A Set of Units within www.LastingForests.com
Home
Finding Your Way Within the Web Site
Glossary and Abbreviations
Contents of Heikkenen
Forestry, it ain't logging! Logging is one activity within it. It is a whole field of activities (like Science) but it is also what some people do (like science). One definition will not work for all of the things that it means. Collapsing definitions creates more problems than it solves.
Forestry means working with special lands to produce benefits cost effectively over a long period.. The special lands happen to have trees as the conspicuous plants but the lands also have roads, ponds, grassy areas, mines, picnic and camping areas, and (in some areas) even shrublands and grasslands. Land on which there were trees and the truck full of them is rolling down the road is still a forest if regeneration was planned and is underway. The emphasis has to be on land and maybe that just substitutes one word for another. The forester looks at land that is predominantly covered with trees and begins to ponder: how can I produce benefits for people from that land at reasonable costs for many, many years? Watching trees seemingly randomly return to cutover land is not "forestry"
"Getting it right" might suggest that there is one static way to do forestry. Herein, we mean "a way", an evolving system. It has to be a continual, even if limited, adjustment to local societies. It has to have an objective, a view of a desired future. When society changes rapidly, as it has since the mid 40's (and since Adam and Eve), then difficulties will arise based on the gap between society's preferences and the perception of these and the actions that can be taken to reduce the gap. Actions to be chosen are based on knowledge, budgets, skills, and increasingly, restrictive rules, regulations and laws. Actions have to fit within the spaces defined by these factors. Modern forestry must be managerially sound, socially acceptable, readily adjusted, and anticipate future needs and opportunities. It is hard to do, hard to get it right. It is very hard to find the criteria for "rightness".
Forestry has not evolved fast enough and several laws (e.g., NF Mgmt Act of 1976 and Public Law 92-500) require major forestry accomplishments by 1985 -- long past. Expectations exceed forestry accomplishments. It's time for some changes, perhaps not evolution, but at least restoration.
A person practicing forestry, herein "a forester", can be employed by a park owner to work land in which no logging is to be done. The emphasis is on benefits, not logging. There is in many parks a profound "no logging" constraint on the forester and the land, but that is the same for other foresters. There are profound constraints on all foresters…too wet, too dry, too acidic, no money, do not offend Senator X, within the law, within the policies (as best that we can make them out), watch out for safety laws, avoid the moth, too many deer….and the list remains long. So, forestry is working with land with trees within constraints to produce benefits later.
Benefits
What the h… are "benefits"? Some people like to discuss forest "services" such as slowing down water runoff, having a cooling effect in summer, and recharging ground water storage volumes. Sure, land with trees does that, but the forester knows that when they do, they are reducing flood damage, reducing heating and cooling costs, and reducing costs of alternative high-quality water for many uses. The forester looks at the results of the services and the good that they do for people. We're too tired to wrestle with economists over the meaning of "benefits" but we think the forester is working for potential profits or their equivalents from wood, from land sales, from recreational hours and profits from access to them, from water-quality access (for many uses including fishing), and from future uses found from rare plants and animals (called "options").
Don't become confused over the definition of forestry by where the forester works. Many are employed by the federal U.S. Forest Service. Tax paid, they may argue that profits are not their concern. We think they are, and if they were, some of the current difficulties would diminish. All benefits, almost by definition, are human. We may think that we are doing things "for the elk", but the elk are not talking and the cougar will be very disappointed in our bias. Foresters are "for the environment" but that over-generalization is silly because foresters see that only when a well-designed, smoothly-functioning land system is working will people be satisfied. If there is an environmental failure, people will notice. Benefits will have stopped flowing! The flawed environment is a failure in management, a failure to produce benefits, given the constraints. (Later we discuss how removing or relaxing the constraint is a part of management, of forestry.) Most benefits can be cast as profits or potential profits. The flowery language of the presses and the "public participants" claiming that some things cannot be assigned a value is mindless. Many things do not need to be assigned a value, but we contend that all things in forested land can be assigned an approximate value as they relate to actual and potential benefits. So, forestry is
working with land with trees
within constraints
to produce human benefits,
that are typically expressed (at least) as
actual or potential profits.
Looking Back
Foresters in the U.S. work with land formed and influenced by the Pleistocene glaciers that advanced and receeded several times about 11,000 years ago. "Seems to us just yesterday!" The mountain tops were all frozen and snow covered south of the glaciers. Vast areas now in forests were where the glaciers dumped their loads of sand and gravel. Fires from lightning irregularly but often ran through the lands south of the glaciers. Ancient people are said to have burned areas for various purposes. Over the past thousands of years there has occurred the rise and fall of native populations (probably every 2000 years), some highly skilled and with a sense of the esthetic as seen in their arrow or spear points. There were some human populations or societies, however, about every 2000 years, that struggled to invent tools for war or food-gathering (or to copy the points of their ancestors). They were sheltered by the forest, ate its products, and used wood for many purposes.
In a study by Seth Diamond, we almost overlooked the passenger pigeon as we tried to work out the food needs and energy budgets of the pre-settlement people. We were well into analysis when we recalled the vast hordes of birds, now extinct. Including them changed our analysis. We wonder what other species have been lost that, had we knowledge of them now, would help us understand the lives of people in this country before settlement and over the past as the land emerged from the ice and influences of the glaciers.
Geology, for us, was not a study of rocks and minerals, land layers and volcanoes, but about time. The concepts are not easily gotten; whole courses must be consumed and integrated. Foresters take geology courses to gain a comprehension of time that is necessary for their work.
Not quite so far back, foresters are well aware of their profession being very old. It was imported from Europe and while propelled by that influence, it retains elements that have not served it well in the new country or in the present era. The Society of American Foresters was formed in 1908 suggesting a useful reference date. We now see it as a young profession, still forming. As young men, we remember thinking of the Society as "ancient", permanent, and staid.
Whole courses are taught about forest history and the history of forestry. They are hidden under the cloak of policy courses as if history was a bad topic. We've learned with so many others, that "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." There is much that has been ignored, but we feel that part of the problem is that history is not know, thus it cannot even be ignored!
The Planning Horizon
We suspect that there is no other field of work that has the extensive planning period common to forestry. Trees are planted and if by a rational person, they are expected to grow for many years. Anticipating harvest some 50 to 200 years later is not uncommon. Foresters, working for their land-owner clients or the general public, are expected to deal with that long period. Few people realize how slowly trees grow, or how many fires, insects, pathogens, or thieves they encounter. A person plants a tree or tends an existing forests and invests something in the land in doing so. A rational person would expect some reasonable return from such investment. This expectation seems reasonable even if the amount is poorly described, can't be expressed in dollars, or "just seems good to do for future people" (the good feeling is the benefit, a return that must be very great for them and their families or reasonable people would not make the investment).
Foresters as other economically minded people estimate values in terms of net present values. A present value is the amount of money needed now to be invested to produce some stated amount later. Some guy says "I need $20,000 in 5 years!" and he knows that the best rate that he can get is 6.2 percent. The present value of $20,000 is $14,805 (i.e., $20,000/1.35). That much money invested at 6.2 % today will result, other things remaining equal, in him having $20,000 in 5 years. Long planning periods have a profound effect of such concepts of investment. If 200 years (not 5 years) is the planning period, then our guy only needs to put 12 cents into the bank! Relax guys, how about 100 years? Then he only has to invest $48.81 (worth a good meal and a tip). Those horizons of the future are nearly impossible to comprehend, nearly impossible for anyone to comfortably integrate likely changes in the interest or investment return rates. Rates fluctuate and even the "capital", the amount actually invested does also, and there are partial losses and usually additions. Estimating the likely worth of an investment is a task at the center of superior forestry.
People working with powerlines and public facilities use a planning and investment period of 30 years. The present value of a million dollars with interest rates of about 10% for 30 years is $57,000, a mere pittance, the worth of the CEO's car, barely worth discussion. The present value of a million bucks for the forester with his/her 200 year horizon is 72 cents. Forests loose out to other investments because, among other reason, their present values are so low. Rational investors go for the highest possible present net values. (Using "net" simply implies that both costs and returns are treated the same way, then subtracted.)
We'll come back to the concept of "period" and present discounting. It is the time in which trees of our forests are growing, but we have to have a firm grasp of time and its influence on decisions made about forests and when they should be treated and finally "harvested" (not just "cut down") because the skillful harvest is a very difficult, unsafe, engineering, transportation, and market-location operation.) Next we continue with an often-discussed topic direstly related to time and the growth and harvest period.
Sustained Saddled with the word "sustained" by the press and in a federal law requiring "sustained yield", foresters have rarely been able to get out from under it. It sounds so logical, but it is not difficult to see that trees can come rolling off of a forest, supply of lumber or pulp can be excessive, prices can then fall, and a mill can go bankrupt. Who wants sustained yield now!? Mills and their owners do not want sustained yield but sustained profits.
Sustained is a word that can be depicted. Figure 1 shows the performance measure for several forest systems. These are plotted over time. How well the system is performing is plotted. We contend that none of the systems has failed, thus all have been sustained over the period shown. Maybe stabilized is the word that is desired (line b in Fig.1)....but we want to tap profits when the performance and opportunities are high; must we forego them to achieve a stabilized condition? Low may not be very good (d in Fig 1) but it certainly is stable. System e's record is very stable and sustained, but with only one exception (but what an exception!). We believe that one word will not express our desires for the resource systems for which we work. The need is to bring and hold a forest system (such as a fishery or pulpwood production unit) indefinitely (at least 150 years) and presumably forever within one dynamic standard deviations of a stated desired level of performance (Figure 2).
Observe the power that t wields in the simple model for estimating compound rates of increase:
Nt = N0 (1.0 + r )t
When we start with 1000 units of anything and they increase at about 6 %, then when they do this for 20 years, then the end results (with compounding processes) will be 3207. (i.e., Nt = 1000 (1.0 + 0.06)20 = 3207.
However when the period is extended to 40 years, the results are not doubled, but increased to 10,286, or 3.2 times more. For 120 years, the end results are 1,088,188, or 340 time more.
We once studied planning horizons. How is one picked? Why are there 5-year plans or 10-year plans? Why not 4.5-year plans, 7-, or 11-year ones? There are issues of confidence, but in the final analysis, the longer the planning period, the better, for t can really work. In forestry and much natural resource work, investments made for the long run will experience the forces of t. Planting annual crops is working against the t-force. The price must be high; re-investment of the returns makes sense so that the power of t will be captured. Planting an apple tree, for example, provides no income or returns for the first years, then gains can be counted. The investment in the apple tree seedling pays off handsomely years later, for many years...the longer the better.
Performance Measures, Goals, and Objectives
A performance measure is what you use to see a forest system. If cubic yards of pulp is what you are producing and what your stockholders expect you to produce, than that is your system performance measure. Some wildlife guy may talk a lot about biodiversity but when it comes down to hard decisions, he talks about deer kill, not even numbers seen, crippling loss, hunters, removals per thousand acre or success rate. People soon learn what is being studied, what hard and final questions are being asked. Usually people will ask "how are you?" but they will watch your face and especially your eyes to understand what you are really replying to the trivial question about your overall well-being. Facial expressions and eye-twinkle are the collective performance measures. Health is the objective.
There are thousands of articles and books on goals and objectives. Too much time is spent discussing the difference in meaning of the words. Several entire fields/professions use them differently. They are synonymous if it is realized that there are types of objectives (or you can call them "goals" if it makes you feel better).
Types of Objectives
There are seven types of objectives (CAP93):
Awareness of the types can reduce confusion in the lexicon of objectives, goals, etc. and can hasten effective use of objectives. Granger (1964) and Rahmatian (1985) discussed a slightly related hierarchy of objectives. Modern agencies can and should use the types suggested. If objectives are actively and properly created, the activity can avoid most of the ad hoc and piecemeal goals and policies that form in conflicts over difficult management decisions.
We think that the types of objectives presented here are global but of course the individual units or phrases under each are unique to each decision-making group. It is necessary, regrettably, based on our experience in objective setting, to specify that there is no connotation in the word "objective" of a position along any objectivity-subjectivity continuum. The observation seems trivial but it is important to emphasize that the source of objectives is the human mind. Objectives are not discovered but are decided.
The seven types of the objectives, again, are: (1) General, (2) Fundamental, (3) Success Criteria, (4) Constraints, (5) Primary, (6) Futuristic, and (7) Actions. These will be discussed, examples given, and a means given by which they may be used.
Type 1 - General - These are the broad, brief, general statements about the identity of an agency or program. They use statements of ultimate being, and are largely grand in scope, brief, motivational, and usually more poetic than practical. They many contain phrases such as in a preamble to a constitution or from law that establishes an agency.
Often called a mission, role, or goal, those statements are posturing and often serve to stake out organizational turf. An example is: "to preserve and wisely use all of the game resources of the Snake Creek Forest." This Type 1 objective captures the essence (or seeks to do so) of the lower type objectives.
Type 2 - Fundamental - Textbooks for years have asked and answered "Why manage wildlife?" None has said: "To achieve objectives!" The fundamental objectives are rarely articulated directly but can be identified within the General objectives (Type 1). Most people have one dominant fundamental Type 2 objective but some may have many. These fundamental objectives may be considered as "dimensions" and each person may be located, probably uniquely, in space. (A space with more than three dimensions is called an hypervolume. There are many fundamental objectives or dimensions such as
1. Metaphysical: These are the private, non-discussable, and often-called spiritual or religious feelings, insights, or benefits which people may receive from the resource.
2. Land Character: A land scape is not the same without a forest ... a contrast, an alternative scale, an anternative age
3. Esthetic: Forests -- these are the beautiful things. .
4. Preservation: Knowledge that trees are being cared for and preserved is beneficial to many people.
5. Existence: Knowledge that a tree speciesor community exists, even though it may never be seen, is held by some as a great value.
6. Recreation: Hunting and fishing,hiking and camping are conspicuous forest-recreational activities. There are major before- and after-use benefits in anticipating use and telling tales and reflecting on the quality of the experiences.
7. Physical Utility: Forests provide wood and other products.
8. Monetary
9. Ecosystem: Forests are one well-recognized natural systems.
10. Genetic: Forests can provide the resources for genetic engineering, hybridization, and regaining lost traits in domestic plants and animals.
11. Environmental Monitor: Monitoring forest conditions may shed light on human conditions. Monitoring is not feedback. Only when a problem is seen and corrective action taken can the real benefits from the monitoring be legitimately claimed.
Type 3 - Success Criteria
How does a person know when objectives are achieved? "Well, you just know!" is not a satisfactory answer. There must be some agreed criterion for success, some pattern for comparison and conclusion such as density, rate of increase, risk, benefit-to-cost ratio, estimated loss, or present-discounted net value.
Type 1 and 2 are usually too broadly stated for the success criteria to be identifiable. It is fascinating to observe that each of the Type 2 objectives may have a unique success criterion. Old arguments about how to mix forest, wildlife, and other resource benefits, usually denied in the phrase "you can't mix apples and oranges", are herewith raised to a new level of debate. For some objectives for forest systems, managers seek to reduce risks, for others to minimize costs, for others to maximize present net value. All may exist within the same system. How shall we determine the optimum mix, the proper trade-offs among these Type 3 questions? This question is not answered in this chapter. It is a field for useful work.
In optimization or game theory (Chapter 17) a major question is one of how shall the objective function be formulated or how shall we tell, precisely, when we have won? The Type 3 objective is an expression of the way a win is formulated, not the details of winning. It is a decision about the fundamental procedure for measuring the output of the faunal system.
The literature is rich with examples of how the same problem solved with different criteria for winning can produce quite different results (e.g., some poker players play to win, others play to stay in the game but rarely if ever are big winners). Systems for managing a deer herd for (1) a fixed level of annual harvests or (2) a maximum number of user sightings per 1000 dollars invested, can be very different because of the selection of one of these Type 3 objective.
The words "maximize", "minimize", or "stabilize" are used advisedly. It is almost impossible to "assure" or "prevent" - on logical grounds alone. It is very difficult to "eliminate" (completely) natural things. These three words are a complete set. They represent all possibilities (Fig. 4.1)
Figure 4.1. Three general words provide a complete range of options in faunal system work with objectives. Rates or variability in each may be adjusted (or attempted) by investments or managerial action. A denotes an objective of minimizing to a level , then stabilizing the system at that level. B suggests stability; C shows minimizing to a limit or constraint, then stabilizing.
of desired action. They may be combined as in "maximize to level A, then stabilize." As an example, for a Type 2 preservation objective, a success criterion of "density (Animals/Area) greater than 500 (or the computed minimum effective population)" will probably be useful. As another example, for option demand under a monetary objective (Type 2), a Type 3 objective will be to achieve a high expected present net value, (Vt,p), to the family or group of significance (p = 2) in year t >100. In general, the rational decision maker demonstrating the option demand objective by allocating resources to it (e.g., setting aside a grove of old-growth timber) will attempt to have the expected (E) present net value (V) of the wildlife resources in year 100 or greater for himself and the present family, exceed or equal the value of investments, i.e., that:
EV30,2 =< EV100,2
A high benefit(B)-to-cost(C) ratio (Q) can be expressed as an objective in many wildland management systems. It has been criticized but when the major criticisms are addressed, namely:
then a Type 3 objective of maximizing Q (where Q = (B+1)/(C+1)) can be used effectively. The manager may seek to increase benefits, reduce costs, or both. The Q concept will be discussed more fully later.
When expected values (i.e., benefits adjusted based on their probability of being realized or 1.0 minus the risk level for failure) are included with estimating benefits and costs, an even better criterion is achieved.
Achieving a high rate of change (usually an increase) is often an objective. If not carefully related to desired products or needs or other criteria, a rate change can lead to difficulties (like the irrelevancy of an auto driver slowing before a fatal crash).
Minimizing risk, the probability of significant failure or departure from a minimum standard, is a Type 3 objective.
Maximum sustained yield, much debated, is a Type 3 objective used with production, recreation, and other Type 2 objectives. In the U.S., sustained yield was somewhat clarified by the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (74 Stat.215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531; Public Law 86-517). Like "multiple-use objectives" it had stronger political grounds than scientific ones. It has been criticized in many ways (Smith 1968) including the meaning of "sustained." as discussed above. It has been defined as the maximum yield that can be taken on a sustained, presumably perpetual, basis. It arose in 1897 and meant then simply "a continuous supply of timber" (Schallau 1990). The problems lie in questions such as: As long as " if a species or forest community is not extinct, then is the species sustained?" " How much fluctuation is tolerable over what range of years to be satisfactory?" "Is stability at the maximum required?" Perhaps trying to maximize an annual average would be useful? "Maximum" is also problematic. (The highest ever achieved? Over what period? The maximum average? The maximum annual median or modal value?) "Yield" is less troublesome because the criticism can be more sharp. More difficult to address is the omission of costs or externalities from the concept. Is yield to be maintained regardless of cost? What is the proper investment of labor, capital, and technology to achieve any yield? What level? No criteria are provided for catastrophic losses (fire, insects, floods) and what are appropriate actions after such events to achieve the yields. Perhaps "yield" was intended to mean net yield, monetary returns minus all costs. At least for wild game within the forest, monetary returns are difficult to assign, even though costs of management and harvests can be approximated. It is not likely that monetary return was the early intent.
Smith (1968) observed that in forestry, and presumably elsewhere, sustained yield is "just a vague idea that confuses decision makers...Continuous production has advantages, and confused objectives often provide wide political and administrative flexibility..." For some foresters, it means "the management of a forest area in such a way that an equal, or near equal, volume of merchantable wood can be harvested annually, or periodically, in perpetuity" (Haley 1966). In the U.S. all forest benefits are now included (The Multiple Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960) as well as the limitation "without impairment of the productivity of the land." Modern critics suggest sustained profit or a sustained production index (not wood) be the measure.
The concept of sustained yield for fauna can be laid aside, both as a concept and an objective (and a replacement sought), for many reasons, among them being :It is just too simple a concept; too simple a criterion for dealing with something as complex as management of an ecosystem.
Optimum sustained yield is a phase replacing "maximum sustained yield" as an objective. It usually implies that yield (e.g., of harvested fish, but probably of profit from fish) be accounted at the economic margin. Sociological, economic, and ecological dimensions are needed in objectives. A formulation is needed to overcome the current limitations.
What the forester needs to do is to help the landowner and the public articulate their objective. It needs to be precisely stated so that progress (or failure) can be measured. "Optimization" means maximizing, minimizing, or stabilizing something subject to a set of constraints. The meaning is often harsh. It says "Make your best selection, but only if it is within the limits set." These might include:
An sustained yield may not, and is not likely to, be the condition that produces optimum sustained yield. The shift away from "yield" to an index reflective of landowner weighted objectives seems essential. Somehow a complex set of Type 5 objectiuves needs to be articulated. The problem is one of language, of conflicting or differentially weighted objectives, and of techniques of measurement. For example, wild animal population estimates are typically minimum expressions. Maximum productivity (and potential yield) of animals does not occur when populations are at their maximum. Costs to maximize populations are very great. Similarly, maximum profits do not occur when supplies are greatest. Desired harvests (yield) of forest game or trees often cannot be achieved. At very high populations, disease is often very great. The criteria (rephrase "objectives") must be stated, weighted, and trade-offs made.
Type 4 - Constraints
Within Type 4 objectives are found the statements of constraints or limits beyond which inputs cannot or should not be gained. Type 4 objectives include the concept of "policy" interpreted as an expression of rule, law, or limitation.
Policy is a formal response to problems and needs as they arise. Thus current policy in any natural resource area is an attic of cumulative responses to problems that achieved enough notoriety to attract the attention of governments. They are usefully seen as constraints and are often formulated as: "we shall do X ... subject to A, B, and C."
Suppose a resource area manager wants (loosely speaking for now) to maximize game harvest, minimize soil erosion, maximize profits from wood sales, stabilize employment, and stabilize a visual quality index. A way is needed to formulate this so it can be solved. One algorithm or procedure for solving a problem accepts that only one resource can ever be maximized at one time. This may be phrased, for example maximize wildlife harvests ... and then the action starts...with the additional part of the phrase: subject to a set of constraints of money, time, enforcement staff, erosion limits, etc. The method usually adopts a readily quantifiable, primary objective (Type 5) that can, based on the experience and knowledge of the systems analyst or modeler, be readily measured, then constrained. The other "objectives" listed, such as for no soil erosion, can be translated into constraints. They sound like objectives, but so do all 7 types! That is why the taxonomy and analysis herein is needed. Here the unity, wholeness, and interactive nature of the systems approach is evident. It is not just a systematic, orderly, or sequential approach to problems. Here the process component of the systems approach itself as well as details of the inputs are seen to impinge upon the objectives component before it is finalized. The primary objectives, Type 5, are discussed later.
Higher type objectives (Type 1 and 2) are subject to the achievement of Type 4 objectives. They are conditional upon them. These objectives include staff, information, finance, and space. There may be very long lists of such objectives. See Table 4.5.
Table 4.5. Representative Type 4 constraint objectives
Information
Finance
Space
Resources
Future Time
Each may contribute to several higher objectives. The list may change, for example, during annual planning. Failure to achieve one Type 4 objective (for whatever reason) does not change the Type 1 and 2 objectives and since several ways are usually used to gain an objective, exceeding one Type 4 objective (e.g., slightly over-spending a budget) usually does not represent complete failure to achieve a lower-type objective. The objectives are only partially hierarchical. "Staff", in our view, are stored information, experience, and idea sources. They are addressed in Type 4 objectives because all aspects of the forest faunal system are conditional upon their limitations or freeing energies.
Various writers use words like diversity , sustainability, equitable, economical, resilient, adaptive, flexible, just, evolutionary, and "responsive to future contingencies" as either objectives or things that objectives should achieve. These are worth noting and, to the limits of the manager's ability to understand their meaning and implications, should be incorporated into a set of objectives. These words imply constraints. They express that realistic Type 5 objectives should be achieved subject to or also meeting these standards or criteria. They are poorly worded Type 4 objectives.
Other examples of forest management policies are:
These so-called policies are constraints, Type 4 objectives. They limit inputs of funds, time, etc.
Fig. 4.2. A system of linear constraints can define a region of available resources, feasibility, legality, practicality, and other similar ideas. The green area is a zone of "ok-ness." Anywhere within the constraints, within the green, is good. Selecting the very best point from within this shaded area (the maximum or minimum point becomes the task of the optimizer. Shown here are two dimensions; an n-dimensional volume, a hypervolume, with many planes or surfaces is more realistic for faunal resource situations.
It is easy to confuse policies with other types of objectives. "Our objective is to be safe" or "Our objective is to be fiscally sound" hardly seem debatable. They are a part of the means to the end. They are the bounds within which other more specific objectives are achieved. Because different words such as "policies," "constraints," and "objectives" are used for the same concepts, Iwe suggest for purposes of analysis, clarification, and "getting on with the business" that these be called Type 4 objectives.
An analyst can assist in unscrambling the mess of words common in committees assigned to formulate objectives. A one-hour training session on concepts and common language can save hours of debate later on the meanings of these words. Skillful managers can expedite these often torturously slow and exasperating meetings by providing preliminary sets of representative objectives.
Diversity or biodiversity is a popular objective. It is a constraint, Type 4, but it is analyzed in detail in the next section where its practical use (and misuses) can be emphasized and made clear in relation to primary objectives, those called Type 5.
Type 5 - Primary
This type of objective expresses what a system should do. All of the others are general, conditional, structural, or methodological. Type 5, however, is at the center of the objectives formulation subsystem. When it comes to the hard decisions, the forester will be working with primary objectives.
Table 4.6. Examples of Type 5 objectives. There is no one set of objectives for wildlife managers. Objectives need to be developed for each area and each population of resource users. The more specific, the better. The first list, A, shows increasing precision. Set B is representative.
A. Increased precision
B. Examples
Table 4.7. A set of Type 5 potential deer herd or deer resource management objectives. It is likely that each will result in very different decisions made about actions and expenditures to achieve them. Rarely will more than 6 be selected.
All resource systems have multiple objectives. The human mind is too creative and human needs too diverse to allow only one or two objectives. Thus, Type 5 objectives almost always appear as a set. They may be in conflict with each other and many usually are. Setting them out in print and as a set can assist in making the conflicts clear, agreements evident, and may allow progress to be made in reducing adverse effects. Stating Type 5 objectives (writing them) does not require solutions, or resolutions, and only limited agreement (see Table 4.1). These are the lists of the criteria for the "perfect world" of the forest faunal resource manager and the client(s) whom he or she serves. There is no specific best number of Type 5 objectives. I suspect it will be greater than 10 for any thoughtful group; it will probably be close to 40. The preferred expressions are "to maximize...," "to minimize...," or "to stabilize (or retain)...". An equation or graph can be created to express how some parameter (e.g., erosion) may change over time or with certain investments (Fig. 4.3). The objective will be "to minimize erosion" which means to lower the position on the curve. Another objective may be "to maximize hunter access to the grouse population." This may be depicted as in the three figures below.
Fig. 4.3. Hypothetical change in erosion as a result of various levels of investment and management action. In the lower figure (C) the optimum expenditure (along the x axis) is suggested at Z where erosion (-) and access (+) are about of equal importance. Clear objectives allow an optimum allocation of limited resources in conflicting situations to be made.
Starting from the present length of roads and the proportion of the area influenced by such roads the objective may be achieved by spending funds. The objectives may be in conflict because road construction and runoff thereafter is a major contributor to stream sediments. Roads may cut down on costs of erosion control. Thus the interaction and the need for solution as a set ... for these two typical objectives (suggested in Fig. 4.3c) ... and three dozen more.
The Type 5 objectives are similar to contractual clauses. The wildland resource system manager is not often in court defending his or her action, but the courtroom analogy may be a good one. The public may one day feel prepared to (or may at least already feel the need) to take the public resource system manager to court. The grounds? Mismanagement or malfeasance. By what criteria? Failure to achieve the public contract rooted in the set of Type 5 objectives. Perhaps the analogy is carried too far. At least it has relevance in terms of professional performance, peer review, and personnel evaluation.
Objectives may be grouped in different ways. Some may say that they see them from a different perspective (e.g., populations, habitats, and people; micro and macro; long- and short-term; region specific; species-specific; game and non-game; preservation-protection-education-management; and others). The perspectives are needed and useful and can prevent oversights.
Hopefully the reader will not argue that objectives have to be too carefully worded! This would bring us full circle: How can we design an optimum system to achieve an unspecified or poorly specified system? How shall feedback operate if we have no criteria for judging effective performance or quality of decision-making?
A past problem with formulating objectives has been that once they were listed, little further was done with them. No wonder some people have been dissatisfied! The problems of the past have been in lack of clarity about the types, insufficient knowledge about the Type 5 objectives, and lack of computational aids for selecting actions to achieve objectives once they were developed.
Sooner or later foresters are going to figure out how to state their (our) objectives very precisely. We think there are about 200 primary (Type 5) objectives for the average forest. Most foresters trip over the "action log." One might say "my objective is to build a mile of road!" not realizing that this is an "action" (see above). The road is good thing, an objective, but a type that needs further work. Building it is a means to achieve several objectives such as to maximize recreational opportunity hours, reduce costs of logging (maximize present net value of logs), secure a desired deer harvest, and reduce costs and time of wildfire suppression. These last-listed objectives are primary ones to which the road might contribute. The complexities can be handled by the computer. The glaciers are likely to melt before computer programs are developed to try to do this. They could compute R since the estimates of the actual benefits, B, could be compared to the expression of the desired benefits (B*, perhaps expressed as a performance measure) and a familiar percentage score achieved. Then the present valued costs (C*) could be estimated. R would increase as more benefits were generated or they came closer to the desired amounts, or…the costs where reduced…or both. The formulation is simply:
R = ((1.0 - (B - B*))/B*) x 100) / (C*+1.0)
the formulation expresses the benefit score for the system being managed as a percentage, then divides it by the costs ... to give an old favorite, benefits per unit cost.
The benefits are tricky and that trickiness is at the root of the present social issues and conflicts within forestry and between foresters and some segments of society. Benefits are complex little critters and not everyone understands them, certainly not all of their dimensions.
B in the above formulation is the actual benefits being produced from the forest and its surroundings. It is composed of the summation for all groups of people, all years to the planning horizon (sliding forward one year each year), and all primary objectives. For each objective there are needs to express the number of things needed (e.g., thousand board feet) (the demand, D); the relative importance of each unit of the demand (the value, V); the expectation of achieving each unit (E, or (1.0 - the probability of failure)); and demand substitutes (S), things said to be in great need for which reasonable substitutes are readily found (e.g., "success" on a deer-hunt when only a wild turkey was bagged).
The manager is just trying to reduce the difference between B and B*, that's all. If there is no difference, the result is zero, which subtracted from 1.0 yields 1, which multiplied by 100 yields 100, a perfect score. It cost something to get B to move to B* so we find out that cost, (change it to the present-value as discussed above and as elaborated with many variations in the texts on forest economics), and divide it into the score. (We add 1.0 just in case there are no costs (unlikely) and then we would have to divide by zero and that can't be done.) We simply want the results of that division to be as large as possible. The larger the score or the smaller the cost, or both, the better the forester and those whom he or she serves.
We think the analysis can be useful for it spreads out the issues in most arguments and difficult decision situations. People may want the same things but debate the risks. Some will find substitutes impossible, others easily made. Some may want few things but with great zeal (they are given high values of V). Groups and individuals may be at odds (P); time (T) will cause changes in the assigned values (boy have our values changed as we have aged!); and some have strongly held objectives, others agree with statements of objectives only to "go along."
On to Chapter ??
Contributor and Date:
(A detailed list of the contents of www.Lasting Forests.com, over 900 files, is also available.)
Return to the top .
Access to other units of the web site are readily available within Detailed Contents.
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Giles, Jr.
Last revision: October24, 2000