J. For. Sci., 2013, 59(12):479-486 | DOI: 10.17221/45/2013-JFS

Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: A case study in south-west Western AustraliaOriginal Paper

M.R. Ghaffariyan, M. Brown
Australian Forest Operations Research Alliance (AFORA), University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Australia

Different factors can impact on the timber harvesting methods including stand characteristics, ground conditions, extraction distance, climate, silvicultural treatments and social interests. The multiple-criteria analysis is an effective methodology for helping foresters decide what system to apply depending on their operations specifications. Four harvesting methods were compared in Western Australian Eucalypt plantations including cut-to-length (CTL), in-field chipping using a delimbing and debarking flail integrated with the chipper (IFC-DDC), in-field chipping using a chipper with a separate flail machine for delimbing and debarking (IFC-F/C) and whole tree to roadside (WTR). The decision criterions consisted of total operating cost (from stand to mill gate), yield per ha, harvesting residues, fuel consumption and bark content of the chips. The Promethee method was used to evaluate the alternatives using Decision Lab software. Based on the results, the IFC-DCC was the best harvest method while WTR method was the worst harvesting alternative in the case study area. IFC-DCC method resulted in the lowest operating cost and the highest recovered yield per ha compared to the other harvesting methods.

Keywords: harvesting method; cut-to-length; in-field chipping; operating costs; yield; multiple-criteria analysis

Published: December 31, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M. Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: A case study in south-west Western Australia. J. For. Sci. 2013;59(12):479-486. doi: 10.17221/45/2013-JFS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Acuna M. (2011): Australian logging productivity and cost appraisal model (ALPACA). Hobart, CRC for Forestry. (internal tool box).
    2. Acuna M., Kellogg L. (2009): Evaluation of alternative cut-to-length harvesting technology for native forest thinning in Australia. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 20: 19-27. Go to original source...
    3. Brans J.P., Mareschal B. (2000): How to decide with PROMETHEE, ULB/VUB Brussels Free University. Available at http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/~bmaresc/PromWeb.htm
    4. Brans J. P., Mareschal, B., Vincke P. (1986): How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method for MCDM. European Journal of Operations Research, 24: 228-238. Go to original source...
    5. Brown M., Mitchell R., Wiedemann J. (2013): Productivity and utilisation of an in-field chipping harvest system in an unmanaged blue gum coppice stand in Western Australia. Industry Bulletin, 1: 5.
    6. Burgers J.A. (2002): Soil and long-term site productivity values. In: Richardson J., Björheden R., Hakkila P., Lowe A.T., Smith C.T. (eds): Bioenergy from Sustainable Forestry - Guiding Principles and Practice. Dotrecht, Kluwer: 165-189.
    7. Conway S. (1982): Logging practices: principles of timber harvesting systems. San Francisco, Miller Freeman Publications: 432.
    8. Ghaffariyan M.R. (2008): Selecting the best skidding system using AHP: a case study in Northern Iran. Journal of Forest Science Sofia, 2: 77-86.
    9. Ghaffariyan M.R. (2012): Assessment of harvest residues from different harvesting operation sites in Australia. CRC for Forestry Bulletin 31, September 2012: 3.
    10. Ghaffariyan M.R. (2013): Comparing productivity-cost of roadside processing system and roadside chipping system in Western Australia. Journal of Forest Science, 59: 204-210. Go to original source...
    11. Ghaffariyan M.R., Brown M., Acuna M., Sessions J., Kuehmaier M., Wiedemann J. (2011): Biomass harvesting in Eucalyptus plantations in Western Australia. Southern Forests: a Journal of Forest Science, 73: 149-154. Go to original source...
    12. Ghaffariyan M.R., Sessions J. Brown M. (2012a): Machine productivity and residual harvesting residues associated with a cut-to-length harvest system in southern Tasmania. Southern Forests: a Journal of Forest Science, 74: 229-235. Go to original source...
    13. Ghaffariyan M.R., Sessions J. Brown M. (2012b): Evaluating productivity, cost, chip quality and biomass recovery for a mobile chipper in Australian road side chipping operations. Journal of Forest Science, 58: 530-535. Go to original source...
    14. Hakkila P. (2002): Operations with reduced environmental impact. In: Richardson J., Björheden R., Hakkila P., Lowe A.T., Smith C.T. (eds): Bioenergy from Sustainable Forestry - Guiding Principles and Practice. Dotrecht, Kluwer: 244-261.
    15. Hartley D.S. (2003): A Case Study on the Effect of Four Silvicultural Prescriptions on Cable Harvesting Productivity and Cost in Western Washington. [Master Thesis.] Moscow, University of Idaho: 42.
    16. Holzleitner F., Stampfer K., Ghaffariyan M.R., Visser R. (2010): Economic benefits of long term forestry machine data capture: Austrian federal forest case study. In: Proceeding of 43th International Symposium on Forestry Mechanization. Padova, 11.-14. July 2010. University of Padova: 1-8.
    17. Kangas J. (1994): Multiple-use planning of resources by using the AHP. Scandinavian journal of Forest Research, 7: 259-268. Go to original source...
    18. Kellogg D.L., Bettinger P. (1994): Thinning productivity and cost for mechanized cut-to-length system in the Northwest Pacific coast region of the USA. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 5: 43-54. Go to original source...
    19. Kuehmaier M., Stampfer K. (2010): Development of a multi-attribute spatial decision support system in selecting timber harvesting systems. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 31: 75-88.
    20. Lexer M.J., Vacik H., Palmetzhofer D., Oitzinger G. (2005): A decision support tool to improve forestry extension services for small private landowners in southern Austria. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49: 81-102. Go to original source...
    21. Magagnotti N., Spinelli R. (2012): COST Action FP0902 - Good practice guideline for biomass production studies. Available at http://www.forestenergy.org
    22. Mitchell R., Wiedemann J. (2012): Volume recovery comparison for four different harvesting systems in shortrotation bluegum plantations. CRC for Forestry Bulletin 27, June 2012: 5.
    23. Murray D.M., von Gadow K. (1991): Prioritizing mountain catchments area. Journal of Environmental Management, 32: 357-366. Go to original source...
    24. Rauscher H.M., Loyd F.T., Lofits D.L., Twery M.J. (2000): A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 27: 195-226. Go to original source...
    25. Raynolds K.M. (2001): Prioritizing salmon habitat restoration with the AHP, SMART, uncertain data. In: The Analytic Hierarchy Process in Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making Managing Forest Ecosystems. Dordrecht, Kluwer: 199-217. Go to original source...
    26. Sheppard S.R.J., Meitner M. (2005): Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management, 207: 171-187. Go to original source...
    27. Shiba M. (1995): Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)-Based Multi-Attribute benefit structure analysis of road network systems in mountainous rural areas of Japan. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 7: 41-50. Go to original source...
    28. Stampfer K., Lexer J.M. (2003): Multi criteria evaluation of thinning operations in steep terrain. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on New Trends in Wood Harvesting with Cable Systems for Sustainable Forest Management in the Mountains. Ossiach, 18.-24. June 2001. Ossiach, Government of Austria at the Forestry Training Centre: 73-79.
    29. Stampfer K., Steinmueller Th. (2004): Harvester und Seilgeraet in Steilgelaende. [Harvester and Cable Yarder in Steep Terrain.] Wien, Univiversität fuer Bodenkultur Wien: 25.
    30. Stampfer K., Limbeck-Lilienau B., Kanzian Ch., Viertler K. (2003): Baumverfahren im Seilgelaende. [Whole Tree Extraction in Ateep Terrain.] Wien, FPP-Kooperationsabkommen Forst-Platte-Papier: 27.
    31. Vacik H., Lexer M. (2001): Application of a spatial decision support system in managing the protection forests of Vienna for sustained yield of water resources. Forest Ecology and Management, 143: 65-76. Go to original source...
    32. Walsh D., Wiedemann J., Strandgard M., Ghaffariyan M.R., Skinnell J. (2011): 'FibrePlus' study: Harvesting stemwood waste pieces in pine clearfall. CRC for Forestry Bulletin 18, July 2011: 3.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content