Institutionen för skoglig resurshushållning Department of Forest Rescouce Management
Potential untapped? – the use of forest Decision Support Systems
Ljusk Ola Eriksson, Silvana Nobre, Renats Trubins
Climate change and effects (COST Action ECHOES)
Climate change is Temperature + Precipitation +/- Variability +
Influences Drought + Waterlogging + Wind + Snow + Seasonal length Extreme events +
Affects incidence/magnitude of Fire Wind throw Pathogens Primary growth Soil carbon pool Aboveground biomass Timber quality Thawing Snow breakage Frost damage Species composition Biodiversity Erosion control
Adaptation/mitigation measures (COST Action ECHOES)
Stand management measures Establishment
Species selection (regeneration) Artificial regeneration Exotic species Natural regeneration Less seedlings in plantations Increased regeneration efforts Fast growing species Mixed species stands (risk reduction, biodiversity)
Maintenance Mixed species stands (risk reduction, biodiversity) Increased thinning
Liquidation Shorter rotations (growth rate, wind) Longer rotations (growth rate, water, stem form)
Stand management systems Close to nature forestry (CCF) Plantations Management system
Landscape/forest level measures Ecological landscape plans Landscape management Fire landscape plans Wildfire prevention Reduced ungulate impact Erosion control Improved roads
National policies Subsidies Afforestration (land use) Better machinery
Swedish report “… means of increasing variation and spreading risk are targeted. These could include, for instance, mixed stands …, or the planting of fast-growing tree species in some stands, as well as increased variation in thinning and felling regimes, including continuity forestry on some areas….”
Contents = Gap analysis
A. What is a gap? B. Is there a gap? C. What causes the gap?
A. What is a gap? Problem perspective
Science community
Problems - IRL Problems (national) – DSS used
Problem exists – No research
Research exists – No application
Problem exists – No application
National International
Problem perspective - Problem dimensions
Temporal scale •Strategic Tactical Operational
Spatial context •Non-spatial. •Spatial with no neighborhood interrelations •Spatial with neighborhood interrelations
Spatial Scale •Forest level •Stand level. •Regional level.
Decision-making dimension •A single decision maker •One or more DM + stakeholders
Objectives dimension •Single. •Multiple.
Goods and services dimension •Other goods and services than wood
A. What is a gap? M&M perspective Ontology built model of a DSS
A. What is a gap? M&M perspective
Refer to o (The methods base) o The model base
Methods perspective
• Simulation (”Assessment”; ”What if”) • Optimiization
o LP, MIP, DP, NLP oHeuristics oOther
• MCDA oAHP, Outranking, Simple ranking, MAUT, Voting oOther
B. Is there a gap? FORSYS material
• Country Reports (CR) • Scientific journals (ScJ) • DSS articles (DSS)
Country reports (CR)
• 25 countries – 178 problems • What problem types are represented? • What DSS are used? • What descriptive models are used? • What analytical methods are used? • What participatory techniques?
CR problem reports (178)
Temporal scale •Strategic 85 Tactical 54 Operational 38
Spatial context •Non-spatial. 34 •Spatial with no neighborhood interrelations 74 •Spatial with neighborhood interrelations 58
Spatial Scale •Forest level 85 •Stand level. 54 •Regional level. 36
Decision-making dimension •A single decision maker 94 •One or more DM + stakeholders 84
Objectives dimension •Single. 46 •Multiple. 132
Goods and services dimension •Other goods and services than wood -
Science material – journal analysis • Peer reviewed journals • Search criteria: Title/keywords/abstract – contains – forest
support system OR forest decision support • Articles year 2000-2012 ~2000 articles screened • Strategic (not tactical or operational) • Application of a DSS The article base: 94
B. Is there a gap?
• Problem perspective Country-wise • Methods perspective Problem-wise
B. Gap wrt problem dim. country-wise? (CR)
96% 88% 76%
strategic tactical operational
Temporal Scale
64% 88% 80%
non spatial spatial with no neighbourhood interrelations
spatial with neighbourhood interrelations
Spatial Context
88% 84%
single decision maker more than one decision maker
Decision Maker
% = DSS use of countries
96% 76% 80%
forest stand regional
Spatial Scale
Spatial Scale Decision Maker
Country forest stand regional 1 DM >1 DM Turkey O O O Chile O O Morocco O Greece O O China O O Brazil O O O South Africa O Estonia O United States O Hungary Austria O Canada O Denmark O Finland Germany Ireland Italy Norway Portugal Russia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom No. of O 1 6 5 3 4
B. Gap wrt problem dim. country-wise? (CR)
O = DSS not in use
B. Gap wrt problem dim. country-wise? (CR)
Temporal Scale
Country strategic tactical operational Turkey O O Brazil O O Norway O O Canada O China O United Kingdom O United States O Chile Greece Morocco South Africa Estonia Austria Denmark Finland Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Portugal Russia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland
1 3 6
B. Gap wrt method problem-wise? (CR)
43%
60%
20%
100%
55%
0%
regional & non-spatial (14)
forest & non-spatial (15)
regional & spatial (5)
forest & spatial (8)
stand & non-spatial (11)
stand & spatial (1)
strategic: Use of optimization
BB. Gap wrt method problem-wise? (CR)
Country regional & non-
spatial (14) forest & non-spatial (15)
regional & spatial (5)
forest & spatial (8)
stand & non-spatial (11)
stand & spatial (1)
Switzerland + O + + O Denmark O + United Kingdom O O O O Hungary O O O Morocco O O Estonia O Spain O + + + Portugal + + + + Brazil + + Italy O + United States O + Norway + + + Canada + + Chile + + China + + Sweden O + O Slovenia O + O Ireland + O Germany O Greece O Finland + Russia + South Africa O Austria + Turkey
8 6 4 0 5 1
O = has problem but no opt.; + = has problem and opt.; ’ ’ = has no problem
? ?
Strategic: use of optimization
B. Gap wrt method problem-wise?
Method Problem LP MIP DP NLP Heuristics Other CR: regional & non-spatial 4 1 1 2 2 CR: forest & non-spatial 6 2 1 3 4 ScJ: regional/forest & non-spatial 6 1 2 CR: regional & spatial 1 CR: forest & spatial 2 3 1 1 1 6 ScJ: regional/forest & spatial 2 4 2 7 CR: stand & non-spatial 2 1 2 1 2 ScJ: stand & non-spatial 1 CR: stand & spatial ScJ: stand & spatial
Strategic: use of optimization – CR vs ScJ
B. Gap wrt method problem-wise?
26%
>1 DM & no MCDM = 1
strategic: If >1 Decision maker
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
CR
ScJou
52%
20% 20% 16%
Meetings Survey & Interviews
System & Process MDCA
Participatory Planning Techniques
B. Gap wrt problem types: CR vs Scientific journals?
CR Spatial
with neighbour
hood interrelati
ons
Spatial with no
neighbourhood
interrelations
Non spatial Stand
Forest/Regional
Single decision maker
More than one
decision maker
17 17 17 15 15 15
13 13 13 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6
5 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1
ScJ Spatial
with neighbou
rhood interrelat
ions
Spatial with no
neighbourhood
interrelations
Non spatial Stand
Forest/Regional
Single decision maker
More than one decision maker
20 20 20 19 19 19 13 13 13 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5
4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B. Gap wrt descr. models country-wise? (CR; all problems)
96%
44%
Production Ecological
TypeOfModel
B. Is there a gap – summary?
Use of DSS (country-wise)? • Strategic > Operational • Forest > Stand • Spatial contexts & Decision makers ~>80% • Limited use: a few Meditteranean + a few non-European • Big gap – ecological models
Use of optimization in DSS (strategic)? • Forest > Regional • Limited use: a few mid-European? • Matches science
Use of MCDA in DSS (strategic)? • Big gap – but is there a need? • CR and ScJou: advanced methods
Problem types in use and science (strategic) • Good match but Problems on DM>1 vs. Science more on
DM=1
C. What causes the gap? Hypothesis
Diffusion theory • Distances • Barriers
Hypothesis • Time • Money, resources • Intellectual capital • … • Need?
C. What causes the gap – time?
4%
12%
24%
15
13
11
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
strategic tactical operational
Temporal Scale
Gap (% of countries)
Time since development start
4%
24%
20%
16
13 14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
forest stand regional
Spatial Scale
36%
12%
20%
17 14
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
0% 5%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Spatial Context
C. What causes the DSS use gap – resources?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Use of DSS: Gap vs. GDP/c (corr. -0.39)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Use of DSS: Gap vs. PISA/math (corr. -0.32)
C. What causes the optimization gap – need?
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Optimization: Gap vs. Forest ind % (corr. -0.28)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 500 1000 1500
Optimization: Gap vs. Forest C (corr. -0.31)
5 largest countries excluded in chart
C. What causes the gap – ???
• Owner structure • Forest institutions • The production line of DSS • The scientific production
RESERVATION - QUALIFICATION- RESERVATION - QUALIFICATION- RESERVATION - QUALIFICATION- RESERVATION - QUALIFICATION- RESERVATION - QUALIFICATION- ……………….
Thank you for your patience!
Recommended