Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 190, Issue 1, pp 57–74 | Cite as

Management of the risk of wind damage in forestry: a graph-based Markov decision process approach

  • Nicklas Forsell
  • Peder Wikström
  • Frédérick Garcia
  • Régis Sabbadin
  • Kristina Blennow
  • Ljusk Ola Eriksson


This study deals with the problem of including the risk of wind damage in long-term forestry management. A model based on Graph-Based Markov Decision Processes (GMDP) is suggested for development of silvicultural management policies. The model can both take stochastic wind events into account and be applied to forest estates containing a large number of stands. The model is demonstrated for a forest estate in southern Sweden. Treatment of the stands according to the management policy specified by the GMDP model increased the expected net present value (NPV) of the whole forest only slightly, less than 2%, under different wind-risk assumptions. Most of the stands were managed in the same manner as when the risk of wind damage was not considered. For the stands that were treated differently, however, the expected NPV increased by 3% to 8%.


Forest management Risk of wind damage Spatial processes Markov decision processes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Blennow, K., & Sallnäs, O. (2004). WINDA – a system of models for assessing the probability of wind damage to forest stands within a landscape. Ecological Modelling, 175, 87–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boychuk, D., & Martell, D. L. (1996). A multistage stochastic programming model for sustainable forest-level timber supply under risk of fire. Forest Science, 42(1), 10–26. Google Scholar
  3. Chornei, R. K., Daduna, H., & Knopov, P. S. (2006). Control of spatially structured random processes and random fields with applications. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  4. Falcão, A. O., & Borges, J. G. (2002). Combining random and systematic search heuristic procedures for solving spatially constrained forest management scheduling problems. Forest Science, 48(3), 608–621. Google Scholar
  5. Forsell, N., & Sabbadin, R. (2006). Approximate linear-programming algorithms for graph-based Markov decision processes. In: Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Riva Del Garda, Italy, pp. 590–594. Google Scholar
  6. Gardiner, B. A., Stacey, G. R., Belcher, R. E., & Wood, C. J. (1997). Field and wind tunnel assessments of the implications of respacing and thinning for tree stability. Forestry, 70, 233–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guestrin, C., Lagoudakis, M. G., & Parr, R. (2002). Coordinated reinforcement learning. International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 227–234. Google Scholar
  8. Gunn, E. A. (2007). Models for strategic forest management. In: Handbook of operations research in natural resources (pp. 317–342). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  9. Hartman, R. (1976). The Harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Economic Inquiry, XIV, 52–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johnson, K. N., & Scheurman, H. L. (1977). Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives-discussion and synthesis. Forest Science, Monograph 18. Google Scholar
  11. Kaya, I., & Buongiorno, J. (1987). Economic harvesting of uneven-aged northern hardwood stands under risk: A Markovian decision model. Forest Science, 33(1), 889–907. Google Scholar
  12. Kok, J. R., & Vlassis, N. A. (2006). Collaborative multiagent reinforcement learning by payoff propagation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 1789–1828. Google Scholar
  13. Lohmander, P., & Helles, P. (1987). Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2, 227–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Constantino, I. M., & Borges, J. G. (2005). A column generation approach for solving a non-temporal forest harvest model with spatial structure constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 16, 478–498. Google Scholar
  15. Meilby, H., Strange, N., & Thorsen, B. J. (2001). Optimal spatial harvest planning under risk of windthrow. Forest Ecology and Management, 149, 15–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murray, A. T., & Church, R. L. (1996). Analyzing cliques for imposing adjacency restrictions in forest models. Forest Science, 42(2), 166–175. Google Scholar
  17. Olofsson, E. (2006). Supporting management of the risk of wind damage in south Swedish forestry. Ph.D. thesis, Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, SLU. Google Scholar
  18. Olofsson, E., & Blennow, K. (2005). Decision support for identifying spruce forest stand edges with high probability of wind damage. Forest Ecology and Management, 207, 87–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peltola, H., Kellomäki, S., Väisänen, H., & Ikonen, V. P. (1999). A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 29, 647–661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Persson, P. (1975). Windthrow in forests – its causes and the effect of forestry measures. Royal College of Forestry, Department of Forest Yield Research, Stockholm, Research Notes 36. Google Scholar
  21. Peyrard, N., & Sabbadin, R. (2006). Mean field approximation of the policy iteration algorithm for graph-based Markov decision processes. In: Proceedings of 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Riva Del Garda, Italy, pp. 595–599. Google Scholar
  22. Puterman, M. L. (1994). Markov decision processes, New York: Wiley. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quine, C., Coutts, M., Gardiner, B., & Pyatt, G. (1995). Forest and wind: management to minimise damage. London, Bulletin 114, HMSO. Google Scholar
  24. Christian, P. R., & George, C., (1999). Monte Carlo statistical methods. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  25. Schelhaas, M., Nabuurs, G., & Schuck, A. (2003). Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biology, 9, 1620–1633. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schroeder, L. M., & Eidmann, H. H. (1993). Attacks of bark- and wood-boring Coleoptera on snow-broken conifers over a two-year period. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 8, 257–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scilab (2004). Scilab – a free scientific software package. INRIA. France.
  28. Sondell, J. (2006). Erferenheter från “operation Gudrun”. Skogforsk Resultat, nr. 7. Google Scholar
  29. Snyder, S., & ReVelle, C. (1996). The grid packing problem: selecting a harvesting pattern in an area with forbidden regions. Forest Science, 42(1), 27–34. Google Scholar
  30. Snyder, S., & ReVelle, C. (1997). Dynamic selection of harvests with adjacency restrictions: the SHARe model. Forest Science, 43(2), 213–222. Google Scholar
  31. Sutton, R. (1991). Planning by incremental dynamic programming. In: Proceedings of the 8th international workshop on machine learning, pp. 353–357. Google Scholar
  32. Valinger, E., & Fridman, J. (1997). Modelling probability of snow and wind damage in Scots pine stands using tree characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management, 97, 215–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Valinger, E., & Pettersson, N. (1996). Wind and snow damage in a thinning and fertilization experiment in Picea abies in southern Sweden. Forestry, 69, 25–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weintraub, A., Barahona, F., & Epstein, R. (1994). A column generation algorithm for solving general forest planning problems with adjacency constraints. Forest Science, 40(1), 142–161. Google Scholar
  35. Wikström, P. (2000). A solution method for uneven-aged management applied to Norway spruce. Forest Science, 46(3), 452–462. Google Scholar
  36. Zeng, H., Pukkala, T., & Peltola, H. (2007). The use of heuristic optimization in risk management of wind damage in forest planning. Forest Ecology and Management, 241, 189–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicklas Forsell
    • 1
  • Peder Wikström
    • 1
  • Frédérick Garcia
    • 2
  • Régis Sabbadin
    • 2
  • Kristina Blennow
    • 3
  • Ljusk Ola Eriksson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Resource ManagementSLUUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer ScienceINRAToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Southern Swedish Forest Research CentreSLUAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations