Tactical-Level Forest Management Models

  • Richard L. Church
Part of the International Series In Operations Research amp; Mana book series (ISOR, volume 99)

Tactical analysis represents a bridge between strategic modeling and operations modeling. Whereas strategic models represent space with large tracks and production areas, operational models represent a space as a set of stands, riparian zones, feasible positions for road segments, and the terrain surface so that logging activities can be laid out. Strategic models allow a broad-scale analysis over a long horizon to optimize forest-level outputs and costs. Operational- level models make location-specific decisions over a much smaller time frame. The task of a tactical-level model is to bridge the disconnect that exists between the strategic domain and the operational domain.


Road Segment Planning Unit Strategic Level Road Building Timing Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anadlaft, N., Andalaft, P., Guignard, M., Magendzo, A., Wainer, A., and Weintraub, A., 2003, A problem of forest harvesting and road building solved through model strengthening and lagrangean relaxation, Operations Research 51: 613–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andleman, S.J., Ball, I., Davis, F.W., and Stoms, D.M., 1999, SITES V: an analytical toolbox for designing ecoregional conservation portfolios, Manual prepared for the Nature Conservancy: 1–43.Google Scholar
  3. Bare, B.B. and Field, R., 1987, An evaluation of FORPLAN from an operations research perspective, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-140, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  4. Buongiorno, J. and Svanqvist, N., 1982, A separable goal-programming model of the Indonesian forestry sector, Forest Ecology and Management 4: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, B., Landrum, V., and Pious, L., 1995, Timber harvest scheduling with adjacency constraints: using ARC/INFO to make Forplan realistic, in 1995 ESRI User Conference Proceedings, Redlands, California, USA (
  6. Cea, C. and Jofre, A., 2000, Linking strategic and tactical forestry planning decisions, Annals of Operations Research 95: 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Church, R. and Barber, K., 1992, Disaggregating forest management plans to treatment areas, Stand Inventory Technologies 92: 287–295.Google Scholar
  8. Church, R., Murray, A., and Barber, K., 1994, Designing a hierarchical planning model for USDA Forest Service planning, in Proceedings of the 1994 Symposium on Systems Analysis and Forest Resources: 401–409.Google Scholar
  9. Church, R., Murray, A., and Barber, K., 2000, Forest planning at the tactical level, Annals of Operations Research 95: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Church, R.L., 2001, GIS and large-scale linear programming: evolution of a spatial decision support system for land use management, in Regional Science and Business. Clarke G. and Madden M. (eds.) Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Church, R.L., Okin, W.J., and Johnson, K.N., 1996, Selecting Biodiversity Management Areas, in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress Vol. 2, University of California at Davis.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, R., Weintraub, A., Sapunar, P., Nieto, E., Sessions, J., and Sessions, B., 1995, PLANEX: a system for optimal assignment of harvesting, in Proceedings Harvest Planning Conference. LIRO, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, D. and Church, R.L., 2003, Clustering and compactness in reserve site selection: an extension of the Biodiversity Management Area Selection Model, Forest Science 49: 1–11.Google Scholar
  14. Hof, J. and Bevers, M., 2000, Direct spatial optimization in natural resource management: four linear programming examples, Annals of Operations Research 95: 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hof, J.G. and Pickens, J.B., 1987, A pragmatic multilevel approach to large-scale renewable resource optimization: a test case, Natural Resource Modeling 1: 245–264.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, K.N. and Stuart, T., 1987, FORPLAN Version 2: Mathematical Programmer’s Guide, Land Management Planning Systems Section, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, K.N., Stuart, T., and Crimm, S.A., 1986, FORPLAN Version 2: An Overview, Land Management Planning Systems Section, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. Kent, B., Bare, B.B., Field, R., and Bradley, G., 1991, Natural resource land management planning using large-scale linear programs: the USDA Forest Service experience with FORPLAN, Operations Research 39: 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDill, M.E., Rabin, S.A., and Braze, J. 2002, Harvest scheduling with area-based adjacency constraints, Forest Science 48: 631–642.Google Scholar
  20. Murray, A.T., Goycoolea, M., and Weintraub, A., 2004, Incorporating average and maximum area restrictions in harvest scheduling models, Canadian Journal of Forestry 34: 456–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nalle, D.J., Arthur, J.L., and Sessions, J., 2002, Designing compact and contiguous reserve networks with a hybrid heuristic algorithm, Forest Science 48: 59–68.Google Scholar
  22. Navon, D., 1971, Timber AM…A Long Range Planning Method for Commercial Timber Lands under Multiple Use Management. Research paper PSW-70. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, J., Brodie, J.D., and Sessions, J., 1991, Integrating short-term, area-based logging plans with long-term harvest schedules, Forest Science 37: 101–122.Google Scholar
  24. Sleavin, K.E. and Camenson, D., 1994, Spectrum, Proceedings of the 1994 Symposium on Systems Analysis in Forest Resources. Pacific Grove, Ca, September.Google Scholar
  25. Weintraub, A. and Bare, B.B., 1996, New issues in forest land management from an operations research perspective, Interfaces 26: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weintraub, A. and Cholaky, A., 1991, A hierarchical approach to forest planning, Forest Science 37: 439–460.Google Scholar
  27. Weintraub, A., Guitart, S., and Kohn, V., 1986, Strategic planning in forest industries, European Journal of Operational Research 24: 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weintraub, A., Epstein, R., Morales, R., Seron, J., and Traverso, P., 1996, A truck scheduling system improves efficiency in the forest industries, Interfaces 26: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Church
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of California at Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations