horticulturae

Article
Aquaponics in Urban Agriculture: Social Acceptance
and Urban Food Planning
Georgia Pollard *, James D. Ward and Barbara Koth
School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes Campus, Adelaide,
SA 5095, Australia; [email protected] (J.D.W.); [email protected] (B.K.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-8-8302-3000

Academic Editor: Douglas D. Archbold

Received: 27 April 2017; Accepted: 10 June 2017; Published: 15 June 2017

Abstract: Aquaponics is emerging as a novel technology with particular potential for urban
agriculture (UA). The social acceptance of aquaponics and its place in urban food planning has
not previously been studied. This study used focus groups, key informant interviews, and scenario
analyses to investigate the reactions of Adelaide’s urban food opinion leaders and local government
area (LGA) officials to aquaponics. Most of the focus group participants were unfamiliar with
aquaponics. The perceived negatives of the technology received greater attention than the perceived
benefits. Aquaponics was thought to be most competitive in either niche or wholesale markets, with
a need for scaled guidelines from backyard to large-scale commercial production. For aquaponics
in urban settings the influence of urban planning and policy is an important, but to date unstudied,
consideration. The urban growers’ opinions of the overcomplicated nature of urban food planning
corresponded with the mixed policy responses of the LGAs towards UA. This further supports
the participants’ desire for a supportive State Government stance on UA to encourage consistency
in LGAs.

Keywords: aquaponics; business models; community perception; local food systems; social
acceptance; urban agriculture; urban food planning

1. Introduction
Sustainability and food security are gaining greater concern both globally and in Australia,
leading to a revival of interest and engagement in our food’s provenance. In our suburbs and cities,
community gardens, the sourcing of local food, and growing your own food, are becoming increasingly
popular. Food production within city boundaries or peripheries, regardless of size, is known as urban
agriculture (UA) [1]. UA is regarded as one way to achieve greater urban food security, as well as to
help reconnect people with their food systems [2–4].
Beyond individual or community use, there is also a strong entrepreneurial take-up of UA
businesses [5,6]. One such form of emerging UA to be considered for commercial expansion is
aquaponics. Aquaponics combines two widely known technologies, recirculating aquaculture and
hydroponics. It is defined as “a bio-integrated system that links recirculating aquaculture with
hydroponic vegetable, flower or herb production” [7]. Aquaponics is often endorsed as a sustainable
food system that is easily adapted to urban sites [8,9]. Although US and European aquaponics systems
dominate research output, global studies show entry into the production sector in all world regions [10].
Within Australia there is a large backyard scale take-up of aquaponics [11]. This is also evidenced by
multiple Australian online discussion forums.
Aquaponics has been less extensively studied than more common forms of UA, such as community
gardens. Previous aquaponics research has tended to focus on the technical and management aspects
such as: the optimal mix of species of fish and vegetables that work well together, the use of different

Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39; doi:10.3390/horticulturae3020039 www.mdpi.com/journal/horticulturae

Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 2 of 15

biofilters and growing media, or comparing one system to another [12]. Two baseline producer studies
from the United States and Europe show distinctly different (albeit both male) producer profiles.
Backyard systems and hobbyists dominated in the United States [13], whereas the European study
included more small-scale commercial producers and educators/scientists [14].
A lack of research into the economic viability of aquaponics systems has been noted [15]. There is
also a lack of knowledge on what people or communities, in major markets, think of aquaponics
systems. Miličić et al. [16] moved beyond more common aquaculture and hydroponics consumer
acceptance studies to European preferences, finding that over half of respondents had never heard of
aquaponics. Innovation and sustainability enthused participants reported negative associations with
the link between fish excrement and food, fish welfare, and mistrust of overreaching positive claims.
In Likert scale statements, greater sustainability, advantages as compared to aquaculture, and a values
preference for a soil-based growth medium showed the only market segments with purchase potential
were “Innovators” (16%) and those willing to pay more for aquaponics output (23%) once information
levels were increased.
South Australia is well known for its agricultural production, although it is familiar with the
stresses of water restriction and drought. Adelaide has much of its food produced close by (within
60 km of the city centre) [17]. It has also been estimated that 80% of the nearby market garden produce
is sold locally [18]. However, the growing needs of land for housing development competes with that
of food production within the greater Adelaide region [19]. As this competition continues, the value of
small-scale intensive forms of UA, such as aquaponics, could be expected to grow.
For aquaponics in urban settings the influence of urban planning and policy is an important,
but to date unstudied, consideration. This corresponds with the concern in current literature on the
absence of urban food planning and lack of leadership by urban planners and municipal councils alike
to facilitate UA [20,21]. This lack of cohesive urban food planning is also apparent in Australia, where
the link between land-use planning and food security is little understood [20,22,23].
An analysis of existing regulatory systems in Australia by Pires [24] found that municipal councils
tend to unintentionally impact and restrict UA rather than support it. A recent review of the Adelaide
Metropolitan City Plan [20] found Adelaide lagging behind when compared to other Australian capital
cities with no mention or adoption of one of the UN Habitat trends for urban sustainability, ‘Sense of
Place’. This trend links to local economic development and place-based social capital, where UA could
fit due to its strong ties to physical inhabitation [25].
This current paper addresses the paucity of social and regulatory data on aquaponics by presenting
the results of two important, complementary investigations. Firstly, the results from a series of focus
groups and key informant interviews map the receptivity of Adelaide’s urban food opinion leaders
towards aquaponics, within the context of UA. Secondly, we present the results of preliminary scenario
analyses of the policy positions (implicit or explicit) of different local government areas (LGAs)
towards UA in general, and aquaponics in particular. The combined results of these complementary
studies will help inform future food planners and UA practitioners, particularly those interested in
the development of an urban aquaponics industry and small-scale intensive UA more broadly, by
mapping the current social and regulatory opportunities and barriers.

2. Materials and Methods

Three methods were used to collect data on awareness, appreciation, and potential business
models of aquaponics systems. The methods were focus groups, key informant interviews, and scenario
analyses, all of which are described individually below.

2.1. Focus Groups (FG#1–3)

To begin investigating the reactions of people already familiar and engaged in Adelaide’s urban
food system towards aquaponics, three focus groups with a directed line of questioning were held.
Focus groups draw on people’s attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and reactions [26,27] and are especially
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 3 of 15

useful when measuring topic consensus [28]. Participants were selected via both purposive sampling,
the process of identifying people heavily involved in the chosen research field to ensure they are
information-rich and relevant to the topic [29], and snowball sampling, where selected participants are
asked to recommend other suitable people from within their network [30].
Participants were selected due to their involvement or experience in urban food related production,
development, management, or marketing and sales. This resulted in a combination of growers,
urban food business consultants, council representatives, market stall owners, wholesale sellers, and
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) members being present. The attendance numbers are
listed below:

1. Focus Group #1 (FG#1); n = 8

2. Focus Group #2 (FG#2); n = 9
3. Focus Group #3 (FG#3); n = 7

Average group size roughly matches the desirable size range of six to eight people for focus
groups recommended by Krueger and Casey [31]. Of the 42 people invited to participate, 23 of them
were present for the focus groups, a response rate of 55% (n = 23; 65% males/35% females). The two
top reasons for non-participation were being time short due to multiple prior commitments, and due
to not perceiving themselves as ‘expert’ enough to participate. Each session lasted approximately
90 min, was audio recorded, and had two separate sets of notes taken.
Focus group participants were firstly shown photos of various sized aquaponics systems and
given an explanation of how they worked. The photos were carefully selected by the research team to
represent the full range of aquaponics systems: large to small and commercial to backyard. They were
then asked for their initial reactions, level of familiarity, and what they perceived as the positives and
negatives of the technology. A short list of the strengths and weaknesses of aquaponics (according to
recent literature) was shown. Each group was asked to add any others they thought were missing.
Suggestions were added to the original list and included for successive focus groups. The finalised list
included all suggested points and was later presented during the key informant interviews.
Analysis was conducted using key-point transcripts created from each audio recording and
notes. This form of analysis has moderate to high levels of perceived rigor and low risk of error [31].
Coding began early after the first focus group. Analysis was completed using the qualitative analysis
software QSR NVivo 11 (QSR International Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia).

2.2. Key Informant Interviews (KI#1–18)

Initial broad topic coding of focus group responses revealed questions on which to base the topic
guide for the key informant interviews, allowing us to pursue these ideas in greater depth. Topic guides
ensure inclusion of important questions whilst still allowing each participant the opportunity to expand
on topics that they, from personal experience, consider important [32].
A total of 18 key informant interviews were conducted out of 22 identified potential interviewees.
Participants were identified either by being an opinion leader involved in Adelaide’s urban food
system (n = 15), or were not able to previously attend a focus group session, but indicated a desire to
be part of the study (n = 7). Eighteen interviews is within the desired range of 15–20 recommended by
Mason [33].
Each participant was able to choose between a face-to-face and a telephone interview, although
face-to-face was presented as the preferred method. It was felt that having the telephone option
would encourage more people to take part and so ensure a better response rate. The use of
telephone interviews in qualitative research is increasing as more researchers learn about the logistical
conveniences and methodological strengths such as time, speed, and cost [34,35]. Thirteen of
the interviews were conducted face-to-face, four by telephone, and one via Skype. A study by
Vogl [35] found no difference in reliability between phone and face-to-face interviews. The interview
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 4 of 15

response rate2017,
Horticulturae was3,78%
39 (n = 18), with an approximately even distribution of female (n = 8) and 4 ofmale
15
(n = 10) participants.
Participants
Participants were
wereemailed
emaileda aparticipant
participantinformation sheet,consent
information sheet, consentform,
form,and
and a short
a short booklet
booklet on on
aquaponics
aquaponics to to familiarisethemselves
familiarise themselveswith
withthethe technology
technology prior
priorto
totheir
theirinterview.
interview.TheThesessions
sessionswere
were
audio
audio recorded
recorded andand transcribedverbatim
transcribed verbatimdirectly
directly afterwards.
afterwards. The
Thefull
fullunaltered
unalteredinterview
interviewtranscript
transcript
waswas
then then returned
returned to each
to each participant
participant to to check
check forfor accuracy.
accuracy. Analysisofofthe
Analysis thecollected
collecteddata
datafollowed
followedthe
the same analysis process as for the focus groups, again using QSR NVivo.
same analysis process as for the focus groups, again using QSR NVivo. Interview data was comparedInterview data was
compared
to focus group todata
focustogroup data
search fortorepeating
search forconcepts
repeating concepts
and and underlying
underlying themes. themes.

2.3.2.3. Scenario
Scenario Analyses
Analyses (SA#1–7)
(SA#1–7)
Comparingurban
Comparing urbanagriculture
agriculture policies
policies at
at the
the local
local level
level helps
helpstotomap
mapthe
thevarying
varyinglevels of of
levels
administrative awareness and commitment to supporting, ignoring, or discouraging local food
administrative awareness and commitment to supporting, ignoring, or discouraging local food
production. The 17 local government areas (LGAs) of Metropolitan Adelaide were divided into
production. The 17 local government areas (LGAs) of Metropolitan Adelaide were divided into North,
North, South, East, West, and Central regions, with one LGA from each region selected. These regions
South, East, West, and Central regions, with one LGA from each region selected. These regions are
are shown edged in Figure 1. An extra two areas were included from the East region, as it contains a
shown edged in Figure 1. An extra two areas were included from the East region, as it contains a greater
greater number of councils over a wide geographical spread. Adelaide; Mitcham; Salisbury; Charles
number
Sturt; of councilsPayneham,
Norwood, over a wide geographical
and spread.
St. Peters; Tea Tree Adelaide;
Gully; andMitcham; Salisbury;
Prospect LGAs were Charles
selected Sturt;
to
Norwood,
represent Payneham, and
a mixture of St. Peters; Tea
geographical Tree Gully; population,
representation, and Prospect LGAs annual
average were selected to represent
wage, and cultural a
mixture of geographical representation, population, average annual wage, and cultural heritage.
heritage.

Figure 1. The seven selected Local Government Areas of Metropolitan Adelaide.

Figure 1. The seven selected Local Government Areas of Metropolitan Adelaide.
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 5 of 15

Seven hypothetical UA scenarios were developed, covering a range of simple food production
activities that people may want to engage in within their council area: vegetable gardening, keeping
chickens, keeping fish, planting fruit street trees, having community gardens, and starting a small home
produce business. Though this study focused more on aquaponics, it was felt that since this is still a
relatively new and unknown technology (even among those focus group and interview participants
deeply involved in the UA scene), including a range of simpler and more common UA activities would
provide better context for the council employees questioned.
Relevant Council employees such as Environmental Health Officers, Community Development
Officers, or Planners at each Council were contacted. They were asked for broad and instinctive
responses on whether they thought each of the seven scenarios was considered acceptable or not for
their LGA and why. All of the seven Councils contacted responded. The Council responses gave a
broad impression of how aware each LGA is of food production, and of the various UA activities within
their area. Specific policies, guidelines, by-laws, and plans mentioned in the responses were reviewed
on each Council’s website. Other documents such as Tree Policies or Poultry Keeping Guidelines were
also investigated for relevance to the UA scenarios.

3. Results
The results of this study were developed by weaving together the findings of the three distinct
research methods. The various acronyms used to identify the quotes are as follows, FG#1–3 for
the focus groups, KI#1–18 for the key informant interviews, and SA#1–7 for the scenario analyses.
This section has been divided into two parts, Part 1 focuses on the perception of aquaponics, while
Part 2 covers the urban planning aspects of the results.

3.1. Part 1: Perception of Aquaponics

Two-thirds of the focus group participants were completely unfamiliar with aquaponics, and of
those who were familiar, only three participants considered themselves experienced. Initial reactions
to aquaponics ranged from positive, through neutral or uncertain, and to simple dislike, as evident
from the following quotes:

“The aesthetics of the backyard systems are exciting” FG#1 and “I like the experimental
side.” FG#1

“Seems to have the scope to scale up, so why hasn’t it happened?” FG#1 and “I’d really
miss the earth and all the things that are in the earth that feed my plants.” FG#3

“I think my honest gut reaction is suspicion” FG#3 and “[I’m] interested in looking at a
future of energy constraints; aquaponics looks very energy and material based.” FG#2

The focus group participants were asked to put forward their own opinions of the strengths and
weaknesses of aquaponics. Their opinions varied from the ‘technical’ literature based strengths and
weaknesses, being more concerned with the ease of operation and how aquaponics may be perceived
(Table 1).
Although the discussion topics ranged considerably, the perceived weaknesses received the most
attention. The persistent concern over the barriers to aquaponics was particularly evident during
analysis of focus group data. Whenever a focus group participant commented on the expansion of
aquaponics, their comment was categorised into one of the following topics: ‘Benefits or Value of
Aquaponics’, ‘Barriers to Aquaponics’, or ‘Business Related Expansion’. Content analysis of these three
topics revealed that there were 395 mentions of ‘Barriers to Aquaponics’, 271 mentions of ‘Business
Related Expansion’, and only 113 mentions of ‘Benefits or Value of Aquaponics’.
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 6 of 15

Table 1. Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses of Aquaponics.

Focus Group Based Literature 1 Based Focus Group Based

Literature 1 Based Strengths
Strengths Weaknesses Weaknesses
 Space-efficient. Suitable  Can look  Combining two hybrid  Have had/heard of
for urban land (e.g., great aesthetically systems increases the bad experiences
unused/unproductive  Space-efficient and potential for with aquaponics
land/backyards) modular—suitable problems  Looks too
 Shared costs between for urban  An aquaponics grower complicated/requires
the aquaculture system environments needs to be competent technical expertise
and the hydroponics  Sustainable due to at raising fish  Prefer/more
system (start up, nutrient cycling and plants comfortable with soil
operating, infrastructure)  Not time  Available nutrients for  Expensive start-up
 Reduced water usage consuming plants are dependent costs and
and waste discharge once built on the number of fish, infrastructure
(compared  Can be used on the size of the fish, and if commercial
with aquaculture) land that cannot the amount they  Lack of knowledge
 Reduced nitrogen loss grow food (e.g., are fed and research done
as experienced by contaminated land)  Fish are very sensitive (technical, business,
conventional field crops  Food grown closer to chemicals, so can people, nutrients)
 Increased profit to consumers (e.g., only use barriers and  Fish care and ethics
potential from very urban and biological controls (e.g., temperature
simultaneous cash crops local)  Must compromise the control)
 Food grown closer to pH between the plants  Looks very
consumers and the fish “built”/aesthetics can
 Can diversify revenue;  Must compromise in be ugly
educational tool, temperature between  Much more plant
agri-tourism, the plants and the fish produce grown
and training.  Fishmeal as the main than fish
protein in fish food is  Is not sustainable to
unsustainable feed fishmeal to
grow fish
1 Aquaponics positives and negatives sourced from [15,32,36].

3.1.1. Barriers
When aquaponics was first introduced to focus group and interview participants, the majority
were unfamiliar or unsure, and all had questions about various aspects of how the technology works.
Out of 14 barriers identified against or preventing adoption of aquaponics, the top four were: ‘Negative
preconceptions’ (n = 17 out of 18 interviews), ‘Ethics around fish’ (n = 15), ‘Suitability’ (n = 14), and
‘Aesthetics’ (n = 11). These top four barriers were also present in all three focus group sessions.
Further analysis of the negative preconceptions found that every negative comment, with one
exception, either reflected a lack of awareness, understanding, and experience (n = 12), or related to
a lack of current examples of viable aquaponics businesses (n = 7). This suggests that it is a lack of
familiarity and understanding of such systems that holds people back from easy acceptance of the
technology. Without widely visible examples of successful aquaponics enterprises, there is currently
little opportunity for people to familiarise themselves with the technology.
Participants were very interested in the fish production side of aquaponics systems. The ‘Fish
Ethics’ topic (n = 16, FG = 3) included concerns of whether it was right to grow fish intensively, and
stories of people having something go wrong with their aquaponics system and having many (or all)
the fish die. Others asked about the particular species suitable for Adelaide and what you would feed
them. In one focus group this led to a discussion of the environmental sustainability of using fishmeal
to grow fish.
The consideration of ‘Suitability’ not only related to the suitability of the fish species or the
temperature for Adelaide’s climate, but was also concerned with the cultural suitability of aquaponics.
Cultural suitability included gardening type preference, whether fish is part of a peoples’ cultural
diet, and potential stigma around the consumption or taste of freshwater fish when compared with
saltwater species.
 Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 7 of 15

aquaponics.
Horticulturae 2017, Cultural
3, 39 suitability included gardening type preference, whether fish is part of a peoples’
7 of 15
cultural diet, and potential stigma around the consumption or taste of freshwater fish when
compared with saltwater species.
Aesthetics
Aesthetics ofofthe
thesystems
systems waswas aa stronger
strongerconcern
concern than
than originally
originally expected
expected (n FG
(n = 11, = 11, FG
= 3). The= 3).
Theartificial
artificialororconstructed
constructedappearance
appearance of the aquaponics systems discouraged some
of the aquaponics systems discouraged some people. Some people. Some
participants asked
participants if the
asked systems
if the systemscould
couldbebenaturalized, and commented
naturalized, and commentedthat thatthey
they would
would happily
happily havehave
a ‘pretty’ system
a ‘pretty’ systemsuch
suchasasthe
theexample
examplephoto
photoof of one
one encased
encased in intimber
timber(Figure
(Figure2),2),but
butnotnot one
one with
with lotslots
of pipes
of pipes showing.
showing. Havingthe
Having thesystem
systemfit
fitinto
into the
the look of
of their
theirbackyard
backyardcamecameacross
across asas
a strong factor
a strong factor
in participants’ willingness to add aquaponics to their existing
in participants’ willingness to add aquaponics to their existing garden. garden.

Figure
Figure 2. Photo
2. Photo of of woodenbackyard
wooden backyardaquaponics
aquaponics system.
system. Reproduced
Reproducedwith
withpermission
permissionfrom Justine
from Justine
Williams (City Food Gardens).
Williams (City Food Gardens).

3.1.2. Benefits or Value

3.1.2. Benefits or Value
There were five perceived benefits and values of aquaponics, the top being ‘Diversity’ (n = 16,
There were five perceived benefits and values of aquaponics, the top being ‘Diversity’ (n = 16,
FG = 3). Less frequently mentioned, but still within the top three were, ‘Water and nutrient cycling’
FG = 3). Less frequently mentioned, but still within the top three were, ‘Water and nutrient cycling’
(n = 13, FG = 2), and ‘Size’ (n = 11, FG = 2).
(n = 13, The
FG =apparent
2), and ‘Size’ (n =of11,
diversity theFG = 2).
technology appealed to most of the participants (n = 16, FG = 3).
The apparent diversity of the technology
Discussion on this included some systems’ modular appealed toand
design most of the
small participants
adaptable (n =
size, thus 16, FG = 3).
potentially
Discussion
suitable ifonrenting
this included some systems’
(FG#1). Participants modular
thought of manydesign and small
possibilities foradaptable
aquaponics: size, thus potentially
to grow food on
suitable
contaminated or under-utilized land (n = 7, FG = 3), to use the water cycling to help clean a food
if renting (FG#1). Participants thought of many possibilities for aquaponics: to grow dam on
contaminated or under-utilized
(KI#9), for very isolated ruralland (n = 7, FG (KI#4),
communities = 3), to for
use school
the water cycling (KI#11),
education to help clean
and to a dam
assist(KI#9),
in
for breeding
very isolated rural communities
endangered (KI#4),
native fish species forfor school education
conservation, (KI#11),
for example, and Cod
Murray to assist in breeding
(Maccullochella
peelii) an iconic
endangered nativeand threatened
fish species
species for in Australia
conservation, for(KI#10).
example, Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii) an
The cycling of the nutrients and
iconic and threatened species in Australia (KI#10). much of the water (although not a closed loop cycle) was
appreciated by many participants (n = 13, FG = 2).
The cycling of the nutrients and much of the water (although This could possibly be foraits
not likeness
closed loopto acycle)
naturalwas
system, suiting
appreciated by many some of the participants’
participants (n = 13, FG sustainable
= 2). Thisvalues.
could The appeal
possibly be of
forsaving water to
its likeness in aSouth
natural
Australia
system, (the some
suiting driest of
state
theinparticipants’
Australia) was also mentioned
sustainable (FG#1,
values. TheKI#1, and of
appeal KI#18).
saving water in South
Australia (the driest state in Australia) was also mentioned (FG#1, KI#1, and KI#18).

3.1.3. Business Considerations

When asked what scale of an aquaponics business the focus group participants thought would be
the most successful, two scales were selected: small-scale niche (FG = 3) and larger wholesale selling
(FG = 3). Each focus group discussed the appropriateness of having a series of scales. These scales were
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 8 of 15

presented in each key informant interview for further discussion. When asked to consider the merits
and weaknesses of each model, the idea of an aquaponics business evoked 16 different considerations
from participants. The top five concerns were: ‘Need to do serious business research first’ (n = 15),
‘Marketing and brand perception’ (n = 14), and then equally, ‘Aquaponics story value’ (n = 12) and
‘Community and family education’ (n = 12), and finally, ‘Need demonstrations of aquaponics’ (n = 12).
These responses are broadly reflective of the social barriers identified earlier.
The need for serious business research covered everything from start-up costs, acceptable time
to break-even, volume of production per system, the intensity of production, what kind of support
you would need, and whether to consider value adding. Participants wanted all the details available
before they would consider it.
Quite a few participants suggested demonstrations of aquaponics (n = 12) for people not only to
become familiar with the technology, but also to help overcome some of the negative perceptions, and
to assist in community and family education (n = 12), as evident in the following quote:

“I think people need to touch and feel and smell. They need to see it working. To get close
to it, to understand it.” KI#1

The marketing and brand perception of such a business, especially whether or not it was
possible to tell the difference between produce grown traditionally or with aquaponics, was also
a strong consideration:

“If I went to a farmers’ market and there was a lettuce for sale, could I distinguish between
one grown using aquaponics or conventionally? If trying to sell it—as a consumer, why
would I choose one over the other?” KI#2

There were many potential marketable points raised: local production (FG#3, KI#3, KI#6, and
KI#14), water efficiency (FG#1, KI#9, and KI#18), and freshness (KI#3 and KI#14). Value of the story
was closely tied to brand perception. This would be how those trying to sell their produce could
attempt to engage and connect with potential buyers (n = 12):

“Selling the story. Differentiated, e.g., selling Kingfish to Sydney restaurants. I had to say why
it was special and only available through here . . . . . . You’re selling food, not a fish.” KI#3

There were many business structure ideas promoted with some variations on similar themes.
These ideas are assembled into a variable scale of business deployment, presented in Table 2.
They range from backyard sizes to large-scale wholesale. Small-scale niche market and wholesale
commercial market sizes were considered the most potentially competitive commercially.

Table 2. Aquaponics business design options.

Structure Suitable for

One family
1. Backyard scale
Two families (sharing)
Community garden
2. Community
Community collective
Farmers market
3. Limited niche market
Restaurants
Unemployment work program
Migrant support program
4. Social enterprise
Home-based sales
Youth training
Wholesale to supermarket
5. Large wholesale commercial
Commercial partner
6. Food garden service Part of garden design and build business
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 9 of 15

The success of UA at the niche market scale is dependent on selling at retail prices direct to
consumers, otherwise the economies of scale are not viable. By selling direct, this strengthens the
importance of a marketing strategy that makes the most of settings where connection can take place,
such as a farmers’ market. To make this link work in practice, however, the “story” is critical—people
will not buy from a stall at a farmers’ market if they do not like the producer’s story. Selling produce
in such a public place also ensures the opportunity for demonstrations and education of the people
there in order to allow them to better understand and appreciate the produce. Hence, the social and
community perceptions identified in this study have flow-on implications for the viable formation of
a story, to producer-consumer connections, to retail pricing structure, and finally leading to a niche
business model.
Consideration of starting an aquaponics business at the wholesale scale raised the idea of doing
so with a commercial partner to make the most of their existing setup (n = 8, FG = 1). The aquaponics
business would benefit from the existing structures and the business could use aquaponics as a point
of difference in sales (KI#10).
There were also concerns for the production volume and consistency necessary for a wholesale
business (n = 4, FG = 1). Although some did think that once you had the production volume consistent
that it could be a more dependable market than the niche scale market (KI#6, KI#15, and FG#1).
Another business design put forward was that of an aquaponics social enterprise (n = 6, FG = 3).
These participants thought that a network of people could work collaboratively on a larger scale project
to develop their own brand and share in the profits. The other persistent idea linked aquaponics
social enterprise to social justice and community capacity building with two options. Firstly, as an
‘Unemployment Work Program’ type setup where those receiving public financial support could
contribute their time in exchange for skill development and produce vouchers for some of the produce
grown, and secondly, as a ‘Youth Training Program’, which was described as particularly valuable for
suburbs with high youth unemployment rates, such as Salisbury and Playford in Adelaide (KI#11).

3.1.4. Scaled Guidelines

The participants’ desire for serious logistical business considerations, combined with the many
potential structures for aquaponics systems, culminated in the idea that a set of scaled guidelines
is needed (n = 7, FG = 2). Such guidelines would include financial, logistical, production volumes,
time requirements etc. for each scale from backyard (for one or two families), community-sized
(for a community garden or collective), niche market size, social enterprise, or large commercial
operation. It should be noted that currently backyard aquaponics systems are the most common form of
aquaponics in Australia [12]. However, having this background business information prepared would
mean that any individual, community group, business, or council considering any kind of aquaponics
system could browse this information and make a more confident decision than is currently possible.
Focusing on the different purposes of the aquaponics structures differs from previous
considerations of aquaponics system viability. Goodman [15] researched inclusion of community
benefits in addition to the financial feasibility of aquaponics businesses. Goodman [15] determined
the net income of one small, one medium, and one large sized aquaponics business, and found that
the likelihood of these businesses generating profit purely from the aquaponics production of fish
and plants was slim. The odds did improve if the purpose of the system was for more than just
financial profit, for example, if also for community benefit, such as Growing Power in Milwaukee.
Goodman [15] made recommendations for cost-cutting: vertical integration (producing necessary
inputs onsite; e.g., grow worms for fish food), getting things for free, and diversifying revenue streams.
These are all suitable options for the smaller scaled aquaponics systems, such as niche market selling
or social enterprise.
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 10 of 15

3.2. Part 2: Urban Planning

3.2.1. Focus Group and Interview Responses to Urban Food Planning

Of the focus group and interview participants actively involved in growing food in Adelaide, all
of them alluded to a lack of Council support when asked about their experiences with urban planning.
This belief was exemplified in the following quote:

“I think it’s much better just to fly under the radar as long as you can.” FG#3

When asked if (and how) current urban food planning could be improved, many
recommendations were made. The top six suggestions were: ‘Importance of top-down government
support or a positive stance’ (n = 17), ‘Value of smart urban planning’ (n = 14) and ‘Use of different
planning tools to support UA’ (such as incentive schemes) (n = 14), ‘Need to provide space for UA’
(n = 13), ‘Adopt planning examples from other cities or countries’ (n = 13), and ‘Dependency of urban
food planning on individual local Council’ (n = 13).

3.2.2. Top Down Support

The idea, and apparent necessity of top down support was best described by one participant, an
environmental policy lecturer:

“If the government supports something or doesn’t, there can be a policy vacuum. You have
to have a high-level policy position. From these you can build programs and under them
particular projects. But you need the driver up top.” KI#2

There have been previous calls for strong top level support (federal and state) of urban food
planning, both in the US [37] and in Australia [38]. When questioned whether they thought this
support should come from state or federal level, more participants agreed with state support (n = 13),
over federal (n = 3). Two current plans that could be expected to make some reference to UA in South
Australia are the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, and the Premium Food and Wine from our Clean
Environment Initiative.
In 2010, the South Australian Government published the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
A submission on the draft Plan by the Planning Institute of Australia (SA Division) commented on
what they called unresolved conflict between the Plan’s designs for a compact, transit-oriented city,
with protection of primary food production land, and the land supply for housing development
growth [19]. One interview participant, a Community Development Officer, had noticed how the Plan
discusses green space but not urban food.
The Planning Institute’s submission also pointed out that there is only a single policy (Chapter D,
Health and Wellbeing, Policy 3) that mentions protection of some food production areas. Upon further
reading, it was noticed that one other policy (Chapter D, Health and Wellbeing, Policy 2) does vow
to promote the development of community gardens, albeit only for “social interaction and physical
wellbeing” (Government of South Australia 2010, p. 101), and not for production capability or
food security.
Another state level plan is the Premium Food and Wine from Our Clean Environment
Initiative. When asked whether this program, which is assisted and implemented in part by PIRSA
(Primary Industries and Regions South Australia), only supported the large-scale producers, one
participant responded:

“In terms of the farmers themselves, if you’re small-scale, PIRSA helps in terms of
over-arching policies and things but doesn’t get involved in the day to day . . . So if
you’re small, you either become a member of a body that can represent you or you just do
your own thing and not worry about anyone else.” KI#15
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 11 of 15

Currently there appears to be no top-down support in place for small-scale producers if they are
not interested in joining an association, or selling interstate or overseas. Further, the university-driven
Extension function is not institutionalized in Australia, although the state’s reputation for gourmet and
quality food production means marketing initiatives such as Eat Local SA, Brand SA, and tourism food
trails bolster awareness of point-of-purchase options. If aiming for a more cohesive approach to food
security, UA, and urban food planning, some acknowledgement or policy support for the small-scale
UA in South Australia needs to be made.

3.2.3. Improving Urban Food Planning

Every interview participant, bar one, explicitly expressed a desire for a supportive stance by
Government and Council on UA. They valued well designed urban planning and mentioned numerous
planning tools to assist in supporting UA, as well as mentioning a number of international examples
and examples from other Australian cities. That the acceptability of UA activities depended heavily on
each individual Council was a common perception (n = 13, FG = 2). The most positive Council attitude
expressed towards UA was that of Adelaide City Council:

“[We] already have a big push for ‘Place Making’ where the community leads the way and
the Council works to support them in their endeavours and provide a little bit of structure
and just make sure it’s safe.” SA#1

This idea of the Council providing some structure and safety while not impeding on any
community engagement is a promising one, especially in light of a recent review of Australian
cities released in February [20], which found Adelaide City to be lacking in ‘Sense of Place’. Sense of
place is built on local economic development and place-based social capital, where UA fits due to its
strong ties to physical inhabitation [25].
Study participants were aware of the difficulty in attempting to manage and implement guidelines
or policies, and did not overlook the complicated nature of growing food and selling it in public places.
Because of this, some doubted that councils would be the ones to take the first step:

“I think it’s going to be more push than pull as in the community is going to have to push
the council into asking for space rather than the council being proactive and saying ‘we’re
going to give you this’.” KI#15

3.2.4. Scenario Analysis

The perception of focus group and interview participants that urban food planning depends on
each individual LGA was further explored through the scenario analyses.
There was very little consensus on each of the seven hypothetical scenarios put to the seven
selected LGAs. There were also some policy vacuums where the council employee did not provide an
answer on the acceptability of that UA activity, as there was no policy to cover such an instance.
The following quotes exemplify the pro-, uncertain, and anti-positions of the Councils. There was
complete support for community driven UA, such as from Prospect Council:

“This sort of thing keeps the food local which is good. Food security is associated with
your environmental footprint, so we want to encourage people to keep it local.” SA#7

Prospect Council has a proactive approach to vegetable growing on street verges with their Veggie
Verges Project, to actively promote ownership of the streetscape and encourage neighbour interaction.
They also have online poultry guidelines, no issue with fish ponds or bees, think home businesses
are acceptable if small, would consider fruit street trees on a case-by-case basis, and already have a
community garden that sells its produce at a local market.
In contrast to Prospect, an inner-city area with a relatively high socio-economic status, there was
uncertainty and concern for complaints with Tea Tree Gully Council, an outer suburb with a lower
socio-economic status:
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 12 of 15

“We don’t get too involved in growing food . . . Unfortunately bound by legislation with
little room to move. If there is a justified complaint then that must result in instant action.”
SA#6

When questioned about the acceptability of residents growing food on the public verges in front
of their houses, Tea Tree Gully Council was concerned for the possible health risk of the soil, and of
food being grown in a public space. As part of a resident’s application to request approval for doing so,
the details of the particular plants planned must be included. It was commented that listing vegetables
on an application would diminish the resident’s chances of approval. Tea Tree Gully include the
keeping of poultry in their local order making policy, in addition to having an online poultry fact sheet
for residents to access. Fishponds of any size would be considered an issue and any attempt to sell
fish would be shut down. Bees are listed as nuisance animals within Tea Tree Gully, and fruit trees are
never considered for street trees.
There was some evidence of outright discouragement for certain aspects of UA, as with Mitcham
Council, a suburb with a relatively high socio-economic status:

“The Council no longer considers any community garden proposal to be established on

Council property for the life of the Council.” SA#2

Mitcham Council has several guidelines in place, but instead of simple guidelines to support
particular UA activities, their guidelines tend to stipulate a large number of particulars and have long
application procedures. Their online guidelines for poultry keeping are twice as long as (and more
detailed than) any other Council. No mention of fish or ornamental ponds is made on their website.
Mitcham Council has online bee guidelines seemingly intent on discouraging bee keeping, as hives
are not allowed within 50 m of any home, road, or public place, thus making hive placement almost
impossible in the suburban area.
Each LGA’s policy position was tagged as encourage, discourage, or neutral. The policy
framework of each Council contributed to this classification, with consideration of associated by-laws
and actions towards UA. Three Councils (Adelaide, Prospect, and Norwood, Payneham, and St. Peters)
actively encouraged UA development. One Council (Mitcham) actively discouraged UA activities.
Three Councils (Salisbury, Charles Sturt, and Tea Tree Gully) had mixed responses to the scenarios and
so were tagged more than once. Multiple tags could be an indication of the lack of holistic approach
and management of UA, and reveal how each UA activity is judged individually rather than as part of
a greater urban food planning framework.
The range of responses to the UA scenarios relating to aquaponics, mainly the fishponds, the
community gardens, and the running of a small home business selling home-grown produce, are
displayed in Table 3. For aquaponics, in addition to social barriers, there are likely to be mixed
responses to wider uptake of aquaponics either at backyard small-scale, niche commercial, or as a
social enterprise. However, there is not a universal barrier to aquaponics across LGAs, and there may
be tentative support from some councils. In order to increase the awareness and cohesion of local UA
policies across Adelaide, either the state could take a supportive stance, or people living in particular
LGAs discouraging UA could communicate their desire for change.

Table 3. Scenario analysis results relating to aquaponics: having a fishpond, having an aquaponics
system at a community garden, and running a small home businesses selling home-grown produce.

Fishponds
Detailed stipulations about the depth, development approval, safety, and Charles Sturt
intensiveness of the fish keeping. Norwood, Payneham, and St. Peters
Adelaide
Vague. Would probably be okay, but . . . (not front garden and check Planning
Tea Tree Gully
Department).
Prospect
Mitcham
No response to fishponds/no mention online.
Salisbury
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 13 of 15

Table 3. Cont.

Community Garden
Have community gardens on council land in their area. Every Council except Mitcham.
Mentioned keeping “fish” in the community garden, but must consider scale Charles Sturt
and application requirements. Tea Tree Gully
Small Home Business
Full guidelines for two separate sized scales: (1) A home activity; (2) A shop
Norwood, Payneham, and St. Peters
selling goods.
Unsure. Could depend on scale (e.g., no more than 30 m2 or 10% of block). Adelaide
Need to speak with Environmental Health or PIRSA and look up SA Food Act Charles Sturt
2001. Tea Tree Gully
Mitcham
No response to home business/no mention online. Salisbury
Prospect

4. Discussion
The aim of this paper was to investigate the receptivity of Adelaide’s urban food opinion
leaders and local government areas towards aquaponics. The majority of focus group and interview
participants were unfamiliar with aquaponics as a production methodology, and their initial responses
varied greatly in rich, in-depth discussions. Participants tended to focus on and discuss the perceived
negatives of aquaponics, with the strongest barriers to greater take-up of the technology being: a lack of
awareness, experience, or successful examples of viable aquaponics businesses, ethics surrounding fish
wellbeing, suitability, and aesthetics. The strongest perceived benefits were: diversity of system design,
water and nutrient cycling, and the compact size of aquaponics systems. With regard to aquaponics as
a business, focus group participants thought it could be competitive at either niche market or wholesale
market scales. Study participants had many business concerns for aquaponics, the major ones being the
need for serious business research (logistical), marketing and brand perception, community and family
education, the story value of aquaponics, and the need for aquaponics demonstrations. Participants
thought that niche-market aquaponics businesses would be more successful than wholesale ones,
possibly as the benefits of a niche-market business better matched the participants’ major business
concerns. Perhaps the results obtained mirror biases the participants already possess. However, as all
selected participants were involved in small-scale food production or have experience with Adelaide’s
urban food system, their insight and practical advice for the future of aquaponics is considered
valuable. The wide range of aquaponics business scales suggested, together with participant demands
for sound logistical business preparation, culminated in the idea of a need for scaled guidelines for
each of the different sized systems and purposes.
The consensus of focus group participants was that ‘flying under the radar’ was the easiest way
to handle the uncertainty, complexity, and continually evolving nature of urban planning and policy
surrounding urban food production. This position becomes more understandable when considering
the varied responses from LGAs in the scenario analyses. Each of the seven local government areas
contacted had mixed responses to the UA scenarios put to them. Although the seven scenarios involved
reasonably common UA activities, many of the council employees questioned were unfamiliar with
one or more of them. Hence, there may be additional barriers to the uptake of less common activities
such as aquaponics. The majority of the key informant interview participants wanted UA planning to
improve, although they acknowledged how difficult this may be. All participants commented on the
importance of top-down government support, and their desire for a supportive state stance.

5. Conclusions
This study is one of the first to explore social and emotional responses to aquaponics technology
in the context of UA. The participants, as people already heavily involved in urban food production,
education, distribution, or business planning at many levels, were mostly unfamiliar with aquaponics.
Thus, it is likely that the majority of people less involved will be even less aware of this technology.
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 14 of 15

When asked how best to raise awareness and acceptance of aquaponics, participants stressed the need
for greater understanding and experience of all kinds of aquaponics, including viable businesses. This
study echoes several findings from Miličič et al.’s work [16], which called for an educational campaign
of guided tours, workshops, and tastings to enable interaction with a new technology. As UA experts,
the participants were able to elaborate on barriers and concerns that might be perceived by the public,
and generate creative options for structural operations of aquaponics systems. Conversely, the fact
that a sizable number of participants were non-experts in aquaponics suggests that future consumer
research will be strengthened by field—rather than photo—exposure to the wide range of commercial
and backyard aquaponics setups, as part of data collection.
The need for current urban planning and UA management by LGAs and State Level Government
to adapt and support UA practices was strongly advocated. Local government officials need to
reconsider the impact, intentional or not, that they can have on UA. It may be time to pay more
attention to the UA activities being actively engaged in by people living in their suburbs, and to
consider a cohesive approach to urban food planning in the future. This mapping of the current
social and regulatory opportunities and barriers can be practically applied, and may help to inform
future food planners and UA practitioners, particularly those interested in the development of an
aquaponics industry.

Author Contributions: Georgia Pollard, James D. Ward, and Barbara Koth conceived and designed the research;
Georgia Pollard undertook the data collection and analysed the data; James D. Ward and Barbara Koth contributed
to the analysis process; Georgia Pollard wrote the paper; James D. Ward and Barbara Koth contributed to
the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gittleman, M.; Jordan, K.; Brelsford, E. Using citizen science to quantify community garden crop yields.
Cities Environ. (CATE) 2012, 5, 4.
2. Bendt, P.; Barthel, S.; Colding, J. Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access community
gardens in berlin. Landscape Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 18–30. [CrossRef]
3. Seyfang, G. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks.
J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 383–395. [CrossRef]
4. Turner, B. Embodied connections: Sustainability, food systems and community gardens. Local Environ. 2011,
16, 509–522. [CrossRef]
5. Altieri, M.A. Small Farms as a Planetary Ecological Asset: Five Key Reasons Why We Should Support the
Revitalisation of Small Farms in the Global South; Third World network (TWN): Penang, Malaysia, 2008.
6. Golden, S. Urban Agriculture Impacts: Social, Health, and Economic: A Literature Review; UC Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education Program, Agricultural Sustainability Institute at UC Davis: Davis, CA,
USA, 2013.
7. Lennard, W. Aquaponics: The integration of recirculating aquaculture and hydroponics. World Aquacult.
2009, 40, 23.
8. Bernstein, S. Aquaponic Gardening: A Step-by-Step Guide to Raising Vegetables and Fish Together; New Society
Publishers: Gabriola Island, Canada, 2013.
9. Le Blond, J. Rooftop Fish Farms to Feed Germany’s Sprawling Urban Population. Available online: http:
//www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/04/rooftop-fish-farms-german-population (accessed
on 4 May 2014).
10. Love, D.C.; Fry, J.P.; Li, X.; Hill, E.S.; Genello, L.; Semmens, K.; Thompson, R.E. Commercial aquaponics
production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture 2015, 435, 67–74. [CrossRef]
11. Rakocy, J.E.; Timmons, M.B.; Ebeling, J.M. Chapter 19. Aquaponics: Integrating fish and plant culture.
In Recirculating Aquaculture, 2nd ed.; Cayuga Aqua Ventures, LLC: Freeville, NY, USA, 2007; p. 860.
12. Goddek, S.; Delaide, B.; Mankasingh, U.; Ragnarsdottir, K.V.; Jijakli, H.; Thorarinsdottir, R. Challenges of
sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4199–4224. [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 15 of 15

13. Love, D.C.; Fry, J.P.; Genello, L.; Hill, E.S.; Frederick, J.A.; Li, X.; Semmens, K. An international survey of
aquaponics practitioners. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102662. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Villarroel, M.; Junge, R.; Komives, T.; König, B.; Plaza, I.; Bittsánszky, A.; Joly, A. Survey of aquaponics in
europe. Water 2016, 8, 468. [CrossRef]
15. Goodman, E.R. Aquaponics: Community and Economic Development; Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
16. Miličić, V.; Thorarinsdottir, R.; Santos, M.D.; Hančič, M.T. Commercial aquaponics approaching the european
market: To consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics products in europe. Water 2017, 9, 80. [CrossRef]
17. Daniels, C.; Tait, C. Adelaide: Nature of a City: The Ecology of a Dynamic City 1836–2036; BioCity: Centre for
Urban Habitats, University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia, 2005.
18. Daniels, C.; Hodgson, J. Adelaide: Water of a City; Wakefield Press: Adelaide, Australia, 2010.
19. Planning Institute of Australia (SA Division). Submission on the Draft 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide; Planning
Institute of Australia (SA Division): Adelaide, Australia, 2009.
20. Davidson, K.; Arman, M. Planning for sustainability: An assessment of recent metropolitan planning
strategies and urban policy in Australia. Aust. Plan. 2014, 51, 1–11. [CrossRef]
21. Morgan, K. Feeding the city: The challenge of urban food planning. Int. Plan. Stud. 2009, 14, 341–348. [CrossRef]
22. Budge, T.; Slade, C. Integrating Land Use Planning and Community Food Security; The Victorian Local
Government Association: Melbourne, Australia, 2009.
23. Caldwell, W.; Collett, A.; Ludlow, T.; Sinclair, I.; Whitehead, J. Planning and Food Security within the
Commonwealth: Discussion Paper; Commonwealth Association of Planners, 2011.
24. Pires, V. Planning for Urban Agriculture Planning in Australian Cities. In Proceedings of the State of
Australian Cities Conference (SOAC) 5, Melbourne, Australia, 29 November–2 December 2011.
25. DeLind, L.B. Place, work, and civic agriculture: Common fields for cultivation. Agric. Hum. Values 2002, 19,
217–224. [CrossRef]
26. Gibbs, A. Focus Groups. Available online: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU19.html (accessed on
12 June 2014).
27. Richards, L.; Morse, J. Readme First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA, 2012.
28. Morgan, D.; Krueger, R. When to use focus groups and why. In Focus Groups as Qualitative Research;
Morgan, D., Ed.; Sage Publishing: London, UK, 1993.
29. Patton, M. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002.
30. Montello, D.; Sutton, P. An Introduction to Scientific Research Methods in Geography and Environmental Studies;
Sage Publishing: London, UK, 2012.
31. Krueger, R.; Casey, M.A. Social Analysis Selected Tools and Techniques: Designing and Conducting Focus Group
Interviews; Social Development Department of the World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 4–23.
32. Nelson, R.; Pade, J. Aquaponic Food Production: Growing Fish and Vegetables for Food and Profit; Nelson and
Pade, Inc.: Montello, WI, USA, 2008.
33. Mason, M. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qual. Soc. Res.
2010, 11, 8.
34. Cachia, M.; Millward, L. The telephone medium and semi-structured interviews: A complementary fit.
Qual. Res. Organ. Manag. Int. J. 2011, 6, 265–277. [CrossRef]
35. Vogl, S. Telephone versus face-to-face interviews mode effect on semistructured interviews with children.
Soc. Method 2013, 43, 133–177. [CrossRef]
36. Tyson, R.V.; Treadwell, D.D.; Simonne, E.H. Opportunities and challenges to sustainability in aquaponic
systems. Horttechnology 2011, 21, 6–13.
37. Pothukuchi, K.; Kaufman, J.L. Placing the food system on the urban agenda: The role of municipal institutions
in food systems planning. Agric. Hum. Values 1999, 16, 213–224. [CrossRef]
38. Jennings, H.; Carlisle, R.; Bernardi, A.; McConell, K. Building an appetite for food in planning. Plan. News
2013, 39, 14.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).