Difference between revisions of "LMS"

Revision as of 23:38, 11 September 2010

General System description

System Name: Landscape Management System

Acronym: LMS

Brief overview

LMS coordinates the flow of information among existing growth models, computer visualization software, and analysis tools to allow the user to simulate the growth and management of stands and landscapes and to view the outcomes.

Scope of the system

The Landscape Management System (LMS) and companion tools are an evolving set of computer applications designed to facilitate the analysis and communication of landscape-scale forest management decisions. They use standard inventory information to integrate many analyses and predict complex changes in stands and landscapes over time. The Microsoft Windows computer-based system coordinates the flow of information among existing growth models, computer visualization software, and analysis tools to allow the user to simulate the growth of stands and landscapes and to view the outcomes using a "point-and-click" system. Preferred management scenarios are developed in LMS by evaluating multiple projections that can be done either at the stand or landscape level. Companion tools allow the user to develop and compare many alternatives very rapidly.

System origin

In the late 1980s, the state government of Washington asked Professor Chad Oliver for help in managing their forests for multiple values because of intense political conflicts between timber and wildlife advocates. It did not begin as a software project but rather as an effort to organize theory and information relevant to the problem. The complexity of information involved led toward the development of a computerized DSS. Support from a local representative to the national government helped secure financing from the US Forest Service, and an initial version was released publicly in 1997.

Support for specific issues

• Trade-off methods
• Risk analysis
• Landscape planning

Support for specific thematic areas of a problem type

• Silvicultural
• Certification
• Conservation
• Restoration
• Policy /intervention alternatives

Capability to support decision making phases

Related systems

• Forest Vegetation Simulator & ORGANON: growth models
• Stand Visualization System (SVS): stand visualization
• Envision: landscape visualization
• Toggle: facilitates the generation of treatment alternatives

Data and data models

Typical spatial extent of application

• Multi-owner forest
• Single-owner forest
• Site

Forest data input

• Forest
• Stand
• Tree

Type of information input from user (via GUI)

• Management
• Biophysical

Models

Forest models

• Silvicultural
• Fire

Social models

Decision Support

Definition of management interventions

[Define what is available for the manager to intervene in the forest: time of harvest, plantations, thinnings, reconversions...Existence of prescription writer, simple enumeration of all possibilities, scenario simulation , etc.]

Typical temporal scale of application

[Define the temporal scale of the application: E.g., operational and immediate level, Tactical planning (short term) and strategic level.]

Types of decisions supported

Decision-making processes and models

• Simulation
• Evaluation

Output

Types of outputs

• 20 standard tables: standing and/or harvested volume, inventors wind hazard, habitat suitability for different species, costs and returns and other features.
• Visualizations of conditions via companion programs: landscape (Envision) and stand (SVS)

Spatial analysis capabilities

Abilities to address interdisciplinary, multi-scaled, and political issues

Produces coordinated results for decision makers at different scales: Capability to evaluate landscapes as an aggregate of stands.

Facilitates social negotiation / learning: Useful in demonstration of silvicultural alternatives for evaluation of alternatives.

System

System requirements

Operating systems: Windows2000, WindowsXP

Other software needed: Includes FVS growth models, and WinSVS & Envision visualization systems.

Development status: Regularly distributed

Architecture and major DSS components

[Describe the basic architecture of the system in software and hardware. Desktop client-server, web based, as well as the integration with available systems.Basic data flow, focusing on retrieval of required input and propagation and implementations of decisions. Mention its modular and scalability capabilities.]

Usage

[Describe the level of use: Research level use, Industry use, Government use.]

LMS has been used by governmental agencies at the state and federal levels (and also by private landowners & consulting foresters?). A number of cases are available on the website:

• Chernobyl
• Indian Island - DoD, NDCEE
• Maine
• Mid Forest Lodge, MI
• Pack Forest, WA
• San Carlos Apache, AZ
• Satsop, WA
• Solduc, WA

Computational limitations

[Describe the system limitations: e.g. number of management units, number of vehicles, time horizon.]

User interface

User interface quality: Designed for use by non-experts

Complexity of system / user interface: Medium - the underlying tools are fairly complex, but LMS simplifies their use by providing a common interface and connections between them.

Documentation and support

Documentation: Windows Help File, Tutorials (pdf) on-line or distributed on CD-ROM.

Training: 10+ tutorials are available online. Online discussion group. 2-3 day training sessions offered (see web site).

Installation

Prerequisite knowledge needed: Forestry knowledge useful. Microsoft Excel useful for customized analysis.

Cost: Free

Demo:

References

Cited references

External resources

Website: http://lms.cfr.washington.edu/

• McCarter, J.B., J.S. Wilson, P.J. Baker, J.L. Moffett, and C.D. Oliver. 1998. Landscape management through integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of Forestry. June 1998:17-23.
• Marzluff, J. M., J. J. Millspaugh, K. R. Ceder, C. D. Oliver, J. Whithey, J. B. McCarter, C. L. Mason, and J. Comnick. 2002. Modeling changes in wildlife habitat and timber revenues in response forest management. Forest Science 48:191-202.
• Comnick, J.M. 2002. Development and Application of a Decision Support Tool to Analyze Alternatives for Landscapes Composed of Multiple Ownerships. College of Forest Resources. Seattle, WA : University of Washington.
• Ceder, K.R.; Marzluff, J.M. 2002. Linking tools of forest and wildlife managers: wildlife habitat evaluation using the landscape management system. In: Crookston, N.L.; Havis, R.N., eds. Second Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station: 200-208.
• Courtmanche, J. 2002. LMS Software: Changing the Face of Forest Management. Environment Yale. Fall: 3-7. http://environment.yale.edu/pubs/EnvironmentYale-Fall-2002/