2007. "." In: . Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published October 31, 2006; Last revised January 28, 2007; Retrieved February 26, 2007] http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_citizens_movement. (2006). "Global citizens movement." Encyclopedia of Earth. Krygier, John (2002). A praxis of public particiption GIS and visualization. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. W. Craig, T. Harris and D. Weiner. New York, NY, Taylor and Francis. Langford, Joseph D. and Deana McDonagh (2003). Focus groups : supporting effective product development. London ; New York, Taylor & Francis. Leakey, Richard E. and Roger Lewin (1996). The sixth extinction : patterns of life and the future of humankind. New York, Anchor Books. Lee, T., M. S. Quinn and D. Duke (2006). "Citizen, science, highways, and wildlife: Using a web-based GIS to engage citizens in collecting wildlife information." Ecology and Society 11(1): -. <Go to ISI>://000239121300008 Lee, V (1994). "Volunteer monitoring: brief history." Volunteer Monitor 6(1): 14-16. Leitner, M. and B. Buttenfield (2000). "Guidelines for the display of attribute certainty." Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 27(1): 3-14. Leopold, Aldo (1949). A Sand County almanac, and Sketches here and there. New York,, Oxford University Press. Levin, Simon A. (1999). Fragile dominion : complexity and the commons. Reading, Mass., Perseus Books.

292

Levitt, James N. (2002). Conservation in the Internet age : threats and opportunities. Washington, DC, Island Press. Levy, John M. (2000). Contemporary urban planning. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall. Litosseliti, Lia (2003). Using focus groups in research. London ; New York, Continuum. Liu, Z., G. Sheng and L. Wang (2006). Involving the public in spatial decision making using Internet GIS. Proceedings of SPIE: Geoinformatics 2006: Geospatial Information Technology. H. Wu and Q. Zhu. 6421: 64211K. Loiselle, Bette A., Christine A. Howell, Catherine H. Graham, Jaqueline M. Goerck, Thomas Brooks, Kimberly G. Smith and Paul H. Williams (2003). "Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning." Conservation Biology 17(6): 1591-1600. http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00233.x Lombard, K. and R. Church (1993). "The gateway shortest path problem: generating alternative routes for a corridor location problem." Geographic Systems 1(1): 25-45. Longley, P., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire and D.W. Rhind (2005). Geographic information systems and science. Chichester, Wiley. Loucks, Colby, Jenny Springer, Sue Palminteri, John Morrison and Holly Strand (2004). From the Vision to the Ground: A guide to implementing ecoregion conservation in priority areas. Washington, D.C., World Wildlife Fund: Conservation Science Program. http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/landscapes.cfm Lynam, T., W. De Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans. (2007). "A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. ." Ecology and Society 12(1): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art5/ Maarleveld, Marleen and Constant Dabgbegnon (1999). "Managing natural resources: A social learning perspective." Agriculture and Human Values 16(3): 267-280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007559903438 MacEachren, A. M. (1992). "Visualizing uncertain information." Cartographic Perspectives 13: 10-19. MacEachren, A. M. and I. Brewer (2004). "Developing a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geocollaboration." International Journal of Geographical Information Science 18(1): 1-34. <Go to ISI>://000187841300001 MacEachren, A. M., A. Robinson, S. Hopper, S. Gardner, R. Murray, M. Gahegan and E. Hetzler (2005). "Visualizing Geospatial Information Uncertainty: What We Know and What We Need to Know." Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32(3): 139-160. MacEachren, Alan M. (1994). Some truth with maps : a primer on symbolization and design. Washington, D.C., Association of American Geographers. MacEachren, Alan M. (1995). How maps work : representation, visualization, and design. New York, Guilford Press.

293

McNiff. (2005)." Biological Conservation 43(1): 63-76." Urban Habitats 3(1). C. "References regarding the topic of enabling conditions for conservation success. "Using Citizen Science in Urban Bird Studies. "Conservation and the social sciences. Pressey (1988). Brosius. Dobson. <Go to ISI>://000238313200012 Meir. O. and C. London . B. Frantz (2004). "Selecting Networks of Reserves to Maximize Biological Diversity. Soule and R. Andelman and H." Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4): 503-515. Turner (2003).. C. McKean and N. B. M. Meine. C. from http://mailman. Forbes.." Urban Systems 29 (1): 3-14. C. T. http://www. All you need to know about action research.org/PID/16432 Mascia. S. Possingham (2004)." Social Sciences Working Group of the Society for Conservation Biology. Jean and Jack Whitehead (2006). M. James R. L." Nature 405(6783): 243-253. Noss (2006). Agle and Donna J. A." Ecology Law Quarterly 25(4): 624-629. Martin B." Conservation Biology 18(1): 11-17.net/pipermail/sswg/2006-September/000370.. 30. Nicholls and R. R. http://uclibs.x Margules. Rachel E.sciencedirect. <Go to ISI>://000227784800007 Mayfield.org McClosky. Ronald K. Mayer. P. "Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. DJ and P Longley (2005). "Local communities and the management of public forests. http://www. M. <Go to ISI>://000079928600008 McGinnis.2004. Joliat and D.Maguire. Wood (1997).15231739. "The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Access restricted. Thousand Oaks.intermedia. (1999). F. ""A mission-driven discipline": the growth of conservation biology. SAGE. L. Retrieved Oct. S." Conservation Biology 20(3): 631-651. (2006). "The roles of community networks in environmental monitoring and environmental informatics. M. "Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?" Ecology Letters 7(8): 615-622. (2005). Horowitz. "Systematic conservation planning. Routledge. Main. M. Bradley R. and R. Michael Vincent (1999). M.. Pressey (2000). E. "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who 294 . London . Calif..html. 2006." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(8): 430-434. J.1111/j. L..urbanhabitats. New York. Michael. <Go to ISI>://000183077800001 Mascia. A. Bioregionalism.01801.blackwell-synergy. <Go to ISI>://000222716600001 Miller. R. Cowan (2001). "The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial data infrastructures. "Mobilizing Grass-Roots Conservation Education: the Florida Master Naturalist Program. http://www. <Go to ISI>://A1988L700200005 Margules. F. McCaffrey. J." Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650. P. C..com/doi/abs/10." Advances in Environmental Research 5(4): 385-393. A. (2004).com/science/article/B6VJ1-4GCWYY42/2/641cc7a9344abd6ba3ea42657dcda039 Mitchell.

.x Moller. 428. (1999). Berck and A. 2007. 26). conservation.mountainresource. Pimentel. W. A.pdf Murray." Conservation Biology 20(6): 1688-1697. Paris. and R. Jan. P.org/node/52. D.0.C. D. Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems (LINKS) CD-ROMS.mybroadband. R. <Go to ISI>://000225313100013 Newburn. "Is there any hope for SA broadband?" Retrieved Jan. Noss.United Nations Educational. "The Wilderness Leadership School of South Africa’s Imbewu and Opinion Leader Programmes.net/library/documents/muir." Landscape and Urban Planning 70(3-4): 315-324." The Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853886.co. (2007." Ecology and Society 9(3): 2 [online]. S.L. Wintle.T. Washington. Retrieved Jan. Fukui and M. D.2006. Brendan A. P. France. R (2000). 295 . 11. L.za/nephp/?m=show&id=3440. 11 2006).wilderness. Merenlender (2006).and What Really Counts.CO%3B2-0 Moilanen... The Canoe is the People: Indigenous Navigation in the Pacific." Journal of Hueristics 2: 31-53. "Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: Targeting strategies for land conservation. Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2005. (2001). and health. from http://www. http://www.com/doi/abs/10.org/sc_nat/ev. Fikret Berkes. F." Mountain Resource Group. "Economics and landuse change in prioritizing private land conservation.1111/j. from http://www." Conservation Biology 19(5): 1411-1420. Jane Elith and Mark Burgman (2006)." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(1): 28-42. "Uncertainty Analysis for Regional-Scale Reserve Selection. Westra and R. 29. M.ecologyandsociety. Y. http://links. Hikasa (2005). <Go to ISI>://000234734700003 Newburn. 2007. A. "Empowering nature conservation in Japanese rural areas: a planning strategy integrating visual and biological landscape perspectives.blackwellsynergy. "Applying simulated annealing to locationplanning models. Reed.jstor.unesco..org/vol9/iss3/art2/ Moore. Ecological integrity : integrating environment. A. Douglas (2005). http://portal.1523-1739. Noss. Nakashima. Philip O'Brian Lyver and Mina Kislalioglu (2004).php?URL_ID=3543&URL_DO=DO_TOPI C&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1128099564 Natori. http://www. http://www. MyADSL. Church (1996). Muir. D. "Citizen Scientist or Amateur Naturalist?" Wild Earth 11(3/4): 14-17. "View the Logging Proposal using Google Earth. Merenlender (2005). <Go to ISI>://000232137900010 Noss. UNESCO. Jan. Berck and A." International Journal of Wilderness 5(2). "Combining Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Monitoring Populations for Co-Management. Rebecca.00560. Atte. Henrik.org/sici?sici=03637425%28199710%2922%3A4%3C853%3ATATOSI%3E2. Maintaining the ecological integrity of landscapes and ecoregions. Island Press: xi. F.

" OpenGIS Consortium. http://www. 2007. Idea Group Pub. Island Press. Elinor and Harini Nagendra (2006)." California management review 42(1): 83-. "Inaugural Article: Insights on linking forests. <Go to ISI>://000242221200002 O'Reilly. "Collaborative water resource decision support: Results of a field experiment. Guilford Press. Jankowski." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 253-273. . A. Jankowski. and in the laboratory.com/ehost/results?vid=3&hid=2&sid=f172bc84-13334cb2-9bbb-7dea28482456%40sessionmgr7 Pickles.org/standards/wcs. Ground truth : the social implications of geographic information systems. F.. Tuthill and K. Brooks. <Go to ISI>://000182913800014 Pfeffer.com/lib/ucsc/Doc?id=10022507 Pence.pnas. D.html?page=1 OGC. Saving nature's legacy : protecting and restoring biodiversity. on the ground. Cooperrider (1994). Sept. Turpie (2003).C. R. Olsson. Folke and F.opengeospatial.ebrary.." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(4): 699-725. from http://www. T.oreillynet. 25. http://plinks." GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 15(4): 246-247. "12 questions to . PA. K." Environmental Management 34(1): 75-90.Preserving Diversity at All Scales. <Go to ISI>://000223464900007 Ostrom.ebrary. Ramsey (2006b). K. and L. Margherita (2003). . Networks. "OpenGIS® Web Coverage Service (WCS) Implementation Specification.Noss. J and RI Sutton (1999). T. (2006. P. Nyerges." September 30. 296 . S. G. Elinor (2006)." PNAS 103(51): 19224-19231. Retrieved November 17. G. D. from http://www. Multimedia and interactive digital TV managing the opportunities created by digital convergence. P. M. and people from the air. (2005). Hershey.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. . Ostrom. D.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/51/19224 Pagani. http://site.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web20. Botha and J. and Mums . Berkes (2004)." Environmental Management 10(3): 299-309. "Knowing "What" to Do Is Not Enough: Turning Knowledge into Action. "Web portal implementation to support public participation in transportation decision making.. Young (2006a). (1995). Tim. Rutherford and R. trees. South Africa: a financial perspective." Proceedings of the 2006 National Conference on Digital Government Research: 67-68.ebscohost. "Evaluating combinations of on-and off-reserve conservation strategies for the Agulhas Plain. and Allen Y. T. P. Q. Reed F. Retrieved Jan.. J. "Nodes. New York. 2006. "What Is Web 2. Nyerges. 1).com/lib/ucmerced/Doc?id=10022507 http://site. <Go to ISI>://A1986C123900002 Noss.. Washington. Harris (1986). "Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. C.

Robert (1995). American Statistical Association. T. Pyke. M.R. Asam and T. H. M. "Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: Interpretation for implementation.x Pressey. Orians." Frontiers in Biology: Ecology (Cover Story) v269(n5222): p347(4). S. Island Press: 225-244. . Cowling. E.com/excerpt. L. Stuart L. CA. S. Gareth J. The Society for Conservation Biology Conference. (2006). R.0 Possingham. What Are Focus Groups? Section on Survey Research Methods. R. American Statistical Association. Soule and G. VA. Putnam. A." Biological Conservation 100(3): 355-376. (1998a). Charles (1998b). Robert D. Wolf (2005). R. A.org/Activities/Meetings/2006/Papers. L. Presentation: A national review of priority setting and decision making by land protection programs.). Pulliam (2001).galegroup. P. Choate. Quinn and John H. M. John L. Rouget and T. Alexandria. What Are Focus Groups? Section on Survey Research Methods." PS: Political Science and Politics 28(4): 664-683. Lombard." Conservation Biology.blackwellsynergy. Gallo. "A review of conservation planning concepts and decision-making practices among state and local land protection programs in the United States. Taffs (2001).do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A1709733 5&source=gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName=ucsantabarbara&version =1. L. Gittleman and Thomas M." Pyke.Pierce. (2000). 297 . A. Mande (in prep. S.. T.. Prendergast. R. Alexandria. R." Biological Conservation 125(4): 441-458. http://www. R. C. S. VA. http://www.com/doi/abs/10. M. Washington D. http://find.1523-1739. Lawton (1999). San Jose. C. "Tuning In. H.. "Scheduling conservation action in production landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. "A review of conservation planning concepts and current decision-making practices among state and local land protection programs in the United States. Ecola.. B. Mande (In review).1046/j.97428. H.. and K.com/itx/infomark. Proctor. Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. C. Making smart conservation decisions. Andelman. Knight. New York." Conservation Biology 13(3): 484-492. Choate.1999. Rachel M. C. Putnam. A. Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community.simonsays. Ecola. John R. Russell. http://www. Brooks (1995). Proctor. <Go to ISI>://000230447100004 Pimm. "The Gaps between Theory and Practice in Selecting Nature Reserves. A. Conservation biology : research priorities for the next decade. "The future of biodiversity. J.cfm J. Asam and T.cfm?isbn=0684832836 Pyke. Simon & Schuster. Trombulak and H.C.. Noon. S.conbio.

(2003). Michael L. Cowling. 488. H. M. H.com. 2006. <Go to ISI>://A1992HR82000002 Rosenzweig.com/id/13230538/ Roots. (2006. New York.Opening Comments. Robertson. Burgman (2000). F. 17). B. Andrew T. 26. from http://www.. and R. B. . 10. R Chambers. Kerley (2006). A. D. 17.00297. F. "A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Parks and L.. Giacomo .blackwell-synergy. "A proposal for fuzzy International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories and criteria. M. "Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for conservation. E.. "Can Web 2. M McCall and J Fox (2006). Retrieved Oct.0 change the world? Nonprofits embracing technology that built MySpace and YouTube. Giacomo. Knight and Graham I. Steyaert. P. H.msnbc. Regan." MSNBC. Colyvan (2000)." Biological Conservation 92(1): 101-108. "A fuzzy classification technique for predicting species' distributions: applications using invasive alien plants and indigenous insects. Win-win ecology : how the earth's species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. "PGIS good practice. Lombard. M. The Practical Futurist. and M." Conservation Biology 20(2): 549-561. http://www.msn. Burgman (2002). facilitators. Rambaldi. Villet and A.iapad. Oxford University Press. Retrieved Nov. (1992). Environmental modeling with GIS. GIS and risk: a three-culture problem." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1197-1199.Rambaldi.1111/j. David (1993). (2006). Goodchild. M. "Sakai: Collaboration and Learning for Education. "Designing Large-Scale Conservation Corridors for Pattern and Process. "Fuzzy sets and threatened species classification. Richard M. Michael (2006. Palmer (2004). <Go to ISI>://000088442400031 Regan. Colyvan and M. Retrieved Oct. O.a Step to Knowledge and Understanding . A. New York. M. 2006.sakaiproject. "Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners. Nov.htm 298 .com/doi/abs/10. Oxford ." Conservation Biology 15(4): 970-979. June 13. P. M." Sakai. "Environmental Information ." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 20(2-3): 87-94. Nov. Hull (2001). H. 2006). Mathieu.2006. Amanda T. Colyvan and M. R.org/media2/2006/overview/overview. from http://www. Rouget. M. technology intermediaries and researchers.x Sakai. 17." Diversity and Distributions 10(5-6): 461-474.org. <Go to ISI>://000223744500016 Rogers. <Go to ISI>://000083856800010 Regan." Participatory Learning and Action 54: 106-113. T.15231739. <Go to ISI>://000174457800025 Rejeski. H. Oxford University Press: xxiii." Ecological Applications 12(2): 618-628. 2006. M. Knowledge and wisdom: inseparable twins?" PPGIS Listserve: www. Robertson.

Environmental online communication. E. Richard Margoluis and Kent Redford (2001). M. Wright." Conservation Biology 20(5): 1550-1552. "Delineating “Public” and “Participation” in PPGIS. "How Conservation Scientists Can Help Develop Social Capital for Biodiversity. New York. B. Tear and F. <Go to ISI>://A1993KH00900001 Scott. R. (2006). and human development. Adaptive management : a tool for conservation practitioners.1523-1739. (2005a). Davis. "Using psychology to save biodiversity and human well-being. "Society for Conservation Biology Code of Ethics. M.gov/catdir/toc/fy051/2004041729. and B. W. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. M. local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. Myers (2006).x Scharl. http://www.htm Saunders. Caicco. http://www. DC. Estes (2001).consecol.worldwildlife. W. Biodiversity Support Program. R. C. Wright (1993). J." Society for Conservation Biology. Groves.bsponline. Noss.blackwellsynergy. A. F.org/AboutUs/ SCB (2005b). J. Retrieved Jan. "Tropical biologists. H. "Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity?" Ecological Applications 11(4): 999-1007. R. Douglas and Anna Lawrence (2004)." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3): 491-507.com/doi/abs/10. Arno (2004).php3?97 and/or http://www. http://www.1874a. D. Bethesda.1111/j." URISA Journal 16(2): 15-26. Csuti.conbio. C. McGhie.a Geographic Approach to Protection of Biological Diversity. 9. Derchia. G. Marc and Elliot Shuford (2005). 2007. "Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Davis.. (2003). Timothy H. Carol D.com/doi/abs/10.. http://www. Sayer. "About us: Who we are. Brook and O.html Schlossberg.blackwell-synergy. Edwards. Md." Conservation Ecology 5(2): 32.org/vol5/iss2/art32/ SCB.1111/j.loc.2006. "Research to integrate productivity enhancement.org/bsp/publications/aam/112/titlepage. G. Renee (2006)." Wildlife Monographs(123): 1-41. London . F." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(12): 634-638. Scott. Ulliman and R.Salafsky. environmental protection. B. from http://www.. Campbell (2001).com/science/article/B6VJ1-4DGD9SB2/2/43c069f8504aed2b7ae493fecfffac53 Siebor.00421. Butterfield. S.15231739. [online] URL: http://www. J. 299 . J. "Gap Analysis . Schwartz." Conservation Biology 19(1): 3-3. http://www. Washington. "The Emerging Field of Conservation Psychology. Groves and J." Human Ecology Forum 10(2): 137-149. Gap analysis : a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. <Go to ISI>://000238313200026 Saunders. T.x Scott. T. J. Mark W..2005. Michael. Springer. Anderson. A. F. Sheil." Conservation Biology 20(3): 702-705. C. Nick. Davis (1996).org/publications/showhtml. G. C.sciencedirect.

K. D. "Constructing and Reconstructing Scientific Ignorance . The use and uncertainties of spatial data for landscape models: an overview with examples from the Florida Everglades. Using weighted distance and leastcost corridor analysis to evaluate regional-scale large carnivore habitat connectivity in Washington. and L.iapad. Nurtured by knowledge : learning to do participatory action-research. power. (1990). What is Conservation Biology? (From Bioscience. Hunsaker (2001). "Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. A. C.org/publications/ppgis/steinmann%20krek_vs_last. 402.C. Dennis George Willms and Nancy A. Paul C. and John Terborgh (1999). Peter and Carolyn T. Washington. Washington. W. Pennsylvania." Conservation Biology 15(4): 980-989. 1994. M. <Go to ISI>://A1993MJ39200004 300 . Fred and Carolyn T. Interactive television and map-based public participation. Smith.Ignorance Claims in Science and Journalism. M.. Michael E. T. T. (1997). Sklar. Johnson (1997). Hunsaker (2001).pdf Stern. Stocking. New York. C. Denmark. 35). "A framework for Theory Applicable to the Education of Landscape Architects (and Other Environmental Design Professionals). Case. M." Retrieved April 13." Journal of Social Issues 56(3): 407-424. "Science. and C. Grumbine.. Steinitz. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications.Singleton. 2002.edu/depts/larchdep/research/monroe/00.. P." Knowledge-Creation Diffusion Utilization 15(2): 186-210. Johnson (2000). F. An introduction to uncertainty issues for spatial data used in ecological applications. B. Island Press: xv. (2000). R. The Apex Press . S. www. and system dynamics: the political economy of conservation biology. Squire. J. and R. Holstein (1993). D. F." Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development 48(1): 23-43. Steinmann. H.harvard. International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET). from www. Island Press. C. A. F. Aalborg. Soule. "Supporting distributed communities of practice with interactive television. F. Lehmkuhl and W." Landscape Journal: 136-143. "Alternative Futures for Monroe County. Case. New York. Continental conservation : scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Hunsaker. M.. C. D. Friedl and T. 416. S. Urban Data Management Symposium. J. Song. Hunsaker.htm.C. J. M. Gaines (2001). Goodchild. Stine. Springer: xiii. Soule. IN: Environmental policy and biodiversity. M'Gonigle (2001). Susan E. M. New York. vol. Goodchild. (1985). <Go to ISI>://000086651200005 Steinitz. International Development Research Centre. Friedl and T. 402. E.gsd. Springer: xiii. Spatial uncertainty in ecology : implications for remote sensing and GIS applications. J. Renate and Alenka Krek (2006). E.

" Economic Geography 46: 234-40. D. T. Stoms. (1995)." Computers. "Sensitivity of Wildlife Habitat Models to Uncertainties in GIS Data. W. B." The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4): 477-500. Bearly. B.. Michael (2005)." Ecology and Society 11(2): 39. Burgman (1998). Susan (2002). J.. C. W. L. L. W. Oneill (1987). <Go to ISI>://000223960400017 Theobald. Taylor and Francis. A. Weiner. "Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. PPGIS. W. David M. Craig. R. Taylor.Stoms. Harris and D. "Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and GIS for Participatory Natural Resource Management: State-of-the-Practice." Environmental Management 11(3): 295303. Shenk and W. NY. Kenneth M. D. D. D. A. "The Reliability of Using Population Viability Analysis for Risk Classification of Species." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(3): 139-144. L. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial*. J. Davis and C. <Go to ISI>://A1987J198700002 Tait. "Treatment of Risk in Environmental-Impact Assessment." Conservation Biology 14(5): 1243-1252. G. "Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of socialecological systems: a critical review. T. Information technologies. and S. Dougill.ecologyandsociety. (1970). Barnthouse and R. Bhattarya (2004).." Conservation Biology 12(5): 966-974. P. N. Vivek Chaudhri. W. Wade. Gary. Chomitz and Frank W. Barlow (2000)." Landscape and Urban Planning 68(1): 95-108.org/vol11/iss2/art39/ Suter. [online] URL: http://www. De Master and J. Davis (2004). Environment and Urban Systems 29: 33-47. "A computer movie. and M. "Implementing geoportals: applications of distributed GIS. Arthur Ha and Loris Strappazzon (2003). Riebsame (2000). B. M. "Assessment of threat and conservation priorities under realistic levels of uncertainty and reliability. N.com/science/article/B6V91-49TRNFJ2/2/897f589528f9650d66f32e018cb365c1 Stoneham. Cogan (1992). Reed (2006). E. <Go to ISI>://000083830400004 Tobler." 301 . Stringer. Hobbs. F. V. "TAMARIN: a landscape framework for evaluating economic incentives for rainforest restoration. T. Prell and M. <Go to ISI>://000076272800010 Tripathi. A. M. M." Landscape Ecology 15(1): 35-45. T. R. Zack. "Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. S.sciencedirect. L.. Hubacek. P. C. <Go to ISI>://000089816800010 Theobald. Todd. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. Stonich." Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58(6): 843-850. and advocacy: globallization of resistance to industrial shrimp farming. New York.. http://www. <Go to ISI>://A1995RB70400013 Taylor." Conservation Biology 9(3): 551-558. (2004). C. "Incorporating uncertainty into management models for marine mammals.. Fraser. E. K.

" Cartography and Geographic Information Science 23: 115-127. "2020 Computing: The creativity machine. United Nations Educational.com/browse/uncertainty UNESCO (2006). MIT Press.org/press/r1." Dictionary. Daniel.com Retrieved March 18. U. China.0. Van der Wel. Rick Bonney.org/10. Higgitt (1997). "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.K. A Developing Connection: Bridging the Policy Gap between the Information Society and Sustainable Development. Ormeling (1994). Bringing society back in : grassroots ecosystem management. J. Van Rijsoort. http://dx. Visualization in modern cartography. R. .html see also: http://www. Steve (2005). http://www." Science Education 84(2): 265-275. F.. http://dx.1038/440411a Vosloo.). Pergamon/Elsevier Science: xviii. Deborah J. Visualization of data quality. Paris. J.0_weblab. Vernor (2006). http://www. from http://www.weblab." Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21(3): 333-347. International Institute for Sustainable Development.org/ojs/include/getdoc. MIT Press. 2007. Taylor. Maja Andjelkovic. "Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in Yunnan. Community Participation and 302 . Derek Bascom and Anna Cabral (2000). Cambridge. (2003).org/10. J. "Research priorities for GIScience.EJISDC 17(3): 1-13. J. Mass. France.CO." Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2543-2573. 2007.doi.2-5 UCGIS (1996). Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. Fourth Edition. Hootsman and F. Oxford. Weber. M. (n. Towards a Sustainable Development View of Local Content using ICTs in South Africa: A Key Priority in the National Information Society Strategy. (2003). Retrieved Jan.weblab. (2005). and Cultural Organization.. and J.doi. "Web Lab: Creating new ways to connect people and ideas." Weblab. <Go to ISI>://000232622700002 Vinge. M. R. F. from http://dictionary. Terri Willard. Scientific. M. New York. Trevor Harris and William Craig (2002). 16.org/home. WebLab. uncertainty. A. Steve Voslooet al. accountability. .d.pdf#search= %22Towards%20a%20Sustainable%20Development%20View%20of%22 Warburton. Zhang (2005). F. M. <Go to ISI>://A1997YH10500003 Warschauer. Edward P. and M. Technology and social inclusion: rethinking the digital divide.org/pdf/2005/networks_dev_connection_africa. "Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project.1002/(SICI)1098237X(200003)84:2<265::AID-SCE7>3. Traditional Knowledge.reference.ejisdc." Nature 440(7083): 411-411.pdf.iisd. Weiner. "Improving the preparation for fieldwork with 'IT': two examples from physical geography. 345. MacEachren and D.php?id=105&article=116&mode=p df Trumbull. and sustainable communities.

Participatory action research as a participatory approach to addressing environmental issues.sagepub.net/uswtrmap. Mass.6959390. Araujo. http://pus. Etienne C. Etienne. Denis and John Fels (1992). L. Retrieved Jan." Harvard Business Review 78(1): 139. Sabucedo Cameselle. New York. Kunqing and S. Guilford Press.php?m=9. Deborah Du Nann. Ladle. Mahwah. "Conservation Biogeography: assessment and prospect. S. from http://www. "Interactive Watersheds: Showcasing the nation's community-based watershed restoration partnerships.org/WorldMap.loc. Cultivating communities of practice : a guide to managing knowledge. Los Angeles. (2006). NY. http://www. Mass." Diversity and Distributions 11(1): 3-23." Mountain Visions.. "Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. N. Toronto.0. Kenneth (2003). Beth.html Workman. Workman. Taylor and Francis. Watson and K. MA . J. Edward Osborne (1992). The diversity of life.. 2007." Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281-304. Hong Kong. 303 .com/cgi/content/abstract/1/3/281 Xiujun." Mountain Visions: Interactive Watersheds. Retrieved Jan. The psychology of environmental problems. B.html. Strum and R.. Susan M. Wynne. Boston.J. J. T. M. Weiss. Gang. INFOSCALE '06. "Worldbirds: birding with a purpose. Wright (1994). (1992). 16. Whittaker. J. Romay Martâinez. and William M. E. M. A peer-to-peer approach to Geospatial Web Services discovery. Willis (2005). Cambridge. 26. environmental action and sustainability. W. Santa Monica Mountains' Last Male Lion Hunted. M. R.net/resource/mainplat/chees1hs. X.interactivewatersheds. Winter. Hogrefe & Huber: vii. from http://www.com/news/local/la-melion5dec05. Richard A. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Paul. Wood. Wenger.html Worldbirds. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation. Lawrence Erlbaum.worldbirds. Meng (2006). McDermott and William Snyder (2002). Harvard Business School Press. R.. R. Koger and Deborah Du Nann Winter (2004). from http://www. http://www. Harris and D. Esther. The power of maps. Island Press. 409. Euclides Sanchez and Karen Cronick (2003). Beth. (2002). C.uppersouthplatte. Los Angeles Times. Snyder (2000). New York. <Go to ISI>://000226348100002 Wilson. "Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science.. Weisenfeld. "Coalition for the Upper South Platte: Check Dams Help Capture Sediment. 2006. M. M. Cambridge. B. Garcâia Mira and J. Culture. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Scalable Information Systems. Weiner.story?coll=la-headlines-california Wenger. D. J.latimes.. Western. J.Geographic Information Systems." Retrieved Oct. (2003). 2007. Craig.gov/catdir/description/guilford051/92023443. J. 16.

http://www. Rhind.springerlink. Robert K. Geographical information systems. Calif. J. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Retrieved Jan. W. Younge." Biological Conservation 112(1-2): 15-28. A. Richard G. 2007. Zimmerman." World Wind Central." Environmental Management 22(1): 35-48. Aspinall (1998). Yin. Collaborative Decision Making. A. Island Press.php?title=World_Wind_To urs. 11. Applications of case study research.com/WorldWind/index. Fowkes (2003).. Uncertainty in geographical information. Jingxiong and Michael F. Chad. "World Wind Tours. Goble. 304 . Urban Planning and GIS. Davis. Maguire and D. <Go to ISI>://000182913800002 Zhang. D. Longley. New York. Taylor & Francis. (2006). M.html Yeh. P. London . SAGE Publications. Goodchild. (1993). http://www.: 879-887. from http://www.loc. G-O (1999). The Endangered Species Act at thirty. Newbury Park. Scott and F. D. J. New York. "The Cape Action Plan for the Environment: overview of an ecoregional planning process. F.Xuan Zhu. Healey and Richard J. Goodchild (2002). Washington. DC.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0519/2005026419. and S.com/content/6p88h3ujpuuctw2g Yaffee. "A Knowledge-Based Systems Approach to Design of Spatial Decision Support Systems for Environmental Management.earthissquare. M. Steven Lewis (2006).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful