Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptation for Whom to What? Challenges and Opportunities in Agriculture-Urban Collaboration for Climate Change Adaptation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Climate Change in Cities

Part of the book series: The Urban Book Series ((UBS))

  • 3349 Accesses

Abstract

As leaders in climate change governance, urban governments have the opportunity to interact, coordinate, and collaborate with different sectors and actors to set and pursue both private and public adaptation goals. Urban and peri-urban agriculture (growing and raising food and non-food products within or at the periphery of an urban area) is recognized as both vulnerable to climate change and as a potential strategy for urban climate adaptation and mitigation. However, few cities have formally incorporated it into their climate change policies. Mexico City is one exception. It’s 2014–2020 Climate Action Plan—El Programa de Acción Climática: Ciudad de México (PACCM)—outlines actions and programs to benefit the city’s peri-urban agrarian communities and farmers. This chapter examines the PACCM to explore the drivers, obstacles, and opportunities of agriculture-urban collaboration for climate change adaptation. We examine: (1) how and why agriculture became part of the PACCM; (2) the stressors and vulnerabilities that the PACCM’s agrarian actions and programs seek to mitigate, for private and/or public benefit; and, (3) the barriers to and opportunities for this collaboration. We analyzed the PACCM programs that target agrarian actors, activities, and lands, and interviewed government officials, PACCM coordinators and authors, agrarian community leaders, and farmers about the Plan’s development and implementation. We found that the PACCM implicitly considers peri-urban agrarian actors as private providers of public adaptation benefits for the city, through measures intended to also benefit agrarian actors. However, the Plan does not articulate how agrarian actors and lands fit into the city’s larger vision for adaptation, nor does it adequately address the specific vulnerabilities and socioeconomic dynamics shaping agrarian actors’ decisions, which may undermine the Plan’s success. The results suggest several guidelines to promote the private provision of public adaptation in the context of social-ecological change. First, governments and private providers must explicitly communicate their needs and expectations for the collaboration so that the needs of both parties can be addressed during policy development. This also requires consideration of the effects of social, economic, and environmental changes on the private providers and beneficiaries. Secondly, to encourage private actors to provide specific public adaptation benefits, governments must develop policy mechanisms that explicitly and directly promote the desired benefits, ideally in collaboration with private providers. Finally, policy processes and outcomes that promote private provisioning of public adaptation benefits warrant close attention to how winners and losers, and synergies and trade-offs are mediated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Climate change adaptation can be defined as “the processes and actions that enable people to cope better with increasingly challenging weather and climatic conditions” (Tompkins and Eakin 2012 p. 3).

  2. 2.

    Urban and peri-urban agriculture includes the diverse set of activities for growing and raising food and non-food products within or at the periphery of an urban area. It is practiced by diverse actors, often on small parcels or in confined spaces, and can include many different crops and products. It is closely interconnected with the urban system, and complements, rather than replaces, rural production and imported foods (McIntyre et al. 2009; Mougeot 2000).

  3. 3.

    The formal name of the administrative unit of Mexico City was changed on January 29, 2016 from the Distrito Federal, or Federal District, to the Ciudad de México, or Mexico City. Thus, in the text we refer to the city government as the Government of Mexico City (GMC); however, policy documents dating from before this change still refer to the Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF).

  4. 4.

    An ejido is an area of communally held land, established following the 1910 Mexican Revolution via land redistribution to smallholders and indigenous farmers. Ejido members have rights to use the land for individual cultivation, residential settlement, and communal use. In 1992, ejidos were given the right to privatize their lands; however, many ejidos have persisted.

  5. 5.

    Agricultural land use in the territory of Mexico City at any point in the twentieth century is hard to determine because of the rapid rate of urbanization over that period (see Ezcurra et al. 1999; Ward 1990). We provide the official 1960 census data as a point of reference, with the caveat that it may not accurately reflect the reality of land use at that time.

  6. 6.

    Mexico City was not included in the cited study; no specific data on the age of farmers in Mexico City could be found. Thus, we extrapolate from the national and regional data that the majority of farmers in Mexico City are also over the age of 50.

References

  • Aguilar, A. G. (2008). Peri-urbanization, illegal settlements and environmental impact in Mexico City. Cities, 25(3), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). New York: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Rodríguez, M. S. (1995). Políticas agrarias en la periferia ejidal de la ciudad de México. Sociológica, 10(29), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Rodríguez, M. S. (2001). Propiedad, poblamiento y periferia rural en la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Zeeuw, H., Van Veenhuizen, R., & Dubbeling, M. (2011). The role of urban agriculture in building resilient cities in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(S1), 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decreto de Programa General de Ordenamiento Ecológico del Distrito Federal, 90 pp. (August 1, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieleman, H. (2016). Urban agriculture in Mexico City: Balancing between ecological, economic, social and symbolic value. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, H. (2005). Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: Cases from Central Mexico. World Development, 33(11), 1923–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, H., & Appendini, K. (2008). Livelihood change, farming, and managing flood risk in the Lerma Valley, Mexico. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(4), 555–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, H., Lerner, A. M., & Murtinho, F. (2010). Adaptive capacity in evolving peri-urban spaces: Responses to flood risk in the Upper Lerma River Valley, Mexico. Global Environmental Change, 20(2010), 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdlenbruch, K., Thoyer, S., Grelot, F., Kast, R., & Enjolras, G. (2009). Risk-sharing policies in the context of the French Flood Prevention Action Programs. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(2), 363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, S., & Silva, J. A. (2009). The vulnerability context of a savanna area in Mozambique: Household drought coping strategies and responses to economic change. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(1), 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezcurra, E., Mazari-Hiriart, M., Pisanty, I., & Aguilar, A. G. (1999). The Basin of Mexico: Critical environmental issues and sustainability. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Félix Guerra, H., Topelson Fridman, S. H., de la Garza Estrada, G., Poiré Romero, A., Mohar Betancourt, G., Fernández Varela, F. V., et al. (2012). Delimitacion de las zonas metropolitanas de Mexico 2010. México: Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (SEDESO), Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO), Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., Shah, M., & Velthuizen, H. v. (2002). Climate Change and Agricultural Vulnerability (pp. 152). Johannesburg: International Institution for Applied systems Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2008). Climate Change and Food Security: A framework Document (pp. 93). Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno de la Ciudad de México (GMC). (2016a). Plan CDMX: Proyecto de PGDU para Consulta Pública (pp. 251). Ciudad de México: Gobierno de la Ciudad de México, Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno de la Ciudad de México (GMC). (2016b). Programa de Acción Climática de la Ciudad de México, Informe de avances al 2016 (pp. 116). México, D.F.: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, C40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF). (2004). Estrategia Local de Acción Climática del Distrito Federal (pp. 123).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF). (2008). Programa de Acción Climática de la Ciudad de México 2008-2012. México, D.F.: Secretaría Del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF). (2012). Atlas Geográfico del Suelo de Conservación del Distrito Federal (pp. 100). México, D.F.: Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Procuraduría Ambiental del Ordenamiento Territorial del Distrito Federal, México, D.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF). (2013). Programa General de Desarrollo del Distrito Federal 2013-18 (pp. 160). Ciudad de Mexico: Jefatura de Gobierno, Administración Pública del Gobierno del Distrito Federal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF). (2014). Programa de Acción Climática: Ciudad de México 2014-2020 (pp. 383). México, DF: SEDEMA, Centro Mario Molina para Estudios Estratégicos sobre Energía y Medio Ambiente, A.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobierno del Distrito Federal (GDF). (2015). Tercer Informe de Gobierno del Distrito Federal (p. 621). Mexico City: Secretaría Particular del Jefe de Gobierno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, S., & Romero-Lankao, P. (2014). Science and institution building in urban climate-change policymaking. Environmental Politics, 23(6), 1023–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2009). Censo Agropecuario 2007, VIII Censo Agrícola, Ganadero y Forestal: Distrito Federal. Aguascalientes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), (pp. 151). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotchen, M. J., & Moore, M. R. (2007). Private provision of environmental public goods: Household participation in green-electricity programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. The Geographical Journal, 177(4), 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ley de Mítigación y Adaptación al Cambio Climático y Desarrollo Sustentable para el Distrito Federal 18 (June 16, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Losada Custardoy, H., Martínez, H., Vieyra, J., Pealing, R., Zavala, R., & Cortés, J. (1998). Urban agriculture in the metropolitan zone of Mexico City: Changes over time in urban, suburban and peri-urban areas. Environment and Urbanization, 10(2), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lwasa, S., Mugagga, F., Wahab, B., Simon, D., Connors, J. P., & Griffith, C. (2015). A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 13, 68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R. T. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads: Global Report (pp. 590). Washington DC: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., & Runhaar, H. A. C. (2012). Exploring the scope of public and private responsiblities for climate adaptation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milman, A., & Warner, B. P. (2016). The interfaces of public and private adaptation: Lessons from flooding in the Deerfield River Watershed. Global Environmental Change, 36, 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misselhorn, A., Eakin, H., Devereux, S., Drimie, S., Msangi, S., Simelton, E., et al. (2010). Vulnerability to what? In J. Ingram, P. Ericksen, & D. Liverman (Eds.), Food security and global environmental change (pp. 87–114). Washington, DC: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture. PNAS, 104(50), 19680–19685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mougeot, L. J. A. (2000). Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks. In N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gündel, U. Sabel-Koschella & H. d. Zeeuw (Eds.), Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban agriculture (pp. 99–117). Feldafing, Germany: DSE/ETC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Næss, L. O., Newell, P., Newsham, A., Phillips, J., Quan, J., & Tanner, T. (2015). Climate policy meets national development contexts: Insights from Kenya and Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 35(2015), 534–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, K. L., & Leichenko, R. M. (2000). Double exposure: Assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10(3), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pensado Leglise, M. d. R. (2001). El desafío rural del siglo XXI para el Distrito Federal. Revista Estudios Agrarios, 16, 39–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posthumus, H., Hewett, C. J. M., Morris, J., & Quinn, P. F. (2008). Agricultural land use and flood risk management: Engaging with stakeholders in North Yorkshire. Agricultural Water Management, 98(7), 787–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintanar, E. (2014). Diagnostico: La Agricultura Urbana y Peri-Urbana de la Ciudad de México (p. 76). México, D.F.: UNEP/UNDAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schteingart, M., & Salazar, C. E. (2010). Expansión urbana, sociedad y ambiente. México, DF: El Colegio de México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretaría de Agricultura Ganadería Desarrollo Rural Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA). (2014). Estudio sobre el envejecimiento de la población rural en México. Ciudad de México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretaría de Desarrollo Rural y Equidad para las Comunidades (SEDEREC). (2014). Segundo Informe de Gobierno 2013-2014 (pp. 97). Mexico City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretaría de Industria y Comercio, D. G. d. E. (1965). IV Censos Agricola, Ganadero, y Ejidal. 1960. México, D.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SIAP). (2014a). Infografía Agroalimentaria del Distrito Federal 2014 (pp. 64). México, D.F.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SIAP). (2014b). SIACON. http://www.gob.mx/siap/acciones-y-programas/produccion-agricola-33119?idiom=es. Accessed October 14, 2015.

  • Sheinbaum Pardo, C. (2008). Problemática ambiental de la Ciudad de México. México, D.F.: Editorial LIMUSA, S.A. DE C.V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. (2008). Urban environments: Issues on the peri-urban fringe. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. (2012). Climate and environmental change and the potential for greening African cities. Local Economy, 28(2), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2013). Climate change, relational vulnerability and human security: Rethinking sustainable adaptation in agrarian environments. Climate and Development, 5(4), 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tompkins, E. L., & Eakin, H. (2012). Managing private and public adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2009). Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on Human Settlements 2009 (pp. 306). Sterling, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • VERBI GmbH. (2016). MAXQDA, software for qualitative data analysis. Berlin, Germany: Sozialforschung GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, P. M. (1990). Mexico City: The production and reproduction of an urban environment. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Julia C. Bausch & Hallie C. Eakin

  2. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico

    Amy M. Lerner

Authors
  1. Julia C. Bausch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hallie C. Eakin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy M. Lerner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy M. Lerner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Sara Hughes

  2. School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, The Netherlands

    Eric K. Chu

  3. School of Public Service, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA

    Susan G. Mason

Appendices

Appendix 1

Actions of 2014 PACCM pertinent to peri-urban agrarian lands and actors

Action/program

Objective (actor)

Benefit created (target beneficiary)

Policy mechanism

Cost to farmers and landholders

IPU1

Integrate environmental and urban planning policies (government)

Urban quality of life (urban residents)

Land use planning, regulation

Limits land use and development options

EVI1

Increase green space per capita (landholders)

Urban quality of life (urban residents)

Reforestation, environmental management

Transaction costs; time investment in project implementation and maintenance; potential yield and income losses; opportunity costs in other employment

SC1

Increase organic farming practices (farmers)

Environmental quality, local food (urban residents); economic development (farmers)

Training in farming practices; incentive of possible government purchasing

Transaction costs; time investment in training, transitioning farm to organic, establishing market relationships; opportunity cost of other employment

SC2

Evaluate the logging ban and forest quality (government)

Carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services (urban residents)

Regulation, evaluation

Limits land use and development options

SC3

Integrate local farmers as providers of the “green purchases” program (government)

Reduced GHG emissions (urban residents); sustainable economic development (farmers)

Agreements to realize guidelines for government purchases of local produce

Transaction costs; time to transition to meet commercial standards, establish market relationships

SC4

Conserve soil and water on agricultural land (farmers)

Ecosystem services; reduced risk of landslides and floods (urban residents)

Economic supports for infrastructure, management plan

Transaction costs; time to implement and maintain conservation projects; potential financial investment; opportunity cost of other employment

SC5

Conserve and protect native maize varieties (government)

Maize genetic diversity (farmers)

Monitoring transgenes, regulation, training, and evaluation

Limits crop choice and development options

SC6

Conserve soil, water, and ecosystems in the SC (agrarian communities)

Ecosystem services; reduced risk of landslides and floods (urban residents)

Financial supports for infrastructure; monitoring

Transaction costs; time to implement and maintain conservation projects; potential financial investment

SC7

Conserve biodiversity through milpa agriculture (government)

Food diversity, ecosystem services, local food (urban residents); livelihoods (farmers)

Demonstration plots, technical assistance, maize samples collected for seed bank

Time in training; opportunity costs for economic development

SC8

Increase carbon capture in SC (government, landholders, women’s groups)

Ecosystem services, quality of life (urban residents); employment (agrarian actors)

Land use plans, project implementation, and maintenance on abandoned agricultural land

Transaction costs; limits land use and development options

SC9

Rainwater capture for irrigation (farmers)

Increased water supply (urban residents); improved water management (farmers)

Design and implement plan for eco-technologies for water capture

Transaction costs; time in training with new technology

ENV3

Restore environmental quality in natural protected areas (landholders)

Ecosystem services (urban residents)

Management plans

Transaction costs; time to implement and maintain conservation projects

ENV4

Conserve maize diversity and biodiversity (government)

Conserve genetic diversity (farmers) and biodiversity (urban residents)

Create lab, reactivate seed bank

None

ENV5

Create new ecological reserves in agrarian communities (agrarian communities)

Ecosystem services (urban residents)

Market for public good (ecosystem services)

Transaction costs; time in labor, training, implementing and maintaining projects

F15

Contain urban expansion (government)

Urban quality of life (urban residents)

Land use planning

Limits land use and development options

Appendix 2

Analysis of Interviews with Agrarian Actors (N = 33)

Motivations to farm

  • Tradition, culture, enjoyment: N = 20

  • Economic: N = 18

  • Environmental stewardship and ecosystem services: N = 17

  • Household food security and self-reliance: N = 11

  • Health: N = 7

Obstacles to success of agrarian climate actions

  • Economic barriers to farming: N = 20

    • Insufficient or unreliable income: N = 16

    • Limited market access: N = 10

    • Profits are limited but could improve: N = 9

  • Other stressors and limits on farming activities: N = 25

    • Urbanization: N = 17

    • Infrastructural needs: N = 9

    • Water supply/access: N = 7

    • Space, capacity limits: N = 7

    • Regulations: N = 6

  • Government supports: N = 24

    • Insufficient: N = 14

    • Transaction costs: N = 13

    • Strict requirements: N = 15

    • Access biased/corruption, nepotism: N = 18

  • Limited political participation and representation: N = 15

  • Lack of interest in farming: N = 14

Opportunities for agricultural development in the SC and private provision of public benefits

  • Field presence: N = 12

  • Better Funding: N = 12

  • Tech support: N = 6

  • Appropriate programs: N = 5

  • Integrated urban–rural planning: N = 4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bausch, J.C., Eakin, H.C., Lerner, A.M. (2018). Adaptation for Whom to What? Challenges and Opportunities in Agriculture-Urban Collaboration for Climate Change Adaptation. In: Hughes, S., Chu, E., Mason, S. (eds) Climate Change in Cities. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65003-6_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation