退耕还林是中国最大的生态恢复项目，烧钱无数，对其价值和功能评估其价值和意义不言而喻。西安交大和斯坦福大学合作发表了一篇Pnas文章（见附文2）。

2008年4月，通过对西安周至县南部四个山区乡镇20个村庄，近1000人调查，收集到2007年的村民经济相关数据。数据发现，参与退耕还林的村民收入略高于未参与的村民（统计上没区别），参与退耕还林项目的村民在农田种植、主要作物收入、小生意收入、打工收入、畜牧补助收入均略低于未参与者（统计上没区别），退耕还林参与者得到的唯一好处便是政府补贴（统计上有差别）。

虽然研究只有2007年的数据，并不能很好的体现当地经济的动态。毕竟老百姓要在那里生活一辈子，而不是一年。但这样的研究本身很有价值，可以给我们提供参考，理解退耕还林到底给老百姓带来了什么，工程是否能可持续地进行下去。 故事可笑的地方在于各方的解读。

Science 首先评论了这篇文。编辑说道：“参与退耕还林项目的村民经济收入增加，特别是中低收入家庭。项目参与者与为参与者之间收入差别虽然减少了（评注：这啥意思呐？），但是退耕还林项目所期待的雇佣关系依旧没有改变。只有林业补助是不行的，也行应该将林业相关的其它活动或畜牧补助也纳入进去”  
（Participation in the program increased household income, especially for low- and medium-income households. Income inequality was less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that did not; however, it did not change the traditional employment of the participants in the way that had been anticipated—many were still involved in forestry-related activities or animal husbandry. ）

Science编辑的评论实在而中肯，还给出了一些建议。然而看看中国的Science（科学网和科学时报）的报到你就会难过了。科学网以“报告认为中国退耕还林项目收效显著”为题，说“美国斯坦福大学研究人员日前在美国《国家科学院学报》上发表研究报告认为，中国在农村地区实施的退耕还林项目收效显著——在为农民带来经济收益的同时，也在很大程度上恢复了此前受到侵蚀的林地。”，其它报纸，媒体如财经网、中国经济网、搜狐网均是照搬抄袭，瞎写一通，而其它网站则是对“发文”大肆歌颂一番，对问题实质退耕还林则一笔带过，如，西安交大公共政策与管理学院：我院人口所教师论文在美国科学院院报上在线发表、西安交大：人口所教师论文在美国科学院院报上在线发表、生物通：Science点评西安交大最新PNAS文章、中国教育和科研计算机网： 西安交大一论文在PNAS发表并被Science文摘报道、陕西省教育厅：西安交大一论文在PNAS发表并被Science文摘报道。相比之下，外国媒体则关注问题本身，如Science Daily： Reforesting Rural Lands in China Pays Big Dividends, Researchers Say 和 Stanford Universitiy News： Reforesting rural lands in western China pays big dividends, Stanford researchers say。

不比不知道，一比吓一跳。这样的科学新闻还不如行政消息可靠呢。 海里的信息之中，就Pnas和Science中的故事是真的，而能读懂Science和pnas文章的人少得可怜，可叹的是能读懂外文文献的人又没权限阅读Science和pnas。 中国人是不是疯了。。。




附件：
1.  Science的报道评论：

Science 3 June 2011:
Vol. 332 no. 6034 p. 1129
DOI: 10.1126/science.332.6034.1129-b
Editors' Choice
Policy

Measuring Subsidy Success
Barbara R. Jasny

After devastating mudslides and floods in 1998 killed thousands of people and displaced millions, the Chinese government undertook a massive effort to fight erosion, called the Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP). Under the SLCP, farmers on steep slopes in the Yangtze and Yellow River basins have been given cash subsidies and rice in exchange for allowing their farmland to be restored to forest or grassland and finding jobs other than farming. Part of the goal was to promote a change in the work activities of the people living in these areas to something that would be more sustainable for the ecosystem. Li et al. surveyed 20 villages containing participants and nonparticipants in 2008 to determine the effects of this program on the economics of people in a rural area of western China. Participation in the program increased household income, especially for low- and medium-income households. Income inequality was less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that did not; however, it did not change the traditional employment of the participants in the way that had been anticipated—many were still involved in forestry-related activities or animal husbandry.

Ref.  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 7721 (2011).
http://www.sciencemag.org/conten ... 2-9bbc-c9e6f6100b14


2. Pnas文章：
Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China
Jie Lia,1, Marcus W. Feldmanb,c, Shuzhuo Lia, and Gretchen C. Dailyc,d,1

a Institute of Population and Development Studies, School of Public Policy and Administration, Xian Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710049, China;
bMorrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies and
cDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020; and
dThe Natural Capital Project, Woods Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020
Contributed by Gretchen C. Daily, February 17, 2011 (sent for review July 11, 2010)
Abstract
As payment for ecosystem services (PES) programs proliferate globally, assessing their impact upon households’ income and livelihood patterns is critical. The Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) is an exceptional PES program, in terms of its ambitious biophysical and socioeconomic objectives, large geographic scale, numbers of people directly affected, and duration of operation. The SLCP has now operated in the poor mountainous areas in China for 10 y and offers a unique opportunity for policy evaluation. Using survey data on rural households’ livelihoods in the southern mountain area in Zhouzhi County, Shaanxi Province, we carry out a statistical analysis of the effects of PES and other factors on rural household income. We analyze the extent of income inequality and compare the socio-demographic features and household income of households participating in the SLCP with those that did not. Our statistical analysis shows that participation in SLCP has significant positive impacts upon household income, especially for low- and medium-income households; however, participation also has some negative impacts on the low- and medium-income households. Overall, income inequality is less among households participating in the SLCP than among those that do not after 7 y of the PES program. Different income sources have different effects on Gini statistics; in particular, wage income has opposite effects on income inequality for the participating and nonparticipating households. We find, however, that the SLCP has not increased the transfer of labor toward nonfarming activities in the survey site, as the government expected.

J. Li, M. W. Feldman, S. Li, G. C. Daily. Rural household income and inequality under the Sloping Land Conversion Program in western China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2011; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1101018108