Case 2: Puget Trough
The integrated analysis was 4.7% more spatially efficient than the un-integrated analyses. The minimum number of units identified among the best solutions in the integrated analysis was 2,830 assessment units (2,122,500 ha) to meet objectives across both environments. When the analyses were run separately a minimum of 2,962 exclusive assessment units were identified to meet the objectives. Some assessment units that cross the shoreline were included in both terrestrial and marine analyses but any units selected in both analyses were only counted once. The integrated analyses met objectives with a total area that was 99,000 hectares smaller than the areas identified to meet objectives from the combined, un-integrated analyses. Given the low variability in these different solutions (< 0.5% difference when running the same scenario twice) even a 4.7% change is significant. However, there were not significant changes in the spatial pattern of assessment units identified in the different analyses, and therefore differences in ecological accuracy between scenarios could not be discerned.
The integrated analyses, however, were less precise in meeting assigned conservation goals for the features. Fewer goals for features were adequately met, and more features vastly exceeded their goals than in the combination of the un-integrated analyses. A goal was assumed to be met if the areas included 97–130% of the assigned level. If areas included < 97% or > 130% of the stated goals, then features were under represented or over represented, respectively.