Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, new forms of high-tech controlled environment agriculture (CEA) have received increased attention and investment. These systems integrate a suite of technologies – including automation, LED lighting, vertical plant stacking, and hydroponic fertilization – to allow for greater control of temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and light in an enclosed growing environment. Proponents insist that CEA can produce sustainable, nutritious, and tasty local food, particularly for the cities of the future. At the same time, a variety of critics raise concerns about its environmental impacts and energy use, high startup costs, and consumer accessibility challenges, among other issues. At this stage, however, relatively little research has explored actual consumer knowledge and attitudes related to CEA processes and products. Guided by theories of sense-making, this article draws from structured interviews with local food consumers in New York City to examine what people know and think about high-tech CEA. From there, it explores the extent to which CEA fits into consumer conceptualizations of what makes for “good food.” Key findings emphasize that significant gaps in public understanding of CEA remain, that CEA products’ success will depend on the ability of the industry to deliver on its environmental promises, and that concerns about “unnatural” aspects of CEA will need to be allayed. Given the price premium at which high-tech CEA products are currently sold, the industry’s expansion will depend in large part on its ability to convince value-oriented food consumers that the products meet the triple-bottom-line of economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CEA:

Controlled environment agriculture

GM:

Genetically modified

GMO:

Genetically modified organism

LED:

Light emmiting diode

References

  • Agritecture (n.d.) Global leaders in urban agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.agritecture.com.

  • Alkon, A., and J. Guthman. 2017. The new food activism: Opposition, cooperation, and collective action. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asioli, D., J. Aschemann-Witzel, V. Caputo, R. Vecchio, A. Annunziata, T. Næs, and P. Varela. 2017. Making sense of the “clean label” trends: A review of consumer food choice behavior and discussion of industry implications. Food Research International 99: 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autogrow and Agritecture Consulting (2020). 2020 Global CEA census report. Retrieved from https://www.agritecture.com/census.

  • Benke, K., and B. Tomkins. 2017. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy 13 (1): 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, G.M. 2016. More than just food: Food justice and community change. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, G.M. 2020. Know your indoor farmer: Square Roots, techno-local food, and transparency as publicity. American Behavioral Scientist 64 (11): 1588–1606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burwood-Taylor, L. (2019). AeroFarms raises $100m from ‘patient capital’ to continue steady growth of vertical farming business. AgFunderNews. Retrieved from https://agfundernews.com/aerofarms-raises-100m-from-patient-capital-to-continue-steady-growth-of-vertical-farming-business.html.

  • Carolan, M. 2020. “Urban farming is going high tech”: Digital urban agriculture’s links to gentrification and land use. Journal of the American Planning Association 86 (1): 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Good Food Purchasing (n.d.) The good food purchasing values. Retrieved from https://goodfoodpurchasing.org/program-overview/#values.

  • Charmaz, K. 2000. Grounded theory in the 21st century. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 509–537. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, I., P.R. Gill, R. Morda, and L. Ali. 2019. “More than a diet” A qualitative investigation of young vegan Women’s relationship to food. Appetite 143: 104418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, B.D., and B. Ellison. 2017. Will consumers find vertically farmed produce “out of reach”? Choices 32 (1): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLind, L.B. 2002. Place, work, and civic agriculture: Common fields for cultivation. Agriculture and Human Values 19 (3): 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervin, B. 1998. Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 2 (2): 36–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervin, B., and C. Naumer. 2009. Sense-making. In Encyclopedia of communication theory, vol. 2, ed. S.W. Littlejohn and K. Foss, 877–881. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Despommier, D. 2010. The vertical farm. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditlevsen, K., S. Denver, T. Christensen, and J. Lassen. 2020. A taste for locally produced food Values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers. Appetite 147: 104544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ercilla-Montserrat, M., D. Sanjuan-Delmás, E. Sanyé-Mengual, et al. 2019. Analysis of the consumer’s perception of urban food products from a soilless system in rooftop greenhouses: A case study from the Mediterranean area of Barcelona (Spain). Agriculture and Human Values 36: 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldmann, C., and U. Hamm. 2015. Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: A review. Food Quality and Preference 40: 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C., and Kennedy, B. (2016). The new food fights: US public divides over food science. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/12/01/the-new-food-fights/.

  • Garth, H., and A.M. Reese. 2020. Black food matters: Racial justice in the wake of food justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golob, U. 2018. Sense-making. In The international encyclopedia of strategic communication, ed. R.L. Heath and W. Johansen. NJ Wiley: Hoboken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, W., and J. Minner. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthman, J. 2008. Bringing good food to others: Investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. Cultural Geographies 15 (4): 431–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haenfler, R., B. Johnson, and E. Jones. 2012. Lifestyle movements: Exploring the intersection of lifestyle and social movements. Social Movement Studies 11 (1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauman, B. (2015). Diversity of organic buyer is increasing, according to OTA. Organic Trade Association. Retrieved from https://ota.com/news/press-releases/17972.

  • Hilverda, F., M. Kuttschreuter, and E. Giebels. 2017. Social media mediated interaction with peers, experts and anonymous authors: Conversation partner and message framing effects on risk perception and sense-making of organic food. Food Quality and Preference 56: 107–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, J. 2016. Consumer acceptance of insect-based foods in the Netherlands: Academic and commercial implications. Appetite 107: 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.H. 1999. Hydroponics worldwide. Acta Horticulturae 481: 719–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jürkenbeck, K., A. Heumann, and A. Spiller. 2019. Sustainability matters: Consumer acceptance of different vertical farming systems. Sustainability 11 (15): 4052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, A., and Riemenschneider, J. (2018). Opportunities in controlled environment agriculture. The George Washington University Food Institute. Retrieved from https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.gwu.edu/dist/a/122/files/2018/05/CEA-Final-Document-1i4su6u.pdf.

  • Klerkx, L., E. Jakku, and P. Labarthe. 2019. A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 40 New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 90: 100315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooijmans, A., and F. Flores-Palacios. 2014. Is eating science or common sense? Knowledge about “natural foods” among self-identified “natural food” consumers, vendors and producers in rural and urban Mexico. Appetite 81: 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopf, A. (2017). Let’s talk about market size. Artemis. Retrieved from https://medium.com/artemis/lets-talk-about-market-size-316842f1ab27.

  • Kozai, T., G. Niu, and M. Takagaki, eds. 2015. Plant factory: An indoor vertical farming system for efficient quality food production. London, UK: Academic press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lensing, C. (2018). Controlled environment agriculture: Farming for the future? CoBank. Retrieved from https://hortamericas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/KED-Report-ControlledEnvironment-May2018.pdf.

  • Lusk, J. 2016. Unnaturally delicious: How science and technology are serving up super foods to save the world. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J.L., and B.C. Briggeman. 2009. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91 (1): 184–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J.L., J. Roosen, and A. Bieberstein. 2014. Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Causes and roots of controversies. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6 (1): 381–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T. A. (2012) Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Lebanon, NH: UPNE

  • Marcu, A., R. Gaspar, P. Rutsaert, B. Seibt, D. Fletcher, W. Verbeke, and J. Barnett. 2015. Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science 24 (5): 547–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markets and Markets (2019). Hydroponics market. Retrieved from https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/hydroponic-market-94055021.html.

  • Mattson, N., Albright, L.D., de Villiers, D., Brechner, M., and Langhans, R. (2015) Top misconceptions about CEA. Inside Grower, 32–34.

  • Maxwell, J.A. 2010. Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6): 475–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miličić, V., R. Thorarinsdottir, M.D. Santos, and M.T. Hančič. 2017. Commercial aquaponics approaching the European market: To consumers’ perceptions of aquaponics products in Europe. Water 9 (2): 80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson C.F., Harbick K., Gómez M.I., and Mattson N.S. (2020) An economic and environmental comparison of conventional and controlled environment agriculture (CEA) supply chains for leaf lettuce to US cities In Aktas E., Bourlakis M. (Eds.) Food supply chains in cities (pp. 33–67) London UK: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Onozaka, Y., G. Nurse, and D.T. McFadden. 2010. Local food consumers: How motivations and perceptions translate to buying behavior. Choices 25 (1): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, J., A. Gabriel, and M. Gandorfer. 2020. Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: A nationwide survey in Germany. Agriculture and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10145-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, J., D. Conner, J. Kolodinsky, and A. Trubek. 2017. Get real: An analysis of student preference for real food. Agriculture and Human Values 34: 921–932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangarajan, A., and Riordan, M. (2019). The promise of urban agriculture: National study of commercial farming in urban areas. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Marketing Service and Cornell University Small Farms Program.

  • Renner, B., G. Sproesser, S. Strohbach, and H.T. Schupp. 2012. Why we eat what we eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite 59 (1): 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronteltap, A., J.C.M. Van Trijp, R.J. Renes, and L.J. Frewer. 2007. Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics. Appetite 49 (1): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorabaugh, P.A. (2015). Intro to hydroponics and CEA. University of Arizona Controlled Environment Agriculture Center. Retrieved from https://ceac.arizona.edu/resources/intro-hydroponics-cea.

  • Sanyé-Mengual, E., I. Anguelovski, J. Oliver-Solà, et al. 2016. Resolving differing stakeholder perceptions of urban rooftop farming in Mediterranean cities: Promoting food production as a driver for innovative forms of urban agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 33: 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanyé-Mengual, E., K. Specht, J. Vávra, M. Artmann, F. Orsini, and G. Gianquinto. 2020. Ecosystem Services of Urban Agriculture: Perceptions of Project Leaders. Stakeholders and the General Public. Sustainability 12 (24): 10446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoolman, E.D. 2020. Building community, benefiting neighbors: “Buying local” by people who do not fit the mold for “ethical consumers.” Journal of Consumer Culture 20 (3): 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, G., C. Yue, N. Anderson, C. Russell, and N. Phelps. 2017. Consumer perceptions of aquaponic systems. HortTechnology 27 (3): 358–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, G., C. Yue, M. Abbey, N. Anderson, N. Phelps, P. Venturelli, and Z. Vickers. 2018. Consumer preferences for aquaponic produce: Implications from an experimental auction. Agribusiness 34 (4): 742–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., and E. Sanyé-Mengual. 2017. Risks in urban rooftop agriculture: Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions to ensure efficient policymaking. Environmental Science and Policy 69: 13–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., R. Siebert, I. Hartmann, et al. 2014. Urban agriculture of the future: An overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values 31: 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., R. Siebert, and S. Thomaier. 2016a. Perception and acceptance of agricultural production in and on urban buildings (ZFarming): A qualitative study from Berlin Germany. Agriculture and Human Values 33 (4): 753–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., T. Weith, K. Swoboda, and R. Siebert. 2016b. Socially acceptable urban agriculture businesses. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36 (1): 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, K., F. Zoll, H. Schümann, J. Bela, J. Kachel, and M. Robischon. 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 11 (16): 4315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, N., A.E. Sexton, and C. Driessen. 2019. Making sense of making meat: Key moments in the first 20 years of tissue engineering muscle to make food. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 3: 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2018). Grocers are failing to meet $20bn consumer demand for local food. AgFunderNews. Retrieved from https://agfundernews.com/grocers-failing-meet-20bn-consumer-demand-local-food.html.

  • Organic Trade Association (2019). U.S. Organic industry survey 2019. Retrieved from https://ota.com/resources/organic-industry-survey.

  • Walker, S. and Joukhadar, I. (2019) Greenhouse vegetable production. New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service Circular 556. Retrieved from https://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/CR556.pdf.

  • Waller, L., and M. Gugganig. 2021. Re-visioning public engagement with emerging technology: A digital methods experiment on ‘vertical farming.’ Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521990977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, A.G. 2001. Sense making in marketing organizations and consumer psychology: Theory and practice. Psychology and Marketing 18 (5): 415–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zepeda, L., and D. Deal. 2009. Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies 33 (6): 697–705.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Fordham University Social Innovation Fellowship grant. Special thanks to Sophie Ambro, Lindsey Register, and Randy Mueller for their work as undergraduate research assistants. Additional thanks to Dr. Anu Rangarajan, Dr. Neil Mattson, and the Cornell CEA NSF INFEWS team for their support, as well as Ricky Stephens and other members of the CEA industry for their feedback. The authors also thank the research participants for sharing their perspectives, as well as the editor and anonymous peer reviewers for their constructive commentary.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Garrett M. Broad.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Interview guide

  1. 1.

    When you are looking to purchase vegetables, what is most important to you? Why?

  2. 2.

    Have you ever heard of the term “controlled environment agriculture” or CEA?

    1. a.

      What does that term mean to you?

    2. b.

      I may refer to it as CEA moving forward.

  3. 3.

    Have you ever heard of the terms “hydroponics?” What does this term mean to you?

    1. a.

      Have you ever heard of the term “aeroponics?” What does this term mean to you?

    2. b.

      Have you ever heard of the term “aquaponics?” What does this term mean to you?

  4. 4.

    I'm going to tell you a little bit more about controlled environment agriculture, or CEA. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

  5. 5.

    Controlled environment agriculture is a method of cultivating plants in an enclosed environment, using technology to ensure optimal growing conditions. For many years, people have grown food in greenhouses, which is a type of controlled environment agriculture that uses natural sunlight. In recent years, new types of CEA allow people to grow food indoors without soil or sunlight. They use artificial lights like LEDs and grow the plants in nutrient-enriched water. In hydroponics, the roots are placed in that water; in aeroponics, the roots are sprayed with the water; and in aquaponics, the nutrients actually come from fish. Hearing about CEA practices such as hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic agriculture, what is your general reaction?

  6. 6.

    Supporters of controlled environment agriculture argue that their products are good because they use less water than outdoor agriculture, can grow more food per square foot, and don't use pesticides or GMOs. They also say they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting fertilizer inputs and transportation, since they can be grown anywhere year-round, including right in the city.

    1. a.

      What do you think of these arguments?

    2. b.

      Are any of these specific claims important or convincing to you?

  7. 7.

    Let's focus a bit more on the idea of local food. Do you generally seek out local food? Why or why not?

  8. 8.

    Some supporters say CEA represents a new opportunity to grow food “hyperlocally” within urban areas, so that produce can be consumed very close to where it was grown and soon after harvesting to retain its freshness, flavor, and nutrients.

    1. a.

      What do you think about CEA producers' claims about being “hyperlocal?” Does this sound appealing or not? Why?

  9. 9.

    Some people are critical of controlled environment agriculture. They argue that the systems are expensive and use lots of energy due to their artificial lights, which can lead to a large greenhouse gas footprint. Some also argue that locally grown and organic foods grown in soil are superior, since they consider outdoor agriculture a more natural approach which also helps build soil health.

    1. a.

      What do you think of these arguments?

    2. b.

      Are any of these specific claims important or convincing to you?

  10. 10.

    Right now, there is a debate about whether controlled environment agriculture products should be allowed to be certified as organic. If you had to take a stance on this issue, what would you say?

  11. 11.

    After this conversation, how would you describe your overall feeling toward controlled environment agriculture products? What other questions do you have?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broad, G.M., Marschall, W. & Ezzeddine, M. Perceptions of high-tech controlled environment agriculture among local food consumers: using interviews to explore sense-making and connections to good food. Agric Hum Values 39, 417–433 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10261-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10261-7

Keywords

Navigation