Addressing risks and uncertainty in forest land use modeling

The management of competing land uses is complicated by a range of issues and considerations. This is the case because of a concern for the long-term health of the earth and the obvious negative impacts of past and present human activities. Land use planning and management efforts have recognized this broader context and accordingly have devoted much care and attention to operational-level planning support. Spatial restrictions have long been recognized as central to limiting local impacts as well as ensuring landscape shape and structure irregularity. Unfortunately, planning to meet spatial restrictions may be disrupted, by fire, pests, or even on-the-ground conditions. For example, what if a fire destroys resources in a management unit that are adjacent to a unit(s) scheduled for harvest. In fact, this new opening/disruption may prevent the planned activity of any of its neighboring units. Disruptions do occur, but have rarely been addressed in any meaningful way in planning optimization problems. This paper details spatial optimization approaches to support better understanding of the range of potential outcomes when disruption and uncertainty are taken into account in land use planning involving forest resources. Application results highlight the significance of handling disruption risk and spatial data uncertainty, indicating that identifying and selecting planning alternatives that are consistent with goals and intended outcomes are a difficult task. However, improved modeling approaches are possible that better support land use decision making.

[1]  Jared L. Cohon,et al.  Multiobjective programming and planning , 2004 .

[2]  C. Revelle,et al.  Integer-friendly formulations for the r-separation problem , 1996 .

[3]  Marc E. McDill,et al.  Computational Comparison of Stand-Centered Versus Cover-Constraint Formulations , 2014 .

[4]  Richard L. Church,et al.  The disruptive anti-covering location problem , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[6]  Leslie E. Trotter,et al.  Vertex packings: Structural properties and algorithms , 1975, Math. Program..

[7]  Anthony C. Janetos,et al.  Land system architecture: Using land systems to adapt and mitigate global environmental change , 2013 .

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

[9]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Spatial uncertainty in harvest scheduling , 2012, Ann. Oper. Res..

[10]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Spatial Optimization for Land-use Allocation , 2018 .

[11]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Saving the Forest by Reducing Fire Severity: Selective Fuels Treatment Location and Scheduling , 2015 .

[12]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Sex Offender Residency and Spatial Equity , 2008 .

[13]  J. D. Brodie,et al.  Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving area-based forest plans. , 1990 .

[14]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  An integrated approach for addressing geographic uncertainty in spatial optimization , 2012, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[15]  I. Moon,et al.  An Analysis of Network Location Problems with Distance Constraints , 1984 .

[16]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Spatial Optimization and Geographic Uncertainty: Implications for Sex Offender Management Strategies , 2012 .

[17]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Alcohol beverage control, privatization and the geographic distribution of alcohol outlets , 2012, BMC Public Health.

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

[19]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Estimating carrying capacity for sandhill cranes using habitat suitability and spatial optimization models , 2008 .

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

[21]  Manfred W. Padberg,et al.  On the facial structure of set packing polyhedra , 1973, Math. Program..

[22]  Charles ReVelle,et al.  The grid packing problem : selecting a harvesting pattern in an area with forbidden regions , 1996 .

[23]  Mikael Rönnqvist,et al.  Operations Research challenges in forestry: 33 open problems , 2015, Annals of Operations Research.

[24]  R. Zeller,et al.  MARKET PENETRATION AND LOCATIONAL CONFLICT IN FRANCHISE SYSTEMS , 1980 .

[25]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Modeling the Potential for Critical Habitat , 2015 .

[26]  Richard L. Church,et al.  Business Site Selection, Location Analysis and GIS , 2008 .

[27]  Julien Radoux,et al.  A quantitative assessment of boundaries in automated forest stand delineation using very high resolution imagery , 2007 .

[28]  Alan T. Murray,et al.  Analyzing Cliques for Imposing Adjacency Restrictions in Forest Models , 1996, Forest Science.

[29]  Hyun Kim,et al.  Efficient identification of geographic restriction conditions in anti-covering location models using GIS , 2008 .

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

[31]  Nader Naderializadeh,et al.  Formulating the integrated forest harvest-scheduling model to reduce the cost of the road-networks , 2018, Oper. Res..

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