Across Canada, there is a need to verify the long-term sustainability of forest management plans. This has typically required planners to demonstrate that their forest management plans provide long-term and steady fibre supply while complying with various fibre and non-fibre constraints over a projected planning horizon of between 100 to 200 years. While this is often done aspatially (without consideration to spatial planning constraints or harvest block scheduling) many planners are beginning to plan using spatial models to both comply with provincial regulations and improve planning efficiency. This begs the question: what is spatial modelling and how do planners make the conceptual jump from aspatial to spatial modelling during forest management planning?
The easy answer is that spatial modelling picks up where aspatial models leave off. That is to say that once an aspatial model has determined what is to be scheduled, a spatial model determines where the harvest should be scheduled. Linking aspatial and spatial modelling in this way often works well within existing planning standards as the aspatial-to-spatial planning phases align with strategic-to-tactical planning phases. Once the more complex strategic phase has been solved aspatially, the harvest schedule that is produced from that phase can then be allocated (solved) spatially. Treating the planning process as hierarchical in this way is a pragmatic solution that allows even the most complex of forest management issues to be solved.
However, there are cases where spatial constraints need to be considered for the entire planning horizon. In these cases, modelling is spatial throughout the length of the planning horizon and aspatial modelling is no longer a consideration. This approach integrates strategic, tactical, and operational planning into one modelling solution which provides a spatially explicit harvest schedule for the length of the planning horizon. This provides consistent and reliable results as, unlike the hierarchical approach, the strategic planning phase is solved with consideration to tactical and operational objectives. This prevents operational-level decisions from violating any of the long-term strategic objectives.
Forests with a large number of stands and forest types or that are subject to a variety of potential silvicultural systems present challenges for integrated spatial models due to the sheer number of potential harvest and silvicultural choices the model must consider. Adding various management objectives to the model compounds this problem. Fully spatial, integrated models generally handle constraints and targets in a ‘soft’ way, where the model is never totally prohibited from violating the constraint but is instead incentivized into meeting it. Planners may find that in management problems where there are many management objectives necessitating constraints that integrated spatial models are not capable of balancing all considerations and still maintaining acceptable harvest rates.
Hierarchical spatial models thrive in the face of forest complexity. Solving at the strategic level aspatially allows planners to meet ‘hard’ management constraints and the optimization approach used by aspatial models ensures that an optimal solution is found regardless of forest composition, silvicultural regime, or the number of forest management objectives. However, assigning a spatial harvest sequence to an aspatial harvest schedule can result in unexpected harvest patterns and results that are inconsistent with the aspatial solution. This part of hierarchical spatial modelling requires that planners critically assess what spatial components need to be part of the solution so that an optimal spatial sequence can be generated.
If you require a turn-key spatial modelling solution or simply want to learn more about the different spatial modelling options and the applications to your forest management planning challenge, contact us today to get your spatial modelling project started right!