Progress report for GNE24-318
Project Information
Globally, agriculture faces a changing climate, declining biodiversity, rising pollution, and a growing and urbanizing population who need sustainable sources of food. Amid this polycrisis, the idea of growing food indoors, termed Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), has gained traction as a way to decouple food production from environmental constraints. Proponents promise CEA will grow more food with less land and less environmental impact. However, based on initial literature review, these assertions are narrowly based on CEA’s projected efficiency compared to outdoor agriculture, and do not account for systemic impacts of CEA, for example on urban environments, labor markets, or local economies. This project will fill this conceptual gap by developing comprehensive, evidence-based assessments of the sustainability and equity implications of CEA on the food systems in which they propose to intervene. By combining discourse analysis, qualitative interviews, and ethnography at two CEA sites, we will compare promise against the performance of CEA using the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems framework developed by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, focusing specifically on environmental integrity, social well-being, governance & accountability, and economic resilience. Further, this project will apply Sovacool’s framework for assessing equity impacts of sustainability transition pathways to these CEA cases. Study findings will be disseminated through three peer-reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, and a white paper for industry and policymakers identifying developmental and operational best practices and policy opportunities to enhance system sustainability and equity.
Objective 1: Assess the sustainability implications of CEA by identifying and characterizing the potential risks and harms from CEA at landscape and community levels.
Objective 2: Evaluate the equity implications of CEA by comparing the distribution of burdens and benefits against other potential pathways for sustainable intensification of urban agriculture.
The purpose of this project is to conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of the sustainability and equity implications of Controlled Environment Agriculture on local food systems. Globally, agriculture faces a changing climate, declining biodiversity, rising pollution, and a growing and urbanizing population who need sustainable sources of food.1–3 From deforestation to groundwater depletion, soil degradation to greenhouse gas emissions, the negative impacts of conventional input-intensive farming practices are well-documented.4 Faced with these challenges, many experts call for sustainable intensification, which means growing more food with less land and less environmental impact.5 Among the suite of sustainable agricultural intensification strategies, Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) has taken center stage as a viable tool to sustainably transform food systems where people are most likely to live: in and around cities. The rising interest in CEA is driven largely by the widespread awareness of agriculture’s role in and contributions to global polycrisis.6,7 Proponents frame CEA as an adaptive response to the projected rise in global population, particularly in dense urban areas, and climate change which continues to reduce freshwater supply and expand drylands, effectively reducing the stock of agricultural land.8
CEA refers to systems that protect crops from the external environment,9 and range from simple shade structures to enclosed greenhouses to fully controlled vertical farms where even light is artificially supplied. One of the most prominent CEA proponents, Despommier,10 summarized CEA’s projected benefits as minimal exposure to drought, flood and pests; year-round crop production; increased water-use efficiency; ecosystem restoration; reduction of pathogens; energy efficiency; employment generation; and decreased fossil fuel use by decreasing dependency on tractors, farm machinery, and long-haul transportation to get food from farm to table. CEA has attracted huge capital investment. Between 2014 and 2019, the total acreage dedicated to indoor farming in US and Canada grew annually by 5% and 11%, respectively, for vegetables and fruit.11
Despite the rising attention and investment in CEA, to date, only a few controlled environment technologies and systems have been built at the scales projected for the future, and the evidence of their systemic impact on the broader equity and sustainability of food systems is limited. Existing studies are focused on plant responses to various controlled growing conditions, or the environmental footprints of CEA compared to traditional outdoor agriculture, and do not account for the systemic impacts of CEA implementation. To fill this knowledge gap, this project moves beyond plant-centric and greenhouse gas-focused studies by evaluating two Rhode Island-based CEA facilities through a lens that recognizes the interconnectedness of land, water, air, and all living beings, as emphasized in Northeast SARE’s outcome statement. Our evaluation will consider crucial aspects often overlooked, including how CEA integration affects urban environments (air quality, heat mitigation, energy demands), the impact of CEA on labor markets (employment opportunities, skill requirements, working conditions), and local communities (empowerment through food security and economic development vs. potential disenfranchisement).
To organize this evaluation, we will utilize both the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) framework14 and Sovacool’s 4-E’s Framework15-16 (exclusion, enclosure, entrenchment, and encroachment) for evaluating equity impacts of sustainability transitions. Using the SAFA framework, we will evaluate each CEA case study in four domains: governance, environmental integrity, social well-being, and economic resilience (GESE). Integrating the 4-E’s framework, we will also examine governance over siting and operation of CEA to assess public accountability and the extent of inclusion vs. exclusion of local communities and other public stakeholders from most decision-making processes. We will also evaluate whether and to what extent CEA exacerbates enclosure in cities by concentrating agricultural ownership and benefits within private, for-profit companies, entrenchment of inequity by producing expensive food inaccessible to the most food insecure communities and providing mostly low-level jobs, and encroachment on urban environmental quality by increasing waste generation, water stress, impermeable surfaces, energy consumption, and congestion (i.e., truck traffic).
This study will provide useful insights to practitioners, policymakers, community stakeholders, and researchers on CEA’s role in sustainable and equitable transitions for agriculture. To translate the learnings into the design and governing infrastructure for current and future CEA projects, this study will produce action-oriented outcomes (see project description) and resources for CEA operators and policymakers. Finally, this project offers a significant step forward for sustainable agriculture by implementing a framework for evaluating the full spectrum of CEA's impact and ensuring its contribution to a just, resilient, and environmentally sound food system.
Cooperators
Research
This study will integrate two assessment frameworks, one for sustainability and the other for equity.
(1) We will analyze evidence from each CEA case study using the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) framework developed by the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture (FAO) Organization,14 focusing on four domains: governance, environmental integrity, social well-being, and economic resilience (GESE). Each domain comprises themes, including land, air and water quality, corporate ethics, decent livelihood, trading practices, labor rights, human safety and health, and product quality and access. Unlike other sustainability assessment frameworks that take a product-centric life cycle analysis (LCA) approach, SAFA adopts a broader enterprise perspective, enabling a comprehensive evaluation of sustainability, particularly emphasizing governance and social well-being. SAFA encompasses key elements of LCA, such as analyzing inputs, outputs, and environmental impacts. Additionally, it incorporates both target-based and practice-based indicators with adaptable weighting to enhance accessibility, useable even when certain performance measurements are lacking. This framework can be tailored to geographic, sector-specific, and individual conditions and makes extensive use of existing documentation, standards, and tools. This is particularly important given the technological, infrastructural, and operational differences among the two CEA case studies.
(2) We will assess the evidence in each theme according to Sovacool’s15,16 framework for evaluating the equity implications of sustainability transition pathways, focusing on four processes: enclosure (transferring public assets, e.g. land, into private hands), exclusion (limiting stakeholders from participating in decision-making, planning and policymaking), encroachment (degrading ecosystem services or reducing biodiversity), and entrenchment (exacerbating vulnerability and income inequality) distributed across economic, political, ecological, and social dimensions. With strong interdisciplinary roots in political ecology and political economy, this framework offers the necessary rigor to examine power dynamics and vulnerabilities within sustainability transitions. It delves into specific processes like territorial accumulation, privatization, and market stretching, along with their associated indicators such as land consolidation, dispossession, and various forms of discrimination. Notably, while this framework has been previously applied to climate change adaptation and energy transitions, it hasn't been used to explore agricultural sustainability transition pathways. This unique application makes our work groundbreaking from a methodological perspective.
Drawing on these two frameworks, this study will employ a mixed methods design to address the hypotheses and fulfill the objectives. Specifically, we will triangulate evidence from discourse analysis, qualitative interviews, and on-site ethnography to holistically evaluate the sustainability and equity implications of CEA, focusing on the gap between discourse and practice.
- Discourse Analysis. A discourse refers to the ways in which dominant actor groups frame a problem space, with implications for the kinds of solutions presumed to be possible, futures imagined as desirable, and stakeholders deemed as expert and authoritative.17 Analyzing CEA discourse provides a window into underlying narratives (assenting and dissenting), ideologies, and power dynamics—in other words, who is included and excluded in governance and decision-making as well as assumptions about expertise and authority. Evidence for the discourse analysis will be collected from primary sources dated 2019-2024 and including popular press (newspapers, magazines) as well as industry-specific news (e.g., TechCrunch, Farm Futures) through keyword searches—e.g., “vertical farm”, “indoor agriculture”, etc.—using the Lexis Uni, ProQuest, and Academic Search Complete databases.
- Case Study Ethnography. To explore the lived experiences of those working in and living nearby to CEA operations, we will conduct a two-month ethnography of two contrasting CEA facilities: one “high-tech” and one “low-tech”. This allows us to compare and contrast how technological choices (e.g., passive vs. artificial lighting) and scales (i.e., production volume) influence social (entrenchment), economic (enclosure), and environmental (encroachment) implications on the ground. Ethnography involves observing daily operations, work routines, interactions, relationships, and community dynamics.19 By closely observing the operations, we will gather on-the-ground empirical evidence of the sustainability and equity performance of each study site and uncover the underlying norms, values, and organizational structures that shape behavior within the group and the attainment of such outcomes. Beyond the walls of each facility, we will observe interactions with local residents, attend community meetings to understand the impact of CEA at landscape and community levels. By triangulating firsthand observations and participant narratives from ethnography with broader discursive trends identified in (i) above, we will identify discrepancies, nuances, and emergent themes, thereby enriching our understanding of the complex interplay between discursive representations (promise) and lived realities (practice).
- Semi-structured Interviews: Finally, we will conduct 45-minute interviews (in-person or virtual) with ~30 individuals who are either directly affected by the ongoing CEA developments in the United States, playing a key role in its actualization, or leading or participating in CEA research. We will strategically recruit a broad range of participants, including CEA and urban agricultural decision-makers (e.g., company owners and managers, municipal policymakers), CEA employees, neighbors who live near CEA sites, local retailers who buy and sell CEA products, and competing food producers (e.g., farmers). By engaging with such a diverse range of voices, we aim to create a comprehensive picture of how CEA is perceived, experienced, and integrated within the communities it affects. This data will be instrumental in informing future decisions about the development and governance of CEA for a more sustainable and equitable food system.
Study sites.
We selected two distinct case study sites – Edible Garden AG and Vertigreens - to provide contrasting perspectives on the implementation of CEA. These sites were chosen based on their varying levels of technological adoption, scale of production, ownership models, and geographical characteristics. By examining these diverse contexts, we aim to gain insights into how different operational frameworks influence the implementation of CEA and its broader sustainability and equity implications.
The first study site, Edible Garden AG (EG) is a publicly traded CEA company. EG operates state-of-the-art greenhouses and processing facilities in Belvidere, New Jersey, and Grand Rapids, Michigan, and has a network of contract growers, all strategically located near major markets in the U.S. With its proprietary GreenThumb 2.0, patented (US Nos.: US 11,158,006 B1, US 11,410,249 B2, and US 11,830, 088 B2) software that optimizes growing in vertical and traditional greenhouses, EG exemplifies a high-tech CEA facility. Its proprietary patented (U.S. Patent No. D1,010,365) self-watering display is designed to increase plant shelf life and provide an enhanced in-store plant display experience. Edible Garden is a USDA-certified organic, GFSI-certified, and non-GMO project-verified company. Their produce is available at over 4,000 stores in the United States, including Walmart, Stop & Shop, and Kroger. Beyond fresh produce, Edible Garden develops ingredients and proteins, offering a line of plant and whey protein powders under the Vitamin Way® and Vitamin Whey® brands. The company also provides sustainable food flavoring products such as pulp gourmet sauces and chili-based products.
We adopted Vertigreens (VG) as the medium-tech CEA facility for this study. Vertigreens takes an entirely different approach, operating out of a repurposed shipping container designed by Freight Farm. Recreating acres’ worth of farmland within a 40-foot container, Vertigreens uses advanced vertical farming techniques to unlock every possible inch of growing space within the container’s four walls. The farm is equipped with an advanced climate control system, a hydroponic growing system, and energy-efficient LED lighting. Vertigreens integrates the farm with the Farmhand software, automating most of the farming process and ensuring optimal growing conditions. Vertigreens specifically targets 'hard-to-find' ingredients (e.g. red oakleaf, red bibb lettuce) that are in high demand by local restaurants. By catering to this niche market, they fill a gap in the supply chain, providing chefs with access to fresh, unique produce that might otherwise be difficult to source. Currently, VG operates one container farm but has recently finalized a purchase agreement for an additional three containers, significantly increasing their production capacity and transforming their facility from small to modular.
Sampling
Starting with key informants or “gatekeepers”,21 we will employ a mix of purposive and “snowball” sampling to recruit participants. Initial participants will be selected based on their relevance and expertise in the subject matter, and, or ability to provide valuable introductions to others with relevant expertise and experience. Through these initial contacts, we would identify additional individuals with unique perspectives who would be valuable additions to the study. This organic approach allows us to reach a wider range of stakeholders who may not be easily identified through traditional methods. This sampling method continues with recruitment until saturation, i.e., the point at which further interviews cease to yield unique perspectives or insights. Given the complexity of CEA’s impacts and the range of perspectives we seek, we anticipate a final sample size of approximately 60 individuals.
Data Analysis
Interviews will be transcribed into text using an AI-based transcription application and validated randomly for accuracy by at least two individuals on the project team. We will then use NVivo to qualitatively analyze the interview transcripts, discourses and field notes using an iterative coding method that follows an open, axial, and selective coding procedure18 to identify themes such as promised benefits (jobs, nutritious food, climate resilience), projected resource requirements (water, energy), and dissenting voices. For each study site, we will develop a sustainability and equity polygon, showing performance and allowing for a quick comparison of strengths and weaknesses across the conceptual domains proposed in the SAFA and the Sivacool framework. Further, we will showcase particularly insightful quotes and data points to illustrate key findings and support emerging themes. Finally, we will create a synergy-tradeoff matrix to represent the relationships and influence between different sustainability and equity categories. This will help us identify potential areas of synergy where CEA can promote positive outcomes in multiple dimensions, as well as potential trade-offs that need careful consideration.
Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary
Participation Summary:
We are committed to disseminating our findings and recommendations to a broad audience, fostering a well-informed discussion about Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) and its role in a sustainable and equitable food system. Our dissemination strategy employs a multi-pronged approach, targeting both academic and public audiences. Specifically, we will produce:
- Three scientific manuscripts (Aliu and Baur): These publications will be submitted to peer-reviewed academic journals in the field of sustainable agriculture. This will contribute to the advancement of knowledge within the academic community and provide a foundation for future research on CEA's impact.
- White paper: A concise white paper will be developed, summarizing the project's key findings on CEA's sustainability and equity performance and identifying potential policy opportunities. This document will be targeted towards industry professionals and policymakers, providing them with actionable insights to inform decision-making related to CEA development and regulation.
Findings and recommendations will be disseminated through presentations at industry and academic conferences. To reach a broader audience, we will also translate deliverables for public-facing venues such as The Conversation, guest blogs for organizations such as the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (https://sustainableagriculture.net/), and online talks such as TEDxURI and URI’s Three Minute Thesis (3MT). These outlets will allow us to engage in discussions with stakeholders interested in advancing sustainability and equity in the food system.
Project Outcomes
At the end of the project, we will produce an industry white paper that includes developmental, and operational principles that CEA operators can adopt to improve system sustainability and equity, and effectively contribute to sustainable food production and consumption
Spending time in the field at two operational sites for Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) has significantly deepened our understanding of the sustainability challenges faced by this innovative form of agriculture. Through firsthand observations and discussions, we have gained valuable insights into the complexities of labor dynamics, energy consumption, and product-market fit within CEA systems. While CEA holds numerous advantages over traditional agriculture—such as resource efficiency and the ability to produce food in non-arable areas— we learnt that these systems still face substantial barriers to achieving environmental, social, and economic sustainability.
Working closely as a team during this project has enhanced our collective knowledge, awareness, and analytical skills in the realm of sustainable agriculture. We have developed a more nuanced appreciation of the interplay between technology adoption, operational challenges, and broader food system impacts. This has also shaped our attitude toward addressing sustainability not just as a technical issue but as a multidimensional challenge requiring integrated solutions.
Looking ahead, our future research will focus on exploring and modeling various business frameworks that enable CEA companies to achieve environmental and social sustainability without compromising financial viability. By examining alternative ownership structures, market strategies, and policy interventions, we aim to identify pathways that balance profitability with long-term sustainability goals.