http://usj.sagepub.com/Urban Studies

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/11/26/0042098013506064The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0042098013506064

published online 26 November 2013Urban StudAmy Lerner, Stuart Sweeney and Hallie Eakinthe Toluca Metropolitan Area, Mexico

Growing buildings in corn fields: Urban expansion and the persistence of maize in  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Urban Studies Journal Foundation

can be found at:Urban StudiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Nov 26, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

Urban Studies0(0) 1–17� Urban Studies Journal Limited 2013Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0042098013506064usj.sagepub.com

Growing buildings in corn fields:Urban expansion and thepersistence of maize in theToluca Metropolitan Area,Mexico

Amy LernerRutgers University, USA

Stuart SweeneyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, USA

Hallie EakinArizona State University, USA

AbstractUrban growth continues to rise globally, especially in and around small cities and peri-urban areasof the developing world. In Mexico, a culture of maize production still exists alongside rapid urbanand industrial growth, which exemplifies a hybridized urban-rural landscape. This paper discussesa study of household land-use and livelihood strategies in the Toluca Metropolitan Area, west ofMexico City, a traditional maize-growing region that has experienced rapid urban growth. Logisticregression combined with ethnographic data illustrate that maize is being abandoned to someextent as producers age and non-farm income sources surge. At the same time, some maize stillpersists for tradition and security as non-farm income is often volatile. Our results reflect a per-sistence of maize in peri-urban areas of central Mexico, which should not be ignored by policyand planning.

Keywordsidentity, maize, Mexico, peri-urban, rural-urban transition

Received, March 2013; in final form, August 2013

Introduction

The world’s population is becoming moreurban, which has direct consequences onlivelihoods and landscapes in and around

Corresponding author:

Amy Lerner, Rutgers University, Lucy Stone Hall, 54 Joyce

Kilmer Avenue, Piscataway NJ 08854-8045, USA.

Email: amy.m.lerner@gmail.com

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

urban centres. In particular, population isgrowing in urban peripheries or ‘peri-urban’areas that often fuse both rural and urbanlifestyles and land uses. In hybridized rural–urban areas, landscapes that were previouslyimportant for food production may becomevulnerable as households transition into non-farm activities and the land values increasebecause of the proximity to urban centres.The rural–urban hybrid space is of particularimportance in the developing world wheretraditional agricultural activities are often jux-taposed with residential, commercial andindustrial expansion. Mexico especially embo-dies this hybridization as industrial and urbangrowth expands around fields of maize,resulting in a landscape of mixed uses.

This study focuses specifically on centralMexico, where smallholder maize productionhas been traditionally important for house-hold and regional diets while urban growthexpanded over the last 50 years. Despite sev-eral factors discouraging peri-urban food pro-duction, including rising land values, climateshifts and non-farm employment, there is alsoevidence of its retention, influenced by factorsincluding additional economic and caloricneed and cultural relevance (Lerner andAppendini, 2011; Lerner and Eakin, 2011).To provide insights into the future of maizeproduction in Mexico, and to peri-urban foodproduction in general, this paper seeks tounderstand the household characteristics andvalues that are associated with peri-urbanmaize retention, and discuss the possibilitiesfor production to continue into the future.

The Toluca Metropolitan Area (TMA), tothe northwest of Mexico City in MexicoState, provides an interesting case to evaluateperi-urban maize production. The Tolucaand neighbouring Atlacomulco Valleys weretraditionally maize production centres forMexico City residents. However, the popula-tion in the TMA has been growing at twicethe rate of Mexico City since the 1960s(Aranda Sanchez, 2000; Consejo Nacional de

Poblacion (CONAPO), 2007; Figure 1). Theindustrial base and labour markets have alsobecome more integrated in the latter half ofthe 20th century with the emergence of indus-trial parks and the expansion of transporta-tion infrastructure (Aguilar, 1999, Eakin andAppendini, 2008).

In order to better understand peri-urbanmaize production, this paper models the fac-tors associated with maize retention for peri-urban households that still produce, or haveabandoned maize in the TMA. We use mul-tivariate logistic regression to uncoverhousehold variables that are associated withmaize persistence, as well as uncover themeaning of maize through open-ended sur-vey questions. While it is apparent that pro-ducing households are moving away frommaize as a primary income source and diversi-fying their income streams, we find that tradi-tion and sustenance needs continue tomotivate households to plant maize, particu-larly in the more densely populated areas. Theresults do not contradict the common assump-tion that urbanizing areas will transition outof maize, but they do indicate a potential forcontinued peri-urban agriculture, enabled byinvestment from non-farm income, a demandfrom a growing urban middle-class, and astrong cultural tie to maize production andconsumption. These results thus highlight thevarious motivations for continued productionwithin urbanizing regions, questioning theidea that maize production will disappearcompletely in the near future.

Mexican maize

Mexico is the centre of maize biodiversityand domestication (Piperno and Flannery,2001). In both the Aztec and Maya creationmyths, humans were purportedly createdout of the seeds and corn masa or dough,demonstrating its importance in diet, iden-tity and religion (Warman, 2003). Despitethe presence of modern, hybrid maize

2 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

varieties, only 25% of the farms employthem, while the majority still rely on heir-loom or criollo varieties passed down fromrelatives or neighbours (Instituto Nacionalde Estadıstica y Geografıa (INEGI), 2007).The iconic crop continues to be the basis ofnational cuisine through a variety of disheseaten daily, including tortillas, despiteincreased urban growth and shifts in diets tomore processed foods. The majority of con-sumers acquire corn tortillas through super-markets or tortillerıas that produce themthrough a processed maize flour, butone-quarter of the population still makes

handmade tortillas in their home throughgrinding grain that they grow or purchaselocally (Keleman and Garcıa Rano, 2011).

After the Mexican Revolution, starting inthe 1920s, the government commenced amassive land reform programme where landwas divided up into small plots organisedinto community associations called ejidos.Members of the ejido, or ejidatarios, weregiven ejido rights (including usufruct title toindividual parcels, access to common landsand participation to vote in the ejido assem-bly) but they did not have individual landtitles, and could not sell their property. Plots

Figure 1. Map of Toluca Metropolitan Area and case-study communities.

Lerner et al. 3

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

were assigned internally and boundariesdrawn up and distributed within the ejidoitself, and not usually recognised by the fed-eral government. When the land reform eraformally ended in 1992, ejidos made up halfof all the country’s agricultural lands andejido land was often used for smallholdermaize production (Fitting, 2011; Wigginset al., 2002).

The Mexican national government sup-ported smallholder maize production (mostlyon ejidos) through a variety of programmesand institutions, until the period of neoliberalpolicy reform in the late 1980s. Up until thattime, smallholder producers received supportfor fertilizer and other inputs, access to subsi-dized credit, and a guaranteed market andprice for their grain through the state-sponsored grain purchasing agency calledCONASUPO (the National Company ofPopular Subsistence), which would sell backgrain to urban consumers at an affordableconsumer price. At the same time, large-scale,irrigated maize also received investment fromthe national government, leading to a bifur-cated production sector in the country withsmallholder producers growing on rain-fedland and large-scale, capital-intensive produc-ers growing irrigated maize in the north(Hewitt de Alcantara, 1976). Starting in thelate 1980s, the government instituted a ‘neo-liberal corn regime’, which included the clo-sure of CONASUPO, the passage of theNorth American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA) which led to a shift in the price ofmaize to an international price established bythe Chicago Board of Trade (phasing outuntil 2008), and the withdrawal of much sup-port and credits for smallholders (Fitting,2011). This policy shift left smallholders withfew options, including: (1) internationalmigration, (2) urban migration withinMexico, and/or (3) shifting to non-farmincome sources, particularly around urbanand peri-urban areas (de Grammont, 2009;Eakin, 2006).

Factors affecting peri-urban householdmaize production

Literature on household livelihoods and pea-sant household economics provides a theore-tical frame that gives insights into the factorsthat can influence peri-urban householdretention of maize production (Ellis, 1988;Netting, 1993). We divide the factors or vari-ables that affect household maize retentioninto geographic, demographic, economic,physical and cultural. From the geographicstandpoint, the physical structure and socialcharacteristics of a community will influenceproduction possibilities. For example, acommunity with high population densityimplies that the producers will have smallerparcels, which may deter households frominvesting in agriculture given the opportu-nity cost of that investment (Robles Vasquezand Garcia Barrios, 2008). A less-densecommunity is likely to have less maize aban-donment and greater investment in produc-tion as an economic venture because parcelscould be large enough to produce a maizesurplus (e.g. generating more than 1.25 timestheir consumption requirements, which for atypical household is over 2.5 ha; see DeJanvry et al., 1995: 1356; Eakin, 2006: 108).

Theories of household agricultural pro-duction indicate that several householddemographic variables would be significantin predicting maize retention. Classic theoryon household food production indicates thatfamily labour should be a significant, if notthe most significant factor in decisions regard-ing agriculture (Chayanov et al., 1966; Ellis,1988). Family size and consumption definethe minimum and maximum level of output,and the relative weight attached to leisure ver-sus income hours. Assuming only agriculturalincome, our model predicts that householdsize will be directly related to maize produc-tion; larger households are more likely toengage in maize production because they havemore dependents and labour.

4 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

If the model includes other non-farmsources of income, as is the norm in Mexicoand particularly in peri-urban areas, house-hold behaviour becomes more complicated.With hiring labour on-farm or hiring labourout (non-farm work), the level of farm out-put is determined by balancing the cost ofhiring labour versus engaging in non-farmwork and therefore purchasing food. Oureconomic model therefore predicts that non-farm activities will be associated with lesstime in maize production.

Other demographic factors could be asso-ciated with maize retention, such as ageand education. In Mexico, ejidatarios areaging and younger generations are oftenmore educated, creating a greater opportu-nity cost to staying in agriculture and leadingthem to pursue non-farm employment (deGrammont, 2009). As such, in our model,older households should be more likely toengage in maize production whereas youngerhouseholds are more likely to abandon maize.In the case of peri-urban agriculture, it isexpected that higher education levels areassociated with households that have aban-doned maize because of greater non-farmwork opportunities and the ability to diver-sify income (Eakin, 2006: 186–187; Torres-Mazuera, 2008: 243).

There are several physical assets thatcould influence a household’s engagement inmaize production. Land holdings are the pri-mary physical asset that households use inagricultural production (Ellis, 1988: 191;Netting, 1993: 146). Given similar levels oftechnology, a smaller farm size would beassociated with the abandonment of maizeproduction or the use of maize only for sub-sistence, because the energy invested in labourand the transaction costs to plant for marketcan outweigh the potential benefits gainedfrom selling small amounts of surplus grain.

Livestock is another physical asset that ispart of the physical capital for a household.For the purpose of this study, having

animals refers to larger domesticated ani-mals (i.e. cattle, sheep, pigs), not fowl.Owning animals is important because of theconnection to farming of basic grains: ani-mals can be used to convert maize to highervalue-added dairy and meat products(Eakin, 2006: 134–135). In other studies ofMexican maize production, livestock pro-duction is assumed to be a viable economicalternative to direct maize sales by divertingsurplus maize into feed (De Janvry et al.,1995). We assume in this model that if ahousehold possesses animals, they are grow-ing maize or other grains to support them.

Additionally, self-identity and culturalattachment to maize may impact householdmaize planting decisions. The cultural ele-ment of maize production may come fromtwo major directions: the land-ethic instilledfrom the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)and resulting land reform programme, andthe role and meaning of maize as a culturalicon and centre of diet and cuisine. First, theidentity linked to a campesino (meaningsomeone from the countryside) is one that iscomplex and reflects ties to both land itselfand also shared political values aimed atdemanding land reform during and after theRevolution (Boyer, 2003). Despite the factthat land reform ended in 1992, the identityof being a campesino often remains, despitelivelihood diversification and migration(Boyer, 2003; Fitting, 2011).

Second, the ties to planting maize runeven deeper than the Mexican Revolution.Maize is the centre of Mexican diet and rurallife, taking its most common form in eitherhandmade or machine-made tortillas, butalso manifesting itself in countless dishes.1

Activists exclaim sin maız no hay pais, or‘Mexico does not exist without maize’, advo-cating for the protection of the biodiversity,livelihoods and national identity associatedwith the crop. Maize also serves as an insur-ance strategy in the face of insecure incomeoptions, allowing producers ‘autonomy and

Lerner et al. 5

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

independence . when compared to the cen-tralized, costly, and complex services thatother grains require in order to be trans-formed into food’ (Warman, 2003: 20). Thisautonomy potentially leads to the persis-tence of maize production, particularly inthe face of urban growth and livelihooddiversification.

Case study: The Toluca Metropolitan Area

The definition of the Toluca MetropolitanArea (TMA) has evolved over time as stateand federal agencies incorporated neighbour-ing municipalities into the metropolis basedon the expansion of linkages to the city ofToluca. The most recent definition in 2010from the National Population Office(CONAPO) includes 15 municipalities, whichis double the number from 1995 (ArandaSanchez, 2000; National Population Office(CONAPO), 2012; Figure 1).2 This phenom-enon reflects the pace of metropolitan expan-sion in the region that is associated withpopulation and industrial growth.

The presence of maize in the TolucaMetropolitan Area stems from pre-colonialtradition but production was further stimu-lated by government programmes in the 1960sand 1970s, which provided subsidies and guar-anteed grain purchasing programmes in orderto feed the population centre in and aroundMexico City (Appendini and Torres-Mazuera,2008: 29–30). The Toluca Metropolitan Areanow boasts a population greater than 1.5 mil-lion people and Mexico State continues to bea prominent maize producer, the third largestin the nation after Sinaloa and Jalisco (ElServicio de Informacion Agroalimentaria yPesquera (SIAP), 2012). The rural develop-ment district (DDR) of Toluca, which encom-passes the Metropolitan Area, is a closesecond in total area and production of maizeafter its neighbouring district Atlacomulco tothe north (SIAP, 2012).

Despite being an urban city centre, theTMA includes many small communities that

have recently been added to the metropoli-tan area and still encompass maize fieldsamongst residential and commercial build-ings. Most households in the TMA obtainsome, if not all of their income fromnon-farm sources either from their homecommunities through commerce and services(pharmacies, mechanics, etc.) or by commut-ing to Toluca city centre. The combinationof urban expansion and a tradition of maizeproduction leads to a landscape where resi-dential, commercial and industrial structuresare interspersed with maize throughout themetropolitan area.

Methodology

Data collection

We selected three communities in the TMA,each chosen to exemplify different types ofcommunities within what is broadly definedas the peri-urban interface. The aim was tocapture a broad range of livelihood strategiesevolving in different local contexts, and toexplore the different roles of maize farmingin those strategies. All communities selectedhad populations less than 15,000 inhabitants,which is considered a ‘city’ by the MexicanNational Institute for Statistics andGeographic Information (INEGI) andNational Population Council of Mexico(CONAPO) (2012). The communities werealso found within municipalities that wereadded to the TMA since 1995, which demon-strates rapid population and urban growth(CONAPO, 2012). Additionally, all commu-nities were either ejidos or had associated eji-dos that organised the agricultural and landaffairs. Finally, communities were chosenwhere there was a personal contact within thelocal government or ejido to facilitate thefieldwork process by obtaining permissionand additional information from the localauthorities.

The variables used to differentiate thecommunities were population, population

6 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

density, percent of population employed inthe primary sector and percent of the popu-lation that works inside or outside of theirmunicipality. Rural communities, followingthe guidelines of Mexico, have approxi-mately 2500 or fewer inhabitants, a popula-tion density less than 1000 people/km2, andgreater than 20% of the population workingin the primary sector. Communities that arerural-urban have less than 20% of the popu-lation working in the primary sector, a popu-lation between 3000 and 10,000 inhabitants,3

and a population density between 1000 and3000 people/km2. More urban communitieshave a population between 10,000 and15,000 inhabitants, less than 2% of the pop-ulation in the primary sector, and a densitygreater than 3000 people/km2. Table 1 showsthe three chosen communities based on thecriteria outlined above: San FranciscoTlalcilalcalpan or SFT (community 1),Chapultepec (community 2) and Paredon(community 3). SFT and Chapultepec aremore ‘urban’ in terms of population num-bers and density, whereas Paredon is smallerand less densely populated, with larger plotsof land per household.

The first author and a team of local fieldassistants conducted 146 household surveysacross the three sample communities in2009–2010. The surveys collected detailedinformation about livelihood strategies,maize production and land use of

households in the peri-urban communitieswho continue to grow maize or have aban-doned production in the last 20 years.Households were sampled systematically(every other house) within randomly selectedgeographic sections of the communities.These geographic sections were drawn byusing satellite maps to create maximally het-erogeneous sampling clusters (Bernard,2006: 160). In the case of Paredon, in whichhouseholds are dispersed and difficult toreach, we also surveyed ejido members attheir monthly meeting with the support ofthe president of the ejido council. For everyresidence chosen, the surveyor would brieflyexplain a description of the project as out-lined by Human Subjects Research, includ-ing the sponsors and collaborators. Thedescription also stated that the intendedsample was households that still engage in orhave engaged in maize production; manyhouseholds self-described themselves as notever having been agricultural landowners ormaize producers and therefore were notsurveyed.

Within each household, information wascollected about household-level attributes,as well as demographic information aboutworking-aged members of the household.There were also open-ended questions allow-ing for qualitative information to be col-lected. Several questions were asked relatedto self-identity, reasons for producing maize

Table 1. Communities surveyed in case study.

Community Municipality Pop. Populationdensity(pop/km)

Percentworkingin othermunicipality

Distanceto Toluca(km)

Percentprimarysector

No. ofhouseholdssampled

1. SFT Almoloyade Juarez

13,721 3003 35 14 1 56

2. Chapultepec Chapultepec 6111 3527 48 12 15 473. Paredon Almoloya

de Juarez1868 109 No data 25 No data 44

Source: INEGI (2000, 2005); data elaborated by authors.

Lerner et al. 7

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and perceptions of future maize productionthat assist in understanding cultural attach-ment in maize production. Finally, informalinterviews with residents and communityleaders were integrated into the data collec-tion and interpretation.

Data analysis

The analysis and interpretation of maizeretention and usage in the TMA was basedon the modelling of quantitative data, withcomplementary insights drawn from partici-pant observation and informal interviews.Our main interest was uncovering patternsof association between a specific outcome(maize persistence) and explanatory vari-ables that capture aspects of the theory dis-cussed above. Our main outcome variable ismaize retention (= 1 if the household plantsmaize, = 0 otherwise). After incorporatingvarious predictor variables, the final modelwas retained with the best explanation of thebinary/outcome variable. A central elementof the research design is the use of three dis-tinct peri-urban communities. Thus, a vari-able controlling for community is includedin the models as a fixed-effects term toaccount for geographic location playing arole in the retention of maize.

As an aid to interpretation, the logisticregression results are presented graphicallyin addition to standard tables of parameters.Logistic models have problematic parameterinterpretations. The graphics are based onaverage predictive comparisons that havebeen computed using the regression para-meters (Gelman and Hill, 2007). The aver-age predictive comparisons have the sameinterpretation as standard linear regressionexcept that they are on a probability scale.Basically, the graphics show the change inthe probability of the outcome from a oneunit change in the predictor, assuming otherpredictors were held at their observed levelsin the survey.

The information from in-depth interviewswas used as an aid in the interpretation ofthe descriptive analysis and the logisticregression results.

Results

Descriptive summary statistics

The survey represents 146 households whoon average each hold 1.9 ha of land. Thisaverage is slightly lower than the averageland-holding size for Mexico State as awhole (2.4 ha/production unit; INEGI,2007). The bulk of the households surveyedstill engage in maize production; approxi-mately 86% of the sample. All but three ofthe households that had abandoned maizewere found in SFT and Chapultepec, themore densely populated communities thatare closer to the metropolitan centre. Themajority of the 21 households who hadabandoned maize production stated eco-nomic reasons for their decision.

Household size did not vary significantlyacross the communities: in all three commu-nities there was an approximate mean of fivemembers per household. The average age ofall adults in a household (population above12 years of age) and the average age of thehead of household also were relatively uni-form among the communities (Table 2).However, the heads of producer-householdswere on average significantly older thannon-producing households, despite the factthat the average age of all household mem-bers was not significantly different betweenproducers and non-producers.

The primary income source varied acrossthe three communities. The primary incomesource in Paredon was livestock, while theother two communities received the bulk oftheir income from non-farm employment,both salaried and non-salaried. Maize wasmore often used as a primary income sourcein Chapultepec than in any other

8 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

community. The bulk of households utilisedmaize for tortillas, although usage variedacross the communities (Table 3).Chapultepec had the lowest incidence oftortilla-making out of maize and the highestincidence of maize sales while Paredonhouseholds used maize mostly for livestockfeed instead of sales.

Retention of maize production

The results of the maize retention model aresummarised in Table 4 (parameter estimates)and Figure 2 (average predictive compari-sons). The average predictive comparisons

plot illustrates the average change in prob-ability per one unit change in a predictorwith other predictors kept at their observedvalues.

The five variables that performed the bestin the model were: land area (larger areaassociated with maize continuation), house-hold size (larger household size associatedwith maize continuation), average householdage (older age associated with maize conti-nuation), domesticated animals (more ani-mals associated with maize continuation)and total household hours spent in non-farmactivities per week (threshold: less than 93total hours positively associated, more than

Table 2. Descriptive statistics from case-study communities.

Units 1. SFT 2. Chapultepec 3. Paredon Total

Number of total households surveyed No. 56 47 43 146Households surveyed still producingmaize

No. 45 40 40 125

Land size ha 1.0 1.1 3.9 1.9Household size No. 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0Family workers at any point of season No. 4.5 2.6 1.9 3.1Animals No. 2.0 2.8 8.6 4.2Tractor ownership % 3.6 10.6 62.8 15.7Land tenure: Ejidatarioa % 66.1 83.0 75.0 74.1Land tenure: Propietarioa % 42.9 34.0 13.6 32Average household age, non-producer No. 42.4 41.9 33.6 39.3Average household age, producer No. 45.3 46.3 45.0 45.5Head of household age, non-producer No. 51.2 55.8 46.0 51.0Head of household age, producer No. 57.2 63.1 58.1 59.6Head of household high schoolgraduate, non-producer

% 27.2 16.7 0 20.0

Head of household high schoolgraduate, producer

% 8.9 10.3 0 10.0

Number of adults working off-farm,non-producer

No. 2.1 2.2 0.7 1.7

Number of adults working off-farm,producer

No. 1.4 1.7 0.8 1.3

Yield, 2008 t/ha 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.8Fertilizer use % 94.6 91.3 100 95.2Herbicide use % 75.0 87.0 100 86.0Hybrid seeds % 3.6 13.6 11.6 9.2Households that hire labour % 46.4 59.6 67.4 56.8Producing households that receivegovernmentpayments (PROCAMPO)

% 31.1 48.7 89.2 56.3

aPercentages will equal more than 100 because many households possess more than one parcel with different land

tenure regimes.

Lerner et al. 9

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Table 3. Household uses of maize. Numbers represent household counts.

Maize usage 1. SFT 2. Chapultepec 3. Paredon Total Percentage

Human consumption only 18 11 2 31 21%Human and animal consumption 6 7 25 38 26%Human consumption and sale 13 10 5 28 19%Animal consumption only 1 1 3 5 3%Animal consumption and sale 2 2 0 4 3%Sale only 1 5 0 6 4%Human and animal consumption and sale 4 4 4 12 8%No maize planting 11 7 3 21 14%Total 56 47 42 145 100%

Table 4. Logistic regression parameter estimates: Retention of maize.

Variable Parameter estimate Standard error P-value

Intercept 24.304 1.991 0.031Land area 0.793 0.321 0.013Household size 0.585 0.213 0.006Average age 0.743 0.299 0.013Livestock animals 0.521 0.299 0.081Total hours off-farm 0.168 0.126 0.182Total hours off-farm squared 20.009 0.005 0.083

Figure 2. Average predictive comparisons: Retention of maize.

10 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

93 household hours negatively associated).Several variables that we anticipated mightbe important did not perform well and weredropped from the final model.4

Open-ended questions

We asked several open-ended questions ofthe respondents to more qualitativelyexplore their relationships with maize, theiridentity as a ‘campesino’, and their attitudesabout land utilisation. The majority (80%)of the heads of household surveyed con-sidered themselves campesinos, independentof their engagement or not in maizeproduction.5 Some who had abandoned theactivity still considered themselves a campe-sino, while those that continued in maizesometimes responded that they did not con-sider themselves a campesino. While speak-ing to respondents about this question,several admitted that they are ‘half and half’since they spend the bulk of their time innon-agricultural activities. Most respondentsadhered to the idea that being a campesinowas a matter of the nature (place and form)of one’s work, not one’s income: they werecampesinos because they ‘work in the fields’,regardless of where they receive income. Itwas also not necessarily the case that ‘work-ing’ needed to be a contemporary endea-vour: one producer who had abandonedproduction explained that he still consideredhimself a campesino because ‘before we usedto work the land’.

The surrounding geography of livelihoodsalso contributed to identity: several respon-dents associated themselves with being a cam-pesino because of their location within anejido or a pueblo instead of a dense urbancentre. Ultimately, a respondent’s associationwith the identity of a campesino did signifi-cantly vary among communities:6 Paredon,the most rural community, had the highestfrequency of producers associating their iden-tities with being a campesino (93%) versus

79% in Chapultepec and 71% of producersin San Francisco Tlalcilalcalpan.

Household responses for the reasons thatthey grow maize did not significantly vary bycommunity.7 Of the households 82%reported that tradition and subsistence wasthe primary motivation for planting maize(e.g. ‘es lo que se da’ – it is what the land pro-duces here). Maize is seen as sustenance, asan inherited activity and as the most logicalway to use land. When asked what theywould do if they received more land, 65% ofthe respondents stated that they would plantmaize and 25% would try to plant somethingelse, assuming they had no constraints onwater. These results indicate that althoughland sales and agricultural abandonment iscommon in the region, this sample of house-holds relate to their land as a space for agri-cultural production. When commenting onthis question, several respondents emphati-cally denied the possibility of selling theirland, stating that ‘la tierra no se vende’, youdo not sell land. Additionally, leaving landvacant is not usually accepted in households,because they are afraid it will be expro-priated by the ejido assembly for lack ofuse.8

Economic reasons motivate some house-holds to produce, but the rationale is com-plex. Several producers discussed thepotential savings that they make by growingmaize for tortillas. Nevertheless, after fur-ther examination these same producersadmitted that perhaps they do not save inthe long run because of the investment thatthey make in inputs and labour costs. Theydescribed their decision to plant maize asone based on trade-offs: they can eitherinvest once and reap the harvest later, usingtheir harvest for consumption throughoutthe year (and potentially for cash income),or spend money every day buying tortillas.Despite the losses incurred by plantingmaize, it was apparent from conversationswith several households that producing

Lerner et al. 11

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

maize is not seen as expensive as the dailypurchase of tortillas, although this percep-tion could be related to the security and con-sistency of non-farm income. If income isunreliable, having a secure source of grainfor tortillas may be more beneficial thanhaving to find the daily cash to purchasetortillas.

Over three-quarters of the respondentswho currently produce stated that they willcontinue to grow maize in the next five years,with the highest percentage in Paredon(88%). When asked if their children will con-tinue to grow maize, almost 40% of thehouseholds replied positively, and another40% responded negatively, while the rest ofthe respondents were not sure or did notknow. If the producers are correct, almosthalf of the maize production currently takingplace will no longer be present in the next 20to 30 years. This response did vary signifi-cantly with community,9 with over 60% ofproducers in Paredon speculating that theirchildren will continue in maize production,versus one-third of the households respond-ing positively in the other two communities.

Discussion

The results of our statistical modelling andopen-ended questions provide a basis fordeeper insights into the factors associatedwith maize retention within the TMA. First,maize retention is dependent on land assets,the age and size of the household, and theactivities of household members.Interestingly, the retention of maize does notdepend on community after controlling forhousehold effects, indicating that the house-hold dynamics are more important predic-tors than geographic location. Theimportance of labour (both in number ofindividuals and the time available to house-hold members) supports traditional theorythat signals labour as the key asset in pea-sant household economics (Chayanov et al.,

1966). Additionally, smaller land holdingsassociated with maize abandonment supportthe hypothesis that an opportunity costexists in production where little landrequires too much investment for the poten-tial output, otherwise known as the ‘maizeresource trap’ (Robles Vasquez and GarciaBarrios, 2008). In other words, the landholdings are so small that the potential out-put is not worth the time or financialinvestment.

The association of older households withmaize retention also supports the hypothesispresented earlier that younger generationsmight choose to abandon production ormay not have access to land because it isretained in the hands of older ejidatarios,such as fathers or grandfathers. Althoughwe recorded some younger households thathave moved into livestock production, formany elders the reality of investing in a newactivity is probably not feasible and there-fore they retain their traditional activity ofgrowing and selling maize, often with addedincome from government programmes forelders. Upon asking one older producer whyhe grows and sells maize for a living, heresponded ‘this is what I’ve always done; Idon’t know how to do anything else’.Younger households, on the other hand,could attempt to make a profitable businessthrough livestock sales instead of the moretraditional activity of selling maize. Whenthe older generations cease to produce,maize may lose its role as an economic alter-native for smallholders, and either be usedfor subsistence or part of a larger agricul-tural profile in livestock production.

Maize retention is also dependent onhousehold size. These results suggest that indenser urban areas with greater prospectsfor non-farm employment, larger householdsare precisely those that diversify householdincome out of agriculture, and thereforereduce the availability of labour to work inagriculture. Additionally, smaller households

12 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

in the denser communities are often elderlycouples, who are more likely to be sellingmaize than younger households, as discussedabove. In the more agricultural Paredonwhere there are larger land holdings and lessopportunity or time for non-farm work,household members are still engaged in agri-cultural activities. Therefore, labour within ahousehold is utilised differently dependingon the type of land assets and availability ofnon-farm employment, which in this case arelargely dependent on community.

At the same time, there is a difference inself-identity across the communities. Thesmallest community with livelihoods mostlybased around maize and livestock produc-tion (Paredon) has a higher association withbeing a campesino and more producersclaiming that their children will continueproducing maize. In the larger communities,only one-third of producers think their chil-dren will continue with maize production,suggesting that there will be less retention ofagriculture in the future. However, one-thirdof the current production could still allowenough maize production to persist to poten-tially feed the grain needs of some house-holds or tortillerıas of homemade tortillas,and there will not be a total abandonment ofmaize production.

Finally, the tradition to use land for maizeproduction and especially for subsistence inthis peri-urban region still remains strong.When presented with the possibility ofreceiving more land, the vast majority ofhouseholds responded that they would use itfor maize production instead of any otheruse such as selling land, despite a high occur-rence of land sales in two of the commu-nities. The economic logic of growing grainfor tortillas does not always hold up, andseveral households admitted that they preferthe taste of homemade tortillas or enjoy theactivity going out to their maize fields, whichhas been found in other parts of the region(Appendini et al., 2003). This preference

could maintain some local production in thefuture to feed the demand as well as providean income source for households in need ofsupplementary income. Additionally, mostheads of households still self-identify asbeing a campesino, regardless of whetherthey continue growing maize or if they workoutside of agriculture. This self-identificationhas also been documented in other commu-nities within the region, particularly witholder generations (Fitting, 2011).

Additionally, the use of maize for subsis-tence in the more urban communities asshown in Table 3 reflects the value of maizefor diets despite the presence of non-farmincome sources and pressures to sell ordevelop land. In the more urban areas,households may not produce enough maizefor household consumption (or livestock ifthey have animals), so they might need tobuy maize for part of the year with incomefrom other sources. The diversification oflivelihood income sources actually enableshouseholds to purchase grain and inputs tocontinue their engagement in maize and live-stock production. Other scholars in Mexicohave also commented on the complementarynon-farm activities in peri-urban areasallowing agriculture to continue, whichparadoxically is more difficult in rural areasfurther from urban and/or industrial centreswhere agriculture might be abandoned aslabour migrates to urban or internationallocations (Arias, 2005; Fitting, 2011).

Despite the evidence of maize persistencein peri-urban Toluca, the results indicatethat maize has ceased to be of central eco-nomic importance, and instead is replacedby non-farm income or converted into otherproducts. This result is somewhat consistentwith a typology of national maize farmers inMexico proposed by De Janvry et al. (1995),which includes ‘traditional non-sellers’ orsubsistence producers, those that are ‘tradi-tional non-sellers with livestock production’and ‘traditional sellers’ who depend on

Lerner et al. 13

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

maize for income. While our results showthat these categories are somewhat consis-tent for peri-urban producers in the TolucaMetropolitan Area, we also find that maizegrown for subsistence is combined withother income sources that actually enablehouseholds to engage in agriculture. Theproximity of peri-urban areas to alternativeemployment options, or in the case of live-stock producers to a market of urban consu-mers, assists in fuelling maize production.Therefore new typologies of peri-urban pro-ducers could more accurately reflect thecombination of rural and urban livelihoodsand mutual feedbacks (see Lerner et al.,2013).

Conclusion

Mexico has a history of contrasts: tradi-tional, small-scale agriculture versus large-scale, modernized production, high rates ofurban and industrial growth alongside landreform and distribution, and persisting cam-pesinos next to growing non-farm employ-ment and subdivision construction. Mexicananthropologist Arturo Warman considersindustrial and traditional agriculture systemsas ‘complementary . they establish a sym-biotic and mutually dependent relationship,albeit unjust and asymmetric’ (Warman,1972: 119–120). This idea is also relevant forurban and rural livelihoods and land uses.The notion that the rural sector must be sup-planted by urban and industrial growthignores the mutual dependence of one onthe other (Warman, 1972). Indeed, in thecase of Mexico, there has traditionally beenan interdependence of both sectors, which ispotentially one reason that we see such ahybridized countryside today (Arias, 2005).

Despite the tradition and legacies in amodern–campesino and urban–rural world,there still could be a tipping point in peri-urban areas, particularly in central Mexico,in which little agriculture exists and all that

is left becomes consumed by urban growth.This reality remains to be seen as maize stillfills an important role for subsistence andsecure income for many households in theToluca Metropolitan Area. Within 20 yearsan aging class of ejidatarios and emergenceof a new generation may significantly alterthe landscape in this rural–urban interface,as the tradition of a campesino classbecomes supplanted by non-agriculturalinterests. The significance of maize for tradi-tion and the demand of households that pre-fer handmade tortillas may allow a certainamount of maize production to surviveamongst growing urban land use, whichcould be facilitated by government supportof small-scale agriculture in the region. Thequestion becomes one of regional impor-tance: is small-scale maize production neces-sary for household and regional foodconsumption?

The process and nature of a rural–urbantransition in the developing world is stillopen to debate, despite the perpetuation oftraditional unilinear stages theory by devel-opment agencies which underscores the needfor all countries to ‘take-off’ into urbandominance (Hart, 2010). The need for secureincome is a particular issue in Mexico and inperi-urban areas where employment can beseasonal, part-time or scarce. Therefore it isnot necessarily the case that a transition tomore urban livelihoods will wipe out maizecompletely. Instead, what is observed is aspace supporting a variety of activities thatenable households to make a living. A policythat favours the abandonment of agriculturethrough a process of modernization thatreleases the rural labour force assumes thatthere is a space for labour to be absorbed. Inthe case of Mexico, not only has this beenshown not to be the case, but householdsalso continue to find ways to fill the role thatagriculture once played through migrationand informal work, paired with subsistenceagriculture (Appendini and Torres-Mazuera,

14 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2008; de Grammont, 2009; Fitting, 2011). Itis possible, therefore, that household agricul-ture will continue to fill various roles in peri-urban livelihoods, instead of becoming anobsolete remnant of a past dependent onprimary-sector activities.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the sup-port and guidance of Kirsten Appendini and JoseAntonio Alvarez Lobato from the partner institu-tions of El Colegio de Mexico and El ColegioMexiquense. Additional assistance in data collec-tion was provided by Edson Martinez and RosaBarrios. Special thanks goes to the communitiesof Paredon, Chapultepec, and San FranciscoTlalcilalcalpan for their participation. Finally,this work would not have been possible withoutthe support of Ivonne Vizcarra Bordi and EdithBordi.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by theNational Science Foundation under Human andSocial Dimensions Grant No. 0826871. Fundingfor this work was also provided by an Inter-American Foundation Grassroots DissertationFellowship and a Conference of Latin AmericanistGeographers Field Study Award.

Notes

1. For a more in-depth description of maizeuses, see Fitting (2011).

2. A metropolitan area is defined by the MexicoPopulation Statistics Office as a group of twoor more municipalities that are located in acity of 50,000 or more inhabitants which hasa high grade of socio-economic integration(CONAPO, 2012).

3. Although not an official definition, variousMexican scholars define ‘transition’ commu-nities as having populations between 2500and 10,000 inhabitants, and ‘urban’ commu-nities as having 10,000 inhabitants or more(de Grammont, 2009).

4. By performing an outlier test, one householdwas identified as anomalous because it hadabandoned maize but also displayed an older

and larger demographic profile, much likehouseholds that continue in maize produc-tion. Removing the outlier did not signifi-cantly increase the performance of the modelso it was retained.

5. A chi-squared test for independence showedidentification and continuation in maize to beindependent: x2 = 3.2157, df = 2, p-value =0.2003.

6. A Fisher’s exact test for independence showedthe responses to be dependent on community;p-value = 0.03.

7. A Fisher’s exact test for independence showedthe responses to be independent of commu-nity; p-value = 0.10.

8. Before the reformation of Article 27 in 1992,the ejido assembly could expropriate land thatwas not in use. Although no longer legal todo so, the idea remains among many ejidatar-ios that they must cultivate their land in orderto keep it (Torres-Mazuera, 2008: 69).

9. A Fisher’s exact test for independence showedthe responses to be dependent on community;p-value = 0.02.

References

Aguilar AG (1999) Mexico City growth and

regional dispersal: The expansion of largest

cities and new spatial forms. Habitat Interna-

tional 23: 391–412.Appendini K and Torres-Mazuera G (eds) (2008)

¿Ruralidad Sin Agricultura? Perspectivas Mul-

tidiscplinarias de una Realidad Fragmentada.

Mexico, DF: El Colegio de Mexico, Centro de

Estudios Economicos.Appendini K, Garcia Barrios R and De la Tejera

B (2003) Seguridad alimentaria y ‘calidad’ de

los alimentos: ¿una estrategia campesina?

Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos

y del Caribe 75: 65–83.Aranda Sanchez JM (2000) Conformacion de la

zona metropolitana de Toluca, 1960–1990. 1a.

edition. Toluca: Centro de Investigacion en

Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades Universidad

Autonoma del Estado de Mexico.Arias P (2005) Nueva ruralidad: Antropologos y

geografos frente al campo hoy. In: Avila

Sanchez H (ed.) Lo urbano-rural ¿nuevas

expresiones territoriales?. Cuernavaca: CRIM-

UNAM, pp. 123–160.

Lerner et al. 15

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bernard HR (2006) Research Methods in Anthro-

pology: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. 4th edition. Lanham, MD: Alta-

Mira Press.Boyer C (2003) Becoming Campesinos: Politics,

Identity, and Agrarian Struggle in Postrevolu-

tionary Michoacan, 1920–1935. Stanford, CT:

Stanford University Press.Chayanov AV, Thorner D, Kerblay B, et al.

(1966) The Theory of Peasant Economy.

Homewood, IL: Published for the American

Economic Association by R.D. Irwin.Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO)

(2010) La delimitacion de zonas metropolitanas.

Mexico, DF: CONAPO.Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO) (2007)

La distribucion territorial de la poblacion y los

flujos migratorios internos: el sistema nacional de

ciudades. Mexico, DF: CONAPO.de Grammont HC (2009) La desagrarizacion del

campo mexicano. Convergencia 16: 13–55.de Janvry A, Sadoulet E and Gordillo de Anda G

(1995) NAFTA and Mexico’s maize produc-

ers. World Development 23: 1349–1362.Eakin H (2006) Weathering Risk in Rural Mexico:

Climatic, Institutional, and Economic Change.

Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press,

242 pp.Eakin H and Appendini K (2008) Livelihood

change, farming, and managing flood risk in

the Lerma Valley, Mexico. Agriculture and

Human Values 25: 555–566.El Servicio de Informacion Agroalimentaria y

Pesquera (SIAP) (2012) Produccion anual.

SIAP, La Secretarıa de Agricultura, Gana-

derıa, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentacion

(SAGARPA).Ellis F (1988) Peasant Economics: Farm House-

holds and Agrarian Development. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Fitting E (2011) The Struggle for Maize: Campe-

sinos, Workers, and Transgenic Corn in the

Mexican Countryside. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.Gelman A and Hill J (2007) Data Analysis Using

Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hart G (2010) Redrawing the map of the world?

Reflections on the World Development Report

2009. Economic Geography 86: 341–350.

Hewitt de Alcantara C (1976) Modernizing Mexi-

can Agriculture: Socioeconomic Implications of

Technological Change, 1940–1970. Geneva:

United Nations Research Institute for Social

Development.Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Geografıa

(INEGI) (2005) El Conteo de Poblacion y

Vivienda. Mexico, DF: INEGI.Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Geografıa

(INEGI) (2007) Censo Agropecuario 2007, VIII

Censo Agrıcola, Ganadero y Forestal. Mexico,

DF: INEGI.Keleman A and Garcıa Rano H (2011) The Mex-

ican tortilla crisis of 2007: The impacts of

grain-price increases on food-production

chains. Development in Practice 21: 550–565.Lerner AM and Appendini K (2011) Dimen-

sions of peri-urban maize production in the

Toluca-Atlacomulco Valley, Mexico. The

Journal of Latin American Geography 10:

87–106.Lerner AM and Eakin H (2011) An obsolete

dichotomy? Rethinking the rural–urban inter-

face in terms of food security and production

in the global south. The Geographical Journal

177: 311–320.Lerner AM, Eakin H and Sweeney S (2013)

Understanding peri-urban livelihoods through

an examination of maize production in the

Toluca Metropolitan Area, Mexico. Journal of

Rural Studies 30: 52–63.Netting RM (1993) Smallholders, Householders:

Farm Families and the Ecology of Intensive,

Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford, CT: Stan-

ford University Press.Piperno DR and Flannery KV (2001) The earliest

archaeological maize (Zea mays L.) from high-

land Mexico: New accelerator mass spectrome-

try dates and their implications. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America 98: 2101–2103.Robles Vasquez HV and Garcia Barrios R (2008)

Fallas estructurales del mercado de maız y la

logica de la produccion campesina (microeco-

nomıa del autoabasto y la autosuficiencia). In:

Garcia Barrios R, De la Tejera Hernandez B

and Appendini K (eds) Instituciones y desar-

rollo: Ensayos sobre la complejidad del campo

mexicano. Mexico, DF: Centro Regional de

Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias/UNAM;

16 Urban Studies 0(0)

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Universidad Autonoma Chapingo; El Colegiode Mexico, pp. 281–355.

Torres-Mazuera G (2008) Los productores mai-ceros de Emilio Portes Gil: De campesinos desubsistencia a agricultores de medio tiempo enun ejido que se urbaniza. In: Appendini K andTorres-Mazuera G (eds) Ruralidad Sin Agri-

cultura? Perspectivas Multidiscplinarias de una

Realidad Fragmentada. Mexico, DF: El Cole-gio de Mexico: Centro de Estudios Econom-icos, pp. 59–78.

Warman A (1972) Los campesinos: hijos predilec-

tos del regimen. 1. edition. Mexico, DF: Editor-ial Nuestro Tiempo.

Warman A (2003) Corn and Capitalism: How a

Botanical Bastard Grew to Global Dominance.Chapel Hill, NC: The University of NorthCarolina Chapel Hill Press.

Wiggins S, Keilbach N, Preibisch K, et al. (2002)Discussion – Agricultural policy reform andrural livelihoods in central Mexico. Journal ofDevelopment Studies 38: 179–202.

Lerner et al. 17

at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on December 2, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from