Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis in Forest Engineering

  • Forest Engineering (R Picchio, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Forestry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The forest engineering sector has in the last few decades derived its operational decisions from advanced data-driven processes as opposed to the basic input–output relationship. This has been with the aim of increasing operational efficiencies, maximizing productivity, and achieving sustainable forest operations. This study surveys the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA), an advanced operations analysis technique, in the broad field of forest engineering, focused on maximizing machinery input usage and productivity as it relates to the harvesting and processing of primary and secondary wood products. The review analyzes DEA journal publications via common online literature databases up until June 2022 with the aim of identifying and synthesizing research progress in the field for beneficial practical business applications.

Recent Findings

A total of 38 scientific articles were reviewed, and they all emphasized applications of existing DEA models as opposed to theoretical development of the models. The forest utilization sector appears to be the predominant area of DEA application in forest engineering practice with the year 2021 having the highest number of publications. Furthermore, conventional DEA models comprising of Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR) and Banker, Chames, and Cooper (BCC) models are the most commonly applied DEA methodological approach, thus resulting in simple technical performance estimates. This is unexpected given that more robust DEA models have been developed over the years. As expected, more attention has been given to the analysis of determinants of efficiency in forest engineering production technologies.

Summary

Untapped opportunities exist for researchers and practitioners in the application of DEA in forest engineering including recent derivatives of conventional DEA models, possible development of application suites specifically for forest engineering-related operations, and the development of dedicated benchmarking databases with more relevant production data for individual production technologies. This could provide opportunities for data-driven decisions by policy makers and managers in terms of harvest contractor selection, technology deployment, sustainability benchmarks, and for improving production efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Farrell MJ. The measurement of productive efficiency. J Royal Stat Soc: Series A (General). 1957;120:253–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Murillo-Zamorano LR. Economic efficiency and frontier techniques. J Econ Surv. 2004;18:33–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Parman BJ, Featherstone AM. A comparison of parametric and nonparametric estimation methods for cost frontiers and economic measures. J Appl Econ. 2019;22:60–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Assaf AG, Josiassen A. Frontier analysis: a state-of-the-art review and meta-analysis. J Travel Res. 2016;55:612–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Emrouznejad A, Yang G-L. A survey and analysis of the first 40 years of scholarly literature in dea: 1978–2016. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2018;61:4–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Emrouznejad A, Parker BR, Tavares G. Evaluation of research in efficiency and productivity: a survey and analysis of the first 30 years of scholarly literature in dea. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2008;42:151–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Strange N, Bogetoft P, Aalmo GO, Talbot B, Holt AH, Astrup R. Applications of DEA and SFA in benchmarking studies in forestry: state-of-the-art and future directions. Int J For Eng. 2021;32:87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shephard NT, Joshi O, Susaeta A, Will RE. A stand level application of efficiency analysis to understand efficacy of fertilization and thinning with drought in a loblolly pine plantation. For Ecol Manage. 2021;482:118855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sowlati T. Efficiency studies in forestry using data envelopment analysis. For Prod J. 2005;55:49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marchi E, Chung W, Visser R, Abbas D, Nordfjell T, Mederski PS, McEwan A, Brink M, Laschi A. Sustainable forest operations (SFO): a new paradigm in a changing world and climate. Sci Total Environ. 2018;634:1385–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Picchio R, Mederski PS, Tavankar F. How and how much, do harvesting activities affect forest soil, regeneration and stands? Curr For Rep. 2020;6:115–28.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schweier J, Magagnotti N, Labelle ER, Athanassiadis D. Sustainability impact assessment of forest operations: a review. Curr For Rep. 2019;5:101–13.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Louis LT, Kizha AR, Daigneault A, Han HS, Weiskittel A. Factors affecting operational cost and productivity of ground-based timber harvesting machines: a meta-analysis. Curr For Rep. 2022;8:38–54.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Kováč B, Heger P, Heilig D, Heil B, Kovács G, Mihelič M. A cost-benefit analysis of pre-sorting using a feller-buncher in underdeveloped short rotation poplar plantations. Int J For Eng. 2022;4:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rosińska M, Bembenek M, Picchio R, Karaszewski Z, Đuka A, Mederski PS. Determining harvester productivity curves of thinning operations in birch stands of Central Europe. Croat J For Eng: J Theory App For Eng. 2022;43:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Spinelli R, Kováč B, Heger P, Heilig D, Heil B, Kovács G, Magagnotti N. The effect of target log length on log recovery and harvesting cost: the example of short-rotation poplar plantations. Forests. 2022;13:669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sun H, Mohsin M, Alharthi M, Abbas Q. Measuring environmental sustainability performance of South Asia. J Clean Prod. 2020;251:119519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bresciani S, Puertas R, Ferraris A, Santoro G. Innovation, environmental sustainability and economic development: DEA-bootstrap and multilevel analysis to compare two regions. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2021;172:121040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lebel L. Improving logging operations efficiency through benchmarking. Can For Ind 1998;1

  20. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res. 1978;2:429–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yin R. DEA: a new methodology for evaluating the performance of forest products producers. For Prod J. 1998;48:29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Charnes A, Cooper W, Lewin AY, Seiford LM. Data envelopment analysis theory, methodology and applications. J Oper Res Soc. 1997;48:332–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Badunenko O, Tauchmann H. Simar and Wilson two-stage efficiency analysis for Stata. Stand Genomic Sci. 2019;19:950–88.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Obi OF. Using advanced analysis techniques to benchmark forest harvesting systems: a study of the New Zealand forest industry. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 2018

  25. Šporčić M, Martinić I, Landekić M, Lovrić M. Measuring efficiency of organizational units in forestry by nonparametric model. Croat J For Eng: J Theory App For Eng. 2009;30:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gutiérrez E, Lozano S. Cross-country comparison of the efficiency of the European forest sector and second stage DEA approach. Ann Oper Res 2020;1–26

  27. Obi OF, Visser R. Operational efficiency analysis of New Zealand timber harvesting contractors using data envelopment analysis. Int J For Eng. 2017;28:85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Neykov N, Krišťáková S, Hajdúchová I, Sedliačiková M, Antov P, Giertliová B. Economic efficiency of forest enterprises—empirical study based on data envelopment analysis. Forests. 2021;12:462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Młynarski W, Prędki A, Kaliszewski A. Efficiency and factors influencing it in forest districts in southern Poland: application of data envelopment analysis. Forest Policy Econ. 2021;130:102530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simar L, Wilson PW. Non-parametric tests of returns to scale. Eur J Oper Res. 2002;139:115–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW. Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci. 1984;30:1078–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Coelli TJ, Rao DSP, O'Donnell CJ, Battese GE. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. springer science & business media: 2005

  33. Salehirad N, Sowlati T. Performance analysis of primary wood producers in British Columbia using data envelopment analysis. Can J For Res. 2005;35:285–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. •• Lundmark R, Lundgren T, Olofsson E, Zhou W. Meeting challenges in forestry: improving performance and competitiveness. Forests. 2021;12:208. This paper illustrates the application of DEA in a multi-production technology framework typical of most forest engineering business enterprises.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Obi OF, Visser R. Including exogenous factors in the evaluation of harvesting crew technical efficiency using a multi-step data envelopment analysis procedure. Croat J For Eng: J Theory App For Eng. 2018;39:153–62. This paper shows how differences in operating environment can significantly impact estimated performance efficiency. Using data on actual completed harvest operations, it demonstrates how external variables can be incorporated into DEA estimation procedure.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Manage Sci. 1981;27:668–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. LeBel L, Stuart W. Technical efficiency evaluation of logging contractors using a nonparametric model. J For Eng. 1998;9:15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cook WD, Seiford LM. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)–thirty years on. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;192:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sueyoshi T, Yuan Y, Li A, Wang D. Methodological comparison among radial, non-radial and intermediate approaches for DEA environmental assessment. Energy Economics. 2017;67:439–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Streimikis J, Saraji MK. Green productivity and undesirable outputs in agriculture: a systematic review of DEA approach and policy recommendations. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja 2021;1–35

  41. Falavigna G, Manello A, Pavone S. Environmental efficiency, productivity and public funds: the case of the Italian agricultural industry. Agric Syst. 2013;121:73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Puri J, Yadav SP. A fuzzy DEA model with undesirable fuzzy outputs and its application to the banking sector in India. Expert Syst Appl. 2014;41:6419–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Obi OF, Visser R. Estimating the influence of extraction method and processing location on forest harvesting efficiency-a categorical DEA approach. Eur J Forest Eng. 2020;6:60–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Obi OF, Visser R. Influence of the operating environment on the technical efficiency of forest harvesting operations. Int J For Eng. 2017;28:140–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Simar L, Wilson PW. Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: the state of the art. J Prod Anal. 2000;13:49–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Simar L, Wilson PW. Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: how to bootstrap in nonparametric frontier models. Manage Sci. 1998;44:49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Simar L, Wilson PW. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. J Econ. 2007;136:31–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Esteve M, Aparicio J, Rodriguez-Sala JJ, Zhu J. Random forests and the measurement of super-efficiency in the context of free disposal hull. Eur J Oper Res 2022

  49. Simar L, Wilson PW. A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models. J Appl Stat. 2000;27:779–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. He H, Weng Q. Ownership, autonomy, incentives and efficiency: evidence from the forest product processing industry in china. J For Econ. 2012;18:177–93.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Banker RD, Morey RC. The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Manage Sci. 1986;32:1613–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Muñiz M. Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2002;143:625–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zha Y, Liang L. Two-stage cooperation model with input freely distributed among the stages. Eur J Oper Res. 2010;205:332–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen Y, Du J, Sherman HD, Zhu J. DEA model with shared resources and efficiency decomposition. Eur J Oper Res. 2010;207:339–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kao C. Efficiency decomposition in network data envelopment analysis: a relational model. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;192:949–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Whittaker G. Network DEA. In Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis, Springer: 2007;209–240

  57. Limaei SM. Efficiency of Iranian forest industry based on DEA models. J For Res. 2013;24:759–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Michali M, Emrouznejad A, Dehnokhalaji A, Clegg B. Noise-pollution efficiency analysis of European railways: a network DEA model. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ. 2021;98:102980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K. A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. Data Envelopment Anal 2007

  60. Helvoigt TL, Adams DM. Data envelopment analysis of technical efficiency and productivity growth in the us pacific northwest sawmill industry. Can J For Res. 2008;38:2553–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE. The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica: J Econ Soc 1982;1393–1414

  62. Caves DW, Christensen LR, Diewert WE. Multilateral comparisons of output, input, and productivity using superlative index numbers. Econ J. 1982;92:73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lindgren B, Roos P. Productivity changes in Swedish pharmacies 1980–1989: a non-parametric Malmquist approach. J Prod Anal. 1992;3:85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Färe R, Grosskopf S, Norris M, Zhang Z. Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am Econ Rev 1994;66–83

  65. Fried HO, Schmidt SS, Yaisawarng S. Incorporating the operating environment into a nonparametric measure of technical efficiency. J Prod Anal. 1999;12:249–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. • Aalmo GO, Kerstens PJ, Belbo H, Bogetoft P, Talbot B, Strange N. Efficiency drivers in harvesting operations in mixed boreal stands: a Norwegian case study. Int J For Eng. 2021;32:74–86. This papers shows how various non-discretionary factors could act as determinants of production efficiency in forest engineering operations.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Trzcianowska M, LeBel L, Beaudoin D. Performance analysis of log yards using data envelopment analysis. Int J For Eng. 2019;30:144–54.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Šporčić, M, Martinić, I, Šegotić K. Application of ‘data envelopment analysis’ in ecological research of maintenance of forestry mechanisation. Strojniški vestnik–J Mech Eng (2009);55 599–608

  69. Banaś J, Utnik-Banaś K, Zięba S, Janeczko K. Assessing the technical efficiency of timber production during the transition from a production-oriented management model to a multifunctional one: A case from poland 1990–2019. Forests. 2021;12:1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hailu A, Veeman TS. Comparative analysis of efficiency and productivity growth in Canadian regional boreal logging industries. Can J For Res. 2003;33:1653–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. • Obi OF, Visser R. Productivity measurement of New Zealand forest harvesting sector using the DEA-Malmquist index. Int J For Eng. 2020;31:224–32. This study details the application of DEA in estimating changes in the efficiency, technology, and the productivity of the forest operations sector over a given period. It shows how DEA can be used to identify the factors that influence changes in the estimated productivity over a defined period of time.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Salehirad N, Sowlati T. Dynamic efficiency analysis of primary wood producers in British Columbia. Math Comput Model. 2007;45:1179–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Marinescu MV, Sowlati T, Maness TC. The development of a timber allocation model using data envelopment analysis. Can J For Res. 2005;35:2304–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Penfield PC, Germain R, Smith W. Assessing the supply chain efficiency of hardwood sawmills in new york state through case study analysis and data envelopment analysis modeling. For Prod J. 2014;64:90–6.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Macpherson AJ, Lentini MW, Carter DR, Baitz WN. Sawmill efficiency in the Brazilian amazon: a DEA analysis. Scientia Forestalis. 2009;37:415–25.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Sun C, Marcille KC, Daniels JM. A performance analysis of sawmills in Oregon from 2003 to 2017. Forest Science. 2021;67:398–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Upadhyay TP, Shahi C, Leitch M, Pulkki R. An application of data envelopment analysis to investigate the efficiency of lumber industry in Northwestern Ontario. Can J For Res. 2012;23:675–84.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Krišťáková S, Neykov N, Antov P, Sedliačiková M, Reh R, Halalisan A-F, Hajdúchová I. Efficiency of wood-processing enterprises—evaluation based on DEA and MPI: a comparison between Slovakia and Bulgaria for the period 2014–2018. Forests. 2021;12:1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Shahi SK, Dia M. Efficiency measurement of Ontario’s sawmills using bootstrap data envelopment analysis. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal. 2019;26:272–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Shahi SK, Dia M, Yan P, Choudhury S. Developing and training artificial neural networks using bootstrap data envelopment analysis for best performance modeling of sawmills in Ontario. J Model Manag. 2022;17:788–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Nyrud AQ, Baardsen S. Production efficiency and productivity growth in Norwegian sawmilling. Forest Science. 2003;49:89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Nyrud AQ, Bergseng ER. Production efficiency and size in Norwegian sawmilling. Scand J For Res. 2002;17:566–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Kropivšek J, Perić I, Pirc Barčić A, Grošelj P, Motik D, Jošt M. A comparative evaluation of operational efficiency of wood industry using data envelopment analysis and Malmquist productivity index: the cases of Slovenia and Croatia. Drvna industrija. 2019;70:287–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Vahid S, Sowlati T. Productivity changes of the wood product manufacturing sector in the US. Appl Math Sci. 2008;2:799–816.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Diaz-Balteiro L, Herruzo AC, Martinez M, González-Pachón J. An analysis of productive efficiency and innovation activity using DEA: an application to Spain’s wood-based industry. Forest Policy Econ. 2006;8:762–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Susaeta A, Rossato FG. Efficiency of pulp and paper industry in the production of pulp and bioelectricity in Brazil. Forest Policy Econ. 2021;128:102484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Blomberg J, Henriksson E, Lundmark R. Energy efficiency and policy in Swedish pulp and paper mills: a data envelopment analysis approach. Energy Policy. 2012;42:569–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Vahid S, Sowlati T. Efficiency analysis of the Canadian wood-product manufacturing subsectors: a DEA approach. For Prod J. 2007;57:71.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Lee J-Y. Using DEA to measure efficiency in forest and paper companies. For Prod J. 2005;55:58.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Lee J-Y. Comparing SFA and DEA methods on measuring production efficiency for forest and paper companies. For Prod J 2005;55

  91. Yin R. Production efficiency and cost competitiveness of pulp producers in the Pacific Rim. For Prod J. 1999;49:43.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Shahi SK, Dia M. Comparison of Ontario’s roundwood and recycled fibre pulp and paper mills’ performance using data envelopment analysis. J Manag Analytics. 2021;8:222–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Olivera A, Visser R, Acuna M, Morgenroth J. Automatic GNSS-enabled harvester data collection as a tool to evaluate factors affecting harvester productivity in a Eucalyptus spp. harvesting operation in Uruguay. Int J For Eng. 2016;27:15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Olivera A, Visser R. Using the harvester on-board computer capability to move towards precision forestry. NZJ For. 2016;60:3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Visser R. Benchmarking harvesting cost and productivity. Future Forests Res Harvesting Tech Note. 2009;2(6):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Visser R. Benchmarking to improve harvesting cost and productivity: 2011 update. Future Forests Research Ltd, Rotorua, New Zealand. Harvesting Technical Note HTN04–08 2012

  97. Keefe RF, Zimbelman EG, Picchi G. Use of individual tree and product level data to improve operational forestry. Current Forestry Reports. 2022;8:148–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Hoffmann S, Schönauer M, Heppelmann J, Asikainen A, Cacot E, Eberhard B, Hasenauer H, Ivanovs J, Jaeger D, Lazdins A, Mohtashami S. Trafficability prediction using depth-to-water maps the status of application in northern and Central European forestry. Curr For Rep. 2022;8:55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Labelle ER, Hansson L, Högbom L, Jourgholami M, Laschi A. Strategies to mitigate the effects of soil physical disturbances caused by forest machinery: a comprehensive review. Current Forestry Reports. 2022;8:20–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Picchio R, Proto AR, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Brundtland GH. Our common future—call for action. Environ Conserv. 1987;14:291–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Munda G, Saisana M. Methodological considerations on regional sustainability assessment based on multicriteria and sensitivity analysis. Reg Stud. 2011;45:261–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Siry JP, Cubbage FW, Potter KM, McGinley K. Current perspectives on sustainable forest management: North America. Current Forestry Reports. 2018;4:138–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Tsaples G, Papathanasiou J. Data envelopment analysis and the concept of sustainability: a review and analysis of the literature. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021;138:110664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Berg S, Fischbach J, Brüchert F, Poissonnet M, Pizzirani S, Varet A, Sauter UH. Towards assessing the sustainability of European logging operations. Eur J Forest Res. 2012;131:81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Picchio R, Jourgholami M, Zenner EK. Effects of forest harvesting on water and sediment yields: a review toward better mitigation and rehabilitation strategies. Current Forestry Reports. 2021;1:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Zhou H, Yang Y, Chen Y, Zhu J. Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: the origins, development and future directions. Eur J Oper Res. 2018;264:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Gerdessen JC, Pascucci S. Data envelopment analysis of sustainability indicators of European agricultural systems at regional level. Agric Syst. 2013;118:78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Mohammadnazari Z, Aghsami A, Rabbani M. A hybrid novel approach for evaluation of resiliency and sustainability in construction environment using data envelopment analysis, principal component analysis, and mathematical formulation. Environ Dev Sustain 2022;1–38

Download references

Funding

Dr. Okey Francis Obi acknowledges the funding received from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Bonn, Germany, during which this paper was prepared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Systems Process Engineering, Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy, Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469, Potsdam, Germany

    Okey Francis Obi

  2. Agricultural and Bioresources Engineering Department, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria

    Okey Francis Obi

  3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, The FORAC Research Consortium, Université Laval, Laval, QC, Canada

    Luc Lebel

  4. Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Parkowa 5, 62-035, Kórnik, Poland

    Francesco Latterini

Authors
  1. Okey Francis Obi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luc Lebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Latterini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Okey Francis Obi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Okey Francis Obi, Luc Lebel, and Francesco Latterini declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Obi, O.F., Lebel, L. & Latterini, F. A Review of Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis in Forest Engineering. Curr Forestry Rep 9, 171–186 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-023-00183-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-023-00183-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation