Sustainable Cities and Society 18 (2015) 74–77

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Short communication

Vertical farming: Skyscraper sustainability?

Malek Al-Chalabi ∗
Imperial College London, United Kingdom; University of Oxford, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: It is predicted that the world population will reach 9 billion by 2050, of which 70% will live in urban
Available online 12 June 2015 centres. This change, alongside a changing climate, will strain Earth’s resources, especially the food sup-
ply chain. One idea that has been proposed to address this issue is vertical farming – the urban farming
Keywords: of fruits, vegetables, and grains, inside a building in a city or urban centre, in which floors are designed
Energy to accommodate certain crops. While an interesting theoretical concept, no studies currently exist that
Vertical farming
quantify or qualify the validity of such an idea. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to examine the fea-
Cities
sibility and plausibility of the vertical farming concept from a socio technical, mixed methods, research
perspective. This includes (1) examining how much energy is needed to power such a building and
whether renewable energy can meet the onsite demands of the building by constructing a energy model,
(2) quantifying the carbon footprint of vertically grown produce and subsequently comparing that to
conventionally grown produce, and (3) conducting interviews to explore how relevant stakeholders per-
ceive the concept of vertical farming in order to identify what are current barriers and opportunities exist
towards possible uptake of the technology. The findings indicate that vertical farming is a tool that can
be used to supply food to cities in a sustainable manner, but this depends on the location and design.
Areas of future research are identified.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2009).Novel contributions have been published on vertical farm-

It is predicted that the world population will reach 9 billion
by 2050, of which 70% will live in urban centres (United Nations,
2007). This change, alongside a changing climate, will strain Earth’s
resources, specifically the food supply chain. Food supply and secu-
rity is a growing area of concern, and a topic worth evaluating is how
produce can be supplied to cities in a way that is environmentally
friendly and energy efficient (Godfray et al., 2010). A valuable inves-
tigation would be to determine alternative methods to supply food
to cities alongside current agricultural practices in a sustainable
manner.
One idea is the concept of vertical farming. Vertical farming is
the urban farming of fruits, vegetables, and grains, inside a building
in a city or urban centre, in which floors are designed to accom-
modate certain crops using hydroponics (water with nutrients)
(Fischetti, 2008). While the concept of supplying food in cities is not
a new one, the idea of dedicating an entire building/skyscraper to
cultivate produce is. The concept of vertical farming is a large scale
extension of urban agriculture within a building (Despommier,
∗ Tel.: +44 78 58 32 11 88.
E-mail addresses: Malek.Al-Chalabi09@alumni.imperial.ac.uk,
Malek.alchalabi@ouce.ox.ac.uk
ing. Besthorn (2013) has examined the history of urban agriculture
and reviewed the promise that vertical farming holds for commu-
nities with food security problems. Kurasek (2009) has provided
some architectural designs of how the concept may be developed.
Sivamani, Bae, and Cho (2013) have examined the viability of smart
technology in agriculture and the promise that it may hold for ver-
tical farming.
While much has been published on the subject of urban agri-
culture and more recently on the conceptual potential of vertical
farming, limited evidence has been published on the viability of
vertical farming. No technical analyses on vertical farming have
been found to date. The purpose of this research, therefore, is to
investigate the feasibility and plausibility of the vertical farming
concept from a socio-technical, mixed methods, research perspec-
tive in three specific and interrelated research domains.
These three research domains are: (a) to examine how much
energy is needed to power such a building and whether renewable
energy can meet the onsite demands of the building by developing
a simplified energy model, (b) to determine the carbon footprint of
vertically grown produce and subsequently compare that to pro-
duce grown conventionally, and (c) to investigate how relevant
stakeholders perceive the concept of vertical farming in order to
identify what are current barriers and opportunities exist towards

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2015.06.003
2210-6707/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Al-Chalabi / Sustainable Cities and Society 18 (2015) 74–77
possible uptake of the technology. In the rest of this paper, the
(1) methods, (2) results, (3) discussion, and (4) conclusion will be
presented.
2. Methods
First, the literature was surveyed in order to select a design
to model. Due to the novelty of the field, as well as the small
number of relevant publications, there were a limited number of
designs to select from – but the ones that were found were com-
prehensive in nature (designs found in Despommier (2009) and
Fischetti (2008) were considered). After surveying the literature, it
was decided that Dr. Dickson Despommier’s design was the most
appropriate to be used as a basis for this research. This decision
was based not only on the fact that Dr. Despommier is credited
with developing the concept of vertical farming, but also because
his research provided the most thorough and realistic design when
compared to the other sources that were surveyed. An image of the
design can be found in Despommeir’s Scientific American publica-
tion (Despommier, 2009). In the design, light is used to cultivate
the crops inside the building and water is pumped throughout the
building for the hydroponic culture. Solar panels are placed on the
roof and on the facade (one side). Therefore, using this design as a
basis, the energy flows (demand and generation) were quantified.
The purpose of quantifying the energy flows was to specifically
determine how much energy is needed to power such a build-
ing (demand) and whether renewable energy can meet the onsite
demands of the building (generation). For the energy demand, the
amount of energy required to light the building and pump the water
was calculated. Lighting and water pumping are two of the main
energy demand items, and was therefore the focus of this research.
For energy generation, the amount of energy generated from solar
panels was quantified. Favourable assumptions were made in order
to see if this design is possible in a best case scenario. The timeline
for the energy flows was over the course of a month.
In order to examine the energy flows, an energy optimization
model was developed. The reason that an optimization model was
developed was because the amount of energy required to power
the building is contingent on the building dimensions. When a
building occupies a larger area, the lighting and water require-
ments increase, but so does the amount of energy available (via
solar panels on the roof and facade). The opposite is also true – the
lighting and water requirements in the building decrease when the
building occupies a smaller area, but so does the amount of energy
available (less number of solar panels available on roof and facade).
Therefore, different dimensions were examined in the model in
order to ascertain the feasibility and plausibility of vertical farm-
ing. Assumptions made in each of the three components (lighting,
water pumping, solar panel energy generation) for the model will
be described next.
Lighting is a requirement in vertical farming at the scale that
Despommier (2009) calls for in his design. Lighting options are
either LED (light emitting diode) or HPS (high pressure sodium).
HPS lights will be used for this study1 . 600 W lamps will be
assumed, and this finding was confirmed in various sources
(Blacquiere & Spaargaren, 2003; Spaargaren, Hortilux Schreder, &
P.L. Light Systems Inc.).
According to the literature, the amount of lighting needed
indoors for plant cultivation is around 18 h per day (Blacquiere &
1
LED lights were not used in this study because after corresponding with organi-
zation that sells the vertical farming technology, it was found that while energy can
be saved because of the increased efficiency of LEDs, a higher number of lights are
needed for cultivation because of the lower light intensity range. This assumption
was therefore used in this research.
75
Spaargaren, 2003). Light shelves were used to optimize the amount
of light going in (therefore minimizing the amount of light that
needed to be generated), and the height of each window was max-
imized to 3.5 m (height of each floor).
For the water requirements, hydraulic energy equations, the
Moody Diagram, pumping equations, and head loss equations were
used to calculate the amount of energy needed to pump the water
in the building. An estimate was sought in order to calculate the
amount of water required for hydroponic farming – which was
found to be one litre per square foot per day (or 10.7 l per square
metre) (Resh, 2004). An energy calculation was made for each floor
in order to determine how much energy was required to pump the
water for each specific floor, and then the values were summed up
for the total amount of energy needed to pump through the entire
building. Minor losses were ignored. Standard assumptions were
made regarding pipe size and pipe material.
For the solar panel energy generation, the calculation was
based in an area with lots of solar radiation (Phoenix, Arizona)
and very efficient photovoltaics (240 W). The Suntech solar panel
has monocrystalline silicon solar cells and the dimensions are
1956 mm × 992 mm × 50 mm, which was used for this research
(Suntech, 2007).
Based on the dimensions inputted, the optimization model cal-
culated the amount of energy required to light and pump the
building (based on the floor area assumed for each iteration). A
solar panel calculator (BD calculator) was used to determine the
number of solar panels needed to meet the energy requirements
(from lighting and water pumping calculations) (2010).
The model then explored whether the building could accom-
modate the number of PVs required based on the roof area/facade
available due to the dimensions assumed. The height was kept the
same (30 floors, 105 m in total height) in order to see if vertical
farming was feasible in high rise buildings.
The limitation of this approach was that only one building design
was investigated (Despommier, 2009). It is important to highlight
that different conclusions could have been reached with different
designs (different energy generation/demand assumptions), but
again, the most practical and realistic design out of all available
designs that were surveyed was selected (Despommier, 2009).
Secondly, a limited life cycle analysis of produce grown verti-
cally was quantified. A pilot vertical farming programme in the UK
was found, which provided an opportunity to collect data on the
carbon footprint of vertically grown produce. At the pilot, data was
available for vertically grown lettuce, and therefore was the pro-
duce that was quantified for the scope of this study (kg CO2 /kg
lettuce). No other crops had data available at the pilot.
Data was collected from the pilot and the technology provider.
Estimates were developed based on data collected with the pilot
and technology provider through a site visit and a data collection
interview. Plant propagation, fertilization, irrigation, harvesting,
and heating/lighting were identified as the major energy outputs,
and were therefore quantified based on the data collected.
From this, the carbon footprint of vertically grown lettuce was
calculated – and this was compared to lettuce grown convention-
ally in the summer and the winter time in the UK (Hospido et al.,
2009). The same carbon conversions that were used in Hospido
et al.’s study were used in this research. However, there were two
areas that were not included in the carbon footprinting because
data was not available. First, the lettuce is grown for two weeks
at a separate nursery (before it arrived at the pilot). Estimates
were given for the energy inputs required to harvest/grow the
lettuce for the first two weeks, but the estimates/numbers could
not be reconfirmed and were therefore omitted. Secondly, a lit-
erature review was conducted to estimate the amount of carbon
associated with developing hydroponic nutrient culture. However,
no tangible studies were found. These limitations are identified.
76 M. Al-Chalabi / Sustainable Cities and Society 18 (2015) 74–77
Table 1
Optimization model for the vertical farm.
Dimensions of building Energy demand (one month timeline)
Length, width Area/floor (m2 ) Water pumping Light required
(m) required (kW h) (kW h)
10 100 148 0 148
20 400 591 0 591
22.5 506 748 57,946
25 625 923 137,388
28 784 1158 257,393
30 900 1329 352,350
Nevertheless, enough data was made available (plant propagation,
fertilization, irrigation, harvesting, and heating/lighting) in order to
make a limited life cycle analysis possible between the two farming
methods.
Thirdly, an exploration of social perceptions of vertical farming
technology with relevant stakeholders took place. Specific experts
were interviewed, especially those that would have an apprecia-
tion of the technical skill set required to construct such a building.
Architects, engineers, members of the UK pilot, members of staff
who sell the vertical farming technology in the UK, and the general
public were interviewed in order to examine what opportuni-
ties/challenges exist. Semi structured interviews were conducted
in order to explore the concept in-depth for approximately 30 min.
Interviews were conducted in person, and when not possible, on
the telephone or via e-mail. Field notes were taken during and after
the interviews. The field notes and email transcripts (where rele-
vant) were subsequently analyzed until no new themes were found.
Interviews were only in the UK – this limitation is acknowledged.
3. Results
The findings from the energy model indicated that there were
dimensions where enough energy could be generated on site to
meet the energy needs (lighting, water pumping) of the building
over the course of a month. The findings from the optimization
model are noted in Table 1.
The findings indicate that a vertical farm can generate enough
energy via solar panels on the roof and the façade to meet the
lighting and water pumping requirements. The first three dimen-
sions demonstrate that vertical farming is plausible. The first two
dimensions (10 m, 20 m) did not require lighting because the use of
light shelves covered the interior. The third dimension did require
lighting and was still feasible. 1398 solar panels were required to
meet the energy demands (light and water pumping throughout
the building), and the roof and facade could fit 1479 solar panels
– a surplus of 81 solar panels. The final three dimensions resulted
in an energy deficit (more panels were required than the building
could accommodate/fit).
The life cycle analysis findings indicate that in the summer
time, vertically grown lettuce (1.78 kg CO2 /kg lettuce) has a car-
bon footprint that is five times greater than in conventional open
fields (0.33 kg CO2 /kg lettuce), while in the winter, vertically grown
lettuce (6.39 kg CO2 /kg lettuce) has a footprint that is only two
times greater than conventionally grown lettuce (2.62 kg CO2 /kg
lettuce). More energy is used in the winter in the UK for conven-
tionally grown lettuce (to heat the environment), which means that
the difference between vertically grown produce and conventional
produce is smaller in the winter than in the summer.
Engineering consultancies, architectural firms, members of the
pilot, the vertical farming technology provider, and members of
the public were contacted for interviews through phone calls and
e-mails. 15 were interviewed from the study. From this analysis, it
Energy supply Feasible
Total required PV required PV available on PV available–PV
(kW h) roof/facade required
Number of panels Number of panels
4 593 Yes
15 1289 Yes
58,694 1398 1479 Yes
138,311 3294 1675 No
258,551 6165 1920 No
353,679 8421 2088 No
was found that architects, engineers, member of the general public,
members of the UK pilot, and staff who sell the farming technology
have areas of agreement and disagreement. Engineers believed that
an old building could be retrofitted to meet the needs of the vertical
farm, while architects believed that a new building was required. All
were in agreement that costs were an important aspect in deciding
whether or not to build the project, and many agreed that this was a
novel area and more research was required. A barrier identified was
that many perceived hydroponics as ‘food made from chemicals’
and ‘not natural,’ and therefore could be a social barrier towards
the uptake of produce grown in cities.
4. Discussion
From an energy perspective, the results indicate that vertical
farming is feasible in areas that have abundant sunlight. With these
conditions, enough energy could be generated to light the build-
ing and pump the water. However, with these conditions, the site
specific environmental implications of obtaining water from areas
that have abundant sunlight should be examined. An area of future
research would be to do a techno economic study of the concept
as well as a cost benefit analysis of vertical farming from an energy
and produce perspective.
Earlier in the paper it was also acknowledged that there were
a limited number of designs to choose from in order to conduct a
technical analysis. Engineers, architects, and vertical farm design-
ers can work together to explore this space in order to examine
whether other designs exist that can yield optimum results from
an energy and environmentally sustainable perspective. This was
also confirmed in the semi structured interviews.
From a life cycle perspective, the findings indicate that verti-
cally grown produce has a carbon footprint that is much higher
than conventionally grown produce. However, the pilot currently
generates energy from conventional sources of energy. If sourced
from renewable energy sources, it may be competitive compared to
conventional produce, but this requires further research. Addition-
ally, a complete life cycle analysis that incorporates the cultivation
and nutrient culture (as highlighted in the methods section) would
be able to identify where energy savings/losses occur compared
to conventional produce. This can help further develop an under-
standing of where opportunities exist.
The interviews indicated that social barriers do exist along-
side technical barriers. One finding was that the hydroponically
grown food is perceived as being ‘food made from chemicals’ and
‘not natural.’ This could be a potential obstacle for the uptake
of the technology and more research should examine how/why
this is.
5. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to examine the feasibility and
plausibility of the vertical farming concept from a socio technical,
 M. Al-Chalabi / Sustainable Cities and Society 18 (2015) 74–77
mixed methods, research perspective. The findings indicate that
vertical farming is a concept that is in its technical infancy but does
hold promise for future cities. Further research can help pursue this
idea further. This includes developing multifunctional designs with
input from engineers, architects, and vertical farming technology
providers simultaneously in order to help design future structures
that can adapt to 21st century needs, developing pilot programmes
where real time data can be collected and analyzed in order to
examine where opportunities and barriers exist compared to con-
ventional produce, developing a larger energy model that can take
more factors into account (ventilation, waste, etc.), and conduct-
ing a techno economic study that incorporates construction and
maintenance costs. Vertical farming does hold potential in the right
circumstances. In those instances and with some more research, the
sky is the limit.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their con-
structive feedback and suggestions. I would also like to thank my
mentors, friends, and family for their support, and most especially
my father, for encouraging me to publish my work. This one’s for
you Pops.
77
References
BD Batteries. (2010). Solar panel calculator (Online). Available from: http://www.
bdbatteries.com/panelcalculator.php
Besthorn, F. H. (2013). Vertical farming: Social work and sustainable urban agricul-
ture in an age of global food crises. Australian Social Work, 66(2), 187–203.
Blacquiere, T., & Spaargaren, J. J. (2003). Necessity of supplemental lighting for year-
round production of greenhouse vegetables. Acta Horticulturae, 611, 75–78.
Despommier, D. (2009). The rise of vertical farms. Scientific American, 301(5).
Fischetti, M. (2008). Growing vertical. Scientific American, 3.0, 74.
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., et al. (2010).
Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327, 812–818.
Hospido, A., Canals, L. M. i., McLaren, S., Truninger, M., Edwards-Jones, G., & Clift,
R. (2009). The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: A case study of envi-
ronmental and social aspects. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14,
381–391.
Kurasek, B. (2009). The living skyscraper – Farming the urban skyline (Online).
Available from: http://matewing.net/story/the-living-skyscraper—farming-
the-urban-skyline-by-blake-kurasek#,
Resh, H. (2004). Hydroponic Food Production (6th ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: New-
concept Press, Inc.
Sivamani, S., Bae, N., & Cho, Y. (2013). A smart service model based on ubiquitous
sensor networks using vertical farm ontology. International Journal of Distributed
Sensor Networks, 2013. Article ID 161495.
Spaargaren, J. J., Hortilux Schreder, & P.L. Light Systems Inc. (2001). Supplemental
lighting for greenhouse crops (2nd ed.). Netherlands: Schreder.
Suntech. (2007). High efficiency, high quality PV module. Suntech Power.
United Nations. (2007). World population will increase by 2.5 billion by 2050 (Online).
Available from: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pop952.doc.htm