Environ Dev Sustain (2008) 10:193208

DOI 10.1007/s10668-006-9059-y
ORIGINAL PAPER

Farming dynamics and social capital: A case study

in the urban fringe of Mexico City
Pablo Torres-Lima Luis Rodrguez-Sanchez

Received: 24 May 2004 / Accepted: 21 April 2006 / Published online: 5 January 2007
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract Urban development has important implications for farmland preservation and natural resource management in local peri-urban communities. Social
science research on recent changes in rural landscape of mega-cities tends to be
limited to case studies in Latin-American nations. This study analyses the socioecomic dynamics of farming land use and the interactions between multiple cultural
variables and the environment. Fieldwork was carried out during the 20022003
period in rural livelihoods of the five high mountain towns of south Mexico City.
Data obtained from participatory survey and ethnographic techniques were integrated to assess changes in rural landscape and resource management and how
urbanization, deforestation and market oriented agricultural production result in
different livelihoods within a similar urban fringe context. The dynamic of mixture
of urban and rural landscapes is based on farm productivity and social capital factors.
The study concludes that policy support for regional agricultural production systems
through enhancing ecosystems services, environmental protection and economic
development is needed for sustainable development of local communities.
Keywords Cultural landscape Mexico City Peri-urban agriculture Sustainable
livelihoods
Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of
publication of this issue
P. Torres-Lima (&)
Departamento de Produccion Agrcola y Animal, Universidad Autonoma, Metropolitana,
Mexico
e-mail: ptorres@correo.xoc.uam.mx
P. Torres-Lima
Global Environment Program, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University,
Providence, RI, USA
L. Rodrguez-Sanchez
Departamento de Produccion Agrcola y Animal, Universidad Autonoma, Metropolitana,
Mexico

123

194

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

1. Introduction
The structure of urban spaces and the metropolitan dynamics of great cities are
undergoing significant changes due to transformations in the global economy. Most of
these changes are modifying current trends in urbanization (Davis & Henderson,
2003) while at the same time altering the ecosystems on the cities periphery.
Together, these factors entail a transfer of environmental costs for different regional
production systems that interconnect with the urbanization process, such as agriculture, grazing, and forestry. In response to population growth and urban development,
natural resources management and preservation of farmland have become prominent
research and policy issues in agricultural areas near large cities (Sharp & Smith, 2003).
Evaluation of the regional dynamics of peri-urban spaces or of the spatial configuration of changes in land use must take into account the States role in defining urban
environmental policies that promote sustainable development of local peri-urban
communities (Thinh, Artl, Heber, Hennersdorf, & Lehmann, 2002).
In Latin America, there is a trend toward decentralizing urban and populationrelated functions, which can be described as a kind of urbanization focusing more on
a region than on the internal growth of an actual city (Gilbert, 1993). In the megacity that is Mexico City, there is a pattern of urban dispersion that incorporates small
villages and outlying rural areas into a sprawling, complex metropolitan system
(Aguilar & Ward, 2003). Thus, the metropolitan periphery or inner peri-urban space
of Mexico City, a major world metropolitan region, includes a mixture of urban and
rural land uses that appears to be functionally integrated to the city. Over the past
three decades the human dimensions of regional change in this city have clearly
demonstrated that social uncertainties have a higher impact on future environmental
scenarios than do their biological counterparts. The diversity of regional production
systems in this city implies that agricultural processes are connected with urban
regional development. However, the dynamic of this mixture of urban and rural
landscapes in Mexico City remains imprecise and unanalyzed (Aguilar & Ward,
2003). It cries out for a conceptual framework to facilitate description and comparison among regions, since information on agroecosystem capacity in specific
contexts is required (Wood, Sebastian, & Scherr, 2000).
Because urban and rural areas experience continuous transformation in their
social and physical-spatial composition, at the intra-urban level it is easy to see the
city as a mosaic and show the spatial differentiation of socio-demographic variables
(Graizbord, Rowland, & Aguilar, 2003). While some academics have acknowledged
that agricultural landscape components and its magnitude of change should be
related to the farming systems structural influence on the regional landscape
(Mander & Jongman, 1998), it is unkown how agriculture landscape attributes act on
peri-urban settlements, and how they induce a particular farming dynamics and
socio-economic evolution. Equally unresolved is how social capital factors affects
regional development itself. The importance of agriculture as a pivotal element for
peri-urban changes should receive more attention.
One theoretical orientation in this article assumes that farming systems, including
their historical development in the peri-urban landscapes of Mexico City, are part of
a social capital and resulting culture and identity which are the primary determinants
of change within the confines of the regional and local community in the wider
environment. The social and labor organization of Mexico Citys regional production

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

195

systems has historically rested on an interplay of productive roles and socio-cultural

status. The social capital of these regions may be explained by their articulation with
norms and networks that facilitate collective actions for mutual benefits. In this
sense, there are varying degrees and forms of interaction among urban processes and
these regional societies that together shape the extent to which developmental (and
related socio-political and environmental) outcomes are attained (Woolcock, 1998).
Before addressing the issues that merit further investigation, some conceptual
clarifications are essential.
1.1. Peri-urban rural landscape: a conceptual approach
Within most theoretical frameworks, the cultural orientation of urban regional
production systems and their social structure is ambiguous and contradictory. An
elucidation of farming systems in peri-urban areas requires more thorough analysis
than do urban land use studies, which originate either from the perspective of
urban planning or that of regional science, and other studies of contemporary
urban agriculture contexts that have emerged from urban studies or agricultural
technology (Bryld, 2003; Midmore and Jansen, 2003; Tiffen, 2003). Perhaps because
conventional sociohistorical analysis depends on a clear demarcation of urban
and agrarian societies, few studies have been able to capture the dynamic interplay
and complex aspects of the peri-urban agricultural realm (Torres-Lima & Burns,
2002).
In particular, traditional agricultural landscapes are highly valued in many cases
because they are usually extremely heterogeneous. These kinds of traditional
landscapes have many characteristic qualities because they have been the melting
pot of natural elements that for centuries have combined with human activities
(Piorr, 2003). Often the relationships among agricultural regional landscapes and
their inhabitants are accompanied by distinct spatial manifestations, and the great
diversity of socio-spatial situations is the most significant feature in the recent
transformation of peri-urban rural areas. For instance, because various types of land
use are often competing for the same locations in highly urbanized areas (Carsjen &
van der Knaap, 2002), spatial patterns of land use affect the efficiency of public
services, the quality of life, and the sense of community in an area. This includes
provision of infrastructure and utilities, movement of goods and communications,
protection of rural lands and sensitive natural environments, and the support of
agriculture and rural activities (Croissant, 2004). Since land use change has important implications for sustainable livelihoods of local communities, socioeconomic
driving forces in peri-urban agriculture systems within the context of regional
development are explored is this paper.
This study tracks process linkages across different levels of analysis of dominant
trends in agricultural change in the peri-urban farming systems of Mexico City. We
have limited knowledge of recent changes in land use (conversion of forest and
grassland for agriculture and agriculture for urbanization), and of the driving forces
and implications of changes within the context of regional development. Therefore,
cultural features of rural landscapes in Mexico City should be part of the socioeconomic analysis involved in coherent regional development policy. The analysis of
these policy implications and long term metropolitan governance should allow us to
evaluate the agroecosystem management practices and related future livelihood
scenarios.

123

196

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

1.2. Study outline

By applying socioeconomic considerations, this paper focuses on a major force at the
peri-urban area, the interface of agricultural and urban land use in Mexico City.
Through a two-scale (regional and local) research approach, the socio-economic and
environmental influences of farming systems on the urban region may be assessed
accurately, particularly when there has been long-term traditional agricultural
activity in these peri-urban communities. Based on this approach, a perspective is
outlined for an agricultural policy-making process with reference to the urban fringe
of this mega-city. This article examines the dynamics of farming in the peri-urban
area of Mexico City. It draws on concepts of cultural landscape and social capital to
examine potential socio-demographic implications for the planning urban sustainable development policies, including the use of agricultural space.
This article is based on intensive fieldwork carried out during the fall months
of 2002 and the first three months of 2003 in the five high mountain districts of
Mexico City. We surveyed a demographically stratified sample (by the variance of
operating capital, population and location) of 129, 70, 40, 38 and 16 people in
Milpa Alta, Tlalpan, Contreras, Cuajimalpa and Obregon, respectively, with a 95%
level of confidence by using the agricultural active population as a universe. Particularly, we examine the agricultural processes connected with urban regional
development within the framework of the nexus between two categories: (1) land
tenure and cropping systems, and (2) socioeconomic profiles. In pursuit of these
aspects, a variety of qualitative sources were drawn upon. These included over 5
focus groups and three community meetings at which the currents status and the
future of the peri-urban agriculture were discussed by all the attendants. A yearlong ethnographic fieldwork was also conducted including a combination of
unstructured and semi-structured events lasting 1 and 3 hours, conducted at the
homes of farmers discussing farming changes and social capital in the five periurban districts.

2. Rural landscape and peri-urban agriculture in Mexico City

Today, if one approaches this ancient city from the south, patches of rural landscapes
can be seen within its urban hinterland. This is notable in the vegetable and ornamental flower growing area of Xochimilco, the corn/cactus belt of Milpa Alta and
the forested area of Tlalpan, which still have the feeling of classic rural environment.
The integration of modern rural areas into Mexico City began 40 years ago as this
mega-city speeded up its rapid urban and industrial expansion. The proximity of
these rural landscapes to urban centers and markets has been a principal factor in
determining the exchange of labor, resources, and products (Torres-Lima & Burns,
2002).
Most of the land in these areas is forest, farmland, or grazing land. According to
the Programa General de Ordenamiento Ecologico del Distrito Federal, 2001
[General Ecological Policy Program for the Federal District, 2001], there are
88,442 ha of conservation land, which represent 59% of Mexico Citys surface area
(PAOT, 2003). Of this, approximately 2,516 ha can be considered fully urban parks
and forests. The rural area contains nearly 2% of the worlds natural resources and
11% of Mexicos, including 1,800 species of wild flora and fauna.

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

197

On average, the natural resources in these areas have a carbon sequestration

capacity of 90 tons/hectare, and they provide 57% of the water consumed in Mexico
City (PAOT, 2003). The most important areas involved in recharging the Valley
of Mexicos aquifer are the Sierras del Chichinautzin and Las Cruces, located
southwest of Mexico City. Their surface areas are 63,929 ha and 23,483 ha, respectively, with an average annual deep infiltration capacity of 2.5 and 2.0 million liters of
rainwater, respectively. Annual precipitation exceeds 1,200 mm of rain (CENTROGEO, 2001).
Mexico Citys conservation land can be classified as 43.9% forest and scrubland,
12.4% pastureland, 32.3% farmland and 11.4% urban (SMA, 2004a). Another
classification system (PAOT, 2003) estimates 57.6% forest, scrubland and pastureland, 30.0% farmland and grazing land, and 12.4% rural villages, urban infrastructure, and irregular settlements. As urbanization and changes in land usage exert
greater pressure on natural resources and the cycles of ecosystems, deforestation has
come to be a critical problem in southwestern Mexico City. An estimated 239 ha
have been lost to illegal cutting, excessive grazing, plant diseases in the forests, fires,
and removal of soil from mountain areas. Illegal removal of soil from mountain areas
accounts for 25 billion tons of soil that were removed from the forests from 1993 to
1997 (CENTROGEO, 2001). Erosion is also a moderate problem (1050 tons per
hectare annually) for most of the conservation land, which constitutes 63% of the
territory. However, 5% and 3% of rural areas in Milpa Alta and Tlalpan, respectively, are at a high risk for erosion (50200 tons per hectare annually, or 22%), and
very high (>200 tons per hectare annually, or 24%), respectively.
The 95% of the soil in Mexico Citys rural areas is not suitable for developing
farming systems, unless changes are made to soil types and vegetation, and with
considerable impact on energy and economics. This is because the slope is greater
than 15%, and there are temperature and precipitation restrictions. However, of the
total conservation land in the five districts in southwestern Mexico City selected for
this study show the following types of land usage: 46.3% forest and scrubland, 17.0%
farmland and 5.8% pastureland. Milpa Alta and Tlalpan are markedly rural, with
regional production systems focusing on agriculture and grazing. By contrast,
Obregon has a more urbanized profile with less land area.
The area devoted to farming has decreased from 31,115 ha to 26,715 ha (1987
2000), or nearly 14% in 13 years. The most rapidly increasing crop in Mexico City is
without a doubt the nopal (prickly pear cactus), whose cultivation areas have grown
from 1,748 ha harvested in 1987 to 4,176 in 2003, for an increase of 139% (SAGARPA, 2003). At present, Mexico Citys agriculturally diverse rural areas produce
the following on an annual basis: 423,000 tons of agricultural products; 7,170 tons of
meat; 2,500 tons of eggs; 100 tons of honey; 15.5 million liters of milk; 17,600 tons of
flowers; and 3,635,000 potted plants, for a total value of US$160 million. Moreover,
Mexico City leads the country in production of prickly pear cactus, Swiss chard and
poinsettias (SAGARPA, 2004) (Table 1).
It is estimated that 69% of conservation land is located on land held in common,
such as 28 ejidos (farming cooperatives) and 7 communities. These 35 settlements
have a total population of 14,257 people, in addition to 9,876 owners of private land
parcels who have 10.2% of the conservation land. The total population of all of these
rural Mexico City areas is 403,000 inhabitants (CENTROGEO, 2001). According to
the XII national census conducted in 2000, the Federal Districts agricultural
workforce totaled 16,484 people. This article will study the regional agricultural

123

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

198

Table 1 Distribution of land use by peri-urban districts in Mexico City

Districts

Cuajimalpa
Contreras
Milpa Alta
Obregon
Tlalpan
Subtotal/Average
Others
Xochimilco
Tlahuac
Rest
Total

Mexico City
conservation
land

Land use
(percentage)

Rural land use (percentage)

Hectare

Urban

Rural

Forest and pasture

Agricultural

Forages

6,593
5,199
28,464
2,735
26,042
69,033
19,409
10,548
6,405
2,456
88,442

7.4
5.9
32.2
3.1
29.4
78.0
22.0
11.9
7.3
2.8
100.0

27
26
6
73
22
31

73
74
94
27
78
69

52.1
64.0
49.2
22.5
44.0
46.3

19.4
7.2
29.0
3.1
26.4
17.0

1.5
2.8
15.8
1.4
7.6
5.8

53
39
100

47
61
0

3.1
0.5
0

41.3
56.0
0

2.6
4.5
0

Source: Adapted from SAGARPA, 2001; PAOT (2002)

production systems in the mountainous areas, which are home to 58% of this
population (INEGI, 2000). Mexico Citys farming population shows particular variation in ruralurban migration as the local and regional urban labour markets
integrate with each other. For example, an estimated 42% of farmers in Milpa Alta
emigrate to urban areas, mainly to sell their products in urban marketplaces and, to a
lesser extent, to work for the government or in service occupations. However, they
do not seek security or benefits in urban jobs; on the contrary, their temporaryrecurrent migratory strategies stem from a knowledge of work and income alternatives related to a regional common social welfare (Torres-Lima & Burns, 2002). In
1998, 49% and 25% (respectively) of fulltime farmers in Milpa Alta and Tlalpan had
income from urban employment (Table 2).
It is estimated that Mexico Citys urban areas are expanding by more than 300 ha
a year, which represents an average annual rate of 6.1% (PAOT, 2003). The average
population of the peri-urban agricultural areas is increasing by 0.14%, with Milpa
Alta leading at 0.42% annually (Aguilar and Ward, 2003). In addition to natural
population growth, pressure is growing because of migration to these peri-urban
Table 2 Distribution of population by peri-urban districts in Mexico City
Agricultural
EAP

Farmers
surveyed

Districts

Population

Average year
growth rate
19902000

Economically
active population
(EAP)

Cuajimalpa
Contreras
Milpa Alta
Obregon
Tlalpan
Subtotal

151,127
221,762
96,744
685,327
580,776
1,735,736

0.14
0.14
0.42
0.14
0.14

60,892
91,898
35,603
289,812
244,509
722,714

517
485
5,074
565
2,931
9,572

38
40
129
16
70
293

0.29
0.42

146,236
113,193
982,143

4,485
2,427
16,484

0
0
293

Others agricultural towns

Xochimilco
368,798
Tlahuac
302,483
Total
2,407,017

Source: Adapted from INEGI (2000); PAOT (2002)

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

199

areas. In 2002, 399 irregular settlements with a population of 22,929 families occupying a total area of 1,587 ha were discovered in the mountain region. The most
critical areas were Tlalpan and Milpa Alta, with (respectively) 179 settlements (6,870
families on 585 ha) and 127 settlements (4,940 families on 369 ha) (PAOT, 2003).
Many of the settlements are located in areas with steep slopes and ravines that entail
high ecological and hydrographic risk for rural regions. Taken as a unit, these trends
mean that more farmland and forest area are being used for housing and urban
services. It is estimated that all land converted to urban use in the coming years will
involve a sacrifice of conservation land (CENTROGEO, 2001).
In the political arena, the local government has passed the Ley Ambiental del
Distrito Federal [Federal District Environmental Law], which regulates land use and
productive activities on conservation land. It is based on two major programs: urban
development and an ecological code for land use. These measures use land zoning to
regulate property rights. Thus, the system for evaluating environmental impact and
the regulations for protected natural areas are the preventive instruments that allow
for rational and sustainable use of the conservation land. In particular, the Programa General de Ordenamiento Ecologico del Distrito Federal 2001 has mandatory provisions for all urban or rural programs in social, economic, demographic and
cultural development, as well as projects, works, services or productive activities that
draw on natural resources. The Ministry of the Environment is committed to promoting equitable, sustainable rural development within the framework of a comprehensive policy that designates Mexico Citys rural areas as areas for conservation,
restoration of natural resources and environmental services, and as an important
region for rural and agroindustrial production. To this end, plans are under way for a
Programa de ordenamiento y control de asentamientos humanos en areas no
urbanizables [Policy and Monitoring Program for Settlements in Areas that Cannot
be Developed] and a Programa para el aprovechamiento sustenky racionalidad del
suelo de conservacion [Program for Sustainable, Rational Use of Conservation
Land] (PAOT, 2002).

3. Farming dynamics
3.1. Land tenure and cropping systems
Land tenure in Mexico Citys mountainous region is characterized by small properties: 67% of farmers work small farms, totaling approximately 14,163 ha. These
figures include the effect of communal and informal land privatization in various
ejidos or communities such as Tlalpan and Milpa Alta, beginning 15 years ago. On
comparing these data with information reported in the VII Agricultural Census
(INEGI, 1991), which includes 5,211 ha of private property and 10,584 ha of communal agricultural property for a total of 15,795 ha, we can calculate that 1,632 ha
have been lost over 13 years. These results coincide with the changing trends in land
usage reported by the Federal Districts seven rural districts, in which the regions
total farmland has not varied more than 15% during the past 44 years, despite
increasing urbanization (Table 3).
The change in agricultural lands has two causes: (a) the loss of 250 ha annually of
agricultural land to urbanization, and the temporary abandonment of agriculture;
and (b) the advance of agriculture and grazing activities into wooded areas, at 854 ha

123

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

200

Table 3 Land tenure distribution and agricultural land extension by peri-urban districts
(percentage)
Districts

Obregon
Cuajimalpa
Contreras
Milpa Alta
Tlalpan

Land tenure

Agricultural land extension

(has)

Private
property

Communal
land

Ejido

Renting

00.5

0.61.0

1.13.0

3.16.0

94
18
58
94
69

2
16
7
1
17

0
63
35
4
7

2
3
0
1
7

44
42
30
54
19

56
50
25
34
24

8
35
6
24

10
6
33

Source: Fieldwork

a year. That is, regional agricultural systems move toward the most sloping, forested
areas as they are displaced by urbanization. The effect of this movement to higher
ground on agriculture and grazing is linked to the problem of the smallholding.
Spaces that offer high profit potential and that can guarantee stability for the temporary landscape of agricultural land are very few in relation to the total available
territory and the average property size per unit of production.
The large non-urbanized spaces, which total approximately 24,957 ha, are still
largely forestland. They are unparcelled communal or ejido property, without formal
agriculture or livestock-raising activities. Only a small part (approximately 5.1%)
has been absorbed into urban use. The results show what little regard farmers have
for the economic potential of forest areas.
The small properties in the regional agricultural systems are becoming fragmented, particularly in Cuajimalpa, Obregon, and Milpa Alta, where approximately
90% of producers have one hectare or less of land. In Contreras and Tlalpan, 45%
and 57% of production, respectively, takes place on plots of more than one hectare.
There are two types of agricultural land: (1) the minifundio, or small farm, which is
profitable enough to be competitive. These farms occupy 66% of the regions land
(11,923 ha) and produce prickly pear cactus, vegetables, and sweet corn; and (2)
larger, low-profit farms that occupy the remaining 33% of the land and produce
[feed] corn, and fodder.
Although cultivation of corn, oats, and prickly pear cactus dominate, many
farmers in Cuajimalpa and Obregon (36%), Contreras (17%), Tlalpan (9%), and
Milpa Alta (5%) grow two or more crops on the same land. Agriculture in
Cuajimalpa is highly diverse, given that it is largely for self-consumption and
supplements family income. By contrast, Milpa Alta is far less diverse because it is
dominated by two single crops: the prickly pear cactus, grown by numerous farmers
on small plots, and corn, which occupies larger expanses of land.
Mexico Citys regional agricultural system is conventional, in which 49% of
farmers use chemical fertilizers, 29% use pesticides and 36% use tractors. In particular, the widespread use of pesticides is related to the critical presence of pests
and diseases, reported by 55% of producers. Organic fertilizer is used by 21% of
farmers, except in Milpa Alta, where 76% of farmers use manure in their prickly
pear fields. Animal-drawn equipment is used only in Contreras, Milpa Alta and
Tlalpan, by 38% of farmers. With the exception of Milpa Alta, where 59% said they
used natural farming methods, the rest of the districts reported less than 20% using

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

201

natural methods. Certified organic agriculture, which is important for the regions
environmental sustainability, is still far from being promoted and developed, given
that less than 5% of the total number of farmers have reported it.
A number of limitations exist on regional agricultural systems, mainly associated
with weather (frost, hail, drought). These critical conditions are reported by 72% of
farmers in Contreras, 67% in Milpa Alta, and 54% in Tlalpan. In addition, 61%
of farmers report the following factors as limiting development of agriculture: lack of
markets, low prices, use of brokers or middlemen, and strong competition from
crops grown outside the region.
Finally, with the exception of Cuajimalpa and Contreras, farmers did not identify
urbanization as a significant or limiting problem for agriculture. This perception
reflects a limited vision of the regions rural landscape and of soil conservation, given
that farmers are still able to use deforestation to expand grazing and farming areas.
3.2. Socioeconomic profiles
Commercial farming that is somewhat competitive and that makes more use of the
workforce can be found in Tlalpan and Cuajimalpa, where 48% of farmers hire
labourers. This is nearly double the figure for the other districts. The low availability
and high cost of a regional agricultural workforce means that mountain agriculture
in Mexico Cityparticularly cultivation of prickly pear cactus in Milpa
Altacontinues to offer employment opportunities for family members. In
Cuajimalpa, Obregon, and Contreras, which are more urban and have a higher level
of basic crop production for self-consumption, (47%, 60% and 78%, respectively),
reported that they work in agriculture and also have jobs in the city. This economic
strategy has allowed most farmers who produce for self-consumption to continue
farming as a supplement to their income from employment in the urban services
sector. In districts where most crops go to market, such as Tlalpan and Milpa Alta,
the percentage of farmers with jobs in the city is less than 30% and 17%, respectively.
Two key factors in the abandonment of agriculture in the five districts studied are
the absence of processing chains that add economic value to agricultural products
and the weak development of group or individual distribution systems that go outside the local area. Another factor is the decrease in these communities social
capital due to the changes in employment patterns produced by urban sprawl, as well
as changes in the rural landscape during the past 50 years. In these areas where rural
and urban areas meet, we can identify three strategies that the farmers follow: (a)
creation of agricultural microenterprises based on higher production of basic crops,
(b) adoption of conventional technology (fertilizers and pesticides) in cultivation
systems, which results in greater impact on the environment, and (c) reduction of
activity or permanent exit from agriculture as a preliminary step to selling the land
(Moissidis & Duquenne, 1997; Sharp & Smith, 2003).
In any case, consumption of regional crops by their producersparticularly corn,
beans, and certain vegetablesis important within the local economy. This is particularly notable in Obregon, Contreras, and Cuajimalpa, where agricultural production supplements the family diet and also provides some income from local sales
of surplus crops. Although corn prices have fallen (down 72% from 1985 to 2000),
corn is still planted more frequently than any other crop in the region. Farmers
continue to plant corn for self-consumption, but they have also sought ways to

123

202

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

increase their income. These include producing fodder for cattle feed, thereby
increasing the value added in the production chain, and growing and selling sweet
corn, which commands a higher price than feed corn.
Another important regional crop is prickly pear cactus, which is grown in Milpa
Alta. Local production meets approximately 80% of national demand, including
Mexico City and cities in northern and central Mexico, as well as exports to the
United States and Japan (Losada et al., 1998). It is almost the only crop that has
been able to carve out a significant geographic and economic market: from 1980 to
2000, prickly pear cactus fields increased by 32%, production shot up 253%, and
yield rose 168% (Torres-Lima, Rodrguez, & Garca, 2000).
Paradoxically, many of these farmers have seen their finances improve thanks to
the tertiary sector; i.e., as a result of current or past employment with the government, in business, education, or other services. However, most farmers have not had
the individual or group capacity to link tertiary activities with agriculture, nor have
they gained full control over the regional distribution networks for their products.
Most farmers in the region (82%), with the exception of those in Contreras and
Cuajimalpa, do not receive direct financial support to finance production or processing. Given their low percentage of farmland and ample, unsettled rural spaces,
Contreras and Cuajimalpa have the highest percentage of farmers receiving government financing (90% and 63%, respectively). This is an example of a policy of
subsidizing the smallest producers in order for them to continue farming the land,
even though productivity levels and competitiveness in the market have not grown
with the financing granted. By contrast, in Milpa Alta and Tlalpan the percentage of
farmers receiving support is lower because their production is more commercial and
competitive, capable of generating higher income for reinvestment. Also, there are
many more farmers in these two districts. However, on a regional level, more than
50% of farmers reported that they did not receive any cash support from the government. Rather, they self-financed from their own farming income and from
employment in the city. Finally, only 30% of the population in the region receives
government training and technical assistance.
In terms of quality of life in the peri-urban areas, we can observe that nearly
100% of farmers receive urban public services, except in Obregon and Cuajimalpa,
where 6% of households lack sewage services and garbage collection or hauling.
With respect to access to health care, the morbidity profile in these areas continues
to be quite similar to that of Mexicos rural communities, despite proximity to
Mexico City. Respiratory illnesses are the most frequent, followed by gastrointestinal illnesses and, in a much lower percentage, chronic degenerative illnesses.
Access to health services varies considerably among different areas. Particularly
notable is that in Contreras, 60% of farmers receive government services for which
an institutional affiliation is required. In Milpa Alta and Tlalpan, which have the
most farming activity of Mexico City, 6073% of the farmers tend to go to the
community health center, while 56% of farmers in Obregon go to private physicians.
Less than 10% of residents throughout the region go to folk medicine practitioners.
Moreover, knowledge of the region and of technical abilities relevant to agriculture
are complemented by the farmers formal education. Of the group surveyed, 15%
had completed at least secondary-level education, led by those in Obregon.
Finally, the farmers perception of the immediate future (the next 5 years) of the
regional agriculture systems is associated with a marked degradation of natural
resources. The one exception is Milpa Alta, where the environmental outlook seems

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

203

less pessimistic. Particularly notable are biophysical problems related to scarcity,

pollution, and deterioration of water quality, and worsening soil quality. In social
terms, farmers see the main short-term problems as abandonment of rural areas, a
diminishing work force, and the regions deteriorating agricultural economy. All this
has occurred despite recognition that technology has improved but has not contributed in any major way to resolving the environmental and social problems of
rural areas in the region. With respect to future use of their lands, 94% to 100% of
farmers surveyed reported that they would continue working them. However, only
5% to 13% of the population interviewed in Milpa Alta, Obregon, and Contreras
have young relatives who want to farm long-term. In Tlalpan, 10% of farmers are
thinking of forming groups in order to continue farming, 82% plan to continue
working the land individually, and 78% have relatives willing to continue farming
over the long term. In addition, Tlalpan was the only district where a very low
percentage (2%) of farmers openly reported a desire to sell their land. Most of the
farmers surveyed ranged from 30 to 60 years of age. Only 27% were older than 60,
except for Cuajimalpa, where the percentage rose to 53%.

4. Peri-urban planning implications

Government policies regarding Mexico Citys agricultural areas conceive of these
spaces as territories subordinate to the needs and benefit of the urban area. The
design and application of programs and regulations are related to: (a) use of rural
areas as a special reserve for urban expansion (residential, roads, garbage dumps);
(b) supply of farm products and food, supplementary and/or seasonal, that fit the
taste in cooking and gastronomic tradition of the citys population; (c) contribution
of environmental goods and services, water, and recharging of aquifers, forest
products, potting soil and other related uses, construction materials, oxygen production, and carbon sequestration, and rural areas for leisure activities; and (d)
supply of labour.
In the past 10 years, urban planning for urban ecosystems and regional production systems in Mexico City has created a falsely conceived trade-off between
the technological-productivist vision and attribution of value to environmental
functions (Pensado, 2003). Many of these policies have taken the form of regulations, which have been carried out on a sectoral basis with no governmental or
social coordination. They often contradict or compete with other regulations and
policies. The institutional strength of the local government has been eclipsed by
the energy of the federal government. Most efforts have focused on environmental
planning, with scientific and technical support, but without strict control over
economic measures that are detrimental to natural resources (Gilbreath, 2003).
These policies have not succeeded in making the urban population (which exerts
most of the pressure on agriculture and conservation land) aware of how interdependent these same policies are with agricultural and forest land, not only for
recreation and diet, but also relative to the supply of environmental services and
economic costs.
However, this dichotomy between optimal use of natural resources and making
the citizenry understand the advantage of using economic instruments (FloresMontalvo, 1995) enables the policies to conceal the federal and local governments
economic and social responsibility for preserving rural areas. This responsibility

123

204

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

covers not only the environment, but also the socio-cultural context, including the
need to design sustainable development policies for the entire city. In addition to
mapping out policies related to social and economic well-being, democratization and
space-usage policies must be implemented with the active participation of the people
who live in rural areas and use the natural resources there.
For years, the regional agricultural production systems have been subjected to a
series of paternalistic, cronyistic policies, with little or no grassroots participation in
development planning. It is true that an important regional social capital exists in the
form of norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement (Sharp & Smith,
2003) connected to traditional socio-cultural community activities involving certain
levels of organization and participation (religious festivals, communal or ejido
meetings, group chores, forest preservation, group management of market stalls).
Public policies have not covered these activities, and in some cases the activities have
been under the control of certain power groups (trade union leaders, political parties, local governments).
Though it is limited, existing group and regional capacity and regulation is based
on land tenure (ejido and communal land) and on the social and economic structures
of integration and association among the farmers who live in the region. This is what
has impeded the potential of a democratic local government to advance toward
sustainable regional development and community or social harmonization in the
face of the dilemmas and pressures of urbanization. A clear example is the dearth of
organizations or local businesses able to provide quality ecosystem management
services. Such groups would use technical assistance, management and sale of
technology, and financing and management of markets as instruments for increasing
the communitys capacity to regulate itself and resolve the problems of local urban
growth.
Sustainable regional development policies in the peri-urban agricultural areas of
Mexico City should not be limited to the technical and budgetary issues of environmental preservation (i.e., areas for aquifer recharge, carbon sequestration, ecotourism projects, or financing of agricultural microenterprises). In sustainable
production systems, it is not enough to have a dynamic regional agricultural economy; policies that support investment and development of agriculture; a robust
institutional capacity for supporting technology, research and dissemination; and
markets that promote healthy environmental products (Wood et al., 2000).
From this perspective, a draft public-policy proposal should cover organization of
regional production systems and address the most important issues in the peri-urban
agricultural areas of Mexico City. It should emphasize development of personal and
institutional capacity for planning and organization, which could restrict certain
types of land usage or promote ecological products and services by implementing
financing programs, introducing technical assistance or creating regulatory frameworks or environmental certification. These types of policies are linked to the
management and participatory administration of natural resources, with the following goals: (a) development of productive local-regional credit, supply and marketing networks; (b) creation and dissemination of agroecological, agroindustrial
and management technologies; (c) citizen participation in planning for sustainable
regional development, including guaranteed housing and adequate services for
future generations; (d) creation of environmental education methods; and (e)
creation of various mechanisms for evaluating socioeconomic and environmental
activities as well as regional agricultural production systems.

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

205

However, these policy goals, environmental improvement and sustainability, must

be examined as institutional principles for the use of natural resources (Veeman
& Politylo, 2003), but not under the premise that such resources are infinitely
abundant. Rather, these principles should be based on a clear understanding of the
current impact on natural resources, which involves heavy criticism of human
activities in regional production systems and urban functioning (Princen, 2003).
These principles can be summarized in two working areas for policy design with
regard to the environment and regional sustainable development in peri-urban areas
of Mexico City.
4.1. Strengthening capacity for community-based management
This policy should promote new forms of citizen participation and organization for
farmers, based on regional social capital and a robust legal framework. The focus
should be on responding to demand for land-use planning, environmental conservation, promotion of economic-productive activities, and supply and maintenance of
urban services and security. This could be reinforced by Consejos Regionales de
Planeacion Territorial Sustentable [Regional Planning Councils for Sustainable
Land Use], which would act as a springboard for the rest of the policies. Part of this
new community management [plan] would involve institutional mechanisms based
on broader regional social capital, which would enable farmers to use environmentally compatible technology in order to recognize and reduce the negative
impacts of agriculture on regional ecological processes. It would also enable them to
recognize that land use in Mexico City is undergoing an important change vis-a-vis
agriculture and forest land. This also requires creation of regional monitoring and
evaluation systems for agricultural production in order to report data and indicators
related to changes in land use; progress of sustainable development policies once
implemented; and the regional social, demographic, environmental, and economic
trends over time, under various prospective scenarios for development.
4.2. Comprehensive financing and management program for regional markets
Currently, there are three major sector financing plans for the agricultural region: (a)
loans and discounts for purchase of equipment, machinery, infrastructure, or technical consulting services (Alianza para el Campo [Partnership for Agriculture]); (b)
donations to small agricultural projects (FOCOMDES [Fondos Comunitarios para
el Desarrollo Rural Equitativo y Sustentable, or Community Funds for Equitable
and Sustainable Rural Development]; and (c) soft loans for launching or expanding
microenterprises (FONAES [Fondo Nacional de Apoyo para las Empresas de Solidaridad, or National Support Fund for Solidarity Businesses]).
However, there is no support program for regional production systems that
provides financial resources management and also suitable technical assistance,
legal-administrative training, quality management, inputs, technologies, and the
regional markets necessary for local community development. In order to break into
new urban markets, it is necessary to promote horizontal and vertical productive
integration, diversify supply, create value networks, and process agricultural products. This also means that these communities will become involved in business
finance services (bancas comunales, or village banks), in order to set up their own
business programs for financing of local projects. Some of the programs that must be

123

206

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

implemented are savings and loan cooperatives, associations and unions, and (in
conjunction with the federal and local government, as well as farmers) mixed
revolving funds.

5. Concluding remarks
The current dynamic in the peri-urban areas in Mexico City is one of spatial heterogeneity with regard to the physical characteristics of agricultural practices, flexibility in production, agricultural markets and the use of natural resources as ways of
adapting to the citys macroeconomic changes. However, different patterns of cultivation, as well as agricultural practices at the parcel level, have a cumulative impact
on the local environment and also affect environmental quality at a regional level.
The farmers in the five regions studied have historically built up a social capital
that mitigates the negative impacts of urbanization and also acts as a strategy that
offers a broad range of ways to adapt agriculture and matters not related to agriculture. These include a tendency to continue growing both traditional crops and
strictly commercial crops, despite limited opportunities for breaking into a wider
market by processing foodstuffs to create value added. Farmers in peri-urban rural
areas have also adapted by taking advantage of emerging local market centers, as
well as urban infrastructure, transportation, health, education, and communications,
all of which create new employment opportunities and typically urban uses of goods
and services. Overall, this versatility in production and labour makes it possible to
diversify regional sustainable development based on agriculture, provided that it is
combined with development of new rural programs, including environmental protection and services (climate, waste absorption, biodiversity) and leisure, tourism,
and aesthetic perception of the cultural landscape.
This existing viable agriculture reflects a certain heterogeneity in the populations various production-related and occupational interests. At the same time, it
shows that regional sustainability is not homogeneous, but instead involves a
collective inclination toward sustainability, which has local content and includes
elements of livelihood, group participation, culture, and positive attitudes toward
agriculture. In this sense, farmers still play a very important role both in maintaining Mexico Citys rural landscape. In our study of the Mexico Citys mountainous region, rural communities control 66% of rural land and its natural
resources. This cannot be ignored when evaluating alternative policies and
implementing economic measures for preserving the environment and promoting
sustainable development throughout the city. Policies that target development of
regional agricultural production systems must recognize the heterogeneous, flexible
nature of the producers, as well as their production profile. The rural landscape
plays an important role in the cultural composition of these communities and in
promoting a network of social structures that enables them to reproduce livelihoods and energize the rural economy.
The integration and complementary nature of various agricultural policies, programs, and activities must be consistent with the local producers design for new
capacities for managing land and rural areas. Rather, a series of different strategies
for managing sustainability should be designed, evaluated, and carried out by different programs, government agencies, and planning and mobilization mechanisms
for resources that may help strengthen regional social capital and citizen-manage-

123

Farming dynamics in Mexico City

207

ment abilities for agribusiness in rural communities. In any case, a rigorous question
for the future would be to explore whether communities that have a certain social
capital will be able to work successfully with the local government to develop a way
to manage peri-urban agricultural land.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of CONACYT, by
research grant No. G33706-S, and the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana for the project Polticas de sustentabilidad ambiental y microempresas agropecuarias cercanas a polos urbanos en
expansion. This paper owes much to Pablo Torres-Limas Visiting Fellowship at Brown University,
where he was able to collaborate with researchers in the Thomas J. Watson Institute for International Studies. The comments of anonymous referees and the editor on an earlier draft of this paper
are appreciated also.

References
Aguilar, A., & Ward, P. (2003). Globalization, regional development, and mega-city expansion in
Latin America: Analyzing Mexico Citys peri-urban hinterland, Cities, 20(1), 321.
Bryld, E. (2003). Potentials, problems and policy implications for urban agriculture in developing
countries, Agriculture and Human Values, 20, 7986.
Carsjens, G., & van der Knaap, W. (2002). Strategic land-use allocation: Dealing with spatial relationships and fragmentation of agriculture, Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 171179.
CENTROGEO (2001). Recomendaciones de politica para la proteccion y restauracion de los servicios ambientales del suelo de conservacion, Mimeo, Centro de Investigacion en Geografa y
Geomatica, Ing Jorge L. Tamayo A.C., Mexico.
Croissant, C. (2004). Landscape patterns and parcel boundaries: An analysis of composition and
configuration of land use and land cover in south-central Indiana, Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 101(23), 219232.
Davis, J. C., & Henderson, J. A. (2003). Evidence on the political economy of the urbanization
process, Journal of Urban Economics, 53, 98125.
Flores-Montalvo, A. (1995). Economic instruments in environmental management. The case of
Mexico, In H. Kluge (Eds.), Environmental management in developing countries (pp. 3048).
Federal Republic of Germany: Dresden University of Technology, Institute for Scientific
Co-operation.
Gilbert, A. (1993). Third world cities: the changing national settlement system, Urban Studies, 30
(45), 721740.
Gilbreath, J. (2003). Environment and development in Mexico. Recommendations for reconcilation,
Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Graizbord, B, Rowland, A, & Aguilar, A. (2003). Mexico City as a peripheral global player: The two
sides of the coin, The Annals of Regional Science, 37, 501518.
INEGI (1991). Distrito Federal, VII Censo Agropecuario, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadstica e
Informatica.
INEGI (2000). Distrito Federal, XII Censo General de Poblacion y Vivienda, Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Estadstica e Informatica.
Losada, H., Martinez, H. Vieyra, J. Pealing, R., Zavala, R, & Cortes, J. (1998). Urban agriculture in
the metropolitan zone of Mexico City: Changes over time ir urban, suburban and peri-urban
areas, Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 3754.
Mander, U., & Jongman, R. (1998). Human impact on rural landscapes in central and northern
Europe, Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 149153.
Midmore, D., & Jansen, H. (2003). Supplying vegetables to Asian cities: is there a case for peri-urban
production? Food Policy, 28, 1327.
Moissidis, A., & Duquenne, M. (1997). Peri-urban rural areas in Greece: The case of Attica, Sociologia Ruralis, 37(2), 228239.
PAOT (2002). Regulacion del suelo de conservacion del Distrito Federal y acciones para sancionar
obras o actividades ilicitas, Mexico: Mimeo, Procuraduria Ambiental y del Ordenamiento del
Distrito Federal.
PAOT (2003). Asentamientos irregulares en el suelo de conservacion del Distrito Federal, Mexico:
Mimeo, Procuraduria Ambiental y del Ordenamiento del Distrito Federal.

123

208

P. Torres-Lima, L. Rodrguez-Sanchez

Pensado, M. (2003). Las polticas publicas y las areas rurales en el Distrito Federal, Revista Sociologica, 18(51), 7898.
Piorr, H. (2003). Environmental policy, agri-environmental indicators and landscape indicators,
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 98, 1733.
Princen, T. (2003). Principles for sustainability: From cooperation and efficiency to sufficiency,
Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), 3350.
SAGARPA (2003). Avance de siembras y cosechas. Mexico: Distrito Federal, SAGARPA, SIAP.
SAGARPA (2004). Boletin oficial, Mexico: Num.004/04, mimeo, SAGARPA.
Sharp, J., & Smith, M. (2003). Social capital and farming at the rural-urban interface: The importance of nonfarmer and farmer relations, Agricultural Systems, 76, 913927.
SMA (2004a). Programa General de Ordenamiento Ecologico del Distrito Federal, Mexico: mimeo,
Biblioteca Virtual. Secretaria del Medio Ambiente.
Thinh, N., Artl, G., Heber, B., Hennersdorf, J., & Lehmann, I. (2002). Evaluation of urban land-use
structures with a view to sustainable development, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
22, 475492.
Tiffen, M. (2003). Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa: Agriculture, urbanization and income growth,
World Development, 31(8), 13431366.
Torres-Lima, P., Rodriques Sanchez, L. M., & Garcia Uriza, B. I. (2000). Mexico City: The integration of urban agriculture to contain urban sprawl, In N. Bakker (Eds.), Growing cities,
growing food. Urban agriculture on the policy agenda (pp. 363390). Germany: DSE.
Torres-Lima, P., & Burns, A. (2002). Regional culture and urban agriculturalists of Mexico City,
Anthropologica, 44, 247256.
Veeman, T., & Politylo, J. (2003). The role of institutions and policy in enhancing sustainable
development and conserving natural capital, Environment, Development and Sustainability,
5, 317332.
Wood, S., Sebastian, & K., Scherr, S. (2000). Pilot analysis of global ecosystems. Agroecosystems,
Washington: IFPRI, WRI.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and
policy framework, Theory and Society, 27, 151208.

123