IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2771-d759562.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ and Stakeholders’ Acceptance of Indoor Agritecture in Shanghai (China)

Author

Listed:
  • Hemeng Zhou

    (CCST—Center for Cultural Studies on Science and Technology in China, Technische Universität Berlin, Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 104-106, 10553 Berlin, Germany
    CMS—Center for Metropolitan Studies, Technische Universität Berlin, Hardenbergstraße 16-18, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Kathrin Specht

    (ILS—Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development, Brüderweg 22-24, 44135 Dortmund, Germany
    Department of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany)

  • Caitlin K. Kirby

    (College of Natural Science, Michigan State University, 288 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

Abstract

During recent decades, there has been increasing awareness of the development of “agritecture” (“agri”culture + archi“tecture”) as a means to transform and revolutionize the food supply of future cities. The different forms of agritecture include building-integrated agricultural concepts such as vertical farms or indoor farms. In this way, urban food production could take place in proximity to consumers while employing so-called “urban waste” products (such as wastewater, waste heat, and organic waste) as valuable production inputs. Although scholars frequently highlight the potential of vertical farming and other agritecture approaches for Asian megacities, there is still a lack of academic research and completed projects related to this field in China. This study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research in the study location of Shanghai, to reveal the social acceptance of indoor agritecture among consumers and experts. First, to explore the perceptions of consumers, a survey of 713 potential consumers was conducted in Shanghai. Second, these surveys were complemented by 20 expert interviews with academics and practitioners from Shanghai to frame the quantitative research results. Our results revealed that the surveyed consumers’ social acceptance of indoor agritecture and the expectations of the experts are high. Additionally, there is already a high level of demand and a potential market for indoor agritecture in Shanghai. This has been confirmed by the ongoing construction of the first moderate-scale vertical farm and several indoor farms, in combination with the increasing existence of edible landscape approaches and rooftop farms. This development can be viewed as the rise of urban agritecture in Shanghai. The interviews revealed that experts raise more doubts about the economic dimension, whereas its social and ecological dimensions and the contextual framework of indoor agritecture are considered to be positive.

Suggested Citation

  • Hemeng Zhou & Kathrin Specht & Caitlin K. Kirby, 2022. "Consumers’ and Stakeholders’ Acceptance of Indoor Agritecture in Shanghai (China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-28, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2771-:d:759562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2771/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2771/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kathrin Specht & Rosemarie Siebert & Susanne Thomaier & Ulf B. Freisinger & Magdalena Sawicka & Axel Dierich & Dietrich Henckel & Maria Busse, 2015. "Zero-Acreage Farming in the City of Berlin: An Aggregated Stakeholder Perspective on Potential Benefits and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Kristin Jürkenbeck & Andreas Heumann & Achim Spiller, 2019. "Sustainability Matters: Consumer Acceptance of Different Vertical Farming Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Esther Sanyé-Mengual & Isabelle Anguelovski & Jordi Oliver-Solà & Juan Montero & Joan Rieradevall, 2016. "Resolving differing stakeholder perceptions of urban rooftop farming in Mediterranean cities: promoting food production as a driver for innovative forms of urban agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(1), pages 101-120, March.
    4. Kosorić, Vesna & Huang, Huajing & Tablada, Abel & Lau, Siu-Kit & Tan, Hugh T.W., 2019. "Survey on the social acceptance of the productive façade concept integrating photovoltaic and farming systems in high-rise public housing blocks in Singapore," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-214.
    5. Grebitus, Carola & Printezis, Iryna & Printezis, Antonios, 2017. "Relationship between Consumer Behavior and Success of Urban Agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 189-200.
    6. Michael Martin & Elvira Molin, 2019. "Environmental Assessment of an Urban Vertical Hydroponic Farming System in Sweden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Kathrin Specht & Rosemarie Siebert & Susanne Thomaier, 2016. "Perception and acceptance of agricultural production in and on urban buildings (ZFarming): a qualitative study from Berlin, Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(4), pages 753-769, December.
    8. Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki & George Xydis, 2020. "Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Rebecka Milestad & Annika Carlsson-Kanyama & Christina Schaffer, 2020. "The Högdalen urban farm: a real case assessment of sustainability attributes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1461-1475, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alireza Moghayedi & Isabell Richter & Folasade Mary Owoade & Kutemba K. Kapanji-Kakoma & Ewon Kaliyadasa & Sheena Francis & Christiana Ekpo, 2022. "Effects of Urban Smart Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Adrián Csordás & István Füzesi, 2023. "The Impact of Technophobia on Vertical Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caixia Ivy Gan & Ruth Soukoutou & Denise Maria Conroy, 2022. "Sustainability Framing of Controlled Environment Agriculture and Consumer Perceptions: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Kristin Jürkenbeck & Andreas Heumann & Achim Spiller, 2019. "Sustainability Matters: Consumer Acceptance of Different Vertical Farming Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Marilyne Chicoine & Francine Rodier & Fabien Durif, 2023. "The bright and the dark side of commercial urban agriculture labeling," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1153-1170, September.
    4. Mireia Ercilla-Montserrat & David Sanjuan-Delmás & Esther Sanyé-Mengual & Laura Calvet-Mir & Karla Banderas & Joan Rieradevall & Xavier Gabarrell, 2019. "Analysis of the consumer’s perception of urban food products from a soilless system in rooftop greenhouses: a case study from the Mediterranean area of Barcelona (Spain)," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 375-393, September.
    5. Garrett M. Broad & Wythe Marschall & Maya Ezzeddine, 2022. "Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 417-433, March.
    6. Adrián Csordás & István Füzesi, 2023. "The Impact of Technophobia on Vertical Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, May.
    7. Hyungkyoo Kim & Kyung Sun Lee & Jae Seung Lee & Saewon Lee, 2018. "Exploring Outdoor Solar Potential in High-Density Living: Analyzing Direct Sunlight Duration for Urban Agriculture in Seoul’s Residential Complexes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Yiming Shao & Zhugen Wang & Zhiwei Zhou & Haojing Chen & Yuanlong Cui & Zhenghuan Zhou, 2022. "Determinants Affecting Public Intention to Use Micro-Vertical Farming: A Survey Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-26, July.
    9. Kosorić, Vesna & Huang, Huajing & Tablada, Abel & Lau, Siu-Kit & Tan, Hugh T.W., 2019. "Survey on the social acceptance of the productive façade concept integrating photovoltaic and farming systems in high-rise public housing blocks in Singapore," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 197-214.
    10. Marini, Michele & Caro, Dario & Thomsen, Marianne, 2023. "Investigating local policy instruments for different types of urban agriculture in four European cities: A case study analysis on the use and effectiveness of the applied policy instruments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Nadal, Ana & Llorach-Massana, Pere & Cuerva, Eva & López-Capel, Elisa & Montero, Juan Ignacio & Josa, Alejandro & Rieradevall, Joan & Royapoor, Mohammad, 2017. "Building-integrated rooftop greenhouses: An energy and environmental assessment in the mediterranean context," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 338-351.
    12. Qureshi, Salman & Tarashkar, Mahsa & Matloobi, Mansour & Wang, Zhifang & Rahimi, Akbar, 2022. "Understanding the dynamics of urban horticulture by socially-oriented practices and populace perception: Seeking future outlook through a comprehensive review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    13. Martina Artmann & Katharina Sartison, 2018. "The Role of Urban Agriculture as a Nature-Based Solution: A Review for Developing a Systemic Assessment Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-32, June.
    14. Drottberger, Annie & Zhang, Yizhi & Yong, Jean Wan Hong & Dubois, Marie-Claude, 2023. "Urban farming with rooftop greenhouses: A systematic literature review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    15. Mark Bomford, 2023. "More bytes per acre: do vertical farming’s land sparing promises stand on solid ground?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 879-895, September.
    16. Kathrin Specht & Felix Zoll & Henrike Schümann & Julia Bela & Julia Kachel & Marcel Robischon, 2019. "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," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Dsouza, Ajwal & Newman, Lenore & Graham, Thomas & Fraser, Evan D.G., 2023. "Exploring the landscape of controlled environment agriculture research: A systematic scoping review of trends and topics," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    18. Daniela Gasperi & Giuseppina Pennisi & Niccolò Rizzati & Francesca Magrefi & Giovanni Bazzocchi & Umberto Mezzacapo & Monique Centrone Stefani & Esther Sanyé-Mengual & Francesco Orsini & Giorgio Gianq, 2016. "Towards Regenerated and Productive Vacant Areas through Urban Horticulture: Lessons from Bologna, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Han-Shen Chen, 2020. "The Construction and Validation of a Sustainable Tourism Development Evaluation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Ishak Norziha & Abdullah Rosazlin & Rosli Noor Sharina Mohd & Halim Nur Sa’adah Abdul & Majid Hazreenbdul & Ariffin Fazilah, 2022. "Challenges of Urban Garden Initiatives for Food Security in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 41(4), pages 57-72, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2771-:d:759562. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.