Considerations For Reducing Food System Energy Dem

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319295293
Considerations for reducing food system

energy demand while scaling up urban
agriculture
Article in Environmental Research Letters August 2017

DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa889b
CITATIONS READS
0 41
6 authors, including:
Eugene A Mohareb Xavier Fonoll Almansa

University of Reading University of Michigan
20 PUBLICATIONS 538 CITATIONS 8 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Lutgarde Raskin
University of Michigan
438 PUBLICATIONS 8,193 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Research for Fresh Solutions to Food Energy and Water Constraints, REFRESCH View project
Microbial molecular diversity View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Xavier Fonoll Almansa on 01 September 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience
Considerations for reducing food system energy demand while scaling up urban agriculture
This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
Download details:
IP Address: 168.151.122.104
This content was downloaded on 01/09/2017 at 23:19
Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

Mohareb et al
To cite this article before publication: Mohareb et al, 2017, Environ. Res. Lett., at press:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa889b
This Accepted Manuscript is: 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd
As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a gold open access basis
under a CC BY 3.0 licence, this Accepted Manuscript is available for reuse under a CC BY 3.0 licence
immediately.
Everyone is permitted to use all or part of the original content in this article, provided that they
adhere to all the terms of the licence https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0
Although reasonable endeavours have been taken to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to
include their copyrighted content within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be
present in this Accepted Manuscript version. Before using any content from this article, please refer to
the Version of Record on IOPscience once published for full citation and copyright details, as
permission may be required. All third party content is fully copyright protected and is not published on
a gold open access basis under a CC BY licence, unless that is specifically stated in the figure caption
in the Version of Record.
When available, you can view the Version of Record for this article at:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa889b
Page 1 of 34 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-103673.R2
1
2
3 Considerations for Reducing Food System Energy Demand while Scaling Up Urban
4
pt
5 Agriculture
6
7 Eugene Mohareb, Martin Heller, Paige Novak, Benjamin Goldstein, Xavier Fonoll, Lutgarde
8 Raskin
9
cri
10
11 Abstract
12
13 There is an increasing global interest in scaling up urban agriculture (UA) in its various forms,
14
15 from private gardens to sophisticated commercial operations. Much of this interest is in the spirit
16 of environmental protection, with reduced waste and transportation energy highlighted as some
us
17 of the proposed benefits of UA; however, explicit consideration of energy and resource
18 requirements needs to be made in order to realize these anticipated environmental benefits. A
19
20 literature review is undertaken here to provide new insight into the energy implications of scaling
21 up UA in cities in high-income countries, considering UA classification, direct/indirect energy
22 pressures, and interactions with other components of the Food-Energy-Water nexus. This is
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
followed by an exploration of ways in which these cities can plan for the exploitation of waste
flows for resource-efficient UA.
Given that it is estimated that the food system contributes nearly 15% of total U.S. energy
demand, optimization of resource use in food production, distribution, consumption, and waste
dM
29
30 systems may have a significant energy impact. There are limited data available that quantify
31 resource demand implications directly associated with UA systems, highlighting that the
32 literature is not yet sufficiently robust to make universal claims on benefits. This review explores
33 energy demand from conventional resource inputs, various production systems, water/energy
34
35 trade-offs, alternative irrigation, packaging materials, and transportation/supply chains to shed
36 light on UA-focused research needs.
37
38 By analyzing data and cases from the existing literature, we propose that gains in energy
39
efficiency could be realized through the co-location of UA operations with waste streams (e.g.,
pte
40
41 heat, CO2, greywater, wastewater, compost), potentially increasing yields and offsetting life
42 cycle energy demands relative to conventional approaches. This begs a number of energy-
43 focused UA research questions that explore the opportunities for integrating the variety of UA
44
45
structures and technologies, so that they are better able to exploit these urban waste flows and
46 achieve whole-system reductions in energy demand. Any planning approach to implement these
47 must, as always, assess how context will influence the viability and value added from the
48
ce
promotion of UA.
49
50
51
52
53
Ac
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERL-103673.R2 Page 2 of 34
1
2
3 Urban agriculture (UA) has been undergoing a global resurgence in recent decades, with cities
4
pt
5 in both advanced and emerging economies implementing programs to encourage its use (Mok
6
7 et al 2013, Orsini et al 2013, Hamilton et al 2013, Vitiello and Brinkley 2013). This renewed
8 interest has led to the exploration of the question of the extent that UA could be expanded,
9
cri
10 including a number of investigations that estimate the potential for UA to meet local food
11
12
demand; for example, Grewal and Grewal (2012), McClintock et al (2013) and Goldstein et al
13 (2017), suggest provision of total food demand (former) and vegetable demand (latter two), of
14
15 4.2%-17.7%, 5% and 32%, respectively. Expanding UA is expected to improve local
16 sustainability, including benefits to social (such as addressing food deserts, building community
us
17
18 cohesion, or higher intake of fresh produce) and economic (cash crop production, reduced food
19
20 costs) facets of cities. The environmental aspects associated with the net direct and indirect
21 energy implications of UA will be the primary sustainability focus area of this research.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Part of the rationale for reconsidering UA has been its potential environmental benefits,
including reductions in energy demand throughout the food supply chain. As a result, UA has
been included in greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation strategies for cities (Arup and C40 Cities
dM
29 2014) and broader urban sustainability agendas through multi-city agreements and
30
31 partnerships, such as the UK's Sustainable Food Cities Network and the Milan Urban Food
32
33 Policy Pact, the latter of which includes 100 large cities around the world (Milan 2015, Andrews
34 et al 2017). However, when considering the complex interplay between food production, energy
35
36 requirements, and water availability, the ability of UA to reduce energy demand is unclear.
37
38
39 This review article examines energy use in the food system, explores the opportunities that exist
pte
40
41 for high-income cities to increase the energy/resource efficiency of this overall system through
42
UA, and proposes changes that could be made in the planning of cities to enable greater
43
44 reductions in energy demand, with a focus on the United States. The scope extends beyond the
45
46 frequently-assessed topic of transportation into topics such as embodied energy of production
47 inputs (i.e., water, nutrients, heating, CO2), reduction in packaging, storage, and processing
48
ce
49 needs. This review aims to provide a point of reference for energy considerations that should be
50
51
made if UA is going to be expanded further to provide a greater share of the global food supply.
52
53
Classifying Urban Agriculture
Ac
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Estimating the current scale of UA is difficult and varies based on how it is defined; for example,
4
pt
5 Thebo et al (2014) estimate that there were 67 mega hectares (Mha; 106 ha) of UA1 globally in
6
7 2000 (5% of global arable land in that year; Food and Agriculture Organization 2010, Table A.4),
8 with roughly 1/3 of the UA area being irrigated. Their quantification includes spatial data where
9
cri
10 agricultural areas and urban boundaries with populations greater than 50,000 overlap, most of
11
12
which would be classified as peri-urban2 agriculture and would not capture small-scale
13 operations such as residential gardens, vacant lots, or building-integrated production (e.g.,
14
15 balcony gardens, rooftop gardens). Inclusion of peri-urban agriculture would produce a
16 substantially higher estimate of UA than the area that is currently used in these more
us
17
18 commonly-perceived forms of UA. Looking at the scale of some of these types of UA, Taylor
19
20 and Lovell (2012) examined the total area of UA in the city of Chicago using 2010 aerial
21 photographs. They found that approximately 0.04% of Chicagos land area of 606 km2 was
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
being used for urban agriculture; of this, nearly half (45%) was in residential gardens, while
most of the remainder was in vacant lots (27%) and community food gardens (21%). To provide
a sense of scale of the opportunity to expand urban agriculture, a 2000 study of vacant land in
U.S. cities found that those in the Midwest had an average of 12% vacant land, and a national
dM
29 average of 15% (Pagano and Bowman 2000)3.
30
31
32
33 As alluded to above, UA manifests itself in a number of different structures and locations within
34 the built environment. Attempts have been in the literature to classify UA; Mok et al (2013) have
35
36 identified three distinct scales of agriculture in urban systems. These are (in order of decreasing
37
38
size): small commercial farms and community-supported agriculture, community gardens, and
39 backyard gardens. All of these UA scales differ in their structure, inputs, and productivity; as a
pte
40
41 result, their net impact on life cycle energy demand, and other resource inputs, also varies.
42
Goldstein et al (2016b) further classify UA to consider structure and inputs in a taxonomic
43
44 scheme, based on the conditioning required for the growing environment (temperature, light and
45
46 CO2 control) and integration within the surrounding urban system (building integrated or ground
47 based). They claim that both features are important to UA energy regimes, with conditioning of
48
ce
49 the space (particularly the need for heating in cold climates) being an essential consideration,
50
51
1
52 Thebo et al (2014) define urban agriculture as the spatial coincidence of agricultural areas with urban
53 extents with populations over 50,000
2 Peri-urban agriculture refers to agricultural production that occur at the urban-rural interface
Ac
54
3 Data include Chicago did not provide data for this study to allow a direct comparison, hence Midwest
55
56 was used; as well, it is not being suggested here that all vacant land be allocated to, or are suitable for,
57 UA.
58
59
60
1
2
3 along with the potential for building integrated farms to utilize dissipative heat and CO 2 to offset
4
pt
5 production inputs.
6
7
8 A broad classification of UA is provided in Table 1, which is roughly ordered by scale and
9
cri
10 sophistication of production. It should be highlighted that while the preservation of peri-urban
11
12
agriculture can be captured in assessments of UA, the focus of this review is on approaches to
13 scaling up UA that are integrated into the built environment, rather than on maintaining existing
14
15 agricultural land in the urban periphery. Hence, large scale conventional peri-urban agriculture
16 is beyond the scope of inquiry here.
us
17
18
19 Table 1: Type of Urban Agriculture Associated with Structure/Location of Production, Potential Beneficial
20 Energy Impacts Relative to Intensive Rural Agriculture, and Requirements for Upscaling
21
22 Authors' Definition Potential Direct Considerations for Sources
23
24
25
26
27
28
Type of
Urban
Agriculture
Residential
Gardens
Open air or protected4
food production
an
Energy Benefits
Non-mechanized
inputs
Successful
Upscaling
Knowledge
dissemination for
(Kulak et al
2013, Altieri et
dM
29
30 occurring within the Reduced cold production, al 1999)
31 preservation;
boundaries of a chain / retail
32 regulations for
33
residential property, requirement application of
34 primarily for personal (onsite end- fertilizers,
35 consumption consumption) pesticides;
36 appropriate crop
37 selection
38 Allotment Open air or protected Non-mechanized Municipal (Leach 1975)
39
and food production inputs allocation of green
pte
40
41 Community occurring upon Reduced cold space; expedited
chain / retail application
42 Gardens5 community or
43 requirement approval to
municipally-owned land, facilitate utility
44
45 primarily for personal connection; mulch
46 consumption from municipal
47 greenspace
48
ce
maintenance
49 Rooftop / Open air or protected Thermal transfer Building code (Sany-
50 consideration
Balcony food production from rooftop Mengual et al
51
52
4 Protected food production refers to enclosed environments (e.g., with polyethylene or glass) that are not
53
climate-controlled; Controlled environment food production includes both protected environments and
Ac
54
55 those with supplemental heat
5 Urban or peri-urban agricultural space designated and protected by municipalities or community groups
56
57 for non-commercial purposes
58
59
60
1
2
3
Agriculture occurring on structures Improved yield (structural, 2015, Saiz et al
4
utilities)
pt
5 built for other primary Improved building 2006, Specht et
6 functions, for either insulation al 2013, Grard
7 personal consumption or Onsite waste et al 2015,
8
commercial availability. diversion Orsini et al
9
2014)
cri
10
11 Industry/ Controlled-environment Waste heat/CO2 Inventory of urban (Zhang et al
12 Residence- food production with utilization resource streams 2013)
13 Zoning by-laws to
Integrated supplemental heating, Improved yield
14 enable co-location
15 Greenhouse integrated into
of agriculture with
16 structures built for other resources
us
17 primary functions that
18
involve purpose-built
19
20 infrastructure for yield
21 improvement towards
22 commercial availability.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Vertical
Farms
Controlled-environment
food production with
supplemental heating, in
multi-story structures
developed with the
an
Onsite waste
diversion (e.g.,
waste-to-feed for
livestock
operations)
Building code
changes
(structural,
utilities)
Innovations in
lighting,
(Despommier
2013,
2015)
Hamm
dM
29
30 primary function of crop Potential for on- agriculture system
31 production for site nutrient integration in built
32 commercial availability. cycling environment
33 Generally located within Improved yield Low-carbon grid
34 due to expected
35 urban boundaries
substantial energy
36
requirements
37
38
39 Peri-Urban Open air, protected, or Preservation of Legal protection of (Francis et al
peripheral
pte
40 Agriculture supplemental heat high-yielding 2012, Krannich

41 environment food prime agricultural farmlands from 2006)
42 incompatible
production at the urban- land
43 urban
44 rural interface. Generally development
45 for commercial
46 availability, but may
47
include subsistence
48
ce
49 agriculture in
50 developing-world
51 contexts.
52
53
Ac
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Energy Consumption in the Food System and Urban Agriculture
4
pt
5
6
7 The modern food system encompasses a broad collection of energy end-users. Starting from
8 the agricultural phase through transportation of food to retailers and households, and
9
cri
10 culminating in waste handling, the current predominantly linear structure of the food system is
11
12
highly dependent on energy inputs for its operations of production, processing, distribution,
13 consumption and disposal of food products (Pimentel et al 2008). Examining the U.S. case, the
14
15 USDA ERS (2010) estimates that nearly 14.4% of total national energy consumption in 2002
16 was food-related. A breakdown of this consumption is provided in Figure 1.
us
17
18
19
20 The majority of energy use in the food system occurs beyond the farm gate; the United Nations
21 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that over 75% of energy use in the food
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
system of high-income nations occurs after cultivation (Food and Agriculture Organization
2013). This is consistent with the 2002 U.S. analysis in Figure 1, which suggests that the post-
agricultural energy use share is over 87%. However, the potential for UA to impact energy
demand beyond production is substantial (e.g., packaging, processing, transportation, waste
dM
29 management), as discussed below. In addition, Figure 1 excludes wastewater and food waste
30
31 treatment; therefore, a complete consideration of energy use associated with the expansion of
32
33 UA will require an examination of not only food production but also energy inputs across the
34 entire food system, including waste handling and treatment. Changes in energy use relative to
35
36 the status quo must also investigate the food-energy-water nexus to validate the environmental
37
38
case for scaling up UA and avoid any unintended shift of impacts from one resource system
39 (i.e., food) to another (i.e., water).
pte
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
ce
49
50
51
52
53
Ac
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
pt
5
6
7 Agriculture
8 13%
9 Households
cri
10 29%
11 Processing
12 17%
13
14
Food Services
15 Packaging
16 18%
Wholesale / 5%
us
17 Retail
18 Transportation
15%
19 3%
20
Total = 14,760 PJ
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Figure 1: Energy Consumption in the U.S. Food System in 2002 (Source: Adapted from Pelletier et al 2011,
from Canning et al 2010)
dM
29 Energy Benefits of Urban Agriculture
30
31
32 In support of a resurgence in UA, proponents have suggested that a number of energy-related
33 benefits are realized through food production within cities (Howe and Wheeler 1999, Garnett
34
35 1997, Smit and Nasr 1992, Kulak et al 2013). Studies most commonly highlight savings in
36
37 transportation energy, reduced storage requirements at the wholesale/resale level, and energy
38 inputs of food waste/loss along the supply chain, but can also include additional biomass
39
provision from silviculture (i.e., to offset energy imports; Smit and Nasr 1992), easier exploitation
pte
40
41
of resource use (Zhang et al 2013), and lower resource-intensity of production (Kulak et al
42
43 2013). Meanwhile, peri-urban agriculture can preserve higher-yielding prime agricultural land
44
45 (Krannich 2006, Francis et al 2012), which have the potential to provide less resource-intensive
46 production. Looking at more sophisticated integrated operations (vertical farms, integrated
47
48 greenhouses), exploited waste streams (CO2, heat, macronutrients) could offset energy
ce
49
50 requirements for providing these resources in conventional operations (Despommier 2013,
51 Zhang et al 2013). Additionally, if the distributed nature of UA can be supported by a similarly
52
53 distributed energy infrastructure system, food/agriculture waste can be digested locally to
Ac
54
generate biogas for heat or electricity production, further decreasing the energy footprint of UA.
55
56 Energy-related benefits associated with the various structures/locations of UA have also been
57
58 described in Table 1 (excluding transportation).
59
60
1
2
3
4
pt
5 Interactions with Other Components of the Urban Food-Energy-Water Nexus
6
7
8
Urban agriculture has the potential to affect energy-related components of the food-energy-
9 water system within urban boundaries and beyond. Suggestions of positive and negative
cri
10
11 impacts, both within and beyond the urban boundary, are presented in Table 2. It is important to
12 note that energy demand for services required in UA can differ from those provided through
13
14 open-field agriculture. An exploration of literature that can provide greater insight on how these
15
16 different UA approaches can influence energy needs follows.
us
17
18
19 Energy Demand for UA Water Systems
20
21
Energy demand in irrigation systems are a noteworthy component of scaled-up UA that must be
22 considered in order to avoid inadvertently increasing demand relative to conventional open-field
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
systems. Irrigation systems in an open-field agricultural setting are relatively low-energy when
compared with potable urban water systems that could be used in UA; in one study open field
irrigation was estimated at 0.63 MJ/m3 water (Esengun et al 2007; used in the absence of a
similar U.S. case study). However, in an urban agricultural system, potable water may be used
dM
29
30 for irrigation and generally requires substantially more energy for treatment, with the Electric
31
32 Power Research Institute (2002) suggesting an estimate of 1.3 MJ/m3 and 1.7 MJ/m3 for public
33
34
utilities using surface and groundwater, respectively (including distribution) for a hypothetical 10
35 million gallon per day treatment plant. Meanwhile, Racoviceanu et al (2007) estimate energy
36
37 demand at 2.3-2.5 MJ/m3 treated water used in the City of Torontos water treatment. The
38
Racoviceanu et al (2007) study considers a surface water source, and includes chemical
39
pte
40 fabrication/transportation, treatment, and onsite pumping, though most of total energy intensity
41
42 (~70%) is attributable to untreated & treated water pumping. Data on Massachusetts' 2007
43 energy demand for water treatment and distribution suggests an average value of 1.4 MJ/m 3
44
45 (US Environmental Protection Agency 2008), whereas California's 2005 report on the energy-
46
47
water relationship provides estimates of 1.4 MJ/m3 and 9.7 MJ/m3 for Northern and Southern
48
ce
California, respectively (range attributable to differences in energy required for conveyance from
49
50 source to treatment facilities; Klein et al 2005). This latter California report also suggests that
51
when desalination options are employed in water treatment, an additional 9.3 - 15.7 MJ/m3 and
52
53 3.7 - 9.3 MJ/m3 are required for seawater and brackish groundwater, respectively. It is worth
Ac
54
55 noting that pumping requirements for surface and groundwater (also, the depth of the latter), as
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 well as on-farm treatment, will influence the energy demand and could bring this figure closer in
4
pt
5 line with that from water utilities.
6
7
8 The types of secondary energy used can also vary for different types of irrigation, influencing
9
cri
10 both cost and GHG emissions. For example, Ontario, Canada's field crop irrigation is typically
11
12
powered by diesel systems, while greenhouse irrigation is generally powered by electricity
13 (Carol 2010). Diesel has an emissions intensity of 74 kg CO2e/GJ, while electricity grid GHG
14
15 intensity in Ontario was 14 kg CO2e/GJ in 2014 (IPCC 2006; Chapter 3). For comparison, U.S.
16 electricity emissions intensities ranged from 1 to 266 kg CO2e/GJ in 2012 (US EPA 2015).
us
17
18
19
20 Water/Energy Trade-offs for UA Production Methods
21 Water use can be mitigated through the use of more water-efficient systems, such as
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
hydroponic systems, though the selection of more sophisticated growing methods can result in
increased energy demand and resultant GHG emissions. For example, hydroponic6 systems
have shown to have lower water demands than soil-based production, in addition to avoiding
the need for a solid growing medium and the associated energy inputs of its provision (Albaho
dM
29 et al 2008). However, Barbosa et al (2015) have modelled energy and water demands between
30
31 hydroponic and conventional production systems for lettuce; while water demand was reduced
32
33 by 92% (250 to 20 l/kg-y), energy demand increased by 8100% (1,100 to 90,000 kJ/kg-y), due
34 primarily to heating and cooling loads (74,000 KJ/kg-y), artificial lighting (15,000 kJ/kg-y) and
35
36 circulating pumps (640 kJ/kg-y).
37
38
39 Focusing on energy,Shiina et al (2011) study hydroponic urban plant factories (temperature
pte
40
41 controlled, artificial lighting and humidity controlled) in Japan, and show that the energy intensity
42
of the production resulted in estimated greenhouse emissions of 6.4 kg CO2e/kg lettuce, despite
43
44 the operations high yields. Continuing to use GHG emissions as a proxy for energy demand,
45
46 this compares with estimates of 0.2 and 0.9 kg CO2e/kg for lettuce from Michigan hoop houses
47 and California open field lettuce production (Plawecki et al 2014), and ranges of between 0.24 -
48
ce
49 2.62 kg CO2e/kg for lettuce from European open field and hothouse production (Hospido et al
50
51
2009). Meanwhile, Goldstein et al (2016a) compared cumulative energy demand of rooftop
52 hydroponic greenhouse tomatoes and conventional production and find the former to be
53
Ac
54
55
6Hydroponic systems are those that involve the culture of plants in the absence of soil in a nutrient-
56
57 supplemented water medium ("Hydroponics", in Anonymous 2017)
58
59
60
1
2
3 roughly 10 times as energy intensive, with important implications for carbon footprint. However,
4
pt
5 switching to hydroelectric or solar PV makes rooftop hydroponic greenhouse production less
6
7 carbon intensive than conventional production.
8
9
cri
10 These demonstrate that are potential for trade-offs when addressing environmental footprints
11
12
through UA if focusing on a single performance metric (i.e., water alone). Though, as
13 hydroponic growing systems can be used in controlled, protected, and open-field growing
14
15 systems and with a wide selection of hydroponic technology options available, variation can be
16 expected in the yields and energy demand of hydroponic operations; this introduces uncertainty
us
17
18 in applying these figures to specific contexts, but underscores the need for careful consideration
19
20 in designing for energy and water demand reduction.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alternative Irrigation Sources
an
Urban agricultural systems provide an application for rainwater collection, as well as
black/greywater7, all of which could reduce wastewater volumes and stormwater runoff, and
potentially improve surface water quality and decrease net energy use as a result (i.e., due to
dM
29 UA irrigation needs and the avoidance of downstream wastewater treatment). As examples,
30
31 wastewater treatment in California and Massachusetts is estimated to require, on average, 1.7
32
33 and 2.4 MJ/m3, respectively (US Environmental Protection Agency 2008, Klein et al 2005). This
34 has the potential to be reduced if conveyance and treatment requirements are avoided through
35
36 application of wastewater in UA. Further, if stormwater can be diverted from treatment plants to
37
38
UA in jurisdictions using combined sewer systems, additional energy demand, as well as
39 pollutants to receiving bodies, could be spared. Nevertheless, substantial diversion of rainwater
pte
40
41 for UA from lakes and rivers that conventionally receive it could contribute to local/regional
42
ecosystem decline or surface water quality (Goldstein et al 2016a). Finally, depending on how
43
44 UA is managed, runoff from open field urban farms could result in increased nutrient loads being
45
46 passed down to receiving bodies or downstream wastewater treatment plants (Pataki et al
47 2011). Upscaling UA could result in this being an additional source of non-point pollution for
48
ce
49 consideration by city managers/planners.

50
51
52 Packaging Materials
53
Ac
54
55
7Blackwater refers to wastewater conveying faeces and urine, while greywater includes other wastewater
56
57 streams from human use that do not (i.e., dishwater, shower water)
58
59
60
1
2
3 The use of packaging materials can also potentially be avoided in UA operations, in instances of
4
pt
5 production for personal consumption or within shorter distribution chains such as when food is
6
7 sold directly by the producer (Garnett 1999). For example, the climate impacts of the embodied
8 energy of polyethylene terephthalate clamshells and polystyrene trays that are often used in
9
cri
10 tomato packaging (again, using carbon as a proxy for energy use) were estimated to be 25%
11
12
and 100% greater, respectively, per unit mass of tomato when compared to loose packaging
13 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2010). Still, the authors also noted that modified
14
15 atmosphere packaging using plastics have been shown to increase shelf life by two or three
16 times, which may reduce waste and, consequently, GHGs associated with tomato production
us
17
18 and disposal. This waste reduction could then offset the embodied energy needed for the
19
20 packaging material that provides this added shelf life.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
The use of packaging does not also need to be an all or nothing proposition; employing some
packaging for various meal components can result in a net energy savings (relative to typical
packaging configurations) when accounting for avoided waste and marginal energy
requirements, such as with semi-prepared foods examined by Hanssen et al (2017) which
dM
29 produced meals that were slightly more energy efficient compared with those prepared from
30
31 scratch. It is important to recognize the energy intensities inherent in food products and
32
33 packaging materials being considered; higher embodied energy food products (cheese, beef,
34 bread) more easily justifying the additional energy inputs associated with packaging than
35
36 unprocessed fruits and vegetables (Williams and Wikstrom 2011). Similarly, the application of
37
38
plastic films and containers may be more easily justified than and steel, aluminum, or glass.
39
pte
40
41 Transportation and Supply Chain Considerations
42
While UA and other forms of localization are often intuitively thought to reduce life cycle energy
43
44 demand, the reality is more complicated (Webb et al 2013). Supply chains crossing a variety of
45
46 artificial jurisdictional boundaries may in fact be more direct than those created by constraining
47 agriculture within a region/state, depending on the product, consumption point, and regional
48
ce
49 characteristics (Nicholson et al 2015). Broad-scale localization of agriculture has the potential to

50
51
increase transportation energy, as well as associated GHG emissions, relative to the
52 conventional supply chain if definitions of local and implications of modified supply networks,
53
including transport modes, are not carefully considered. Indeed, a commonly cited reason to
Ac
54
55
pursue UA is to reduce energy-related impacts associated with transportation. Estimates of
56
57 transportation's contribution to the food system's energy demand and GHG emissions have
58
59
60
1
2
3 been estimated at approximately 10% or less (Weber and Matthews 2008, USDA ERS 2010,
4
pt
5 Garnett 2011).
6
7
8 Numerous studies from the literature (Coley et al 2009, Edwards-Jones et al 2008, Pirog et al
9
2001) have challenged the common assumption that localizing food production results in
cri
10
11
12
reduced transport energy use and GHG emissions, and effects on distribution networks need to
13 be evaluated on a case basis to justify such a claim. For instance, transport-related impacts for
14
15 cheese shipped 20,000 km from New Zealand to consumers in England by boat were
16 dominated by road-freight and consumer automobile use, highlighting the limitations of singular
us
17
18 focus on transport distance (Basset-Mens et al 2007). The GHG implications of external energy
19
20 inputs to support year-round urban food production and their ability to overwhelm gains
21 achieved through reduced distribution distances must be considered in the context of upscaling
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of urban food production.
Urban Heat Island Mitigation an

The predominance of dark surfaces in cities results in the absorption of solar radiation and
dM
29 elevated temperatures in and around urban areas, raising the demand for cooling energy (the
30
31 urban heat island effect; Oke 1973). Urban agriculture could play a role in attenuating this
32
33 phenomenon, through increasing surface albedo and the cooling effect of plant
34 evapotranspiration (Ackerman et al 2014). Vegetation situated on buildings has been shown to
35
36 reduce individual building cooling demands in Toronto, CA, Madrid, ES and La Rochelle, FR
37
38
(Bass and Baskaran 2001, Saiz et al 2006, Jaffal et al 2012). Ackermann and colleagues
39 estimated that scaling up UA in New York City could play an important role in reducing the local
pte
40
41 urban heat island by 22-44% (~1 C), mitigating energy demands for cooling (Ackerman 2012).
42
The importance of this ancillary benefit of UA could become more important with the increasing
43
44 frequency and severity of heat waves under likely climate change scenarios (Jansson 2013).
45
46
47 Impact of Type of Production System
48
ce
49 Assuming UA may involve the use of protective structures or controlled environments, it is

50
51
relevant to consider the energy demand associated with such structures. Generally speaking,
52 open-field and protected agriculture (e.g., hoop houses with no supplemental heating) have
53
been found to require lower energy inputs than heated systems (e.g., heated greenhouses).
Ac
54
55
Studies focusing on open-field conventional tomato production in the US and the Mediterranean
56
57 had energy inputs for production of 140-280 MJ/Mg (Brodt et al 2013, Tamburini et al 2015). An
58
59
60
1
2
3 average of three Moroccan protected tomato operations had energy inputs for production of 460
4
pt
5 MJ/Mg (Payen et al 2015). With hothouse operations, energy input can increase further, with a
6
7 selection of studies focusing on tomato cultivation showing energy inputs ranging from 425,
8 28,500, 76,000 MJ/Mg for and Northern Italy, France, and Iran, respectively (Heidari and Omid
9
cri
10 2011, Boulard et al 2011, Almeida et al 2014). In the French case, heated operations required 6
11
12
times more energy per unit of weight than the protected system (Boulard et al 2011). Goldstein
13 et al (2016a) found similar patterns of variation for tomatoes depending on production method,
14
15 with resource requirements presented in Table 2 (modified here to present consistent units).
16
us
17
18 Table 2: Energy and water demand per unit yielded for various tomato production systems
19
20 (modified from Goldstein et al, 2016a)
21 Production System Irrigation Water (m3/Mg) Direct & Indirect Energy
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ground-Based Non-
Conditioned (two cases)
Ground-Based Conditioned
50; 74
65
an Demand (MJ/Mg)
6,500; 2,600
33,000
dM
29
30 Building-Integrated Non- 68 3,300
31 Conditioned
32
33 Building-Integrated 9 56,000
34
Conditioned
35
36 Conventional (conditioned) 2 10,000
37
38
39
Nevertheless, studies that directly compare controlled-environment growing with open-field
pte
40
41 agriculture for certain crop types present a mixed picture. In one study, Martnez-Blanco et al
42
43 (2011) found that life cycle cumulative energy inputs per ton of protective structure greenhouse
44 tomatoes produced in Catalonia was 13% greater when compared with open-field production
45
46 (considering operations using mineral fertilizer inputs only). The additional energy demand in
47
48 the greenhouse operations is dominated by the greenhouse structure, in spite of some savings
ce
49 realized through reduced cultivation-stage fertigation infrastructure, nursery plants and irrigation
50
51 needs. Kuswardhani et al (2013), however, found that energy demand per unit mass in
52
Indonesia was higher for open-field tomato when compared to protective structure greenhouses,
53
Ac
54 but lower for lettuce; this is attributed to higher fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide needs for
55
56 tomatoes (predominantly the latter), whereas lettuce was lower in spite of this higher demand
57 (and higher labor) due to the substantial electricity requirements for the drip irrigation system
58
59
60
1
2
3 used in the greenhouse lettuce. Their study did not include the embodied energy of the
4
pt
5 greenhouse structure.
6
7
8 Studies for tomato production in Antalya, Turkey suggest that energy requirements per kg
9
cri
10 yielded for protective structure greenhouse tomato production were approximately 30% lower
11
12
than that in open fields (Esengun et al 2007, Hatirli et al 2006). The greater productivity coupled
13 with lower labor, machinery, and irrigation energy provide a net energy saving relative to open
14
15 fields, in spite of greater fertilizer, electricity, and pesticide inputs for these greenhouses. This
16 study also excludes embodied energy of greenhouse infrastructure. When taken together, these
us
17
18 studies suggest that inputs required for UA will be operation, crop, and climate dependent,
19
20 emphasizing the need for consideration of these elements when making comparisons and
21 considering UA expansion.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
With respect to soilless production systems, Albaho et al (2008) state that aeroponic8 systems
require an uninterrupted electrical supply but it is unclear as to whether this energy demand is
offset by lower inputs and higher yields relative to conventional controlled-environment or
dM
29 hydroponic systems. A summary of the energy implications of production methods is provided in
30
31 3, along with estimates of energy implications from efforts to scale up UA in Table 4.
32
33
34 Table 3: Energy Implications of Different Production Methods
35
36 Energy Benefits Energy Costs
37
Production Method
38
39 Open Air - Large Scale Reliant on natural systems for Centralized and seasonal
pte
40 photosynthesis, growing production systems that tend to

41 environment, and, to some require complex distribution
42
43
extent, water supply networks that necessitate
44 transportation and cold storage
45 Open Air - Small Scale Reliant on natural systems for Input practices dependent on skill
46 (e.g. balcony, photosynthesis; avoids of UA practitioner (potential for
47
48
allotment, residential conventional distribution excessive use), system design
ce
49 garden) network (e.g., moisture retention of planter

50 boxes compared with field)
51
52
53
Ac
54
55
8Aeroponic systems are those that involve the culture of plants in the absence of soil or hydroponic
56
57 media (Anonymous 2011)
58
59
60
1
2
3
Controlled Environment Higher yields; can be located Relatively high embodied energy
4
pt
5 - Protected Agriculture close to consumption, with an inputs of capital per production unit
6 extended growing season; low when compared with open field
7 material inputs relative to other
8
9 Controlled Environment Higher yields; can be located As above, but with energy inputs
cri
10 -Conventional close to consumption, with an for lighting, irrigation systems, or
11 Greenhouses extended growing season other control systems, in addition to
12 growing medium
13
14 Controlled Environment Higher yields; can be located As above, but with added operating
15
16
Advanced Soilless close to consumption, with an energy from soilless systems (e.g.,
Systems extended growing season pumping, dosing equipment)
us
17
18
19
20
21 Table 4: Estimated Energy Impacts Within and Beyond Urban Boundaries from Scaling Up Urban Agriculture
22 on the Broader FEW System
23
24
25
26
27
28
Within Urban Boundaries
Upward Pressure
an Beyond Urban Boundaries
Upward Pressure
dM
29 Heating (for some controlled Construction materials (e.g., steel
30
31 environment agriculture) framing, LDPE sheeting,
32 Water/wastewater treatment polycarbonate glazing)1,2,3
33 (conventional network usage)
34 Labor (paid or unpaid)
35
36 Transportation (in cases of inefficient
37 local supply chain)
38
39
pte
40 Downward Pressure Downward Pressure

41
42 Transportation (e.g., backyard Irrigation water (through
43 gardens) controlled-environment
44 Waste disposal (assuming less loss agriculture)
45 along supply chain) Inorganic inputs (wastewater
46
47 Water/wastewater (decentralized reuse)
48 usage) Machinery / capital (human
ce
49 Building energy demand (e.g., inputs)

50 evapotranspiration, green roofs) Packaging materials
51
52 Cold-chain requirements
53
Ac
54 1
55 Goldstein et al (2016); 2 Martnez-Blanco et al (2011); 3 Kulak et al (2013)
56
57 Drivers of Variability
58
59
60
1
2
3 Judging the pressures production systems have on resource demands requires reflection on a
4
pt
5 number of contextual factors. For example, local climate/geography may reduce the need for
6
7 energy-intensive inputs (i.e., mild climate, plentiful surface/rain water). As well, does existing
8 infrastructure (green and grey) provide access to necessary inputs (nutrients, water, energy,
9
cri
10 labor, and growing media). This reflection may also include questions such as whether there is
11
12
an abundance of low-grade heat that is accessible for exploitation and is the supplier (i.e., a
13 local utility) amenable to supporting its exploitation, or perhaps if there is an existing agreement
14
15 to supply nutrients from wastewater to peri-urban agriculture or further afield. Additionally, an
16 abundance of uncontaminated vacant land or a low population density may make open-field or
us
17
18 protected systems the most plausible approach (e.g., Detroit). Further considerations with
19
20 respect to publically-owned land might be whether these local green spaces are compatible with
21 UA integration, when safety, waste collection, accessibility, and public demand are taken into
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
account. Finally, Pelletier et al (2011) suggest that scale of production systems may also play a
role in energy efficiency; though scale in itself is not an indicator of energy efficient production,
smaller operations have been observed to have lower energy intensities for tomatoes and
swine. It is clear that further research is needed to parse out the roles that scale, climate,
dM
29 existing infrastructure, waste resource availability can have on the overall energy picture of UA
30
31 operations. Moreover, an assessment of the local context is necessary before promoting any
32
33 particular UA approach, along with the accompanying resource demands these systems require
34 in a given context.
35
36
37
38
Exploiting Urban Resources for Local Agriculture
39
pte
40
41 Numerous opportunities exist to scale up UA in an energy-efficient manner, both within present
42
urban systems and carefully-planned future developments. If, however, an industrial ecology
43
44 lens were applied for future planning, a paradigm shift in food systems integration could be
45
46 achieved with respect to the ability to integrate the urban FEW system, including opportunities
47 for food waste, wastewater, and waste heat/CO2 recovery. In industrial ecology, efforts are
48
ce
49 made to mimic natural ecosystems through more efficient use of resources through the
50
51
exploitation of waste streams by other production systems (Clift and Druckman 2016).
52
53
The urban form can be re-imagined to facilitate the incorporation of UA in a truly integrated way.
Ac
54
55
The concept of co-locating agriculture would imply more than preserving peri-urban agriculture
56
57 and household gardens; it would focus on identifying spaces within built-up areas that are
58
59
60
1
2
3 amenable to agriculture and that are also within close proximity to agricultural inputs (waste
4
pt
5 heat, compost, wastewater and flue CO2 from compatible sources). One example of such an
6
7 eco-industrial system in a rural setting is described by Zhang et al (2013), where yields can be
8 improved from CO2 fertilization through the integration of manure management and greenhouse
9
cri
10 operations. Biogas generated from the manure disposal system is used in place of natural gas
11
12
to heat the greenhouses and fertilize with CO2, while reducing emissions of GHGs and air
13 pollutants. Metson et al (2012) demonstrate that the co-location of agriculture near urban areas
14
15 can enable improved resource efficiency. In their Arizona study, they found that the increasing
16 dairy demand from a growing city was accompanied by an expansion of dairies and alfalfa
us
17
18 farms (for feed) in its hinterlands; the alfalfa farms utilized cow manure from the dairies, as well
19
20 as biosolids from urban wastewater, as a source of phosphorous, increasing the local nutrient
21 cycling in the city-region. If planners are able to identify or (ideally) inventory projected/current
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
UA-related resource streams, the overall embodied or direct energy demand associated with
these UA systems can be reduced more deliberately and, presumably, more effectively.
A summary of key resource streams that are valuable in agriculture is provided in Table 5,
dM
29 along with their conventional energy inputs as stated in a variety of literature sources. The
30
31 extent to which these energy demands will be offset will differ depending on the agriculture
32
33 operation.
34
35
36 Table 5: Key Agricultural Resource Streams, Potential Urban Sources, and Energy Requirement for Resource
37 Stream Use in Conventional Urban Agricultural Systems
38
39 Potential Alternative Energy Requirement - Source of Energy
pte
40 Urban Sources Conventional Sources Requirement Data

41 Urban
42 Resource
43 Stream
44
45
Treated Water Decentralized 1.33-1.40 MJ/m3 Electric Power Research
46
47 wastewater treatment (surface water) Institute (2002)
48 Rain barrels ~1.73 MJ/m3
ce
49 Grey water (groundwater)

50
51
52
Heat & Carbon Electricity generation ~2,500 kWh / m2-year Calculated from British
53 Dioxidei Residential furnaces, (greenhouse heated Columbia case study
with natural gas) (Zhang et al 2013)
Ac
54 boilers, hot water

55 heaters
56
57 Industrial /
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 commercial waste
pt
5 heat
6
Anaerobic digesters
7
8 Heat transferred from
9 conditions buildings
cri
10 Sewage networks
11
12
13
Nitrogen Green roof 13.8 MJ/kg (34.5% Audsley et al (1997);
14 Digestate from AD NH4NO3) Danish and UK data
15 Human biosolids 14.5 MJ/kg (NH4SO4)
16
Animal manure 15.1 MJ/kg (27.5%
us
17
Compost NH4NO3)
18
19 Industrial waste 32.58 MJ/kg
20 streams (CH4N2O)iii
21 EU Avg - 35.28 MJ/kg Smith et al (2001)
22
(Urea); Best - 1.84
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
MJ/kg
57.46 MJ/kg (US)
Feedstock - 25.52 -
27.65 MJ/kg (UK)
Indirect & Direct
West and Marland (2002)
Mortimer and Cormack
(2003) NH4NO3;
appendix C
dM
29
30 Energy - 8.4 - 19.6
31 MJ/kg (UK)
32
33 Phosphorous 3.82 MJ/kg Hansen (2006)ii
34
35 9.72 - 18.72 MJ/kg Audsley et al (1997)
36 (EU) Smith et al (2001)
37 EU Avg - 36.22
38 MJ/kg; Best - 1.82
39
MJ/kg (P2O5)
pte
40
41 7.02 MJ/kg (P2O5) West and Marland (2002)
42 (US)
43 15.80 MJ/kg (P2O5) Elsayed et al (2003)
44
45 (EU)
46
47 Potassium 0.54 MJ/kg Hansen (2006)ii
48 5.00 MJ/kgiv Audsley et al (1997)
ce
49 EU Avg - 11.20 Smith et al (2001)

50
MJ/kg; Best - 0.58
51
52 MJ/kg (K2O)
53 6.84 MJ/kg (K2O) (US) West and Marland (2002)
Ac
54 9.29 MJ/kg (K2O) (EU) Elsayed et al (2003)

55
56 Calcium 1.73 MJ/kg (CaCO3) West and Marland (2002)
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4 (US)
pt
5 2.09 MJ/kg (CaO) Elsayed et al (2003)
6 (EU)
7
8
9
Miscellaneous Municipal solid waste 0.11 MJ/kg steel (for (Althaus n.d.) -Ecoinvent
cri
10 for construction hoop house or 3, Life Cycle Inventories of
11 materials (e.g., hoop greenhouse Metals 2009
12 houses) structures)
13
14
15 i
to be diverted to boost yields of greenhouse operations iiexcludes "inherent" (embodied) energy
16
of CH4, 30.5 MJ/kg N; iii including mining energy demand, as reported in Bockman et al, 1990; iv
us
17
18 sum of natural gas, electricity and coke used in manufacture of chromium steel
19
20 With the increasing frequency of extreme weather events and uncertainty of future water
21
22 availability, agriculture production in the U.S. has the potential to be negatively affected by
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
climate change (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2014). Urban agriculture could
increase resilience against these (as it historically has done during resource shocks through the
centuries, per Barthel and Isendahl 2013), while reducing environmental impacts within the
current infrastructural construct; these benefits could be even greater if an industrial ecology
dM
29
30 approach is taken. Indeed, controlled-environment production systems can potentially protect
31
32 crops from the climate variability and extremes that would otherwise disturb open-field
33 production systems. These more secure, and higher yielding (Martnez-Blanco et al 2011)
34
35 operations would bring greater certainty in yields as well as improved resilience, relative to the
36
37 uncertainty of the broader food supply chain. In addition, controlled-environment agriculture
38 systems can be planned for integration into new and existing buildings and industries, to make
39
better use of inputs that are predominantly from urban waste streams (e.g., flue gas, waste
pte
40
41
heat, wastewater, biosolids). The following sections provide a discussion of strategies to deploy
42
43 controlled-environment agriculture within the current infrastructural context and within an
44
45 interconnected UA ecosystem that is designed for resource recovery from waste streams.
46
47
48 Energy Production from Food Waste
ce
49
50
51 Food waste has the potential to be converted to a useful energy resource in the form of biogas,
52
53 with many cities already collecting source-separated organics for processing in local anaerobic
Ac
54
digesters (Ukun Kiran et al 2014, Sanscartier et al 2012, Mohareb et al 2011, Bernstad and la
55
56 Cour Jansen 2011). Following the potential for circular resource use suggested by Metson et al
57
58 (2012), the proximity of increased urban food waste from both production as well as further
59
60
1
2
3 down the food supply chain could provide a greater feedstock for co-located urban anaerobic
4
pt
5 digestion (AD) systems. In addition, digestate produced from these facilities could find local end-
6
7 uses in UA operations, facilitating a circular material flow. Governments are currently promoting
8 UA to reduce the carbon footprint of cities (Arup and C40 Cities 2014). Keeping this objective in
9
cri
10 mind, it is important to consider how food waste (a major component of GHG emissions from
11
12
landfills; USEPA 2017) can be better utilized within a more cyclical UA system.
13
14
15 Using food waste for energy generation through AD provides an opportunity for resilient
16 distributed energy generation while decreasing the impact of food waste on downstream
us
17
18 systems (landfills, wastewater treatment plants). Levis and Barlaz (2011) assessed the
19
20 environmental performance of food waste disposal in nine common waste management
21 systems and found that AD performed best with respect to GHG emissions, NOx, SO2 and net
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
energy demand. Further, considering the proximity to potential end users, the use of biogas
from AD facilities for both heat and electricity production could become more economically
attractive in an urban context, especially with local UA consumers of waste CO2 (from biogas
production) and AD digestate. It is estimated that the U.S. cities produce 130 Mt of food waste
dM
29 annually9. Using estimates of 184 kWh of electricity and 810 MJ heat/Mg of wet waste (from
30
31 Mller et al 2009), this quantity of food waste has the potential to provide electricity for 7.2
32
33 million Nissan Leaf all-electric vehicles [2]10 and the equivalent heating demand for over 1.5
34 million Michigan homes11, respectively.
35
36
37
38 Cities are currently operating AD facilities that are providing energy to the broader community.
39 Barcelona is treating 192,000 t yr-1 of its organic fraction of municipal solid waste (OFMSW)
pte
40
41 through AD, having a positive energy balance of around 2.2 MJ produced/MJ consumed at the
42
43
facility from pre-treatments and digester pumping/stirring (Romero-Guiza et al 2014).
44 Additionally, anaerobic co-digestion with sewage sludge could enhance biogas production and
45
46 deals with the seasonality that food waste from UA can present (Fonoll et al 2015, Shrestha et
47 al 2017). Policy interventions will likely be necessary to encourage broader investment in AD
48
ce
49
50
9Uses an estimate of 500 kg of food discarded per capita in 2010 from retail and consumers (USDA ERS
51
52 2013) and a U.S. urban population of 261,427,500 (US Census Bureau 2015)
10
53 Assuming 11,500 miles per year (Heller and Keoleian 2015), Leaf mileage of 29 kWh/100
Ac
54 miles (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/)
55 11
Average Michigan home consumes 123 million BTU, 55% for heating
56
57 http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/state_briefs/pdf/mi.pdf
58
59
60
1
2
3 (Binkley et al 2013). For example, in the North of Italy, 26,00028,000 of OFMSW are treated
4
pt
5 each year in AD plant; while the facility has obtained a positive cash flow of 2,500 k/year, an
6
7 incentive for the use/generation of renewable energy was needed to enable this to occur (Riva
8 et al 2014).
9
cri
10
11
12
Beyond energy production, AD offers additional benefits. Situating anaerobic digesters near UA
13 operations could enable the reuse of digestate (such as in Garf et al 2011)), saving on fertilizer
14
15 requirements and reducing transportation costs for waste diversion. The coupling of AD with
16 pyrolysis has the potential to produce biochar, which could be used to improve soil fertility
us
17
18 (Monlau et al 2016). Excess heat from AD or pyrolysis can also be applied to the digester to or
19
20 to district heating systems and can be used to heat houses or aquaculture operations (i.e., for
21 fish production).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
The barriers associated with the reintroduction of livestock into relatively dense areas are
formidable; these include local regulations, public health concerns, and logistic difficulties of
feed provision (Food and Agriculture Organization 2001, Butler 2011). If surmounted, these
dM
29 operations, as well as primary and secondary food processing industries (e.g., breweries,
30
31 ethanol production, harvest-related waste from agricultural operations) can provide substantial
32
33 feedstocks for AD.
34
35
36 Finally, in cases where AD is impractical, UA provides a local end user for composted residues.
37
38
Hence, onsite compost facilities could be a component of future UA operations. This would
39 reduce GHG emissions from waste that would have been disposed of in a landfill, and avoids
pte
40
41 the need for transportation of waste to a location offsite. According to the U.S. EPA WARM
42
model12, composting food waste and avoiding its addition to landfill results in a net reduction of
43
44 0.96 Mg CO2e per Mg of food waste.
45
46
47 Wastewater Reuse in Urban Agriculture
48
ce
49
50
51
Both solid and liquid streams of wastewater are an underutilized resource, with their current
52 perception as a municipal liability requiring resource-intensive treatment and disposal. It has
53
Ac
54
55
12
56 Using national average landfill characteristics and default waste hauling distances of 20 miles
57 (http://www3.epa.gov/warm/).
58
59
60
1
2
3 been estimated that approximately 2% of the total US electricity use is for municipal wastewater
4
pt
5 treatment (Electric Power Research Institute 2002). The aeration step of treatment, which
6
7 promotes biodegradation of pollutants, accounts for approximately 50% of this energy use
8 (Curtis 2010, Mamais et al 2015). This approach also contributes carbon emissions to the
9
cri
10 atmosphere; in 2000, US wastewater treatment resulted in ~33.3 Mt CO 2e from energy use and
11
12
sludge degradation (Center for Sustainable Systems 2014). A system that diverts wastewater
13 from treatment, reduces the level of treatment, or eliminates the need for aeration (through
14
15 diversion from receiving water bodies to UA) could help reduce these emissions.
16
us
17
18 Wastewater reuse could be a practical source of water and nutrients in UA, given its current
19
20 status as an underutilized urban resource stream. Previous studies have noted heavy metal and
21 pathogen contamination of wastewater-irrigated produce (Amoah et al 2007, Khan et al 2008),
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
underscoring the need to ensure regulatory requirements for irrigation water quality are met
(World Health Organization 2006). If cities/neighborhoods were to reorient their wastewater
treatment goals from a focus on disposal to one of reuse, the treatment reduction could result in
substantial energy savings directly at the point of treatment, as well as upstream during crop
dM
29 production. For example, crops grown using water and nutrients recovered from wastewater
30
31 could offset the embodied energy demand of crops that are grown elsewhere using more
32
33 energy-intensive irrigation water and inorganic fertilizers. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors
34 (AnMBRs) are one technology that has been proposed to accomplish these goals (Smith et al
35
36 2012, 2014), recovering energy, generating an effluent rich in nutrients and low in suspended
37
38
solids and organics, and eliminating energy requirements related to aerobic treatment (Smith et
39 al 2014). Regardless of the technology used, further research is necessary to evaluate the
pte
40
41 removal potential of trace contaminants and viral pathogens prior to reuse for UA (Smith et al
42
2012, McCurry et al 2014). By taking an industrial ecology approach, residential waste streams
43
44 and industrial waste streams that are relatively benign and free of pathogens (e.g., brewery
45
46 waste) could be used in subsurface irrigation of UA crops, avoiding conventional treatment and
47 reclaiming nutrients for food production.
48
ce
49
50
51
Waste Heat or CO2 Use for Urban Agriculture
52
53
Finally, a further industrial ecological approach would see conventional infrastructure systems
Ac
54
55
integrated with agriculture to increase productivity. Many sources of waste heat and CO 2 exist
56
57 within the urban boundary, from residences to industrial operations to electrical utilities. Where
58
59
60
1
2
3 natural gas is employed in these applications, greenhouse operations can utilize the relatively
4
pt
5 clean exhausted low-grade energy as a heat source, as well as CO2 for crop fertilization
6
7 (Kimball 1983, Mortensen 1987). The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that 65
8 million residences used natural gas for space/water heating and appliances, averaging 2,100 m3
9
cri
10 per household per year in 2009 (Energy Information Administration 2010). If greenhouses and
11
12
households could be integrated, there is a potential efficiency gain in the combined system over
13 its discrete components, including through the provision of CO2 for crop fertilization and
14
15 utilization of waste heat. A number of studies have suggested that building-integrated
16 agriculture has the potential to improve overall energy performance of the system (Specht et al
us
17
18 2013). Decentralized residential heating systems in single-family homes make utilization
19
20 challenging, but building systems, like the example developed by Seawater Greenhouses, could
21 be a model for smaller-scale units that utilize on-site waste heat and CO2 (Delor 2011).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Nevertheless, the model presented by Cern-Palma et al (2012) of a rooftop greenhouse in
Barcelona highlights the challenges of building-integrated UA, as greenhouse heating
requirements were not temporally aligned with the times of excess heat within the building. This
highlights the need for additional research on how to overcome these types of management
dM
29 issues to support greater resource efficiency.
30
31
32
33 Planning and Human Capital Considerations for Urban Agriculture
34
35
36 Historically, UA was a natural part of urban development and, eventually, an essential
37
38
component of the plans of early urban planning practitioners (Vitiello and Brinkley 2013).
39 However, UA was not a primary objective for planning developed-world public spaces in
pte
40
41 industrialized food system of 20th century cities. Calls to reconsider the value of UA have been
42
made for decades (e.g., emphasized in the pattern language proposed by Alexander et al,
43
44 1977) and planning for UA, as a result, has returned. The success of UA re-adoption in urban
45
46 design is demonstrated by the Carrot City Initiative (Gorgolewski et al 2017) which facilitates
47 discussions on urban design for food production. These and other resources can help to
48
ce
49 increase the sophistication of food planning in a more cyclical urban ecosystem.

50
51
52 Planners can open up or create space to enable the upscaling of UA in either building-
53
integrated systems or new/existing green space. For example, parks could be redeveloped from
Ac
54
55
being merely aesthetically-pleasing recreational landscapes to be more functional, with edible
56
57 productivity through the incorporation of fruit trees and community gardens. Inventories of
58
59
60
1
2
3 suitable public and private vacant land could be identified for UA use through geomatic methods
4
pt
5 (McClintock et al 2013). Municipal support for training in the harvest and processing of crops
6
7 could increase the publics awareness of the resources embodied within the food they consume
8 and minimize and potentially minimize crop waste. Processing infrastructure, such as fruit
9
cri
10 presses or preserving facilities, could be situated within the park's borders. By-laws could be put
11
12
in place to incentivize rooftop UA, as has been done with green roofs in some cities (e.g.,
13 Toronto and Chicago; Loder 2014)
14
15
16 As mentioned previously, park or public land redevelopment in this way could lead to local
us
17
18 increases in polluted run-off. This may require the implementation of by-laws restricting fertilizer
19
20 or pesticide application, storm water remediation/mitigation measures, and out-reach to inform
21 citizens of health and environmental implications of agriculture. As well, inventories of UA and
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
surveys of practices coupled with geographic information systems could help planners identify
potential hotspots for runoff, odors, or other impacts.
Human labor is an abundant urban resource that is anticipated to become more available in
dM
29 cities as trends of urbanization and automation progress. Smaller-scale agricultural systems
30
31 have the potential to utilize this labor, as they tend to be more labor intensive than conventional
32
33 mechanized open-field agriculture. As well, the integration of UA in buildings and the application
34 of advanced production approaches (i.e. soilless operations) require specialized training during
35
36 design, construction and operation, creating high-skilled employment opportunities. The impacts
37
38
on food prices by shifting to these systems is unclear; the 2012 U.S. agricultural census
39 suggests that hired and contract farm labor contributed to only 10.2% of total farm production
pte
40
41 expenses, though it is suggested that this would vary substantially by crop raised and potentially
42
less mechanized/automated systems (US Department of Agriculture 2014, USDA ERS 2014).
43
44 The recreational utility realized by those pursuing UA as a leisure activity could reduce the net
45
46 increase in costs (i.e., people providing free labor in pursuit of UA as a hobby); further, multiple
47 non-monetary benefits (civic engagement, social cohesion, food security) have been
48
ce
49 recognized, enabling a scenario where broad public benefits of UA can be realized, coupled
50
51
with an understanding of its effects on health and the environment (Chen 2012, Horst et al
52 2017).
53
Ac
54
55
Avoiding Unintended Consequences in Scaling Up Urban Agriculture
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 A number of issues may inhibit efforts to scale up UA, including land scarcity (Martellozzo et al
4
pt
5 2014), UA's uncertain contribution to food security (Ward 2015), environmental impacts of
6
7 decentralized production (Nicholson et al 2015, Coley et al 2009), and new challenges to
8 already significant food waste challenges (and their management) (Levis and Barlaz 2011,
9
cri
10 Forkes 2007, Smil 2004). Avoiding unintended consequences and continued inefficiency in the
11
12
food system through urban production requires a planning approach that coordinates input
13 streams, reduces potential for waste and enables co-location to mitigate growth in transportation
14
15 demand. Foley et al (2011) suggest that efforts to meet the food needs of the global rising
16 population face substantial challenges to environmental protection. Further, resource demands
us
17
18 of all urban food consumption far exceeds the resources that can be provided within city
19
20 boundaries and moving towards this goal could create new local resource stresses; for
21 example, Ramaswami et al (2017) demonstrate this situation for New Delhis water demand,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
where water used for food production represented 72% of urban-related withdrawals (only 14%
of this figure was provided within the citys boundary).
We argue that an industrial ecological approach to UA has the potential to slow land use change
dM
29 (through the intensification of production), increase crops yields (by increasing management
30
31 intensity), increase resource efficiency (through co-location of inputs from waste streams), and
32
33 encourage low-carbon diets (through increased access to fresh produce; Wakefield et al 2007,
34 Schafft et al 2009). However, proximity alone are not a guarantee for success of eco-industrial
35
36 UA; Gibbs and Deutz (2007) review a number of unsuccessful industrial ecological case studies
37
38
and interview participants in these and find that results often do not match objectives. However,
39 with an incremental planning approach, improved networking to develop trust and cooperation,
pte
40
41 and targeted policy interventions by municipalities could improve the success of industrial
42
ecological approaches.
43
44
45
46 Implications of UA on production inputs, food waste and transportation (of both labor and food
47 products) are dependent on UA approaches taken. As an illustration, this will be influenced by
48
ce
49 the production practices of UA practitioners, efficiency of distribution systems, public and active
50
51
transportation options for accessing UA sites, producer and retail practices for food disposal,
52 and local attitudes towards food waste. All of these require further study within each local
53
context.
Ac
54
55
56
57 Conclusions
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
pt
5 This review has examined UA through a novel lens, considering the energy implications of
6
7 promoting the expansion of food production in various forms within cities in advanced
8 economies. Scaling up UA has implications for the broader energy system, with the potential to
9
cri
10 affect direct and upstream energy demand, and enable the utilization of resources to a greater
11
12
degree. This review underscores the need to pursue further case study research to understand
13 the implications of human and physical geographies on net energy demands and other
14
15 environmental impacts of UA in its many iterations. Crop type, local climate, production
16 method/scale, availability of "waste" resources, co-location approaches, and intensity of
us
17
18 production all need to be considered to obtain a general understanding of the life cycle energy
19
20 implications of scaling up urban agriculture.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
We have proposed and provide supporting information for a resource-efficient path to pursuing
the expansion of UA - through the exploitation of crop and other food wastes, reuse of municipal
wastewater and biosolids for crop fertilization and irrigation, and employing the plentiful sources
of waste heat and CO2. Integrating agriculture with urban planning is not a new concept, but
dM
29 deep consideration of energy use in the broader food system and the availability of relevant
30
31 resources within cities (often as underexploited waste streams) is required to achieve
32
33 substantial efficiency improvements.
34
35
36 Acknowledgements
37
38
This research was initiated through work completed during the National Science Foundation
39 (NSF, grant number 1541838) funded workshop held October 5-6 at the University of Michigan
entitled Scaling Up Urban Agriculture to Mitigate Food-Energy-Water-Impacts. XF and LR
pte
40
41 acknowledge support from the NSF Sustainability Research Networks grant 1444745, and
42
43
REFRESCH (Global Challenges for the Third Century program, Office of the Provost, University
44 of Michigan). The authors thank Glen Daigger, Tim Dixon, Nancy Love, Josh Newell, Tim Dixon,
45 and Martin Sexton for comments on various iterations of this manuscript.
46
47
48
ce
49
50
51
52
53
Ac
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 References
4
pt
5
6 Ackerman K 2012 The Potential for Urban Agriculture in New York City: Growing Capacity,
7 Food Security, & Green Infrastructure (New York, NY, USA)
8 Ackerman K, Conard M, Culligan P, Plunz R, Sutto M P and Whittinghill L 2014 Sustainable
9 food systems for future cities: The potential of urban agriculture Econ. Soc. Rev. (Irel). 45
cri
10 189206
11 Albaho M, Thomas B and Christopher a. 2008 Evaluation of Hydroponic Techniques on Growth
12 and Productivity of Greenhouse Grown Bell Pepper and Strawberry Int. J. Veg. Sci. 14 23
13 40 Online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19315260801890492
14 Alexander C, Ishikawa S, Silverstein M, Jacobson M, King I F and Angel S 1977 A Pattern
15
Language (New York, NY: Oxford University Press)
16
Almeida J, Achten W M J, Verbist B, Heuts R F, Schrevens E and Muys B 2014 Carbon and
us
17
18 Water Footprints and Energy Use of Greenhouse Tomato Production in Northern Italy J.
19 Ind. Ecol. 18 898908 Online: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12169
20 Althaus H-J Process - steel production, converter, chromium steel 18/8 RER
21 Altieri M A, Companioni N, Caizares K, Murphy C, Rosset P, Bourque M and Nicholls C I
22 1999 The greening of the barrios: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba Agric.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Human Values 16 13140
an
Amoah P, Drechsel P, Abaidoo R C and Henseler M 2007 Irrigated urban vegetable production
in Ghana: Microbiological contamination in farms and markets and associated consumer
risk groups J. Water Health 5 45566
Andrews T, Williams V and Dalmeny K 2017 Sustainable Food Cities Online:
http://sustainablefoodcities.org/
dM
29
30 Anonymous 2011 Aeroponics Am. Herit. Dict. English Lang. 5th Ed. Online:
31 http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/hmdictenglang/aeroponics/0
32 Anonymous 2017 Britania Academic Britanica Online: www.academic.eb.com
33 Arup and C40 Cities 2014 Climate Action in Megacities - C40 Cities Baseline and Opportunities,
34 Vol.2 Online: http://issuu.com/c40cities/docs/c40_climate_action_in_megacities
35 Audsley E, Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard G, Hausheer J, Jolliet O, Kleijn R,
36 Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger E, Teulon H, Weidema B and Zeijts H V 1997
37 Harmonization of Environmental Life Cycle Assessment for Agriculture. AIR3-CT94-2028,
38 Community Research and Technological Development Programme in the field of
39 Agriculture and Agro-Industry, including Fisheries AIR 3. (Brussels, Belgium)
pte
40
Barbosa G, Gadelha F, Kublik N, Proctor A, Reichelm L, Weissinger E, Wohlleb G and Halden
41
R 2015 Comparison of Land, Water, and Energy Requirements of Lettuce Grown Using
42
43 Hydroponic vs. Conventional Agricultural Methods Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 12
44 687991 Online: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/6/6879/
45 Barthel S and Isendahl C 2013 Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of
46 resilience for long-term food security in cities Ecol. Econ. 86 22434 Online:
47 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800912002431
48 Bass B and Baskaran B 2001 Evaluating Rooftop and Vertical Gardens as an Adaptation
ce
49 Strategy for Urban Areas Natl. Res. Counc. Canada 111 Online:
50 http://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability/greendocs/bass.pdf
51 Basset-Mens C, McLaren S J and Ledgard S 2007 Exploring a comparative advantage for New
52 Zealand cheese in terms of environmental performance . LCA Foods Conference, 5th
53
International Conference (Gothenburg, Sweden)
Ac
54
55
Bernstad A and la Cour Jansen J 2011 A life cycle approach to the management of household
56 food waste - A Swedish full-scale case study Waste Manag. 31 187996 Online:
57 http://dx.doi.org.idpproxy.reading.ac.uk/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.02.026
58 Boulard T, Raeppel C, Brun R, Lecompte F, Hayer F, Carmassi G and Gaillard G 2011
59
60
1
2
3 Environmental impact of greenhouse tomato production in France Agron. Sustain. Dev. 31
4
75777
pt
5
6 Brodt S, Kramer K J, Kendall A and Feenstra G 2013 Comparing environmental impacts of
7 regional and national-scale food supply chains: A case study of processed tomatoes Food
8 Policy 42 10614 Online:
9 http://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=GeneralSearc
cri
10 h&qid=1&SID=S1JELVfxvaCRxylyYEr&page=1&doc=26
11 Butler W H 2011 Welcoming Animals Back to the City: Navigating Public Health Tensions of
12 Urban Livestock to Achieve Healthy and Resilient Communities J. Agric. Food Syst.
13 Community Dev. 2 193215
14 Carol M 2010 Ontarios Water-Energy Nexus: Will We Find Ourselves in Hot Water... or Tap into
15 Opportunity? 123
16 Center for Sustainable Systems 2014 U.S. Wastewater Treatment (Ann Arbor) Online:
us
17
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS04-14.pdf
18
19 Cern-Palma I, Sany-Mengual E, Oliver-Sol J, Montero J-I and Rieradevall J 2012 Barriers
20 and opportunities regarding the implementation of Rooftop Eco.Greenhouses (RTEG) in
21 Mediterranean cities of Europe J. Urban Technol. 19 117
22 Chen S 2012 Civic Agriculture: Towards a Local Food Web for Sustainable Urban Development
23
24
25
26
27
28
APCBEE Procedia 1 16976 Online:
an
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2212670812000280
Clift R and Druckman A 2016 Chapter 1 - Industrial Ecologys First Decade Taking Stock of
Industrial Ecology ed R Clift and A Druckman (London, UK: Springer Open) p 373
Coley D, Howard M and Winter M 2009 Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A
comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches Food Policy 34 1505 Online:
dM
30
Curtis T P 2010 Low-energy wastewater treatment: strategies and technologies Environmental
31
32 Microbiology, 2nd Ed. ed R Mitchell and J D Gu (Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell)
33 Delor M 2011 Current state of Building-Integrated Agriculture, its energy benefits and
34 comparison with green roofs - Summary 015 Online: http://bit.ly/1ihZebG
35 Despommier D 2013 Farming up the city: the rise of urban vertical farms. Trends Biotechnol. 31
36 3889 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23790758
37 Edwards-Jones G, i. Canals Mila, Hounsome N, Truninger M, Koerber G, Hounsome B, Cross
38 P, York E H, Hospido A, Plassmann K, Harris I M, Edwards R T, Day G A S, Tomos A D,
39 Cowell S J and Jones D L 2008 Testing the assertion that local food is best: the
pte
40 challenges of an evidence-based approach Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19 26574 Online:

41 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.008
42
Electric Power Research Institute 2002 Water and Sustainability (Volume 4): U.S. Electricity
43
Consumption for Water Supply and Treatment The Next Half Century (Paolo Alto) Online:
44
45 http://www.rivernetwork.org/sites/default/files/Water and Sustainability (Volume 4)-
46 EPRI.pdf
47 Elsayed M . A ., Matthews R . and Mortimer N . D . 2003 Carbon and Energy Balances for a
48 Range of Biofuels Options - Project Number B / B6 / 00784 / REP URN 03 / 836
ce
49 Energy Information Administration 2010 Trends in US Residential Natural Gas Consumption

50 Online:
51 http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2010/ngtrendsresidcon/ngtrend
52 sresidcon.pdf
53 Esengun K, Erdal G, Gndz O and Erdal H 2007 An economic analysis and energy use in
Ac
54 stake-tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey Renew. Energy 32 187381

55
Foley J a., Ramankutty N, Brauman K a., Cassidy E S, Gerber J S, Johnston M, Mueller N D,
56
57
Connell C O, Ray D K, West P C, Balzer C, Bennett E M, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Carpenter
58 S R, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockstro J, Tilman D and Zaks D P M 2011 Solutions
59
60
1
2
3 for a cultivated planet Nature 478 33742
4
Fonoll X, Astals S, Dosta J and Mata-Alvarez J 2015 Anaerobic co-digestion of sewage sludge
pt
5
6 and fruit wastes: Evaluation of the transitory states when the co-substrate is changed
7 Chem. Eng. J. 262
8 Food and Agriculture Organization 2013 Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook Online:
9 http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3325e/i3325e00.htm
cri
10 Food and Agriculture Organization 2010 FAO Statistical Yearbook 2010 Online:
11 http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/am081m/am081m00.htm
12 Food and Agriculture Organization 2001 Stakeholders, Systems and Issues in Urban Livestock
13 Keeping Livestock Keeping in Urban Areas Online:
14 http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y0500e/y0500e00.htm#toc
15 Forkes J 2007 Nitrogen balance for the urban food metabolism of Toronto, Canada Resour.
16 Conserv. Recycl. 52 7494
us
17
Francis C, Hansen T, Fox A, Hesje P, Nelson H, Lawseth A and English A 2012 Farmland
18
19 conversion to non-agricultural uses in the US and Canada: current impacts and concerns
20 for the future. Int J Agron Sust 10 824
21 Garf M, Gelman P, Comas J, Carrasco W and Ferrer I 2011 Agricultural reuse of the digestate
22 from low-cost tubular digesters in rural Andean communities Waste Manag. 31 25849
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Garnett T 1997 Farming the City: The Potential for Urban Agriculture Ecologist 26 299307
Garnett T 1999 Urban Agriculture in London - Rethinking Our Food Economy pp 477500
Garnett T 2011 Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the
food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36 S2332
Gibbs D and Deutz P 2007 Reflections on implementing industrial ecology through eco-
industrial park development J. Clean. Prod. 15 168395
dM
29 Goldstein B, Hauschild M, Fernandez J and Birkved M 2017 Contributions of local agriculture to
30
urban sustainability in the Northeast United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 73409
31
32 Goldstein B, Hauschild M, Fernndez J and Birkved M 2016a Testing the environmental
33 performance of urban agriculture as a food supply in northern climates J. Clean. Prod. 135
34 98494
35 Goldstein B, Hauschild M, Fernndez J and Birkved M 2016b Urban versus conventional
36 agriculture, taxonomy of resource profiles: a review Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36 9 Online:
37 http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13593-015-0348-4
38 Gorgolewski M, Komisar J and Nasr J 2017 Carrot City Initiative Online:
39 http://www.ryerson.ca/carrotcity/
pte
40 Grard B J-P, Bel N, Marchal N, Madre F, Castell J-F, Cambier P, Houot S, Manouchehri N,
41 Besancon S, Michel J-C, Chenu C, Frascaria-Lacoste N and Aubry C 2015 Recycling
42
urban waste as possible use for rooftop vegetable garden Futur. Food J. Food, Agric. Soc.
43
3 2134 Online: http://www.futureoffoodjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/141
44
45 Grewal S S and Grewal P S 2012 Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities 29 111 Online:
47 Hamilton A J, Burry K, Mok H-F, Barker S F, Grove J R and Williamson V G 2013 Give peas a
48 chance? Urban agriculture in developing countries. A review Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34 45
ce
49 73 Online: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13593-013-0155-8
50 Hamm M W 2015 Feeding Cities - with Indoor Vertical Farms? Food Clim. Res. Netw. Online:
51 http://fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/michaelwhamm/feeding-cities-indoor-vertical-farms
52 Hansen T L 2006 Life cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed
53 organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land (Easewaste) Waste Manag. Res. 24
Ac
54 15366 Online: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0734242X06063053

55
Hanssen O J, Vold M, Schakenda V, Tufte P A, Mller H, Olsen N V and Skaret J 2017
56
57
Environmental profile, packaging intensity and food waste generation for three types of
58 dinner meals J. Clean. Prod. 142 395402
59
60
1
2
3 Hatirli S A, Ozkan B and Fert C 2006 Energy inputs and crop yield relationship in greenhouse
4
tomato production Renew. Energy 31 42738
pt
5
6 Heidari M D and Omid M 2011 Energy use patterns and econometric models of major
7 greenhouse vegetable productions in Iran Energy 36 2205 Online:
9 Heller M C and Keoleian G a. 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary
cri
10 Choices and Food Loss J. Ind. Ecol. 19 291401 Online:
11 http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/jiec.12174
12 Horst M, McClintock N and Hoey L 2017 The Intersection of Planning, Urban Agriculture, and
13 Food Justice: A Review of the Literature J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 83 27795 Online:
14 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2017.1322914
15 Hospido A, Mil I Canals L, McLaren S, Truninger M, Edwards-Jones G and Clift R 2009 The
16 role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: A case study of environmental and social
us
17
aspects Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14 38191 Online:
18
19 http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-67650732425&partnerID=40
20 Howe J and Wheeler P 1999 Urban food growing: The experience of two UK cities Sustain.
21 Dev. 7 1324 Online: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
22 1719(199902)7:1%3C13::AID-SD100%3E3.0.CO;2-B
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
IPCC 2006 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Online:
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/
Jaffal I, Ouldboukhitine S-E and Belarbi R 2012 A comprehensive study of the impact of green
roofs on building energy performance Renew. Energy 43 15764
Jansson 2013 Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem
services Ecol. Econ. 86 28591 Online:
dM
30
Khan S, Cao Q, Zheng Y M, Huang Y Z and Zhu Y G 2008 Health risks of heavy metals in
31
32 contaminated soils and food crops irrigated with wastewater in Beijing, China Environ.
33 Pollut. 152 68692
34 Kimball B A 1983 Carbon Dioxide and Agricultural Yield: An Assemblage and Analysis of 430
35 Prior Observations Agron. J. 75 77988
36 Klein G, Krebs M, Hall V, OBrien T and Blevins B B 2005 Californias Water Energy
37 Relationship Energy 1180
38 Krannich J M 2006 A modern disaster: Agricultural land, urban growth, and the need for a
39 federally organized comprehensive land use planning model Cornell J. Law Public Policy
pte
40 16 5699
41 Kulak M, Graves A and Chatterton J 2013 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions with urban
42
agriculture: A Life Cycle Assessment perspective Landsc. Urban Plan. 111 6878 Online:
43
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169204612003209
44
45 Kuswardhani N, Soni P and Shivakoti G P 2013 Comparative energy input-output and financial
46 analyses of greenhouse and open field vegetables production in West Java, Indonesia
47 Energy 53 8392 Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.02.032
48 Leach G 1975 Energy and food production Food Policy 1 6273
ce
49 Levis J W and Barlaz M a. 2011 What is the most environmentally beneficial way to treat
50 commercial food waste? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 743844
51 Loder A 2014 Theres a meadow outside my workplace: A phenomenological exploration of
52 aesthetics and green roofs in Chicago and Toronto Landsc. Urban Plan. 126 94106
53 Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.008
Ac
54 Mamais D, Noutsopoulos C, Dimopoulou A, Stasinakis A and Lekkas T D 2015 Wastewater

55
treatment process impact on energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions Water Sci.
56
Technol. 71 3038
57
58 Martellozzo F, Landry J-S, Plouffe D, Seufert V, Rowhani P and Ramankutty N 2014 Urban
59
60
1
2
3 agriculture: a global analysis of the space constraint to meet urban vegetable demand
4
Environ. Res. Lett. 9 64025 Online: http://stacks.iop.org/1748-
pt
5
6 9326/9/i=6/a=064025?key=crossref.11a2285d687c1cd8f7cd2b87f5622f75
7 Martnez-Blanco J, Muoz P, Antn A and Rieradevall J 2011 Assessment of tomato
8 Mediterranean production in open-field and standard multi-tunnel greenhouse, with
9 compost or mineral fertilizers, from an agricultural and environmental standpoint J. Clean.
cri
10 Prod. 19 98597 Online: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652610004543
11 McClintock N, Cooper J and Khandeshi S 2013 Assessing the potential contribution of vacant
12 land to urban vegetable production and consumption in Oakland, California Landsc. Urban
13 Plan. 111 4658
14 McCurry D, Bear S, Bae J, Sedlak D, McCarty P and Mitch W 2014 Superior removal of
15 disinfection byproduct precursors and pharmaceuticals from wastewater in a staged
16 anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor compared to activated sludge. Environ. Sci.
us
17
Technol. Lett. 1 45964
18
19 Metson G, Aggarwal R and Childers D L 2012 Efficiency Through Proximity: Changes in
20 Phosphorus Cycling at the Urban-Agricultural Interface of a Rapidly Urbanizing Desert
21 Region J. Ind. Ecol. 16 91427 Online: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1530-
22 9290.2012.00554.x
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Milan C of 2015 Milan Urban Food Policy Pact Online:
http://www.foodpolicymilano.org/en/urban-food-policy-pact-2/
Mohareb E A, MacLean H L and Kennedy C A 2011 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Waste
ManagementAssessment of Quantification Methods J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 61
48093 Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.61.5.480
Mok H-F F, Williamson V G, Grove J R, Burry K, Barker S F and Hamilton A J 2013 Strawberry
dM
29 fields forever? Urban agriculture in developed countries: a review Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34
30
2143 Online: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13593-013-0156-7
31
32 Mller J, Boldrin A and Christensen T H 2009 Anaerobic digestion and digestate use:
33 accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contribution. Waste Manag. Res. 27
34 81324 Online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748957
35 Monlau F, Francavilla M, Sambusiti C, Antoniou N, Solhy A, Libutti A, Zabaniotou A, Barakat A
36 and Monteleone M 2016 Toward a functional integration of anaerobic digestion and
37 pyrolysis for a sustainable resource management. Comparison between solid-digestate
38 and its derived pyrochar as soil amendment Appl. Energy 169 65262 Online:
39 http://dx.doi.org.idpproxy.reading.ac.uk/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.084
pte
40 Mortensen L M 1987 Review: CO2 enrichment in greenhouses. Crop responses Sci. Hortic.
41 (Amsterdam). 33 125 Online: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
42
0002145640&partnerID=40
43
Mortimer N D, Cormack P, Elsayed M A and Horne R E 2003 Evaluation of the comparative
44
45 energy, global warming and socio-economic costs and benefits of biodiesel Online:
46 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbdv.200490137/abstract%5Cnhttp://www.northe
47 nergy.co.uk/c/pdf/Resources_Research_Unit-DEFRA_Biodiesel_Report_January_2003-
48 4_1.pdf
ce
49 Nicholson C F, He X, Gmez M I, Gao H O and Hill E 2015 Environmental and Economic

50 Impacts of Localizing Food Systems: The Case of Dairy Supply Chains in the Northeastern
51 United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 151001105917004 Online:
52 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b02892
53 Oke T R 1973 City size and the urban heat island Atmos. Environ. 7 76979 Online:
Ac
54 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698173901406
55
Orsini F, Gasperi D, Marchetti L, Piovene C, Draghetti S, Ramazzotti S, Bazzocchi G and
56
57
Gianquinto G 2014 Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban
58 agriculture: the potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other
59
60
1
2
3 ecosystem services in the city of Bologna Food Secur. Online:
4
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12571-014-0389-6
pt
5
6 Orsini F, Kahane R, Nono-Womdim R and Gianquinto G 2013 Urban agriculture in the
7 developing world: A review Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33 695720
8 Pagano M A and Bowman A O 2000 Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource
9 Pataki D E, Carreiro M M, Cherrier J, Grulke N E, Jennings V, Pincetl S, Pouyat R V, Whitlow T
cri
10 H, Wayne C, Pataki D E, Carreiro M M, Cherrier J, Grulke N E, Jennings V, Pincetl S,
11 Pouyat R V, Whitlow T H and Zipperer W C 2011 Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban
12 environments: ecosystem serviceas, gree solutions, and misconceptions Front. Ecol.
13 Environ. 9 2736
14 Payen S, Basset-Mens C and Perret S 2015 LCA of local and imported tomato: An energy and
15 water trade-off J. Clean. Prod. 87 13948 Online:
16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.007
us
17
Pelletier N, Audsley E, Brodt S, Garnett T, Henriksson P, Kendall A, Kramer K J, Murphy D,
18
19 Nemecek T and Troell M 2011 Energy Intensity of Agriculture and Food Systems Annu.
20 Rev. Environ. Resour. 36 22346 Online:
21 http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-081710-161014
22 Pimentel D, Williamson S, Alexander C E, Gonzalez-Pagan O, Kontak C and Mulkey S E 2008
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
Reducing energy inputs in the US food system Hum. Ecol. 36 45971
Pirog R, Van Pelt T, Enshayan K and Cook E 2001 Food , Fuel , and Freeways: An Iowa
perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions Online:
https://www.leopold.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/pubs-and-papers/2011-06-food-fuel-and-
freeways-iowa-perspective-how-far-food-travels-fuel-usage-and-greenhouse-gas-
emissions.pdf
dM
29 Plawecki R, Pirog R, Montri A and Hamm M W 2014 Comparative carbon footprint assessment
30
of winter lettuce production in two climatic zones for Midwestern market Renew. Agric.
31
32 Food Syst. 29 3108 Online:
33 http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1742170513000161
34 Racoviceanu A I, Karney B W, Kennedy C A and Colombo A F 2007 Life-cycle energy use and
35 greenhouse gas emissions inventory for water treatment systems J. Infrastruct. Syst. 13
36 26170 Online: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
37 36448929423&partnerID=40
38 Ramaswami A, Boyer D, Nagpure A S, Fang A, Bogra S, Bakshi B, Cohen E and Rao-
39 Ghorpade A 2017 An urban systems framework to assess the trans-boundary food-energy-
pte
40 water nexus: implementation in Delhi, India Environ. Res. Lett. 12 25008 Online:
41 http://stacks.iop.org/1748-
42
9326/12/i=2/a=025008?key=crossref.1094628f0830813ad0b63bed4f746075
43
Riva C, Schievano A, DImporzano G and Adani F 2014 Production costs and operative margins
44
45 in electric energy generation from biogas. Full-scale case studies in Italy Waste Manag. 34
46 142935 Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.04.018
47 Romero-Guiza M S, Peces M, Astals S, Benavent J, Valls J and Mata-Alvarez J 2014
48 Implementation of a prototypal optical sorter as core of the new pre-treatment configuration
ce
49 of a mechanical-biological treatment plant treating OFMSW through anaerobic digestion

50 Appl. Energy 135 6370
51 Saiz S, Kennedy C, Bass B and Pressnail K 2006 Comparative life cycle assessment of
52 standard and green roofs Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 43126
53 Sanscartier D, Maclean H L and Saville B 2012 Electricity Production from Anaerobic Digestion
Ac
54 of Household Organic Waste in Ontario: Techno-Economic and GHG Emission Analyses

55
Sany-Mengual E, Oliver-Sol J, Montero J I and Rieradevall J 2015 An environmental and
56
57
economic life cycle assessment of rooftop greenhouse (RTG) implementation in Barcelona,
58 Spain. Assessing new forms of urban agriculture from the greenhouse structure to the final
59
60
1
2
3 product level Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 35066 Online:
4
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-014-0836-9
pt
5
6 Schafft K A, Jensen E B and Clare Hinrichs C 2009 Food deserts and overweight
7 schoolchildren: Evidence from Pennsylvania Rural Sociol. 74 15377
8 Shiina T, Hosokawa D, Roy P, Orikasa T, Nakamura N and Thammawong M 2011 Life cycle
9 inventory analysis of leafy vegetables grown in two types of plant factories Acta Hortic. 919
cri
10 11522
11 Shrestha S, Fonoll X, Khanal S K and Raskin L 2017 Biological strategies for enhanced
12 hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass during anaerobic digestion: current status and future
13 perspectives Bioresour. Technol. Accepted
14 Smil V 2004 Improving Efficiency and Reducing Waste in Our Food System Environ. Sci. 1 17
15 26 Online:
16 http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/evms.1.1.17.23766%5Cnhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1
us
17
076/evms.1.1.17.23766
18
19 Smit J and Nasr J 1992 Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and
20 water bodies as resources Environ. Urban. 4 14152
21 Smith A, Brown K, Ogilvie S, Rushton K and Bates J 2001 Waste management options and
22 climate change: Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment Online:
23
24
25
26
27
28
t#0
an
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Waste+management+opti
ons+and+climate+change+Final+report+to+the+European+Commission,+DG+Environmen
Smith A, Stadler L, Cao L, Love N, Raskin L and Skerlos S 2014 Navigating wastewater energy
recovery strategies: a life cycle comparison of anaerobic membrane bioreactor and
conventional treatment systems with anaerobic digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 5972
dM
29 81
30
Smith A, Stadler L, Love N, Skerlos S and Raskin L 2012 Perspectives on anaerobic membrane
31
32 bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater: a critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 122
33 14959
34 Specht K, Siebert R, Hartmann I, Freisinger U B, Sawicka M, Werner A, Thomaier S, Henckel
35 D, Walk H and Dierich A 2013 Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability
36 aspects of food production in and on buildings Agric. Human Values 119
37 Tamburini E, Pedrini P, Marchetti M, Fano E and Castaldelli G 2015 Life Cycle Based
38 Evaluation of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Agricultural Productions in the
39 Mediterranean Area Sustainability 7 291535 Online: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-
pte
40 1050/7/3/2915/
41 Taylor J R and Lovell S T 2012 Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in
42
Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth Landsc.
43
Urban Plan. 108 5770 Online:
44
45 http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S016920461200237X
46 Thebo A L, Drechsel P and Lambin E F 2014 Global assessment of urban and peri-urban
47 agriculture: irrigated and rainfed croplands Environ. Res. Lett. 9 114002 Online:
48 http://stacks.iop.org/1748-
ce
49 9326/9/i=11/a=114002?key=crossref.0e82fb6d32105170e5c60088cd32845c
50 U.S. Global Change Research Program 2014 Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
51 The Third National Climate Assessment. Online: nca2014.globalchange.gov%5CnThis
52 Ukun Kiran E, Trzcinski A P, Ng W J and Liu Y 2014 Bioconversion of food waste to energy: A
53 review Fuel 134 38999 Online:
Ac
54 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236114005365
55
US Census Bureau 2015 2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteri
56
57
Online: https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html
58 US Department of Agriculture 2014 US Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1: National Level Data
59
60
1
2
3 Online:
4
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/
pt
5
6 US Environmental Protection Agency 2008 Ensuring a Sustainable Future: An Energy
7 Management Guidebook for Wastewater and Water Utilities Online:
8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24616484
9 US Environmental Protection Agency 2010 Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of Packaging
cri
10 Fresh Tomatoes Using Life-Cycle Thinking & Assessment: A Sustainable Materials
11 Management Demonstration Project Online:
12 http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/stewardship/docs/tomato-packaging-
13 assessment.pdf
14 US EPA 2015 eGRID eGRID Tables - 2012 Online: https://www.epa.gov/energy/egrid
15 US EPA 2017 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2015
16 (Washington, DC) Online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-
us
17
02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf
18
19 USDA ERS 2010 Energy Use in the U.S. Food System Online:
20 http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/136418/err94_1_.pdf
21 USDA ERS 2014 Farm Labor Online: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/
22 USDA ERS 2013 Food Availability Food Availab. Data Syst. Online:
23
24
25
26
27
28
an
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx
Vitiello D and Brinkley C 2013 The Hidden History of Food System Planning J. Plan. Hist. 13
91112 Online: http://jph.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1538513213507541
Wakefield S, Yeudall F, Taron C, Reynolds J and Skinner A 2007 Growing urban health:
Community gardening in South-East Toronto Health Promot. Int. 22 92101
Ward J D 2015 Can urban agriculture usefully improve food resilience? Insights from a linear
dM
29 programming approach J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5 699711
30
Webb J, Williams A G, Hope E, Evans D and Moorhouse E 2013 Do foods imported into the UK
31
32 have a greater environmental impact than the same foods produced within the UK? Int. J.
33 Life Cycle Assess. 18 132543 Online: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11367-013-0576-
34 2
35 Weber C L and Matthews H S 2008 Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices
36 in the United States Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 350813
37 West T O and Marland G 2002 A synthesis of carbon sequestration, carbon emissions, and net
38 carbon flux in agriculture: comparing tillage practices in the United States Agric. Ecosyst.
39 Environ. 91 21732
pte
40 Williams H and Wikstrom F 2011 Environmental impact of packaging and food losses in a life
41 cycle perspective: A comparative analysis of five food items J. Clean. Prod. 19 438
42
Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.08.008
43
World Health Organization 2006 Guidelines for the Safe Use of Safe Use of Wastewater,
44
45 Excreta and Greywater vol I (Geneva) Online:
46 http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241546832_eng.pdf
47 Zhang S, Bi X T and Clift R 2013 A Life Cycle Assessment of integrated dairy farm-greenhouse
48 systems in British Columbia Bioresour. Technol. 150 496505 Online:
ce
49 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.02.017
50
51
52
53
Ac
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
View publication stats

Considerations For Reducing Food System Energy Dem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Considerations For Reducing Food System Energy Dem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

Considerations for reducing food system

Article in Environmental Research Letters August 2017

Eugene A Mohareb Xavier Fonoll Almansa

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Microbial molecular diversity View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript

This Accepted Manuscript is: 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd

40 Agriculture supplemental heat high-yielding 2012, Krannich

49 consideration by city managers/planners.

49 characteristics (Nicholson et al 2015). Broad-scale localization of agriculture has the potential to

Urban Heat Island Mitigation an

49 Assuming UA may involve the use of protective structures or controlled environments, it is

40 photosynthesis, growing production systems that tend to

49 garden) network (e.g., moisture retention of planter

40 Downward Pressure Downward Pressure

49 Building energy demand (e.g., inputs)

40 Urban Sources Conventional Sources Requirement Data

49 Grey water (groundwater)

54 boilers, hot water

49 EU Avg - 11.20 Smith et al (2001)

54 9.29 MJ/kg (K2O) (EU) Elsayed et al (2003)

49 increase the sophistication of food planning in a more cyclical urban ecosystem.

40 challenges of an evidence-based approach Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19 26574 Online:

49 Energy Information Administration 2010 Trends in US Residential Natural Gas Consumption

54 stake-tomato production in Tokat province of Turkey Renew. Energy 32 187381

54 15366 Online: http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0734242X06063053

54 Mamais D, Noutsopoulos C, Dimopoulou A, Stasinakis A and Lekkas T D 2015 Wastewater

49 Nicholson C F, He X, Gmez M I, Gao H O and Hill E 2015 Environmental and Economic

49 of a mechanical-biological treatment plant treating OFMSW through anaerobic digestion

54 of Household Organic Waste in Ontario: Techno-Economic and GHG Emission Analyses

View publication stats

You might also like