Evaluating labour requirements within a multi-objective land use planning tool Keith Matthews, Kevin...

Evaluating labour requirements within a multi-objective land use planning tool

Keith Matthews, Kevin Buchan, Andy DalzielMODSIM 2003

IntroductionMulti-functional land management

Roles for research and decision support systems (DSS)

Resource Scheduling Tool (RST)Importance of labour and capital equipmentFinancial viability of alternative land use strategiesSocial impacts – amount and quality of employmentSocial sustainability

Utopian Solution

Obj

ectiv

e 2

Opt

imum

Objective 1 Optimum

RegionInfeasible

RegionFeasible

Pareto-optimal range Objective1

Pare

to-o

ptim

al r

ange

Obj

ectiv

e2

Objective1Pareto-optimal solutions

Obj

ectiv

e2

Pareto-optimality

Comparing DSS with practitioner allocations

F-2 (Diversity)

AG-2 (Closest)

E1-2 (Financial)

Resource Scheduling Tool (RST)Schedules of resource use for land use plans

Resources – labour and capital equipment

LabourFull-, part-, seasonal-Normal-time, over-time, limits(?)Wage costSkills determining tasks that can undertake

Capital equipmentDetermines work ratesCompatibility constraintsReplacement lifespan, depreciationRepair, running and legal costs

Resource Scheduling Tool (RST)Schedules of tasks performed by or using the resources

Tasks – defined from the pattern of land use and management

MagnitudeLand area, weight of material or numbers of livestock

PrerequisitesChaining tasks – e.g. preparation for arable cropsStart-to-start relationships

Resources requiredPart of the definition of the management regimenCan be all or part contracted

PrioritisedAnimal welfare, high financial impacts, maintenance

Time-windowsFixed start and completion dates, weather effectsEarliest completion with normal-time

RST Architecture

RST operationsImplemented as steps, transitions and transfers

RST operationsTasks allocated resources in steps 2-7

RST operationsTasks in ready queue – depend on the scheduler clock

Clock steps by week

Time taken – sub hourWhen within week – not determined

Sub-hourly precision but weekly resolution

Tasks that can be completed in the weekallowing for inefficiency (%)

RST operationsWithin the week tasks scheduled by priority

Base and Variable

Base from task typeVariable – heuristics

Tasks less complete

Tasks closer to deadlines

Variable is float – so no tiebreaking

RST operationsResources allocated to prioritised tasks - heuristics

Labour with most unallocated time

Prime movers of minimum size

Implements with fastestwork rates

Maximum single allocation – parameter

Minimum allocation other than to complete.

RST operationsTask blocking – through lack of resources for prerequisites

Prerequisite cannot be completed, so partially contracted – at the earliest date

The follow-on tasks are then be reconsidered

For example a three man task may block a two manunnecessarily

Rollback where resource constraints within windowscan be problematical

RST Raw OutputsWORK done by resourcesDate Sub-schedule Job ID Units Wrkd Total Units Cost Resource Hrs Worked Res Cost NT/OT

01/01/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191716 193.036 193.04 35.69 Upland Sheep Silage 4.5 0 NT

01/01/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191716 193.036 193.04 35.69 Full Time Shepherd 4.5 35.69 NT

01/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79 75hp Tractor 19.87 150.22 NT

01/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79 Full Time Stockman 19.87 157.57 NT

01/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79 Loader (Attachment) 19.87 0 NT

01/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191717 284.004 284 307.79 Sucker Cattle Silage 19.87 0 NT

01/01/2003 Spring Barley Ploughing 191718 9 15.25 899.4 Full Time 30 237.9 NT

01/01/2003 Spring Barley Ploughing 191718 9 15.25 899.4 Plough (2 furrow) 30 434.7 NT

01/01/2003 Spring Barley Ploughing 191718 9 15.25 899.4 75hp Tractor 30 226.8 NT

01/01/2003 Spring Barley Ploughing 191719 6.254 15.25 625.09 Full Time Shepherd 20.85 165.34 NT

01/01/2003 Spring Barley Ploughing 191719 6.254 15.25 625.09 Plough (2 furrow) 20.85 302.12 NT

01/01/2003 Spring Barley Ploughing 191719 6.254 15.25 625.09 75hp Tractor 20.85 157.63 NT


08/01/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191720 193.036 193.04 35.69 Full Time Stockman 4.5 35.69 NT




08/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191721 284.004 284 307.79 Full Time 19.87 157.57 NT

08/01/2003 Upland Sheep (General) Scanning 191722 193.036 193.04 47.1 Full Time Shepherd 5.94 47.1 NT

08/01/2003 Upland Sheep (General) Scanning 191722 193.036 193.04 47.1 Scanning Equipment 5.94 0 NT

15/01/2003 Upland Sheep (Inside Feeding) Silage Feed Inside 191723 193.036 193.04 35.69 Full Time Stockman 4.5 35.69 NT



15/01/2003 Suckler Cattle (Spring Calving) Silage Feeding 191724 284.004 284 307.79 Full Time 19.87 157.57 NT



15/01/2003 Upland Sheep (General) Trimming 191725 193.036 193.04 51.07 Upland Sheep Foot 6.44 0 NT

15/01/2003 Upland Sheep (General) Trimming 191725 193.036 193.04 51.07 Full Time Shepherd 6.44 51.07 NT

RST ApplicationHartwood Farm – research station – N. Lanarkshire, Scotland.350 cattle, 1200 sheep, 15 ha arable, 23 ha broadleaves

RST Results

Dominant demand by labour intensive cattle operations

Front loading of schedule and conflict between cattle and sheep enterprises

Low overall utilisation (60%) – but peaking

Woodlands possibly significant

Alternative cattle regimens

Difference from Current Allocation

-80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

(E1-2)

(E2)

(G1-1)

(AG1)

(AG2)

(SA2)

(G2)

(BA1)

(C2)

(G1-2)

(F2)

(E1-1)

(B1)

NPV

Capital Costs

OperationalCosts

LabourRequired

Diversity

Resource trade-offs – E1-2 – Estate Owner


-80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

(E1-2)

(E2)

(G1-1)

(AG1)

(AG2)

(SA2)

(G2)

(BA1)

(C2)

(G1-2)

(F2)

(E1-1)

(B1)

NPV

Capital Costs

OperationalCosts

LabourRequired

Diversity

Resource trade-offs – BA1 – Bank Advisor


-80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

(E1-2)

(E2)

(G1-1)

(AG1)

(AG2)

(SA2)

(G2)

(BA1)

(C2)

(G1-2)

(F2)

(E1-1)

(B1)

NPV

Capital Costs

OperationalCosts

LabourRequired

Diversity

Resource trade-offs – G1-2 - Extensification

RST Conclusions

Significant potential for RST especially when linked to multi-objective land use planning tools

Roles in counter-factual analysis, social learning or conflictresolution

Land use planning is highly multi-objective and any system should be able to evaluate the trade-off between objectivesand present a range of alternatives

Assessing the significant metrics can be difficult

Evaluating labour requirements within a multi-objective land use planning tool Keith Matthews, Kevin...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluating labour requirements within a multi-objective land use planning tool Keith Matthews, Kevin...