2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.10.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Optimisation algorithms for spatially constrained forest planning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
36
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Within the field of forestry, s-metaheuristic techniques have been widely used in forest planning problems, perhaps because they involve more intuitive processes than p-metaheuristics techniques. More importantly, some studies have suggested that p-metaheuristics techniques may be less effective in solving complex forest spatial planning problems when the harvest adjacency restrictions are integrated Liu et al 2006), but this conclusion highly depends on the actual implementation of the heuristic methods, and how solutions are modified to allow the population to evolve. For example, Bettinger et al (2002) and Liu et al (2006) reported that genetic algorithms were not appropriate when applied to a strict harvest adjacency problem due to the large number of constraint violations incurred, but when limited genetic information is passed from parents to child solutions, few constraint violations can occur.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Within the field of forestry, s-metaheuristic techniques have been widely used in forest planning problems, perhaps because they involve more intuitive processes than p-metaheuristics techniques. More importantly, some studies have suggested that p-metaheuristics techniques may be less effective in solving complex forest spatial planning problems when the harvest adjacency restrictions are integrated Liu et al 2006), but this conclusion highly depends on the actual implementation of the heuristic methods, and how solutions are modified to allow the population to evolve. For example, Bettinger et al (2002) and Liu et al (2006) reported that genetic algorithms were not appropriate when applied to a strict harvest adjacency problem due to the large number of constraint violations incurred, but when limited genetic information is passed from parents to child solutions, few constraint violations can occur.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SA technique has been previously applied to forest harvest planning (Pukkala & Kurttila 2005, Liu et al 2006, Quintero et al 2010, and has proven to achieve solutions very close to a mathematical optimum. The SA algorithm uses random initial solutions and a geometric cooling schedule.…”
Section: Optimization Techniques and Implementationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The large number of variables and constraints involved, the existence of non-linear relationships between variables, and the need to simultaneously optimize for different objectives often make the optimization of models an arduous task. In this case, heuristic techniques can be applied as they can handle the model complexity more efficiently (Bettinger & Chung 2004, Pukkala & Kurttila 2005, Liu et al 2006. Among these techniques, Simulated Annealing, Genetic Algorithms, Tabu Search, Threshold Accepting, and Ant Colony Algorithms were successfully applied in forest planning (Pukkala & Kurttila 2005, Liu et al 2006, Zeng et al 2007, Zhu & Bettinger 2008, Quintero et al 2011.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Harvesting planning aims to long-term tasks scheduling in order to maximize the cut volume and the profit respecting the imposed restrictions (Liu et al, 2006). One of the restrictions of this problem is that some jurisdictions prohibit clearcuts, i.e., large areas cut (Brumelle et al, 1998;Gunn & Richards, 2005).…”
Section: Forest-based Supply Chainmentioning
confidence: 99%