Effects of Urban Smart Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Explore the key factors that influence the adoption of urban smart farming by local communities in African cities.
- Explore the benefits and challenges and the willingness of local African communities to implement this farming method.
- Determine the effect of influential factors of urban smart farming on local food production and the local economy of African cities.
2. Overview of African Urban Economy and Food Production
3. Urban Smart Farming (USF)
3.1. Benefits and Challenges of USF
3.2. Local Communities’ Willingness to Adopt or Participate in USF Projects
4. Research Methods
4.1. Conceptual Model Projects
4.2. Research Constructs and Sub-Constructs
5. Data Analysis and Results
5.1. Profile of Respondents
5.2. Familarity with Urban Smart Farm Concept
5.3. Willingness of Communities to Participate in USF
5.4. Benefit of USF
5.5. Challenges of USF
5.6. Impact of Urban Smart Farm on Local Food Production and Economy
5.7. Causal Model of USF
6. Discussion of Findings
Urban Smart Farm Causal Model
7. Conclusions
- To address the possible challenges and enhance the sustainability performance of such innovative indoor farms, the community awareness and public incentives for urban smart farms must be improved.
- To stay economically viable, the public and private sectors and local authorities need to support African urban smart farms.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Saad, M.H.M.; Hamdan, N.M.; Sarker, M.R. State of the art of urban smart vertical farming automation system: Advanced topologies, issues and recommendations. Electronics 2021, 10, 1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, J.D.B.; Reidsma, P.; Giller, K.; Todman, L.; Whitmore, A.; van Ittersum, M. Sustainable development goal 2: Improved targets and indicators for agriculture and food security. Ambio 2019, 48, 685–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goel, R.K.; Yadav, C.S.; Vishnoi, S.; Rastogi, R. Smart agriculture–Urgent need of the day in developing countries. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2021, 30, 100512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD/SWAC. Africa’s Urbanisation Dynamics 2020: Africapolis, Mapping a New Urban Geography; West African Studies; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramutsindela, M.; Mickler, D. Africa and the Sustainable Development Goals; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Moghayedi, A.; Awuzie, B.; Omotayo, T.; Le Jeune, K.; Massyn, M.; Ekpo, C.O.; Braune, M.; Byron, P. A Critical Success Factor Framework for Implementing Sustainable Innovative and Affordable Housing: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Buildings 2021, 11, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musa, S.F.P.D.; Basir, K.H. Smart farming: Towards a sustainable agri-food system. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 3085–3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinstrup-Andersen, P.; Cheng, F. Case Studies in Food Policy for Developing Countries: Domestic Policies for Markets, Production, and Environment; Cornell University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Stats-Sa. Sustainable Development Goals: Country Report; Department of Statistics South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Commission, A.U. Agenda2063-The Africa We Want; African Union: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Kodmany, K. The vertical farm: A review of developments and implications for the vertical city. Buildings 2018, 8, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, L.; Dai, J.; Qian, X.; Karimipour, A.; Zheng, X. Achieving sustainable soil and water protection: The perspective of agricultural water price regulation on environmental protection. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sachs, J.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. Sustainable Development Report 2021; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Benke, K.; Tomkins, B. Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2017, 13, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simpson, C. Updating the Building Code to Include Indoor Farming Operations. J. Food Law Policy 2019, 15, 5. [Google Scholar]
- O’Hara, S.; Toussaint, E.C. Food access in crisis: Food security and COVID-19. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 180, 106859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hersh, B. Urban Redevelopment; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- SAPOA. Office Vacancy Report; South African Property Owners Association: Pretoria, South Africa, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Xiang, P.; Yang, Y.; Li, Z. Theoretical Framework of Inclusive Urban Regeneration Combining Nature-Based Solutions with Society-Based Solutions. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2020, 146, 04020009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinstrup-Andersen, P. Is it time to take vertical indoor farming seriously? Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 17, 233–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, P.; Calvin, K.; Nkem, J.; Campbell, D.; Cherubini, F.; Grassi, G.; Korotkov, V.; Le Hoang, A.; Lwasa, S.; McElwee, P. Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? Glob. Change Biol. 2020, 26, 1532–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Headrick, D. Converging innovations nourish growth of indoor farming. Res. Technol. Manag. 2019, 62, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
- White, B. Generational dynamics in agriculture: Reflections on rural youth and farming futures. Cah. Agric. 2015, 24, 330–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halgamuge, M.N.; Bojovschi, A.; Fisher, P.M.; Le, T.C.; Adeloju, S.; Murphy, S. Internet of Things and autonomous control for vertical cultivation walls towards smart food growing: A review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Windapo, A.O.; Moghayedi, A. Adoption of smart technologies and circular economy performance of buildings. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2020, 10, 585–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Delden, S.; SharathKumar, M.; Butturini, M.; Graamans, L.; Heuvelink, E.; Kacira, M.; Kaiser, E.; Klamer, R.; Klerkx, L.; Kootstra, G. Current status and future challenges in implementing and upscaling vertical farming systems. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 944–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danquah, M.; Ouattara, B.; Quartey, P. Technology transfer and national efficiency: Does absorptive capacity matter? Afr. Dev. Rev. 2018, 30, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalantari, F.; Akhyani, N. Community acceptance studies in the field of vertical farming—A critical and systematic analysis to advance the conceptualisation of community acceptance in Kuala Lumpur. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2021, 13, 569–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poulsen, M.N.; Neff, R.A.; Winch, P.J. The multifunctionality of urban farming: Perceived benefits for neighbourhood improvement. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 1411–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moghayedi, A.; Awuzie, B.; Omotayo, T.; Le Jeune, K.; Massyn, M. Appraising the nexus between influencers and sustainability-oriented innovation adoption in affordable housing projects. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 3, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desu, M. Sample Size Methodology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, H.; Specht, K.; Kirby, C.K. Consumers’ and Stakeholders’ Acceptance of Indoor Agritecture in Shanghai (China). Sustainability 2022, 14, 2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Constructs | Sub-Constructs | Source | Measurement Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Willingness (W) to participate in urban smart farming | Actively participate (W1) | [2,28,29] | Respondents were asked to indicate their willingness to participate on a 4-point Likert scale |
Encourage my family members and friends to actively participate (W2) | [2,28,29] | ||
Promote it (e.g., on social media) (W3) | [2,28,29] | ||
Help leading and managing (W4) | [2,28,29] | ||
Participate in workshop/training (W5) | [2,28,29] | ||
Benefits (B) of urban smart farming | Makes community more independent (B1) | [17,22,28,29] | Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of their agreement with potential benefit of urban smart farming in their local communities on a 4-point Likert scale |
Sustainable/environmentally friendly (B2) | [7,8,14] | ||
Convenient (B3) | [2,28,29] | ||
Provides opportunities for local women and youth (B4) | [23,28] | ||
Supports community wellbeing (B5) | [2,7,17] | ||
Supports community health (B6) | [2,14,17] | ||
Provides educational opportunities (B7) | [1,7,22] | ||
Provides financial benefits (B8) | [2,7,8,17] | ||
Makes room for community engagement and interaction (B9) | [3,14,22] | ||
Strengthens community feeling (B10) | [22,28,29] | ||
Challenges (C) of urban smart farming | Lack of responsibility (C1) | [32] | Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of their agreement with possible Challenges of urban smart farming in their local communities on a 4-point Likert scale |
Water supply (C2) | [26] | ||
Crop and seed supply (C3) | [26] | ||
Technological equipment (C4) | [1,23,26] | ||
Collides with local farming traditions (C5) | [26,32] | ||
Lack of knowledge (C6) | [3,22,26] | ||
Lack of funding (C7) | [1,3,26] | ||
Security (C8) | [26] | ||
A lack of trust (C9) | [32] | ||
Diseases (C10) | [26] | ||
It is able to address the local food production issues | Respondents were asked to indicate the degree of impact of USF on the local food production and economy on a 4-point Likert scale | ||
It is able to improve the local economy by generating more jobs |
Hypothesis | T Statistics | p Values | Decision |
---|---|---|---|
Benefits +> Local food production | 5.212 | 0.000 | Significant |
Benefits +> Local economy | 5.718 | 0.000 | Significant |
Challenges −> Local food production | 4.325 | 0.000 | Significant |
Challenges −> Local economy | 4.688 | 0.000 | Significant |
Benefits +> Willingness of local communities +> Local food production | 10.260 | 0.000 | Significant |
Benefits +> Willingness of local communities +> Local economy | 6. 743 | 0.000 | Significant |
Challenges −> Willingness of local communities −> Local food production | 3.674 | 0.000 | Significant |
Challenges −> Willingness of local communities −> Local economy | 3.230 | 0.001 | Significant |
Local food production +> Local economy | 5.937 | 0.000 | Significant |
Local economy +> Local food production | 1.208 | 0.092 | Insignificant |
Construct | Sub-Constructs | Benefits | Challenges | Willingness | Local Food Production | Local Economy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benefits | B 1–10 | 0.893 | ||||
Challenges | C 2, 4, 5,6,7,8 | −0.712 | 0.886 | |||
Willingness | W 1–5 | 0.731 | −0.826 | 0.892 | ||
Local food production | 0.795 | −0.791 | 0.869 | 1.000 | ||
Local economy | 0.775 | −0.757 | 0.888 | 0.761 | 1.000 | |
Internal Consistency | Cronbach’s Alpha | 0.894 | 0.776 | 0.887 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Rho-A | 0.912 | 0.779 | 0.883 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
Composite Reliability | 0.913 | 0.841 | 0.910 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
Convergent validity (AVE) | 0.516 | 0.587 | 0.760 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
Sub-Constructs | Willingness | Benefits | Challenges |
---|---|---|---|
Actively participate (W1) | 0.316 | ||
Encouraging family members and friends to participate (W2) | 0.238 | ||
Promote it (e.g., on social media) (W3) | 0.232 | ||
Help leading and managing (W4) | 0.290 | ||
Participate in workshop/training (W5) | 0.225 | ||
Provides opportunities for local women and youth (B4) | 0.200 | ||
Makes community more independent (B1) | 0.183 | ||
Sustainable/environmentally friendly (B2) | 0.155 | ||
Supports community’s wellbeing (B5) | 0.154 | ||
Provides financial benefits (B8) | 0.151 | ||
Supports community’s health (B6) | 0.149 | ||
Provides educational opportunities (B7) | 0.132 | ||
Makes room for community engagement and interaction (B9) | 0.112 | ||
Strengthens community feeling (B10) | 0.101 | ||
Convenient (B3) | 0.092 | ||
Lack of knowledge (C6) | 0.356 | ||
Lack of funding (C7) | 0.297 | ||
Water supply is a problem (C2) | 0.220 | ||
Technological equipment (C4) | 0.261 | ||
Security (C8) | 0.197 | ||
Collides with local farming traditions (C5) | 0.174 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Moghayedi, A.; Richter, I.; Owoade, F.M.; Kapanji-Kakoma, K.K.; Kaliyadasa, E.; Francis, S.; Ekpo, C. Effects of Urban Smart Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710836
Moghayedi A, Richter I, Owoade FM, Kapanji-Kakoma KK, Kaliyadasa E, Francis S, Ekpo C. Effects of Urban Smart Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities. Sustainability. 2022; 14(17):10836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710836
Chicago/Turabian StyleMoghayedi, Alireza, Isabell Richter, Folasade Mary Owoade, Kutemba K. Kapanji-Kakoma, Ewon Kaliyadasa, Sheena Francis, and Christiana Ekpo. 2022. "Effects of Urban Smart Farming on Local Economy and Food Production in Urban Areas in African Cities" Sustainability 14, no. 17: 10836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710836