University of Amsterdam
Bachelor Thesis
Human geography and Urban planning
Social Acceptability of Vertical Farming
The factors that are influencing the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam in the case of the A-Lab vertical farm
Author: Supervisor:
Sam van Asselt Beatriz Pineda Revilla
Student number: Second reader:
10685006 Edda Bild
Email:
Social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam
The factors that are influencing the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam in the case of the A-Lab vertical farm
Study
Bachelor Thesis
Human Geography and Urban Planning University of Amsterdam
First draft
18th of June 2018
Supervisor
Beatriz Pineda Revilla
Summary 1 1. Introduction 2 2. Theoretical framework 4 2.1 Smart city 4 2.2 Vertical farming 4 2.3 Social acceptability 6 3. Methods 9 3.1 Concepts 9 3.2 Case 10 3.3 Data collection 10 3.4 Data processing 14 3.5 Data analysis 15
3.5 Qualitative Research Criteria 15
4. Results 16
4.1 Current perceptions of vertical farming in Amsterdam 16
4.1.1 Initial perceptions of vertical farming 16
4.1.2 Lack of awareness 19
4.1.3 Shift in perceptions of vertical farming 20
4.2 Improvements for the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam 24
5. Discussion 26
6. Conclusion 27
Acknowledgements 28
Literature 29
Appendice 32
Appendix 3: Questionnaire 2 36 Appendix 4: Information given about vertical farming in the focus group 38 Appendix 5: Table with the information about the respondents 39 Appendix 6: Table with the data from the questionnaire 40 Appendix 7: Codes that are used for the analysis of the transcripts 41
Appendix 8: Example of coded transcript 43
Appendix 9. Interview Pierre - Intern GreenTech 46
Appendix 10. Interview Marc - Vertical farm tour attendant 57
Appendix 11. Interview Miguel - Co-founder GreenTech 59
Appendix 12. Interview Rosa - Vertical farm tour attendant 67
Appendix 13. Interview Meher - Volunteer at A-lab 70
Appendix 14. Interview Robert - Volunteer at A-lab 81
Appendix 15. Interview Maria - Co-founder GreenTech 88
Summary
This research is about the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam. Because the population is growing and more people are moving into cities, there is a need for more local and sustainably produced food. Vertical farming is an initiative that could provide this by growing crops in a closed-off environment in and around cities. For an innovation like this to be implemented, it is essential that it is socially acceptable. Therefore this thesis researched the main factors that influence the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam in the case of A-Lab. This is done by researching the perceptions of vertical farming, and how the social acceptability could be improved. A focus group highlighted the fact that the perception of risks of vertical farming partly due to lack of awareness, therefore, knowledge has a positive effect on the social acceptability. After receiving more information on the benefits, the perceptions shifted where the risks of vertical farming became less critical and more benefits were perceived. Disseminating the right information and by that improving the social acceptability can be done in several ways such as education, experience and community involvement.
1. Introduction
The prospect is that by 2050 the global population will be around 9.7 billion people. (United Nation DESA, 2015) Also, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, it is the most pressing and immediate issue that this growing population will be provided with enough, safe, affordable and timely food (UNFAO, 2008). Because over 80% of the world’s land available for agriculture is now already in use, there is not enough land left to feed this population with the current agriculture practices (Lim & Liu, 2010). Besides this, it is clear that traditional agriculture puts a strain on the environment by contributing to soil depletion, erosion, water contamination and runoff because of chemical pesticide and herbicide use, increased greenhouse gases, and global warming (Macias, 2008; Walsh, 2009). Also, agriculture uses almost 70% of the world’s fresh water; this will become a more significant problem when the global warming causes more droughts and warmer temperatures which will make water even more scarce (Cho, 2011).
Another prospect is that in 2050 over 70% of the population will live in urban areas (Walsh, 2009). This worldwide trend of population growth and urbanisation irrevocably leads to an
increased demand for food in the city, which is considered to be problematic since urban areas have less access to healthy foods (Besthorn, 2013). Besides, the distance that food has to travel from a farm to these cities is contributing to climate change because the greenhouse gas
emissions that are produced by transportation (Al-Kodmany, 2018). That is why there is a need for more local and sustainably produced food. A smart city initiative that might alleviate the number of food miles, as well as the pressure that traditional farming can put on the environment, is vertical farming of vertical agriculture. In vertical farming, food is grown in vertically high-rise buildings in the city, without soil or daylight, in a closed-off environment. Being able to recycle the water also reduces its use by 70 to 95 per cent, and there are no pesticides or herbicides needed. Also, because it is closed off from the environment, the farming process can be regulated entirely, which ensures that there will be a reduced amount of crop losses (Despommier, 2010).
To successfully implement an urban agricultural business like a vertical farm, it is essential that it is socially accepted (Specht, Weith, Swoboda, & Siebert, 2016). The way consumers perceive the risks and benefits may differ from the experts’ assessments. Therefore, the views of both experts and lay people must be taken into account (Siegrist et al. 2007). Research shows that this can be a problem for vertical farming because people often perceive the production of food inside high-rise buildings as unnatural, and there is the doubt that the product will be nutritious and tasty (Kozai Niu & Takagaki, 2015). Also, the fact that the food from a vertical farm is produced with soil-less
on the attitude of consumers towards acceptance of vertical farming (Jansen, Kanis, Cila & Slaats, 2016, Oskam, Lange, & Thissen, 2013, Nandwani, 2018). Therefore, this thesis will aim to
research what factors influence the social acceptability of vertical farming and how this can be improved in the case of Amsterdam through the following research question:
Which are the main factors that influence the social acceptability of vertical farming in the case of the A-Lab vertical farm?
The following subquestions will help to answer the primary research question.
What are the current perceptions of vertical farming in Amsterdam?
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Smart city
Vertical farming is categorised as a smart city initiative. The smart city is a concept for which cities can adapt to the growing environmental problems caused by increasing population and human interference, by using technological innovations. This is supposed to be done to facilitate and satisfy citizens, companies and organisational needs (Girardi & Temporelli, 2017). The
technologies that are emerging now make it possible to think of “smart” solutions so that a city can deal with environmental problems more efficiently and sustainable (Girardi & Temporelli, 2017). A downside to this can be a smart city that’ll be mainly technology driven and loses its touch with the citizens (Monzon, 2015). Meaning that smart city initiatives must not only impose the technological initiatives on society because of technological progress but instead try to ensure that the
technology can serve the society by offering social improvements. Ideally, a smart city incorporates the people by bringing them together, rather than using technology as the solution while neglecting the society and their needs (McFarlane & Söderström, 2017).
Also, a critique is that the smart city discourses and effects can be too generalised, where it is assumed that specific smart city solutions can be applied to all initiatives and in every kind of city. This does not work because every city has, for instance, a different history, structure, culture and economy (Kitchin, 2015).
Vertical farming is a smart city initiative since it uses indoor farming techniques and controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) technology to grow food in a sustainable way inside the city. Growing food in this controlled environment reduces the use of water and pesticides. However, also, the use of arable land because it can be done in industrial buildings and is not soil-based. This would reduce the strain on the environment (Despommier, 2010). Furthermore, because the location of the vertical farms can be inside the city, it would reduce the amount of food
transportation miles, which is affecting the climate through CO2 emissions.
2.2 Vertical farming
Vertical farming is a form of urban agriculture. Many studies show that urban agriculture has perceived benefits such as neighbourhood attachment and community cohesion by providing a space for a neighbourhood gathering and opportunities for people to learn about agriculture and engage with it while producing locally which is considered to be more sustainable (Poulsen, Neff, &
farming, however, is indoors and the crops are grown without sunlight or soil, this is where it differs from the outdoor urban agriculture initiatives.
The concept of vertical farming is not new. The American geologist Gilbert Ellis Bailey suggested the idea in his book “vertical farming”, as early as 1915, even before an environmental and food crisis was recognised. He suggested that we intensify our crop cultivation so it can be done on less land as opposed to spreading out as is done in extensive agriculture, by moving up vertically (Besthorn, 2013). It was only until Dickson Despommier, a professor of Public Health and
Microbiology at Columbia University, wrote his book: The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century in 2010 that the concept got widespread attention. Despommier recognised that the growing world population is a problem for the food security. The available land is decreasing, and the conversion of ecosystems into monocultures causes an imbalance in the environment. In 1999 he taught a class in which he speculated with his students if it would be possible to use vertical farming as a solution for food scarcity and transportation of food to cities. Now with the rapidly developing technology, the idea of vertical farming has become feasible (Despommier, 2010).
The idea of vertical farming is that food will be grown in urban, high-rise buildings, light-emitting diode (LED) or organic light-light-emitting diode (OLED) technology. The required sunlight will be simulated with these lights, and the nutrients can be integrated into the water, so the plants will not need any soil. This is done vertically so that space can be used more efficiently. Because these buildings can be completely isolated from the environment, there will be no weather-related crop failure, use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers, no agricultural run-off, more control of food safety and because of recycling it reduces the usage of water up to 95 per cent (Despommier, 2010, p.162). Other advantages are year-round crop production because you are not dependent on the sun and the possibility to restore the land that is now used for agriculture into ecosystems again. Moreover, it would significantly reduce food miles because you would produce locally in the place where most people live which is beneficial for the environment as well as the preservation of the nutritional values of the food (Despommier, 2010).
Besides these environmental benefits, vertical farming can also have potential social
benefits like greater community involvement because people can participate in producing their own locally grown food and it would create awareness on where their food comes from. Finally, it can improve neighbourhoods by allowing empty buildings to be used again, which leads to more liveliness and could create new employment opportunities. This could be not only in the vertical farm itself, but also as the farm produces more food there will be an infrastructure around it like grocery stores, and local distribution and transportation networks that would offer job opportunities (Despommier, 2010).
2.3 Social acceptability
The central concept of this thesis is social acceptability. In the literature, this term is often used interchangeably with the term public acceptability (Wolfe, Bjornstad, Russell, & Kerchner, 2002; Busse & Siebert, 2018). So for this paper, this will be done as well. Different definitions of social acceptability are given such as: “social acceptability is a judgement people make about whether an
action, attribute, or condition is rated as superior or relatively neutral when compared with potential alternatives” (Brunson and Shindler, 2004, pp. 531). Wolfe et al. (2002) consider public
acceptability as “the willingness to consider the technology in question as a viable
alternative” (Wolfe et al., 2002 p.140). Viable in this case means that the technology conforms to
societal values and norms sufficiently well (Wolfe et al., 2002). The authors add that willingness should be seen as a continuous variable that can be defined as the willingness to negotiate. This way willingness is not a dichotomy where someone is willing or not willing, but a spectrum in which people can be more or less willing to consider the technology. The reason “acceptability” is chosen for this thesis as opposed to “acceptance” is because it implies a willingness to negotiate and is more process oriented than out-come oriented (Wolfe et al., 2002). Busse & Siebert (2018) also try to conceptualise acceptance and acceptability and conclude that acceptability is more a complex scientific concept whereas acceptance can be seen as a positive outcome of a judgement processes and common term. This makes the term acceptability more suitable for this research.
The framework used for this research is the public acceptability of controversial technologies (PACT) framework Wolfe et al. (2002). The framework they propose shows that the determining factors of social acceptability can be divided into a constituent, technological and context dimension that all influence the participants along the decision-rule continuum (figure 1). Two endpoints bound the continuum. On the one side people apply a decision rule that is binary (consider or refuse to consider), and on the other end, people apply a decision rule that is a trade-off, which means they treat everything as negotiable (Wolfe et al., 2002). The dialogue about the technology influences the way people move along this decision-rule continuum.
People come to the dialogue with an initial set of opinions that can vary from strong to neutral and everything in between. After that, through the course of the dialogue, people can solidify or change these opinions. This is why the dialogue about the technology has a significant influence on the acceptability. The positive framing of a technology or product can be beneficial for the acceptability (Ronteltap, Van Trijp, Renes & Frewer, 2007). In the case of food, for instance, marketing can play a role in this by presenting the food as ‘natural’ and ‘organic’, because this is perceived as positive (Grankvist & Biel, 2001). The way the public is informed and by whom is
The initial set of opinions that determines the position that people have when entering the dialogue is influenced by the constituent, technological and context dimension which are described next.
Firstly, the constituent dimension refers to the actors involved in the acceptability and can be roughly divided into government, market and society (De Bakker et al., 2011). The
socio-demographic, knowledge, personality and general attitudes or values are considered factors that influence acceptability of actors (Ronteltap, Van Trijp, Renes & Frewer, 2007). One of the most important variables is the personal importance of the ‘naturalness’ of food production. People who value this the most often have an unfavourable view of new food technologies (Siegrist et al. 2007).
Secondly, the technology dimension refers to the attributes that the technology has. In the case of vertical farming, these are the technologies that are used in the process of vertical farming, such as the soil-less growing techniques like aeroponics or hydroponics and the LED technology, as well as the product that comes from it, in this case, food. The properties of the food are hereby essential factors that influence the acceptability (Siegrist, 2008). This entails the quality and price
Figure 1.Public acceptability of controversial technologies (PACT) framework interprets dialogues through shifts in participants’ positions along a decision- rule continuum (Wolfe, Bjornstad, Russell, & Kerchner, 2002 p.141).
Binary Dialogue Trade-off
Technology Dimension Context Dimension Constituent dimension
with it (Siegrist et al. 2007). When evaluating the possible risks and benefits, it is important to consider the knowledge people have, this because lack of knowledge can cause lay people to have trouble assessing the risks or seeing the possible benefits (Siegrist, 2008).
Lastly, the context dimension describes the setting in which the technology may be
implemented or the decision to be made. This includes the physical context, such as the location, the institutional context, which can be understood as the various laws and regulations relating to (new) technology levels (locally, nationally and internationally) at which the technology has to be implemented, and the social context (Wolfe et al., 2002). An important factor in the social context is trust in the people who are responsible for the decisions about the technology, which is determined by shared values (Siegrist, Cvetkovich & Roth, 2000). This, in turn, is shaped by the cultural and social norms that people have (Ronteltap, Van Trijp, Renes & Frewer, 2007). Trust becomes a more important factor when people have less knowledge about the technology because then they have to rely more on the industry that presents it to them (Siegrist et al. 2007). This means that the acceptability is influenced by the social environment in which the technology is introduced. If it does not fit in the daily public discourse, the technology is more likely to be rejected (Ronteltap, Van Trijp, Renes & Frewer, 2007). In the acceptability of vertical farming, the location, regulations and governmental support, and trust in the industry can, therefore, be considered possible important factors.
To sum up, this framework can be used to understand the dimensions that influence the acceptability of vertical farming and the food that will be produced through this technology. The socio-demographic, knowledge and the personality of the actors that are involved shape their opinion and general attitudes and values, which in turn, is influenced by the trust they have in the industry. Also, because a lack of knowledge leads to being more dependent on the people who are responsible for the decisions about vertical farming, for which trust is needed. Furthermore, the acceptability is influenced by the physical, institutional and social context and next to this, the food properties, like price and quality and the perceived naturalness, benefits and risks are likely to affect acceptability. All these dimensions can form the opinion the public has on vertical farming which can then be influenced by the dialogue around the subject.
3. Methods
This thesis uses a case study for the research design to study the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam by looking at the A-Lab vertical farm. The data for this thesis is acquired using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Firstly, the concept that is used for this research will be defined. Secondly the case that is chosen will be elaborated. Lastly, the way the data was collected, processed and analysed will be explained.
3.1 Concepts
The operationalisation is concerned with making the concepts measurable (Bryman, 2012). In this case, the central concept is social acceptability. The three dimensions that are mentioned are the constituents, technology and context dimension. Lucke (1995) also developed a framework with similar dimensions influencing acceptability: The acceptance subject, the acceptance object, and the acceptance context. The acceptance subject is, in this case, the constituents, which are the people that have to be willing to accept the object, the technology, in this case, vertical farming and the related food. Lastly, the acceptance context is the context in which the object is implemented. Specht, Siebert, & Thomaier (2016) use this framework as well to research the acceptance of agricultural production in and on urban buildings. This other framework can be used to support the operationalisation of the dimensions described in the theoretical section.
The constituents dimension, also the subject of acceptance is adjusted from the research by Specht, Siebert, & Thomaier (2016). This is because the authors' research respects all
stakeholders that might be relevant. For this research, it was decided to limit this to the market, government and society as important actors. Indicators for their opinion can be attitude, knowledge and expertise. According to Wolfe et al. (2002) values, motivations and strategies also have to be taken into account.
The technology dimension, also the object of acceptance is influenced by the perceived risks and benefits of the technology. This can be social, environmental or economic risk or benefits. Also the products and technology factors, easiness to use, gain access to and understand, and the aesthetical aspects are indicators to measure how the technology influences social acceptability (Specht, Siebert, & Thomaier, 2016).
The contextual factors can be either hindering or promoting factors. This can be political, legal, market, spatial, social, and innovation process contexts (Specht, Siebert, & Thomaier, 2016).
3.2 Case
A-Lab is a living lab in Amsterdam-Noord where different creative companies have their offices, and innovative initiatives have the chance to develop. One of those companies is Greentech. Greentech was founded in 2017 and has the goal to provide affordable fresh, healthy food and pharmaceuticals plants to local communities on a global scale through vertical farming. They are still in the process of finding a suitable location for their main farm, but they have entered into a partnership with A-Lab in 2017 to create the A-Lab vertical farm, which is also located in the A-Lab building. This farm is entirely operated by around 15 volunteers, who work in alternating shifts. Because this is a small farm, it is not profitable, but set up as a showcase for vertical farming. Also, it is a non-commercial, open knowledge project with as main purpose to experiment with different growing and technology techniques and getting people in touch with vertical farming. That is why the vertical farm is located near the entrance so everybody who walks in the building can see it and why they have a monthly guided tour where everybody is welcome to join and learn more about vertical farming (https://a-lab.nl/bio-lab). Because they also believe that it is important to educate children about how food grows, and teach them to be more aware of their impact on the
environment, they have set up “de Verticale Schooltuin” (the vertical schoolgarden). For this project, schools can apply to come by with their schoolchildren to learn about the vertical farm. For this, they have received support from “Amsterdammers, Maak je Stad!” (Amsterdammers, Make your City!). This is a development process initiated by the Municipality of Amsterdam, Pakhuis de Zwijger, Kennisland and Waag Society. Besides receiving financial support (from € 5,000 to a maximum of € 20,000), they also get help during the process, which lasts six months, to
strengthen “de Verticale Schooltuin” by, for instance, seeking matches with allies for them (https:// maakjestad.amsterdam).
3.3 Data collection
The primary data for this research consists of qualitative semi-structured interviews with key informants, participants of the vertical farm tour and a focus-group (Bryman, 2012). Also,
participatory observations were conducting through helping as a volunteer in maintaining the farm.
Semi-structured interviews
For the primary data, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the key-informants. Semi-structured interviews are most suitable for this research because it allows the respondent to elaborate on their answer any way they want. Therefore they can give a more detailed description
This topic list included questions that would be asked during the interview and formed a guide to make sure that all the respondents are asked about the same subjects. The order of the questions varied during the interview and often some of the questions were not asked if the respondent already mentioned it before or if it was not relevant anymore. This topic-list is also included in the appendix.
A total of 7 interviews were conducted of which five were with key informants. There were 2 other respondents approached because they attended the vertical farm tour. Because of the
aforementioned voluntary work at A-Lab, it was possible to search for potential respondents. Firstly, the intern of the vertical farm was asked how it would be possible to get in touch with other respondents. He referred to a database with the contact information of the volunteers and
employees of the vertical farm. This included their names, email, telephone number, professional background and involvement in the vertical farm. 8 people with an as diverse professional
background as possible and a high level of involvement were chosen to contact. They were first contacted by email, and if they had not responded after a week, they were sent a text message. The respondents were able to choose between a face-to-face interview or a telephone interview and if they would prefer it in Dutch or in English. The 5 people who were willing to participate were the intern who works at the vertical farm, the 2 founders of the company behind the vertical farm, a volunteer with a background in energy production and a volunteer with a background in sustainable development. The other contacted respondents did not want to participate, mainly because of lack of time. The 2 people who attended the vertical farm tour were contacted face-to-face at the vertical farm tour.
After the date was set for the interviews, they were asked if there was a specific location that they would prefer. This lead to 1 interview being conducted on the phone, 2 interviews in a public space and 4 interviews in the A-Lab building. Before starting the interview, the respondents were always told about the purpose of the study and that it would be used for a bachelor thesis. All the
interviews were recorded with permission of the respondents. The interviews lasted from 15 minutes to 1 hour.
The questions that were asked were mainly open questions to ensure that the respondents were free to elaborate. Based on their professional background or their involvement in the vertical farm, some topics were more heavily discussed than other. To obtain as much comprehensive information as possible, the respondents were asked to specify or explain their answers. Also, there was sometimes a moment of silence to make the respondents feel free to explain themselves more. If the respondents strayed far from the question, this was barely corrected. This is because the information could still be relevant to the research by creating new insights. If they deviated too
far from the question, they were carefully brought back to the subject by a question that was more relevant for the research.
Focus group
To investigate the opinion of people who are not familiar with or involved in vertical farming, a focus group with citizens from Amsterdam was organised. This is a suitable method for this research because it draws on people’s attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and reactions (Pollard, Ward, & Koth, 2017) Also, people can enter a dialogue with each other and the people that organise the focus group. The framework for this research states that people have an initial set of opinions about a particular technology. This opinion can then be reinforced, reduced or completely changed during a dialogue (Wolfe et al., 2002). A focus group can be useful to gain insight into this. The respondents were chosen via both purposive samplings to create a group that was a diverse as possible as well as snowball sampling. They were all informed about the purpose of the study and that it was not necessary for them to have any knowledge about vertical farming.
This lead to a focus group of 9 people, which matches the desired size range of 8 to 10 people for focus groups (Krueger, Casey, Donner, Kirsch, & Maack, 2001). The focus group took place in the A-Lab building and started at 19:00 so that people would be able to attend after their work. Out of the 9 people, 2 of them were female, and 7 were male. The age ranged from 19 - 60 years with an average age of 37 years. Out of the 9 people, 4 had previous knowledge of vertical farming, but all of them indicated that this was not extensive knowledge. Before the session, the respondents signed a consent form stating that they understand the research purpose and that they give permission for the recording of the conversation and the use of the data. The session lasted around 1,5 hours, was audio recorded and separate notes were taken.
When the participants entered the building, the vertical farm was shown to them so they would have an impression of how it looked like. Even though not everybody was in time for the session, it was decided to start anyway. It was explained that the data would be anonymous and that it would be appreciated if they did not refer to the identity of other respondents during the session. It was also emphasized that the focus group revolves around their opinions, that honesty was
appreciated, and that they did not have to give socially desirable answers. Also, it was stressed that no incorrect or correct answers were possible and that they were free to speak their mind. They were asked if they could try to speak one at a time, since the focus group had to be transcribed. At the beginning of the focus group, they were given a questionnaire about vertical farming and how they viewed it in relation to traditional farming and organic farming. After this the
was and if they thought an alternative method of food would be necessary. When it was brought up if this method of farming would influence the taste, they were asked if they wanted to sample some of the lettuce of the vertical farm. They were then asked about their opinion of that. When it
became clear that the respondents had a hard time answering questions because of lack of knowledge, some additional information was given about the technology and benefits of vertical farming. This information was carefully selected in collaboration with a professional in vertical farming, who was also the assistant of the focus group. After this they were once again asked which their opinion was, if they see possible risks or benefits and if the information has changed their opinion. After the session, they were given another questionnaire where it was asked if the information changed their opinion and if they had any comments or remarks. The people that entered the session after it had started where brought up to speed and explained again the
purpose of the research, what was required of them their rights. Both questionnaires as well as the additional information about vertical farming that the respondents received can be found in the appendix.
Besides a moderator, which was also the principal investigator of this research, there was also an assistant present. This person works for the vertical farm and has knowledge of vertical farming. Therefore, this person was able to answer the questions people had about the technology and provide additional information about vertical farming when needed. It was made clear, also by the assistant that the respondents were free to give their opinion, positive or negative.
According to Bryman (2012), there are possible limitations for focus groups. One is those is that the researcher has less control over the situation, this can lead to more discussion about
information that is irrelevant to the study. Also, people can speak at the same time, even when asked not to, this makes it harder to transcribe. Furthermore, there could always be people in a focus group that are more dominant in the discussion than others; this might lead to other people feeling less comfortable to state their opinion or have a harder time speaking up. Related to this is the fact that some people in group context find it hard to express their views. Which might lead to socially desirable answers. Another limitation is that some of the respondents in this particular focus group knew each other, this could have affected the way they interacted in the group, which could also have an effect on the other participants. For this specific focus group, there are also some critical points including that there was only one focus group held - this makes the sample very small and makes it harder to generalise the results. Also, because the participants of the focus had to be able to speak English, there was a sample selection bias (Bryman, 2012). Another factor that has to be taken into account was that the participants were all higher educated. Which could affect the results.
Participant observation
Participant observations were taken while working as a volunteer at the A-Lab vertical farm. The level of participation and Involvement would be described as a minimally participating observer (Bryman, 2012). This means that the observations are not the main source of data and that the observer participates minimally in the activities of the group. The observations were unstructured and not recorded. They did create an idea of how the employees interacted with each other and how the work environment was. This helped in understanding the context when interviewing the respondents about the company. Also, there was more knowledge gained about vertical farming and the technology by learning how it works within this particular farm.
3.4 Data processing
Before the analysis, all the data was processed. All the interviews, as well as the focus group, were recorded using an iPhone. Before the recording started, the participants always gave their consent for this. By recording the interviews, it was possible to listen back to what a respondent specifically said, makes the research more reliable because it is not solely dependent on memory. Recording the interviews could however also change the setting because the respondents are aware that they are being recorded and they might be more hesitant to state their opinion or share information (Bryman, 2012).
All recordings were transcribed as quickly as possible because then the interview was still fresh in the memory. The recordings were transcribed as accurate as possible, but parts where the
respondents elaborated too much about information that was not related, were not transcribed to save time. Unfortunately, the recorder stopped 2 times, when this happened it was made sure that the recorder was switched on again as soon as possible and that the lost recording was
summarised by memory in the transcript. If the respondent was not understandable on the audio, this missed word or part was indicated by using (…). After transcribing the transcripts were sent to the respondents for approval.
To ensure anonymity, the names of the companies and respondents that are mentioned in this thesis are fictitious. In the appendix, there is a table added with the age-group of all the
respondents. Also included is their level of expertise, professional background and if they had any previous knowledge of vertical farming prior to this research.
3.5 Data analysis
The analysis was conducted using the transcripts created from the audio recordings. Firstly there were different codes created based on the operationalisation of the concept of social acceptability (Table 1). After this, the transcripts were analysed manually by highlighting the statements of the respondents in the transcript according to the main codes. An example of how this was done is given in the appendix. When analysing the transcripts, there were also other codes that were not mentioned in the operationalisation that emerged. These have been added in red. After this, the quotes were sorted according to the main codes and evaluated in which subcategory they fitted within that code. An example of this is that within the main code “constituents”, there is a
subcategory “attitude”. The results of this are shown in the appendix. Because the questionnaire was not that extended, the results were analysed manually as well., which is also included in the appendix. Not all the questions were analysed because some of them were for the purpose of the company with which this focus group was organised and less relevant for this thesis. The quotes from the 3 interviews that were conducted in Dutch have been translated into English for this thesis.
3.5 Qualitative Research Criteria
According to Bryman, there are certain criticism points when it comes to qualitative methods (Bryman, 2012). For this research, in particular, there are several that might be relevant.
Reliability of this research is relatively low; this means that this study would be hard to replicate. Because the A-Lab vertical farm is constantly changing and new volunteers are hired every week, the company and its structure are very dynamic. Also, the topic of vertical farming and the social acceptability is of it is very dynamic so a study using the same methods would likely not lead to the same results. Also because the topic list for the interviews changed during the research as more information was gathered. Even though the views of the respondents on vertical farming can change over time, the research is still relevant to understand current views and to understand and perhaps also for future research.
The external validity of this research is also relatively low. The case that is studied in this research is very specific and hard to generalise. The factors that influence the social acceptability of vertical farming could, however, be used for other research in other cases. Generalisation was also not the purpose of this research.
4. Results
This section will present the results based on the analysis of the data. This is structured by the two sub-questions that are mentioned in the introduction. Therefore, the first part will give an overview of the current perceptions of vertical farming in Amsterdam (4.1). After that, it will be discussed what factors could improve the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam (4.2).
4.1 Current perceptions of vertical farming in Amsterdam
The initial perceptions of the respondents are based on their first thoughts when confronted with the vertical farm. The data shows that there is a shift in perceptions when the respondents receive more information about the technology, benefits and reasoning behind it. Therefore, it will be explained how lack of awareness affects the perception. Lastly, it will be showed that more knowledge could cause a shift in the perceptions.
4.1.1 Initial perceptions of vertical farming
The results for the initial perceptions of vertical farming will mainly be based on the data from the focus group and the perceptions of the participants because these respondents are less biased towards vertical agriculture than the key informants. This data will represent the perceptions of society, which will be backed up with statements from the interviews with the key informants. These perceptions of vertical farming will be subcategorised in purpose, perceived benefits, and perceived risks. The key-informants also mentioned some of the perceptions of the government and market, which will also be included.
Purpose
When the respondents were first introduced to the concept of vertical farming, several perceptions about the purpose and reason behind vertical farming arose. Most of the respondents assumed that the reason for growing food in a vertical farm would be for environmental benefits. Fewer respondents thought it would ensure food security and a better quality of the product and one respondent thought the purpose would be so that the farmer would make more money. Daphne mentioned in the focus group that she “always assumed that it had to do with space travel or
Benefits
Aesthetics
When the respondents were asked what there, initial thoughts were when they saw the farm the firstly mentioned were the aesthetics. Concerning this, several perceptions were mentioned by the respondents. All of the respondents are positive about the way vertical farming looks like based on the A-lab vertical farm and agreed that it looks cool and pretty. Several respondents stated that it looks high-tech, modern, something from space and like something for the future. Jacob explained this with the following statement: “It is a nice combination of high-tech, yeah or technologically
advanced in combination with natural greenish things”. There were no objections when asked if
they would like something like this in their neighbourhood, and a respondent even mentioned that it
“looks like I would want it at my place” (Lucas). Regarding quality and looks of the crops grown in
the vertical farm, the respondents were also generally positive. They perceived the crops as fresh, attractive, real, and healthy.
Efficient use of space
Another perception that the respondents had of the vertical farm based on appearance was that it saves a lot of space. It was mentioned that growing vertically is much more efficient than horizontal agriculture and since you are not confined to the amount of land that is available, it is possible to grow more crops, on fewer land. This is illustrated by Tim who said that this is “As a healthy
solution to a huge problem, probably in the future and you can stack it as high as you want to go”.
The problem he is referring to is that there is the shared belief among the respondents that it is necessary to come up with new ways of growing. This is because the population is growing and that there is less space available for food production but also because the way we are producing food now had a negative effect on the environment. Technology can be helpful when searching for alternative methods. Regarding this, Sophie said that: “we are evolving, and the technology is
becoming more important in the future, so I think we need to put that technology into the plants. Moreover, yeah, I think we should come up with different ways to feed”.
Environmental benefit
Based on the fact that production will be closed off from the environment and indoors, several environmental benefits were perceived. Eric mentioned that his initial reaction when he saw this was that it could be an opportunity to put less pressure on the environment. For traditional agriculture, it is necessary to create monocultures to produce more food. This affects the ecosystem and its biodiversity. The change we make in the environment, therefore, has severe consequences. Eric stated if we move the production indoors that “one of the advantages of
could also mean that there would be more room to grow plants and trees again because one of the concerns regarding the quality of the air now is the rising concentration of CO2 because we are producing more CO2 than we are breaking down. Planting trees on the spaces that are now received for traditional agriculture could relieve the pressure on the environment and help to reduce the amount of CO2.
Risks
Inefficient use of energy
Besides perceived benefits, there were also some risks and problematic factors that were mentioned by the respondents. One of the first was the inefficient use of energy. Concerns
regarding this were that it would be more expensive to produce the crops because you have to buy the energy that powers the artificial lightning, which could also be reflected in the price of the produce. And another concern was being solely dependent on artificial lighting would be less sustainable than using the sun to grow the crops. Even though it was recognised that the fact that it could be beneficial to not rely on weather conditions, there were also doubts as to whether this would be a better production method than for instance greenhouses. This is illustrated with the following quote by Lucas: “(…) Okay, there was the good old greenhouse, in a way during
summertime maybe its great. But during wintertime, there is a lot of energy needed to make the greenhouse work. But I don’t know how it works with this kind of vertical environment”. Pierre, who
is an intern at Greentech, also acknowledges this as a problem. The usage of lamps and energy instead of the sun is not considered good for the environment. He said: “if the energy that you use
is from coal, this is not really good. In a way, you are sustainable because you save water, but in a way, you are not sustainable because you use energy”.
Quality
All of the respondents stated that the quality and taste is one of the most important criteria when it comes to their food. When confronted with the food from the vertical farm, the respondents were positive about the looks. But they did wonder if the lack of soil would not influence the taste. Also, Lucas knew that using the methods that are used in vertical farming, would reduce the time needed for a crop to grow, but his initial thought was that that would probably not be beneficial for the taste. Not only the taste was questioned, but also the nutritional values. Eric commented: “ I do
not know what will happen with your health if you only eat food that is not grown in sunlight“.
Respondents agreed that there might be certain properties in the sunlight that cannot be imitated with artificial light. And that there might be nutrients missing in crops that are not grown in the sun.
wants to eat food grown in a lab”. People tend to perceive food that is not grown in the soil and
outside as perhaps less tasteful, unhealthy and unnatural.
This last perception that vertical farming would affect the quality of food is something that is also often mentioned by the key-informants. Miguel, one of the co-founders of Greentech, also said that vertical farming is often received with a lot of scepticism by consumers because there is the
general perception food should be grown outside. He states that this is something that is a natural instinct for people, but that it is also different in other parts of the world. In Japan, for instance, they have been vertically farming food for years due to an abundance of abandoned buildings and polluted soil because of radiation. Because society was aware that the soil outside was too polluted, and they were afraid that crops grown inside that soil would be bad for their health, they were more accepting towards food grown inside. In Japan, they also do not call it a vertical farm, but they call it “plant factories”. So the terms also change depending on the market. Tim, from the focus group, also mentioned that this terminology could be important in the perception of vertical farming. The threshold for people will be higher if they have a negative connotation with the term. Pierre said that his initial thought also was that it was unnatural: “Because there is no sun,
because there is no soil because there is nothing natural at all, only the crops and the water”.
These concerns can be due to lack of knowledge about the food system and food production. Pierre explained how his opinion changed after he saw an informative video on vertical farming. After this he realised the following: “farming is not natural even if you perform it outside. We are the
only species on earth that farm something. And then I realised that this is true. So if we farm inside or outside, it is not natural. It is just a way to grow food”. The reason people can be sceptical about
food being grown inside, without soil is perhaps that they are not aware of this and because they do not have enough knowledge of food production.
4.1.2 Lack of awareness
As mentioned before, people can perceive food grown indoors as unhealthy. This could be due to lack of awareness. People have a mental picture of where food should come from. Robert, a volunteer of the A-Lab farm with a background in sustainable development acknowledges this by saying: “I think it’s also because we are so out of touch with how food is produced, so it’s very, you
know I wouldn’t be surprised if you talk to a 4, 5-year-old child and ask where a tomato comes from and they would say: supermarkets. And they won’t be able to trace back the origin of it”. This is
where there may be a discrepancy between the idea people have of the production of food and what is happening. The way the production of food is portrayed in the market differs from how it is in real life. This affects the perception of vertical farming.
Not only could it be that people are not aware of how traditional food is really produced, according to Miguel, they also work with halve correct information about things as genetically modified produce and harmful pesticides and herbicide. With this, he means that people can be sceptical because they lack the right knowledge. He gives an example this in the case of
hydroponics, which is a vertical farm technique using water instead of soil to grow crops. When he tells people about this method, people are sceptical about the use of this technique, even though it has been used by the Maya’s centuries ago. He, therefore, believes that educating people and giving them the right and comprehensive knowledge, could improve awareness of food production and would reduce the scepticism regarding vertical farming. This can also be seen in the results of the questionnaire. Every respondent said that the information that was provided changed their opinion for the better.
4.1.3 Shift in perceptions of vertical farming
After the respondents of the focus-group were asked about their perception, some information about vertical farming was disseminated. To see if knowledge could have the opportunity to create more awareness among the constituents and therefore positively affect the perceptions they were asked again what they thought of vertical farming having heard this. The participants of the focus-group mentioned other perceptions and questions that arose. This section will explain what those new perceptions are and how they shifted. These will be subcategorised in perceived benefits and risks, which will again be backed up with statements from the interviews with the key informants, who already had the knowledge of vertical farming when interviewed.
Benefits
Quality
After the respondents received the information that the soil that is now used for traditional
agriculture is often polluted and that food production in a closed-off environment ensures that the crops can be controlled and that there is no need for pesticides, the perception of the quality of vertical farm food changed. They saw it as beneficial that you can monitor the crop and control the nutrients. Tim said that: “Especially because you know exactly what happened to it. Because it is
all documented. That’s the thing that is a unique selling point”. This makes the crops seen as
perhaps healthier, better and saver. Also after being confronted with the way food is produced outside and the negative side of traditional agriculture they were less sceptical about growing food inside. They said that they are more aware of the dangers that are associated with meat and the
much”. Jacob reinforced this by saying: “I think it will prove itself as long as it tastes nice and looks good. I don’t think a lot of people will go in depth that far. I mean, does anyone know what is in their food right now?” This illustrates that taste is a factor that is deemed important by the
respondents.
After tasting the produce, they agreed that the taste was not affected by the production method and that they would buy this if it was affordable. This can also be seen by the questionnaire that was taken. Before receiving any information on vertical farming, some of the respondents preferred organic food over vertically farmed food given that they were the same price. After they were informed about the benefits and they were able to see and taste the crops they all preferred vertically farmed produce over organic.
Environmental
Because the respondents did not have any information about the environmental benefits, the perception of them shifted when they gained more knowledge. Especially the reduced amount of water that would be used was perceived as beneficial. It was explained to the respondents that technology makes it possible to use 95 to 99 per cent less water than in an equivalent production of in extensive farming. Which is important because many parts of the world are very constrained for water and are running out of it. Also, the reduced food miles reduced crop loss and the fact that vertical farming can be in cities, where the population lives are all perceived benefits that arose. Also, according to Meher, who is a volunteer in the vertical farm the fact that you do not use pesticides is something appeals to people. “Because now, if you follow the news, you will see that
many agricultural areas are actually required, because of regulations, to use chemicals and that biodiversity will suffer because of that. Which is also why vertical farming can be beneficial for the environment”.
Social
Another perceived benefit would be it could so create social benefits by producing food in the cities. Vertical farming, or urban farming in general, is perceived to have “a social component which
is really good for bringing neighbours together” (Robert). Besides, moving food production in cities
or neighborhood gives much more involvement with the origin of your food. As mentioned before, people tend to be out of touch with the way their food is produced; this is where vertical farming does carry an opportunity to push people to reflect on where their food comes from and ask questions about the production. This could increase awareness.
Spatial
Furthermore, moving production into the cities could also create opportunities for abandoned buildings such as office spaces that cannot be rented now. The vacancy creates neighbourhood impoverishment and squatters since nobody comes there. So to prevent that from happening, you can use the buildings vertical farming. This can be relevant for Amsterdam too according to Tim who said that: “In and around Amsterdam there are like more than like a million square meters
that’s there for rent, and half of that has been empty for more than five years with squatters and everything”. Vertical farming could create move livelihood in that neighbourhood as well as job
activity. A reservation about this is that moving the production into cities is perceived as most useful for larges cities than Amsterdam. Robert stated that: “If you start talking about the countries that
are really dependent on importing fresh produce because of these huge food miles that are involved, then I think it would have really a lot of potential a sustainable alternative”. Because
Amsterdam is a city with only around 800.000 people who are surrounded by greenhouses, it makes less sense to implement a vertical farm than it would in megacities in China or India for example. Also because if there would be vertical farms in the Netherlands, they would eventually have to export their produce, which would negate a lot of the initial benefits.
Risks
Quality
Even though there is no evidence that lack of sunlight would affect the nutrients of the plant, there could still be the question of where the nutrients come from. Robert mentioned this by saying: “If
it’s an aqua-phonic system and fish are also fed with worms from a worm farm that has grown on household organic waste then it’s kind of a natural source, but if it’s more synthetically produced minerals or whatever and then added to the water then you know, I mean, in the end it can still help the plants grow but I can understand if people can more skeptical or question if that’s natural way of growing”.
Safety
One of the perceptions that concerned a respondent after gaining knowledge on the fact that all the food production would be inside was that this could be unsafe. Carlos asks: “Because if all of the
agriculture goes to the labs, it’s at one place. What about if there is a big fire or something like that”. Another concern that was raised was that if all the nutrients come from the water, it could be
questionable what is put in that water. Not only in terms of nutritional value, but also in terms of safety, since this could be easier to manipulate.
Loss of jobs
Another concern that arose was that this could put a lot of people who are now working in traditional farming out of jobs. Not only the farmers themselves, but also distribution, food packaging etc. This was not only perceived as a negative aspect of vertical farming because the respondents also realised that an innovation like this would create new jobs.
Perceptions of government and market
Maria, one of the co-founders of Greentech, mentioned that vertical farming is now lacking governmental support, unlike the vertical farms in other cities, like Singapore or Dubai. She believes that the government could benefit in being more involved in finding ways to make the production of food more sustainable. Where not only vertical farming but also greenhouses and other methods of food production could use the additional capital to modify their production methods to deal with changing weather patterns due to climate change. She also states that “the
government needs to recognise how much they contribute to the economy and they need to make available capital at the correct rare. And that's something they can do very easily because there is a lot of capital of available in this country”.
Not only in terms of capital is it lacking recognition, but also in terms of local policies at the city level, and government level could vertical farming benefit from governmental support. Robert states that “At least, in the beginning, it is very important for even a politician to take on the cause
to support it. Even if to just communicate it to the public because in itself especially in a place like The Netherlands where you don’t have food scarcity, and you have food availability year round. It does not have that much a competitive advantage”. Having an official body support vertical farming
and its cause could help in the development. There is the belief that people would be more acceptant of the concept if there was political assistance. As already mentioned, this is not only in terms of financial assistance but also in the way vertical farming will be regulated. How the
government will determine the building permissions, regulations and also the labels, such as organic or biological, that vertical farm food would be allowed to bear, will influence peoples perceptions. Maria explains this by saying that “for instance in America, now they passed on the
federal basis, the fact that are non-pesticide produced crop production in vertical farms is considered to be organic. Where is in the Netherlands, not yet, if it's not grown in soil, it is not considered organic”. This labelling of food and the terminology affects the way people perceive
vertical farming. This is something that was mentioned in the focus group as well where Sofie stated that the really tries to look for things with a label.
knowledge of the technology, but since vertical farming is still covering such a small portion of the market, it is not attractive for them to invest in it. Another perception is that there is actually resistance from the traditional greenhouse industry greenhouse industry because they feel threatened by vertical farming. Miguel is convinced though, that if those greenhouse companies wanted, they could take over the entire market since they have so many recourses and they are already using some of the same technology.
4.2 Improvements for the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam
There are several factors that can have a positive effect on the social acceptability of vertical farming and therefore improve it. The dialogue about vertical farming is where people can change their opinion and can become more or less accepting of vertical farming. To improve the social acceptability, creating awareness among the participants that are involved in the dialogue is an important factor. Because as mentioned in 4.1, creating awareness about the way food is
produced, and the benefits of vertical farming changes the perception. There are several ways to do so mentioned in the data, which are categorised as through: education, experiencing and community involvement.
Education
One of the purposes of the A-Lab vertical farm is to a educate children about food production and vertical farming. Their belief is that creating awareness among this generation will be necessary. This is not only concerning the technology behind vertical farming, but also about where food actually comes from, how it grows, and teaching them to be more conscious about their food. Maria stated regarding this: “We think that children have a huge role to play in the future in
understanding food, in the expectations of food, in not wasting food, in understanding what they need (…)” Therefore starting with the educating children is a step in creating awareness. This
could not only be positive in the long run, but those children could also perhaps educate their parents for instance. Meher poses it as a possibility that if “you have the kids enthusiasm, then
they will also tell their parents at home: “mama no you should not throw that in the trash, that's wasteful” for instance”. Miguel expands this by saying you should not only educate children about
the upcoming food crisis and where food comes from but also about the companies that are involved, what the mission of those companies and what is the mission of the shareholders behind those companies as well. This is because people should know about the motives of the companies behind their food production, which is very out of balance and not transparent enough at the moment. This is something that should change according to him.
Experiencing
Another way to raise awareness would be to let people experience vertical farming themselves. Meher says that in this day and age, just convincing people with national campaigns is not enough anymore. You have to let them “come, feel, smell, taste”. People have been confronted with
marketing tricks and fake promises for so long that they are not interested when new
advertisements come along. Also, raising awareness is not like selling a product, you have to change the way people think and make them aware of how they live, what they do and how they can change. Meher states that: “Creating awareness has a longer lead-in period, actually
behavioural change, than just selling a fancy product”. A way to create awareness would be
“through opening up the black box letting people see and letting people experience it and letting
people learn about it” (Robert). And even though people would might first conceive of vertical
farming as unnatural or have a negative connotation with it, it would be a matter of adjusting mindset, so we conceive of this as normal. This is also what happened with traditional farming, which is as earlier mentioned also not as natural as people perceive it. Adjusting this mindset is better accomplished by letting people see for themselves then trying to force it upon them.
Community involvement
A way to raise awareness that is also related to experiencing is community involvement. The A-Lab vertical farm is run by volunteers, who are often from the neighbourhood. To accomplish their mission, which is mission experiment ways to grow food in the 21st century, they believe that raising awareness within the community about vertical farming plays a crucial role. Maria stated that she believes “one has to work with the community. One doesn't impose food; one negotiates
food. What people want, what people have, how to get it to them how to explain it to them. How you have grown it, what the pricing is, what the vitamin content or nutritional contents are”. This
5. Discussion
In this thesis, an overview of the factors that influence social acceptability is given based on the perceptions of vertical farming, the framing conditions for social acceptability and the how it could be improved. These results were based on the result of a focus group and several interviews with people who are involved in vertical farming. The most important factors will now be discussed, followed by the limitations of this research and recommendations for future research.
In the case of A-Lab vertical farm, it can be stated that that the knowledge of the constituents is an important factor that influences the social acceptability. The research shows that more knowledge about the benefits of vertical farming has a positive effect on the social acceptability. Also,
regarding the technology dimension, the perceived risks and benefits shifted when more
knowledge was gained. The perceived benefits became more apparent, and the risks became less important due to information about vertical farming. It also shows that risk that is associated with vertical farming is often unfounded and due to lack of awareness. Disseminating the right
information can, therefore, help the social acceptability.
It is important to realise that social acceptability is a subjective term. In the theoretical framework, it was already mentioned that the term is dynamic and changes over time, but also the interpretation of the term can vary among different people. Also, it should be mentioned that this research is mainly focussed on the perception of society and that the representation of the market and government as constituents is not extensive enough. The advice for follow-up research is, therefore, to carry out a similar study to find out what the main factors influencing social
acceptability are when focusing on the market and government. Also, since the A-Lab vertical farm is a community-based company, additional research could be conducted with a more commercial company as a case to see if that would have an impact on the social acceptability. Finally, it can be expected the factors influencing social acceptability would perhaps be similar in different contexts, but their relevance could vary greatly in different locations and cultures. Future research regarding this could be interesting in gaining insights into the effect of different spatial contexts.
6. Conclusion
There are several factors that influence the social acceptability of vertical farming in Amsterdam in the case of A-Lab. The focus-group highlighted the most important perceptions. Firstly, there were the technological risks an benefits that influenced how people perceived vertical farming. Initially, there was scepticism about the inefficient use of energy and the quality. In terms of quality, there was the perception that the food from the vertical farm would not be tasteful, healthy and unnatural. Key-informants recognised these perceptions and considered them due to lack of awareness about vertical farming, but also about traditional agriculture, which is not conducted in the way people might perceive it. Therefore, gaining more knowledge could change peoples perception. In the focus group, it showed that receiving the right information about vertical farming caused a shift in the perceptions.
This can be seen especially in the way risks and benefits are perceived. After gaining more knowledge, the respondents were not sceptical about the taste anymore and the perceived the food as perhaps more healthy. Also they became aware of a number of additional benefits such as environmental, social and spatial benefits. There did arise other risks such as safety and
economical risks. Also the usage of energy remained a perceived risk of vertical farming. In conclusion, it shows that knowledge influences the perception of risks and benefits. Which influences the social acceptability. Gaining knowledge can be done through a dialoge, but other ways such as education, experiencing and community involvement are also factors that have been named as ways to improve social acceptability. Education of people, especially children, can increase the awareness of food and how it is produced. Also, by letting people experience the benefits and possible risks of vertical farming, they will become more aware then if you try to force a product upon them. Lastly, it is considered important to involve the community by listening to them and their needs. This is another way to improve social acceptability.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Beatriz Pineda Revilla because without her this thesis would probably not even exist. She remained positive and supportive even when I was on the verge of quitting. I would also like to thank all my respondents for their time and effort. Their vision inspired me and made even enthusiastic about vertical farming. Finally, I would also like to thank my friends and family, who will be very happy that they will never have to hear about the structure of my theoretical framework ever again.
