↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic minimum set problem for reserve design: Heuristic solutions for large problems

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dynamic minimum set problem for reserve design: Heuristic solutions for large problems
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0193093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathieu Bonneau, Régis Sabbadin, Fred A. Johnson, Bradley Stith

Abstract

Conversion of wild habitats to human dominated landscape is a major cause of biodiversity loss. An approach to mitigate the impact of habitat loss consists of designating reserves where habitat is preserved and managed. Determining the most valuable areas to preserve in a landscape is called the reserve design problem. There exists several possible formulations of the reserve design problem, depending on the objectives and the constraints. In this article, we considered the dynamic problem of designing a reserve that contains a desired area of several key habitats. The dynamic case implies that the reserve cannot be designed in one time step, due to budget constraints, and that habitats can be lost before they are reserved, due for example to climate change or human development. We proposed two heuristics strategies that can be used to select sites to reserve each year for large reserve design problem. The first heuristic is a combination of the Marxan and site-ordering algorithms and the second heuristic is an augmented version of the common naive myopic heuristic. We evaluated the strategies on several simulated examples and showed that the augmented greedy heuristic is particularly interesting when some of the habitats to protect are particularly threatened and/or the compactness of the network is accounted for.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Master 4 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 18%
Environmental Science 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,830,887
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#71,939
of 197,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,499
of 333,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,236
of 3,664 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,664 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.