Next Article in Journal
Due Diligence for Deforestation-Free Supply Chains with Copernicus Sentinel-2 Imagery and Machine Learning
Next Article in Special Issue
Time Composition, Efficiency, Workload, and Noise Exposure during Tree Felling and Processing with Petrol and Battery-Powered Chainsaws in Mixed High Forest Stands
Previous Article in Journal
The Optimization of the Steam-Heat-Treated Process of Rattan (Calamus simplicifolius) Based on the Response Surface Analysis and Its Chemical Changes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Preliminary Tests of a Hybrid Cable Splice (Synthetic–Metal) to Innovate Timber Harvesting in the Mediterranean Forestry Sector
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Forestry Ergonomics Publications in the Last Decade: A Review

by
Marin Bačić
,
Matija Landekić
*,
Zdravko Pandur
,
Marijan Šušnjar
,
Mario Šporčić
,
Hrvoje Nevečerel
and
Kruno Lepoglavec
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska Cesta 23, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2024, 15(4), 616; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040616
Submission received: 28 February 2024 / Revised: 26 March 2024 / Accepted: 27 March 2024 / Published: 28 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Addressing Forest Ergonomics Issues: Laborers and Working Conditions)

Abstract

:
Compiling the research on forestry ergonomics, which is still a marginal field in terms of the sheer volume of published forestry-related articles, gives a good foundation and guidance for future research and publishing. This review aims to compile, classify, and analyze forestry ergonomics publications in JIF (Journal Impact Factor) journals regarding their spatial and temporal distribution, observed operations, machines and tools, and risk factors. A reference period from 2014 to 2023 was observed in this study. The Web of Science Core Collection database was used to filter publications in the field of forestry and ergonomics. A total number of 102 articles were selected. After selection, data regarding publishing year, journal name, main field, country of origin, forest operation, machine/tool, and risk factor were noted. The number of articles is ever-increasing with the last four years having above average numbers of articles. Countries from Europe and South America (Brazil) have the most publications. Most of the journals are ranked in the top 50%. Harvesting, wood extraction, and pre-harvesting operations have the highest number of records. Chainsaw, skidder, and pre-harvesting tools are the most observed means of work. The risk factors with the highest percentage of records are workload (23%), noise (20%), vibration (20%), postural load (16%), and MSD (Musculoskeletal Disorder) occurrence (7%).

1. Introduction

There are two major aspects of forestry work concerning which ergonomics can make important contributions. The first addresses problems of adaptation to heavy manual labor. In these labors, men are using simple tools to provide the most important part of the energy required to carry out given work. This can be critical when other factors are added, such as environmental heat. The second aspect is represented by mechanized work, where human energy is replaced by machinery. The workers become more sedentary, limiting their activities to perceive and interpret information and execute their decisions with actions that demand little muscular effort but require high participation of their mental processes [1]. This summarizes the focal point of forestry ergonomics and can be observed in all articles published on this topic.
According to previous research [2], forestry ergonomics will have to face challenges like dissemination of the existing knowledge of classic ergonomics, adjustments of standards to specific local conditions and workers, development of cognitive ergonomics, and adjustments in the organization of work and people to fast-developing technologies and production processes.
Risk factors included in forestry ergonomics publications are substantial and their dynamic appearance is observed in this review. Regardless of time period or harvesting systems, “traditional“ risk factors like noise [3,4,5,6,7], vibration [8,9,10,11], and workload [12,13,14] remain relevant. Postural load [15,16,17] and MSD (Musculoskeletal Disorders) occurrence [18,19] are being increasingly researched and assessed via standardized evaluation schemes and questionnaires like REBA (Rapid Entire Body Assessment) [20], OWAS (Ovako Working Posture Analysis System) [21], or Nordic questionnaire [22]. Meanwhile, comprehensive research of multiple risk factors [23,24] via checklists, like the European ergonomic and safety guidelines for forest machines [25], remains scarce.
Compiling research on forestry ergonomics, which is still a marginal field in terms of the sheer volume of published forestry-related articles, gives a good foundation and guidance for future research and publishing. This statement is backed up by the prediction made in a first compilation–review article on forestry ergonomics by Potočnik and Poje [26], which is a highly cited article. The main prediction by those authors is that the number of publications in journals with the journal impact factor (JIF) will increase in the future due to an increasing number of forestry and ergonomics journals with JIF, uniformity of the evaluation of research performance, and the development of technologies and measurement techniques.
This review aims to compile, classify, and analyze forestry ergonomics publications in JIF journals regarding their spatial and temporal distribution, observed operations, machines and tools, and risk factors. The results should point to key questions and challenges faced and observed by countries worldwide regarding forestry ergonomics.

2. Materials and Methods

The reference period from 2014 to 2023 was observed in this study. Web of Science Core Collection (WOS CC) database was used to filter publications (articles) in the field of forestry and ergonomics. The intention of limiting this review to articles published in journals indexed in WOS CC was to ensure, to some extent, the quality and originality of the reviewed content, as perceived by the scientific community. It should be noted that the journals indexed in AHCI (Arts and Humanities Citation Index) and ESCI (Emerging Sources Citation Index) have received JIF since JCR 2022 (Journal Citation Report), while their quartiles will be visible in JCR 2023. Review articles were excluded from this study. Keywords used in the forestry field included “ergonomics”, “noise”, “vibration”, “postural”, “workload”, and “MSD”, while in the ergonomics field “forestry” and “forest” were used. After filtering the articles, the presented summary was reviewed to establish the validity of the article to be included in the study. The condition was that the presented studies be partially or entirely conducted in the broader field of forestry work. This, along with traditional forestry operations, included biomass production, measuring and managing, and controlled tests conducted on forestry workers. A total number of 102 articles regarding forestry ergonomics were selected.
After selection, data regarding publishing year, journal name, main field (WOS category), and country of origin for each article were noted. Some articles had international authorship; however, as a decision factor for noting country of origin, the location where studies were conducted was used. Furthermore, all articles were classified according to categories: forestry operation(s) observed in the study, machine(s) or tool(s) used by the worker(s), and ergonomic risk factor(s) (Table 1).
If the article dealt with several forestry operations, machines, and tools, or risk factors, it was classified into multiple fields within a category and stats were given as a number of records.
The database was constructed using Microsoft Excel® (v16.0, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA), which was also used for the presentation of the results through graphs and tables. A free platform MapChart (v5.0.0, Minas, Greece) was used for spatial presentation of the results.

3. Results

3.1. Publishing Year, Country, Journal, and Field Overview

One hundred and two forestry-ergonomics-related articles in the last decade (Table A1) make an average of 10 articles per year (Figure 1). The majority (61) of articles were published in the second half of the decade.
A total number of 25 countries on six continents published articles observed in this study (Figure 2).
Most articles (84) were published by countries from Europe (57) and South America, where Brazil alone published 27 articles—it is also the country with the most published articles. Of the European countries, Italy has the most publications (12). Other countries with five or more articles include Poland (8), Romania (7), and Croatia (5).
Articles were published in 25 journals (Figure 3), of which 20 were in the field of forestry and the rest in the field of ergonomics. Likewise, 85 articles were published in journals of the forestry field and 17 in the journals of the ergonomics field.
Journals with the five or more published articles include Forests (22), Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering (12), International Journal of Forest Engineering (11), Revista Arvore (8), International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics (6), and Ergonomics (5).

3.2. Article Classification

Regarding the topic of the article and its classification by the category of forest operations, a total of 127 records in seven fields were noted (Figure 4).
Harvesting operations were the most represented in this review, followed by wood extraction and pre-harvesting operations, all of which total 84% of all records in this category of classification. As expected, the most records in harvesting (16), wood extraction (13), and pre-harvesting (6) were noted in Brazilian articles (Figure A1). Other countries with five or more records in harvesting operations include Italy, Poland, and Romania. Wood transport was only mentioned in articles published by Germany, Indonesia, Türkiye, USA, and Japan with one article per country. Likewise, ergonomics in biomass production was studied the most by Italy (3) followed by Finland, Greece, Slovenia, and Türkiye with one article per country. Operations regarding measuring and managing were studied in Brazil, Japan, Poland, and Romania with one article per country. Controlled tests were conducted in Canada (3) and Slovenia (1).
A total of 152 records in 18 fields on machine/tool studied in observed articles were noted (Figure 5).
The most represented machines and tools were chainsaw (37), skidder (17), pre-harvesting tools (16), harvester (14), forwarder (12), and farm tractor (12). Overall, almost one-third of all records were noted in Brazilian articles (Figure A2) where the most records were observed for skidder (8), feller buncher (7), harvester (6), pre-harvesting tools (6), chainsaw (5), and forwarder (5). Out of 25 countries, chainsaw was noted in articles from 17 countries including Brazil and Croatia with five records, Poland and Romania with four, and Iran and Italy with three records each.
Classification of articles by the risk factor category yielded 157 records in 15 fields (Figure 6).
Workload (multiple types) is the most common risk factor with 36 records, followed by vibration and noise with 31 records each, postural load (25), and MSD (11). Again, almost one-third of all records were noted in Brazilian articles (Figure A3) with noise (11), postural load (11), vibration (9), and workload (6) as the most represented. Other countries with five or more records per field include Italy (6) and Poland (5) in the workload field and Romania (5) in the noise field.

3.3. Recent Study Results per Risk Factors Overview

3.3.1. Noise and Vibration

Exposure to a noise level of 85 dB(A) for more than 8 h can damage hearing, while raising the noise level to 95 dB(A) (chainsaw territory) reduces exposure time to less than one hour before putting hearing at risk. Repeated exposure can lead to more lasting conditions (total hearing loss). In addition, symptoms like physical and mental stress, high blood pressure, or tinnitus can occur [27]. Vibration, especially hand–arm vibration (HAV), is viewed as a risk factor that can only be mitigated via shorter exposure time through the likes of job rotation, limited working time, or entire harvesting system replacement. HAVs in forestry are generated from hand-held and hand-guided tools and machines like chainsaws, brushcutters, stump grinders, billhooks, machetes, axes, and sickles [10]. Long exposures can cause problems with blood circulation in fingertips and damage to muscles, nerves, and tendons [28]. Whole-body vibration (WBV) is mainly a concern in highly mechanized systems [29]. Occurrence of neck pain among forest machine operators is associated with exposure to shock-type vibration [30].
Out of 156 records, the most are observed in these two fields (62). Regardless of the simplicity of minimizing noise exposure through the use of PPE and other measures, it remains a high point in forestry ergonomics. The latest discoveries in chainsaw noise state that the average noise dose exceeds the maximum allowable limit of 85 dB(A) for 8 h of continuous work [31,32]. Veiga et al. [33] concluded that for the chainsaw, the maximum exposure time is one hour (without PPE). The exposure of harvester and forwarder operators to noise in karst areas does not exceed the limit for daily noise exposure defined in the EU legislation [34] but is higher than exposure in fully mechanized CTL harvesting on flat terrain [23]. Carmago et al. [4] observed that 36.4% of harvester operators were exposed to values above the exposure limit of 85 dB(A) and 63.6% to the action level of 80 dB(A). Regarding the forwarder operators, 100% were exposed to values that exceeded the action level. In full tree harvesting, the results showed that 17 self-propelled forest machines exceeded the exposure action value of 80 dB(A), of which 10 machines exceeded the exposure limit of 85 dB(A) [5].
Lately, many studies regarding vibrations have been performed on battery-powered chainsaws; the general conclusion is that hand–arm vibrations are weaker than those of similar power and weight-class petrol chainsaws [10,35,36]. Different hand tools used in forest cleaning are deemed unsafe because of high hand–arm vibrations [10]. Chainsaw vibrations, i.e., daily vibration exposure, are not affected by the years in use of the chainsaw [37,38]. Feyzi et al. [11] stated that the effect of wood species on vibration acceleration was found to be significant, while no significant influence of this factor on the vibration total value was detected. Instead, the cutting process amplified the vibration total value due to an increase in the vibration acceleration at lower frequencies. Martins et al. [8] reported higher WBV exposures by tracked harvesters in comparison to wheeled harvesters.

3.3.2. Workload

Multiple iterations of workload was the most common risk factor recorded in this study. Physical workload is the measurable portion of physical resources expended when performing a given task (manual lifting and carrying, repetitive work, and other physical strain). It is affected by various factors, including the nature of work, training, motivation, and environmental factors [39]. On the other hand, mental workload can be defined as the proportion of information processing capability used to perform a task [40,41].
As expected, manual and motor-manual work is physically the most demanding and deemed as moderate to heavy or very heavy from a physical workload standpoint [32,42,43,44,45]. Mental workload is mostly associated with a higher level of mechanization. A study by Spinelli et al. [46] confirmed the increased aggravation of mental demand, effort, and frustration experienced by the harvester operators when passing from the »pure conifer« stand to the »mixwood« stand. Furthermore, a higher slope gradient increased visual activity, indicating that the harvester operator experienced a heavier mental workload [47]. However, a study by Arman et al. [48] on tree fellers, skidder drivers, and manual loaders recorded high scores for mental workload using a NASA-TLX questionnaire. Pajek et al. [49] in their controlled study stated that there are significant differences in psychophysical load in regard to the clothing systems used by forest workers.

3.3.3. Postural Load

Methods for assessing postural load are mostly based on sampling the work instances and coding them to evaluate postures of different body parts [20,21]. After the assessment, the necessity of improvement is indicated. According to the literature, unfavorable and bad working postures are closely linked to MSD occurrence [50,51].
Postural load is assessed in manual, motor-manual, and fully mechanized work. Lopes et al. [52] stated that manual planting operations caused greater postural discomfort in the legs of 56% of workers, while the fertilization and herbicide application caused discomfort in the shoulders of 41% and 56% of interviewed workers, respectively. A study by Borz et al. [32] in motor-manual felling reported a postural risk index of 191.11% for the worker handling the brush cutter and 192.02% for the manual assistant, indicating rather reduced risks. Starting a chainsaw is a mostly over-looked operation from an ergonomics standpoint; however, Landekić et al. [17] stated that the safest method of starting the chainsaw from the ground is the riskiest in terms of postural load, which, over time, can contribute to health problems in forest workers. The results of the Brazilian study [53] showed that the feller buncher operators remained seated in a static position for a long period, with fists turning outside the neutral line and without pauses for recovery, although REBA and RULA (Rapid Upper Limb Assessment) methods identified low postural risk. In wood processing operations with a harvester, the spinal column and neck were the most affected body parts, presenting medium postural risk. A Swedish study [54] observed that increasing forwarder speed and size of obstacles increased postural loads expressed as a range of motions.

3.3.4. MSDs (Musculoskeletal Disorders)

Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders are conditions in which some or all of the following apply:
  • The work environment and performance of work contribute significantly to the condition;
  • The condition is made worse or persists longer due to work conditions.
A workplace ergonomics program can aim to prevent or control injuries and illnesses by eliminating or reducing worker exposure to work-related MSD risk factors using engineering and administrative controls [55].
For assessing the prevalence of self-reported musculoskeletal symptoms, different types of questionnaires are used. A Polish study [56] showed the dominant MSD symptoms among loggers to be those of the lower back (66.3%) and hands/wrists (left 50.1%, right 51.3%). A significant percentage of respondents also reported symptoms of the upper back (45.6%), shoulders (38.2% for each shoulder), and knees (left 36.0%, right 39.4%). Landekić et al. [57] stated that workers employed by a state-owned company have a higher prevalence of MSD symptoms in almost all anatomical locations compared to chainsaw operators employed by private forest contractors. According to Staněk et al. [58] the most stressed part of the chainsaw operator’s body at the end of a shift was the lumbar region. In addition to obvious forest operations, forest measurement work can affect the development of MSD symptoms, as stated in a Brazilian study [59] where the activities of rigorous volume determination and soil collecting have been considered as having great risk of developing MSDs. Forwarder operators in South Africa reported having experienced work-related MSDs during the last 12 months mainly in the lower back, neck, shoulders, and upper back [60].

3.3.5. Thermal Comfort, Gases and Particulates, Repetitive Motion, Fatigue, Human Factors, and Visibility

The residual risk factors with more than one record are compiled in this sub-subsection. Regarding thermal comfort, a Romanian study [61] showed that the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) index values (−4.6 °C and 23 °C) revealed severe thermal stress on the chainsaw operator. The same authors [62] stated that the microclimate and carbon monoxide exposures inside skidder and farm tractor cabins were within their limits in the process of collecting wood. Santos et al. [63], in their study of ergonomic parameters of forwarder operators, characterized the forwarder operation as repetitive, with simple simultaneous movements of hands, wrists, and fingers. The results of the study conducted in New Zealand [64] suggest that it may not be possible to identify correlations between workloads (based on physical and cognitive stresses) and fatigue measures using in situ measurements as results are highly personalized to individual workers. Nakata et al. [65], in their survey of log truck drivers in Japan by questionnaires and interviews, stated that non-occupational drivers felt more fatigue; 66.6% had felt tired or exhausted compared to 31.8% of occupational drivers. A Brazilian study on human factors and work conditions in forest maintenance and planting operations [66] indicated that the workers’ average age was 34.9 years, most of them of rural origin, married, with a low level of education, and short time experience in the company and the function—14.9 and 12.5 months, respectively. Oliveira et al. [24] in their ergonomic assessments of forestry machines using the ergonomic Degree of Compliance (V) method assessed the skidder visibility as poor in the lateral plane (V 0.0) in both shifts worked due to shocks and bumps in the machine’s movements and visibility difficulty during the operation.

3.3.6. Illumination, Cab, Controls, and Seat

This sub-subsection compiles risk factors with only one record. Included risk factors, along with visibility, and gases and particulates, are a part of the European Ergonomic and Safety Guidelines for Forest Machines [25] that propose a methodology for evaluating and obtaining an ergonomic profile of typical forest machines (skidder, forwarder, and harvester). The stated risk factors are mentioned in two articles about the comprehensive ergonomic assessment of wood harvesting machines. Illumination was mentioned in a Brazilian article [24], which stated that skidder night illumination is non-compliant, scoring only 0.6 degrees of compliance. The remaining four risk factors were studied in a Russian article by Gerasimov and Sokolov [23] who stated that despite the extensive development of cabs, problems still exist.

4. Discussion

Similar to the previous study [26], the number of publications increased over the observed time period with the last 4 years having an above-average (10 publications) number of publications. This could imply the increase in interest of the scientific community in forestry ergonomics topics due to reoccurring problems, with the forestry workforce shortage [67] consequently leading to higher funding of this kind of research. Furthermore, there is an ever-growing number of JIF journals to be published, and the necessity of publishing due to career development is a big driving factor in some countries [68].
Regarding the spatial distribution of published articles, an evident drawback of this review is that, due to the WOS database, only articles written in Latin were considered, which partially excludes articles from countries like Russia and China. An evident change from a previous study by Potočnik and Poje [26] is the lack of articles from North America, where only seven articles originated from. Brazil is by far the country with the most published articles. The sheer magnitude of forest operations in the Amazonian rainforest has understandably raised many questions and problems to be investigated regarding forestry ergonomics. Cumulatively, European countries published the most articles in the observed time period. The reason for this could be found in Europe’s multicultural setting with a significant number of universities and institutes. Also, as a contributing factor, modern forestry was developed in French- and German-speaking European countries [69].
Journals with the most publications recorded are mostly high-ranking journals within the top 50% (Q1 and Q2) according to their JIF, making them attractive for publication due to reasons mentioned by de Rijcke et al. [68]. On the other hand, the majority of Brazilian articles, 19 out of 27, were published in their domestic journals.
Harvesting and wood extraction operations are the most represented in this review, which is understandable as those operations form the core of forest work and involve multiple risk factors. Furthermore, regarding the machine or tool used, chainsaws and skidders have the most records noted. This is in line with a previous study by Potočnik and Poje [26]. According to Lundbäck et al. [70], at least one-third of industrial roundwood worldwide is harvested and extracted by partially mechanized systems, including chainsaw + skidder. A comprehensive ergonomic evaluation of harvesting systems by Gerasimov and Sokolov [23] concluded that motor-manual tree-length harvesting performed with cable skidders showed the worst results in terms of ergonomics. Likewise, de Oliveira et al. [24] assessed the skidder visibility and illumination as poor and non-compliant, respectively.
Pre-harvesting operations and tools are next in order of appearance regarding a number of records. These operations still require motor-manual or even manual tools involving a high proportion of manual labor [71]. Logically, these operations are subjected to substantial risk factors such as postural load [52], workload [72], noise [3], and vibration [10] and the forestry research community took an interest in them, especially in Brazil, Canada, and Indonesia (Figure A1 and Figure A2).
Forwarders, harvesters, and farm tractors make up a bulk of the machines used in partially or fully mechanized harvesting systems. While forwarders and harvesters are considered the pinnacle of fully mechanized harvesting systems [73,74], mechanized harvesting of wood carried out by cut-to-length processing can present ergonomic risks, causing the emergence of occupational diseases [4]. It is considered an unhealthy environment that exposes operators to physical and psychological disorders [19,75]. Farm tractors are still used in forestry as a platform for core forest operations such as winching, forwarding, loading, or even harvesting [76,77]. Their application is mostly tied to agroforestry and small-scale forestry [78]. Nevertheless, risk factors such as workload during winching [79], noise [80], MSD occurrence [81], and postural load [82] are present.
The ergonomic assessment of feller bunchers, according to this review, is geographically mostly tied to North and South America (Figure A2), where they are used the most [83,84] but not exclusively [85,86]. Risk factors that occurred in their application consist of noise [5,6,87], vibration [88], postural load [53,82], and MSD occurrence [89].
Manual work and tools are generally tied to measuring and managing operations in forestry [13,16,59,90] where workload and postural load were assessed. They are also involved in pre-harvesting and harvesting [15], e.g., postural load during manual cultivation and assistance with a wooden stick to help direct the felling; and wood extraction [15,48], e.g., MSD occurrence and workload while sorting small logs and manual loading, respectively.
Ergonomic assessment of biomass production is mostly present in chipping [91,92,93] where noise and vibration are the main concerns. Articles regarding wood transport include only timber trucks as a means of transportation and assess vibration [94], MSD occurrence [19], postural load [95], and noise [87]. Research of risk factors in controlled tests include vibration [96,97] and workload [98].
Somewhat in line with a previous study [26], records of five risk factors stand out: workload, noise, vibration, postural load, and MSD occurrence. Forest work is, and will remain, labor intensive. Technological development allowed a transition from manual work systems to motor-manual and fully mechanized systems. This was beneficial for improving safety and health at work [99,100,101]. However, with the shift of technologies, some risk factors only changed their point of influence and remained relevant, some were completely minimized, and new ones emerged. Substitution of a motor-manual system with a fully mechanized one shifts the workload from physical to mental and vibration from hand–arm to whole body. Postural load and MSD occurrence, although present in fully mechanized systems, pose a greater threat during motor-manual pre-harvesting and harvesting. Even though noise exposure is easily controllable [26], according to this review, noise is still a present risk factor in forest operations.

5. Conclusions

The main conclusions can be reduced to several points:
  • The number of articles is ever-increasing with the last four years having an above average number of articles (12). An increase is also observed cumulatively compared to a previous study [26], from 76 to 102 articles.
  • Countries from Europe and South America (Brazil) have the most publications at 57 and 27, respectively.
  • Most of the journals are ranked in the top 50%, while Brazil—a country with the highest number of articles—was mostly (19 out of 27) publishing in domestic journals.
  • Harvesting (44%), wood extraction (27%), and pre-harvesting (13%) operations have the highest percentage of records.
  • Chainsaw, skidder, and pre-harvesting tools are the most observed means of work with 24%, 11%, and 11% of records, respectively.
  • The risk factors with the highest percentage of records are workload (23%), noise (20%), vibration (20%), postural load (16%), and MSD occurrence (7%).
Furthermore, this review can give insight into the current state of forestry-ergonomics-related articles in JIF journals. Forestry ergonomics, being somewhat of a marginal topic, ironically, is most certainly a field with a high potential for new scientific discoveries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B. and M.L.; data curation, H.N.; formal analysis, M.Š. (Mario Šporčić); investigation, M.B. and Z.P.; methodology, M.B. and M.L.; resources, K.L.; software, M.L.; supervision, Z.P.; validation, Z.P., M.B., M.Š. (Marijan Šušnjar) and M.L.; visualization, M.L.; writing—original draft, M.B. and M.L.; writing—review and editing, Z.P. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data supporting this study can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Number of records in operation category per country (warmer colors indicate higher number).
Figure A1. Number of records in operation category per country (warmer colors indicate higher number).
Forests 15 00616 g0a1
Figure A2. Number of records in machine/tool category per country (warmer colors indicate higher number).
Figure A2. Number of records in machine/tool category per country (warmer colors indicate higher number).
Forests 15 00616 g0a2
Figure A3. Number of records in risk factor category per country (warmer colors indicate higher number).
Figure A3. Number of records in risk factor category per country (warmer colors indicate higher number).
Forests 15 00616 g0a3

Appendix B

Table A1. List of authors whose articles were used in the analysis.
Table A1. List of authors whose articles were used in the analysis.
Authors and Reference Numbers in Chronological Order (Left to Right)
Nuutinen et al., 2014 [91]Leszczyński and Stańczykiewicz 2014 [102]Gerasimov and Sokolov 2014 [23]Sasaki et al., 2014 [103]
Britto et al., 2014 [104]Oliveira et al., 2014 [71]Barbosa et al., 2014 [105]Silva et al., 2014 [89]
Leszczyński and Stańczykiewicz 2015 [106]Spinelli et al., 2015 [79]Almeida et al., 2015 [88]Yovi and Prajawati 2015 [107]
Dubé et al., 2015 [98]Ji et al., 2015 [96]Fonseca et al., 2015 [108]Poje et al., 2015 [92]
Souza et al., 2015 [109]Minette et al., 2015 [110]Huber and Stampfer 2015 [111]Grzywiński 2015 [112]
Britto et al., 2015 [66]Poje et al., 2016 [80]Magagnotti et al., 2016 [113]Grzywinski et al., 2016 [56]
Dubé et al., 2016 [114]Ottaviani Aalmo et al., 2016 [76]Häggström et al., 2016 [29]Phairah et al., 2016 [60]
Schettino et al., 2016 [59]Marzano et al., 2017 [115]Spinelli et al., 2017 [116]Ji et al., 2017 [97]
Schettino et al., 2017 [82]Brokmeier 2017 [94]Poje et al., 2018 [93]Spinelli et al., 2018 [117]
Granzow et al., 2018 [118]Cheţa et al., 2018 [119]Tomczak et al., 2018 [18]Neri et al., 2018 [120]
Poje et al., 2018 [121]Billo et al., 2019 [31]Yovi and Yamada 2019 [19]Enez and Nalbantoğlu 2019 [95]
Bowen et al., 2019 [64]Borz et al., 2019 [32]Poje et al., 2019 [34]Lopes et al., 2019 [52]
Bligård and Häggström 2019 [122]Paini et al., 2019 [53]Grzywinski et al., 2019 [90]Oliveira et al., 2020 [24]
Santos et al., 2020 [63]Stenlund et al., 2020 [54]Spinelli et al., 2020 [46]Martins et al., 2020 [8]
Szewczyk et al., 2020 [47]Arab et al., 2020 [72]Dimou et al., 2020 [81]Iftime et al., 2020 [62]
Berendt et al., 2020 [123]Naskrent et al., 2020 [3]Landekić et al., 2020 [37]Paini et al., 2020 [124]
Martins et al., 2020 [125]McLain et al., 2021 [87]Oliveira-Nascimento et al., 2021 [42]Schönauer et al., 2021 [44]
Veiga et al., 2021 [33]Arman et al., 2021 [43]Zurita Vintimilla et al., 2021 [126]Szewczyk et al., 2021 [127]
Camargo et al., 2021 [4]Yovi et al., 2021 [128]Çağlar 2021 [129]Borz et al., 2021 [15]
Huber et al., 2021 [35]Iftime et al., 2022 [61]Pajek et al., 2022 [49]Camargo et al., 2022 [5]
Arman et al., 2022 [48]Lee et al., 2022 [45]Staněk and Mergl 2022 [130]Gejdoš et al., 2022 [131]
Camargo et al., 2022 [6]Hnilica et al., 2022 [132]Camargo et al., 2022 [7]Papandrea et al., 2022 [38]
Borz et al., 2022 [16]Landekić et al., 2023 [17]Landekić et al., 2023 [57]Staněk et al., 2023 [9]
Bačić et al., 2023 [10]Feyzi et al., 2023 [11]Ottaviani Aalmo et al., 2023 [12]Neri et al., 2023 [36]
Bačić et al., 2023 [133]Okuda et al., 2023 [13]Sláma et al., 2023 [14]Lima et al., 2023 [134]
Staněk et al., 2023 [58]Nakata et al., 2023 [65]

References

  1. Apud, E.; Meyer, F.; Espinoza, J.; Oñate, E.; Freire, J.; Maureira, F. Ergonomics and Labour in Forestry. In Tropical Forestry Handbook; Pancel, L., Köhl, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 3211–3310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Heinimann, H.R. Forest Operations Engineering and Management—The Ways behind and Ahead of a Scientific Discipline. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2007, 28, 107–121. [Google Scholar]
  3. Naskrent, B.; Grzywiński, W.; Łukowski, A.; Polowy, K. Influence of Cutting Attachment on Noise Level Emitted by Brush Cutter during Tending of Young Forests. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2020, 41, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Camargo, D.A.; Munis, R.A.; Simões, D. Investigation of Exposure to Occupational Noise among Forestry Machine Operators: A Case Study in Brazil. Forests 2021, 12, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Camargo, D.A.; Munis, R.A.; Batistela, G.C.; Simões, D. Exposure to Occupational Noise: Machine Operators of Full Tree System in Brazil. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2022, 43, 391–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Camargo, D.A.; Munis, R.A.; Rocha, Q.S.; Simões, D. Evaluation of Occupational Noise Exposure among Forest Machine Operators: A Study on the Harvest of Pinus taeda Trees. Aust. For. 2022, 85, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Camargo, D.A.; Munis, R.A.; Miyajima, R.H.; Lima, R.C.A.; Simões, D. Mechanized Wood Extraction: Impacts on Operators’ Hearing Health. Forests 2022, 13, 1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martins, A.B.; Lopes, E.d.S.; Fiedler, N.C.; de Oliveira, F.M.; Pagnussat, M.B. The Whole-Body Vibration in Operation of Wheeled and Tracked Harvester IN PINUS Thinning. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 80, 103006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stanëk, L.; Neruda, J.; Mergl, V.; Kotek, T. Difference in the Magnitude of Power Saw Vibrations Affecting the Operator during Forest Felling. Cent. Eur. For. J. 2023, 69, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bačić, M.; Landekić, M.; Šušnjar, M.; Šporčić, M.; Pandur, Z. Vibration Levels and Daily Vibration Exposure While Using Different Tools in a Forest Cleaning. Cent. Eur. For. J. 2023, 69, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feyzi, M.; Jafari, A.; Ahmadi, H. The Effect of Wood Species on Chainsaw Vibrations during Bucking Operations. Int. J. For. Eng. 2023, 34, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ottaviani Aalmo, G.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Visser, R. Quantitative and Qualitative Workload Assessment in Steep Terrain Forest Operations: Fostering a Safer Work Environment through Yarder Automation. Ergonomics 2023, 66, 717–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Okuda, M.; Kawamoto, Y.; Tado, H.; Fujita, Y.; Inomata, Y. Energy Expenditure Estimation for Forestry Workers Moving on Flat and Inclined Ground. Forests 2023, 14, 1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sláma, D.; Mergl, V.; Pavlíková, E.A. Analysis of the Heart Rate of Operators of Forwarding Machines during Work Activities. Forests 2023, 14, 1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Borz, S.A.; Iordache, E.; Marcu, M.V. Enhancing Working Posture Comparability in Forest Operations by the Use of Similarity Metrics. Forests 2021, 12, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Borz, S.A.; Papandrea, S.F.; Marcu, M.V.; Bacenetti, J.; Proto, A.R. Postural Assessment of Three Wood Measurement Options by the OWAS Method: Digital Solutions Seem to Be Better. Forests 2022, 13, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Landekić, M.; Bačić, M.; Bakarić, M.; Šporčić, M.; Pandur, Z. Working Posture and the Center of Mass Assessment While Starting a Chainsaw: A Case Study among Forestry Workers in Croatia. Forests 2023, 14, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tomczak, A.; Grzywiński, W.; Jelonek, T. Capabilities of Manhandling Small Logs in Commercial Thinning in Pine, Spruce, Beech, and Birch Stands. Sylwan 2018, 162, 531–538. [Google Scholar]
  19. Yovi, E.Y.; Yamada, Y. Addressing Occupational Ergonomics Issues in Indonesian Forestry: Laborers, Operators, or Equivalent Workers. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2019, 40, 351–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hignett, S.; McAtamney, L. Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Appl. Ergon. 2000, 31, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Karhu, O.; Kansi, P.; Kuorinka, I. Correcting Working Postures in Industry: A Practical Method for Analysis. Appl. Ergon. 1977, 8, 199–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kuorinka, I.; Jonsson, B.; Kilbom, A.; Vinterberg, H.; Biering-Sørensen, F.; Andersson, G.; Jørgensen, K. Standardised Nordic Questionnaires for the Analysis of Musculoskeletal Symptoms. Appl. Ergon. 1987, 18, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gerasimov, Y.; Sokolov, A. Ergonomic Evaluation and Comparison of Wood Harvesting Systems in Northwest Russia. Appl. Ergon. 2014, 45, 318–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. de Oliveira, F.M.; Lopes, E.d.S.; Fiedler, N.C.; Koehler, H.S. Indicator for Urgency Assessment in Ergonomic Intervention of Wood Harvesting Machines. Rev. Árvore 2020, 44, e4428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gellerstedt, S. European Ergonomic and Safety Guidelines for Forest Machines 2006; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2006; pp. 1–100. [Google Scholar]
  26. Potočnik, I.; Poje, A. Forestry Ergonomics and Occupational Safety in High Ranking Scientific Journals from 2005–2016. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2017, 38, 291–310. [Google Scholar]
  27. Workplace Noise: More than Just “All Ears”. Available online: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2018/06/28/noise-effects/ (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  28. Hand Arm Vibration in Forestry and Arboriculture. Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/treework/health/hand-arm-vibration.htm (accessed on 21 March 2024).
  29. Häggström, C.; Öhman, M.; Burström, L.; Nordfjell, T.; Lindroos, O. Vibration Exposure in Forwarder Work: Effects of Work Element and Grapple Type. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2016, 37, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rehn, B.; Nilsson, T.; Lundström, R.; Hagberg, M.; Burström, L. Neck Pain Combined with Arm Pain among Professional Drivers of Forest Machines and the Association with Whole-Body Vibration Exposure. Ergonomics 2009, 52, 1240–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Billo, D.; Mendes, L.; Nascimento, G.; Fiedler, N.; Berude, L. Analysis of Noise Transmitted to Workers in Motor-Manual Forest Harvesting in Minas Gerais State. Floresta Ambiente 2019, 26, e20180395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Borz, S.A.; Talagai, N.; Cheţa, M.; Chiriloiu, D.; Gavilanes Montoya, A.V.; Castillo Vizuete, D.D.; Marcu, M.V. Physical Strain, Exposure to Noise and Postural Assessment in Motor-Manual Felling of Willow Short Rotation Coppice: Results of a Preliminary Study. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2019, 40, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Veiga, R.K.; Gontijo, L.A.; Masiero, F.C.; Venturi, J. Analysis of Spatial Distribution of Noise Near Agricultural and Forestry Machinery. Ciênc. Florest. 2021, 31, 43–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Poje, A.; Grigolato, S.; Potočnik, I. Operator Exposure to Noise and Whole-Body Vibration in a Fully Mechanised CTL Forest Harvesting System in Karst Terrain. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2019, 40, 139–150. [Google Scholar]
  35. Huber, M.; Hoffmann, S.; Brieger, F.; Hartsch, F.; Jaeger, D.; Sauter, U.H. Vibration and Noise Exposure during Pre-Commercial Thinning Operations: What Are the Ergonomic Benefits of the Latest Generation Professional-Grade Battery-Powered Chainsaws? Forests 2021, 12, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Neri, F.; Laschi, A.; Bertuzzi, L.; Galipò, G.; Frassinelli, N.; Fabiano, F.; Marchi, E.; Foderi, C.; Marra, E. A Comparison between the Latest Models of Li-Ion Batteries and Petrol Chainsaws Assessing Noise and Vibration Exposure in Cross-Cutting. Forests 2023, 14, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Landekić, M.; Bačić, M.; Pandur, Z.; Šušnjar, M. Vibration Levels of Used Chainsaws. Forests 2020, 11, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Papandrea, S.F.; Cataldo, M.F.; Zimbalatti, G.; Grigolato, S.; Proto, A.R. What Is the Current Ergonomic Condition of Chainsaws in Non-Professional Use? A Case Study to Determine Vibrations and Noises in Small-Scale Agroforestry Farms. Forests 2022, 13, 1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kinoshita, H. Effects of Different Loads and Carrying Systems on Selected Biomechanical Parameters Describing Walking Gait. Ergonomics 1985, 28, 1347–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Brookhuis, K.A.; de Waard, D. The Use of Psychophysiology to Assess Driver Status. Ergonomics 1993, 36, 1099–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Brookhuis, K.A.; de Waard, D. Assessment of Drivers’ Workload: Performance and Subjective and Physiological Indexes. In Stress, Workload, and Fatigue, 1st ed.; Hancock, P.A., Desmond, P.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Oliveira, N.K.A.; Niro, H.; DeArmond, D.; Gonçalves, R.R.C.; Eduardo, A.J.; Fidalgo, C.J.P. Environmental Thermal Conditions Related to Performance, Dynamics and Safety of Logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2021, 42, 419–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Arman, Z.; Nikooy, M.; Tsioras, P.A.; Heidari, M.; Majnounian, B. Physiological Workload Evaluation by Means of Heart Rate Monitoring during Motor-Manual Clearcutting Operations. Int. J. For. Eng. 2021, 32, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schönauer, M.; Hoffmann, S.; Nolte, M.; Jaeger, D. Evaluation of a New Pruning and Tending System for Young Stands of Douglas Fir. Silva Fenn. 2021, 55, 10447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lee, E.; Baek, K.; Lee, S.; Cho, M.-J.; Choi, Y.-S.; Cho, K.-H. The Impact of Season on Heart Rate Variability and Workload of Workers in Young Tree Tending Operations of a Larix Kaempferi (Lamb.) Carr. Stand: A Preliminary Study. Int. J. For. Eng. 2022, 33, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Labelle, E.R. The Effect of New Silvicultural Trends on Mental Workload of Harvester Operators. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2020, 41, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Szewczyk, G.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Tylek, P.; Sowa, J.M.; Rudy, P.; Gaj-Gielarowiec, D. The Mental Workload of Harvester Operators Working in Steep Terrain Conditions. Silva Fenn. 2020, 54, 10355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Arman, Z.; Nikooy, M.; Tsioras, P.A.; Heidari, M.; Majnounian, B. Mental Workload, Occupational Fatigue and Musculoskeletal Disorders of Forestry Professionals: The Case of a Loblolly Plantation in Northern Iran. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2022, 43, 403–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pajek, L.; Geršak, G.; Poje, A. Influence of Use of Forestry Personal Protective Equipment on Psychophysical Load. Acta Silvae Ligni 2022, 129, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sarkar, K.; Dev, S.; Das, T.; Chakrabarty, S.; Gangopadhyay, S. Examination of Postures and Frequency of Musculoskeletal Disorders among Manual Workers in Calcutta, India. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2016, 22, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Risk Factors for Musculoskeletal Disorders—Working Postures—OSHwiki|European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Available online: https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/en/themes/risk-factors-musculoskeletal-disorders-working-postures (accessed on 22 March 2024).
  52. Lopes, E.d.S.; Britto, P.C.; Rodrigues, C.K. Postural Discomfort in Manual Operations of Forest Planting. Floresta Ambiente 2018, 26, e20170030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Paini, A.d.C.; Lopes, E.d.S.; Souza, d.A.P.; Oliveira, d.F.M.; Rodrigues, C.K. Repetitive Motion and Postural Analysis of Machine Operators in Mechanized Wood Harvesting Operations. Cerne 2019, 25, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stenlund, T.; Lundström, R.; Lindroos, O.; Rehn, B.; Öhberg, F. Seated Postural Loads Caused by Shock-Type Whole-Body Vibration When Driving over Obstacles. Int. J. For. Eng. 2020, 31, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders & Ergonomics|Workplace Health Strategies by Condition|Workplace Health Promotion|CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/workplacehealthpromotion/health-strategies/musculoskeletal-disorders/index.html (accessed on 29 February 2024).
  56. Grzywiński, W.; Wandycz, A.; Tomczak, A.; Jelonek, T. The Prevalence of Self-Reported Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Loggers in Poland. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2016, 52, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Landekić, M.; Šporčić, M.; Bačić, M.; Pandur, Z.; Bakarić, M. Workability and Physical Wellbeing Among Chainsaw Operators in Croatia. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2023, 44, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Staněk, L.; Neruda, J.; Nevrkla, P. The Magnitude of Fatigue Recorded in Individual Body Parts of Chainsaw Operators after Work. Forests 2023, 14, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Schettino, S.; Minette, L.; Souza, A.; Souza, A. Ergonomic Evaluation of Forest Mensuration Process. Sci. For. 2016, 44, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Phairah, K.; Brink, M.; Chirwa, P.; Todd, A. Operator Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders during Forwarding Operations in South Africa: An Ergonomic Assessment. South. For. 2016, 78, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Iftime, M.D.; Dumitrascu, A.-E.; Ciobanu, V.D. Chainsaw Operators’ Exposure to Occupational Risk Factors and Incidence of Professional Diseases Specific to the Forestry Field. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 28, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Iftime, M.-D.; Dumitrascu, A.-E.; Dumitrascu, D.-I.; Ciobanu, V.D. An Investigation on Major Physical Hazard Exposures and Health Effects of Forestry Vehicle Operators Performing Wood Logging Processes. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2020, 80, 103041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Santos, D.W.F.d.N.; Valente, D.S.M.; Fernandes, H.C.; de Souza, A.P.; Minette, L.J. Influence of Pump Pressure and Engine Speed on Ergonomic Parameters of Forwarder Operators. Rev. Árvore 2020, 44, e4425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bowen, J.; Hinze, A.; Griffiths, C. Investigating Real-Time Monitoring of Fatigue Indicators of New Zealand Forestry Workers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 126, 122–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Nakata, C.; Itaya, A.; Inomata, Y.; Yamaguchi, H.; Yoshida, C.; Nakazawa, M. Working Conditions and Fatigue in Log Truck Drivers within the Japanese Forest Industry. Int. J. For. Eng. 2023, 34, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Britto, P.C.; Lopes, E.d.S.; Drinko, C.H.F.; Gonçalves, S.B. Human Factors and Work Conditions in Forest Maintenance and Planting Operations. Floresta Ambiente 2015, 22, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. UNECE/FAO. Forest Sector Workforce in the UNECE Region—Overview of the Social and Economic Trends with Impact on the Forest Sector; Geneva Timber and Forest Discussion Paper 76; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
  68. de Rijcke, S.; Wouters, P.F.; Rushforth, A.D.; Franssen, T.P.; Hammarfelt, B. Evaluation Practices and Effects of Indicator Use—A Literature Review. Res. Eval. 2016, 25, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Oosthoek, K.J.; Hölzl, R. Managing Northern Europe’s Forests: Histories from the Age of Improvement to the Age of Ecology, 1st ed.; Berghahn Books: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lundbäck, M.; Häggström, C.; Nordfjell, T. Worldwide Trends in Methods for Harvesting and Extracting Industrial Roundwood. Int. J. For. Eng. 2021, 32, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. de Oliveira, F.M.; Lopes, E.d.S.; Rodrigues, C.K. Evaluation of the physical work load and biomechanical of workers at manual and semi-mechanized mowing. Cerne 2014, 20, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Arab, S.; Imbeau, D.; Dubeau, D.; Dubé, P.-A.; Auger, I. Comparison of Nine Heart Rate-Based Models to Predict Work Metabolism of Forest Workers. Ergonomics 2020, 63, 1394–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bayne, K.M.; Parker, R.J. The Introduction of Robotics for New Zealand Forestry Operations: Forest Sector Employee Perceptions and Implications. Technol. Soc. 2012, 34, 138–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Magagnotti, N.; Spinelli, R. Integrating Animal and Mechanical Operations in Protected Areas. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2011, 32, 489–499. [Google Scholar]
  75. Albizu-Urionabarrenetxea, P.; Tolosana-Esteban, E.; Roman-Jordan, E. Safety and Health in Forest Harvesting Operations. Diagnosis and Preventive Actions. A Review. For. Syst. 2013, 22, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ottaviani Aalmo, G.; Magagnotti, N.; Spinelli, R. Forest Workers and Steep Terrain Winching: The Impact of Environmental and Anthropometric Parameters on Performance. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2016, 37, 97–105. [Google Scholar]
  77. Forest Research. Small and Medium Harvesting and Extraction Machinery: A Guide to Site Suitability; The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission: Cheshire, UK, 2015; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  78. Nilsson, M. The Farm Tractor in the Forest; Swedish Forest Agency: Jönköping, Sweden, 2017; pp. 1–105. [Google Scholar]
  79. Spinelli, R.; Aalmo, G.O.; Magagnotti, N. The Effect of a Slack-Pulling Device in Reducing Operator Physiological Workload during Log Winching Operations. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Poje, A.; Potočnik, I.; Danilović, M.; Antonić, S. A Case Study of the Impact of Skidding Distance on Tractor Operator Exposure to Noise. Balt. For. 2016, 22, 357–364. [Google Scholar]
  81. Dimou, V.; Malesios, C.; Pispa, S. Monitoring Self-Reported Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Forestry Operations. Int. J. For. Eng. 2020, 31, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Schettino, S.; Campos, J.C.C.; Minette, L.J.; de Souza, A.P. Work Precariousness: Ergonomic Risks to Operators of Machines Adapted for Forest Harvesting. Rev. Árvore 2017, 41, e410109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lahrsen, S.; Mologni, O.; Magalhães, J.; Grigolato, S.; Röser, D. Key Factors Influencing Productivity of Whole-Tree Ground-Based Felling Equipment Commonly Used in the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 2022, 52, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Munis, R.A.; Camargo, D.A.; Rocha, Q.S.; Pandolfo, P.T.; da Silva, R.B.G.; Simões, D. Economic Analysis of the Feller Buncher in Brazilian Eucalyptus Plantations: Modeling with Time Series. Int. J. For. Eng. 2023, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Gülci, N.; Yüksel, K.; Gülci, S.; Serin, H.; Bilici, E.; Akay, A.E. Analysis of a Feller-Buncher Productivity: A Case Study of Whole-Tree Harvesting from Marmara Region, Turkey. Ann. For. Res. 2021, 64, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Schweier, J.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Becker, G. Mechanized Coppice Harvesting with New Small-Scale Feller-Bunchers: Results from Harvesting Trials with Newly Manufactured Felling Heads in Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 72, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. McLain, S.C.; Autenrieth, D.A.; Yang, X.; Brazile, W.J. Noise Exposures and Hearing Protector Use at Small Logging Operations. Small-Scale For. 2021, 20, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Almeida, S.F.; Abrahão, R.F.; Tereso, M.J.A. Evaluation of Occupational Exposure to Whole Body Vibration in Forest Harvesting Machines. Cerne 2015, 21, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Silva, E.P.; Minette, L.J.; Sanches, A.L.P.; de Souza, A.P.; Silva, F.L.; Mafra, S.C.T. Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in forest harvesting machine operators. Rev. Árvore 2014, 38, 739–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Grzywiński, W.; Jelonek, T.; Tomczak, A. Physiological workload at forester and deputy forester workstations. Sylwan 2019, 163, 811–819. [Google Scholar]
  91. Nuutinen, Y.; Laitila, J.; Rytkönen, E. Grinding of Stumps, Logging Residues and Small Diameter Wood Using a CBI 5800 Grinder with a Truck as a Base Machine. Balt. For. 2014, 20, 176–188. [Google Scholar]
  92. Poje, A.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Mihelič, M. Exposure to Noise in Wood Chipping Operations under the Conditions of Agro-Forestry. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 50, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Poje, A.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Mihelič, M. The Effect of Feedstock, Knife Wear and Work Station on the Exposure to Noise and Vibrations in Wood Chipping Operations. Silva Fenn. 2018, 52, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  94. Brokmeier, H. Central Tire Inflation System for Timber Transport in Germany. Int. J. For. Eng. 2017, 28, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Enez, K.; Nalbantoğlu, S.S. Comparison of Ergonomic Risk Assessment Outputs from OWAS and REBA in Forestry Timber Harvesting. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 70, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ji, X.; Eger, T.R.; Dickey, J.P. Development of a Seat Selection Algorithm to Match Industrial Seats with Specific Forestry Vibration Exposures. Int. J. For. Eng. 2015, 26, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ji, X.; Eger, T.R.; Dickey, J.P. Evaluation of the Vibration Attenuation Properties of an Air-Inflated Cushion with Two Different Heavy Machinery Seats in Multi-Axis Vibration Environments Including Jolts. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 59, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Dubé, P.-A.; Imbeau, D.; Dubeau, D.; Auger, I.; Leone, M. Prediction of Work Metabolism from Heart Rate Measurements in Forest Work: Some Practical Methodological Issues. Ergonomics 2015, 58, 2040–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Axelsson, S.-Ă. The Mechanization of Logging Operations in Sweden and Its Effect on Occupational Safety and Health. J. For. Eng. 1998, 9, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lefort, A.J., Jr.; de Hoop, C.F.; Pine, J.C.; Marx, B.D. Characteristics of Injuries in the Logging Industry of Louisiana, USA: 1986 to 1998. Int. J. For. Eng. 2003, 14, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Potočnik, I.; Pentek, T.; Poje, A. Severity Analysis of Accidents in Forest Operations. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2009, 30, 171–184. [Google Scholar]
  102. Leszczyński, K.; Stańczykiewicz, A. The Use of Heart Rate Monitor in Assessing the Net Energy Expenditure during Motor-Manual Cutting. Sylwan 2014, 158, 124–131. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sasaki, R.S.; Furtado Júnior, M.R.; Leite, E.d.S.; Souza, A.P.; Teixeira, M.M.; Fernandes, H.C. Ergonomic evaluation of knapsack sprayers used in forestry. Rev. Árvore 2014, 38, 331–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Britto, P.; Lopes, E.; Laat, E.; Fiedler, N. Biomechanical Evaluation in Workers of Different Statures at Planting and Fertilizing Forest Activities. Sci. For. 2014, 42, 191–196. [Google Scholar]
  105. Barbosa, R.P.; Fiedler, N.C.; do Carmo, F.C.d.A.; Minette, L.J.; Silva, E.N. Analysis of posture in semi-mechanized forest harvesting in steep areas. Rev. Árvore 2014, 38, 733–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Leszczyński, K.; Stańczykiewicz, A. Workload Analysis in Logging Technology Employing a Processor Aggregated with a Farm Tractor. For. Syst. 2015, 24, e024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Yovi, E.Y.; Prajawati, W. High Risk Posture on Motor-Manual Short Wood Logging System in Acacia Mangium Plantation. J. Manaj. Hutan Trop. 2015, 21, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fonseca, A.; Aghazadeh, F.; de Hoop, C.; Ikuma, L.; Al-Qaisi, S. Effect of Noise Emitted by Forestry Equipment on Workers’ Hearing Capacity. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 46, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. de Souza, A.P.; Dutra, R.B.C.; Minette, L.J.; Marzano, F.L.d.C.; Schettino, S. Production Targets for Workers in Forest Harvesting. Rev. Árvore 2015, 39, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Minette, L.J.; Schettino, S.; Souza, V.; Duarte, C.L.; Souza, A. Biochemical and Physical Work Load Evaluation of Forest Workers in Mountain Regions. Sci. For. 2015, 43, 541–550. [Google Scholar]
  111. Huber, C.; Stampfer, K. Efficiency of Topping Trees in Cable Yarding Operations. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2015, 36, 185–194. [Google Scholar]
  112. Grzywiński, W. Influence of Working Posture during the Felling on Energy Expenditure of a Chainsaw Operator. Sylwan 2015, 159, 824–830. [Google Scholar]
  113. Magagnotti, N.; Aalmo, G.O.; Brown, M.; Spinelli, R. A New Device for Reducing Winching Cost and Worker Effort in Steep Terrain Operations. Scand. J. For. Res. 2016, 31, 602–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dubé, P.-A.; Imbeau, D.; Dubeau, D.; Lebel, L.; Kolus, A. Removing the Thermal Component from Heart Rate Provides an Accurate VO2 Estimation in Forest Work. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 54, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Marzano, F.L.d.C.; de Souza, A.P.; Minette, L.J. Proposal for an Ergonomic Conformity Index for Evaluation of Harvesters and Forwarders. Rev. Árvore 2017, 41, e410401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Spinelli, R.; Aminti, G.; De Francesco, F. Postural Risk Assessment of Mechanised Firewood Processing. Ergonomics 2017, 60, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Spinelli, R.; Aminti, G.; Magagnotti, N.; De Francesco, F. Postural Risk Assessment of Small-Scale Debarkers for Wooden Post Production. Forests 2018, 9, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Granzow, R.F.; Schall, M.C.; Smidt, M.F.; Chen, H.; Fethke, N.B.; Huangfu, R. Characterizing Exposure to Physical Risk Factors among Reforestation Hand Planters in the Southeastern United States. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 66, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Cheţa, M.; Marcu, M.V.; Borz, S.A. Workload, Exposure to Noise, and Risk of Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Case Study of Motor-Manual Tree Feeling and Processing in Poplar Clear Cuts. Forests 2018, 9, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Neri, F.; Laschi, A.; Foderi, C.; Fabiano, F.; Bertuzzi, L.; Marchi, E. Determining Noise and Vibration Exposure in Conifer Cross-Cutting Operations by Using Li-Ion Batteries and Electric Chainsaws. Forests 2018, 9, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Poje, A.; Potočnik, I.; Mihelič, M. Comparison of Electric and Petrol Chainsaws in Terms of Efficiency and Safety When Used in Young Spruce Stands in Small-Scale Private Forests. Small-Scale For. 2018, 17, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bligård, L.-O.; Häggström, C. CCPE—The Use of an Analytical Method to Evaluate Safety and Ergonomics in Maintenance of Forest Machinery. Aust. For. 2019, 82, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Berendt, F.; Hoffmann, S.; Jaeger, D.; Prettin, S.; Schweier, J. Application of Spiroergometry to Determine Work Metabolism Related Strain in the Course of Cable Work with a Mini Forestry Crawler. Int. J. For. Eng. 2020, 31, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Paini, A.; Lopes, E.; Fiedler, N.; Souza, A.; Rodrigues, C.; Oliveira, F. Postural Analysis and Repetitive Motions of Skidder Operators in Wood Extraction. Sci. For. 2020, 48, e3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Martins, A.; Lopes, E.S.; Pagnussat, M.B.; Fiedler, N.C.; Oliveira, F.M. Upper Limb Posture and Movement during Tracked versus Wheeled Harvester Operation on Pinus Thinning. Int. J. For. Eng. 2020, 31, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zurita Vintimilla, M.C.; Castro Pérez, S.N.; Borz, S.A. Processing Small-Sized Trees at Landing by a Double-Grip Machine: A Case Study on Productivity, Cardiovascular Workload and Exposure to Noise. Forests 2021, 12, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Szewczyk, G.; Spinelli, R.; Magagnotti, N.; Mitka, B.; Tylek, P.; Kulak, D.; Adamski, K. Perception of the Harvester Operator’s Working Environment in Windthrow Stands. Forests 2021, 12, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Yovi, E.Y.; Prasetiana, D.; Nirmalasari, N.A. Work Measurement Study on Motor-Manual Pine Tapping Operation: The Application of the Concept of Lean Manufacturing and Allowances. Indones. J. For. Res. 2021, 8, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Çağlar, S. Work Efficiency and Physical Workload during the Manual Debarking of Scotch Pine Trees. Int. J. For. Eng. 2021, 32, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Staněk, L.; Mergl, V. Whole Body Vibrations during Fully Mechanised Logging. Forests 2022, 13, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gejdoš, M.; Hitka, M.; Kampf, R. Anthropometrics Parameters of the Adult Population as Ergonomics Modifier for the Chainsaw Handle. Forests 2022, 13, 645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Hnilica, R.; Jankovský, M.; Dado, M. Model Assessment of the Complex Workload of Harvester Operator. Forests 2022, 13, 1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Bačić, M.; Pandur, Z.; Šušnjar, M.; Šporčić, M.; Landekić, M. Daily Vibration Exposure in the Context of State and European Legislature: A Case Study among Chainsaw Operators in Croatia. Forests 2023, 14, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Lima, R.C.A.; Minette, L.J.; Simões, D.; Rocha, Q.S.; Miyajima, R.H.; Fritz, G.F.; Schettino, S.; Soranso, D.R.; Nascimento, G.S.P.; Vieira, M.P.L.; et al. Measurement Time in the Evaluation of Whole-Body Vibration: The Case of Mechanized Wood Extraction with Grapple Skidder. Forests 2023, 14, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Number of articles in the last decade.
Figure 1. Number of articles in the last decade.
Forests 15 00616 g001
Figure 2. World map presenting spatial distribution of published articles (Source: MapChart).
Figure 2. World map presenting spatial distribution of published articles (Source: MapChart).
Forests 15 00616 g002
Figure 3. Number of articles per journal.
Figure 3. Number of articles per journal.
Forests 15 00616 g003
Figure 4. Number of records per forest operation category.
Figure 4. Number of records per forest operation category.
Forests 15 00616 g004
Figure 5. Number of records per machine/tool category.
Figure 5. Number of records per machine/tool category.
Forests 15 00616 g005
Figure 6. Number of records per risk factor category.
Figure 6. Number of records per risk factor category.
Forests 15 00616 g006
Table 1. Article classification.
Table 1. Article classification.
OperationMachine/ToolRisk Factor
Pre-harvestingPre-harvesting toolsVibration
HarvestingManual work/toolsNoise
Wood extractionChainsawWorkload 1
Wood transportHarvesterPostural load
Biomass productionFeller buncherMSD
Measuring/managingProcessorThermal comfort
Controlled testsFarm tractorFatigue
Crawler tractorHuman factors
Slash grappleGases and particulates
SkidderRepetitive motion
ForwarderIllumination
Tower yarderVisibility
LoaderCab
AnimalControls
Timber truckSeat
Chipper
Debarker
Fire wood processor
1 cardiovascular, physical, aerobic, mental, psychophysical.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bačić, M.; Landekić, M.; Pandur, Z.; Šušnjar, M.; Šporčić, M.; Nevečerel, H.; Lepoglavec, K. Forestry Ergonomics Publications in the Last Decade: A Review. Forests 2024, 15, 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040616

AMA Style

Bačić M, Landekić M, Pandur Z, Šušnjar M, Šporčić M, Nevečerel H, Lepoglavec K. Forestry Ergonomics Publications in the Last Decade: A Review. Forests. 2024; 15(4):616. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040616

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bačić, Marin, Matija Landekić, Zdravko Pandur, Marijan Šušnjar, Mario Šporčić, Hrvoje Nevečerel, and Kruno Lepoglavec. 2024. "Forestry Ergonomics Publications in the Last Decade: A Review" Forests 15, no. 4: 616. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040616

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop