Estimating the effects of adjacency and green-up constraints on landowners of different sizes and spatial arrangements located in the southeastern U.S.

The maximum clearcut size and green-up period is important for land managers adhering to voluntary and regulatory guidelines. Therefore the impact of actual and hypothetical clearcut size restrictions is a concern for forest landowners who manage land and intend to practice forestry for profit. In this research, the effect of a 97.1 ha (240 ac) clearcut size constraint with a green-up period of 2-yrs is assessed for forest landowners with different forest land sizes, ownership patterns, and age class distributions. A meta heuristic which consists of threshold accepting, 1-opt tabu search, and 2-opt tabu search is used to develop spatially-constrained forest plans for 27 hypothetical forest landowners. These results are compared to a relaxed solution produced with linear programming, and statistical analyses are used to determine significant differences. The analysis provided enough evidence to suggest that two factors (size of ownership pattern and initial age class distribution), and one interaction factor (ownership size × initial age class distribution) are significant in explaining the differences in the percent reduction in forest plan value among the forests managed by the hypothetical forest landowners. From an absolute value reduction perspective, small-sized older forests were most affected. From a percent value point of view, one can conclude from this analysis that landowners with small-sized forests and young initial age class distributions will be significantly more affected by potential adjacency and green-up restrictions in the southeastern U.S. than other types of landowners.

[1]  John Sessions,et al.  Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems , 2002 .

[2]  J. G. Jones,et al.  Formulating adjacency constraints in linear optimization models for scheduling projects in tactical planning , 1991 .

[3]  John Sessions,et al.  Intensifying a heuristic forest harvest scheduling search procedure with 2-opt decision choices , 1999 .

[4]  Kevin Boston,et al.  An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing, and tabu search heuristics for solving spatial harvest scheduling problems. , 1999 .

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

[6]  Robert G. Haight,et al.  Wildlife Conservation Planning Using Stochastic Optimization and Importance Sampling , 1997 .

[7]  P. Bettinger,et al.  Spatial forest planning: To adopt, or not to adopt? , 2003 .

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

[9]  J. K. Gilless,et al.  Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions , 1998 .

[10]  John Sessions,et al.  Using Tabu search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game , 1997 .

[11]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems , 1995 .

[12]  Christine Jasch,et al.  Principles and Criteria , 1997 .

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

[14]  Gerhard W. Dueck,et al.  Threshold accepting: a general purpose optimization algorithm appearing superior to simulated anneal , 1990 .

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

[16]  John Sessions,et al.  Ensuring the Compatibility of Aquatic Habitat and Commodity Production Goals in Eastern Oregon with a Tabu Search Procedure , 1998, Forest Science.

[17]  B. Golden,et al.  Interval estimation of a global optimum for large combinatorial problems , 1979 .

[18]  Jianping Zhu,et al.  The Effects of Spatial Harvest Scheduling Constraints on the Value of a Medium-Sized Forest Holding in the Southeastern United States , 2005 .

[19]  Dietmar W. Rose,et al.  A methodology for estimating production possibility frontiers for wildlife habitat and timber value at the landscape level , 1996 .

[20]  Marc Los,et al.  Combinatorial Programming, Statistical Optimization and the Optimal Transportation Network Problem , 1980 .

[21]  Fred Glover,et al.  Tabu Search - Part II , 1989, INFORMS J. Comput..

[22]  C. Lockwood,et al.  Harvest scheduling with spatial constraints: a simulated annealing approach , 1993 .

[23]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Operationalization of biological diversity as a decision objective in tactical forest planning , 1996 .

[24]  Pete Bettinger,et al.  The Key Literature of, and Trends in, Forest-Level Management Planning in North America, 1950–2001 , 2004 .

[25]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Scale and Unit Specification Influences in Harvest Scheduling with Maximum Area Restrictions , 2002 .