CHAPTER ONE

How energy innovation in indoor

vertical farming can improve food
security, sustainability, and
food safety?
Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis*
Department of Business Development and Technology, Centre for Energy Technologies, Aarhus University,
Herning, Denmark
*Corresponding author: e-mail address: gxydis@[Link]

Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Comparison in resources input and sustainability between different
farming types 4
2.1 Traditional farming 6
2.2 Greenhouses 10
2.3 Indoor vertical farms 20
3. Comparison in food safety issues between different farming types 33
3.1 Traditional farming 34
3.2 Greenhouses 37
3.3 Indoor vertical farms 39
4. Customer opinion on indoor vertical farms 42
5. Conclusions 44
References 48

1. Introduction
Sustainability of resources and safety in the food production line is a
major issue globally. By 2050, it is expected that the global population will
reach the 9.8 billion people, 2.4 billion people more that need to be fed
(United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015).
Today, agriculture occupies land equal to the size of South America in order
to cover the demand of the global population. Based on the assumption that
the minimum daily demand of a single person is minimum 2000 kcal, if we
maintain the same agricultural practices, we will need additional land equal

Advances in Food Security and Sustainability, Volume 5 # 2020 Elsevier Inc. 1

ISSN 2452-2635 All rights reserved.
[Link]
2 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

to the size of Brazil (2.1 billion acres) to cover the global food demand
(Despommier, 2009). On the other hand, according to Lotze-Campen
et al. (2008), the land used for agriculture is projected to be transformed
for other purposes such as urbanization, energy production, or infrastructure
growth. It is worth to mention, that another crucial challenge that will sig-
nificantly affect agricultural production in the upcoming years is the rapid
increase of the global temperature, as per each degree of temperature rise,
10% of existing agricultural land will be lost (Despommier, 2010).
Nowadays, climate change is a huge issue since it is expected that the
upcoming 50 years will outstandingly affect the agricultural process. The sig-
nificant increase of the carbon dioxide emission levels from a global
perspective—since it constitutes an important impact factor of agricultural
productivity—can influence the global economy via the effects on the agri-
culture’s total production rate. In specific, based on Mulatu’s et al. (2016)
research conducted for Ethiopia, indicates that the impact of CO2 emissions
will decrease 3.5% to 4.5% the real agricultural GDP since it will lead to
lower the agricultural productivity and subsequently reduce the amount
of traded and non-traded crops. Such population increase certainly indicates
a significant rise in the required food production, raising concerns on the
deficiency, the quantity, and the quality of future food products. We should
also take into account the fact that nowadays food travels daily thousands of
miles from the production areas to the urban consumers, in order to meet the
demand, releasing huge amounts of CO2.
Less developed countries such as Ethiopia that were mentioned above,
apart from global climate change will have to face and other enlarged prob-
lems concerning food safety. For example, human excrements that are used
as fertilizers (estimation of 50% of the global farming) can cause diseases such
as cholera, typhoid fever and numerous parasitic infections (Despommier,
2010). Nowadays, even the more developed counties have to face food
safety and security problems even if this kind of infectious diseases have been
eliminated. It is worth to mention the pandemic of our age, COVID-19
caused by virus SARS-CoV-2 that was initially reported in the province
of Hubei, Wuhan in China. The disease is estimated to have originated from
a seafood market in Wuhan where wild animals were traded such as mar-
mots, bats, snakes and birds (Zhou et al., 2020). The specific family of
viruses, coronaviruses, are known to be transferred from animal to humans.
According to Zhou et al., 2020, it is mentioned that 96% of the genetic
makeup of COVID-19 is matched with the coronavirus found in bats.
The uncertainty that is caused globally via COVID-19 has caused apart from
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 3

multiple deaths and lockdowns to most of the European countries, will affect
significantly the economy and will cost trillions of dollars in the global econ-
omy, during 2020 and beyond (UNCTAD, 2020).
Food safety is a major issue of our era, as there are multiple reports of
cases worldwide over the last years that have caused food recalls due to bac-
terial infectious diseases leading to loss of billion dollars. Why do we seem to
have so many outbreaks concerning food production these days? Only in the
US, despite the attempts to provide a safe food supply, every year are
recorded 48 million foodborne illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations and
3000 deaths (CDC, 2013). In 2017–18, [Link] O157: H7 outbreak in the
US caused sudden eruption linked to consumption of leafy greens and
the romaine lettuce. The pathogen was mainly reported in the regions
Yuma, AZ and Salinas, California, where greenhouse installations that pro-
duce more than 90% of the leafy vegetables and greens in the United States
are based. [Link] contamination in the production line almost all of the times
originates from the irrigation water used in the fields. Additionally, further
risk in the contamination process from various bacteria and pathogens comes
from the washing of field-grown products after they are harvested, while this
step can spread contamination to the whole production. The most regular
technique that outdoor farming applies after harvest is to dunk lettuce heads
in water tanks from rainfall or irrigation, while most greenhouses apply triple
washes with running water from the local network.
Vertical farms are a novel type of farming in a controlled-environment
with a total replacement of solar radiation with artificial lighting that pro-
vides the necessary nanometers of the spectrum for the growth and devel-
opment of plants. In vertical farms, plants grow in soilless cultivation systems
such as hydroponic (roots are immersed in multiple substrates, i.e., perlite,
rockwool enriched water with nutrient solution), aeroponic (soilless air/
mist solution) or even aquaponic (co-cultivation of fish and hydroponic
plants) systems that allow stacking multiple layers or columns of plants hor-
izontally or vertically. Vertical farms are located in completely isolated spaces
from outdoor environment with thermally insulated installations (especially
when at the top floor of the building) and airtight structures that give the
opportunity to the farmers to control the environment in terms of temper-
ature, humidity and CO2 (Avgoustaki and Xydis, 2019). Since vertical farms
can theoretically be placed anywhere in the urban network, they allow local,
nutritious and fresh consumption for consumers. In specific, a study
conducted by Jill (2008), mentioned that food sourced from conventional
farming uses 4 to 17 times more fuel compared to locally grown food and
4 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

emits 5 to 17 times more CO2. Meanwhile, vertical farms may be able to

increase the productivity rate in highly urbanized areas that can lead to
improvements in the food security of the community.
The purpose of the following subchapter is to compare the different
farming techniques of outdoor farming, greenhouses and vertical farms in
between them in terms of input of resources, the final product in terms
of safety and the shelve life of the products in terms of nutrient status and
freshness. Additionally, we will examine the above criteria for lettuce, which
is one of the most important cultivated species in vertical farms and will give
us access to multiple data. Lettuce belongs to the basic daily diet products; its
nature is fragile and can be easily contaminated and spread diseases among
the population.

2. Comparison in resources input and sustainability

between different farming types
In order to make more understandable the concept of resource use
efficiency, in Fig. 1 the essential resources for growing plants under various
farming types are shown. The most vital for plant growth is water, CO2,
light, nutrients, electricity (for ventilation purposes) and heating.
As shown in Fig. 1, the definition of resource use efficiency (RUE) is
given by the ratio of the final plants production to the total input. In order
to calculate the total input of a system, we have to summarize the input of
resources, the environmental pollutants and the production system.
In order to evaluate the sustainability and efficiency of a production sys-
tem in the food industry, we have to assess three key directions of the system.
• RUE: the amount of necessary resources to produce.
• The cost performance: the ratio of the sales amount to the production cost.

Fig. 1 Resource use efficiency (RUE) concept of a plant production system.

Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 5

• The vulnerability of the system, meaning the deviation of the yield pro-
duction per year and the quality value per product unit.
Water is absolutely necessary for all food production such as vegetables,
fruits, grains, meat etc. Based on Nederhoff and Stanghellini (2010), the
water use for the global food production reaches at 5400 km3 and has a rapid
increasing rate. The irrigation water-use efficiency can be researched under
different scopes and multiple concepts such as storage, delivery distribution
of the water to the farm or out of the farm. Additional systems that can affect
water use efficiency is the ratio of water that is delivered for irrigation and the
water that supplies the system. There are various ways we can calculate water
use efficiency as one of the major resource inputs in food production that
can be accomplished with agronomic ways, engineering or even economic
approaches. More analytically, irrigation efficiency estimates the ratio
between the diverted water and the consumed by the cultivation, thus it
provides water-use measurements that estimate the performance of the irri-
gation system. On the other hand, water use efficiency is considered an eco-
nomic concept that in practice evaluates the farm, as it is calculated by the
crop yield unit of water diverted (kg/m3).
In terms of energy consumption, it is one of the reasons that causes
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) contributing at the rising global warming.
The main gases released by agricultural production are carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Since the global policy
makers, organizations, researchers, retailers and producers try to propose
and implement novel techniques that identify and reduce GHGs, it is nec-
essary that we will focus and refer to the status of emissions under each farm-
ing type and propose mitigation measures in the sector.
In order to describe sustainability in agriculture, it is not enough to relate
sustainability with the field only from the resources perspective. Understanding
and evaluating what constitutes a sustainable farming system, it is of vital impor-
tance, to furthermore understand the economic and social terms that influence
the contemporary issues, values and perspectives of a unique system. Economic
efficiency reflects to the value that is relative to the cost. In order a resource to
reflect an economic value, has to be rare and difficult to obtain, for the market
prices to allocate the use of this resource for competitive purposes. For exam-
ple, even if air and water are essential resources for life giving them high
“intrinsic” value, nevertheless under most circumstances they have no eco-
nomic value due to their sufficiency levels in the environment (Ikert, 2001).
They only obtain an economic value in cases of scarcity due to, e.g., high levels
of pollution or drought.
6 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

2.1 Traditional farming

2.1.1 Status of resource use efficiency
Traditional farming is the type of agriculture where plants are shown and
grown in the land field in soil. Even if is the most ancient way that people
use land, over the last decades with the technological breakthroughs and the
numerous innovations introduced, outdoor farming has changed. Sensors,
satellites and advanced machinery allow farmers to apply more targeted
(and precision) agriculture to treat the fields individually according to the
needs of the crop and the soil, by dividing it in smaller parts in order to take
into consideration the variability level of each unit. To complete the whole
picture of climate change issues, an additional evolution process that cru-
cially reduce the growth rate of plants is soil degradation due to excessive
floods and droughts.
Traditional food production systems offer food solutions for people from
the beginning of human history. Over time, additional innovative tech-
niques were applied in traditional farming in order to rise the productivity
rate and reduce the cost and the crops overall footprint. In terms of
resources, conventional farming seems to have an increase demand for water
use (Table 1) as traditional agriculture uses almost 70% of the available fresh
water globally. Furthermore, a very common problem in terms of sustain-
ability in water use efficiency of conventional farming is the limited soil
water-holding capacity that results from the limited mulching of the soil
and the consistency in the same fertilizers/soil-preparation practices.
Scientific results (Pimentel et al., 2005) have shown that this maintenance
of these practices lead to low soil moisture status and low conservation levels
of conventional farming systems.
The most used approach for conventional farms is the irrigation effi-
ciency and the water use efficiency. It is worth to mention that the more
water applications are applied in a crop, the higher the water delivery losses
are. In order to improve the water use efficiency, many farmers apply a com-
bination of hydroponic systems with drip irrigation and smart scheduling of
water distribution. Hydroponics successfully address the challenge of soil
drought and salinity that reduces both yield and crop quality. It should be
noted that a decisive factor for the selection of hydroponic systems is the
high irrigation water needs that renders the requirement for recirculating
water. It becomes apparent that combination of water–saving technologies
with limited-water application technologies (such as close-loop hydropon-
ics, drip irrigation, mulching and smart scheduling of water supply) are the
most effective solutions for optimizing water use efficiency.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 7

Table 1 Summary of annual data for outdoor farming.

Resources
efficiency Traditional farming (lettuce) Citation
Water use 250 L/kg lettuce/year Barbosa et al. (2015)
efficiency
Water use Irrigation and rainfall Coyle and Ellison
Approx. 250 L/m2 (2017)
Energy use 0.3 kWh/kg/year Barbosa et al. (2015)
CO2 emissions 540 kg/tons of lettuce Gerecsey (2018)
Light source Solar radiation
Pest control use EPA-approved pesticides, herbicides and
fungicides as also traditional methods as
plowing, weeding and mulching
Yield 3.9 kg/m2/year Coyle and Ellison
(2017)
Land use 275 days/year Coyle and Ellison
(2017)
Land use 93 m2 for 1 kg lettuce/day
efficiency
Harvests per 2 per year Coyle and Ellison
year (2017)
Food miles 3200 km

Regarding land use, growing and producing food to respond to the

expanding demand of the world has led agriculture production and food
scarcity that can be difficulty bridged. Today’s farmlands, occupy almost
50% of the global habitable land ([Link]). We gathered the
footprint of the various resources that meet the demand for lettuce produc-
tion via traditional farming techniques. Worth noticing that deforestation is
a major problem, since forests are continuously sacrificed against farmland
that leads to climate change acceleration and soil inability to maintain water
at lower levels. Depending on the cultivated variety, the techniques and the
season, traditional farmed lettuce has a cultivation cycle between 1.5 and
2.5 months. Therefore, farmers have the ability to grow multiple successive
crops in the same field throughout a yearly cultivation period in order to
increase their yield and income. Additional techniques that open-field
8 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

farmers follow in order to increase their yield and income per hectare (ha) of
cultivated land is the density of planting, fertigation (combination of fertil-
ization with irrigation) application and the use of healthy transplants grown
in nurseries. Assuming that romaine lettuce growing in the Mediterranean is
planted in distances of 30–50 cm between the rows and 20–35 cm between
the plants, then the resulted yield reaches at 75,000–220,000 plants per ha
(Savvas et al., 2015). By increasing the planting distance per row by 1 cm,
it can lead to a 76% reduction of the total production. Harvest period vary
depending on the type or the variety of the cultivated crop. For the romaine
lettuce grown outdoors, the harvest period is between 55 and 70 days with a
typical yield of 25–30 tons/ha.
The energy use in outdoor farming is mainly linked to fossil fuels for
operations such as soil plowing, sowing, fertilization, harvesting etc.
Additionally, further electricity is required for pumping (water irrigation),
which in developed countries can reach up to 20% of the total fossil fuel
usage (Despommier, 2010).
Conventional farming, unfortunately, is associated to higher emissions in
comparison to other types of farming. The majority of the emissions is
directly linked to the transportation of the products, also known as food
miles. The amount of miles that is required in order for food to travel from
the producer to the consumers could release between 11 to 666 kg of CO2
emission depending on the location of the farm (Gerecsey, 2018). Since
farmlands are often located many kilometers away from the urban centers,
where the majority of the end-user is located. Food miles emissions repre-
sent on average 62% of the total emissions released throughout traditional
farming. Another important source of CO2 emissions that is linked to
traditional farming is the significant amounts of food waste. Even if food
waste is not only linked to traditional farming, maladministration and mis-
management on-farm losses, and non-marketable crops put traditional
farming under the spotlight of high shares of carbon footprint.
For the estimation and assessment of the economic efficiency of farming,
significant role in the calculation, the resources that bear an “economic”
value have played a role. In traditional farming, there is limited motivation
to protect and evaluate the quality, use and water maintenance, air, solar
radiation and in some cases even soil fertility and productivity. The costs
of a farm can vary between two main categories: the variable costs (opera-
tional expenses-OPEX) and the fix costs (capital expenses- CAPEX). In the
category of variable costs, all the expenses that cover particular farming
actions in a specific period of time such as seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, labor
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 9

are included. On the other hand, in the fix cost category, all the expenses
that will be incurred regardless the process and status of production, building
expenses (rent, installations, land) and equipment (irrigation system,
machinery) are included. Thus, the economic efficiency consists from a
combination of technical and other components. Based on Aurangzeb
et al. (2007) and a research that conducted to compare the economic effi-
ciency between traditional farming and mechanized farming systems, it is
pointed out that the net income in mechanized farms is significantly higher
due to the higher yields/ha than the one of traditional farms. This effect of
traditional farms could be explained by the longer time periods in soil prep-
aration, limited tillage practices as well as the high cost requirements of labor
expenses (specifically in seasonal workers during harvesting and sowing) in
comparison to the high technology and mechanization farming systems.
Last, another factor that highly affects the final quantity of production is bio-
diversity. For this reason, the selection and maintenance of mono-cropping
techniques that provide a uniformity in the applied practices, can reduce the
labor costs and make harvesting easier. However, by cultivating only one-
species crops in the entire field, it can highly influence the biodiversity and
make crops more susceptible to pathogen infections. To avoid this effect,
traditional farmers apply chemicals and genetically modified organisms to
maintain a simple farming system. This practice, though, requires a lot of
continuous input of resources and energy (cost).

2.1.2 Solution for increasing sustainability in traditional farming

The innovative and high quality mechanization and technological innova-
tion can lead to the increase of production and hence income. Multiple prac-
tices become more and more vital in traditional farming, as they improve the
efficiency of resources use in general and can overall enhance sustainability.
Concerning the water usage, there are several approaches that new farms
bring along in the field and can optimize the existing severe water waste sit-
uation. Common agronomic measures such as improved crop husbandry
and changed crop mix driven by the crop selection, can have a huge impact
in improvement of water usage. Furthermore, there are various cultivation
techniques such as modification of the irrigation infrastructure, which can
also influence positively the water use efficiency. Last, management actions
such as optimal irrigation planning and frequent maintenance irrigation
system scheduled maintenance can also influence positively the system’s
efficiency (Wheeler et al., 2015).
10 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

2.2 Greenhouses
Due to the growing population, farming has shifted to technologies that
enhance significant scale-up of the production via innovative technologies.
Greenhouses are types of installations, designed to protect and enlarge the
cultivation season of various crops. Plants growing under greenhouses can
grow protected from severe weather conditions such as hail, snow, extreme
low temperatures or excessive heat, while at the same time can allow culti-
vations of out-of-season species. Greenhouses first introduced in the 17th
century but only on the 19th century were commercially applied in the
global market. According to their installed area, greenhouses can be pres-
ented with various coverage materials such as plastic, glass, polyethylene
and rigid that protect crops from the variability of the outdoor conditions,
diffuses solar radiation and traps moisture, which contributes to increased
plant growth. The coverage system allows farmers to control the cultivation
environment according to each crop preference, as they can apply different
techniques that will maintain the heating and the cooling requirements to
the desired levels. This way, inside the greenhouses, farmers can develop
and maintain the desired microclimate and create a more predictable envi-
ronment that enhances the final plant yield, achieving higher quality and
reduced water consumption compared to open field crops.
There are different greenhouse systems that are diversified according to
the energy flow inside the greenhouse and the resources flow in the produc-
tion line. In more details, open greenhouses refer to the structure of the irri-
gation system, meaning that they do not collect the drained water of the
crops for reuse (usually have soil-based crops). These systems seem to have
low level of water usage efficiency as they are affected by water losses due to
soil depletion and constant water drainage, which drains the excess amount
of water with fertilizers. This waste of resources cause significant problems to
the environment. Usually growers can control the amount of drain as part of
the management strategy of resources they follow. The percentage of drain
can number between 5% and 50% of the water supply, but can be improved
by reusing this drain in the irrigation system. Additionally, open greenhouses
use window openings as the only mean of dehumidification and cooling
technique.
There are also the semi-closed systems of greenhouses that have a smaller
cooling capacity and window openings, combined with mechanical venti-
lation air-cooling systems. The combination use of mechanical systems and
window openings depending on the cooling demand. Concerning the
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 11

irrigation systems, semi-closed greenhouses reuse the drained nutrient solu-

tion by collecting it to a tank that is constantly topped-up with fresh water.
In some cases is followed water disinfection in order the collected drain
water to be purified for avoiding diseases spread in the crop. To avoid imbal-
ances in the nutrient solution, farmers use various techniques such as bleed-
ing or dumping. In specific, bleeding techniques remove constantly 10% of
the drain water, while in the dumping technique the mixing tank gets
completely emptied and refilled with fresh water enriched with nutrient
solution.
Finally, closed-systems refer to absolute mechanical support of the
cooling and dehumidification system by air treatment units. The air treat-
ment unit consists of a heat exchanger that is connected to a ventilator.
The purpose of the ventilator is to withdraw air from the interior of the
greenhouse, cool it, dehumidify it, and then distribute it back into the green-
house. Furthermore, in closed-systems water usually follows a close loop
that allows the collection, recycle and re-distribution of the irrigation water
both for irrigation purposes but also for cooling and heating purposes from
inside the distribution pipes between the plant lines (Qian, 2017).
Concerning the irrigation system in closed-systems of greenhouses, the
water does not follow the procedures of bleeding or dumping that are
followed in semi-closed systems. On the other hand, the water is constantly
recirculated in the mixed tank as it is automatically topped up with the
correct and precise amounts of fresh water and each nutrient element.
The growers are aware of the status of each nutrient element and are able
to adjust it precisely in order not to disrupt the nutrient balance. This process
becomes possible because of the high evolvement of automations, sensoring
and programming in close greenhouse systems and achieve a 10–50% better
water use compared with open greenhouse systems (Nederhoff and
Stanghellini, 2010).

2.2.1 Water use in greenhouses

Greenhouses have different techniques for irrigation and water collection
and highly depend on if greenhouses use soil based techniques or soilless
for crop production. Another factor that highly influences the final water
use and water use efficiency is the type of the system, meaning it is an open
system, a semi-open system or a closed-system. However, as can be retrieved
from Tables 1 and 2 the big difference in water use efficiency can be
explained primarily because of the higher production accomplished in
greenhouses compared to traditional farming but also because of the lower
12 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

Table 2 Summary of annual data for a hydroponic greenhouse plant.

Resources
efficiency Greenhouses (lettuce) Citation
Water use 20 L/kg lettuce/year Barbosa et al. (2015)
efficiency
Water use Hydroponics or soil Coyle and Ellison (2017) and
200 L/ m2 or 400 L/m2 respectively Ntinas et al. (2016)
Energy use 60–180 kWh/kg/year Graamans et al. (2017)
CO2 352 kg/ ton of lettuce Gerecsey (2018)
emissions
Light source Solar radiation and artificial light
that operate 2–4 h/day
Pest control Indoor environment
use Fermont traps
Yield 41 kg/m2/year Coyle and Ellison (2017)
Land use 365 days/year Coyle and Ellison (2017)
2
Land use 9 m for 1 kg lettuce/day
efficiency
Harvests per 6–7 per year Coyle and Ellison (2017)
year
Food miles 800–1600 km

transpiration in greenhouses. Transpiration is the most important factor that

influences the water uptake by 90%, thus the control and reduction of tran-
spiration rate can have a huge impact on the water use. Transpiration is
highly affected by the status of humidity and the irradiation levels inside
the greenhouse. The higher the humidity inside the greenhouse the lower
the transpiration levels are. If growers manage to control these two factors
in the optimal levels for each crop, then there is reduced transpiration level
per m2, which means lower water usage and therefore better water efficiency.
The selection of the applied irrigation system, has also a significant influ-
ence. Drip irrigation is one of the most popular irrigation techniques in
greenhouses. Water is located at the foot of each plant with the use of a pipe.
Drip irrigation has the advantage of saving large water amounts and also can
control and maintain the humidity levels of the soil or the hydroponic sub-
strate in constant levels. In that way, water stagnation and puddling of the
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 13

selected substrate mean can easily be avoided. Finally, drip irrigation allows
the targeted and limited fertilization being dissolved, in the watering system.
Other irrigation systems are the micro sprinklers that spray water in a
range around two meters according to the pressure of the selected nozzle
type. This system is mainly used in soil-based greenhouses with sandy soil
texture. Another very commonly used system is the irrigation with diffusers
and is mainly used in narrower areas and the pressure of the diffuser depends
on the nozzle that regulates the water supply and flow. Finally, other irriga-
tion systems applied in greenhouses are irrigation with hose and under-
ground irrigation mainly found in soil-based greenhouses and present low
level of water efficiency.

[Link] Hydroponic systems

Most of the modern greenhouses apply hydroponic solutions that allow
plant to grow without soil. In more detail, the word hydroponic comes from
the Greek words “Ύδωρ + Πονέω” translated as “Water + Cultivate,”
meaning that plants do not grow in soil but in mineral nutrient solutions
in water solvent. Various substrates in the market replace soil such as perlite,
rockwool and zeolite. Because of the nature of this technology, plants are
permitted to dip directly in their roots into the nutrient-rich solution and
subsequently plants can absorb faster the nutrients and in an easier way in
comparison with soil-based crops. Because of this process, plants grown
in hydroponics form smaller root system and can divert more energy for
growing their leaves and stems. Additionally, smaller root allows more plants
in the same area to be grown and harvest higher quantities in comparison to
the outdoor farming. The above-described capacity of hydroponic systems,
boosts the ability of growing food in limited areas as greenhouses can be.
Hydroponics consist of a total automated system that pumps water, and
pipe-system can be completely auto-controlled. Under various handlings
and monitoring of every aspect that can be practiced in hydroponic systems,
the growers can result into optimal food production results. More specifi-
cally, this process gives the opportunity to farmers to control the whole irri-
gation process of the crops according to the demand of each species and
the seasonality. In addition, they can have access to data that can optimize
the development rate and the resource footprint of the plants such as (a) the
quantity of water that is distributed in each plant, and (b) the amount of
nutrient solution that was given to the plants.
Hydroponics offer a big advantage as they are usually installed in close or
semi-close loops that return the excessive water with the enriched nutrient
14 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

solution back to a collective tank in order to re-distribute it back to the cul-

tivation area. In contrast to the hydroponic solutions, traditional farming
experiences huge amounts of resource and water waste as farmlands face
the negative effects of soil degradation and the harmful effect of eutrophi-
cation (when nutrients from agricultural land create massive increase of phy-
toplankton populations leading to reduction of oxygen and nutrient
reduction of from water and suffocation of multicellular water organisms).
Unfortunately, in traditional agriculture, excess supply of phosphates and
nitrates in the soil can cause nutrient run/off and leaches. Furthermore,
the close or semi-closed loop of hydroponics categorizes them as more effi-
cient in terms of sustainability process for water efficiency in comparison
with traditional farming where most of the water is drained to lower levels
of soil that plants cannot access.

2.2.2 Indoor air control

Greenhouses consist of air-sealed cultivation rooms where are installed var-
ious automations and technologies that can control and provide the optimal
environmental conditions for each crop. According to factors such as loca-
tion, size of installation, height, outdoor climate conditions, greenhouses use
different technologies that can properly adjust the indoor environment to
the ideal air conditions.

[Link] Heating
Heating is one of the most important processes for space heating inside the
growing room, when the outdoor conditions and too hostile for the plants’
growth. For heating purposes, the technologies that are usually used vary
according to the demand of each case. In general, heating systems use the
interior hot air of the greenhouse to transfer heat through a heat exchanger
to the stored water that is used as a thermal storage medium. A very common
and cheap technique is using water heating systems that consist from plastic
bags and ground tubes filled with water placed inside and between the rows
of the plants. During daytime, this system absorbs and traps the solar
irradiation and during nighttime, the stored heat is transferred in the interior
of the greenhouse by releasing heat (Sethi and Sharma, 2008). There are
electric heaters operated via a thermostat or an automatic timer in order
to rise the inside temperature to the desired levels. Additional techniques
used for heating are rock bed storages, movable insulation and ground air
collectors.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 15

[Link] Cooling
Cooling is a technique of similar importance with heating as it enables to
reduce the thermal energy inside a greenhouse and maintain the optimum
temperature in each growing stage of the crop. Various techniques are used
around the world according to the specific climatic conditions, the size and
the demand of each case. Such techniques can be natural or forced ventila-
tion, fogging and misting, roof cooling and fan-pad systems, as well as shad-
ing and reflection systems. The most successful systems are the composite
systems since they are giving the opportunity for both heating during the
winter period and cooling during the summer period. According to Sethi
and Sharma (2008), the most promising composite system is the earth-to-
air-heat exchanger system (EAHES) that operates with the underground
constant temperature of Earth mass and utilize it to transfer or dissipate heat
from or to the greenhouse.

2.2.3 Light proofing

According to botanists plants are diversified to “long day” plants and “short
day” plants based on the photoperiodism needs—meaning on how many
hours of light they have to be exposed during the day in order to grow.
Artificial lighting is a technique that provides greenhouses supplementary
lighting in case that the solar radiation does not completely meet the pho-
tosynthetic demand of each plant species for optimal growth and develop-
ment. Efficient and proper use of lights in horticulture and with additional
boost of reflectors can provide apart from the optimal levels that are required
for photosynthesis also can benefit the greenhouses with additional heating
(Fig. 2). Heat and energy loss is a common issue in greenhouse and artificial
lighting. The latter can become an effective solution that mitigates these
losses and add an additional value on the required lighting solutions. The
most common types of lamps that are used in greenhouses are high pressure
sodium lamps, lighting emitting diodes (LED) lamps and ceramic metal
halide lamps.

2.2.4 Energy use

Energy use into a hydroponic production line is mainly meeting the demand
of artificial lighting, heating and cooling loads as well as water pumps. The
energy that meets the water pumping needs in a hydroponic system for let-
tuce is estimated by the average pumping time that is needed to irrigate the
plants and the corresponding nominal power of the pump. Based on the
16 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

Fig. 2 Indoor farming small scale unit with additional reflectors.

calculations of Kublic et al. (2015) it was estimated that the average irrigation
duration for lettuce is four and a half hours of total pumping daily.
The energy related to the heating and the cooling loads in a lettuce
production greenhouse is estimated by using the following equation

Q ¼ U∗A∗ðT in  T out Þ (1)

where
- Q ¼ Heat that is lost or gained due to the outdoor temperature (kJ * h1)
- U ¼ Total heat transfer coefficient (kJ* h1 *m2 *oC1)
- A ¼ Surface area of greenhouse (m2)
- Tin ¼ Temperature inside the greenhouse
- Tout ¼ Temperature outside the greenhouse
The heat transfer coefficient depends on the coverage material of each
greenhouse, while the efficiency of cooling and heating systems depends
on the height of the greenhouse ceiling. The loss of heat depends on the
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 17

external climatic conditions and it is a decisive factor of the air technique

modification to be used.
Artificial lighting usage depends on the photoperiod necessary for each
species and the active hours of sunlight that plants can absorb for photosyn-
thesis purposes. The active time that lamps have to operate is highly relevant
with the location of the greenhouse, meaning that greenhouse areas with
limited solar irradiation hours (North part of Europe, i.e., Netherlands,
Denmark) have higher demand on artificial lighting in comparison with
areas under sunshine (southern part of Europe, i.e., Spain, Greece, Italy).
Furthermore, the duration of the supplementary lighting depends on the
nature of the cultivated plants in photoperiodism (if they belong to “long
day” or “short day” plants as we mentioned before) (Avgoustaki et al.,
2020). This characteristic can differentiate the need of the plants in total daily
radiation and according to the outdoor sunlight, the extra hours that artificial
lamps need to operate should be estimated. The ultimate purpose of artificial
radiation is to provide to the crop the indispensable Photosynthetic Active
Radiation (PAR) in mol/m2/day for optimal yield production. In order to
calculate the energy of a mole of photons that reach the canopy the follow-
ing equation is used:
h c
E¼ ∗ +
L
(2)
λ mol
where
- Ε ¼ the energy per mol of photons ( J/mol)
- h ¼ Planck’s constant (6.626  1034 J*s)
- c ¼ Speed of light (2.998  108 m/s)
- λ ¼ Wavelength of light (m)
- L ¼ Avogadro constant (6.022 * 1023 mol1)
The result value of the above calculation of the energy demand of artificial
lighting in the greenhouse is in [kJ/kg/year].

2.2.5 Carbon footprint

Food production and consumption is constantly rising, having a significant
environmental impact making the implementation of more sustainable prac-
tices in food production necessary. In order consumers to satisfy their
demand for off-season vegetables and fruits, the necessity of heated green-
houses for production is continually increasing. As it is mentioned in the tra-
ditional farming section, food transportation causes huge amounts of GHG
emissions. However, this number is lower in comparison to the GHG
18 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

emissions corresponding to heating hydroponic greenhouses in cold climate

areas (Ntinas et al., 2016) that try to meet high yields in order to meet cus-
tomers demand. When heating of greenhouses is achieved with the use of
natural gas, the consumed energy can reach the 31.6 MJ with 2.02 kg of
CO2 for the production of 1 kg of tomatoes. Since the majority of green-
houses use fossil fuels to meet their heating demand such as natural gas, die-
sel, fossil fuel and liquid petroleum gas, it is of vital importance to strongly
limit the greenhouses heat losses, upgrade the heating systems and to shift in
utilization of renewable energy sources (Xydis et al., 2020). Heat losses can
be minimized with the use of double glazing coverage material or with the
use of multiple screens. The upper goal of these measures is to increase the
environmental sustainability of greenhouse production lines.

2.2.6 Renewable energy

As it has already been mentioned, greenhouses combine different energy
technologies, automations and digitalization for plants’ monitoring, control-
ling and harvesting. Greenhouses is a type of farming that can provide the
option to connect with renewable energy resources in order to increase
the sustainability of such systems and the energy efficiency of the various
treatments that are necessary for mass food production (Manos and Xydis,
2019). Different types of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geo-
thermal, hydroelectric, biofuels, biomass etc., are found all over the world
bringing the possibility to greenhouse plants to produce yields under a more
sustainable, economical and cost-efficient way (Xydis, 2015a). Energy pol-
icy strategies in a national and a global level, have as a high priority the sup-
port of electricity generation and heating from renewable energy and
biofuels (Xydis, 2015b). Over the last decades significant improvements
in a big variety of significant renewable energy systems, which are ground
source-based, solar-based energy systems and wind-based energy systems
have been made (Koroneos et al., 2009, 2017). These can be for example
electricity-driven heat pumps instead of traditional combustion-based
heating systems consumes 25–65% less energy in comparison to a conven-
tional fuel heater (Avgoustaki and Xydis, 2019). Another advantage that heat
pumps present 1.3–2.6 times higher energy efficiency compared to fossil fuel
heaters as also 56% -79% reduced CO2 emissions in the cultivation area in
comparison with the conventional. There are also examples of greenhouses
that use several solar systems that store energy or other photovoltaic systems
(PV) that undertake the conversion of solar energy to electricity that meets
the heating and cooling needs of greenhouses. Based on research conducted
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 19

by Ntinas et al. (2016), greenhouses that utilize renewable biofuel (wood

pellet) present 3–5 times lower global warming potential in comparison with
a greenhouse that use fossil fuels for heating purposes (0.4–0.7 kg of CO2 per
1 kg of harvested tomatoes), even when the required energy is the same for
both cases.

2.2.7 Land use efficiency—Labor

Greenhouses in the Netherlands use complex technology for production of
various cultivars that gather multiple operation during the production such
are nurseries, growing bedding plants and transplants. These systems are
highly automated and occupy land approximately 10 ha or more (Kozai
et al., 2016). Even if these machineries occupy a lot of potential cultivated
space, they reduce the labor cost and therefore the production cost. Without
the use of highly automated technology, the average work force required in
greenhouses for cultivating purposes is estimated at approximately 8 workers
per a 500 m2 production area.
According to Penissi et al. (2019) greenhouses produce 112 g of fresh
weight of romaine lettuce per m2 daily while traditional farming produce
10 g of fresh weight of romaine lettuce per m2 per day. As it can be retrieved
from Table 2, the required land use for obtaining 1 kg of fresh romaine
lettuce daily is 9m2 presenting almost 90% of decreased land usage in
comparison to traditional farming.

2.2.8 Cost efficiency

In greenhouses there are different variables that based on their priority can
offer different benefits to the farmers. These could be the location of the
greenhouse, the product type, the access to capital, the required work force
and other requirements. High significance in the cost efficiency is also the
upfront cost and the ongoing growing cost of the greenhouse that can also
lead to higher cost depreciation and development rates of the production
unit. Based on a comparative study conducted by Avgoustaki and Xydis
(2020), a greenhouse farm consisting of a semi-closed system of 675m2 of
growing space in Denmark, the OPEX and CAPEX related with the farm
were analyzed. Their results showed that by assuming that the wholesale
price of greenhouse produced greeneries reached at 7.37€/kg, the annual
yield production of harvested products reaches at 16,875 kg/year. It is also
presented that the capital expenses for the installation of the greenhouses was
calculated at 216,123 € including the hydroponic system and grow unit
racks, natural gas, heating and ventilation system, light connection (for
20 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

supplementary radiation), and electricity distribution. Additionally, for the

operational expenses the total amount of expenses rises to an annual cost of
152,802 €, including the leasing costs, the electricity demand costs (lighting,
ventilation), the natural gas heating cost, the water demand, the labor
requirements, the packaging expenses and finally the use of organic material
(seeds and nutrients). Different greenhouse scenarios were presented and a
cash flow analysis in a 20-year projection, indicated that the cumulative gross
profit increased in parallel with the increasing wholesale price of greeneries.
More specifically, the payback period was calculated much longer than the
operational period of the 20 years resulting in negative prices of the Net
Present Value (NPV), unless the wholesale price of greens increases to
10.37 €/kg or more.

2.3 Indoor vertical farms

Indoor vertical farming is an innovative type of closed plant production sys-
tem that provides the opportunity of a controlled-environment agriculture,
which can be controlled according to the crop regardless of the weather con-
ditions. Indoor vertical farms use artificial lighting as radiation source in
order to cover the demand of plants for growth and development via pho-
tosynthesis. Vertical farms are based in soilless cultivation techniques such as
hydroponics, aeroponics or aquaponics.
In addition to the hydroponic systems that recirculate the nutrient solu-
tion and benefit greenhouse cultivations, vertical farms use systems that con-
dense and collect the water that is transpired by plants at the cooling panel of
the air conditioners and continuously recycle and reuse it for irrigation.
Some principles concerning the structure elements permeate closed-
systems of vertical farms. More specifically, vertical farms are thermally
well-insulated and nearly airtight structures that are covered with opaque
walls. This characteristic makes the farms capable to totally protect the inside
crops from the outdoor climatic conditions and make them able to maintain
the indoor conditions to the desired levels without having thermal losses.
Another characteristic that differentiate vertical farms from greenhouses is
the multiple layers of stacked plants in the vertical racks or horizontal col-
umns. This way, the construction provides maximization on the possible
yield per unit of land in comparison to both greenhouses and outdoor farm-
ing. More specifically, vertical farms, according to the size on the installa-
tion, have a multilayer system mostly between 4 and 16 rows or columns
with approximately 40 cm of distance between the layers (can slightly vary
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 21

according to the selected cultivated crop). Inside vertical farms air-

conditioners or heat pumps, which principally are used to reduce the heat
generated from the lamps and provide cooling and dehumidification for
the crop are installed. Furthermore, air-conditioners help to eliminate
the water vapor that plants transpire in the cultivation area. Fans are
installed in order to circulate the air in the culture room; at first to achieve
a constant and stable spatial air distribution and secondly to improve the
photosynthesis and transpiration status of the plants. Key factor in the opti-
mal operation of vertical farms is the CO2 delivery units that stabilize the
CO2 levels in the cultivation area at around 1000 ppm during photoperiod
(when lamps are on) in order to increase the level that plants photosynthe-
size. An important characteristic of vertical farms is the nutrient solution
unit that distributes the nutrients to the crops, the electrical conductivity
control unit (EC) and the pH controller that monitors the level of the
nutrient solution.
Last, it is very important to analyze the radiation systems inside vertical
farms as part of the total structure essentials. As mentioned above, vertical
farms are equipped with artificial lighting due to absolute lack of solar radi-
ation. Lighting is a key factor in plants development and depending on the
selected lighting solution, plants can present differentiations in morphology,
flowering and biomass production. Light is electromagnetic energy that
includes visible as also invisible wavelengths. Sunlight is a free resource input
that provides plants the whole spectrum of several wavelengths, 97% of it is
within the range of 280-2800 nm (Kozai et al., 2016). However, according
to a number of researchers over the last decades (Hogewoning et al., 2010;
Kim et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2011), it is reported that the most
important wavelengths for photosynthesis, morphology of plants and
flowering are the wavelengths in the visible (400–700 nm) and the infrared
(700–800 nm) spectrum. Lighting emitting diodes (LEDs) offer advantages
in comparison with other types of lamps such as fluorescent, incandescent,
high-pressure sodium or high-intensity discharge (HID) lamps. These
advantages are the robustness, they produce, a stable output that is immedi-
ately activated after the electric current flow, have long life (approximately
100,000 h), the opportunity of controlling the light output etc. For this rea-
son, vertical farms focus on applying lighting recipes that combine different
nanometers and can promote plants’ growth. Apart from the spectrum selec-
tion of the lamps crucial factors for plants are the dimensions of light, mean-
ing the intensity of light during photoperiod and the duration that lights
operate.
22 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

What has literally been neglected is the potential of indoor vertical farms
to act as a demand response provider (aggregators). It may sound weird, but
indoor vertical farms could under a multi-value business models create the
opportunity to the vertical farm owners to focus on their crop production
and at the same time absorb inexpensive electricity offered. Usually plants
require some hours daylight and fewer darkness. It has been proven that
by selecting the hours throughout the day that are not expensive to give
the required light, and “give darkness” when electricity price is expensive,
has not a significant impact on plants’ growth and development. Under a
mass deployment scenario of such units in major urban environments
(Xydis, 2012), the owners and operators of the indoor vertical farms could
create an additional profit under such an approach by entering into contracts
with companies in a utility electric region. The opportunity to earn (or at
least save) significant amounts will or course be related to the size of the
indoor farms and create multiple revenue streams.

2.3.1 Water use efficiency (WUE)

Indoor vertical farms have thermally insulated walls and high level of air-
tightness that allows a better cooling by air-conditioners during the time that
lights operate. This process is functioning even during cold winter nights, as
the interior temperature can be increased due to the operating lamps that
constantly generate heat in the cultivation rooms. The ultimate goal of
air-conditioners is to maintain the indoor temperature at the desired levels.
However, during the cooling process, a lot of the water portion is lost due to
evaporation of plants or evapotranspiration. Indoor vertical farms have heat
pumps with cooling panels, which can condense and collect this water, recy-
cle it and via the close irrigation loop, reuse it for watering the plants.
According to Kozai et al. (2016), only a small part of the irrigated mass water
is getting lost to the outside because of the high level of airtightness inside the
vertical farm. It is also pointed out in this research, that the airtightness level
of vertical farms should not exceed the 0.02 h1. This is suggested because
this level of airtightness helps to reduce the CO2 losses to the outside
environment and at the same time to maintain the sanitize level inside
the farm by preventing pathogens, bacteria, dust or insects to enter the area
of cultivation.
Greenhouses compared to indoor vertical farms, do not provide the
opportunity of collection, reuse and recycle of the water masses that
evapotranspired from plants, because the majority of the water is lost via
the ventilation process to the outside area and furthermore most of the water
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 23

vapor of greenhouses is mainly condensed at the inner walls, making impos-

sible its collection process.
Another remarkable point that influences the resulted transpiration in
indoor vertical farms is the operation of the artificial lighting. More specif-
ically, when lamps do not function, the relative humidity of the room can
reach up to 100% (little transpiration in the culture room), and cause phys-
iological and morphological disorders to the plants. In order to solve this
issue, farmers operate the lamps in rotation after dividing them in groups
(two or three) and each group operates for 12–16 h per day. With this action,
a constant heat generation during the day from the lamps that aligns with the
24-h function of the heat pumps that dehumidificate and cool the air in the
culture room can be achieved.
In order to calculate the water use efficiency in indoor vertical farms the
following equation is used:

Wc + Wp
WUE ¼ , (3)
Ws
where
- Wc is the water mass (or weight) that is collected in the cooling panel of
the air conditioners for recycling purposes (kg*m2*h1),
- Wp is the alteration in the water mass that is detained by plants and hydro-
ponic substrates (kg*m2*h1) and
- Ws is the irrigated (or supplied) water mass to the indoor vertical farm.

2.3.2 CO2 use efficiency (CUE)

In general, CO2 use efficiency in indoor vertical farms is around 0.87–0.89
(when the level of airtightness is between 0.01 and 0.02 h1) and the con-
certation is around 1000 ppm—unlike greenhouses which achieve approx-
imately a 0.5 CUE with closed ventilation system and airtightness level of
0.01 h1 and CO2 concentration level at 700 ppm (Yoshinaga et al.,
2000). Based on these data we can estimate that the CUE of indoor vertical
farms is 0.88/0.5 ¼ 1.8 times higher compared to the greenhouses that do
not operate the ventilators and provide CO2 enrichment in the culture
room. This phenomenon can be explained because of the amount of
CO2 that is released to the outside area from the culture room and keeps
increasing with the level of airtightness but also with the difference between
the CO2 levels inside and outside. The fact that the CO2 concentration for
enrichment in an indoor vertical farm is usually around 1000–2000 ppm in
24 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

comparison to the greenhouses that have around 700–1000 ppm can be

explained based on that.
In order to calculate the CUE the following equation is used:
Cp
CUE ¼ (4)
Cs + Cr
where
- Cp is the net photosynthetic rate (μmol m-2 h1),
- Cs is the enrichment rate of CO2 (μmol m2 h1) and
- Cr is the rate of respiration of the workers (if there are) in the culture room
(μmol m2 h1)

2.3.3 Light energy use efficiency (LUE)

The light energy of the lamps that is send in the canopy aims to provide the
necessary energy that plants need to grow and photosynthesize. However,
the salable part of plants can only fix maximum 1–2% of the electrical energy
as chemical energy. The remaining 98–99% of the electrical energy that is
not absorbed by plants is converted to heat energy into the culture room
and the remaining is removed by air-conditioners to the outside area
(Avgoustaki, 2019). The above-described effect can also explain the negli-
gible heating costs in well thermally insulated indoor vertical farms even in
the winter cold nights.
Nevertheless, indoor vertical farms are based in automations and preci-
sion agriculture and all the input resources are measured and validated in
order to provide the optimal results in the cultivated crop. For this reason,
all farms focus on measurements and optimization of the light energy use
efficiency both of the lamps and the plant community. What is important
for these measurements in the definition and estimation of the PAR, which
in other words, is the wavelengths of light that are in the visible spectrum of
the 400–700 nm and are the ones that drive photosynthesis. PAR is not a
measurement of light; rather it defines the type of light that is necessary
for plants to photosynthesize. Apart from the type of light, farmers need
to know and further metrics of light such as the amount and the spectral
quality of PAR.
In order to estimate the light energy use efficiency of lamps (LUEL) we
use the following equation:
fD
LUEL ¼ , (5)
PARL
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 25

where
- f is the convention factor from dry mass to chemical energy that is
fixed in dry mass (around 20 MJ kg1)
- D is the increase rate of dry mass of the whole unit of plants or only the
salable part of plants in the indoor vertical farm (kg m2 h1) and
- PARL is the photosynthetic active radiation emitted by the lamps
(MJ m2 h1)
Respectively, in order to estimate the light energy use efficiency of the plant
community (LUEP) is provided by the following equation:

fD
LUEp ¼ , (6)
PARp

where:
- PARP is the photosynthetic active radiation that is received at the surface
area of the cultivation.
Based on the calculations and experiments conducted by Yokoi et al., 2003,
it is shown that indoor vertical farms have 1.9 to 2.5 times higher LUEP in
comparison to the greenhouses. Only 1% of the light energy is actually
converted into salable portion of plants. Nevertheless, there are different
techniques which can be applied and can improve the conversion factor
to 3% or a little higher. A simple technique that can be followed is the appli-
cation of interplant lighting, upward lighting, and use of reflectors (Fig. 3).
Traditional lighting that is located only on top of the crop can cause
undesirable shading in dense crops by uneven light distribution and lead
to senescence of the leaves that are in lower levels. On the contrary, the

Fig. 3 Upward lighting, and use of reflectors in a small-scale experimental unit.

26 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

application of interplant lighting can provide access of light also in the lower
levels of the plants, improve the distribution of light and therefore improve
the photosynthetic rate of the crop. According to Dueck et al. (2006), the
photosynthetic rate of leaves in low levels is usually negative or nearly zero,
but the application of interplant light can increase it in positive values. Well-
designed reflectors can significantly enhance the LUEL as they can reduce
the vertical distance between the canopy and the lamps and increase the dis-
tance between the plants or the density, since plants constantly grow. Same
positive results by interplant lighting have been reported also in greenhouse
canopies. The most suitable lamp selection for interplant lighting technique
is LEDs as they have small volume and they perform lower surface temper-
atures in comparison to fluorescent and other types of light sources. LEDs
have been proven beneficial for reducing the EUEL also due to the higher
conversion coefficient from electrical energy (0.4) compared to the fluores-
cent lamps (0.25). Although the capital cost of LEDs is generally higher than
the cost of fluorescent lamps, LEDs have longer operational life and the
prices have considerably decreased over the last couple of decades and is
expected to continue decreasing.
Apart from the lighting adjustments, other modifications can improve
the LUEL such as the control of the environmental conditions. The envi-
ronment of plants and the ecophysiological status of plants can be enhanced
by the optimal selection of air temperature, CO2 concentration, water vapor
pressure deficit (VPD), air current speed as well as the combination of pH,
electric conductivity (EC) of nutrient solution. These parameters have to be
set according to the selected cultivated species.
Another way to improve the LUEL as well as the EUEL of the salable part
of plants, is to reduce the dry mass of the nonsalable parts of the plants. In
indoor vertical farms, the most frequently selected crops for cultivation are
leafy vegetables such as lettuce, small fruits and herbs and it is important to
limit the percentage of the root mass into less than 10% of the total mass of
the plant (Kozai et al., 2016). Due to of the cultivation technologies used in
indoor vertical farms this is an achievable measure only by minimizing
the water stress of plants by controlling the water vapor pressure deficit of
the room. If the selected crop is root species, then we can significantly
increase the salable portion by harvesting earlier than usual in order to have
an edible aerial part. Finally, other factors that can also help in increasing the
relative annual production capacity (per unit land area) of indoor vertical
farms are:
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 27

• Limitation of the culture period between transplanting and harvesting by

optimal monitoring and controlling of the environmental conditions
• Increase of the ratio of cultivation area under each farming type (field,
tier, floor, culture bed)
• Increase of the salable part of plants as also the percentage of salable
plants.
According to Kozai et al. (2016), it is stated that by applying the above-
described techniques, the relative production capacity per land area unit
in an indoor vertical farm of 10 layers can rise up to 200–250 times higher
compared to outdoor farming, considering that indoor vertical farms already
produce 100–150 times more yield than traditional farming (Table 3).
In practice, those techniques could double the efficiency of the whole
system.

Table 3 Summary of annual data for an indoor vertical farm.

Resources Indoor vertical farms
efficiency (10 layers—lettuce) Citation
Water use 1 L/ kg lettuce/ year Barbosa et al. (2015)
efficiency
Water use Usually hydroponics or aeroponics Coyle and Ellison
Approx. 11 L/head (2017)
Energy use 250 kWh/kg/year Graamans et al. (2017)
CO2 emissions 158 kg/ton of lettuce Gerecsey (2018)
Light source Artificial light that operate
10–24 h/day
Pest control use Indoor cultivation
Sterilize environment
Yield 80–120 kg/m2/year Coyle and Ellison
(2017)
Land use 365 days/year Coyle and Ellison
(2017)
Land use efficiency 0.3 m2 for 1 kg lettuce /day
Harvests per year 8–12 per year Coyle and Ellison
(2017)
Food miles 43 km
28 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

2.3.4 Fertilizer use efficiency (FUE)

Indoor vertical farms use culture beds that are isolated from soil usage and the
nutrient solution that enriches the irrigation water is distributed through
pumping to the plants. Because of the high-automated process of irrigation,
the nutrient solution is drained from the culture beds that plants are growing
and it follows a close loop by returning to the central nutrient solution tank
for recycle and reuse. In order this process to be achieved, nutrient solution
is rarely removed to the outside area. This process usually takes place once or
twice per year when the level of certain ions such as Na + and Cl- are not
well absorbed by plants and the percentage in the culture beds exceeds the
normal levels, requiring discharge. In order this measure to be implemented,
the supply of fertilization closes for some days and plants already planted can
absorb the nutrient elements existing in the culture beds (Kozai et al., 2016).
On the contrary, the fertilizer use efficiency of greenhouses and of fields in
traditional farming is relatively low and occasionally can cause on the soil,
surface salt accumulation.
In order to calculate the Fertilizer Use Efficiency (FUE) the following
equation is followed:
Iu
FUE ¼ , (7)
Is
where:
- IU is the absorption rate of plants of ion element I that are in the organic
fertilizer and
- IS is the supply rate of ion element I into the indoor vertical farm.
It is worth to be mentioned that the ion element includes the basic elements
of fertilization solutions such as nitrogen (NO3 and NO4+), phosphorus
(PO4) and potassium (K+).

2.3.5 Electrical energy use efficiency (EUE)

Artificial lighting apart from a key element in the growth of plants indoor, it
does increase the energy consumption of vertical farms. Shamshiri et al. (2018),
noted that three major operational expenses in a vertical farm are the electricity
cost with 25–30% of the total cost, the operational costs (OPEX) with 27% of
the total cost and the capital expenditures (CAPEX) with 18–20% of the total
cost. Indeed, energy consumption is a significant cost of indoor vertical farms
and can be used as an measure for their sustainability levels. Many research
groups and institutes focus on developing innovative technologies and opti-
mizing the lighting recipes in order to reduce the energy footprint of vertical
farms and create a more sustainable and cost efficient type of farming. Even if
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 29

the demand for purchased energy is much higher in indoor vertical farms than
in greenhouses, the energy efficiency of the former is significantly higher
(Graamans et al., 2017). Indoor vertical farms, since are in absolute controlled
systems face high efficiency when operating with renewable energy (Xydis
et al., 2020). There are multiple examples of vertical farms that are operating
under smart grid systems that generate energy for the demands of the farm via
wind turbines or solar panels or even geothermal energy. Additional roles in
the vertical farm systems towards increasing their efficiency have the connec-
tivity with resourceful batteries that provide the opportunity for smart use of
cheap stored electricity from the hours that the electricity prices are lower. An
approach gaining constantly more and more attention also under the dynamic
pricing concept, where also accurate forecasting plays a crucial role (Karabiber
and Xydis, 2019).
In order to calculate the energy use efficiency for the lamps (EUEL) is
followed the below equation
f ∗h∗D
EUEL ¼ , (8)
PARL
where:
- h is the conversion coefficient of electrical energy to energy of photosyn-
thetic active radiation that is emitted by lamps. For the latest technology
of LEDs this number reaches the 0.3–0.4 (Kozai et al., 2016).
Apart from the energy that is consumed in order to meet the lighting
demands, the energy demand of the heat pumps for the cooling (or heating)
processes in the indoor vertical farms should be added to the equation. This
type of efficiency is often referred in literature as coefficient of performance
of heat pumps for cooling purposes. The coefficient of performance of
the heat pumps, in a specific room, increases when the outside temperature
decreases. The electrical energy use efficiency for cooling by heat pumps
(EUEC) is calculated by the following type:
H
EUEc ¼ , (9)
A
where:
- H is the heat energy that the heat pumps remove from the cultivation area
(MJ*m2*h1) and
- A is the consumption of electrical energy by the heat pumps (air condi-
tioners) (MJ*m2*h1).
It is worth to mention that the total energy consumption of indoor vertical
farms is defined by the sum of the energy consumption of the lamps, the heat
30 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

pumps/air-conditioners and the electricity demand of other equipment used

for the optimal function of the farms such as nutrient solution pumps and air
circulation fans. If we focus only in the electricity cost demand of indoor
vertical farms, lighting accounts to approx. 80% of the annual electricity
energy use (assuming fluorescent lamps of 40 W), while the electricity cost
demand for air conditioning is around 16% and 4% the electricity demand of
the auxiliary electrical equipment (Kozai et al., 2016).
Table 3 presents the estimated representative values of resource use effi-
ciencies in an indoor vertical farm that use artificial lighting. It could be con-
cluded (from Table 3) in comparison to Table 1, that the relative production
capacity per land area unit in an indoor vertical farm of 10 layers is 76 to 116
times higher compared to traditional farming and 40 to 80 times higher
compared to greenhouse production.

2.3.6 Land use efficiency (LUR)—Waste management

Indoor vertical farming is a type of farming which by definition is developed
to provide enough production in order to meet the local demand in urban
areas with continuous increased demand for fresh and nutritious fruits, veg-
etables and herbs. In general, the most frequently cultivated species are plants
that have higher profitability and have a relatively high price. A significant
factor on crop selection is the crop to have a short production cycle in order
to reduce the required electricity costs for lighting, heating and cooling of
the crop and therefore can be harvested as early as possible. Additionally,
growers prefer plants that have high harvested yield, meaning a high portion
of the crop that can be harvested and sold. For example in crops like lettuce
and herbs, growers can harvest and sell the whole unit of the plant, while in
tomatoes or peppers they can sell only the harvested fruit but at the same
time. Therefore the electricity used for the rest of the plant, could be con-
sidered as a product waste. Another key issue in crop selection is the height
of the plants, meaning that it is way more preferable the crop to have a com-
pact status in order to be able to reduce the growing distance between mul-
tiple plants and grow more at the same available area. Plants are also selected
according to the perishability level that they present after harvesting and
reaching the market. Since indoor vertical farms are mainly located in urban
or suburban areas, their goal is to produce crops that can increase their
self-life (even of perishable crops), by shortening the harvesting and delivery
time to the market. Another parameter taken into account when selecting
crops is the situation in the local market. If, for instance, tomatoes are miss-
ing for some reason from the market, then depending on the price they can
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 31

get, they could be preferred against of another fruit or herb that is in abun-
dance and its price cannot climb up. Finally, most suitable crops are those
that have year-round productivity in order to be affordable for the farmers
to have a year-round market demand that can be profitable despite the con-
tinuous operational expenses. The constant production in a yearly basis of
the same crop selection, allows also maintenance of the same, specific engi-
neering settings of the crop, avoiding the modifications in the automations’
selection that could cause abnormalities from a horticultural perspective.
Due to the concept of indoor vertical farming and the technology used in
the cultivation areas, growing in an urban environment do not advantage the
crops due to possible shading of the building, non-fertile soils or dormant
soils. This fact can also be considered as one of the major drawbacks as
the land price in urban areas is relatively high. Concerning this approach,
indoor vertical farms are often installed in large warehouses, industrial fac-
tories or even abandoned buildings, where the prices are low. According to
Kozai et al. (2016), it is stated that indoor vertical farms can produce the same
yield of lettuce heads and other leafy greens in only 1% of the land required
by traditional farming and 10% compared to a greenhouse construction.
Based on Tables 1–3, it can be retrieved that the land use efficiency of indoor
vertical farms (0.3 m2) required for obtaining 1 kg of fresh romaine lettuce
per day is almost 97% reduced compared to greenhouses and 100% com-
pared to traditional farming. An indoor vertical farm of 10 layers can pro-
duce 3110 g of fresh weight of romaine lettuce per m2 per day (112 g
FW/m2/d for greenhouses and 10 g FW/m2/day for traditional farming).
Adenaeuer (2014) mentions that the increase in yield between indoor ver-
tical farms and traditional farming can be increased by 1.5 due to the
technology and by 709 due to the technology combined with the stacking
ability of the plants. Depending on the stacking area and the volume of har-
vest, cultivation care and crop preparation techniques, the work force can
highly vary. Avgoustaki and Xydis (2020), propose that 0.18 workers are
necessary per 10,000 kg of yield, resulting in 35% of the annual operational
expenses of the farm (depending on the labor cost in each country). The
same work force is required for a greenhouse production and approximately
half of it for an open field farm. More analytically, according to Savvas et al.
(2015), in soil-based crops the labor numbers 34,000 €/ha while a hydro-
ponic greenhouse or indoor vertical farm requires around 64,000 €/ha as
production cost. This demand is met by both permanent and by seasonal
workers that will be hired for specific labor-intensive operations of the farm
(like pruning and harvesting) throughout the year.
32 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

Indoor vertical farms have the advantage that allows them to generate
bio-waste as bio-product during the process of edible biomass production.
According to the cultivation system that plants grow in (hydroponic, aero-
ponic or aquaponic), the opportunity to farmers to collect easily all the
by-products after the harvest period such as leaves, roots with fibers, stems,
or even damaged vegetable and fruits and use it as well waste is offered. Based
on Adenaeuer (2014), the bio-waste that is collected and used in indoor ver-
tical farms can be 2443 metric tons per year and with daily plant wastes that
are collected for the indoor farms of roughly 8.11 tons. Since indoor vertical
farms use advanced close loop systems, present also the possibility to convert
the daily amounts of biowaste and after careful processing to useful resources
material for the crop as liquid fertilizer or biofuel (Nikas et al., 2018). The are
several cases of installation of indoor vertical farms that have designed spe-
cific lines of biowaste management in their production line that only serve
this specific purpose.
It should be stressed that indoor vertical farms have the option to imple-
ment high tech equipment for conversion of food waste into energy produc-
tion via anaerobic digestion. More specifically, this technology is a biogas
recovery system that captures methane from food waste and convert it to
heat, steam and electricity to meet the energy demands of the farm. This
process requires a close-loop system, which creates biogas from organic
material by piping it into the turbine generator. The electricity that is finally
produced meets the high-energy demand of indoor vertical farms such as the
operation of the lamps. Anaerobic digestions is also compatible with
aquaponic systems by receiving the organic waste of both fish and plants
to produce electricity (AgSTAR, 2020; United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 2017).

2.3.7 Cost efficiency

One of the key factors that influences the selection of the farm system is the
selling price of the products. According to Tasgal (2019), traditional farming
products are 3 to 5 times cheaper in comparison to greenhouse an indoor
vertical farming products. More specifically, traditional farming lettuce price
usually costs less than 1€/head, while greenhouses lettuce and indoor vertical
farm lettuce cost 2–3€/head. Additionally, based on the same study, the sig-
nificant upfront capital requirements of indoor vertical farms can highly limit
the pool of market participants. This happens because both the land prices,
rents and acquisition of high-technology equipment are significantly higher
in comparison with the leasing cost of farmland.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 33

On the other hand, Avgoustaki and Xydis (2020), by conducting a com-

parative analysis between indoor urban farms and greenhouses presented
slightly different results. In more detail, they assumed an indoor vertical farm
with the same growing space and wholesale price of the greeneries as in the
greenhouse facility, of 675 m2 and 7.37 €/kg respectively. An interesting
point is the massively increased production yield that can be achieved in
an indoor vertical farm compared to greenhouses, reaching at 33,750 kg
of fresh greeneries being annually harvested. The operational expenses of
indoor vertical farms according to the examined case reached at 150,800
€/year resulting in almost similar numbers with the greenhouse facility.
However, the biggest cost of indoor vertical farms noticed were the capital
expenditures reaching at 321,763 € per grow unit, with the most costly
equipment the lamps and integral connection of lamps, installation of grow-
ing unit racks and the electric distribution of electricity. Subsequently, based
on their model and the different cash flow analysis, indoor vertical farms pre-
sent profitable investment opportunities with a high Internal Rate of Return
(IRR) and a payback period between 3 and 6 years with a wholesale price
equal or more than 6.36 €/kg.
Another research conducted by Liaros et al. (2016), a case scenario of a
small IUVF of 100m2 growing area inside an apartment was presented,
showing profitability to smallholders under various scenarios. Worth to
mention at this point, micro indoor farming in small growing spaces such
as containers, garages or even simple rooms can be profitable depending
on the demand and the flexibility to rearrange different cultivation param-
eters aiming for the optimum result. Similar findings were also supported by
Ucal and Xydis (2020). On the other hand, based on a report conducted by
Agrilyst (2017) indoor micro-farms can be very costly, nevertheless, there
are multiple marketing strategies for optimizing the results.

3. Comparison in food safety issues between different

farming types
According to the United Nations (UN) projections, the global pop-
ulation will exceed 9.8 billion until 2050, all requiring to meet their food
demand. Additionally, UN estimate that 80% of the global population will
be located in urban areas by that time. In order all this increased food
demand to be met, it is necessary to produce 70% more nutritious and fresh
food. However, at the same time, land experts such as agronomists and ecol-
ogists, already warn of the growing shortages in agricultural land, necessary
34 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

for sufficient food production (Al-Kodmary, 2018). When it comes to high

quality food, the fact that already food prices are climbing high also due to
limited agricultural resource inputs such as water and energy is a matter of
great concern. Over the last decade, the increase demand for more farmland
in order to meet global food demand it becomes more and more obvious. As
an immediate effect a lot forest areas are substituted by new farmlands in
order to supply this demand. At the same time, since cities constantly grow
in terms of area they occupy, a lot of farmland is lost due to this expansive
urban development. It is important to convert the global production line to a
greener form for both human beings but also for the planet. This implies that
food production will not sacrifice the attention for the human health against
the commercial profit. According to World Health Organization, more than
half of the farms globally, still use for fertilization purposes of their crops raw
animal waste that can attract insect as flies or contain weed seeds or even
diseases which can contaminate the cultivated crops. Subsequently, these
techniques can highly affect people’s health and can cause diseases.
Nowadays, the majority of the food is produced in large, industrialized
farms and is transported, distributed and sold in supermarkets, grocery stores
or multinational food outlets. Agronomists, engineers and farmers in order
to reduce the production cost and resource footprint of food production and
at the same time increase the variety of the available food species for the con-
sumers have developed various techniques. The high centralization level of
food supply can allow the possibility of infection from foodborne pathogens
and toxins that can poison large numbers of consumers. Food usually travels
thousands of miles every day leaving huge possibilities for contamination
threats as it can be infected in one country and develop pollutant populations
in another. Because of the high logistic complexity of food supply, it is worth
to mention the advantages and drawbacks of each farming type during the
whole supply chain. What follows is an exploration of the three subjected
farming types, including outdoor farming, greenhouses and indoor vertical
farming. We will compare and evaluate products and growing process under
the scope of food safety practices.

3.1 Traditional farming

3.1.1 Food safety status of traditional farms
Outdoor farming is applied for thousands of years, allowing an unprece-
dented human development. However, over the past years the continuously
increasing demand of the population has led farmers to apply chemical inputs
for nourishing of plants, fighting pests, insects and improving soil quality.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 35

However, because of its nature, crops growing in the open field are facing all
the difficulties from severe weather conditions and the danger of infection
from various insects and pathogens. Traditional farming is a type of agricul-
ture that allows to multiple plant pathogens, bacteria and insect pests to affect
crops, causing scalable losses in global crop production. After heavily tilled
farming applications, severe irrigations and monocropped selections, soil has
been seriously affected causing depletion of its nutrients, highly requiring
additional nutrient solutions that can improve its fertile condition, making
it appropriate for cultivation.
Once crops are harvested, a big after-harvest process and logistic supply
has to be followed in order food to be transported from the farmer to cus-
tomers’ table. When we are talking about vegetables and greeneries there is a
high level of perishability that needs to be confronted. Crops have to keep
cool in order to maintain the high fresh and nutritious status. In order
farmers to retain a high value for their products, after harvesting, food is
transported from the field to processing facilities that are responsible for
the cutting, washing of plants in cold water applying centrifugation methods
in order to remove the excess water from the products. After removing the
roots and fulfilling the described procedure, products begin to decompose.
An often procedure that farmers follow is to treat their production with
chlorine compounds and/or antioxidants that expand preservation during
and after washing. Continuously, food is usually packaged and stored in
refrigerators and very low temperatures in order to remain in inertia status.
However, outdoor farmers are not able to perform refrigeration between
harvest and transport of the products for water processing, making it more
uncertain in pathogens infection. In order groceries to arrive from the
processing facilities to the shelves of the markets, they require on average
2000 to 3500 km, resulting to 4–6 days in transportation. According to
Kublic et al. (2015), every three days, products lose 30% of their nutritious
value after being harvested and roots’ removal, meaning that consumers
finally receive severely influenced vegetables in terms of nutritional value.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, each year,
“roughly 48 million people (1 in 6)” are food poisoned in the United States.
In terms of food safety what products of outdoor farming face is the severe
contamination from improper use of manure, either from human fecal that is
used as fertilization mainly in developing countries or from contaminated
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Even if it has been
proven by various researchers as a great nutritious source for the crops after
proper compostable process, on the other hand the absence of carefulness,
36 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

targeted application and lack of sanitation can lead to transmission of various

types of parasites. A serious parasite that is worth to be mentioned is Geo-
helminths (hookworm, Ascaris and whipworm), that can survive their eggs
in soil for years when they find the right climate conditions, causing diarrheal
diseases as well as permanent learning deficit to children (Hotez and Pecoul,
2010). [Link] was a foodborne illness that took high publicity after infecting
approximately 265,000 people and causing about 100 deaths, after severe
pollution of agricultural water reservoirs in farms of California. To summa-
rize, even if there are multiple technological automations, innovations and
outbreaks in outdoor farming over the last decades, the nature of this agri-
cultural type is very open to foodborne illnesses, illnesses extremely difficult
to be traced rising the total risks.

3.1.2 Solutions for safety status improvement for outdoor farming

Because of the importance of food safety and in order to avoid further
foodborne illnesses, there are several rules that force outdoor farmers to
enhance the safety status of their production for the overall benefit of the
population. The strictest and most widely recognized organization of food
control audits is the Global Food Safety Initiatives (GFSI), which was
established in 2000 to reduce and control the risks associated with food pro-
duction as also to streamline and improve the overall food safety while
reducing the operating costs. Various certifications are provided to farmers
including the Safe Quality Food (SQF) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Points (HACCP) that set the necessary rules and prerequisites of a high-level
food safety status. This includes some of the following rules:
• It is of significant importance the control and validation of the agricul-
tural water. To be more specific, there are rules that prerequisite the test-
ing of the water quality that is applied via irrigation to the crops, but also
the water related to the tangential purposes such as hand-washing of the
workers during or after harvest, the ice that refrigerates food and the
surfaces that food contacts with.
• Biological adjustments are often applied in soil for or particular nutri-
tional uses that replace chemical fertilization. It is of vital importance that
farmers who follow these techniques to follow specific guidelines for the
use of raw manure (such as animal and human feces) as also for the use of
stabilization compost in order to maintain a high level of sanitation.
• There are rules concerning the compliance of domestic and wild animals
either they are working in the farm, invade in the farm or graze.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 37

• Finally, there are high requirements in workers’ health and hygiene that
need to be followed in order to prevent the contamination that may
source by humans.

3.2 Greenhouses
3.2.1 Food safety status of greenhouses
As has already analyzed, there are greenhouses that are soil-based and the
more advanced use hydroponic solutions. In hydroponic greenhouses,
plants are transported several times according to the growing stage and
are monitored throughout the different growing cycles. That give the
opportunity to apply the exact resource requirements in every stage, in com-
parison with soil-based greenhouses and outdoor farms, where the plants
remain in the same position until their harvest.
Another significant advantage of greenhouses in relation with outdoor
farming is the high geographical flexibility of installation as it allows a sig-
nificant reduction of the transit time of the products from the harvesting
and processing point to the final consumers.
Greenhouse plants in an industry that constantly growing, with today’s
list accounting half of the tomato production and 1/3 of the global pepper
production that are distributed in the fresh market (Brauther, 2010).
Greenhouses are a significant driver of national economies of the agricultural
sector because of the high profit margin as also the opportunities for high
added-value products. Unlike traditional farming products, greenhouse
production is highly protected from dangerous elements and various
contaminants.
However, the technologies that are applied for monitoring and control-
ling of the environmental conditions do not guarantee crops free of microbes
and pathogens. The management practices applied in greenhouses are these
that can conduct to growth, survival and spread of foodborne pathogens.
A severe contamination thread could be spread by processing equipment
since crates and baskets that are used for transportation of products, from
propagation tools or even for surfaces that food contacts with.
Irrigation water is one of the most important food safety risks even in
greenhouses as it can be drawn from a wide variety of uncertain sources such
as municipality supply, rainwater, underground aquifer, reservoirs or surface
water. Greenhouses that use untreated surface water as irrigation source face
high contamination risks. For example, in 2013, Salmonela Saintpaul (CDC,
2013) found to have infected cucumber greenhouses in US that caused the
38 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

infection of 84 individuals across the country as they consumed imported

vegetables with questionable irrigation water status.

3.2.2 Solutions for safety status improvement for greenhouses

Because of the high risk of infection of consumers, even from more con-
trolled agricultural systems (compared to outdoor farming), regulations
for food safety have become stricter by establishing new standards for food
production (Produce Rules). The four areas that these standards focus on are
the followings:
• Health and hygiene
This practice targets in maintaining hygienic conditions of the personnel that
is occupied in the greenhouse factories, involving criteria for personnel
cleanliness, handwashing and use of appropriate gloves. Even if handwashing
is considered one of the simplest and cost-efficient practices, it has been
reported that only 22% of greenhouses practice handwashing before the
harvesting process.
• Irrigation water quality and management
Since water quality is one of the most crucial and contentious factors, it
seems absolutely necessary the mandatory establishment of rules that control
the water baseline quality profile. Greenhouses withdraw water from a bog
variety of sources such as municipality supply, wells, reservoirs and surface
ponds. By checking and understanding the quality of the quality of various
water sources can provide important information and reduce the risk of con-
tamination. By regulation, greenhouses have to determine frequently
microbiological testing on the water sources. Furthermore, greenhouses that
apply hydroponic solutions in semi-close or closed loops that circulate, recy-
cle and reuse water, have to include filtering treatments that remove possible
pathogens before re-applying it. Methods that are effective and efficient in
water recycling is UV light or disinfectants.
• Animals and waste
Significant measure for the protection of crops from foodborne pathogens is
also to eliminate the restriction of domestic and wild animals at growing
activities inside the greenhouses as well as in the outside area of the buildings.
Practices that contribute in discouraging animal intrusions can be for exam-
ple the rapid weeding that will minimize rodents attraction and protection.
• Sanitation of equipment, tools and greenhouse surfaces
Foodborne pathogens are usually found all over the greenhouse environ-
ment such as harvesting bins and boxes and tarp floor covers of the green-
house (Ilic et al., 2014). According to Produce Rule, all the tools and
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 39

equipment that used in the production line should be inspected, cleaned,

sanitized and maintain in this condition throughout the whole production,
harvesting and post-harvesting process, in order to prevent contamination.
Greenhouses in comparison with traditional farming have the advantage of
the three-key elements application that can eliminate contamination risk:
innovations, automations and control. In specific, innovations provide to
greenhouse farms a more secure food safety support such as water filtration
systems, integrated pest management and higher quality control systems.
Automations can reduce the danger of contamination or cross contamination
as they minimize or decrease the introduction of foreign specimens. Finally,
biometric systems provide to growers the ability to detect tracking informa-
tion concerning the plants. After harvesting, the produce is set up in a
traceability system from the greenhouse plant to the customer delivery service.

3.3 Indoor vertical farms

3.3.1 Food safety status of indoor vertical farms
Leafy greens, vegetables and herbs are considered of high-risk crops since
they are usually not cooked but eaten raw. The usual process of consumers
is to rinse their purchased greeneries after purchasing them from their gro-
cery store and then consume them. This is not a particularly effective and
protective procedure, since harmful pathogens need interference of
chemicals to be detached from plants. Outdoor farming and most of the
greenhouses perform triple-wash on the harvested plants in order to mitigate
the contamination risk, as a post-harvest process. This process consists of the
pre-washing, a saline wash and the final bathing of greeneries in sanitizing,
choline base solutions. Unfortunately, this method cause quality reduction
to greeneries, as is observed loss of flavor and texture along with the con-
current risk of contamination existing and spreading under the possibility
of incorrect application.
Greens that grow outdoors follow the triple-wash procedure as a post-
harvest measure for increasing their health status. Harvested crops are trans-
ported in the processing facility and sorted, rinsed, put in spinners, apply a
second rinse, spinner again, third rinse, sorted (again), packed, and then at
the end they get delivered at the grocery market. Crops that follow the
above washing method bear usually on the packaging labels such as
“triple-washed” or “pre-washed”. Even if this method can provide suffi-
cient results in harvested outdoor crops, if the water used for the triple-
washing process is polluted with pathogens, then this can spread rapidly
40 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

to the rest of the harvested crop. For this reason, triple washing cannot cat-
egorized as the most effective and guaranteed process.
Indoor vertical farms apply only nutrient elements in the irrigation sys-
tem and completely avoid the use any chemicals during the growing period
of plants, excluding all the types of pesticides, herbicides and chemical spay-
ing for fertilization. The philosophy of indoor farming depends on monitor-
ing and constant controlling of the crops as also of all the resources that come
in and out from the farm and they are isolated from Mother Nature where
many threats and contamination sources may appear. For this reason, indoor
farmers suggest that their products do not need to be washed before con-
sumption, as they are already clean by a protected and purified growing
process and a quick delivery to local grocery stores.
Hermetically sealed environments, inside highly controlled spaces that
are designed to offer the highest possible level of food safety particularly
for the growing period, surround the cultivation rooms of indoor vertical
farms. Since there are no seasons to be followed as in outdoor farming nei-
ther humidity, temperature fluctuations nor long gaps on post-harvesting
processes and packaging, indoor farmers can dramatically reduce a potential
contamination with precise systems. In addition, the hermetically sealed
environment protects crops from being exposed to outside elements such
as harmful pests, insects, fungi and bacteria.
In one of other type of such systems, aquaponics, co-cultivation of fish
with plants is done. This method of cultivation uses very innovative water
filtration systems, which extract solids from the fish tanks. Continuously,
solid break down to beneficial bacteria that transforms them into nitrates.
Then, the nitrate-rich water circulates to the plant culture area where plants
absorb the nutrients and purify the water. Since the aquaponic system
follows a close-loop, the clean water is circulated and reused into the
fish tank.
Plants that grow in soilless systems can travel along their production pro-
cess giving the opportunity to be inspected for health status. For example,
after sowings, seeds are moved to germination rooms with high humidity
that boosts their sprouting. Then, seedling is moved to propagation room
with controlled climatic conditions that promote their development.
Next, young plants usually located in the main part of the cultivated room
in floating rafts, receiving a nutrient-rich water. After finishing their devel-
opment and reaching their mature stage, they are daily harvested and
shipped. Between every translocation of plants, there is intensive quality
check to prevent crops’ contamination.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 41

High precision irrigation systems are used in order to monitor the water
that travels throughout the crops. Innovative hydroponic or aeroponic
methods usually draw water from filtered and drinkable sources and distrib-
ute it at each crop often without even touching the salable part of the plants.
This is achieved either by the use of water in liquid form, mist or fog that
sprays it only into the root section of the plants and not in the parts
consumed.
Extensive sterilization and supplier are also applied methodologies of
indoor vertical farms that control and assure the input resources of the farms
such as seeds, nutrients that need to be absolutely safe and clean. Because of
control and monitor mechanisms that are carried out indoor, there is clear
advantage of indoor farms. They are aware of the cleaning status of plants and
maintain it with further regulations during the cultivation period and finally
harvest and deliver a healthy and fresh product.
Even if indoor vertical farms produce food safer to consume than the
open field grown products, bottlenecks and hazards can still be introduced
during the growing process of crops. Such threats can be dirt and bacteria
transferred from the workers and dangerous threats in the nutrient medium
that include chemical sources, cleanliness and water safety. Further risks can
also detected at the post-harvest activities such as trimming, sorting and
delivery of the products. Thus, it is of vital importance even for indoor
farmers to perform high status and certified systems for detection, monitor-
ing, testing and evaluation as in outdoor farming and greenhouses.
A study conducted by Purdue University (Wang et al., 2019), found that
there is also high risk of crops contamination due to pathogen pollution in
vegetables grown in hydroponic or aquaponic systems. More specifically,
they reported that [Link] O157:H7 was found in fish feces and because of
the circulation that close loops systems, it caused water contamination of
the plant root surfaces that were in the aquaponic and the hydroponic sys-
tems. Since fish probably were contaminated by the bacteria, it is important
to follow a proper and certified handling, cleaning and sanitizing process in
order to reduce the contamination risk in hydroponic and aquaponics.

3.3.2 Solutions for safety status improvement for indoor vertical farms
It is a very difficult, time consuming and α costly process to control all the
plants even in an indoor vertical farm for having a 100% safe food product.
Indoor vertical farms use controlled environment of humidity and temper-
ature in order to provide plants the most suitable conditions. However,
in the case that unpredictable production errors occur, e.g., technical
42 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

malfunctions with the engineering equipment, temperature and humidity

can get out bounds to unwanted levels and create fertile environment for
bacteria growth. This incident could be possibly avoided in the case of tra-
ditional farming, as the constant natural air circulation and the sunlight could
smooth out some of these errors. Bacteria population are not biased, mean-
ing they do not grow or prefer targeted geographic locations, but they are
transported to different locations by human activities as they can be brought
by clothes, shoes or skin. Furthermore, it should be noted that even if indoor
farms consist a safer environment compared to other farming types, if a con-
trolled environment develops for some reason bacterial infection, it will be
extremely difficult to eliminate the contamination and protect the rest of the
growing crop. For this reason, indoor farms follow high sanity level proto-
cols to avoid the possibility of crops’ contamination by human contact that
involves all the workers involved with various cultivation processes of the
plants. That include strict control by imposing the use of facemasks, hair
and beard net, footbaths and clean or single-use suits, which can diminish
the risk of contamination.
Another solution for further risk elimination from potential contamina-
tion, is the application of innovative technologies that operate extensive
integrated pest monitoring. This can be achieved with the use of ultraviolet
light outside of the farms that detect possible threats as also air curtains that
are installed in every door and can control air that enters the cultivation
room protecting it from the danger of contamination. Additional solution
that can increase the sanitation levels of indoor crops, is the application of
certified HVAC filters, in order to perform an extensive pest monitoring.

4. Customer opinion on indoor vertical farms

Indoor vertical farms belong to a novel type of farming cooperating
with innovative technologies in order to provide the safest, higher quality
and most fresh and nutritious groceries. Both advocates and critics of this
technology seem to recognize that indoor vertical farms under suitable cir-
cumstances (mainly of the high demand on electricity loads), could offer a
solution to the safety and sustainability problems faced in traditional farming.
However, consumers seem to be more skeptical and critical on this technol-
ogy. Potential explanation of the consumers’ skepticism is the uncertainty
and lack of trust in other food innovations such as genetically modified
crops, food nanotechnology and artificial irradiation that struggled to find
acceptance in the market. Nevertheless, the subjective knowledge and
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 43

awareness level of consumers on the indoor vertical farming is still limited,

even with the excessive spread of technology and information globally, it is
of vital importance to increase the education of people on this new technol-
ogy by informing them on the actual growing properties and impugn the
unjustified myths and dangers.
Because of the increasing demand of indoor vertical farms and their
establishment in the market, many researchers have focused on designing
and addressing customer surveys and other research methodologies in order
to define the public opinion on this technology and the status of their trust
and preference on already existing agricultural production systems.
Significant angle on these researches is to explore the existing knowledge
and perception of customers between the three different farming systems;
traditional farming, greenhouses and indoor vertical farms, in respect of
the cultivation techniques, safety, resource sustainability, quality and their
willingness to buy products from each category. For this reason, primarily
it was of high importance to validate that consumers are able to recognize
the different agricultural systems between them in order to provide valid,
clarify and comprehensive results.
Different customer studies that investigated customers’ opinion on dif-
ferent agricultural methods show a more skeptical belief concerning novel
technologies on food production. More specifically, peoples’ perception
with technological innovations in agriculture are associated with high risks
for food production presenting low expectations on the provided benefits
of technology used (Sparks et al., 1994). In another research (Coyle and
Ellison, 2017) participants rated higher the greenhouses facilities and the
outdoor farms compared to the indoor vertical farms in terms of natural-
ness in the production process and the final product. Concerning the qual-
ity status of the final product people also seem to present higher levels of
confidence and trust on the greenhouse products and subsequently indoor
vertical farms and finally in outdoor farming products. Naturalness seems
to be a high influencing indicator for consumers’ selection globally as also a
critical significant factor on the usefulness of the agricultural system.
According to J€ urkenbeck et al. (2019), customers replied that LED lighting
is not considered a too artificial tool for horticulture and slightly agreed
that they do not consider indoor vertical farming too artificial concerning
the overall production system. Even if consumers in general prefer
naturally and traditionally produced food, nevertheless the fact that food
of indoor vertical farms grow without chemical additives is highly
considered.
44 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

On the other hand, under a customer research conducted by J€ urkenbeck

et al. (2019), it is noticed that consumers seem to present a high acceptance
on indoor vertical farming concerning the offering sustainability and the
high ecological footprint. People seem to select their purchased food based
on their concerns on the naturalness, ethics and environmental status. In
more details, 95% of the respondents in that research declare that they
put an extra effort to select and buy locally grown food because of its high
level in freshness, nutrition and reduced food mile emissions compared to
traditional farming methods. On the other hand, a significant share of the
consumers evaluates indoor vertical farming as an artificial agricultural pro-
cess in order to trust their footprint outcome. For this reason, it is pointed
out that knowledge, information and nutritional awareness can become a
solid solution for the higher acceptance of indoor farming and irradiated
food products. Respondents of the specific survey showed a strong willing
on buying products that were produced in an indoor vertical farm with
46.7% of the total sample, 36.4% partly agreed on that statement, and finally
only 16.8% were not willing to purchase these products. However, it should
be noted that the perceived behavioral control does not influence the cus-
tomers’ willingness to buy, but it has some influence on the behavioral
intension of willingness to purchase the product. Overall, the behavioral
intention of customers to purchase products from indoor vertical farms is
highly dependent on sustainability.
Under a different analysis, it has become very clear that perceived sus-
tainability of indoor vertical farming is the main reason of acceptance. It
has been observed that the more positive the resulted sustainability status
of the system is, the higher and the customers’ acceptance and willingness
to purchase the product is. Furthermore, based on the perceived sustainabil-
ity level of indoor vertical farms it seems that customers increase and their
acceptance of this innovative technological food production system.
Based on these results, we could indicate that the growing involvement
and concern of consumers to select products from agricultural systems that
present high environmental performance.

5. Conclusions
Indoor vertical farming can be very advantageous in terms of resources
sustainability since because of the high technology and the soilless cultivation
systems it consumes way less on natural resources (e.g., water and nutrients).
Additionally, indoor vertical farms significantly decrease the CO2 emissions
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 45

that are correlated to food transportation from the producers and the
processing facilities. In specific, indoor vertical farms can provide 100 times
higher productivity per year per unit land area compared to traditional farm-
ing due to the zero dependence on weather conditions, seasonality and pos-
sible infections from insects, pests and bacteria. Due to the evolution of
technology it is not anymore a prerequisite holding a large area of land
for sufficient fresh food production, but the use of multiple layers, optimally
controlled (environmental conditions and physiological parameters of the
crops and minimum possible loss from crop threats). Significant character-
istic of indoor vertical farms in terms of sustainability is the minimization
food delivered losses. In addition, significant reductions can be observed
in the cooling fuel demand, necessary to cool the production in order to
be transported in long distances. This can be achieved since indoor vertical
farms are usually installed in the urban or suburban areas in shaded and/or
abandoned buildings (or even basements) due to the soilless farming tech-
niques and the artificial lighting, providing access to fresh and nutritious
greeneries to citizens. Finally, one of the significant benefits that indoor ver-
tical farms provide is the ability after proper processing of the use of waste
water, crop wastes and excessive CO2 produced in urban areas, as input
resources of water, nutrients and CO2 in the culture area.
To summarize some of the basic improvements in resource savings pro-
vided by indoor vertical farms compared to the immediately following high
technology cultivation system, the greenhouses are the following:
• Indoor vertical farms save 100% of the pesticide use in their interior by
maintaining the culture area clean and insect-free.
• Because of the application of close loop irrigation systems and of the
collection, recycle and reuse of the water vapor that plant leaves tran-
spire, indoor vertical farms can reduce up to 95% the water consump-
tion. Furthermore, the use of closed loops can decrease up to 50% the
fertilizer usage since it is feasible to recirculate and reuse the nutrient
solution.
• Significant land reduction up to 90% can be achieved with the applica-
tion of indoor vertical farming, due to the important increase (more than
10 times) of the annual productivity of crops per unit land area.
• Yield variation can also reduced by 90% because of the constant mon-
itoring and control of the crops and the lack of influence from the out-
door environmental conditions.
Food safety and traceability of products is another important factor highly
relevant to indoor vertical farming. Even if it does not provide a 100% safety
46 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

for consumers, despite the fact that crops grow in a controlled environment
protected by wildlife, animals, birds and insects, it upgrades the safety and
security feeling of the products than those that grow in open field. The
majority of the selected cultivated crops of indoor vertical farms are among
the species with the higher contamination risk when they grow outdoors
or unprotected, because they grow very close to the ground level.
Furthermore, one of the most crucial factors that greatly affect the possibility
of contamination is the water quality that involves during the whole produc-
tion process, including the irrigation water as also the washing water at the
post-harvest processing techniques. Farmers of all categories should follow
high standards and criteria for the water sources that channel water into the
farms as also frequent control and monitor of the crops for potential threats of
contamination.
It is now clear, that indoor vertical farms are a high necessity for tackling
the challenges concerning the conservation of their resources. Nevertheless,
in order to enhance the environmental sustainability and improve the
efficiency and sufficiency of food production supplies for our society, it is
necessary to develop more diverse, effective and ecological agricultural sys-
tems including both the traditional farms and the greenhouses. Further
research and experimentation it is absolutely necessary in order both to
improve the efficiency of resources in an indoor vertical farm but also to pos-
sibly eliminate the possibilities for contamination threats and constantly pro-
vide the outmost safe, fresh and nutritious fresh fruits and vegetables to the
human population.
Notwithstanding the promising benefits that are linked with indoor ver-
tical farming, there are also important challenges in the further implemen-
tation of this farming system in the future. It is of vital importance further
improvements on the efficiency and effectiveness of the equipment that will
lead to a significant decrease of the energy demand of the systems. By achiev-
ing the reduction of energy demand, it will add extra value in the environ-
mental sustainability of the system but also it would also make it more
appealing for the public, the investors and the industry and will increase
the viability and profitability. However, it is pointed out by Despommier
(2011) that there is the opportunity for energy recovery from the non-salable
crops’ parts and capture of renewable sources of energy that can create zero
energy building for hosting indoor vertical farms. At the same time, the
whole system of indoor farming can synchronize and manipulate huge
amounts of carbon and simultaneously release into the atmosphere oxygen
from plants’ respiration. Significant is also the start-up costs that are
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 47

associated with indoor vertical farms as it is clear that it is more expensive to

develop a vertical greenhouse than a normal greenhouse (Fletcher, 2012). As
it has been highlighted by many studies one also key barrier that indoor ver-
tical farmers have to confront is the public resistance to these type of prod-
ucts as social masses face difficulty in accepting indoor vertical farms instead if
traditional farming ones because of the natural way that food is produced.
Additionally, as indoor vertical farms serve the concept of local, fresh food
production and they are mainly installed in urban or peri urban areas, they
have also to salient the issue of affordability because of the expensive land and
space use. For this reason, key factor is the productivity rate of indoor ver-
tical farms that can maintain them profitable and keep them prevailed in the
future. More specifically, if indoor vertical farms achieve to produce up to
50 times more yield compared to traditional farming, then they can offset the
capital expenditures and the expensive land use. Previous research con-
ducted by Avgoustaki and Xydis (2020), presented that indoor urban vertical
farms regardless the financing scheme, are much more profitable in compar-
ison to greenhouse constructions. In the specific work, different investment
scenarios are presented based on the cash flow analyses and show that IUVF
can present high IRR (Investment Return Rate) as also a payback period
between 2 and 6 years. Finally, another drawback that is linked with indoor
farming production is the limited variety of crops that can be produced
with this technology, such as lettuce, herbs, tomatoes and berries. Even if
theoretically, all types of crops could be cultivated indoors, that would
not be economically feasible due to the highly increased energy demand.
Thus, low-value agricultural crops such as wheat and barley will continue
to grow under economically and environmentally unviable conditions.
Under these circumstances, the indoor vertical farms have to face a limited
production compared to the “limitless” hectares of traditional farming and a
reconsideration of scaling up would be particularly costly and complicated.
The last years that indoor vertical farming gained more recognition and
research interest, a plethora of new studies, prototypes and innovation
designs have been presented under the academic and industrial scope.
Indoor vertical farming presents a high interest and potential to play a critical
role in the demanded sustainability in food of urban areas. This becomes
even more important by the multiple studies that estimate and analyze
the significant increased food demand in urban areas. Indoor vertical farming
presents important advantages compared to traditional farming, concerning
the required sustainability in our times by focusing in three main categories:
environmental, economic and social.
48 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

There is a high demand for further development in automation. This will

be scaling up the projects in order to create more feasible scenarios both from
economic and commercial perspective. Future research is necessary towards
a holistic approach via the investigation and the analysis of the full life-cycle
of indoor vertical farms and the impact to the environment compared to the
traditional farms and greenhouses.

References
Adenaeuer, L., 2014. Up, up and away! The economy of vertical farming. J. Agric. Stud.
1 (2), 40–60.
Agrilyst, 2017. State of Indoor Farming. Retrieved from: [Link]
wp-content/uploads/2019/06/[Link]. (accessed on
18 August 2020).
AgSTAR, 2020. AgSTAR Data and Trends. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. Available online [Link] (accessed
on 18 August 2020).
Al-Kodmary, K., 2018. The vertical farm: a review of developments and implications for the
Vertical City. Buildings 8 (24), 1–36. [Link]
Aurangzeb, M., Nigar, S., Shab, M.K., 2007. Benefit cost analysis of the maize crop under
mechanized and traditional farming systems in the NWFP. Sarhad J. Agric. 1 (23),
169–176.
Avgoustaki, D., 2019. Optimization of photoperiod and quality assessment of basil
plantsgrown in a small-scale indoor cultivation system for reduction of energy demand.
Energies 12, 3980. [Link]
Avgoustaki, D.D., Xydis, G., 2019. Plant factories in the water-food-energy Nexus era: a
systematic bibliographic review. Food Sec. 12 (2), 253–268. [Link]
s12571-019-01003-z.
Avgoustaki, D.D., Xydis, G., 2020. Indoor vertical farming in the urban nexus context:
business growth and resource savings. Sustainability 12, 1–18. [Link]
3390/su12051965.
Avgoustaki, D.D., Li, J., Xydis, G., 2020. Basil plants grown under intermittent light stress
in a small-scale indoor environment: introducing energy demand reduction intelligent
technologies. Food Control 118. [Link]
Accepted: June 03, 2020.
Barbosa, G.L., Gadelha, F.D.A., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E.,
Wohlleb, G.M., Halden, R.U., 2015. Comparison of land, water, and Energy require-
ments of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015 (12), 6879–6891. [Link]
ijerph120606879.
Brauther, C., 2010. Greenhouse Produce: Challenges & Opportunities. Produce Business.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2013. Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella
Saintpaul Infections Linked to Imported Cucumbers (Final Update). Available online
[Link] (Accessed 9 September
2020).
Coyle, B.D., Ellison, B., 2017. Will consumers find vertically farmed produce “out of
reach”? Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. 32 (1), 1–8.
Despommier, D., 2009. The rise of vertical farms. Sci. Am. 301 (5), 80–87.
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 49

Despommier, D., 2010. The vertical farm: controlled environment agriculture carried out in
tall buildings would create greater food safety and security for large urban populations.
J. Verbrauch. Lebensm. 6, 233–236.
Despommier, D.D., 2011. The vertical farm: controlled environment agriculture carried out
in tall buildings would create greater food safety and security for large urban populations.
J Verbrauch Lebensm 6 (2), 233–236. [Link]
Dueck, T.A., Grashoff, C., Briekhuijsen, G., Marcelis, L.F.M., 2006. Efficiency of light
energy used by leaves situated in different levels of a sweet pepper canopy. Acta
Hortic. 711, 201–205.
Fletcher, O., 2012. The Future of Agriculture May Be Up. The Wall Street Journal.
Available online [Link]
577602960672985508. (accessed on 4 May 2020).
Gerecsey, A., 2018. Sustainable Vertical Farming Outperforms Other Agricultural Methods
on CO2 Outputs. OneFarm Report.
Graamans, L., Baeza, E., Tsafaras, I., Stanghellini, C., 2017. Plant factories versus green-
houses: comparison of resources use efficiency. Agr. Syst. 160, 31–43.
Hogewoning, S.W., Trouwborst, G., Maljaars, H., Poorter, H., van-Ieperen, W.,
Harbinson, J., 2010. Blue light does–responses of leaf photosynthesis, morphology,
and chemical composition of Cucumis sativus grown under different combinations of
red and blue light. J. Exp. Bot. 6, 3107–3117.
Hotez, P.J., Pecoul, B., 2010. “Manifesto” for advancing the control and elimination of
neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 25 (4), e718.
Ikert, J., 2001. Economics of sustainable farming. In: HRM of TX Annual Conference 2001,
Systems in Agriculture and Land Management, Fort Worth, TX, March 2–3, 2001.
Ilic, S., Miller, S., Kauffman, M., Lewis, I.M., LeJeune, J.T., 2014. Listeria monocytogenes
in tomato greenhouses. In: 29th Annual Tomato Disease Workshop, Windsor, ON,
Canada.
Jill, H., 2008. Food Miles: Background and Marketing. Attra. 1-800-346-9140.
urkenbeck, K., Heumman, A., Spiller, A., 2019. Sustainability matters: consumer accep-
J€
tance of different vertical farming systems. Sustainability 11, 4052. [Link]
3390/su11154052.
Karabiber, O.A., Xydis, G., 2019. Electricity price forecasting in Danish day-ahead market
using TBATS, ANN and ARIMA methods. Energies 12 (5), 928. [Link]
3390/en120509282019. Special Issue “Demand Response in Electricity Markets”.
Kim, H.H., Goins, G.D., Wheeler, R.M., Sager, J.C., 2004. Green-light supplementation
for enhanced lettuce growth under red- and blue-light-emitting diodes. HortScience
39 (7), 1617–1622. [Link]
Koroneos, C., Nanaki, E., Xydis, G., 2009. Solar air conditioning systems impact on the built
environment: a thermodynamic approach. In: Proceeding of the 45th ISOCARP
Congress, pp. 1–16.
Koroneos, C.J., Polyzakis, A., Xydis, G.A., Stylos, N., Nanaki, E.A., 2017. Exergy analysis
for a proposed binary geothermal power plant in Nisyros Island, Greece. Geothermics
70, 38–46. [Link]
Kozai, T., Niy, G., Takagaki, M., 2016. In: Takagaki (Ed.), Plant Factory: An Indoor Vertical
Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production. Academic Press, San Diego.
Kublic, N., Proctor, A., Wohhleb, G.M., 2015. Comparison of land, water, and energy require-
ments of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12, 6879–6891. [Link]
Liaros, S., Botsis, K., Xydis, G., 2016. Technoeconomic evaluation of urban plant factories:
the case of basil (Ocimum basilicum). Sci. Total Environ. 554–555, 218–227. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2016.02.174.
50 Dafni Despoina Avgoustaki and George Xydis

Lin, K.H., Huangb, M.Y., Huang, W.D., Hsu, M.H., Yang, Z.W., Yang, C.M., 2013. The
effects of red, blue, and white light-emitting diodes on the growth, development, and
edible quality of hydroponically grown lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. capitata). Sci.
Hortic. 150, 86–91. [Link]
Liu, M., Xu, Z., Yang, Y., 2011. Effects of different spectral lights on Oncidium PLBs induc-
tion, proliferation, and plant regeneration. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 106, 1–10.
Lotze-Campen, H., M€ uller, C., Bondeau, A., Rost, S., Popp, A., Lucht, W., 2008. Global
food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a
spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agric. Econ. 39, 325–338.
Manos, D.P., Xydis, G., 2019. Hydroponics: are we moving towards that direction only
because of the environment? A discussion on forecasting and a systems review.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26, 12662–12672. [Link]
04933-5, 2019.
Mulatu, D.W., Eshete, Z.S., Gatiso, T.G., 2016. The Impact of CO2 Emissions on
Agricultural Productivity and Household Welfare in Ethiopia. A Computable General
Equilibrium Analysis. Environment for Development, pp. 1–21.
Nederhoff, E., Stanghellini, C., 2010. Water use efficiency of tomatoes in greenhouses and
hydroponics. Practical Hydroponics and Greenhouses 115, 52–59.
Nikas, E., Sotiropoulos, A., Xydis, G.A., 2018. Spatial planning of biogas processing facilities
in Greece: the sunflower’s capabilities and the waste-to-bioproducts approach. Chem.
Eng. Res. Des. 131, 234–244.
Ntinas, G.K., Neumair, M., Tsadilas, C.D., Meyer, J., 2016. Carbon footprint and cumu-
lative energy demand of greenhouse and open-field tomato cultivation systems under
southern and central European climatic conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 3617–3626.
[Link]
Penissi, G., Orsini, F., Blasioli, S., Cellini, A., Crepaldi, A., Braschi, I., Spinelli, F., Nicola, S.,
Fernandez, J.A., Stanghellini, C., Gianquinto, G., Marcelis, L.F., 2019. Resource use
efficiency of indoor lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivation as affected by red: blue ratio
provided by LED lighting. Sci. Rep. 9, 14127. [Link]
50783-z.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Seidel, R., 2005. Environmental, ener-
getic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems.
Bioscience 55 (7), 573–582. [Link]
EEAECO][Link];2.
Qian, T., 2017. Crop Growth and Development in Closed and Semi-Closed Greenhouses.
Thesis, Wageningen University, pp. 1–112.
Savvas, D., Akoumiadis, K., Karapanos, I., Kontopoulou, C.K., Ntasi, G., Liontakis, A.,
Sintori, A., Ropokis, A., Akoumianakis, A., 2015. Recharging greek youth to revitalize
the agriculture and food sector of the greek economy. In: Sectoral Study 5: Open-Field
and Greenhouse Production. Agricultural University of Athens; Stavros Niarchos
Foundation.
Sethi, V.P., Sharma, S.K., 2008. Survey and evaluation of heating technologies for world-
wide agricultural greenhouse applications. Sol. Energy 82, 832–859.
Shamshiri, R.R., Shamshiri, R.R., Ting, K.C., Thorp, K.R., Hameed, I.A., Weltzien, C.,
Ahmad, D., Shad, Z.M., 2018. Advances in greenhouse automation and controlled envi-
ronment agriculture: a transition to plant factories and urban agriculture. Int. J. Agric.
Biol. Eng. 11 (1), 1–22.
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., Frewer, L.J., 1994. Gene technology, food production, and public
opinion: a UK study. Agric. Hum. Values 11, 19–28.
Tasgal, P., 2019. The Economics of Local Vertical and Greenhouse Farming Are Getting
Competitive. AFN AgFunder Network Partners. Retrieved from: [Link]
com/the-economics-of-local-vertical-and-greenhouse-farming-are-getting-competitive.
html. (Accessed on 20 April 2020).
Energy innovation in indoor vertical farming 51

Ucal, S.M., Xydis, G., 2020. Multidirectional relationship between energy resources, climate
changes and sustainable development: technoeconomic analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 60,
102210. [Link] Accepted: Apr. 17, 2020.
UNCTAD, 2020. Trade and Development Report Update, Global Trade Impact of the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Epidemic. United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2015. World Population
Projected to Reach 9.7 Billion by 2050. Available online [Link]
development/desa/news/population/[Link]. (Accessed on 27 March 2020).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017. AgSTAR: Biogas Recovery in the
Agriculture Sector, Available online [Link] (accessed on 4 May
2020).
Wang, Y.J., Deering, A.J., Kim, H.J., 2019. The occurrence of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli
in aquaponic and hydroponic systems. Horticulturae 6 (1), 1. [Link]
horticulturae6010001.
Wheeler, S.A., Zuo, A., Loch, A., 2015. Watering the farm: comparing organic and conven-
tional irrigation water use in the Murray–Darling basin, Australia. Ecol. Econ. 112,
78–85.
Xydis, G., 2012. Development of an integrated methodology for the Energy needs of a major
Urban City. The case study of Athens, Greece. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (9),
6705–6716.
Xydis, G., 2015a. Wind energy integration through district heating. A Wind resource based
approach. Resources 4, 110–127. [Link]
Xydis, G., 2015b. A wind energy integration analysis using wind resource assessment as a
decision tool for promoting sustainable energy utilization in agriculture. J. Clean.
Prod. 96, 476–485. 3799. (Sp. Volume: CP Strategies). [Link]
[Link].2013.11.03.
Xydis, G., Liaros, S., Avgoustaki, D.D., 2020. Small scale plant factories with artificial light-
ing and wind energy microgeneration: a multiple revenue stream approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 255, 120227. [Link] Accepted: Jan 22,
2020.
Yokoi, S., Kozai, T., Hasegawa, T., Chun, T., Kubota, C., 2003. Effects of leaf area index of
tomato seedling population on energy utilization efficiencies in a close transplant produc-
tion system. J. Soc. High Technol. Agric. 15, 231–238.
Yoshinaga, K., Ohyama, K., Kozai, T., 2000. Energy and mass balance of a closed-type trans-
plant production system (part 3): carbon dioxide balance. J. Soc. High Technol. Agric.
13, 225–231.
Zhou, P., Yang, X.L., Wang, X.G., Hu, B., Zhang, L., Zhang, W., Si, H.R., Li, B.,
Huang, C.L., Chen, H.D., Chen, J., Luo, Y., Guo, H., Jiang, R.D., Liu, M.Q.,
Chen, Y., Shen, X.R., Wang, X., Zheng, X.S., Zhao, K., Chen, Q.J., Deng, F.,
Liu, L.L., Zhang, F.X., Xiao, G.F., Shi, Z.S., 2020. Discovery of a novel coronavirus
associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin.
Nature 579 (7798), 270–273. [Link]