Agriculture Expansion in Franklin County Massachusetts: Analysis of Trade-Off Scenarios Between Agriculture Production and Ecosystem Services

Abstract

Proposed food system developments outlined under the New England Food Vision (NEFV) require clearing over 6 million acres of forested land for conversion into agriculture. Franklin County, Massachusetts was used as a proxy for analyzing the greater New England landscape and to model the tradeoffs between ecosystem services of nutrient retention and carbon storage under five unique land-use scenarios. I hypothesize that because forested land cover provides the greatest capacity to sequester carbon and to reduce nutrient export, the value of these ecosystem services will not be outweighed by the projected increases in agriculture production.

I developed land-use scenarios based on USDA soil capability class and current land-use codes, current conservation restrictions as well as BioMap2 future conservation goals. I used the InVEST Natural Capital 3.1.0 geospatial modeling tools, including the Nutrient Retention and Carbon Storage modules, to quantify and value ecosystem services. Valuation of nutrient pollution was estimated under two different mitigation strategies including Wastewater Treatment (WWT) and Nutrient Management Plans (NMP) costs. The value of agriculture products was derived from the area converted into pasture or cropland from forests based on the NEFV dietary guidelines. I then estimated the wholesale value of vegetables, grass-fed beef, dairy, lamb and wool.

The model predicts that the combined value to society ranges from a net present value (NPV) of $99 million under the baseline land use pattern, to net loss of $307 million under scenario 5 with NMP costs. When considering the costs of the WWT the net value nearly doubles, with a range of $184 million under the baseline scenario to $557 million under scenario 5. I conclude that maintaining the baseline land use pattern or scenario 4, which has limited agriculture expansion in the county, is the most sustainable option, and that all future conservation measures should be pursued to secure the value of ecosystem services for future generations. Pursuing the NEFV will cause wide scale destruction of ecosystem services that outweigh the value of increased local food production.