Finding Efficient Harvest Schedules under Three Conflicting Objectives
Abstract:Public forests have many conflicting uses. Designing forest management schemes that provide the public with an optimal bundle of benefits is therefore a major challenge. Although a capability to quantify and visualize the tradeoffs between the competing objectives can be very useful for decisionmakers, developing this capability presents unique difficulties if three or more conflicting objectives are present and the solution alternatives are discrete. This study extends four multiobjective programming methods to generate spatially explicit forest management alternatives that are efficient (nondominated) with respect to three or more competing objectives. The algorithms were applied to a hypothetical forest planning problem with three timber- and wildlife-related objectives. Whereas the ε-Constraining and the proposed Alpha-Delta methods found a larger number of efficient alternatives, the Modified Weighted Objective Function and the Tchebycheff methods provided better overall estimation of the timber and nontimber tradeoffs associated with the test problem. In addition, the former two methods allowed a greater degree of user control and are easier to generalize to n-objective problems.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: 2009-04-01
More about this publication?
- Forest Science is a peer-reviewed journal publishing fundamental and applied research that explores all aspects of natural and social sciences as they apply to the function and management of the forested ecosystems of the world. Topics include silviculture, forest management, biometrics, economics, entomology & pathology, fire & fuels management, forest ecology, genetics & tree improvement, geospatial technologies, harvesting & utilization, landscape ecology, operations research, forest policy, physiology, recreation, social sciences, soils & hydrology, and wildlife management.
Forest Science is published bimonthly in February, April, June, August, October, and December.
2015 Impact Factor: 1.702
Ranking: 16 of 66 in forestry
Also published by SAF:
Journal of Forestry
Other SAF Publications
- Submit a Paper
- Membership Information
- Author Guidelines
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites