Post on 31-Dec-2015
description
transcript
Applying Fuzzy Logic to AssessSocial, Economic, and Ecological
Sustainability
A Quantitative Approach Applied to theTongass National Forest
Title #2:
Using Knowledge Base Architecture to Assess the Complexities of FMU
Sustainability
A Quantitative Approach Applied to theTongass National Forest
Sustainability in the 1980’sHarvest <= Growth, NDY, LTSY, PNVFORPLAN (LP) used to calculate Allowable Sale Quantities (ASQ)ASQ was often a target, not a ceilingHuge models on huge machinesNo one could question the resultsDifficult to analyze non-market resources
1990sClinton, environmental movement, politicsRecreation/tourism Use ExplosionTongass Revision underway, Involvement of SciencePulp Mills Close, Final Tongass PlanGIS, Internal Demands for Accountability Demands for Ecosystem SustainabilitySantiago Agreement, Montreal, Certification
Bruntland Commission ReportDefined sustainability as:
”the management of the human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.”
Our take on Sustainability3 Equal Principles: Ecological, Economic, and SocialBased on Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators (a systems approach)Evaluate at the Forest Management Unit (a very significant element)We would go the distance (all the way to reference values)
Criteria and IndicatorsPrinciple – Ecological Sustainability, etc. (3-7)Criteria – Maintain old growth dependent bird habitat (4-20)Indicator – Average number of snags per harvested acre (1-many)Measure (data) – Total snags/Total harvested acresReference Value – > 3 snags per acre is OK
Sustainable Forest Monitoring Initiatives
Bruntland Commission Market ForcesSantiago Declaration
Montreal Process Helsinki Accord
National/International Reporting Initiatives
National Scale
C&I Set
National Scale
C&I Set
Forest Management Unit Initiatives
CIFOR
Regional FMU Tests e.g., CIFOR-NA (Boise)
LUCID
Certification Initiatives
FSC, AFPA, Smartwood, SCS
Various Forest and Product Certification
Sustainable Forest Monitoring Initiatives
Bruntland Commission Market ForcesSantiago Declaration
Montreal Process Helsinki Accord
National/International Reporting Initiatives
National Scale
C&I Set
National Scale
C&I Set
Forest Management Unit Initiatives
CIFOR
Regional FMU Tests e.g., CIFOR-NA (Boise)
Tongass
Certification Initiatives
FSC, AFPA, Smartwood, SCS
Various Forest and Product Certification
Field-level Realities
Foundations of the C&I ApproachDespite geographic differences, efforts should be made to harmonize indicator measures and reporting.The time dimension of indicators must be considered. Trends are essential in evaluating the status of ecosystem sustainability.An acceptance of using qualitative and subjective measures for indicators.Select indicators to build common understanding of what is meant by ecosystem sustainability.
Our Approach3 Principles of Equal Weight: Ecological, Social, and EconomicFuzzy Logic to deal with uncertainty, expert opinion, and traditional ecological knowledgeSpatially display resultsClear definitions backed by documented assumptions and referencesNo more smoke and mirrors
Technical AspectsEasy to build a Netweaver Knowledge Base (KB)KB’s are very portableUse of Linguistic VariablesIncorporation of Risk and UncertaintyCopes with Missing DataDegree of Membership (DM) is not Probability
Tentatively Suitable Land ProcessIdentification of Lands Suitable for Timber Harvest – This process is required in old and new regulations (219.28)
Six attributes to evaluate:
3)Regen/volume: Boolean (YorN), no change
1)Legislatively removed: Boolean (YorN), no change
2)Forested: Boolean (YorN), no change
4)Slope: Fuzzify
-1
1
-1
1
5)Site Index: Fuzzify
-1
1
6)MM Haz: Fuzzify
72 40 4235 35 60