Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal for Nature Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnc

Cost–Benefit Analysis of China’s Natural Forest Conservation Program T

a b a,
Zihao Ma , Chengqi Xia , Shixiong Cao *
a
School of Economics, Minzu University of China, No. 27, Zhongguancun South Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China
b
School of Environment, Tsinghua University, No. 30, Shuangqing Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100084, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Land degradation, soil erosion by water, and desertification caused by deforestation are serious problems around
ecological restoration the world. To counteract the effects of these problems, China’s government implemented the world’s largest and
value of ecosystem services most comprehensive ecological restoration program: the Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP).
cost–benefit analysis However, it’s not yet known how well the program has succeeded because no one has performed a compre-
poverty
hensive cost–benefit analysis. To provide the missing information, we developed an improved cost–benefit
compensation payments
analysis approach that accounts for as many benefits and costs (including opportunity costs) as possible given
the current availability of data. Our analysis revealed a net benefit of 6.029×1012 RMB per year for the NFCP.
The net benefit (after subtracting the costs) was highest for protection of natural vegetation to allow recovery,
but was lowest for afforestation by planting. We found significant differences between regions of China, sug-
gesting that governments of these regions should adjust the balance among their ecological restoration measures
to account for unique local conditions and maximize the net benefit. In addition, governments should increase
subsidies to the residents of program areas to compensate them for the costs imposed on them by the NFCP.

1. Introduction
China has the world’s highest population, leading to a low per capita
area of land (Zheng, 2009). In much of this land, urban and agricultural
development have severely degraded the country’s forest resources.
Government statistics (State Forestry Administration, 1999–2018)
showed that by 2000, China had only about 0.1 × 109 ha of natural
forest, and a per capita forest area of 0.08 ha, which was only 13.3% of
the global level (Food & Agriculture Organization, 2000). Due to a lack
of forests capable of producing timber, China felled most of its forests,
causing the area of natural forest in China to decrease by 13 × 106 ha
from 1952 to 1999 (State Forestry Administration, 1999–2018). Due to
this long-term deforestation, the forest cover had decreased to 16.6% in
1999, which was only 61.5% of the global average (State Forestry
Administration, 1999–2018; Food & Agriculture Organization, 2000).
Forest ecosystems are a crucial component of a healthy environ-
ment, and the ecosystem services that forests provide are the basis for
maintaining socioeconomic development and healthy ecosystems (Cao,
Liu, Su, Zheng, & Yu, 2018). Because of a lack of vegetation protection,
China’s ecological environment has been deteriorating for decades,
leading to adverse changes such as desertification and an increased
frequency of natural disasters such as sandstorms and landslides. The
economic losses caused by these natural disasters increased sharply,
from 26.1 × 109 RMB in 1983 to 196.2 × 109 RMB in 1999 (National
Bureau of Statistics, 1983–1999). In 29 Chinese provinces, flooding
affected 223 × 106 people, and 4150 people died, accompanied by
losses of 248 × 109 RMB in 1998 (Jin, 1998).
These natural disasters made China’s government realize the im-
portance of protecting natural ecosystems. In 1999, the government
made an important policy decision to shift the focus of forest man-
agement from timber production to ecological restoration (Yamane,
2001). To accomplish this, China implemented several forest protection
policies, including the Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP).
Because China’s finances were tight in 1999, it was impossible to im-
plement this program throughout the country. Instead, China’s gov-
ernment decided to implement the NFCP in the areas with the most
serious ecological problems: northeastern China, Inner Mongolia, the
upper reaches of the Yangtze River, and the upper and middle reaches
of the Yellow River. By the end of 2017, NFCP had performed 3.3 × 106
ha of afforestation by planting on degraded land, along with 3.8 × 106
ha of aerial seeding afforestation, the establishment of 0.4 × 106 ha of
fruit tree plantations, and protection of 1.6 × 109 ha of natural forests
from harvesting and grazing by livestock. The total subsidy provided to
residents of areas affected by the program between 1999 and 2016 was
39.5 × 109 RMB (State Forestry Administration, 1999–2018). The
government plans to end the NFCP in 2020.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shixiongcao@126.com (S. Cao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125818
Received 19 December 2019; Received in revised form 27 February 2020; Accepted 22 March 2020
1617-1381/ © 2020 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Z. Ma, et al.
Fig. 1. Locations of the 128 monitoring sites established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (24 sites, CAS) and the State Forestry Administration (104 sites, State
Forestry Administration) in mainland China for areas that have been affected by the NFCP.
Although the NFCP appears to have been highly beneficial, there
has been surprisingly little research to confirm this belief. Since the end
of the 20th century, the number of studies of ecosystem services has
grown rapidly (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997, 2014; Gómez-Baggethun, De
Groot, Lomas, & Montes, 2010; De Groot et al., 2012). Unfortunately,
previous scholars generally ignored many or most of the costs of pro-
viding forest ecosystem services (Cao et al., 2018), and none of them
studied the NFCP from the perspective of cost–benefit analysis. There-
fore, we don’t yet know the real cost of this program, which includes
direct investments, management expenses, the opportunity costs of
using this land for forest instead of agriculture or urban development,
and so on. Considering the billions of dollars that are being spent on
ecological conservation projects around the world (Goldstein, Pejchar,
& Daily, 2008; Ouyang et al., 2016), it’s urgently necessary to de-
termine which of these projects are bringing or will eventually bring
tangible benefits to humans and the environment and to find ways to
improve their ability to provide ecosystem services.
To more fully account for both the benefits and the costs of ecolo-
gical conservation programs, we developed an approach that uses
cost–benefit analysis to go beyond simple estimates of the value of
ecosystem services (VES) by more fully accounting for the costs of the
NFCP. These costs include the maintenance of forest ecosystem health,
investments in the conservation or restoration of forest ecosystems, the
management of natural risks such as pests and diseases, and the op-
portunity cost of using land for forests (Cao et al., 2018). We also cal-
culated the net benefits (NB) of the ecosystems established by im-
plementing different restoration measures under the NFCP. We defined
the net benefits as the benefit that remains after subtracting all costs
that we could quantify. The novelty of our research is thus twofold:
2
Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818
first, we added the value of forest products to VES; second, we ac-
counted for the effects of a wide range of costs on the benefits provided
by these ecosystems. The results of our research provide scientific
guidance for ecological restoration both in China and, with suitable
modification to account for unique local conditions, elsewhere around
the world.
2. Methods
We began our analysis using forest VES data from Niu et al. (2012)
and Wang, Gao, Niu, and Sun (2017)). They used data from China’s 7th
national forest resources inventory based on observations from 2005 to
2009 of the Chinese Forest Ecosystem Research Network. They used the
methods of State Forestry Administration of China (2008) to quantify
VES by measuring ecosystem services in monetary units. (See the sup-
plemental information for details.)
VES in this previous research included water conservation, biodi-
versity protection, carbon fixation, oxygen generation, soil conserva-
tion, maintenance of soil fertility, air purification, and nutrient accu-
mulation (Niu et al., 2012). However, Niu et al. (2012) did not quantify
the values of forest resources, byproducts (fruits), and the forest land.
Because these values are high for some forest ecosystems, we built on
the VES data by adding the value of the goods obtained from man-
agement of China’s forests. This included data on the allowable harvest
in areas where harvesting was permitted. We obtained the harvest in-
formation from management plans, and calculated its value based on
mean national wood costs in the most recent available data, from 2017
(State Forestry Administration, 1999–2018). Although most of the areas
managed under the NFCP do not permit timber harvesting, regional
Z. Ma, et al.
Fig. 2. Average benefits of (a) afforestation by planting, (b) establishment of fruit tree plantations, (c) afforestation by aerial seeding, and (d) protection of natural
vegetation to allow its recovery in China in 2017. “Null” means that the restoration activity was not conducted in a province under the NFCP.
forest management plans sometimes permit harvesting. For the fruit
tree plantations, we obtained data on the economic value of fruit sales
from State Forestry Administration (1999–2018).
Because the resolution of the available data varies among China’s
provinces, we used the highest-resolution data that was available for all
provinces: provincial-scale data. In future research, and particularly
when it’s necessary to support local ecological restoration programs,
data should be obtained as close to the local scale as possible.
We defined the net benefits (NB) as the benefit that remained after
subtracting all costs (C) from the total benefit (i.e., VES plus product
value):
n
NB = Benefit – Ci
(1)
i=1
Where Benefit includes the abovementioned VES plus the value of
products provided by the forests. We performed our calculations se-
parately for the four types of restoration implemented under the NFCP.
n
i = 1 Ci equals the sum of four costs: the direct costs (Cd) of afforestation
by planting and aerial seeding, plus ongoing management costs (in-
cluding labor and the cost of fertilizer and pesticides); the opportunity
costs (Co) that result from conserving or restoring the land instead of
using it for other purposes, which we quantified using the land rent cost
(Cl) and consumption of water by the new ecosystem (Cw); and the risk
cost (Cr), which represents the cost to protect the ecosystems against
3
Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818
fire, insects, and diseases.
Water costs are difficult to quantify because of a lack of available
data. For the forest ecosystems established under the NFCP, the primary
water cost results from evapotranspiration by the new forest ecosys-
tems. We estimated these costs using the mean value from seven eva-
potranspiration models that Zhang, Zhao, Jiang, and Cao (2016)) de-
monstrated to be valid for China, although these models have not been
parameterized for each region of China to determine which model
provided the best fit to that region’s data. As a result, we used the mean
values from these models. We multiplied this mean water consumption
by the cost of water in each province. Where cost data was available for
a province, we used that data. Where no data was available, we plotted
the most and least expensive water costs as a function of the province’s
per capita water availability, and calculated a province’s cost by linear
interpolation between these costs. (We chose a linear relationship for
simplicity. Estimating the shape of this curve was beyond the scope of
the present study.) This is based on the assumption that the cost of a
resource is inversely proportional to its supply (Tietenberg & Lewis,
2016). In the present analysis, data from the South-to-North Water
Diversion Project (Liu & Yang, 2012) suggested that water costs were
highest in Beijing (1.2 RMB m-3), whereas National Bureau of Statistics
(1953–2015) suggested they were lowest (0.2 RMB m-3) in Tibet, which
has China’s highest per capita water availability. We developed the
following equation:
Z. Ma, et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818

Fig. 3. Opportunity costs of (a) afforestation by planting, (b) establishment of fruit tree plantations, (c) afforestation by aerial seeding, and (d) protection of natural
vegetation to allow its recovery in China in 2017. “Null” means that the restoration activity was not conducted in a province under the NFCP.

Vi = b + aPi (2) NFCP program area (Fig. 1). These sites were used to complement the
data that was available in the government statistical yearbooks. For our
Where Vi is the price of water in province i in a given year, and Pi is the
actual calculations, we used provincial-scale data for each province
corresponding per capita water availability. We estimated that a =
rather than relying on the 128 monitoring sites. To account for socio-
6.351 × 10-7 and b = –1.197. To improve the accuracy of future esti-
economic changes, we adjusted all economic data to the 2014 price
mates, provincial and local governments should be encouraged to re-
using the government’s official inflation rate of 4.9% for the study
cord data on actual water prices.
period. To account for government compensation payments to residents
We defined the land use opportunity cost based on the mean price of
of NFCP areas affected by the program, we obtained data for the four
non-urban land in each province (http://www.tdzyw.com/). Beijing
forest ecosystem restoration types designated by the NFCP (State
had the highest land rent (14.5 × 103 RMB ha-1), whereas Tibet had the
Forestry Administration, 1999–2018): afforestation by planting, aerial
lowest (4.3 × 103 RMB ha-1).
seeding, fruit trees, and conservation of natural forest.
One problem with our analysis results from simultaneous im-
plementation of other government ecological restoration programs,
3. Results
such as the Grain for Green Program and the Three North Shelter Forest
Program, in parts of the NFCP program area. In addition, government
Fig. 2 shows that the total benefit from each restoration method
regulations related to land tenure (e.g., the household responsibility
differed among the provinces. The total benefits of afforestation by
system, in which agricultural quotas were replaced by incentive pro-
planting, aerial seeding, and planting of fruit trees were highest in
grams that rewarded farmers for high productivity) and socioeconomic
southwest China. This may be the result of rainfall and temperatures
changes related to urbanization and industrialization may have affected
that are appropriate for tree growth. The total benefit of afforestation
parts of the NFCP program area. To eliminate these effects as much as
by planting ranged from 3.3 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Tibet to 78.0 × 103
possible, we obtained data for the 17 provinces in which the NFCP was
RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Chongqing Province, versus from 41.0 × 103 RMB·ha-
implemented from 1998 to 2017 from the NFCP sections of China’s 1
··yr-1 in Tibet to 213.4 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Hainan Province for fruit
annual forestry statistical yearbooks (State Forestry Administration,
trees, from 2.7 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Tibet to 60.3 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-
1999–2018). We also used raw data from 128 State Forestry Adminis- 1
in Chongqing Province for aerial seeding, and from 10.0 × 103
tration and Chinese Academy of Sciences monitoring sites within the
RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Tibet to 89.0 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Chongqing

4
Z. Ma, et al.
Fig. 4. Direct costs of (a) afforestation by planting, (b) establishment of fruit tree plantations, (c) afforestation by aerial seeding, and (d) protection of natural
vegetation to allow its recovery in China in 2017. “Null” means that the restoration activity was not conducted in a province under the NFCP.
Province for natural forest. Large temperature differences between day
and night promote sugar accumulation in fruits, which make the fruits
taste better and more economically valuable, so fruit tree plantations
provided a particularly high benefit in provinces that provided these
conditions, such as northwestern and central western provinces (in-
cluding Gansu, Ningxia, and Xinjiang Provinces). For example, the total
benefit from fruit trees in Xinjiang Province was 198.0 × 103 RMB·ha-
1
··yr-1.
Fig. 3 shows that the opportunity costs also differed greatly among
the provinces. The opportunity cost combines the water cost and land
rent cost. The opportunity costs in southern China were higher than
those in northern China. The opportunity cost of afforestation by
planting ranged from 1.4 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Tibet to 14.4 × 103
RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Hainan Province, versus from 1.4 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1
in Tibet to 14.4 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Hainan Province for fruit trees,
from 1.4 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Tibet to 12.9 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in
Guizhou Province for aerial seeding, and from 1.0 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1
in Tibet to 12.5 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Hainan Province for natural
forest.
Fig. 4 shows that the direct costs were higher in northern China than
in southern China, possibly due to the low survival rate of the trees. The
direct cost of afforestation by planting ranged from 8.3 × 103 RMB·ha-
1
··yr-1 in Yunnan Province to 80.1 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Qinghai
Province, versus from 7.9 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Tibet to 128.0 × 103
RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Xinjiang Province for fruit trees, from 3.0 × 103
5
Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818
RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Yunnan Province to 27.1 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Qin-
ghai Province for aerial seeding, and from 0.4 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in
Chongqing Province to 10.5 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1 in Heilongjiang Pro-
vince for natural forest.
Although planting of fruit trees and conservation of natural forest
had positive NB in all provinces (Fig. 5b,d), the NB was negative for
afforestation by planting in some provinces. The losses (negative va-
lues) resulted mostly from afforested farmland and afforested degraded
land, which had lower net benefits than the other land types in the
northern, northwestern, and Qinghai-Tibet regions (Fig. 5a) due to
factors such as a colder or dryer climate and higher direct costs
(Fig. 4a), combined with the low survival rate of the planted trees (Cao
et al., 2018). For example, the NB of afforestation in Qinghai Province
was -63.3 × 103 RMB·ha-1··yr-1. All provinces in southern and central
China (including Shanxi, Henan, and Hubei provinces) had positive and
high NB, which suggests that the NFCP was appropriately implemented
in these regions.
Table 1 summarizes the benefit and cost data for all NFCP areas in
China in 2017. For China as a whole, the NB of all four of the re-
storation measures (afforestation by planting, aerial seeding, fruit trees,
and conservation of natural forest) implemented under the NFCP was
positive, suggesting that overall, the NFCP produced benefits that ex-
ceeded its costs. Note that the areas in which restoration was conducted
under the NFCP varied among the provinces and restoration types, so
the values in Table 1 cannot be directly compared. Figs. 2–5 provide the
Z. Ma, et al.
Fig. 5. Net benefits of (a) afforestation by planting, (b) establishment of fruit tree plantations, (c) afforestation by aerial seeding, and (d) protection of natural
vegetation to allow its recovery in China in 2017. “Null” means that the restoration activity was not conducted in a province under the NFCP.
values per unit area, which can be directly compared.
Fig. 6 shows the annual increase in the total benefit, total cost, and
net benefit (NB) since 1999 under the NFCP for the four main ecological
restoration types. By the end of 2017, the NB of the four main NFCP
ecological restoration types was 61.4 × 109 RMB yr-1 for afforestation
by planting, 66.5 × 109 RMB yr-1 for aerial seeding, 28.1 × 109 RMB
yr-1 for fruit trees, and 5872.7 × 109 RMB yr-1 for natural recovery of
forests, for a total of 6.029 × 1012 RMB yr-1; the individual values are
12.4, 3323.5, 17.2, and 533.7 times the corresponding levels in 1999.
4. Discussion
Land degradation is a global environmental problem that seriously
threatens sustainable socioeconomic development (Sivakumar, 2007;
D'Odorico et al., 2013). Climate change, biodiversity loss, ecological
crises caused by land degradation, and an increased frequency of nat-
ural disasters are serious hazards that plague contemporary civilization
around the world (D’Odorico, Bhattachan, Davis, Ravi, & Runyan,
2013; Feng et al., 2019; Isbell et al., 2017; Mora et al., 2013). There-
fore, it is essential that we find ways to protect the natural forest and
other systems that protect us against these problems. Table 2 shows the
increase of forest cover in China from 2002 to 2017. The increases in
forest cover in provinces where the NFCP was implemented (a mean
increase of 172.4%) were generally higher than in provinces where the
NFCP was not implemented (a mean increase of 63.0%), suggesting that
the NFCP was effective. In our research, we found that the four
6
Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818
restoration measures implemented under the NFCP (afforestation by
planting, aerial seeding, fruit trees, and conservation of natural forest)
have restored large areas of the original degraded forests and grassland,
reversed the long-term trend of increasing ecological degradation, in-
creased forest cover, reduced soil erosion and desertification, and in-
creased the value of ecosystem services generated by the land. As a
result, they have improved the ecological environment both in China
and around the world.
Different ecosystem restoration measures have different costs and
benefits (Xia, Liu, Suo, & Cao, 2020). Figs. 3 and 4 and Table 1 show
that protecting vegetation to allow natural recovery had the lowest
costs, whereas afforestation by planting had the highest costs. The same
restoration measure also had different costs in different regions. This
reveals the importance of going beyond a simplistic summary of the
benefits to calculate NB by accounting for the associated costs; under-
standing the effect of these costs is the only way to prevent expensive
mistakes that result from choosing an inappropriate restoration
method. Therefore, restoration managers in such regions should con-
sider alternatives to afforestation based on the constraints created by
local conditions, thereby maximizing the benefits obtained from the
restoration.
China’s national ecological restoration programs have relied heavily
on afforestation based on the assumption that forests represent an ap-
propriate ecological solution throughout China, and that forests will
greatly increase the value of ecosystem services (Jacobs et al., 2016; Lu,
Campbell, Campbell, Wang, & Ren, 2017). However, planning of these
Z. Ma, et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818

Regional annual total benefits, total cost, and net benefits (NB) of the four types of ecological restoration conducted under the Natural Forest Conservation Program: afforestation by planting, establishment of fruit tree
projects has often failed to account for local constraints, such as whe-
ther the precipitation in a given area can support forest vegetation.

Subsidy

18.62
These constraints have created large costs that greatly reduced the

0.58
0.33
0.32
4.31
1.01
2.05
0.08
1.42
0.86
0.66
1.91
1.78
0.92
0.16
1.15
0.05
1.01
ecological and economic benefits of these projects (Chen & Wang, 2008;
Wang, Ren, & Hu, 2011). In contrast with estimates of benefits based
Natural recovery of forest (×109 RMB·yr-1)

only on VES, our cost–benefit analysis provides a more comprehensive

plantations, aerial seeding to establish forests, and protection of natural vegetation to allow its recovery. “Subsidy” represents compensation payments to residents of areas affected by the program.

1635.79
5972.71
197.72
662.23
223.81
730.42

182.26

334.17

205.48
952.43

387.36
228.05
evaluation of the costs and benefits of ecosystem restoration programs.

16.90
37.01
68.36
67.24

34.49

8.98
NB

To maximize the ecological benefits provided by restoration, it is ne-

cessary to account for as many costs as possible so that management
decisions can be based on NB rather than the total benefit, thereby
1643.26

helping managers to choose projects that maximize both economic and

257.55

145.78

108.60
284.77

380.76

52.57
54.41
13.08
30.07
63.29

66.18

18.64
51.84

34.29

69.61
7.28

4.53
Cost

ecological benefits.
China has the world’s highest population, combined with a low per
capita land area and natural forests that are mainly distributed in re-
mote mountainous areas with low levels of socioeconomic development
1893.34

1098.21
7615.97

1111.19
Benefit

495.96
280.63
261.02
947.00
289.99

234.10

368.46

275.09
85.88

41.77

13.51

71.31
50.09
98.43
(Zhang, Wang, Fang, Ye, & Li, 2011). People in these areas are poor and
rely on products of natural forests such as timber, herbs, and fruits for
their livelihood (Sietz, Lüdeke, & Walther, 2011). As a result, they lost
Subsidy

their main source of income after the NFCP was implemented because
1.80
0.20
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.00
0.18
1.32
0.13
0.52
0.00
6.78
0.41
1.99
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.01

activities that potentially damaged the forest were forbidden. Table 1

reveals the resulting problem: the cost of protecting degraded vegeta-
tion to allow natural recovery was 1.6 × 1012 RMB·yr-1 but the subsidy
Aerial seeding (×109 RMB·yr-1)

−0.01

−0.28
26.21

10.12
66.46

12.39

provided to residents of areas affected by this program was only

0.27

0.43
0.01
4.47

2.55
8.39
1.40

0.00
0.00
0.42
0.09
0.00
NB

18.6 × 109 RMB·yr-1. We also calculated the total income of farmers in

areas where the NFCP was implemented in 2017 using data from China
statistical yearbooks (National Bureau of Statistics, 2002–2018); this
13.34

14.47
63.88

18.75

0.59
1.24
0.28
5.19

0.00
0.00
0.35
0.06
0.00
1.63

1.27
4.49
0.01

2.21
Cost

totaled 3.36 × 1012 RMB·yr-1. Considering that the subsidies amount to

1.2% of this cost, and amount to 0.5% of farmer income, the compen-
sation provided to these residents seems too small. We therefore re-
Benefit

130.34

39.55

12.88

24.58
31.14

3.81

0.00

2.47
0.32
1.67
0.29
6.59

0.00
0.00
0.76
0.16
0.00
6.10

commend that the government increase subsidies to these people to

help them overcome their poverty. Alternatively, the government
should support rural economic development and provide training that
Subsidy

will help these people find new jobs and a better source of income.
0.01
0.00
0.14
0.38
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.00
1.18
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.12
0.17

Many scholars who have studied the value of ecosystem services

have reached results similar to ours. Tao et al. (2016) suggested that in
future implementation of a program like the NFCP, it will be necessary
10.54
28.11
Fruit trees (×109 RMB·yr-1)

0.07
0.01
2.28

0.05
6.24
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.94
0.11
3.34
4.36
NB

to pay equal attention to protection and restoration based on an ana-

lysis of the spatial differences in the benefits of these two approaches.
Wang et al. (2017) noted that although the Grain for Green Program
18.81

0.02
1.91
6.73
0.02
4.03
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.02
1.05
0.07
1.85
2.74
Cost

produced many positive ecological and socioeconomic outcomes, it also

had negative influences, such as the creation of high unemployment, a
decrease of food production and food security, and a shortage of sub-
Benefit

17.28

10.26
46.92

0.07

0.16
0.00
0.16
0.03
0.16
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
1.99
0.18
5.19
7.10
4.19

sidy funds (ecological compensation payments). Huang, Wang, Niu,

Gao, and Song (2019)) noted that although the NFCP has positively
affected the society, economy, and ecological environment of program
areas, it has also generated problems such as a shortage of investment
Subsidy

12.96

capital. These studies reveal a broader principle that is valid both for
0.13
1.71
1.13
0.15
0.17
0.03
0.53
1.15
0.56
0.51
0.15
0.29
0.05
0.49
4.05
0.57
1.30

China and for other ecological restoration programs in the world: that
even highly beneficial ecological restoration programs may have ne-
Afforestation by planting (×109 RMB·yr-1)

gative consequences, and that these consequences must be predicted

−0.90

−3.25
−2.15
−0.33
−0.15
−1.53
−0.42

−4.47

45.14

11.44
61.37

and carefully accounted for during planning of the program. In future

2.96
0.13

0.62
2.04
0.30
6.13

5.81
NB

research, it will be necessary to find ways to account for these negative

consequences in our calculation of NB.
Our results showed that NB for China as a whole increased from
117.72

1998 to 2017 for all four types of ecological restoration (Fig. 6).
11.79

44.96

10.46
7.21

2.91
1.61
0.33
0.23
3.45

3.47
6.43
1.04
5.81
9.73
6.08

0.66
1.55
Cost

However, although the NFCP appears to have been broadly effective at

restoring forests and protecting the environment, there have been un-
anticipated consequences. For example, since harvesting of trees is
Benefit

179.09

prohibited in most areas, the ban on forest harvesting has forced China
90.10

17.87

10.17
7.21
0.76
1.28
0.18
9.57

9.28

0.14
4.28
9.31
6.21
7.32
1.28
3.59
0.54

to import large quantities of forest products from other countries to

meet its need for wood, paper, and other materials, leading to defor-
estation and potential ecological damage in other countries, thereby
Inner Mongolia

Heilongjiang

reducing the NFCP’s overall contribution to the global environment

Chongqing

(Guan & Gong, 2015; Laurance, 2008; Nathan, Chen, Hansen, Xu, & Li,
Guizhou

Xinjiang
Qinghai
Sichuan

Shaanxi

Ningxia
Yunnan
Hainan
Table 1

Shanxi

Henan

Gansu
Hubei
China

Tibet

2018). Although it may be possible to sustainably harvest timber from

Jilin

China’s new forests as the forests mature, thereby increasing the

7
Z. Ma, et al.
Fig. 6. The annual increase in the total benefit, total cost, and net benefit (NB) under the NFCP for (a) afforestation by planting, (b) afforestation by aerial seeding, (c)
the establishment of fruit tree plantations, and (d) protection of natural vegetation to allow its recovery since 1999.
domestic supply of Chinese forest products, it may also be necessary to
reduce the demand for these products. Therefore, we suggest that China
support efforts to find substitutes for forest products and ways to reduce
the use of forest products, thereby relieving pressure on forests both in
China and elsewhere.
5. Conclusion
Our research studied the NFCP from the prospective of a cost–be-
nefit analysis and found that this program was basically successful and
contributed greatly to China’s ecological restoration. However, we
found significant differences in the effectiveness of each restoration
measure between regions of China, suggesting that the government of
each province should choose restoration methods that account for the
constraints and opportunities provided by their province so that they
can choose options that maximize the net benefit. Our results suggest
that the amount of the subsidies paid to residents of NFCP program
areas seems too small, and that the government should increase these
subsidies to reduce the negative impact of NFCP on the livelihoods of
residents. Job training should also be provided to help residents find
8
Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818
good new jobs in ecologically beneficial industries.
It’s important to remember that our analysis was conducted at a
provincial scale due to a lack of data at a finer resolution for all of
China, so our results may not be accurate for a given site or sub-region
of a province where environmental and other conditions differ from the
mean values for the whole province (Cao, Suo, & Xia, 2020). In our
future research, we will try to account for more costs and benefits to our
framework, such as a consideration of the socioeconomic benefits (e.g.,
the effects on the health of residents and on the available employment
opportunities) as data becomes available. For research that supports
ecological restoration in a specific area, it will also be necessary to
obtain data at the scale of the project wherever possible to ensure that
the costs are accurately represented.
Declaration of Competing Interest
We declare no conflict of interest.
Z. Ma, et al. Journal for Nature Conservation 55 (2020) 125818

Table 2 D’Odorico, P., Bhattachan, A., Davis, K. F., Ravi, S., & Runyan, C. W. (2013). Global
Increases of forest cover in China from 2002 to 2017. “NFCP area” represents desertification: drivers and feedbacks. Adv. Water Resour, 51, 326–344.
provinces (including provincial-level cities) where the NFCP was implemented; Food and Agriculture Organization (2000). Global forest resources assessment reportRome:
United Nations.
“Non-NFCP area” represents provinces where the NFCP was not implemented. Feng, Q., Xia, C., Yuan, W., Chen, L., Wang, Y., & Cao, S. (2019). Targeted control
Source: China Forestry Statistical Yearbook (State Forestry Administration, measures for improving the environment in a semiarid region of China. J. Clean. Prod.
2002-2018) 206, 477–482.
Guan, Z., & Gong, P. (2015). The impacts of international efforts to reduce illegal logging
2002 (%) 2017 (%) Increase (%) on China’s forest products trade flow. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 7, 467–483.
Goldstein, J. H., Pejchar, L., & Daily, G. C. (2008). Using return-on-investments to guide
NFCP area Shanxi 11.72 18.03 53.84 restoration: a case study from Hawaii. Conserv. Lett. 1, 236–243.
Inner Mongolia 12.73 21.03 65.20 Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of
Jilin 37.43 40.38 7.88 ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets
Heilongjiang 38.72 43.16 11.47 and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1209–1218.
Henan 12.52 21.50 71.73 Huang, L., Wang, B., Niu, X., Gao, P., & Song, Q. (2019). Changes in ecosystem services
Hubei 25.98 38.40 47.81 and an analysis of driving factors for China’s Natural Forest Conservation Program.
Hainan 39.56 55.38 39.99 Ecology and Evolution, 9, 3700–3716.
Isbell, F., Gonzalez, A., Loreau, M., Cowles, J., Díaz, S., Hector, A., et al. (2017). Linking
Chongqing 22.25 38.43 72.72
the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature, 546,
Sichuan 23.50 35.22 49.87
65–72.
Guizhou 20.81 37.09 78.23 Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Gomez-Baggethun, E.,
Yunnan 33.64 50.03 48.72 Boeraeve, F., et al. (2016). A new valuation school: integrating diverse values of
Tibet 5.93 11.98 102.02 nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 213–220.
Shaanxi 28.74 43.06 49.83 Jin, L. (1998). Reflections on’ 98 China’s Great Flood. China Statistics. 11 13-14+22 (in
Gansu 4.83 11.28 133.54 Chinese).
Qinghai 0.43 6.30 1365.12 Laurance, W. (2008). The need to cut China’s illegal timber imports. Science, 319,
Ningxia 2.2 11.89 440.45 1184–1185.
Xinjiang 1.08 4.24 292.59 Liu, J., & Yang, W. (2012). Water sustainability for China and beyond. Science, 337,
Non-NFCP area Beijing 18.93 35.84 89.33 649–650.
Tianjin 7.47 9.87 32.13 Lu, H. F., Campbell, E. T., Campbell, D. E., Wang, C. W., & Ren, H. (2017). Dynamics of
Hebei 18.08 33.00 82.52 ecosystem services provided by subtropical forests in Southeast China during suc-
cession as measured by donor and receiver value. Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 248–258.
Liaoning 30.95 38.24 23.55
Mora, C., Frazier, A. G., Longman, R. J., Dacks, R. S., Walton, M. M., Tong, E. J., et al.
Shanghai 3.66 10.74 193.44
(2013). The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability. Nature,
Jiangsu 4.51 15.80 250.33
502, 183–187.
Zhejiang 50.8 61.17 20.41 Nathan, I., Chen, J., Hansen, C. P., Xu, B., & Li, Y. (2018). Facing the complexities of the
Anhui 22.95 27.53 19.96 global timber trade regime: how do Chinese wood enterprises respond to interna-
Fujian 60.52 65.95 8.97 tional legality verification requirements, and what are the implications for regime
Jiangxi 53.37 60.01 12.44 effectiveness? For. Pol. Econ. 92, 169–180.
Shandong 12.58 16.73 32.99 National Bureau of Statistics, (1953–2018). China Statistical Yearbook, Beijing: China
Hunan 38.90 47.77 22.80 Statistics Press.
Guangdong 45.81 59.08 28.97 National Bureau of Statistics, (1983–1999). China Statistical Yearbook, Beijing: China
Guangxi 34.37 56.51 64.42 Statistics Press.
National Bureau of Statistics, (2002–2018). China Statistical Yearbook, Beijing: China
Statistics Press.
Niu, X., Wang, B., Liu, S., Liu, C., Wei, W., & Kauppi, P. E. (2012). Economical assessment
Author contributions of forest ecosystem services in China: characteristics and implications. Ecol. Complex.
11, 1–11.
Ouyang, Z., Zheng, H., Xiao, Y., Polasky, S., Liu, J. G., Xu, W. H., et al. (2016).
S. Cao designed the research; Z. Ma and C. Xia analyzed the data and
Improvements in ecosystem services from investments in natural capital. Science, 352,
wrote the paper. All authors have approved the paper. 1455–1459.
Sietz, D., Lüdeke, M. K. B., & Walther, C. (2011). Categorisation of typical vulnerability
Acknowledgments patterns in global drylands. Global Environ. Change, 21, 431–440.
Sivakumar, M. V. K. (2007). Interactions between climate and desertification. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 142, 143–155.
This work was supported by the National Key Technology R & D State Forestry Administration, 1999–2018. China Forestry Statistical Yearbook, Beijing:
Program China (No. 2016YFC0501002). We thank Geoffrey Hart of China Forestry Press (in Chinese).
State Forestry Administration of China (2008). The 7th Forest Inventory Data of the State
Montréal, Canada, for his help in writing this paper. We are also Forestry Administration. Beijing, China: China Forestry Press (in Chinese).
grateful for the comments and criticisms of an early version of this Tao, Y., Lv, Y., Li, F., Hu, J., Zhang, K., Li, T., et al. (2016). Evaluation of ecological effect
manuscript by our colleagues and the journal's reviewers. of Natural Forest Conservation Program in southwest China. Journal of Ecology and
Rural Environment, 32, 716–723 (in Chinese).
Tietenberg, T. H., & Lewis, L. (2016). Environmental and natural resource economics.
References London, UK: Routledge.
Wang, B., Gao, P., Niu, X., & Sun, J. (2017). Policy-driven China’s Grain to Green
Program: implications for ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 27, 38–47.
Cao, S., Liu, Y., Su, W., Zheng, X., & Yu, Z. (2018). The net ecosystem services value in
Wang, B., Ren, X., & Hu, W. (2011). Forest ecosystem services and their valuation in
mainland China. Sci. China Earth Sci. 61, 595–603.
China. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 47(2), 145–153 (in Chinese).
Cao, S., Suo, X., & Xia, C. (2020). Payoff from afforestation under the Three-North Shelter
Xia, C., Liu, Z., Suo, X., & Cao, S. (2020). Quantifying the net benefit of land use of fruit
Forest Program. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trees in China. Land Use Policy, 90, 104276.
jclepro.2020.120461.
Yamane, M. (2001). China’s recent forest-related policies: overview and background.
Chen, L., & Wang, X. (2008). Several key problems of biodiversity and forest ecosystem
Policy Trend Rep. 1, 1–12.
health. Chin. J. Ecol. 27(5), 816–820 (in Chinese).
Zhang, J., Zhao, T., Jiang, C., & Cao, S. (2016). Opportunity cost of water allocation to
Costanza, R., Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The
afforestation rather than conservation of natural vegetation in China. Land Use Policy,
value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
50, 67–73.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I.,
Zhang, X., Wang, W., Fang, X., Ye, Y., & Li, B. (2011). Natural vegetation pattern in
et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ.
northeast China in the late 17th century. Scientia Geographica Sinica. 2, 184–185 (in
Change, 26, 152–158.
Chinese).
De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., et al.
Zheng, W. (2009). Land use problems and policy trends in China’s urbanization process.
(2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary
Urban Studies, 3, 16–17 (in Chinese).
units. Ecosystem Services, 1, 50–61.