Comparing Model I and Model II formulations of spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with maximum area restrictions

Marc Eric McDill, Sándor F. Tóth, Rachel St John, Janis Braze, Stephanie A. Rebain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article investigates whether Johnson and Scheurman’s (For. Sci. Monogr. 18, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD 1977) Model II formulation, which can dramatically reduce the size and difficulty of linear programming harvest scheduling models, offers similar potential for efficiency gains in solving spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with area-based adjacency constraints. A total of 150 hypothetical problems and 10 real problems were formulated using Models I and II. The hypothetical problems were distributed (30 each) in five categories: regulated forest problems with four, six, and eight planning periods and overmature forest problems with four and six periods. The length of the planning horizon was a key factor determining the relative performance of Model I and Model II formulations in spatially explicit forest management planning problems. Results from the hypothetical problems suggest that Model I formulations outperform Model II formulations for four period problems. However, Model II formulations perform significantly better than Model I formulations for problems with planning horizons of six and eight planning periods. Real forest results exhibit similar trends.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)28-37
Number of pages10
JournalForest Science
Volume62
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 8 2016

Fingerprint

planning
harvest
linear programming
linear programing
forest management

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Forestry
  • Ecology
  • Ecological Modeling

Cite this

McDill, Marc Eric ; Tóth, Sándor F. ; John, Rachel St ; Braze, Janis ; Rebain, Stephanie A. / Comparing Model I and Model II formulations of spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with maximum area restrictions. In: Forest Science. 2016 ; Vol. 62, No. 1. pp. 28-37.
@article{c8dacc48afee4651ad710444787e1346,
title = "Comparing Model I and Model II formulations of spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with maximum area restrictions",
abstract = "This article investigates whether Johnson and Scheurman’s (For. Sci. Monogr. 18, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD 1977) Model II formulation, which can dramatically reduce the size and difficulty of linear programming harvest scheduling models, offers similar potential for efficiency gains in solving spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with area-based adjacency constraints. A total of 150 hypothetical problems and 10 real problems were formulated using Models I and II. The hypothetical problems were distributed (30 each) in five categories: regulated forest problems with four, six, and eight planning periods and overmature forest problems with four and six periods. The length of the planning horizon was a key factor determining the relative performance of Model I and Model II formulations in spatially explicit forest management planning problems. Results from the hypothetical problems suggest that Model I formulations outperform Model II formulations for four period problems. However, Model II formulations perform significantly better than Model I formulations for problems with planning horizons of six and eight planning periods. Real forest results exhibit similar trends.",
author = "McDill, {Marc Eric} and T{\'o}th, {S{\'a}ndor F.} and John, {Rachel St} and Janis Braze and Rebain, {Stephanie A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "8",
doi = "10.5849/forsci.14-179",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "28--37",
journal = "Forest Science",
issn = "0015-749X",
publisher = "Society of American Foresters",
number = "1",

}

Comparing Model I and Model II formulations of spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with maximum area restrictions. / McDill, Marc Eric; Tóth, Sándor F.; John, Rachel St; Braze, Janis; Rebain, Stephanie A.

In: Forest Science, Vol. 62, No. 1, 08.02.2016, p. 28-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Model I and Model II formulations of spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with maximum area restrictions

AU - McDill, Marc Eric

AU - Tóth, Sándor F.

AU - John, Rachel St

AU - Braze, Janis

AU - Rebain, Stephanie A.

PY - 2016/2/8

Y1 - 2016/2/8

N2 - This article investigates whether Johnson and Scheurman’s (For. Sci. Monogr. 18, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD 1977) Model II formulation, which can dramatically reduce the size and difficulty of linear programming harvest scheduling models, offers similar potential for efficiency gains in solving spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with area-based adjacency constraints. A total of 150 hypothetical problems and 10 real problems were formulated using Models I and II. The hypothetical problems were distributed (30 each) in five categories: regulated forest problems with four, six, and eight planning periods and overmature forest problems with four and six periods. The length of the planning horizon was a key factor determining the relative performance of Model I and Model II formulations in spatially explicit forest management planning problems. Results from the hypothetical problems suggest that Model I formulations outperform Model II formulations for four period problems. However, Model II formulations perform significantly better than Model I formulations for problems with planning horizons of six and eight planning periods. Real forest results exhibit similar trends.

AB - This article investigates whether Johnson and Scheurman’s (For. Sci. Monogr. 18, Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD 1977) Model II formulation, which can dramatically reduce the size and difficulty of linear programming harvest scheduling models, offers similar potential for efficiency gains in solving spatially explicit harvest scheduling models with area-based adjacency constraints. A total of 150 hypothetical problems and 10 real problems were formulated using Models I and II. The hypothetical problems were distributed (30 each) in five categories: regulated forest problems with four, six, and eight planning periods and overmature forest problems with four and six periods. The length of the planning horizon was a key factor determining the relative performance of Model I and Model II formulations in spatially explicit forest management planning problems. Results from the hypothetical problems suggest that Model I formulations outperform Model II formulations for four period problems. However, Model II formulations perform significantly better than Model I formulations for problems with planning horizons of six and eight planning periods. Real forest results exhibit similar trends.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956781473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84956781473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5849/forsci.14-179

DO - 10.5849/forsci.14-179

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84956781473

VL - 62

SP - 28

EP - 37

JO - Forest Science

JF - Forest Science

SN - 0015-749X

IS - 1

ER -