2024-03-28T17:40:03Z
http://mcfns.com/index.php/Journal/oai
oai:ojs.mcfns.com:article/5
2011-05-01T23:01:05Z
Journal:Sustain
nmb a2200000Iu 4500
"090202 2009 eng "
1946-7664
dc
Science-based Forest Design
von Gadow, Klaus
University of Göttingen, Germany
Zhang, Chun Yu
Beijing Forestry University, China
Zhao, Xiu Hai
Beijing Forestry University, China
Array
Approximately 3000 million ha of the world s forests have been classified as productive, and are subject to some kind of management. Considering their environmental and social importance, the managed forest ecosystems are not receiving as much scientific attention as the few remaining unmanaged ones. This is especially true in the growing urban landscapes where managed forest ecosystems provide a range of important services. Most societies today demand integrated and wide-ranging approaches to forest management that address social, ecological, and economic goals. These demands can be met if simplistic philosophies and unverified doctrines are replaced by new paradigms that require a wider understanding of social demands and natural system dynamics. In theory, involving science directly in the management of a wooded ecosystem appears to be logical, but the practical implementation of this idea is not a trivial task. This paper presents a theoretical framework for the science-based management of a forested landscape that includes three key elements: forest design, research and demonstration and harvest event analysis. This framework is introduced, explained by means of examples, and supported by concrete evidence. The paper is based on an updated version of Gadow (2005), and it is not intended as a manifest, but as a contribution to a much-needed discussion about forest management as a scientific discipline. MCFNS-1:14-25.
Contemporary Journal Concept Press
2009-02-28 00:00:00
Peer-reviewed Papers on Assessment and Flow Analysis
application/pdf
application/postscript
http://mcfns.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/MCFNS.1-14
Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences (MCFNS); Vol 1, No 1: MCFNS February 28, 2009
eng
general relevance, any region
contemporary
examples from Europe, Asia, North America
Copyright (c)
oai:ojs.mcfns.com:article/8
2013-06-18T13:35:26Z
Journal:Sustain
nmb a2200000Iu 4500
"090202 2009 eng "
1946-7664
dc
A note on ‘A review of the status and use of validation procedures for heuristics used in forest planning'
Murray, Alan
The Arizona State University, USA http://geography.asu.edu/murray
Array
This paper provides a discussion on validation procedures associated with heuristic solution approaches used in forest planning, initiated by Bettinger et al. (2008) (Bettinger, Sessions and Boston, 2008. A review of the status and use of validation procedures for heuristics used in forest planning. MCFNS 1(1): 26-37). Three issues are addressed. MCFNS-1:38-40.
Contemporary Journal Concept Press
2009-02-28 00:00:00
Peer-reviewed Papers on Assessment and Flow Analysis
application/pdf
application/postscript
http://mcfns.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/MCFNS.1-38
Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences (MCFNS); Vol 1, No 1: MCFNS February 28, 2009
eng
International
Two decades
Published papers
Copyright (c)
oai:ojs.mcfns.com:article/6
2013-06-18T13:35:58Z
Journal:Sustain
nmb a2200000Iu 4500
"090202 2009 eng "
1946-7664
dc
A review of the status and use of validation procedures for heuristics used in forest planning
Bettinger, Pete
The University of Georgia, USA http://www.warnell.uga.edu/Members/bettinger
Sessions, John
The Oregon State University, USA
Boston, Kevin
The Oregon State University, USA
Array
While there exist clear methods for validating and ensuring the quality of solutions generated by forest planning heuristic techniques, the use of these methods in the literature varies from one situation to the next. Based on our experience developing and using heuristic forest planning techniques, we describe six levels of heuristic validation that are currently in use, ranging from no validation (Level 1) on one end of the spectrum, to the comparison of heuristic technique solutions with an exact solution obtained using mathematical programming methods (Level 6) on the other end. The reasons why authors may choose or reviewers may require levels of validation are proposed. We do not believe that all research papers should be subjected to the highest level of validation, but suggest that authors of papers on forest planning techniques and reviewers associated with peer-reviewed journals try to place the level of validation within the larger scientific context, then determine an appropriate level of validation. Admittedly, this is problematic for review decisions, given the fact that reviewers may differ in opinion of what is appropriate. Four brief cases are provided to help one think through these issues. Ultimately, we hope that this discussion will lead to a reasoned approach for the use of validation processes in conjunction with the presentation of heuristic techniques, rather than the current ad-hoc process that, on one hand, relies on the valuable and careful thoughts of the reviewers, yet on the other hand, may be uneven in application. MCFNS-1:26-37.
Contemporary Journal Concept Press
2009-02-28 00:00:00
Peer-reviewed Papers on Assessment and Flow Analysis
application/pdf
application/postscript
http://mcfns.com/index.php/Journal/article/view/MCFNS.1-26
Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences (MCFNS); Vol 1, No 1: MCFNS February 28, 2009
eng
http://mcfns.com/index.php/Journal/article/download/6/17
International
Two decades
Published papers
Copyright (c)