This research applies and compares the Agroforestry Accounting System (AAS) and the lightly revised System of National Accounts (SNA) in five cork oak farms in Andalusia, Spain, in 2010. We value eighteen economic activities, eleven of which are managed by individual farmers and seven of which are overseen by government. Our objectives are to measure and compare ecosystem services (ES), gross value added (GVA) and environmental income (EI). The comparison takes into account the valuation of products at producer, basic and social prices. Our most noteworthy novelty is that the AAS proposal incorporates the environmental income as a variable which serves as a reference value for the condition of economic sustainability of ecosystem service consumption. Our results show that ES and GVA estimates vary depending on the omission/measurement of auto-consumed/donated non-commercial intermediate services and nature based activity with zero ES value represents nature’s free physical service contribution to the farms net value added. Farms AAS ecosystem services at social prices contribute to 64% of final product consumption, and ES at basic prices represent 1.2 times the ES at social prices. Farm revised SNA ecosystem services at basic prices are 0.5 times the AAS ecosystem services at social prices.

本研究应用并比较了2010年西班牙安达卢西亚的5个软木橡树农场的农林业会计系统（AAS）和国民账户制度（SNA）的轻微修订。我们重视18项经济活动，其中11项由个体农民管理其中七个由政府监督。我们的目标是测量和比较生态系统服务（ES），总增加值（GVA）和环境收入（EI）。比较考虑了按生产者价格，基本价格和社会价格进行的产品评估。我们最值得一提的新颖之处在于，AAS提案将环境收入作为一个变量，作为生态系统服务消费的经济可持续性条件的参考值。我们的结果表明，ES和GVA估算值的变化取决于自动消费/捐赠的非商业中间服务的省略/测量，ES值为零的自然活动表示自然对农场净增加值的免费实物服务贡献。以社会价格计价的农场AAS生态系统服务占最终产品消费的64％，基本价格的ES代表社会价格的ES的1.2倍。以基本价格计算的农场修订的国民账户体系生态系统服务是按社会价格计算的AAS生态系统服务的0.5倍。以社会价格计算的市盈率的2倍。以基本价格计算的农场修订的国民账户体系生态系统服务是按社会价格计算的AAS生态系统服务的0.5倍。以社会价格计算的市盈率的2倍。以基本价格计算的农场修订的国民账户体系生态系统服务是按社会价格计算的AAS生态系统服务的0.5倍。