China’s planted forests net far less than natural ones
After water, land, and management costs, afforestation’s net ecosystem-service value is 55.9% lower per hectare than natural forest.
Source
Difference in the net value of ecological services between natural and artificial forests in China
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — National forest-inventory ecosystem-service values minus timber, land, water, and management costs
- N
- China forest inventories 1952–2014; 69.2×10^6 ha natural and 147.9×10^6 ha planted forest in 2014
- Population
- China’s natural versus planted forests
- Outcome
- After water, land, and management costs, afforestation’s net ecosystem-service value is 55.9% lower per hectare than natural forest
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
China’s planted forests net far less than natural ones
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Natural and artificial forests covered 69.2×10^6 and 147.9×10^6 ha in 2014
China's natural and artificial forests covered 69.2 × 10 6 and 147.9
Accounting for costs made annual NVES 35.9% less than gross VES
which is 35.9% less than the value calculated without accounting for costs.
What they did
Authors combined published forest ecosystem-service values with timber, land-rent, water (evapotranspiration), and pest/fire-control costs to compute net value of ecosystem services (NVES) for China’s natural versus planted forests, using 1952–2014 inventory and provincial water prices.
What they found
In 2014 natural forests covered 69.2×10^6 ha and planted forests 147.9×10^6 ha, with total VES Ɏ9.6×10^12. Accounting for costs cut national NVES 35.9% to Ɏ6.1×10^12. Afforestation netted Ɏ15.9×10^3 ha−1, 55.9% less than natural forest. Only 20.6% of 3.4×10^6 km2 planted since 1952 still survived. Twelve provinces had negative planted-forest NVES.
The limits
What it doesn't show
Water prices were linearly interpolated between Beijing and Tibet, not market observations everywhere. Survival of natural forest was assumed 100%. Timber harvest is largely prohibited, so timber income is a hypothetical add-on. The analysis is provincial, not stand-scale.
Key terms
- VES
- Gross value of ecosystem services (water, carbon, soil, biodiversity, etc.) before costs.
- NVES
- VES minus direct conservation costs, opportunity costs (land and water), and risk (pest/fire) costs.
- Opportunity cost of water
- Value of water consumed by forest evapotranspiration that could have been used elsewhere, especially in arid provinces.
- Afforestation survival
- Existing planted-forest area divided by cumulative area planted; 20.6% by 2014.
- Natural forest conservation
- Protecting existing forests rather than planting new ones; here it produced higher NVES.
Flashcards
0 of 12 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
After costs, national forest NVES was about:
Common questions
Is planted forest worthless on a gross VES basis?
No. Per-hectare VES was similar (43.2 vs 46.1 ×10^3). Costs, especially water and land, drive the gap.
Where was planted-forest NVES negative?
Arid northwest plus heavily developed Bohai Gulf and Changjiang Estuary regions—12 provinces.
Does adding timber sales close the gap?
Only +9.6% for planted and +3.5% for natural NVES; harvest is mostly illegal anyway.
What management lesson follows?
Conserving natural forests beat large-scale afforestation on net benefits in this accounting.
More on Habitat restoration