Next Article in Journal
Can ESG Performance Alleviate the Constraints of Green Financing for Chinese Enterprises: Empirical Evidence from China’s A-Share Manufacturing Companies
Next Article in Special Issue
Participation of Bulgarian Furniture Manufacturing in Global and Local Value Chains as a Factor Supporting Their Innovation Activities
Previous Article in Journal
Driving Sustainable Disaster Risk Reduction: A Rapid Review of the Policies and Strategies in Saudi Arabia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Successive Planting of Eucalyptus Plantations on Tree Growth and Soil Quality
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Exploring the Role of ICTs and Communication Flows in the Forest Sector

by
Alex Vinicio Gavilanes Montoya
1,2,
Danny Daniel Castillo Vizuete
1,2,* and
Marina Viorela Marcu
1
1
Department of Forest Engineering, Forest Management Planning and Terrestrial Measurements, Faculty of Silviculture and Forest Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, Şirul Beethoven 1, 500123 Brasov, Romania
2
Faculty of Natural Resources, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Panamericana Sur, km 1 ½, Riobamba EC-060155, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 10973; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410973
Submission received: 17 June 2023 / Revised: 5 July 2023 / Accepted: 10 July 2023 / Published: 13 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Operations and Sustainability)

Abstract

:
The forestry sector has used technology to improve productivity and increase service quality, reducing labor in many processes. In this sense, Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are having broad impacts on the forestry sector, from forestry to the marketing of forest products and the recreational use of forests. There is a wide range of technologies that can be implemented in forestry depending on the needs of each user. The objective of this study was to conduct a literature review in order to analyze the opportunities for improving ICT and communication flows in the forestry sector and to evaluate their applicability. This literature review was analyzed using the Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect databases. An overview of the importance of ICT and communication flows in the forestry sector, ICT tools, and their applications is provided. One-way and two-way communication flows coexist in forestry, integrating different communication channels, time, target audience, and message. It is clear that technologies have produced significant changes in all sectors of the forestry industry. We conclude that ICTs and communication flows contribute to forest conservation and management in the establishment of standards or policies that ensure conservation through monitoring and analysis of landscapes at different temporal and spatial scales.

1. Introduction

ICTs have become a fundamental part of daily life [1]. These are used to obtain, transmit, manipulate, and store data efficiently and safely [2]. For instance, these technologies include hardware and software tools, telecommunications networks, the Internet, and information management systems [3], which have enabled process automation, real-time data analysis, and more informed and accurate decision-making [4]. In this context, the rapid development of ICTs has been driven by the growing need for information in different areas [5]. Particularly, in the forestry sector, ICTs have allowed the improvement of forest management [6] and the optimization of production and marketing processes [7], as well as the monitoring and follow-up of forests and their biodiversity [8]. With this, ICTs have allowed the creation of an information society in which communication flows are fundamental [9,10].
Communication flows refer to the transfer of information between the different components of the system, including hardware, software, networks, and users [11]. These flows allow the transfer of information to occur efficiently and effectively [12], which is essential for the operation of information and communication technology systems and applications [13]. ICT information exchanges can be classified into different types, depending on the direction, purpose, and content of the information transferred [14]. For instance, the main common forms of communication are data, voice, video, text, and file communications [15].
These technologies drive major transformations and have significant potential in forest management around the world [16,17]; likewise, they can also transform the forestry industry and reduce the labor intensity of many processes [18]. Whereas the timber supply chain is highly dependent on the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources is key to its long-term viability [19], the integration of ICTs in the wood supply chain can improve efficiency, reduce costs, and improve the environmental sustainability of this industry [20,21]. In this sense, countries using ICTs in forestry are increasing the competitiveness of forest products and increasing the efficiency of forestry conservation and management functions [22]. Therefore, ICTs can have a significant impact on the development of the forestry industry as an engine of the economy [23,24].
Digital technologies have significant potential in forestry [25] and compose a major asset and transform the forest industry by providing unprecedented solutions that make forests smarter [26]. The need to implement ICTs must become a tool that serves forest users, wood buyers, operators of logging machines, or forest planners [27,28]. In addition, the implementation of ICTs and their innovations have facilitated the tasks of data collection, as well as its processing (greater accuracy and efficiency) [29]. ICTs allow large amounts of information to be processed quickly and efficiently, which can be very useful in forest management and informed decision-making [30]. In addition, they allow the monitoring of forestry operations in real time [31], the design of forest management strategies [25,32], and forest data analysis [33].
In general, data can be classified as input, output, or circumstantial data, and its analysis involves phases such as generation, collection, processing, modeling, and output information [29]. For this purpose, the forestry industry is constantly improving systems that make the most of data and make better decisions [34]. This is accomplished by allowing the information to be analyzed comprehensively in order to obtain illustrative results (geovisualization) [35]. For instance, electronic systems, and in particular Geographic Information Systems (GIS), could be used to improve forest harvesting with the prior planning of the skid trail network in order to minimize utilization impacts and risks for operators while ensuring a high level of productivity at work [34]. Some operators in the forestry sector use ICT to improve forest management results [36,37]; for instance, ICTs can be used in the planning and monitoring of forest management [38], wood production optimization [39], forest health monitoring [40], and improving traceability and transparency of the timber supply chain [41]. Considering these ICTs, efficiency and sustainability in forest management can be improved [42].
Forests provide a wide variety of services and benefits to society [43,44]. Some of the main ecosystem services that forests provide are timber and non-timber forest products, biodiversity, protection against natural disasters, climate regulation, soil and water protection, recreation, pollination, and pest and disease control [45,46]. If there is knowledge about the benefits that forests can offer for public health, actions can be implemented to manage these natural resources properly [47]. This will ensure that forests can continue providing significant long-term benefits [48]. In this manner, to guarantee the flow of forest services, it is necessary to articulate strategies that link human values with sustainability objectives [49], an aspect that is favored for the development of new technologies. ICT has enhanced productivity and reduced production costs in the forest industry and in forestry itself [50]. Data on forest growth and productivity are essential for the planning and implementation of sustainable forest management practices, which can be used within environmental applications [51]. Therefore, it is essential to have accurate and up-to-date data on the growth and productivity of forests in order to make informed decisions about their management and conservation [52].
Currently, there are various tools and technologies that allow the collection and exchange of information to occur more efficiently [53]. The use of the internet, monitoring applications, and sensors and receivers installed in equipment or machines, as well as communication between machines and between humans and machines, are some examples of these tools [54]. Remote sensing can cover a greater geographic context and time scale than other observing techniques [55,56], which can provide a more complete and detailed view of changes that occur on the Earth’s surface over time [57]. For instance, are various applications for the use of ICTs to improve communication flows in the forestry sector, including the use of the following applications: (i) GIS to collect and analyze data on forests and their use [58]; (ii) mobile applications and tracking software to monitor the flow of forest products from the forest to the final consumer [59]; (iii) online platforms to share information on sustainable forest management [60]; (iv) remote monitoring systems, such as satellites and drones, to collect information on the state of forests and their evolution over time [61]; and (v) online communication tools, such as videoconferencing and social networks, to facilitate collaboration and coordination among forest sector actors in different regions and countries [62].
At this moment, there is constant growth and improvement in the implementation of ICTs and communication flows in the forestry sector [34]. There is a growing number of digital tools being developed to improve the management of forest resources and promote communication among the various actors involved [63], such as forest owners, forestry companies, government agencies, and researchers [64]. Therefore, the use of these technologies provides important improvements in forest management such as (i) the improved control of operations, (ii) automation of operations throughout the chain, (iii) improved decision-making based on data and information, (iv) combination of data on tree growth, (v) identification of timber potential, and (vi) identification of environmental conditions to plan future growth models [36,65].
The diffusion of ICTs contributes to different purposes, such as the management and conservation of forests and forest resources [66]. In addition, it can be used for the prevention of illegal logging and forest fires, raising awareness about the importance of sustainable forestry practices, and improving forest governance [67]. In general, ICTs have proven to be a valuable tool for sustainable forest management [68], and their use is expected to continue to grow in the future as new technologies are developed and access to them expands globally [69]. The use of ICTs in forest management is a topic of increasing interest [70], especially in the timber industry [9]. These technologies can enhance the efficiency and sustainability of forest production [71] while simultaneously reducing the environmental impact of this activity [72]. Therefore, it is convenient for an industry to access new technologies for exploration and transformation. Likewise, forestry as a sector should take advantage of communication technologies to be more effective in disseminating information on the benefits of forests and generating awareness.
The scope of this paper was to review information about ICTs and communication flows in the forest sector. The objectives of this study were (i) to synthesize the findings on ICTs in forestry and their applicability and (ii) to develop a systematic review of the state-of-art approaches concerning communication flows.
The document consists of five sections. Section 1 includes a review of existing literature on the topic, the importance of the research, and the relevance of the research. Section 2 details the proposed methodology. The findings are presented in Section 3. In Section 4, the discussion presents and compares the data obtained by other researchers. Finally, our work concludes in Section 5.

2. Materials and Methods

In this research, a systematic review of the literature was carried out in which information in relevant studies was identified, selected, and critically evaluated in reference to the analysis of opportunities for ICT improvement and communication flows in the forestry sector and their applicability. This review was carried out through the application of the PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) (Figure 1) [73]. This is a methodology applied to carry out literature reviews [74]. Information searches were carried out using key terms such as ICT and forestry, technological innovation and forestry sector, technology and forest, communication flow and forestry ICT, forestry sector and ICT and communication, information flow and forestry and communication, and ICTs in the forestry industry. Initially, a primary search for information was carried out through Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/ (accessed on 2 January 2023). This search tool is comprehensive and accessible to identify academic studies and reports [75]. The search for scientific articles was carried out in databases such as Scopus https://www.scopus.com (accessed on 5 January 2023), Web of Science https://www.webofscience.com/ (accessed on 7 January 2023), and ScienceDirect https://www.sciencedirect.com/ (accessed on 10 January 2023). These databases offer advanced search tools that allow for easier and faster discovery of relevant and specific articles, based on the search criteria and keywords used [76]. Parameters such as author (expert in the field), affiliation (institution to which they belong), keywords (facilitating search and classification of information), year of publication (indicating the article’s timeliness and relevance), and citation index were taken into account in the article selection process (reflecting the number of times the article has been cited by other authors).
Nevertheless, while it is recognized that studies published in other languages may contain relevant information, this study considered only scientific papers published in English and Spanish. Given the wide scope of the literature and the large number of results obtained in the search of the database, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the research topic, type of study, date of publication, language, refereed articles, and citation index. The inclusion and exclusion criteria must be clear and coherent to increase the precision and reliability of the obtained results [77]. After a preliminary review, a total of 173 papers were selected and analyzed for this research.

3. Results

It is important for us to point out some advantages and disadvantages of ICTs in the forestry sector. Several authors, including Adams and Frost [78]; Wallace et al. [79]; Fardusi et al. [80]; Gómez et al. [81]; and Tan et al. [82], indicate that among the advantages of using ICT in the forestry sector are improvements in (i) harvest planning and a reduction in costs of production; (ii) efficiency and precision in forest management; (iii) identification of forest areas at risk of fires and monitoring of forest health through the use of drones and remote sensors; (iv) the efficiency of data collection and analysis, which allows for more informed and faster decision-making; (v) innovation and technology in processes, products, and services. However, there are also disadvantages in the use of these technologies; a study carried out by Kovácsová and Antalová [83] points out, for example, the cost of its implementation and maintenance, the need for trained personnel, and the dependence on electric power and internet connectivity. In this sense, we believe that the implementation of these technologies may require a significant investment in equipment and training for the personnel in charge of their use, but at present, we consider that they are important tools to improve forest management efficiency and productivity.

3.1. ICT and Communication Flows: Definition and Importance in Forest Sector

ICTs cover a wide range of technologies that allow for obtaining, processing, analyzing, and storing information [29]. ICTs function as knowledge networks and also intervene as dissemination mechanisms because they provide effective communication channels [84]. N’dri et al. [85] suggested that the impact of ICTs is more substantial in developing countries than in developed countries; therefore, it is recommended that governments invest in infrastructure and implement ICTs progressively. Consequently, ICTs are an important tool nowadays, as they allow for the efficient acquisition, processing, analysis, and storage of information. By utilizing remote sensing technologies, such as satellite imagery and drones, ICTs enable real-time monitoring of forest cover, biodiversity, and human activities, aiding in the early detection of deforestation and illegal logging. Furthermore, ICTs empower stakeholders to make informed decisions and adopt sustainable practices for the long-term preservation of forests [86,87,88,89,90]. Additionally, they play a significant role in the dissemination of knowledge and communication. This makes them a key tool for economic and social development. Therefore, it is necessary to continue promoting their use and application in various productive sectors.
ICTs can play a key role in the forestry sector and in the sustainable management of forest resources. Figure 2 lists some of the ways in which ICTs can be important in the forestry sector.
Communication involves the transmission of information or ideas from a sender (person or group) to a receiver [62]. To have effective communication in the forestry area it is necessary to (a) understand the human–environment relationship, and link this concept with socioeconomic, cultural, and social aspects [91] and (b) integrate all stakeholders and maintain continuous communication between them [91,92]. Communication has become a key tool for forest management. Therefore, effective communication achieves the sustainable management of forest resources.
Stakeholders are defined as groups of people who have an impact on an organization and/or are influenced by it [91]. They can be classified into the following categories: primary stakeholders (active participants who are influenced directly by the results, such as suppliers, government, and customers) and secondary (do not have direct participation and receive a marginal effect from the situation, such as organizations and civil society in general) [93]. Therefore, primary and secondary stakeholders are important for organizations as their collaboration contributes to sustainability.
If the communication flow is linear, the elements of this process are sender, message, medium, receiver or audience, and effect [94]. Communication can be one-way when the message is delivered directly from the sender to the receiver and is considered two-way when there is interaction between the parties [91]. In the forestry area, both communication flows coexist (Figure 3); each of them integrates different mechanisms (communication channels and form of persuasion), time (short- or long-term), target audience (forest owners, general public, etc.), and message [95]. It is important to mention that if there is effective communication, it is possible to articulate and propose strategies for forest management and establish public policies focused on environmental protection and sustainable management and integrate all stakeholders’ points of view into decision-making [62]. Therefore, communication flows contribute to the sustainable management of forest resources with the participation of stakeholders in forest management.

3.2. ICT Tools and Their Applications

The adaptability of ICTs to all aspects of human life has presented the opportunity to develop diverse tools and applications focused on the forest and environment. Currently, mobile devices have furthered the common use of the internet and Services, making the monitoring of forest resources easier and more comfortable [96]. However, there remains a gap between technology and the timber industry that needs to be bridged by experiments aimed at connecting decision-makers with technology [97]. In this context, we believe that technology has great potential to improve the management and conservation of forests and the environment. However, it is necessary to bridge the gap between technology and the timber industry. Therefore, we consider it necessary to continue developing technological tools and applications for forest management, as well as integrating technology into decision-making in the forest sector.
Thus, the most common ICT tools and their respective applications in the forestry field are detailed below, such as (i) remote sensing; (ii) X-ray scanners; (iii) mobile device sensors; (iv) geographical information systems; (v) big data; (vi) radio frequency identification; (vii) photo-trapping; (viii) techniques related to forest genetics; (ix) DNA metabarcoding; and (x) citizen science.

3.2.1. Remote Sensing

Remote sensing allows for the determination of many parameters related to the forest (productivity and state/biophysical conditions); it is a unique tool that allows a researcher to obtain repeatable observations at different temporal and spatial resolutions [98]. Remote sensing involves the acquisition, processing, and interpretation of data related to the composition of landscapes through the use of radiometric sensors, which can be active or passive [99]. Remote sensing has specific applications in forest management. For example, it enables the acquisition and processing of information about forests and other ecosystems on a large scale. Consequently, we believe that the application of this tool is important in addressing environmental and social challenges related to forest ecosystems.
This tool shows the explicit interrelation between species and habitat, allowing a researcher to characterize a specific environment, indicating changes across time and helping to predict their variations in the future. The remoting sensing application in forest management is useful in almost all cases; however, it is not precise in tele-detection in vertically and horizontally complex forest systems [100]. Therefore, the application of remote sensing could be tailored to the specific characteristics of the forest and used in conjunction with other sampling and monitoring techniques to obtain more accurate and comprehensive information for informed decision-making regarding the sustainable management of forest resources.
The functioning of active sensors is based on the emission of radiation and the subsequent measurement of energy amount and its return time; by comparison, passive sensors measure the amount of energy reflected or emitted from the matter [99]. Passive systems, unlike active systems, are affected by weather conditions [101] and cannot get details below the forest canopy [102]. Table 1 presents a list of sensors and their applications in the forestry area.
Remote sensing comprises Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS), while proximal sensing is related to Terrestrial Laser scanning (TLS); both methods differ in terms of spatial resolution and coverage. ALS has a higher spatial coverage and lower resolution; in contrast, TLS has a lower spatial coverage and a higher resolution [56]. Within this framework, remote sensing includes two main methods: ALS and TLS, which differ in terms of spatial resolution and coverage. Based on this, both methods are useful according to the specific needs of the analysis and the conditions of the land surface being evaluated.
According to Coops [98], Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and RADAR have a greater potential for mapping forests in terms of volume and biomass. LiDAR allows the detection of 3D forest canopy [98], so the aspects that can be determined by this tool are canopy cover, height, volume, biomass [98,102], basal area and stem density [102], forest stratification and distribution, and mean diameter [103], as well as ecological applications such as wildlife monitoring [104]. The study carried out by Borz and Proto [105] indicates that in the last decade, LiDAR-based methods have been successfully tested in several forestry-related applications, in particular in forest inventory applications, focusing mainly on data accuracy. Their usefulness for the quantitative assessment of harvested timber has been less investigated. In particular, studies on resource accounting, including the time required for different log scanning options, are still lacking.
Radar systems use electromagnetic energy (to transmit and receive pulses); therefore, to use radar data it is necessary to consider the canopy, the wavelength of the signal, and the angle [106]. Moreover, some remote sensors have a cost, but it is possible to find radar data available for free, as is the case of the Sentinel-1 Satellite (high temporal resolution: 3 to 6 days and spatial resolution: 5 × 20 m/independent of cloud cover) [107]. In essence, radar systems are a valuable tool for remote sensing because they can provide detailed information about the land surface under conditions where other remote sensing techniques may be limited. Therefore, this tool can be useful for forest management, biodiversity conservation, and the sustainable management of natural resources. The cost of some ICTs is becoming more affordable, making them more accessible to a wider audience (Table 2).

3.2.2. X-ray Scanners

X-ray scanning is a tool used to determine the quality of wood or estimate the amount of wood inside a stem or trunk. Its operation consists of the emission of X-rays which are transmitted towards an object, and as a result of the penetration, X-ray beams are attenuated, generating a digital image of this object [108]. Therefore, X-ray scanning is a useful tool that allows for the detection of internal defects in wood, which is important for identifying areas prone to structural failure or disease propagation.
The most popular devices that are based on X-ray technology are SilviScan, Itrax, and QTRS. These devices are characterized by having a good level of accuracy (approximately 50 µm/pixel); however, the preparation of the samples involves an arduous task [109]. Nowadays, numerous industrial prototypes of X-ray scanning equipment are inappropriate for the wood industry, especially for high moisture content logs [110,111]. However, although there are popular devices using X-ray technology, the development of industrial prototypes of X-ray scanner equipment is important to meet the needs of the timber industry. This will enable the development of more accurate and efficient devices.
X-ray scanners base their functionality on the theories of Radon, theoretically demonstrated in 1970, which indicated projections of the object depending on the number of directions considered [109]. Whatever the number of directions, X-ray beams are sent and detectors measure the X-ray radiation that is transmitted through the object [111]. These studies point to the important role of X-ray scanners for wood quality assessment, tree species identification, determination of wood density, and moisture.

3.2.3. Mobile Devices Sensors

Recently, the use of mobile devices has increased, together with mobile cloud computing, allowing for data collection from various sensors in a short period of time [112]. In mobile devices such as smartphones and watches, there are various sensors that allow for the development of models related to activities that require engines such as logging; other sensors are used to track individual trees and analyze forest productivity [56]. This highlights the important role of mobile devices in enhancing efficiency and precision in decision-making across various fields, including the management and monitoring of forestry activities.
This ICT allows for the realization of in-situ observations, regardless of terrain conditions (easy transport); at the same time, it gathers measurements with an acceptable speed. However, these technologies are still in research and development, so their accuracy is not comparable to other static systems [113]. Even so, they have been a useful tool in forest degradation monitoring, especially in developing countries [114]. In conclusion, the ongoing development and refinement of sensors in mobile devices for forest monitoring could lead to significant advancements in the field of forest management. This is due to their accessibility, efficiency, and ability to collect data in hard-to-reach areas.

3.2.4. Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

GIS, in conjunction with data obtained by remote sensing (satellite images and drones), allow for the mapping of vegetation at different scales. It is also possible to assess risks such as forest fires through a multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) that integrates user approaches (variety of information requirement) [115]. In the same way, GIS have played important roles in forest resource management, wood harvest planning, and forest fire management, among others [116]. Therefore, GIS are tools for the collection, processing, and analysis of spatial data. This facilitates informed and effective decision-making for the management of forest resources and the prevention of forest risks.
ArcGIS 10.5® software differ by their ability to collect data geometries (such as points, lines, polylines, or polygons) and other attributes, as well as their compatibility with data formats such as ESRI shapefile, CSV, and KML. Currently, many mapping apps were developed for mobile devices, including ArcGIS, Mapit Spatial, Qfield, SW Maps, Global Mapper Mobile, Locus GIS, and others [117]. GIS allow the integration of different data sources to obtain a complete and detailed vision of forest ecosystems. Therefore, GIS influence the planning of sustainable forest management.

3.2.5. Big Data

Big data refers to large data sets whose size exceeds the capacity of typical database software [118,119]. For a better understanding, these characteristics are represented in Figure 4.
In forestry, big data includes information or registers about metrics of trees, species, and volume of wood produced [119]. Additionally, it has demonstrated huge potential in forest management and ecosystem protection [120]. In agriculture, big data is largely employed in developed countries to promote the production and management of numerous products. Therefore, the use of big data in the forestry sector can have a significant impact on the economy, the environment, and society.

3.2.6. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

RFID identifies objects by means of radio frequency signals that correspond to the following groups: low frequency (between 30 and 300 kHz), high frequency (between 3 and 30 MHz), ultra-high frequency (between 300 and 3000 MHz), and microwaves (between 2 and 30 GHz) [121,122]. Overall, RFID technology is a versatile tool that can be used in the forestry sector to identify and track wood and other forest products along the supply chain. The choice of the appropriate frequency range will depend on the specific needs of the application.
This system includes electronic compounds, such as a microprocessor, a transponder, a reader, and a management system. The main objective of this technology is to get information about objects, animals, or plants; in this context, each microchip could be attached to a tree’s base to register its localization and size, and in case of logging, it can hold the data about who cut it, so that illegal logging can be controlled [122]. Nevertheless, the application of this ICT may have some effects on ecosystems, principally on wildlife [123]. However, the use of radio frequency identification technology must be carefully considered and managed to minimize its impact on ecosystems and maximize its economic and social benefits.

3.2.7. Photo-Trapping

Photo-trapping is a technique used to monitor wildlife in their natural habitat, particularly in forested areas. [124]. This technique involves the installation of cameras in strategic locations within the forest, which are automatically triggered when they detect movement or heat [125]. Furthermore, it is a non-invasive and efficient technique [126]. This allows a researcher to obtain information about forest biodiversity, species distribution, species abundance, their habits and behaviors, and their interaction with the natural environment [125]. Consequently, it provides detailed information for assessing the status of wildlife present in a specific area. Therefore, its use can significantly contribute to the development of strategies for the sustainable management of biodiversity in forest ecosystems.
To carry out photo-trapping, special digital cameras are used that can be configured to automatically take images at different times of the day or night [127]. The cameras can be equipped with motion sensors, heat sensors, or both, to detect the presence of animals in the area [128]. These cameras are typically resistant to field conditions such as rain, sun, and cold temperatures [129]. The images captured by the cameras can be analyzed manually or through the use of specialized software to identify the animal species that appear in the images [130]. In this context, we believe it is important to place the cameras in locations where wildlife activity exists, such as trails, feeding areas, or areas with access to water. Therefore, photo-trapping does not disturb the natural behavior of animals and adheres to ethical protocols for wildlife research and monitoring.

3.2.8. Techniques Related to Forest Genetics

Forest genetics is a branch of forest biology that focuses on the study of genetics and molecular biology of trees and other forest species [131]. Some techniques related to forest genetics include DNA analysis, genetic improvement, cloning, molecular markers, and next-generation sequencing techniques [132]. Forest genetics techniques are important tools in forest management, enabling scientists to study the genetic diversity of forest species, improve wood quality, enhance disease resistance and other important traits, and conserve rare or endangered species [133]. Forest genetics employs various techniques to study the genetic variability of forest populations. Therefore, this tool contributes to sustainable forest management.
In this context, techniques related to forest genetics also have a connection with ICTs, as many of them require specialized equipment and software for their application and data analysis [134]. Some of the ways in which information and communication technology is used in forest genetics include databases, data analysis, simulation models, communication, and dissemination of results [135]. ICTs have allowed forest genetics scientists to gather and analyze large amounts of genetic information, as well as communicate the results in a clearer and more accessible manner to society [132,136,137,138]. In conclusion, forest genetics and ICTs are closely related, allowing for the collection and analysis of large amounts of genetic information, as well as the communication of results in a clearer and more accessible manner to society, which contributes to more efficient management and conservation of forests.

3.2.9. DNA Metabarcoding

DNA metabarcoding is a molecular technique used to identify species and communities of organisms from environmental samples such as soil, water, or air [139]. This technique is based on the sequencing of a specific region of the DNA from the organisms present in the sample, known as barcoding [140]. The obtained DNA sequence is compared to reference sequence databases to identify the corresponding species or taxon [141]. This molecular technique has applications in biodiversity research and monitoring, as well as in the management of forest ecosystems.
DNA metabarcoding has been successfully used in biodiversity studies, ecology, and conservation in various communities of organisms, ranging from plants and animals to microorganisms [142]. Some of the advantages of this technique include the ability to rapidly and accurately identify a wide range of species and taxa, as well as the capability to analyze complex environmental samples containing multiple species [143]. DNA metabarcoding is a technique that offers advantages for species identification and biodiversity analysis, benefiting ecosystem regeneration and species conservation efforts.
DNA metabarcoding is a complex technique that involves several stages: (i) Sample collection; (ii) DNA extraction, which can be done using commercial kits or standardized laboratory protocols; (iii) Amplification of DNA from organisms present in the sample; (iv) Purification of amplified DNA; (v) DNA sequencing; (vi) Data processing using specialized software, which may include filtering, assembly, and taxonomic assignment tools; and (vii) Data analysis to obtain information about the diversity and structure of the organism communities present in the sample, including species richness, relative abundance of each species, and taxonomic composition of the community [144,145,146]. In conclusion, this technique involves multiple stages, from sample collection to data analysis. Furthermore, it has been used in biodiversity, ecology, and conservation studies in various populations. Therefore, it becomes a promising technique to provide valuable information on biodiversity and communities of organisms present in environmental samples.

3.2.10. Citizen Science

Citizen science can be considered an ICT to the extent that it utilizes digital tools to engage people in scientific projects [147]. Technology has allowed citizen science projects to reach higher levels of participation and collaboration and has transformed the way data is collected, analyzed, and shared [148]. The collected data can be stored in online databases and analyzed by participants and scientists using specialized software and data extraction techniques [149]. ICTs have allowed citizen science projects to reach a broader and more diverse audience through online platforms that enable remote participation and online collaboration [150]. Furthermore, ICTs have enabled the communication and dissemination of results from citizen science projects [151]. For instance, social networks and mobile applications have been used to engage people in citizen science projects, enabling real-time communication and the creation of online communities to share information and data [152]. With the continuous advancement of ICTs, it is expected that citizen science will continue to grow and play an important role in scientific research and biodiversity management. In conclusion, ICTs have significantly enhanced the capacity of citizen science projects to store, analyze, and communicate collected data. This has resulted in increased efficiency in scientific research and improved accessibility and understanding of the results by society, which is of great importance in sustainable forest management.
Finally, it is important to mention that regarding the parameters for article selection in this study, the publication period ranged from 2004 to 2023. Similarly, when searching in the title, abstract, or keywords of published scientific articles, the most relevant countries were identified in terms of the origin of authors of works related to ICTs in the forestry sector: the United States, China, Canada, Spain, Finland, and Brazil. The most frequently used keywords in related scientific articles were “ICT and forestry”, “technological innovation and the forestry sector”, “technology and forests”, “communication flow and forestry ICT”, and “ICT in the forestry industry”. It is also important to highlight that among the works with the highest number of citations are research papers related to the keywords “ICT and forestry” and “technology and forest”, with over 3500 citations.

4. Discussion

This study focused on conducting an analysis of the opportunities for improving ICTs and communication flows in the forestry sector and their applicability based on the results reported by various studies and data repositories. Given the above information, Andreopoulou et al. [153] and Sharma et al. [154] mention that the forestry sector is one of the most important in terms of natural resources and sustainability and can significantly result from the implementation of ICTs. In this sense, for instance, CEPAL [155] indicates as one of its priorities support for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, which includes the use of ICTs. Therefore, we believe that ICTs can facilitate the achievement of sustainable development goals related to the management and conservation of forest resources. This fact is supported by a study carried out by Fardusi et al. [80], which mentions that the forestry sector is an area in which various ICT tools and applications have begun to be used to improve forest management and monitoring. A second study by Molinaro and Orzes [71] indicates that these technologies have been used successfully in the management of forestry companies to improve the decision-making, planning, and monitoring of forestry operations. In summary, we believe that the applications and technological tools used in the forestry sector improve the management and sustainability of forest resources by automating business management processes in the forestry sector, reducing costs and typing errors.
In this context, a study carried out by Zhang et al. [156] mentions that ICTs play a key role in the management and monitoring of forest resources, as well as in the optimization of production and marketing processes. A second study by Chen et al. [157] indicates that the use of ICTs in the forestry sector allows for more efficient management of natural resources, improving decision-making and increasing the profitability of forestry companies. For these reasons, we believe that they can be used to improve energy efficiency and digital infrastructure in the forestry sector. This fact is corroborated by a study carried out by Anastasiadou et al. [158] which points out that ICTs can help address the challenges of governance and population participation. In addition, Badiane et al. [159] state that ICTs can also provide opportunities to strengthen the capacities and skills of the forestry sector both in the public and private spheres, which can be especially important in the context of trade opening. In this sense, we believe that ICTs are essential for the forestry sector due to their ability to improve efficiency and productivity in the management of natural resources and are essential for the success and sustainability of the forestry sector in the digital age.
In view of the foregoing, we additionally believe that to further improve the use of ICTs in the forestry sector, new technologies can be implemented. In this sense, for instance, a study carried out by Palander [7] indicates that LIDAR allows for the production of digital terrain models and obtaining detailed information on topography and vegetation. A second study carried out by Galaz et al. [160] indicates that mobile applications can be developed for plantation management and decision-making in the field. A third study by Dainelli et al. [161] mentions that another option is the use of drones for the inspection of forests and early detection of pests or diseases. However, it is also important to consider the communication flows in the forestry sector. For example, a study carried out by Näyhä [162] and Castillo et al. [163] indicates that it is necessary to develop deep and wide-ranging communication strategies in relation to the needs of different stakeholders at different hierarchical levels of sustainability. Therefore, we consider that in the forestry sector, the use of different communication models is not enough to improve the acceptability of operations and competitiveness in the markets. However, they are tools that are necessary for its application.
Indeed, there are multiple ICTs used in the forestry sector to improve the collection, management, and analysis of forest data, as well as to improve supply chain monitoring, forest management, biodiversity conservation, and communication among the various stakeholders involved in the sector. In this context, Rao et al. [164] point out that ICTs can improve the efficiency of forest management and contribute to the protection and conservation of forest resources and biodiversity. Similarly, Sraku [165]; Belden et al. [166]; and Dastres and Soori [40] mention that access to ICTs in the forestry sector depends on telecommunications infrastructure, the level of economic development, public policies and regulations, the level of education and training, and the availability of financing. It is important to address these factors to improve access to ICTs in the forestry sector and harness their full potential for forest management and biodiversity conservation.
In this context, Liu et al. [167] mention that new technologies are being developed in the field of artificial intelligence. These technologies could have a significant influence on forest management [168]. For instance, a study carried out by Grabska et al. [169] mentions that machine learning algorithms can analyze large volumes of forest data and provide valuable information for decision-making. A second study by Singh et al. [170] indicates that artificial intelligence technologies are being created to improve the early detection of forest diseases and pests. However, in communication flows, artificial intelligence can also enhance communication among the various actors involved in forest management [53]. For instance, Kożuch et al. [171] reveal in their study that chatbots and virtual assistant systems can answer common questions about forest management, enabling more effective communication and efficient resource management. In summary, artificial intelligence technologies have a high potential to enhance forest management.
Regarding access to ICTs in the forestry sector, the digital divide is a reality that affects many regions of the world. A study conducted by Lowery et al. [172] states that the application of ICTs in the forestry sector faces specific challenges depending on the region and context in which they are used. These challenges include limitations in satellite coverage, varying levels of information access, diverse climatic conditions, different languages and cultures, varied approaches and priorities in forest management, lack of training and skills, costs, technical challenges, and maintenance issues. A second study by Hossain [173] indicates that in some countries, particularly the poorest and least developed ones, access to ICTs is limited or absent, which can have a negative impact on forest management and biodiversity conservation. Therefore, we believe that the challenges related to ICT access should be addressed, and their use should be integrated into a broader forest management strategy. With this, we believe that it is important to work in collaboration with the actors involved in forest management to ensure that ICTs are accessible, effective, and sustainable.
Although the PRISMA model is a rigorous and systematic methodology for conducting literature reviews, it also has certain limitations that must be considered. Some of the potential limitations of the PRISMA model in this study could be the following: (i) the limited availability of relevant studies in the literature, which could restrict the number of studies included in the review; (ii) the variable quality of the included studies, which could affect the reliability and validity of the review results; (iii) the possibility that some relevant studies have been omitted due to the selection of specific databases or the exclusion of languages other than English or Spanish; and (iv) the possibility that the inclusion and exclusion criteria are not entirely appropriate for the specific topic of the review.
The potential future impact of ICTs and communication flows in the forestry sector is promising, with significant implications for the management of forest resources. Initially, the advancement of ICTs is expected to enable broader automation of forest management processes, resulting in improved efficiency and cost reduction. Additionally, the integration of various technologies utilized in forest management is anticipated to be optimized through the application of ICTs, enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of information analysis. In terms of communication flows, ICTs are poised to facilitate increased collaboration and coordination among diverse stakeholders engaged in forest management, including forest owners, forestry companies, government agencies, and civil society members. Consequently, the utilization of ICTs has the potential to enhance the overall management of forest resources.

5. Conclusions

ICTs and communication flows generate a positive impact in the forest sector because they allow for the monitoring and analyzing of landscapes on different temporal and spatial scales, thus contributing to forest management and the establishment of norms or policies that guarantee preservation. In addition, it allows the stakeholders to be linked and establishes effective communication flows between them. Overall, there is a wide range of technologies that can be implemented in the forestry area according to the needs of each user, such as productivity improvements, monitoring, and markets, among others. Furthermore, sustainability is an important aspect of forest management, and ICTs can play a role in promoting sustainability in several ways. For instance, ICTs can be used to monitor forest health and identify areas that are at risk of degradation. This information can then be used to develop and implement management plans that will help to protect forests and their resources. Additionally, ICTs can be used to educate the public about the importance of forests and the need for sustainable forest management. This can help to raise awareness of the issue and encourage people to make choices that support sustainable forest practices.
Finally, the forestry sector can significantly benefit from the implementation of ICTs and communication flows. These technologies can improve the management and sustainability of forest resources by automating business processes, reducing costs, and minimizing errors. They can also facilitate the achievement of sustainable development goals related to the management and conservation of forest resources. However, the implementation of these technologies may require a significant investment in equipment and training for personnel. Furthermore, the use of new technologies such as LIDAR, mobile applications, and drones can further improve the efficiency and productivity of the forestry sector. It is also essential to consider communication flows and develop comprehensive communication strategies to ensure the acceptability of operations and competitiveness in the markets. Despite some disadvantages such as the cost of implementation and maintenance, the use of ICTs and communication flows are essential tools for the success and sustainability of the forestry sector in the digital age.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V.G.M. and D.D.C.V.; methodology, A.V.G.M. and D.D.C.V.; data gathering, A.V.G.M. and D.D.C.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V.G.M., D.D.C.V. and M.V.M.; writing—review and editing, A.V.G.M., D.D.C.V. and M.V.M.; supervision, A.V.G.M., D.D.C.V. and M.V.M.; project administration, A.V.G.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Alex Vinicio Gavilanes Montoya and Danny Daniel Castillo Vizuete researchers at Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania, was supported by the program “Transilvania Fellowship for Postdoctoral Research/Young Researchers”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to Transilvania University of Brasov, specially to Stelian Alexandru Borz who supervises this study and to Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, due to this research is part of the IDIPI-266 Project from ESPOCH.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Volkodaeva, A.; Balanovskaya, A.; Rustenova, E. Trends in information and communication technologies development in context of economy digitalization. In Digital Technologies in the New Socio-Economic Reality; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sookhak, M.; Jabbarpour, M.; Safa, N.; Yu, F. Blockchain and smart contract for access control in healthcare: A survey, issues and challenges, and open issues. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2021, 178, 102950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Øverby, H.; Audestad, J.; Øverby, H.; Audestad, J. Information and Communication Technologies. In Introduction to Digital Economics: Foundations, Business Models and Case Studies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Munirathinam, S. Industry 4.0: Industrial internet of things (IIOT). In Advances in Computers; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 117, pp. 129–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yaakob, M.; Awang, H.; Ismail, M.; Zain, F.; Kasim, M.; Adnan, A. Backward and forward reviews on technical and vocational education and training (TVET) in Malaysia: The evolution and ICT-driven future prospect. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 2197–2203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shivaprakash, K.; Swami, N.; Mysorekar, S.; Arora, R.; Gangadharan, A.; Vohra, K.; Kiesecker, J. Potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) applications in biodiversity conservation, managing forests, and related services in India. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Palander, T. Outsourcing Issues of Wood Supply Chain Management in the Forest Industry. For. Sci. 2022, 68, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Budiman, E.; Putra, G.; Rahman, R.; Prafanto, A.; Wardhana, R.; Hairah, U. Mobile Network Experience in Forest Research and Conservation Areas. In Proceedings of the 2021 3rd East Indonesia Conference on Computer and Information Technology (EIConCIT), Surabaya, Indonesia, 9–11 April 2021; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heiskanen, A.; Hurmekoski, E.; Toppinen, A.; Näyhä, A. Exploring the unknowns–State of the art in qualitative forest-based sector foresight research. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 135, 102643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Adnan, S. ICTs for Development: Building the Information Society by Understanding the Consumer Market. In Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 989–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Singh, J.; Singh, S.; Kumari, M. Role of ICT in supply chain management. J. Interdiscip. Cycle Res. 2020, 12, 992. [Google Scholar]
  12. Martinez, J.; Serna, M.; Sanchez, M.; Aguilar, J. The impact of ICT and knowledge management on open innovation: Empirical evidence from Mexico. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Stud. 2023, 6, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Schilling, L.; Seuring, S. The Role of Information and Communication Technology in Managing Supply Chains in Base-of-the-Pyramid Markets. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 70, 1186–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kulkarni, V.; Sahoo, S.; Thanikanti, S.; Velpula, S.; Rathod, D. Power systems automation, communication, and information technologies for smart grid: A technical aspects review. TELKOMNIKA (Telecommun. Comput. Electron. Control) 2021, 19, 1017–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gloria, E.; Ifeoma, E. Entrepreneurship opportunities in information and communication technology (ICT). WATARI Multi-Discip. J. Sci. Technol. Math. Educ. 2023, 7, 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  16. Wu, J.; Guo, S.; Huang, H.; Liu, W.; Xiang, Y. Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 20, 2389–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Gouvea, R.; Kapelianis, D.; Kassicieh, S. Assessing the nexus of sustainability and information & communications technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 130, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Müller, F.; Jaeger, D.; Hanewinkel, M. Digitization in wood supply–A review on how Industry 4.0 will change the forest value chain. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 162, 206–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Luo, L.; O’Hehir, J.; Regan, C.; Meng, L.; Connor, J.; Chow, C. An integrated strategic and tactical optimization model for forest supply chain planning. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 131, 102571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Marchi, E.; Chung, W.; Visser, R.; Abbas, D.; Nordfjell, T.; Mederski, P.; Laschi, A. Sustainable Forest Operations (SFO): A new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 1385–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Dalalah, D.; Khan, S.; Al-Ashram, Y.; Albeetar, S.; Abou, Y.; Alkhouli, E. An integrated framework for the assessment of environmental sustainability in wood supply chains. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2022, 27, 102429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Šulyová, D.; Koman, G. The significance of IoT technology in improving logistical processes and enhancing competitiveness: A case study on the World’s and Slovakia’s wood-processing enterprises. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gedik, T.; Durusoy, İ. Adoption of information and communications technology in the Turkish forest products industry: A case study. Kastamonu Univ. J. For. Fac. 2020, 20, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huang, Y.; Khan, J. Has the information and communication technology sector become the engine of China’s economic growth? Rev. Dev. Econ. 2022, 26, 510–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Morkovina, S.; Nasriddinov, S.; Shanin, I. Forestry digital platform of Russia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 595, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maksimovic, M. Greening the future: Green Internet of Things (G-IoT) as a key technological enabler of sustainable development. In Internet of Things and Big Data Analytics toward Next-Generation Intelligence; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 30, pp. 283–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Červený, L.; Sloup, R.; Červená, T.; Riedl, M.; Palátová, P. Industry 4.0 as an Opportunity and Challenge for the Furniture Industry—A Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shabaev, A. Manufacturing Information Systems for Forestry Companies Based on Integrated Modular Approach «Many Companies—One Tool». In ICT with Intelligence Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 248, pp. 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Vance, J.; Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Hartley, D. Data Analytics for Enhancement of Forest and Biomass Supply Chain Management. Curr. For. Rep. 2020, 6, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gutiérrez, E.; Lozano, S. Cross-country comparison of the efficiency of the European forest sector and second stage DEA approach. Ann. Oper. Res. 2022, 314, 471–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jäntti, M.; Aho, M. Improving the Quality of ICT and Forestry Service Processes with Digital Service Management Approach: A Case Study on Forestry Liquids. In Quality of Information and Communications Technology: 15th International Conference, QUATIC 2022, Talavera de la Reina, Spain, 12–14 September 2022, Proceedings; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, J.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Y. The development and issues of energy-ICT: A review of literature with economic and managerial viewpoints. Energies 2022, 15, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kalambet, M.; Yagotinceva, N.; Kolbina, O.; Yagotinceva, T.; Aksenova, A. Opportunities and prospects of IoT application in landscape architecture, design and information and communication technology. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 507, 012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Picchio, R.; Proto, A.; Civitarese, V.; Di Marzio, N.; Latterini, F. Recent contributions of some fields of the electronics in development of forest operations technologies. Electronics 2019, 8, 1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Goel, R.; Vishnoi, S. Urbanization and sustainable development for inclusiveness using ICTs. Telecommun. Policy 2022, 46, 102311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Choudhry, H.; O’Kelly, G. Precision Forestry: A Revolution in the Woods. Basic Materials, Paper & Forest Products. 2018. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.de/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Paper%20and%20Forest%20Products/Our%20Insights/Precision%20forestry%20A%20revolution%20in%20the%20woods/Precision-forestry-A-revolution-in-the-woods-final.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  37. Mederski, P.; Borz, S.; Đuka, A.; Lazdiņš, A. Challenges in forestry and forest engineering–Case studies from four countries in East Europe. Croat. J. For. Eng. J. Theory Appl. For. Eng. 2021, 42, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bhunia, G.; Shit, P. Forest Management with Advance Geoscience: Future Prospects. Spat. Model. For. Resour. Manag. Rural Livelihood Sustain. Dev. 2021, 3–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Panyavina, E.; Morkovina, S.; Kulakova, E.; Alyabyeva, M. Study of the readiness of forestry enterprises to use digital technologies. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 875, 012034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dastres, R.; Soori, M. The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in environmental protection. Int. J. Tomogr. Simul. 2021, 35, 24–37. Available online: https://hal.science/hal-03359776/ (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  41. Rusyn, B.; Obukh, Y.; Kosarevych, R.; Lutsyk, O.; Korniy, V. Information System for Analysis of Forest Plantations and Monitoring of Ecological Condition. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 4th International Conference on Advanced Information and Communication Technologies (AICT), Lviv, Ukraine, 21–25 September 2021; pp. 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sofia, S.; Maetzke, F.; Crescimanno, M.; Coticchio, A.; La Mela, D.; Galati, A. The efficiency of LiDAR HMLS scanning in monitoring forest structure parameters: Implications for sustainable forest management. EuroMed J. Bus. 2022, 17, 350–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Dodev, Y.; Zhiyanski, M.; Glushkova, M.; Shin, W. Forest welfare services-the missing link between forest policy and management in the EU. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. O’Briena, L.; Urbaneka, R.; Gregory, J. Ecological functions and human benefits of urban forests. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 75, 127707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wani, A.; Sahoo, G. Forest ecosystem services and biodiversity. Spat. Model. For. Resour. Manag. Rural Livelihood Sustain. Dev. 2021, 1, 529–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mori, A.; Lertzman, K.; Gustafsson, L. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in forest ecosystems: A research agenda for applied forest ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Savari, M.; Khaleghi, B. The role of social capital in forest conservation: An approach to deal with deforestation. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 896, 165216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Verkerk, P.; Costanza, R.; Hetemäki, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Leskinen, P.; Nabuurs, G.; Palahí, M. Climate-smart forestry: The missing link. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 115, 102164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Djagoun, C.; Zanvo, S.; Padonou, E.; Sogbohossou, E.; Sinsin, B. Perceptions of ecosystem services: A comparison between sacred and non-sacred forests in central Benin (West Africa). For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 503, 119791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kankaanhuhta, V.; Packalen, T.; Väätäinen, K. Digital Transformation of Forest Services in Finland—A Case Study for Improving Business Processes. Forests 2021, 12, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Goodbody, T.; Coops, N.; Luther, J.; Tompalski, P.; Mulverhill, C.; Frizzle, C.; Herniman, S. Airborne laser scanning for quantifying criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada. Can. J. For. Res. 2021, 51, 972–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. da Silva, E.; da Silva, G.; Figueiredo, E.; de Mendonça, A.; de Oliveira, C.; Fiedler, N.; Santos, J. Optimized forest planning: Allocation of log storage yards in the Amazonian sustainable forest management area. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 472, 118231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Nitoslawski, S.; Wong, K.; Steenberg, J.; Witherspoon, K.; Nesbitt, L.; Konijnendijk, C. The digital forest: Mapping a decade of knowledge on technological applications for forest ecosystems. Earth’s Future 2021, 9, e2021EF002123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wu, L.; Zhang, Z. Impact and threshold effect of Internet technology upgrade on forestry green total factor productivity: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 271, 122657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, J.; Zheng, Z.; Ma, A.; Lu, X.; Zhong, Y. LoveDA: A remote sensing land-cover dataset for domain adaptive semantic segmentation. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2110.08733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Keefe, R.; Zimbelman, E.; Picchi, G. Use of Individual Tree and Product Level Data to Improve Operational Forestry. Curr. For. Rep. 2022, 8, 148–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De Gouw, S.; Morgenroth, J.; Xu, C. An updated survey on the use of geospatial technologies in New Zealand’s plantation forestry sector. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2020, 50, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Negassa, M.; Mallie, D.; Gemeda, D. Forest cover change detection using Geographic Information Systems and remote sensing techniques: A spatio-temporal study on Komto Protected forest priority area, East Wollega Zone, Ethiopia. Environ. Syst. Res. 2020, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. He, Z.; Turner, P. A Systematic Review on Technologies and Industry 4.0 in the Forest Supply Chain: A Framework Identifying Challenges and Opportunities. Logistics 2021, 5, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Giannetti, F.; Laschi, A.; Zorzi, I.; Foderi, C.; Cenni, E.; Guadagnino, C.; Giambastiani, Y. Forest Sharing® as an Innovative Facility for Sustainable Forest Management of Fragmented Forest Properties: First Results of Its Implementation. Land 2023, 12, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kinaneva, D.; Hristov, G.; Raychev, J.; Zahariev, P. Early forest fire detection using drones and artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2019 42nd International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia, 20–24 May 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1060–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wilkes, J.; Deuffic, P.; Jandl, R.; Westin, K.; Lieberherr, E.; Foldal, C.; Jarský, V. Communication campaigns to engage (non-traditional) forest owners: A European perspective. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 133, 102621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Nzau, J.; Gosling, E.; Rieckmann, M.; Shauri, H.; Habel, J. The illusion of participatory forest management success in nature conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 1923–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Yachmeneva, V.; Antonova, A.; Pozharitskaya, I. Precise technologies in forestry: Problems and prospects. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 574, 012086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yılmaz, R.; Koyuncu, C. The impact of ICT penetration on deforestation: A panel data evidence. Rev. Econ. Perspect. 2019, 19, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Empig, E.; Sivacioğlu, A.; Pacaldo, R.; Suson, P.; Lavilles, R.; Teves, M.; Amparado, R. Climate Change, Sustainable Forest Management, ICT Nexus, and the SDG 2030: A Systems Thinking Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kanowski, P. Multilateral forestry research and tertiary forestry education for development: Reflections on progress since the 1970s. Int. For. Rev. 2020, 22, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wong, S. Gendering Information and Communication Technologies in Climate Change. In Research Anthology on Environmental and Societal Impacts of Climate Change; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 764–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chi, N. Transforming travel motivation into intention to pay for nature conservation in national parks: The role of Chatbot e-services. J. Nat. Conserv. 2022, 68, 126226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Molinaro, M.; Orzes, G. From forest to finished products: The contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies to the wood sector. Comput. Ind. 2022, 138, 103637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Paletto, A.; Bernardi, S.; Pieratti, E.; Teston, F.; Romagnoli, M. Assessment of environmental impact of biomass power plants to increase the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Stewart, L. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015, 349, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Rethlefsen, M.; Kirtley, S.; Waffenschmidt, S.; Ayala, A.; Moher, D.; Page, M.; Koffel, J. PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Delgado, E.; Orduña, E.; Martín, A. Google Scholar as a data source for research assessment. In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 95–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Gusenbauer, M.; Haddaway, N. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 11, 181–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Pati, D.; Lorusso, L. How to write a systematic review of the literature. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2018, 11, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Adams, C.; Frost, G. Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Acc. Forum 2008, 32, 288–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wallace, L.; Lucieer, A.; Watson, C.; Turner, D. Development of a UAV-LiDAR system with application to forest inventory. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 1519–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Fardusi, M.; Chianucci, F.; Barbati, A. Concept to practice of geospatial-information tools to assist forest management and planning under precision forestry framework: A review. Ann. Silvic. Res. 2017, 41, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gómez, C.; Alejandro, P.; Hermosilla, T.; Montes, F.; Pascual, C.; Ruiz, L.; Valbuena, R. Remote sensing for the Spanish forests in the 21st century: A review of advances, needs, and opportunities. For. Syst. 2019, 28, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tan, J.; Su, X.; Wang, R. Exploring the Measurement of Regional Forestry Eco-Efficiency and Influencing Factors in China Based on the Super-Efficient DEA-Tobit Two Stage Model. Forests 2023, 14, 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kovácsová, P.; Antalová, M. Precision forestry–definition and technologies. Šumarski List 2010, 134, 603–610. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/62792. (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  84. Nguyen, C.; Doytch, N. The impact of ICT patents on economic growth: An international evidence. Telecommun. Policy 2022, 46, 102291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. N’dri, L.; Islam, M.; Kakinaka, M. ICT and environmental sustainability: Any differences in developing countries? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Baskent, E.; Borges, J.; Kašpar, J.; Tahri, M. Marchi A Design for Addressing Multiple Ecosystem Services in Forest Management Planning. Forests 2020, 11, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hristov, G.; Kinaneva, D.; Raychev, J.; Zahariev, P. Emerging methods for early detection of forest fires using unmanned aerial vehicles and LoRaWAN sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 28th EAEEIE Annual Conference (EAEEIE), Hafnarfjordur, Iceland, 26–28 September 2018; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Grant, A.; Pawson, S.; Marzano, M. Emerging Stakeholder Relations in Participatory ICT Design: Renegotiating the Boundaries of Sociotechnical Innovation in Forest Biosecurity Surveillance. Forests 2019, 10, 836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Borges, J.; Nordström, E.; Garcia, J.; Hujala, T.; Trasobares, A. Computer-Based Tools for Supporting Forest Management. The Experience and the Expertise World-Wide; Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2014; ISBN 978-91-576-9236-8. [Google Scholar]
  90. Castro, J.; Chirino, E. Teachers’ opinion survey on the use of ICT tools to support attendance-based teaching. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 911–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lähtinen, K.; Toppinen, A.; Suojanen, H.; Stern, T.; Ranacher, L.; Burnard, M.; Kitek, M. Forest Sector Sustainability Communication in Europe: A Systematic Literature Review on the Contents and Gaps. Curr. For. Rep. 2017, 3, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Taylor, C.; Lindenmayer, D. Stakeholder engagement in a Forest Stewardship Council Controlled Wood assessment. Environ. Sci. Policy 2021, 120, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pelyukh, O.; Lavnyy, V.; Paletto, A.; Troxler, D. Stakeholder analysis in sustainable forest management: An application in the Yavoriv region (Ukraine). For. Policy Econ. 2021, 131, 102561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Akilandeswari, V.; Pavithra, M.; Thawlath, A.; Nasreen, J. Elements of Effective Communication. Adalya J. 2018, 7, 31–32. [Google Scholar]
  95. Atkin, C.; Rice, R. Advances in Public Communication Campaigns. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Studies, 1st ed.; Scharrer, E., Ed.; The international encyclopedia of media studies: Vol. 5: Media effects/Media psychology; Wiley-Blackwell: London, UK, 2013; pp. 526–551. [Google Scholar]
  96. Zacharoula, S. Green Informatics: ICT for Green and Sustainability. Agric. Inform. 2012, 3, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  97. Niţă, M.; Borz, S. Accuracy of a Smartphone-based freeware solution and two shape reconstruction algorithms in log volume measurements. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 205, 107653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Coops, N. Characterizing Forest Growth and Productivity Using Remotely Sensed Data. Curr. For. Rep. 2015, 1, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Galbraith, S.; Vierling, L.; Bosque, N. Remote Sensing and Ecosystem Services: Current Status and Future Opportunities for the Study of Bees and Pollination-Related Services. Curr. For. Rep. 2015, 1, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Vogeler, J.; Cohen, W. A review of the role of active remote sensing and data fusion for characterizing forest in wildlife habitat models. Rev. De Teledetect. 2016, 45, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Stone, C.; Mohammed, C. Application of Remote Sensing Technologies for Assessing Planted Forests Damaged by Insect Pests and Fungal Pathogens: A Review. Curr. For. Rep. 2017, 3, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Xu, C.; Morgenroth, J.; Manley, B. Integrating Data from Discrete Return Airborne LiDAR and Optical Sensors to Enhance the Accuracy of Forest Description: A Review. Curr. For. Rep. 2015, 1, 206–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Carson, W.; Andersen, H.; Reutebuch, S.; McGaughey, R. Lidar Applications in Forestry—An Overview. Annu. Conf. Proc. 2004, 1–9. Available online: https://www.firescience.gov/projects/04-1-2-02/project/04-1-2-02_04_1_2_02_deliverable_06.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  104. Pittman, S.; Costa, B.; Wedding, L. LiDAR Applications. In Coral Reef Remote Sensing; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 145–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Borz, S.; Proto, A. Application and accuracy of smart technologies for measurements of roundwood: Evaluation of time consumption and efficiency. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 197, 106990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hollaus, M.; Vreugdenhil, M. Radar Satellite Imagery for Detecting Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Forests. Curr. For. Rep. 2019, 5, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Torres, R.; Snoeij, P.; Geudtner, D.; Bibby, D.; Davidson, M.; Attema, E.; Potin, P.; Rommen, B.; Floury, N.; Brown, M.; et al. GMES Sentinel-1 mission. Remote Sens. Environ. 2012, 120, 9–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pyörälä, J.; Kankare, V.; Vastaranta, M.; Rikala, J.; Holopainen, M.; Sipi, M.; Hyyppä, J.; Uusitalo, J. Comparison of terrestrial laser scanning and X-ray scanning in measuring Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) branch structure. Scand. J. For. Res. 2018, 33, 291–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Jacquin, P.; Longuetaud, F.; Leban, J.; Mothe, F. X-ray microdensitometry of wood: A review of existing principles and devices. Dendrochronologia 2017, 42, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Allison, R.; Wang, X.; Senalik, C. Methods for Nondestructive Testing of Urban Trees. Forests 2020, 11, 1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wei, Q.; Leblon, B.; La Rocque, A. On the use of X-ray computed tomography for determining wood properties: A review. Can. J. For. Res. 2011, 41, 2120–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hur, J.; Ihm, S.; Park, Y. A Variable Impacts Measurement in Random Forest for Mobile Cloud Computing. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2017, 2017, 6817627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Liang, X.; Kukko, A.; Hyyppä, J.; Lehtomäki, M.; Pyörälä, J.; Yu, X.; Kaartinen, H.; Jaakkola, A.; Wang, Y. In-situ measurements from mobile platforms: An emerging approach to address the old challenges associated with forest inventories. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2018, 143, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Pratihast, A.; Herold, M.; Avitabile, V.; de Bruin, S.; Bartholomeus, H.; Souza, C.M., Jr.; Ribbe, L. Mobile Devices for Community-Based REDD+ Monitoring: A Case Study for Central Vietnam. Sensors 2012, 13, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Sivrikaya, F.; Küçük, Ö. Modeling forest fire risk based on GIS-based analytical hierarchy process and statistical analysis in Mediterranean region. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 68, 101537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sonti, S. Application of Geographic Information System (GIS) in Forest Management. J. Geogr. Nat. Disasters 2015, 5, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Nowak, M.; Dziób, K.; Ludwisiak, Ł.; Chmiel, J. Mobile GIS applications for environmental field surveys: A state of the art. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 23, e01089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Li, L.; Hao, T.; Chi, T. Evaluation on China’s forestry resources efficiency based on big data. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Rossit, D.; Olivera, A.; Viana, V.; Broz, D. A Big Data approach to forestry harvesting productivity. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 161, 29–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hasan, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chu, X.; Teng, Y. The role of big data in China’s sustainable forest management. For. Econ. Rev. 2019, 1, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Björk, A.; Erlandsson, M.; Häkli, J.; Jaakkola, K.; Nilsson, Å.; Nummila, K.; Puntanen, V.; Sirkka, A. Monitoring environmental performance of the forestry supply chain using RFID. Comput. Ind. 2011, 62, 830–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Luvisi, A.; Lorenzini, G. RFID-plants in the smart city: Applications and outlook for urban green management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 630–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Green, K.; Zelbst, P.; Sower, V.; Bellah, J. Impact of Radio Frequency Identification Technology on Environmental Sustainability. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2017, 57, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Chianucci, F.; Bajocco, S.; Ferrara, C. Continuous observations of forest canopy structure using low-cost digital camera traps. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 307, 108516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Plhal, R.; Kamler, J.; Homolka, M.; Adamec, Z. An assessment of the applicability of photo trapping to estimate wild boar population density in a forest environment. Folia Zool. 2011, 60, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Can, Ö.; Togan, İ. Camera trapping of large mammals in Yenice Forest, Turkey: Local information versus camera traps. Oryx 2009, 43, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Meek, P.; Fleming, P.; Ballard, G. An Introduction to Camera Trapping for Wildlife Surveys in Australia; Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  128. Meek, P.; Ballard, G.; Claridge, A.; Kays, R.; Moseby, K.; O’brien, T.; Townsend, S. Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 2321–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Noss, A.; Polisar, J.; Maffei, L.; Garcia, R.; Silver, S. Evaluating jaguar densities with camera traps. Wildl. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 1–78. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rony-Garcia-Anleu/publication/269709284_Evaluating_jaguar_densities_with_camera_traps/links/565604fe08ae1ef92979c1b4/Evaluating-jaguar-densities-with-camera-traps.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  130. Carreira, S. Photography and biodiversity awareness: The use of images in conservation. Metode Sci. Stud. J. 2023, 14, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kang, X. Research progress of forest genetics and tree breeding. J. Nanjing For. Univ. 2020, 44, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Isabel, N.; Holliday, J.; Aitken, S. Forest genomics: Advancing climate adaptation, forest health, productivity, and conservation. Evol. Appl. 2020, 13, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Cortés, A.; Restrepo, M.; Bedoya, L. Modern strategies to assess and breed forest tree adaptation to changing climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 583323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Lebedev, V.; Lebedeva, T.; Chernodubov, A.; Shestibratov, K. Genomic selection for forest tree improvement: Methods, achievements and perspectives. Forests 2020, 11, 1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wheeler, N.; Steiner, K.; Schlarbaum, S.; Neale, D. The evolution of forest genetics and tree improvement research in the United States. J. For. 2015, 113, 500–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. White, T.; Adams, W.; Neale, D. (Eds.) Forest Genetics; Cabi; Embryo Publications: Athens, Greece, 2007; ISBN 9789608002524. [Google Scholar]
  137. Ruane, J.; Sonnino, A. Marker-assisted selection as a tool for genetic improvement of crops, livestock, forestry and fish in developing countries: An overview of the issues. In Marker-Assisted Selection—Current Status and Future Perspectives in Crops, Livestock, Forestry and Fish; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2007; pp. 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  138. Amaral, J.; Ribeyre, Z.; Vigneaud, J.; Sow, M.; Fichot, R.; Messier, C.; Maury, S. Advances and promises of epigenetics for forest trees. Forests 2020, 11, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Evans, D.; Kitson, J.; Lunt, D.; Straw, N.; Pocock, M. Merging DNA metabarcoding and ecological network analysis to understand and build resilient terrestrial ecosystems. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 1904–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Kang, Y.; Deng, Z.; Zang, R.; Long, W. DNA barcoding analysis and phylogenetic relationships of tree species in tropical cloud forests. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 12564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Liu, J.; Yan, H.; Newmaster, S.; Pei, N.; Ragupathy, S.; Ge, X. The use of DNA barcoding as a tool for the conservation biogeography of subtropical forests in China. Divers. Distrib. 2015, 21, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Thompson, K.; Newmaster, S. Molecular taxonomic tools provide more accurate estimates of species richness at less cost than traditional morphology-based taxonomic practices in a vegetation survey. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 1411–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Câmara, P.; Bones, F.; Lopes, F.; Oliveira, F.; Barreto, C.; Knop, D.; Rosa, L. DNA metabarcoding reveals cryptic diversity in forest soils on the isolated Brazilian Trindade Island, South Atlantic. Microb. Ecol. 2023, 85, 1056–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Janzen, D.; Hajibabaei, M.; Burns, J.; Hallwachs, W.; Remigio, E.; Hebert, P. Wedding biodiversity inventory of a large and complex Lepidoptera fauna with DNA barcoding. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 1835–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Wangensteen, O.; Turon, X. Metabarcoding techniques for assessing biodiversity of marine animal forests. Mar. Anim. For. Ecol. Benthic Biodivers. Hotspots 2017, 1, 445–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Watts, C.; Dopheide, A.; Holdaway, R.; Davis, C.; Wood, J.; Thornburrow, D.; Dickie, I. DNA metabarcoding as a tool for invertebrate community monitoring: A case study comparison with conventional techniques. Austral Entomol. 2019, 58, 675–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wiggins, A.; Crowston, K. Goals and tasks: Two typologies of citizen science projects. In Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2012; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 3426–3435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Kasperowski, D.; Kullenberg, C. The many modes of citizen science. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2019, 32, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Uhlmann, E.; Ebersole, C.; Chartier, C.; Errington, T.; Kidwell, M.; Lai, C.; Nosek, B. Scientific utopia III: Crowdsourcing science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 14, 711–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Puhan, M.; Steinemann, N.; Kamm, C.; Müller, S.; Kuhle, J.; Kurmann, R.; Von, V. A digitally facilitated citizen-science driven approach accelerates participant recruitment and increases study population diversity. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2018, 148, w14623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Fraisl, D.; Hager, G.; Bedessem, B.; Gold, M.; Hsing, P.; Danielsen, F.; Haklay, M. Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 2022, 2, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Johnston, A.; Matechou, E.; Dennis, E. Outstanding challenges and future directions for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2023, 14, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Andreopoulou, Z.; Stiakakis, E.; Vlachopoulou, M. Green ICT applications towards the achievement of sustainable development. In E-innovation for Sustainable Development of Rural Resources during Global Economic Crisis; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2014; pp. 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sharma, T.; Singh, A.; Kumar, N.; Chauhan, G. Digital Technologies and Tools for the Ensuing Digital Era. In Applying Drone Technologies and Robotics for Agricultural Sustainability; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. CEPAL. Report on the Seminar New Challenges and New Perspectives on International Cooperation: Development Approaches from Latin America and the Caribbean. 2023. Available online: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/48768/S2200982_en.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 18 January 2023).
  156. Zhang, G.; Yang, Y.; Yang, G. Smart supply chain management in Industry 4.0: The review, research agenda and strategies in North America. Ann. Oper. Res. 2023, 322, 1075–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Chen, C.; Ye, F.; Xiao, H.; Xie, W.; Liu, B.; Wang, L. The digital economy, spatial spillovers and forestry green total factor productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 405, 136890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Anastasiadou, M.; Santos, V.; Montargil, F. Which technology to which challenge in democratic governance? An approach using design science research. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2021, 15, 512–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Badiane, O.; Hendriks, S.; Glatzel, K.; Abdelradi, F.; Admassie, A.; Adjaye, J.; Sibanda, S. Policy Options for Food System Transformation in Africa and the Role of Science, Technology and Innovation. Sci. Innov. Food Syst. Transform 2023, 713, 1–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Galaz, V.; Centeno, M.; Callahan, P.; Causevic, A.; Patterson, T.; Brass, I.; Levy, K. Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Dainelli, R.; Toscano, P.; Di Gennaro, S.; Matese, A. Recent advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles forest remote sensing—A systematic review. Part II: Research applications. Forests 2021, 12, 397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Näyhä, A. Finnish forest-based companies in transition to the circular bioeconomy-drivers, organizational resources and innovations. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 110, 101936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Castillo, D.; Gavilanes, A.; Chávez, C.; Borz, S. Critical Review on the Perspectives of the Forestry Sector in Ecuador. Land 2023, 12, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Rao, A.; Talan, A.; Abbas, S.; Dev, D.; Taghizadeh, F. The role of natural resources in the management of environmental sustainability: Machine learning approach. Resources Policy. 2023, 82, 103548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Sraku, M. Enhancing Access to Forestry Information in Africa to Ensure Sustainable Forest Management. Issues Sci. Technol. Librariansh. 2006, 47, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Belden, C.; Surya, P.; Goyal, A.; Pruuden, P.; Etulain, T.; Bothwell, C.; Pidatala, K. ICT for data collection and monitoring and evaluation: Opportunities and guidance on mobile applications for forest and agricultural sectors. In Agriculture and Environmental Services Technical Assistance Paper; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  167. Liu, Z.; Peng, C.; Work, T.; Candau, J.; DesRochers, A.; Kneeshaw, D. Application of machine-learning methods in forest ecology: Recent progress and future challenges. Environ. Rev. 2018, 26, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  168. Nitoslawski, S.; Galle, N.; Van Den, C.; Steenberg, J. Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 51, 101770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Grabska, E.; Frantz, D.; Ostapowicz, K. Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for forest stand species mapping using Sentinel-2 imagery and environmental data in the Polish Carpathians. Remote Sens. Environ. 2020, 251, 112103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Singh, R.; Gehlot, A.; Akram, S.; Thakur, A.; Buddhi, D.; Das, P. Forest 4.0: Digitalization of forest using the Internet of Things (IoT). J. King Saud Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022, 34, 5587–5601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Kożuch, A.; Cywicka, D.; Adamowicz, K. A Comparison of Artificial Neural Network and Time Series Models for Timber Price Forecasting. Forests 2023, 14, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Lowery, B.; Dagevos, J.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Vodden, K. Storytelling for sustainable development in rural communities: An alternative approach. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 28, 1813–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Hossain, M. Role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Following Global Standard for NbS: The Bangladesh Perspective. In Regional Perspectives of Nature-based Solutions for Water: Benefits and Challenges; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 225–247. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Methodological process.
Figure 1. Methodological process.
Sustainability 15 10973 g001
Figure 2. Importance of ICTs in the forestry area.
Figure 2. Importance of ICTs in the forestry area.
Sustainability 15 10973 g002
Figure 3. Communication flow in forestry.
Figure 3. Communication flow in forestry.
Sustainability 15 10973 g003
Figure 4. Big data characteristics. Volume: huge amount of storage (a). Velocity: the speed of data generation and processing according to demands and challenges of the analysis (b). Variety: different sources of data (c). Veracity: reliability of data (d). Valorization: ability to disseminate information (e).
Figure 4. Big data characteristics. Volume: huge amount of storage (a). Velocity: the speed of data generation and processing according to demands and challenges of the analysis (b). Variety: different sources of data (c). Veracity: reliability of data (d). Valorization: ability to disseminate information (e).
Sustainability 15 10973 g004
Table 1. Sensors used in forestry areas (applications).
Table 1. Sensors used in forestry areas (applications).
Type of SensorSensing MethodData TypeSensorMeasured VariablesSpatial Scale
PASSIVEAerial photography2DPhoto camerasLandscape characterizationLocal
Satellite imageryMultispectralLandsat TM
ETM +
SPOT
ASTER
MODIS
Landscape characterization, meteorological observations, plant productivity and chemistry.Regional to local
HyperspectralCHRIS
HYPERION
Landscape characterization, meteorological observations, plant productivity and chemistry, species compositionRegional to local
High spatial resolutionRAPID EYE (5 m)
IKONOS (<1 m)
WORLDVIEW (<1 m)
Identifying individuals of a landscapeLocal
High temporal resolutionSPOT (4–5 DAYS)
MODIS (DAILY)
Changes in landscape over timeGlobal to local
ACTIVEAirborne LiDAR and radarMultilevel, high spatial resolutionSLICER
LVIS
Vertical-looking radar
Side-looking radar
Landscape characterization (identifying individuals), crop productionRegional to local
Harmonic radar--Tracking individuals, vegetation structure—3D-
Terrestrial lasersHigh spatial, temporal resolutionMobile StaticCharacteristics of vegetation (Physical and biophysical), identifying individuals-
Table 2. Cost of some ICTs [98].
Table 2. Cost of some ICTs [98].
Type of SensorCost
MODIS (Terra modis, aqua modis)Free
SPOT
Landsat TM
Sentinel-1 (Radar—Europe)
LiDAR3–5 USD/ha
RADAR<1 USD/ha
Rapid Eye, digital globe1–3 USD/ha
CASI, AVRIS, HYPERION3–5 USD/ha
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

Gavilanes Montoya, A.V.; Castillo Vizuete, D.D.; Marcu, M.V. Exploring the Role of ICTs and Communication Flows in the Forest Sector. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410973

AMA Style

Gavilanes Montoya AV, Castillo Vizuete DD, Marcu MV. Exploring the Role of ICTs and Communication Flows in the Forest Sector. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):10973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410973

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gavilanes Montoya, Alex Vinicio, Danny Daniel Castillo Vizuete, and Marina Viorela Marcu. 2023. "Exploring the Role of ICTs and Communication Flows in the Forest Sector" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 10973. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410973

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