1
Planning for Sustainable Urban Food Systems
An Analysis of the Up-scaling Potential of Vertical Farming
Thesis, MSc Urban and Regional Planning University of Amsterdam 11th of June, 2018 Daniel Petrovics daniel.petrovics1@gmail.com (11250844) Supervisor: Dr. Mendel Giezen Second Reader: Dr. Marco te Brömmelstroet
Abstract
Cities cover only 2% of the Earth’s surface, yet they generate over 70% of the world’s GDP, and account for 70% of the world GHG emissions and waste output. Hence cities can be seen as nodes in the web of metabolic resource flows, where the intensity of resource and energy use is the highest. Projections suggest that these phenomena will be further intensified by planetary urbanization, ultimately producing larger cities, which in effect further contribute to anthropogenic climate change at unprecedented rates. One of the most resource intensive areas in this context is that of food systems. From production to consumption, resources are utilized at an immense rate, ultimately raising future concerns for food security and availability, climate change, and growing population levels. A proposed supply-‐side solution to these issues is Vertical Farming (VF), a high-‐yield form of controlled environment agriculture with potential to produce fruits and vegetables within cities, ultimately reducing their resource intensity. VF has been explored from multiple perspectives in the past; nevertheless an assessment from an urban planning perspective, with an integrative approach to understanding its wider potential to mitigate the climate impact of food systems is still lacking. Hence the principal objective of this thesis is to understand what the potential for up-‐scaling this sociotechnical niche is. In terms of scope, this research aims at 1.) understanding how VF can be up-‐scaled in the sense of spatial reproduction and in terms of institutionalization, 2.) substantiating if the sustainability discourse that promises for more sustainable cities through the expansion of VF aligns with the accounts of experts working with this sociotechnical niche, and 3.) providing an indication of whether and how VF can contribute to reducing the impact of food systems in terms of anthropogenic climate change. This was done by assessing the perceptions of prominent actors in the field of VF through 17 semi-‐structured key informant interviews, conducted with entrepreneurs, consultants, researchers, and municipal actors. The research design takes an abductive approach, which allowed for the emergence of two sets of findings. On the one hand the primary analytical framework has been amended by further explanatory variables, while on the other hand three findings, specific to the up-‐scaling potential of VF, emerged. With regards to the second set of findings, firstly, it is argued that singular VF interventions in cities should have further functions integrated at the scale of the farm for the sake of viability, on the lines of functions serving marketability, environmental sustainability, the built context, education, and community engagement. Secondly, it is discussed that VF interventions carry the most potential for climate mitigation if they are conceived of as elements of wider urban-‐level systemic food planning. Finally, the analysis also yields results, which highlight the globalized dynamics of the political economy, and in turn the localized effects for food systems, and their implications for VF. The thesis concludes with a set of practical recommendations for practitioners working in the field of VF.
Keywords –
urban; vertical farming; food systems; up-‐scaling; multi-‐level perspective; climate mitigation;
Table of Contents
Abstract ... ii
Table of Contents ... iii
List of Acronyms ... vi
List of Illustrations ... vii
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling ... 4
2.1. Ontological Understanding of Cities – The Metabolic City ... 4
2.2. Embedding the Vertical Farm within the Urban ... 5
2.3. The Multi-‐Level Perspective and its Critique – A Theoretical Backdrop ... 5
2.4. Up-‐scaling Low Carbon Urban Initiatives – An Operational Framework ... 8
2.5. Conceptual Scheme ... 11
2.6. Concluding Remarks ... 12
3. Methodology: A Qualitative Design Taking an Abductive Approach ... 13
3.1. Epistemology ... 13
3.2. Research Questions ... 13
3.3. Research Design, Unit of Analysis, and Operationalization ... 14
3.4. Methods, Sampling, and Structure of Data Collection ... 15
3.5. Data Analysis ... 16
3.6. Ethical Considerations ... 16
3.7. Methodological Reflection ... 16
3.8. Limitations ... 17
4. The Up-‐Scaling Potential of Vertical Farming ... 19
4.1. Measures for LCUD ... 19
4.2. Operational Arrangements ... 21
4.3. Policy Context ... 22
4.4. Market Context ... 26
4.5. Social-‐cultural context ... 29
4.6. Natural and Built Context ... 31
4.7. Emerging Factors ... 32
4.8. Theoretical Reflection on the Emerging Factors ... 34
5. Vertical Farming Viewed Through the Multi-‐Level Perspective ... 38
5.1. Integrative Functions of Vertical Farming on the Niche level ... 38
5.2. Food Systems and Vertical Farming on the Regime Level ... 41
5.3. Global Dynamics of the Political Economy and Local Implications for Vertical Farming on the
Landscape Level ... 43
5.4. Concluding Remarks ... 45
6. Conclusion ... 46
6.1. Core Findings and Implications ... 46
6.2. Contribution, Limitations, and Further Research ... 47
6.3. Recommendations for Practitioners ... 48
Bibliography ... 49
Annex I. Definitions of Concepts Incorporated in the Research Questions ... 54
Annex II. Interview Participants ... 56
Annex III. Sample Interview Guide ... 57
Annex IV. Findings ... 58
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank Juliette for believing in me and for providing me with the professional environment necessary for managing and completing a Master’s thesis next to a full-‐time job. Without your support, guidance, and patience I would not have been able to complete this project this way. I would also like to thank Gonçalo, Arpad, and everyone at OneFarm for taking such profound interest in my research. Seeing the social focus and innovative approach you envision towards this field is a great source of inspiration. I would also like to thank my team at the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for showing continuous interest in how my research was developing. Working with you guys has been fun and inspiring, something that was crucial in the last 6-‐months for managing a healthy work-‐thesis balance. I would also like to express my gratitude to everyone else at GRI for all the input at the beginning of this project.
I would also like to thank Bella for supporting me in the ups and downs of the last six months, and particularly for proving to me what strong will can do in the last stretch – and by this directly contributing to the completion of my research. Your emotional support and help are invaluable, let alone the careful reviews of my work and direct input, which have shaped the outcome immensely. I am also grateful to all my friends who have not only challenged my thoughts but have actively re-‐sparked my curiosity and interest in this topic. I would like to thank Noemie, Adri, Jill, and Enrique in particular. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my mother, who has continuously proven why it is worth being open to new ideas, and to my father, who has proven over the last year several times that there is a way out of every seeming difficulty.
I would furthermore like to thank all my interviewees, who have taken their time and energy to answer my questions and participate in some enlightening conversations. These interviews form the backbone of this research, and therefore I cannot stress enough how grateful I am for your contribution. Last but not least, I would also like to thank my supervisor, Mendel for continuously reassuring me that I am on the right path and for providing me with critical insights and the theoretical foundation of this thesis, as well as Marco for taking on the role of second reader.
List of Acronyms
AMS ... Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Studies AVF ... Association for Vertical Farming CAP ... Common Agricultural Policy CEA ... Controlled Environment Agriculture CFA ... Carbon Footprint Analysis CO2 ... Carbon Dioxide EU ... European Union FAO ... Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FDI ... Foreign Direct Investment GHG ... Greenhouse Gas GRI ... Global Reporting Initiative LCUD ... Low Carbon Urban Development LCUI ... Low Carbon Urban Initiative LED ... Light Emitting Diode MLP ... Multi-‐Level Perspective OECD ... Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PPP ... Public-‐Private Partnership R&D ... Research and Development SME ... Small and Medium-‐Sized Enterprise UA ... Urban Agriculture VC ... Venture Capital VF ... Vertical Farming WRI ... World Resources Institute
List of Illustrations
Figure 1 -‐ Categorization of Vertical Farming ... 2
Figure 2 -‐ The Multi-‐Level Perspective (Geels, 2011, p. 28) ... 6
Figure 3 -‐ Cross-‐scale Dynamics – Spatial, Temporal, and Organizational Interactions (Cash et al. 2006, p. 7) ... 11
Figure 4 -‐ Horizontal and Vertical Pathways to Scaling-‐Up (van Doren et al., 2018, p. 179) ... 9
Figure 5 -‐ Conceptual Scheme: The Up-‐scaling of Vertical Farming ... 11
Figure 6 -‐ Principle Findings Viewed Through the MLP ... 311
Figure 7 -‐ Five Categories of Integrative Functions at the Level of the Vertical Farm ... 39
Figure 8 -‐ Alternative Scaled Logistics (based on accounts of interviewee 003) ... 42
1. Introduction
In 2016, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) released a report stating that humanity is facing an unprecedented challenge in having to mitigate a destabilized global climate system and eradicate hunger and poverty on a global scale (FAO, 2016). With 13% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the agriculture sector (WRI, 2014) it becomes clear that there is a link between these two challenges, which necessitates more sustainable approaches to food systems. This is further intensified by projections of population increases as well as their concentrations in urban areas (UN, 2014). This means that the 21st century will be decidedly urban in focus, and therefore global issues – such as climate change, diminishing food security, growing demand for comfort and varied (out of season) foods, growing population levels, and intensified resource and energy use – will both originate and will have their biggest impact in cities as well.
The geological epoch these processes have produced has been coined the anthropocene by many (Haff, 2014; Rockström et al., 2009; Biermann, 2012; Gupta, 2016). This means that the impact of human activity on the planet in environmental terms is so extensive and substantial that humanity has become the primary driver of geological and natural processes today. These effects have been illustrated on numerous occasions, however the framework of Rockström et al. (2009) outlining planetary boundaries, and the problematic state of the planet on multiple points -‐ such as biodiversity loss, climate change, and the misbalance in the nitrogen cycle -‐ calls for immediate action. In the past it has been theorized that these processes constitute the symptoms of deeper systemic ills, which manifest themselves in what has been termed the metabolic rift (Foster, 1999). This rift means that there is a clear rupture in the relationship between humanity and nature. Building on this conception a number of authors have pointed to the resulting metabolic nature of cities (Wachsmuth, 2012; Giezen and Roemers, 2015; Swyngedouw, 2006). This line of thought conceives of cities as metabolic entities, which encompass flows of resources and the resulting intensified consumption patterns. Next to illustrating the necessity for immediate and innovative action, aimed at closing the metabolic rift, this line of thinking serves as a general basis for understanding the interrelations of humankind, society, and technological developments, ultimately establishing the scene for this research. In this sense humanity’s planetary impact can be taken as a given, where the urban environment and the technosphere (Haff, 2014) take on a central role, essentially constituting the core of the studied reality. Considering cities house over half of the world’s population (UN, 2014) and contribute to over 70% of the world’s CO2 emissions (C40, 2018), it can be said that cities of the anthropocene are the central nodes in the web of human resource use; and hence focusing on one of the most resource intensive industries – that of food – is absolutely necessary if one aims at finding integrated solutions to the above outlined problems (Steel, 2008).
In this context, technologically intense solutions have emerged, which ultimately carry the potential to be urban level supply-‐end interventions in food systems. Vertical Farming (VF) is one such proposed solution. In order to understand what VF entails, it is necessary to explore the conceptual context in which it arose. Firstly, without conducting a thorough review of the subject, agriculture can be understood in general as the cultivation of soil-‐based domesticated plant varieties as well as farm animals (Harari, 2011). Within this broad category, urban agriculture (UA) as a subset with an explicit focus on farming within cities has been gaining prominence in the recent decades, due to its promise to contribute to more secure food supplies, improve health conditions of local populations, enhance the immediate economy, create social value, and also contribute to environmental sustainability (Orsini et al., 2013). This being said,
Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
not all UA is necessarily soil-‐based. Considering there is a limited amount of space available in cities for agricultural purposes, it has been suggested that innovative forms of agriculture that have the highest yields per km2 should be preferred – at least from a climate mitigation viewpoint. One of these methods for urban food production is VF.VF is a form of controlled environment agriculture (CEA) (Despommier, 2010) involving stacked layers of crops, usually implicating soilless, Zero-‐acreage (Z-‐farming) cultivation methods (Thomaier et al., 2014). This means that by isolating the environment, in which the plants grow, the basic physiological requirements of the plants can be fully controlled. Hence cultivation methods utilizing approaches with water circulation in order to feed the plants with nutrition – such as aeroponics, or hydro/aquaponics – are the primary methods utilized in VF. These methods can be used in single layer plants – for example on rooftops – and hence the differentiation of VF from Z-‐farming in general, as is outlined in the Figure 1. bellow.
With regards to the visions of the use of VF, early proponents such as Despommier (2010, and 2011), take a clear supportive stance from a holistic perspective. In his pioneering and visionary book titled The Vertical Farm: Feeding
the World in the 21st Century (2010) he outlines multiple advantages for this type of cultivation method. These are 1.)
year-‐round crop availability, 2.) no crop failures resulting from bad weather, 3.) no agricultural run-‐off, 4.) the possibility of eco-‐system restoration (in areas reclaimed form traditional agriculture), 5.) lacking necessity to use fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, 6.) 70-‐95 % less water requirement, 7.) shorter food miles, 8.) closer control over food security and safety, 9.) employment opportunities, 10.) grey-‐water purification, and 11.) availability of animal feed from green waste (p. 245). Similarly, conceptions outlining utopian visions of Skyfarms populating the world and remedying most of the above outlined ills have also been put forward (Germer et al., 2011). This is accompanied by concepts such as the Biopolus (Biopolus, 2018), or the Polydome (Except, 2011), which are indoor farming designs aimed not only at food production, but the integration of other functions, such as ecosystem services and water purification. In the past it has been argued that this form of agriculture carries multiple benefits for cities and can provide remedies to most of the above outlined global ills and crises (Despommier, 2011). However this technological innovation is still in an early phase, with experimentation happening in a number of cities around the world. Nevertheless, large-‐scale systemic transformations are still lacking.
In this sense, making the connection between singular VF experiments and the potential to plan for broader systemic transformations capable of contributing to mitigating the climate impact of cities is yet to be seen. So far no explicit
Agriculture Urban Agriculture Z-‐Farming Verlcal Farming
attempt has been made to connect the two, and in effect to scope the necessary governance milieu for the successful expansion and up-‐scaling of VF on the one hand; while on the other hand no explicit attention has been paid to understanding the climate mitigation potential the introduction of VF in cities carries. These two issues go hand-‐in-‐ hand, as understanding the true climate mitigation potential of these solutions requires an assessment resulting from the marriage of understanding issues specific to VF installations, as well as to understanding the urban governance environment surrounding them. Therefore, integrated approaches assessing this combination in terms of climate mitigation are yet to be developed. The true gap in the academic literature is to be found here.
Hence in terms of scope, this research aims at 1.) understanding how VF can be up-‐scaled in the sense of spatial reproduction and in terms of institutionalization, 2.) substantiating if the sustainability discourse that promises for more sustainable cities through the expansion of VF aligns with the accounts of experts working with this sociotechnical niche, and 3.) providing an indication of whether and how VF can contribute to reducing the impact of food systems in terms of anthropogenic climate change. For this reason, this research asks the following question:
How can vertical farming contribute to mitigating the climate impact of urban food systems?
This question is further broken down into three sub questions, namely: What barriers and opportunities does vertical
farming encounter in terms of spatial reproduction – or horizontal up-‐scaling? What barriers and opportunities does vertical farming encounter in terms of institutional and structural integration – or vertical up-‐scaling? And viewed through the multi-‐level perspective, what dynamics have created these opportunities and barriers? In order to answer
these questions, the research utilizes two theoretical frameworks – that of the up-‐scaling framework developed by van Doren et al. (2018) and the multi-‐level perspective (MLP) of Geels (2002, 2011). The two frameworks are embedded in a qualitative design, which takes an abductive approach – allowing for not only an analysis of the up-‐ scaling potential of VF, but also for a theoretical contribution based on the collected data. The data is based on 17 semi-‐structured key informant interviews, which assessed the perspectives of entrepreneurs, researchers, consultants, and municipal actors working with VF. Next to the theoretical contribution, three core findings emerge from the research pointing towards the necessity to view VF in terms of 1.) integrative solutions at the level of the farm, 2.) solutions focusing on urban and regional food systems, and 3.) globalized dynamics of the political economy having localized effects.
The thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 explores literature discussing food systems in order to understand the wider contextual embedding of VF. It furthermore discusses the two theoretical families, the reasons for choosing them, and the conceptual scheme arising thereof. Chapter 3 outlines the chosen qualitative research design and accompanying methodology. Chapter 4 summarizes the results of the interviews through the lens of the up-‐scaling framework, and Chapter 5 provides an analysis of the data from the perspective of the MLP and discusses the three core findings. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes and provides recommendations for practitioners.
Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
2. Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
The present chapter outlines the contextual understanding of cities in terms of ontology, assesses VF through systemic understandings of urban food systems, and outlines the proposed theoretical and analytical framework. The metabolic conception of cities constitutes the ontological backdrop of how food systems and the resulting resource flows of cities function. Building on this, the theories of the multi-‐level perspective (MLP) on sustainability transitions (Geels, 2002, 2011) provides the wider theoretical framing, while the up-‐scaling theory (van Doren et al., 2018) provides the specific analytical tool for understanding the climate mitigating potential of VF within this backdrop. Next to this, these theories are reinforced by a specific understanding of power in order to situate the socio-‐political reality of sustainability within the research, as outlined below.
2.1. Ontological Understanding of Cities – The Metabolic City
In broad terms ontology can be understood as the elements constituting the underlying structures of social reality. Forsyth (2003) describes ontology in the context of anthropogenic climate change quite fittingly, and addresses the relationships between causes of climate change, and the resulting responsibility. He is worth quoting in length.
“An ontological approach to anthropogenic climate change would aim to understand the causal mechanisms of climate change, and the accurate apportioning of responsibility to different human causes according to their influence on the biophysical process of warming.” (Forsyth, 2003, p. 16)
In this sense, it is important to briefly outline the conceptions of these causal mechanisms, and to see how the city as an entity fits in this framework. This research conceives of cities in ontological terms as a socially constructed system, which functions on a metabolic basis (Wachsmuth, 2012; Giezen and Roemers, 2015; Swyngedouw, 2006). The metabolic conception of cities has its root in what Karl Marx outlined as the growing rift between society and nature, ultimately coined as a metabolic rift (Foster, 1999). This means that the materials used in production and consumption processes have become untraceable from their natural origin, ultimately fueling urban growth under capitalist modes of production and creating the cities we know today. In this sense, the city as an entity is entangled in a myriad of processes and flows also external to its physical boundaries – which can be natural, social, or political to name a few; ultimately resembling that of the human circulatory system, or metabolism. Building on the metabolic conception, it is important to point out that cities and the constituting social reality – especially in the urban political ecology line of thought – cease to exist as separate entities from nature. By concentrating on flows of materials and processes, this line of thought re-‐embeds cities within and reunites society with nature (Wachsmuth, 2012). In this understanding, urban reality should and can only be conceived of at the cross-‐section of natural flows, and socio-‐political processes – ultimately annulling the society-‐nature divide put forward by many in the past. This ontological perspective also implies that social and political processes, such as decisions over resource allocation and the surrounding governance structures, should be considered when studying any topic related to climate mitigation in cities. This means that any type of theoretical and analytical framework has to either point towards these elements, or has to be extended with this fundamental understanding of power. This research elaborates on the second option, as is expanded in detail below.
2.2. Embedding the Vertical Farm within the Urban
Based on this ontological account of resource flows and their culmination in the urban environment, it is worthwhile contextualizing it through an urban food systems lens. An urban food system can be understood as “the food system
in the city and the food system of the city” (Ilieva, 2016, p. 72). Food system in the city entails every person, the
utilized organic and inorganic matter, infrastructure, alongside cultural norms, values and rules governing food in the city. Food system of the city is not confined to the city; but is particularly urban as it operates and is propelled by growingly urban dynamics (Ibid.).
Based on this conception, a growing body of literature is discussing food planning at the urban scale, with focus put on evidence-‐based planning (AMS, 2018), the potential to bridge the traditional dichotomous conceptions of rural-‐urban (Forster and Escudero, 2014), or how cities should and can manage their food systems (Cohen and Ilieva, 2015). Next to this, some authors take a similar ontological understanding as this thesis, and take a systems approach by focusing on metabolic resource flows and on the potential integrated approaches to urban farming carry in terms of recovering resources (Ilieva, 2016). Others focus on the role innovation and learning play in UA and assess the disruptive potential of technical innovation in terms of rethinking the socio-‐economic status quo (Pfeiffer et al., 2014; Opitz et al., 2016). Scholars, such as Mancebo (2016) conceive of urban agriculture in general, from a critical political economy perspective, and propagate innovation in the context of redistributing resources and power, and commoning resources and cities. Steel (2008) focuses on the role bottlenecks in supply-‐chains play in feeding cities, and points towards innovation playing a role in providing viable solutions. Closely related, dos Santos (2016) calls for shorter supply chains in the context of smart cities and aquaponics – an energy intense technological approach to CEA, commonly used in VF as well (de Graaf, 2013).
Other authors focus on the specific planning and zoning challenges that the required multifunctional land use in effect necessitates (Thomaier et al., 2014; Deelstra et al., 2001). Finally, more integrative approaches also exist. These include accounts of the multi-‐faceted potential innovation in Urban Agriculture in cities of the Global South carries (de Zeeuw et al., 2011; Orsini et al. 2013); or approaches focusing on academic integration and assessing VF through a systematic literature review (Kalantari et al., 2017). Ultimately all of these conceptions grasp a certain aspect of the problem at hand, and conclude in the lowest common denominator: the necessity to alter the way resources are produced, consumed, and ultimately flow within urban food systems.
2.3. The Multi-‐Level Perspective and its Critique – A Theoretical Backdrop
As mentioned above, a particular set of theories is utilized in order to explicitly address the field of VF, to understand the emergence of this phenomenon within the context of the urban setting, and to explore it’s potential in terms of climate mitigation. This is due to the theories’ explanatory power when assessing the management and governance of innovative technological solutions, and low carbon projects in the urban environment. As a basis to this analytical approach two closely related theories are chosen. The first one is the family of transition theories (Geels, 2002; 2011; Hodson and Marvin, 2010; Rotmans and Loorbach, 2009; Smith et al., 2005), which primarily assess sociotechnical transitions from a three-‐tiered perspective or Multi-‐Level Perspective (MLP), explaining regimes, landscapes, and
Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
forces, technologies, policy, science, culture, and industry (Geels, 2011). Landscapes describe broad overarching processes, which put pressure on the dominant regime on the one hand, and open up opportunities for transformations of this constellation on the other. Niches describe novelties, which ultimately challenge the dominantregime through establishing alternative constellations of the given sociotechnical reality. These three levels are
depicted in Figure 2.
In the case of VF the dominant regime can be understood as the current food system, fed by extensive food-‐miles and factory farming, concentrating produce in a small number of distribution centers, and ultimately distributing this produce through carefully orchestrated assemblages of supermarkets (Steel, 2008). The landscape in this context can be best understood as phenomena, such as the approaching food crisis, globalized neoliberal capitalism, or the afore mentioned misbalance in the nitrogen cycle. These seemingly independent and disconnected phenomena in reality create a certain type of milieu, which under certain circumstances enables or blocks regime change. The niche to be assessed in this research is that of VF. In this sense, this alternative form of food production carries elements, which under the right circumstances could challenge the current regime and could contribute to reconfiguring food production and consumption in cities.
Transition theories – and the MLP specifically – provide an analytical lens for understanding the interrelation of broad
phenomena with potentially global reach and niche innovations. The three-‐tiered analytical perspective allows for a
nuanced understanding of sociotechnical reality, with a particular focus on the processes of transitions. Nevertheless, this approach has also been criticized on multiple occasions. Lawhon and Murphy (2011) have outlined a comprehensive critique from the perspective of political ecology, which falls in line with the aforementioned political
nature of resource flows in the metabolic city. They suggest the following four major limitations, specifically situated in the context of VF for the sake of this research.
Firstly, the MLP can be seen as representing the opinions of the elite, in the position to initiate transformations. In the context of VF this means that it is necessary to see the perspectives of a wider array of actors, exemplified by consumers, activists, and workers. This thought ties in closely with the critiques put forward by Smith et al. (2005) alongside de Haan and Rotmans (2018). They outline how this approach substantially disregards the role of actors and agency in the transition process. Building on this critique, a central question of political nature becomes evident: How do pioneers and entrepreneurial actors actually take lead in exploiting opportunities to the best manner possible? Secondly and closely related, the MLP also focuses extensively on the role of technology, independent of social and political processes. In this sense, VF should not only be understood as a transformation in technological processes but as a phenomenon with transformative power in the societal sphere – and on the urban, neighborhood, and community levels. Thirdly, spatial, geographical, and consequently resulting contextual factors are missing from this theoretical framework, which is essential when studying transitions in the urban setting. The deception focusing on national level processes primarily ignores the potential for different geographical scales to have different implications. Hence by studying VF in the urban environment and by situating urban reality in a wider context of anthropogenic climate change a more nuanced and contextually embedded conception of desired transitions and potential pathways emerges. Finally, the role power relations play, and the productive nature of political struggles are also fully neglected in the MLP. With a focus on rules and regulation, there is insufficient space given to actors in the process. Hence it is necessary to continuously reflect and ask, if VF becomes a regime, who benefits from this? How can the benefits of VF be distributed in the most just way? This last point ties in very closely with the aforementioned understanding of power. Studying changes and transitions in order to contribute to climate mitigation in cities, inherently has to assess the social and political reality surrounding the transformation. This is where the above-‐mentioned understanding of power ties in. Due to the ontological basis of this research focusing on the metabolic resource flows of cities, the added extension of power complements the analytical framework. Considering cities are the sums of natural resource flows, as well as socio-‐political process’, resulting in strife for power and dominance; the political and social nature of resource flows as outlined by Swyngedouw (2006) is carried on complementarily to the analytical framework.
At this point it is essential to ask if this research caters sufficiently to all of these critiques. The answer is no, as the main aim of the research is not to reassess the MLP as a theoretical framework. However two points can provide justifications for carrying on the MLP as a backdrop to the analytical framework in light of these valid critiques. Firstly, this theoretical framework still carries explanatory power in terms of framing the relationships between small-‐scale innovations and exogenous contexts (Geels, 2002, 2011). Secondly, through a process of conscious reflection on these points throughout the data collection as well as the analysis, a more nuanced understanding of the (potential) transition processes becomes possible. This means that by continuously catering to the politicizing nature of the critiques of the MLP during the periods of data collection as well as analysis can allow for understanding further aspects of the studied socio-‐technical reality.
Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
2.4. Up-‐scaling Low Carbon Urban Initiatives – An Operational Framework
Following the above outline of the MLP this section turns to the second subset of the utilized theories; literature discussing the up-‐scaling potential of Low Carbon Urban Initiatives (LCUIs) with a particular focus on the taxonomy developed by van Doren et al. (2018). This framework establishes a classification of different elements that can contribute to the spatial expansion and reproduction of LCUIs, as well as the institutional and regulative embedding of these initiatives, ultimately operationalizing the transition process of the MLP. However, in order to understand what up-‐scaling LCUIs means, it is necessary to dissect the utilized terminology.
Firstly the term scale has to be outlined. Gibson et al. (2000) define scale as “the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used by scientists to measure and study objects and processes” (p. 219). In this context, as Cash et al. (2006) outline, the most studied scale is spatial, which is in line with the urban focus of this research. Nevertheless the authors go on to describe the complexity involved in the management of environmental issues resulting from the multiple scales and levels that exist in terms of spatial, temporal, jurisdictional, institutional, management, network and knowledge arrangements (Ibid.). This complexity is illustrated in Figure 3.
As can be seen, accounting for a variety of scales when modeling and categorizing environmental processes reveals the complexity of problems at hand; and ultimately hints at the complexity taken on by the transformations meant to address anthropogenic climate change in cities. Building on this outline, van Doren et al. (2018) conceive of Low Carbon Urban Developments (LCUDs), as a ”reconciliation between urban development and the mitigation of anthropogenic climate change” (Ibid. p. 176). This being said, for this reconciliation to take place, a focus on LCUIs is necessary, as these are the means to the LCUDs. Hence successful LCUIs entail two types of pathways, or scaling-‐up:
horizontal and vertical. Horizontal up-‐scaling entails the spatial growth of an initiative. This means it can grow in size,
or it can reproduce itself in quantity. In terms of VF this could mean 1.) having a larger farm sufficient to feed a greater geographical area than before (e.g. neighborhood instead of a street) or 2.) having more numbers of farms within a city. Vertical up-‐scaling entails the structural learning and institutional transformations necessary for establishing a wider-‐impact of LCUIs. This means that ideas, values, policy, and institutions are all meant to be transformed in the process of vertical up-‐scaling, ultimately creating an enabling environment for Low Carbon Urban Developments (LCUDs) (van Doren et al. 2018). In terms of VF this could mean favorable zoning regulation, subsidy schemes targeting this type of agriculture specifically, or even education activities. These two types of pathways (horizontal and vertical up-‐scaling) and their interrelation is sketched in Figure 4.
Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
At this point it is essential to point out that the two different pathways do not follow in a linear manner. They form a dialectic relationship, as on the one hand the growth in the spatial presence of LCUIs (in the horizontal pathway) potentially informs institutional and regulative changes (in the vertical pathway). In the ideal scenario, this then informs the creation of even more and even larger LCUIs, ultimately closing the loop.Considering this research focuses on the process of up-‐scaling, it is essential to reflect on the fact that the success of these pathways is informed by barriers and opportunities. Van Doren et al. (2018) have developed a detailed taxonomy of potential factors that can contribute to the up-‐scaling of LCUIs. As is outlined in the methodological chapter, these factors form the core of the analytical framework in terms of structuring the interviews as well as the results. The taxonomy covers a comprehensive set of factors, which can potentially further the LCUIs, but can also serve as barriers in the process. The specific factors are as follows:
Measures for LCUD
• Financial Advantage • Reliability • Low Complexity Operational Arrangements • Leadership • Stakeholder Involvement • Resource Mobilization • Communication Policy Context
• Regulatory Policy Instruments • Financial Policy Instruments • Informative Policy Instruments • Political Leadership
• Trust in the Policy Framework
Market Context
• Low Capital and Installment Costs • Expertise and Skills of Supply Actors • Information Availability
• Access to Credit • Energy Price
Social-‐cultural context
• Environmental Awareness and Values
Natural and Built Context • Technical Compatibility
Finally, it is also necessary to point out that the up-‐scaling literature has been chosen in combination with the MLP as it caters to a number of the above outlined critiques describing the limitations of the MLP. Theories discussing the scalability of LCUIs speak directly to the role “pioneers” or “leadership” carry in assessing, and ultimately overcoming potential barriers and utilizing opportunities in the context of sociotechnical transitions (van Doren et al. 2018; 2016). In this sense actors and agency are given a much bigger role. Next to this, the up-‐scaling literature conceives of LCUIs in a similar manner to how the MLP sees niche experiments, however it gives greater attention to the community aspect of bottom-‐up initiatives, ultimately aimed at “strengthening community networks and ownership” (Ibid. p. 177). Finally, the above outlined specific factors that can outline the barriers and opportunities for up-‐scaling allow for a more tangible and practical approach to analyzing the accounts of interviewees – as is outlined in the methodological section of the thesis.
2.5. Conceptual Scheme
On the basis of the problem statement, research questions, and theoretical perspective the following conceptual scheme has been outlined.
Figure 2 -‐ Conceptual Scheme: The Up-‐scaling of Vertical Farming
As can be seen, the boundary of the conceptual scheme is set by urban food systems. Embedded in this are the two explanatory theories, the MLP and conceptions of up-‐scaling. The conception of the urban metabolism is outlined in light grey, as it is not an explanatory tool, but merely the ontological basis of the research, which has lead to the conscious conceptualization of the social and political nature of resource flows. This element builds on the above outlined critique of the MLP in terms of lacking agency and political focus. In this context, the three tiers of the MLP set the backdrop for understanding the analytical framing of this transition through niches, regime, and landscape.
Urban&Food&Systems& Urban&Metabolism&
REGIME&
LANDSCAPE&
OPPURTUNITIES& BARRIERS& VERTICAL& UPSCALING&NICHES&
VerBcal& Farming& HORIZONTAL& UPSCALING& HORIZONTAL& UPSCALING&Constructing a Theoretical Approach: Food Systems, the Multi-‐Level Perspective, and Up-‐scaling
The specific framing for transitioning VF from a niche to a regime is conceived through the theories of up-‐scaling, assessing both horizontal and vertical directions. This conception allows for the exploration of factors enabling and blocking both the spatial reproduction of VF and also the institutional and structural embedding of this novelty. Finally, the up-‐scaling framework also allows for the assessment of barriers and opportunities in this context.
2.6. Concluding Remarks
All in all, this chapter explored the ontological conception of the city, situated VF within urban food systems, and explored the two broad theoretical families utilized in the present research – the MLP and literature discussing the up-‐ scaling of LCUIs. In terms of ontology, the chapter discussed the metabolic conception of cities, ultimately suggesting that the polarizing view on urban society and nature is a misconception, and hence it asks for a reconceptualization of socio-‐nature (Swyngedouw, 2006) in terms of flows of social and natural processes and materials. With this backdrop, the growing body of literature discussing urban food systems allows for a contextualization of the problem at hand. In terms of theory, the MLP establishes the basis for understanding how niche sustainability experiments can challenge dominant regimes, and how this process is affected by broader exogenous factors. Nevertheless, this framework has been criticized on multiple occasions, particularly for overlooking the social and political tensions, which arise from transitions, and for this reason the closely related theoretical framework of up-‐scaling has been chosen in order to complement these shortcomings. Utilizing the up-‐scaling framework firstly leaves more space for assessing the role of agency when assessing a sociotechnical transition, secondly allows for conceiving of bottom-‐up processes, and finally also allows for explicitly addressing the emerging opportunities and barriers in the process of up-‐scaling LCUIs due to the extensive taxonomy of contributing factors. By analyzing opportunities and barriers the potential pathways can be better understood, and potential directions can be outlined for overcoming barriers and transforming them into enablers of action – as is put forward by Burch (2010). This theoretical exercise ultimately carries the potential to inform conscious policy choices surrounding VF. Next to this, it should be mentioned that due to the afore-‐mentioned ontological conception, the theoretical framework is extended with a conscious perspective on power, framing the political perspective of VF.
