F-POS Research Report by Jacob Ho

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIAL DESIGN CHING YIN HO (JACOB) N9543520 2020 DR. RAFAEL GOMEZ DR. ANNA HARRISON

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING ANKNOWLEDGEMENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my deepest thanks to all parties involved and contributed to this research thesis. Thank you for David Farquhar from IGS Pateras from Modular Farm, Lalit Jhawar Argo and Onny Wong who took their their experience and expertise relating

Farm, James from Landcarft time to share to this field.

Thank you to the support from my tutor, Dr Anna Harrison for her continuous guidance along with the project. Also, Dr Levi Swann for the support in early of the year. Finally, thank you to Dr Rafael Gomez for organising the unit well despite the situation with the global pandemic.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT ABSTRACT Agriculture sustainability is a major concern raised around the world in the last 30 years. People are worried about the problems with the traditional global agriculture supply chain, the environment pollution brought by it and the problem of reduced arable land. Vertical farming offers as an alternative solution to the world that it can help to feed the population in the next 50 years without exploiting the future of next generations. Since it is a new developing technology, there are limited researches on consumer perception and challenges faced by pilot vertical farms. Therefore, the primary research was conducted to find out farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view towards the sustainability and efficiency of vertical farms, and consumer perception. Semi-structured interviews and online survey were conducted to obtain data from farmer and consumer respectively. Farmers were facing numerous problems and this ranged from economical, technical and social challenges. Consumers are generally welcomed and encouraged by this new technology. However, there are concerns about the price and health risks that might be raised with it. Through analysing and comparing both sets of data, three main areas of design opportunity were identified and concept solutions were based on this area. Finally, an integrated system was proposed using multiple concepts was developed and presented.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT 01 INTRODUCTION

P.8

04 METHODOLOGY

P.34

09 PROPOSAL

01 BACKGROUND

01 METHOD SELECTION

01 DATA INTENT

02 URBAN AGRICUTLURE

02 LIMITATION

02 OBJECTIVES

02 METHOD TRIANGULATION

03 JUSTIFICATION

02 LITERATURE REVIEW

P.14

01 FARMING METHOD

05 INTERVIEW

02 SUSTAINABILITY

01 DATA ANALYSIS

03 CURRENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT

02 PARTICIPANTS

04 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES AND DEVELOPMENT

04 RESULT(CASUAL FARMER)

05 CONCLUSION

03 RESEARCH PROPOSAL P.30 01 RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY IN SETTING 02 RESEARCH QUESTION 03 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

P.38

05 SYSTEM MAP

10 JUSTIFICATION P.86 P.52

01 DATA ANALYSIS 02 RESULTS

07 DISCUSSION

04 CONTEXT 06 KEY CRITERIA

03 RESULT(PILOT FARM)

06 ONLINE SURVEY

P.78

P.58

08 RECOMMENDATION P.66

01 INTRODUCTION 02 FURTHER RESEARCH 03 SYSTEM: FARM@POS 04 DESIGN: F-POS 05 DESIGN PROCESS 06 DESIGN VALIDATION 07 BUSINESS CASE 08 DESIGN DISCUSSION

11 CONCLUSION 12 REFERENCE 13 APPENDIX

P.112 P.116 P.124

01 INTRODUCTION

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTRODUCTION

The following report aims to explore the development of indoor vertical farming. Vertical farming also can be described as indoor, controlled environment, soilless farming system with use of artificial lights. It has recently gained a lot of attention and discussion in the last 20 years in the urban agriculture industry because of its potential. It claimed to provide high yield of crops but with only a fraction of the resources needed as compared to traditional farming. Customers can enjoy tastier and higher quality of vegetables and fruits with a secure food source inside city. The focus of this thesis explores and assesses the current stage of development, how people viewing this new farming concept and potential miss component for further develop for vertical farming.

Decreases in agricultural populations and arable land area

Abnormal Weather Environmental Pollution

To better understand what vertical farming is, it is worthwhile to start by understanding the problem the world is facing and what is urban agriculture.

BACKGROUND

FOOD AGRICULTURE

It is often stated that, in literature and from press, sustainability has become a major concern in the world, humans need to rethink and reflect how production and daily activities can be changed to not comprise the future of next generation (United Nations, 2019). The world is facing interconnected problems on areas such as agriculture, environment, social and resources as the result of increased population and climate change (Figure 1). Since these issues are interconnected, Professor Kozai (2013) argued that these must be solved concurrently using a common concept and methodology. A single unified solution which can systemically change the situation the world is facing. Out of these problems, food security is one of the pressing issues that need to be solved in short time. Urbanisation, diminishing of clean water supply and continuous climate change effect have made the decreasing stock of agricultural land per capital (Fedoroff, 2015). According to United Nation Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO), the arable land will become one third of the amount of 1970 by the end of 2050 (United Nations Food and Argiculture Organization, 2016). An area of Brazil will be needed to feed the whole human population at that time. On the other hand, current rural centralised farming methods have a lot of systematic problems such as overuse of chemicals and pesticides, generating an excessive carbon footprint during production and soil degradation (Clercq et al., 2018). As because of gradually failing traditional rural farming, urban agriculture has received more attention as a potential alternative of food source for city. Urban Agriculture is not a new topic but the new emerging method â&#x20AC;&#x153;vertical farmingâ&#x20AC;? has attracted a lot of discussion and attention as there have been many claims it can help improve quality of life and health of city resident (Angotti, 2015). In the section below, urban agriculture will be explained in detail.

Decreases in biodiversity and green space

SOCIETY ECONOMIC

Quallity of Life Nutritious, safe and tasty food Aging Society

ENVIRONMENT ECOSYSTEM

RESOURCE ENERGY

Shortages of Water Fossil Fuel Biomass

Community Therapeutic Space FIGURE 1 Four interrelated global sustainable issues (ToyokiKozai &Niu, 2015).

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTRODUCTION

URBAN AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

Urban Agriculture is not a new concept, it has existed in our community and economy for the last hundreds of years. In most of the case, people are referring UA to community garden, rooftop garden and home garden. To date, UA have contributed 5 – 10 % of the food production and some developing countries heavily rely on it for local food production. Throughout past 20 years, the definition of urban agriculture (UA) have been revolved according to its development in the community. The most common definition is from Cheema et al. (1996), which adopted by the United National Development Programme. It defines urban agriculture as an industry that produces, processes, and markets food, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and water dispersed throughout urban and peri-urban areas. Urban farms can in general be categorised by its growing methods, growing environment , and the demand of energy and resources (Figure 2). As seen from the Figure 2, one of the major factors indoor system have stand out from the reset of the urban farm system is its soilless farming. Despommier (2011) proposed a new concept of “vertical farming” which bring agriculture into urbanised city using a soilless-based growing method. It uses the vertical space of building, stacking and growing crops vertically. It has a lot potential and benefits to gradually replace traditional farming method as our society and lifestyle have changed. These will be explored and discussed in detail in the literature review section.

LITERATURE REVIEW RESEARCH DESIGN

METHODOLOGY

The project will be processed as shown in Figure 3.

INTERVIEWS (RESEARCHER)

URBAN FARM SOIL-BASED OPEN FIELD

SOILLESS

GREEN HOUSE

INTERVIEWS (FARM BUSINESS)

ONLINE SURVEY (CONSUMER)

DISCUSSION

INDOOR SYSTEM PROPOSAL

Uncontrolled environment

URBAN GARDEN PERI-URBAN FIELD

Uncontrolled environment

GREEN HOUSE GARDEN Controlled environment

FIGURE 2 Categories of Urban Farm (O’Sullivan et al., 2019; Son et al., 2015).

Controlled environment with Artifical Lighting

CONCLUSION

VERTICAL FARM Controlled environment without Artifical Lighting

FIGURE 3 Thesis Overview

ROOF TOP GREEN HOUSE

02 LITERATURE REVIEW

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

VERTICAL FARMING VERTICAL FARMING

02.01 FARMING METHOD Vertical farming is a new urban farming system that emphasise on the idea of all year food production non-stop within control growing condition inside buildings in urban city. It was first proposed by Despommier (2011) to have a new agriculture system to answer the problem human is facing such as diminishing agricultural resources and effects brought by climate change. This farming method characterised by its indoor, control environment, vertical stacked, waste recycling and soilless farming approach with the use of renewable energy. It also claimed to be a potential method to provide all year-round food production which can eliminating cost and carbon footprint for food transportation and improving food security. It also provides better qualities of farm produces by eliminate the use of harmful chemicals, pesticides, fertiliser that used in traditional farming (Al-Chalabi, 2015). Furthermore, it can achieve substantially higher yield with using only 5-10% water used as compare to traditional farming and other methods. However, these claimed benefit have not been fully verified in practice and more research should be done (Goodman &Minner, 2019).

HYDROPONICS Hydroponics is the most common soilless growing system that used among both plant factories and home garden. There are totally six different system design but two, Deep Water Culture (DWC), Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) are the most common design used in hydroponics (Alshrouf, n.d.; Son et al., 2015). DWC is submerging root of plants direct into a pool of nutrient solutions inside the culture bed (Figure 4). The water level will always be monitored. If the level is too lower, the solution will be resupplied from the central tank. NFT is a similar system but with only a shallow stream of water contained nutrients is circulated past the bare roots of plant (Figure 5). Discussion between rather DWC or NFT should be preferred in hydroponics system is still largely unknown (Asao, 2012). DWC has a simpler structural design and better water temperature control than NFT but nutrient solutions are only supplied in one way and not continuously circulated. It might cause problems such as lack of oxygen in the water, fungal problem and possibly need more human resources for maintenance. NFT on the other hand have a constant recirculated supply of nutrients and flowing stream allows sufficient oxygen level in the water (Benke &Tomkins, 2017). However, root of plants in NFT are much larger in size and length than DWC. Also, in the case of power failure, the supply of nutrient will be stopped. Unlike DWC which it can leave it for a few days without problems.

Among the system of vertical farming, there are also three different common soilless growing methods that is used, hydroponics, aeroponics and aquaponics (Alshrouf, n.d.). It all utilises nutrient solutions rather than soil for plant growth. Since root of plant are direct contact with the solution and not through a medium like soil, it will have a better control on the nutrient recipe for the plant. Farmer can customise the nutrient formula for different individual crops to maximise production and quality. In modern vertical farm, most of the farms are either using hydroponics and aeroponics system. In the following, each soilless growing method will be explained in detail. FIGURE 4 DWC Hydroponics System Diagram (Hydroponic Urban Blog, n.d.)

FIGURE 5 NFT Hydroponics System Diagram (Hydroponic Urban Blog, n.d.)

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

AEROPONICS

AQUAPONICS

Aeroponics is also another popular growing technique among vertical farming plant factories (Figure 6). The main difference from hydroponics is its spraying nutrients solution directly to the root. Control experiment conducted shown vegetables grown under aeroponics are larger and grows faster (Mahesh et al., 2016). The high-pressure spray from aeroponic can make nutrient solutions into mist which the particles size is very small around 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50 microns. Smaller mist particles allow all surface of the root have a better nutrient absorption. Although it proven to be a better technique used for vertical farming, it has a relatively higher setup cost than hydroponics as of its technical complexity. It also requires more maintenance to prevent the spray nozzle clogged up.

Aquaponics is the most sustainable and organic technique out of all other growing methods under vertical farming. Aquaponics consist of two component, aquaculture and hydroponics (Figure 7). Rather than rely on artificial chemical nutrient solutions, it relies on the natural process of chemical and biological conversation happen on both aquaculture and hydroponics (Specht et al., 2019). When fish eat, it generates ammonia and ammonium. The beneficial bacteria in fish tank will further decompose ammonium into nutrients such as nitrates. These will be supplied as nutrient solution to hydroponics system for growing crops. During this process, Carbon dioxide and oxygen will also be exchanges between the fish tank and the hydroponic. One of the benefits of aquaponics is farmers can have two products in place at the same time, fish and crops (Love et al., 2015). It allows farmer having two possible revenue stream income to support the whole system. However, aquaponics requires more maintenance and extra care. It is a more complicated system design and require making equilibrium pH balance in both the fish tank and culture bed. Also, crops cycling time in aquaponic take 10 months more than hydroponics (The Aquaponic Source, 2017). For hydroponics, it usually takes 6 weeks for a full cycle from seed to crops. But because aquaponics requires microbial populations to stable before it can start planting, therefore it takes much longer for growth. However, it will improve over time as the beneficial bacteria become more and stable in the aquaponic system.

FIGURE 7 Aquaponics System Diagram (Hydroponic Urban Blog, n.d.)

TYPES OF CROP

FIGURE 6 Aeroponic System Diagram (Hydroponic Urban Blog, n.d.)

As Despommier (2011) first proposed vertical farming, he claimed it can grow any crops in a control environment. Currently, the most common crops grown in the vertical farming are leafy greens including herbs. It is because they are easy to grow and more economically viable as of its fast turnover, providing a premium profit margin to farmers (Frazier, 2017). Farmers specifically targeting restaurant as their primary customer to provide fresh and high-quality leafy greens. It was proven to be a successful marketing strategy. Other than leafy greens, tomatoes, strawberries, berries, potatoes are also common produce from vertical farming (Goto, 2015; Rykaczewska, 2016; Souret &Weathers, 2000). There are also discussions on possible soil bean and hemp production under vertical farming as peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lifestyle change and more concern in general health (Hamilton et al., 2019). It acts as production crops to supply for processing factories.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

WHICH METHODS IS BETTER? There is ongoing discussion regarding which vertical farming growing techniques is better when it comes to commercial production (AlShrouf, 2017; Benke &Tomkins, 2017; Mahesh et al., 2016). However, there is no single unified answer into this question. For different crops production, plants grow differently and where the fruit will be are different. For example, for tomato production, it grows vertically, and farmer need to place supporting frame which allowing vein to grow on. Tomato will be grown and harvested much higher from the root. Therefore, it best suit to use DWC hydroponics system for tomato production which have less disruption and more efficient in maintaining the system (Schmautz et al., 2016). Sundrop Farms located at South Australia demonstrated they have successful using hydroponics for growing tomato with up to 25,000 tonnes each year (Vorrath, 2016). It shows any vein growth crops can also use a similar setup for the best production result. On the other hand, aeroponics is preferred to be used in mini-tuber potato production. There are evidence showing aeroponics is better suit for mini-tuber production (Mbiyu et al., 2012). As potato is a root plant, it grows and harvests at root level. The micron size nutrient solutions are being sprayed at all surface of the root. It can make sure all part of the root has equal chance to grow mini-tuber which maximise yield. Also, more carbon dioxide can be supplied and concentrated within the culture bed. Therefore, it makes aeroponics better fit for mini-tuber production. Finally, leafy greens are the easiest to grow compare to other corps, simpler technique such as DWC hydroponic are more justifiable to be used in terms of economical reason (Mahesh et al., 2016). From the above examples, it showed there is not a single unified option on which methods are preferred. It depends on variety of factors such as initial setup cost, maintenance, and resources available to the farmer. But, crop types will be a major factor in choosing when farmer planning their system.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

02.02 SUSTAINABILITY For the last section, an overview of what is vertical farming and different growing techniques. Since there are a lot of claims on how vertical farming system is beneficial and possible being a unified solution to solve all different sustainability problems that the world is facing, it is critical to evaluate how vertical farming address the problems showcased in the introduction under a sustainability framework. Summary table of the impact of vertical farming in relating to sustainability (Table 1)

Economics

Social

Reduced Transportation Costs

Provide new jobs in engineering, biochemistry, biotechnology, construction and maintenance, and research and development

No requirement for farm-rolling stock Production can be programmed to match demand because no seasonality issues No losses due to floos, droughts or sun damage

Provide employmet in regional areas. Encourage healtheir lifestyle by easier access to high quality produce

Environmental Reduce fossill fuel used as replaced by renewable energy Reduction in carbon levels Rejuvenation of the ecosystem Elimate soil degradation

TABLE 1 Potential impacts of vertical farming (Benke &Tomkins, 2017)

Reduced cost on using fertilizers and pesticides

SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMICS

For the last 30 years, workforce and economy of society become a knowledgebased society (Kalantari et al., 2018; Specht et al., 2014). People are more prefer taking jobs that providing service and knowledge rather than labourintensive work Younger generation are more unlikely to choose agriculture industry as their future as of its high opportunity risk, uncertainty and lack of recognition in the society (Benke &Tomkins, 2017). The number of people taking agriculture degree have roughly halved in the last decade. This result to unsustainable supply of work force. Hence, it may lead to greater shrinkage of the agriculture industry and affect food security (Specht et al., 2016). Vertical farming provides a new hope to attract young generation to join Ag-Tech (Agriculture Technology) industry. Soilless farming requires experts from all range discipline such as engineering, biochemistry and robotic. It creates a lot of work opportunities for high-skilled workers to be a part of innovative agriculture industry. Ultimately, it helps to increase overall employment in food production sector and provide better food security.

One of the most major benefit brought by vertical farming is it will reduce food miles and emission relating to food transportation (Benke &Tomkins, 2017). Vertical farming creates a future that bring closer physical proximity between food production and consumer, lowering transportation distance and thereby reducing carbon footprint and cost for transporting food. This also align with the world effort to tackle the problems of excess carbon emission and climate change. Since soilless farming is chemical and pesticide free, and recycling water resources, it mitigates the issue of environmental pollution that existed in traditional farming. Compare to traditional farming, soilless farming using only 5% of the water usage (Al-Kodmany, 2018). It can help divert clean water to be used for other purposes.

One of the critical changes and impact brought by vertical farming is of its ondemand business model (Benke &Tomkins, 2017). Traditionally, farmer usually used past years data and own experience prediction on the future market demand. It takes a lot of investment risk on farmer side, as there are a lot of uncontrollable variables and long return on investment. If there are natural disaster, farm could take a huge loss. There are a lot of uncertainty during the whole process for farmer. However, vertical farming providing a possibility of on demand model to match the demand of the market at the time. As vertical farming can remain running uninterrupted under control environment, it will not have any seasonality problem(Goodman &Minner, 2019). Also, it is easily to scale up the production volume by installing more culture bed which can be stacked. Vertical farming can open a new market structure in which customer can pre-purchase items for which they want. It can address the problem of over production and it which exploiting the resources on earth.

There is a long last problem of unsustainable supply chain existed in rural farming (Smith, 2008). Farmer are at the lowest level of the supply chain and they always have to face price suppression from the supply chain above. They have no options but to use harmful chemicals and pesticide which can make produce contaminated with heavy metal to maximise production and sustain their profits. On the other side, consumer is looking for cheaper produce, which might have worsened their overall health in long term as of the lower quality produce (Jansen et al., 2016). This had created a bad cycle for both farmer and consumer. Vertical farming system provide a breakthrough in cycle by having a transparent production. The improve of economy have led to consumer to prefer a clean premium food rather than cheap produces without a known source (Garg &Balodi, 2014). People in developed countries such as United States and Australia are more concern about the food they had, where and how they produced. Each crop grown in vertical farming can be traced back such as how much nutrients it have intake and how long it grow. Also, strict hygiene inside vertical farm can ensure produce are clean, high quality and safe for consumers. 22

However, some have argued that vertical farming can possibly dismantle the economy of rural area as agriculture is a main industry in the area (Benke &Tomkins, 2017). For example, in Australia, agriculture sector in rural area contributed around 5% of GDP which is $70 billion dollars (National Rural Health Alliance, 2012). The new control environment farming will disrupt the model of global agriculture trading, as climate and environment will be not be a limiting factor to grow any seasonal crops in any part of the world. Therefore, strategy and planning are needed to better transit to the new model. Education and infrastructure should be provided to farmers to learn new technologies and helping them to adapt to new farming methods.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

02.03 CURRENT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT MARKET

Name

Location

Height

Area

Year

Type of Building

Product

Table 2 have summarised how companies around the world have start up vertical farm at different scale. From this table, we can see that countries with limited arable land such as Singapore have adopted vertical farming in a more rapid pace. Singapore as of its geographical location, it has limited access to fertile land and clean water. So, it has to heavily rely on imports for vegetables and fruits and 95% of produces are imported from overseas (Krishnamurthy, 2014). This have made Singapore a vulnerable position if there are sudden spike on demand or disruption on overseas supplier. Singapore government begin cooperation with private company to test out vertical farm and see how it can supply to local market (Begum, 2019). These pilot farm also built in desert region city such as Dubai and Qatar, allowing more local production in their market.

The Plant Vertical Farm

Chicago. IL

3 Story

100,000 sq.ft

2013

Existing building in 19 century

Edible crops, Artisansal brewery, Kombucha brewery

Aquaponics system, Hydroponic, Natural Sun energy

Sky Greens Farms

Singapore

600 m2

2009

New

Leafy green vegetables

Aeroponuic system Low Carbon hydraulic water-driven Natural Sun Energy

VertiCrop TM

Vancouver, Canada

N/A

16 Arce, 120 racks with 24 trays

2009

RoofTop of Existing Building

Leafy greens Micro greens Strawberries

Full Automated System Closed loop conveyor hydroponic Full condition and recycling Natural and Artifical light

Republic of South Korea VF

South Korea

3 Story

450 m2

2011

New

Leafy green vegetables Wheat Corn

Geothermal and Solar Energy Automated Rack System LED

Nuvege Plant Factory

Kyoto, Japan

4 Story

30,000 x 57,000 sq ft

2010

New

Leafy green vegetables

Automated Rack System LED grow lights Hydroponics

Plantlab VF

Den Bosch, Holland

3 Story underground

N/A

2011

Existing Underground space

Beans, corn, cucumbers, tomatoes and strawberries

Full advanced growth LED Aeroponic and Hydroponic

AeroFarms

Newark, New Jersey

20,000 sq ft, 35 row x 12 levels

2012

New

250 different herbs and greens, like kale, arugula, and mizuna

Sensors to track growing Full water recycle No soil, persticides, sunlight LED light growing

Planned Vertical Farm

Linkoping, Sweden

17 Story

N/A

2012

New

Asian Leady green vegetables

Aeroponic, Hydroponic Using Waste Products Natural Lighting

Green Sense Farms

Shenzhen, China

N/A

20,000 sq ft.

2016

New

Micro green, Baby Green Herbs, Lettuces

Stacked Vertical towers Automated Computer Control Minimise waste, recycle water

However, the current deployment of vertical farmer are still largely rely on government support as it is still at early stage. Although vertical farming has a lot of promising benefit, there are still limited research and data showing how its can affect the current supply of produce (Al-Chalabi, 2015). Business are still sceptical about the concept and need more data to prove any investment. Currently, the initial setup cost is still too high, and the ongoing maintenance cost can be large sum portion of the business. The economic viability is low. Also, there are some technical hurdles to overcome such as high energy consumption and the lack of comprehensive crop monitoring system (ToyokiKozai, 2015). More evidence and data need to be proven to investor that this new farming method can sustain in long run economically.

Technology

TABLE 2 Summary of some effective vertical farm around the world (Kalantari, Tahir, et al., 2018)

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

TECHNOLOGY Vertical farm comprises in various field of technology such as water treatment, HVAC (Heating, ventilation and air conditioning), artificial lighting, energy system, waste management and farming layout (ToyokiKozai &Niu, 2015). In order to sustain and running vertical farm efficiently, these sub-system and technology have to be in place allowing vertical farming to sustain within the system. Since there are more vertical farm around the world, there are significant improvement on artificial lighting as it is the largest energy usage in the system. Since different wavelength of light will affect the growth of different crops, a new type of LED specifically designed for indoor farming is developed to make growing more efficient and energy-saving (Philips Lighting, 2015). Smart water recycling system, taking advantage of plant evaporation, is developed for control environment farming to recycle majority of water used (Kalantari et al., 2017). It allows less dependent on external clean water resources. HVAC system to control the composition of carbon dioxide and oxygen and maintaining temperature are also critical for effective plant growth. Although vertical farming has pushed the development of some sub-system, there are some part of technologies still need to be improved to make a wider adoption on vertical farming. For example, energy usage is a big concern for critics as farm requires a lot of energy to maintain the control environment operation (Kalantari et al., 2017). Although there are solar and wind power as renewable energy, the efficiency of these cannot meet the energy demand and the setup cost is high. A more systematic energy approach should be considered to support the farm.

CONSUMER Public acknowledgment is crucial for vertical farm business to success. There is not a comprehensive research on how public viewing the vertical farming industry. Kalantari et al.(2018) stated that public acceptance is one of the most important factors on people accepting or rejecting this industry. Understand public attitude can projecting how the industry will develop. Currently, there are only limited small scale research on how public viewing the vertical farming technology (Jansen et al., 2016). In recent 10 years, there are a lot of media coverage on vertical farming, showing people how it will change agriculture industry, the way we get food and its benefit. It has drawn a picture to public how food production will be in the future. At the current stage of vertical farming, general consumer is still looking at the produce as a premium organic product (Banerjee &Adenaeuer, 2014). This is a result of high production cost in some pilot farms. High price can slowly change as of the technology of vertical farming becomes more cost friendly. Consumer preference and view is still unknown and more research should be conducted

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING LITERATURE REVIEW

02.04 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES AND DEVELOPMENT MICRO GRID/ DECENTRALISED ENERGY There are articles and reports showing decentralised energy can be a possible way forward in answering the problem of high energy cost (Kikuchi et al., 2019; Xydis et al., 2017). Kikuchi et al. (2019) have presented a model and scenario of farms using decentralised renewable energy. In this scenario, household renewable energy will be centrally managed and distributed among the energy user within a community. It will form a virtual power network. Excess energy generated during daytime can supply to the vertical farm in a cheaper price in exchange with a lower produce price. It will be a win-win situation for both the community and the farm. Community can enjoy high quality produce but with a cheaper price, farmer can have more flexibility on managing the farm. However, the limitation is it requires a large household base with renewable energy generator to sustain the system.

INTERNET OF THINGS/ ROBOTIC MONITORING SYSTEM Currently, there are limited research on the efficiency on whole procedure of vertical farming. Although a lot of procedure is already automated in vertical farming, farmer still need regularly checking on the health of crops. Change of leaves colours, shape can be a early sign of infection or nutrient inbalance. Robotic or camera system with artificial intelligence can be a way forward to help detect problems earlier (Shamshiri et al., 2018). Furthermore, vertical farms benefit from having a all day monitoring system. Possible integration with IoT (Internet of Things) to enable off-site monitoring (Zamora-Izquierdo et al., 2019).

OPEN SOURCE AGRICULTURE Open sourcing can be a way to accelerate the development of vertical farming. MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Media Lab have opened a Open Agriculture Initiative (OpenAg) to welcome global community to open resource for digital agriculture innovation (MIT, 2018). This allow people to explore how future agriculture could possibly be. They have developed a open-source Food computer, a small-scale control environment agriculture technology platform, allowing people to programme and adjust climate variables to try growing plant in different scenario (Castellรณ Ferrer et al., 2019). This allows developer to share data and result, comparing how plant will react and grow with different variables. Open sourcing nutrient recipe is a significant step to further accelerate vertical farming development. At present, Ag-Tech startups face difficulties for finding right nutrient recipe for crops. These data usually can only obtain by large cooperate as they have resources to have nervous testing on finding the right chemical formula. Sharing these data among small start-up farm can collectively pushing the development of vertical farming in society.

02.05 CONCLUSIONS To conclude, this literature review gives an overview of urban agriculture and vertical farming. This include explore core concept of vertical farming, evaluating how vertical farm answer the problem the world face and its sustainability, current stage of development and its future development and opportunities. The majority of the research at this stage are technology lead which shown there are a lot of claimed benefit but not yet verified. How sustainable and efficiency of the current vertical farming technique answering the problem of food security. Also, as a candidate solution to become mainstream agriculture method, there are limited research on how consumer accept or view this method of growing and how it will impact socially. Pilot farm built around the world can provide firsthand data and evidence to verify and demonstrate its impact. Therefore, studying challenges and problems faced by these pilot farm can be next step to further develop vertical farming.

03 RESEARCH PROPOSAL

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The purpose of this research is to gain in-depth understanding the operation of vertical farming in practice. The project aims to explore vertical farm’s operation difficulties in real world, efficiency of the current system and investigate consumer opinions towards this industry. It is intended to identify problems in practice and developing solution to improve at later design stages. Ultimately, incentivise more businesses to adopt or transition to vertical farming. This topic will be explored though interviewing casual farmer, business in vertical farming field, and online survey towards consumers.

OPPORTUNITY THEMES

ONLINE SURVEY (CONSUMER)

03.01 RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY IN SETTING As vertical farming being a solution that possibility can help to solve various sustainability problems world is facing, the reason of low adoption is complex and unknown. Muller et. al argued research and activist community are having biased view towards sustainable agriculture and vertical farming. Problems that might have existed in practical are yet to be research and investigated. This are ranged from economic viability, technical difficulties, and sustainability. He further stated consumer attitudes and perception are not yet known which is a significant part inside sustainability cycle. Therefore, understand the challenges faced by pilot farm and consumer attitudes are vital as it enter next stage of development.

5 2

03.02 RESEARCH QUESTION

From the opportunities and research gaps identified, it lead to the overall research questions, “How sustainable and efficient for vertical farming as a future secure food source?”.

Sub-questions are suggested to answer the overall research question. 1. What are the operation difficulties pilot vertical farms are facing? 2. How consumer viewing vertical farm as future food source? 3. What improvement can be made to enhance vertical farm system?

03.03 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK As seen from the research questions, the three sub questions are targeted the three main stakeholders of the current stage development of vertical farm, researcher (academic expert), pilot farm (business) and consumer. It is designed to generate holistic view of the past experience, present and future prospect of vertical farm (Figure 8). Combining the views from these stakeholders, design opportunities and themes should be able to identify to continue for next stage. Interviews are conducted on both causual farmer and pilot farm business to obtain in-depth analysis of the industry. Consumer attitudes will be gathered through online survey.

4 3

3 4 INTERVIEWS (CASUAL FARMER)

2 1

INTERVIEWS (FARM BUSINESS)

FIGURE 8 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

04 METHODOLOGY

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING METHODOLOGY

04.01 METHOD SELECTION

04.02 LIMITATION

INTERVIEW

ONLINE SURVEY

Since this research is to obtain qualitative information, a semi-structure interview was conducted to obtain in-depth understanding from both pilot farm business and casual farmer in the field of vertical farming. Semi-structure interviews with openended questions allow the interviewee to recall their experience in a natural way. Birmingham (2014) stated that sufficient flexibility should be given to interviewee to dynamically shape the flow of information. Interviews will be conducted online as there are travel restriction at the time of research.

Online surveys were used and conducted as the primary data collection method to obtain consumer views on vertical farming. Retrospective Sampling was used during data collection to ensure the data collected is not biased to people with prior knowledge about vertical farming. The online survey was constructed based on findings from literature review and exist user research as guide. Online survey can obtain both quantitative and qualitative data from the result. Online survey ended with open-ended questions or follow up explanatory survey can help understand in-depth views on the issue. However, Wright (2006) have mentioned the complexity of the survey should be considered as it related to competition rate of the survey. Therefore, if in-depth survey is required, it will be best to split into introductory survey with follow up.

Pilot farm business were approached through email invitation and LinkedIn platform. Introduction and ethics documents are attached inside the approach email. Once they have accepted, interview time was discussed and finalised. At the start of the interview, introduction and the purpose of the interview was mentioned again, and consent was obtained for recording the whole interview. When interviewing the pilot farm, the main purpose is to understand how their current business work, what kind of operation difficulties they faced, what their possible tactics to the problem and their perspective towards the future of vertical farm. Therefore, factual data was asked first as showing the foundation details of the business. Then, open-ended questions such as the problem they face was asked to allow the interviewee to express their concern at the current stage of their business. For interviewing casual farmer, a similar approach was used such as email invitation and personal connection. Similar interview process was used. However, the main purpose of the interview was to gain insight from the perspective of causal and hobbyist farmer, what their view to improve the current vertical farm system and their thoughts on future of vertical farming for them. The purpose of having interviews for both casual farmer and pilot farm business is they represent theoretical and practical part of vertical farming. The data collected can be triangulated to compare and combine to generate experts view.

Online survey participants were approached via social media platform, email, and online forums. Links were uploaded and sent for participant to join and complete. Each participant was provided with ethics documentation at the beginning of the survey. It ensures participant consent the use and handling of the data provided. Participant was going through the questions one by one as their best ability. The main purpose of the online survey used is to understand consumer perspective towards vertical farming. The survey was start by asking background information of the participant such as sex, ages, and where they are from. Then, asking their personal behaviour such as how much fresh produce they consumed each week, where they get those fresh produce and what are their thinking priority factors when they choose fresh produce. Next, prior knowledge relating vertical farm was asked such as if they have come across this concept before. This is critical to sperate the participant in different groups. Going forward, information relating to vertical farming such as photos and comparison data was shown to participants. Questions were asked about their perception after absorbing the knowledge about vertical farming. This can have control compare between participant before and after understanding the new farming method. Finally, some openended questions to understanding how they see this in the future.

There are number of limitations in this research proposal. First, as the research is conducted in Australia, some information may only be applicable to situations in Australia. Since the survey is conducted online, the data insight is from participant from different part of the world. But it is limited only to participants with internet access who was able conduct the research which is limited to the majority age range from 18 to 50. Hence, the small sample size in this research may not 100% reflect the situation. At the time of research, the corona virus pandemic has limited access research resource online and only be conducted online. This is mainly due to the travel restrictions in place. Originally planned observation is being replaced with interviews to compliment the difficulties. This also limited the recruitment process to online only which have limited the possible insight outcome. Furthermore, the data collected may not be the same as other time as there are economic and life disruption in the world.

04.03 METHOD TRIANGULATION Method Triangulation is applied in this research to ensure the data collected is at the highest reliability and integrity. Method triangulation mainly consisted the research is conducted using two or more methods and followed by comparing and combining the result (Jick, 1979). The main goal is to allow the research is not biased towards a particular stand and different perspective is considered in the process. The data from causual farmer, pilot farm business and consumer will be triangulated to obtain holistic view of the investigated area. Figure. show how these data are compare and combine in this research (Figure 9).

ONLINE SURVEY (CONSUMER)

INTERVIEWS (CASUAL FARMER)

INTERVIEWS (FARM BUSINESS)

FIGURE 9 METHOD TRIANGULATION

05 INTERVIEW

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTERVIEW

The interviews were conducted using a semi-structure approach asking pilot farm businesses and casual farmers about their difficulties on operating a vertical farm and developing opportunities on indoor farming. The interviewees were approached through online social platforms and personal connection. The interview with farm business were approximately 20-30 minutes each. Interview with casual farmer was approximately 1 hour with showcasing and demonstrating the farm. Both the interviews were aimed to obtain their perspective on how to run a vertical farm as well as the developing opportunities of vertical farming.

05.03 RESULT (PILOT VERTICAL FARM)

05.01 DATA ANALYSIS

AGRICULTURE SUSTAINABILITY

The interviews were recorded through audio recording and image capture. The audio of interviews were processed through an AI audio to text software to generate transcripts. Then, using thematic analysis to capture codes and categorised into themes to highlight any further developing opportunities (Appendix). These developing opportunities were later compared against consumer perspective to generate developing directions.

Agriculture sustainability is a highly discussed topic among all three interviews. All interviewees agreed that sustainability is the core foundation reasons of why they have started the vertical farming business. One interviewee has stated that, “the world food supply system in such a mess, agriculture is the greatest cause of climate change and pollution and environmental damage in the world”. Traditional farming method had a fundamental problem which is centralised and produce one type of crop. This can easily lead to over production, local supply can not meet with the local demand. As a result, farmers will look for place to sell their product.

Thematic analysis is considered as the core analysis method in this research. As it was suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006) and King (2004), it is a useful method to examine the perspective from different stakeholders on the same issue. Highlight the difference and similarities and to identified unanticipated insights from it.

05.02 PARTICIPANT Three pilot vertical farming businesses and one causal vertical farmer was interviewed in this research. The three vertical farm businesses varies from places around the world. These farms are located in India, Australia and Scotland respectively. Also, the three different businesses also at different business stage, one being a new farm less than a year old, the other two were running farms for 2 – 3 years. It can give a good diverse perspective for this research.

This part of the research is set up to understand the challenges and problems faced by pilot farm to discover developing opportunities for vertical farming. Through analysing the interview data, four themes were identified. These are sustainability, economic viability, technical challenge, artificial lighting and the future of vertical farming. The finding under each theme will be discussed below.

“Because they are good at producing one thing, they need to find a market that then requires transport” -David, CEO of IGS Farm, Scotland An interviewee has mentioned. With more global transport, more pollution is made to the world. This has been made into an unsustainable practice. Therefore, interviewees pointed out and agreed that traditional agriculture practice is one of the root causes of climate change and pollution. Vertical farming can readjust supply according to the local demand in short time. They believe vertical farming practice can alter the unsustainable cycle through the support of local production and local demand.

“The idea of why we do this all about sustainability. It is about reducing food miles. It is about circular economies. It’s about small scale commercial farming.” -James, CEO of Modular Farm, Australia

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTERVIEW

From the data analysed, another sustainability issue highlighted in the data is about vegetable nutrients. Current traditional open field farming uses a lot of chemical in the soil to boost up growth and maximise yield.

“When they continuously boost up growth, nutrients must be lost in some way.” -James, CEO of Modular Farm, Australia

The use of chemicals did not only pollute the soil and environment, the nutrients stored in vegetable are diminished over time. Vertical farming practice is in place to prioritise quality over quantity. Farmers did not use any pesticide and chemical to grow crops but rather providing sufficient nutrient and light for crops to grow continuously 24 hrs a day. It is a strategy that was used to balance yield and quality in vertical farm.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY Economic Viability is another discussed theme among all three interviews with vertical farm business. It is natural for a business to look at investment and return to sustain their business model. Furthermore, economic viability also drives the development of vertical farms. Below were some of the topics that was mentioned and discussed among all interviews. Successful locating a demand and market is a critical factor to showcase a new technology of being economically viable in the market. All three vertical farms interviewed were using the same strategy, marketing as premium vegetable and product. One of the reasons that they have adopted this strategy is that they cannot price compete with normal global wholesale market.

“But that is the most important thing is identifying demand. And a lot of people fail to do.” -Lalit, Founder of Landcraft Argo, India Since the cost of production to grow crops under vertical farm is higher than traditional method, vertical farm’s local produce cannot compete with crops from global market, in which aimed for lowest price. So, farmer using the premium quality and short harvesting time as selling point to enter premium market. Some of interviewees stated that they have successfully approached high end grocery stores and restaurants which aim to use high quality vegetables. However, some of the interviewees still want to expand to wholesale consumer market. Therefore, all interviewee agreed finding the market demand is critical for vertical farm to sustain in long time.

There are a lot of sub system component that require energy used at all time such as HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air conditioning), artificial light, irrigation, and monitoring system. Using renewable energy can be a strategy to minimise energy cost. However, two out of three interviewees argued that renewable energy cannot sustain the energy required. Therefore, an efficient energy strategy and minimising energy cost can help to improve economic viability. Labour cost is another major contribution of operating cost. Some of farm interviewed are highly depend on labour for harvesting, cleaning, and daily maintenance. One of interviewee stated that,

“You still gonna be a farmer. You still need people to farm it. It’s still 25 hours a week working here minimum.” -James, CEO of Modular Farm, Australia One of the vertical farms used robotic automated system to minimise work. However, this approach has mixed view from interviewee as labour cost vary in different countries. It makes sense for business to use automated system where labour cost is high such as Scotland. However, as compared to run vertical farm in cheap labour country such as India, they prefer to use human labour rather than automated robotic. Therefore, the use of automated system is depending on the location’s situation.

Cost of production is another factor to demonstrate economic variability of vertical farming practice. From the interview data, energy and labour is the major cost of operating vertical farm business. One of the farm owners indicated that energy cost is tributing more than 50% of operating cost.

“More than 50% of the running cost is used on powering up the LED.” -James, CEO of Modular Farm, Australia

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTERVIEW

TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

Challenges faced by pilot vertical farm were important to be analysed to identify problems and discover developing opportunities within to enhance vertical farm system. Below were some of the highlight challenges.

Artificial light is one of the core components in the vertical farm system. All three vertical farm business believe artificial lighting is a requirement for growing indoors despite there is some vertical system design integrated with the use of sunlight. To maximise yield from the farm, each plant needs to obtain equal and maximum amount of light. Farmers argued that vertical farm system integrated with sunlight is not as efficient as farm using artificial light.

Nutrient supply and monitoring are major challenges faced by all vertical farms in the industry. Throughout all vertical farm interviewed, they have used various hydroponic system such as NFT, DWC and aquaponic. Each system has its own difference to supply nutrients to crops. However, a common challenge in hydroponics is that each plant required a set nutrients recipe and it took experience and time to discover a stable combination of chemicals. Aquaponic system has less concern on this as the balance was naturally controlled by its biological conversation of fish manure. Furthermore, there is a lack of monitoring system to nutrient intake by crops. From one of the interviewed farms, they have experienced magnesium deficiency in the nutrient water supplied to crops. The problem was only discovered once the crops were mature and its colour was changed. Then, it took them one week to conduct lab test to understand the problem with the supplied nutrients. Ultimately, it cost them money and time to replant and readjust the nutrient system. Therefore, a nutrient monitoring system is an opportunity for improvement in vertical farm systems. Another challenge faced by vertical farms was the inability to create a microclimate for each type of crops under a large vertical farm system. All three interviewees agreed vertical farm should be able to supply different type of crops under a large vertical system. However, the reality of it is that different plant requires different climate condition such as temperature and gas composition. With the current common vertical farm design, it is impossible to satisfy all crops with just one climate condition. Although one of the farm business is using modular container farm which can specific each container to run different climate, they pointed out that it is still inefficient as there is the duplication of subcomponent systems such as HVAC. Therefore, providing micro-climate control is another opportunity for development in vertical farms.

“Because there’s not enough, I mean you can if you first of all the sunlight is not the same every day.” -David, CEO of IGS Farm, Scotland The problem of vertical farm design using sunlight is that there are uneven light distribution and received by crops. Crops at the top grow much faster and bigger than the one at the bottom which received less amount of light. Although there is some A-frame layout design was used, which try to tackle the problem, it still not as efficient as farm relying on artificial light. The other pattern identified from the data is that farm located at high latitude having more reason to use artificial lighting. Since farms at high latitude have less sunlight in wintertime, the amount of sunlight is not enough to operate a farm. Furthermore, crops are sensitive to the light intensity received.

“Now that sudden change in light will create stress for the crop. So the crop grows an enzyme, which defends itself from the sudden change.” -David, CEO of IGS Farm, Scotland Farmer further elaborated that only 95% of energy is required if the stressful event is removed. Therefore, vertical farms who used artificial lighting can have more predictability about the harvesting period. The use of artificial light is about efficiency and total control of the crop’s growth.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTERVIEW

FUTURE OF VERTICAL FARMING

SUMMARY

All three vertical farm owners were passionate and believed vertical farming will become more popular and become part of a new agriculture supply chain. Despite it has a bright future, all interviewee also pointed out that vertical farming will not replace traditional agriculture practice. It will be a supplementary agriculture system to grow crops. Although vertical farm can grow crops in a sustainable and efficient manner, interviewee also agrees there are some crops such as wheat are being more efficient to grow in the traditional manner.

A summary figure was present below to highlight findings from the interview with pilot farm (Figure 10).

Another phenomenon identified from the data is that they are worried about some of the vertical farm business has hindered the overall development of vertical farming.

“There are some vertical farm companies that raised a lot capital who are making false claims about what they are able to do. And yet, they are simply telling lies.” -David, CEO of IGS Farm, Scotland He further elaborated that early vertical farms are using false claims about what they can do to raise capital and attract consumer through media reports. These claims were later criticised by critics about what vertical farm able to achieve. People raised questions about the sustainability and efficiency of vertical farms. Investors were more nervous about investing in this new developing agriculture technology. Without trust and support from investors and consumer, vertical farms can hardly to continue to develop. Therefore, presenting true and realistic data to the world were critical at the stage of development of vertical farming. Finally, farmers have highlighted that vertical farming still at an early stage of development and technologies required time to become mature. They believed iteration development still required for vertical farming to be more efficient and economic viable to sustain in the agriculture industry in the long run. They further suggested ways to improve such as the use isolated tray system to build micro-climate system, cloud monitoring for remote monitoring, big data for compiling shared nutrients database and artificial intelligence for precise plant growth and monitoring. With more R&D (research & development), more data from vertical farms can be proven and more investment will come into this new agriculture technology.

PILOT VERTICAL FARM AGRICULTURE SUSTAINABILITY •Global agriculture trade cause pollution and sustainability issue •Vertical farming promotes new model using local production and local consumption

•Nutrient inside crop grown on vertical farm are well preserved unlike traditional farming focus quantity over quality. •Vertical farming maintain high yield with high quality.

ECONOMIC VIABILITY •Lack of market and demand make it hard to sustain long term. •Cost of production too high and can not compete with wholesale market. •Energy and Labour are the major cost involved in vertical farm. •The choice of full automation or human management depend on the location of the farm and its economic situation.

TECHNICAL CHALLENGES

ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

•Inefficient nutrient Supply and Monitoring.

•Artificial light is required in vertical farm.

•Different crop type require different root container design.

•There are not enough sunlight to make vertical farm efficient.

•Lack of multi micro climate control under single vertical farm.

•Geographic location of farm also determined the use of artificial light. •Continuous light on plant can eliminate stress event on crops.

FUTURE OF VERTICAL FARMING •Farmer are passionate about the future of vertical farm. •Vertical farm will not replace traditional method of growing. •False claim are hurting the vertical farming business, more accurate facts and data should published. •Iteration development still required for vertical farming. FIGURE 10 SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW WITH PILOT FARM

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTERVIEW

ATTITUDES ON VERTICAL FARMING

05.04 RESULT (CASUAL FARMER) The interview conducted with causal farmer allows obtaining perspective from the farmer who use soilless farming to self-sustain themselves, explore opportunities other than commercial farming setup. During the interview, interviewee shared his experience regarding setting up an aquaponic system, which has summarised in Figure 11. Furthermore, the interviewee shared his attitudes and developing opportunities which were discussed below.

Unlike commercial farming, interviewee shared an alternative view of using the aquaponic system as a hobby and as an organic farming system to sustain his family. Compare to soil farming, he believed aquaponics is an efficient, highly customisable, and sustainable way to grow vegetables for his family. He also treated the whole system as a DIY project that he can iterate the farm design on his own. He learned the majority of the knowledge to set up the farm from YouTube and online blogs. He enjoys the process of discovering and learning new knowledge while he hands-on building the farm. He believes knowledge should be shared and it can better the design on the system with the knowledge of the world. Furthermore, he pointed out there are more psychological effects of growing your own food by involving every process of growing. People feel safer and satisfy to know how the food was grown.

AQUAPONICS SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

WATER

•Two products, Fish and Vegetables

•Water cycle are critical for the system

•100% organic production

•Bacteria need time to grow (3-4 weeks)

•Dual system was in place to increase stability of system

•Using natural material for neutralising pH

•Water quality are critical for best grow

•Constant monitor pH and Electrical Conductivity

FISH •Fish takes time to grow (8 – 12 Months years) •High food conversation rate fish for best result (2/3 :1 ratio) •High concentration of fish to ensure enough nutrients for the system •Fish are temperature sensitive •Fish type used: Jade perch (Easy to breed), Tilapia(Oversea used only), Cypress (Easy to grow)

FARM

EQUIPMENT

•Outdoor setting using natural sunlight

•Air pump

•Crop grow: Leafy greens, Asian greens, Pea, Snow pea, Okra, Zucchini, Snake beans

•Submersible pump

•Random seedling

•Sump tank

•Own worm farm as extra fertiliser

•Biofilter as water filtration media

•Solar power to power the system

•Siphons system (Flood and drain)

•DIY IBC tank as fish tank (Food Grade)

•Problem: Cleaning root system •Grow Medium: Clayball, Pebbles. FIGURE 11 SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE USING AQUAPONIC SYSTEM

FIGURE 12 PHOTOS FROM INTERVIEWEE FARM SETUP

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING INTERVIEW

DEVELOPING OPPORTUNITIES

SUMMARY

“How this can be improved when no one share their data and knowledge? ”

A summary figure was present below to highlight findings from the interview with casual famer (Figure 13).

-PARTICIPANT 1 Open source development During the interview, the interviewee has continuously mentioned the power of knowledge share, contributed to a higher level of development on new technology such as vertical farming. There is a lot of try and error learned during the process and he believed a share knowledge database can help lower the effort needed for beginner to start their own farm. Therefore, he suggested open-source education platform should be developed to attract more people involved in the industry. Social community project From the interview, the interviewee has setup a hypothesis of being as a social community farm using hydroponics systems. As vertical farm focus on local production and local demand, a social community farm can be developed to re-educate consumer the source of their food, which aimed to support local economies. System for third world countries Finally, he suggested vertical farm and aquaponic system can be used for third world countries to sustain their own need for food. As he pointed out previously, aquaponic have two products, fish, and vegetables, which is a major benefit compared to other hydroponics systems. He believed a new farm system can empower people in poverty to self-sustain and less reliance on external aids.

CASUAL FARMER ATTITUDES ON VERTICAL FARMING •Aquaponics as a efficient to grow both fish and vegetables •Grow as hobby and food self-sustain •Build as DIY, learn all details online from YouTube and website •Share knowledge will better the system design •Farming have a lot psychological benefit to human

DEVELOPING OPPORTUNITIES •Open source development, allow people share data and knowledge •Social Community Project, empowering community to grow organic produce •System for third world countries, provide alternative to self-sustain. FIGURE 13 SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW WITH CASUAL FARMER

LIMITATIONS The limitation of this research is of its relatively small sample base. Due to the situation of the global pandemic, a lot of restriction have limited the accessibility and approach to gathering data for this research. However, since the research have moved online, it allows a wider opportunity to approach a larger audience. This was reflected in the interview data which consist of vertical farms from three different countries.

06 ONLINE SURVEY

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING ONLINE SURVEY

The survey was conducted through online platforms asking daily consumer their personal consumption on green vegetables, perception, and attitudes towards vertical farming. The survey was conducted online using Google Form and invited participant to take the survey through social platforms. Initially, a test survey was conducted to identify potential problems. Each survey consists of 26 questions ranged from Likert scale, multiple-choice, categorical and open-ended questions (Appendix). These questions to represent an overview of consumer perspective towards vertical farming.

06.01 DATA ANALYSIS The survey was designed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data for analysing consumer perspective. Three categories of questions were collected to represent consumer perspective. These categories are as follow: 1. 2. 3.

Consumer behaviour and preference on consuming vegetables Perception toward vertical farming Attitudes toward vertical farming as a future food source

Furthermore, sources of vegetables were identified, and it showed more than 94% of respondent are sourcing their vegetables from major supermarkets. 27% of respondent are growing their own food and 24% are sourced from Farmer market. It represented the majority of the respondent are relying supermarket which highly affects consumer consumption pattern depending on what they had offered. Supermarkets are being a major stakeholder and influencer in the vegetable supply chain. Participants were asked about their awareness of how the vegetables they brought were grown. More than 47% of the respondent only know some of the purchase and 37% were totally not know how vegetables were grown. It shows the majority of consumers did not aware how the vegetables are grown. However, this data did not show is this because of lack of information given or consumers do not care about this when they purchase vegetables. Finally, understanding consumer preference and factors affecting their purchase on fresh produce are critical to reveal their decision-making process. As seen from Figure 15, Quality is being the most important factor with 4.28 out of 5, followed by value of money at 3.7, 3.57 for price and 3.34 for nutrition. However, growing method, organic and fair trade were below 3 which represented these are less important factors. The right-hand side of the figure represents direct influence factors and the left-hand side represent indirect influence factors. This data reflects consumer are being less aware of the scene behind such as food chain, how the vegetables are grown and fair trade. Consumers are mostly only aware of the factors they are impacting them directly which are common in practice.

From the information collected, highlights and trends were identified using univariate and multivariate analysis. Short questions were analysed by using thematic analysis to generate codes and themes to identified trends and opportunities. Finally, these trends and highlights were compared against developing opportunities from interviews to identify final developing directions.

QUALITY

06.02 RESULT

4.5

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR AND PREFERENCE ON VEGETABLES Initially, participants were asked about their consumption pattern on green vegetables. As seen from Figure 14, on average majority of participants eat 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6 types of vegetables per day which consist of 81.6% and the rest is eating more than 6 types. Types of vegetables that participants are consuming for the past week were asked. Leafy green (89.5%), Allium (81.6%) and Cruciferous(60.5%) are the three most common type of vegetables eaten, followed by root, marrow and edible plant stem. Combining these two data, it has shown the majority of the respondent are eating various vegetables each day to obtain enough nutrients for the body.

4 3.5 3

PRICE

2.5 2 1.5 1

1 - 3(47.4%)

0.5

ORGANIC

NUTRITION VALUE

4 - 6 (47.4%)

VALUE FOR MONEY

FAIR TRADE FIGURE 14 NO OF TYPES OF VEGETABLES CONSUME FOR LAST WEEK

GROWING METHOD

CONVENIENCE

FIGURE 15 FACTORS AFFECT THE PURCHASE OF FRESH PRODUCE.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING ONLINE SURVEY

CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON VERTICAL FARMING Initially, participants were given a set of infographics and data to let them understand and familiarise with vertical farming (Appendix). After participant reading the information, a set of questions were asked to reveal their perception towards vertical farming and what aspects of vertical farming they interested in.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS FARMING PRACTICE AND VERTICAL FARMING

SAFE 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5

From the data, it was revealed that there are five different aspects with more than 50% of respondent interested in. These are, hydroponic technology (78.9%), enjoy pesticide and chemical-free produce (65.8%), enjoy fresh produce closer to you (57.9%), shorter growing cycle (57.9%) and all-season growing (50%) (Figure 16). These are the major and direct benefit of hydroponic soilless farming used in vertical farming. It shows consumers are seeing these direct benefits to them if vertical farming is in place around them. Although other aspects such as transparent farming and traceable farming have lower percentage at 35% and 47%, these indirect benefit aspects are still interested by some of the respondent who has more concern on the growing method.

2 1.5 1

WILLINGNESS TO BUY

0.5

NATURAL

VERTICAL FARM GREENHOUSE OPEN FIELD

In the final part of the survey, it was designed to reveal consumer attitudes towards farming practice and vertical farming. In summary, respondents are largely agreed on traditional open-field farming using too much water for growing crops and farmer should aiming maximum production and fast turnover. Local produces are not necessarily favour over produce from rural open-field farming. They believe vertical farming is a sustainable practice which can improve the standard of living of future generation. However, respondents have mixed view towards artificial lighting used in vertical farming and paying a premium to buy produce from vertical farms. Also, they are not too sure possible health risks brought by vertical farmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s produce. Finally, they largely agree there will be more vertical farms in cities and possibly can help feed the world in the next 50 years.

QUALITY

TECHNOLOGY

TRACEABLE FARMING

CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT FARMING

ALL SEASON GROWING

PESTICIDE AND CHEMICAL FREE

FARM CLOSER TO YOU

SHORTER GROWING CYCLE

7.8%

57.9%

65.8%

50%

47.4%

36.8%

78.9%

FIGURE 17 PERCEPTION COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERNT FARMING METHODS.

OTHERS

FIGURE 16 ASPECTS OF VERTICAL FARM INTERESTED BY PARTICIPANTS

To conceive a full page of consumer perception, facts and information were given to participant showcasing and comparing different growing method. The survey was designed to have comparisons to highlight their views in terms of safety, naturalness, quality expectation and willingness to buy on vertical farming. From the data collected, vertical farming had the highest-ranking with average 4.3 among food safety, quality expectation and willingness to buy (Figure 17). However, vertical farming was labelled as the lowest for its naturalness.

Furthermore, participants were asked the reason to buy produce from vertical farming and concerns with it. From the short response, the majority of respondents mentioned that chemical-free and pesticide-free produce was the reason to buy vertical farm produce. Other than that, environmental benefit and sustainability was another reason as consumers understand external benefits to the world and environment. There are also some respondents enjoy fresher produce because of its local production and support the local market. However, there are big concerns about the energy resources used to produce vegetables as compared to other traditional farming. Also, since it used a soilless growing method, consumers are not sure if the nutrient and quality of vegetable will change. It is because respondents are perceiving vertical farming as a new experiment which changes the concept of growing vegetables. Finally, there are also price concern as it seems more resource used for vertical farming.

LIMITATION For the survey data, the research was limited in terms of reflecting particular age, culture or geographical location groups. A mixed of participants were from online platform recruit and researcher immediate connection. Therefore, the survey data was designed to reflect a general consumer perspective rather than focus on particular cultural groups.

Combining the above results, consumers have mixed perceptions toward vertical farming. It highlights consumer understood both direct and external benefit of vertical farming provide to them and they have high will to try and purchase vertical farm produce. However, consumers concern about the hightech approach for growing. They are sceptical about the unforeseen effects on vegetables they will consume. Price is also another major concern discovered.

07 DISCUSSION

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING DISCUSSION

DISCUSSION

From the literature review and secondary research, gaps were identified. These are practical challenges faced by pilot vertical farm, consumer perception towards vertical farming and developing opportunities of vertical farming. From identified gaps, an overall research question was setup â&#x20AC;&#x153;How sustainable and efficient for vertical farming as a future secure food source?â&#x20AC;? This question and the three identified research gaps were explored by using primary research method such as interview and online survey and presented the finding in the previous section. The discussion explores the key findings from comparing and contrast literature review and research conducted to highlight patterns and differences. This section has been broken down into four topics, sustainability and efficiency, operation of vertical farm, consumer perception and future design directions.

07.01 SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY Sustainability and efficiency are the two main factors to reflect whether vertical farm can be a secure food source in the future. Sustainability involves economic, social and environmental factors and efficiency reflect the capability to produce enough food in a short time. From the literature review, it is clear that vertical farming is an environmentally sustainable technology. This is also the main reason to use it as it can minimise pollution and indirect impact to the environment from the traditional supply chain. However, from the previous study, it is still largely unknown how well vertical farms perform in economically and socially. From the interview with the pilot vertical farm business, vertical farming is not yet achieved economically sustainable at the current stage. Competition with the traditional wholesale market, difficult to locate market and demand, customer scepticism and high cost of production are identified which shown vertical farming is not economically viable and sustainable at this stage. However, this is a natural phenomenon for a new technology to come into an existing market. Furthermore, it requires time, effort, and education for consumers to embrace local production. More research and development are required to present true and accurate data to investor and consumer. It can help slowly improve the economic sustainability of running a vertical farm in the long run. Socially, vertical farms can be sustained in the long run. As identified both from the literature review and research findings, vertical farms is a practice which emphasised on local production and local consumption. Furthermore, an unsustainable social cycle was identified between farmer and consumer in the literature review. Global trade has made consumers less aware of how vegetables they eat were grown, which reflect from the online survey. Unlike traditional farming, vertical farming has shortened the distance between farmer and consumer. Consumers are aware of their responsibility by fully understanding how crops are grown. This can help maintain a healthy relationship between farmer and consumer, in which farmer provide high quality, safe, clean vegetables, consumers paid a reasonable price for the efforts for growing. For efficiency, the capacity of hydroponic system was discussed in the literature review. From secondary research, hydroponics system has proven to be an efficient way to grow crops as it uses much fewer resources such as water and arable land. This was clear that pilot vertical farmer from interview shown they experience the same results. However, vertical farmers believe there are some crops are more efficient to grow in traditional way despite vertical farm capable to grow the majority of crop types. This area requires more research as this was not clearly reflected from the data collected. To better measure efficiency, research on growth efficiency on different crops should also be studied. 60

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING DISCUSSION

07.02 OPERATION CHALLENGES OF PILOT VERTICAL FARM Currently, there is limited amount of research conducted to identify operation challenges faced by vertical farms. Through primary research with vertical farms, there are numerous economic challenges, and these were discussed in the above section. Other than economic challenges, vertical farms also face a lot of technical challenges such as nutrients supply and monitoring, and lack of microclimate control. It was clear that there are still a lot of rooms for improvement and developing opportunities were identified from these challenges (Figure 10).

07.03 CONSUMER PERCEPTION In the literature review, it was shown that there is only little research conducted related to consumer and their attitude towards vertical farms. There are not much statistical data to portrait consumer perception. So, the online survey conducted was used to fill the gaps in this area. In summary, consumers are largely interested in vertical farming and embraced the benefit brought by it. They believe vertical farm’s produces are safe, clean with high nutrient quality. However, since it still a relatively new technology, there are concerns and uncertain about human control and intervention while farming. Whether or not it will change vegetable in molecular level or being harmful to eat. But overall, they are more willing to buy and try produce from vertical farms. They also believe vertical farms will become popular in cities and have the ability to feed the world population in the next 50 years. The phenomenon from the primary research can be explained using consumer value framework (Figure 18). Consumer value framework is a theory to illustrate factors that shape consumption behaviour and the value involved with the consumption (Holbrook, 1999). Consumers are ultimately determining the consumption based on the value they can get. Safe, clean and high-quality produce are the direct benefit that consumer can experience. These become internal influence that associated with healthy produce. The indirect benefits of vertical farms such as using less water to grow, all-season uninterrupted growing and less pollution, these become external influences and consumers are less likely to concern.

INTERNAL INFLUENCES Consumer Psychology •Learning •Search •Perception •Implicit Memory •Intuition •Information Processing •Memory •Categorization •Attitudes Personality of Consumer •Motivation •Personal Values •Personality •Lifestyle •Emotional Expressiveness •Emotional Intelligence

Consumption Process •Needs •Wants •Exchange •Costs and Benefits •Reactions Value •Utilitarian Value •Hedonic Value

Relationship Quality •CS/D •Switching Behaviour •Customer Share •Customer Commitment

EXTERNAL INFLUENCES Social Environment •Acculturation/Enculturation •Culture and Cultural Values •Reference Groups and Peer Influence •Social Class •Family Influence •Social Media •Popular Media Situational Influences •Environment(Atmosphere) •Time/Timing •Conditions

FIGURE 18 CONSUMER VALUE FRAMEWORK (Holbrook, 1999).

From the framework, it can explain why consumer sceptical about the technology. With consumer past experience and knowledge associated with human-modified agriculture such as GM food, consumers already have a bad experience. They link “human intervention” and “food” as a negative experience. As the principle behind vertical farm involves a lot of human control and intervention, this explains the results that consumer is concern the health risk might involve with it. Therefore, based on the theory, providing more accurate and realistic data to the consumer is critical to change consumer perception. Ultimately, create market demand and more consumer willing to try vertical farm produce.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING DISCUSSION

07.04 FUTURE DESIGN DIRECTION OPPORTUNITIES AND DIRECTION The previous section discussed the challenges faced by pilot vertical farm and consumer perception. To find out appropriate developing directions, identify common themes between farm and consumer can maximise the effectiveness of the direction. Figure 19 summaries the themes on both consumer and farmer. Identified directions will be discussed below.

OPEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Open source, research and development, and open platform are the themes that have raised repeatedly during the primary research. As have mentioned in both literature review and findings, vertical farming technologies are still at the early stage of development. In order to make it more economically viable and lower the cost of entry, more research and development need to be done. Open source development (open development) demonstrated repeatedly that it is a successful strategy to develop new technology (Foster et al., 2017). It is also a trend throughout the world. Open development can benefit some part of vertical farming research such as cropâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s nutrient and climate data. It also helps to develop a healthy competition environment within the community. On the other hand, consumers will have transparent data which can be tracked and know how the crops were grown. These data can let consumer aware of the growing condition. Ultimately, improving consumer perception towards vertical farms.

SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT It is clear that there are still technical improvements that can be implemented inside the vertical farm system. From the interview with farmer, there are still couples of sub-systems that can be improved such as the nutrients supply system, grow bed for different crop types and lacking microclimate control system. These did not only answer the problems that farmers are facing, but also benefit consumers. They can enjoy more different vegetable types which grow under the same farm.

EMPOWER THE COMMUNITY AND THE WEAK

Another direction that was identified is using vertical farm system to empower community and the week. Other than commercial farming, farming itself also has demonstrated that it has the ability to empower the community and help people to self-sustain themselves. As vertical farm requires little resource, not restricted to the environment, and produces are fast and easy to grow, it is clear that it has the potential to be implemented in third world countries. It not only can help them with food shortage but also socially empower them to self-sustain without relying on foreign supply and aids. Other than that, it also has the potential to become a disaster relief system for remote areas to self-sustain their own food.

FARMER

CONSUMER

High research time and cost Lack of knowledge database

Sceptical about new technology No where to get more information

OPEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Lack of micro climate control Inefficient nutrient supply and monitoring

Want to enjoy more variety of produce Want to know how the produce grow

SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT Promote local production local consumption Much less resource need to grow

Empowering community Grow my own food

EMPOWER THE COMMUNITY AND THE WEAK Lack of market and demand To make business more economical viable

Willing to pay more for high quality produce Transparent Farming

TRANSPARENTISE FARMING PROCESS FIGURE 19 IDENTIFIED COMMON THEMES BETWEEN FARMER AND CONSUMER.

TRANSPARENTISE FARMING PROCESS

Finally, another direction was identified is to transparentise farming process. One of the major obstacles that farms are facing is the lack of markets. On the other hand, consumers are lack of information and they are worried about this new technology as they have not seen it themselves. Therefore, making the farming process more visible to the consumer can help improve consumer perception and relationship. This can be done such as integrating the farm with shopping experience within supermarkets or store.

08 RECOMMENDATION

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION 1 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

08.01 NUTRITION MONITORING SYSTEM The first recommendation is a nutrition monitoring system that can be integrated with the current vertical farming system. This recommendation seeks to detect early sign of crop’s nutrient deficiency and notice farmer which chemical compound should supplement into the nutrient tank. The aim is to reduce farmer’s daily maintenance work and reducing labour cost for a large vertical farm. The system will be based on image recognition with the assist of artificial intelligence to detect any colour change and anomaly. A small amount of colour change and discolouration is an early sign of nutrient deficiency. The information will be sent to the farmer and suggest which chemical composition of the nutrient water should be adjusted. This system can also possibly integrate with the open-source database to compare against crops condition in other farms.

KEY CONSIDERATION • System alignment with various existing vertical farm layout design • Require the use of cloud data and artificial intelligence. • Image capture unit should be able to freely move among grow bed and pods.

LIMITATIONS

MOOD BOARD

•May not suitable for small vertical farm •Accuracy is depending on the level of machine learning

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION 2 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

08.02 MODULAR MULTI MICRO-CLIMATE FARM DESIGN The second recommendation is a new layout farm design which allows having multi micro-climate grow beds to exist under the same farm. This recommendation seeks to allow farmers to grow different crop types under the same roof more efficiently. The aim is to extend the flexibility of farm to supply different crop types based on local demand. The recommended farm design is a highly modular design which capable to switch different pods based on the crops type. Inside each pod, parameters such as temperature, humidity, airflow, the gas composition can be adjusted individually based on the requirement of different crops. This can ensure crops are grown efficiently and in maximum yield. It also allows full tracking of harvesting data which can provide accurate data to end consumer. Furthermore, this recommended layout design can integrate with robotic for full automation. It also can integrate with the recommended nutrition monitoring system to achieve remote farming with minimum human involvement.

KEY CONSIDERATION • Plant size is a critical factor when designing the space inside each pod • Possible to fit for automation and manual farming • Water flow, air flow are critical to maintaining a stable climate inside each pod

LIMITATIONS

MOOD BOARD

•Overall system size may larger than those manual farming design •Require A.I to dynamically adjust the climate variable

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION 3 OPEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

08.03 OPEN DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM This recommendation is a higher-level system and services that can be integrated with existing vertical farms. The open development platform is based on an open-source model that sought to decentralise research and development of vertical farms. It also maintains as a database for farmers to obtain crop’s climate data or farm design blueprint. This aim to decentralise the research and development of vertical farm and lower the entry requirement for new farmers to join. One of the key components of the platform is the nutrient database. Different plants require different chemical combination in the nutrient water. This usually requires trial and error which can take a long time to find a balance combination to maximise yield and crop’s nutrition. The database allows farmers around the world to share their composition on the platform. Farmers can replicate the combination to try to see if that work. If not, they can report and proposed another combination for that plant. Ultimately, this can help to build a database for farmers which lower the cost of research. A similar approach can also be used for farm design blueprint.

KEY CONSIDERATION • The value of the system is based on the farm participation • Building healthy competition and community for vertical farming • Easy and convenient UI interface • External API to be used to connect to cloud data

LIMITATIONS • The effectiveness depends on the no of farmers joined • Require complex programming knowledge • Business has fewer incentives to join

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION 4 EMPOWER THE COMMUNITY AND THE WEAK

08.04 START-UP KIT FOR THIRD WORLD COUNTRY This recommendation is a start-up farming kit/module that allows to build up an aquaponics farm in a resource-limited location. This recommendation seeks to build up a basic function vertical farm in a remote area which only have limited resources. This aim to provide alternative agriculture solution to third world countries, allow them to self-sustain themselves. The module will include basic components which easy to set up and with the ability to expand based on scale. The kit includes an HVAC system, solar panel, pump, battery, and basic framework for the grow bed. All these electronic components can be integrated into a compact plug-and-go device. This can help to minimise any prior knowledge needed for managing the electronic part of vertical farming.

KEY CONSIDERATION • • • •

Easy to ship and transport to remote areas High repairability Consider use of local materials Designed required minimum or none prior knowledge

LIMITATIONS • Size limitation due to long-distance transport • Energy options are limited • Require partnership with NGO

MOOD BOARD

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING RECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDATION 5 TRANSPARENTISE FARMING PROCESS

08.05 INTEGRATED FARMING AND VENDING KIOSK This recommendation is an automated running farm which set up inside supermarkets with less human involvement as possible. The recommendation seeks to transparentise the farming/growing experience to consumers. This aim to improve consumer perception with the new agriculture technology and more willingly to buy vertical farm produce. This new integrated station involves two parts, the farm station, and the vending kiosk. The farm station is a self-sustain farm which allows for 24 hours of growing. Customer can order vegetables from the kiosk. The robotic arm will pull the selected crop from the grow bed and vending out to the customer on the spot.

KEY CONSIDERATION • Education and learning experience by customer • Majority of the farming and harvesting should be automated • Making the farming process transparent

LIMITATIONS • Size is limited to shelves size in supermarkets • Consideration of human factors such as ergonomics.

MOOD BOARD

09 PROPOSAL

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING PROPOSAL

Vertical farming creates an opportunity and potential future that the majority of vegetables can be grown within cities. To explore the opportunities for development, this thesis focused on the challenges faced by vertical farms, consumer perception, sustainability, and efficiency of vertical farm systems. This proposal integrated multiple recommendations from the previous section to improve the vertical farming ecosystem.

PROPOSAL

09.01 DESIGN INTENT

09.03 JUSTIFICATION

The purpose of the design is to implement multiples system and services for both farmer and consumer within the vertical farming ecosystem. This include, research and development, production, and customer experience. Ultimately, improving the sustainability and efficiency of the vertical farm system as a future secure food source. The purpose of the design reflected in the design direction and opportunities identified in the previous section.

The overall purpose of the design is to provide an alternative solution of farming which can tackle long-existing problems within traditional agriculture. The current agriculture method and supply chain have been labelled as one of the major reason and source of climate change and pollution. Furthermore, current farming practice is not sustainable to feed the population in the next 50 years. Therefore, it aims to provide a solution which can sustainably and efficiently to grow food for both current and future generation.

09.02 OBJECTIVES

09.04 CONTEXT

The overall objectives of the proposal are to streamline and improve the experience of various touchpoints within the vertical farm.

Three key touchpoints for development have been identified through both in the primary and secondary research, research & development, production and customer experience. Details of the proposed system and services are detailed and explained below.

The initial objective is to decentralise the research and development of vertical farming. Using the strategy of open-source model, it can help to accelerate the researching time, enhance system design through healthy criticism and presenting accurate data to the world. Ultimately, it will lower the entry requirement and more people can set up their own farm in their community.

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

PRODUCTION

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

To further advance the research and development, an open development platform for farmers is proposed. It allows vertical farmer around the world to join, sharing crops data, nutrient data, and farm blueprint. The concept is based on the idea of opensource model to decentralise the effort of research, encourage healthy criticism, and lower the entry requirement for new farmers. However, to maximise the effectiveness of the services, more farmers joining will show better result.

The second level of the system is targeted to improve the efficiency of farms by having technical improvement on the system. A redesigned modular farming system allows farmers to grow more variety of crops with multi microclimate control under the same farm system. Furthermore, using enhanced nutrition monitoring system and artificial intelligence to achieve semi-automation and pathway to full automation later.

For the last level of the system is targeted to improve customer experience and perception by making the farming process transparent to the customer. An integrated station with farm and vending kiosk is proposed to be installed in supermarkets. Customer will be able to see the farming in process. They also can order the vegetable using the kiosk, seeing the crop freshly cut by robotic arms and vending out to the customer with packaging. However, there are a lot of considerations involve allowing the system to run well in a supermarket setting.

The second objective is to enhance the production efficiency of the vertical farming system. By implement new farm design and monitoring system, it allows farmer able to grow more crops types with less restriction. With the use of artificial intelligence, farms can grow more efficient with less human involvement. In the long run, it helps reduce the labour cost required for operating a farm.

The purpose of the proposed design is to further improve different aspects of the vertical farming ecosystem to increase its adaptability in the world. Various challenges and concerns were raised in primary research. These were transformed into proposed designs which enhance the experience of research & development, production and purchasing. This design approach was used to improve the sustainability and efficiency of vertical farming systems at different touchpoints and stakeholders.

The final objective is to enhance the relationship between farm and consumer. By making the farming process transparent and improving the customer shopping experience, it helps to improve consumer perception towards vertical farming. Ultimately, it can help more consumer to adopt vertical farm produce.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING PROPOSAL

09.05 SYSTEM MAP

09.06 KEY CRITERIA

An overall system map was shown in Figure 20 to demonstrate the proposed design in different touch points.

The key criteria outline constraints that need to apply to the proposed design. The criteria give guidance and is set to ensure to align with design intent, aim and objectives. The criteria outlined here is not finalised, it can be expanded and developed in the next phrase of design process. All the criteria have been listed and explained below.

RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT OPEN DEVELOPMENT PLATDORM

SUSTAINABILITY • Must consider the environmental, social and economic impacts when proposed new system. • Must of the system must able to repair for longer serviceability

FUNCTION

PRODUCTION ENHANCED NUTRITION MONITORING SYSTEM

MODULAR MULTICLIMATE FARM DESIGN

Open Platform: •Should be open to allow anyone to share data and designs •Should incentive farmers to share their own data •Consider using API for farmers to ease plug into the platform Modular Farm Design: •Should be able to semi-automated run with minimum human involvement •Should consider possible space required for different plant Integrated Kiosk: •Should allows customers to see the whole farming process / system clearly •Interface must be user-friendly

LIMITATIONS

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

INTERGRATED FARM WITH VENDING KIOSK

Open Platform: •The effectiveness is limited by the no of farmers joined •It requires a central organisation to manage the system •Require to use of cloud data storage and possible use of artificial intelligence Modular Farm Design: •Maybe limited to be only used for certain types of hydroponics system. Integrated Kiosk: •May require human involvement in terms of resupplying crops

ADAPTABILITY FIGURE 20 SYSTEM MAP OF PROPSED SYTEM

Modular Farm Design: •Should have high adaptability to be used in different geographical location •Must capable to grow different types of crops Integrated Kiosk: •Must consider the space inside the supermarkets/store. Have enough flexibility for larger or smaller

ENERGY •Should consider using renewable energy to power the system •Should monitor the energy usage throughout various design

ERGONOMICS Modular Farm Design: •Should consider human ergonomic for userfriendly usage Integrated Kiosk: •Must consider the location of the kiosk inside the supermarket •Should consider used by disability people.

COST OF SERVICES Open Platform: •Consider the cost of running an ongoing data maintenance fee Integrated Kiosk: •Should consider the cost related to energy required to run 24 hours per day, the responsibility of the running cost.

MANUFACTURING •Should consider using new manufacturing method for rapid prototyping and manufacturing •Should have the concept of ease of assembly

SAFETY •Must comply with both international and Australia Standard in regards to safety

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING PROPOSAL

09.05 DESIGN PROCESS & SCHEDULE Next phrase of the design process will be conducted over the period of 14 weeks in the next semester. Detained proposed time schedule is outlined in Figure 21.

WEEK 1

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

WEEK 4

WEEK 5

WEEK6

WEEK7

WEEK8

WEEK 9

WEEK 10

WEEK 11

WEEK 12

WEEK 13

WEEK 14

INITIAL CONCEPT GENERATION CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT MODEL EXPLORATION USER TESTING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REFINEMENT FINAL USER TESTING MANUFACTURING RESEARCH CONCEPT FINALISATION PRESENTATION FINALISATION FIGURE 21 TIMELINE FOR NEXT PHRASE OF DESIGN

10 JUSTIFICATION

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.01 INTRODUCTION Traditional agriculture was identified as one of the major sources of climate change and environmental degradation. With the increase of human population in the next 50 years, a solution is needed to fill the gap of food shortage in the future. Vertical farming presented as alternative farming practice and promised to grow crops sustainably, faster and using significantly fewer resources. As being a new technology, there are limited researches on various aspects such as its efficiency as a food source and consumer perception. Answering these can improve the adaptability of vertical farms in the world. The research conducted in the previous section has led to the recommendation of creating an integrated farm and shopping experience within the location of sales. Since current vertical farm business was struggled to expand its network in retail and customer are largely unknown towards this new growing method, an opportunity was identified which farm can be installed in point of sales such as supermarket, grocery store and restaurant. Ultimately, it can help bring the distance between farmer and customer closer, creating an alternative experience and reducing carbon emission. In the following section, the proposed system and design will be introduced and explained in details and discussion in the design process, design consideration.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.02 FURTHER RESEARCH After the opportunity was identified, further research was conducted to understand and compare the logistics network between traditional farming and current vertical farming. The research will help to identify potential problems and help position the proposed system to address the issue better to different stakeholders. After the opportunity was identified, further research was conducted to understand and compare the logistics network between traditional farming and current vertical farming. The research will help to identify potential problems and help position the proposed system to address the issue better to different stakeholders.

CONCLUSION The above further extended research has given the project a more solid base to suggest a new and transformative system to supply healthier and full of nutrition products to end customer within a closer distance. A decentralised farm which growing happen inside point of sales can benefit both farmer and consumer in different ways.

TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURE MODEL

VERTICAL FARMING MAP

CUSTOMER TREND

As shown in graphics (Figure 22), the figure have shown the touchpoint and potential logistics mode within the logistics network. The figure has proven two major problems that existed within the current supply model for a long time.

Other than looking into the traditional agriculture supply chain, current vertical farming supply model was also critical to study and researched to understand its potential problems (Figure 23). The vertical farming model proved it has a shorter distance between produce and the end customer, but the farm was still required to set up in the peri-urban area as the need for bigger space. It has limited the effectiveness of vertical farm which is work best as close as with the end customer. Moreover, vertical farm supply network still largely depend on the existing wholesale network and it is difficult for a business to go into the retail market to increase their share. Therefore, a new concept of a decentralised farm should be implemented along with using vertical farming techniques.

consumer foodrun. value equation Customer trend is critical for success for a system in long From figure 24, there are increase concerns about their health, wellbeing. They are expecting more food transparency as they concern where and how their food is coming from. Also, they have a new definition of what is food safety, which is free of harmful elements, clear information and full of nutrition content. Finally, empowering consumer a clear choice of food, allows the consumer to see the whole process which allows them to judge and share their experience with Evolving drivers: A pervasive shift others.

First, crops and produces always have to move all around the world to reach its final end customer. With the various touchpoints and shipping modes, the distance between the original farmer and end customer was too far. Other than it creates unnecessary carbon emission, the quality of the produces is degraded over time. This phenomenon should be changed for the benefit of both farmer and end customer.

OVERSEA FARM

TRUCK

95% “Naturally oriented” buyers have a preference for Evolving drivers

Linked to “Health & Wellness” and “Nutritional Content”

Linked to “Free of harmful elements”

Linked to “Organic, non-GMO, all natural” and “Limited processing/preservatives/ artificial ingredients”

Evolving drivers have grown substantially

Transparency

Consumer-led disruptions confronting the food industry Digital technology

“Evolving” Consumers Say They Prefer Evolving Value Drivers 51%

Traditional driver preference

Evolving driver preference

Consumers with Evolving Driver preference that actively research information about food and beverage topics in the media

16%

32%

Those that share information on social media and online sites

11%

17%

CUSTOMER

GROCERY STORE

Among the 51% of consumers with a preference for Evolving value drivers, three distinct buyer groups emerge Each with distinct preferences for components of the emerging driver, Health & Wellness

CUSTOMER

FARMER MARKET TRUCK

FOOD FACTORY

PROBLEM FIGURE 23

OPPORTUNITES

OF CURRENT FARMING MODELS 1. Still largely SUPPLY dependCHAIN on logistics network toVERTICAL move produce into urban area. 2. Largely dependent on wholesale network

customer.

TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURE ODEL 3. Centralised Farm (Required Large space if built in cities)

FIGURE 22 SUPPLY CHAIN OF TRADITIONAL AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

5.4 claims on the front of the package 9.9 nutritional content facts on the back

62%

51%

47%

42%

41%

Free of harmful elements

Clear and accurate labeling

Clear information

Fewer ingredients

Nutritional content

What does this mean for the food industry?

ONLINE

LOCAL FARMER

VALUE-ADDING

Health & Wellness The average consumer seeks 15.3 pieces of information related to Health & Wellness

The top 5 attributes surveyed consumers ranked in importance

LOCAL FARM

INVENTORY

Distrust of the established food industry

Many new attributes are now part of consumers’ definition of Safety

TRUCK RESTAURANT

Democratization of information

Evolving drivers is highly correlated to social media and democratized information

Evolving drivers: A pervasive shift “Traditional” Consumers Say They Prefer Traditional Value Drivers

LOGISTICS VERTICAL FARM

83% “Free from” buyers have a preference for Evolving drivers

Experience

The consumer value driver plate

WALKING DISTANCE

77% “Balanced health” buyers who have a preference for Evolving drivers

RESTAURANT

TRUCK GROCERY STORE

Among the 51% of consumers with a preference for Evolving value drivers, three distinct buyer groups emerge

Social Impact

Convenience

remain intact

FREIGHT COLLECTOR

51%

Each with distinct preferences for components of the emerging driver, Health & Wellness

Health & Wellness

Traditional drivers

PERI-URBAN AREA

WHOLESALE(IMPORTER)

have grown substantially

“Evolving” Consumers Say They Prefer Evolving Value Drivers

49%

SUPERMARKET

FREIGHT

Evolving drivers

Transparency

“Traditional” Consumers Say They Prefer Traditional Value Drivers

49%

WAREHOUSE

Experience

The consumer value driver plate

Taste

LARGE DISTANCE

MANUFACTURING FACTORY

TRUCK

SUPERMARKET

Convenience

remain intact

PROCESSING FACTORY

COLLECTOR

Social Impact

Traditional drivers

Safety

WHOLESALE MARKET

EXPORTER

Safety

Taste

Price

FOOD FACTORY

FARMER

Health & Wellness

Price

Transparency

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

Oversea Equiment

Transparency

Capitalizing on the shifting consumer food value equation

Second, the figure has proven vertical farm are hard to fit in within the traditional agriculture supply chain due to its complexity and layers. As a vertical farm unlike the traditional farm, it produced in lower quantity but in better quality. It is harder for the vertical farm business to compete with traditional agriculture for the price. Therefore, an alternative value and experience should be given to end customer. INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

Capitalizing on the shifting

4. Current model did not maximise the potential of hydroponics

77%

83%

95%

“Balanced health” buyers who have a preference for Evolving drivers

“Free from” buyers have a preference for Evolving drivers

“Naturally oriented” buyers have a preference for Evolving drivers

Linked to “Health & Wellness” and “Nutritional Content”

Linked to “Free of harmful elements”

Linked to “Organic, non-GMO, all natural” and “Limited processing/preservatives/ artificial ingredients”

Consumer tastes & preferences continue to fragment

Retailers’ role influencing consumer purchase decisions increasing

Smaller, newer companies will leverage new technologies, 3rd party relationships, and improved engagement to earn consumer trust and to compete

Larger competitors will adjust to fulfill new, unique value propositions

Market success will be determined by building purposedriven competitive advantages

FIGURE 24 CUSTOMER TREND ON FOOD - US (Deloitte, 2016) 1. Further shorten distance between farmer and

2. Concept of decentralised farm (Farm at point of sale).

Consumer-led disruptions confronting the food industry

Digital technology

Democratization of information

Distrust of the established food industry

Evolving drivers is highly correlated to social media and democratized information Traditional driver preference

Evolving driver preference

Consumers with Evolving Driver preference that actively research information about food and beverage topics in the media

16%

32%

Those that share information on social media and online sites

11%

17%

CURRENT VERTICAL FARMING ODEL

Health & Wellness The average consumer seeks 15.3 pieces of information related to Health & Wellness 5.4 claims on the front of the package 9.9 nutritional content facts on the back

Many new attributes are now part of consumers’ definition of Safety

The top 5 attributes surveyed consumers ranked in importance

62%

51%

47%

42%

41%

Free of harmful elements

Clear and accurate labeling

Clear information

Fewer ingredients

Nutritional content

What does this mean for the food industry? 1.

EMPOWER THE COMMUNITY AND THE WEAK

to build a database for farmers which lower the cost of research. A similar approach can also be used for farm design blueprint.

Lack of market and demand

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

Willing to pay more for high quality produce KEY CONSIDERATION

To make business more economical viable

• The value of the system is based on the farm participation

Transparent Farming • Building healthy competition and community for vertical farming • Easy and convenient UI interface

• External API to be used to connect to cloud data TRANSPARENTISE FARMING PROCESS

LIMITATIONS • The effectiveness depends on the no of farmers joined • Require complex programming knowledge • Business has fewer incentives to join

10.03 SYSTEM: FARM AT POINT OF SALE (FARM@POS) Farm@POS is a decentralised integrated farming solution which growing are disperse among different point of sale (Figure 25). Each point of sale only responsible to supply a small amount of people in the area. Majority of the farming will be monitored by computer algorithm and artificial intelligence. In this system, farmers does not need to have a large space as farm, they rather providing farming service in different point of sale to performing regular maintenance and repair. This save farmer initial cost and resource to set up large farm. Furthermore, customer can see the whole growing process and pick their own produce at the store. The system and its concept can benefit different stakeholders in different ways.

DETAILED SYSTEM EXPLAINED For each Farm@POS node, it will install the farm tower at the point of sale. Each node will be backed up by a back-end farm, which its responsibility is for germination of seeds, preparing growing trays and managing trays across different farming nodes in the POS. Farmers rather than centralised in one location at the backend farm, farmers will go into different farming nodes to help to do regular maintenance. Supermarkets are responsible to provide space, water and electricity to help maintain the farming node at their locations. Furthermore, all the nodes within the system are aimed located within walking distance which helps to minimise the dependence on large logistics network on transporting trays and crops (Figure 26).

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

SINGLE FARM POS

SYSTEM CONCEPT FARMING SERVICE

SUPERMARKET / GROCERY STORE

FARM POS

INSTALLING SPACE FARMER WATER & ELECTRICITY

BACK-END FARM

MAINTENANCE

FARM POS

RESTOCK/RESUPPLY

WATER & ELECTRICITY

1. Germination 2. Moving almost mature crops to Farm POS

CUSTOMER INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

FIGURE 25 OVERALL SYSTEM MODEL SYSTEM MODEL AND SINGLE FARMING NODE MODEL

PROPOSED SYSTE WALKING DISTANCE

WALKING DISTANCE FARM POS

BACK-END FARM URBAN CITY

FARM POS

CUSTOMER

FARM POS FARM POS

SUPERMARKET FIGURE 26 OVERALL SYSTEM MODEL

PROPOSED SYSTE

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.03 DESIGN: F-POS

GROWING TOWER

F-POS is a decentralised tower-based hydroponic farming solution that is utilising the Farm@POS system (Figure 27). The system and design aimed to provide a simple and automated solution for growing instore(Point of sale). F-POS comprised of three major components, Growing Tower, Growing Trays and Management robot in the back-end farm. The system runs through just as shown in Figure 28. It all starts from the back-end farm, which responsible for the germination of seeds, preparation of growing trays and initial growth. Once the crops are matured at a stage, the growing tray with the crops will be transferred to the farming node at the store for the final week of growing. When it was ready for harvest, the tray will place outside the tower at the display shelves and ready for the customer to pick up. Finally, the empty trays will be recycled back to the back-end farm to create a full cycle.

Growing tower is a critical unit within the growing solutions. It is a tower-based modular stack design which helps to adapt to different internal height space (Figure 29). All major electronics such as pump, water reservoir will be located at the base of the tower and heat sink is on the outer shell to make sure it will not overheat. In each stack, it will have individual temperature, humidity, window flow control to ensure its adaptability to the requirement of different crops (Figure 30). Furthermore, an AI camera sensing technology is being used to help 24/7 monitoring the health of crops. If the camera detects any irregular colour change and anomalies, the computer system will flag the stack. It will notice the logistics robot to collect and send to farmers for further check and change. Finally, it has a wide spectrum LED for constant growth and accommodate the light intensity required by different plants.

3.86 M

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

FIGURE 27 SYSTEM IMAGE OF F-POS F-POS

FIGURE 29 FEATURES OF GROWING TOWER INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

WALKING DISTANCE

CAMERA SENSING TECHNOLOGY LED GROWTH LIGHT MODULAR SYSTEM INDIVIDUAL TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, WIND FLOW CONTROL SUPERMARKET BACK-END FARM

CUSTOMER

GROW TRAY TRANSFERED TO THE STORE

1. Germination 2. Seeding

EMPTY TRAY

FIGURE 28 THE SYSTEM MAP OF F-POS

SYSTE AP

FIGURE 30 DETAIL VIEWS OF GROWING TOWER

FEATURES

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

LOGISTICS ROBOT

GROWING TRAY

The logistics robot helps to maintain the sealed back-end farm by transporting growing tray on to towers and out of the system (Figure 31). A seal farm can help ensure the health and safety of the crops and maximising efficiency in growing. For each robot, it can contain up to four trays at one time. Furthermore, a scissor lift was implemented for the robot to help ensure it can navigate up and down for maintenance (Figure 32).

Growing tray is the major focus of the project as it was important across different touchpoints. For this design, the tray can hold for up to 20 leafy green crops at one time (Figure 33). Each individual container pods can be removed as desired and as needed for large size crops (Figure 34). Furthermore, a water circulating system was designed to help the nutrition solutions circulate within the growing tower (Figure 35). Also, inward, and outwards water pipe has its own one-way valve to ensure the water will not leak as it was being moved to different touchpoints. The central design idea for the tray is simple to manufacture as each F-POS system may require up to hundreds of these trays. Therefore, all components in the tray can be either injection moulded, and blow moulded to lower the cost. Finally, each component can be stacked individually for saving space and make the assembly easier for farmers.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

FIGURE 33 GROWING TRAY

ROBOTIC SYSTE FIGURE 31 LOGISTICS ROBOT

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

FIGURE 34

OF GROWING TRAY GROINGFEATURES TRAY

SECURE LOCK

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

DENT OUTWARD

POD RAIL SYSTEM

FIGURE 35 WATER CIRCULATION SYSTEM

NUTRIENT SOLUTION CIRCULATING WITHIN THE TRAY

FIGURE 32 FEATURES OF LOGISTICS ROBOT

SECTION VIE

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.04 PACT ANALYSIS

TECHNOLOGY

This section explores the PACT factor influencing the design of the F-POS system. As the system was explored as a future alternative produce supply solution, research was conducted by analysing trends, asking professionals and identifying opportunities. In the following, each aspect will be explained in details how it has influenced the design.

The F-POS system is highly relying on the new and continuous development of technology ranging from AI, robotic and camera. The aim of the use of technology is to achieve a high level of automation to drive the cost of the vertical farmâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s produces lower. Combining camera sensing and artificial intelligence technology, it can help ensure the farm can automatically operate. Depends on the growing variable of crops, the AI system can fine-tune all growing elements inside each stack to ensure the best chance of the crops to grow in the best shape. Furthermore, working with robotic, it helps streamline the logistics problem and avoid possible human errors in the process.

PEOPLE

ACTIVITIES

CONTEXT

The major target user for this phase of the project is vertical farmers. Secondary users will be shop customers and tertiary stakeholders will be supermarkets. At the first stage of the system (Sprouting and Farm management), the focus is on helping farmers to streamline the preparation for trays and maximising the efficiency to grow crops at a lower cost. When designing the tray, opinions and suggestion based on the existing vertical farm were integrated into the design decision. For example, the frustration of taking individual growing pods was replaced as a pod rail system in this design. It allows farmers to take all crops at one go but with the ability to easily take out individual crops. For the secondary users, it was for shop customers as they are the final end-user of the system. At the end cycle of the system, customers will observe how the crops being grown and pick their own crops at the store (Figure 36). Therefore, consideration such as safety and hygiene requirement were considered to ensure customers can have an alternative shopping experience at the store.

When designing the system, there are three stages of activities. First, farmer preparing the trays, robot managing the farm and customer picking up produces at the store. These three activities combined to create a new experience for different stakeholders. Touchpoints and pain points were analysed for different stakeholders and implement improvement on the pain points to help streamline their process and increase efficiency.

Through the network of the system, there are two major contexts in the system, Back-end farm and Point of sales.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

SUPERMARKET

For farmers, the major hurdle of their process is on preparation and cleaning. They struggle to efficiently prepare these tasks in the vertical farm. Therefore, in this design, the growing pod and top frame help drive the change into a modular system. It helps the farmer to able to manage to prepare and clean easier. Also, it was clear that vertical farm performs best with the robotic as some of the tasks can be replaced, it not only helps to maximise growing ability but driving down cost which vertical farm is emphasising on. For customer end, understanding their needs and wants is critical for the success of the system. Therefore, questionnaire and feedback are collected on their eating habits, trends and needs and their expectation. This information informs the design of what crops are possibly growing in the store. It also reflected on how the system interacts with the customer at the store such as how the produces being picked up and displayed.

Back-end Robotic Farm The back-end farm is being used as a support farm for the farming nodes at POS. It was a sealed farm managed by robotic (Figure 36). This design decision was informed by vertical farming trends and interviews from professions. As to driving down the cost, robotic is in a position which can help running the farm in full scale. Furthermore, it can scale up and down depending on the space. Furthermore, as because of the large scale of the project, robotic is a better choice for running the farm. Finally, a sealed farm without human can help ensure there are no harmful virus and pest that can affect the crops inside the farm. Point of Sale The other critical context is the system at the point of sale. As there could be various indoor space limitation depend on the location of the POS, the system is highly modular in its design. It can have a higher and lower number of stacks. Also, as one tower is one unit, the location can have multiple units depending on the needs and size of the space. Furthermore, as the majority of the system components are self-enclosed, the POS only need to provide water and electricity to the system for its to run. Therefore, it can ensure the system adaptability to different POS environment. INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

SEALED FARM CAN ENSURE CROP HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIGURE 35 SCENAIRO OF SYSTEM AT SUPERMARKET

FIGURE 36 SCENAIRO OF BACK-END FARM

BACK END FARî?&#x192; 99

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.05 DESIGN PROCESS The design process was run through over the 15 weeks of the semester. The aim of the timeline schedule to help maintain weekly progress and achieving major milestones. The project schedule was highlighted in Figure 37. There are many changes was conducted to fit the scale of the project. The key phrases of the project were highlighted in Figure 38. WEEK 1

WEEK 2

WEEK 3

WEEK 4

WEEK 5

WEEK6

WEEK7

WEEK8

WEEK 9

WEEK 10

WEEK 11

WEEK 12

WEEK 13

WEEK 14

PHASE 1: EARLY CONCEPT PHASE

1.1 Introduction and Opportunities

1.2 Design Criteria

1.3 Further Research

1.4 Pain Point Analysis

1.5 Idea Generation

1.6 SYSTEM DESIGN EXPLORATION

1.7 SYSTEM DESIGN REFINEMENT

2.4 Prototyping

2.3 Mechanism Research

2.2 Scenairo Building

2.1 Final Concept: Development

PHASE 2: DESIGN REFINEMENT

FEEDBACK

1.9 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

1.8 CONCEPT GENERATION:IDEA TION

2.5 User Testing

2.6 Refining Design

2.7 Presentation Preparation

2.8 Exhibition Preparation

FIGURE 38 MAJOR MILESTONE

100

101

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.06 DESIGN VALIDATION

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RECORD

FIRST SCALED MODELLING WHOLE TRAY DESIGN

TOP FRAME TESTING

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RECORD

OF HAND ARE TESTED FURTHERLOCATION SCALED MODELLING TESTING WATER INLET AND OUTLET

Things to test here: 1. The design of the pod rail 2. Overall sizeing

The validation of the F-POS system was initially confirmed by the clear opportunities identified to create an integrated farm and shopping experiences at stores. The evidence found through the primary and secondary research has a clear indication that there should be a fundamentally different approach in supply fresh produce to the customer which can enjoy fresher produce.

PROBLEM USER TEST 1 FEEDBACKThe water inlet and outlet The top frame cant fit with tray easily, a new easy w unclear how it the the frame, not feeling 1. The overall size is goodmoudel forisholding mechanism should be use can connect, new way secure and easy to use. of thinking needed to too big or small. be consider to improve design smooth to ensure 2. The pod lifting motion isthe not as desired, should make it both plastic design and functionality more smoother. 3. Should be more careful the width of the side panel, does it PROBLEM PROBLEM The pod â&#x20AC;&#x153;grab have enough width for holding with The pod height seemsall a the weight? PROBLEM

USER TESTING By using prototypes, scaled and full-scale models, certain aspects of the design were tested and validated. At the early stage of designs, paper, and cardboard model was made to determine the required size and scale. After having initial concepts, certain aspects of the function was modelled to determine the possibility and function of the water module. Finally, a final scale model was used for user testing to obtain feedback from people about the size and discover possible problems with the model.

SEQUENCE OFoutcome USE of the testing Figure 39. highlight the variation of testing conducted during the project phase. The includes changing the size of the growing pods, the details on the angle of the growing pods and minor details for better grip on the bottom tray.

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT RECORD

too small and grab for farme

bit too high for water to reach the root, a longer pod can used in this

FULL SCALE MODEL TESTING REMOTE FEEDBACK As my contacts are oversea and i dont have local contacts to test the concept. So i have sent the below testing video and concept INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING page to oversea verticalDEVELOPMENT farmer to obtain RECORD feedback from them. DESIGN

Benefit for farmer: FULL SCALE MODEL TESTING

REMOTE FEEDBACK Due to the limitation of travel restriction and lack of local contacts, remote contacts feedback was used to further validate the concept and the system design. Videos of assembly and usage with the presentation slide were sent to remote vertical farm contacts to obtain feedback. Few topics were brought up during the discussion related to the cost and distribution of the trays in the system (Figure 40).

FIGURE 39 the cost of builing the system cheaper. 3. In terms of the design, they like how it aimed for mass manufacturing which make

2. The frame lift up to lift up all pod

Photos of Prototypes

4. How the docking of tray to the system should also be a big concern.

REMOTE FEEDBACK 55

1. Dont have to transport REMOTE FEEDBACK each pod one at a time The pods can easily fail apart 2. Save time and streamline FEEDBACK 1 when the frame is lifted up transplant operation. 1. The overall concept is good that can help vertical farm business to expand its business into retail places such as supermarkets Rail system canasallow and restaurant. However, there are some concerns on the3.feasbility of it such how the funding can work to support the system. The pods also can fall between farmer pick up once pod at theflow. space 2. In terms of the tray design, they like the idea of one lift a with all growing pod to streamline the work But at the same time, time worry about the weight that are possible on the frame. In longer term,will the frame deform have to buy a new one?

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Overall there is RECORD a positive response in regards to helping future vertical farm business to expand their market into retails and boost the public conception towards hydroponics. All response is interested in the Farmer put pod top of fundamental new way of supplying produces. However, there are1.few concerns such on as how to frame work with FULL SCALE MODEL TESTING supermarkets and the initial funding source of the proposed system.

FEEDBACK 1

PROBLEM

Things to test here: 1. The overall fitting of top frame 2. The water inlet and outlet 3. The design of pod

FEEDBACK 2

1. The overall concept is good that can help vertical farm business to expand its business into retail places such as supermarkets and restaurant. However, there are some concerns on the feasbility of it such as how the funding can work to support the system.

1. They feel the concept is furturistic and can potential help future vertical farmer expand their netowrk of growing into area which is harder to get in.

2. In terms of the tray design, they like the idea of one lift with all growing pod to streamline the work flow. But at the same time, worry about the weight that are possible on the frame. In longer term,will the frame deform have to buy a new one?

2. They concern the power required to be used in supermaket and will supermarket happy to have it count towards them. How the farmer doing maintance work if the system in supermarkets?

3. In terms of the design, they like how it aimed for mass manufacturing which make the cost of builing the system cheaper.

3. In therms of tray design, they like the design of tray, simple but very much functional to do its work.

4. How the docking of tray to the system should also be a big concern.

4. They expect more visualise how the system can work in supermarket.

FIGURE 40 FEEDBACK 2 FEEDBACK FROM REMOTE CONTACTS

1. They feel the concept is furturistic and can potential help future vertical farmer expand their netowrk of growing into area which is harder to get in.

1022. They concern the power required to be used in supermaket and will supermarket happy to have it count towards them. How the farmer doing maintance work if the system in supermarkets?

103

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.07 BUSINESS CASE

THE VALUE PROPOSITIONS

F-POS have been developed to emphasise the cooperation of different stakeholders in order to provide new and alternative growing and shopping experience. To successfully implement the system, factors such as space, initial setup cost, market and potential growth need to be considered. A business model have been drafted for further details of the business case.

Through the implementation of the system, it has values and benefit for three major stakeholders, farmers, supermarkets and customer.

IMPLEMENTATION OF F-POS To implement F-POS, set-up cost and operation cost and how it will be funded should be a priority consideration at an early stage. A cooperation investment model with angle fundraising is proposed to make the system available. Since the nature of the model has two major stakeholders, farmers and supermarkets. A co-invest agreement should be proposed between two parties which two will have benefit from it. Farmers providing knowledge, farming services and supermarket providing space, ongoing utility and capital. Furthermore, the co-invested company can further attract funds from angel funds and startup capital to support the initial infrastructure cost. These costs will be recovered by the revenue of selling additional farming nodes to external parties and the selling of produces at stores. The implementation of the system would be followed by the following steps: 1. Towers, Trays and Robot being manufactured and brought by a company co-founded by farmers and supermarkets. 2. Renting/Brought unused space (Vacant Office/Factory) within the city to set up as Back-end Farm 3. Install of Farming nodes/Towers in stores. 4. Selling extra farming nodes to external parties as revenue recovery 5. Selling produces from the system as the main revenue stream. 6. (Optional) providing all-in-one solution to the oversea company as consultancy

104

From the farmerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perspective, farmers can provide farming service without the need for large space as the space was decentralised from around different POS. Furthermore, it helps the business to expand its network into retail as the system moves one step closer to end-customer. Finally, it helps them to build up relationship and branding between farmer and customer as it was displayed in front of the customer. From the perspective of supermarkets, it can enjoy a stable supply of fresh and full nutrition produce throughout the year despite weather and climate. It was because of hydroponic technology can grow produces 24/7 indoor despite any weather condition. As because of this, supermarkets can eliminate the reasons the high level of stocking, reducing the fund and resources needed for stocking. Finally, it can outplay competitors to provide off-season fruits and vegetables to the customer. From the perspective of the customer, they can enjoy fresh and full nutrition produce any time throughout the whole year. This was in line with the customer trend which expecting healthier options. Furthermore, they have complete transparent farming information. As each step of the crops was tracked and recorded by the AI system, this information will be clearly shown to the customer to inform their purchasing. This was also in line with customer trend which expecting more food transparency. Finally, they can have a unique experience which picks their vegetables at the store.

105

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

BUSINESS CANVAS KEY PARTNERS • The system is highly adaptable which can implement no matter the size and scale of stores and supermarkets. The key stakeholders of the system will be dependent on the farmers and supermarket that have invested in the system. There will be a need for an agreement between two parties Potential Stakeholders • The potential stakeholders of the system would be manufacturers, Robotic software providers and real estate. As these stakeholders can contribute a lot to help set up the farm.

KEY ACTIVITIES Farming services •The aim of the F-POS is to provide fresh and full nutrition produce to end customer. Through the design of the system, customer can see it growing process and pick their own at stores. Decentralised hydroponics technology help to achieve that in-store. Back-end farm management •The back-end farm is responsible for supporting farming nodes at the stores. It was responsible mainly on sprouting, germination and logistics.

CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP •The F-STOP aimed to build a closer relationship between farmer and customer by displaying the farming process in front of the customer. Farmers at the store can also act as a bridge to connect with the customer to build the branding of the business.

CUSTOMER SEGMENTS Customer who valued health •The primary customer at the early stage of business would target customer who valued health and wellbeing. This customer is largely more welcomed and shared the same ideology behind the business. General Customer •In long term, general customer should become the main customer segment as the cost is going down. This can help to build a better brand image which shows “Healthy Produce is for all”

CHANNEL •The main channel of the F-POS system is through contacting supermarkets and potential vertical farmers to reach an agreement to provide fresh produce to customer.

Maintenance •Farmers rather than staying at one centralised farm, they will go to the store’s farming nodes to provide maintenance and farming services. Expansion •F-POS is a highly modular design which can adapt to any infrastructure and space around the world. The future expansion of the system will design a modular growing tray which adaptable to different crops height.

KEY RESOURCES F-POS products •The major resources of the project are the growing tower, growing trays and logistics robots. By using these products, the system can perform in maximum efficiency. Intellectual Property •Since the system provides a fundamentally new way to supply produce, it has intellectual property values and should be protected against any potential competition. This can ensure a stable revenue income at the early stage of business. Technology •The application of the system largely depends on the automated system which is from AI software and technology. The algorithm and software are values for the business to go on to develop.

106

107

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

10.08 DESIGN DISCUSSION The development of F-POS system was designed using established design criteria which were shown in the previous section. Since the scale of the project has changed and the project has adapted and evolved during the development of the design in the semester. Below is the analysis of all the key criteria proposed and how it was achieved with the final design.

FUNCTION • The design has allowed the customer to observe the whole farming process at the POS through the use of transparent design. • There is no digital interface/ robotic structure in the growing tower/tray which minimise the need for training. Customer can easily know how to pick up the products they want.

LIMITATIONS • The farm design was highly modular with adaptability to different crops size. It also allows adjusting the number of the stack on each growing tower to fit the space had at the store. • The proposed system only using deep water culture hydroponics, but it can adapt to other technologies if needed. • The use of an artificial intelligence controlled system can minimise the need for extra farmers to help maintain the whole system.

ADAPTABILITY • The whole system design did not have a desired locations to install as all component are selfcontained. • Although the design of the system is mainly for leafy greens and vegetables, it had the potential to extend to grow fruits and other crops type depend on the development of GM modified seed. • POS space and environment have been considered in the early design stage, make sure it can be used in various size and scale stores and supermarkets.

COST OF SERVICE • The potential cost of operating the system have been layout to ensure there is a revenue recovery approach to recover the initial setup cost. This can be including cooperation and cofounding with supermarkets.

MANUFACTURING • Most of the component for growing tray can be injection moulded or with rotational moulded. Rotation Moulding should be considered as an early production method to drive down tool cost. • The assembly of the growing tray is simple and easy which can be prepared in a short time.

SAFETY • The safety requirement and standard have been referenced during the design of the tower and tray. However, since this is a future-forward concept, further effort still needed to improve this section of design.

SUSTAINABILITY • The design of the product can be repaired and reused within the system. However, due to the repeated use on the growing tray, there is a possibility the lifecycle of it is shorter than other components.

ENERGY • The energy required on the system is dependent on the POS energy system. However, renewable energy is preferred to maintain overall low carbon emission. • The energy usage will be displayed as one of the information to the farmers and supermarket as reference.

ERGONOMICS • User testing and ergonomics data have been conducted to ensure it can accommodate various user including disability and wheelchair user at the supermarket. • The growing tray has been optimised for easier grip and move or farmers.

108

109

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING JUSTIFICATION

decentralised which aimed g experience resh produce e to end-user.

was identified es of climate nvironmental e increase of xt 50 years, a ded to fill the in the future. Hydroponics) ative farming mised to grow ter and using er resources.

Vertical Farming

10.08 SUMMARY In summary, the F-POS system has been designed to fundamentally change produces and crops was provided to the customer by introducing vertical farming solution in supermarkets. The design intent and criteria were identified by research and achieved by the implementation of the full-cycle growing solution. The system provides an alternative perspective and solutions for supplying fresh produce to the customer. Through the implementation of the system, customer can enjoy a stable supply of fresh produce which benefit all of us.

m at arket

F-POS (Farm@POS) is a decentralised vertical farming solution which aimed to provide a new shopping experience for customers and bring fresh produce close to end-user.

tical ming

Traditional agriculture was identified as one of the major sources of climate and environmental Endiostia quam quam change evendi blaborem eum untia sit quatur magnati ncteserio. Everibus aut etincrease que lab degradation. With the of evendi blaborem eum ipidisque. human population in the next 50 years, a solution is needed to fill the gap of food shortage in the future. Vertical farming (Hydroponics) presented as alternative farming practice and promised to grow crops sustainably, faster and using significantly fewer resources.

h, the current main issues, nd low public new growing n opportunity e farm in the market. It can and their sale omer can see e crops were into this new wing method.

can have uce right m at the market.â&#x20AC;?

t at back-end ots) which is ance towards n the city. All jority of crop the back-end ost mature, it tower at the final growing. decentralised eir own fresh which aimed supermarket. g experience resh produce e to end-user.

was identified es of climate nvironmental e increase of xt 50 years, a ded to fill the in the future. Hydroponics) ative farming mised to grow ter and using er resources.

110

h, the current main issues,

Through the research, the current vertical farms face two main issues, the lack of market and low public conception towards this new growing method. Therefore, an opportunity was identified to bring the farm in the urban city at the supermarket. It can help vertical farmers expand their sale network to retail and customer can see through their eyes how the crops were grown, gaining more trust into this new growing method.

Endiostia quam quam evendi blaborem eum untia sit quatur magnati ncteserio. Everibus aut et que lab evendi blaborem eum ipidisque.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Customer can have fresh produce right next to them at the supermarket.â&#x20AC;? F-POS system start at back-end farm (manged by robots) which is located within close distance towards different supermarkets in the city. All fermentation and majority of crop growth will happen at the back-end farm. Once, crops almost mature, it will Jacob Ho be shipped to the tower at the supermarket for the final growing. Contact: jacobho@jacobho.design Link to More Work: https://jacobho.design Customer can pick their own fresh produce right at the supermarket.

111

11 CONCLUSION

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING CONCLUSION

112

113

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING CONCLUSION

11.01 CONCLUSION Traditional agriculture was identified as one of the major sources of climate change and environmental degradation. With the increase of human population in the next 50 years, a solution is needed to fill the gap of food shortage in the future. Vertical farming presented as alternative farming practice and promised to grow crops sustainably, faster and using significantly fewer resources. As being a new technology, there are limited researches on various aspects such as its efficiency as a food source and consumer perception. Answering these can improve the adaptability of vertical farms in the world. Sustainability and efficiency of vertical farms were two main critical factors to reflect its ability to become a reliable food source as promised. To make vertical farms more adaptable in the world. these two areas will need to improve. Interviews were conducted with pilot vertical farm business to explore their challenges and their views toward the future of vertical farming. Furthermore, an online survey was conducted to obtain consumer perception and attitudes. By analysing their experience with vertical farming, there are four areas identified as design direction for enhancing the vertical farm ecosystem: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Open source development to encourage iteration development System improvement to increase the efficiency of farm Work as social projects to empower the community and the weak Transparentise farming process to enhance customer perception

These findings were then transferred into concepts and a proposal was constructed utilising multiple concepts into an integrated system. This approach was used to enhance various touchpoints of vertical farms and increase overall sustainability and efficiency of the vertical farm system. Ultimately, it can path a pathway to allow vertical farms to become a major food source in the future. Through further research, the current vertical farms face two main issues, the lack of market and low public conception towards this new growing method. Therefore, an opportunity was identified to bring the farm in the urban city at the supermarket. It can help vertical farmers expand their sale network to retail and customer can see through their eyes how the crops were grown, gaining more trust into this new growing method. Creating a decentralised farm and alternative shopping experience for the user can help improve the above issue. With that in mind, F-POS system was designed to help bring fresh and full nutrition produces closer to endcustomer. It not only helps customer but also for farmers to bring the farming network in retails. Through the implementation of the system, it can help to provide an alternative solution for supplying produces to people.

114

115

12 REFERENCE

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING REFERENCE

116

117

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING REFERENCE

REFERENCE Al-Chalabi, M. (2015). Vertical farming: Skyscraper sustainability? Sustainable Cities and Society. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.06.003 Al-Kodmany, K. (2018). The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city. In Buildings (Vol. 8, Issue 2). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8020024 Alshrouf, A. (n.d.). Hydroponics, Aeroponic and Aquaponic as Compared with Conventional Farming. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering. Retrieved April1, 2020, from http://asrjetsjournal. org/ AlShrouf, A. (2017). View of Hydroponics, Aeroponic and Aquaponic as Compared with Conventional Farming. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology and Sciences (ASRJETS). Angotti, T. (2015). Urban agriculture: Long-term strategy or impossible dream?. Lessons from prospect farm in brooklyn, New York. Public Health, 129(4), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2014.12.008 Asao, T. (2012). Hydroponics-A Standard Methodology for Plant Biological Researches Edited. www. intechopen.com Banerjee, C., &Adenaeuer, L. (2014). Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming. Journal of Agricultural Studies. https://doi.org/10.5296/jas.v2i1.4526 Begum, S. (2019, June 11). Vertical farm receives the world’s first urban farm certification for organic vegetables. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/vertical-farm-receives-the-worldsfirst-urban-farm-certification-for-organic-vegetables Benke, K., &Tomkins, B. (2017). Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlledenvironment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 13(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.10 80/15487733.2017.1394054 Birmingham, D. W. and P. (2014). Using Research Instruments- A Guide For Researchers. In Igarss 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 Braun, V., &Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cassell, C., Symon, G., &King, N. (2014). Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text. In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446280119. n21 Castelló Ferrer, E., Rye, J., Brander, G., Savas, T., Chambers, D., England, H., &Harper, C. (2019). Personal food computer: A new device for controlled-environment agriculture. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02683-7_79 118

Cheema, G. S., Smit, J., Ratta, A., Nasr, J., United Nations Development Programme., &Urban Agriculture Network. (1996). Urban agriculture : food, jobs and sustainable cities. United Nations Development Programme. Clercq, M.De, Vats, A., &Biel, A. (2018). Agriculture 4 . 0 : the Future. In World Government Summit. Despommier, D. (2011). The vertical farm: Controlled environment agriculture carried out in tall buildings would create greater food safety and security for large urban populations. Journal Fur Verbraucherschutz Und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 6(2), 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-010-0654-3 Fedoroff, N.V. (2015). Food in a future of 10 billion. In Agriculture and Food Security. https://doi. org/10.1186/s40066-015-0031-7 Foster, T., Brozović, N., Butler, A. P., Neale, C. M. U., Raes, D., Steduto, P., Fereres, E., &Hsiao, T. C. (2017). AquaCrop-OS: An open source version of FAO’s crop water productivity model. Agricultural Water Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.11.015 Garg, A., &Balodi, R. (2014). Recent trends in agriculture: vertical farming and organic farming. https:// doi.org/10.15406/apar.2014.01.00023 Goodman, W., &Minner, J. (2019). Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy, 83, 160–173. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.038 Goto, E. (2015). Production of Pharmaceuticals in a Specially Designed Plant Factory. In Plant Factory: An Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production (Issue 2010). Elsevier Inc. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801775-3.00015-9 Hamilton, G., Swann, L., Pandey, V., Moyle, C., Khanal, U., Rezayan, L., Wilson, C., &Rajapaksa, D. (2019). Horizon Scanning - Opportunities for New Technologies and Industries. Holbrook, M. B. (1999). Consumer value : a framework for analysis and research. Routledge. Hydroponic Urban Blog. (n.d.). Hydroponic: Various hydroponics systems. 2018. Retrieved April19, 2020, from https://www.hydroponic-urban-gardening.com/hydroponics-guide/various-hydroponics-systems/ Ian Frazier. (2017, January 2). The Vertical Farm. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/ magazine/2017/01/09/the-vertical-farm Jansen, G., Cila, N., Kanis, M., &Slaats, Y. (2016). Attitudes towards Vertical farming at home: A user study. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 07-12-May-, 3091–3098. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892474 Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366 119

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING REFERENCE

Kalantari, F., Mohd TAHIR, O., Akbari Joni, R., &Azemah AMINULDIN, N. (2018). THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE THEORY IN DETERMINING THE SUCCESS OF THE VERTICAL FARMING PROJECTS. www.mrp.ase.ro Kalantari, F., Mohd Tahir, O., Lahijani, A. M., &Kalantari, S. (2017). A Review of Vertical Farming Technology: A Guide for Implementation of Building Integrated Agriculture in Cities. https://doi. org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.24.76 Kalantari, F., Tahir, O. M., Joni, R. A., &Fatemi, E. (2018). Opportunities and challenges in sustainability of vertical farming: A review. Journal of Landscape Ecology(Czech Republic), 11(1), 35–60. https://doi. org/10.1515/jlecol-2017-0016

MIT. (2018). Open Agriculture (OpenAg). https://www.media.mit.edu/groups/open-agricultureopenag/overview/ National Rural Health Alliance. (2012). Economic contribution of regional, rural and remote Australia. https://www.ruralhealth.org.au/book/economic-contribution-regional-rural-and-remote-australia O’Sullivan, C. A., Bonnett, G. D., McIntyre, C. L., Hochman, Z., &Wasson, A. P. (2019). Strategies to improve the productivity, product diversity and profitability of urban agriculture. In Agricultural Systems (Vol. 174, pp. 133–144). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.007 Philips Lighting. (2015). GreenPower LED production module. https://www.lighting.philips.com.au/ products/horticulture/products/greenpower-led-production-module

Kikuchi, Y., Kanematsu, Y., &Okubo, T. (2019). Life cycle design of indoor hydroponic horticulture considering energy-water-food nexus. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering (Vol. 46, pp. 1585– 1590). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818634-3.50265-4

Rykaczewska, K. (2016). The potato minituber production from microtubers in aeroponic culture. Plant, Soil and Environment, 62(5), 210–214. https://doi.org/10.17221/686/2015-PSE

Kozai, T. (2013). Sustainable plant factory: Closed plant production systems with artificial light for high resource use efficiencies and quality produce. Acta Horticulturae, 1004, 27–40. https://doi. org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2013.1004.2

Schmautz, Z., Loeu, F., Liebisch, F., Graber, A., Mathis, A., Bulc, T. G., &Junge, R. (2016). Tomato productivity and quality in aquaponics: Comparison of three hydroponic methods. Water (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/w8110533

Kozai, Toyoki. (2015). PFAL Business and R & D in the World: Current Status and Perspectives: Current Status and Perspectives. In Plant Factory: An Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801775-3.00003-2

Shamshiri, R. R., Kalantari, F., Ting, K. C., Thorp, K. R., Hameed, I. A., Weltzien, C., Ahmad, D., &Shad, Z. (2018). Advances in greenhouse automation and controlled environment agriculture: A transition to plant factories and urban agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. https:// doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181101.3210

Kozai, Toyoki, &Niu, G. (2015). Role of the Plant Factory With Artificial Lighting (PFAL) in Urban Areas. In Plant Factory: An Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801775-3.00002-0

Smith, B. G. (2008). Developing sustainable food supply chains. In Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2187

Krishnamurthy, R. (2014, July 25). Vertical Farming: Singapore’s Solution to Feed the Local Urban Population. https://www.permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solutionfeed-local-urban-population/

Son, J. E., Kim, H. J., &Ahn, T. I. (2015). Hydroponic Systems. In Plant Factory: An Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-8017753.00017-2

Love, D. C., Fry, J. P., Li, X., Hill, E. S., Genello, L., Semmens, K., &Thompson, R. E. (2015). Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: Findings from an international survey. Aquaculture. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023

Souret, F. F., &Weathers, P. J. (2000). The growth of Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) in aeroponics and hydroponics. Journal of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants, 7(3), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1300/ J044v07n03_04

Mahesh, P. J., Naheem, M., Mubafar, R., Shyba, S., &Beevi, S. (2016). New aspect for organic farming practices: Controlled crop nutrition and soilless agriculture. GHTC 2016 - IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference: Technology for the Benefit of Humanity, Conference Proceedings, 819–824. https://doi.org/10.1109/GHTC.2016.7857374

Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I., Freisinger, U. B., Sawicka, M., Werner, A., Thomaier, S., Henckel, D., Walk, H., &Dierich, A. (2014). Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 33–51. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4

Mbiyu, M. W., Muthoni, J., Kabira, J., Elmar, G., Muchira, C., Pwaipwai, P., Ngaruiya, J., Otieno, S., &Onditi, J. (2012). Use of aeroponics technique for potato (Solanum tuberosum) minitubers production in Kenya. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 4(11), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.5897/JHF12.012

Specht, K., Weith, T., Swoboda, K., &Siebert, R. (2016). Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0355-0

120

121

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING REFERENCE

Specht, K., Zoll, F., Schümann, H., Bela, J., Kachel, J., &Robischon, M. (2019). How will we eat and produce in the cities of the future? From edible insects to vertical farming-A study on the perception and acceptability of new approaches. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11164315 The Aquaponic Source. (2017). What is Aquaponics? https://www.theaquaponicsource.com/what-isaquaponics/ United Nations. (2019). The Future is Now Global Sustainable Development Report 2019. United Nations Food and Argiculture Organization. (2016). Database on Arable Land. https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/AG. LND.ARBL.HA.PC?end1⁄42013&start1⁄41961&view1⁄4chart Vorrath, S. (2016, October 7). World-first solar tower powered tomato farm opens in Port Augusta | RenewEconomy. https://reneweconomy.com.au/world-first-solar-tower-powered-tomato-farm-opensport-augusta-41643/ Wright, K. B. (2006). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x Xydis, G. A., Liaros, S., &Botsis, K. (2017). Energy demand analysis via small scale hydroponic systems in suburban areas – An integrated energy-food nexus solution. Science of the Total Environment, 593–594, 610–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.170 Zamora-Izquierdo, M. A., Santa, J., Martínez, J. A., Martínez, V., &Skarmeta, A. F. (2019). Smart farming IoT platform based on edge and cloud computing. Biosystems Engineering, 177, 4–17. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2018.10.014

122

123

12 APPENDIX

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING APPENDIX

124

125

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING APPENDIX

12.01 APPENDIX 1 - INTERVIEW DATA SAMPLE TRANSCRIPT

126

127

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING APPENDIX

CODES

THEMES AND CODING TABLE

128

129

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING APPENDIX

12.

18.

13.

19.

12.02 APPENDIX 2 - ONLINE SURVEY DATA 1. On average, How many types of vegetables have you eaten per day during the past week?

9. On a scale of 1 -5, rate the perception of vertical farm, green house and open field farming in terms of safety, naturalness, willingness to buy and quality.

5. What are most important factors on your purchase of fresh produce?

Factors on purchase of fresh produce

Growin Method

Organic

Quality 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Perception of farming methods Vertical Farming

0 – 0% - 0 1-3 – 34.2% - 13 4-6 – 47.4% - 18 7-9 – 10.5% - 4 10 or more – 7.9% - 3

2. In the past week, what types of green vegetables have you eaten?

Open Field

Price

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1

Nutrition Value

0.5 Willingness to buy

a. b. c. d. e.

Safe 4.5 Green House

Fair Trade

Natural

14.

Value for money

20.

Convenience

Factors Quality Price Nutrition Value Value for money Convenience Fair Trade Organic Growing Method

Mean 4.28947368 3.57894737 3.34210526 3.76315789 3.57894737 2.7027027 2.7027027 2.21621622

Median

Mode 5 4 3 4 4 2 3 2

5 3 4 4 4 2 2 2

SD 0.92730049 1.13021354 1.07241369 0.88330493 1.13021354 1.17532182 1.19872304 1.15794682

Quality

Mean Safe Natural Quality Willingness to buy

Vertical Farming 4.315789474 3.405405405 4.289473684

Green House 3.868421053 3.621621622 4.105263158

Open Field 3.39473684 4 3.63157895

4.263157895

4.026315789

4.05263158

21.

7. After reading the above information, how well you think you know about vertical farming?

10. Why would you be likely/unlikely to buy produce from a vertical farm? •

a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

Leafy Green – 89.5% - 34 Allium (Onion, Garlic, Shallot) – 81.6% - 31 Cruciferous (Cabbage, Cauliflower, Broccoli) – 60.5% - 23 Root (Potato, Sweet Potato) – 57.9% - 22 Marrow (Pumpkin, Cucumber and Zucchini) – 47.4% - 18 Edible Plant stem (Celery and Asparagus) – 21.1% - 8 Others – 7.8% - 3

•

3. Where do you usually source your vegetables from?

• •

a. 5 – 16.2% - 6 b. 4 – 51.4% - 4 c. 3 – 27% - 10 d. 2 – 5.4% - 2 e. 1 – 0% - 0 8. After reading the above information, which parts of the vertical farming interest you?

a. Major Supermarkets – 94.7% - 36 b. I grow my own – 26.3% - 10 c. Farmer Market – 23.7% - 9 d. Convenience Stores – 15.8% - 6 e. Online Stores – 10.5% - 4 f. Organic Stores – 7.9% - 3 g. Direct from farmers – 5.3% - 2 4. Do you usually know where and how the vegetables you bought are grown?

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. a. b. c. d. e.

Technology (Hydroponics) – 78.9% - 30 Enjoy pesticide and chemical free produce – 65.8% - 25 Enjoy fresh produce closer to you – 57.9% - 22 Shorter growing cycle – 57.9% - 22 All season growing – 50% - 19 Clear and Transparent Farming – 47.4% - 18 Traceable Farming – 36.8% - 14 Other: Save space, high efficiency and lower cost – 7.8% - 3

I think that the environmental and economic advantages as stated above would greatly improve how people access, consume and view farming vegetables. I think that it could reduce the price = people eat healthier, and can boost Australian farming in this area due to the lack of seasonal effect and availability. I think it’s a great way to farm, makes perfect sense and I don’t see any negatives towards it, there wasn’t any negative points shown in the info however. But I imagine it’d be because it’s not deemed ‘natural’ which isn’t an issue for me. I would be likely to buy produce from a vertical farm as it seems as good as other available products. I would be unlikely to buy produce from a vertical farm as it's not available currently from the shops I use. If the vertical farm is able to produce crops regardless of season, I would buy produce from their if I was able to eat any vegetables that I wanted. Reduced pesticide use would make it safer to eat and the production method would make it more sustainable

15.

22. 16.

11. What is your biggest favour/concern from produce grown in vertical farm? • Perhaps that it’s not using soil, or sunlight but I’m not sure how that would affect the properties of the produce, it’s far more efficient so I don’t know why it’s not more adopted. • No pesticide is used and the vertical farm process feels more sustainable since it's maximizing yield while utilizing renewable resources like solar. • Could lead to cheaper costs of vegetables. Although it uses a lot of power, an increased of crop yield could still make the veges cheaper. Also a farm in the middle of the city would definitely reduce transportation costs. • The price is the biggest concern along with its availability at supermarkets • My biggest concern would be the the price of the food, a lower cost would ensure I can afford to buy it • just the cost to maintain these farms, they are a high tech operation compared to other methods. Due to this just concerns with cost to the produce may go up • In season fruit and vegetables are the best for you for a reason and producing year round will take away from that, though the elimination of pesticides and chemicals is a big relief. The other thing it's both a favour and concern but the reliability in technology for the food, I hope we don't lose the skills when it comes to your own garden/vegetable patch. • People's perceptions... maybe people might think it's 'unnatural' similar to the GMO argument, causing it to not become as popular. But I think it has a lot of potential and has many benefits to society in terms of food security, price and accessibility. • 1. lacking contact to outdoor environment makes it low in universal spiritual energy • 2. strong dependence on man-care ,lacking strength to adapt to fields and outdoors, weakening immunity of plants and passing-on of species • 3. strong reliance on electricity makes production vulnerable in times of energy shortage

23. 17.

12. 24.

Every purchase – 0% - 0 Most of the purchase – 10.5% - 4 Half of the purchase – 5.3% - 2 Some of the purchase – 47.4% - 18 None – 36.8% - 14

18.

13.

25. 19.

130

131

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING APPENDIX

12.03 APPENDIX 3 - CONSENT FORM CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

Research team Ching Yin Ho (Jacob) Rafael Gomez

DE42 Bachelor of Design – Honours Projects

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1800000355

chingyin.ho@connect.qut.edu.au r.gomez@qut.edu.au

07 3138 4577

Statement of consent By signing below, you are indicating that you:

Research team Ching Yin Ho (Jacob) Rafael Gomez

chingyin.ho@connect.qut.edu.au r.gomez@qut.edu.au

07 3138 4577

Statement of consent By signing below, you are indicating that you:

Have read and understood the information document regarding this research project.

•

Have read and understood the information document regarding this research project.

Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

•

Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

•

Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

Understand that you are free to withdraw without comment or penalty.

•

Understand that you are free to withdraw without comment or penalty.

Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the research project you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email humanethics@qut.edu.au.

•

Understand that the research project will include an audio recording.

Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the research project you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email humanethics@qut.edu.au.

•

Agree to participate in the research project.

Understand that the research project will include an audio recording.

•

Agree to participate in the research project.

Please tick one of the following options: When this research is published, I am happy to be identified BY NAME. When this research is published, I wish to REMAIN ANONYMOUS with no use of my name or identifying details.

Name

Onny Wong

Signature

Date

Name

James Pateras

Signature

16/5/2020 Please return the signed consent form to the researcher.

132

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

Date

19/5/20 Please return the signed consent form to the researcher.

133

INDOOR VERTICAL FARMING APPENDIX

CONSENT FORM FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT – Interview –

DE42 Bachelor of Design – Honours Projects QUT Ethics Approval Number 1800000355 Research team Ching Yin Ho (Jacob) Rafael Gomez

chingyin.ho@connect.qut.edu.au r.gomez@qut.edu.au

07 3138 4577

Statement of consent By signing below, you are indicating that you: •

Have read and understood the information document regarding this research project.

•

Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction.

•

Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team.

•

Understand that you are free to withdraw without comment or penalty.

•

Understand that if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the research project you can contact the Research Ethics Advisory Team on 07 3138 5123 or email humanethics@qut.edu.au.

•

Understand that the research project will include an audio recording.

•

Agree to participate in the research project.

Name

DAVID FARQUHAR

Signature

Date

27/05/2020 Please return the signed consent form to the researcher.

134

135