Version 1
: Received: 15 July 2024 / Approved: 15 July 2024 / Online: 16 July 2024 (04:23:55 CEST)
How to cite:
Nobre, S. R.; McDill, M.; Rodriguez, L. C. E.; Diaz-Balteiro, L. Reframing the Model I, II and III Harvest Scheduling Formulations in the Context of Managing Forests for Ecosystem Services. Preprints2024, 2024071262. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.1262.v1
Nobre, S. R.; McDill, M.; Rodriguez, L. C. E.; Diaz-Balteiro, L. Reframing the Model I, II and III Harvest Scheduling Formulations in the Context of Managing Forests for Ecosystem Services. Preprints 2024, 2024071262. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.1262.v1
Nobre, S. R.; McDill, M.; Rodriguez, L. C. E.; Diaz-Balteiro, L. Reframing the Model I, II and III Harvest Scheduling Formulations in the Context of Managing Forests for Ecosystem Services. Preprints2024, 2024071262. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.1262.v1
APA Style
Nobre, S. R., McDill, M., Rodriguez, L. C. E., & Diaz-Balteiro, L. (2024). Reframing the Model I, II and III Harvest Scheduling Formulations in the Context of Managing Forests for Ecosystem Services. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.1262.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Nobre, S. R., Luiz Carlos Estraviz Rodriguez and Luis Diaz-Balteiro. 2024 "Reframing the Model I, II and III Harvest Scheduling Formulations in the Context of Managing Forests for Ecosystem Services" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202407.1262.v1
Abstract
Since the 1960s, forest planners have used linear programming models to develop management plans for large, forested areas. Hundreds of academic papers have presented such models, incorporating multiple objectives, a growing diversity of management interventions, and uncertainty, among other things. Three basic ways to formulate these models have been used: Model I, III, and III. We define these models based on the sequence of management unit states represented by the variables. In Model I, variables represent a sequence of states from the beginning of the planning horizon to the end. In Model II, variables represent a sequence of states from one intervention to the next. Finally, in Model III, variables represent a single arc in a management unit’s decision tree, including only a beginning and an ending state. We formulate each type of model for a case study with three increasingly complex scenarios incorporating additional ecosystem services. Our results indicate that, despite requiring more variables and constraints, Model III requires the least time to formulate, largely because it has the least dense parameter matrix. Model II has the shortest solution times, with Model III close behind. Model I requires both the longest formulation and solution times.
Environmental and Earth Sciences, Environmental Science
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
