Estimating the Influence of Extraction Method and Processing Location on Forest Harvesting Efficiency - A Categorical DEA Approach

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 60 - 67, 30.12.2020

Okey Obi Rien Vısser

https://doi.org/10.33904/ejfe.722822

Cited By: 3

Abstract

The increasing level of competition in the global forestry market demands that stakeholders continuously measure their performance with the aim of remaining competitive and profitable in the ever-changing wood market. This study applies categorical data envelopment analysis (DEA) methodology to the New Zealand forest harvesting sector. This methodology is able to account for ordinal non-discretionary variables in the DEA. The influence of log extraction method and processing location on the estimated efficiency scores were examined. To define the forest harvesting DEA production technology, three inputs (harvest area, average piece size, level of mechanization), one output (tons/scheduled hour) and one categorical non-discretionary variable with three levels were used. The categorical variables were defined by the level of difficulty as reported by harvest supervisors for specific forest harvesting operating environment. The study demonstrated the appropriateness of the categorical DEA approach in measuring performance in forest harvesting operations. It showed significant influence of timber extraction methods on the overall performance estimate, whereby grapple skidders at 58% had the highest mean efficiency score. While log processing locations showed no significant influence on the estimated performance, processing at the stump had the highest mean efficiency score.

Keywords

Forest harvesting, Efficiency, Operating environment, Productivity

References

• Aalmo, G.O., Talbot, B., 2014. Operator performance improvement through training in a controlled cable yarding study. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 25(1): 5-13.
• Alam, M., Walsh, D., Strandgard, M., Brown, M., 2014. A log-by-log productivity analysis of two Valmet 475EX harvesters. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 25(1): 14-22.
• Amishev, D., Evanson, T., 2010. Innovative methods for steep terrain harvesting. Proc. FORMEC, 2010: 11-14.
• Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., 1984. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9): 1078-1092.
• Banker, R.D., Morey, R.C., 1986. The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Management Science 32(12): 1613-1627.
• Bhutta, K.S., Huq, F., 1999. Benchmarking–best practices: an integrated approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 6(3): 254-268.
• Bont, L., Heinimann, H.R., 2012. Optimum geometric layout of a single cable road. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(5): 1439-1448.
• Brown, K., 2018. Harvesting woodlots in NZ: What do small-scale landowners and loggers think? Forest Engineering Conference April 16-19, 2018, Rotorua, New Zealand: 1-15.
• Brown, M., Ghaffariyan, M. R., Berry, M., Acuna, M., Strandgard, M., Mitchell, R., 2020. The progression of forest operations technology and innovation. Australian Forestry, DOI: 10.1080/00049158.2020.1723044.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6): 429-444.
• Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., 2009. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)–Thirty years on. European Journal of Operational Research, 192(1): 1-17.
• Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Tone, K., 2007. A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References and DEA-Solver Software. Springer Science+ Business Media.
• Daraio, C., Simar, L., 2007. Advanced Robust and Nonparametric Methods in Efficiency Analysis: Methodology and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
• Davis, C., Reisinger, T., 1990. Evaluating terrain for harvesting equipment selection. Journal of Forest Engineering, 2(1): 9-16.
• Gerasimov, Y., Sokolov, A., 2014. Ergonomic evaluation and comparison of wood harvesting systems in Northwest Russia. Applied Ergonomics, 45(2): 318-338.
• Ghaffariyan, M., Sessions, J., Brown, M., 2012. 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(4): 229-235.
• Golany, B., Roll, Y., 1989. An application procedure for DEA. Omega, 17(3): 237-250.
• Harrill, H., Visser, R., 2019. A survey of NZ ground-based harvesting systems. Forest Growers Research Harvesting, Rotorua, New Zealand, Harvesting Technical Note, 12(4): 1-7.
• Harrison, J., Rouse, P., 2014. Competition and public high school performance. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 48(1): 10-19.
• Harrison, J., Rouse, P., Armstrong, J., 2012. Categorical and continuous non-discretionary variables in data envelopment analysis: a comparison of two single-stage models. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 37(3): 261-276.
• Jaafari, A., Najafi, A., Melón, M.G., 2015. Decision-making for the selection of a best wood extraction method: An analytic network process approach. Forest Policy and Economics, 50: 200-209.
• Kruskal, W.H., Wallis, W.A., 1952. Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260): 583-621.
• Kuah, C.T., Wong, K.Y., 2011. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 3: 499-506.
• Kulak, D., Stańczykiewicz, A., Szewczyk, G., 2017. Productivity and time consumption of timber extraction with a grapple skidder in selected pine stands. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 38(1): 55-63.
• Lawrence, W., Erwin, T., 2003. Technical efficiency and service effectiveness for railways industry: DEA approaches. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5(1): 2932-2947.
• Lebel, L., 1998. Improving logging operations efficiency through benchmarking. Canadian Forest Industries, 1-4.
• Lee, E., Han, S.-K., Im, S., 2019. Performance analysis of log extraction by a small shovel operation in steep forests of South Korea. Forests, 10(7): 585.
• Marchi, E. Marchi, E., Chung, W., Visser, R., Abbas, D., Nordfjell, T., Mederski, P.S., McEwan, A., Brink, M., Laschi, A., et al., 2018. Sustainable Forest Operations (SFO): A new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Science of the Total Environment, 634: 1385-1397.
• Milne, B., Chen, X., Hann, C., Parker, R., 2013. Robotisation of forestry harvesting in New Zealand—An overview. 10th IEEE International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA). IEEE, pp. 1609-1614.
• Muñiz, M., 2002. Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 143(3): 625-643.
• Murphy, G., Cown, D., 2015. Stand, stem and log segregation based on wood properties: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 30(8): 757-770.
• Obi, O.F., Visser, R., 2017a. Influence of the operating environment on the technical efficiency of forest harvesting operations. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 28(3): 140-147.
• Obi, O.F., Visser, R., 2017b. Operational efficiency analysis of New Zealand timber harvesting contractors using data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 28(2): 85-93.
• Obi, O.F., Visser, R., 2018. Including exogenous factors in the evaluation of harvesting crew technical efficiency using a multi-step data envelopment analysis procedure. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 39(2): 153-162. Oukil, A., Channouf, N., Al-Zaidi, A., 2016. Performance evaluation of the hotel industry in an emerging tourism destination: The case of Oman. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 29: 60-68.
• Pajkoš, M., Klvač, R., Neruda, J., Kumar Mishra, P., 2018. Comparative time study of conventional cut-to-length and an integrated harvesting method—A case study. Forests, 9(4):194, doi:10.3390/f9040194
• Raymond, K., 2012. Innovation to increase profitability of steep terrain harvesting in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 57: 19-23.
• Rönnqvist, M. D’Amours, S., Weintraub, A., Jofre, A., Gunn, E., Haight, R., Martell, D., Murray, A., T., Romero, C., 2015. Operations research challenges in forestry: 33 open problems. Annals of Operations Research, 232(1): 11-40.
• Senturk, N., Ozturk, T., Demir, M., 2007. Productivity and costs in the course of timber transportation with the Koller K300 cable system in Turkey. Building and Environment, 42(5): 2107-2113.
• Stokes, B.J., Schilling, A., 1997. Improved harvesting systems for wet sites. Forest Ecology and Management, 90(2-3): 155-160.
• Syrjänen, M.J., 2004. Non-discretionary and discretionary factors and scale in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(1): 20-33. Trzcianowska, M., LeBel, L., Beaudoin, D., 2019. Performance analysis of log yards using data envelopment analysis. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 30(2): 144-154. Visser, R., 2009. Benchmarking Harvesting Cost and Productivity. Future Forests Research Ltd, Rotorua, New Zealand, Harvesting Technical Note, 2(6): 1-8. Visser, R., 2019. A Decade of Benchmarking Harvesting Cost and Productivity. Forest Growers Research Harvesting, Rotorua, New Zealand, Harvesting Technical Note, 12(1): 1-4. Vokoun, M., Amacher, G.S., Wear, D.N., 2006. Scale of harvesting by non-industrial private forest landowners. Journal of Forest Economics, 11(4): 223-244.