Klaus von Gadow 
Evaluating risk in forest planning models
Gadow K. v. (2000). Evaluating risk in forest planning models. Silva Fennica vol. 34 no. 2 article id 639. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.639
Abstract
The purpose of forest scenario modelling is to evaluate multiple management options and to answer what if questions relating to a particular development path of a given forest. Forest scenario planning can reduce uncertainty in management outcomes by anticipating the future in a systematic way, thus reducing the likelihood of unexpected events. It can also improve the chance that future developments will agree with specified objectives. Numerous techniques have been proposed for generating and evaluating scenarios of forest development. Some of the techniques are limited to applications in simple forest production systems while others are suitable for any type of forest management, including individual tree selection systems. Risk is defined as the expected loss due to a particular hazard for a given area and reference period. An expected loss may be calculated as the product of the damage and its probability. Risk analysis, risk evaluation and risk management are formal procedures for quantifying, evaluating and managing risk within a given hazard domain. Applications of risk analysis in forest scenario planning are rare and greater emphasis needs to be placed on hazard prediction. The aim of this contribution is to discuss some aspects of risk analysis, including examples of specific modelling tools. In a forest planning model risk can be considered in the form of specific constraints limiting the total risk in a given time period. Expected hazards can be used to exclude certain risky alternatives and finally, risk can be calculated and used to reduce the value of an objective function coefficient.
Keywords
harvest scheduling;
continuous cover forest;
activity scenario
-
Gadow,
Georg-August-University Göttingen, Institute for Forest Management, Büsgenweg 5, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
E-mail
kgadow@gwdg.de
Received 1 October 1999 Accepted 11 May 2000 Published 31 December 2000
Views 2431
Available at https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.639 | Download PDF
