Advertisement

Heuristics in Forest Planning

  • John Sessions
  • Pete Bettinger
  • Glen Murphy
Part of the International Series In Operations Research amp; Mana book series (ISOR, volume 99)

Heuristics are often used in forest planning due to the size and nonlinear structure of many problems. Heuristics have been used at all levels of forest planning: strategic, tactical, and operational. An important strength of heuristics is their ability to capture the essence of the planning problem. The solution methods for forest-planning problems reflect the wide range of problems being solved, from rule-based systems to network-based algorithms, linear programming (LP)-heuristic combinations, as well as the more recent metaheuristics (simulated annealing, threshold accepting, tabu search, and genetic algorithms). The major barriers to solving planning problems have moved from hardware and software to costs of data capture, reliability, and uncertainty. Advances in data-capturing technologies will help. Trained and experienced people are important to the success of heuristic applications.

Keywords

Global Position System Simulated Annealing Tabu Search Forest Planning Tactical Planning 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akay, A.E. 2003. Minimizing Total Cost of Construction, Maintenance, and Transportation Costs with Computer-Aided Forest Road Design, Ph.D. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 229 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Akay, A., K. Boston, and J. Sessions. 2005. The evolution of computer-aided road design systems. Journal of Forest Engineering 16(2):73-79.Google Scholar
  3. Aruga, K., J. Sessions, and A. Akay. 2005. Heuristic planning techniques applied to forest road profiles. Japan Journal of Forest Research 10(2):83-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bettinger, P. 1999. Distributing geographic information systems capabilities to field offices: benefits and challenges. Journal of Forestry 97(6):22-26.Google Scholar
  5. Bettinger, P., K. Boston, Y.-H. Kim, and J. Zhu. In press. Landscape-level optimization using tabu search and stand density-related forest management prescriptions. European Journal of Operational Research. 176(2): 1265-1282.Google Scholar
  6. Bettinger, P., K. Boston, and J. Sessions. 1999. Intensifying a heuristic forest harvest scheduling search procedure with 2-opt decision choices. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:1784-1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bettinger, P., and W. Chung. 2004. The key literature of, and trends in, forest-level management planning in North America, 1950-2001. The International Forestry Review 6:40-50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bettinger, P., D.L. Johnson, and K.N. Johnson. 2003. Spatial forest plan development with ecological and economic goals. Ecological Modelling 169:215-236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bettinger, P., and M. Lennette. 2004. Landscape Management Policy Simulator (LAMPS), Version 1.1 User's Guide. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Research Contribution 43:117 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Bettinger, P., and J. Sessions. 2003. Spatial forest planning: to adopt, or not to adopt? Journal of Forestry 101(2):24-29.Google Scholar
  11. Bettinger, P., J. Sessions, and K. Boston. 1997. Using tabu search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game. Ecological Modelling 94:111-123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bettinger, P., J. Sessions, and K.N. Johnson. 1998. Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic habitat and commodity production goals in eastern Oregon with a Tabu search procedure. Forest Science 44:96-112.Google Scholar
  13. Boston, K., and P. Bettinger. 1999. An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing, and tabu search heuristics for solving spatial harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 45:292-301.Google Scholar
  14. Brodie, J.D., D.M. Adams, and C. Kao. 1978. Analysis of economic impacts on thinning and rotation for Douglas-fir using dynamic programming. Forest Science 24:513-522.Google Scholar
  15. Caro, F., M. Constantino, I. Martins, and A. Weintraub. 2003. A 2-opt tabu search procedure for the multiperiod forest harvest scheduling problem with adjacency, greenup, old growth, and even flow constraints. Forest Science 49:738-751.Google Scholar
  16. Carpenter, S.R. 2002. Ecological futures: building an ecology of the long now. Ecology 83:2069-2083.Google Scholar
  17. Chung, W., J. Sessions, and H. Heinimann. 2004. An application of a heuristic network algorithm to cable logging layout design. Journal of Forest Engineering 15(1):11-24.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, M., R. Meller, and T. McDonald. 2000. A three stage heuristic for harvest scheduling with access road network development. Forest Science 46:204-218.Google Scholar
  19. Cousar, P. 1992. A Multivariate Control Solution to the Mixed Species/Diameter Class Thinning and Final Rotation Problem, M.S. thesis. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 49 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Curtis, F.H. 1962. Linear programming the management of a forest property. Journal of Forestry 60(9):611-616.Google Scholar
  21. Dixon, G.E., A.R. Stage, N.L. Crookston, R.A. Monserud, M. Moeur, D. Ferguson, W.R. Wykoff, and D.A. Hamilton, Jr. 2004. Essential FVS: A User's Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Ft. Collins, CO, 196 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Drake, J.B., R.O. Dubayah, D.B. Clark, R.G. Knox, J.B. Blair, M.A. Hofton, R.L. Chazdon, J.F. Weishampel, and S.D. Prince. 2002. Estimation of tropical forest structural characteristics using large-footprint lidar. Remote Sensing of Environment 79:305-319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eng, G., H. Daellenbach, and A. White. 1986. Bucking tree-length stems optimally. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16:1030-1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein R., E. Nieto, P. Chevalier, J. Gabarro, and A. Weintraub. 1999. A system for short term harvesting. European Journal of Operations Research 119:427-439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Epstein, R., A. Weintraub, J.B. Sessions, J. Sessions, P. Sapunar, E. Neto, F. Bustamante, and H. Musante. 2006. A combinatorial heuristic approach for solving real size machinery location and road design problems in forestry planning. Operations Research Applications. 54 (6): 1017-1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Falcăo, A.O., and J.G. Borges. 2001. Designing an evolution program solving integer forest management scheduling models: an application in Portugal. Forest Science 47:158-168.Google Scholar
  27. Field, D.B. 1973. Goal programming for forest management. Forest Science 19:125-135.Google Scholar
  28. Glover, F., and G. Kochenberger. 2003. Handbook of Metaheuristics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 556 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Graetz, D., J. Sessions, and S. Garman. In press. Using stand-level optimization to reduce crown fire risk in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. Landscape and Urban Planning.Google Scholar
  30. Haight, R.G., J.D. Brodie, and D.M. Adams. 1985. Optimizing the sequence of diameter distributions and selection harvests for uneven-aged management. Forest Science 31:451-462.Google Scholar
  31. Haight, R.G., R.A. Monserud, and J.D. Chew. 1992. Optimal harvesting with stand density targets: managing Rocky Mountain conifer stands for multiple use outputs. Forest Science 38:554-574.Google Scholar
  32. Hann, D.W., A.S. Hester, and C.L. Olsen. 1997. ORGANON User's Manual: Edition 6.0. Forest Resources Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
  33. Hof, J.G., and L.A. Joyce. 1992. Spatial optimization for wildlife and timber in managed forest ecosystems. Forest Science 38:489-508.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, K.N., and H.L. Scheurman. 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal harvest and investment under different objectives - discussion and synthesis. Forest Science Monograph 18, 31 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, G., J. Hyde III, and M. Meacham. 1986. Four Analytical Approaches for Integrating Land Management and Transportation Planning on Forest Lands. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Research Paper INT-361, 33 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Kidd, W.E. 1969. Forest regulation and the alternative rate - a case illustration. Journal of Forestry 67(12):885-887.Google Scholar
  37. Kidd, W.E., E.F. Thompson, and P.H. Hoepner. 1966. Forest regulation by linear programming - a case study. Journal of Forestry 64(9):611-613.Google Scholar
  38. Kivinen, V.-P. 2006. A forest-level genetic algorithm based control system for generating stand-specific log demand distributions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(7): 1705-1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kivinen, V.-P., and J. Uusitalo. 2002. Applying fuzzy logic to tree bucking control. Forest Science 48:673-684.Google Scholar
  40. Laroze, A.J., and B.J. Greber. 1997. Using tabu search to generate stand-level, rule-based bucking patterns. Forest Science 43:157-169.Google Scholar
  41. Lefsky, M.A., W.B. Cohen, S.A. Acker, G.G. Parker, T.A. Spies, and D. Harding. 1999. Lidar remote sensing of the canopy structure and biophysical properties of Douglas-fir western hemlock forests. Remote Sensing of Environment 70:339-361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leuschner, W.A., J.R. Porter, M.R. Reynolds, and H.E. Burkhart. 1975. A linear programming model for multiple-use planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 5: 485-491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lockwood, C., and T. Moore. 1993. Harvest scheduling with spatial constraints: a simulated annealing approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:468-478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loucks, D.P. 1964. The development of an optimal program for sustained-yield management. Journal of Forestry 62(7):485-490.Google Scholar
  45. McNaughton, A., M. Ronnqvist, and D. Ryan. 1998. The scheduling of forest harvesting with adjacency constraints. 33rd ORSNZ Conference Online Proceedings, Operations Research Society of New Zealand (accessed 28 November 2004: http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/Organisations/ORSNZ/conf33/papers/p75.pdf).
  46. Murphy, G. 1998. Allocations of stands and cutting patterns to logging crews using a tabu search heuristic. International Journal of Forest Engineering 9(1):31-37.Google Scholar
  47. Murphy, G., H. Marshall, and M.C. Bolding. 2004. Adaptive control of bucking on harvesters to meet order book constraints. Forest Products Journal 54(12):114-121.Google Scholar
  48. Murphy, G.E., I. Wilson, and B. Barr. 2006. Developing methods for pre-harvest inventories which use the harvester as the sampling tool. Australian Journal of Forestry 69(1):9-15.Google Scholar
  49. Murray, A.T., and R.L. Church. 1995. Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems. OR Spektrum [Operations Research] 17:193-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson, J., and J.D. Brodie. 1990. Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving area-based forest plans. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20:934-942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Öhman, K., and L.O. Eriksson. 1998. The core area concept in forming contiguous areas for long-term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28:1032-1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ohmann, J.L., and M.J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32:725-741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Palmgren, M., M. Ronnqvist, and P. Varbrand. 2004. A near exact method for solving the log-truck scheduling problem. International Transactions in Operational Research 11:447-464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Paredes V., L. Gonzalo, and J.D. Brodie. 1987. Efficient specification and solution of the even-aged rotation and thinning problem. Forest Science 33:14-29.Google Scholar
  55. Pukkala, T., and J. Miina. 1997. A method for stochastic multiobjective optimization of stand management. Forest Ecology and Management 98:189-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richards, E., and E. Gunn. 2000. A model and tabu search method to optimize stand harvest and road construction schedules. Forest Science 46:188-203.Google Scholar
  57. Sessions, J., D. Johnson, J. Ross, and B. Sharer. 2000. The Blodgett Plan: an active-management approach to developing mature forest habitat. Journal of Forestry 98(12): 29-33.Google Scholar
  58. Sessions, J., E. Olsen, and J. Garland. 1989. Tree bucking for optimal stand value with log allocation constraints. Forest Science 35:271-276.Google Scholar
  59. Sessions, J., and G. Paredes. 1987. A solution procedure for the sort yard location problem in forest operations. Forest Science 33:750-762.Google Scholar
  60. Thompson, E.F., and R.W. Haynes. 1971. A linear programming-probabilistic approach to decision making under uncertainty. Forest Science 17:224-229.Google Scholar
  61. Van Deusen, P.C. 1999. Multiple solution harvest scheduling. Silva Fennica 33:207-216.Google Scholar
  62. Ware, G.O., and J.L. Clutter. 1971. A mathematical programming system for the management of industrial forests. Forest Science 17:428-445.Google Scholar
  63. Wedin, H. 1999. Stand Level Prescription Generation under Multiple Objectives, M.S. thesis. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 178 pp.Google Scholar
  64. Weintraub, A., R. Epstein, R. Morales, J. Seron, and P. Traverso. 1996. A truck scheduling system improves efficiency in the forest industries. Interfaces 26(4):1-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weintraub, A., G. Jones, A. Madgenzo, M. Meacham, and M. Kirby. 1994. Heuristic system to solve mixed integer forest planning models. Operations Research 42:1010-1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yoshimoto, A., R. Haight, and J.D. Brodie. 1990. A comparison of the pattern search algorithm and the modified PATH algorithm for optimizing an individual tree model. Forest Science 36:394-412.Google Scholar
  67. Yoshimoto, A., G. Paredes, and J.D. Brodie. 1988. Efficient Optimization of an Individual Tree Growth Model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. General Technical Report RM-161, pp. 154-162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Sessions
    • 1
  • Pete Bettinger
    • 2
  • Glen Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest EngineeringOregon State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Warnell School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations