![Flowchart of the forest harvesting process ([20], adapted).](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Camila-Albuquerque-Ferraz/publication/382524477/figure/fig1/AS:11431281288528460@1730765443208/Flowchart-of-the-forest-harvesting-process-20-adapted_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Camila Porfirio Albuquerque Ferraz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Camila Porfirio Albuquerque Ferraz on Nov 05, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Márcia Pereira da Silva Manoel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Márcia Pereira da Silva Manoel on Jul 24, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Ferraz, C.P.A.; Manoel,
M.P.d.S.; Chaves, J.V.B.; Aiello, L.H.F.;
Silva, G.S.d.; De Medeiros, G.A.;
Ribeiro, A.Í. Environmental Impacts
of Mechanized Timber Harvesting in
Eucalyptus Plantations in Brazil.
Forests 2024,15, 1291. https://
doi.org/10.3390/f15081291
Academic Editor: Gianni Picchi
Received: 8 May 2024
Revised: 5 June 2024
Accepted: 20 June 2024
Published: 24 July 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Article
Environmental Impacts of Mechanized Timber Harvesting in
Eucalyptus Plantations in Brazil
Camila Porfirio Albuquerque Ferraz * , Márcia Pereira da Silva Manoel, JôVinícius Barrozo Chaves,
Luiz Henrique Freguglia Aiello, Gislene Sales da Silva, Gerson Araújo De Medeiros and Admilson Írio Ribeiro
Postgraduate Program in Environmental Sciences, São Paulo State University “Júlio de Mesquita Filho” (UNESP),
Sorocaba 18087-180, SP, Brazil; marcia.p.silva@unesp.br (M.P.d.S.M.); jo.chaves@unesp.br (J.V.B.C.);
luiz.aiello@unesp.br (L.H.F.A.); gislene.sales@unesp.br (G.S.d.S.); gerson.medeiros@unesp.br (G.A.D.M.);
admilson.irio@unesp.br (A.Í.R.)
*Correspondence: albuquerque.florestal@gmail.com; Tel.: +55-14-98118-5958
Abstract: The advancement of mechanization in forestry has increased productivity in the forestry
sector, bringing positive and negative impacts that require a deeper understanding for sustainable
forest management. This study aimed to apply a simplified instrument for assessing damage and
environmental impacts in forest harvesting of commercial eucalyptus plantations, using a combination
of methodologies. The methodology used combined interaction networks and impact assessment
matrices, carrying out field surveys, transposing them to interaction networks and weighting them
through assessment matrices, resulting in environmental indices (ES) for prioritizing actions. The
study was conducted on a commercial eucalyptus plantation in the municipality of São Pedro, São
Paulo, Brazil. The mechanized harvesting of the area consists of the structure of a module with
a mobile unit consisting of a harvester and forwarder. The results indicated that wood transport
presented the highest ES, both positive and negative. The most significant negative impacts (ES)
were the depletion of water resources and erosion, while the positive impacts included regional
development and job creation. The most notable changes, positive and negative, were observed in
the physical and anthropic environment, with a lesser impact on the biotic environment.
Keywords: forestry; interaction networks; eucalyptus plantation; mechanized timber harvesting;
harvest forest planning; sustainable forest management
1. Introduction
The production paradigm with a greater emphasis on sustainability is constantly ex-
panding in the context of policy development, with the aim of supporting decision-making
and promoting improvements in the environmental, social and economic performance of
processes, products or services. Sustainable production in forestry has as its pillars the use
of “forests and forest lands in a conscious manner, at a rate that maintains their biodiversity,
productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the
future, relevant ecological, economic and social aspects” [1].
The Brazilian forest-based industry plays an important role in the global economy
and human well-being, being responsible for the production of inputs for more than five
thousand by-products or services “in forest ecosystems” [2].
Planted forests represent an appropriate form of soil management and are less im-
pactful than various intensive crops [
3
,
4
]. They are especially recommended for degraded
regions characterized by low fertility or unsuitable for agricultural practices [5,6].
The Brazilian planted forest industry carries out planting, harvesting and replanting
activities on 9.94 million hectares. In addition, it recorded gross revenue of US$51 billion,
setting new production records, with remarkable quantities of 25 million tons of pulp,
11 million tons of paper and 8.5 million cubic meters of wood panels [2].
Forests 2024,15, 1291. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15081291 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests
Forests 2024,15, 1291 2 of 17
Currently, the Brazilian forest harvesting scenario is dominated by large companies [
7
],
which have more than 500 employees and employ sophisticated forest harvesting tech-
nologies aimed at reducing costs, high yields and environmental impacts on a smaller
scale [8].
In the context of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the forestry sector, var-
ious methodologies have been integrated into different lines of research. Among these
approaches are the ad hoc system, checklists, map overlays, interaction networks and simu-
lation models [
9
,
10
]. The choice, adaptation and development of the EIA method depend
on the specific objectives of the assessment. Each tool has advantages and disadvantages,
focusing specifically on the problems and goals previously established.
The purpose of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is to identify the envi-
ronmental effects resulting from projects in the biotic, physical, social and economic do-
mains [
11
]. In addition to preventing adverse impacts, this methodology provides a basis
for strategic decisions in the short and long term [12].
Currently, there are a series of EIA methodologies available in works related to the
topic and inserted in various lines of research, such as: ad hoc system; checklists, map over-
lays; interaction networks and simulation models [
13
]. The choice of the EIA, adaptation
and development method depends on the objectives of the evaluation, since each tool has
positive and negative points, and specifically analyzes the defined problems and objectives.
The EIA aims to detect the environmental impacts resulting from the enterprise on
the biotic, physical, social and economic environment, in addition to allowing strategic
decision-making in the short and long term [
14
]. The AIA methodology, in addition to
being seen as a tool to prevent adverse effects, also assists and guides decision-making so
that when planning the installation of new projects it is possible to explore the possibilities
of environmental intervention in a sustainable way [15].
In Brazil, the common applicability of environmental impact assessment (EIA) ex-
tends to compliance with environmental licensing prerequisites and national legislation.
However, there is significant potential for using these methodologies as adaptable and
simplified tools for monitoring work routines in the field.
Important studies [
16
] analyze and review recently proposed reforms to the current
EIA system in Brazil. According to the authors, three proposals for changes to the EIA
system have been documented, but studies on the efficiency and effectiveness of EIA
are still incipient and generally retrospective, evaluating changes that have already been
implemented. Furthermore, the low institutional capacity of government agencies is one of
the main barriers, along with the complexity of carrying out studies and applying them in
a practical way in the day-to-day activities of institutions.
In a bibliographic review study, 131 scientific productions on Brazilian environmental
licensing based on EIA between 1985 and 2015 were analyzed. The results were grouped
into themes such as: study of the EIA system, assessment of the quality of these studies
and discussions on the methodologies applied. Most studies examined highly complex
cases, especially hydroelectric plants. In contrast, few studies have addressed the methods
applied, adaptations for different applicability, highlighting deficiencies in the different
stages of EIA. Furthermore, analyses of the consistency of Environmental Impact Studies
(EIA) revealed recurring deficiencies [17].
In the context of the growth of the forestry sector, there is a need to develop and
improve expedient tools for environmental, social and economic management, with a view
to their effective application in the dynamic routine of the forestry industry.
Given the current technological development of forest-based industry, in which forest
harvesting in many companies is usually mechanized, there is a growing need for tools to
monitor the positive and negative impacts of the activity, not only in terms of harvesting
yields in productive areas but also its interface with conservation areas and the region
where the production unit is located. The industry lacks expeditious methodologies that
provide results for short- and long-term decision-making, as well as covering the different
dimensions involved in EIA, i.e., physical, biotic and anthropic.
Forests 2024,15, 1291 3 of 17
This study aims to integrate environmental impact assessment methodologies to guide
the perception of the significance of aspects and impacts and adapt an agile and simplified
assessment tool. This tool will assist in the development of preventive and mitigating
procedures, as well as in the management of environmental impacts arising from the
forestry production cycle, such as forest harvesting.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Forest Harvesting Site and Process
The study was carried out on a farm with commercial plantations of Eucalyptus
spp., with a total area of 194.37 hectares, located in the municipality of São Pedro, in
the state of São Paulo, Brazil (coordinates 22
◦
32
′
55
′′
South and 47
◦
54
′
50
′′
West, 550 m
altitude). Forest harvesting takes place throughout the year, during 3 uninterrupted shifts
(morning, afternoon and evening). The database collection period covered the fall and
winter seasons (May to August) in 2018 and 2019. Data were always collected after forest
harvesting activities.
The soil of the region is classified as yellow-red latosol, with good infiltration capacity,
low fertility, and the area is susceptible to erosion [17].
In addition to the eucalyptus planting areas, there are fragments of Atlantic Forest
(semideciduous seasonal forest) that allow commercial planting, designated as preservation
areas and legal reserves.
According to data from the Brazilian Forestry Institute [
18
], the Atlantic Forest is
present in 17 Brazilian states, stretching from Rio Grande do Sul to Rio Grande do Norte.
Each region has specific characteristics in terms of vegetation, soil, relief, diversity and
richness of fauna, as well as climatic variations. However, there are common elements
between the different locations, such as high rainfall, resulting from the proximity to the
sea and the influence of humid winds from the ocean. Furthermore, the Atlantic Forest
covers a range of climates and microclimates, including the humid subtropical climate in
the South, areas influenced by a tropical climate and transition regions with the caatinga in
the Northeast.
What differentiates the current long log and short log systems is the field processing
model: in the short log system, the wood is extracted and processed into logs (according
to the required dimensions) at the cutting site; in the long log system, trees are cut and
delimbed and then sent to the transport site. According to the same author, harvesting
modules also differ, for example, for short logs the most common is the combination of
harvester (cutting and processing) and forwarder (loading), and for long logs the skidder is
commonly used) and feller–buncher (cutting and delimbing) [
19
]. Harvesting and forest
transport can be carried out manually, semi-mechanized and mechanized.
Mechanized harvesting consisted of harvesting modules with mobile units, 8 to
10 harvesters
and 3 forwarders, both Komatsu
®
, Tokyo, Japan. The wood remained in
the field for 60 to 90 days to dry and was then transported by bi-train/tri-train trucks in a
month-long logistics operation.
Each activity of a project can generate positive or negative impacts when interacting
with the environment. Therefore, the environmental aspect concerns the cause of the
environmental impact, that is, the activities that are part of the analyzed process or its
components. From an on-site visit, the environmental impacts visible in the field and in
accordance with each aspect were identified, as well as the need to classify the aspects
(check list methodology):
The flow of activities is exemplified in Figure 1:
Forests 2024,15, 1291 4 of 17
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW4of20
Figure1.Flowchartoftheforestharvestingprocess([20],adapted).
2.2.DataCollection
Datacollectionconsistedofidentifyinginthefieldtheenvironmentalaspectsand
impactsinherenttoforestharvestingoperations(post-harvest)—openingand
maintainingroads,cuing,fellingtrees,lifting,dismantlingandtransportation,during
on-sitevisits,aswellasliteraturereviews.Fieldvisitswerecarriedoutbeforetheharvest
periodandaftertheharvestperiod.
Forliteraturereviews,theScopus,WebofScienceandScielodatabaseswere
consultedforarticlesfromthelastfiveyears,usingthefollowingtermsinPortugueseand
English:“forestharvestandenvironmentalimpacts”;“eucalyptusforestharvesting”,
“assessmentoftheimpactsofforestharvesting”,“forestmanagement”and“impactof
forestryoperations”.
Basedonanon-sitevisit,theenvironmentalimpactsvisibleinthefieldwere
identifiedandnotedaccordingtoeachenvironmentalaspect,inthephysical,bioticand
anthropicdimensions,aswellastheneedtoclassifytheaspects,usingthechecklist
methodology.Afterlistingtheimpactsandaspectsthatwerenoticeableinthefield,five
interactionnetworksweredrawnupforeachstageoftheforestharvestingactivity.The
checklistwasappliedonsiteinordertolistthemainnoticeabledirectimpactsand
subsequentlyappliedtothenetworkofinteractionsandweightedintheEIAmatrix.
2.3.InteractionsNetworks
Thetoolintegratesrelationshipsrelatingtoanimpactintermsofitscause,condition
andeffect,thusresultinginaconciseanalysisinordertoidentifyimpactsandtheir
interrelationships,aswellasthelevelofdetailofindirectimpacts.Thesenetworks
establishtherelationshipsbetweentheactivitiesofanenterpriseandtheimpactsitcauses,
fromthefirst,secondorthirdorder,whichvariesaccordingtothelevelofdetaildefined
[10,21].Theaspectsandimpactssurveyedintheinteractionnetworksweretransposed
intotheRapidImpactAssessmentMatrix(RIAM)forsubsequentweightingand
calculationoftheImpactIndices(ES—EnvironmentalScore).
2.4.AdaptationoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentMatrix
TheRIAMmethod[22]consistsofasystemicanalysisofenvironmentalimpacts
derivedfromanactivitythatgeneratesadegreeofmodificationintheenvironmentin
Figure 1. Flowchart of the forest harvesting process ([20], adapted).
2.2. Data Collection
Data collection consisted of identifying in the field the environmental aspects and
impacts inherent to forest harvesting operations (post-harvest)—opening and maintaining
roads, cutting, felling trees, lifting, dismantling and transportation, during on-site visits, as
well as literature reviews. Field visits were carried out before the harvest period and after
the harvest period.
For literature reviews, the Scopus, Web of Science and Scielo databases were consulted
for articles from the last five years, using the following terms in Portuguese and English:
“forest harvest and environmental impacts”; “eucalyptus forest harvesting”, “assessment of
the impacts of forest harvesting”, “forest management” and “impact of forestry operations”.
Based on an on-site visit, the environmental impacts visible in the field were identified
and noted according to each environmental aspect, in the physical, biotic and anthropic
dimensions, as well as the need to classify the aspects, using the checklist methodology.
After listing the impacts and aspects that were noticeable in the field, five interaction
networks were drawn up for each stage of the forest harvesting activity. The checklist was
applied on site in order to list the main noticeable direct impacts and subsequently applied
to the network of interactions and weighted in the EIA matrix.
2.3. Interactions Networks
The tool integrates relationships relating to an impact in terms of its cause, condition
and effect, thus resulting in a concise analysis in order to identify impacts and their
interrelationships, as well as the level of detail of indirect impacts. These networks establish
the relationships between the activities of an enterprise and the impacts it causes, from the
first, second or third order, which varies according to the level of detail defined [
10
,
21
]. The
aspects and impacts surveyed in the interaction networks were transposed into the Rapid
Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM) for subsequent weighting and calculation of the Impact
Indices (ES—Environmental Score).
2.4. Adaptation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Matrix
The RIAM method [
22
] consists of a systemic analysis of environmental impacts
derived from an activity that generates a degree of modification in the environment in which
it is inserted, which evaluates the modifications caused to the environmental components
by the impact and its effects, as well as being characterized by generating rapid results
associating the impacts and their effects. The methodology is based on standardized
assessment criteria, where the impacts of a project’s activities are weighted and assessed.
Forests 2024,15, 1291 5 of 17
These criteria are divided into A and B (A1 = importance, A2 = magnitude, B1 = permanence,
B2 = reversibility and B3 = accumulation).
The RIAM adopts an ES linked to each of the environmental components, which uses
five criteria to calculate it, divided into two groups (A and B). The criteria in the first group
are used to assess the importance and magnitude of the change caused by the impact:
A1 = importance
of the change and A2 = magnitude of the change [
23
]. The criteria in the
second group are associated with the effects that the changes have on the population living
in the area of direct influence and on the borders of the region affected by the environmental
damage: B1 = permanence of the change, B2 = reversibility and B3 = accumulation. This
index makes it possible to qualify and quantify positive and negative impacts.
The ES is calculated using the following expression:
(ES) = (A1 ×A2) ×(B1 + B2 + B3), (1)
where A1, A2, B1, B2 and B3 are the values assigned to the impact assessment criteria
(dimensionless), as shown in Table 1:
Table 1. Scale of numeric and alphanumeric values—impact assessment [16].
Value Range (ES) Numerical Scale Environmental Impact Class
108 to 72 5 Extremely Positive
71 to 36 4 Significantly Positive
35 to 19 3 Moderately Positive
18 to 10 2 Not very positive
09 to 01 1 Very Little Positive
Zero 0 Unchanged
−01 to −09 −1 Very Slightly Negative
−10 to −18 −2 Slightly negative
−19 to −35 −3 Moderately Negative
−36 to −71 −4 Significantly Negative
−72 to −108 −5 Extremely Negative
According to the method, each criterion in group A is the result of a simple multiplica-
tion of the scores and, for the criteria in group B, values are added together resulting in a
simple sum:
(a1) ×(a2) = aT, (2)
(b1) + (b2) + (b3) = bT (3)
(aT) ×(bT) = ES (4)
In which:
(a1) and (a2) are individual scoring criteria for group (A);
(b1) to (b3) are the individual criteria scores for group (B);
aT is the result of multiplying all the scores (A);
bT is the sum of all scores (B);
ES is the evaluation score for impact.
Another point to note is that the criteria in group A have a numerical scale that starts
off negative, then at zero and then positive. In group B, the value zero should be avoided,
and the scale ranges from 1 to 3, where the value 1 represents a neutral situation.
Given that the method makes the theoretical definition of several criteria, the RIAM
establishes that these criteria must satisfy two principles:
•Universality and importance of the criterion;
•Characteristic of the criterion that classifies it for group A or B.
In summary, the Pastakia method [
24
] operates with five criteria. Group A contains
two of these five criteria and Group B has three, as described and scored below:
Forests 2024,15, 1291 6 of 17
2.4.1. Group A Criteria
Geographical extent of affected groups (A1): weights the measure of importance of the
geographical scope of the impact, assessed in relation to the spatial boundaries or human
interests it will affect.
A1 = 4: International;
A1 = 3: National;
A1 = 2: Regional (Basin, State);
A1 = 1: Location (Sub-basin, municipality);
A1 = 0: None/Few.
Magnitude of impact (A2): estimates the benefits or severity of the change that
has occurred;
A2 = 3: Positive benefits;
A2 = 2: Significant improvement in condition;
A2 = 1: Improvement in condition;
A2 = 0: Null;
A2 = −1: Negative evaluation of the state;
A2 = −2: Considerable negative change in status;
A2 = −3: Significant change in state (negative).
2.4.2. Group B Criteria
Stability of the impact (B1): delimits whether the impact is permanent or temporary.
B1 = 1: No change;
B1 = 2: Temporary;
B1 = 3: Permanent.
Reversibility (B2): defines whether the impacts are reversible and whether there are
corrective measures capable of reducing, altering or avoiding the problem.
B2 = 1: No possibility;
B2 = 2: Reversible;
B2 = 3: Irreversible.
Cumulative (B3): estimates whether the impact will be one-off or cumulative over
time, based on its effects.
B3 = 1: no change;
B3 = 2: non-cumulative/isolated;
B3 = 3: cumulative/synergistic.
The methodology requires specific evaluation parameters, depending on the project to
be evaluated. Each component was addressed in the three categories of analysis:
•Physical environment: parameters related to aspects of climate, soils, relief and hydrology.
•Biotic environment: biological parameters such as flora and fauna.
•
Anthropic environment: analysis involving social aspects such as rural workers and
the local/regional community, such as occupational health and safety risks, income
generation, jobs and changes to the landscape for local residents.
3. Results
3.1. Interaction Networks
The networks facilitate links between the activities carried out by the project and
the resulting direct and indirect environmental impacts. It is also worth noting that the
tool makes it easier to visualize indirect impacts, as well as to target their respective
causes [25,26].
Interaction networks were applied with the purpose of evaluating the interaction of en-
vironmental aspects and impacts in the operation of wind farms. This study demonstrated
that the aspects interact with other environmental impacts, forming a chain of dependent
ideas in the operation phase of the enterprise [
25
]. The network can be built by integrating
specific environmental impacts, based on prior knowledge of the environmental effects
of certain actions on certain environmental systems and the theoretical elaboration of the
Forests 2024,15, 1291 7 of 17
interaction network by type of project. This aims to assist reasoning during studies of
environmental aspects and impacts, when the interaction network can be adjusted to the
specificities of the environment in the area to be affected.
The forest harvesting stage has various aspects and direct and indirect impacts. Thus,
the most significant environmental aspect in the interaction networks is related to heavy ma-
chinery traffic, with a focus on road opening and maintenance activities and logging. Each
of these primary impacts is also related to secondary and tertiary impacts, demonstrating
that this activity presents a greater complexity of variables to be monitored within the forest
harvesting process. All interaction networks created are presented in the Supplementary
Materials (Figures S1–S4), cited at the end of this article.
Figure 2shows an example of one of the interaction networks developed in the study:
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW8of20
3.Results
3.1.InteractionNetworks
Thenetworksfacilitatelinksbetweentheactivitiescarriedoutbytheprojectandthe
resultingdirectandindirectenvironmentalimpacts.Itisalsoworthnotingthatthetool
makesiteasiertovisualizeindirectimpacts,aswellastotargettheirrespectivecauses
[25,26].
Interactionnetworkswereappliedwiththepurposeofevaluatingtheinteractionof
environmentalaspectsandimpactsintheoperationofwindfarms.Thisstudy
demonstratedthattheaspectsinteractwithotherenvironmentalimpacts,formingachain
ofdependentideasintheoperationphaseoftheenterprise[25].Thenetworkcanbebuilt
byintegratingspecificenvironmentalimpacts,basedonpriorknowledgeofthe
environmentaleffectsofcertainactionsoncertainenvironmentalsystemsandthe
theoreticalelaborationoftheinteractionnetworkbytypeofproject.Thisaimstoassist
reasoningduringstudiesofenvironmentalaspectsandimpacts,whentheinteraction
networkcanbeadjustedtothespecificitiesoftheenvironmentintheareatobeaffected.
Theforestharvestingstagehasvariousaspectsanddirectandindirectimpacts.Thus,
themostsignificantenvironmentalaspectintheinteractionnetworksisrelatedtoheavy
machinerytraffic,withafocusonroadopeningandmaintenanceactivitiesandlogging.
Eachoftheseprimaryimpactsisalsorelatedtosecondaryandtertiaryimpacts,
demonstratingthatthisactivitypresentsagreatercomplexityofvariablestobemonitored
withintheforestharvestingprocess.Allinteractionnetworkscreatedarepresentedinthe
supplementarymaterial(FigureS1,FigureS2,FigureS3andFigureS4),citedattheend
ofthisarticle.
Figure2showsanexampleofoneoftheinteractionnetworksdevelopedinthestudy:
Figure2.Interactionnetworksdevelopedinthestudy(2019).
Thelargestshareofimpactsonthephysicalenvironmentwasinthenetworkof
interactionsdesignedforroadopeningandmaintenance.Thetimberloadingnetworkhad
thehighestpercentageofimpactsonthebioticenvironment,andthetimberstorageand
dryingnetworkhadthehighestpercentageofimpactsontheanthropicenvironment
(Figures3–5).
Figure 2. Interaction networks developed in the study (2019).
The largest share of impacts on the physical environment was in the network of
interactions designed for road opening and maintenance. The timber loading network
had the highest percentage of impacts on the biotic environment, and the timber storage
and drying network had the highest percentage of impacts on the anthropic environment
(Figures 3–5).
Although the harvesting phases are mechanized, manpower is used to control ma-
chines such as harvesters and forwarders, as well as trucks and tractors, as well as OHS
teams and harvesting supervisors present in the forestry module (Figure 2).
The hiring of labor is lower compared to semi-mechanized or manual harvesting, and
this characteristic is reflected in the impact assessment matrices when scoring the scale and
magnitude of the beneficial impact. Figures 3–5show the distribution of impacts in each
environment according to each of the five networks developed:
Some environmental impacts are present in more than one interaction network, but
what differentiates them is the scale, intensity and magnitude of occurrence for each
operation, as well as the level of change they will cause in the physical, biotic or an-
thropic environment.
Forests 2024,15, 1291 8 of 17
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW9of20
Althoughtheharvestingphasesaremechanized,manpowerisusedtocontrol
machinessuchasharvestersandforwarders,aswellastrucksandtractors,aswellasOHS
teamsandharvestingsupervisorspresentintheforestrymodule(Figure2).
Thehiringoflaborislowercomparedtosemi-mechanizedormanualharvesting,and
thischaracteristicisreflectedintheimpactassessmentmatriceswhenscoringthescale
andmagnitudeofthebeneficialimpact.Figures3–5showthedistributionofimpactsin
eachenvironmentaccordingtoeachofthefivenetworksdeveloped:
Figure3.Classificationofimpactsfornetworksofinteractionsforroadopeningandmaintenance
andloggingactivities.
Figure4.Classificationofimpactsfornetworksofinteractionsfortimberstorageanddryingand
timberloadingactivities.
Figure 3. Classification of impacts for networks of interactions for road opening and maintenance
and logging activities.
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW9of20
Althoughtheharvestingphasesaremechanized,manpowerisusedtocontrol
machinessuchasharvestersandforwarders,aswellastrucksandtractors,aswellasOHS
teamsandharvestingsupervisorspresentintheforestrymodule(Figure2).
Thehiringoflaborislowercomparedtosemi-mechanizedormanualharvesting,and
thischaracteristicisreflectedintheimpactassessmentmatriceswhenscoringthescale
andmagnitudeofthebeneficialimpact.Figures3–5showthedistributionofimpactsin
eachenvironmentaccordingtoeachofthefivenetworksdeveloped:
Figure3.Classificationofimpactsfornetworksofinteractionsforroadopeningandmaintenance
andloggingactivities.
Figure4.Classificationofimpactsfornetworksofinteractionsfortimberstorageanddryingand
timberloadingactivities.
Figure 4. Classification of impacts for networks of interactions for timber storage and drying and
timber loading activities.
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW10of20
Figure5.Classificationofimpactsfortheinteractionnetworkfortimbertransportationactivities.
Someenvironmentalimpactsarepresentinmorethanoneinteractionnetwork,but
whatdifferentiatesthemisthescale,intensityandmagnitudeofoccurrenceforeach
operation,aswellasthelevelofchangetheywillcauseinthephysical,bioticoranthropic
environment.
Inallphases,itwaspossibletoobservethatthepercentageofnegativeimpactsis
greaterthanthepositiveones.Loadingandtransportactivitieshadthehighestimpact
rates,bothnegativeandpositive.TheESofnegativeimpactsforforestryloadingwas5%
greaterthanforforestrytransport;however,theESofmoderatelynegativeimpacts(of
largerscaleandmagnitudeofnegativechange)wasgreaterforforestrytransport.
Althoughforestloadingandtransportactivitiesoccurconcomitantlyandare
complementary,foresttransporthasgreaterpotentialforchangesinthephysical,biotic
andanthropicenvironments.
Bothharvestphasespresentedsimilarpercentages(slightlyvariable)regardingthe
ESofpositiveimpacts,exceptforstorageanddryingofwoodinthefield.Thisisbecause
otheractivitiesinvolvehiringlaborandpurchasinginputs.
3.2.RIAMMatrices
Accordingtotheweightingappliedtothematricesforeachphaseofforest
harvesting,itwaspossibletodistinguishandidentifypositiveandnegativeimpactsand
damagesaccordingtothechangesthateachstagecausesinthephysical,bioticor
anthropicenvironment.
Theimpactsidentifiedintheinteractionnetworks,resultingfromeach
activity/operation,whichweretransposedintotheRIAMmatrices(e.g.,Table2),were:
Roadmaintenance:improvedroadquality,lesssusceptibilitytoerosion,protection
ofthesoilstructure,siltation,erosion,changesinphysicalproperties,damageto
conservationareasforfloraandfauna,openingofclearings,soilcompaction,
accidents,healthproblems,absenceordeath,regionaldevelopment,income
generation,soil,waterandairpollution,wastegeneration,jobcreationandregional
development.
Logging:locationanddisorientationinthelocallandscape,relationshipwiththe
localcommunity,supplyoforganicmaer,damagetoconservationareas,opening
ofclearings,soilcompaction,siltation,erosion,accidents,greenhouseeffect,health
problems,absenceordeath,regionaldevelopment,incomegeneration,soil,water
andairpollution,wastegeneration,jobcreation,regionaldevelopment.
Figure 5. Classification of impacts for the interaction network for timber transportation activities.
In all phases, it was possible to observe that the percentage of negative impacts is
greater than the positive ones. Loading and transport activities had the highest impact rates,
both negative and positive. The ES of negative impacts for forestry loading was 5% greater
than for forestry transport; however, the ES of moderately negative impacts (of larger scale
and magnitude of negative change) was greater for forestry transport. Although forest load-
Forests 2024,15, 1291 9 of 17
ing and transport activities occur concomitantly and are complementary, forest transport
has greater potential for changes in the physical, biotic and anthropic environments.
Both harvest phases presented similar percentages (slightly variable) regarding the
ES of positive impacts, except for storage and drying of wood in the field. This is because
other activities involve hiring labor and purchasing inputs.
3.2. RIAM Matrices
According to the weighting applied to the matrices for each phase of forest harvesting,
it was possible to distinguish and identify positive and negative impacts and damages
according to the changes that each stage causes in the physical, biotic or anthropic environment.
The impacts identified in the interaction networks, resulting from each activity/operation,
which were transposed into the RIAM matrices (e.g., Table 2), were:
•
Road maintenance: improved road quality, less susceptibility to erosion, protection
of the soil structure, siltation, erosion, changes in physical properties, damage to
conservation areas for flora and fauna, opening of clearings, soil compaction, accidents,
health problems, absence or death, regional development, income generation, soil,
water and air pollution, waste generation, job creation and regional development.
•
Logging: location and disorientation in the local landscape, relationship with the
local community, supply of organic matter, damage to conservation areas, opening
of clearings, soil compaction, siltation, erosion, accidents, greenhouse effect, health
problems, absence or death, regional development, income generation, soil, water and
air pollution, waste generation, job creation, regional development.
•
Storing and drying wood: location and disorientation, hiding places for dangerous
animals, accidents, soil compaction, silting up, health problems, absence or death, job
creation and regional development.
•
Wood loading: damage to rural roads, soil compaction, siltation, damage to conserva-
tion areas (flora and fauna), opening of clearings, greenhouse effect, accidents, health
problems, absence or death, regional development, income generation, soil, water and
air pollution, waste generation and job creation.
•
Road transportation: improvement in road quality, soil compaction, silting, damage to
conservation areas, erosion, greenhouse effect, accidents, health problems, absence or
death, regional development, income generation, soil, water and air pollution, waste
generation, job creation, regional development and depletion of water resources.
Table 2. Example RIAM matrix fragment for road transportation activity.
Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix—RIAM
Activity or
Operation
Environmental
Aspect
Environmental
Impact
Medium
A1
A2
B1
B2
B3
Impact Index
(ES)
Num.
Value (RV)
Environmental
Impact Level
Wood
transportation
Truck traffic
Improved
road quality
Anthropic
1 2 2 2 3 14 2
Not very positive
Soil compaction Physical 1 −
2
3 2 3 −16 −2 Slightly negative
Siltation Physical 1 −
3
3 2 3 −24 −3Moderately
Negative
Damage to
conservation
areas (>number
of flora species)
Biotic 1 −
3
3 2 3 −24 −3Moderately
Negative
Forests 2024,15, 1291 10 of 17
The Environmental Score (ES) within each forest harvesting activity is detailed below
(Figures 6–10):
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW12of20
Figure6.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forroadopeningandmaintenanceevaluationmatrix.Note:
Thecolorsofenvironmentalimpactswiththesamelegendrefertothefollowingenvironmental
aspects:brown—soilextractionactivityforroadconstruction;blue—forestrymachinery
movementactivity;yellow—inputacquisitionactivities;green—laborhiringactivity;gray—road
maintenance.
Figure 6. Environmental Score (ES) for road opening and maintenance evaluation matrix. Note: The
colors of environmental impacts with the same legend refer to the following environmental aspects:
brown—soil extraction activity for road construction; blue—forestry machinery movement activity;
yellow—input acquisition activities; green—labor hiring activity; gray—road maintenance.
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW13of20
Figure7.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forloggingevaluationmatrix.
Figure8.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forwoodstockanddryingevaluationmatrix.
Figure 7. Environmental Score (ES) for logging evaluation matrix.
Forests 2024,15, 1291 11 of 17
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW13of20
Figure7.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forloggingevaluationmatrix.
Figure8.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forwoodstockanddryingevaluationmatrix.
Figure 8. Environmental Score (ES) for wood stock and drying evaluation matrix.
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW14of20
Figure9.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forwoodloadingevaluationmatrix.Note:Thecolorsof
environmentalimpactswiththesamelegendrefertothefollowingenvironmentalaspects:
yellow—inputpurchasingactivity;blue—laborhiringactivity;gray—movementofmachines.
Figure10.EnvironmentalScore(ES)fortimbertransportationassessmentmatrix.Note:Thecolors
ofenvironmentalimpactswiththesamelegendrefertothefollowingenvironmentalaspects:
green—inputpurchasingactivity;red—inputpurchasingactivity;gray—trucktraffic.
Figure 9. Environmental Score (ES) for wood loading evaluation matrix. Note: The colors of environ-
mental impacts with the same legend refer to the following environmental aspects:
yellow—input
purchasing activity; blue—labor hiring activity; gray—movement of machines.
Forests 2024,15, 1291 12 of 17
Forests2024,15,xFORPEERREVIEW14of20
Figure9.EnvironmentalScore(ES)forwoodloadingevaluationmatrix.Note:Thecolorsof
environmentalimpactswiththesamelegendrefertothefollowingenvironmentalaspects:
yellow—inputpurchasingactivity;blue—laborhiringactivity;gray—movementofmachines.
Figure10.EnvironmentalScore(ES)fortimbertransportationassessmentmatrix.Note:Thecolors
ofenvironmentalimpactswiththesamelegendrefertothefollowingenvironmentalaspects:
green—inputpurchasingactivity;red—inputpurchasingactivity;gray—trucktraffic.
Figure 10. Environmental Score (ES) for timber transportation assessment matrix. Note: The
colors of environmental impacts with the same legend refer to the following environmental aspects:
green—input purchasing activity; red—input purchasing activity; gray—truck traffic.
According to the impact indices obtained (ES) and based on the results achieved
in each of the five stages of forest harvesting, the following Table 3are guidelines for
managing the most prominent (moderately negative) impacts:
Table 3. Guidelines for managing the most significant impacts.
Activity or Operation Environmental Aspect Environmental
IMPACT Guideline for Impact Management
Road opening and
maintenance/
Wood transportation
Soil extraction for road
construction/Truck traffic Siltation Carry out a survey of the technologies available for
micro-planning forest harvesting operations (be they
mathematical models, drones, geoprocessing, etc.), map sites
susceptible to erosion (both pre-harvest and post-harvest),
carry out a periodic assessment of environmental aspects and
impacts, draw up and update field operating procedures, and
constantly train rural workers. Create a panel with the
environmental aspects and impacts inherent in the operations
and keep it visible at support points in the field.
Road opening and
maintenance/
Timber transportation
Soil extraction for road
construction/Truck traffic Erosions
Road opening
and maintenance Machine handling Soil compaction
Road opening and
maintenance/
Wood transportation
Soil extraction for road
construction/Truck traffic
Damage to conservation
areas (>number of
flora species)
Map the native vegetation preservation areas directly affected
by harvesting operations, carry out the assessment of
environmental aspects and impacts periodically, include the
care and location of these areas in operating procedures and in
the training of field teams. In addition, keep flora inventories
of preservation areas up to date, in order to ensure that
important species are not suppressed. Create a panel with the
environmental aspects and impacts inherent to the operations
and keep it visible at the support points in the field.
Road opening
and maintenance Soil extraction for
road construction Opening clearings
Forests 2024,15, 1291 13 of 17
Table 3. Cont.
Activity or Operation Environmental Aspect Environmental
IMPACT Guideline for Impact Management
Road opening
and maintenance OHS risks Dismissal or death
Train field crews in all harvesting operating procedures. Create
a panel with the OHS aspects and impacts inherent in the
operations and keep it visible at the support points in the field.
Cutting and
harvesting/Loading timber
OHS risks Dismissal or death
Wood transportation OHS risks Accidents
Road opening
and maintenance Purchasing inputs Soil, water and
air pollution
Periodically carry out analyses to monitor the quality of water
bodies, soil and air, in order to ensure that they are not
contaminated or exceed the limits permitted by Brazilian
legislation.
Wood transportation Wet roads Depletion of
water resources Plan the amount of water resources needed to maintain rural
roads and monitor/record the amount used in each operation.
4. Discussion
The activity of opening and maintaining roads stands out in terms of its positive im-
pacts on the anthropic environment due to the use of tractors, a greater number of workers
and trucks, as well as its negative impacts on the physical and biotic environment due to
the opening of quarries for soil extraction, which are sometimes close to conservation areas.
These soil extraction sites require authorization from municipal environmental agencies.
The positive impacts with the highest ES were improved road quality (ES = 21, physical
environment), less susceptibility to erosion (ES = 21, physical environment), regional
development (ES = 24, anthropic environment), income generation (ES = 24, anthropic
environment) and regional development (ES = 24, anthropic environment). The negative
impacts with the highest ES were damage to conservation areas related to flora (ES =
−
32,
biotic environment), the opening of clearings (ES =
−
32, biotic environment) and loss of
life or death (ES = −27, anthropic environment).
A bibliographic review was conducted of sustainability impact assessment in forestry
operations, analyzing 109 studies and their focal themes [
1
]. Most of the studies focused
on environmental aspects; the most used sustainability indicators were greenhouse gas
emissions, carbon stock, and global warming potential; followed by energy use and cumu-
lative energy demand. In addition to these issues, fewer studies addressed topics such as
accidents, health and safety and potential human toxicity, which belong to the social pillar
of sustainability.
Forestry work, especially logging and extraction operations, is associated with a high
risk of death or accidents, so safety, health and risk assessments seem to be the most popular
among the social aspects of forestry operations. However, few studies address this topic,
perhaps due to a lack of data, which may be an indicator of the growing relevance of social
aspects [1,27–30].
The activity of felling and extracting timber (Figure 7) stands out in terms of positive
impacts on the anthropic environment due to the fact that machines (harvesters) are used
which require operators and safety and management teams, as well as negative impacts on
the physical environment due to the traffic of heavy machinery and the consumption of
fossil fuels and the anthropic environment due to the risk of accidents when working with
large machines. The negative impacts with the highest ES were absence or death (ES =
−
24,
anthropic environment), greenhouse effect (ES =
−
18, physical environment) and regional
development (ES = 24, anthropic environment) as for positive impacts.
The activity of stockpiling and drying timber has a low level of modification of the
environment, the highlight being negative impacts in terms of soil compaction due to the
deposition of timber piles, often close to conservation areas, as well as siltation due to
the rolling of logs into water bodies or inside reserve areas. The negative impacts with
Forests 2024,15, 1291 14 of 17
the highest ES were soil compaction (ES =
−
7, physical environment), siltation (ES =
−
7,
physical environment) and removals or deaths (ES = −6, anthropic environment).
The activity of loading wood (Figure 9) stands out in terms of the level of modification
of the environment by heavy machinery traffic and the positive impacts on the anthropic
environment. The negative impacts with the highest ES were displacement or death
(
ES = −21
, anthropic environment) and greenhouse effect (ES =
−
18, physical environment).
The positive impact with the highest ES was regional development.
The timber transportation activity (Figure 10) stands out in terms of positive impacts
on the anthropic environment due to the hiring of truck drivers and security teams, as
transportation, as well as logging, take place continuously throughout the week. As for the
negative impacts, they are due to the aspects that can cause changes to the physical and
biotic environments. The negative impacts with the highest ES were depletion of water
resources (ES =
−
28, physical environment) and erosion (ES =
−
18, physical environment).
The positive impacts with the highest ES were regional development (ES = 36, anthropic
environment) and job creation (ES = 24, anthropic environment). Furthermore, among the
activities that make up forest harvesting, transportation is the one that takes the most time
and planning, mainly due to logistical costs in Brazil (transportation is by road) [30,31].
In general, comparing all the harvesting stages and their harmful and beneficial
impacts, it is clear that the ES and the number of negative impacts is the majority. However,
most of the physical, biotic and anthropic impacts are related to the good management
and operational practices carried out by the farm’s employees, i.e., managing aspects and
impacts can prevent environmental, social and economic problems.
Research carried out in the last decade on mechanized wood harvesting in natural
forests in the Amazon, with adequate planning, concludes that a rigorously planned and
executed forest harvesting with rigorous technical criteria not only minimizes environ-
mental impacts in the physical, biotic and anthropic environments, but also significantly
reduces the total costs of wood harvesting [31,32].
A study carried out in 2017 assessed the impacts associated with timber harvesting and
transportation in the state of Tennessee, using life cycle assessment. The work compared
the impacts with those assessed for forest harvesting in studies carried out for other regions
of the USA. Negative impacts such as changes in soil suitability for different crops, water
quantity and quality and air pollution were identified, as well as positive impacts such as
the potential energy benefit obtained from wood (20,107 MJ/dry ton) when compared to
that of fossil energy (1052 MJ/dry ton) [33].
The first cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment study on forestry operations in Iran
provides comprehensive regionalized life cycle inventory (LCI) data on the Iranian forestry
sector. In this work, the results show that forest transportation is the main critical point in
most of the intermediate environmental impact categories, such as global warming, or in
the final categories, such as human health [34].
Another study, also on the life cycle, quantitatively assessed current forest management
practices for wood production in the USA. As a result of this study, it was found that the
greatest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are related to fuel consumption for the harvesting
and loading processes. These stages of the timber production process contributed more
to total GHG emissions than harvesting and processing within the boundaries of the
system [35].
In a study conducted in southern Finland, the impacts of timber loading on the physi-
cal properties of forest soils were investigated. The results indicate that forest harvesting
activities can cause damage and disturbance to the soil, such as compaction, furrow forma-
tion and soil mixing. These effects have repercussions on the structure and functions of the
soil, thereby compromising forest productivity [36].
Research has analyzed the environmental effects associated with forest harvesting
operations using different levels of mechanization. It was noted that the fully mechanized
system, known as short logs or “cut to length”, stood out for its superior performance in
the final stages of felling, showing lower adverse environmental impacts [37].
Forests 2024,15, 1291 15 of 17
The short log harvesting method (cut-to-length) consists of sectioning the tree into
logs during harvesting and before transportation, while the full tree method consists of
just harvesting and transporting them without sectioning them. The short log harvesting
method, when carried out in a fully mechanized system, generally results in timber products
of better quality and consistency than the whole tree method in a more environmentally
conscious, versatile and safe way [19,38,39].
According to the literature, the majority of works published in the last 15 years deal
with the assessment of environmental impacts in a specific manner, analyzing variables
individually. These studies address soil compaction, impacts on air, soil and water quality,
ergonomic issues, the relationship between the local community and forestry production
activities and, mainly, the operational performance of the machines used in forestry opera-
tions. However, there is a lack of studies focused on the comprehensive management of
environmental impacts, considering integrated planning and monitoring that consider the
complexity of anthropic, biotic and abiotic variables [1,4,14,16,24].
A multidisciplinary approach is needed to deal with the complex problems associated
with machine/soil/plant interactions. Certain relationships between mitigation techniques
and their performance can only be fully understood through holistic projects and forest
planning actions focused on impact mitigation [40–44].
Publications in recent years demonstrate the interest of the community and researchers
in aggregating knowledge and outlining strategies in order to support scientifically based
changes, as well as developing tools to solve environmental problems arising from produc-
tive activities [
24
]. On the other hand, there is a lack of greater research related to forest
harvesting and its impacts beyond the production scope.
5. Conclusions
It was concluded that, according to the methodology applied, the most significant
changes were observed in the physical and anthropic environments, with wood transport
presenting the highest rates of environmental impact. The combination of methodologies
allowed the adaptation of an integrated planning tool for the environmental management
of forest harvesting. This adaptation made it possible to qualify the most significant
environmental impacts, both positive and negative. Furthermore, the study contributes
to the practical application in real time, with field data, of an agile management tool,
applicable to day-to-day forestry operations and adaptable to different forestry models and
productivity conditions.
However, the integration of environmental impact assessment methods still requires
greater systematization and research to follow technological developments in harvesting
and large-scale productivity. In addition to the existing gap in practical methodologies for
environmental monitoring, prevention and mitigation, there is a need for more case studies
for the development of low-cost tools. There are great opportunities to develop work to
assess environmental impacts and damages from an economic point of view in the medium
and long term, evaluating the interaction with ecosystem services and the subjectivity
of weightings in environmental impact assessments with regard to methodologies that
depend on quantifications.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f15081291/s1, Figure S1. Interaction networks developed in the
study—Road
opening and maintenance. (2019); Figure S2. Interaction networks developed in
the study—Wood storage and drying. (2019); Figure S3. Interaction networks developed in the
study—Loading
. (2019); and Figure S4. Interaction networks developed in the study—Wood trans-
portation. (2019).
Forests 2024,15, 1291 16 of 17
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.P.A.F.; methodology, C.P.A.F.; validation, C.P.A.F. and
A.Í.R.; data collection and formal analysis, C.P.A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, C.P.A.F.;
M.P.d.S.M., J.V.B.C., G.A.D.M., L.H.F.A. and A.Í.R.; writing—review and editing, J.V.B.C., L.H.F.A.,
G.S.d.S. and G.A.D.M.; visualization, C.P.A.F. and supervision, A.Í.R. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001, grant number 33004170001P6.
Acknowledgments: Acknowledgments to the Postgraduate Program in Environmental Sciences of
São Paulo State University “Júlio de Mesquita Filho” (UNESP), the partner authors in this article and
the forestry company that collaborated with the area to carry out the study and collect data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Schweier, J.; Magagnotti, N.; Labelle, E.R.; Athanassiadis, D. Sustainability impact assessment of forest operations: A review.
Curr. For. Rep. 2019,5, 101–113. [CrossRef]
2.
IBÁ. Indústria Brasileira de Árvores—Relatório Anual 2022. São Paulo. 2021. Available online: https://www.iba.org/ (accessed
on 20 February 2024).
3.
Oliveira, A.B.; Paz, D.A.S.; da Silveira, K.C. Expansão da silvicultura do eucalipto e transformações no uso da terra em municípios
do oeste maranhense. InterEspaço Rev. Geogr. E Interdiscip. 2020,6, e202006. [CrossRef]
4.
Feng, Y.; Audy, J.-F. Silvicultura 4.0: Um framework para a cadeia de suprimentos florestal no contexto da Indústria 4.0. Gestão
Produção2020,27, e5677. [CrossRef]
5.
Guerino, R.M.G.; de Morais, I.L.; Santos, A.B.d.S.; Campos, R.M. Expansion and socio-environmental impacts of the culture of
Eucalyptus spp. (Myrtaceae) in Brazil: A literature panorama. Res. Soc. Dev. 2022,11, e48811326751. [CrossRef]
6.
Soman, H.; Kizha, A.R.; Roth, B.E. Impacts of silvicultural prescriptions and implementation of best management practices on
timber harvesting costs. Int. J. For. Eng. 2019,30, 14–25. [CrossRef]
7.
Lei Complementar 123/2006. Lei Complementar N
◦
123, de 14 de Dezembro de 2006. Available online: https://www.planalto.
gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/lcp123.htm (accessed on 11 January 2024).
8.
Britto, P.C.; Britto, P.C.; Jaeger, D.; Hoffmann, S.; Robert, R.C.G.; Vibrans, A.C.; Fantini, A.C. Impact assessment of timber
harvesting operations for enhancing sustainable management in a secondary Atlantic Forest. Sustainability 2019,11, 6272.
[CrossRef]
9.
Alberts, R.C.; Retief, F.P.; Cilliers, D.P.; Roos, C.; Hauptfleisch, M. Environmental impact assessment (EIA) effectiveness in
protected areas. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2021,39, 290–303. [CrossRef]
10.
Martins, T.S.; Junior, G.N.d.R.C. Avaliação de impacto ambiental: Uma revisão sistemática sob a ótica metodológica. ES Eng. Sci.
2018,7, 29–41. [CrossRef]
11.
Penadés-Plà, V.; Martínez-Muñoz, D.; García-Segura, T.; Navarro, I.J.; Yepes, V. Environmental and social impact assessment of
optimized post-tensioned concrete road bridges. Sustainability 2020,12, 4265. [CrossRef]
12. Sánchez, L.E. Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental—Conceitos e Métodos, 3rd ed.; Oficina de Textos: São Paulo, Brasil, 2020; pp. 69–81.
13.
Banyal, S.; Aggarwal, R.K.; Bhardwaj, S.K. A review on methodologies adopted during environmental impact assessment of
development projects. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019,8, 2108–2119. [CrossRef]
14.
Harker, K.J.; Arnold, L.; Sutherland, I.J.; Gergel, S.E. Perspectives from landscape ecology can improve environmental impact
assessment. Facets 2021,6, 358–378. [CrossRef]
15. Ritter, C.D.; McCrate, G.; Nilsson, R.H.; Fearnside, P.M.; Palme, U.; Antonelli, A. Environmental impact assessment in Brazilian
Amazonia: Challenges and prospects to assess biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2017,206, 161–168. [CrossRef]
16.
Proto, A.R.; Bacenetti, J.; Macrì, G.; Zimbalatti, G. Roundwood and bioenergy production from forestry: Environmental impact
assessment considering different logging systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,165, 1485–1498. [CrossRef]
17.
IBGE. Mapa de Solos do Brasil. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, 2001. Available online: https://www.ibge.gov.
br/geociencias (accessed on 22 February 2024).
18. IBF. Brazilian Forestry Institute. Available online: https://www.ibflorestas.org.br/ (accessed on 5 March 2024).
19.
Labelle, E.R.; Lemmer, K.J. Selected environmental impacts of forest harvesting operations with varying degree of mechanization.
Croat. J. For. Eng. J. Theory Appl. For. Eng. 2019,40, 239–257. [CrossRef]
20.
Kulmann, M.S.d.S.; Eufrade-Junior, H.d.J.; Dick, G.; Schumacher, M.V.; de Azevedo, G.B.; Azevedo, G.T.d.O.S.; Guerra, S.P.S.
Different harvest systems of Eucalyptus clone plantations affect above and belowground biomass production and nutritional
sustainability. New For. 2022,54, 543–563. [CrossRef]
21.
De Jesus, M.S.; Silva, M.G.; Tavares, M.S.; Silva, L.G.O.C.; Santos, R.E.M.; Brandão, T.M.; Costa, I.M.N.B.C.; Amoriom, E.O.C.
Métodos de avaliação de impactos ambientais: Uma revisão bibliográfica. Braz. J. Dev. 2021,7, 38039–38070. [CrossRef]
Forests 2024,15, 1291 17 of 17
22.
Pastakia, C.M.R.; Jensen, A. The rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) for EIA. Environ. Impact Asses Rev. 1998,18, 461–482.
[CrossRef]
23.
Fonseca, A.; Sánchez, L.E.; Ribeiro JC, J. Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 2017,62, n90–n97. [CrossRef]
24.
Duarte, C.G.; Dibo, A.P.A.; Sánchez, L.E. O que diz a pesquisa Acadêmica sobre Avaliação de Impacto e Licenciamento Ambiental
no Brasil? Ambiente Soc. 2017,20, 261–292. [CrossRef]
25.
Nogueira, L.R.S.; Ribeiro, A.I.; Medeiros, G.A.; Martins, A.C.G.; Longo, R.M. Análise integrada dos aspectos e impactos ambientais
da atividade operacional em Parque Eólico No Sudoeste Da Bahia/Brasil. Rev. Gestão Sustentabilidade Ambient. 2020,9, 40–63.
[CrossRef]
26.
da Silva, E.B.R.; da Silva, W.C.; Gonçalves, M.F.; Friaes, E.P.P.F.; Pedroso, A.J.S.; da Costa, B.O.; Rocha, C.B.R.; Colares Camargo
Júnior, R.N. Principais metodologias de Avaliação de Impacto Ambiental no território brasileiro. CIS-Conjecturas Inter Stud. 2022,
22, 2137–2146. [CrossRef]
27.
Schettino, S.; Azevedo, P.T.O.; Caçador, S.S.; Minette, L.J.; Guimarães, N. Estudo comparativo dos índices de qualidade de vida
no trabalho florestal em atividades com e sem mecanização. Agropecuária Científica No Semiárido 2020,16, 20–26. [CrossRef]
28.
Korneeva, Y.; Simonova, N.; Shadrina, N. The psychosocial risk factors evaluation and management of shift personnel at forest
harvesting. Forests 2022,13, 1447. [CrossRef]
29.
Gümü¸s, S.; Ünver Okan, S.; Hatay, T. Analysis of work accidents in wood harvesting: A case study of the East Black Sea region.
Forestist 2020,70, 1–7. [CrossRef]
30.
Schettino, S.; Minette, L.J.; Lima, R.C.A.; Nascimento, G.S.P.; Caçador, S.S.; Vieira, M.P.L. Forest harvesting in rural properties:
Risks and worsening to the worker’s health under the ergonomics approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2021,82, 103087. [CrossRef]
31.
Leite, E.S.; Santos, J.S.; Gomes, B.M.; Nóbrega, J.C.A.; Nóbrega, R.S.A. Compactação do solo causada pelo harvester e intensidade
de tráfego do forwarder na colheita florestal. Sci. For. 2020,48, e3075. [CrossRef]
32.
Pinto, A.C.M.; Souza, A.L.D.; Souza, A.P.D.; Machado, C.C.; Minette, L.J.; Vale, A.B.D. Análise de danos de colheita de madeira
em floresta tropical úmida sob regime de manejo florestal sustentado na Amazônia Ocidental. Rev. Árvore 2022,26, 459–466.
[CrossRef]
33.
Picchio, R.; Mederski, P.S.; Tavankar, F. How and how much, do harvesting activities affect forest soil, regeneration and stands?
Curr. For. Rep. 2020,6, 115–128. [CrossRef]
34.
Abbas, D.; Handler, R.M. Life-cycle assessment of forest harvesting and transportation operations in Tennessee. J. Clean. Prod.
2017,176, 512–520. [CrossRef]
35.
Kouchaki-Penchah, H.; Moaf, A.B.; Kougir-Chegini, Z.; Lang, M.N. Cradle to gate environmental impact assessment of the
Iranian forestry operations. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023,102, 107183. [CrossRef]
36.
Zhao, J.; Smith, W.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Bergman, R. Life-cycle impact assessment of hardwood forest resources in the eastern
United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2024,909, 168458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37.
Toivio, J.; Helmisaaria, H.S.; Palviainena, M.; Lindemanb, H.; Ala-Ilomäkic, J.; Sirénc, M.; Uusitalob, J. Impacts of timber
forwarding on physical properties of forest soils in southern Finland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017,405, 22–30. [CrossRef]
38.
Rodrigues, C.K.; Lopes, E.d.S.; Müller, M.M.L. Avaliação da qualidade estrutural do solo em colheita mecanizada (harvester e
forwarder) de Eucalyptus grandis. Agrarian 2020,13, 56–62. [CrossRef]
39.
Labelle, E.R.; Hansson, L.; Högbom, L. Strategies to mitigate the effects of soil physical disturbances caused by forest ma-chinery:
A comprehensive review. Curr. For. 2022,8, 20–37. [CrossRef]
40.
Bayle, G. Ecological and social impacts of eucalyptus tree plantation on the environment. J. Biodivers. Conserv. Bioresour. Manag.
2019,5, 93–104. [CrossRef]
41.
McEwan, A.; Marchi, E.; Spinelli, R.; Brink, M. Past, present and future of industrial plantation forestry and implication on future
timber harvesting technology. J. For. Res. 2020,31, 339–351. [CrossRef]
42.
Titus, B.D.; Brown, K.; Helmisaari, H.S.; Vanguelova, E.; Stupak, I.; Evans, A.; Reece, P. Sustainable Forest biomass: A review of
current residue harvesting guidelines. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2021,11, 1–32. [CrossRef]
43.
de Jesus França, L.C.; Júnior, F.W.A.; e Silva, C.S.J.; Monti, C.A.U.; Ferreira, T.C.; de Oliveira Santana, C.J.; Gomide, L.R. Forest
landscape planning and management: A state-of-the-art review. Trees For. People 2022,8, 100275. [CrossRef]
44.
Savari, M.; Damaneh, E.; Damaneh, E. Factors influencing local people’s participation in sustainable forest management. Arab. J.
Geosci. 2020,13, 513. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.