The Concept of the Ergonomic Spectrum


Forestry conditions differ among regions and nations. Moreover, labor costs, forestry mechanization, and environmental impacts are also different. These factors directly or indirectly influence the ergonomic state of nations. The ergonomic state of a nation can be described in terms of ergonomic factors such as labor productivity, work accidents, physiological burden, and stress. Labor productivity and work accidents can be defined as income or condition factors, and physiological burden and stress as outcome or result factors. Thus, the value of outcome factors must be examined in relationship to income factors. On the ergonomic spectrum, each factor can be conceived as a continuum from a negative to a positive ergonomic status. All factors can be set in a line, and the present state of each nation is indicated by a profile formed by the assembled factors. The locations of nations along the two-dimensional coordinates of the world standard can be realized by an ergonomic spectrum. Moreover, future directions for improvement can be obtained by reference to the three-dimensional coordinates, which include the axis of time.

Share and Cite:

Yamada, Y. , Yovi, E. , Wästerlund, D. , Garland, J. & Sowa, J. (2013). The Concept of the Ergonomic Spectrum. Open Journal of Forestry, 3, 8-11. doi: 10.4236/ojf.2013.31002.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Bentley, T. A., Parker, R. J., & Ashby, L. (2005). Understanding felling safety in the New Zealand forest industry. Applied Ergonomics, 36, 165-175. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.10.009
[2] British Columbia Resources Inventory Committee (1998). Recreation opportunity spectrum inventory: Procedures and standard manual Ver.3.0. Resources Inventory Committee, 39.
[3] Clark, R. N., & Stankey, G. H. (1974). The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, management, and research. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-98.
[4] Feyer, A. M., Willamson, A. M., Stout, N., Driscoll, T., Usher, H., & Langley, J. D. (2001). Comparison of work related fatal injuries in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand: Method and overall findings. Injury Prevention, 7, 22-28. doi:10.1136/ip.7.1.22
[5] Hammond, T. R., Rischitelli, G., & Wimer, J. A. (2011). Defining critical safety behaviors in a point-of-view video observation study of tree fallers at work. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 17, 301-306. doi:10.1179/107735211799041823
[6] Holland, E. J., Laing, R. M., Lemmon, T. L., & Niven, B. E. (2002). Helmet design to facilitate thermoneutrality during forest harvesting. Ergonomics, 45, 699-716. doi:10.1080/00140130210159959
[7] Kashima, J., & Uemura, T. (2012). Report on injured parts by saw-chain in chain-saw operations and protective effect of protective clothes. Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan, 22, 275-278.
[8] Lindroos, O., & Burstrom, L. (2010). Accident rates and types among self-employed private forest owners. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1729-1735. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.013
[9] Musha, T., Terasaki, Y., Haque, H. A., & Ivanitsky, G. A. (1997). Feature extaction from EEGs associated with emotions. Artificial Life and Robotics, 1, 15-19. doi:10.1007/BF02471106
[10] Oka, M., Nakazawa, M., Sasaki, T., Yoshida, C., Uemura, T., Kashima, J., & Kato, T. (2011). Studies on the forestry death disaster of introduction of high performance forestry machines in 10th year. Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan, 26, 27-34.
[11] W?sterlund, D. S. (1998) A review of heat stress research with application to forestry. Applied Ergonomics, 29, 179-183. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(97)00063-X

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.