Skip to main content

Timber Harvesting Scheduling Problems: A Compromise Programming Approach

  • Conference paper
Advances in Multiple Objective and Goal Programming

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems ((LNE,volume 455))

Abstract

A timber harvest scheduling model with several criteria was first formulated by considering the net present value as the objetive function and the other criteria as rigid constraints. However this type of formulation generated an empty feasible set. Therefore, the problem was then reformulated as a compromise programming model. The preferential weights incorporated into the models were derived through the application of the Analitical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method after interviewing a group of forestry experts. All the theoretical developments were applied to the forest “Dehesa de la Garganta” in Segovia Mountains (“Sistema Central”), with an area of 2111 hectares covered with Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arp, P.A. and D.R. Lavigne. 1982. Planning whit goal programming: A case study for multiple-use of forested land. For. Chronicle 58: 225–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E. and C. Romero. 1993. Economic optimization by compromise programming: the joint production model. J. Multi-Criteria Des. Analysis 2: 6572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballestero, E. and C. Romero. 1994. Utility optimization when the utility function is virtually unknown. Theory and Decision 37: 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare, B.B. and G.A. Mendoza. 1994. A fuzzy approach to natural resource management from a regional perspective. Int. Trans. Opl. Res. 1: 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohon, J.L. 1978. Multiobjective programming and planning. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaz-Balteiro, L. 1995. Modelos de programación matematica para la ordenación de montes: desarrollos teóricos y aplicaciones al sector forestal espanol. Doctoral dis, Forestry School, Technical University of Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, D.B. 1973. Goal programming for forest management. For. Sci. 19: 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E.H., T.L. Saaty, M.L. Selly and R. Waldrow. 1985. EXPERT CHOICE, Decision Support Software Inc., Pittsburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freimer, M. and P. L. Yu 1976. Some new results on compromise solutions for group decision problems. Manag. Sci. 22: 688–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K.N. and H.L. Scheurman. 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal harvest and investment under different objectives- Discussion and synthesis. Forest Science Monographies 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, C., and J.D. Brodie. 1979. Goal programming for reconciling economic, even flow, and regulation objectives in forest harvest scheduling. Can. J. For. Res. 9: 525–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G. and L.S. Davis. 1995. Interactive resolution of multi-objective forest planning problems with shadow price and parametric analysis. For. Sci. 41: 452–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, G.A., B.B. Bare and Z. Zhou. 1993. A fuzzy multiple objective linear programming approach to forest planning under uncertainty. Agric. Systems 41: 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto, A. and M. Lopez-Quero. 1993. Manual de ordenación de montes. Editorial Paraninfo, Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustagi, K.P. and B.B. Bare. 1987. Resolving multiple goal conflicts with interactive goal programming. Can. J. For. Res. 17: 1401–1407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, C. 1991. Handbook of critical issues in goal programming. Pergamon, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, and resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. 1994. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24: 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer, R.E. and F.W. Harris. 1980. Intra-set point generation and filtering in decision and e. iterion space. Comput. Oper. Res. 7: 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.L. 1985. Multiple criteria decision making. Concepts, techniques and extensions. Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. 1974. A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal. Comput. Oper. Res. 1: 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. 1982. Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Díaz-Balteiro, L., Romero, C. (1997). Timber Harvesting Scheduling Problems: A Compromise Programming Approach. In: Caballero, R., Ruiz, F., Steuer, R. (eds) Advances in Multiple Objective and Goal Programming. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 455. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46854-4_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46854-4_36

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63599-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-46854-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics