Blog List

Monday, 12 September 2016

Heuristics in Multi-Objective Forest Management

Published Date
Volume 6 of the series Managing Forest Ecosystems pp 119-151


Heuristics in Multi-Objective Forest Management

  • Author 
  • José G. Borges
  • Howard M. Hoganson
  • André O. Falcão


Heuristics have been used extensively to support forest management scheduling in the last two decades. The need for spatial definition, and the combined shortcomings of available technology and traditional mathematical programming approaches, sparked interest in alternative forest management scheduling techniques in the early 1980s. Concerns with the environmental impacts of forest management options further encouraged the development of heuristics to address adjacency relationships in harvesting decisions. More recently, heuristics have been used to target other multi-objective management issues. Namely, they have been used to provide information to help sustain both traditional forest products flows (e.g. timber and cork) and landscape structural characteristics (e.g., mosaic elements such as patch number and size, amounts of edge or interior space). In this chapter, we describe the current state of the art of heuristic application in forest management scheduling. Heuristic approaches are presented and discussed in the framework of forest management scheduling needs. Results from some heuristic research efforts are used to outline the application potential and shortcomings of these techniques.


  1. Bare, B.B. and Field, R.C. 1987. An evaluation of FORPLAN from an operations research perspective. In: Proceedings of FORPLAN symposium, USDA, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-140 p.133–144.
  2. Barrett, T.M. 1996. A methodology for evaluation of the economic, forest fragmentation, and wildlife habitat effects of policies restricting size and adjacency of clearcut timber harvests. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berckeley, 160 p.
  3. Barrett, T.M. 1997. Voronoi tessellation methods to delineate harvest units for spatial forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27: 903–910.CrossRef
  4. Barrett, T.M., Giless, J.K. and Davis, L.D. 1998. Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions. Forest Science 44: 569–577.
  5. Bergmann, S.S. 1999. Modeling interior space and harvest scheduling for forest management planning. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 128 p.
  6. Bettinger, P., Boston, K. and Sessions, J. 1999. Intensifying a heuristic forest harvest scheduling search procedure with 2-opt decision choices. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 1784–1792.CrossRef
  7. Bettinger, P., Johnson, K. and Sessions, J. 1996. Forest planning in an Oregon case study: defining the problem and attempting to meet goals with a spatial-analysis technique. Environmental Management 20: 565–577.CrossRefPubMed
  8. Bettinger, P., Sessions, J. and Boston, K. 1997. Using Tabu search to schedule timber harvests subject to spatial wildlife goals for big game. Ecological Modelling 94: 111–123.CrossRef
  9. Bettinger, P., Sessions, J., and Johnson, K. 1998. Ensuring the compatibility of aquatic and commodity production goals in eastern Oregon with a tabu search procedure. Forest Science 44: 96–112.
  10. Borges, J.G. 1999. Paradigmas, tecnologias e equívocos em gestio de recursos florestais. Revista Florestal XII (1/2): 27–34.
  11. Borges, J.G. and Hoganson, H.M. 1999. Assessing the impact of management unit design and adjacency constraints on forestwide spatial conditions and timber revenues. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29: 1764–1774.CrossRef
  12. Borges, J.G. and Hoganson, H.M. 2000. Structuring a landscape by forestland classification and harvest scheduling spatial constraints. Forest Ecology and Management 130: 269–275.CrossRef
  13. Borges, J.G., Hoganson, H.M. and Rose, U.W. 1999. Combining a decomposition strategy with dynamic programming to solve spatially constrained forest management scheduling problems. Forest Science 45: 201–212.
  14. Boston, K. and Bettinger, P. 1999. An analysis of Monte Carlo integer programming, simulated annealing and tabu search for solving spatial harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 45: 292–301.
  15. Boyce, S.G. 1995. Landscape forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 239 p.
  16. Bradshaw, F.J. 1992. Quantifying edge effect and patch size for multiple-use silviculture–a discussion paper. Forest Ecology and Management 48: 249–264CrossRef
  17. Brumelle, S., Granot, D., Halme, M. and Vertinsky, I. 1998. A tabu search algorithm for finding good forest harvest schedules satisfying green up constraints. European Journal of Operations Research 106: 408–424.CrossRef
  18. Clements, S.E., Dallain, P.L. and Jamnick, M.S. 1990. An operational, spatially constrained harvest scheduling model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 1438–1447.CrossRef
  19. Clark, M., Meller, R., and McDonald, T. 2000. A three stage heuristic for harvest scheduling with access road network development. Forest Science 46: 204–217.
  20. Dahlin, B. and Sallnäs, O. 1993. Harvest scheduling under adjacency constraints–a case study from the Swedish sub-alpine region. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8: 281–290.CrossRef
  21. Davis, L. and Johnson, K. 1997. Forest Management, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, 790 p.
  22. Dykstra, D. P. 1987. An evaluation of FORPLAN from an operations research perspective: discussant’s comments. In: Proceedings of FORPLAN symposium, USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-140, p.145–146.
  23. Falcio, A. and Borges, J.G. 2000. Comparison of heuristics for spatially constrained natural resources management problems. In: Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium on Systems Analysis in Forest Resources,September 27–30, 2000, Snowmass Village, Colorado, USA (in press).
  24. Falcio, A. and Borges, J. G. 2002. Combining random and systematic search heuristic procedures for solving spatially constrained forest management scheduling problems. Forest Science 48: 608–621.
  25. Fisher, M. 1981. The Lagrangian relaxation method for solving integer programming problems. Management Science 27 (1): 1–18.CrossRef
  26. Franklin, J.F. and Forman, R.T. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecology 1: 5–18.CrossRef
  27. Geoffrion, A.M. 1976. The purpose of mathematical programming is insight, not numbers. Interfaces 7 (1): 81–92.CrossRef
  28. Glover, F. and Laguna, M. 1997. Tabu search. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 382 p.CrossRef
  29. Gums, E.A. and Rai, A.K. 1987. Modeling and decomposition for planning long-term forest harvesting in an integrated industry structure. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17: 1507–1518.CrossRef
  30. Hauer, G. 1992. Timber management scheduling with multiple markets and multiple products. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 122 p.
  31. Hochbaum, D. and Pathria, A. 1997. Forest harvesting and minimum costs: a new approach to handling spatial constraints. Forest Science 43: 544–554.
  32. Hof, J. and Bevers, M. 1998. Spatial optimization for managed ecosystems. Columbia University Press, New York, 258 p.
  33. Hoganson, H.M. 1999. Management scheduling models for integrating objectives. Revista Florestal XII (1/2): 45–50.
  34. Hoganson, H.M. and Borges, J.G. 1998. Using dynamic programming and overlapping subproblems to address adjacency in large harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 44: 526–538.
  35. Hoganson, H.M. and Borges, J.G. 2000. Impacts of the time horizon for adjacency constraints in harvest scheduling. Forest Science 46: 176–187.
  36. Hoganson, H.M., Borges, J.G. and Bradley, D. 1998. Techniques for addressing spatial detail in forest planning. In: P. Bachmann, M. Köhl and R. Päivinen (Eds.), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. EFI Proceedings no.18. Kluwer Academic Publishers Forestry Sciences Vol. 51: 181–188.
  37. Hoganson, H.M. and Kapple, D. 1991. DTRAN 1.0: A multi-market timber supply model. College of Natural Resources and Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Forest Resources Staff Paper Series Report No. 82, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 66 p.
  38. Hoganson, H.M. and Kapple, D. 1995. Estimating impacts of extended rotation forestry. Final research report submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 170 p.
  39. Hoganson, H.M. and McDill, M. 1993. Relating reforestation investment in northern Minnesota with industry needsnontimber values and mitigation strategies. Research report submitted to the Charles K. Blandin Foundation, 232 p.
  40. Hoganson, H.M. and Rose, D.W. 1984. A simulation approach for optimal timber management scheduling. Forest Science 30: 220–238.
  41. Hunter, M.L. 1990. Wildlifeforests and forestry. Principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 370 p.
  42. ILOG, Inc. 1997. CPLEX Base Systems, Incline Village, Nevada.
  43. Jaakko Poyry Consulting, Inc., 1994. Generic Environment Impact Statement on Timber Harvesting and Forest Management in Minnesota. Tarrytown, NY, Jaakko Poyry Consulting, Inc., 813 p.
  44. Johnson, K.N., and Tedder, P.L. 1983 Linear programming vs. binary search in periodic harvest level calculation. Forest Science 29: 569–581.
  45. Johnson, K.N. and Scheurman, E. 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives - Discussion and Synthesis. Forest Science Monograph 18, 31 P.
  46. Jonsson, B., Jacobsson, J. and Kallur, H. 1993. The forest management planning package. Theory and application. Studia Forestalia Suecica No. 189, 57 p.
  47. Kangas, J. 1999. The Analytic Hierarchic Process (AHP): standard version, forestry applications and advances. In: Helles, F., Anderson, P. and Wichmann, L. (Eds.). 1999. Multiple-use of forests and other natural resources. Aspects of theory and application. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Copenhagen, Forestry Sciences 61: 96–105.
  48. Kangas, J., Loikkanen, T., Pukkala, T., and Pykälainen, J. 1996. A participatory approach to tactical forest planning. Acta Forestalia Fennica 251. 24 p.
  49. Kangas, J. and Pukkala, T. 1996. Operationalization of biological diversity as a decision objective in tactical forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 103–111.CrossRef
  50. Kurttila, M. 2001. Methods for integrating ecological objectives into landscape-level planning of nonindustrial private forestry. Doctor Academic Dissertation, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Joensuu. 35 p.
  51. Lockwood, C., and Moore, T. 1993. Harvest scheduling with spatial constraints: a simulated annealing approach. Canadian Journal of Research 23: 468–478.CrossRef
  52. McDill, M. and Braze, J. 2000. Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age-class distributions. Forest Science 46: 423–436.
  53. McDill, M. and Braze, J. 2001. Using the branch and bound algorithm to solve forest planning with adjacency constraints. Forest Science 47: 403–418.
  54. Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A., Rosenbluth, M., Teller, A., and Teller, E. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics 21: 1087–1091.CrossRef
  55. Michalewicz, Z. 1996. Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs, 3rd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 387 p.CrossRef
  56. Murray, A. 1999. Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling. Forest Science 45: 45–52.
  57. Murray, A. and Church, R. 1995. Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems. OR [Oper. Res.] Spektrum 17: 193–203CrossRef
  58. Murray, A. and Church, R. 1996. Constructing and selecting adjacency constraints. lnfor 34: 232–247.
  59. Navon, D.I. 1987. An evaluation of FORPLAN from an operations research perspective: discussion paper. In: Proceedings of FORPLAN symposium, USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-140 pp.147–154.
  60. Nelson, J.D. and Brodie, J.D. 1990. Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving area-based forest plans. Canadian Journal of Research 20: 934–942.CrossRef
  61. Nelson, J.D., Brodie, J.U. and Sessions, J. 1991. Integrating short-term, area-based logging plans with long-term harvest schedules. Forest Science 37: 101–122.
  62. O’Hara, A.J., Faaland, B.H. and Bare, B.B. 1989. Spatially constrained timber harvest scheduling. Canadian Journal of Research 19: 715–724.CrossRef
  63. Öhman, K. 2000. Creating contiguous areas of old forest in long-term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Research 30: 1817–1823.CrossRef
  64. Öhman, K. and Erikkson, L.O. 1998. The core area concept in forming contiguous areas for long term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Research 28: 1032–1039.CrossRef
  65. Paredes, G. and Brodie, J.D. 1988. Activity analysis in forest planning. Forest Science 34: 3–18
  66. Paredes, G. and Brodie, J.D. 1989. Land value and the linkage between stand and forest-level analysis. Land Economics 65 (2): 158–166.CrossRef
  67. Pham, D.T. and Karaboga, D. 2000. Intelligent optimisation techniques. Genetic algorithms, tabu search, simulated annealing and neural networks. Springer-Verlag, London, 302 p.
  68. Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling W.T. and Flannery, B.P. 1992. Numerical Recipes in C. Cambridge University Press. 994 p.
  69. Pukkala, T. and Kangas, J. 1993. A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 8: 560–570.CrossRef
  70. Pukkala, T. and Kangas, J. 1996. A method for incorporating risk and risk attitude into forest planning. Forest Science 42: 198–205.
  71. Pukkala, T., Nuutinen, T. and Kangas, J. 1995. Integrating scenic and recreational amenities into numerical forest planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 32: 185–195.CrossRef
  72. Pykäläinen, J. 2000. Interactive Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Forest Planning. Doctor Academic Dissertation, Faculty of Forestry, University of Joensuu, Joensuu. 37 p.
  73. Reeves, C.R. (ed.) 1993. Modern heuristic techniques for combinatorial problems. Ed 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 320 p.
  74. Richards, E., and Gunn, E. 2000. A model and tabu search method to optimize stand harvest and road construction schedules. Forest Science 46: 188–203.
  75. Rose, D.W. 1984. A critical review of mathematical programming in forest resource planning. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Symposium on Forest Management Planning and Managerial Economics, Tokyo, pp. 306–317.
  76. Rose, D.W. 1999. Data, models and technology in forest planning. Revista Florestal XII (1/2): 35–44.
  77. Rose, D.W. and Husain, S.A. 1998. Shadow pricing trade-offs between timber supply and environmental quality. In: P. Bachmann, M. Köhl and R. Päivinen (Eds.), Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. EFI Proceedings no.18. Kluwer Academic Publishers Forestry Sciences Vol. 51: 111–119.
  78. Saaty, R. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 234–281.CrossRef
  79. Saaty, R. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchic Process. Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York, 283 p.
  80. Sessions, J. 1992. Solving for habitat connections as a Steiner network problem. Forest Science 38: 203–207.
  81. Snyder, S. and ReVelle, C. 1997. Dynamic selection of harvests with adjacency restrictions: the SHARe model. Forest Science 43: 213–222.
  82. Strange, N., Tarp. P., Helles, F. and Brodie, J. 1999. A four-stage approach to evaluate management alternatives in multiple-use forestry. Forest Ecology and Management 124: 79–91.CrossRef
  83. Tarp, P. and Helles, F. 1997. Spatial optimization by simulated annealing and linear programming. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12: 390–402CrossRef
  84. Van Deusen, P. 1996. Habitat and harvest scheduling using bayesian statistical concepts. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1375–1383.CrossRef
  85. Van Deusen, P. 1999. Multiple solution harvest scheduling. Silva Fennica 33: 207–216.
  86. Van Deusen, P. 2001. Scheduling Spatial Arrangement and harvest simultaneously. Silva Fennica 35: 85–92.
  87. Weintraub, A., Barahona, B. and Epstein, R. 1994. A column generation algorithm for solving general forest planning problems with adjacency constraints. Forest Science 40: 142–161.
  88. Weintraub, A., Church, R., Murray, A. and Guignard, M. 2000. Forest management models and combinatorial algorithms: analysis of the state of the art. Annals of Operations Research 96: 271–285.CrossRef
  89. Williams, H.P. 1990. Model building in mathematical programming,3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 356 p.
  90. Zeleny, S.H. and Evans, J.R, 1981. Heuristic “optimization”: why, when and how to use it. Interfaces 11 (5): 84–91.CrossRef

For further details log on website :

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mangrove Forest Management & Restoration

The Sabah Forestry Department has conserved most if not all Mangrove Forests under Class V for marine life conservation and as a natural me...