The Foresight report's acceptance of the need to protect natural services like flood protection and clean air is undone by its support for greenfield development in the south and east, warn conservation groups.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds issued a joint statement deploring the assumption that conflict between the value of built development in the south and east and the value of undeveloped land is inevitable.
They say the analysis undervalues the environmental goods such as biodiversity that countryside delivers.
"Without an effective planning system to ensure that the priceless things that people value are not ignored, a market-led approach to development would threaten natural beauty and unspoilt countryside," said CPRE chief executive Shaun Spiers.
"Future pressures mean that land needs to deliver multiple benefits - something that we have recently highlighted with our Green Belts: a Greener Future report, which shows how green belts already deliver much more than containment of urban sprawl, and how they can be improved in the future. While much of it is very valuable, the report ignores some of its own insights in drawing on narrow evidence concerning the impact of housing and transport development on the character and tranquillity of the countryside - and the value that people place on them.
RSPB chief executive Sir Graham Wynne welcomed the report's strategic viewpoint but said all its gains would potentially be undermined by the south and east building issue.
"Any analysis of this part of the country, and the pressures it faces, needs to take account of the difficult to measure values of a beautiful landscape rich in wildlife, and all the natural services such an environment provides," he said.
"We must not forget the significant degradation that the environment in this part of the country has already experienced, such as the dramatic and destructive loss of our heathlands. In failing to adequately recognise these values, the report conflicts with its own stated aim of considering the needs future generations may have from land."
The two organisations said the Government should take on board the report's strategic insights and ignore its narrow economic analysis of the housing market and transport costs.
