Impact of Forest Operations in Four Biogeographical Regions in Europe: Finding the Key Drivers for Future Development

Abstract

Purpose of the Review The aim of the review was to better understand the impacts of the dominant harvesting systems in Europe, namely harvester-forwarder (HFW), chainsaw-skidder (CSK), and chainsaw-cable yarder (CCY). Furthermore, we aimed to learn how the impact categories environment, economy, ergonomics, people and society, and quality optimization are related to the European biogeographical regions Boreal, Continental, Alpine, and Mediterranean forests. Based on this, key drivers for the future development of forest operations were identified. It was specifically not the aim to develop models through the outcome of this study. Recent Findings HFW harvesting systems dominate in Boreal (99%) and Continental forests (72%). In Alpine forests the most relevant, even when not dominant, harvesting system is CCY (47%). CSK harvesting systems are applied in all biogeographical regions, with a focus on Mediterranean (70%), Alpine (50%) and Continental (22%) forests. Major drivers for harvesting system development were identified: (i) increased environmental constraints, (ii) increased complexity of harvesting caused by an increasing area of mixed-forest stands, (iii) increased resource efficiency fostered by a growing demand for wood products, (iv) a reduced available work force resulting from heightened competition for skilled worker and an aging population, and (v) more transparent work and material flows through the introduction of digitalization. Summary A literature review from 110 journal articles and 975 datasets from four biogeographical regions in Europe, specifically from Estonia, Germany, Spain and Switzerland was performed. Most of the reviewed papers included information about economic or environmental impacts, while ergonomics, quality optimization and societal aspects were less in focus. The impacts from the HFW, CSK and CCY harvesting systems were evaluated against regional conditions. Unfortunately, a common understanding of harvesting system evaluation is missing, which limits the comparability of results between different regions.