To mitigate or reverse ecosystem degradation, China has invested huge sums of money since 1978 in ecological restoration projects such as the Three North Shelter Forest Project (TNSFP), Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP), and Grain for Green Program (GGP). However, a lack of effective evaluation methods has made it difficult to tell whether these programs were cost-effective. In the present study, we improved the input-output evaluation method to evaluate how the cost-effectiveness of these ecological restoration projects has changed over time. Specifically, we compared the costs and benefits before and after implementing the three restoration programs. The annual net benefits were 461.7×10⁹ RMB for the TNSFP, 2930.5×10⁹ RMB for the NFCP, and 530.1×10⁹ RMB for the GGP. The corresponding net benefits per unit area were 6.5×10³, 17.6×10³, and 18.2×10³ RMB hm^-2 a^-1, respectively. These values equal 29.3%, 328.9%, and 77.0% of the costs of these investments. Among the six ecological restoration measures, establishing fruit tree plantations in farmland and degraded land and protecting vegetation to allow natural recovery generated net benefits in every Chinese province. Afforestation of degraded land, aerial seeding afforestation, and afforestation of farmland produced net negative benefits (i.e., losses) in some areas. Due to large differences in socioeconomic conditions and resource endowments among China's diverse regions, it is necessary to respect these differences and design ecological restoration strategies tailored to local conditions. Our improved cost-benefit analysis for ecosystem services can help governments choose better land uses and improve ecological conservation strategies to maximize both their ecological success and their cost-effectiveness.