The chapter summarizes work conducted under the UK National Ecosystem Assessment and the ESRC SEER project. This synthesizes valuation studies of the effects of land-use change on agricultural output, greenhouse gases, open-access recreation, and urban greenspace. All effects are valued in economic terms and contrasted with an assessment of the costs of maintaining present levels of biodiversity. The valuation models are spatially explicit, revealing the effect that underlying variation in the natural environment has on mitigating or exacerbating effects. Various scenarios of change are appraised over an extended period of time. Results suggest that sole adherence to the maximization of market values can lead to net losses when other impacts are assessed. In contrast, changes which emphasize both market and non-market effects can yield substantially greater benefits for society.

We combine natural science modelling and valuation techniques to present economic analyses of a variety of land use change scenarios generated for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Specifically, the agricultural, greenhouse gas, recreational and urban greenspace impacts of the envisioned land use changes are valued. Particular attention is given to the incorporation of spatial variation in the natural environment and to addressing issues such as biodiversity impacts where reliable values are not available. Results show that the incorporation of ecosystem services and their values within analyses can substantially change decisions.

C. Obst 'et al'. provide a welcome opportunity to clarify the difference between environmental-economic cost-benefit analyses (such as ours) and environmental accounting exercises [such as the UN-SEEA initiative]. Accounting studies attempt to assess the total value of goods related to ecosystem services in a manner comparable to that used for market-priced goods in national accounts. A decline in the ecosystem services account over time signals a potential need to invest in underlying natural capital. However, such accounts do not indicate the most cost-effective form of that investment. Environmental economic analyses such as ours typically consider changes in value from the status quo that alternative investments provide, and identify those that yield higher value for money. The two approaches are complements rather than substitutes and serve differing but highly compatible elements of the decision-making process.

Landscapes generate a wide range of valuable ecosystem services, yet land-use decisions often ignore the value of these services. Using the example of the United Kingdom, we show the significance of land-use change not only for agricultural production but also for emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases, open-access recreational visits, urban green space, and wild-species diversity. We use spatially explicit models in conjunction with valuation methods to estimate comparable economic values for these services, taking account of climate change impacts. We show that, although decisions that focus solely on agriculture reduce overall ecosystem service values, highly significant value increases can be obtained from targeted planning by incorporating all potential services and their values and that this approach also conserves wild-species diversity