Technological
maps have the task to make decisions more operational. For every point they
specify the technological conditions and the best method for harvesting, e.g.
In 2006, the
state forest of Saxony (North-Eastern Germany) introduced a guideline that
aimed to forecast the stress on the soil in order to avoid soil damage in
advance by suitable harvesting methods.
This guideline is
based on three main information streams:
• soil moisture
• inclination of the terrain
• sensitivity of the soil.
A technological
map was developed to make thesethree dimensions transparent for every single stand.
With this map,
the user can select a working method that fits best to the local environmental
conditions. It is binding for all forest officers in the state forest of
Saxony.
This approach has
sparked a heated debate, because it demands to enlarge the distance of the
trails from 20 to 40 m as far as the soil has a higher sensitivity.
The opponents
argue that this will push the harvesting costs without any compensation. So, it
prevents earning a decent income in forestry.
This Saxonian approach is very normative and can only work
inside a state forest or by law. It seems not to be an adequate solution for
the European diversity.
Nevertheless, we
like the basic idea to steer the selection of working methods to those ones
that minimize the risk of any damage on the trail.
Thus instead, we
look for an approach that leaves a maximum of freedom to the decision maker to
decide for himself according to the conditions of his region.
Therefore, as
a proposal, in Technodiversity we suggest
a decision-making tool that combines a technogram
of the stand with the ecogram of the working methods.
