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

Semantic wiki

• DSS articles

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!