Abstract
The management of competing land uses is complicated by a range of issues and considerations. This is the case because of a concern for the long-term health of the earth and the obvious negative impacts of past and present human activities. Land use planning and management efforts have recognized this broader context and accordingly have devoted much care and attention to operational-level planning support. Spatial restrictions have long been recognized as central to limiting local impacts as well as ensuring landscape shape and structure irregularity. Unfortunately, planning to meet spatial restrictions may be disrupted, by fire, pests, or even on-the-ground conditions. For example, what if a fire destroys resources in a management unit that are adjacent to a unit(s) scheduled for harvest. In fact, this new opening/disruption may prevent the planned activity of any of its neighboring units. Disruptions do occur, but have rarely been addressed in any meaningful way in planning optimization problems. This paper details spatial optimization approaches to support better understanding of the range of potential outcomes when disruption and uncertainty are taken into account in land use planning involving forest resources. Application results highlight the significance of handling disruption risk and spatial data uncertainty, indicating that identifying and selecting planning alternatives that are consistent with goals and intended outcomes are a difficult task. However, improved modeling approaches are possible that better support land use decision making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (2018) California Forest Practice Rules 2018. http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/. Accessed 13 Dec 2018
Church RL, Murray AT (2009) Business site selection, location analysis, and GIS. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Church RL, Niblett MR, Gerrard RA (2015a) Modeling the potential for critical habitat. In: Eiselt HA, Marianov V (eds) Applications of location analysis. Springer, New York, pp 155–171
Church RL, Niblett MR, O’Hanley J, Middleton R, Barber K (2015b) Saving the forest by reducing fire severity: selective fuels treatment location and scheduling. In: Eiselt HA, Marianov V (eds) Applications of location analysis. Springer, New York, pp 173–190
Cohon JL (2004) Multiobjective programming and planning. Dover, New York
Downs JA, Gates RJ, Murray AT (2008) Estimating carrying capacity for sandhill cranes using habitat suitability and spatial optimization models. Ecol Model 214(2):284–292
Erkut E, ReVelle C, Ulkusal Y (1996) Integer-friendly formulations for the r-separation problem. Eur J Oper Res 92(2):342–351
Goycoolea M, Murray AT, Barahona F, Epstein R, Weintraub A (2005) Harvest scheduling subject to maximum area restrictions: exploring exact approaches. Oper Res 53(3):490–500
Grubesic TH, Murray AT (2008) Sex offender residency and spatial equity. Appl Spat Anal Policy 1(3):175–192
Grubesic TH, Murray AT, Pridemore WA, Tabb LP, Liu Y, Wei R (2012) Alcohol beverage control, privatization and the geographic distribution of alcohol outlets. BMC Public Health 12(1):1015
Howard JL, Jones KC (2016) U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics, 1965–2013. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. FPL–RP–679. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI
Jones JG, Meneghin BJ, Kirby MW (1991) Formulating adjacency constraints in linear optimization models for scheduling projects in tactical planning. For Sci 37(5):1283–1297
Kirby MW, Hager WA, Wong P (1986) Simultaneous planning of wildland management and transportation alternatives. TIMS Stud Manag Sci 21:371–387
Moon ID, Chaudhry SS (1984) An analysis of network location problems with distance constraints. Manag Sci 30(3):290–307
Murray AT (1999) Spatial restrictions in harvest scheduling. For Sci 45(1):45–52
Murray AT, Church RL (1995) Heuristic solution approaches to operational forest planning problems. OR Spectr 17(2):193–203
Murray AT, Church RL (1996) Analyzing cliques for imposing adjacency restrictions in forest models. For Sci 42(2):166–175
Murray AT, Grubesic TH (2012) Spatial optimization and geographic uncertainty: implications for sex offender management strategies. In: Johnson M (ed) Community-based operations research. Springer, New York, pp 121–142
Murray AT, Kim H (2008) Efficient identification of geographic restriction conditions in anti-covering location models using GIS. Lett Spat Resource Sci 1(2):159–169
Murray AT, Weintraub A (2002) Scale and unit specification influences in harvest scheduling with maximum area restrictions. For Sci 48(4):779–789
Naderializadeh N, Crowe KA (2018) Formulating the integrated forest harvest-scheduling model to reduce the cost of the road-networks. Oper Res Int J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-0410-5
Nelson J, Brodie JD (1990) Comparison of a random search algorithm and mixed integer programming for solving area-based forest plans. Can J For Res 20(7):934–942
Nemhauser GL, Trotter LE (1975) Vertex packings: structural properties and algorithms. Math Program 8(1):232–248
Niblett MR, Church RL (2015) The disruptive anti-covering location problem. Eur J Oper Res 247(3):764–773
Oregon Department of Forestry (2018) Oregon Forest Practices Act. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Working/Pages/FPA.aspx. Accessed 12 Dec 2018
Padberg MW (1973) On the facial structure of set packing polyhedra. Math Program 5(1):199–215
Radoux J, Defourny P (2007) A quantitative assessment of boundaries in automated forest stand delineation using very high resolution imagery. Remote Sens Environ 110(4):468–475
Ronnqvist M, D’Amours S, Weintraub A, Jofre A, Gunn E, Haight RG, Martell D, Murray AT, Romero C (2015) Operations research challenges in forestry: 33 open problems. Ann Oper Res 232(1):11–40
Sustainable Forest Initiative (2018) SFI 2015-2019 Forest Management Standard. http://www.sfiprogram.org/sfi-standards/guide-to-2015-2019-standards/. Accessed 13 Dec 18
Synder S, ReVelle C (1996) The grid packing problem: selecting a harvesting pattern in an area with forbidden regions. For Sci 42(1):27–34
Thompson EF, Halterman BG, Lyon TJ, Miller RL (1973) Integrating timber and wildlife management planning. For Chron 49(6):247–250
Turner BL, Janetos AC, Verburg PH, Murray AT (2013) Land system architecture: using land systems to adapt and mitigate global environmental change. Glob Environ Change 23(2):395–397
Wei R, Murray AT (2012) An integrated approach for addressing geographic uncertainty in spatial optimization. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26(7):1231–1249
Wei R, Murray AT (2015) Spatial uncertainty in harvest scheduling. Ann Oper Res 232(1):275–289
Wilck JH, Mills SD, McDill ME (2014) Computational comparison of stand-centered versus cover-constraint formulations. J Sustain For 33(1):33–45
Yao J, Zhang X, Murray AT (2018) Spatial optimization for land-use allocation: accounting for sustainability concerns. Int Reg Sci Rev 41(6):579–600
Zeller RE, Achabal DD, Brown LA (1980) Market penetration and locational conflict in franchise systems. Decis Sci 11(1):58–80
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murray, A.T., Wei, R., Church, R.L. et al. Addressing risks and uncertainty in forest land use modeling. J Geogr Syst 21, 319–338 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-019-00302-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-019-00302-5