Integer linear programming outperforms simulated annealing for solving conservation planning problems

The resources available for conserving biodiversity are limited, and so protected areas need to be established in places that will achieve objectives for minimal cost. Two of the main algorithms for solving systematic conservation planning problems are Simulated Annealing (SA) and Integer linear programming (ILP). Using a case study in British Columbia, Canada, we compare the cost-effectiveness and processing times of SA versus ILP using both commercial and open-source algorithms. Plans for expanding protected area systems based on ILP algorithms were 12 to 30% cheaper than plans using SA. The best ILP solver we examined was on average 1071 times faster than the SA algorithm tested. The performance advantages of ILP solvers were also observed when we aimed for spatially compact solutions by including a boundary penalty. One practical advantage of using ILP over SA is that the analysis does not require calibration, saving even more time. Given the performance of ILP solvers, they can be used to generate conservation plans in real-time during stakeholder meetings and can facilitate rapid sensitivity analysis, and contribute to a more transparent, inclusive, and defensible decision-making process.

[1]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Incorporating dynamic distributions into spatial prioritization , 2016 .

[2]  Christodoulos A. Floudas,et al.  Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming , 2009, Encyclopedia of Optimization.

[3]  I. Grossmann.  Review of Nonlinear Mixed-Integer and Disjunctive Programming Techniques , 2002 .

[4]  D. Fink,et al.  Optimizing the conservation of migratory species over their full annual cycle , 2019, Nature Communications.

[5]  Matthew E. Watts,et al.  Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritization , 2009 .

[6]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[7]  S. Polasky,et al.  Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[8]  Mark D. McDonnell,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Spatially Cohesive Reserve Design , 2002 .

[9]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  Targeting Global Protected Area Expansion for Imperiled Biodiversity , 2014, PLoS biology.

[10]  L. Joppa,et al.  High and Far: Biases in the Location of Protected Areas , 2009, PloS one.

[11]  Dominic Oehlert,et al.  Evaluating the performance of solvers for integer-linear programming , 2018 .

[12]  C. Y. Lin,et al.  Participant Selection Problem: Relative Performance of Five Optimization Solvers , 2017, ICCMS '17.

[13]  Les G. Underhill,et al.  Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms , 1994 .

[14]  S. Polasky,et al.  Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon , 2001, Land Economics.

[15]  Steve Kelling,et al.  Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Marxan good practices handbook , 2010 .

[17]  Matthew A. Williamson,et al.  Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation , 2018 .

[18]  Ruben Romero,et al.  A mixed-integer quadratically-constrained programming model for the distribution system expansion planning , 2014 .

[19]  Robert L Pressey,et al.  Opportunism, Threats, and the Evolution of Systematic Conservation Planning , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[20]  Nesa L'abbe Wu,et al.  Linear programming and extensions , 1981 .

[21]  R. Schuster,et al.  Bird Community Conservation and Carbon Offsets in Western North America , 2014, PloS one.

[22]  Axel Meyer,et al.  Asymmetric paralog evolution between the “cryptic” gene Bmp16 and its well-studied sister genes Bmp2 and Bmp4 , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[23]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Optimisation in reserve selection procedures—why not? , 2002 .

[24]  Richard Grenyer,et al.  The Impact of Systematic Conservation Planning , 2017 .

[25]  Jeffrey Owen Hanson.  Conserving evolutionary processes , 2018 .

[26]  Richard B. Chandler,et al.  unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance , 2011 .

[27]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[28]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science , 2014 .

[29]  K. D. Cocks,et al.  Using mathematical programming to address the multiple reserve selection problem: An example from the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia , 1989 .

[30]  D. Meidinger,et al.  Ecosystems of British Columbia , 1991 .

[31]  R L Pressey,et al.  Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[32]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation , 1998, Science.

[33]  H. Possingham,et al.  Spatial conservation prioritization: Quantitative methods and computational tools , 2009 .

[34]  P. Ferraro.  Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world , 2003 .

[35]  M. Strimas‐Mackey,et al.  Tradeoffs in the value of biodiversity feature and cost data in conservation prioritization , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[36]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming , 2016 .

[37]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  ESTIMATING SITE OCCUPANCY RATES WHEN DETECTION PROBABILITIES ARE LESS THAN ONE , 2002, Ecology.