Habitat restoration
China’s planted forests net far less than natural ones
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
After water, land, and management costs, afforestation’s net ecosystem-service value is 55.9% lower per hectare than natural forest.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
After water, land, and management costs, afforestation’s net ecosystem-service value is 55.9% lower per hectare than natural forest.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
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.
Key findings
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.
Methodology
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.
Limitations
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.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.