IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v161y2023ics0305750x22003163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Han
  • Tian, Fuan
  • Wu, Jianxian
  • Nie, Xin

Abstract

Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) is an important way to address the problems of climate change and land desertification. However, there has been significant controversy about the high cost of restoration and whether it is economically feasible. Most cost-benefit analyses of ecological restoration plans have focused on a single ecosystem, without considering the complexity and relevance of the ecosystem. These studies have also not considered the large number of potential important benefits and real opportunity costs, creating the possibility of bias in the cost-benefit analysis. This study applies theoretical analysis tools from non-equilibrium ecology, combining a land system change model and economic analysis to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of China's FLR program. The research results show that: (1) The benefits of China's implementation of the FLR policy exceed the costs, with positive net benefits. (2) After fully considering the cost of FLR, including the true opportunity cost, the net benefit of forest landscape restoration in China is between 60 trillion yuan and 110 trillion yuan. (3) Different types of commitment goals impact the success of the recovery plan. Specifically, quantifiable targets better support successful FLR implementation. The article concludes that it is worthwhile to implement forest landscape restoration in China, although the profit margin of the ecological plan is smaller than generally thought. The results provide a scientific basis for the government to formulate FLR policies and other ecological restoration plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Han & Tian, Fuan & Wu, Jianxian & Nie, Xin, 2023. "Is China forest landscape restoration (FLR) worth it? A cost-benefit analysis and non-equilibrium ecological view," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:161:y:2023:i:c:s0305750x22003163
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106126
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22003163
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106126?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang, Xin & Zheng, Xin-Qi & Lv, Li-Na, 2012. "A spatiotemporal model of land use change based on ant colony optimization, Markov chain and cellular automata," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 233(C), pages 11-19.
    2. Costanza, Robert & d'Arge, Ralph & de Groot, Rudolf & Farber, Stephen & Grasso, Monica & Hannon, Bruce & Limburg, Karin & Naeem, Shahid & O'Neill, Robert V. & Paruelo, Jose, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services: putting the issues in perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 67-72, April.
    3. P. Ho, 2001. "Rangeland Degradation in North China Revisited? A Preliminary Statistical Analysis to Validate Non-Equilibrium Range Ecology," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 99-133.
    4. Costanza, Robert, 1998. "The value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-2, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    2. repec:dgr:rugcds:200218 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Hendriksen, Astrid & Jouanneau, Charlène & Koss, Rebecca & Raakjaer, Jesper, 2014. "Fishing for opinions: Stakeholder views on MSFD implementation in European Seas," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 353-363.
    4. Sinden, John Alfred & Griffith, Garry, 2007. "Combining economic and ecological arguments to value the environmental gains from control of 35 weeds in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 396-408, March.
    5. Weesie, Peter & Andel, J. van, 2003. "On biodiversity and its valuation," CDS Research Reports 200218, University of Groningen, Centre for Development Studies (CDS).
    6. Natacha LASKOWSKI, 2013. "Optimal allocation of wetlands: Study on conflict between agriculture and fishery," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2013-07, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    7. Ruijs, A. & Wossink, A. & Kortelainen, M. & Alkemade, R. & Schulp, C.J.E., 2013. "Trade-off analysis of ecosystem services in Eastern Europe," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 82-94.
    8. Henghui Xi & Wanglai Cui & Li Cai & Mengyuan Chen & Chenglei Xu, 2021. "Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Service Value in the Zhoushan Islands Based on LUCC," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Mayer, Andreas & Kaufmann, Lisa & Kalt, Gerald & Matej, Sarah & Theurl, Michaela C. & Morais, Tiago G. & Leip, Adrian & Erb, Karl-Heinz, 2021. "Applying the Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production framework to map provisioning ecosystem services and their relation to ecosystem functioning across the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    10. Sutton, Paul C. & Costanza, Robert, 2002. "Global estimates of market and non-market values derived from nighttime satellite imagery, land cover, and ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 509-527, June.
    11. Prévost, Benoît & Rivaud, Audrey, 2018. "The World Bank’s environmental strategies: Assessing the influence of a biased use of New Institutional Economics on legal issues," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 370-380.
    12. Rodrigues, João & Domingos, Tiago & Conceição, Pedro & Belbute, José, 2005. "Constraints on dematerialisation and allocation of natural capital along a sustainable growth path," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 382-396, September.
    13. Bergstrom, John & Holmes, Tom & Huszar, Eric & Kask, Susan, 2001. "Testing a Computer-Assisted Valuation Panel Approach for Valuing Watershed Ecosystem Restoration," Western Region Archives 321683, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    14. Zhuohang Xin & Chao Li & Haixing Liu & Hua Shang & Lei Ye & Yu Li & Chi Zhang, 2018. "Evaluation of Temporal and Spatial Ecosystem Services in Dalian, China: Implications for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    15. Mukherjee, Joyita & Scharler, Ursula M. & Fath, Brian D. & Ray, Santanu, 2015. "Measuring sensitivity of robustness and network indices for an estuarine food web model under perturbations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 160-173.
    16. Nelson, Anitra, 2001. "The poverty of money:: Marxian insights for ecological economists," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 499-511, March.
    17. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    18. Balvanera, Patricia & Uriarte, María & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía & Altesor, Alice & DeClerck, Fabrice & Gardner, Toby & Hall, Jefferson & Lara, Antonio & Laterra, Pedro & Peña-Claros, Marielos & Silva, 2012. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 56-70.
    19. Sophal Chhun & Paul Thorsnes & Henrik Moller, 2013. "Preferences for Management of Near-Shore Marine Ecosystems: A Choice Experiment in New Zealand," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-33, September.
    20. Fabio Pranovi & Gianluca Sarà & Piero Franzoi, 2013. "Valuing the Unmarketable: An Ecological Approach to the Externalities Estimate in Fishing Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11, February.
    21. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:161:y:2023:i:c:s0305750x22003163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.