Blog List

Friday, 16 September 2016

Spatial Optimisation in Forest Planning

Published Date
Volume 6 of the series Managing Forest Ecosystems pp 153-172


Spatial Optimisation in Forest Planning

A review of recent Swedish research
  • Author 
  • Karin Öhman


There is an increasing interest in considering goals other than timber production in forest planning. Common to many of these new goals is that there are spatial requirements. Unfortunately, existing approaches for long-term forest planning are in general non-spatial, or are not effective in spatial considerations because of the complexity of solving spatial problems. These circumstances have spurred extensive research into spatial problem solving during the last years. However, much of the research has a focus on American conditions. Subsequently, a majority of the studies deal with the problem of not harvesting adjacent areas and only a small number of studies deal with problems more typical to, e.g., Scandinavian conditions, such as minimizing the fragmentation of old forest. In this chapter different aspects of spatial consideration will be discussed. Different ways of including spatial aspects in forest planning, and characteristics of spatial problems, will be presented. Further, a number of planning problems typical for a Scandinavian setting that encompass both spatial considerations in terms of creating connectivity in the landscape and also non-spatial considerations that normally are found in long term forest planning, will be presented.


  1. Barret, T.M., Gilless, J.K. and Davis, L.S. 1998. Economic and fragmentation effects of clearcut restrictions. Forest Science 44 (4): 569–577.
  2. Baskent, E.Z. and Jordan, G.A. 1991. Spatial wood supply simulation modelling. The Forestry Chronicle 67 (6): 610–621.
  3. Baskent, E.Z. and Jordan G.A. 1995. Characterzing spatial structure of forest landscapes. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 1830–1849.CrossRef
  4. Boston, K. and Bettinger, P. 2001. Development of spatially feasible forest plans: a comparison of two modeling approaches. Silva Fennica 35 (4): 425–435.
  5. Camenson, D.M., Sleavin, K.E. and Greer, K.E. 1996. SPECTRUM: An analytical tool for building natural resource management models. Large-scale forestry scenario models: experiences and requirements, Joensuu, Finland, 15–22 June, 1995, EFI proceedings 5: 133–141.
  6. Church, R. L., Murray, A.T. and Weintraub, A. 1998. Locational issues in forest management. Location Science 6: 137–153.CrossRef
  7. Clark, M.M., Meller, R.D. and McDonald, T.P. 2000. A three-stage heuristic for harvest scheduling with access road network development. Forest Science 46 (2): 204–218.
  8. Clements, S.E., Dallain, P.L. and Janmick, M.S. 1990. An operational, spatially constrained harvest scheduling model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 1438–1447CrossRef
  9. Clements, M.A., ReVelle, C. and Williams, J.C. 1999. Reserve design for species preservation. European Journal of Operational Research 112: 273–283.CrossRef
  10. Dahlin, B and Salinas, 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
  11. Daust, K.D. and Nelson, J.D. 1993. Spatial reduction factors for strata-based harvest schedules. Forest Science 39 (1): 152–165.
  12. Davis, L.S., Jonsson, K.N., Bettinger, P.S. and Howard, T.E. (Eds.) 2000. Forest management. McGraw Hill. New York. 804 pp.
  13. Eriksson, L.O. 1983. Quantitative support by linear programming for decisions on silviculture and harvesting(thesis), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Operational Efficiency. Working paper nr 248. Garpenberg.
  14. Franklin, J.F. and Forman, R.T. 1987. Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: Ecological consequenses and principles. Landscape Ecology 1 (1): 5–18.CrossRef
  15. Fries, C. and Lamas, T. 2000. Different management regimes in a boreal forest landscape: ecological and economical effects. Studia Forestalia Suecica 208: 3–25.
  16. Gustafson, E.J. 1996. Expanding the scale of forest management: allocating timber harvests in time and space. Forest Ecology and Management 87: 27–39.CrossRef
  17. Gustafson, E.J. and Crow, T.R. 1996. Simulating the effects of alternative forest management strategies on landscape structure. Journal of Environmental Management 46: 77–94CrossRef
  18. Gustafsson, K., Larsson, M., Källman, U. and Eriksson, L.O. 2000. Logistical Determinants in Timber Harvesting Schedule - accounting for geographical aspects in medium tern forest planning. Logistics in the Forest Sector. Helsinki, IUFRO and University in Helsinki.
  19. Hoen, H.F. 1996. Forestry scenario modellingfor economic analysis–experiences using the GAYA- JLP model. Large-scale forestry scenario models: experiences and requirements, Joensuu, Finland, 15–22 June, 1995, EFI proceedings 5: 79–88.
  20. Hof, J. and Bevers, M. 1998. Spatial optimization for managed ecosystems. Columbia University Press. New York. 258 pp.
  21. Hof, J.G. and Joyce, L.A. 1993. A mixed integer linear programming approach for spatially optimizing wildlife and timber in managed forest ecosystem. Forest Science 39 (4): 816–834.
  22. Hoganson, H., Borges, J. and Bradley, D. 1998. Techniques for addressing spatial detail in forest planning. Assessment of biodiversity for improved forest planning. European Forest Institute Proceedings no 18 Kluwer Academic publishers. Pp. 181–188.
  23. Johnson, K.N. and Scheurman, H.L 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber havest and investment under different objectives. Discussion and synthesis. Forest Science 18. 30 pp.
  24. Johnson, K.N., Stuart, T.W. and Crim S.A. 1986. FORPLAN Version 2: An overview. USDA Forest Service Land Management Planning System Section, Washington DC.
  25. Jones, J.G., Meneghin, B.J. and Kirby, M.W. 1991. Formulating Adjacency constraints in linear optimization models for scheduling projects in tactical programming. Forest Science 37 (5): 1283–1297.
  26. Jonsson, B., Jacobsson, J. and Kallur, H. 1993. The Forest Management Planning Package. Theory and application. Studia Forestalia Suecica 189: 1–56.
  27. Kangas, J., Store, R., Leskinen, P. and Mehtätalo L. 2000. Improving the quality of landscape ecological forest planning by utilising advanced decision-support tools. Forest Ecology and Management 132: 157–171.CrossRef
  28. Kerkervorde, M. 1996. A sequential approach in mathematical programming to include spatial aspects of biodiversity in long range forest planning. Swedish University of Agricultural sciences, Department of Forest Resource Management and Geomatics, working report. 63 pp.
  29. Krcmar-Nozic, E., Konten G.C.v, Vertinsky, I. and Brumelle, S. 1998. An interactive multiobjective approach to harvest decisions in forest planning. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 13: 357369.
  30. Kurttila, M. 2001. The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculation of forest planning–a landscape ecological perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 142: 129–142.CrossRef
  31. Laarhoven, P.J.M.v. and Aarts, E.H.L. 1987. Simulated annealing: Theory and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 187 pp.CrossRef
  32. Lockwood, C. and Moore, T. 1993. Harvest scheduling with spatial constraints: a simulated annealing approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23: 468–478.CrossRef
  33. Manley, B., Papps, S., Threadgill, J. and Wakelin, S. 1991. Application of FOLPI A linear programming estate modelling system for forest management planning. Forest Research Institute. FRI Bulletin No. 164. Roturua, New Zealand.
  34. Martell, D.L., Gunn, E.A. and Weintraub, A. 1998. Forest management challenges for operational researchers. European Journal of Operational Research 104 (1): 1–17.CrossRef
  35. McDill, M.E. and Braze, J. 2000. Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age-class distribution. Forest Science 46 (3): 423–436.
  36. Murray, A.T. 1999. Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling. Forest Science 45 (1): 45–52.
  37. Murray, A.T. and Church, R.L 1995. Measuring the efficacy of adjacency constraint structure in forest planning models. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 25: 1416–1424.CrossRef
  38. Murray, A.T. and Snyder, S. 2000. Spatial modeling in forest management and natural resource planning. Forest Science 46 (2): 153–156.
  39. Naesset, E. 1997. A spatial decision support system for long-term forest management planning by means of linear programming and a geographical information system. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12: 77–88.CrossRef
  40. Nalle, D.J., Arthur, J.L and Sessions, J. 2002. Designing Compact and Contiguous Reserve Networks with a Hybrid Heuristic Algorithm. Forest Science 48 (1): 59–68.
  41. Nalli, A., Nuutinen, T., and Päivinen, R. 1996. Site-specific constraints in integrated forest planning. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 11: 85–96.CrossRef
  42. Nelson, J. and Brodie, J.D. 1990. Comparison of random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving area-based forest plans. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 934–942.CrossRef
  43. Nelson, J.D. and Finn, S.T. 1991. The influence on cut-block size and adjacency rules on harvest levels and road network. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 21: 595–600.CrossRef
  44. Öhman, K. and Eriksson, L.O. 1998. The core area concept in forming contiguous areas for long term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28: 1032–1039.CrossRef
  45. Öhman, K. 2000. Creating contiguous areas of old forest in long term forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30: 1817–1823.CrossRef
  46. Öhman, K. 2001. Forest planning with consideration to spatial relationships. (Thesis). Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria 198. 32 pp.
  47. Öhman, K. and Eriksson, L.O. 2002. Allowing for spatial consideration in long term forest planning by linking linear programming with simulated annealing. Forest Ecology and Management 161: 221–230.CrossRef
  48. Öhman, K. and Lämas, T. 2001. Clustering of harvest activities in multi objective long-term forest planning. In Forest planning with consideration to spatial relationships. (Thesis). Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae Silvestria 198: 1–15.
  49. Richards, E.W. and Gunn, E. A. 2000. A model and tabu search method to optimize stand harvest and road construction schedules. Forest Science 46 (2): 188–203.
  50. Sessions, J. 1992. Solving for habitat connections as a Steiner network problem. Forest Science 38 (1): 203–207.
  51. Siitonen, M. and Nuutinen, T. 1996. Timber production analyses in Finland and the MELA system Large-scale forestry scenario models: experiences and requirements, Joensuu, Finland, 15–22 June, 1995. ELI proceedings 5: 89–98.
  52. Snyder, S. and Revelle, C. 1996a. Temporal and spatial harvesting of irregular systems of parcels. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26: 1079–1088.CrossRef
  53. Snyder, S. and ReVelle, C. 1996b. The grid packing problem: Selecting a harvesting pattern in an area with forbidden regions. Forest Science 42 (1): 27–34.
  54. Snyder, S. and ReVelle, C. 1997. Dynamic Selection of harvests with adjacency restrictions: The share model. Forest Science 43 (2): 213–222.
  55. Tarp, P. and Helles, F. 1997. Spatial optimization by simulated annealing and linear programming. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 12: 390–402.CrossRef
  56. Temple, S.A. 1985. Predicting impacts of habitat fragmentation on forest birds: a comparison of two models. In: Verner, J., Morrisson, M.L. and Ralph, C.J. (Eds.). Wildlife 2000: Modelling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. pp. 301–304
  57. Torres-Rojo, J M. and Brodie, J.D 1990. Adjacency constraints in harvest scheduling: an aggregation heuristic. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 978–986.CrossRef
  58. Törnquist, K. 1996. Ecological landscape planning in swedish forestry. Integrating environmental values into forest planning, 27 June-2 July. Estonia, EFI proceedings 13: 189–196.
  59. Weintraub, A. and Cholaky, A. 1991. A hierarchical approach to forest planning. Forest Science 37 (2): 439–460.
  60. Williams, J.C. 1998. Delineating protected wildlife corridors with multi-objective programming. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3: 77–86.CrossRef
  61. Zipper, W.C. 1993. Deforestation patterns and their effects on forest patches. Landscape Ecology 8 (3): 177–184.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...