Next Article in Journal
Effect of Strength vs. Plyometric Training upon Change of Direction Performance in Young Female Handball Players
Next Article in Special Issue
Evolution Modes, Types, and Social-Ecological Drivers of Ecologically Critical Areas in the Sichuan–Yunnan Ecological Barrier in the Last 15 Years
Previous Article in Journal
Reliability and Validity of Mini-Balance Evaluation System Test in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Peripheral Neuropathy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimal Planning and Management of Land Use in River Source Region: A Case Study of Songhua River Basin, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 11
10.3390/ijerph19116942
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comprehensive Monitoring and Benefit Evaluation of Converting Farmlands into Forests and Grasslands in China

by
Shidong Li
1,
Bing Wang
2,
Sheng Zhang
3,
Yingfa Chen
1 and
Guangshuai Zhao
3,*
1
Management Office of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests and Grasslands, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, China
2
Institute of Forest Environmental Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China
3
Development Research Center, National Forestry and Grassland Administration, Beijing 100714, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(11), 6942; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116942
Submission received: 15 April 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 2 June 2022 / Published: 6 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Land System – Ecological Process Interactions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Conversion of farmlands to forests and grasslands (CFFG) is one of the major ecological projects with the largest investment, strongest policy, widest coverage and highest degree of participation in China, and even in the world. In order to scientifically evaluate the benefits and dynamic changes, better serve the decision-making, consolidate the achievements and promote the high-quality development of this project, it is of great significance to organize the monitoring and evaluation of its benefits. On the basis of reviewing and summarizing the monitoring and evaluation history of the benefits, this study established an indicator system for comprehensive monitoring and evaluation, composed of three components of benefits, 10 categories and 48 indicators, including 23 indicators of ecological benefits, 11 indicators of economic benefits and 14 indicators of social benefits. These methods of monitoring and evaluation are applied to the systematic and full coverage monitoring and evaluation of the national project of CFFG for the first time. There are four aspects of the innovation of this research: First, it is the first time that a comprehensive ecological, economic and social benefit evaluation indicator system has been established. Second, it is the first time that quantitative evaluation methods have been established. Third, it is the first comprehensive quantitative assessment of the CFFG project. Fourth, this is a full-scale evaluation of the project for the first time. The evaluation results show that the total value of the three benefits from the CFFG project is 2405.046 billion Yuan (354.4129 billion US$)·y−1, of which the ecological benefit is 1416.864 billion Yuan (208.7922 billion US$)·y−1, the economic benefit is 255.486 billion Yuan (37.649 billion US$)·y−1 and the social benefit is 732.696 billion Yuan (107.9717 billion US$)·y−1, accounting for 58.92%, 10.62% and 30.46%, respectively, of the total benefits. Our results provide detailed evaluation of the achievement and benefits of the CFFG project.

1. Introduction

Conversion of farmlands to forests and grasslands (CFFG) is an ecological project with the strongest policy, widest coverage and highest degree of participation in China, with efforts to protect and improve the environment to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs) [1,2]. The first phase of this CFFG project was launched in 1999, and the second round continued in 2014. By the end of 2019, the total project area arrived at 34.33 million ha, including 13.73 million ha of converted forests and grasslands, 17.53 million ha of afforested land and 3.07 million ha of closed forests. The Chinese central government has invested RMB 517.4 billion Yuan (76.2452 billion US$) to this project, which covers 2435 counties in 25 provinces. The afforestation of this project accounts for 40.5% of the total afforestation area of key ecological projects in the country during the same period in China, and more than 4% of the global greening area. The forest cover in the project area has increased by more than 4% on average and directly benefited 41 million households and approximately 158 million farmers [3]. Therefore, monitoring and evaluating the ecological, economic and social benefits of the CFFG project is an important task of forest resource accounting, which can scientifically reflect the achievement of this ecological project.
There are many reports on forest resource accounting and benefit monitoring, and evaluation at home and abroad [4,5,6,7,8,9]. In 2004, 2013 and 2016, national forestry authorities have conducted national forest resource accounting three times, but the economic benefit has only evaluated the value of forest land and trees, and the social benefit only included one indicator of cultural value in the third accounting, which cannot reflect the realized achievement and benefits of this project [10,11,12]. The State Forestry Administration of China has also evaluated the benefit of the CFFG project five times from 2013 to 2017 [13,14,15,16,17]. In terms of the components of monitoring and assessment, the previous four times focused on ecological benefit assessments of the projects and, only in 2017, were ecological, economic and social benefit assessed for 14 contiguous poor areas of the project [14]. In terms of the methods of monitoring and assessment, the project assessment was mainly qualitative, lacking systematic and comprehensive quantitative assessments [14,18,19]. In terms of the scope, the monitoring and assessment were conducted in part of the project areas from 2013 to 2017 [13,14,15,16,17]. Therefore, the monitoring and assessment were based on an incomplete set of indicators, insufficient quantification and incomplete coverage. To address these issues, the objectives of this study are: (1) to establish a systematic and scientific monitoring and assessment index system for the comprehensive benefits; (2) to establish a scientific and feasible calculation method by its own characteristic; and (3) to comprehensively and quantitatively assess the benefits, and make an objective evaluation for the effectiveness assessment of major ecological projects and the contribution of ecological protection in China.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methods

The evaluation index system of ecological, economic and social benefits of the project was established comprehensively through enriching the socio-economic indices, improving the evaluation indices of primary, secondary and tertiary industries, and selecting comprehensive indices for social benefits such as developing social undertakings, optimizing social structure, improving social service functions and promoting the development of social organizations [20,21]. This study adopted reasonable value calculation methods such as the market method (including simulated market), income method (including expected income), and cost method (including opportunity cost), and expands and innovates the theory, method, and index system of China’s forest resources accounting index system to ensure the authority and accuracy and credibility of the research results.

2.2. Data Source

In this study, we comprehensively consider data sources and statistical analysis in the process of establishing the index system and assessment methods. Only reliable and accurate data were used, and the statistical analysis was standardized and programmed.
(1)
Ecological benefit data sources and statistical analysis
The ecological benefit assessment of the CFFG project is divided into two parts: physical assessment and value assessment. The physical assessment is based on a forest resource continuous inventory dataset (2435 samples) and long-term forest ecological observation dataset (407 observation stations) of the CFFG project. The value assessment requires a social public dataset, in addition to the above two datasets. The above three data sources are applied to a series of assessment formulas to obtain the ecological benefit assessment results of the project, which is the coupled integration of the above data sources.
(2)
Social and economic benefits data sources and statistical analysis
This study is the first time that a full-coverage questionnaire and a quantitative assessment (2435 samples) has been adopted, covering 287 municipalities (including prefecture-level units) and 2435 counties (including county-level units) in 25 provinces (or autonomous regions and municipalities) and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps across China. We conducted questionnaire investigation at the county-level, summarized at the provincial-level, and, finally, undertook statistical analyses. Based on the index system for monitoring and evaluating the social and economic benefits of the project, an operational, fillable and accurate social and economic benefit evaluation questionnaire was designed, and the total social and economic values were the sum of all social and economic indices of all the counties of the project, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Monitoring and Evaluation Indicator System for the CFFG Project

3.1.1. Ecological Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Index System

According to national forest resource assessment standards include Observation and Methodology for Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research (GB/T 33027-2016) [22], Indicators System for Long-term Observation of Forest Ecosystems (GB/T 35377-2017) [23], Specification for the Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Service (GB/T 38582-2020) [24], Specification for Construction on Long-term Observation Research Station of Forest Ecosystems (GB/T40053-2021) [25], and the specifications of monitoring and evaluation of the CFFG project such as Evaluation in Project for the Construction of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (GB/T23233-2009) [26], Specification of Monitoring and Evaluation of Ecological Benefits of Converting Farmlands to Forests Project (LY/T2573-2016) [27]. The ecological benefit monitoring and assessment index system includes three categories and seven aspects, i.e., supporting services (soil conservation and nutrient fixation), regulation services (water conservation, carbon sequestration and oxygen release, air purification and forest protection) and provisioning services (biodiversity), covering 23 indicators [5,28] (Figure 1).

3.1.2. Economic Benefit Monitoring and the Evaluation Index System

CFFG is not only an ecological project, but also a project for poverty alleviation, rural industrial structure adjustment, and promotion of rural revitalization, which is a vivid practice of the concept of “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets”. According to the relevant standards include Evaluation in Project for the Construction of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (GB/T23233-2009) [26], Technical Manual on Assessing Forest Resources Assets (LY/T 2407-2015) [29], Indicators for Monitoring and Assessment of Socio-economic Impacts of the Program for Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (LY/T1757-2008) [30], and with reference to the nearly 20 years of research foundation and monitoring practice accumulated by the Monitoring and Assessment of Socio-economic Impacts of China’s Key Forestry Program launched in 2002, the monitoring indicator system selected for the economic benefits of the CFFG project includes 11 evaluation indicators in three categories: primary, secondary and tertiary industries [20,21] (Figure 2).

3.1.3. Social Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Index System

The CFFG is also a far-reaching benevolent project and a social project that has received wide attention both at home and abroad. Based on Evaluation in Project for the Construction of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (GB/T23233-2009) [26], Indicators for Monitoring and Assessment of Socio-economic Impacts of the Program for Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (LY/T1757-2008) [30], and with reference to the nearly 20 years of research foundation and monitoring practice accumulated by the Monitoring and Assessment of Socio-economic Impacts of China’s Key Forestry Program, the monitoring indicator system selected for social benefits includes 14 monitoring indices in four categories (development of social undertakings, optimize the social structure, improve social service and promoting social organizations) [20,21] (Figure 3).

3.2. Monitoring and Benefit Evaluation Methods of the CFFG Project

3.2.1. Ecological Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Methods

Since the monitoring and evaluation of ecological benefits of the CFFG was carried out in 2012, a comprehensive monitoring system has been formulated. The ecological benefit monitoring stations were mainly based on the Chinese Forest Ecological Research Network (CFERN), including 108 national ecological research stations, more than 230 auxiliary observation points and more than 8500 fixed sample plots, simultaneously absorbing the relevant data collected by 69 provincial special monitoring stations for conversion of farmlands to forests. After the ecological function monitoring and zoning of the national CFFG project, the main methods, including the ecological continual inventory system, coupled integration of multiple datasets based on the distributed measurement method and ecological functional coefficient correction assessment model were adopted to measure the amount of ecological benefit (Table 1) [10,12,31,32].

3.2.2. Economic Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Methods

In August 2002, the State Forestry Administration launched the project of “Monitoring the Socio-economic Benefits of CFFG Project”, which has continually monitored the socio-economic benefits of this project for 19 years. The scope of socio-economic assessment in this study was expanded from 100 sample counties to all counties of the CFFG project. The main method was to develop county-level questionnaires corresponding to 11 assessment indicators in three categories, with comprehensive surveys at the county level, weighted summaries at the provincial level, and then unified summaries for calculation (Table 2).

3.2.3. Social Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Methods

Based on 14 monitoring indicators of nine components in four categories of the social benefit monitoring and assessment, an operational, fillable and accurate economic benefit assessment questionnaire was designed. The survey form filled out at the county level and the summary survey form carried out at the province level were used in this monitoring and assessment. The statistics were then analyzed and the evaluation was measured. The computation methods were provided in Table 3.

3.3. Comprehensive Benefits of the CFFG Project

The CFFG project has become a major ecological undertaking with the most capital investment, the largest construction scale, the strongest policy and the highest degree of participation in China and over the world, and it has also achieved great comprehensive benefits (Figure 4). In order to quantify and facilitate comparative analysis of the comprehensive benefits of the project, all three major benefits of this study were measured quantitatively in terms of economic value. The study shows that the total value of ecological, economic and social benefits is 2405.046 billion Yuan (354.4129 billion US$)·y−1 in the 25 project provinces (regions) and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps in 2019.

3.3.1. Results of Ecological Benefits

The amounts of the ecological benefits in terms of quantity from the CFFG project were: water connotation 44.005 billion m3·y−1, carbon sequestration (oxygen release) 55.7026 (132.6682) million tons·y−1, purification of the atmospheric environment 540.1909 million tons·y−1, wind control and sand fixation 837.25 million tons·y−1, soil fixation 709.4355 million tons·y−1, fertilizer retention 28.907 million tons·y−1, and forest nutrient fixation 1.2134 million tons·y−1.
The total value of ecological benefits is 1416.864 billion Yuan (208.7922 billion US$), of which the largest value was water conservation at 463,022 million Yuan (68,231 million US$)·y−1, accounting for 32.68% of the ecological value; the second was purifying the atmosphere at 310,175 million Yuan (45,708 million US$)·y−1, accounting for 21.89% of the ecological value; the third was carbon sequestration and oxygen release at 223,017 million Yuan (32,864 million US$)·y−1, accounting for 15.74% of the ecological value (Table 4).

3.3.2. Results of Economic Benefits

The total value of economic benefits was 255.486 billion Yuan (37.649 billion US$) from the CFFG project, of which the values of primary industry, secondary industry and tertiary industry were 148,305, 65,453 and 41,728 million Yuan (21,855, 9645 and 6149 million US$), respectively, accounting for 58.05%, 25.62% and 16.33%, in turn (Table 5).

3.3.3. Results of Social Benefits

The total value of social benefits was 732.696 billion Yuan (107.9717billion US$) in 2019 from the CFFG project, of which the values of developing social undertakings, optimizing social structure, improving social service functions and promoting the development of social organizations accounting for 61.06%, 33.84%, 0.85% and 4.24%, respectively, of the total social benefit value (Table 6).

4. Discussion

The comprehensive benefit of the CFFG project in 2019 was 2405.046 billion Yuan (354.4129 billion US$)·y−1, which was 4.65 times of the accumulated investment of the central government (517.4 billion Yuan, 76.2452 billion US$), fully reflecting the huge benefits of this project. The largest benefit of the project was in terms of the ecological benefit, accounting for 58.92% of the total, especially for the top four functions, i.e., water conservation, purification of atmospheric environment, carbon sequestration and oxygen release and biodiversity, accounting for 84.91% of the total ecological benefits, fully reflecting the ecological benefits of the CFFG project as the “green reservoir”, “oxygen bar reservoir” and “carbon reservoir”, as well as the biological gene pool [45,46,47,48]. These aspects can achieve improvement of the ecological environment and biodiversity conservation, and are an important part of the management and ecological restoration of mountains, water, forests, fields, lakes and grasslands [1], It was also the fulfillment of multiple sustainable development goals (SDGs), including targets for poverty reduction, good health and well-being, clean water and sanitation, sustainable cities and communities, climate action, and terrestrial biodiversity conservation [2,49]. Social benefits were the second most important benefits, accounting for 30.46% of the comprehensive benefits. The CFFG project not only effectively improved the ecological environment, but also released the rural labor force, promoted labor force transfer and employment structure adjustment [50,51], while absorbing the rural population into nearby employment, promoted the greening and beautification of the countryside, and provided the foundation and guarantee for green health [52,53]. In addition, it can also optimize the allocation of factors, which advances the change in agricultural planting structure, and thus affects the adjustment of the whole industrial structure and improves the living standard of farmers, etc. [54,55]. All these are important elements to achieve rural revitalization.
From different regions, the values of ecological benefits of water conservation, purification of the atmospheric environment, carbon sequestration and oxygen release of the CFFG project were substantially higher in the middle and upper reaches of Yangtze River and Yellow River than in other regions, due to abundant precipitation or large project area in these regions [56,57]. The higher the precipitation in the area of the project, the more the water storage capacity in the soil and the stronger the dust retention function, while the quantities of water conservation, carbon sequestration and dust retention in the larger project area were also higher. The social benefit values of the top three provinces were Sichuan, Hubei Provinces and Chongqing Municipality, accounting for 32.77% of the total social benefit value. The development of the ecotourism industry delivered by the implementation of the CFFG project has contributed to the increase in the value of social benefits. In addition, the total social benefits of the project were proportionate to the size of the ecotourism development. In addition, the change in labor employment structure caused by the project implementation has also influenced the social benefits to a large extent [58,59]. The top three provinces, in terms of the values of economic benefits formed by the project, were Guangxi, Chongqing and Sichuan, accounting for 34.58% of the total economic benefit value. The development of fallowed economic forests and the understory forest economy was the main reason for the rise in the economic benefits of forest industry [60]. In addition, the economic benefits of the CFFG project in different areas were consistent with the performance of economic forest harvesting and the size of the understory forest economy. In addition, the development of the timber industry largely affected of the economic benefits of the CFFG project.
Compared with other ecological projects, the CFFG project had relatively higher ecological benefits. The annual average ecological benefit of the CFFG project was 41,300 Yuan (6086 US$)·ha−1, accounting for ca. 84% of the national average (49,000 Yuan (7221 US$)·ha−1·y−1) [10], and 4.54 times the average benefit of the Three North Shelterbelt Project in Phase V (9100 Yuan (1341 US$)·ha−1·y−1) [61], and 2.33 times the benefit of the Key State-owned Forest Areas in Northeast and Inner Mongolia(17,700 Yuan (2608 US$)·ha−1·y−1) [62], indicating that the implementation of the CFFG project in sloping lands with poor stand conditions was effective. In particular, in terms of carbon sequestration and oxygen release, most of the plantations of the CFFG accumulated rapid forest stock [63], and sequestrated carbon and released oxygen in more than 18% of the total forest ecosystems in the country in the same period [10], accounting for 5.86 times as much as the Three North Shelterbelt Project in Phase V [61] and 2.41 times as much as the Key Sate-owned Forest Areas in Northeast and Inner Mongolia [62]. The carbon sequestration of the CFFG project could offset about 2.18% of the national CO2 emissions in 2018 [64], which is important for China to adapt to climate change and achieve the goal of “carbon neutrality”. Of course, in addition to the differences brought by the construction of the project itself, there were also important influences of factors such as the location of the project, natural environment and resource background.
Although the comprehensive monitoring and benefit evaluation of the CFFG project has achieved phased results, there are still some problems. First, the number, distribution and monitoring quality of ecological stations for obtaining ecological data need to be further optimized and improved. Second, the content of monitoring and evaluation should be further detailed based on project examples, including quantifying the ecological, social and economic benefits of different tree species, technologies and management models, so that the evaluation results will be more targeted to guide specific practices of the CFFG project. Third, ecological and socio-economic monitoring are still two independent parts. How to better carry out the coupling research between the two is very important for the future. In addition, forest resource accounting attaches more importance of the public benefit assessment, which was different from the market exchange value. Therefore, its theories and methods still need to keep up with the times. Among the three major ecological, economic and social values of the CFFG project, ecological and social benefits were public services, such as water conservation, atmospheric purification, carbon dioxide fixation and oxygen release, etc. After converting them into economic values according to the amount of human labor required, the monetary values were generally larger, but they were not economic benefits in the traditional sense. Although public services may be assessed by the methods of a simulated market, alternative market, and opportunity cost, and by the monetary exchange value, the simulated market, alternative market, and opportunity cost methods for the same public services can also be different, and the assessment results vary greatly. As a result, the value of public services was still different from the real economic return, and thus was only a reference for investment cost analysis. Meanwhile, forest resource accounting was also a process of keeping up with the times, such as the value assessment of carbon sinks, and there was currently an artificial carbon sequestration cost method, carbon tax method, carbon sink trading method (the market is currently under construction), and afforestation cost method, as well. This study adopted the artificial carbon sequestration cost method, but several years later, when the national carbon sink market is mature, it may be more reasonable to adopt the carbon sink trading method.

5. Conclusions

This study showed that the comprehensive value of the CFFG project was 2405.046 billion Yuan (354.4129 billion US$)·y−1 in 2019, of which the ecological, economic and social benefits were 1416.864 billion Yuan (208.7922 billion US$)·y−1, 255.486 billion Yuan (37.649 billion US$)·y−1 and 732.696 billion Yuan (107.9717 billion US$)·y−1, accounting for 58.92%, 10.62% and 30.46% of the comprehensive benefits, respectively. The sum of the ecological and social benefit values, accounting for 89.38% of the total assessed value, coincide with the national overall objectives of the ecological restoration project, and are fully consistent with the aims of other ecological projects, virtuous projects and popularity-win projects.
The evaluation indicator systems and methods for the ecological, economic and social benefits are constructed based on 10 years and 20 years of monitoring practice, respectively, which are proved to be in line with the project practice and will provide reference for global ecological governance evaluation. This research is the first time that the economic value of ecological benefits, economic benefits and social benefits have been comprehensively and quantitatively evaluated, based on large samples (2435 sample counties and 407 observation stations). It is an important part of the CFFG project, and it also makes an important contribution to the green development of the world. Meanwhile, the results of this research will be directly used to support the Chinese government in scientifically formulating reasonable ecological subsidy standards, in the high-quality development of a master plan for the CFFG, and in revising relevant policies and standards, for example, Regulations on Converting Farmlands to Forests, Evaluation in Project for the Construction of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (GB/T23233-2009), Indicators for Monitoring and Assessment of Socio-economic Impacts of the Program for Conversion of Farmlands to Forests (LY/T1757-2008), etc.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.; methodology, B.W., S.Z., Y.C. and G.Z.; software, G.Z.; validation, G.Z.; formal analysis, B.W., S.Z. and G.Z.; investigation, B.W., S.Z. and Y.C.; resources, S.L.; data curation, B.W., and Y.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review and editing, G.Z.; visualization, S.L. and G.Z.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, S.L.; funding acquisition, S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Monitoring of Ecological Benefits of Converting Farmlands to Forests Project, grant number TGB2019012.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Xidi Guo for the help o administrative and technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Delang, C.O.; Yuan, Z. China’s Grain for Green Program—A Review of the Largest Ecological Restoration and Rural Development Program in the World; Springer Press: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Durand-Delacre, D.; Teksoz, K. SDG Index and Dashboards—Global Report 2016; Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Twenty Years of Returning Farmlands to Forests and Grasslands in China (1999–2019); National Forestry and Grassland Administration: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
  4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Forest Resources Assessments. 2020. Available online: https://www.fao.org/forest-resources-assessment/zh (accessed on 5 May 2022).
  5. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). Ecosystem and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hou, Y.Z. China’s Forest Resource Accounting; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1994. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. Sutherland, W.J.; Armstrong, B.S.; Armsworth, P.R.; Tom, B.; Brickland, J.; Campbell, C.D.; Chamberlain, D.E.; Cooke, A.I.; Dulvy, N.K.; Dusic, N.R.; et al. The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 43, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Woodall, C.W.; Amacher, M.C.; Bechtold, W.A.; Coulston, J.W.; Jovan, S.; Perry, C.H.; Randolph, K.C.; Schulz, B.K.; Smith, G.C.; Tkacz, B.; et al. Status and future of the forest health indicators program of the USA. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 177, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Zhang, Y.L. Forest Ecosystem Services in China; China Science Publishing: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  10. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Press Conference on China’s Forest Resources Accounting Research Results. Available online: http://www.forestry.gov.cn.2021.3.12 (accessed on 12 March 2021). (In Chinese)
  11. China Forest Resources Accounting and Integration into Green GDP Research Project Team. Research on the Forest Accounting within the Framework of Green National Economy in China; Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. China Forest Resource Accounting Research Project Team. China’s Forest Resource Accounting; Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  13. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. National Report on Ecological Benefit Monitoring of Conversion of Farmlands to Forest Project (2016); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2018. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  14. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Comprehensive Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Report of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests and Grasses in 2017; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  15. State Forestry Administration of China. Ecological Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Report of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests and Grasses in 2013; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2014. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  16. State Forestry Administration of China. Ecological Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Report of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests and Grasses in 2014; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  17. State Forestry Administration of China. Ecological Benefit Monitoring and Evaluation Report of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests and Grasses in 2015; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  18. Economic and Development Research Center of the State Forestry Administration. Socio-Economic Benefits Monitoring Report (2005–2008); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2005. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  19. Economic and Development Research Center of the State Forestry Administration. Socio-Economic Benefits Monitoring Report (2016–2018); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  20. Carpenter, S.R.; Defries, R.; Dietz, T.; Mooney, H.A.; Polasky, S.; Reid, W.V.; Scholes, R.J. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Research Needs. Science 2006, 314, 257–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. United Nations. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting-Ecosystem Accounting. Available online: https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting (accessed on 29 September 2021).
  22. GB/T 33027-2016; Observation and Methodology for Long-term Forest Ecosystem Research. The National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
  23. GB/T 35377-2017; Indicators System for Long-term Observation of Forest Ecosystems. The National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese)
  24. GB/T 38582-2020; Specification for the Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Service. The National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
  25. GB/T40053-2021; Specification for Construction on Long-term Observation Research Station of Forest Ecosystems. The National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2021. (In Chinese)
  26. GB/T23233-2009; Evaluation in Project for the Construction of Conversion of Farmlands to Forests. The National Standards of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2009. (In Chinese)
  27. LY/T2573-2016; Specification of Monitoring and Evaluation of Ecological Benefits of Converting Farmlands to Forests Project. State Forestry Administration Forestry Industry Standards: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
  28. Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farberk, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; Neill, R.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. LY/T 2407-2015; Technical Manual on Assessing Forest Resources Assets. State Forestry Administration Forestry Industry Standards: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese)
  30. LY/T1757-2008; Indicators for Monitoring and Assessment of Socio-economic Impacts of the Program for Conversion of Farmlands to Forests. State Forestry Administration Forestry Industry Standards: Beijing, China, 2008. (In Chinese)
  31. Niu, X.; Wang, B.; Liu, S.; Liu, C.; Wei, W.; Kauppi, P.E. Economical assessment of forest ecosystem services in China: Characteristics and implications. Ecol. Complex. 2012, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Niu, X.; Wang, B.; Wei, W. Chinese forest ecosystem research network: A platform for observing and studying sustainable forestry. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 1008–1016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chen, W.H.; Liu, J.C.; Xu, D.Y. Dynamic analysis of China forestry industries development based on the input-output model. Issues For. Econ. 2012, 32, 236–242. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Munasinghe, M. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development; World bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  35. Xing, M.H.; Huang, G.T.; Zhang, J.B. A review of academic methods and empirical study on evaluation of forest resources. J. Northwest A F Univ. 2007, 7, 30–35. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  36. State Forestry Administration of China. China Forestry Statistical Yearbook (2000–2011); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2000. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. State Forestry Administration of China. China Forestry Development Report (2001–2012); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2001. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Li, B.Z.; Zhu, X.X. Calculation and analysis of investment multiplier effect in China. Econ. Res. Guide 2006, 6, 12–14. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  39. Johns, T.; Maundu, P. Forest biodiversity, nutrition and population health in market-oriented food systems. Unasylva 2006, 57, 34–40. [Google Scholar]
  40. World Health Organization. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chen, H.X.; Luo, J.; Zeng, S.B. Research progress and implementation ways on the effect of forest bathing and relaxation activities on health promotion. Health Res. 2020, 40, 500–508. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, Z.W.; Li, Y. The multiplier effect of increased income on GDP in terms of propensity to consume. Mod. Econ. Inf. 2017, 14, 3. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. National Bureau of Statistics. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  44. Department of Rural Social and Economic Survey of National Bureau of Statistics. China Rural Statistical Yearbook; China Statistical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  45. Deng, L.; Shangguan, Z.P.; Li, R. Effects of the grain-for-green program on soil erosion in China. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2012, 27, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hua, F.; Wang, X.; Zheng, X.; Fisher, B.; Wang, L.; Zhu, J.; Tang, Y.; Yu, D.W.; Wilcove, D.S. Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Song, X.; Peng, C.; Zhou, G.; Jiang, H.; Wang, W. Chinese Grain for Green Program led to highly increased soil organic carbon levels: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Wang, Y.; Feng, X.; Zhao, J.; Deng, L.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, P.; Peng, C.; Fu, B. Quantifying the effects of vegetation restorations on the soil erosion export and nutrient loss on the Loess Plateau. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 573126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development Report; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  50. Liu, J.; Li, S.; Ouyang, Z.; Tam, C.; Chen, X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 9477–9482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Uchida, E.; Rozelle, S.; Xu, J. Conservation payments, liquidity constrains, and off-farm labor: Impact of the Grain-for-Green Program on rural households in China. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 70–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Feng, Q.; Xia, C.; Yuan, W.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Cao, S. Targeted control measures for improving the environment in a semiarid region of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Liu, Z.; Lan, J. The Sloping Land Conversion Program in China: Effect on the Livelihood Diversification of Rural Households. World Dev. 2015, 70, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Li, J.; Feldman, M.W.; Li, S.; Daily, G.C. Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 7721–7726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Wunder, S.; Engel, S.; Pagiola, S. Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 834–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hao, W.; Liu, G.-h.; Li, Z.; Xin, Y.; Fu, B.-J.; Yihe, L. Analysis of the driving forces in vegetation variation in the Grain for Green Program Region, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Liu, Z.; Wang, B.; Zhao, Y.; Niu, X. Effective monitoring and evaluation of Grain for Green Project in the upper and middle reaches of the Yangtze River. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 28, 729–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, H.; Yao, S.; Yin, R.; Liu, G. Assessing the decadal impact of China’s sloping land conversion program on household income under enrollment and earning differentiation. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 61, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Liu, J.; Wang, J.; Li, Z.; Du, Y. Exploring impacts of the Grain for Green program on Chinese economic growth. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 23, 5215–5232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xie, C.; Zhao, J.; Liang, D.; Bennett, J.; Zhang, L.; Dai, G.; Wang, X. Livelihood impacts of the conversion of cropland to forest and grassland program. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2006, 49, 555–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Three-North Shelterbelt System Construction Project Phase 5 (2011–2020); China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  62. National Forestry and Grassland Administration. Natural Forest Resources Protection Project Northeast and Inner Mongolia Key State-Owned Forest Areas Benefit Monitoring Country Report; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  63. State Forestry Administration of China Forest Ecological Service Function Assessment Project Team. Forty Years of Monitoring and Assessment of Forest Resources and Their Ecological Functions in China; China Forestry Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2018. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  64. China Carbon Emissions Network. Available online: http://www.tanpaifang.com/tanguwen/2022/0109/81757.html (accessed on 1 January 2022). (In Chinese).
Ijerph 19 06942 g001 550
Figure 1. Monitoring and evaluation index system of ecological benefit of the CFFG project.
Figure 1. Monitoring and evaluation index system of ecological benefit of the CFFG project.
Ijerph 19 06942 g001
Ijerph 19 06942 g002 550
Figure 2. Monitoring and evaluation index system of the economic benefits of the CFFG project.
Figure 2. Monitoring and evaluation index system of the economic benefits of the CFFG project.
Ijerph 19 06942 g002
Ijerph 19 06942 g003 550
Figure 3. Monitoring and evaluation index system for the social benefits of the CFFG project.
Figure 3. Monitoring and evaluation index system for the social benefits of the CFFG project.
Ijerph 19 06942 g003
Ijerph 19 06942 g004 550
Figure 4. Spatial patterns and achievements in two phases of the CFFG project.
Figure 4. Spatial patterns and achievements in two phases of the CFFG project.
Ijerph 19 06942 g004
Table
Table 1. Evaluation method for the ecological benefit value of the CFFG project.
Table 1. Evaluation method for the ecological benefit value of the CFFG project.
Service CategoriesFunction CategoriesIndicator CategoriesCalculation Formula and Parameter Description
Supportive servicesSoil conservationSoil fixation U s f = C s · G s f / ρ
where Usf is the annual soil fixation value of the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); Cs is the cost required to dig and transport a unit volume of soil (Yuan·m−3); Gsf is the annual soil fixation amount (tons·y−1); and ρ is soil bulk density (g·cm−3)
Reducing nitrogen loss U o f = C N C 1 / R 1 + G P C 1 / R 2 + G K C 2 / R 3 + G o f C 3
where Uof is the annual reducing nutrient loss value of the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); GN, GP, GK and Gof are the reduction in nitrogen, phosphorus potassium and soil organic matter loss (tons·y−1) respectively, due to soil fixation by the assessed stand; C1, C2 and C3 are the fertilizer price of diammonium phosphate, potassium chloride and organic matter (Yuan·ton−1) respectively; R1, R2 and R3 are the nitrogen content of diammonium phosphate fertilizer (%), phosphorus content of diammonium phosphate fertilizer (%) and potassium content of potassium chloride fertilizer (%), respectively.
Reducing phosphorus loss
Reducing potassium loss
Reducing organic matter loss
Nutrient fixationNitrogen retention U N = G N C 1 / R 1
where UN is the value of nitrogen retention in the assessment year (Yuan·y−1); GN is the annual nitrogen retention in the assessment stand (tons·y−1); C1 is the price of diammonium phosphate fertilizer (Yuan·ton−1); R1 is the nitrogen content of diammonium phosphate fertilizer (%);
Phosphorus retention U P = G P C 1 / R 2
where UP is the value of phosphorus retention in the assessment year (Yuan·y−1); GP is the amount of phosphorus retention in the assessment forest year (tons·y−1); C1 is the price of diammonium phosphate fertilizer (Yuan·ton−1); R2 is the phosphorus content of diammonium phosphate fertilizer (%).
Potassium retention U K = G K C 2 / R 3
where UK is the value of potassium retention in the assessment year (Yuan·y−1); GK is the amount of potassium retention in the assessment year (tons·y−1); C2 is the price of potassium chloride fertilizer (Yuan·ton−1); and R3 is the potassium content of potassium chloride fertilizer (%);
Regulative servicesWater ConservationRegulation of water volume U A = G A · C V
where UA is the value of the annual regulation of water volume in the assessed forest (Yuan·y−1); GA is the annual regulation of water volume (m3·y−1); CV is the reservoir capacity construction cost (Yuan·m−3)
Water purification U P U = G P U · K W
where UPU is the annual value of water purified by the assessed forest (Yuan·y−1); GPU is the annual volume of water regulation in the assessed forest stand (m3·y−1); KW is the cost of water purification (Yuan·m−3)
Carbon sequestration and Oxygen releaseCarbon sequestration U C = G C · C C
where UC is the annual value of carbon sequestration in the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); GC is the potential annual carbon sequestration of the assessed stand ecosystem (tons·y−1); and CC is the price of carbon sequestration (Yuan·ton−1)
Oxygen release U O = G O · C O
where UO is the value of annual oxygen release from the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); GO is the annual oxygen release from the assessed stand (tons·y−1); and CO is the price of manufacturing oxygen (Yuan·ton−1).
Purifying the atmosphereProviding negative ions U N I = 5.256 × 10 15 A · H · K N I · ( Q N I - 600 ) · F / L
where UNI is the annual value of negative ions provided by the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); KNI is the cost of negative ion production (Yuan·each−1); QNI is the concentration of negative ions in the assessed stand (pcs·cm−3); L is the life span of negative ions (min); H is the stand height (m); A is the stand area (ha); F is the forest ecological function correction factor
Sulfur dioxide absorption U S D = G S D · K S D
where USD is the annual value of SO2 absorbed by the assessed forest stand (Yuan·y−1); GSD is the annual amount of SO2 absorbed by the assessed forest stand (kg·y−1); KSD is the treatment cost of SO2 (Yuan·kg−1)
Fluoride absorption U F = G F · K F
where UF net is the annual water purification value of the assessed forest Yuan·y−1); GF is the annual fluoride uptake of the assessed forest stand (kg·y−1); KF is the treatment cost of fluoride (Yuan·kg−1)
Nitrogen oxide absorption U N O = G N O · K N O
where UNO is the annual value of water purified by the assessed forest (Yuan·y−1); GNO is the annual amount of NOx absorbed by the assessed forest stand (kg·y−1); KNO is the treatment cost of NOx (Yuan·kg−1)
Reducing total suspended particulates (TSP) U L = ( G T S P − G P M 10 − G P M 2.5 ) · K T S P + U P M 10 + U P M 2.5
where UL is the assessed stand annual potential reducing dust value (Yuan·y−1); GTSP is the assessed stand annual reduced TSP volume (Yuan·kg−1); GPM10 is the assessed stand annual reduced PM10 volume (Yuan·kg−1); GPM2.5 is the assessed stand annual reduced PM2.5 volume (Yuan·kg−1); UPM10 is the assessed stand annual reduced PM10 value (Yuan·y−1). UPM2.5 is the value of annual reduced PM2.5 in the assessed forest stand (Yuan·y−1); KTSP is the cost of dust reduction and cleanup (Yuan·y−1)
Reducing PM10 U P M 10 = G P M 10 · C P M 10
where CPM10 is the cost of PM10 cleanup (Yuan·kg−1)
Reducing PM2.5 U P M 2 . 5 = G P M 2 . 5 · C P M 2 . 5
where CPM2.5 is the cost of PM2.5 cleanup (Yuan·kg−1)
Forest ProtectionWind and sand prevention U P W = G P W · K P W
where UPW is the value of wind and sand control in the assessed stands (Yuan·y−1); KPW is the cost of sand fixation by straw-checkerboard (Yuan·ton−1); and GPW is the mass of sand fixation in the assessed forests (tons·y−1).
Farmlands protection U F P = V a · M a · K a · A F
where UFP is the value of the farmlands protection function of the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); Va is the price of crops and pasture (Yuan·kg−1); Ma is the average increase in crop and pasture production (kg·ha−1·y−1); Ka is the conversion coefficient that average 1 ha of farmlands shelterbelt can protect 19 ha of farmlands; AF is the area of farmlands shelterbelt (ha)
Provisional servicesBiodiversitySpecies conservation U T o t a l = ( 1 + 0.1 ∑ m = 1 x E m + 0.1 ∑ n = 1 y B n + 0.1 ∑ r = 1 z O r ) · S I · A ( i = 1 ,   2 ,   ⋯ ,   n )
where UToatl is the annual value of biodiversity conservation in the assessed stand (Yuan·y−1); Em is the endangerment index of species m in the assessed stand or region; Bn is the endemic species index of species n in the assessed stand or region; Or is the old tree age index of species r in the assessed stand or region; x is the number of species for calculating the endangerment index; y is the number of species for calculating the endemic species index; z is the number of species for calculating the old tree age index; Sl is the amount of species diversity conservation value per unit area (Yuan·ha−1·y−1); A is the area of the stand (ha)
Note: All constant parameters such as prices, coefficients and indices in the table are quoted from the National Report on Monitoring the Ecological Benefits of the CFFG Projects (2017) [14].
Table
Table 2. Evaluation method of the economic benefit value of the CFFG project.
Table 2. Evaluation method of the economic benefit value of the CFFG project.
IndicatorsCalculation Formula and Parameter Description
Primary IndustriesEconomic Forest Products=Σ(the amount of harvesting fruits × price + amount of harvesting nuts and oilseeds × price + amount of harvesting tea and beverages ×price + amount of harvesting medicinal herbs × price)
Timber and bamboo harvesting=Σ(Wood harvesting volume × price + bamboo harvesting volume × price)
Forest Plantation=Σ(Production of forest mushrooms × price + production of food under forests × price + production of forest vegetables × price + production of forest tree seedlings × price + production of forest medicinal herbs × price)
Forestry farming=Σ(chicken raising under forests × price + forest duck raising under forests × price + goose raising under forests × unit price) + Σ(forest pig production × price + forest cattle production × price + forest sheep production × price) + Σ(forest bee and honey production × price)
Secondary IndustriesWood processing=Σ(volume of wood processing × price) × contribution factor of fallow to wood processing
Forestry chemical products manufacturing=Σ(Volume of forest chemical product manufacturing × price) × contribution factor of fallowing to forest chemical product manufacturing
Woody oilseeds, fruits and vegetables, tea beverages and others processing and manufacturing=Σ(amount of oilseed processing and manufacturing × price) × contribution coefficient of fallow to woody oilseed processing and manufacturing + Σ(amount of fruits and vegetables processing and manufacturing × price) × contribution coefficient of fallow to fruits and vegetables processing and manufacturing + Σ(amount of tea and beverage processing and manufacturing ×price) × contribution coefficient of fallow to tea and beverage processing and manufacturing
Forest medicines=Σ(sum of herb medicines processed and manufactured × price) × contribution factor of fallow to herb medicines processing
Third industriesForestry production services=ΣBusiness income of forestry production service agencies × contribution factor of fallow to forestry production service agencies
Forestry professional technical Services=Σbusiness income of professional forestry technical service agencies × contribution coefficient of fallow to professional forestry technical service agencies
Ecotourism and forestry recreation services=Σbusiness income of ecotourism base × contribution coefficient of fallow to ecotourism + Σbusiness income of forest recreation base × contribution coefficient of fallow to forest recreation
Note: All the prices and the contribution coefficients of fallow to each industry were obtained from the survey forms submitted by different counties for monitoring the economic benefits of conversion of farmlands to forest and grassland projects, with reference to the research results of Chen et al. [33]. All the calculations are based on the county level.
Table
Table 3. Evaluation method of social benefit value of the CFFG project.
Table 3. Evaluation method of social benefit value of the CFFG project.
IndicatorsCalculation Formula and Parameter Description
Development of Social BusinessLabor EmploymentEmployment in grain for grain project=Σ(Average wage income of fallow farmers × number of people directly employed) × increase coefficient of employment in fallow farmers + Σnumber of people employed near the fallow farmlands × per capita transportation, accommodation and maintenance costs for working outside
Transferring of labor from farming=Σ(Number of laborers transferred × coefficient of contribution of fallow to labor transferring × average working wage level)
Labor quality EnhancementEmployee Training=Σ(Cumulative cost of farming skills training + Cumulative cost of listening to farming policy advocacy + Cumulative cost of farming employment training)
Cultural EducationEcological education base=ΣNumber of people received employment education in display and education bases for fallowed farmers × cultural and educational input per capital
Eco-cultural productions=Σ(Number of cultural works displayed × pricing + number of cultural works performed × ticket price + number of cultural works published × price)
Tourism CareerEcotourism=ΣEcotourism output value × contribution coefficient of fallow to ecotourism × forest tourism industry driving coefficient
Optimize the social structureOptimizing urban and rural structureVillage greening and beautification contribution=ΣNumber of people benefited by greening health × 0.3 × per capital medical cost
Project investment contribution=ΣTotal investment in CFFG project in × investment multiplier of the project
Optimizing consumption structureSpecial economic forest products consumption=ΣNumber of people consuming special economic forest products × 0.13 × per capital medical expenses
Optimizing revenue structureIncome from CFFG project=ΣForestry income of households on fallowed farmlands
Improving social service functionsPoverty alleviation through fallowCovering the poor=ΣFallowed area of poor households× fallowed subsidy standard × fallowed project investment multiplication factor = Σ(fallowed area × average percentage of fallowed area of poor households) ×fallowed subsidy standard × fallowed project investment multiplication factor
income from forest rangers=Σ(ratio of the number of forest rangers in each province to the total area of fallow farmlands and forest land in each province) × financial subsidy standard for forest rangers
Promoting the development of social organizationsNew Forestry Management entitiesThe size of the new forestry entity of the fallow project=ΣNew forestry management entities in each province fallowed forestry output value × new forestry management entity driving coefficient
Households benefited by fallowed new forestry business entities leading =Σ(value of social stability + value of technical promotion) = Σnumber of fallowed households benefited by new forestry business entities × per capita cost of maintaining stability + Σarea of fallowed households benefited by new forestry business entities× average cost of forestry technology promotion
Notes: (1) According to the study by the World Bank, the coefficient of increase in forest employment is 2.2–4.2. Given that, after the development of forest economy and special economic forest on fallowed land, the ability of fallowed land to absorb labor force employment is enhanced, the median value of 3.2 is taken [34,35]; (2) Referring to the forest tourism industry driving coefficient of 3.58–5.97 in China from 2000 to 2011, the industry driving coefficient has been showing an increasing trend. Therefore, the highest value of 5.97 is taken for the past 5 years [36,37]; (3) Based on the long-term investment multiplier model, the long-term marginal consumption propensity of Chinese residents is 0.25, and the long-term investment multiplier is 1.33. Based on the short-term investment multiplier model, the short-term investment multiplier of Chinese residents is about 1.4. The long-term investment multiplier of 1.33 is chosen from the long-term investment consideration of the CFFG project [38]; (4) 0.13 of per capita medical cost. According to the survey, among more than 20 secrets of longevity, four to six of which are related to dietary health, the role of dietary nutrition on health is second only to genetics, and the health contribution rate is 13%, which is much larger than the role of medical factors [39,40]; (5) 0.3 of per capita medical costs, referring to the data on the relationship between the implementation of forest recreation and medical costs in Germany. According to relevant reports, Germany’s total national medical cost payment was reduced by 30% after the implementation of forest recreation programs [41]; (6) income multiplier for rural residents, according to the research results of “The multiplier effect of increasing income on GDP from the propensity to consume” [42]. The income multipliers for rural residents and urban residents are about 5 and 3, respectively, in China;(7) other average costs refer to China’s Statistical Yearbook, 2019 [43], China’s Rural Statistical Yearbook, 2019 [44], etc. All the calculations are based on the county level.
Table
Table 4. National ecological benefits of the CFFG project in 2019.
Table 4. National ecological benefits of the CFFG project in 2019.
CategoriesComponentsValue Volume (Million Yuan·y−1)Percentage (%)
Supporting servicesSoil conservation129,8519.16
Accumulation of nutrients by forests18,6171.31
Regulating servicesWater conservation463,02232.68
Oxygen release and carbon sequestration223,01715.74
Atmospheric purification310,17521.89
Forest protection65,4354.62
Provisioning servicesBiodiversity conservation206,74714.59
Total 1,416,864100
Table
Table 5. Economic value of the CFFG project in 2019.
Table 5. Economic value of the CFFG project in 2019.
ProjectsSub-ItemsValue Volume (Million Yuan·y−1)Percentage (%)
Primary IndustrySubtotal148,30558.05
Value of economic forest products84,223
Value of timber and bamboo harvesting18,707
Value of forest plantation36,630
Value of forest farming8745
Secondary IndustrySubtotal65,45325.62
Value of timber processing34,992
Value of forest chemical product manufacturing6374
Woody oil seeds, fruits and vegetables, tea beverages, etc. processing and manufacturing value20,363
Processing value of forest medicinal herbs3724
Tertiary IndustrySubtotal41,72816.33
Forestry production service value11,158
Forestry professional and technical service value2986
Eco-tourism and forest recreation service value27,584
Total 255,486100
Table
Table 6. Social value of the CFFG project in 2019.
Table 6. Social value of the CFFG project in 2019.
ProjectsSub-ItemsValue Volume (Million Yuan·y−1)Percentage (%)
Development of social undertakingsSubtotal447,42061.06
Value of employment absorbed by farming retreat142,868
Value of labor transfer from farming192,060
Training value of farming fallow886
Value of ecological education bases12,236
Value of ecological cultural works415
Ecological tourism value98,955
Optimization of social structureSubtotal247,95933.84
Village greening and beautification contribution value99,079
Contribution value of fallow investment28,227
Value of consumption of special economic forest products15,397
Value of income from conversion of farmlands to forest105,256
Improving social servicesSubtotal62260.85
Value of covering the poor population5635
income from forest rangers591
Promoting the development of social organizationsSubtotal31,0914.24
Scale value of new type of forestry management entities 29,633
Value of households benefited by fallowed new forestry business entities1458
Total 732,696100
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, S.; Wang, B.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, G. Comprehensive Monitoring and Benefit Evaluation of Converting Farmlands into Forests and Grasslands in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116942

AMA Style

Li S, Wang B, Zhang S, Chen Y, Zhao G. Comprehensive Monitoring and Benefit Evaluation of Converting Farmlands into Forests and Grasslands in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(11):6942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116942

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Shidong, Bing Wang, Sheng Zhang, Yingfa Chen, and Guangshuai Zhao. 2022. "Comprehensive Monitoring and Benefit Evaluation of Converting Farmlands into Forests and Grasslands in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 11: 6942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116942

APA Style

Li, S., Wang, B., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., & Zhao, G. (2022). Comprehensive Monitoring and Benefit Evaluation of Converting Farmlands into Forests and Grasslands in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6942. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116942

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop