Vertical Farming Introduction
Vertical farming, a method of growing crops in vertically stacked layers within controlled environments, maximizes space efficiency and reduces resource consumption compared to traditional agriculture (Mishra et al., 2024). Unlike conventional farming, which requires vast expanses of arable land and is often affected by unpredictable weather conditions, vertical farming can operate indoors in climate controlled spaces, which enables year round crop production. The method minimizes land use while optimizing water consumption and controlling environmental conditions. Vertical farms can use hydroponic, aeroponic, or aquaponic systems (three methods of farming focused on limiting water usage) to further maximize space efficiency and drastically cut resource waste. Not only does it conserve water–using up to 95% less than traditional farming– but it also usually eliminates the need for chemical pesticides and herbicides, and as a result, yields cleaner, safer produce (Birkby & Soto-Velez, n.d.; Mishra et al., 2024; Rajaseger et al., 2023).
Moreover, the technology, if implemented in urban areas, also reduces the carbon footprint associated with transporting produce from rural farms to urban centers by localizing food production, which further contributes to environmental sustainability. According to the USDA, vertical farming is no longer considered a fringe or futuristic practice, but instead, a rapidly growing part of the food system (Ling & Altland, 2021). Therefore, bringing the practice to cities is no longer just an idea on the horizon.
Once considered experimental, vertical farming is increasingly being integrated into mainstream urban infrastructure
and development. Al-Kodmany (2018) delineates how vertical farms are now being designed into city buildings and public space planning. Additionally, market projections estimate that the vertical farming industry could exceed a value of $20 billion globally by 2026, a result of increased demand for sustainable food and resilient urban food systems, as well as an improvement in the technology available for said systems (MarketsandMarkets, 2024).
The significance of urban vertical farming lies in its potential to alleviate food insecurity while advancing sustainable agricultural practices. It has the potential to revolutionize both food accessibility and economic revitalization. By establishing vertical farms within underutilized spaces, fresh, organic food can be produced closer to the communities that need or lack it most, cutting down on both costs and logistical barriers. The implications of this are profound: increased access to nutritious foods could lead to a decline in diet related health issues, ultimately lowering healthcare costs and improving overall qualities of life. Furthermore, these farming systems can create job opportunities, stimulate local economies, and foster economic resilience/self sufficiency in marginalized communities (Casey, n.d.; Gunapala et al., 2025; Pradhan et al., 2024). Beyond individual health benefits, the broader societal advantages of enhancing food accessibility include a reduced strain on government funded welfare programs such as food assistance and public healthcare services, which helps create economic incentives for wider adoption of this technology.
Foundational Theories
It is important to note that this project is not an isolated attempt at revolutionizing the agricultural field as we know it–vertical farming has been around for a while now and has already emerged as a promising solution to food insecurity, resource inefficiency, and environmental degradation in modern cities. This section offers an overview of some theoretical and conceptual foundations that underlie vertical farming (to date), and draws on key thinkers and research in the field. Rather than presenting a prescriptive guide to implementation, the purpose here is to examine and assess the intellectual groundwork that supports vertical farming while also identifying any potential gaps in current research. These foundational sources provide the necessary background to understand the structural, ecological, and technological dimensions of urban agriculture.
One of the most influential contributors to this discourse is Dickson Despommier, whose book The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century (2010) laid the groundwork for viewing agriculture through an urban lens. Despommier introduced the concept of controlled environment agriculture (CEA), which enables the cultivation of crops indoors. His work positioned vertical farming as an inevitable evolution in food production, necessary for meeting the challenges of population growth, climate instability, and shrinking amounts of arable land. Despommier’s argument rested on the principle that traditional farming methods are no longer sustainable due to their reliance on land intensive, weather dependent processes that degrade soil, and contribute to deforestation (Despommier, 2010). He imagined a future in which food would be grown in skyscrapers and urban towers, in which
cities would be their own self-sustaining ecosystems (Despommier 2010). While Despommier’s ideas were visionary and compelling, his projections do rely heavily on theoretical models rather than empirical data from large scale implementations, which is a weakness. Nonetheless, his visions have sparked real world innovations and a broader reevaluation of how cities can be redesigned, particularly with food systems in mind.
Other sources, such as How Will We Eat and Produce in the Cities of the Future? by Specht et al. (2019) expand upon Despommier’s foundational concepts, and further investigate vertical farming through various lenses. Specht et al.’s work stresses that while vertical farming presents technical advantages, like space efficiency and climate control, its social acceptance and integration into communities are equally crucial. Their study found that the general public is increasingly interested in the VF approach to agriculture. According to them, however, “there are also significant barriers to overcome,” including that “scepticism and a certain lack of knowledge on the consumer side depict an obstacle” (Specht et al., 2019). They concluded that “action needs to be taken on several levels to foster adoption and dissemination” (Specht et al., 2019). Their proposed framework for action focuses on balancing innovation with transparency, inclusivity, and long term public engagement. They suggest that a good place to start would be with an adaptation of legal frameworks. Further, they argue that for VF to be both accepted and effective, it must be supported by participatory governance and accessible to the general public.
These perspectives are bolstered by economic and public health analyses which focus on the broader systemic issues that
vertical farming seeks to address. Scholars like Drewnowksi (2022) and Mollenkamp (2025) call attention to how food insecurity is shaped by economic inequality and structural barriers to accessing healthy food. Drewnowski argues that any solution to food insecurity must confront these root causes, not just the symptoms. This supports the idea that people suffering from food insecurity first and foremost need access to an infrastructural system that provides (affordable) healthy foods. Vertical farming, if designed with community needs and local governance in mind, can contribute to this goal of equitable food access and decouple food availability from traditional supply chains. Mollenkamp adds that food insecurity has significant macroeconomic consequences, including, namely, rising healthcare costs and diminished labor productivity (Mollenkamp, 2025). This assertion frames vertical farming not only as an agricultural intervention, but as a policyrelevant tool for economic resilience as well.
Finally, recent studies have added depth to these theories by exploring the biological and environmental mechanisms that support sustainable indoor farming. For instance, de Carbonnel et al. (2022) examine how advances in plant photobiology (e.g. optimizing light wavelengths and energy efficiency in LED’s) can improve productivity and reduce the energy footprint of vertical farms. Their findings indicate that technological refinement is necessary for scaling UVFS in a financially feasible and climate conscious manner. Thus, their research situates vertical farming within an ecological context.
Together, these foundational ideas form a multidimensional portrait of vertical farming. Despommier’s work introduces the visions, work’s like Spech et al. 's provide a socio-ethical
framework, scholars like Drewnowski and Mollenkamp connect it to systemic inequality, and studies like those by de Carbonnel et al. contribute to the environmental insights. This thesis builds on all of those perspectives to construct a more comprehensive understanding of vertical farming as a strategy for reshaping food access, urban design, and environmental sustainability.
Existing Implementations: Comparative Case Studies in Global Cities
A comparative analysis of existing urban agriculture programs offers insights into potential models for equitable distribution. Urban farming and vertical farming have seen diverse implementations across the globe, with cities such as Singapore, Tokyo, and New York serving as leading examples (Benke & Tomkins, 2017). These case studies provide valuable insights into the main drivers of success and recurring challenges that exist when integrating VF into urban environments. For example, they demonstrate the impact of government subsidies and public-private partnerships on vertical farming’s financial viability. Additionally, they reveal some key factors which influence the adoption of vertical farming, including policy support, technological advancements, and societal acceptance.
Singapore stands out as a global leader in national level investment in vertical farming. Faced with a near-total dependence on food imports compounded with its lack of arable land, Singapore has launched a “30 by 30” initiative which aims to meet 30% of the country’s nutritional needs with domestically produced food by 2030 (Singapore Food Agency & Grace Fu, 2022). The
government has supported this mission through subsidies, research and development funding, and infrastructure support. Companies like Sky Greens, one of the world’s first commercial vertical farms, employ patented, rotating, vertical structures to optimize sunlight exposure while minimizing water and energy consumption. In addition, Singapore’s vertical farms integrate high tech solutions (e.g. data driven nutrient delivery systems and automation technology) to reduce labor costs and improve yields (Mok et al., 2020). The government has also offered significant financial incentives, including grants and low interest loans, to stimulate the development of urban vertical farming. These interventions are great examples of how government involvement, and in particular, comprehensive policy, and financial backing, can significantly influence the success of urban agriculture.
Tokyo presents another case study where high land costs and population density necessitate innovative food production strategies. Japan’s vertical farms primarily focus on high yield leafy greens and leverage LED technology and hydroponic systems to maximize efficiency. The Mirai company, for instance, uses controlled environment agriculture methods that increase productivity and reduce water usage by up to 98% compared to traditional farming (MIRAI Co., Ltd., n.d.). Tokyo’s vertical farms also benefit from strong integration with local retail networks, including supermarkets and convenience stores, which enhances the efficiency of distribution through a more direct distribution network. Ultimately, this boosts the viability of urban farming businesses by making it easier for products to end up on a shelf, and then in the consumer's pantry. Despite technological
advancements, however, the high operational costs of UVF in Tokyo have made profitability a persistent obstacle.
New York City has also embraced urban vertical farming, with companies such as AeroFarms and Gotham Greens finding success and putting their products on shelves in supermarkets across the country. Unlike Singapore and Tokyo though, New York’s UF/VF industry has relied more on private investment than government support. These farms have repurposed rooftops and warehouses for intensive CEA. One of these companies, Gotham Greens, distributes hyper local produce through both national grocery chains and direct to consumer platforms. Another company, AeroFarms, has repurposed industrial spaces into large scale vertical farms using aeroponic growing methods. Unfortunately, New York’s regulatory framework has presented barriers, particularly regarding zoning laws and high energy costs, which affect the scalability of these enterprises. Unlike Singapore, New York lacks robust government subsidies or unified policy support, and this is a major weakness for the UVF industry there. Yet, despite this challenge, the city has found ways to make it work, with the entrepreneurial ecosystem driving innovation in modular design and brand driven marketing.
The comparative analysis of these case studies suggests that government intervention, technological efficiency, and strategic market integration play major roles in the feasibility of large scale urban vertical farming. While the Singapore case demonstrates the effectiveness of governmental support, Tokyo’s case and technological advancements show the need for innovation in the struggle to overcome spatial constraints. New York, on the other hand, calls attention to the challenges within the private sector
UVF in the absence of policy incentives. With an understanding of these models, policymakers and entrepreneurs can adopt the best practices and tailor them to their own approaches. It should be noted that there are some persisting research gaps regarding the long term effectiveness of urban vertical farming initiatives. Thus, studies with a more longitudinal scope are needed in order to assess whether large scale urban agriculture can maintain affordability without continued government intervention.
Environmental Impact
Building on these implementation examples, it’s also essential to evaluate how vertical farming systems affect the environment. Urban vertical farming systems offer a number of significant environmental advantages over traditional agriculture, though they are not without tradeoffs. This section offers a brief synopsis of UVFS’s ecological footprint, zeroing in on major impacts in water use, waste generation, chemical input and GHGs.
One of the most significant environmental advantages of vertical farming lies in its water efficiency – vertical farming is widely regarded for its ability to reduce agricultural water consumption. Graamans et al. (2017) and Rajaseger et al. (2023) posit that hydroponic and aeroponic systems can cut water by up to 90-95% compared to conventional farming methods (with some studies putting the number of savings even higher). These systems recycle water within closed loop circuits that minimize loss due to evaporation or runoff. A 2020 study by Han also found that (indoor) vertical farms use significantly less water per kilogram of food output than outdoor farms, especially in water scarce environments (Han, 2020). The World Economic Forum has
spotlighted vertical farming as a promising strategy to enhance food security in regions facing water stress (WEF, 2023).
Commercial insights from Eden Green share a similar perspective, which is that water use can be tailored to specific crop needs and immensely lower waste (“Agricultural Water Use,” 2024).
In addition to conserving water, vertical farming systems can also play a major role in reducing agricultural waste. UVFS can reduce waste by growing food closer to urban markets and as a result, minimizing post harvest losses. Mok et. al. (2020) report that Singapore’s vertical farms have incorporated systems for organic waste composting and byproduct reuse. Furthermore, decision support models (mentioned previously) could be used in vertical farms with automated resource controls, and thus experience less spoilage and more predictable outputs, each of which can reduce operational (food) waste (Baumont de Oliveira, 2023).
Another prime environmental benefit of VF is the extraordinary reduction in synthetic outputs. Since vertical farms operate in tightly controlled environments, they generally require no chemical pesticides and can minimize synthetic fertilizer use. Rajaseger et al. (2023) found that CEA significantly reduces runoff and environmental pollution from agrochemicals. Despite this obvious benefit, CEA isn’t necessarily harmless, and according to an article by Kumar & Cho (2014), its resulting waste can actually be environmentally damaging. Their article explores how nutrient rich waste solutions from hydroponic systems can contribute to groundwater contamination and ecosystem disruption if not properly managed. They argue, however, that reusing this nutrient effluent in greenhouse cultivation presents a viable strategy to
mitigate pollution and increase agricultural sustainability. This idea suggests that waste management practices will play an important role in UVFS’s long term environmental impact.
Lastly, VF’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions is closely tied to its ability to reduce transportation. Localized vertical farms eliminate the need for long distance transportation of produce, thereby limiting emissions related to “food miles” (Foodmiles.com, n.d.). Vatistas et al. (2022) claim that UVFS could lower the carbon cost of food distribution a remarkable amount when located in urban centers. Studies on carbon impacts also found that “[g]lobal food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions” (Li et al., 2022). Some critics would argue that energy usage for lighting or other systems can partially offset these emission reductions. Others claim that targeting food miles is not the most impactful way to lower carbon emissions, relative to other methods (Ritchie, 2020). Since there remains discourse on the issue, the continued use of lifecycle assessments, which assess the environmental impacts of a product or service throughout its entire life, will be an effective strategy for estimating net carbon impacts. In summary, while UVFS presents substantial environmental benefits, including water conservation, pesticide elimination, and reduction of carbon emissions, there remain tradeoffs in areas like energy consumption.
Cost Effectiveness and Energy Efficiency
As outlined in previous sections, the economic feasibility of UVFS is one of the most critical determinants of their potential to be a solution to food insecurity and an alternative to traditional agriculture. Although VF offers exciting environmental and social benefits, questions around cost (both initial and ongoing) often influence whether such systems can be implemented sustainably and at scale. This section evaluates the economics of UVFS through multiple lenses: startup capital requirements, operational expenses, return on investment (ROI), energy demands, and strategies for energy optimization.
Initial Investment
Building a functional vertical farming system requires significant upfront capital. Unlike traditional farms, vertical farms demand infrastructure such as multi-tiered growing racks, climate control systems, LED lighting, sensors, and often automation software. Specht et al. (2019) argues that this capital intensive nature can deter entry, especially in communities without strong financial backing or government support. Per recent industry analysis, startup costs for an urban vertical farm can range from $100 to $300 per square foot depending on technology level and scale (“What Are the 9 Startup Costs,” 2023; “Vertical farming price guide: How much does it cost?,” 2024). For indoor-only operations with more sophisticated CEA technologies, costs can exceed $500,000 for small facilities and several million for commercial scale projects (“Vertical Farming Costs: A Complete Guide,” 2023).
Fortunately, however, modular design improvements and economies of scale are beginning to reduce these costs. For example, Eden Green’s modular vertical farm model suggests that startup expenditures can be significantly lowered when using prefabricated systems designed for quick urban deployment (“Profitability in Vertical Farming,” 2024).
Operational Costs
Once installed, vertical farms still face high operational expenditures. Studies have found that artificial lighting alone can account for up to 60% of total energy costs (with some sources citing numbers even higher), while temperature and humidity regulation systems can drive up utility expenses in areas with extreme climates (Amirshekari & Fakhroleslam, 2025; Graamans et al, 2017). Benke & Tomkins (2017) report that labor, maintenance, nutrient supply, and water recycling systems add significantly to monthly operational costs, especially in larger facilities. Decision support models (which is a computer system that helps improve and inform one’s decisions) developed by sustainability researchers further confirm that operational costs can make or break economic feasibility, depending on local energy pricing and supply chain efficiency (Baumont de Oliveira, 2023). In comparing vertical farms to traditional greenhouses, studies by Eden Green indicate that although UVFS are more expensive in the short term, they tend to outperform greenhouses in the long term due to reduced water use, consistent, year-round output, and less dependence on weather conditions (“Key Differences in Traditional Greenhouses and Vertical Greenhouses,” 2024).
Market Price and Return on Investment
Profitability remains a complex variable in vertical farming. ROI depends not only on yield and efficiency, but also on consumer demand, pricing structures, access to reliable distribution channels, and more. OptiClimateFarm notes that crops such as leafy greens and herbs, both of which grow and sell at premium prices, offer the highest margins. Market saturation and consumer skepticism, however, can still hinder profitability. One study modeling hydroponic systems for butterhead lettuce estimated ROI at 17-25% for optimized operations (Shao et. al, 2016)). There are always innovative solutions emerging to hindrances though, and a recent typology review of vertical plant farms identifies hybrid business models as particularly promising in terms of financial resilience and public trust (Baumont de Oliveira, 2022).
Energy Consumption
Energy use is one of the most debated issues in vertical farming. One study by Harbrick et al. (2016) found that energy consumption in UVFS can be 11-13 times higher than traditional agriculture on a per yield basis, while other studies have found numbers even higher. Research from Purdue University highlights the role of LED efficiency as a major cost lever. Optimizing light spectra and intensity has the potential to reduce energy needs without compromising growth (Sheibani & Mitchell, 2023). Similarly, industry reviews have proposed that next-gen LED systems could cut lighting costs substantially as technology advances (Voyles, 2022; Mcdonald, 2022). In more nuanced models, energy demand also fluctuates based on location and climate. A recent study found that cooling and lighting energy
varied significantly depending on latitude and building insulation quality (Arcasi et al., 2023). There are also studies which have found vertical farming to be more energy efficient, offering significantly more overall resource savings (with things like water consumption factored in) compared to other agricultural methods (Avgousaki et al., 2020).
On top of these studies of current energy consumption, there are experiments with renewable energy underway, which aim to integrate it into vertical farming systems to offset energy demands. Rooftop solar arrays and smart grid technology have been used to partially power farms, which helps reduce net emissions and increase long term viability (“Renewable Energy in Vertical Farming,” 2024). This approach will likely be necessary for future implementations of VF, particularly in cities with high energy prices or aggressive climate goals.
Altogether, these cost and energy considerations paint a picture of vertical farming as a high risk, high reward venture. While technological advancements and supportive policies are reducing financial barriers, long term success will still require continued innovation in areas like design and energy use.
Conclusion
Ultimately, urban vertical farming is a powerful reimagining of how we feed cities; it’s compact, efficient, and can be community anchored. This thesis argues that vertical farming holds exceptional promise in addressing food insecurity, and revolutionizing agriculture in support of environmental sustainability and localized socioeconomic development. Despite the fact that a wide variety of topics have been touched upon here, the full scope of vertical farming and its potential extend far beyond the scope of this paper.
Numerous promising directions remain unexplored, such as the long term health outcomes associated with food as medicine initiatives and prescription produce programs (Wang et al., 2023). Studies of this topic suggest that access to healthy, affordable food can increase life expectancy, improve the educational attainment of a population, and bolster workforce productivity. These effects then ripple outward in many more directions. Though such downstream effects are difficult to quantify in a single paper, they are, nonetheless, central to understanding the true scope of change that vertical farming could usher in.
Throughout this thesis, vertical farming has been evaluated as a multifaceted system, one that’s technological, economic, ecological, and social. Not only is its model of food production scalable and sustainable, but it's also adaptable to a variety of urban environments. As the case studies from Singapore, New York City, Tokyo, and elsewhere have exemplified, success for this budding industry depends on more than just innovative growing methods. It also requires thoughtful policy, community engagement, and long term planning.
There are still outstanding questions to be answered:
1. Can UVFS be made affordable without continual subsidy?
2. Will consumers embrace produce grown without soil or sun?
3. Can renewable energy fully offset the system’s energy demands?
These and other challenges must continue to be addressed through future research, implementation, and feedback from communities on the ground.
Regardless, the broader insight of this thesis remains: food insecurity and urban sustainability have public policy overlaps, and urban vertical farming offers a rare opportunity to address the two in tandem. In an era marked by widening structural inequality, climate stress, and rising urban populations, the need for forward thinking food systems has never been more urgent. A commitment to vertical farming would not only address an immediate crisis, but would also lay the foundation for a healthier, more equitable, and more economically fortified urban future.
References
Al-Kodmany, K. (2018). The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Retrieved from https://www.ars.usda.gov/oc/utm/vertical-farming-nolonger-a-futuristic-concept/
Amirshekari, M. H., & Fakhroleslam, M. (2025). Impact of artificial light on photosynthesis, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency in vertical farming systems. Smart Agricultural Technology, 11, 100901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2025.100901
Avgousaki, A., Papadopoulos, A. M., & Tsoutsos, T. (2020). Energy performance of vertical farming systems: A case study in Greece. Applied Thermal Engineering, 170, 114969.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.114969
Avisomo. (2023). Vertical farming costs: A complete guide. https://avisomo.com/vertical-farming-costs/
Arcasi, R., Smith, J., & Lee, T. (2023). Assessment of the energy consumption of indoor farming for different climates and lighting system intensity. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 45(2), 123–135.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376841341_ Assessment_of_the_energy_consumption_of_indoor_f
arming_for_different_climates_and_lighting_system_i ntensity
Baumont de Oliveira, M. (2022). A typology review for vertical plant farms: Classifications, configurations, business models, and economic analyses. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364606677_ A_Typology_Review_for_Vertical_Plant_Farms_Clas sifications_Configurations_Business_Models_and_Eco nomic_Analyses
Baumont de Oliveira, F. (2023). A decision support system for economic viability and environmental impact assessment of vertical farms (Doctoral dissertation). University of Liverpool.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37 0060689_A_Decision_Support_System_for_Economic _Viability_and_Environmental_Impact_Assessment_o f_Vertical_Farms​:contentReference[oaicite:3] {index=3}
Benke, K., & Tomkins, B. (2017). Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability, 9(1), 6.
Birkby, J., & Soto-Velez, M. (n.d.). Vertical farming. ATTRA Sustainable Agriculture Program. https://attra.ncat.org/publication/vertical-farming/
Bradeen, T. (2021). Exploring urban food desert policies in the United States through the water-food-energy nexus. Undergraduate Honors Theses, 87. University of San Diego. https://digital.sandiego.edu/honors_theses/87
Bunge, A. C., Wood, A., Halloran, A., & Gordon, L. J. (2022, November 3). A systematic scoping review of the sustainability of vertical farming, plant-based alternatives, food delivery services and blockchain in food systems. Nature Food. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00622-8
Business Plan Templates. (n.d.). Startup costs: Urban vertical farming. https://businessplantemplates.com/blogs/startup-costs/urban-verticalfarming
Casey, L. (n.d.). Fields of opportunity: Exploring the intersection of urban farming and AI solutions for food insecurities in Black communities. Capstone Project, CBCF. https://www.cbcfinc.org/capstones/economicopportunity/fields-of-opportunity-exploring-theintersection-of-urban-farming-and-ai-solutions-forfood-insecurities-in-black-communities/
City of Boston. (n.d.). Urban farming in Boston. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://www.boston.gov/departments/growboston/urba n-farming-city
Colson-Fearon, B., & Versey, H. S. (2022, October 5). Urban agriculture as a means to food sovereignty? A case study of Baltimore City residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9566707/
de Carbonnel, M., Stormonth-Darling, J. M., Liu, W., Kuziak, D., & Jones, M. A. (2022, June 16). Realising the environmental potential of vertical farming systems through advances in plant photobiology. Biology, 11(6), 881.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9220163/
Despommier, D. (2010). The vertical farm: Feeding the world in the 21st century. Thomas Dunne Books.
Drewnowski, A. (2022). Food insecurity has economic root causes. Nat Food. 2022;3(8):555-556. doi: 10.1038/s43016022-00577-w. PMID: 35965676; PMCID: PMC9362113.
Eden Green Technology. (2024, February 14). Controlled environment agriculture: What you need to know about CEA. https://www.edengreen.com/blogcollection/what-everyones-saying-about-controlledenvironment-agriculture
Eden Green Technology. (2024, May 18). Profitability in Vertical Farming: Challenges and Solutions.
https://www.edengreen.com/blog-collection/is-avertical-farming-business-profitable
Eden Green Technology. (2024, March 26). Vertical farming crop yield per acre vs. traditional farming. https://www.edengreen.com/blog-collection/verticalfarming-crop-yield-per-acre
Eden Green Technology. (2024, September 10). Renewable energy in vertical farming: Solar, wind, & more. https://www.edengreen.com/blogcollection/renewable-energy-vertical-farming
Eden Green Technology. (2024, August 6). Key Differences in Traditional Greenhouses and Vertical Greenhouses. https://www.edengreen.com/blog-collection/verticalfarming-vs-greenhouse-farming
Eden Green Technology. (2024, October 8). Agricultural water use: How vertical farming conserves water in agriculture. https://www.edengreen.com/blogcollection/agricultural-water-use
Ellis, J. (2021, February 18). Singapore launches $45m agritech fund to boost urban food production. AgFunderNews. https://agfundernews.com/singapore-launches-45magritech-fund-to-boost-urban-food-production
Foodmiles.com. (n.d.). Food miles calculator. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://www.foodmiles.com/
Gotham Greens. (n.d.). Our story. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://www.gothamgreens.com/our-story/
Graamans, L., van den Dobbelsteen, A., Meinen, E., & Stanghellini, C. (2017). Plant factories versus greenhouses: Comparison of resource use efficiency. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 122, 308–318.
Gudzune, K. A., Welsh, C., Lane, E., Chissell, Z., Anderson Steeves, E., & Gittelsohn, J. (2015). Increasing access to fresh produce by pairing urban farms with corner stores: A case study in a low-income urban setting. Public Health Nutrition, 18(15), 2770–2774. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015000051
Gunapala, N., Zhang, Y., & Kumar, S. (2025). Integrating AI technologies in urban agriculture: A pathway to food security. Journal of Urban Agriculture, 10(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jua.2025.01.005
Han, J. (2020). Water demand for vertical farming. University of British Columbia MLWS Program. https://lfs-mlws2020.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2022/05/Han-2020-WaterDemand-for-Vertical-Farming.pdf
Harbrick, M., Johnson, L., & Nguyen, P. (2016). Energy efficiency in vertical farming: A comparative study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.052 Healthy Food Policy Project. (n.d.). Healthy Food
Policy Project. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://healthyfoodpolicyproject.org
Iida, A., Yamazaki, T., Hino, K., & Yokohari, M. (2023). Urban agriculture in walkable neighborhoods bore fruit for health and food system resilience during the COVID19 pandemic. npj Urban Sustainability, 3, Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-023-00083-3
Karpyn, A. E., Riser, D., Tracy, T., Wang, R., & Shen, Y. (2019). The changing landscape of food deserts. UNSCN Nutrition, 44, 46–53. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC72992 36/
Kelley, R. (2022). Hydroponic farming as a solution to systemic food insecurity. NCRC. https://ncrc.org/hydroponicfarming-as-a-solution-to-systemic-food-insecurity/
Kumar, R. R., & Cho, J. Y. (2014). Reuse of hydroponic waste solution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 21(14), 9569–9577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3024-3
Li, M., Jia, N., Lenzen, M., Malik, A., Wei, L., Jin, Y., & Raubenheimer, D. (2022). Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions. Nature Food, 3(6), 445–453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016022-00531-w
Ling, K.-S., & Altland, J. (2021, August 17). Vertical farming – no longer a futuristic concept. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. https://www.ars.usda.gov/oc/utm/vertical-farming-nolonger-a-futuristic-concept/
Mai, C., Mojiri, A., Palanisami, S., Altaee, A., Huang, Y., & Zhou, J. L. (2023). Wastewater hydroponics for pollutant removal and food production: Principles, progress and future outlook. Water, 15(14), 2614. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15142614
MarketsandMarkets. (2024, July). Vertical farming market by growth mechanism (hydroponics, aeroponics, aquaponics), structure (building-based and shipping container-based), crop type, offering (hardware, software, services), and region – Global forecast to 2029. MarketsandMarkets. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/MarketReports/vertical-farming-market-221795343.html
Masyk, T. (2017). Singapore's food security: The role of urban agriculture. Hidropolitik Akademi. https://hidropolitikakademi.org/uploads/wp/2018/01/Si ngapore_Paper_Masyk.pdf
McDonald, J. (2022, June 10). Vertical farms have the vision but do they have the energy? AgriTechTomorrow. https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/6/10/verticalfarms-have-the-vision-but-do-they-have-the-energy
Mishra, N., Hangshing, L., Kadam, D., Tapang, T., & Shameena, S. (2024). Advances in vertical farming: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 30(8), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2024/v30i82241
MIRAI Co., Ltd. (n.d.). Quality vegetables. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://miraigroup.jp/#vegetables
Mok, W. K., Tan, Y. X., & Chen, W. N. (2020). Technology innovations for food security in Singapore: A case study of future food systems for an increasingly natural resource-scarce world. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 102, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.06.013
Mollenkamp, D. T. (2025). Food insecurity and its impact on the economy. Food insecurity and its impact on the economy. https://www.investopedia.com/foodinsecurity-impacts-economy-8303222Investopedia
Moghimi, F. (2021). Vertical farming economics in 10 minutes. Rutgers Business Review. https://rbr.business.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/docu ments/rbr-060111.pdf
Odoms-Young, A., Brown, A. G. M., Agurs-Collins, T., & Glanz, K. (2024). Food insecurity, neighborhood food environment, and health disparities: State of the science, research gaps and opportunities. The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 119(3), 850–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.12.019
Oliva, B., Rontanini, C., & Rosenblatt, M. (2019). Vertical farms and the new green city. Faculty Works: Business, 66. Molloy University. https://digitalcommons.molloy.edu/bus_fac/66
OptiClimateFarm. (2025, March 2). Vertical farming cost and ROI: How to maximize profits in indoor farming. https://www.opticlimatefarm.com/a-news-verticalfarming-cost-and-roi-how-to-maximize-profits-inindoor-farming
OptiClimateFarm. (2024, July 22). Vertical farming price guide: How much does it cost?
https://www.opticlimatefarm.com/a-news-verticalfarming-price-guide-how-much-does-it-cost
Pawlowski, T. Z. (2018). From food deserts to just deserts: Expanding urban agriculture in U.S. cities through sustainable policy. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 26(3), 531–574. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26408219
Phelps, J., & Turner, L. (2024). Zoning for urban agriculture: A guide for updating your community’s laws to support healthy food production and access. Center for Agriculture and Food Systems, Vermont Law and Graduate School. https://www.vermontlaw.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2024/07/Zoning-for-UrbanAgriculture.pdf
Pradhan, A., Peralta, A., & Jiao, Y. (2024). Urban farming systems in U.S. cities: Techno-economic perspectives. Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, 9(1), 111–124.
Rajaseger, G., Chan, K. L., Tan, K. Y., Ramasamy, S., Khin, M. C., Amaladoss, A., & Haribhai, P. K. (2023).
Hydroponics: Current trends in sustainable crop production. Bioinformation, 19(9), 925–938.
https://doi.org/10.6026/97320630019925Scribd
Rao, N., Patil, S., Singh, C., Roy, P., Pryor, C., Poonacha, P., & Genes, M. (2022, July 14). Cultivating sustainable and healthy cities: A systematic literature review of the outcomes of urban and peri-urban agriculture. Cities, 129, 103844.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221 067072200381X
Ritchie, H. (2020, January 24). You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local. Our World in Data.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
Shao, Y., Heath, T., & Zhu, Y. (2016). ROI of different types of vertical farm growing butterhead lettuce [Figure 5]. In Developing an economic estimation system for vertical farms. International Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Information Systems, 7(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAEIS.2016040102
Sheibani, F., & Mitchell, C. (2023, February 20). New LED strategies could make vertical farming more productive, less costly. Purdue University Research News. https://www.purdue.edu/research/features/stories/newled-strategies-could-make-vertical-farming-moreproductive-less-costly/
Singapore Food Agency. (2022). Speech by Minister Grace Fu on Singapore's 30x30 vertical farming initiative.
Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I., Freisinger, U., & Sawicka, M. (2019). How will we eat and produce in the cities of the future? Futures, 111, 7–15.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Grants. Retrieved April 11, 2025, from https://www.usda.gov/farming-andranching/agricultural-education-and-outreach/urbanagriculture-and-innovative-production/urbanagriculture-and-innovative-production-grants
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2023, July 18). USDA invests $7.4 million in 25 urban agriculture and innovative production efforts. https://www.usda.gov/aboutusda/news/press-releases/2023/07/18/usda-invests-74-
million-25-urban-agriculture-and-innovativeproduction-efforts
Vatistas, C., Avgoustaki, D. D., & Bartzanas, T. (2022). A systematic literature review on controlled-environment agriculture: How vertical farms and greenhouses can influence the sustainability and footprint of urban microclimate with local food production. Atmosphere, 13(8), 1258. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081258
Voyles, J. (2022, December 26). Indoor agriculture: Driving up LED efficiency to reduce the costs of artificial sun. AgriTechTomorrow. https://www.agritechtomorrow.com/article/2022/01/20 22-top-article-indoor-agriculture-driving-up-ledefficiency-to-reduce-the-costs-of-artificial-sun/13403
Wang, L., Lauren, B. N., Hager, K., Zhang, F. F., Wong, J. B., Kim, D. D., & Mozaffarian, D. (2023). Health and economic impacts of implementing produce prescription programs for diabetes in the United States: A microsimulation study. Journal of the American Heart Association, 12(15), e029215. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.029215
WEF. (2023). How vertical farming can save water and support food security. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/06/howvertical-farming-can-save-water-and-support-foodsecurity/
Yuan, G. N., Marquez, G. P. B., Deng, H., Iu, A., Fabella, M., Salonga, R. B., Ashardiono, F., & Cartagena, J. A. (2022, November 12). A review on urban agriculture: Technology, socio-economy, and policy. Heliyon, 8(11), e11697.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9668687/
