Sustainability 11 04315

sustainability
Article
How Will We Eat and Produce in the Cities of the
Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical
Farming—A Study on the Perception and
Acceptability of New Approaches
Kathrin Specht 1,2, *,† , Felix Zoll 2,3,† , Henrike Schümann 4 , Julia Bela 5 , Julia Kachel 4 and
Marcel Robischon 2
1 ILS—Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development, 44135 Dortmund, Germany
2 Division of Vocational Teaching in Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Department of Agricultural
Economics, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of Life
Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
3 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
4 Integrated Natural Resource Management, Albrecht Daniel Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural
Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099 Berlin, Germany
5 Urban and Regional Planning, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Received: 29 May 2019; Accepted: 1 August 2019; Published: 9 August 2019
Abstract: Global challenges such as climate change, increasing urbanization and a lack of transparency
of food chains, have led to the development of innovative urban food production approaches, such as
rooftop greenhouses, vertical farms, indoor farms, aquaponics as well as production sites for edible
insects or micro-algae. Those approaches are still at an early stage of development and partly
unknown among the public. The aim of our study was to identify the perception of sustainability,
social acceptability and ethical aspects of these new approaches and products in urban food production.
We conducted 19 qualitative expert interviews and applied qualitative content analysis. Our results
revealed that major perceived benefits are educational effects, revaluation of city districts, efficient
resource use, exploitation of new protein sources or strengthening of local economies. Major perceived
conflicts concern negative side-effects, legal constraints or high investment costs. The extracted
acceptance factors deal significantly with the “unknown”. A lack of understanding of the new
approaches, uncertainty about their benefits, concerns about health risks, a lack of familiarity with
the food products, and ethical doubts about animal welfare represent possible barriers. We conclude
that adaptation of the unsuitable regulatory framework, which discourages investors, is an important
first step to foster dissemination of the urban food production approaches.
Keywords: urban farming; rooftop greenhouses; indoor farming; insect eating; micro-algae;
acceptance; novel food; sustainability
1. Introduction
1.1. Problem/Background
The question of how and where we will produce food in the future is central in times of climate
change, growing world population, urbanization processes, decreasing availability of arable land
and changing diets. The globalization of food chains makes it difficult to comprehend where food
comes from and how it is produced [1,2]. This lack of transparency and reoccurring food scandals
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4315; doi:10.3390/su11164315 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4315 2 of 22
lead to an increased demand for local food [3]. Among consumers, there is a widespread perception
that ‘local’ is more sustainable than ‘global’ [4]. This often goes hand-in-hand with strong opposition
to conventionally produced food [5] which indicates that the prevailing food system is increasingly
associated with unsustainable practices and the respective negative environmental impacts such
as land and water degradation, the acceleration of climate change or a loss in biodiversity [6,7].
Both Brunori et al. [4] and Schmitt et al. [8] found that local food chains are more sustainable than
global ones for attributes such as biodiversity, animal welfare, local added value and nutrition.
In contrast, Born and Purcell [9] contest the generalization that local food systems are inherently more
sustainable and socially just. A special form of local food production is urban agriculture, which is
also related to a variety of sustainability benefits such as access to fresh, healthy and transparently
produced food, strengthening local communities, recreation, fewer food miles, and an improvement
of the micro-climate [10–12]. Changing views on food production have resulted in the development
of a local food movement and conscious consumers who highly value sustainably produced food.
Responding to this popularity, the supply side has reacted with structural changes and has moved
production closer to the consumer [13]. Short urban agriculture food supply chains enable the provision
of high-quality niche products such as perishable vegetables [14] for which producers can charge
premium prices [15]. However, traditional forms of urban agriculture conducted open-air or on-soil
also bear risks and limitations. Soil contamination, atmospheric, and polluted water can interfere
with the food safety of the produce [16]. Furthermore, studies have shown that labor and natural
inputs are used inefficiently compared to large-scale agriculture, questioning the sustainability of
small-scale urban agriculture [17,18]. The uncertainty of how to sustainably meet the food demand of
future generations and the emerging economic opportunities of changing consumer demands drive
the development and promotion of innovative urban food production approaches. To achieve an
efficiently produced yield of safe food, urban agriculture has advanced towards the use of high-tech
equipment in a controlled environment [12,19,20]. Due to the special characteristics and limitations of
such areas, these innovations are mostly designed to use space efficiently but also to tap synergies
with the built environment of cities or social benefits unrelated to production [21]. The creative and
adaptive force of cities can add innovative characteristics to existing growing methods or can result in
completely new ways of producing food such as indoor farming, vertical farming, rooftop greenhouses,
aquaponics, the farming of edible insects or the production of algae. All of these approaches can
address the problems of current food production to a certain degree and have the potential to contribute
to more sustainable food production in the future. However, they also bear risks and uncertainties,
which might hamper their acceptance and diffusion. Consequently, both sides have to be explored and
evaluated to fully understand the approaches.
1.2. Sustainability of Innovative Urban Food Production Approaches

This paper focuses on six different urban food production approaches (aquaponics, rooftop
greenhouses, vertical farming, indoor farming, algae production and edible insects). Compared to the
more traditional forms of urban agriculture (such as allotment gardens), those approaches are both
more innovative and at the same time, due to their newness, less investigated.
Aquaponics is an approach that combines aquaculture and hydroculture. It enables the production
of fish and leafy vegetables in cities [22]. This method uses resources more efficiently than aquaculture,
as both nutrients and water are recycled [23]. The circulation of wastewater from the fish tank ensures
fertilization of the plants and prevents nutrient discharge [24]. In contrast, Forchino et al. [25] concluded
from their lifecycle analysis that high water and energy demand are obstacles for achieving economic
and environmental sustainability.
In cities with a lack of open space, the implementation of vertical farms or the facilitation of
rooftops for the implementation of greenhouses can be an efficient solution to produce food. Rooftop
greenhouses can transform unutilized space on top of buildings into productive space [19]. High-tech
rooftop greenhouses can create synergies with the buildings to which they are connected. Waste
heat from the building can be used to heat the greenhouse, enabling food production in winter. CO2
emissions can also be used to foster plant growth [26]. Furthermore, a high share of the water demand
can be covered using rainwater collected from the building [27]. Sanjuan-Delmas et al. [27] also assessed
that CO2 emissions from food production in rooftop greenhouses are lower than in conventional
greenhouses. However, they found a high demand for fertilizer and a substantial generation of leachate
contributing to marine eutrophication. Other aspects that negatively affect sustainability are high
operational costs and the need for further technological development for building-integrated circular
rooftop greenhouses [27].
The dependency of agricultural productivity on the environment may be reduced by moving plant
production indoors. Indoor farming can provide optimal growing conditions to maximize the yield
per growing space and enable year-round production. Indoor farming can potentially ensure stable,
location-independent harvests, especially in times of climate change and increasingly frequent extreme
weather events [20]. In indoor farming, just as in vertical farming soil-less vertical plant-production
systems are preferred, as they allow an efficient use of space and resources [28]. Maximum control
over production methods can also reduce the use of fertilizer and pesticides and, as a consequence,
reduce the environmental impact of food production [29].
Approaches such as insect or algae farming aim at producing novel foods that are not traditionally
part of Western diets in order to meet the growing demand for protein. Compared to conventional
animal husbandry insect farming is regarded as less resource-intensive and more environmentally
friendly: insects convert feed mass into body mass more efficiently than cattle, pork or chicken.
Also, the water demand of insects is minimal and rearing requires little space [30]. Furthermore,
edible insects such as mealworms or grasshoppers emit less greenhouse gases and NH3 than cattle
or pigs [31]. However, efficient mass-rearing systems are yet to be developed and the issue of
competing uses of insect-feed raises questions about whether or not sustainability potential can be
tapped [32]. Another new approach is algae farming. The farming of seaweed does not require
manmade fertilizer or compete with other agricultural land uses. In the right environment, it grows
both quickly and abundantly and contains essential nutrients. Some seaweeds such as the red
algae Porphyra spec. produce a higher amount of protein per m2 (84 g) compared to soy beans
(40 g/m2 ) or beef (5 g/m2 ) [33]. Microalgae also show considerable advantages with respect to land
consumption when compared to land crops. However, the implementation of large-scale production is
still very costly and technologically challenging [34]. Both the production of insects and algae bear
potential for integration into the urban environment: rearing insects does not require much space
and practical examples show that algae farming can be fitted to both house facades and interior walls
(https://www.mint-engineering.de/en/home/).
Technical feasibility is a common barrier for different innovative food production approaches,
and might be a reason why some developments do not advance beyond prototypes [35]. That is why
the sustainability of new approaches to urban agriculture is often just calculated in models [28,36,37]
and existing studies on aquaponics, rooftop greenhouses, vertical and indoor farming focus on the
technological feasibility, production-process optimization or lifecycle analysis [19,23,36,38].
The viability of innovations is, however, not just dependent on technological feasibility. Social
acceptability and perceptions of the innovation’s benefits are also crucial for its diffusion. As food
production mainly takes place in rural areas, many urban dwellers are no longer familiar with it.
Consumers might reject approaches that do not comply with their traditional views of agriculture.
A lack of understanding of the innovation could also result in hurdles for the implementation from
local authorities [35,39,40].
1.3. Research Gap

So far, the six approaches (aquaponics, rooftop greenhouses, vertical farming, indoor farming, algae
production and edible insects) have mainly been considered individually: Questions of acceptability
have been studied for edible insects and seaweed consumption to explore consumers’ willingness to
include those foods into their diets [41–45]. Food neophobia and low familiarity with eating insects
were identified as barriers for the adoption of insects as a meat substitute in Western societies [45].
Milicic et al. [46] explored consumers’ attitudes towards aquaponics products and found that few
people were willing to pay higher prices for food produced in aquaponics. Comparative studies of
the different approaches covering perception and acceptability rarely exist. Scholars compared the
societal preferences of different approaches to urban agriculture and found that approaches such as
vertical farming or aquaponics only find little acceptance [12,47]. As they are high-tech production
systems, they are perceived as unnatural. In a different study, Specht et al. [35] compared the social
acceptance and general perception of different types of building-related agriculture and concluded
that perceived benefits promote the acceptance of production systems such as rooftop greenhouses
and vertical farming.
Different innovative approaches to producing food in the city can provide identical or
complementary benefits. Identifying commonalities and differences in the perceptions of these
benefits and understanding the corresponding acceptability can provide hints for the chances that the
innovation will be successful on the market. Furthermore, one single approach may not be a solution
for sustainable urban food production. Using one frame to analyze all the different approaches can
thus highlight the foci of these approaches and give ideas about how combining them in order to cover
several sustainability aspects. The identification of common obstacles could also suggest alliances of
different approaches among stakeholders to create a lobby and overcome existing barriers together.
Hence, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the approaches of rooftop greenhouses,
vertical farming, indoor farming, edible insects, aquaponics, and algae production, so as to enable an
overarching comparison. The specific objectives are:
• to assess the perception of sustainability for the different approaches;

• to investigate the acceptance factors and acceptance barriers that might hinder successful
establishment of the new approaches; and
• to identify common and complementary elements among the new approaches.
2. Materials and Methods

The overall research team consisted of 11 researchers, who conducted the interviews. We split into
six subgroups (consisting of one, two or three members) for a deeper investigation of each innovative
urban food production approach. Each of the subgroups worked on one of the following topics:
aquaponics, rooftop greenhouses, vertical farming, indoor farming, algae production and edible insects.
Each subgroup selected an average of three experts to interview. We considered people experts
if they had prolonged or intense experience in either practice or research in the respective field.
The experts were identified via desk-research and inquired via email. Four experts were interviewed
for indoor farming and rooftop greenhouses, while only two experts on aquaponics were included in
the analysis. The interviewees’ selection aimed at reaching experts with in-depth knowledge on the
respective approach and international reputation. The majority were experts from Germany. Experts
from the U.S. were included for insect and algae production, which are less common in Germany. After
contacting them, the subgroups met the experts in their professional environment or at other locations
of their convenience. U.S. experts were interviewed through a video conference tool.
The 19 qualitative interviews were conducted (Table 1) between May and July 2018 and lasted,
on average, 35 min.
All interviewers were trained in advance for the interview situation and followed the standards
for qualitative interviews as defined by Kuckartz [48]. For the face-to-face interviews, the interviews
were conducted at the place the interviewees chose, while the researchers aimed to provide neutrality
(e.g., no indication of desired responses) during the interview process. All interviewers used the
same interview guideline with nine major parts, consisting of (1) an introduction to our research
project, followed by questions about (2) the interviewees’ background, (3) the prominence of the
innovative urban food production approaches, (4), assessments of social, environmental and economic
benefits/potentials, (5) questions on public attitudes and social acceptance, (6) assessment of social,
environmental and economic problems/conflicts, (7) valuation of practical examples, (8) the assessment
of framework conditions, and (9) space for additional statements and acknowledgements.
Table 1. Overview of the interviewed stakeholders: Interview No., expert category, expertise,
and abbreviation as used for in-text direct citations. [* Abbreviations: RTG = Rooftop greenhouse; VF = Vertical
farming; IF = Indoor farming; Insects = Insect farming; AP = Aquaponics; Algae = Algae production].
Interview No. Expert Category Expertise Abbreviation *

#1 Practitioner Architect; green buildings RTG1
Innovation manager; expert on rooftop
#2 Practitioner/Researcher RTG2
greenhouses
Managing director; building-integrated
#3 Practitioner RTG3
water concepts and farming
#4 Practitioner Architect; green buildings RTG4
Vertical farming entrepreneur; expert on
#5 Practitioner/Researcher VF1
urban farming businesses
Expert on “technology and society” studies;
#6 Researcher VF2
expert on vertical farming
Expert on urban farming, urban and
#7 Researcher VF3
regional economics
Expert on plant quality and technological
#8 Researcher IF1
innovations
Project manager; expert on indoor farming
#9 Researcher IF2
and LED
Expert on green architecture and landscape
#10 Researcher IF3
architecture
#11 Practitioner Indoor urban gardener IF4
#12 Practitioner Insect cook; teacher; workshops leader Insects1
Expert on insect-eating; nutrition
#13 Researcher Insects2
psychologist
#14 Researcher Food technologist; expert on insect-eating Insects3
Author/writer (animals and plants); urban
#15 Practitioner AP2
gardening expert
Operator of an aquaponic farm; chemical
#16 Practitioner/Researcher AP3
engineer
Agronomist; expert on micro-algae
#17 Researcher Algae1
production
Expert on waste management and
#18 Researcher micro-algae production; engineer for Algae2
environment and water resources
Operator of an urban micro-algae
#19 Practitioner Algae3
production start-up; biologist
The interviewers recorded and transcribed the interviews. For the manual analysis, the principles
of qualitative content analysis by Kuckartz [48] were applied. We manually assigned codes to text
fragments to classify the amount of data into fewer homogenous units.
For the case-oriented analysis, each interview was analyzed and assessed individually [49]. A case
profile was created for each interviewee, summarizing the key messages plus citations for each section.
To develop an aggregated evaluation, a grid with social, ecological and economic benefits and
conflicts was developed from the interview content. The individual profiles were browsed for
catchwords and content denoting social, ecological and economic potential as well as conflicts, in the
three dimensions of sustainability. In a second step, all factors affecting the acceptance of the approaches
were extracted from the content. This enabled us to detect similarities and differences among the
individual interview
Sustainability cases
2019, 11, x FOR PEERand to extract the most important statements based on a qualitative
REVIEW 6 of 22
assessment and the number of times each aspect was mentioned.
In In ordertotoassess
order assess the contribution
contributionofof
thethe
studied approaches
studied to sustainable
approaches development,
to sustainable the
development,
the“three-pillars-of-a-sustainable-development-model”
“three-pillars-of-a-sustainable-development-model” waswasused, which
used, builds
which on the
builds sustainability
on the sustainability
concept
concept introduced
introduced by the
by the Brundtland
Brundtland Report
Report in 1987
in 1987 [50].[50]. Sustainable
Sustainable development
development can can
onlyonly be
be assured
assured if all three dimensions are implemented equally in environmental policies.
if all three dimensions are implemented equally in environmental policies. Furthermore, innovative Furthermore,
innovative approaches and technologies are determined as major drivers of sustainable development
approaches and technologies are determined as major drivers of sustainable development [51,52].
[51,52].
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
Innovations often face reservations or even resistance. As long as those obstacles are not
Innovations often face reservations or even resistance. As long as those obstacles are not
revealed, it is difficult to assess the chances of whether or not new food production approaches can be
revealed, it is difficult to assess the chances of whether or not new food production approaches can
established [35]. [35].
be established Thus, it isitimportant
Thus, totoexplore
is important exploreand
and discuss theperceived
discuss the perceived potentials,
potentials, conflicts
conflicts and and
factors that influence acceptance and rejection of our approaches.
factors that influence acceptance and rejection of our approaches.
3.1.3.1.
Perception of of
Perception Sustainability
Sustainability
3.1.1. Social
3.1.1. Sustainability
Social Sustainability
Social sustainability
Social sustainabilitycontains
containsthe
therequirement
requirementthatthatevery
everymember
memberof ofaasociety
societyshall
shallhave
have equal
equal and
fairand
chances of development [51]. In this regard, the applied interview guideline included
fair chances of development [51]. In this regard, the applied interview guideline included questions
for questions
collectingfor
several expert
collecting opinions
several expert onopinions
the potential
on thebenefits
potentialand conflicts
benefits and of innovative
conflicts urban food
of innovative
production
urban foodapproaches
productioninapproaches
light of theinsocial
light dimension
of the socialofdimension
sustainability. The different
of sustainability. opinions
The differentwere
opinions were
summarized, summarized,
categorized andcategorized
coded. Figure and 1coded. Figure
visualizes 1 visualizes
the results. the results.
Figure 1. Social sustainability of innovative urban farming production approaches. The point symbol
Figure 1. Social sustainability of innovative urban farming production approaches. The point symbol
(•) displays the mentioning of an aspect in the respective interview assigned to a certain code.
(•) displays the mentioning of an aspect in the respective interview assigned to a certain code.
With regard to the social dimension of sustainability, the analysis revealed that the majority of
stakeholders see major benefits in an improved supply of fresh and healthy food. They share the view
that introducing new approaches for urban food production can shorten food-chains and improve
With regard to the social dimension of sustainability, the analysis revealed that the majority of
stakeholders see major benefits in an improved supply of fresh and healthy food. They share the view
that introducing new approaches for urban food production can shorten food-chains and improve
access to locally and transparently produced food. This is particularly relevant for neighborhoods or
cities with limited supplies of fresh food.
“ . . . it is a real problem. You have certain areas of the city where food production has completely died
off and now you just have a huge hypermarket somewhere on the outskirts and this means that large
swathes are not supplied with fresh food.” (Vertical Farming Expert; VF3)
Due to high yields per unit area, urban agriculture is generally considered to contribute to urban
food security especially in so called ‘food deserts’ [53]. Because of this high productivity, urban
agriculture can potentially contribute to food security and access to healthy food, although product
prices determine the affordability and thereby the target consumers (i.e., low-income; middle/upper
income) [54]. For our particular approaches, such as building-related agriculture, some scholars raise
the question of who is actually able to access the products [35]. Usually the products are sold at
premium prices which does not make them affordable to everyone [55]. Busa et al. [56] point out that
high prices for local food can lead to a separation and individualization of society, meaning that only
well-off people are able to make “morally right” consumption decisions, while people who buy cheap
food are villainized for their supposedly unsustainable consumption patterns.
Educational effects are seen as a further key social benefit. One frequently mentioned aspect
is the re-connection of consumers to their food sources and how urban food production can help
to bridge the producer–consumer gap. According to the experts, the new approaches can serve as
demonstration and learning facilities and provide urban children easy access to education on food
production. Rooftop greenhouses and aquaponics are especially considered to be suitable systems to
provide education.
“I could also imagine that there are very positive ties in the social arena. Not only regarding rooftop
greenhouses, but with urban gardening in general. Showing that to the children.” (Rooftop Greenhouse
Expert; RTG3)
Nadal et al. [57] support our experts’ assertion for rooftop greenhouses. They claim that fitting
greenhouses on existing school rooftops is a viable measure to foster environmental and nutrition
education using pre-existing space. School buildings are often large, the statics are known, there is
an existing social infrastructure and they are well located, which are generally good prerequisites for
construction and accessibility [57]. For aquaponics, it was surprising that none of the experts named
food supply as a potential benefit but they mentioned educational effects, even though most existing
studies focus on the productivity and life-cycle analyses [22,23,25]. Hart [58] states that aquaponics
can be a tool to convey interdisciplinary education and technological skills but can also be difficult to
understand because of its technological complexity.
Another important point is the revaluation of city districts, which was stated by all of the
experts, except for edible insects and indoor farming. This can comprise the place of production as
a neighborhood meeting point to socialize or the beautification of the cityscape for example when
vertical farming is used as a measure of architectural design.
However, Specht and Sanyé-Mengual [59] found that using rooftops to grow food might not be
perceived as an aesthetic improvement to a building. Furthermore, the revaluation of city districts
through urban agriculture can attract wealthy residents to working-class neighborhoods. Consequently,
this may result in ‘green gentrification’ which is characterized by increased housing pressure and
displacement of long-time residents and urban farmers [60].
Although social conflicts were generally mentioned less frequently, the experts agreed that rooftop
greenhouses in particular could cause conflicts with local residents in mixed-use-buildings where
clashes between commercial and social use can occur. More precisely, highly productive growing
systems that provide fresh and healthy food might not allow public access, which would prevent their
use for social activities. In this case, residents consider, for example, rooftop greenhouses as “other
people using the roof above them” (Rooftop Greenhouse Expert, RTG3), which is, again, a form of
social exclusion.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22
In countries such as Germany, there are strict regulations on food hygiene often restricting the
access to commercial food production sites to trained staff only [61]. The proximity of agriculture
housing areas can also result in neighborhood disputes: The food production activities can result in
to housing areas can also result in neighborhood disputes: The food production activities can result
smells or dust formation. If the production sites are openly accessible, there can also be negative
in smells or dust formation. If the production sites are openly accessible, there can also be negative
impacts on the farming activities, for example if residents leave their dogs unattended [62].
impacts on the farming activities, for example if residents leave their dogs unattended [62].
Ethical concerns play a major role for the relatively novel approaches that involve animal
Ethical concerns play a major role for the relatively novel approaches that involve animal keeping,
keeping, namely edible insects and aquaponics (see Section 3.2.2 for detailed results and discussion).
namely edible insects and aquaponics (see Section 3.2.2 for detailed results and discussion).
3.1.2. Environmental Sustainability
3.1.2. Environmental Sustainability
Environmental sustainability describes an efficient and cautious use of resources as well as the
Environmental sustainability describes an efficient and cautious use of resources as well as
preservation and restoration of significant ecosystems and their services [51]. Considering this
the preservation and restoration of significant ecosystems and their services [51]. Considering this
definition, questions regarding the environmental benefits and conflicts of innovative urban food
definition, questions regarding the environmental benefits and conflicts of innovative urban food
production approaches were included in the interview guideline. Figure 2 visualizes the results.
production approaches were included in the interview guideline. Figure 2 visualizes the results.
Figure 2. Environmental sustainability of innovative urban farming production approaches. The point
Figure 2. Environmental sustainability of innovative urban farming production approaches. The
symbol (•) indicates the mentioning of an aspect which could be assigned to a certain code.
point symbol (•) indicates the mentioning of an aspect which could be assigned to a certain code.
In the environmental dimension, most of the interviewees stated efficient resource-use as the
In the environmental dimension, most of the interviewees stated efficient resource-use as the
major potential. This particularly includes the use and recycling of water, but also potentials for
major potential. This particularly includes the use and recycling of water, but also potentials for
energy-efficiency through building-integrated approaches and optimized use of waste-heat as well as
energy-efficiency through building-integrated approaches and optimized use of waste-heat as well
recycling organic waste.
as recycling organic waste.
A second prominent aspect is the potential for decreased land-use conflicts, given the options to
A second prominent aspect is the potential for decreased land-use conflicts, given the options to
make use of fallow areas and take pressure off agricultural land. It is noteworthy that environmental
make use of fallow areas and take pressure off agricultural land. It is noteworthy that environmental
potentials are more frequently mentioned for edible insects and algae production than for other
approaches. Experts stressed their potential as alternative protein sources, which makes them a
potential substitute for meat or dairy, as less meat consumption leads to reduced environmental
impacts. Regarding algae production, one expert claims:
potentials are more frequently mentioned for edible insects and algae production than for other
approaches. Experts stressed their potential as alternative protein sources, which makes them
a potential substitute for meat or dairy, as less meat consumption leads to reduced environmental
impacts. Regarding algae production, one expert claims:
“Algae production requires less space than animal production. We also have a better water budget,
especially since we have the option of recycling water and keeping it running in a closed circuit.”
(Algae Production Expert; Algae1)
While the experts outline the energy-efficiency of some of the approaches (such as aquaponics),
the technological state of others such as indoor farming is not yet mature enough to reach the necessary
level of efficiency, which also leads to a lower social acceptance of the system. Several experts question
the positive input-output-relation, which gets emphasized by the difficulties that are addressed when
it comes to the practical implementation of efficient resource use strategies.
“There are still negatives we have to talk about—like energy consumption—and we cannot ignore
them. But they are all addressable. So I think improving the systems will also certainly improve the
acceptance of the people.” (Indoor Farming Expert; IF1)
Our results suggest that the different approaches promise a broad variety of environmental
improvements compared to large-scale food systems, but that these potentials are still difficult to
exploit. Other scholars mostly confirm this finding [63]. When compared to traditional urban
agriculture, which is considered to be resource inefficient in terms of labor and natural inputs [17,18],
our results indicate that some of the high-tech urban agriculture approaches are still inefficient in
terms of capital and energy demand. Local food production is not necessarily more environmentally
friendly than national or global food systems, it always depends on the actual applied practices [9].
In accordance with our experts, scholars criticize the high energy demand and the lack of technical
solutions for implementing resource efficiency in rooftop greenhouses or indoor farming [27,29,36].
Although not mentioned in our interviews, this also appears to be a problem for vertical farming.
Al-Chalabi [36] found that, depending on the season, vertically grown lettuce requires two to five
times more energy than conventionally produced lettuce. In contrast, the low resource demand of
producing algae and insects stated in our interviews is confirmed by other scholars. Mealworms,
for example, convert feed into biomass much more efficiently than pork, beef or chicken. Producing one
kilogram of mealworm protein uses considerably less land, emits less greenhouse gases but requires
the same amount of energy when compared to chicken, pork or beef [64]. However, more data on
the environmental impacts of mass producing insects is required [65]. With regard to environmental
sustainability, our experts raise an important question as to whether insect consumption is favorable to
plant-based meat substitutes.
3.1.3. Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability describes the efficient and equal allocation of resources in a society. Since
market interventions lead to distortions and, in the worst-case scenario, to a malfunction of the market
mechanism, it is especially important that innovations have the potential to be economically viable in
the future. If this is not guaranteed, it could be a serious market barrier for innovations, which emerge
in the context of sustainable development. The experts’ assessment of economic benefits and conflicts
of the new approaches is displayed in Figure 3.
When it comes to the economic benefits of the new urban food production approaches, the most
important aspects are the high quality, locality and diversity of products, as well as the reduced
transport costs due to the close spatial linkage of production and consumption sites. According to an
expert, the unique selling point is to offer sustainable products in the city, low on food miles.
Sustainability 2019,11,
Sustainability2019, 11,4315
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10ofof22
22
Figure 3. Economic sustainability of innovative urban farming production approaches. The point
Figure (•)
symbol 3. Economic sustainability
displays the mentioning ofof an
innovative urban
aspect which farming
could production
be assigned approaches.
to a certain code. The point
symbol (•) displays the mentioning of an aspect which could be assigned to a certain code.
Across all approaches, the interviewees agreed that niche markets are particularly important for
productAcross all approaches,
marketing. the interviewees
This especially applies to agreed that niche
edible insects andmarkets are particularly
algae production, which important
can be alsofor
product
used marketing.protein
as alternative This especially
sources for applies to edible
vegetarians insects and algae production, which can be also
or vegans.
used as alternative protein sources for vegetarians or vegans.
“A very small proportion of our customer base prefers this vegan and vegetarian diet. And this
“A very small
demographic proportion
is more of experiment,
willing to our customer base
since prefers
their thisisvegan
thinking that: Iand vegetarian
am eating vegandiet. And this
or vegetarian
demographic is more willing to experiment, since their thinking is that:
because I want to do something good for the environment.” (Algae Production Expert; Algae1)I am eating vegan or
vegetarian because I want to do something good for the environment.” (Algae Production Expert;
The provision of high quality products for niche markets as an economic potential for
Algae1)
most approaches mentioned by our experts corresponds with the strategies of specialization and
The provision
differentiation which areof high quality
frequently products
adopted for niche
by urban farmersmarkets as ansuccessfully
to perform economic potential for most
on the market [66].
approaches mentioned by our experts corresponds with the strategies of
Anticipating a growing demand for local food, all of our innovative approaches specialize in providing specialization and
differentiation which are frequently adopted by urban farmers to perform successfully
fresh food. Short transport distances can be a competitive advantage, especially for perishable food on the market
[66]. as
such Anticipating a growing
herbs or leafy greens demand
[14] andfor thelocal food, all
freshness of our
of the innovative
products can be approaches
an addedspecialize
value thatin
providing fresh food. Short transport distances can be a competitive advantage,
justifies a higher price [67]. Using differentiation strategies, urban food producers can further tap especially for
perishable food such as herbs or leafy greens [14] and the freshness of
niche markets [68] and avoid competition with comparably cheaper products from conventionalthe products can be an added
value that [28].
agriculture justifies
One a of
higher price [67].
our experts Using differentiation
mentioned sports nutrition strategies, urban food
as an example producers
of a suitable can
niche
further tap niche markets [68] and avoid
market for insects due to their high protein content. competition with comparably cheaper products from
conventional agriculture
Most interviewees [28]. One
pointed of our
out that experts
major mentioned
economic conflicts sports
lie innutrition as an example
the high investment costsofofa
suitable niche market for insects due to their high protein content.
the new approaches, thereby leading to higher product prices. The generally uncertain profitability
Most interviewees pointed out that major economic conflicts lie in the high investment costs of
the new approaches, thereby leading to higher product prices. The generally uncertain profitability
and difficulties in developing stable business models are further assessed as major concerns in the
economic dimension and make it difficult for urban farmers to run a viable operation.
“Over time, a great deal of these farmers simply had to close down because it is not worth it. It is far
too expensive.” (Vertical-Farming Expert; VF2)
Existing literature also points to market barriers such as high investment needs and high operational
costs that can discourage interested producers to even start such an innovative approach but can
also result in high retail prices, making it complicated to find a market for the products [29,55,65,67].
The high investment costs have also triggered a debate around the social and environmental justice
drawbacks specific to innovative urban food production approaches. Specht et al. [69] reveal that the
costs of building and maintaining intensive urban farms can be prohibitive and entails the risk of
being dominated by large enterprises. This can lead to a concentration of ownership and operation
among already well-resourced and well-connected groups, while small, not-for-profit groups often
have difficulties financing such capital-intensive farms. Cohen and Reynolds [70] conclude, that urban
food production is not in and of itself a sustainable or socially just practice, and that without attention
to social equity, it can exacerbate economic and environmental disparities.
While the efficiency of producing a high output on a small area and year-round was mentioned by
our indoor farm and edible insect experts, some authors still raise the question of whether small-scale
production combined with high costs can be efficient overall [46].
Another impeding aspect is that, due to the certification requirements, organic standards cannot
be achieved for soil-less production methods. These are commonly applied in rooftop greenhouses,
vertical farming, indoor farming and aquaponics. Our experts argue that this could be an important
marketing obstacle beside further legal constraints. In other studies, the need for certification standards
to enable soil-less food production in the EU is expressed as well. Certification is, for example,
mentioned as a measure to foster consumer trust and justify premium product prices [19,46,59].
3.1.4. Comparative Analysis on the Perception of Sustainability

The results displayed in Figures 1–3 show that, based on their specific characteristics, the different
approaches are indeed evaluated differently.
Comparing the different dimensions of sustainability, benefits were most frequently mentioned
in the social dimension, followed by the environmental and the economic dimension. Most conflicts
where mentioned for the economic dimension and considerably less for environmental and social
dimensions, where the numbers are about equal. The economic sustainability dimension is also the
only dimension where conflicts were brought up more frequently than potentials. This implies that the
approaches offer a broad range of social and ecological opportunities but are not yet sustainable from
an economic point of view and that economic sustainability might be more difficult to achieve.
The result that the experts mentioned social and environmental potentials more often than economic
ones could be interpreted as a trade-off between the sustainability dimensions. Other authors such as
Sulewski et al. [71] also describe such a trade-off. They state that reaching a high degree of sustainability
in one dimension, leads to a lower degree of sustainability in the other dimensions. Especially economic
goals can hamper achieving other sustainability goals [72]. Furthermore, as sustainability is a normative
description of how the world should be, it is never possible to fully reach this state [72].
With regard to the different approaches and their respective contribution to the different
sustainability dimensions, our results reveal tendencies as well. Our findings underline the great
importance of the social opportunities of approaches such as rooftop greenhouses and vertical farming.
The considerable number of social potentials for insect production was rather surprising to us with
respect to the ‘yuck factor’ of the approach. Algae production exhibited only a few social potentials,
perhaps due to a lack of possibilities for designing underwater food production in an interactive and
accessible way.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
In contrast, algae production was assessed as very promising in the environmental dimension,
In contrast, algae production was assessed as very promising in the environmental dimension,
especially in terms of resource demand. The same accounts for rooftop greenhouses, however, doubts
especially in terms of resource demand. The same accounts for rooftop greenhouses, however, doubts
in realizing these potentials were more present for this approach.
in realizing these potentials were more present for this approach.
Economic sustainability benefits were slightly more often mentioned for algae and insects when
Economic sustainability benefits were slightly more often mentioned for algae and insects when
compared to the other approaches. On the one hand, this is surprising, because algae and insect
compared to the other approaches. On the one hand, this is surprising, because algae and insect
production are novel technologies that face many restrictions. On the other hand, they also result in
production are novel technologies that face many restrictions. On the other hand, they also result in
novel food products with special properties such as nutritional values. Due to their ‘newness’, algae
novel food products with special properties such as nutritional values. Due to their ‘newness’, algae
and insects might appear more exceptional, and could therefore bear a higher marketing potential
and insects might appear more exceptional, and could therefore bear a higher marketing potential
than vegetables from building-related agriculture which have to compete with the same vegetables
than vegetables from building-related agriculture which have to compete with the same vegetables
produced in a more traditional way.
produced in a more traditional way.
3.2. Impeding
3.2. Acceptance
Impeding Factors
Acceptance Factors
InIn
thethe
past, scholars
past, scholars have
haveaddressed
addressedthe
theimportance
importanceof ofacceptance
acceptancefor forthe
the successful
successful introduction
introduction of
of new
new approaches
approaches [59,73–76].
[59,73–76]. Frequently,
Frequently, new approaches
new approaches fail stage
fail in the first in the firstintroduction—often
of their stage of their
introduction—often
during the marketduring the marketphase—because
implementation implementationthey phase—because
are not accepted they by
aresociety
not accepted by
or potential
society or potential users [77,78]. Therefore, social acceptance is a key factor in
users [77,78]. Therefore, social acceptance is a key factor in whether the introduction of an innovation whether the
introduction
succeeds or of an According
fails. innovationtosucceeds
Endruweit orand
fails. According [79]
Trommsdorff to Endruweit and Trommsdorff
factors attached [79]
to the new approach
factors attached to the new approach refer to the object’s specific attributes. Key factors
refer to the object’s specific attributes. Key factors include perceived social, economic and environmental include
perceived
risks andsocial, economic
benefits but alsoand environmental
product- risks and benefits
or technology-related but [12].
aspects also product- or technology-
As the perceived benefits
related aspects [12]. As the perceived benefits are already sufficiently covered in the
are already sufficiently covered in the previous section, the following paragraph delves deeper into previous section,
thethose
following paragraph
acceptance factors,delves deeperhinder
which might into those acceptance
the successful factors, which
implementation of might
the newhinder the
approaches
successful
(Figure 4). implementation of the new approaches (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Overview of impeding acceptance factors derived from the expert interviews. The point
symbol (•) displays the mentioning of an aspect which could be assigned to a certain code. The single
Figure 4. Overview of impeding acceptance factors derived from the expert interviews. The point
interview cases were displayed as aggregates for each approach.
symbol (•) displays the mentioning of an aspect which could be assigned to a certain code. The single
interview cases were displayed as aggregates for each approach.
3.2.1. Factors Related to Production Methods and Applied Technologies

Throughout the interviews, our experts report that potential consumers meet the new food
production approaches with a certain critical presumption. They explain this is because those approaches
are largely unknown among the general public. Even if people have already heard of them, a lack of
concrete knowledge creates uncertainties and also leads to general skepticism. Some approaches are
better known than others, e.g., rooftop greenhouses are more familiar than algae production. However,
the experts witnessed that both knowledge and acceptance of new food production approaches are
increasing overall, particularly among the younger population. This is also due to the growing
media coverage.
Interviewees frequently describe a rejection of the associated technologies, particularly for those
approaches that use soil-less growing techniques, such as indoor farming, vertical farming and rooftop
greenhouses. Those approaches are often perceived as “unnatural” and “too futuristic” by the general
public, and clash with prevailing images of agriculture.
“There is this romantic image of the field and that we all get our organic salad from the farmer around
the corner. In reality, that is rarely the case. ( . . . ) There is a real demand for working with actual soil
and being outside and far away from anything industrial. And vertical farming simply doesn’t align
with this notion. In fact, it is the complete opposite. ( . . . ) Somebody once said: That sounds like
mass plant-growing!” (Vertical-Farming Expert; VF2)
The romanticized image of food production associated with nature and rurality has already been
identified as an acceptance-hindering factor, both for agricultural technologies in general [80] and
for innovative urban food production approaches [35]. Socio-cultural values and morals, but also
religion, can cause rejection of high-tech food production when it is considered as an interference with
nature [81]. The complexity of technological production systems such as rooftop greenhouses or indoor
farming systems furthermore face mistrust because consumers simply have difficulties understanding
them [35]. The willingness to pay more for familiar vegetables produced using innovative technology
might only increase for a few people, as a study on aquaponics showed [46].
3.2.2. Factors Related to Uncertain Impacts and Relevance

Uncertainties about potentially positive impacts of the new approaches (see Section 3.1) lead to
negative perceptions and hinder the acceptance of these approaches. Doubts are particularly prevalent
regarding the environmental balance (see Section 3.1.2) and economic viability (see Section 3.1.3). Due to
the small-scale production, our experts perceive it, for example, as difficult for rooftop greenhouse
operators to compete with conventional large-scale farms producing the same vegetables.
Experts express further uncertainties about the relevance and embeddedness of the approaches in
cities of the global North. Approaches such as indoor and vertical farming are expected to have higher
relevance in countries with higher technology appreciation, more urgent problems with land scarcity,
water availability or air pollution, such as Asian megacities. Additionally, consumer acceptance of
insect and algae-production is potentially higher in countries that already have a cultural tradition of
insect- or algae consumption.
Furthermore, the environmental balance of high-tech farming systems has to be credibly improved
and verified. Especially in Europe, sovereignty on food purchasing decisions is important to consumers.
As long as the benefits of a new food-related technology are not evident to them, consumers tend to stick
to their dietary routines instead of exposing themselves to unknown technologies. External pressures
could lead to a lower rejection of food produced with innovative food technologies. For example,
in regions with high food insecurity, people do not have a choice to deny food that is produced in
a certain way. As long as external pressure such as the mentioned lack of space does not occur, some
benefits of new food technologies may be irrelevant in a certain region and it can be difficult to increase
consumers’ acceptance [82].
3.2.3. Factors Related to the Food Products

The results reveal existing negative attitudes towards the food products’ taste and appearance.
In the case of algae or insects, there is a clear expectation of disgust for the products’ appearance and
form. Insects, in particular, evoke negative connotations of “death and unhygienic conditions” (Insect
cook; Insects1). The green color of algae might be a deterrent for a potential alternative protein source.
“When I think of the meat substitute industry, the colour green doesn’t come to mind at all. Nobody
would eat green meat. Again, there is a certain mindset. What is green meat? It is mold, it is rotten, I
don’t want to eat that.” (Algae production expert, Algae1)
Vegetables from urban production are also associated with health risks. The experts report
a lack of consumer trust in the products’ quality, given that the urban environment in which they are
produced is considered “unsafe” and affected by urban pollution, particularly by heavy metals and
air-borne dust.
Indeed, it is a common finding that consumers are concerned about the safety of food produced in
cities [35]. As all of our researched approaches can be conducted in a fully controlled environment, most
urban contamination risks can be excluded [53]. In contrast to vegetable production, the production of
edible insects is a relatively new sector in Western countries. That means that food safety standards
have just been established and it is expensive to comply with them. Moreover, there is still a lack of
research with respect to the food safety and allergenic potentials of edible insects [83]. With novel
foods, just as the aforementioned novel technologies, it is especially important for the consumer to
know or be able to observe the specific advantages of the food product before they favor it over an
already familiar product [84,85]. While algae and edible insects are already an established part of
diets elsewhere in the world, they face food neophobia or aversion in Western countries [33,45,86].
Piha et al. [42] found that educational strategies, such as improving consumers’ knowledge, creates
higher acceptance for edible insects in Northern Europe, where entomophagy is not common.
3.2.4. Factors Related to Consumers and Potential Target Groups

One common criticism of the new approaches is that they target elitist consumer groups and
exclusive market niches, and that products are not available for everyone. High investment risks and
competitive markets lead to a situation that experts describe as “profit-and company-driven” business
development. This is evaluated as a negative counter-model to grassroots- or citizen-driven initiatives.
Interviewees appraise that the products would not be affordable to those who would need them most,
but rather for “yuppies and hipsters” (Vertical farming expert; VF2).
Overall, the experts see hesitation from consumers regarding the permanent adoption of the
new approaches. Even if there is acceptance and openness for a certain product, and the respective
consumers are willing to try insect flour, micro-algae powder or lettuce from an urban rooftop farm,
there is still a barrier to overcome before they are bought and integrated as part of a daily food
consumption routine.
Finally, the approaches might not be suitable for mixed use-buildings or neighborhoods
(see Section 3.1.1 for detailed results and discussion). Production activity within the urban fabric could
potentially create conflicts, as it evokes noise and smell.
There are different opinions on whether consumers are willing and able to change their habits
at all. Food choices are often not based on in-depth reasoning on pros and cons of a certain food
(see Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3), but rather, on habits [87]. Brand and Wissen [88] argue that even a high
awareness of environmental problems does not sufficiently change consumer patterns, as they are
usually deeply embedded in existing routines. In contrast, van Huis et al. [89] are convinced that
diets can change quickly, and name sushi as an example of how a certain type of food can reach
global popularity. From a social viewpoint, we have to discuss who benefits from a newly emerging
regional food supply. Commercial urban farms currently sell their products at a premium price [67].
Consequently, the products are more likely to be accessible to people who possibly already pay attention
to a balanced diet and are not restricted in their food choices due to their economic situation [82].
3.2.5. Factors Related to Ethical Concerns

Ethical concerns are most relevant for those approaches that involve the keeping and killing of
animals. For aquaponics production, experts share the view that one must be particularly sensitive
about securing the well-being of the fish that are kept in the tanks in high quantities and densities.
A more general debate on keeping and killing insects was opened regarding the integration of insect
production into the urban factory/fabric.
“Ethical conflicts are certainly going to emerge if this approach makes a more significant impact on the
market. Of course, it is an animal product and living beings have been killed in order to manufacture
the insect products. These animals are invertebrates, which means there is a real debate around whether
they feel pain or not.” (Insect cook; Insects1)
It becomes obvious that doubts and concerns and therefore the possibility of an approach being
rejected is higher once animals are involved.
Both our results and other studies exhibited that keeping animals in the city triggers animal
welfare concerns [43], which adds another challenge for the acceptance of aquaponics and edible insect
rearing [12]. In general, concerns about animal welfare are increasing among consumers. As animal
welfare is considered as a demand-driven concern [90], transparent product information and clear
labeling are very important purchase criteria that foster trust in products and respectively sales [68].
For successful labeling, though, it is necessary to explore which information should be provided to
which consumer segments [90]. The opportunity to make altruistic purchase decisions considering
ethical production is again highly dependent on the economic situation of a consumer [82].
3.2.6. Factors Related to (Non-Supportive) Framework Conditions

Finally, impeding acceptance factors can also be found in the form of non-supportive legal and
market-related framework conditions. First, experts state that beside the consumer-side, acceptance
on the investor-side is crucial. As the new approaches have barely been proven as business concepts,
investors are hesitant to take the risk, which creates difficulties for potential operators. Moreover,
barriers in the political and legal framework hinder the implementation processes. In some cases,
the legal situation is unclear or complex (e.g., regarding the regulation of rooftop greenhouses in
building legislation), which prevents operators from reliably drafting their business activities.
“We have made much more progress in terms of research and development. We haven’t quite got our
performance up to the desired level yet. The state actually has enough parameters it can adjust in
order to drive this kind of approach, but hasn’t gotten around to doing so yet.” (Managing director,
building-integrated urban farm; RTG3)
Other regulations are seriously hindering potential activities, such as the EU “Novel food
regulation” which restricts certain new areas of food production, and which affects micro-algae and
insect production.
Indeed, urban agriculture in general and our approaches in particular face several legal obstacles.
First of all, urban farms are not generally eligible for EU funding. They are often too small to be
included in CAP pillar I funding and since they are located in urban areas, they are also excluded from
pillar II. Hence, EU member states make case-by-case decisions on whether urban farming projects
receive financial resources [11]. Due to the novelty of our investigated approaches, existing laws are
often not applicable, which can cause additional constraints. Due to its innovative characteristics,
it can be difficult to implement building-related agriculture in compliance with existing local building
laws [35]. The production of novel foods such as algae and edible insects is also highly regulated in the
EU [83,91]. For insects, legislation still differs from country to country, often leaving companies in grey
zones. Consequently, even with sufficient demand from consumers, incentives for developing this
sector are very low [44]. However, a joint definition of rules based on trusting cooperation between
governments, businesses and science is crucial for the establishment of a new market [42].
3.3. Limitations of the Study and Propositions for Future Research

Innovative urban food production approaches are a very new field of research and development.
The results presented in this paper point to a range of open questions, research gaps and options for
future research. The results reveal the existence of reservations and perceived risks related to the urban
integration of innovative food production approaches. As previously elaborated by Specht [92] most of
these conflicts are formed based on individual normative considerations and can be linked to personal
preferences, attitudes and/or opinions. In some cases, they are shaped by something we could label as
“food neophobia”. For future research, it would be very promising to delve deeper into the underlying
reasons for rejecting new urban food production approaches based on these types of conflicts.
As our study revealed, the experts expect potential advantages of innovative food production
approaches in the improved resource- and CO2 efficiency, but they also raise doubts regarding the
overall input-output-ratio. In fact, very few studies exist that investigate this overall ecological balance
and those that exist are generated on a single- case basis. [38,63]. To negate or validate the assumptions
regarding the environmental impacts, the overall CO2 balance of products (including life cycle
assessments at all stages of construction and consumption) must be further scientifically quantified [92].
The aspect of social justice and accessibility was also repeatedly stressed. High investment
costs of projects and the targeting of elitist consumer groups are a common critique, while the
question remains: How can innovative food production approaches be supported and encouraged,
that operate less exclusively, pay attention to social equity and do not exacerbate economic and
environmental disparities?
Methodologically, one weakness was the large number of different interviewers within our
research team. Even though all interviewers were trained in advance, used the exact same interview
guideline, and most interviews were conducted in teams of two, there is still a risk of inconsistencies,
caused by an “interviewer effect” (each interviewer has his or her own interview style, insecurities,
level of patience, etc.). Further, our study relied on a comparably small sample size. In future works,
the sustainability aspects and acceptance factors could be applied to studies with larger samples for
comparative purposes, in which our results could serve as hypotheses (qualitatively or quantitatively)
to be tested. It would further be promising to gain further insights into their importance and weighting
in different spatial contexts.
Our study revealed, that the topic of innovative food production approaches has grown
considerably in the past few years and is gaining increasing importance. It would be worth re-visiting
the topic again in a few years’ time, to see how the field has developed and if the perception and
acceptance has changed over time.
In the innovation context, existing studies typically focus on one specific aspect: they either
address technological development or questions of social acceptance. As laid out in our study, social
acceptance and perception play a major role for the successful development and implementation
of innovative food production approaches. We suggest, that for future research on innovative food
production approaches, technology development and its social acceptance should be understood as
two sides of the same coin. Therefore, instead of isolating the questions of technology and acceptance,
future research should acknowledge that those two are closely related and that successful diffusion can
only be achieved by an integrated consideration of the relationship between technology and acceptance.
4. Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to assess sustainability benefits of six innovative approaches that
potentially contribute to future urban food supply and to identify acceptance barriers for their
dissemination. According to our experts, each of the innovative food production approaches exhibits
a broad variety of sustainability aspects and benefits. At the same time, the general public is perceived
as increasingly interested in the approaches. These two overarching findings from our interviews can
be interpreted as a favourable basis for dissemination and future viability. While we could not find clear
patterns where sustainability benefits of different approaches complement each other, a combination
of different approaches makes sense for an urban food supply that ensures a balanced diet. Algae
and insects were considered to be a good protein source and vegetables from indoor farming, vertical
farming and rooftop greenhouses can provide vitamins. However, there are also significant barriers to
overcome on many levels.
Scepticism and a certain lack of knowledge on the consumer side depict an obstacle for
dissemination throughout all approaches. Our experts brought up possible ethical concerns for
the animal-related food production approaches of insect farming and aquaponics and possible rejection
of food produced in high-tech systems such as indoor farms or vertical farms. Furthermore, algae
and insects are not traditionally part of peoples’ diets in the global north and can trigger disgust
or food neophobia, which is another acceptance obstacle to overcome. The variety of acceptance
barriers suggests that different approaches appeal to different consumer segments, which should be
addressed accordingly. On the level of practical implementation, the experts assessed a lack of efficient
technological solutions to innovative food production and hence, to tapping the sustainability potentials
completely. Due to their innovative character, all of our researched food production approaches
face legal regulations that hinder their expansion. Again, these aspects minimize the interest of
potential investors.
Overall, action needs to be taken on several levels to foster adoption and dissemination. Actors
from those different levels can use the information from our study to take respective measures in their
field of action: interested practitioners can use our results as an orientation for their own setup and
consumer communication. Urban planners can assess which approach or combination of approaches
might be most suitable to the condition of a certain city and lawmakers can become aware of the legal
barriers and act accordingly. As adaptive processes on different levels usually take time, we estimate
the diffusion pace of the researched approaches to be slow. An accelerating external factor could be
a crisis or ongoing severe environmental degradation and a growing awareness thereof. We consider
an adaption of the legal framework as a necessary first step towards breaking the cycle of obstacles
and laying the foundation for a successful diffusion of innovative food production.
Author Contributions: K.S. designed and supervised the research. K.S. and F.Z. conceptualized the data collection,
collected the data, transcribed and analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. H.S., J.B. and J.K. conceptualized the
data collection, collected the data, transcribed and analyzed the data and contributed to the manuscript. M.R.
facilitated the research and revised the paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: We conducted our research within the program initiative “bologna.lab” from the
Humboldt University of Berlin. The program of the specific “Q-Team” ‘Innovative approaches of urban
food production—acceptance, potentials, and risks’ lead by Kathrin Specht, aimed at cross-faculty teaching and
learning to enable junior researchers to develop and implement a research process on an interdisciplinary topic.
The total research team consisted of 11 researchers. We would like to acknowledge our entire research team as well
as the experts who participated in our interviews. We appreciate the time and effort that the reviewers have taken
to comment on our paper and we want to thank them for their useful suggestions concerning our manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Feldmann, C.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Qual. Prefer.
2015, 40, 152–164. [CrossRef]
2. Hempel, C.; Hamm, U. Local and/or organic: a study on consumer preferences for organic food and food
from different origins: Consumer preferences for local and/or organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40,
732–741. [CrossRef]
3. Vecchio, R. European and United States farmers’ markets: Similarities, differences and potential developments.
In Proceedings of the 113th EAAE seminar. A Resilient European Food Industry and Food Chain in
a Challenging World, Chania, Crete, Greece, 3–6 September 2009; Available online: https://ageconsearch.
umn.edu/record/58131/ (accessed on 4 August 2019).
4. Brunori, G.; Galli, F.; Barjolle, D.; van Broekhuizen, R.; Colombo, L.; Giampietro, M.; Kirwan, J.; Lang, T.;
Mathijs, E.; Maye, D.; et al. Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations
for Assessment. Sustainability 2016, 8, 449. [CrossRef]
5. Zoll, F.; Specht, K.; Opitz, I.; Siebert, R.; Piorr, A.; Zasada, I. Individual choice or collective action? Exploring
consumer motives for participating in alternative food networks. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 101–110.
[CrossRef]
6. Smith, P.; Bustamante, M.; Ahammad, H.; Clark, H.; Dong, H.; Elsiddig, E.A.; Haberl, H.; Harper, R.; House, J.;
Jafari, M.; et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of
Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A.,
Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY,
USA, 2014; pp. 811–922.
7. Meynard, J.-M.; Dedieu, B.; Bos, A.P. Re-design and co-design of farming systems. An overview of methods
and practices. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D.,
Dedieu, B., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 405–429. ISBN 978-94-007-4502-5.
8. Schmitt, E.; Galli, F.; Menozzi, D.; Maye, D.; Touzard, J.-M.; Marescotti, A.; Six, J.; Brunori, G. Comparing the
sustainability of local and global food products in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 346–359. [CrossRef]
9. Born, B.; Purcell, M. Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. J. Plan. Educ.
Res. 2006, 26, 195–207. [CrossRef]
10. Angotti, T. Urban agriculture: Long-term strategy or impossible dream? Public Health 2015, 129, 336–341.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Piorr, A.; Zasada, I.; Doernberg, A.; Zoll, F.; Ramme, W.; European Parliament; Directorate-General for
Internal Policies; Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies; European Parliament. Research
for AGRI Committee—Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture in the EU; Committee on Agriculture and Rural
Development: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; ISBN 978-92-846-2952-7.
12. Specht, K.; Weith, T.; Swoboda, K.; Siebert, R. Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36. [CrossRef]
13. Adams, D.C.; Salois, M.J. Local versus organic: A turn in consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay.
Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 331–341. [CrossRef]
14. Van der Schans, J.W.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. Urban agriculture in developed economies. In Sustainable Food Planning;
Viljoen, A., Wiskerke, J.S.C., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012;
pp. 245–258.
15. Hinrichs, C. Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J. Rural
Stud. 2000, 16, 295–303. [CrossRef]
16. Wortman, S.E.; Lovell, S.T. Environmental Challenges Threatening the Growth of Urban Agriculture in the
United States. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 1283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. McDougall, R.; Kristiansen, P.; Rader, R. Small-scale urban agriculture results in high yields but requires
judicious management of inputs to achieve sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 129–134.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Woodhouse, P. Beyond Industrial Agriculture? Some Questions about Farm Size, Productivity and
Sustainability: Questions about Farm Size, Productivity and Sustainability. J. Agrar. Chang. 2010, 10,
19. Benis, K.; Turan, I.; Reinhart, C.; Ferrão, P. Putting rooftops to use—A Cost-Benefit Analysis of food
production vs. energy generation under Mediterranean climates. Cities 2018, 78, 166–179. [CrossRef]
20. Despommier, D. Farming up the city: the rise of urban vertical farms. Trends Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 388–389.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Pfeiffer, A.; Silva, E.; Colquhoun, J. Innovation in urban agricultural practices: Responding to diverse
production environments. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015, 30, 79–91. [CrossRef]
22. 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]
23. Cohen, A.; Malone, S.; Morris, Z.; Weissburg, M.; Bras, B. Combined Fish and Lettuce Cultivation:
An Aquaponics Life Cycle Assessment. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 551–556. [CrossRef]
24. Blidariu, F.; Grozea, A. Increasing the Economical Efficiency and Sustainability of Indoor Fish Farming by
Means of Aquaponics—Review. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 2011, 44, 1–8.
25. Forchino, A.A.; Gennotte, V.; Maiolo, S.; Brigolin, D.; Mélard, C.; Pastres, R. Eco-designing Aquaponics:
A Case Study of an Experimental Production System in Belgium. Procedia CIRP 2018, 69, 546–550. [CrossRef]
26. Montero, J.I.; Baeza, E.; Heuvelink, E.; Rieradevall, J.; Muñoz, P.; Ercilla, M.; Stanghellini, C. Productivity
of a building-integrated roof top greenhouse in a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Syst. 2017, 158, 14–22.
[CrossRef]
27. Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Llorach-Massana, P.; Nadal, A.; Ercilla-Montserrat, M.; Muñoz, P.; Montero, J.I.; Josa, A.;
Gabarrell, X.; Rieradevall, J. Environmental assessment of an integrated rooftop greenhouse for food
production in cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 326–337. [CrossRef]
28. Banerjee, C.; Adenaeuer, L. Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming. J. Agric. Stud. 2014, 2, 40.
[CrossRef]
29. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Hartmann, I.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M.; Werner, A.; Thomaier, S.; Henckel, D.;
Walk, H.; Dierich, A. Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production
in and on buildings. Agric. Hum. Values 2014, 31, 33–51. [CrossRef]
30. Van Huis, A. Potential of Insects as Food and Feed in Assuring Food Security. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013, 58,
31. Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; van Itterbeeck, J.; Heetkamp, M.J.W.; van den Brand, H.; van Loon, J.J.A.; van Huis, A.
An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or
Human Consumption. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e14445. [CrossRef]
32. Dobermann, D.; Swift, J.A.; Field, L.M. Opportunities and hurdles of edible insects for food and feed.
Nutr. Bull. 2017, 42, 293–308. [CrossRef]
33. Seaweed Sustainability: Food and Non-Food Applications; Tiwari, B.K.; Troy, D.J. (Eds.) Elsevier/AP: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2015; ISBN 978-0-12-418697-2.
34. Draaisma, R.B.; Wijffels, R.H.; (Ellen) Slegers, P.; Brentner, L.B.; Roy, A.; Barbosa, M.J. Food commodities
from microalgae. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2013, 24, 169–177. [CrossRef]
35. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Thomaier, S. Perception and acceptance of agricultural production in and on urban
buildings (ZFarming): A qualitative study from Berlin, Germany. Agric. Hum. Values 2016, 33, 753–769.
[CrossRef]
36. Al-Chalabi, M. Vertical farming: Skyscraper sustainability? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 18, 74–77. [CrossRef]
37. Forchino, A.A.; Lourguioui, H.; Brigolin, D.; Pastres, R. Aquaponics and sustainability: The comparison of
two different aquaponic techniques using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Aquac. Eng. 2017, 77, 80–88.
[CrossRef]
38. Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Oliver-Solà, J.; Montero, J.I.; Rieradevall, J. An environmental and economic life cycle
assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in Barcelona, Spain. Assessing new forms of urban
agriculture from the greenhouse structure to the final product level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 350–366.
[CrossRef]
39. Specht, K.; Siebert, R.; Thomaier, S.; Freisinger, U.; Sawicka, M.; Dierich, A.; Henckel, D.; Busse, M.
Zero-Acreage Farming in the City of Berlin: An Aggregated Stakeholder Perspective on Potential Benefits
and Challenges. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4511–4523. [CrossRef]
40. Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Anguelovski, I.; Oliver-Solà, J.; Montero, J.I.; Rieradevall, J. Resolving differing stakeholder
perceptions of urban rooftop farming in Mediterranean cities: promoting food production as a driver for
innovative forms of urban agriculture. Agric. Hum. Values 2015, 33, 101–120. [CrossRef]
41. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption:
A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11–25. [CrossRef]
42. Piha, S.; Pohjanheimo, T.; Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A.; Křečková, Z.; Otterbring, T. The effects of consumer
knowledge on the willingness to buy insect food: An exploratory cross-regional study in Northern and
Central Europe. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 70, 1–10. [CrossRef]
43. House, J. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial
implications. Appetite 2016, 107, 47–58. [CrossRef]
44. Mancini, S.; Moruzzo, R.; Riccioli, F.; Paci, G. European consumers’ readiness to adopt insects as food.
A review. Food Res. Int. 2019, 122, 661–678. [CrossRef]
45. Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society.
Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 147–155. [CrossRef]
46. Miličić, V.; Thorarinsdottir, R.; Santos, M.; Hančič, M. Commercial Aquaponics Approaching the European
Market: To Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaponics Products in Europe. Water 2017, 9, 80. [CrossRef]
47. Sanyé-Mengual, E.; Specht, K.; Krikser, T.; Vanni, C.; Pennisi, G.; Orsini, F.; Gianquinto, G.P. Social acceptance
and perceived ecosystem services of urban agriculture in Southern Europe: The case of Bologna, Italy.
PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0200993. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Text Analysis. In A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software, 1st ed.; Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1-4462-6774-5.
49. Kuckartz, U. Qualitative Inahltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis und Computerunterstützung, 3rd ed.; Beltz Juventa:
Weinheim, Germany; Basel, Switzerland, 2016.
50. United Nations Brundtland Report: Report of the World. Commission on Environment and Development:
Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
51. Deutscher Bundestag Abschlußbericht der Enquete-Kommission, Schutz des Menschen und der
Umwelt—Ziele und Rahmenbedingungen Einer Nachhaltig Zukunftsverträglichen Entwicklung” * Konzept
Nachhaltigkeit Vom Leitbild zur Umsetzung. 1998. Available online: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/13/
112/1311200.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2019).
52. Dearing, A. Sustainable Innovation: Drivers and Barriers. In Innovation and the Environment; OECD: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2000.
53. Eigenbrod, C.; Gruda, N. Urban vegetable for food security in cities. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35,
54. Cohen, N.; Reynolds, K.; Sanghvi, R. Five Borough Farm: Seeding the Future of Urban Agriculture in New York
City; Chou, J., Ed.; Design Trust for Public Space: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 0-9777175-6-9.
55. Thomaier, S.; Specht, K.; Henckel, D.; Dierich, A.; Siebert, R.; Freisinger, U.B.; Sawicka, M. Farming in and on
urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming). Renew. Agric.
Food Syst. 2015, 30, 43–54. [CrossRef]
56. Busa, J.H.; Garder, R. Champions of the Movement or Fair-weather Heroes? Individualization and the (A)politics
of Local Food, Antipode 2015, 47, 323–341.
57. Nadal, A.; Pons, O.; Cuerva, E.; Rieradevall, J.; Josa, A. Rooftop greenhouses in educational centers:
A sustainability assessment of urban agriculture in compact cities. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 1319–1331.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Hart, E.R. Implementation of Aquaponics in Education: An Assessment of Challenges, Solutions and Success.
Master’s Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA, 2014.
59. Specht, K.; Sanyé-Mengual, E. Risks in urban rooftop agriculture: Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions to
ensure efficient policymaking. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 69, 13–21. [CrossRef]
60. Sbicca, J. Urban Agriculture, Revalorization, and Green Gentrification in Denver, Colorado. In the Politics
of Lands; Bartley, T., Ed.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019; Volume 26, pp. 149–170.
ISBN 978-1-78756-428-2.
61. Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL) Rechtsgrundlagen für die
Lebensmittelhygiene. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/DE/Ernaehrung/SichereLebensmittel/Hygiene/
_Texte/Rechtsgrundlagen.html (accessed on 4 August 2019).
62. Pearson, L.J.; Pearson, L.; Pearson, C.J. Sustainable urban agriculture: stocktake and opportunities. Int. J.
Agric. Sustain. 2010, 8, 7–19. [CrossRef]
63. Goldstein, B.; Hauschild, M.; Fernández, J.; Birkved, M. Urban versus conventional agriculture, taxonomy of
resource profiles: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 9. [CrossRef]
64. Oonincx, D.G.A.B.; de Boer, I.J.M. Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source
for Humans—A Life Cycle Assessment. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e51145. [CrossRef]
65. Rumpold, B.A.; Schlüter, O.K. Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source for food and feed
production. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 17, 1–11. [CrossRef]
66. Schans, J.W. van der Urban Agriculture in the Netherlands. Urban Agric. Mag. RUAF 2010, 24, 40–42.
67. Benis, K.; Ferrão, P. Commercial farming within the urban built environment—Taking stock of an evolving
field in northern countries. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 17, 30–37. [CrossRef]
68. Pölling, B.; Sroka, W.; Mergenthaler, M. Success of urban farming’s city-adjustments and business
models—Findings from a survey among farmers in Ruhr Metropolis, Germany. Land Use Policy 2017,
69, 372–385. [CrossRef]
69. Specht, K.; Reynolds, K.; Sanyé-Mengual, E. Community and Social Justice Aspects of Rooftop Agriculture.
In Rooftop Urban Agriculture; Orsini, F., Dubbeling, M., de Zeeuw, H., Gianquinto, G., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 277–290. ISBN 978-3-319-57719-7.
70. Cohen, N.; Reynolds, K. Resource needs for a socially just and sustainable urban agriculture system: Lessons
from New York City. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015, 30, 103–114. [CrossRef]
71. Sulewski, P.; Kłoczko-Gajewska, A.; Sroka, W. Relations between Agri-Environmental, Economic and Social
Dimensions of Farms’ Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4629. [CrossRef]
72. Blok, V.; Gremmen, B.; Wesselink, R. Philosophy Documentation Center Dealing with the Wicked Problem of
Sustainability in advance: The Role of Individual Virtuous Competence. Bus. Prof. Ethics J. 2016. [CrossRef]
73. Hüsing, B.; Bierhals, R.; Bührlen, B.; Friedewald, M.; Kimpeler, S.; Menrad, K.; Wengel, J.; Zimmer, R.;
Zoche, P. Technikakzeptanz und Nachfragemuster als Standortvorteil; Fraunhofer ISI: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2002.
74. Lucke, D. Akzeptanz: Legitimität in der “Abstimmungsgesellschaft”; Leske + Budrich: Leverkusen, Germany,
1995; ISBN 3-8100-1496-6.
75. Sauer, A.; Luz, F.; Suda, M.; Weiland, U. Steigerung der Akzeptanz von FFH-Gebieten; BfN-Skripten; Bundesamt
für Naturschutz -BfN-: Bonn, Germany, 2005.
76. Schäfer, M.; Keppler, D. Modelle der Technikorientierten Akzeptanzforschung—Überblick und Reflexion am Beispiel
Eines Forschungsprojekts zur Implementierung Innovativer Technischer Energieeffizienz-Maßnahmen; Zentrum
Technik und Gesellschaft (ZTG): Berlin, Germany, 2013; Available online: https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/
bitstream/11303/4758/1/schaefer_keppler.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2019).
77. Schwerdtner, W.; Freisinger, U.B.; Siebert, R.; Werner, A. Partizipative Roadmaps für Innovationen zur Förderung
der Regionalentwicklung. Praxisleitfaden; Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF):
Müncheberg, Germany, 2010.
78. Schwerdtner, W.; Siebert, R.; Busse, M.; Freisinger, U. Regional Open Innovation Roadmapping: A New
Framework for Innovation-Based Regional Development. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2301–2321. [CrossRef]
79. Endruweit, G.; Trommsdorff, G. Wörterbuch der Soziologie; UTB; 2; völlig neubearbeitete und erw. Aufl.;
Lucius & Lucius: Stuttgart, Germany, 2002; ISBN 3-8282-0172-5.
80. Food Systems Failure: the Global Food Crisis and the Future of Agriculture; Rosin, C.J.R. (Ed.) Earthscan Food and
Agriculture; Earthscan: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-1-84971-229-3.
81. Ronteltap, A.; van Trijp, J.C.M.; Renes, R.J.; Frewer, L.J. Consumer acceptance of technology-based food
innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 2007, 49, 1–17. [CrossRef]
82. Coles, D.; Chaturvedi, S.; Li, Q.; Ladikas, M. New Food Technologies in Europe, India and China. In Science
and Technology Governance and Ethics; Ladikas, M., Chaturvedi, S., Zhao, Y., Stemerding, D., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 111–124. ISBN 978-3-319-14692-8.
83. House, J. Insects as food in the Netherlands: Production networks and the geographies of edibility. Geoforum
2018, 94, 82–93. [CrossRef]
84. Frewer, L. Consumer Perceptions and Novel Food Acceptance. Outlook Agric. 1998, 27, 153–156. [CrossRef]
85. Frewer, L.J.; Bergmann, K.; Brennan, M.; Lion, R.; Meertens, R.; Rowe, G.; Siegrist, M.; Vereijken, C. Consumer
response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food
technologies. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 442–456. [CrossRef]
86. Birch, D.; Skallerud, K.; Paul, N. Who Eats Seaweed? An Australian Perspective. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark.
2018, 1–23. [CrossRef]
87. Fischer, A.R.H.; de Jong, A.E.I.; de Jonge, R.; Frewer, L.J.; Nauta, M.J. Improving Food Safety in the Domestic
Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach. Risk Anal. 2005, 25, 503–517. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Brand, U.; Wissen, M. Crisis and continuity of capitalist society-nature relationships: The imperial mode of
living and the limits to environmental governance. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 2013, 20, 687–711. [CrossRef]
89. Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security; van Huis, A.; Van Itterbeck, J.; Klunder, H.; Mertens, E.;
Halloran, A.; Muir, G.; Vantomme, P. (Eds.) FAO forestry paper; Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 978-92-5-107595-1.
90. Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W. Public and Consumer Policies for Higher Welfare Food Products: Challenges
and Opportunities. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 153–171. [CrossRef]
91. Vigani, M.; Parisi, C.; Rodríguez-Cerezo, E.; Barbosa, M.J.; Sijtsma, L.; Ploeg, M.; Enzing, C. Food and feed
products from micro-algae: Market opportunities and challenges for the EU. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015,
42, 81–92. [CrossRef]
92. Specht, K. The Introduction and Implementation of “Zero-Acreage Farming (ZFarming)”. Potentials, limitations,
and Acceptance; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
© 2019 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/).

Sustainability 11 04315

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 11 04315

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 11 04315

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4315; doi:10.3390/su11164315 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

1.2. Sustainability of Innovative Urban Food Production Approaches

1.3. Research Gap

• to assess the perception of sustainability for the different approaches;

2. Materials and Methods

Interview No. Expert Category Expertise Abbreviation *

3.1.3. Economic Sustainability

3.1.4. Comparative Analysis on the Perception of Sustainability

3.2.1. Factors Related to Production Methods and Applied Technologies

3.2.2. Factors Related to Uncertain Impacts and Relevance

3.2.3. Factors Related to the Food Products

3.2.4. Factors Related to Consumers and Potential Target Groups

3.2.5. Factors Related to Ethical Concerns

3.2.6. Factors Related to (Non-Supportive) Framework Conditions

3.3. Limitations of the Study and Propositions for Future Research

You might also like