Comparisons of three different methods used to generate forest landscapes for spatial harvest scheduling problems with adjacency restrictions
Schlagwörter:
Simulation, Voronoi diagrams, random graphs, grids, adjacency constraintsAbstract
Dealing with adjacency constraints is currently one of the main research focuses of spatial harvest scheduling problems. In many situations, hypothetical landscapes are generated for research purposes. The simulation methods used to produce hypothetical landscapes are important and may affect the planning solutions. In this study, we examined three landscape simulation methods (grids, Voronoi diagrams, and random graphs) and compared them to a forest developed using irregularly-shaped polygons within a geographic information system. The effects on the optimal planning solutions due to different spatial layouts were investigated as well. The results show that landscape simulation methods have a significant impact on the mean solution values and CPU running time due to different adjacency patterns in each simulated landscape. Advantages and disadvantages using each of the three methods are discussed and useful suggestions are provided regarding the selection of one particular method for research purposes.
Literaturhinweise
Barrett, T. 1997. Voronoi tessellation methods to delineate harvest units for spatial forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 27: 903-910.
Bollobas, B. 2001. Random Graphs, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Bettinger, P., and J. Sessions. 2003. Spatial forest planning: to adopt, or not to adopt? Journal of Forestry. 101(2): 24-29.
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.
Chen, B.W., and K. van Gadow. 2002. Timber harvest planning with spatial objectives, using the method of simulated annealing. Forstwiss. Centralbl. (Hamb.). 121: 25-34.
Crowe, K., J. Nelson, and M. Boyland. 2003. Solving the area-restricted harvest-scheduling model using the branch and bound algorithm. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 33: 1804-1814.
Csardi, G., and T. Nepusz. 2006. igraph Reference Manual. Last accessed on Feb. 15, 2010 on http://igraph.sourceforge.net/doc/igraph-docs.pdf
Davis, L.S., K.N. Johnson, P.S. Bettinger, and T.E. Howard. 2001. Forest Management. Fourth edition. McGraw-Hill. New York.
Gunn, E.A., and E.W. Richards. 2005. Solving the adjacency problem with stand-centred constraints. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35: 832-842.
Kurz, W., S. Beukema, W. Klenner, J. Greenough, D. Robinson, A. Sharpe, and T. Webb. 2000. TELSA: The Tool for Exploratory Landscape Scenario Analyses. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 27: 227-242.
McDill, M.E., and J. Braze. 2000. Comparing adjacency constraint formulations for randomly generated forest planning problems with four age-class distributions. Forest Science. 46: 423-436.
Murray, A.T. 1999. Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling. Forest Science. 45: 45-52.
Murray, A.T., and R.L. Church. 1995. Measuring the efficacy of adjacency constraint structure in forest planning. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 25: 1416-1424.
Nalle, D.J., J.L. Arthur, and C.A. Montgomery. 2005. Economic impacts of adjacency and green-up constraints on timber production at a landscape scale. Journal of Forest Economics. 10: 189-205.
Okabe, A., B. Boots, K. Sugihara, and S. Chiu. 2000. Spatial Tessellations: Concepts and Applications of Voronoi Diagrams. John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, England.
Renka, R.J. 1996. Algorithm 751: TRIPACK: a constrained two-dimensional {Delaunay} triangulation package. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software. 22: 1-8.
Thompson, M.P., J.D. Hamann, and J. Sessions. 2009. Selection and penalty strategies for genetic algorithms designed to solve spatial forest planning problems. International Journal of Forestry Research doi:10.1155/2009/527392 14 pages.
Toth, S.F., and M.E. McDill. 2009. Finding efficient harvest schedules under three conflicting objectives. Forest Science. 55: 117-131.
Van Deusen, P.C. 2001. Scheduling spatial arrangement and harvest simultaneously. Silva Fennica. 35: 85-92.
Zhu, J., and P. Bettinger. 2008. Estimating the effects of adjacency and green-up constraints on landowners of different sizes and spatial arrangements located in the southeastern U.S. Forest Policy and Economics. 10: 295-302.
Downloads
Veröffentlicht
Ausgabe
Rubrik
Lizenz
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) following the publication by the journal, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
