Download - ECC 2013 ANTH422 TermPaper Final

TENOCHTITLAN SUSTAINABLE CITY

Tenochtitlan:

A Precedent Sustainable City

Laura Wake-Ramos

The Pennsylvania State University

ANTH 422

December 10th, 2013


LAW 2

INTRODUCTION

“Urban agriculture is a recent concept, which refers to the activities linked

to food production in cities”. Although the movement of urban agriculture

today is a revolution compared to modern sustainable city urbanisms, the

concepts and technologies are not “new alternatives” in the Valley of Mexico.

The knowledge is ancient, with its origins rooted in the most important site of

Mesoamerica, Tenochtitlan, a megacity that had been historically sustained by

intensive agricultural systems (Losada, et al, 2000).

It is hope that this paper shed a light on the opportunities to learn

sustainable agricultural strategies from the ancient Aztec city, Tenochtitlan.

URBANIZATION AND SUSTAINABILITY

The world’s population is rapidly becoming more urbanized (Horrigan,

2002). In 1975, about one-third of the world's people lived in cities; by 2030, that

figure is expected to rise to over 60% (Horrigan, 2002). Studies have shown that

when people move from rural to urban areas, they characteristically increase

their food consumption (Horrigan, 2002). Both population growth and

urbanization indicates consequences for the environment and the social order

that it upholds (Horrigan, 2002). Thus, the combination of more people, with

greater consumption per capita is currently creating a threat for future scarcity

in vital resources (Horrigan, 2002).


LAW 3

Sustainable development was first defined in 1987 by the Brundtland

Commission, solicited by the United Nations: “Sustainable development is

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Alberola, 2009). The main

factor of sustainability is flexibility, which is the adaptive capacity of agriculture

to adapt to future changes (Alberola, 2009). “Today’s industrial agriculture is

considered unsustainable because it is similarly eroding natural resources faster

than the environment can regenerate them, as well as it depends heavily on

resources that are nonrenewable” (e.g., fossil fuels and fossil aquifers) (Horrigan,

2002). Sustainable development recognizes that natural resources are infinite,

acknowledges limits on economic growth, and encourages equity in resource

allocation (Horrigan, 2002).

Many large civilizations have risen on the strengths of their agriculture, and

subsequently collapsed because their farming methods had eroded the natural

resource base (Horrigan, 2002). Sustainable agriculture is not a new invention,

as can be drawn from the inspirations and methods of the most advanced

ecological science from ancient agrarian cultures, such as Tenochtitlan

(Vallianatos, 2012).

TENOCHTITLAN: THE AZTEC CAPITAL

Tenochtitlan lies under the heart of modern Mexico City, which used to be

a vast marshlands of Lake Texcoco before evolving into the Aztec capital


LAW 4

(Calnek, 1972). The urban center was an “island city”, built on artificial housing

platforms called “chinampas” made of alternating layers of lake mud and thick

mats of decaying vegetation (Calnek, 1972). By the fourteenth century,

chinampas were the basis for the growth of several independent tribe-ruled

island states, such as Xochimilco, Chalco, Mixquic, and Cuitlahuac located near

the lake’s southern shores (Werner, 1992). The Aztecs of the Tenochtitlan island-

state slowly conquered each of these independent tribes into their island

colonies (Werner. 1992). In the fifteenth century, the Aztec king Montezuma I

and his hydraulic engineer Nezahualcoyotl employed 20,000 men to build a ten-

mile dike, called the San Lazaro Dike, dividing Lake Texcoco to control flooding,

and the water’s salinity for farming (See Appendix 2).

By the time the Spaniards arrived in 1520, between 160,000 and 200,000

Aztecs inhabited (Calnek, 1972) the 12-15 km2 urban center of Tenochtitlan

(Sanders, 1988) (See Appendix 1). With a calculated population density of

12,000-17,000 per km2 (33,333-34,782 per mi2), this surprisingly surpasses the most

dense cities in the United States, such as Los Angeles (6,999.3 per mi2), and New

York City (5,318.9 per mi2) (See Appendix 3).

The center of the city was the center of administrative facilities. Mexica

kings lived in huge palaces with additional private quarters for the ruler himself,

his multiple wives and children. Other rooms were to accommodate servants,

council chambers, workshops for royal craftspeople, storage facilities for royal

tax and tribute items, offices, libraries for scribes, pleasure gardens, and even


LAW 5

zoos and aviaries (Sanders, 1988). The “class of bureaucratic specialists,

including administrators, tax receivers, judges, police, [and] professional

warriors…” also resided in the center city (Sanders, 1988). In addition to

administrative officials, the city had religious functions whose facilities were

concentrated in an enormous complex of specialized structures (Sanders, 1988).

Tenochtitlan was divided into approximately 100 wards, each of which was a

unit of craft specialization, such as featherworkers, goldsmiths, sculptors, and

masons (Sanders, 1988). The city hosted a huge central market, and a great

number of neighborhood food markets every day. Thousands of buyers and

sellers, as many as 60,000, flocked to the great market each day (Sanders,

1988). In respect to the numbers of such people, the biggest function of

Tenochtitlan was clearly government (Sanders, 1988).

The layout of the urban chinampa districts consist of regular alternation of

street and canals at right angles to the east-west axis of the city (Calnek, 1972).

Residential sites flanked both sides of each north-south street, and chinampas

were located on both sides. Each residential site was rectangular in shape, and

resulted in a mirror image pattern within each segment marked off by two

streets or canals (Calnek, 1972). Each residential site cultivated its own

chinampa, which could maintain from 2 or 3 individuals, to a maximum of 25 or

30 related members (Calnek, 1972). However, a general range appears to have

been 10 to 15 individuals of all ages per site (Calnek, 1972). The majority of the

chinampa sites vary from about 100 to 400 m2 in total extent, while the larger lots


LAW 6

were around 850 m2 (Calnek, 1972). These larger chinampa holdings would

normally have provided no more than 15% of family subsistence incomes

(Calnek, 1972). Therefore, the native Aztecs prized their personal, local

chinampas as a source of fresh vegetables rather than a major source of family

income (Calnek, 1972).

AN ANCIENT AGRICULTURE SYSTEM

Chinampa agriculture technology was the most advanced and efficient

self-sustaining agricultural system which fed the central valley (Werner, 1992).

Chinamperos, chinampa farmers, had perfected the system into a way of living.

Based on the productivity of modern chinampa communities, 1 hectare could

support a subsistence ration for 15 to 20 individuals in Tenochtitlan.

Approximately 500 m2 (193 mi2) would be necessary to support the average

Aztec individual (Calnek, 1972). At the height of the Aztec empire, 20,000

hectares (45,000 acres) of space was dedicated to these raised farmlands

(Werner, 1992).

The chinampas’ low profile above water, long, narrow layout between

canals, and layering of specific soil types reduced the constant need for

irrigation (Werner, 1992). The ground’s capillary action supplied sufficient

amounts of canal water to the roots of crops on top (Werner, 1992).

Nevertheless, the work was labor intensive. Chinamperos spent their day

fertilizing, transplanting, and tending plant nurseries (Werner, 1992).


LAW 7

The success of the chinampas’ productivity can be attributed to the

chinamperos’ knowledge and management of biodiversity (Gomez-Pompa,

1991). Once a newly constructed chinampa was raised to its proper height,

fast-growing willows called ahuejotes were planted at the banks’ edges to

control erosion, provide shade and firewood, and impede the flow of crop-

damaging pests (Werner, 1992). The most common fertilizer was the compost

human waste and aquatic plants from the canals (Werner, 1992). When maize

was cultivated, ground hugging crops like beans and squash were planted

between the rows (Werner, 1992). This intercropping of sorts kept the soil

nutrients in balance. The root action of these bushier plants returned minerals to

the earth consumed by the more demanding maize crop (Werner, 1992).

Another fascinating innovation was the use of seed germination beds and

seedling nurseries (Werner, 1992). Chinamperos could concentrate care and

attention on crops at their most delicate stage. The beds were laid out at the

chinampa’s edge and filled with the canal’s rich muds. The growth culture was

cut into small, moist cubes of earth for transplanting the whole seedling into its

permanent chinampa. Weak seedlings were discarded.

The five main cash crops of the Aztecs grown in the chinampas were

maize, beans, chia, amaranth, and squash (Gomez-Pompa, 1992). Other crops

harvested were green tomato, chayote, chilacayote, as well as edible herbs like

uauhzontli, quiltonil, and quelite cenizo (Werner, 1992). The exact timing of

transplanting allowed for the optimal and proper use of the chinampas (Werner,


LAW 8

1992). These fields were never left fallow throughout the whole year. As soon as

one crop was harvested, another set of seedling were transplanted (Werner,

1992). During the fall/winter season, non-frost hardy plants were protected with

mats of straw and woven cattails (Werner, 1992).

The pre-columbian chinampas’ productivity was astoundingly high even

by today’s standards. Amazingly, up to four harvests a year on the same plot

were often possible (Werner, 1992). However, despite the impressive production

and economic complexity, “Tenochtitlan was still primarily a consuming center”

(Sanders, 1988). The quasi-independent city (Werner, 1992) relied on imports of

food and basic commodities, for most of its own urban products were

consumed by the resident urban population (Sanders, 1988).

SURVIVAL OF CHINAMPA COMMUNITIES

The chinampero life survived the Spanish conquest led by Hernan Cortes

largely intact (Werner, 1992). However, the Spanish vented their hatred,

jealousy, and Christianity to bury the chinampas and Aztec Mexico (Vallianatos,

2012). They cared little for the hydrological talents of the farmers, being

horsemen at heart. They sabotaged the Aztec’s great dike in their attempt to

erect a new colonial city (Werner, 1992). As a result, terrible flooding returned to

the city. The Spaniards responded by attempting to eliminate the floods by

composing a grand and ineffective drainage schemes (Werner, 1992). The

Spaniards reasoned that even though the chinampas were emptied, they could


LAW 9

farm the rich lake bottom. Little did they care to realize, the lakes were mostly

saline or winds drying the beds (Werner, 1992). In a single blow, the Spanish

conquistadors destroyed Mexica’s prosperous and sacred agriculture and

culture, that had possibly been invented and passed down by the Mayans

generations ago (Vallianatos, 2012). On top of the ruins, the Spanish imposed

an industrialized farming system, called the hacienda or large farm, where were

manned by slave labor of surviving indigenous people (Vallianatos, 2012).

As the lakes Xochimilco and Chalco, even though fed by underground

spring, slowly began to shrink and the chinampas to die of thirst over the

centuries (Werner, 1992). The rivers supplementing Lake Chalco’s fresh water

supply were diverted, and was dry by 1900 except in times of heavy rain. In

addition, President Porfirio Diaz made the decision to tap into Xochimilco’s

largest spring in 1930 in order to supply the fast growing city with drinking water

(Werner, 1992). Lake Xochimilco began to contract, and by 1950, the

chinampas turned bone dry (Werner, 1992).

Chinampero protests finally convinced officials to protect the chinampas

(Werner, 1992). However, the answer was only to redirect semi-treated sewage

water in through the Canal Nacional, which inadvertently collected untreated

industrial and household wastes (Werner, 1992). The deteriorating water quality

caused farmed acreage and crop diversity to shrink, while water-born

pathogens rose, and soil productivity sank (Werner, 1992). By 1988, only half of

the chinampas’ remaining 2,300 ha were actively farmed, and some 20 useful


LAW 10

plant species had disappeared in just two decades (Werner, 1992). Also, the

chinampas are slowly sinking themselves, caused by pumping from deep-water

wells to increase the city’s water supply even further (Werner, 1992).

Although on the verge of extinction, chinampa communities, called

chinampanecas, “are not history yet” (Werner, 1992). San Andres Mixquic,

Mexico, is a small semi-rural chinampaneca whose economy is based on

agriculture (Gomez-Pompa, 1991). The chinampas were part of Chalco Lake,

but today the water supply comes from remaining spring and treated sewage

from Mexico City (Gomez-Pompa, 1991).

The main cash crops of San Andres Mixquic are swiss chard, broccoli, and

celery (Gomez-Pompa, 1991). Two domesticated species are corn, and squash.

A major component of the flora in the chinampas grown in San Andres Mixquic

are the non-domesticated plants; of 96 species, 67% is used as fodder, 20% used

as medicinals, and 13% as food (Gomez-Pompa, 1991). Other domesticated

species are useful as ornamentals, aromatics, mulches, and pesticides (Gomez-

Pompa, 1991).

A chinampero, Jose Genovevo Perez from Xochimilco’s Pueblo de San

Luis Tlaxialtemalco and leader of a grassroots chinampa preservation

campaign, shared his grave concern of being a modern chinampero (Werner,

1992). “We still don’t get enough water to keep the canals full, and the little we

do get is still too dirty...we want everyone to know we’ve got to do more to save

them,” said Perez (Werner, 1992).


LAW 11

This is an important factor to point out these environmental concerns, as

these changes have been imposed on the chinampanecas, not produced by

them (Gomez-Pompa, 1991). A recent estimate suggested they could satisfy

one quarter of Mexico City’s demand for fresh vegetables (Werner, 1992). This

way, chinampas can receive the support and protection they deserve.

Whenever today’s chinampero abandon their plots, this inherited wisdom is

irrevocably erased (Werner, 1992).

INDUSTRIAL FARMING

The U.S. model of capitalist development promoted the nation-state

system, the industrialization of agriculture, and the tension between these two

processes (Freidmann, 1989). After the Second World War, the U.S. model of

capitalist development promoted the nation-state system and the

industrialization of agriculture (Freidmann, 1989). Agriculture became

increasingly tied to industrial capital in order to increase food production

worldwide (Alberola, 2009) to transnational food corporations, and well as

industrial capital (Freidmann, 1989). This industrial sector shifted agriculture from

final use, to industrial inputs (Freidmann, 1989). The industrialization of agriculture

favored the displacement of colonial spheres that encompass geographically

vast and disparate regions by autonomous, self-governed national economies

(Freidmann, 1989).


LAW 12

This social aim led to the practice or monocropping or monoculture

(Alberola, 2009), the planting the same crop over a large land area (Horrigan,

2002). The ultimate goal is a single species ecosystem, versus many traditional

agro-ecosystems that include the management of many species in the same

field and the use of species for multiple purposes (Gomez-Pompa, 1991). The

single-species ecosystem approach rapidly yielded negative environmental

impacts, such as soil erosion, groundwater pollution, river eutrophication,

excessive water use, and the development of weeds and diseases resistant to

chemical control (Alberola, 2009). Monoculture farming additionally erodes

biodiversity among plants and animals (Horrigan, 2002). These crops, such as

grain, is grown in stretches of over thousands of acres, leading to more chemical

use and exacerbating attendant problems (e.g., pesticide resistance in insects,

and pollution of surface water and aquifers by herbicides and insecticides)

(Horrigan, 2002). Industrial agriculture erodes biodiversity, because

monocultures replaces the diverse habitats (Horrigan, 2002). In the Philippines,

and some other developing countries, more than 80% of farmers now plan

modern rice varieties (Horrigan, 2002). In Indonesia, this led to the recent

extinction of 1,500 local rice varieties in just 15 years (Horrigan, 2002). The Dust

Bowl of the 1930s is symbolic of the violence unleashed in rural America and the

rest of the world by industrialized, mechanized factory farming for the extraction

of profits (Vallianatos, 2012).


LAW 13

Industrial farming and other industrial activities have led to the presences

of pesticides and persistent organic pollutants in soils, water, air and food

(Alberola, 2009). This issue is particularly relevant given the occurrence of

pesticide residues in food products, because consumers and environmental

associations are concerned about a possible new sanitary crisis (Alberola, 2009).

Pollution from factory farming is harming the health of both workers and

residents downstream or downwind from the operations (Horrigan, 2002); new

strains of foodborne pathogens have emerged in recent years, while long

recognized pathogens have been causing more widespread harm (Horrigan,

2002). At the same time, food production should also meet food quality policies,

which are enforced by national and international policies (Alberola, 2009).

Decreasing pesticide use may lead to negative effects, such as toxin risk in food

(Alberola, 2009).

Walter Goldschmidt, an anthropologist working for the US Department of

Agriculture, USDA, brought the deleterious political effects of large farms and

agribusiness in the 1940s (Vallianatos, 2012). He documented the undoing of

rural America by agribusiness. For instance, when large farms and agribusiness

surrounded a town, there was a decline in quality of life; schools, churches,

stores, and culture would be left to fend for themselves (Vallianatos, 2012). “The

town would attract transient people, shrinking and becoming a slum-like

subsidiary of the large farms,” Goldschmidt hypothesized, (Vallianatos, 2012).

Another rural sociologist, Dean MacCannell, in 1983 stated that giant farmers


LAW 14

were becoming America’s ‘neo-feudal’ lords who, with government assistance,

were converting rural America into a “Third World of poverty, injustice,

exploitation, and oppression” (Vallianatos, 2012). When large farms are in or

near small farm communities, he said, they ruin the rural the rural communities,

sucking all life out of them. Large farmers never cease telling the local, middle

class to “get big or get out” (Vallianatos, 2012).

In the place of towns, which could accurately be characterized as

providing their residents with clean and healthy environment, a great deal of

social equality and local autonomy, we find agricultural pollution, labor

practices that lead to increasing social inequality, restricted opportunity to

obtain land and start new enterprise, and the suppression of the development

of local middle class and the business and services demanded by such a class


In summary, the findings from 50 years of social science research as

concluded industrialized agriculture ‘disrupts the social fabric of

communities...poses environmental threats where livestock production is

concentrated; and is likely to create a new pattern of ‘haves and have nots’”



LAW 15

INSPIRED STRATEGIES FROM ANCIENT AN CULTURE

Although no one set of farming practices constitutes sustainable

agriculture, research in agriculture sciences have identified certain methods

that enhance sustainability (Horrigan, 2002).

The first method is crop rotation (Horrigan, 2002). By rotating two or more

crops in a field, farmers interrupt pests’ reproductive cycles and reduce the

need for pest control (Horrigan, 2002). Rotations sometimes reduce the need for

added fertilizer, because one crop provides nutrients for the next crop (Horrigan,

2002). Cover crops is another strategy with similar implications (Horrigan, 2002).

Cover crops are planted to improve soil quality, prevent soil erosion, and

minimize weed growth (Horrigan, 2002). In addition, some cover crops can also

generate income (Horrigan, 2002).

The Aztecs used their knowledge of biodiversity for their advantage. The

benefits of pairing the right crops to improve soil, yet maximize production was a

sacred science. Even by today’s standards, crop rotation harvesting grown by

chinampas could harvest three and five metric tons per hectare (Werner, 1992).

The exact timing of transplanting allowed for the optimal and proper use of the

chinampas (Werner, 1992).

Another method is no-till and low-till farming. These farming systems are

based on the premise that minimizing disturbances to the soil will increase the

retention of water, nutrients, and the topsoil itself (Horrigan, 2002).


LAW 16

Chinampas did not receive tillage at all (Hobbs, 2008). The Aztecs most likely

used crop residue mulching or only superficial tillage for crop beds (Hobbs,

2008). Bed systems reduce compaction in the rooting zone by confing wheel

traffice to furrow bottoms (Hobbs, 2008).

Soil management is another sustainable strategy (Horrigan, 2002). Good

stewardship of the soil involves managing its chemical, biologic, and physical

properties (Horrigan, 2002). Industrial agriculture has tended to emphasize the

chemical properties of soil, to the detriment of the other two (Horrigan, 2002).

Organic matter and compost are food for beneficial bacteria, fungi,

nematodes, and protoza (Horrigan, 2002). If managed properly, these soil

organisms perform vital functions that aid plant growth (Horrigan, 2002). Healthy

soil produces plants that are vigorous and therefore less susceptible to pests

(Horrigan, 2002).

As mentioned earlier, the most common fertilizer of the Aztecs was human

waste and aquatic plants from the canals (Werner, 1992). With the combination

of the right biodiversed crops, the chemical and physical properties could be

used and restored to balance the soil of each raised-farming bed.

Diversity is a key-role in sustainable agriculture (Horrigan, 2002). Growing a

variety of crops provides a buffer against both ecologic and economic

problems (Horrigan, 2002). Monocultures are more vulnerable to pests, as well

as to fluctuations in market price (Horrigan, 2002). Crop variety can also create

more niches for beneficial insects (Horrigan, 2002).


LAW 17

The Aztec chinampa landscape presents the ultimate variety of habitats

(Gomez-Pompa, 1991). The biological diversity is the result of the combination

of many different domesticated species grown with non-domesticated plants

(aquatic and terrestrial) that grow in the fields and nearby channels (Gomez-

Pompa, 1991).

Nutrient management is an important feature of sustainable strategies.

After monitoring the soil content of nitrogen and other nutrients, farmers can

prevent runoff into adjacent waters, in addition save money on purchased

fertilizers, by applying only what the plants and soil can absorb, with no excess

(Horrigan, 2002).

As mentioned earlier, the carefully placed layers of earth and reed mats

created an efficient capillary action in the ground, which sucked the water from

the canals to supply to the roots within the bed (Werner, 1992). This natural

system was an important feature of the Aztec chinampa, as it supplied just the

right amount of water to the crop bed.

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an additional sustainable strategy.

This system prefers biologic methods and uses least-toxic chemical pesticides

only as a last resort (Horrigan, 2002). To keep destructive insects under control,

IPM emphasizes crop rotations, intercropping, and other methods of disrupting

pest cycles, as well as plant varieties that have high resistance to pests

(Horrigan, 2002).


LAW 18

Incredibly, chinampanecas do not have a concept for weeds, despite

the fact that they have many species in their agricultural fields that are

commonly known elsewhere as noxious weeds (Gomez-Pompa, 1991). Certain

weeds were allowed to grow with the cash crop, for their pesticidal properties

(Gomez-Pompa, 1991).

Rotational grazing continually allows moving animals to different grazing

areas, rotational grazing prevents soil erosion by maintaining sufficient

vegetative cover (Horrigan, 2002). It saves feed costs, as well as averts the

manure buildup of concentrated animal feeding operations, and contributes to

soil fertility (Horrigan, 2002).

Not only did the fresh, spring-fed water channels provide irrigation to the

raised-farming beds, but were teeming with waterfowl, fish, and tasty

salamander-like axolotl (Werner, 1992). These animals were essential for the

chinampa ecosystem, as well as hunted for meat.

ADAPTING INTO CONTEMPORARY TIMES

Just like in ancient times, there is an inescapable relationship “between

farming and political economy” (Morehart, 2011). Mutual dependency

develops between farming families and the institutions that negotiated between

stakeholders (Morehart, 2011). Only can the sustainability of an ecosystem can

become sustainable, if there is a sustainable political system (Morehart, 2011).


LAW 19

“Urban agriculture” is a recent concept, which refers to the activities

linked to food production in cities (Bennett, 2000). It coincides with the

recognition of the need to pursue the normative social and environmental goals

of sustainable development, and address the specific problem of cities as

resource consumers (Bennett, 2000).

Just like in Tenochtitlan, agriculture was integrated in the way of life in an urban

district. “The people made a living, taught children patterns of knowledge and

practice, interacted with their community, and reproduced both the spiritual

and physical universe,” yet the city and agricultural system collapsed in the

hands of the Spanish (Morehart, 2000), due to the fall of the political structure.

The urban agriculture movement is beginning to cultivate in the United

States. Large cities, such as Salt Lake City, created a urban farming city plan in

2009 (2009). The lead of the convention is Jim Bradlely, Salt Lake County

Councilman (2009). He wants the county to be a leader in the urban farming

phenomenon, as city and suburban residents rediscover their roots by

producing their own food in an attempt to eat better, save money, and fend

for themselves (2009). Dubbed the Bradley plan, county officials are plowing

through to appoint an urban farming manager, and form technical advisory

committee that will study the options and issue reports on how the committee

should proceed (2009). The article states “it’s a proposal that may not make a

lot of dollar, but it certainly makes a lot of sense” (2009). A secondary part of


LAW 20

the plan would involve converting underused county parks into communal

vegetable gardens, and urging cities to follow suit (2009).

Another city that is attempting to make a difference is Toledo, Ohio

(2011). The city and its partners are using urban agriculture as one of the major

redevelopment strategies for a newly designated future green district

containing multiple brownfield properties and build the Fernwood Growing

Center (2011). This center is located on a site of high poverty, and the closest

food market is over two miles away (2011). With the help of EPA funding and

technical assistance, the green district will spur an overall revitalization of the

area, improve environmental quality, provide career opportunities for local

residents, improve access to nutritious food, and provide the neighborhood with

a new optimism (2011).

In New Orleans, Louisiana, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 6 is

working to transform a 20-acre brownfield into an urban farm (2011). The

proposed village will include community gardens, commercial agriculture, a

livestock area, and a produce market, as well as community facilities everyone

can use (2011). The City of New Orleans conducted the environmental site

assessments at the property, while cleanup will be conducted by a volunteer

program (2011).

These kinds of urban agricultural projects can range from small public and

private community gardens to larger-scaled urban farms and orchards (2011).


LAW 21

In addition to growing fresh produce, urban agricultural projects are producing

herbs, spices, honey, and livestock (2011).

Megacities are beginning to acknowledge the benefits of designing

farmland with the city, in order to ensure food security, timber, metabolism of

nature, and environmental protection (2012). For example, Shanghai

significantly design for farmland on the edge of the city for mostly rice and

wheat cultivation for feeding the city (2012). Apart from that, about 10,000

hectares on the outskirts of Shanghai are intensely cultivated to provide a

variety of vegetables for the city population (2012). Interestingly, majority of the

farmer depends on bio-fertilizer for their agriculture, which comes from urban

solid waste management (2012). In addition to providing food, urban

agriculture can help cities make the best possible use of organic waste materials

(2012).

The EPA and county governments are two examples of a supportive

political structure to implement sustainable strategies in communities (2011). The

strategy of encouraging market-driven development of sites for economic reuse

is proving to be a successful approach at many sites (2011). The EPA is working

with communities throughout the U.S. on a range of projects to encourage the

safe and sustainable reuse land for urban agriculture (2011).


LAW 22

DISCUSSION

The ancient civilization known as Tenchtitlan, the capital of the Aztec

empire, was a megacity of the urban agricultural societies in Mesoamerica. The

wonders we, biologist, botanists, anthropologists, agribusinessmen, etc, could

learn from this grand city is astonishing when it comes to sustainable agricultural

strategies. The Aztecs were beyond advanced in their knowledge of

biodiversity, and multi-crop farming. To imagine what our societies and cities

could be today, if the Europeans had realized the brilliance of the technology.

People would have continued respecting food and agriculture as a personal

relationship with the body and the planet.

Shifting towards an agricultural city versus an industrial city will be an uphill

battle, although some rust has sifted off the traditional gears. It will be a new

way of life that the typical American may not but used to (2012). Americans

have appropriated productive land of 24.7 acres per person, versus the

disturbingly malnourished country of Mozambican, of 1.2 acres of land per

person (2012).

The push to drive change begins in a political situation, of which the

public should get involved. Sustainability will reside as an utopia, if the people

do not act in what they are passionate for: if the people care for the health of

themselves, the quasi-dependency of their local economy, and the

environmental impact we have on the earth, then the people need to ask for a

change.


LAW 23

A sustainable city is not impossible in the United States, even though it is so

highly industrialized and urbanized. The Aztecs in Tenochtitlan were able to

support their population density twice as much as New York and Los Angeles

(Sander, 1988) with the biologically richest agro-system known today (Gomez-

Pompa, 1991). With the employment of sustainable agricultural strategies,

hopefully the decentralizing of the administrative activities of capital will be

ensured for reducing urban population pressure as well as ensure the

sustainability of the city itself (2012).


LAW 24

APPENDIX 1.

Sanders, W., & Webster, D. (1988). The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition.

American Anthropologist, 90(3), 521-546.


LAW 25

APPENDIX 2.




LAW 26

APPENDIX 3.

United States Census Bureau. (2010). 2010 Census Urban Area Facts. [12-05-13].

Retrieved from www.census/geo/reference/usa/usafacts. html.


LAW 27

Sources Cited:

(2011). Land revitalization face sheet: Urban agriculture. United States

Environmental Protection Agency.

(2012). Urban agriculture: towards a sustainable city. Dhaka Courier.

(2009). Urban farming. The Salt Lake Tribune,0746-3502.

Alberola, C., Debaeke, P., et al. (2009). Sustainable Agriculture. New York:

Springer Science+Business.

Bennet, R., Cortes, J., et al. (2000). Urban agriculture in Mexico City: functions

provided by the use of space for dairy based livelihoods. Pergamon,

17(6),419-431.

Calnek, E. Settlement pattern and chinampa agriculture at Tenochtitlan.

American Antiquity, 37(1), 104-115.

Friedmann, H., & McMichael, P. (1989). Agriculture and the state system: the

rise and decline of naitonal agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia

Ruralis, 29(2), 93-117.

Gomez-Pompa, A., and Jimenez-Osornio, J.J. (1991). Human role in shaping of

the flora in a wetland community, the chinampa. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 20 (1-3), 47-51.

Gupta, R., Hobbs, P., et al. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in

sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,

363, 543-555.


LAW 28

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can

address the environmental and human health harms of industrial

agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445-456.

Morehart, C. (2011) Sustainable ecologies and unsustainable politics:

chinampa farming in ancient Central Mexico. Anthropology New, 52(4),

9-10.



Vallianatos, E. (2011). The democratic and sacred nature of agriculture.

Environ Dev Sustain, 14, 335-346.

Werner, L. (1992). Cultivating the secrets of Aztec gardens. Americas, 44(6), 6-

11.

Download - ECC 2013 ANTH422 TermPaper Final

Top Related