| Revision as of 12:54, 5 July 2014 editValorMauls (talk | contribs)30 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:14, 5 July 2014 edit undoValorMauls (talk | contribs)30 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| '''FORPLAN''', short for '''FOR'''est '''PLAN'''ning, is a computer program developed by K. Norman Johnson and others that uses a ] model to estimate land management resource outputs pursuant to the ]. FORPLAN was developed to bridge the gap between functional resource planning and integrated land-use planning. Its primary usefulness was for the heavily timbered forests in the ] and the ]. It is available in two versions.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/opre.39.1.13||volume=39|issue=1|date=January-February 1991|pages=13-27|title=Natural Resource Land Management Planning Using Large-Scale Linear Programs: The USDA Forest Service Experience with FORPLAN|author=Kent, Brian|journal=Operations Research}}</ref> | '''FORPLAN''', short for '''FOR'''est '''PLAN'''ning, is a computer program developed by K. Norman Johnson and others that uses a ] model to estimate land management resource outputs pursuant to the ]. FORPLAN was developed to bridge the gap between functional resource planning and integrated land-use planning. Its primary usefulness was for the heavily timbered forests in the ] and the ]. It is available in two versions.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/opre.39.1.13||volume=39|issue=1|date=January-February 1991|pages=13-27|title=Natural Resource Land Management Planning Using Large-Scale Linear Programs: The USDA Forest Service Experience with FORPLAN|author=Kent, Brian|journal=Operations Research}}</ref> | ||
| As part of its growing centralization, the ] directed all forests to use FORPLAN rather than competing computer models. FORPLAN allowed planners to enter information about the forest into the computer and then inquire as to, e.g., the maximum amount of timber that could be cut or how much timber could be cut in a decade if the forest were managed to earn maximum profits. FORPLAN allowed planners to break forests up into different zones based on factors such as vegetation, age of timber, wildlife habitat, steepness of slope, or whether the zone had roads. | FORPLAN is the outgrowth of a series of LP systems developed and used by the Forest Service, including ] (RCS), ] (RAA), ] (Timber RAM), ] (MUSYC), ] (a system used for program budgeting), and ] (IRPM).<ref>{{cite journal|title=Natural Resource Land Management Planning using Large-Scale Linear Programs: The USDA Forest Service Experience with Forplan|author=Kent, Brian; Bare, B. Bruce; Field, Richard C.; Bradley, Gordon A.|journal=Operations Research|volume=39|number=1|date=Jan. - Feb., 1991|pages=13-27|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/171486}}</ref> As part of its growing centralization, the ] directed all forests to use FORPLAN rather than competing computer models. FORPLAN allowed planners to enter information about the forest into the computer and then inquire as to, e.g., the maximum amount of timber that could be cut or how much timber could be cut in a decade if the forest were managed to earn maximum profits. FORPLAN allowed planners to break forests up into different zones based on factors such as vegetation, age of timber, wildlife habitat, steepness of slope, or whether the zone had roads. | ||
| One criticism of FORPLAN is that it is unable to incorporate emotions, preferences or attitudes that are spatially dependent.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Forest places of the heart: incorporating special spaces into public management|author=Mitchell, M. Y.; Force, J. E.; Carroll, M. S.; McLaughlin, W. J.|journal=Journal of Forestry|date=1993|volume=91|number=4|pages=32-37|issn=0022-1201}}</ref> Another criticism is that it includes nonuse values, such as protecting watersheds, preserving endangered species, and improving aesthetics, only as constraints on production rather than as goals. Other criticisms are its large size and complexity and problems with documentation and verification. It is also limited by its requirements for massive amounts of data on ecological interactions and for market prices for all resource uses and outputs. ] noted that much of the data in FORPLAN was based on outdated inventories and that average FORPLAN timber prices were often two or three times actual prices.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Best-Laid Plans|author=O'Toole, Randal|chapter=Garbage In, Gospel Out|date=2007}}</ref> | One criticism of FORPLAN is that it is unable to incorporate emotions, preferences or attitudes that are spatially dependent.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Forest places of the heart: incorporating special spaces into public management|author=Mitchell, M. Y.; Force, J. E.; Carroll, M. S.; McLaughlin, W. J.|journal=Journal of Forestry|date=1993|volume=91|number=4|pages=32-37|issn=0022-1201}}</ref> Another criticism is that it includes nonuse values, such as protecting watersheds, preserving endangered species, and improving aesthetics, only as constraints on production rather than as goals. Other criticisms are its large size and complexity and problems with documentation and verification. It is also limited by its requirements for massive amounts of data on ecological interactions and for market prices for all resource uses and outputs. ] noted that much of the data in FORPLAN was based on outdated inventories and that average FORPLAN timber prices were often two or three times actual prices.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Best-Laid Plans|author=O'Toole, Randal|chapter=Garbage In, Gospel Out|date=2007}}</ref> | ||
| It was praised by the U.S. Congress ] for its enormous analytical capacity, its focus on important issues, and its common language for analysts.<ref>{{cite book|author=U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment|title=Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems|date=1992}}</ref> | It was praised by the U.S. Congress ] for its enormous analytical capacity, its focus on important issues, and its common language for analysts.<ref>{{cite book|author=U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment|title=Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems|date=1992}}</ref> | ||
| The Australian ], or Pristine Environment Planning Language and Simulator, was derived partly from FORPLAN.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Environmental Management|date=1984|volume=8|issue=3|pages=251-269|title=Implementation of two new resource management information systems in Australia|author=Kessell, Stephen R.; Good, Roger B.; Hopkins, Angas J. M.}}</ref> | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 15:14, 5 July 2014
| This article may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion because: Not notable/important. For valid criteria, see CSD. Not+notable%2FimportantNA
If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message. Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.
Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.This page was last edited by ValorMauls (contribs | logs) at 15:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (10 years ago) |
FORPLAN, short for FORest PLANning, is a computer program developed by K. Norman Johnson and others that uses a linear programming model to estimate land management resource outputs pursuant to the National Forest Management Act of 1976. FORPLAN was developed to bridge the gap between functional resource planning and integrated land-use planning. Its primary usefulness was for the heavily timbered forests in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeastern United States. It is available in two versions.
FORPLAN is the outgrowth of a series of LP systems developed and used by the Forest Service, including Resource Capability System (RCS), Resource Allocation Analysis (RAA), Timber Resource Allocation Method (Timber RAM), Multiple Use Sustained Yield Calculation Technique (MUSYC), ADVENT (a system used for program budgeting), and Integrated Resource Planning Model (IRPM). As part of its growing centralization, the United States Forest Service directed all forests to use FORPLAN rather than competing computer models. FORPLAN allowed planners to enter information about the forest into the computer and then inquire as to, e.g., the maximum amount of timber that could be cut or how much timber could be cut in a decade if the forest were managed to earn maximum profits. FORPLAN allowed planners to break forests up into different zones based on factors such as vegetation, age of timber, wildlife habitat, steepness of slope, or whether the zone had roads.
One criticism of FORPLAN is that it is unable to incorporate emotions, preferences or attitudes that are spatially dependent. Another criticism is that it includes nonuse values, such as protecting watersheds, preserving endangered species, and improving aesthetics, only as constraints on production rather than as goals. Other criticisms are its large size and complexity and problems with documentation and verification. It is also limited by its requirements for massive amounts of data on ecological interactions and for market prices for all resource uses and outputs. Randal O'Toole noted that much of the data in FORPLAN was based on outdated inventories and that average FORPLAN timber prices were often two or three times actual prices.
It was praised by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment for its enormous analytical capacity, its focus on important issues, and its common language for analysts.
The Australian PREPLAN, or Pristine Environment Planning Language and Simulator, was derived partly from FORPLAN.
References
- Kent, Brian (January–February 1991). "Natural Resource Land Management Planning Using Large-Scale Linear Programs: The USDA Forest Service Experience with FORPLAN". Operations Research. 39 (1): 13–27.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help)CS1 maint: date format (link) - Kent, Brian; Bare, B. Bruce; Field, Richard C.; Bradley, Gordon A. (Jan. - Feb., 1991). "Natural Resource Land Management Planning using Large-Scale Linear Programs: The USDA Forest Service Experience with Forplan". Operations Research. 39 (1): 13–27.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Mitchell, M. Y.; Force, J. E.; Carroll, M. S.; McLaughlin, W. J. (1993). "Forest places of the heart: incorporating special spaces into public management". Journal of Forestry. 91 (4): 32–37. ISSN 0022-1201.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - O'Toole, Randal (2007). "Garbage In, Gospel Out". The Best-Laid Plans.
- U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1992). Forest Service Planning: Accommodating Uses, Producing Outputs, and Sustaining Ecosystems.
- Kessell, Stephen R.; Good, Roger B.; Hopkins, Angas J. M. (1984). "Implementation of two new resource management information systems in Australia". Environmental Management. 8 (3): 251–269.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)