Optimal planning of timber extraction methods using analytic hierarchy process


Timber extraction is one of the most difficult work stages of forest operations in Turkey. Inappropriately, planned timber extraction operations can be very time-consuming activities and may also cause serious damage to residual trees, saplings, and forest soil. Thus, an optimal timber extraction method should be determined considering both economic and ecological constraints. In this study, commonly implemented timber extraction methods including chute system, portable winch, and farm tractor were evaluated with respect to their productivity and potential damages on residual trees. In the solution process, one of the well-known multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), was used to determine optimal timber extraction planning of priority scenarios. Specific timber extraction methods were identified and evaluated based on slope, volume, and distance criteria. A total of five priority scenarios were examined: (1) optimal extraction with the highest productivity, (2) optimal extraction with the lowest stand damage, (3) productivity and stand damage receive equal importance, (4) productivity is more important than stand damage, and (5) stand damage is more important than productivity. The AHP results indicated that the optimal timber extraction method was the farm tractor winching with 30 m skidding distance in Scenario I. On the other hand, the portable winch with 20 m skidding distance was found to be the optimal method with the least stand damage. In Scenario III, the portable winch, with an average skidding distance of 40 m, was found to be the most suitable extraction method. The overall results indicated that implementing MCDA techniques for optimal planning of timber extraction will help provide important contributions to conduct economic, environmental, and site-specific operations during logging stages.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. Abbas D, Handler R, Hartsough B et al (2014) A survey analysis of forest harvesting and transportation operations in Michigan. Croat J For Eng 35(2):179–192

    Google Scholar 

  2. Acar HH, Ünver S (2012) Working efficiency during the controlled sliding of logs in the polyethylene chute by tractor power. SDU Fac For J 13:97–102 (Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Acar HH, Ünver S, Özkaya MS (2010) Investigation on efficiency of the harvesting machineries at Artvin Regional Directorate of Forestry. Artvin Çoruh Univ Fac For J 11(2):13–20 (Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Acar HH, Akay AE, Gumus S (2015a) Mechanization in forestry (Ormancılıkta mekanizyon). Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Trabzon (Turkish)

  5. Acar HH, Unver-Okan S, Ucuncu K (2015b) Assessment on uphill yarding with the combination of log chute and portable winch. Eur J For Eng 1:34–40

    Google Scholar 

  6. Akay AE, Yilmaz M, Tonguc F (2006) Impact of mechanized harvesting machines on forest ecosystem: residual stand damage. J Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2006.2414.2419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Akay AE, Erdas O, Sessions J (2009) Determining productivity of mechanized harvesting machines. J Appl Sci 4:100–105. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2004.100.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Akay AE, Acar HH, Gülci S, Özdemir İ (2013) Application and economic analysis of a chute system for wood extraction in mountainous regions. In: FORMEC 2013: Techniques for sustainable management September 30th–October 2nd, 2013, Stralsund, Germany

  9. Akay AE, Sert M, Gulci N (2014) Evaluating productivity of mobile winch system used in logging operation on gentle ground slope: II. In: National Mediterranean Forests and Environment Symposium, pp 22–24

  10. Erdaş O, Acar HH, Eker M (2014) Forest transportation techniques (Orman ürünleri transport teknikleri). Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Trabzon (Turkish)

  11. Erler J (2017) Transfer system to adapt timber harvesting operations to local conditions. Croat J For Eng 38:197–208

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ghaffarian MR (2008) Selecting the best skidding system using AHP: a case study in Northern Iran. Nauk Gorata 45:77–86

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ghaffariyan MR, Brown M (2013) Selecting the efficient harvesting method using multiple-criteria analysis: a case study in south-west Western Australia. J For Sci 59:479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gülci N (2014) Researches on precision forestry in forest planning. Dissertation, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş

  15. Gülci N, Akay AE, Erdaş O et al (2015) Planning optimum logging operations through precision forestry approaches. Eur J For Eng 1:56–60

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gülci N, Akay AE, Erdaş O (2016) Investigation of timber harvesting operations using chainsaw considering productivity and residual stand damage: the case of Bahçe forest enterprise chief. J Fac For Istanb Univ 66:357–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gülci N, Akay AE, Erdaş O (2017) Productivity assessment of alternative timber debarking methods. Šumar List 141:469–476

    Google Scholar 

  18. Han H-S, Kellogg LD (2000) A comparison of sampling methods and a proposed quick survey for measuring residual stand damage from commercial thinning. J For Eng 11:63–71

    Google Scholar 

  19. Limbeck-Lilienau B (2003) Residual stand damage caused by mechanised harvesting systems. In: The Austro 2003 meeting: high tech forest operations for mountainous terrain, October 5–9, pp 1–11

  20. Long C, Wang J (2002) Production and cost analysis of a feller-buncher in Central Appalachian hardwood forest. In: Proceedings of 25th council on forest engineering, 1–5

  21. Myers JH, Alpert MI (1968) Determinant buying attitudes: meaning and measurement. J Mark 32(4):1–4. https://doi.org/10.2307/1249332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nilsson H, Nordström E-M, Öhman K (2016) Decision support for participatory forest planning using AHP and TOPSIS. Forests. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7050100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 287. ISBN 0-07-054371-2

    Google Scholar 

  25. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saaty TL (2006) Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. Eur J Oper Res 168:557–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Seablom TJ, Reed DD (2005) Assessment of factors contributing to residual tree damage from mechanized harvesting in northern hardwoods. North J Appl For 22:124–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N (2012) Wood extraction with farm tractor and sulky: estimating productivity, cost and energy consumption. Small-scale For. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9169-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tavankar F, Majnounian B, Bonyad AE (2013) Felling and skidding damage to residual trees following selection cutting in Caspian forests of Iran. J For Sci 59:196–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yilmaz M, Akay A (2008) Stand damage of a selection cutting system in a uneven aged mixed forest of Cimendagi in Kahramanmaras-Turkey. Int J Nat Eng Sci 2:77–82

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zečić Ž, Krpan APB, Vukušić S (2006) Productivity of C Holder 870 F tractor with double drum winch Igland 4002 in thinning beech stands. Croat J For Eng 27(1):47–59

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The study presents a part of the PhD thesis (Gülci 2014) conducted by Neşe Gülci (2010-2014) under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Orhan Erdaş in Forest Engineering Department, Institute of Applied Sciences, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey. Authors would like to thank Dr. Dalia Abbas and other reviewers for their pre-publication review, comments and contributions on this paper.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neşe Gülci.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by Eric R. Labelle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gülci, N., Akay, A.E. & Erdaş, O. Optimal planning of timber extraction methods using analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Forest Res 139, 647–654 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01275-7

Download citation


  • Timber extraction
  • Productivity
  • Residual stand damage
  • AHP
  • Expert choice