Reframing Forest Harvest Scheduling Models for Ecosystem Services Management

Linear programming models have been used in forest management planning since the 1960s. These models have been formulated in three basic ways: Models I, II, and III, which are defined by the sequences of management unit states represented by the variables. In Model I, variables represent sequences of states from the beginning of the planning horizon to the end. In Model II, variables represent sequences of states from one intervention to the next. Finally, in Model III, variables represent a single arc in a management unit’s decision tree, i.e., two states. The objectives of this paper are to clarify the definitions of these model variations and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each model. This second objective is to test the hypothesis that the relative performance of these models varies with the increasing number of ecosystem services (ES) incorporated into the models. This objective was achieved by formulating a case study problem using each model type. The case study includes three increasingly complex scenarios, each incorporating additional ecosystem services. Results show that despite having more variables and constraints, Model III requires the least time to formulate due to its less dense parameter matrix. Model II has the shortest solution times, followed closely by Model III, while Model I requires the longest times for both formulation and solution. These results are increasingly apparent in more complex scenarios.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Forests
Published
2024-12-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122236
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Forest Management and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.28

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reframing Forest Harvest Scheduling Models for Ecosystem Services Management

Silvana Ribeiro Nobre, Luis Dı́az-Balteiro, Luiz Carlos Estraviz Rodriguez, Marc E. McDill
1 citations
Forests
Forest Management and Policy
0.28
article

Reframing Forest Harvest Scheduling Models for Ecosystem Services Management

Silvana Ribeiro Nobre, Luis Dı́az-Balteiro, Luiz Carlos Estraviz Rodriguez, Marc E. McDill
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Linear programming models have been used in forest management planning since the 1960s. These models have been formulated in three basic ways: Models I, II, and III, which are defined by the sequences of management unit states represented by the variables. In Model I, variables represent sequences of states from the beginning of the planning horizon to the end. In Model II, variables represent sequences of states from one intervention to the next. Finally, in Model III, variables represent a single arc in a management unit’s decision tree, i.e., two states. The objectives of this paper are to clarify the definitions of these model variations and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each model. This second objective is to test the hypothesis that the relative performance of these models varies with the increasing number of ecosystem services (ES) incorporated into the models. This objective was achieved by formulating a case study problem using each model type. The case study includes three increasingly complex scenarios, each incorporating additional ecosystem services. Results show that despite having more variables and constraints, Model III requires the least time to formulate due to its less dense parameter matrix. Model II has the shortest solution times, followed closely by Model III, while Model I requires the longest times for both formulation and solution. These results are increasingly apparent in more complex scenarios.

ForestsVol. 15(12)
Pennsylvania State University (US), Universidade de São Paulo (BR), Forest Science and Research Institute (BR), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidade de São Paulo, HORIZON EUROPE Excellent Science, H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 39%
Forest Management and Policy
0.28
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.