The introduction of digitized machinery has proven to have numerous benefits in the forestry industry in terms of profit, the environment. However these advancements in technology seem to be leaving the people trailing behind. I therefore wanted to understand the impacts of these advancement on these three pillars as their advantages have already been widely studied. Are there any other social advantages that these advancements or developments may have excluding aesthetics and recreation, especially in African countries where job security is still a problem?
To be truly sustainable, decisions over the use of natural resource must first account for and then balance social, environmental (or ecological), economic (or financial) considerations, aka people–planet–profit. The essential concern of the triple bottom line framework is—evidently—to create greater overall value, not to trade off interests and certainly not to maximize one over the others. Forest sustainability rather than forestry (and its industrial associations) is more likely to deliver the social (and other) outcomes this query looks to, and not just in the medium- to long-term.
In forestry school, many years ago, we learned in silviculture that there can be varying objectives of the landowner or manager. We learned varying tools and harvest, burning and other factors are considered. As a result, industrial lands tended to be managed for profit, while national forests, wildlife refuges and national parks for recreation or scenery were managed differently. Sometimes the same tools are used, just how and when the tools were used varied. Sometimes specialized tools were involved to protect forest resources and even public appearances. With care, forest management can achieve multiple uses, as long as it is understood some potential benefits would be adjusted and not be maximized. Forest planning for multiple and sustained uses helps with an integrated team of trained professionals and forest managers as I experienced through my career with the US Forest Service. Relative to our relationship to industrial lands, most foresters also have a conservation background, so if profit were the bottom line, they still would probably be open to adjustments that help maintain or improve productivity, perhaps options for some tax credits or other considerations to improve their community image and public support if some losses in productivity or outputs are needed to be more compatible with the land, resources, ecological outputs, etc. Besides technical equipment improvements, there has been amazing improvements in planning and design tools through GIS, LiDAR, identification of BMPS, efficient placement and design of roads, mapping soils, vegetation, streams, geology, recreational sites, habitats, protection areas, etc. Including some public involvement may be helpful in bringing people along or at least opportunity to address important issues.
Please see e.g. Article Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forest Operations: a Review
And talk to your colleague Muedanyi Ramantswana at your George-campus about other social benefits from mechanization/technological development in silviculture. Muedanyi and I have just written a review article that touches on this topic, and he can give you additional info (including the African context).
