Nothing
#' @include internal.R ConservationProblem-class.R
NULL
#' Evaluate solution importance
#'
#' Importance scores (also known as irreplaceability scores) can be used to
#' assess the relative importance of planning units selected in a solution to a
#' conservation planning problem.
#'
#' @details
#' The following methods are available for calculating importance scores
#' for a solution to a conservation planning [problem()]:
#'
#' \describe{
#'
#' \item{[eval_replacement_importance()]}{
#' Calculate importance scores using replacement costs (based
#' on Cabeza and Moilanen 2006).
#' These scores quantify the change in the objective
#' function (e.g., additional costs required to meet feature targets) of the
#' optimal solution if a given planning unit in a solution cannot be acquired.
#' They can (i) account for the cost of different planning units, (ii) account
#' for multiple management zones, (iii) apply to any objective function, and
#' (iv) identify truly irreplaceable planning units (denoted with infinite
#' values).}
#'
#' \item{[eval_ferrier_importance()]}{
#' Calculate importance scores following Ferrier *et al.* (2000).
#' These scores measure importance based on how critical
#' planning units are for meeting targets. They can only be applied to
#' conservation problems that use targets and a single zone
#' (e.g., the classic *Marxan*-type problem). Furthermore -- unlike the
#' replacement cost scores -- these scores provide a
#' score for each feature within each planning unit, providing insight into
#' why certain planning units are more important than other planning units.}
#'
#' \item{[eval_rare_richness_importance()]}{
#' Calculate importance scores using the rarity weighted richness metric
#' (based on Williams *et al.* 1996).
#' These score are simply a measure of biodiversity.
#' They do not account for planning costs, multiple management zones, objective
#' functions, or feature targets (or weightings).
#' They merely describe the spatial patterns of
#' biodiversity, and do not account for many of the factors needed to quantify
#' the importance of a planning unit for achieving conservation goals.}
#'
#' }
#'
#' Broadly speaking, we recommend using replacement cost scores where
#' possible. This is because they can be applied to any type of conservation
#' planning problem -- regardless of the objective function or number of
#' zones considered in the problem -- and measure planning unit importance based
#' on degradation of the prioritization.
#' Although the replacement cost scores can be calculated for small and
#' moderate sized problems (e.g., less than 30,000 planning units), they may not
#' be feasible for particularly large problems (e.g., more than 100,000 planning
#' units). In such cases, we recommend calculating importance scores using the
#' Ferrier method. This is because the Ferrier method can be
#' calculated relatively quickly for large-sized problems and it
#' explicitly accounts for representation targets.
#' We only recommend using the rarity weighted richness metric
#' when neither of the other two methods can be used.
#'
#' @references
#' Cabeza M and Moilanen A (2006) Replacement cost: A practical measure of site
#' value for cost-effective reserve planning. *Biological Conservation*,
#' 132: 336--342.
#'
#' Ferrier S, Pressey RL, and Barrett TW (2000) A new predictor of the
#' irreplaceability of areas for achieving a conservation goal, its application
#' to real-world planning, and a research agenda for further refinement.
#' *Biological Conservation*, 93: 303--325.
#'
#' Williams P, Gibbons D, Margules C, Rebelo A, Humphries C, and Pressey RL
#' (1996) A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots and complementary
#' areas for conserving diversity using British birds.
#' *Conservation Biology*, 10: 155--174.
#'
#' @family overviews
#'
#' @examples
#' \dontrun{
#' # load data
#' sim_pu_raster <- get_sim_pu_raster()
#' sim_features <- get_sim_features()
#'
#' # build minimal conservation problem with raster data
#' p1 <-
#' problem(sim_pu_raster, sim_features) %>%
#' add_min_set_objective() %>%
#' add_relative_targets(0.1) %>%
#' add_binary_decisions() %>%
#' add_default_solver(gap = 0, verbose = FALSE)
#'
#' # solve the problem
#' s1 <- solve(p1)
#'
#' # plot solution
#' plot(s1, main = "solution", axes = FALSE)
#'
#' # calculate importance scores using replacement cost scores
#' ir1 <- eval_replacement_importance(p1, s1)
#'
#' # calculate importance scores using Ferrier et al 2000 method,
#' # and extract the total importance scores
#' ir2 <- eval_ferrier_importance(p1, s1)[["total"]]
#'
#' # calculate importance scores using rarity weighted richness scores
#' ir3 <- eval_rare_richness_importance(p1, s1)
#'
#' # create multi-band raster with different importance scores
#' ir <- c(ir1, ir2, ir3)
#' names(ir) <- c(
#' "replacement cost", "Ferrier score", "rarity weighted richness"
#' )
#'
#' # plot importance scores
#' plot(ir, axes = FALSE)
#' }
#' @name importance
#'
#' @aliases irreplaceability
NULL
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.