Advertisement

Profitability of timber plantations on agricultural land in the Po valley (northern Italy): a comparison between walnut, hybrid poplar and polycyclic plantations in the light of the European Union Rural Development Policy orientation

  • Alex PraEmail author
  • Lucio Brotto
  • Paolo Mori
  • Enrico Buresti Lattes
  • Mauro Masiero
  • Nicola Andrighetto
  • Davide Pettenella
Original Paper
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

In the last decades, the Rural Development Policy of the European Union has been encouraging timber plantations on agricultural land with an increasing focus on supporting multifunctional forest investments, favouring a diversification of timber plantation investment possibilities. In this study, we estimated and analysed the potential financial returns from forest plantations on agricultural land in the context of the Po valley (northern Italy). We compared traditional monospecific walnut and hybrid poplar plantations with polycyclic plantations, an innovative model of mixed and multi-rotation plantation with much higher positive impact in terms of biodiversity. We defined different management models according to site fertility and investment costs and carried out a financial analysis using typical capital budgeting indicators, i.e. net present value, equivalent annual value and internal rate of return. Our results show that polycyclic plantations can reach on average the highest investment returns, although there are significant variations depending on site fertility and investment cost levels. The diversification of species, rotations and final assortments of polycyclic plantations appear to be potentially successful elements to cope with market risks. Hybrid poplar plantations are the most consolidated segment of investment but show the largest variability in terms of potential returns. For walnut plantations, the longer payback period can negatively influence the investment attractiveness. Results were analysed and discussed also considering the opportunity costs associated with the alternative agricultural land use (annual crops), and the effect of subsidies, land use costs and timber stumpage price variations. These proved to be determinant variables in influencing potential investments returns.

Keywords

Productive forest plantations Timber investments Mixed plantations Responsible management Poplar Rural Development Policy Italy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present research has been developed within the framework and the resources provided by the LIFE + Project InBioWood (LIFE12 ENV/IT/000153). Authors would like to acknowledge the private owners that collaborated with AALSEA for this publication, in particular Francesco Mattioli (MN) and Federico San Bonifacio (VR), as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped to substantially improve the paper.

Supplementary material

10342_2019_1184_MOESM1_ESM.docx (726 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 726 kb)

References

  1. Allegro G, Bergante S, Castro G, Chiarabaglio PM, Coaloa D, Facciotto G, Vietto L (2014) Qualità e sostenibilità ambientale della pioppicoltura in filiere legno-energia. Quaderni Della Ricerca N. 160 - June 2014. Regione Lombardia, MilanGoogle Scholar
  2. Alliance Environment (2017) Evaluation study of the forestry measures under Rural Development: final Report. Alliance Environment EEIG. European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson JA, Luckert MK (2006) Can hybrid poplar save industrial forestry in Canada’s boreal forest? A financial analysis and policy considerations. Western Forest Economist Meeting, OregonGoogle Scholar
  4. Aunos G, Rodriguez F, Garasa M (2002) Análisis de sensibilidad sobre la rentabilidad financiera de choperas de Huesca y Lérida. Revista Montes, ISSN 0027-0105, No. 69, 2002, pp 25–32Google Scholar
  5. Balandier P, Dupraz C (1999) Growth of widely spaced trees. A case study from young agroforestry plantations in France. Agrofor Syst 43:151–167.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026480028915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldock D, Beaufoy G (1993) Nature conservation and new directions in the EC Common Agricultural Policy. IEEP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Berti S, Mercurio R (1992) Sulla produttività e sula scelta del ciclo colturale delle piantagioni di noce da legno. Note di ricerca, 2(1). Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura, Arezzo, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  8. Boggia L (1987) Conclusioni sull’eucalitticoltura nazionale. Cellulosa e Carta 38/5Google Scholar
  9. Bolzonella C, Chiodini G, Coletta A (2014) Impatto della nuova PAC sui cereali italiani. L’informatore Agrario 45Google Scholar
  10. Borelli M (1994) Redditività della coltivazione del pioppo all’interno dell’azienda agraria. Cellulosa e Carta 5(6):2–8Google Scholar
  11. Borelli M (1996) Il sistema pioppo nazionale alle soglie del 2000: alcune considerazioni di natura politico-economica. Sherwood – Foreste e Alberi Oggi, 26Google Scholar
  12. Borelli M, Facciotto G (1996) Redditività della coltivazione del pioppo al di fuori dell’azienda agraria. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 18:37–41Google Scholar
  13. Boyle JR (1999) Planted forests: views and viewpoints. New For 17:5–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2689-4_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bravo-Oviedo A, Pretzsch H, Ammer C, Andenmatten E, Barbati A, Barreiro S, Brang P, Bravo F, Coll L, Corona P, Ouden J, Ducey M, Forrester D, Giergiczny M, Jacobsen J, Lesinski J, Löf M, Manson B, Matovic B, Metslaid M, Morneau F, Motiejunaite J, O’Reilly C, Pach M, Ponette Q, Rio M, Short I, Skovsgaard J, Soliño M, Spathelf P, Sterba H, Stojanovic D, Strelcova K, Svoboda M, Verheyen K, Lüpke N, Zlatanov T (2014) European Mixed Forests: definition and research perspectives. For Syst 23:518–533.  https://doi.org/10.5424/fs/2014233-06256 Google Scholar
  15. Brotto L, Pettenella D, Cerutti P, Pirard R (2016) Planted forests in emerging economies: Best practices for sustainable and responsible investments. Occasional Paper 151. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. ISBN: 978-602-387-035-6Google Scholar
  16. Bull GQ, Bazett M, Schwab O, Nilsson S, White A, Maginnis S (2006) Industrial subsidies: impacts and implications. For Policy Econ 9:13–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bullard J, Steven H, Straka TJ (2011) Basic concepts in forest valuation and investment analysis. eBooks. Book 21. http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ebooks/21. Accessed 3 Sept 2016
  18. Buongiorno J, Zhu S, Raunikar R, Prestemon J (2012) Outlook to 2060 for world forests and forest industries: a technical document supporting the forest service. 2010 RPA Assessment. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. South. Res. Stn. 88Google Scholar
  19. Buresti Lattes E, Mori P (2006) Legname di pregio e biomassa nella stessa piantagione. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 127:5–10Google Scholar
  20. Buresti Lattes E, Mori P (2009) Impianti policiclici permanenti: L’Arboricoltura da Legno si avvicina al bosco. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 150Google Scholar
  21. Buresti Lattes E, Ravagni S (2003) Piantagioni con pioppo e noce comune: accrescimenti e sviluppo dopo i primi anni. Compagnia delle Foreste, Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 94:19–24Google Scholar
  22. Buresti Lattes E, Cavalli R, Ravagni S, Zuccoli Bergomi L (2007) Impianti policiclici di arboricoltura da legno: due esempi di progettazione e utilizzazione. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 139:37–39Google Scholar
  23. Buresti lattes E, Mori P, Pelleri F, Ravagni S, Bidini M, Marchino L (2008a) New cultivation trends in Italian tree farming plantations. In: International conference “growing valuable broadleaved tree species”, Freiburg 6–9 October 2008. www.valbro.uni-freiburg.de/re_pres_frei.php. Accessed 12 Apr 2016
  24. Buresti Lattes E, Mori P, Pelleri F, Ravagni S (2008b) Des Peuliers et des noyers en mélange, avec des plants accompagnateurs. Foret Entreprise 178:26–30Google Scholar
  25. Buresti Lattes E, Mori P, Ravagni S (2014) The polycyclic plantations: narrowing the gap between tree farming and forest. In: Genetic consideration in ecosystem restoration using native species pp 188–194. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  26. Buresti Lattes E, Castro G, Mori P, Zanuttini R (2015) Sfogliatura del pioppo: confronto tra piante di ‘I-214’ di dimensioni tradizionali e di grandi dimensioni. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 212:9–12Google Scholar
  27. Carle J, Holmgren P (2008) Wood from planted forests: a global outlook 2005–2030. For Prod J 58(12):6–18Google Scholar
  28. Caruso C (1977) Evoluzione della legislazione forestale nazionale in materia di rimboschimenti. L’Italia Forestale e Montana 32(4)Google Scholar
  29. Castro G, Giorcelli A (2012) Nuovi cloni di pioppo: ignorati dalla pioppicoltura e dal mercato. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 186:51Google Scholar
  30. Castro G, Zanuttini R (2008) Poplar cultivation in Italy: history, state of the art, perspectives. IPC 23rd Sess. ‘Poplars, Willows and People’s Wellbeing’. Beijing, China, 27–30 October 2008Google Scholar
  31. Castro G, Mori P, Zanuttini R (2013) Produttività di sfogliato e diametro dei fusti. Indagini preliminari sui cloni di pioppo “I214” e “Neva”. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 192:5–9Google Scholar
  32. Chiarabaglio PM, Allegro G, Facciotto G, Incitti T, Rossi AE, Isaia M, Chiarle A (2009) Impatto ambientale della pioppicoltura. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 152:19–23Google Scholar
  33. Chiarabaglio PM, Allegro G, Giorcelli A (2014). Environmental sustainability of poplar stands. In: ‘Actas de las Jornadas de Salicaceas 2014’ Cuarto Congreso Internacional de Salicáceas en Argentina “Sauces y Álamos para el desarrollo regional” Ciudad de La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 18–21 March 2014Google Scholar
  34. Cianciosi L (1997) Risultati economici di un impianto di arboricolutra da legno. Sherwood – Foreste ed Alberi OggiGoogle Scholar
  35. Clark MR, Kozar JS (2011) Comparing sustainable forest management certifications standards: a meta-analysis. Ecol Soc 16(1):3.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03736-160103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Coaloa D (2008) Estensione della pioppicoltura dal secondo dopoguerra ad oggi. In: Libro bianco della pioppicoltura. Agrisole 26/2008: 19–22Google Scholar
  37. Coletti L, (2001) Risultati dell’applicazione del regolamento CEE 2080/92 in Italia. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi OggiGoogle Scholar
  38. Cossalter C, Pye-smith C (2003) Fast-wood forestry myths and realities. CIFOR, BogorGoogle Scholar
  39. CREA (2016) Banca dati dei valori fondiari. http://antares.crea.gov.it:8080/mercato-fondiario/banca-dati. Accessed 26 June 2016
  40. Cubbage F, Mac Donagh P, Sawinski Júnior J, Rubilar R, Donoso P, Ferreira A, Hoeflich V, Olmos VM, Ferreira G, Balmelli G, Siry J, Báez MN, Alvarez J (2007) Timber investment returns for selected plantations and native forests in South America and the Southern United States. New Forest 33:237–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-006-9025-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Cubbage F, Donagh PM, Balmelli G, Olmos VM, Bussoni A, Rubilar R, Torre R, Lord R, Huang J, Hoeflich VA, Murara M, Kanieski B, Hall P, Yao R, Adams P, Kotze H, Monges E, Pérez CH, Wikle J, Abt R, Gonzalez R, Carrero O, Falshaw R (2014) Global timber investments and trends, 2005–2011. Conference paper. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 44, Suppl 1Google Scholar
  42. De Carli A (2015) Studio di meccanismi economico finanziari a supporto delle azioni di ricarica delle falde. Analisi economico-finanziaria delle soluzioni tecniche per il riequilibrio delle falde nell’ambito del progetto AQUOR. Padova, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  43. De Putter J (1995) The greening of European agricultural policy: the agri-environmental regulation of the MacSharry reform. Ministry of Agriculture, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  44. Del Lungo A, Ball J, Carle J (2006) Global planted forests thematic study: results and analysis. Rome.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo97811074153244
  45. del Río M, Pretzsch H, Alberdi I, Bielak K, Bravo F, Brunner A, Condés S, Ducey MJ, Fonseca T, von Lüpke N, Pach M, Peric S, Perot T, Souidi Z, Spathelf P, Sterba H, Tijardovic M, Tomé M, Vallet P, Bravo-Oviedo A (2015) Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed-species stands: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res 135:23–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0927-6 Google Scholar
  46. Duesberg S, Upton V, O’Connor D, Dhubháin ÁN (2014) Factors influencing Irish farmers’ afforestation intention. For Policy Econ 39:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. EBC (2016) European central Bank. Long-term interest rate statistics for EU Member States. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html. Accessed 20 May 2016
  48. EC (2016) Direct payments: eligibility for direct payments of the Common Agricultural Policy. European Commission, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/direct-support/direct-payments/docs/direct-payments-eligibility-conditions_en.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2016
  49. Evans J, Turnbull JW (2004) Plantation forestry in the tropics. Role of silviculture, and use of planted forests for industrial, social, environmental and agroforestry purposes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Facciotto G, Minotta G, Paris P, Pelleri F (2014) Tree farming, agroforestry and the new green revolution. A necessary alliance. In: Proceedings of the second international congress of silviculture florence, November 26th–29th 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.4129/2cis-gf-tre
  51. FAO (2015) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Food and Agricolture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  52. Faustmann M (1849) Calculation of the value which forestland and immature stands possess for forestry. Reprinted in J For Econ 1(1):7–44 (1995)Google Scholar
  53. Forest Europe, 2015. State of Europe’s Forests 2015Google Scholar
  54. Gasparini and Tabacchi (2011) L’inventario Nazionale delle Foreste e dei servatoi forestali di Carbonio INFC 2005. Secondo inventario forestale italiano. Metodi e risultati. Edagricole – Il Sole 24 Ore, Bologna, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  55. Harper S (ed) (1993) The greening of rural policy. Belhaven, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. HM Treasury (2003) The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in Central Government, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  57. IFN (1985) Inventario Forestale Nazionale 1985: sintesi metodologica e risultati. Istituto Sperimentale per l’Assestamento Forestale e per l’Alpicoltura, RomeGoogle Scholar
  58. ISTAT (1970) Agricultural Census 1970. Italian National Institute of Statistics, RomeGoogle Scholar
  59. ISTAT (1980) Agricultural Census 1980. Italian National Institute of Statistics, RomeGoogle Scholar
  60. ISTAT (2000) Agricultural Census 2000. Italian National Institute of Statistics, RomeGoogle Scholar
  61. Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura (1982) Annali dell’Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura. Volumi XII e XIII, 1981–1982. Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura, Arezzo, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  62. Jactel H, Brockerhoff EG (2007) Tree diversity reduces herbivory by forest insects. Ecol Lett 10:835–848.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01073.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jactel H, Boberg J, Brokerhoff EG, Catagneyrol B, Koricheva J, Meurisse N (2016) Effects of tree species diversity on resistance to biotic disturbances in planted forests. International scientific seminar “sustainable intensification of planted forests: how far can we go?”, Biarriz, France, 13/06/2016Google Scholar
  64. Jürgensen C, Kollert W, Lebedys A (2014) Assessment of industrial roundwood production from planted forests. Planted forests and trees. FAO planted forests and trees working paper FP/48/E. Rome. http://www.fao.org/forestry/plantedforests/67508@170537/en/. Accessed 3 Sept 2016
  65. Keča L, Keča N, Pajić S (2011) Investment appraisal of poplar plantations in Serbia. Baltic For 17(2):268–279Google Scholar
  66. Klemperer D (2003) Forest resource economics and finance. Blacksburg, VA, USGoogle Scholar
  67. Lapietra G, Coaloa D, Chiarabaglio PM (1995) Necessario pianificare gli impianti di pioppo. Rapporto annuale sulla pioppicoltura 1994. L’Informatore agrario 51:45–47Google Scholar
  68. Londi G, Campedelli T, Cutini S, Mattioli F, Tellini Florenzano G (2016) Tree farming and biodiversity: bird communities as indicators of polycyclic tree farms positive role. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 219:15–17Google Scholar
  69. Masiero M, Secco L, Pettenella D, Brotto L (2015) Standards and guidelines for management: a global comparative study. For Policy Econ 53:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mori P (2015) Piantagioni Policiciche: arboricoltura e selvicoltura più vicine. Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Selvicoltura (Firenze 2015), pp. 670–675Google Scholar
  71. Mori P, Buresti Lattes E (2017) I-214 and permanent polycyclic tree farms: relationships among diameter, productive area per plant and rotation cycle length. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 229. www.inbiowood.eu. Accessed 14 Feb 2018
  72. Motta R, Beretti R, Boetto G, Vacchaino G, Miglietta P, Cirulli G (2014) The Smart Tree initiative and permanent polycyclic plantations in the city of Turin. Isa European Conference of Arboriculture 2014 “Planning the green city: relationships between trees and infrastructures. Turin, Italy, 26–28 May 2014Google Scholar
  73. OECD (2011) Evaluation of agricultural policy reforms in the European Union. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Olivotto I (2016) Relazioni tra circonferenza del fusto e chioma: studio sul clone ‘I-214’ in piantagioni policicliche. Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 226:39–42Google Scholar
  75. Pasini A, Pividori M (2014) Request of valuable timber from tree farms: market survey in Verona province. In Tecniko & Pratico 108, supplemento di Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi oggi, pp 29–31. www.inbiowood.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  76. Pasini A, Pividori M (2015) Wood biomasses for energy purposes from tree farming: a market survey in Verona province made within the LIFE + InBioWood project. in Tecniko & Pratico n. 111, supplemento di Sherwood - Foreste ed Alberi oggi pp 28–29. www.inbiowood.eu. Accessed 20 Jan 2016
  77. Pawson SM, Brin A, Brockerhoff EG, Lamb D, Payn TW, Paquette A, Parrotta JA (2013) Plantation forests, climate change and biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 22(5):1203–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0458-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Payn T, Carnus JM, Freer-Smith P, Kimberley M, Kollert W, Liu S, Orazio C, Rodriguez L, Silva LN, Wingfield MJ (2015) Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For Ecol Manag 352:57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pelleri F (2016) Innovazione e opportunità delle piantagioni da legno policicliche. Presentation at the workshop “Piantagioni da legno policicliche: aspetti tecnici e opportunità”. Bologna, Italy, 25/06/2016Google Scholar
  80. Pelleri F, Ravagni S, Bidini C, Bianchetti E (2012) Impianti policiclici e multifunzionali: Primo esempio in Toscana. Sherwood 187Google Scholar
  81. Pelleri F, Ravagni S, Bianchetto E, Bidini C (2013) Comparing growth rate in a mixed plantation (walnut, poplar and other nurse trees) with different planting designs: result from an experimental plantation in northern Italy. Ann Silvic Res 37(1):13–21Google Scholar
  82. Pettenella (1992) La politica dei rimboschimenti in ItaliaGoogle Scholar
  83. Pra A, Brotto L, Mori P, Buresti Lattes E, Polato R, Pettenella D (2016) Reddittività finanziaria delle piantagioni da legno: confronto tra pioppo, noce e piantagioni policicliche. Sherwood – Foreste ed Alberi Oggi 222Google Scholar
  84. Price C (1989) The theory and application of forest economics. Basil Blackwell Ltd., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  85. Ragazzoni A (1993) L’analisi di un investimento aziendale a noceto da legno nell’ottica della riforma PAC. L’Informatore Agrario, 47/1993Google Scholar
  86. Ravagni S, Buresti Lattes E (2007) Gli impianti policiclici per la produzione di legname di pregio. in atti 6° Congresso Nazionale SISEF, Arezzo, Italy 25–27 September 2007Google Scholar
  87. Rivest D, Oliver A, Gordon AM (2010) Hardwood intercropping system: combining wood and agricultural production while delivering environmental services. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Quebec. ISBN 978-1-100-15446-6Google Scholar
  88. Romano R, Cilli S (2009) Impatto delle Misure forestali nello sviluppo rurale 2007–2013. In: Atti del Terzo Congresso Nazionale di Selvicoltura. Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, pp 1141–1148. 16–19 ottobre 2008, Taormina, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  89. Sedjo R (2001) The role of forests plantations in the world’s future timber supply. For Chron 77(2):221–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Snowdon P, Harou P (2013) Guide to economic appraisal of Forestry Investments and Programmes in Europe. European Forest Institute, JoensuuGoogle Scholar
  91. Solberg B (2010) Economics of forest resources. Eur Rev Agric Econ 37(3):423–426.  https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Sperandio G, Cielo P, Verani S, Yanuttini R (2011) Cost and Productivity of harvesting high-value hybrid poplar plantations in Italy. For Prod J 62(1):64–70Google Scholar
  93. Stojanovic D, Levanic T, Matovic B, Bravo-Oviedo A (2015) Climate change impact on a mixed lowland oak stand in Serbia. Ann Silvic Res 39:94–99Google Scholar
  94. Szedlak T (2017) Aforestation and land use change in the EU in a changing climate. Presentation at the workshop ‘Current status of afforestation in the EU’, Brussels, 30/03/2017Google Scholar
  95. Tankersley L. (2006) Hardwood plantations as an investment. University of Kentucky’s, Cooperative Extension publication, FOR-101, p 8Google Scholar
  96. Trestini S, Bolzonella C (2015) Opportunità di reddito con i cicli precoci. Conto Economico. L’informatore Agrario, 2015Google Scholar
  97. UNECE/FAO (2014) Forest Products Annual Market Review 2014. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe/Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  98. Vidal C, Becquey J (2008a) Enseignements de deux plantations mélangée de peuplier I214 et de noyer hybride. Institut pour le Développement Forestier - Forêt Entreprise 178:37–38Google Scholar
  99. Vidal C, Becquey J (2008b) Le mélange peuplier-noyer est-il é economiquement intéresant? Institut pour le Développement Forestier - Forêt Entreprise 178:31–36Google Scholar
  100. Vietto L, Nervo G, Facciotto G, Chiarabaglio PM, Coaloa D (2011) Activities for sustainable poplar plantations management in Italy. Actas del Tercer Congreso Internacional de las Salicáceas en Argentina ‘Los álamos y los sauces junto al paisaje y el desarrollo productivo de la Patagonia’ Neuquen, Argentina 16–19 March 2011Google Scholar
  101. Wagner JE (2012) Forestry economics: a managerial approach. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  102. Weber N (2005) Afforestation in Europe: lessons learned challenges remaining. In: Stanturf JA, Madsen P (eds) Restoration of boreal and temperate forests. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 121–135Google Scholar
  103. Zinkhan FC, Cubbage FW (2003) Financial analysis of timber investments. In: Sills EO, Abt KL (eds) Forests in a market economy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TESAF DepartmentUniversity of PadovaLegnaroItaly
  2. 2.ETIFOR, Padova University Spin-Off, c/o TESAF DepartmentUniversity of PadovaLegnaroItaly
  3. 3.Compagnia delle Foreste, ArezzoArezzoItaly
  4. 4.Association of Tree Farming for Economy and the EnvironmentArezzoItaly

Personalised recommendations