Effects of site productivity on forest harvest scheduling subject to green-up and maximum area restrictions

ABSTRACT Green-up requirements are of great interest for forests near cities since these forests are commonly used for recreational activities by the local population as well as for commercial forestry activities. We present three formulations to establish green-up requirements, based on a dynamic green-up approach and constructed by means of: (i) a predefined fixed length for the green-up time, (ii) a predefined variable length for the green-up time and (iii) height information produced by the growth simulator. Additionally, restrictions on harvested volume and maximum open areas were applied. All the green-up formulations were applied to five datasets comprising different initial forest conditions regarding age and site index distribution. Results show that higher net present values are obtained by the formulation that allow a predefined variable length for the green-up time and by using the height information from the growth simulator compared to the formulations using a predefined fixed length for the green-up time. The increase in NPV was most pronounced for the old forest datasets and varied between 4.23% and 8.15%. The optimal solution was always found when modeling the green-up requirement using the height information. This formulation also tended to find optimal solutions faster than other formulations.

[1]  Jianping Zhu,et al.  A New Heuristic Method for Solving Spatially Constrained Forest Planning Problems Based on Mitigation of Infeasibilities Radiating Outward from a Forced Choice , 2006 .

[2]  Pete Bettinger,et al.  Trends in spatial forest planning , 2009, Math. Comput. For. Nat. Resour. Sci..

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

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

[5]  Tron Eid,et al.  Harvest residue potential in Norway – A bio-economic model appraisal , 2013 .

[6]  Miguel Constantino,et al.  Modeling target volume flows in forest harvest scheduling subject to maximum area restrictions , 2014 .

[7]  Kevin Boston,et al.  An economic and landscape evaluation of the green-up rules for California, Oregon, and Washington (USA) , 2006 .

[8]  Tron Eid,et al.  Applying simulated annealing using different methods for the neighborhood search in forest planning problems , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[9]  J. M. Titman.  Nuclear magnetic resonance in liquid metals and alloys , 1977 .

[10]  Francisco Barahona,et al.  Harvest Scheduling Subject to Maximum Area Restrictions: Exploring Exact Approaches , 2005, Oper. Res..

[11]  Kevin Crowe,et al.  An indirect search algorithm for harvest-scheduling under adjacency constraints , 2003 .

[12]  Terje Gobakken,et al.  T: A forest simulator for bioeconomic analyses based on models for individual trees , 2008 .

[13]  Terje Gobakken,et al.  Biodiversity protection and economics in long term boreal forest management — A detailed case for the valuation of protection measures , 2012 .

[14]  T. M. Barrett,et al.  Even-aged restrictions with sub-graph adjacency , 2000, Ann. Oper. Res..

[15]  Howard M. Hoganson,et al.  Structuring a landscape by forestland classification and harvest scheduling spatial constraints , 2000 .

[16]  Geir Hasle,et al.  Interactive planning for sustainable forest management , 2000, Ann. Oper. Res..

[17]  Ljusk Ola Eriksson,et al.  Aggregating harvest activities in long term forest planning by minimizing harvest area perimeters. , 2010 .

[18]  Miguel Constantino,et al.  A column generation approach for solving a non-temporal forest harvest model with spatial structure constraints , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Kevin A. Crowe,et al.  Solving the area-restricted harvest-scheduling model using the branch and bound algorithm , 2003 .

[20]  Bernard G. Halterman,et al.  Integrating timber and wildlife management planning , 1973 .

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

[22]  T. Eid,et al.  Modelling dominant height growth from national forest inventory individual tree data with short time series and large age errors , 2011 .

[23]  Kevin Boston,et al.  Development of spatially feasible forest plans: a comparison of two modeling approaches , 2001 .

[24]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Incorporating average and maximum area restrictions in harvest scheduling models , 2004 .

[25]  Kevin Boston,et al.  The economic impact of green-up constraints in the southeastern United States , 2001 .

[26]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Can mature patch constraints mitigate the fragmenting effects of harvest opening size restrictions , 2003 .

[27]  Daniel Granot,et al.  A tabu search algorithm for finding good forest harvest schedules satisfying green-up constraints , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[28]  Juan Pablo Vielma,et al.  Evaluating approaches for solving the area restriction model in harvest scheduling. , 2009 .

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

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

[31]  J. Borges,et al.  Combining random and systematic search heuristic procedures for solving spatially constrained forest management scheduling models , 2002 .

[32]  T. Johansson.  Site index curves for Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) karst.) planted on abandoned farm land , 1996, New Forests.

[33]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Testing the Use of Lazy Constraints in Solving Area-Based Adjacency Formulations of Harvest Scheduling Models , 2013 .

[34]  Miguel Constantino,et al.  A New Mixed-Integer Programming Model for Harvest Scheduling Subject to Maximum Area Restrictions , 2008, Oper. Res..

[35]  Tron Eid,et al.  Timber production possibilities of the Norwegian forest area and measures for a sustainable forestry , 2002 .

[36]  Ola Sallnäs,et al.  Harvest scheduling under adjacency constraints — a case study from the Swedish sub‐alpine region , 1993 .

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

[38]  Miguel Constantino,et al.  A branch-and-price approach for harvest scheduling subject to maximum area restrictions , 2012, Comput. Optim. Appl..

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

[40]  Juan Pablo Vielma,et al.  Improving computational capabilities for addressing volume constraints in forest harvest scheduling problems , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[41]  Martin Stølevik,et al.  Solving the Long-Term Forest Treatment Scheduling Problem , 2007, Geometric Modelling, Numerical Simulation, and Optimization.

[42]  Tron Eid,et al.  Adjacency constraints in forestry - a simulated annealing approach comparing different candidate solution generators , 2014, Math. Comput. For. Nat. Resour. Sci..

[43]  Pete Bettinger,et al.  Estimating the effects of adjacency and green-up constraints on landowners of different sizes and spatial arrangements located in the southeastern U.S. , 2008 .

[44]  T. Eid,et al.  Economic consequences of sustainable forest management regimes at non-industrial forest owner level in Norway , 2001 .

[45]  Yu Wei,et al.  Tests of a dynamic programming-based heuristic for scheduling forest core area production over large landscapes , 2008 .

[46]  Nikolaj Malchow-Møller,et al.  Real-options aspects of adjacency constraints , 2004 .

[47]  D. K. Daust,et al.  Spatial Reduction Factors for Strata-Based Harvest Schedules , 1993, Forest Science.

[48]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Finding efficient harvest schedules under three conflicting objectives. , 2009 .

[49]  E. Gunn,et al.  A model and Tabu search method to optimize stand harvest and road construction schedules , 2000 .

[50]  Kevin A. Crowe,et al.  An evaluation of the simulated annealing algorithm for solving the area-restricted harvest-scheduling model against optimal benchmarks , 2005 .

[51]  H. Braastad,et al.  Growth model computer program for Pinus sylvestris. , 1980 .

[52]  Miguel Constantino,et al.  A branch-and-bound procedure for forest harvest scheduling problems addressing aspects of habitat availability , 2013, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[53]  Ljusk Ola Eriksson,et al.  The Heureka Forestry Decision Support System: An Overview , 2011, Math. Comput. For. Nat. Resour. Sci..

[54]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Promoting Large, Compact Mature Forest Patches in Harvest Scheduling Models , 2008 .

[55]  José G. Borges,et al.  Erratum to “Structuring a landscape by forestland classification and harvest scheduling spatial constraints” [For. Ecol. Manage. 130 (2000) 269–275] ☆ , 2000 .

[56]  Tron Eid,et al.  AVVIRK-2000: A Large-scale Forestry Scenario Model for Long-term Investment, Income and Harvest Analyses , 2000 .

[57]  Eldon A. Gunn,et al.  Solving the adjacency problem with stand-centred constraints , 2005 .