Cities Built on Fertile Lands Affect Climate

Devar writes "While cities provide vital habitat for human beings to thrive, it appears U.S. cities have been built on the most fertile soils, lessening contributions of these lands to Earth's food web and human agriculture, according to a study by NASA researchers and others. Though cities account for just 3 percent of continental U.S. land area, the food and fiber that could be grown there rivals current production on all U.S. agricultural lands, which cover 29 percent of the country. Studies like this one may lead to smarter urban-growth strategies in the future."

Comments

I'll second that..

[Anonymous Coward]

My little town is build on a diver delta in the Pacific Northwest - it's some of the most fertile soil I've ever seen, and the fact that's it's low in elevation makes for great growing seasons.

Out 20x10' kitchen garden could produce almost enough colories for two people to live on for a quarter of a year. The potato yeilds are just nuts - and we're not even trying hard.

Smarter Urban-Growth?

[cornice]

Studies like this one may lead to smarter urban-growth strategies in the future.

Right. In most places people know about smarter growth strategies. Rarely does growth hinge on anything but the perceived path toward the greatest short term wealth growth for the land owner. I'm guessing that maximization of soil production will be secondary to air quality, traffic, and many other concerns.

Re:Smarter Urban-Growth?

[Rick the Red]

Near where I live is a fertile valley, which is now mostly paved over with a sea of warehouses. Meanwhile, the hills on either side of the valley are largely undeveloped. Why? Because it's cheaper to build in the valley and ship in food from elsewhere than it is to build in the hills and grow food locally.

Recently, the last agricultural business in the area -- a dairy -- was shut down because cow poop was getting into the river. Never mind the oil and gasoline run-off from the sea of asphault all around the dairy.

Oh, and where does our food come from? South America and the irrigated deserts of California. Los Angeles can't get enough drinking water; they're draining the Colorado River dry before it reaches the sea, and still they can't get enough water. Yet they grow rice in the desert!

And we wonder why the rest of the world thinks we're idiots.

Paulo Soleri

[AtariAmarok]

Check into Paul Soleri. He proposed high-density small-footprint city-buildings called "arcologies". His books even show how little room a city like L.A. would take if it were built as an arcology.

It does not seem feasible at this time: the one in the link above is very small and is being built at a snail's pace. Arcologies of the scale Soleri has envisioned have only appeared in the fiction Larry Niven has done in collaboration with other authors. ("Oath of Fealty" and the Dream Park novels)

Re:Paulo Soleri

[Dachannien]

...And in the movie Blade Runner. And in the game SimCity 2000. And in the Shadowrun RPG.

I really do wish that arcologies would catch on. The environmental impact of having the day commutes of tens of thousands of people reduced to a ride in an electric-powered mass transit shuttle - which people would have to use because there would be no room for cars inside the building - would be tremendous, especially when multiplied by a few hundred arcologies.

The only thing to consider is whether the fertile lands mentioned in the above article are reclaimable, or whether enough environmental damage has been done to them to make them no longer very fertile.

RoofTop Gardens

[theslashdude]

Cities and food production don't have to be mutually exclusive. We can live or work and grow food in the same place with RoofTop Gardens.

Who cares...

[Dr. Bent]

The last time I checked, the US government still pays people NOT to grow food because we have more than we need. When farm subsidies disappear, then I'll start worrying about urban sprawl affecting crop production.

The problem of world hunger cannot simply be solved by producing more food. You have to get that food to whoever needs it, before it spoils, and in a way that is cost effective. That's a much more difficult problem than just growing more corn.

Urban growth not the problem

[b-baggins]

People in the world aren't hungry because evil Americans build cities on fertile land. People in the world are hungry because they live under the thumb of brutal dictators. You want to feed the world? Promote freedom and capitalism around the world.

Re:Duh, yourself

[stevew]

I'm not sure I'm willing to accept this claim at face value because it's a bit contrary to some simple facts. What I was taught back in elementary school (CA in the 60's) was that the California central valley was the best farm land in the country because it is essentially a vast flood plain like the Nile. (Then we have the entire Mississippi flood plain to talk about as well.)

Sacramento is not THAT big when compared to the rest of the valley, and the population density in the valley is quite low.

The vast majority of California's population is actually in desert areas (LA and San Diego) that can only exist there because of imported water. This isn't prime agricultural land without the water which "man" would have to bring there anyway -

So I just don't believe the conclusions being reached here concerning the magnitude of the loss.

Thanks for clarification

[AtariAmarok]

Thanks for listing some additional sources. I did not mean that Arcologies appeared only in Niven.

One major weakness with arcologies is vulerability to terror/war or such catastrophe.

In the 1950s, Clifford D. Simak wrote his "City" stories after being inspired by the vulnerability of cities to nuclear attack. Turn the city into an arcology, and the problem (such as it is) increases.

Re:Thanks for clarification

[dunedan]

I think you are forgetting a major problem with arcologies. People don't want to live in them. If they did there would be a big expensive one in Aspen Colorado where all the rich people go on vacation.

I agree with you on all technical, environmental, and economical points but you will have a very hard time convincing people to give up their yards and cars and shrubbery and sunlight all day long to live in what they will inevitably percieve as a large box

Subsidy accounting

[Spamalamadingdong]

Whether or not California is truly a donor state depends where the cost of running Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam is put. If they are charged to Arizona or Nevada (next to the dams) rather than the places the water goes, you will not get an accurate picture of how the subsidies flow.

(Not saying that they are, I have no expertise in this matter; I'm just saying that this is one way in which the truth could be obscured.)

But complaining about Federal monies spent in California rings hollow, especially given the enormous budget deficit facing California

To the extent that those deficits come from a bunch of amateurs (politicians) playing the energy markets with the taxpayer's money under rules written and approved by the legislature, those problems are entirely home-grown and do not deserve a bailout. The huge spending run-up during the dot-bomb era does not justify a bailout either.

Was the land fertile before the city was there?

[nunya_biznez]

Here's an interesting thought... Was the land fertile prior to settlement? Or has it become more fertile since the development and habitation.

If you think about all the refuse and biological waste that winds up on the ground every day, wouldn't this contribute to the fertility?

I don't think that even if we could convince all the people to move to a less fertile area that the ground would produce all that much. Because with all that humans drop, we also pollute. So even if we could farm it, I seriously doubt that it could produce as much as they are saying it would.

Re:Duh, back at you

[misterpies]

Two comments:

Firstly, there are large swathes of the US where fertile land is neither urbanised nor farmed, but simply left to grow back into forest. I'm thinking of New England. Outside the main cities (and often surprisingly close to them) there are acres and acres of new-growth forest that used to be farmland. What happened was local farmers were priced out of business by big midwestern producers, and the land was just left fallow. (if you've ever been to Walden Pond -- where Thoreau went off to retreat from the world -- you'll notice it's surrounded by dense forest. But when Thoreau lived there it was all farmland.)

Secondly, it may be a no-brainer that cities tend to grow around fertile land, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. (Indeed it's the sort of idea only someone with no brain would consider good.) Especially since once that fertile land is concreted over, it's gone for good.