GROUP 1 - URBAN FARMING

Urban Farming:
The Mexico Proposal
2016
Aderonke ABUDU
Andre KEVIN
António JOPELA
Gabi TRISTAN
Harshad GAIKWAD
Iqlima FUQOHA
Jesus RUBIO
Lucas CHACHA
Rocio ARIAS
GROUP 1

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................................1
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................................2
3. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................................................2
4. URBAN FARMING............................................................................................................................................................2
4.1. Definition................................................................................................................................................................2
4.2. Classification of Urban Farming..............................................................................................................................3
4.3. Reasons for Urban Farming ....................................................................................................................................3
4.4. Limitations of Urban Farming.................................................................................................................................4
4.5. Benefits of Urban Farming......................................................................................................................................5
5. URBAN FARMING PRACTICES ACROSS THE WORLD.......................................................................................................5
5.1. Sky Greens - Singapore...........................................................................................................................................5
5.2. Rotterzwam - Rotterdam, The Netherland.............................................................................................................6
5.3. Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Farm - New York ...........................................................................................................7
6. URBAN FARMING KEY ELEMENTS...................................................................................................................................8
6.1. Water......................................................................................................................................................................8
6.1.1. Water Sources................................................................................................................................................8
6.1.2. Water treatment............................................................................................................................................9
6.1.3. Water application methods ...........................................................................................................................9
6.2. Waste (Composting)...............................................................................................................................................9
6.2.1. Definition .......................................................................................................................................................9
6.2.2. Composting Techniques.................................................................................................................................9
6.3. Energy...................................................................................................................................................................11
6.3.1. Renewable Sources of Energy for Urban Farming .......................................................................................12
6.4. Food......................................................................................................................................................................13
6.4.1. Impact of Conventional Farming..................................................................................................................13
7. PROPOSED SYSTEM - MEXICO CITY ..............................................................................................................................14
7.1. Mexico City ...........................................................................................................................................................14
7.2. Urban Farming Facility (UFF) ................................................................................................................................15
7.3. Benefits of UFF .....................................................................................................................................................19
7.4. Limitations of UFF.................................................................................................................................................20
8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................20
9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................................21

ii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 4.2. 1. Scales of Urban Farming.....................................................................................................................................3
Figure 5.1. 1. A-shaped towers and descriptions.....................................................................................................................6
Figure 5.2. 1. Rotterzwam urban farm.....................................................................................................................................7
Figure 5.3. 1. Brooklyn Grange rooftop farm: location, activities and services .......................................................................7
Figure 6.1. 1. Basic Rainwater Harvesting System ...................................................................................................................8
Figure 6.2. 1. Aerated static pile (ASP) composting ...............................................................................................................10
Figure 6.2. 2. In-vessel composting options...........................................................................................................................10
Figure 7.1. 1. Waste sources, uses and composition for Mexico City....................................................................................15
Figure 7.2. 1. Aerial view of proposed urban farm location ..................................................................................................16
Figure 7.2. 2. Process loop and layout of urban farm facility.................................................................................................16
Figure 7.2. 3. Food system chart............................................................................................................................................17
Figure 7.2. 4. Water system for UFF in Mexico City...............................................................................................................18
Figure 7.2. 5. Plasma gasification process..............................................................................................................................19
Figure 7.2. 6. Solar Energy Powered light ..............................................................................................................................19
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 6.2.2. 1. Comparison of the three composting techniques..........................................................................................11
Table 6.3.1. 1. Comparison of renewable energy sources .....................................................................................................12
Table 7.1. 1. Mexico City geographic data .............................................................................................................................15
Table 7.2. 1. Crops Production per Year ................................................................................................................................17
Table 10. 1. General information for the proposed crops (Delgado, 2013)...........................................................................23
Table 10. 2. Harvesting Data for the proposed crops (Escoto, 2011) ....................................................................................23
Table 10. 3. Storage condition for the proposed crops (Bendickson, 2007)..........................................................................23
Table 10. 4. Current Condition of Distribution Chain for the proposed crops (Sagarpa, 2016).............................................23

1
URBAN FARMING: THE MEXICO PROPOSAL
1.
INTRODUCTION
According to Food and Agricultural
Organization, the current world
population of 7.2 billion is projected
to increase by 1 billion over the next
12 years and is predicted to reach 9.6
billion where 842 million of them will
remain undernourished by 2050 [1]
.
Based on Global Health Observatory
data, the urban population in 2014
accounted for 54% of the total global
population and this is projected to
increase to 70% by 2050.
This perspective shows the increasing trend
of urbanization and as a consequence, the demand
of food in urban areas will also increase. Urban
areas are required to integrate farming creatively
within cities in order to be more self-sufficient in
feeding people. This will occur without
encroaching on new land, accompanied by
decreasing of water resources in the agricultural
sector, where greenhouse gas emissions and the
effects of more intensive land use are contributing
to climate change. Many policy makers are taking
action to seize the opportunities offered by urban
farming. However, cities must do more to meet
and keep pace with growing urban populations.[2]
This report provides an overview of urban
farming and its practices across the world, with
emphasis on proposing a system which links urban
farming to waste, water, food and energy that can
encourage and support urban farming in
developing countries.
This report contains analysis from several
sources as a mean to enhance awareness regarding
urban farming, its potential role in the society and
its opportunities to improve food security.
1.

2
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
● Define and describe urban farming considering different approaches across the world.
● Analyse specific cases of urban farming implementation in different countries.
● Propose an urban farming system involving water, waste, energy and food.
3. METHODOLOGY
The methodology of the project consisted in collecting information from scientific articles,
books, journals and web pages of enterprises dedicated to urban farming, which are cited in
the list of references and analysing it in group meetings.
We chose some examples of urban farming practices across the world regarding growing of
vegetables for analysis and proposed an improved system of urban farming for a country.
The main topic was divided into subtopics: water, waste, energy and food. Two students
were assigned to each subtopic, and a student was in charge of the development/synthesis of
the whole project.
For data analysis, each subgroup explained to the team what they found and discussed about
it. We shared information through an online sharing application (Google Docs). The research,
results, conclusions and propositions have been compiled to form this project.
Teamwork Strategy
 Establishing common objectives after a prolonged period of deferred opinions and discussions
 Assigning tasks to each person before every meeting.
 Assessing every opinion before final screening.
 Active participation by all individuals in attaining our defined objectives.
 Avoiding overlapping communication by raising hands before speaking.
4. URBAN FARMING
4.1. Definition
The definition of urban farming can differ according to the location in which it is developed,
the type of products and their scale.
Urban farming is the growing of plants or all manner of foodstuff which includes fruits,
vegetables, rearing livestock and beekeeping at all levels from small scale hobby gardening to
commercial horticulture and community projects within and around the cities. It could be
accompanied by many other complementary activities such as processing, marketing and
distribution of foodstuff, collecting and reusing rainwater and wastewater, food and animal
waste, employing and educating local residents.

3
4.2. Classification of Urban Farming
Urban farming can be classified according to the scale, location, and products grown.[3]
Scales
● Institutional farms and gardens;
● Commercial farms;
● Community gardens;
● Community farms.
Figure 4.2. 1. Scales of Urban Farming source: http://www.fiveboroughfarm.org/urban-agriculture/
Locations
● Intra Urban (inside the cities);
● Peri-Urban (around the cities);
● On-plot (homestead);
● Off-plot (away from residence);
● Private land (owned);
● Public land (parks, conservation areas, along roads, streams and railways);
● Semi-Public land (schoolyards, grounds of schools, jails and hospitals)
Products grown
● Food products, from different types of crops (grains, root crops, vegetables, mushrooms,
fruits);
● Animals (poultry, rabbits, goats, sheep, cattle, pigs, guinea pigs, fish, etc.);
● Non-food products (like aromatic and medicinal herbs, ornamental plants, tree products,
etc.) or combinations of these.
Often the more perishable and relatively high-valued vegetables and animal products and by-
products are favoured.
4.3. Reasons for Urban Farming
The main reasons why urban farming is being supported, are related to the following
benefits[3]:

4
● Food security and nutrition - Food production in the city is in many cases a response of the
urban poor to inadequate, unreliable and irregular access to food, and the lack of purchasing
power.
● Economic impacts - Growing your own food saves household expenditures on food. Selling
produce (fresh or processed) brings in cash.
● Social impacts - Urban farming may function as an important strategy for poverty alleviation,
social integration and education.
● Urban ecology - Urban farming is part of the urban ecological system in terms of recycling of
wastewater and organic wastes for farming.
● Energy efficiency - Urban farming requires less energy for operation because it's on a small
scale. It reduces greenhouse emissions which are harmful to the environment. These are
derived from fossil fuels used for transportation of farm products from outside the cities and
also the operation of heavy duty farm equipment. It also encourages the use of renewable
sources of energy like solar energy, wind energy and biomass which have little effect on the
environment.
4.4. Limitations of Urban Farming
Here are some of the limitations urban farming:[4]
● Lack of space - In big cities, there are no more spaces left on which to build. Even when there
are still unused public or private lands, the price is high. Usually, people prefer to use them
for monetary benefits.
● High Water Requirement - Some urban farmers are still using water from the potable
municipal water supply, which can create water shortages in the city.
● Soil and Water Pollution - According to FAO, inappropriate and excessive use of agricultural
inputs from pesticides, fertilizer, nitrogen, and raw organic matter can pollute the soil in an
urban area. The chemical substances become residues in the soil, making it less fertile or even
poisonous in the long term. These residues then may leach or runoff into the main water
sources of the city. Chemical and mycobacterial contamination of the water sources can lead
to several waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, salmonella, cholera, and schistosomiasis.
● Contaminated Food - Urban areas used as farms are highly susceptible to containing toxic
substances, such as heavy metals including lead, zinc, copper, tin, mercury, and arsenic. The
main sources of metals in urban soils are mainly from emissions from factories, automobiles,
and sewage. The high amount of heavy metal substances may lead to a serious health
problem for consumers.
● Air Pollution - Harmful chemicals (pesticides, fertilizer) applied in the middle of the city travel
into the atmosphere of the dense and crowded urban environment, potentially harming a big

5
population. These can lead to various diseases such as allergies, cancer and respiratory
diseases.
● Aesthetic Issues - Because urban farming is more exposed to public view, it should be well
designed to make sure the visual appearance is as aesthetically pleasant as possible.
● Lack of knowledge - Poor knowledge and weak educational programs about the topic.
4.5. Benefits of Urban Farming
The benefits include:[5]
Health
● Access to healthy food;
● Physical activity
Social
● Empowerment + Mobilization;
● Community Development & Education;
● Food Security;
● Social integration.
Economic
● Local economic stimulation;
● Job growth;
● Food affordability.
Ecological
● Stewardship;
● Energy efficiency;
● Storm water management;
● Soil improvement;
● Biodiversity and Habitat improvement
5. URBAN FARMING PRACTICES ACROSS THE WORLD
5.1. Sky Greens - Singapore
Sky Greens[6] began in 2012, using a vertical farming system called “A-Go-Gro”, where they
grow vegetables in A-shaped towers, each six meters in height. This not only reduces the
“food miles” but also mitigates supply shortages and hoarding.

6
Each tower consists of 22 to 26 tiers of growing troughs, which are rotated around the
aluminium tower frame at a rate of 1mm per second to ensure uniform distribution of
sunlight, good air flow and irrigation for all the plants.
The rotation system does not need an electrical generator. It is powered by a unique gravity
aided water-pulley system that uses only one litre of water, which is collected in a rainwater
fed overhead reservoir.
The water powering the frames is recycled and filtered before returning to the plants and all
organic waste on the farm is composted and reused. The whole system has a footprint of only
about 60 square feet, or the size of an average bathroom.
The small amount of energy and water needed to grow vegetables, and the close proximity of
the consumer potentially reduces transportation costs, carbon dioxide emissions and risk of
spoilage.
Figure 5.1. 1. A-shaped towers and descriptions, sources: Sky Greens & Ministry of National Development, Singapore
5.2. Rotterzwam - Rotterdam, The Netherland
Rotterzwam[7] is a young company growing edible mushrooms in the abandoned swimming
pool building in Rotterdam, launched in 2013.
The company grows their mushrooms using used coffee as a fertilizer and delivers them
directly to their customers thereby producing zero waste and having a producer-to-customer
distance of less than 10 kilometres.
However, mushrooms are not an end for the Rotterzwam team. Coffee peels, usually
considered as residues to be thrown away, can be transformed into compost of good quality
after harvesting mushrooms.

7
In addition to their product, this urban farm is also involved in several activities such as
guided tours, workshops, apprenticeship and inspirational speaking. The Rotterzwam team
won the Agriculture City Award and the award for Radical Innovators in 2014.
Figure 5.2. 1. Rotterzwam urban farm, source: www.rotterzwam.nl
5.3. Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Farm - New York
Brooklyn Grange[8], the world's largest rooftop soil farms, started in 2010. It’s situated on two
roofs in New York City and grows over 22,000 kg of organically cultivated produce per year.
They create their own compost by turning away organic waste from several different channels
in order to continuously bring a new and fresh biodiversity in their soil. Their produce can be
found in New York restaurants such as Coffeed, The Dutch or The Cleveland among others.
In addition to growing and distributing fresh local vegetables and herbs, Brooklyn Grange also
provides urban farming and green roof consulting and installation services to clients
worldwide. They also collaborate with numerous not-for-profit organisations throughout New
York to promote healthy and strong local communities. Their activities also include fitness
classes, film screenings, concerts, weddings, and fashion shows in their garden.
Figure 5.3. 1. Brooklyn Grange rooftop farm: location, activities and services, source: Brooklyn Grange

8
6. URBAN FARMING KEY ELEMENTS
6.1. Water
Due to the rapid growing urban centres that have been developed as a solution for the
increase of the population, water has become a scarce resource. According to Food
Agriculture Organization, management of water resources has become an urgent issue as
urban and peri-urban farmers often apply water from municipal sewage, mostly in its
untreated form, increasing the risk for illnesses to farmers and consumers.[9]
For choosing water supply techniques, there is no standard solution and there are different
solutions for different environments. For this reason, planning and making decisions on the
benefits, harms, the implications of each option and choosing the best one while considering
the kind of urban farming project is crucial for the success of it.[10]
6.1.1. Water Sources
The main sources of water are:
● Rainwater harvesting: It consists in capturing and storing the rain where it falls. Keeping the
water clean should be taken in account. This method can be implemented by a collection
surface, a storage tank, and guttering or channels to transport the water from one to the
other. When designing a water harvesting system the main calculation is to size the water
tank, cistern or dam correctly to give adequate storage capacity. The storage requirements
depend upon local rainfall data, collection surface, runoff coefficient, user numbers and
consumption rates or water needs for productive use.[10]
Figure 6.1. 1. Basic Rainwater Harvesting System [11]
● Groundwater withdrawal: A simple method that consists of digging a hole in the ground to a
depth below the water table. Vertical or horizontal water collectors, or a combination of the
two, can be used.[10]
● Surface water intake and small dams: A source of water can be a natural stream or river
close by. The flow, the level and the quality of water should be measured when selecting it as
a source for example a river intake should be sited where there is an adequate flow and the

9
level allows gravity supply to minimize pumping costs. Intake design should avoid clogging
and when the river transport rolling stones or boulders a protection in concrete, stone or
brick of the intake may be necessary.[10]
6.1.2. Water treatment
After water is obtained, treatment is needed according to its quality. The treatment depends
on the source that is used, the quantity of residues that are found in it, and also it depends on
the final use of the water.[10]
6.1.3. Water application methods
After water treatment, a supply option should be chosen, to distribute the water to the urban
farming project. The main options are:
● Irrigation: Various methods can be used to supply irrigation water to the urban farming
project. Drip irrigation infrastructure can be manufactured from existing local products, such
as using porous ceramic containers or pipes with holes in which water is dripped onto the soil
above the root zone only until the simplest one that is bringing water from the source of
supply, e.g. a well, to each plant with a bucket or a watering can. There are different methods
of irrigation: surface, sprinkler, and drip irrigation. [11]
● Hydroponics: This technique is mainly used for vertical farming. Simple hydroponics implies
water savings in recycling and decontamination of water and will make easier the growing of
plants in areas with difficult conditions for crop production, such as adverse climate, soil,
space limitations in cities, water scarcity, and pest occurrences. [11]
6.2. Waste (Composting)
6.2.1. Definition
Composting[13] [14] is a biological process in which microorganisms turn organic matter such as
manure, leaves, paper and food waste into a valuable organic fertilizer. This process is carried
out under controlled aerobic conditions (requires oxygen) where various microorganisms,
including bacteria and fungi, break down organic matter into simpler substances. The
effectiveness of the composting process is dependent on the environmental conditions
present within the composting system i.e. oxygen, temperature, moisture, material
disturbance, organic matter and the size and activity of microbial populations.
6.2.2. Composting Techniques
Windrow composting technique is an open (without a reactor) production of compost by
simply piling organic waste. Each row may be 1-2 m high by 3-4 m wide. While maintaining

10
the temperature, windrows are turned up twice per week. Complete composting can be
accomplished in 6-8 weeks.
In the Aerated Static Pile (ASP) composting, blended admixture is usually covered and placed
on perforated piping, providing air circulation for controlled aeration and there is no need to
turn up the pile. The composting process can be optimised by controlling the quality of the
feedstock and the number of operational parameters.
Figure 6.2. 1. Aerated static pile (ASP) composting [14]
Another mechanism to produce compost is In-Vessel Composting, putting the organic waste
inside an enclosed container or vessel. There are two options available, the first one is using
first-in first-out principle, and the other one is where materials are mixed mechanically
throughout the system. Odour control, faster throughput, lower labour cost and smaller area
required are some advantages of this technique.
Figure 6.2. 2. In-vessel composting options [14]

11
Table 6.2.2. 1. Comparison of the three composting techniques [14]
Item Windrow Aerated Static Pile
In Vessel, Forced Aeration
With Agitation No Agitation
Cost per
throughput
tonne ($)
40 - 60 100 - 150 300 - 500 300 - 500
Land
Requirement
High High
Low, but can increase if
window drying or curing
required
Low, but can increase if
windrow drying or
curing required
Control of air
Limited unless
forced aeration is
used
Complete Complete Complete
Operational
Control
Turning frequency,
amendment, or
compost recycle
addition
Airflow rate
Airflow rate, agitation,
amendment, or compost
recycle addition
Airflow rate,
amendment, or
compost recycle
addition
Sensitivity to
Cold or Wet
Weather
Sensitive
Demonstrated in cold
and wet climate
and wet climate
and wet climate
Control of
Odour
Depends on
feedstock, potential
large area source
May be large area
source but can be
controlled
Potentially good Potentially good
Potential
Operating
Problems
Susceptible to
adverse weather
Control the airflow rate
is critical, potential for
channelling or short
circuiting of air supply
High operational
flexibility, system may be
mechanically complex
Potential for channelling
or short circuiting of air
supply, system may be
mechanically complex
6.3. Energy
The food and energy demand over the years will grow as the population increases. Due to
this, more energy sources will be diverted from food production to daily consumption. Urban
farming is a key factor in the reduction of dependency on the transportation or importation of
food for the communities. The main concern is not energy availability but the use of
sustainable, efficient and environmentally friendly sources of energy for food production in
the urban areas.
Due to the industrial revolution and availability of fossil fuels, most agricultural equipment is
operated using fossil fuels (diesel, natural gas and petroleum). They are efficient but not
sustainable and have an adverse effect on the climate. A natural resource is said to be

12
renewable if it is replenished by natural processes at a rate comparable with or faster than its
rate of consumption by humans.[15] Renewable and sustainable sources of energy for urban
farming include and are not limited to solar power, hydropower, wind power and biomass.[16]
6.3.1. Renewable Sources of Energy for Urban Farming
Table 6.3.1. 1. Comparison of renewable energy sources
Energy Source Solar Power Hydro Power Wind Power Biomass (Waste to
Energy)
Conversion
Process
Conversion of solar
energy into direct
current power or heat
Conversion of Kinetic
energy of moving
water to produce
electricity
Conversion of kinetic
energy from wind to
produce electricity with
the use of wind turbines
Conversion of different
components of waste into
energy or other products.
GHG emissions
[17]
12g - 44g CO2eq/kWh 4g - 14g CO2eq/kWh 3g - 45g CO2eq/kWh 16g - 74g CO2eq/kWh
Cost per KWh
[18]
0.14 – 0.47 $/kWh 0.02 – 0.15 $/kWh 0.06 – 0.12 $/kWh 0.03 – 0.14 $/kWh
Installation
location
Roof mounted, window
panels
Water piped networks
(drinking and
wastewater), rivers
and streams
Backyards or roof
mounted
Large urban farm facilities
Capacity
factor[19]
25.9% 37.3% 34% 68.9% (landfill gas & MSW)
58.9% (other biomass)
Applications
for urban
farms
UV lights, operation of
compressors and water
pumps, water heaters
and small motors
Lighting, operation of
water pumps, small
motors
Lighting, operation of
water pumps and
compressors, small
motors
Alternative to fossil fuels,
operation of water pumps,
small motors.
Decomposition of waste to
produce indirect energy in
the form of manure.
Economic
trends
Reduction in installation
costs over time.
Reduction in
installation costs over
time.
costs over time.
costs over time.
Advantages Low carbon footprint,
Energy storage using
batteries,
Readily available
infrastructure and
reduction in
environmental
impacts. No need for
reservoirs for urban
small-scale use.
Clean source of energy
and low carbon foot-
print
Utilization of a wide range
of waste products due to
plasma gasification process.
Eliminates air pollution by
being part of the carbon
cycle and reduces CO2
emissions by 90% [20]
Limitations Depends on the
atmospheric
conditions/weather
Water head and flow
might be seasonal in
the case of rivers and
streams
Relies heavily on wind
speed. Infrastructure
needed.
High installation costs. Not
highly efficient.
NOTE: Values and descriptions provided in the table above are limited to urban area
applications on a small scale.

13
6.4. Food
Many agricultural techniques exist today, but in an effort to adjust to the exponential trends
of our population, particularly in urban areas, without compromising the integrity of the
environment, it is necessary to have a global transition towards sustainable farming. With the
current condition, an important question must be addressed: What is the most sustainable
and cost effective way to feed the world’s population?
6.4.1. Impact of Conventional Farming
Agriculture is the largest single non-point source of water pollutants including sediments,
salts, fertilizers (nitrates and phosphorus), pesticides, and manures.[21] Conventional farming
uses synthetic chemicals and fertilizers to maximize the yield of a particular crop or set of
crops, which are typically genetically modified. This method requires a significant amount of
chemical and energy input and weakens the ecology of a landscape. This method usually
alters the natural environment, deteriorates soil quality, and eliminates biodiversity. Once
established, a conventional farm requires constant maintenance but produces maximal yields.
[22]
6.4.2. Impact of using pesticides
The term pesticide covers a wide range of compounds including insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides, rodenticides, molluscicides, nematicides, plant growth regulators and others.
● Pesticides & environment
Pesticides can contaminate soil, water, turf, and other vegetation. In addition to killing insects
or weeds, pesticides can be toxic to a host of other organisms including birds, fish, beneficial
insects, and non-target plants.[23] Pesticides can also affect groundwater by a process known
as leaching which affects the water quality of drinking supplies, Another way pesticides can
spread and cause potential harm is by volatilization, which occurs when it turns into a gas or
vapour after it has been sprayed.[24]
● Pesticides & human health
After countless studies, pesticides have been linked to cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, ADHD
(Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), and even birth defects. Pesticides also have the
potential to harm the nervous system, the reproductive system and the endocrine system.
Although one piece of fruit with pesticides won't kill you, if they build up in your body, they
can be potentially detrimental to your health.[24]
6.4.3. Impact of using synthetic fertilizers
Synthetic fertilizers are man-made combinations of chemicals and inorganic substances. They
typically combine nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and other elements

14
in different ratios. Even though they are easy to use and their effects are almost immediate,
they have long-term negative impacts as below:
● Killing beneficial microorganisms in the soil that convert dead human and plant remains into
nutrient-rich organic matter.[25]
● Causing water pollution. Nitrogen- and phosphate-based synthetic fertilizers leach into
groundwater and increase its toxicity.[25]
● Disrupting aquatic ecosystems. Fertilizers that leach into streams, rivers, lakes and other
bodies of water.[25]
● Increasing the nitrate levels of soil which can also damage the vascular and respiratory
systems. Plants produced from such soil, upon consumption, convert to toxic nitrites in the
intestines.[25]
6.4.4. Impact on Food Distribution
Transportation has a significant impact within the food and beverage sector because food is
often shipped long distances and not infrequently via air. Each year, 200 billion metric tons of
food are transported globally – 35% by land, 60% by sea, and 5% by air.[26] Food
transportation has a significant impact on environment because of its propensity to increase
the volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Heller and Keoleian (2000) estimate that diesel fuel
use accounts for 25% of the total energy consumed within the U.S. food system.[27]
6.4.5. Urban Farming as a Proposed Solution
The key to the solution of this problem above with the effects on the environment also lays in
choosing locally produced food as less fossil fuel is used for its transportation as well as
choosing organic over non-organic food. Organic food supplements are produced without the
use of chemicals which means that it dramatically reduces water, soil and air pollution.
Furthermore, organic food production reduces the pressure on the ecosystems by avoiding
the use of the toxic agricultural chemicals as well as farming in harmony with nature. It is
obvious that urban farming is the best solution that proposes a potential to reduce high
percentage of carbon dioxide emissions related to the plant-based foods transportation.
7. PROPOSED SYSTEM - MEXICO CITY
7.1. Mexico City
Mexico City is the capital of Mexico geographically located in the Valley of Mexico, covers an
area of 7,680km2. It’s the largest city as well as its most important political, cultural,
educational and financial centre. This city experiences great economic inequalities and
underdevelopment. Unemployment and the subsequent growth of the informal economy are

15
problems which increase daily. The summary of geographic data is presented in the following
table.
Table 7.1. 1. Mexico City geographic data
Mexico City Geographic Data
Total Area 7,680 km2
Population 24 million
Weather Condition Temperate, with summer rains
Rainfall (Annual) 100 and 1,400 mm
Temperature Range 18ºC and 24ºC
Soil Types litosoles, andosoles, feozem, regosols and solonchak (CETENAL 2005)
The metropolitan area of Mexico City, home to 24 million people (2012) generates 12,600
tons/day of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). According to the Ministry of Works and Services,
3,600 tonnes of garbage per day is allocated in the landfills, while 3,000 tonnes are going to
make compost, 800 tonnes of plastic bottles, cardboard and metals are being recycled, and
600 tonnes are used to produce alternative fuels but still leaves 4,600 tonnes per day without
a designated purpose.
Figure 7.1. 1. Waste sources, uses and composition for Mexico City. [28] [29]
7.2. Urban Farming Facility (UFF)
The proposed (1x1) km2 urban farming facility will be located in an unused land in the outer
ring of Mexico City called “Ex Vaso de Texcoco” close to the “Gran Canal” river, as can be seen
in the following aerial view picture of the location.

16
Figure 7.2. 1. Aerial view of proposed urban farm location, source: google maps
The urban farming facility, which uses a closed loop approach to increase sustainability and
efficiency, contains a waste screening unit, composting unit, gasification unit, solar PV
powered lighting system, storm water pond and the greenhouse type farm itself. The farm
will be located on the western side of the facility in order to reduce the irrigation energy
consumption, because it is closer to the river. In the waste screening unit, 20 tonnes/day of
MSW will be manually sorted using a system of conveyors. The organic waste will go to the
composting unit and the inorganic waste will go to the gasification unit. The urban farming
facility and its process system loop is shown in the following image.
Figure 7.2. 2. Process loop and layout of urban farm facility
The farm will be used to produce potatoes, tomatoes, black beans and lettuce which are the
most consumed vegetables in Mexico City. The other reason for choosing these products is
that Mexico City currently imports them from outside the city. For example, black beans come
from Veracruz, a city, more than 400 km away. Besides reducing fossil fuel consumption that
is related to the carbon emission, this project will give a direct economic impact by reducing

17
the selling price of each product. Compiled with producing food, as the farm is also an organic
farm, so the fertilizers will be obtained from the composting unit.
Figure 7.2. 3. Food system chart
The greenhouse farm may control temperature, levels of light and shade, irrigation, fertilizer
application and atmospheric humidity. A greenhouse farm is considered as the best method to
be applied for Mexico City which has a wide variation in weather and climate. In the area
selected in Mexico City (1x1) km2, 440m2 would be dedicated for growing the crops. The area
has been divided into 4 equal parts, and the estimated crops production of this urban farm is
expressed in the next table:
Table 7.2. 1. Crops Production per Year
No. Crops Area dedicated (m2) Production Rate per Year Production Estimation
1 Potatoes 110 3 kg/m2 1,980 kg
2 Tomatoes 110 12 kg/m2 5,280 kg
3 Lettuces 110 14 units/m2 Leaf: 9,240 units
Head: 15,400 units
4 Black Beans 110 1.5 kg/m2 565 kg
After harvesting time, the vegetables produced will be stored in an indoor storage where the
temperature can be adapted to conditions ranging from 32-70℉with the aid of a temperature
controller. To meet the requirement of high humidity, the basement is generally the most
logical place to utilise. At the end, the products will be taken away by the wholesaler in which
the estimated distance, length and time to reach the farm is around 22 km in 30 minutes by
truck.
Aerated Static Pile composting is the most suitable technique for the UFF, since it can control
parameters such as temperature, humidity, ventilation and odour in a most efficient and less
expensive way for the treated amount of waste. The basic resources needed for the urban
farm include land, soil, seeds, fertilizers and training for the farmers. In this urban farming
project, we propose using the organic farming methods and not utilising synthetic fertilizers,

18
which have a lot of negative impacts on the environment and humans. The fertilizers will be
obtained by the composting product. The compost produced around 10 – 12 tons/day.
According to the Engineering Institute, UNAM and Mexican Academy of Sciences, Mexico City
uses 85.7m3/s of water; mainly supplied through the network, and also pumped by farmers
and industries directly from local aquifers and the remainder is treated wastewater. It has
been measured that Mexico City receives significant pluvial precipitation at a total rate of 12
m3/s.[12] Regarding this situation, the following water system is proposed, where water
treatment should be evaluated according to the water quality required for the products.
Figure 7.2. 4. Water system for UFF in Mexico City
To satisfy the energy demands of the farm, the intention is to use gasification technology as
the primary energy source by recovering it from waste. The pie chart (Figure 7.1.1) shows the
waste composition in Mexico; all components of waste, excluding glass and metal, will be used
in the plasma gasification process, as feed to produce syngas, which can in turn be used to
generate electricity. The other source of waste will be generated from the farm. The
generated electricity will then be used to power the composting unit, maintenance building,
the office, general farm activities like irrigation, temperature control of the food storage unit
and the plasma gasifier itself. The excess will be sold to the grid.
Plasma gasification technology offers feedstock flexibility and customization for generating a
range of desirable products. This technology is attractive because of the versatility of its final
marketable products such as diesel, electricity, ethanol and other chemicals produced by
processing the syngas generated. Also, Inorganic and saleable products can be recovered from
plasma gasification process through the sludge formed.
Out of the total 70 tons/day of waste being brought in, 20 tons/day of organic waste will be
used in the compost and out of the remaining, 40 tons/day, which can be used as feed for
gasifier, will be utilised to produce energy from it. An estimated 7 MW(e)[30] of energy will be
produced at the facility, of which a maximum of 2.5 MW will be used at the facility. The sludge
generated from the gasifier will be supplied to the local construction industry.

19
Figure 7.2. 5. Plasma gasification process
source: http://www.cantechletter.com/2015/03/alter-nrg-more-than-doubles-on-harvest-takeover/
Based on the geographical location of the site and its surroundings, not all forms of renewable
energy will be utilised. The proximity to the airport eliminates the use of wind-mills. Also, the
water head and flow of the river is not strong enough to generate sufficient amount of
electricity. However, Mexico has at least 7 hours of sunlight per day, throughout the year.
Thus, there is a huge potential to use solar energy. Solar PV cells will be used to operate minor
applications like perimeter lights and water heaters.
Figure 7.2. 6. Solar Energy Powered light source: http://sigalonenvironment.soup.io
7.3. Benefits of UFF
1. Socio-economical contributions. -
 By the creation of employment in sectors such as:
o Waste Collection Industry.
o Construction Industry.
o Maintenance Industry.
o Agricultural sector.
o Local energy companies.
 Reduction in market price over time.
2. The promotion of urban agricultural products. - One of the main targets of the urban
farming project is to encourage the consumption of local produce.

20
3. Environment. - UFF has many positive environmental impacts such as:
 Integrated sustainable closed loop system cycle.
 CO2 reduction from the transportation of food to the city.
 Waste to energy using the gasification process.
 Water consumption optimization using sprinkler irrigation system.
 Waste reduction by composting.
 Avoiding soil erosion while harnessing unused land.
 Rainwater reuse.
4. Sustainability knowledge and self-awareness among citizens. - To educate the locals
about food sustainability concepts.
7.4. Limitations of UFF
 Economical. -
o High capital investment
o Investors’ preference for more profitable investments.
 Government. -
o No government incentives.
o Complex bureaucratic procedures.
o There is no integrated environmental, economic and social policy to enhance
agricultural activities.
8. CONCLUSION
Urban agriculture has many dimensions such as economic, cultural and social. It is important
that governments especially in developing countries support this kind of projects making
available the resources necessary to start the creation of micro enterprises. The authorities in
Mexico City presume a passive attitude and propose little regarding the production problems.
However, the economic system in the city is incapable of satisfying the food needs of the
population through the industry and services sectors, urban farming emerges as a solution.
Urban agriculture should look towards strategies that promote a sustainable market-oriented
agriculture (e.g. tomatoes and black beans as part of Mexican basic food basket), reducing the
ecological impact of fertilisers and pesticides, promoting the collection and usage of
composting as well as the consumption of alternative and clean energy during the urban
farming procedure. Schools, civil groups and local governments should promote children's
awareness of domestic food production.
With this facility, we propose a model urban farm which may be replicated in various cities to
promote the consumption of local produce.

21
9. REFERENCES
1. Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO in the 21st century: Ensuring food security in a changing
world, retrieved October, 2015. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2307e/i2307e.pdf
2. UNESCAP (United Nations Economic & Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific) Issue No.1, January -
April 2012.
3. RUAF (Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security) Foundation, Urban agriculture: what &
why? retrieved October, 2015. http://www.ruaf.org/urban-agriculture-what-and-why
4. LAN (Landscapes Architect Network), May 27,2015, What’s the problem with urban agriculture?
http://landarchs.com/whats-the-problem-with-urban-agriculture/
5. Five Borough Farm, Urban Agriculture in New York City, retrieved October, 2015.
http://www.fiveboroughfarm.org/urban-agriculture/
6. Sky Greens, Sky greens, retrieved November, 2015. http://www.skygreens.com/technology/
7. Rotterzwam, Mushrooms at home, retrieved November, 2015. http://www.mushrooms-at-
home.com/how-it-works/
8. Brooklyn Grange, retrieved November, 2015. http://brooklyngrangefarm.com
9. Food and Agriculture Organization. Water Use and Reuse for Urban Agriculture, retrieved October,
2015. http://www.fao.org/fcit/upa/water-urban-agriculture/en/
10. Fabrizi, L. (2012). Water supply in small communities, retrieved January 2015 from
http://www.lenntech.com/small-community-water-supplies.htm
11. Bear Springs Blossom. Rainwater use, retrieved January 2015 from http://www.nature-
education.org/rainwater.html
12. Jimenez, B. The unintentional and intentional recharge of aquifers in the Tula and the Mexico Valleys:
The Megalopolis needs Mega solutions, retrieved January 2015.
http://ciwr.ucanr.edu/files/168771.pdf
13. Adams, R. C., F. S. MacLean, J. K. Dixon, F. M. Bennett, G. I. Martin, and R. C. Lough. (1951) The
utilization of organic wastes in N.Z.: Second interim report of the interdepartmental committee. New
Zealand Engineering (November 15, 1951):396-424
14. Border, David Composting Consultancy, R&D Technical Report P1-311/TR (2002) Process and Plant for
Waste composting and other Aerobic Treatment, Environment Agency, Rio House, Waterside Drive,
Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS12 4UD
15. Chel, Kaushik. (2011). Renewable energy for sustainable agriculture. Agronomy for Sustainable
Development, Springer Verlag, 31 (1), pp.91-118. <10.1051/agro/2010029>.
16. Pimentel D., Pimentel M., Karpenstein-Machan, M. (1999). Energy use in agriculture: an overview.
CIGR Electronic Journal.
17. NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory (retrieved January 2016) Energy Analysis, Website
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
18. IRENA (2015), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014.
http://www.irena.org/documentdownloads/publications/irena_re_power_costs_2014_report.pdf
19. US EIA (Energy Information Administration), retrieved January 2016. Electric power monthly, Table
6.7.B. Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Not Primarily Using Fossil Fuels, January 2013-
October 2015. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b
20. Menegaki A. (2008) Valuation for renewable energy: A comparative review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 12, 2422–2437
21. L.E.A.F. Problems associated with Conventional Farming, retrieved October, 2015
http://leafcertified.org/the-apparel-industry/faqs/problems-associated-with-conventional-farming
22. Stony Brook University. Sustainable Vs. Conventional Agriculture, retrieved October, 2015
https://you.stonybrook.edu/environment/sustainable-vs-conventional-agriculture/

22
23. Aktar, M. W., Sengupta, D., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: their
benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-
0001-7
24. Nature Education (accessed January 2016), The Dangers of Pesticides
http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/green-science/the_dangers_of_pesticides
25. SFGate: San Francisco Bay Area (accessed January 2016), The Effects of Synthetic Fertilizers
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/effects-synthetic-fertilizers-45466.html
26. Bendickson, N.J., 2007, Transportation and food distribution security. TransActions, NAOSH Week
2007 (Special Edition): 15- 17.
27. Heller, M., and G. Keoleian. 2000. Life cycle-based sustainability indicators for assessment of the U.S.
food system [CSS00-04]. Ann Arbor: Centre for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources and
Environment.
28. Ojeda-Benı́tez, S. and Beraud-Lozano, J.L. (2003) The Municipal Solid Waste Cycle in Mexico: Final
Disposal. Resources, Conservation and Recycling.
29. The Guardian (accessed January 2016), Waste mountain engulfing Mexico City.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/09/waste-mountain-mexico-city
30. Summary of Qualifications; Westinghouse Plasma Gasification Technology; Westinghouse Plasma
Gasification, Alter NRG, Alberta Canada, March 2013; http://www.westinghouse-plasma.com
FOR APPENDICES
1. J. M. P. Delgado 2013 Producción de tomate orgánico
http://www.culturaorganica.com/html/articulo.php?ID=65
2. M. A. G. Cruz N. D. Escoto 2011 El cultivo del frijol Honduras
http://www.observatorioredsicta.info/sites/default/files/docplublicaciones/guiacultivofrijol_hondura
s.pdf
3. Sagarpa 2016 REPORTE DIARIO DE PRECIOS OBSERVADOS EN DIVERSAS CENTRALES DE ABASTO
http://www.infoaserca.gob.mx/hortalizasnacional/hna_ca1.asp
4. Johnson, Todd (2009). Low-Carbon Development for Mexico. Herndon, VA, USA: World Bank
Publications. p. 73
5. E. P. Agency 2015 What is Urban Agriculture? United States What is Urban Agriculture?
http://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/urbanagriculture.html
6. INEGI 2013 El sector alimentario en México
http://www.inegi.org.mx/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/integracion/sociodemog
rafico/SAM/2013/sam2013.pdf
7. P. T. Lima, L. M. R. Sánchez, B. I. García and Uriza MEXICO CITY: THE INTEGRATION OF URBAN
8. AGRICULTURE TO CONTAIN URBAN SPRAWL México
http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Mexico_1.PDF
9. S. d. economía 2012 Análisis de la cadena del valor del fríjol México
http://www.economia.gob.mx/files/comunidad_negocios/industria_comercio/analisis_cadena_valor
_frijol.pdf

23
10. APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - Food Data
Table 10. 1. General information for the proposed crops (Delgado, 2013)
No Crops Place origin Estimated Planting Duration (days) Consumption for Local Food
1 Potatoes Toluca 160 17 kg per capita
2 Tomatoes Puebla 80 17 kg per capita
3 Lettuces Puebla Leaf: 40
Head: 80
Leaf: 1.02 kg per capita
Head: 1.02 kg per capita
4 Black Beans Veracruz 14 11 kg per capita
Table 10. 2. Harvesting Data for the proposed crops (Escoto, 2011)
No Crops Production rate per Year Harvesting Duration (days)
1 Potatoes 3 kg/m2
45 - 55
2 Tomatoes 12 kg/m2
80
3 Lettuces 14 units/m2
Leaf: 45 – 55
Head: 30 – 35
4 Black Beans 1.5 kg/m2
100 – 140
Source: IOWA State University (2013), Planting and Harvesting Times for Garden Vegetables
Table 10. 3. Storage condition for the proposed crops (Bendickson, 2007)
No Crops Temperature (F) Relative Humidity (%) Length of Storage
1 Potatoes, early 50 90 1 – 3 weeks
Potatoes, late 39 90 4 – 9 months
2 Tomatoes, green 50 – 70 90 1- 3 weeks
Tomatoes, ripe 45 – 50 90 4 – 7 days
3 Lettuces 32 95 2 – 3 weeks
4 Black Beans 32-100 90 4-5 months
Source: Isenberg, F. M. R. Storage of Home Grown Vegetables. Cornell University Department of Vegetable Crops,
Master Gardener Reference.
Table 10. 4. Current Condition of Distribution Chain for the proposed crops (Sagarpa, 2016)
No Crops Place origin Distance to Mexico City (km) Estimated Travel Time by Truck (hours)
1 Potatoes Toluca 105 2
2 Tomatoes Puebla 136 3
3 Lettuces Puebla 136 3
4 Black Beans Veracruz 411 6

1
Urban Farming
“the growing of plants or all manner
of foodstuff at every scales within
and around the cities, accompanied
by complementary activities”

GROUP 1 - URBAN FARMING

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to GROUP 1 - URBAN FARMING

Similar to GROUP 1 - URBAN FARMING (20)

GROUP 1 - URBAN FARMING