Coordinating Management Decisions of Neighboring Stands with Dynamic Programming

Stands are typically thought of as the basic analysis area (AA) or building block of a forest. Historically, forest management planning has focused on how stand management activities can be coordinated across the forest to provide a sustainable flow of products over time. With increasing concerns about sustaining environmental conditions, spatial facets of the management situation also become a concern. Often, how a stand is managed impacts not only the condition of the stand, but also the condition of a “neighborhood” surrounding the stand. These impacts can have a lasting impact over time, thus adding a temporal dimension to spatial concerns. Spatial concerns add substantial complexity for analyzing management options because forests include many stands, each with its own potential unique neighborhood. Generally, it is too simplified to separate the forest into independent neighborhoods, ignoring conditions along neighborhood boundaries. In recent years adjacency constraints have received considerable attention as one policy tool for addressing spatial management objectives. Adjacency constraints set maximum limits on the size of harvest blocks. Specific management limitations for adjacency constraints vary, without any one accepted best set of rules. Typically, the rules involve only regeneration harvests associated with even-aged management. Rules may limit harvesting of adjacent stands within a given time period or set a maximum limit on the size (total area) of any contiguous harvest block. Rules involve an “exclusion period” during which harvesting is prohibited for adjacent stands around a harvest block. Definitions of exclusion periods also vary by user. Some assume a fixed time length for the exclusion period (e.g. 10 years) or tie its definition to the condition of the harvest block (e.g. not until the trees regenerated in the harvest block reach 20% of their height at rotation). Methods for incorporating adjacency constraints into forest planning models have received considerable

[1]  Ljusk Ola Eriksson,et al.  Allowing for spatial consideration in long-term forest planning by linking linear programming with simulated annealing , 2002 .

[2]  O. Honnay,et al.  Permeability of ancient forest edges for weedy plant species invasion , 2002 .

[3]  R. Haight,et al.  Harvesting Loblolly Pine Plantations with Hardwood Competition and Stochastic Prices , 1991 .

[4]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Review of combinatorial problems induced by spatial forest harvesting planning , 2006, Discret. Appl. Math..

[5]  L. A. Brand,et al.  RESPONSE OF PASSERINE BIRDS TO FOREST EDGE IN COAST REDWOOD FOREST FRAGMENTS , 2001 .

[6]  José G. Borges,et al.  HEURISTICS IN MULTI-OBJECTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT , 2002 .

[7]  A. Ek,et al.  A dynamic programming analysis of silvicultural alternatives for red pine plantations in Wisconsin , 1981 .

[8]  J. Douglas Brodie,et al.  Land Value and the Linkage between Stand and Forest Level Analyses , 1989 .

[9]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age-class distributions. , 2000 .

[10]  José G. Borges,et al.  Using dynamic programming and overlapping subproblems to address adjacency in large harvest scheduling problems , 1998 .

[11]  H. L. Scheurman,et al.  Techniques for Prescribing Optimal Timber Harvest and Investment Under Different Objectives—Discussion and Synthesis , 1977 .

[12]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Harvest Scheduling with Area-Based Adjacency Constraints , 2002, Forest Science.

[13]  Alan T. Murray.  Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling , 1999 .

[14]  Karin Öhman,et al.  Creating continuous areas of old forest in long- term forest planning , 2000 .

[15]  Carl J. Norstrsm.  A STOCHASTIC MODEL FOR THE GROWTH PERIOD DECISION IN FORESTRY , 1975 .

[16]  Dietmar W. Rose,et al.  A simulation approach for optimal timber management scheduling , 1984 .

[17]  Howard M. Hoganson,et al.  Landscape impacts from valuing core area in national forest planning , 2005 .

[18]  L. Harris.  Edge Effects and Conservation of Biotic Diversity , 1988 .

[19]  Robert G. Haight,et al.  A Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Optimization of Lodgepole Pine Management , 1985 .

[20]  José G. Borges,et al.  Combining a decomposition strategy with dynamic programming to solve spatially constrained forest management scheduling problems , 1999 .

[21]  Greg J. Arthaud,et al.  Optimizing high and low thinnings in loblolly pine with dynamic programming , 1988 .

[22]  W. Zipperer.  Deforestation patterns and their effects on forest patches , 1993, Landscape Ecology.

[23]  H. Hoganson,et al.  Spatial information for scheduling core area production in forest planning , 2006 .

[24]  Pekka Kilkki,et al.  Determination of the optimum cutting policy for the forest stand by means of dynamic programming. , 1969 .

[25]  Yu Wei,et al.  Integrating spatial objectives into forest plans for Minnesota's National Forests , 2005 .

[26]  K. Öhman,et al.  The core area concept in forming contiguous areas for long-term forest planning , 1998 .

[27]  Chiang Kao,et al.  Analysis of Economic Impacts on Thinning and Rotation for Douglas-Fir, using Dynamic Programming , 1978 .

[28]  W. Romme,et al.  Cumulative effects of roads and logging on landscape structure in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado (USA) , 2001, Landscape Ecology.

[29]  Frederick S. Hillier,et al.  Introduction of Operations Research , 1967 .

[30]  G. A. Jordan,et al.  Characterizing spatial structure of forest landscapes , 1995 .

[31]  M. Pelkki.  The effects of neighborhood storage size on dynamic programming solutions , 1997 .

[32]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  A mixed-integer formulation of the minimum patch size problem , 2003 .