Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

The survival of agriculture on the edge: Perceptions of push and pull factors
for the persistence of the ancient chinampas of Xochimilco, Mexico City
Patricia Pérez-Belmont a, Amy M. Lerner d, *, Marisa Mazari-Hiriart b, Elsa Valiente c
a
Posgrado de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
b
Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico
c
Restauración Ecológica y Desarrollo A. C, Mexico
d
Department of Urban Studies and Planning, University of California, San Diego, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A mixture of identities, livelihoods and a heterogeneous landscape characterizes the communities located in the
Peri-urban agriculture rural-urban frontier. The perception of the inhabitants of these communities regarding environmental and so­
Urbanization ciocultural change is linked to their livelihoods and land use decisions. We use the case study of the ancient
Push and pull factors
agricultural chinampa system in the Xochimilco wetland of Mexico City to understand the main threats and
Chinampas
Mexico City
opportunities for peri-urban agriculture in megacities, where the rapid displacement of agricultural land by
formal and informal settlements makes its future uncertain. We used a household survey and semi-structured
interviews to understand: 1) the relationship between agriculture and informal urbanization, and 2) the
perception of chinampa users, considering those who are engaged in agriculture and those who are not,
regarding the factors that favor or limit agriculture. The information from interviews was coded and concep­
tualized as pull and push factors for peri-urban agriculture. Sociocultural factors were mentioned as the main
reasons that push chinampas into agriculture abandonment, such as community erosion due to conflicts and lack
of interest from younger generations. However, those that continue to engage in agriculture maintain a historical
connection to farming (whether they are from the region or not), and a willingness to adapt to maintain their
agricultural livelihood. We find that while some families abandon their agricultural land, new niches become
available for migrants from other surrounding rural areas who find opportunities to continue farming in the peri-
urban frontier. Our evidence suggests that the loss of peri-urban agriculture is not a linear process towards ur­
banization, and that the coexistence of housing, agriculture, and livelihood diversification can produce the
conditions needed for innovation to encourage peri-urban agriculture.

1. Introduction to traditional rural production, in contrast to intra-urban agriculture,

Urbanization modifies the city periphery through land-use change,
which has implications at different scales for social and environmental
well-being of cities and their hinterlands. It is in the peri-urban fringe
that a more heterogeneous landscape is observed; as cities expand and
reach rural areas, a rural-urban continuum is formed with transitions
between rural and urban livelihoods (Lerner and Eakin, 2011; Tacoli,
2003; Valbuena et al., 2010). It is estimated that between 1.8 and 2.4%
of agricultural land will be lost worldwide due to urban growth by 2030
(Bren et al., 2017). The impact will be more drastic for peri-urban
agriculture (PUA), a type of agriculture that is more closely connected
and which will experience changes in even shorter periods of time
(Mougeot, 2000).
PUA loss is shaped by multiple sociocultural, political and economic
factors. In the Global South, peri-urban agricultural land is a convenient
space to meet housing demand through formal and often informal
human settlements, particularly for those who cannot afford land
through formal land markets (Tellman et al., 2021). Land-use change
from agricultural to residential is also characterized by a loss of liveli­
hoods engaged in agriculture, as rural identities and traditions give
space to non-farm economic activities (Torres-Lima and Rodrí­
guez-Sánchez, 2008). Therefore, the rural-urban landscape is a

* Corresponding author. Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Division of Social Sciences, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA,
92093, USA.
E-mail addresses: patypebel@gmail.com (P. Pérez-Belmont), amlerner@ucsd.edu (A.M. Lerner), mazari@unam.mx (M. Mazari-Hiriart), direccion.redesmx@
gmail.com (E. Valiente).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.018
Received 25 January 2021; Received in revised form 6 July 2021; Accepted 15 July 2021
Available online 23 July 2021
0743-0167/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
challenge for cities in terms of urban planning and policies so that the
needs for housing and preserving agricultural areas for food production
can both be reconciled. For this reason, it is important to understand the
diverse factors that shape the changing dynamics of land-use and asso­
ciated livelihoods in peri-urban areas.
To distinguish and relate conditional factors for PUA and to under­
stand how these determine decisions about maintaining agriculture at
the individual, household and community levels, we use the concept of
"push and pull factors". The concept has traditionally been addressed to
understand rural-urban population dynamics and migration (De Haan,
1999; Tacoli, 1998). This approach is interesting for understanding the
economic, environmental and political conditions that determine
migratory processes (Elshafei et al., 2014), yet we consider the push-pull
concept also useful to understand the processes of change of PUA, since
agricultural abandonment is not always linear and farming can persist in
the face of many challenges in and around cities (Lerner and Eakin,
2011).
Mexico City is one interesting example to study the patterns of
change in PUA. Mexico City has a population of approximately nine
million, and a metropolitan area of over 21 million inhabitants, while
59% of the city’s territory is designated for conservation and provision
of ecosystem services (including food production), administratively
referred to as the Conservation Zone (Suelo de Conservación) (GDF, 2012;
INEGI, 2015). This area encompasses one of the most prominent
peri-urban agricultural production sites in the world, the Xochimilco
wetland. The Xochimilco wetland is located in the remnants of the
lacustrine system of the Basin of Mexico where farmers still cultivate in
chinampas, a raised-bed wetland agricultural system surrounded by ca­
nals. Many of the chinampa producers still use ancient production
techniques performed by the Aztecs, a production method which has
been considered one of the most sustainable in the world (Armillas,
1971; Rojas, 1995).
After centuries of city expansion, 4336 ha of productive chinampas
persist but they are embedded in a degraded environment and eroded
social fabric that put its identity and functionality as a peri-urban agri­
cultural system at risk (González-Pozo, 2016; Jiménez et al., 2020). Even
though the Conservation Zone (CZ) restricts urban-like buildings and
industries, informal settlements are growing due to housing needs and
the inability of the government to address this issue (Aguilar and Santos,
2011; Lerner et al., 2018). Hence, agricultural practices in the city are
under pressure; the value of agricultural production decreased by 60%
from 2012 to 2019, and an average 250 ha of agricultural land per year
were lost in the city between 1990 and 2003 and for chinampa pro­
duction the annual loss rate is 31 ha (Merlín-Uribe, 2013a, 2013b; FAO,
2014; Torres-Lima and Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2008). However, despite the
increased expansion of formal and informal settlements, there are still
44 agrarian communities in the CZ (within Mexico City), three of them
in the chinampa area according to the National Agrarian Registry,
although there are other agrarian communities that are not officially
certified (GDF, 2012; PHINA, 2021).
In this paper, we provide an understanding of the nature of PUA
persistence under accelerated urban growth, using the chinampa system
as a case study and by analyzing the perception of chinampa users
regarding the reasons for agricultural persistence or abandonment, and
reasons for living on chinampas versus in the town center. To do that, we
present evidence from a household survey and individual interviews
with both farmers and non-farmers in the San Gregorio Atlapulco
agrarian community within the Xochimilco wetland. The evidence
gathered from our interviews reveals that although there are still eco­
nomic and environmental constraints to chinampa agriculture, socio­
cultural factors such as the erosion of trust, the prevalence of community
conflicts, and generational differences are perceived as an important
factor in both the abandonment of agriculture. At the same time, so­
ciocultural factors such as the sense of identity and connection to the
cultural heritage of the chinampas are recognized by both local and
immigrant farmers to fuel agricultural retention. We find that the
453
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
heterogeneity that characterizes peri-urban areas in transition can be an
opportunity for agricultural retention, if pull factors are strengthened
and push factors are addressed with strategies to make visible shared
values and concerns, to recover the sense-of-place, and to adapt their
strategies with technological tools that could even awaken the interest of
younger generations.
2. Background
2.1. Rural-urban transitions
Rural-urban transitions in the peri-urban fringe are often marked by
the displacement of agricultural communities and an increase in the
growth of informal human settlements, especially in the Global South
(Roy, 2005). Urban or industrial livelihood options influence the rural
population, which often leads to a detachment from agriculture, cultural
traditions, and identities, while shifting the way they relate to the nat­
ural environment (Simon et al., 2006; Torres-Mazuera, 2008). Such
changes in agriculture derived from urban and non-agricultural in­
fluences have even redefined the concept of what it means to be rural.
Some authors refer to the “new rurality”, where urbanization and in­
dustrial growth in the countryside generates new identities, interests
and livelihoods that modify the meaning of rural landscapes, even to the
point that some communities continue to consider themselves the
“countryside” without having agriculture (Appendini and
Torres-Mazuera, 2008; Kay, 2008). The transition among urban and
rural communities is not a linear process, since household livelihoods
and consequent land-use is context-dependent and determined by a di­
versity of factors, including the cultural value of local food production
and consumption (Lerner and Eakin, 2011).
Rural-urban transitions are linked to migration processes. Tradi­
tional approaches for migration into cities suggest that the decision to
migrate is rationally made at the individual level for economic self-
interest, which translates into seeking out opportunities in cities to in­
crease one’s earnings (De Haan, 1999). But some authors like Stark
(1991) suggest that the rural-urban transition through migration is a
family strategy based on decisions at the household level that have
implications that go beyond pure economic need. The push-pull factors
theory suggests that decisions to migrate into the city occur in response
to factors that “push” them out of their areas of origin, and factors that
attract or “pull” them to other areas where an advantage is perceived
(Tacoli, 1998). Push and pull concepts can be useful to understand not
only decisions to migrate, but also decisions affecting agricultural
practices which, according to Singh et al. (2016), are also based not only
on economic aspects, but on access to resources and factors intrinsic to
family and social structure.
In the peri-urban fringe, large migratory movements are not evident
as part of the rural-urban transition due to the proximity to the city, but
the transition itself does imply population dynamics and livelihood
changes that result in the abandonment or loss of agricultural land.
Some factors affecting the loss of agriculture are the lack of interest in
new generations to continue farming, the reduction of the value and
prestige of smallholder agriculture, unfavorable market policies and
financial services for agriculture, competition with large-scale agricul­
ture, and the extractive use of farmland by large companies (FAO, 2017;
MacDonald et al., 2000). For peri-urban agricultural communities, such
factors affect smallholders but with greater intensity and acceleration,
which makes it more difficult to cope with change. Nevertheless, PUA in
many cities still persists and has become part of the heterogeneous urban
landscape, playing an important role in the livelihoods of local com­
munities, even alongside urban growth (Deng et al., 2011; Pham et al.,
2014).
2.2. Opportunities for peri-urban agriculture
Peri-urban areas provide many ecosystem services to cities such as
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
heat island mitigation, flood risk reduction, aquifer recharge, as well as
water and food security (Marshall et al., 2009). Regarding food provi­
sion, PUA represents an opportunity for cities to increase their resilience
as it can contribute to local food production and distribution, employ­
ment generation, and self-sufficient livelihoods (Artmann and Sartison,
2018; Gunilla et al., 2016). It has even been suggested that PUA is more
likely gain value and relevance than rural agriculture because of its
proximity to cities and because, as a type of local small-scale production,
there is greater potential to diversify its products and forms of trade to
meet the demand of urban consumers (Barrett et al., 2001; Lerner and
Eakin, 2011; Meijers and van der Wouw, 2019). In Latin America, PUA
persists even in the face of economic crises (Pribadi and Pauleit, 2015),
and is present in more than 100 cities, where its success has depended in
part on support from local NGOs, organized market systems, and the
conversion to organic production (FAO, 2014). However, many studies
indicate that more work remains to be done since the success of PUA
does not depend exclusively on planning or zoning, but also on the
incorporation of regional and local participatory processes and recog­
nizing the rural-urban complexity in decision-making (Allen, 2003).
2.3. Peri-urban agriculture in Mexico city: the case of Xochimilco
The Xochimilco wetland in Mexico City, an agricultural production
system characterized by the chinampa farming system on floating raised
beds, is an example of PUA that faces issues of agricultural abandon­
ment. The chinampas have prevailed through centuries and remain
resilient due to the sociocultural identity of agriculture, despite shifts in
the value of agricultural goods and livelihoods, and decreasing water
quantity and quality (Jiménez et al., 2020). Some international desig­
nations like the declaration of the system as a World Heritage Site in
1987 by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orga­
nization (UNESCO), and the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage
System declaration in 2017 by the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) helped fuel its persistence by recognizing the cultural and envi­
ronmental value of the chinampas. The Mexican government has also
established the decrees for the wetland preservation as part of the city’s
Conservation Zone (CZ) and as a Natural Protected Area (NPA) in 1992.
During the 1980s the chinampa system became part of the peri-urban
fringe of the city and currently is embedded in increasingly dense urban
growth. However, it continues to exhibit a mixture of rural and urban
characteristics (Fig. 1). The territory of the chinampas comprises private
and ejido1 land tenure (González-Pozo, 2015); nevertheless, ways of
accessing land include inheritance (39.1%), purchase (20.2%), paw­
ning/mortgaged (12.4%), rent (11.7%), endowment (5.2%), and
borrowing (4.6%) according to a census conducted in 1999–2002 (UAM,
2013). The chinampas, mainly private ones (regardless of the form of
access), have land-uses including informal housing, wetland areas (areas
without formal use), recreational, greenhouse agriculture, and more
traditional agricultural uses (Merlín-Uribe et al., 2013a,b; Torres-Lima
et al., 2018). The informal urbanization of chinampas, including the
ejido, increased during the last decades due to two specific events: the
modification of Agrarian Reform in 1992 that allowed for the privati­
zation and sale of ejido lands; and the formal and informal residential
growth from either the eviction or migration of families from other parts
of the city to this seemingly safer area after the devastating 1985
earthquake (Bausch, 2017; Jiménez et al., 2020). Informality in the
chinampas is also perpetuated in part due to the lack of political and
institutional will to prevent housing on the CZ and NPA (Wigle, 2010;
Torres-Lima et al., 2018).
Regarding specific information of the number and type of producers
in the Xochimilco wetland, there is no official updated information
1
Ejido is a type of community land for agricultural purposes. The ejido was
created in Mexico after the Mexican Revolution as part of a national land
redistribution process.
454
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
available. However, a census conducted in 2007 in the chinampa area of
the NPA counted 307 producers in the chinampas zone, 92% of which
were men and 45% were in an age range from 31 to 50 years old; other
ranges are distributed with lower percentage (UAM, 2013). For the same
year, 36.7% of the producers were originally from other states near the
city. This percentage increased since the year 2000, which is double the
number of migrant farmers than in 2000 (UAM, 2013). Thirty-five
percent of the producers possess one chinampa, while the rest have
between two and five chinampas, all of them ranging in size from 600 m2
to 6000 m2 (González-Pozo, 2015).
Several studies document persistent challenges in the Xochimilco
wetland, including biophysical factors such as water overextraction and
water quality degradation, ineffective land-use planning, and reduced
profitability of chinampas (Gomez Aíza et al., 2020; Torres-Lima et al.,
2018). Furthermore, the loss of sense-of-place in the community
threatens the identity linked to the agricultural practices that are part of
the main function and structure of the chinampa system (Eakin et al.,
2019). There is a legitimate concern that if the chinampa agricultural
system is not strengthened, the productive system could collapse and
fundamentally change its function and identity towards a completely
urban landscape (Gómez-Aíza et al., 2020; Jiménez et al., 2020). Hence,
to avoid the collapse of peri-urban agriculture in this system, it is
necessary to explore under what conditions long-term agricultural
preservation could be achieved.
3. Methods
3.1. Case study: San Gregorio Atlapulco community
San Gregorio Atlapulco (SGA) is one of the 17 communities within
the Xochimilco Municipality and has an approximate population of
19,200 (SIDS, 2003). SGA is divided into the town or urban area
(approximately 134 ha) and the chinampa production area (approxi­
mately 484 ha representing 21.8% of the 2215 ha of the chinampas zone,
according to González-Pozo (2016)), which is within the boundaries of
the World Heritage Site, the NPA and the CZ (Fig. 1). Approximately
47.5% of the chinampa area in SGA is open-air agriculture (230 ha with
1530 chinampas of different sizes), 2.1% is greenhouse production (10
ha), 25.4% is unproductive land (123 ha with 530 abandoned chi­
nampas), 14.4% is semi-urbanized land (70 ha), and 10.6% of the area
corresponds to 52 ha of canals (205.5 km), of which only 27% have
sufficient depth for navigation (González-Pozo, 2016). Inside the chi­
nampa area of SGA, the government has reported 376 households that
were built between 1995 and 2005 according to the most recent date
published, which occupy approximately 14 ha and contain a population
of 2821 residents (GODF, 2005).
3.2. Data collection
To understand the relationship between agriculture and urbaniza­
tion in the chinampas we use two data sources: a survey in informal
households within the agricultural zone of chinampas and individual
interviews with chinampa users, both farmers and non-farmers from
SGA (of whom some live in informal households within the agricultural
area.). The survey took place in the days after the seismic events on
September 19th, 2017 in 195 households within the chinampa area of
San Gregorio Atlapulco within the NPA in the CZ and it was carried out
by the local non-profit organization REDES (Restauración Ecológica y
Desarrollo A.C.) (Fig. 1). The number of surveyed households corre­
sponds to 52% of the informal settlements in the chinampa area reported
by the government in 2005 (GODF, 2005). The survey was initially
designed to understand the effects of the earthquake and to improve the
aid to those affected, but it also included questions that matter to this
study, including the type of household activities carried out by chi­
nampa households and their reason for living on the chinampas. It is
worth mentioning that families with houses in the chinampas can own
P. Pérez-Belmont et al. Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462

Fig. 1. The chinampa agricultural system location in Mexico City (upper map); chinampa production area of San Gregorio Atlapulco with the location of surveyed
houses (lower map). The green circles are households with agricultural families (n = 108) and the yellow triangles are households with non-agricultural families (n =
87) (shapefile sources: González, 2015; PAOT, 2018). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)

more than one chinampa and use it both for housing and for other types
of land-use such as agriculture.
The first author also performed 25 semi-structured interviews with
open and closed-ended questions during 2018 and 2019 to understand in
greater depth the factors that farmers (18 of those interviewed) and non-
farmers (7 interviewees) perceive that are affecting the land-use de­
cisions taken in SGA. The interview instrument was divided into two
sections. The first included personal data (i.e., birthplace, age, educa­
tion) and land characteristics (i.e., land extension, type of agricultural
practices, and land ownership). The second section included questions
about the issues that are affecting agriculture and the chinampa land­
scape, and how they perceive and value chinampa agriculture. To
analyze the qualitative information from the open-ended questions, the
answers were transcribed and coded using the software MAXQDA An­
alytics Pro 2018 version 18.2.4 (© 1994–2018 VERBI GmbH Berlin) by
tagging the answers according to two main themes: “agriculture pull
factors” or features of the system that led people to continue in agri­
culture and “agriculture push factors” or features that lead people to
abandon agriculture as an economic activity. The themes were used as a
parental code; 259 segments were coded in the parental code “push
factors” and 145 segments in “pull factors”. Each theme included sub-
codes that differentiated the factors into sociocultural, political, eco­
nomic, and environmental categories. The codes are reported in graphs
according to the frequency with which they were mentioned among the
interviewees to demonstrate the presence of particular perceptions
regarding the persistence and abandonment of peri-urban agriculture in
the chinampa area.
4. Results
4.1. Informal households’ activities in chinampas
To better understand the trajectory of informal urbanization in the
chinampas, we constructed a timeline based on residence time according
to the 195 households surveyed. Fig. 2 shows the timeline from 1960 to
2017, with the highest growth rate of 300% in the 1980s as it increased
from 8 to 32 residents. The growth rate has been lower (147%, 63% and
47%) in the subsequent decades, but always positive for each period.

455
P. Pérez-Belmont et al. Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462

Fig. 2. Number of houses (y axis) and residence time (x axis) of the surveyed houses in San Gregorio Atlapulco by decade; growth rate (z axis).

However, the highest number of new residents in the chinampa zone, chinampas.
compared to the previous decade, is recorded in the period from 2000 to
2017 (Fig. 2). 4.2. Perceptions of change in chinampa agriculture
When the residents were asked why they live on the chinampas and
their housing preferences, 43% of the families (either farming or non- The semi-structured interviews capture different perceived pull fac­
farming families) stated that they would prefer to live in a different tors that explain agricultural persistence and push factors that hinder
place or in a consolidated urban area because they lack urban services in agriculture and hence lead to the abandonment of farming. There were
the chinampa (48% of the responses), because they are at risk from 18 interviews with farmers and seven with non-farmers, which reflected
earthquakes and subsidence (31% of responses), or because they feel the difficulty in finding potential interviewees who had abandoned
unsafe (21% of responses) (Table 1). On the other hand, 57% of the agriculture and were willing to be interviewed. On average, the pro­
families (either farming or non-farming families) prefer to live in the ducers have a greater number of chinampas (from 1 to 10) with variable
chinampas because they like the tranquility of living in a natural envi­ size ranges (from 500 m2 to 4000 m2) and range from 35 to 75 years old.
ronment (46% of cases), it is their family’s patrimony (30%), the In contrast, non-producers have 1 to 5 chinampas with an area of up to
proximity to their agricultural fields (16%), and that they do not have 1500 m2 and a younger age range of 40–50 years.
other alternatives or places to live (8%) (Table 1). For the perception of both processes of abandonment and the
Regarding the land-use of the chinampas, although in all of the persistence of agriculture, the identified and coded factors are related to
surveys the family uses the chinampa for housing, some of them have sociocultural, political, economic, and environmental aspects. Accord­
more than one chinampa, as 55% use another chinampa for agriculture, ing to these categories, 44.5% of the coded text from the 25 interviews is
either as their only activity (40%) or combined with some other activity related to sociocultural factors, 19.8% to political factors, 18.8% to
not related to agriculture (15%) (Table 1). The remaining 45% are economic factors, and 16.9% to environmental factors, considering both
families that have non-agricultural activities as their livelihood, of abandonment and persistence processes. Fig. 3 presents a diagram that
which 36% are engaged in only one activity and 9% have more than one summarizes the main perceived factors for both pull and push factors as
(Table 1). The results show that living within the agricultural area does indicated by our informants, which are described below.
not necessarily imply that families are engaged in agriculture. This was
also observed in the interviews, since of the 18 producers, eight lived in 4.2.1. Agriculture push factors
the chinampa and of the seven non-producers, three lived in the
4.2.1.1. Sociocultural push factors. The eroded community was
Table 1 perceived as the main social factor affecting the abandonment of agri­
Preference for housing location and economic activities in surveyed households culture by both farmers and non-farmers (Fig. 4). Interviewees
within the agricultural and conservation area (n = 195). mentioned factors such as lack of trust and lack of interest among
Preference for housing: % Total (n) Economic activity % Total (n)
community members that over time have eroded the social fabric, which
has led to an absence of organization and cooperation in solving com­
Agricultural households Agricultural households
munity issues such as cleaning the canals. One of the interviewees
Prefer to live in urban 53% Agriculture as the only 40%
land (n = 57) activity (n = 78) mentioned that the lack of trust is mainly associated with the corrupt
Prefer to live in 45% Agriculture and other 15% practices of community leaders: "There are leaders who stole money from
chinampa land (n = 49) activity (n = 30) the social and economic aid programs, that is why people do not trust them
Do not know 2% (n = 2)
and that makes the groups fight and separate”. There is individualism
Non-agricultural Non-agricultural
households households
among the families and the different parajes2 since each group of farmers
Prefer to live in urban 51% With one activity 36%
land (n = 44) (n = 70)
Prefer to live in 40% With more than one 9% 2
Paraje is a local territorial subdivision within the chinampa zone; each
chinampa land (n = 35) activity (n = 17)
paraje has a representative leader for the farmers that belong to it. The chi­
Do not know 9% (n = 8)
nampa area of San Gregorio Atlapulco has 18 parajes.

456
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
Fig. 3. Diagram representing the perceived tension between the main push and pull factors for peri-urban agricultural abandonment and persistence, respectively.
Fig. 4. Push factors perceived for agricultural abandonment. The percentages refer to the number of coded segments in which the factor was mentioned.
has different needs, and the individual benefit is often sought out before
community benefits, which generates misunderstandings and conflicts
that are difficult to resolve. Regarding productive practices, according to
one of the interviewees, competition with farmers from other states that
sell in the central wholesale marketplace of Mexico City (Central de
Abastos) has also generated conflicts between chinampa farmers and
suspicion towards the farmers who are doing well. There are also
problems when farmers, particularly those coming from other states,
have different ways of working than local farmers. According to one of
the interviewees, "People who are not from [San Gregorio] work differently
and take advantage of people to get land, so they are not wanted [here] and
are even discriminated against".
Farmers also mentioned that new generations are no longer inter­
ested in farming (Fig. 4). The shift out of farming is a cultural issue:
“People think agriculture is a dirty job, when people hear that someone is a
chinampero3 they think they didn’t study, they are discriminated against and
that makes farmers ashamed to continue farming”. This cultural bias
against engaging in agriculture permeates across generations. For
example, one of the farmers who is a father mentioned “I wouldn’t like my
children to be farmers, it’s too difficult, I prefer that they are engaged in
school and not work in the fields”. This bias against agriculture is
consistent with the age range of the farmers interviewed, which was
35–75 years old and a few of them (17%) had reached high school ed­
ucation, as opposed to non-farmers whose age range was 40–50 years
old and a higher percentage of them (57%) had obtained a high school
education. The above is also related to what both groups mention about
professionalization: they said that the more people become educated for
careers that are not related to agriculture, they tend to detach from their
land (Fig. 4). Additionally, the younger generations are more influenced
3
Chinampero is the name of the chinampa farmer.
457
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
by urban lifestyles and have other interests. One interviewee mentioned,
regarding younger generations, “The internet and social media distract
them, and their studies absorb them”.
4.2.1.2. Political push factors. Government indifference and corruption,
such as lack of support and interest in agriculture and lack of law
enforcement and corruption, also associated with the presence of
informal settlements, were mentioned by both groups as political push
factors (Fig. 4). Non-farmers most frequently mentioned the fact that the
government hinders agriculture because there is a lack of authority in
the surveillance and control of the urbanization in the chinampas, which
is one of the main reasons for informal settlement expansion. As one of
them mentioned, "The laws are not applied and the government is respon­
sible for urbanization, especially in times of electoral campaigns. The can­
didates promise formal land-use change to urban in order to obtain votes".
4.2.1.3. Economic push factors. Non-farmers, irrespective of having a
link to agriculture, mentioned more than farmers that low profitability is
an obstacle that favors the abandonment of agriculture (Fig. 4).
Regarding profits, it is difficult to conclude how economic aspects affect
the decisions because, on the one hand, farmers do not keep a clear
record of their economic balances and, on the other hand, because it is a
sensitive subject and there is reluctance to answer questions related to
money. However, some data that we were able to gather is that,
regardless of whether the chinampas have different degrees of techni­
fication (from open-field cultivation to greenhouses), profits are very
variable and range from less than $100 USD to $350 USD per month.
Profit is also not related to the size of the chinampa since there are
people with chinampas of 300 m2 with open-field cultivation with
profits of $300 USD per month and chinampas of 1600 m2 also with
open field cultivation with profits of less than $100 USD per month, both
from chinampa farmers who rent the chinampa. Despite the difference in
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
the frequency with which low profitability was mentioned between
farmers and non-farmers, the responses in both groups were similar.
Among the answers informants gave for low profitability were the
following: the competition with large-scale farmers from other states in
the central market (Central de Abastos), the high costs of farming inputs
(like gasoline and pumps for irrigation), the lack of places to sell as an
alternative to the central market, contamination problems that make the
soils less productive, the high costs of living, and the perception that
vegetables are contaminated prevents people from consuming them.
4.2.1.4. Environmental push factors. The sufficient quantity and suitable
quality of water for agriculture is the environmental factor that most
limits chinampa agriculture, according to almost all of the farmers
interviewed (Fig. 4). It is perceived in the interviews that the lack of
water is the result of decades of over-exploitation of groundwater to
supply the city, which affects the surface water system, and that the
quality has also been affected mainly by urbanization. According to one
of the farmers, "in the 1980s there was a dramatic change, the canals dried
up and the fish were dying, this happened because of the over-exploitation of
water from the wells. At that point, people demanded water and the gov­
ernment start sending treated wastewater”. The over-exploitation of water
has generated subsidence; to address this issue users have installed dams
to redistribute the water among the parajes. However, one of the farmers
mentioned that "The sectioning of the canals dried up some areas and
instead of navigating in a canoe you could walk along the canal", and this
issue of drying has therefore led to the establishment of housing which,
in turn, discharges untreated wastewater into the canals. Although the
lack of organization amongst community members described previously
persists, issues related to lack of water do lead to protests to the local
authorities. Despite this, water issues are so dire that if they continue,
one interviewee concluded “those who would like to continue cultivating
would have to migrate to other chinampa areas with more water or look for
another source of income”.
4.2.2. Agriculture pull factors
4.2.2.1. Sociocultural pull factors. The identity associated with being a
farmer attracts people to stay in agriculture against all odds; this factor
was even more frequently mentioned with the non-farmers (Fig. 5). For
example, one interviewee mentioned that “there is a cultural connection
to the chinampas because since childhood, our families taught us to value the
land as a source of work and food, as well as part of our tradition, as a
cultural inheritance from before colonization”. In four of the comments
related to the value of the agricultural identity, the informants also
spoke about the well-being provided by nature that persists because they
perceive a sense of tranquility and good health by being in a natural
Fig. 5. Pull factors perceived for agriculture persistence. The percentages refer to the number of coded segments in which the factor was mentioned.
458
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
setting. Migration to and from SGA was a topic that emerged in half of
the interviews (Fig. 5); nine of them are migrants from other states, of
which seven are farmers. One of the effects of migration was regarding
the persistence of agriculture; migrants from rural areas from other
states arrive to SGA in search for jobs as day laborers to improve their
income, and as they do so, they acquire enough money to eventually rent
or even buy chinampas from owners that are no longer interested in
agriculture. This can occur even with higher prices for outsiders to rent
or sell chinampas. One informant estimated that 30% of the farmers in
SGA are from outside the city and this number seems to be increasing,
underscoring the role of migrants in the persistence of peri-urban agri­
culture, similar to the 36.7% reported in a 2007 census (UAM, 2013).
Therefore, available land potentially becomes exploited by farmers who
have migrated from other states, come to the city and find the oppor­
tunity to continue being farmers in the periphery. As one farmer from
another state mentioned, “we found better opportunities in Mexico City, we
do not need to go to the United States; here we found more fertile soil and
more water”. The counter-effect is that migrants construct provisional
houses on the chinampas, contributing to the system’s deterioration and
hence, to agricultural abandonment from other producers. Another
pattern of migration is the movement of farmers from SGA to other
chinampa areas in the wetland that have more available water for irri­
gation. Others also move out of SGA to more urban areas of Mexico City
to look for jobs other than agriculture as well as places to live. At the
same time, people from the city find possibilities to live in a chinampa
because it is more affordable and they do not necessarily need to engage
in agriculture.
4.2.2.2. Political pull factors. The international recognition of the cul­
tural and ecological relevance of the chinampas is important for the
wetland conservation according to half of the farmers. Two of the in­
terviewees mentioned that the chinampas are not only a cultural heri­
tage for the families, but also a heritage for the country. Also, almost half
of the farmers consider that it is important to raise awareness for its
preservation through research and education. These efforts already exist
through education and research programs with local universities but
could be strengthened and expanded. None of the non-farmers
mentioned political factors related to the retention of agriculture.
4.2.2.3. Economic pull factors. The farmers interviewed spoke of agri­
cultural livelihoods as a factor that has maintained agriculture in the
region for so many years (Fig. 5). Most of the farmers interviewed do not
have other income sources and agriculture is often their only source of
income. Even one of the informants mentioned that agriculture not only
provides income for the farmers, but many families benefit indirectly
since agriculture generates different sources of income and employment
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
such as the transportation of agricultural goods, income from renting out
land for production, food for workers, jobs for day laborers, among
others. Both groups mentioned the importance of implementing adap­
tation measures to cope with the vicissitudes of agriculture (Fig. 5).
Among the adaptation measures mentioned are those related to changes
in agricultural techniques specifically to confront climatic and envi­
ronmental degradation issues faced in the wetland. One common
method of adaptation is the use of greenhouses for ornamental plant
production instead of open-air agriculture which help them control
certain climatic conditions, even when they know that this can be
counterproductive because the greenhouses could also have a negative
effect on the environment since they use plastic, agrochemicals, and
other imported materials. In this case, greenhouses represent a higher
income for families than the one obtained from an open field chinampa
(Merlín-Uribe et al., 2013a,b).
4.2.2.4. Environmental pull factors. Chinampa farmers mentioned that
the wetland is important for Mexico City since it is a provider of
ecosystem services (Fig. 5), of which they mentioned climate regulation,
human well-being, water and food supply, and air purification. One of
the interviewees stated that "Xochimilco is the second lung of the city".
Non-farmers frequently mentioned that conservation awareness and the
recognition of the ecological and cultural relevance of the wetland can
help more people become aware of the importance of continuing agri­
cultural production, which could attract more farmers to cultivate
(Fig. 5).
5. Discussion
The survey of informal households in the chinampa area reveals that
although the literature mentions that informal settlements in conser­
vation areas are caused by the lack of opportunities and purchasing
power to acquire land or houses through a formal way (Tellman et al.,
2021), families living in the chinampa area associate living in a natural
area with a sense of well-being regardless of whether the family engages
in agricultural practices or not, or if they lack services such as sewage,
water, and electricity. In the case that they do engage in agriculture,
living in a chinampa makes it possible in some cases to continue agri­
cultural practices and conserve their patrimony through preserving their
land. Several authors have argued that peri-urban land-use change in
Mexico City and other cities in the Global South is guided largely by
individual decisions rather than by landscape planning (Aguilar and
Santos, 2011; Merlín-Uribe et al., 2013a,b; Paül and McKenzie, 2013).
This view is consistent with the chinampa case; although there are at­
tempts through national and international designations to protect it and
raise awareness about the ecological and cultural importance of the area
(Jiménez et al., 2020), they have also failed to contain urbanization
(Wigle, 2010; Torres-Lima et al., 2018).
Additionally, the growth rates of informal settlements (Fig. 2) coin­
cide with the growth rates of urban-formal land in the municipality of
Xochimilco according to its last Urban Development Program, which
shows a population growth rate of 5.4% from 1960 to 1980, and a
decrease to 3.14% by the year 2000 (GODF, 2005). Furthermore,
informal settlements in conservation areas such as the chinampas are
related to the influence of intermediary actors or even politicians who
benefit from and even encourage urbanization instead of mitigating the
environmental effects derived from informality (Lerner et al., 2018;
Tellman et al., 2021), also taking advantage of the possibilities of pri­
vatizing ejido lands after the 1992 Agrarian Reform. Some measures that
could be considered to solve the problem of informality in conservation
zones are the regularization of land within formal urban plans; however,
such measures may imply greater conflict in the area, or could be an
extremely complex and bureaucratic. Considering that the chinampa
area is part of a multifunctional peri-urban fabric where agriculture is
not exclusive and where other activities and livelihoods converge, urban
459
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
and agriculture public policies must rethink peri-urban dynamics and
the role of housing in protected areas (Allen, 2003; Wang and Gu, 2020).
As mentioned above, much has been studied about the challenges
faced in the Xochimilco wetland. With our in-depth interviews we
captured the perception of the users of the chinampas to provide a
complementary understanding of potential pathways for the persistence
of chinampa agriculture. In the municipality of Xochimilco, the value of
agricultural production has increased by 400% from 2003 to 2018;
however, despite this, 8.7% of cultivated land has been lost in the same
period (SIAP, 2018), and it has been calculated that for the chinampa
zone there is an annual loss of 31 ha of agricultural chinampas (Merlí­
n-Uribe et al., 2013a,b). In a 2007 survey of 307 producers in the chi­
nampa area, water contamination, lack of support programs, low
profitability, climate, changes in lifestyles, and a lack of market to sell
goods were mentioned as the main reasons for abandoning agriculture
(UAM, 2013). Some of these factors were also mentioned in our in-depth
interviews; however, it should be noted that in our study sociocultural
factors such as loss of community and interpersonal conflicts, as well as
political factors such as indifference and corruption, were mentioned
more frequently among both producers and non-producers. Our data
also contrasts with a recent study on the perception of issues in the
chinampas area conducted with 40 stakeholders from different sectors,
where environmental issues (i.e., water and soil contamination) were
considered the most relevant for the area (Gómez-Aíza et al., 2020). It is
important to note that the study of perceptions of certain phenomena
allows observing similarities or differences between different groups;
indeed, it is important to consider that perception influences
decision-making and issues of collective action or management of
common resources (Sullivan et al., 2017). For example, water manage­
ment involves both individual and collective decisions and its manage­
ment is crucial for both peri-urban agriculture as mentioned by our
informants, as well as for Mexico City since water scarcity is an urgent
issue. It is therefore important to understand the perception of different
groups and especially the users who act directly on the landscape of the
system.
Although systems such as the chinampas reflect complex relation­
ships between sociocultural, political, ecological, and economic ele­
ments, their multifunctional character can be an opportunity to propose
strategies that allow the preservation of PUA. From our study we
consider that pull factors that lead to a persistence of agriculture
represent opportunities to potentially counteract drivers of abandon­
ment or push factors. For instance, the identity related to the value of
land and agricultural work can be an opportunity to find shared values
and concerns that help formulate collective actions to maintain the
function of the system as some authors suggest (Eakin et al., 2019;
Lerner and Eakin 2011). Through practices that allow peri-urban in­
habitants to regain a sense-of-place, and that allow an understanding of
the needs among all types of actors, it would be possible to strengthen
ties among the community that would lead to a renewal of trust and
interest in collective action (Pahl-Wostl, 2006). Also, in our case study,
identity and attachment to agricultural livelihoods have allowed farmers
to be willing to adapt their farming techniques, even when economic
gains are not sufficient for their families, which in some cases is what
makes them try to rescue their cultural heritage against all odds (Pribadi
and Pauleit, 2015).
Several alternative strategies have been discussed in different cases
as an opportunity for the retention of multifunctional PUA, especially
when identities and values rooted in farming persist. Spataru et al.
(2020) suggest that multifunctional agricultural systems should incor­
porate principles of collaboration, flexibility, technological innovation,
and long-term planning. These principles can serve as a guide for
forming agro-food cooperatives or farmers’ organizations as strategies to
maintain ecological and sociocultural relations, and to improve their
profits. The success of such cooperatives in the digital age requires
technological innovation with Information and Communication Tech­
nologies (ICTs). Among the ICTs currently used are e-commerce
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
platforms that allow farmers to expand the market to urban consumers
(Cristobal-Fransi et al., 2020). In countries such as Spain, the creation of
agro-food cooperatives using ICTs has contributed economically to the
agro-food sector, generating around 30 billion euros by 2016 (Cristo­
bal-Fransi et al., 2020). However, other studies indicate that to ensure
the sustainability of agro-food systems in and around cities, in addition
to technological innovation, it is important to combine it with tradi­
tional agroecological knowledge to safeguard the biocultural diversity of
these systems (Guerrero Lara et al., 2019). Another alternative for
retaining agriculture is through activities other than production per se
such as recreational education via agritourism. Yang et al. (2010) have
shown that in China, agritourism considerably increases the value of
peri-urban agricultural production and provides new and diverse job
opportunities. Agritourism is also an option to reconnect the urban and
the rural; it is an alternative source of income for farming families and
economically accessible compared to tourism further away from cities.
The strategies mentioned above allow small farmers to have greater
stability of income and effective use of resources ensuring environ­
mental and social sustainability of PUA systems. In the case of the chi­
nampas, there have been some efforts by groups, mainly driven by NGOs
and fueled by crisis events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, that are
beginning to opt for these types of strategies (Goekee, 2020; Natoure,
2020). More studies are needed as these strategies still present many
challenges for their implementation and success. However, their virtue
is that they give the opportunity to foster the identity and value of
traditional knowledge by coupling it with the current conditions of
globalization and urbanization. This could help mitigate the erosion of
the community and the generational displacement that persists in
peri-urban areas, and even create new identities as rural-urban pro­
fessionals incorporate multiple professions and capacities, while
improve production profits by being attractive options for all family and
community members in the peri-urban interface.
Clearly there are ways to increase the potential of PUA, but this re­
quires people who are willing to continue to cultivate. In our study we
found that particularly for those who migrate to the city, the urban
periphery is a niche opportunity to continue with their agricultural
vocation. The migrant population has the knowledge and motivation to
continue in agriculture since they have greater incomes than in their
areas of origin even if they are still dedicated to agriculture in an urban
context. For migrant farmers, some of the push factors perceived by the
established farmers are actually pull factors for them since the situation
in their places of origin is much more pressing in terms of having fewer
resources and lower incomes. In this sense, rural-urban migration seems
to have an impact on the maintenance of PUA. However, although there
are instances of migration fueling agricultural persistence, the influx of
migrants also leads to urban expansion on the urban fringe (De Haan,
1999; Tacoli, 2003), because the abandoned land also generates op­
portunities for informal urbanization by migrants. Young generations
with family backgrounds in agriculture or even young people whose
families only have land that they rent or that is abandoned, could join
these new farmers who take advantage of the new niches that others are
abandoning. These new generations might find the technological inno­
vation mentioned earlier attractive and profitable. In Europe, young
people with no agricultural backgrounds are becoming farmers in
response to social demands, entrepreneurship, and sustainable innova­
tion (Milone and Ventura, 2019). The digital platforms that represent
the modern and virtual world could attract young people and provide a
bridge between agricultural-urban populations and livelihoods.
6. Conclusion
Our study indicates that informal urban growth in the Xochimilco
wetland is not limited to the possibilities of acquiring land or housing
through formal schemes, but is also related to the way in which chi­
nampa users relate to the land through their identity as farmers, with the
possibility of being close to their crops and with the perception of well-
460
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
being that living in a conservation zone offers them. Thus, we note that
agricultural activity is not exclusive to the families living in the area, nor
does urbanization imply the complete abandonment of agriculture. The
conversations discussed here demonstrate that chinampa users respond
particularly to sociocultural and political processes that affect their
decision to retain or abandon agriculture, in addition to the low prof­
itability and the difficulties faced by farmers due to the critical avail­
ability of water, as is already documented elsewhere. As for the
persistence of agriculture, chinampa users consider the identity of
farmers towards their land and their livelihood as the main pull factor
that allow some farmers to adapt and continue farming, despite low
profits. Additionally, migrants from other rural areas find opportunities
for farming close to urban consumers, but also need housing, which
leads to a reorientation of what to prioritize for a protected agroeco­
logical wetland and how to mitigate the impact of existing housing in the
area by replacing some elements with green infrastructure, while
avoiding further urbanization.
Although both the urbanization and the abandonment of agriculture
affect the land-use of the chinampas, we consider that there are alter­
natives to help retain it by implementing strategies that convert push
into pull factors. Strategies such as agritourism, which seeks to regain
the sociocultural and ecological value of the chinampas, agri-food co­
operatives or farmers’ organizations that enhance collaboration be­
tween farmers, or strategies that help expand the market to urban
consumers through e-commerce platforms are mechanisms that could
potentially influence agricultural preservation. In order to propose any
strategy for retaining agriculture, it is important to keep in mind that
approaches must be adapted depending on the case study, since the
context of peri-urban agricultural areas can vary and the processes of
involvement with the peri-urban population (whether they are farmers
or not) must be horizontal. In this sense, the heterogeneity of those of
peri-urban agricultural areas could be articulated in such a way that
their multifunctionality becomes a virtue for agricultural areas on the
periphery of cities.
Author contributions
Patricia Pérez-Belmont: conceptualization, methodology, formal
analysis, data curation. Amy M. Lerner: conceptualization, methodol­
ogy, writing - review & editing Marisa Mazari-Hiriart: writing - review
& editing. Elsa Valiente: writing - review & editing.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate and thank the interviewees from San Gregorio Atla­
pulco for their time, support, and hospitality. We thank the NGO Res­
tauración Ecológica y Desarrollo A.C. (REDES) www.redesmx.org for the
initiative and coordination efforts for the survey, and we appreciate the
selfless help of their team during the earthquake catastrophe in San
Gregorio Atlapulco. We would also like to thank Lakshmi Charli-Joseph,
academic technician at LANCIS-IE-UNAM for her support in this
research. Finally, the first author extends acknowledgement to the PhD
Program in Sustainability Sciences, UNAM “Doctorado en Ciencias de la
Sostenibilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México” and to the
Comisión Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) for the schol­
arship provided as a Graduate Student. This research was financed by
the grant PAPIIT No. IA301117.
References
Aguilar, A.G., Santos, C., 2011. Informal settlements’ needs and environmental
conservation in Mexico City: an unsolved challenge for land-use policy. Land Use
Pol. 28, 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.002.
Allen, A., 2003. Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface:
perspectives on an emerging field. Environ. Urbanization 15, 135–148. https://doi.
org/10.1630/095624703101286402.
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
Appendini, K., Torres-Mazuera, G. (Eds.), 2008. ¿Ruralidad sin agricultura?: perspectivas
multidisciplinarias de una realidad fragmentada. El colegio de México, Mexico City,
p. 255.
Armillas, P., 1971. Gardens on swamps. Science 174, 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.174.4010.653.
Artmann, M., Sartison, K., 2018. The role of urban agriculture as a nature-based solution:
a review for developing a systemic assessment framework. Sustain. Times 10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061937.
Barrett, C.B., Reardon, T., Webb, P., 2001. Nonfarm income diversification and
household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy
implications. Food Pol. 26 (4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(01)
00014-8.
Bausch, C., 2017. Farming for what, for Whom? Agriculture and Sustainability
Governance in Mexico City. Dissertation for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy.
Arizona State University, Arizona, p. 173.
Bren, C., Reitsma, F., Baiocchi, G., Barthel, S., Güneralp, B., Erb, K., 2017. Future urban
land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit.
States Am. 114 (34), 8939–8944. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606036114.
Cristobal-Fransi, E., Montegut-Salla, Y., Ferrer-Rosell, B., Daries, N., 2020. Rural
cooperatives in the digital age: an analysis of the Internet presence and degree of
maturity of agri-food cooperatives’ e-commerce. J. Rural Stud. 74, 55–66. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.011.
De Haan, A., 1999. Livelihoods and poverty: the role of migration - a critical review of
the migration literature. J. Dev. Stud. 36 (2), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220389908422619.
Deng, J.S., Qiu, L.F., Wang, K., Yang, H., Shi, Y.Y., 2011. An integrated analysis of
urbanization-triggered cropland loss trajectory and implications for sustainable land
management. Cities 28, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.09.005.
Eakin, H., Shelton, R.E., Mario Siqueiros-Garcia, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Manuel-
Navarrete, D., 2019. Loss and social-ecological transformation: pathways of change
in Xochimilco, Mexico. Ecol. Soc. 24 https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11030-240315.
Elshafei, Y., Sivapalan, M., Tonts, M., Hipsey, M.R., 2014. A prototype framework for
models of socio-hydrology: identification of key feedback loops and
parameterisation approach. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 2141–2166. https://doi.org/
10.5194/hess-18-2141-2014.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2017. The Future of Food and Agriculture:
Trends and Challenges, p. 163. Rome.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2014. Growing Greener Cities in Latin
America and the Caribbean: an FAO Report on Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in
the Region, p. 99. Rome.
Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal (GODF), 2005. Decreto que contiene el Programa
Delegacional de Desarrollo Urbano para la Delegación del Distrito Federal en
Xochimilco.
Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF), 2012. Atlas Geográfico del Suelo de Conservación
del Distrito Federal. Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Procuraduría Ambiental y del
Ordenamiento Territorial del Distrito Federal, p. 96. Mexico City.
Goekee, A., 2020. Mexico City, the Coronavirus Is Bringing Back Aztec-era ‘floating
Gardens’. Grist. shorturl.at/wMX07.
Gómez-Aíza, L., Bedolla Ruiz, K., Low-Pfeng, A.M., Vallejos Escalona, L.M.L., García-
Meneses, P.M., 2020. Perceptions and sustainable actions under land degradation
and climate change: the case of a remnant wetland in Mexico City. Environ. Dev.
Sustain. 1–20 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00800-3.
González-Pozo, A., 2015. The Chinampas of Xochimilco at the Start of the XXIst Century:
an Initial Catalogue. Universidad Autónoma de México, Mexico City, p. 278.
Gonzalez-Pozo, A., 2016. Las Chinampas: Patrimonio Mundial de la Ciudad de México.
Universidad Autónoma de México, Mexico City, p. 239.
Gonzalez, C., 2015. Identificación de causas clave amenazantes para la agricultura
periurbana y la construcción de Sistemas de Alimentos Locales en Xochimilco y San
Gregorio Atlapulco, Distrito Federal: una propuesta metodológica. Master degree in
Geomatics. CentroGeoCentro Público de Investigacion CONACYT, Mexico City,
p. 177.
Guerrero Lara, L., Pereira, L., Ravera, F., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., 2019. Flipping the
tortilla: social-ecological innovations and traditional ecological knowledge for more
sustainable agri-food systems in Spain. Sustainability 11, 1222. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11051222.
Gunilla, E., Olsson, A., Kerselaers, E., Kristensen, L.S., Primdahl, J., Rogge, E.,
Wästfelt, A., 2016. Peri-urban food production and its relation to urban resilience.
Sustainability 8 (12), 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8121340.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), 2015. Encuesta Intercensal 2015.
https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/intercensal/2015/.
Jiménez, M., Pérez-Belmont, P., Schewenius, M., Lerner, A.M., Mazari-Hiriart, M., 2020.
Assessing the historical adaptive cycles of an urban social-ecological system and its
potential future resilience: the case of Xochimilco, Mexico City. Reg. Environ.
Change 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01587-9.
Kay, C., 2008. Reflections on Latin American rural studies in the neoliberal globalization
period: a new rurality? Dev. Change 39 (6), 915–943. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-7660.2008.00518.x.
Lerner, A.M., Eakin, H., 2011. An obsolete dichotomy? Rethinking the rural-urban
interface in terms of food security and production in the global south. Geogr. J. 177,
311–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00394.x.
Lerner, A.M., Eakin, H., Tellman, E., Bausch, J.C., Hernández Aguilar, B., 2018.
Governing the gaps in water governance and land-use planning in a megacity: the
example of hydrological risk in Mexico City. Cities 83, 61–70. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cities.2018.06.009.
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez
Lazpita, J., Gibon, A., 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe:
461
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
environmental consequences and policy response. J. Environ. Manag. 59, 47–69.
https://doi.org/10.1006/JEMA.1999.0335.
Marshall, F., Waldman, L., MacGregor, H., Mehta, L., Randhawa, P., 2009. On the edge of
sustainability: perspective on peri-urban dynamics. In: STEPS Working Paper 35.
STEPS Centre, Brighton.
Meijers, E., van der Wouw, D., 2019. Struggles and strategies of rural regions in the age
of the ‘urban triumph. J. Rural Stud. 66, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JRURSTUD.2019.01.027.
Merlín-Uribe, Y., Contreras-Hernández, A., Astier-Calderón, M., Jensen, O.P.,
Zaragoza, R., Zambrano, L., 2013a. Urban expansion into a protected natural area in
Mexico City: alternative management scenarios. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 56,
398–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.683686.
Merlín-Uribe, Y., González-Esquivel, C.E., Contreras-Hernández, A., Zambrano, L.,
Moreno-Casasola, P., Astier, M., 2013b. Environmental and socio-economic
sustainability of chinampas (raised beds) in Xochimilco, Mexico City. Int. J. Agric.
Sustain. 11, 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2012.726128.
Milone, P., Ventura, F., 2019. New generation farmers: rediscovering the peasantry.
J. Rural Stud. 65, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.12.009.
Mougeot, L., 2000. Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In:
Bakker, N., et al. (Eds.), Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the
Policy Agenda. German Foundation for International Development [DSE], Feldafing,
Germany.
Natoure, 2020. Xochimilcas Chinamperos Se Unen a #QuédateEnCasa. https://medium.
com/@natoure/xochimilcas-chinamperos-se-unen-a-qu%C3%A9dateencasa-f11
b78317827.
Padrón e Historial de Núcleos Agrarios (PHINA). 2021. https://phina.ran.gob.mx/.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the
multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol. Soc. 11, 1. www.jstor.org/stable
/26267781.
Paül, V., McKenzie, F.H., 2013. Peri-urban farmland conservation and development of
alternative food networks: insights from a case-study area in metropolitan Barcelona
(Catalonia, Spain). Land Use Pol. 30, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2012.02.009.
Pham, V.C., Pham, T.T.H., Tong, T.H.A., Nguyen, T.T.H., Pham, N.H., 2014. The
conversion of agricultural land in the peri-urban areas of Hanoi (Vietnam): patterns
in space and time. J. Land Use Sci. 10, 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1747423X.2014.884643.
Pribadi, D.O., Pauleit, S., 2015. The dynamics of peri-urban agriculture during rapid
urbanization of Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area. Land Use Pol. 48, 13–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.009.
Procuraduría Ambiental y del Ordenamiento Territorial (PAOT), 2018. Sistema de
Información del Patrimonio Ambiental y Urbano. Sistema de Información
Geográfico. http://200.38.34.15:8008/mapguide/sig/siginterno.php.
Rojas, R., 1995. Las chinampas del Valle de México. In: Rojas, T., Coord (Eds.), Presente,
pasado y futuro de las chinampas. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en
Antropología Social, Patronato del Parque Ecológico de Xochimilco, p. 324. Mexico
City.
Roy, A., 2005. Urban informality: toward an epistemology of planning. J. Am. Plann.
Assoc. 71, 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976689.
Simon, D., McGregor, D., Thompson, D., 2006. Contemporary perspectives on the peri-
urban zone of cities in developing areas. In: McGregor, D., Simon, D., Thompson, D.
(Eds.), The Peri-Urban Interface, pp. 3–17. London.
Singh, C., Dorward, P., Osbahr, H., 2016. Developing a holistic approach to the analysis
of farmer decision-making: implications for adaptation policy and practice in
developing countries. Land Use Pol. 59, 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2016.06.041.
Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SIAP), 2018. Producción agrícola
anual, Ciudad de México. https://www.gob.mx/siap/acciones-y-programa
s/produccion-agricola-33119.
Sistema de Información del Desarrollo Social (SIDS), 2003. Programa integrado
territorial para el desarrollo social 2001-2003. Jefatura de Gobierno del Distrito
Federal, Coordinación de Planeación del Desarrollo Territorial. http://www.sideso.
cdmx.gob.mx/index.php?id=35.
Spataru, A., Faggian, R., Docking, A., 2020. Principles of multifunctional agriculture for
supporting agriculture in metropolitan peri-urban areas: the case of Greater
Melbourne, Australia. J. Rural Stud. 74, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2019.11.009.
Stark, O., 1991. The Migration of Labor. Blackwell Pub, Cambridge, p. 406.
Sullivan, A, York, A.M., An, L, Yabiku, S.T., Hall, S.J., et al., 2017. How does perception
at multiple levels influence collective action in the commons? The case of Mikania
micrantha in Chitwan, Nepal. For. Policy Econ 80, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2017.03.001.
Tacoli, C., 1998. Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature. Environ.
Urbanization 10, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624789801000105.
Tacoli, C., 2003. The links between urban and rural development. Environ. Urbanization
15, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780301500111.
Tellman, B., Eakin, H., Janssen, M.A., Alba, F. De, Ii, B.L.T., 2021. The role of
institutional entrepreneurs and informal land transactions in Mexico city’s urban
expansion. World Dev. 140, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2020.105374.
Torres-Lima, P., Conway-Gómez, K., Buentello-Sánchez, R., 2018. Socio-environmental
perception of an urban wetland and sustainability scenarios: a case study in Mexico
city. Wetlands 38, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-017-0967-4.
Torres-Lima, P., Rodríguez-Sánchez, L., 2008. Farming dynamics and social capital: a
case study in the urban fringe of Mexico City. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 10, 193–208.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9059-y.
P. Pérez-Belmont et al.
Torres-Mazuera, G., 2008. Transformación identitaria en un ejido rural del centro de
México. Reflexiones en torno a los cambios culturales en el nuevo contexto rural. In:
Appendini, K., Torres-Mazuera, G. (Eds.), ¿Ruralidad sin agricultura? Perspectivas
multidisciplinarias de una realidad fragmentada. El colegio de México, Mexico City,
pp. 239–255.
UAM, 2013. Chinampas de México. Sitio Patrimonio Mundial: “Biodiversidad y cultura”
Tomo II. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, p. 288.
Valbuena, D., Verburg, P.H., Veldkamp, A., Bregt, A.K., Ligtenberg, A., 2010. Effects of
farmers’ decisions on the landscape structure of a Dutch rural region: an agent-based
462
Journal of Rural Studies 86 (2021) 452–462
approach. Landsc. Urban Plann. 97, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2010.05.001.
Wang, S., Gu, K., 2020. Pingyao: the historic urban landscape and planning for heritage-
led urban changes. Cities 97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102489.
Wigle, J., 2010. The “Xochimilco model” for managing irregular settlements in
conservation land in Mexico City. Cities 27, 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2010.04.003.
Yang, Z., Cai, J., Sliuzas, R., 2010. Agro-tourism enterprises as a form of multi-functional
urban agriculture for peri-urban development in China. Habitat Int. 34, 374–385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.11.002.