Benchmarking technical and cost factors in forest felling and processing operations in different global regions during the period 2013–2014

ABSTRACT In a global bioeconomy, benchmarking costs is essential in the evaluation of current forest harvesting systems and addressing decisions on the most efficient supply chains for available forest resources. Benchmarking cost rates in forestry is challenging, due to a lack of harmonized terminology and difficulties in collecting information on comparable forest technologies. This study provides a first-time series of cost factors to be used when modeling and evaluating the cost competitiveness of forest felling and processing operations on a global scale. It is based on an expert survey using a standardized method of data collection. This benchmarking identifies and updates the knowledge of technical and socio-economic factors capable of influencing the cost rates of forest felling and processing operations across different regions. This study is expected to act as a reference for larger investigations, and for regular updates, with the aim to provide current data that can be used by forest practitioners and decision makers for improving their cost efficiency and for designing future supply systems more effectively.

[1]  Jori Uusitalo,et al.  Applying the activity-based costing to cut-to-length timber harvesting and trucking. , 2009 .

[2]  Ola Lindroos,et al.  The correlation between long-term productivity and short-term performance ratings of harvester operators , 2011 .

[3]  Lars Eliasson,et al.  Comparison of Single-Grip Harvester Productivity in Clear- and Shelterwood Cutting , 2013 .

[4]  Juha Laitila,et al.  Variation in age, annual usage and resale price of cut-to-length machinery in different regions of Europe , 2016 .

[5]  Natascia Magagnotti,et al.  Annual use, economic life and residual value of cut-to-length harvesting machines , 2011 .

[6]  Natascia Magagnotti,et al.  Cable logging contract rates in the alps: The effect of regional variability and technical constraints , 2015 .

[7]  Lars Eliasson,et al.  The COST model for calculation of forest operations costs , 2014 .

[8]  R. W. Brinker,et al.  Machine Rates for Selected Forest Harvesting Machines , 2002 .

[9]  M. Strubegger,et al.  The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century , 2017 .

[10]  Tomas Nordfjell,et al.  Changes in technical performance, mechanical availability and prices of machines used in forest operations in Sweden from 1985 to 2010 , 2010 .

[11]  W. D. Greene,et al.  Wood supply chain efficiency and fiber cost what can we do better , 2006 .

[12]  Mattias Eriksson,et al.  Productivity of harvesters and forwarders in CTL operations in northern Sweden based on large follow-up datasets , 2014 .

[13]  Dalia Abbas,et al.  A Survey Analysis of Harvesting Logistics in Tennessee , 2015 .

[14]  Pasi Lautala,et al.  A Survey Analysis of Forest Harvesting and Transportation Operations in Michigan , 2014 .

[15]  Karl Stampfer,et al.  Utilization Rates and Cost Factors in Timber Harvesting Based on Long-term Machine Data , 2011 .

[16]  J. F. McNeel,et al.  Improving Cable Thinning System Productivity by Modifying Felling Phase Operations , 1997 .

[17]  E. M. . Bilek,et al.  Machine cost analysis using the traditional machine-rate method and ChargeOut! , 2009 .

[18]  Donald Maxwell Matthews,et al.  Cost control in the logging industry. , 1942 .

[19]  Edwin S. Miyata,et al.  Logging system cost analysis: comparison of methods used. , 1981 .

[20]  Christopher R. Keyes,et al.  Montana logging machine rates , 2015 .

[21]  Rien Visser,et al.  The effect of the number of log sorts on mechanized log processing productivity and value recovery , 2015 .

[22]  Natascia Magagnotti,et al.  Deploying Mechanized Cut-to-Length Technology in Italy: Fleet Size, Annual Usage, and Costs , 2010 .

[23]  Edwin S. Miyata,et al.  Determining fixed and operating costs of logging equipment. , 1980 .

[24]  Ola Lindroos,et al.  Cable yarding productivity models: a systematic review over the period 2000–2011 , 2016 .

[25]  Loren D. Kellogg,et al.  Comparison of Time-Study Techniques for Evaluating Logging Production , 1983 .