HongKong Punkka Salo

Information about HongKong Punkka Salo

Published on September 7, 2007

Author: Belly

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Selecting Forest Sites for Voluntary Conservation in Finland :  Selecting Forest Sites for Voluntary Conservation in Finland Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology P.O. Box 1100, 02015 TKK, Finland http://www.sal.tkk.fi/ [email protected] Outline:  Outline Pilot projects for voluntary forest conservation in Finland Decision analytic observations about pilot projects Site selection procedures Decision support models for sites’ biodiversity How Robust Portfolio Modeling (RPM, Liesiö et al. 2006) can be used in the evaluation and selection of forest sites? Voluntary Conservation in Finland:  Voluntary Conservation in Finland Five pilot projects in METSO program (2003-2007) Objective to protect forest biodiversity in Finland Habitat-oriented instead of species-oriented Led by two ministries in cooperation Voluntary conservation in pilot projects Fixed-term deals (usually 10 years) against monetary compensation Finland: population 5.3M, area 338000 km2 Cf. Hong Kong: population 7M, area 1100 km2 A lot of forest (76 % of area), a lot of private land-owners Our task is to evaluate pilot projects from a decision analytic perspective and give recommendations for future Funding Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Selection of Conservation Sites:  Selection of Conservation Sites Mix of resource allocation and multicriteria decision-making: How to model the biodiversity of the resulting portfolio (network)? Additivity of value functions Network’s value with regard to sites? Sites’ values with regard to criterion-specific values? Which sites of different costs should be selected with regard to multiple criteria, subject to a limited budget? DA / Optimization Methods in Reserve Site Selection:  DA / Optimization Methods in Reserve Site Selection Several optimization models with one criterion Maximize # of species subject to a limited # of sites Minimize # of sites such that predefined species occur on these sites Potentially optimal networks + SMART/MOP (Memtsas 2003) SMART and multiobjective programming (distance from utopian vector) to compare potentially optimal networks Sensitivity analysis on weights Pareto optimal networks + modified AHP (Moffett et al. 2006) Modified AHP to compare Pareto optimal networks (approximation) Sensitivity analysis on weights Pilot Projects in Finland:  Pilot Projects in Finland Five pilots In the biggest pilot, some 400000 euros have been spent annually since 2003 Average monetary compensation about 200 euros / ha / year Land-owner’s expression of interest some information on the site’s conservation values Evaluation of the site estimation of biodiversity values (compensation estimate) Land-owner’s offer assistance provided (second evaluation) Negotiations, decision examination of one or several sites No deal Deal Selection Procedures in Pilot Projects:  Selection Procedures in Pilot Projects Site-by-site selection: candidates are accepted or discarded soon after evaluation and offer time Portfolio selection: selection is made at a later date from a group of many site candidates expression of interest evaluation specification of offer decision Decision Analysis in Voluntary Conservation:  Decision Analysis in Voluntary Conservation Design of a decision analytic selection procedure: 'Site-by-site' or through portfolio analysis? … or something between these? Evaluation of sites Accuracy of data / evaluations Modeling of sites’ conservation values Decision support Selection of sites Differences between Selection Procedures (1/2):  Differences between Selection Procedures (1/2) Number of evaluations Costly Target of choosing the best site network Spatial aspects Decision delay Information about unselected (but feasible) sites Candidates’ prevailing biodiversity values Differences between Selection Procedures (2/2):  Differences between Selection Procedures (2/2) Portfolio selection tends to be more cost-effective than site-by-site selection if: Site-specific cost of evaluation is not very high The share of infeasible site candidates is not very high The budget is not too small Multi-Criteria Modeling in Pilot Projects:  Multi-Criteria Modeling in Pilot Projects Multi-criteria methods used to Form compensation estimates for forest owners Evaluate site candidates Support selection Additive models based on several conservation values Area, dead wood, distance to other conservation sites, rare species regarded as criteria Weights wi represent relative importance of criteria Deficiencies in Pilot Projects’ Multi-Criteria Models:  Deficiencies in Pilot Projects’ Multi-Criteria Models Lack of sensitivity analysis Use of point estimates for scores and weights leads to a single overall value for a site Piecewise constant value functions Network requirements not explicitly accounted for E.g. the total area of selected sites must be at least 250 ha Figure: valuation of logs Preference Programming: Incomplete Information:  Preference Programming: Incomplete Information Site characteristics The volume of dead wood on site x is between 8 and 11 m3 Relative importance of criteria E.g. Salo and Hämäläinen (2001), Salo and Punkka (2005) Area is more important than landscape values Dead wood is the most important criterion If the maximum value w.r.t. area is 20, max value w.r.t. burned wood is between 80 and 120 Feasible Weights and Scores:  Feasible Weights and Scores In the absence of information feasible criterion weights and scores belong to Incomplete information (linear constraints) leads to subsets Information set Supporting Site Network Selection with RPM:  Supporting Site Network Selection with RPM Incomplete information Subset of sites = a site network = a portfolio p Select a feasible site network p to maximize overall value with budget B Additive, consistent with value tree analysis Comparing Site Networks: Dominance Relation:  Comparing Site Networks: Dominance Relation No unique overall values  no unique optimal portfolio usually Portfolios compared through dominance relation Non-Dominated Portfolios:  Non-Dominated Portfolios Portfolios that are not dominated by any other portfolio Figure: n = 2, fixed scores w1 within the interval [0.4, 0.7] p1 dominates p2 p1 and p3 non-dominated Non-dominated portfolios of interest No other feasible portfolio has greater overall value across the information set Non-dominated portfolios with information S’S are a subset of non-dominated portfolios with S Not necessarily potentially optimal RPM – Site Oriented Analysis:  RPM – Site Oriented Analysis Sites that belong to every non-dominated site network: Core sites If excluded, the selected network is dominated  include Sites that do not belong to any non-dominated site network Exterior sites If included, the selected network is dominated  exclude Borderline sites belong to some but not all non-dominated networks Core index of site Share of non-dominated portfolios in which a site is included (CI=0%-100%) RPM Framework:  Approach to promote robustness through incomplete information (integrated sensitivity analysis). Accounts for group statements RPM Framework Decision rules, e.g. minimax regret •Narrower intervals •Stricter weights • Score intervals • Loose weight statements Large number of site candidates. Evaluated w.r.t. multiple criteria. Border line sites 'uncertain zone' Focus Exterior sites 'Robust zone'  Discard Core sites 'Robust zone'  Choose Core Border Exterior Negotiation. Manual iteration. Heuristic rules. Selected Not selected Example: Sensitivity of Recommendations (1/3):  Example: Sensitivity of Recommendations (1/3) Incomplete ordinal information Importance-order of criteria groups (6) known No stance is taken on the order of importance within the groups Criteria with same w* form a group 20, 15 and 10 % intervals E.g. with 10 % interval the weight of old aspens (0.120) is allowed to vary within [0.9 x 0.120, 1.1 x 0.120] = [0.108, 0.132] Data Real data on 27 selected sites with criterion-specific values (non-normalized) Weights (wi*) and scores derived from criterion-specific values Budget 50 % of sum of offers Example: Sensitivity of Recommendations (2/3):  Example: Sensitivity of Recommendations (2/3) Effect of weight perturbation Example: Sensitivity of Recommendations (3/3):  Example: Sensitivity of Recommendations (3/3) Differences between ND networks with 10 % intervals Examine site candidates in more detail Spatial aspects? Choose sites with highest core index (6/7) ND #3, ND #4 and ND #6 become 'infeasible' Decision rules (Salo and Hämäläinen 2001) recommend network 'ND #6' Precise weights w* lead to solution 'ND #7' Possibilities of RPM in Reserve Site Selection:  Possibilities of RPM in Reserve Site Selection Design of DA selection procedure: 'Site-by-site' or portfolio? Synergies and network requirements can be explicitly included Evaluation of sites Incomplete information on sites’ characteristics Information on how further evalution efforts should be focused effectively Modeling of sites’ conservation values Generic model Additive models widely used and easy to understand Incomplete information on weights Selection of sites A priori sensitivity analysis Several robust decision recommendations References :  References Liesiö, J., Mild, P., Salo, A., (2005). Preference Programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and Project Selection, European Journal of Operational Research, (to appear). Memtsas, D., (2003). Multiobjective Programming Methods in the Reserve Selection Problem, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 150, pp. 640–652. Moffett, A., Dyer, J. S., Sarkar, S. (2006). Integrating Biodiversity Representation with Multiple Criteria in North-Central Namibia Using Non-Dominated Alternatives and a Modified Analytic Hierarchy Process. Biological Conservation, Vol. 129, pp. 181–191. Salo, A., Hämäläinen R. P. (2001). Preference Ratios in Multiattribute Evaluation (PRIME) – Elicitation and Decision Procedures under Incomplete Information. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 31, s. 533–545. Salo, A., Punkka, A., (2005). Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 163, pp. 338–356.

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Belly

Capital budgeting
28. 04. 2008
0 views

Capital budgeting

Nice pics slides
17. 09. 2007
0 views

Nice pics slides

perceptron 2 4 2008
30. 04. 2008
0 views

perceptron 2 4 2008

pham07
18. 04. 2008
0 views

pham07

FC STONE GREAT WALL1
17. 04. 2008
0 views

FC STONE GREAT WALL1

Sauter Nuts Bolt ETFs
16. 04. 2008
0 views

Sauter Nuts Bolt ETFs

UnivOfGuelphNov26th
14. 04. 2008
0 views

UnivOfGuelphNov26th

fujiwara
13. 04. 2008
0 views

fujiwara

Week 08 Finance
10. 04. 2008
0 views

Week 08 Finance

Lct1
09. 04. 2008
0 views

Lct1

outlook
19. 06. 2007
0 views

outlook

Microsoft Windows Vista
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Microsoft Windows Vista

2004 presentation
13. 09. 2007
0 views

2004 presentation

Australian
13. 09. 2007
0 views

Australian

NBB
13. 09. 2007
0 views

NBB

Thilo Ewald ppt
13. 09. 2007
0 views

Thilo Ewald ppt

20031216 NASANIH presentation
05. 10. 2007
0 views

20031216 NASANIH presentation

mna presentation
17. 10. 2007
0 views

mna presentation

lect29 groupwords
18. 10. 2007
0 views

lect29 groupwords

Essential Q Imperialism 2
22. 10. 2007
0 views

Essential Q Imperialism 2

p puska
07. 09. 2007
0 views

p puska

Productivity
07. 09. 2007
0 views

Productivity

honeyPots
13. 09. 2007
0 views

honeyPots

NDB Bensouda
23. 10. 2007
0 views

NDB Bensouda

181105
24. 10. 2007
0 views

181105

METO200Lect19 20
05. 10. 2007
0 views

METO200Lect19 20

oksupercompsymp2006 talk matrow
17. 10. 2007
0 views

oksupercompsymp2006 talk matrow

mareyes
25. 10. 2007
0 views

mareyes

2 01 3
29. 10. 2007
0 views

2 01 3

Online Class Evaluations 8
30. 10. 2007
0 views

Online Class Evaluations 8

1 3Grand father Journey
02. 11. 2007
0 views

1 3Grand father Journey

TuijaKuisma
07. 09. 2007
0 views

TuijaKuisma

Metallsektor
14. 11. 2007
0 views

Metallsektor

insects in out
13. 09. 2007
0 views

insects in out

oasen
16. 11. 2007
0 views

oasen

Unit 10 Scent Theory
17. 11. 2007
0 views

Unit 10 Scent Theory

SPEAR 2004
21. 11. 2007
0 views

SPEAR 2004

danse macabre
22. 11. 2007
0 views

danse macabre

kmutt
13. 09. 2007
0 views

kmutt

NCUR SDT 4 19 05
04. 01. 2008
0 views

NCUR SDT 4 19 05

gerber colloq UICtop feb2002
15. 10. 2007
0 views

gerber colloq UICtop feb2002

Lioi Altered Version
07. 01. 2008
0 views

Lioi Altered Version

Five Halloween Pumpkins audacity
02. 11. 2007
0 views

Five Halloween Pumpkins audacity

smime
07. 10. 2007
0 views

smime

CdF BEC
20. 11. 2007
0 views

CdF BEC

WEB C Schumacher
23. 10. 2007
0 views

WEB C Schumacher

bsb
13. 09. 2007
0 views

bsb

2006052213550876705
03. 01. 2008
0 views

2006052213550876705

1 11
19. 02. 2008
0 views

1 11

Ukraine
20. 02. 2008
0 views

Ukraine

truck tmp1002
27. 02. 2008
0 views

truck tmp1002

ace program plan
29. 02. 2008
0 views

ace program plan

takala
07. 09. 2007
0 views

takala

464 TM12
14. 12. 2007
0 views

464 TM12

ICEBP presentation for ANZCP A
10. 03. 2008
0 views

ICEBP presentation for ANZCP A

aionescu cmc dec06
30. 10. 2007
0 views

aionescu cmc dec06

creationtalk
11. 03. 2008
0 views

creationtalk

Data Mining 2
12. 03. 2008
0 views

Data Mining 2

Omaha Pres for NAP web2
29. 12. 2007
0 views

Omaha Pres for NAP web2

sustainable development part1
26. 03. 2008
0 views

sustainable development part1

Schrage
31. 08. 2007
0 views

Schrage

IHYJP Kickoff Poster
09. 10. 2007
0 views

IHYJP Kickoff Poster

020703 DHCAL
31. 08. 2007
0 views

020703 DHCAL

Vimpel Com
31. 08. 2007
0 views

Vimpel Com

Overland vista uib itforum
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Overland vista uib itforum

OS Notes
19. 06. 2007
0 views

OS Notes

NVIDIA OpenGL on Vista
19. 06. 2007
0 views

NVIDIA OpenGL on Vista

NonAdmin Pilot
19. 06. 2007
0 views

NonAdmin Pilot

New Mexico NETUG WPF
19. 06. 2007
0 views

New Mexico NETUG WPF

nercomp SIG
19. 06. 2007
0 views

nercomp SIG

MSAM Launch Vista Final Updated
19. 06. 2007
0 views

MSAM Launch Vista Final Updated

MOSS WF Talk
19. 06. 2007
0 views

MOSS WF Talk

More Online Games
19. 06. 2007
0 views

More Online Games

MHay Wireless
19. 06. 2007
0 views

MHay Wireless

Marl WSUS3
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Marl WSUS3

mail list news
19. 06. 2007
0 views

mail list news

Lenovo UofU
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Lenovo UofU

Lecture II
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Lecture II

Smith F09
13. 10. 2007
0 views

Smith F09

35508
26. 02. 2008
0 views

35508

pinar
19. 06. 2007
0 views

pinar

pgp
19. 06. 2007
0 views

pgp

pessner
19. 06. 2007
0 views

pessner

Overview Presentation
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Overview Presentation

North Dakota Annuity Deck
19. 06. 2007
0 views

North Dakota Annuity Deck

Rutland Presentation plenary4
31. 08. 2007
0 views

Rutland Presentation plenary4

NAMI NC 112707
07. 01. 2008
0 views

NAMI NC 112707

finland poster
07. 09. 2007
0 views

finland poster

sample
27. 09. 2007
0 views

sample

dtk
13. 09. 2007
0 views

dtk

Phenotyping Oxford
17. 10. 2007
0 views

Phenotyping Oxford

dog breeding
19. 11. 2007
0 views

dog breeding

5th trondhiem
29. 11. 2007
0 views

5th trondhiem

policies regs
28. 12. 2007
0 views

policies regs

GetuHailu
13. 09. 2007
0 views

GetuHailu

genealogy
01. 10. 2007
0 views

genealogy

net info 050928
19. 06. 2007
0 views

net info 050928

chap7
15. 10. 2007
0 views

chap7

Rafael Guillen CCAD SIAM mar06
22. 10. 2007
0 views

Rafael Guillen CCAD SIAM mar06

na3 Russia
31. 08. 2007
0 views

na3 Russia

Sois Global Programs3 12 04
31. 08. 2007
0 views

Sois Global Programs3 12 04

sacha
31. 08. 2007
0 views

sacha

amm pres valdez lacnic
22. 10. 2007
0 views

amm pres valdez lacnic

nwnt
19. 06. 2007
0 views

nwnt

STAR shielding 2
13. 11. 2007
0 views

STAR shielding 2

voiceline overview
17. 10. 2007
0 views

voiceline overview

gross PPT
07. 04. 2008
0 views

gross PPT

WP1a
15. 10. 2007
0 views

WP1a

Microarray Data Standard
07. 11. 2007
0 views

Microarray Data Standard

Lim Badejo Dell Presentation 1
19. 06. 2007
0 views

Lim Badejo Dell Presentation 1

Dvoretsky
31. 08. 2007
0 views

Dvoretsky

qm1 web
03. 01. 2008
0 views

qm1 web

IAPS
07. 09. 2007
0 views

IAPS

yalestudy
28. 09. 2007
0 views

yalestudy

digvlsideslec1
12. 10. 2007
0 views

digvlsideslec1

mead
13. 09. 2007
0 views

mead

bashmakov
31. 08. 2007
0 views

bashmakov