Ecosystem services: response.

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 ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]) 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. A. Graham et al. criticize our use of “the value of nonmarket goods such as biodiversity.” Although we valued nonmarket greenhouse gas emissions and recreation, we explicitly did not attempt to define biodiversity in terms of economic values; instead, we applied a quantitative constraint prohibiting the degradation of biodiversity within our scenario analyses and examined the costs this would entail, finding them to be minor relative to other values. Graham et al. 's critique that we should not compare nonmarket values for ecosystem services with the market price of agricultural output ignores the fact that, as stated, we are conducting an economic analysis of marginal changes from the status quo and not attempting to assess the total value of food. In such assessments of changes, the use of market prices is standard ([ 3 ][3]). Indeed, there is an argument ([ 3 ][3]) that such analyses should subtract subsidies (including income support), which would reduce agricultural values ([ 4 ][4]). Graham et al. also question the possible increase in yields attributable to climate change. We do believe that UK farming will generally benefit from warmer temperatures but caution that [as detailed in ([ 5 ][5])] within areas of lower rainfall, increased drought could potentially reduce or even reverse these gains. We agree with R. Aspinall and P. Gregory that it would be better to consider net profits rather than farm gate prices, although again this would have reduced estimates of agricultural values. The need to link land use to its ecosystem service impacts favored our use of Agricultural Census ([ 6 ][6]) data, which omits profits. We are currently addressing this through a link to the Farm Business Survey ([ 7 ][7]) database. However, we disagree with the authors' contention that we should have included the added-value of post-farm food processing. Aside from the fact that the UK food processing industry is a major importer of non-UK produce, such an approach would be analogous to valuing timber at the price of fine furniture. It is the raw material value that is relevant here. Similarly, our analysis explicitly links agricultural land use to its impacts on the ecosystem service considered. 1. [↵][8] United Nations, European Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, “System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework, prepublication (white cover)” (2012); . 2. [↵][9] United Nations, European Commission, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank, “System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Experimental Ecosystem Accounting, pre-publication (white cover)” (2013); [http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea\_white\_cover.pdf][10]. 3. [↵][11] 1. H. M. Treasury , The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (The Stationery Office, London, 2003). 4. [↵][12] 1. I. J. Bateman, 2. A. A. Lovett, 3. J. S. Brainard , Applied Environmental Economics: A GIS Approach to Cost-Benefit Analysis (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003). 5. [↵][13] 1. C. Fezzi 2. et al ., Env. Res. Econ., 10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x (2013). doi:10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x [OpenUrl][14][CrossRef][15] 6. [↵][16] Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, June Agricultural Census (Edina, Manchester, UK, 2010). 7. [↵][17] Rural Business Research, “Farm Business Survey” (2013); [www.fbspartnership.co.uk][18]. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #ref-5 [6]: #ref-6 [7]: #ref-7 [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [10]: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/eea_white_cover.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [12]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [13]: #xref-ref-5-1 "View reference 5 in text" [14]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEnv.%2BRes.%2BEcon.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1007%252Fs10640-013-9663-x%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [15]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10640-013-9663-x&link_type=DOI [16]: #xref-ref-6-1 "View reference 6 in text" [17]: #xref-ref-7-1 "View reference 7 in text" [18]: http://www.fbspartnership.co.uk