Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Translating Environmental Potential to Economic Reality: Assessment of Commercial Aquaponics through Sustainability Transitions Theory

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Circular Economy and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite popular interest and recent industry growth, commercial-scale aquaponics still faces economic and regulatory barriers primarily resulting from political and economic systems which insufficiently address pressing environmental challenges. The sustainability potential of aquaponic food production can help address and overcome such challenges while contributing to the broader development of circular economy and sustainable development of food systems. In response to the current counterproductive gap between potential applications and industry development, the interdisciplinary team of authors identifies pathways to translate the environmental potential of commercial aquaponics into economic success through a sustainability transition theory lens. To evaluate the industry’s current state-of-the-art, drivers, barriers, and future potential, interview data from 25 North American producers collected in 2021, literature, and policy are analyzed through a Technological Innovation System (TIS) assessment within a Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) approach. This supports the consideration of pathways for industry development of aquaponics as an aspect of circular economy within a dynamic sustainable development context. These pathways for action include (1.) advancing clear standards and policies for aquaponics as part of a circular economy, increasing funding and incentives, and reducing support and subsidies for competing unsustainable food production; (2.) developing and promoting cost-effective technologies; and (3.) bolstering consumer preferences for sustainable and healthy food sources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Information on interview and data-analysis protocol is available through the Appendix.

References

  1. Folorunso EA, Roy K, Gebauer R, Bohatá A, Mraz J (2021) Integrated pest and disease management in aquaponics: a metadata-based review. Rev Aquac 13:971–995. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenfeld A, Becker N, Bornman JF, Spatari S, Angel DL (2021) Monetizing environmental impact of integrated aquaponic farming compared to separate systems. Sci Total Environ 792:148459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148459

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Joyce A, Goddek S, Kotzen B, Wuertz S (2019) Aquaponics: closing the cycle on limited water, land and nutrient resources. In: Goddek S, Joyce A, Kotzen B, Burnell GM (eds) Aquaponics food production systems: combined aquaculture and hydroponic production technologies for the future. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 19–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) Cities and circular economy for food. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/cities-and-circular-economy-for-food. Accessed 18 June 2019

  5. Garnett T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36:S23–S32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. König B, Janker J, Reinhardt T, Villarroel M, Junge R (2018) Analysis of aquaponics as an emerging technological innovation system. J Clean Prod 180:232–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Goot AJ, Pelgrom PJM, Berghout JAM, Geerts MEJ, Jankowiak L, Hardt NA, Keijer J, Schutyser MAI, Nikiforidis CV, Boom RM (2016) Concepts for further sustainable production of foods. J Food Eng 168:42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tacon AGJ, Metian M, Turchini GM, De Silva SS (2009) Responsible aquaculture and trophic level implications to global fish supply. Rev Fish Sci 18:94–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641260903325680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blidariu F, Grozea A (2011) Increasing the economical efficiency and sustainability of indoor fish farming by means of aquaponics—review. J Anim Sci Biotechnol 44:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gregg JS, Jürgens J, Sandvold HN, Olsen DS (2019) The transition to aquaponics in support of a circular bioeconomy: policy recommendations to overcome geographical and scale barriers. In: International Sustainability Transitions Conference 2019, Ottawa, Canada. https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/the-transition-to-aquaponics-in-support-of-a-circular-bioeconomy

  11. Petrea Ș-M, Bandi A-C, Cristea D, Neculiță M (2019) Cost-benefit analysis into integrated aquaponics systems. Cust Agronegocio 15:31

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wirza R, Nazir S (2021) Urban aquaponics farming and cities—a systematic literature review. Rev Environ Health 36:47–61. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-0064

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goddek S, Delaide B, Mankasingh U, Ragnarsdottir KV, Jijakli H, Thorarinsdottir R (2015) Challenges of sustainable and commercial aquaponics. Sustainability 7:4199–4224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7044199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Estim A, SR MS, Shapawi R, Saufie S, Mustafa S (2020) Maximizing efficiency and sustainability of aquatic food production from aquaponics systems—a critical review of challenges and solution options. AquaSt 20:65–72. https://doi.org/10.4194/2618-6381-v20_1_08

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, Breland TA, Creamer N, Harwood R, Salomonsson L, Helenius J, Rickerl D, Salvador R, Wiedenhoeft M, Simmons S, Allen P, Altieri M, Flora C, Poincelot R (2003) Agroecology: the ecology of food systems. J Sustain Agric 22:99–118. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03_10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reyes-Lúa A, Straus J, Skjervold VT, Durakovic G, Nordtvedt TS (2021) A novel concept for sustainable food production utilizing low temperature industrial surplus heat. Sustainability 13:9786. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aleksić N, Šušteršič V (2020) Analysis of application of aquaponic system as a model of the circular economy: a review. Recycl Sustain Dev 13:73–86. https://doi.org/10.5937/ror2001073A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abusin SAA, Mandikiana BW (2020) Towards sustainable food production systems in Qatar: assessment of the viability of aquaponics. Glob Food Sec:100349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100349

  19. Bhakar V, Kaur K, Singh H (2021) Analyzing the environmental burden of an aquaponics system using LCA. Procedia CIRP 98:223–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rakocy JE (2012) Aquaponics—integrating fish and plant culture. In: Tidwell J (ed) Aquaculture production systems, first edn. Wiley-Blackwell, pp 344–386

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu Y, Song K (2021) Source, treatment, and disposal of aquaculture solid waste: a review. J Environ Eng 147:03120012. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001850

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hao Y, Ding K, Xu Y, Tang Y, Liu D, Li G (2020) States, trends, and future of aquaponics research. Sustainability 12:7783. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Li C, Lee CT, Gao Y, Hashim H, Zhang X, Wei-Min W, Zhang Z (2018) Prospect of aquaponics for the sustainable development of food production in urban. Chem Eng Trans 63:475–480. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1863080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Conijn JG, Bindraban PS, Schröder JJ, Jongschaap REE (2018) Can our global food system meet food demand within planetary boundaries? Agric Ecosyst Environ 251:244–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Turnsek M, Joly A, Thorarinsdottir R, Junge R (2020) Challenges of commercial aquaponics in Europe: beyond the hype. Water 12:306. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Körner O, Bisbis M, Baganz G, Baganz D, Staaks G, Monsees H, Goddek S, Keesman K (2021) Environmental impact assessment of local decoupled multi-loop aquaponics in an urban context. J Clean Prod 313:127735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Proksch G, Horn E, Lee G (2022) Urban integration of aquaponics: advancing integrated food systems for the circular city. In: Droege P (ed) Urban Agriculture and Regional Food Systems. Elsevier, pp 403–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820286-9.00014-5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Borg M, Little D, Telfer TC, Price C (2014) Scoping the potential role of aquaponics in addressing challenges posed by the food-water-energy nexus using the maltese islands as a case-study. Acta Hortic 1034:163–168. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2014.1034.19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Greenfeld A, Becker N, Bornman JF, dos Santos MJ, Angel D (2020) Consumer preferences for aquaponics: a comparative analysis of Australia and Israel. J Environ Manage 257:109979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Araújo L, Keesman K, Goddek S (2021) Making aquaponics a business: a framework. Water 13:2978. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13212978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pattillo DA, Hager JV, Cline DJ, Roy LA, Hanson TR (2022) System design and production practices of aquaponic stakeholders. Plos One 17:e0266475. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Kledal PR, Thorarinsdottir R (2018) Aquaponics: a commercial niche for sustainable modern aquaculture. In: Hai FI, Visvanathan C, Boopathy R (eds) Sustainable aquaculture. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 173–190

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Love DC, Fry JP, Genello L, Hill ES, Frederick JA, Li X, Semmens K (2014) An international survey of aquaponics practitioners. Plos One 9:e102662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102662

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Love DC, Fry JP, Li X, Hill ES, Genello L, Semmens K, Thompson RE (2015) Commercial aquaponics production and profitability: findings from an international survey. Aquaculture 435:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Villarroel M, Junge R, Komives T, König B, Plaza I, Bittsánszky A, Joly A (2016) Survey of aquaponics in Europe. Water 8:468. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8100468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Engle CR (2015) Economics of aquaponics. SRAC. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820286-9.00014-5

  37. Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A, Boons F, Fünfschilling L, Hess D, Holtz G, Hyysalo S, Jenkins K, Kivimaa P, Martiskainen M, McMeekin A, Mühlemeier MS et al (2019) An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Transit 31:1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lewis M, Schweitzer J, Cunningham R, Jacobs B (2020) Navigating complex organisational change: putting sustainable transitions theory to practice. LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications. Virtual, In

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wiegand M (2019) Aquaponics development in the Netherlands: the role of the emerging aquaponics technology and the transition towards sustainable agriculture. Utrecht University

    Google Scholar 

  40. Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33:897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Baganz G, Schrenk M, Körner O, Baganz D, Keesman K, Goddek S, Siscan Z, Baganz E, Doernberg A, Monsees H, Nehls T, Kloas W, Lohrberg F (2021) Causal relations of upscaled urban aquaponics and the food-water-energy nexus—a Berlin case study. Water 13:2029. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152029

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bergek A, Hekkert M, Jacobsson S, Markard J, Sandén B, Truffer B (2015) Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics. Environ Innov Soc Transit 16:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36:399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Markard J, Truffer B (2008) Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Res Policy 37:596–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Walrave B, Raven R (2016) Modelling the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Res Policy 45:1833–1844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Asadullah M, Khan SN, Safdar HM, Aslam RA, Shaukat I (2020) Sustainability and development of aquaponics system: a review. Earth Sci Pak 4:78–80. https://doi.org/10.26480/esp.02.2020.78.80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Regueiro L, Newton R, Soula M, Méndez D, Kok B, Little DC, Pastres R, Johansen J, Ferreira M (2021) Opportunities and limitations for the introduction of circular economy principles in EU aquaculture based on the regulatory framework. J Ind Ecol:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13188

  48. Augenstein K, Bachmann B, Egermann M, Hermelingmeier V, Hilger A, Jaeger-Erben M, Kessler A, Lam DPM, Palzkill A, Suski P, von Wirth T (2020) From niche to mainstream: the dilemmas of scaling up sustainable alternatives. GAIA 29:143–148. https://doi.org/10.4512/gaia.29.3.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Carlsson B, Lindmark S, Rickne A (2008) Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res Policy 37:407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Edsand H-E (2017) Identifying barriers to wind energy diffusion in Colombia: a function analysis of the technological innovation system and the wider context. Technol Soc 49:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM (2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74:413–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hebinck A, Klerkx L, Elzen B, Kok KPW, König B, Schiller K, Tschersich J, van Mierlo B, von Wirth T (2021) Beyond food for thought—directing sustainability transitions research to address fundamental change in agri-food systems. Environ Innov Soc Transit 41:81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Meelen T, Farla J (2013) Towards an integrated framework for analysing sustainable innovation policy. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 25:957–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.823146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Deleye M, Van Poeck K, Block T (2019) Lock-ins and opportunities for sustainability transition. Int J Sustain High Educ 20:1109–1124. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-09-2018-0160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hörisch J (2015) The role of sustainable entrepreneurship in sustainability transitions: a conceptual synthesis against the background of the multi-level perspective. Adm Sci 5:286–300. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci5040286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kemp R, Loorbach D (2003) Governance for sustainability through transition management. In: EAEPE 2003 Conference, Maastricht, the Netherlands

  58. Frantzeskaki N, de Haan H (2009) Transitions: two steps from theory to policy. Futures 41:593–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jacobs B, Cordell D, Chin J, Rowe H (2017) Towards phosphorus sustainability in North America: a model for transformational change. Environ Sci Policy 77:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.08.009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Manente V, Caputo S (2022) The web community of soil-less farmers: a case study. In: Caputo S (ed) Small scale soil-less urban agriculture in Europe. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 151–165

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  61. Yep B, Zheng Y (2019) Aquaponic trends and challenges—a review. J Clean Prod 228:1586–1599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Goodman ER (2011) Aquaponics: community and economic development. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  63. Junge R, Bulc TG, Anseeuw D, Yavuzcan Yildiz H, Milliken S (2019) Aquaponics as an educational tool. In: Goddek S, Joyce A, Kotzen B, Burnell GM (eds) Aquaponics food production systems: combined aquaculture and hydroponic production technologies for the future. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 561–595

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Metcalf SS, Widener MJ (2011) Growing buffalo’s capacity for local food: a systems framework for sustainable agriculture. Appl Geogr (Sevenoaks) 31:1242–1251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wardlow GW, Johnson DM, Mueller CL, Hilgenberg CE (2002) Enhancing student interest in the agricultural sciences through aquaponics. J Nat Resour Life Sci Educ; Madison 31:55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wahl D, Ness B, Wamsler C (2021) Implementing the urban food–water–energy nexus through urban laboratories: a systematic literature review. Sustain Sci 16:663–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00893-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Cerozi BS, Fitzsimmons K (2017) Phosphorus dynamics modeling and mass balance in an aquaponics system. Agric Syst 153:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Diver S, Rinehart L (2010) Aquaponics—integration of hydroponics with aquaculture. Accessed at www.attra.ncat.org, National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lobanov VP, Combot D, Pelissier P, Labbé L, Joyce A (2021) Improving plant health through nutrient remineralization in aquaponic systems. Front Plant Sci 12:683690. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.683690

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Manning C (2021) Gotham Greens’ new era—produce grower. Produce grower, In https://www.producegrower.com/article/cover-story-gotham-greens-new-era/. Accessed 1 Aug 2021

    Google Scholar 

  71. Sorvino C (2020) With $87 million in fresh funding, lettuce grower Gotham Greens plots greenhouse expansion. Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2020/12/08/with-87-million-in-fresh-funding-lettuce-grower-gotham-greens-plots-greenhouse-expansion/. Accessed 1 Aug 2021

    Google Scholar 

  72. USDA (2013) 2013 Census of Aquaculture—Table 1212. Methods used for aquaculture production—United States and States [Washington, D.C.]: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. https://agcensus.library.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012-Census-of-Aquaculture-aqua_1_012_012.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2022

  73. USDA 2018 Census of Aquaculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/Aquaculture/index.php. Accessed 13 May 2022

  74. Skar SLG, Pineda-Martos R, Timpe A, Pölling B, Bohn K, Külvik M, Delgado C, Pedras CMG, Paço TA, Ćujić M, Tzortzakis N, Chrysargyris A, Peticila A, Alencikiene G, Monsees H, Junge R (2019) Urban agriculture as a keystone contribution towards securing sustainable and healthy development for cities in the future. Blue-Green Syst. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2019.931

  75. Holliman JB, Adrian J, Chappell JA (2008) Integration of hydroponic tomato and indoor recirculating aquacultural production systems: an economic analysis. Auburn University

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tokunaga K, Tamaru C, Ako H, Leung P (2015) Economics of commercial aquaponics in Hawaii. J World Aquaculture Soc 46:20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Proksch G, Ianchenko A (2022) Commercial rooftop greenhouses: technical requirements, operational strategies, economic considerations, and future opportunities. In: Droege P (ed) Urban Agriculture and Regional Food Systems. Elsevier, pp 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820286-9.00014-5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  78. Hoevenaars K, Junge R, Bardocz T, Leskovec M (2018) EU policies: new opportunities for aquaponics. Ecocycles 4:10–15. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v4i1.87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Reinhardt T, Hoevenaars K, Joyce A (2019) Regulatory frameworks for aquaponics within the EU. In: Goddek S, Joyce A, Kotzen B, Burnell GM (eds) Aquaponics food production systems: combined aquaculture and hydroponic production technologies for the future. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 501–522

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  80. Asheim BT, Lawton Smith H, Oughton C (2011) Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and policy. Reg Stud 45:875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.596701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Klerkx L, Begemann S (2020) Supporting food systems transformation: the what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric Syst 184:102901–102901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102901

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. FAO (2017) The future of food and agriculture—trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  83. Cifuentes-Torres L, Correa-Reyes G, Mendoza-Espinosa LG (2021) Can reclaimed water be used for sustainable food production in aquaponics? Front Plant Sci 12:669984–669984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.669984

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Kledal PR, König B, Matulić D (2019) Aquaponics: the ugly duckling in organic regulation. In: Goddek S, Joyce A, Kotzen B, Burnell GM (eds) Aquaponics food production systems: combined aquaculture and hydroponic production technologies for the future. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 487–500

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  85. Dos-Santos MJ (2019) Sustainable and commercial development of aquaponics through the certification in Europe. Ecocycles 5:12–18. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v5i2.140

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  86. Fruscella L, Kotzen B, Milliken S (2021) Organic aquaponics in the European Union: towards sustainable farming practices in the framework of the new EU regulation. Rev Aquac 13:1661–1682. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Caputo S, Rumble H, Schaefer M (2020) “I like to get my hands stuck in the soil”: a pilot study in the acceptance of soil-less methods of cultivation in community gardens. J Clean Prod 258:120585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Specht K, Sanyé-Mengual E (2017) Risks in urban rooftop agriculture: assessing stakeholders’ perceptions to ensure efficient policymaking. Environ Sci Policy 69:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Naspetti S, Zanoli R (2009) Organic food quality and safety perception throughout Europe. J Food Prod Mark 15:249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454440902908019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (2020) Full text of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). FDA

    Google Scholar 

  91. Joly A, Junge R, Bardocz T (2015) Aquaponics business in Europe: some legal obstacles and solutions. Ecocycles 1:3–5. https://doi.org/10.19040/ecocycles.v1i2.30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Gregg JS, Jürgens J (2019) The emerging regulatory landscape for aquaponics in Scandinavia—a case study for the transition to a circular economy. In: 14th Nordic Environmental Social Sciences Conference, Luleå, Sweden https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/the-emerging-regulatory-landscape-for-aquaponics-in-scandinavia-a. Accessed 13 May 2022

  93. Genello L, Fry JP, Frederick JA, Li X, Love DC (2015) Fish in the classroom: a survey of the use of aquaponics in education. Eur J Health Biol Educ 4:9–20. https://doi.org/10.20897/lectito.201502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Hart ER, Webb JB, Hollingsworth C, Danylchuk AJ (2014) Managing expectations for aquaponics in the classroom: enhancing academic learning and teaching an appreciation for aquatic resources. Fisheries 39:525–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2014.966353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Hart ER, Webb JB, Danylchuk AJ (2013) Implementation of aquaponics in education: an assessment of challenges and solutions. Sci Educ Int 24:460–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/03632415.2014.966353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Junge R, Wilhelm S, Hofstetter U (2014) Aquaponic in classrooms as a tool to promote system thinking. In: Transmission of innovations, knowledge and practical experience into everyday practice. Naklo, Slovenia

    Google Scholar 

  97. Cammies C, Mytton D, Crichton R (2021) Exploring economic and legal barriers to commercial aquaponics in the EU through the lens of the UK and policy proposals to address them. Aquac Int 29:1245–1263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-021-00690-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Specht K, Siebert R, Hartmann I, Freisinger UB, 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. Agric Hum Values 31:33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Caputo S (2022) Case Studies. In: Caputo S (ed) Small scale soil-less urban agriculture in Europe. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 95–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  100. Benis K, Ferrão P (2017) Potential mitigation of the environmental impacts of food systems through urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA)—a life cycle assessment approach. J Clean Prod 140:784–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Pulighe G, Lupia F (2020) Food first: COVID-19 outbreak and cities lockdown a booster for a wider vision on urban agriculture. Sustainability 12:5012. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Million A, Bürgow G, Steglich A, Raber W (2014) Roof water farm. Participatory and multifunctional infrastructures for urban neighborhoods. In: Finding spaces for productive cities. VHL University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  103. Horn E, Proksch G (2022) Symbiotic and regenerative sustainability frameworks: moving towards circular city implementation. Front Built Environ 7:780478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2021.780478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Sadhukhan J, Dugmore TIJ, Matharu A, Martinez-Hernandez E, Aburto J, Rahman PKSM, Lynch J (2020) Perspectives on “game changer” global challenges for sustainable 21st century: plant-based diet, unavoidable food waste biorefining, and circular economy. Sustainability 12:1976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Goddek S, Körner O (2019) A fully integrated simulation model of multi-loop aquaponics: a case study for system sizing in different environments. Agric Syst 171:143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Pollard G, Ward J, Koth B (2017) Aquaponics in urban agriculture: social acceptance and urban food planning. Horticulturae 3:39. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae3020039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA (2004) A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit Psychol 25:881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Weikard HP (2016) Phosphorus recycling and food security in the long run: a conceptual modelling approach. Food Secur 8:405–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0551-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Chowdhury RB, Moore GA, Weatherley AJ, Arora M (2017) Key sustainability challenges for the global phosphorus resource, their implications for global food security, and options for mitigation. J Clean Prod 140:945–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Miličić V, Thorarinsdottir R, Hančič MT, Hančič MT (2017) Commercial aquaponics approaching the European market: to consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics products in Europe. Water 9:80. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Zech KM, Schneider UA (2019) Carbon leakage and limited efficiency of greenhouse gas taxes on food products. J Clean Prod 213:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. David L, Pinho S, Agostinho F, Costa J, Portella M, Keesman K, Garcia F (2021) Sustainability of urban aquaponics farms: an emergy point of view. J Clean Prod 331:129896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129896

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the authorial team for the productive collaboration. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. This study was made possible through the support from Future Earth, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Belmont Forum, JPI Urban Europe, and the US National Science Foundation.

Funding

This study originates from the Resource-Recovery in the Food-Water-Energy Nexus project which received funding from the Pegasus 3 Future Earth “take-it-further” grant. This work continues and builds on projects CITYFOOD and FEW-meter, which are part of the Belmont Forum and JPI Urban Europe initiated Food-Water-Energy-Nexus/Sustainability Urbanization Global Initiative (SUGI) Collaborative Research Action. CITYFOOD received funding from the US National Science Foundation (Award 1832213).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Circular City and Living Systems Lab, College of Built Environments, University of Washington, 208 Gould Hall, Box 355720, Seattle, WA, 98195-5720, USA

    Erin Kelly Horn & Gundula Proksch

  2. Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Washington, 201 More Hall, Box 352700, Seattle, WA, 98195-2700, USA

    Erin Kelly Horn & Mari Winkler

  3. Department of Marine Science, Gothenburg University, Box 461, 40530, Göteborg, Sweden

    Alyssa Joyce

  4. School of Engineering, Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, Victoria, 3216, Australia

    Rubel Biswas Chowdhury

  5. Kent School of Architecture and Planning, Marlowe Building, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, UK

    Silvio Caputo

  6. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, 235 Jones Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia

    Brent Jacobs

  7. Department of Architecture, College of Built Environments, University of Washington, 208 Gould Hall, Box 355720, Seattle, WA, 98195-5720, USA

    Gundula Proksch

Authors
  1. Erin Kelly Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alyssa Joyce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rubel Biswas Chowdhury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Silvio Caputo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brent Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mari Winkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gundula Proksch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EH: writing—original draft, review and editing, conceptualization, investigation, methodology. AJ: writing—review and editing, investigation, funding acquisition. RBC: writing—review and editing, investigation. SC: writing—review and editing, investigation. BJ: writing—review and editing, methodology. MW: writing—review and editing. GP: supervision project administration, conceptualization, writing—review and editing, visualization, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gundula Proksch.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

This study was deemed exempt by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (IRB Exempt: STUDY00013037) as category 2 exempt research, as it only includes interactions involving interview procedures and records data in a manner that does not identify the human participants involved. Informed consent to participate was freely given by all subjects prior to interview proceedings.

Consent for Publication

All participants gave informed consent for research utilizing their responses to be published. Identifying information was excluded from this article.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Appendix. Interview Process Protocol

Appendix. Interview Process Protocol

Recruitment Protocol

  1. 1.

    Use CCLS’s Aquaponics Operations Directory to identify active aquaponics farms in North America.

  2. 2.

    Call the owner or operator of the farm using the recruitment script.

  3. 3.

    Record the response and schedule an interview with the recruited participant.

  4. 4.

    Call again at a different time if you do not reach anybody or not the right person.

  5. 5.

    Send a follow-up email with a Zoom link to the participant.

Interview Protocol

  1. 6.

    Once in zoom call with the recipient, refer to the Interview Guide.

  2. 7.

    Follow instructions to conduct the oral consent process, refer to the Script of Consent.

  3. 8.

    If interviewee has questions about how their responses will be used and stored, please refer to the FAQ_sheet document.

  4. 9.

    If the interviewee consents to be recorded and interviewed, proceed to the next step.

  5. 10.

    Conduct the interview following the structure and questions identified in the Interview Guide. Topical coverage noted below.

    1. a.

      Section A—Introductions, interviewee background, and farm profile basics

    2. b.

      Section B—Operation details, business model, marketing, and innovation practices

    3. c.

      Section C+D—Technology use and innovation needs and barriers

    4. d.

      Section E—Policy and regulation

    5. e.

      Section F—Business goals and challenges

    6. f.

      Section G—Circular economy and resource management

Post Interview Processing

  1. 11.

    Securely store and process data. Once the interview has ended, upload all zoom recording files and interview notes to the secure interview folder under farm id#.

  2. 12.

    Using the farm profile information that you have verified with the interviewee, input this data into the data spreadsheet in an entry for the interview number code (farm id#).

  3. 13.

    Process auto-generated transcript and edit for accuracy by listening back to the recording file and correcting the transcription.

  4. 14.

    Save this corrected copy with an indication that it has been proofed.

Data Analysis

  1. 15.

    Conduct qualitative coding analysis in Atlas.ti using TIS framework per codebook*

  2. 16.

    Review of interview data by two additional members of the authorial team

*Codebook excerpt:

Structure of the system

Structure

Structure_actors

What actors do they mention

Structure_networks

E.g., industry networks or partnerships mentioned by interviewees

Structure_institutions

What institutions do they mention, like laws, regulations, cultural practices, norms, and established routines

Knowledge development and diffusion

F1_Knowledge

F1_Knowledge_Sources

Sources used

F1_Knowledge_Perception

Perception (of sources/resources)

F1_Knowledge_Background

Educational background of practitioners

F1_Knowledge_Interactions

Interactions with researchers/academia

F1_Knowledge_Programs

Educational programs offered by practitioners

F1_Knowledge_Niche

Ideal niche (function qualities); changes they would like to see (in function)

F1_Knowledge_Drivers

Drivers of transition to ideal niche

F1_Knowledge_Barriers

Barriers of transition to ideal niche

Entrepreneurial activities

F2_EntrepAct

F2_EntrepAct_Gaps

Gaps—Areas where innovation/research needed and why

F2_EntrepAct_Awareness

Practitioner awareness of nutrient recovery opportunities + tech

F2_EntrepAct_Process

Process—How new innovations are introduced

F2_EntrepAct_Emerging

Emerging technologies/topics

F2_EntrepAct_Ideal niche

Ideal niche—What supports innovation?; how would they handle fish waste with unlimited resources*

F2_EntrepAct_Drivers

Drivers of innovation*

F2_EntrepAct_Barriers

Barriers of innovation

Market formation

F3_MarketFm

F3_MarketFm_Business model

What do they sell? Where do they sell? Revenue generating products and services Most important: greens or fish? Justification for fish selection

F3_MarketFm_Resource_reqs

Resource requirements for system- which part is more demanding

F3_MarketFm_Barriers

Barriers to innovation/progress in market fm? / Economic barriers

F3_MarketFm_Drivers

Drivers of innovation/progress in market fm?

F3_MarketFm_Industry State

Industry state of development

F3_MarketFm_Opinions

Opinions on aqp industry

Resource mobilization

F4_ ResourceMb

F4_ ResourceMb_experiences

What were their experiences accessing resources?

F4_ ResourceMb_support

What factors support access to resources?

F4_ ResourceMb_integration

Resource integration/CE opportunities

F4_ ResourceMb_changes

What changes are needed to better support resource mobilization?

F4_ ResourceMb_Drivers

Drivers of resource mobilization

F4_ ResourceMb_Barriers

Barriers of resource mobilization

F4_ ResourceMb_Ideal niche

Ideal niche—subsidies, changes, what would they do with unlimited resources?

F4_ ResourceMb_Future plans

Future_Practitioner plans on business expansion

Creation of legitimacy

F5_Legitimacy

F5_Legitimacy_Recognition

Recognition status of aquaponics

F5_Legitimacy_Barriers

Barriers to legitimacy

F5_Legitimacy_Drivers

Drivers of legitimacy

Direction of the search

F6_Direction

F6_Direction_CurrentEnv

Current (Policy) environment

F6_Direction_Barriers

Policy barriers

F6_Direction_Drivers

Policy drivers

F6_Direction_Niche

Policy—ideal niche, what changes do they want to see

F6_Direction_Opinions

Opinions on state/direction of the industry

F6_Direction_Goals

Goals of practitioners for their farms

Positive externalities

F7_PositiveExt

F7_PositiveExt_Community

Benefits to communities described by practitioners

F7_PositiveExt_Education

Educational benefits/programs described by practitioners

F7_PositiveExt_Health

Benefits for health described by practitioners

F7_PositiveExt_Resilience

Benefits/impacts to systems described by practitioners

F7_PositiveExt_Partnerships

Business partnerships and CE

F7_PositiveExt_Environmental

Considerations of environmental sustainability

F7_PositiveExt_Awareness

Practitioner awareness of global phosphorus scarcity

Iterative Writing Process

  1. 17.

    Following qualitative coding, describe and summarize interview findings in text and integrate with literature review and policy review

  2. 18.

    Proceed through iterative review of data analysis/interpretation and manuscript by full authorial team.

  3. 19.

    Repeat this review process until consensus and approval from all authors is obtained prior to submission for publication.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horn, E.K., Joyce, A., Chowdhury, R.B. et al. Translating Environmental Potential to Economic Reality: Assessment of Commercial Aquaponics through Sustainability Transitions Theory. Circ.Econ.Sust. 4, 523–554 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00291-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00291-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation