Search

Urban farming can improve cities' food security and resilience, but the performance of different farming systems with respect to land and investment constraints has not been systematically investigated. Here, we compared conventional soil-based farming, vertical farming with natural lighting (Vnat), and indoor vertical farming. This study aimed to compare (1) the dynamic production of leafy vegetables over time given the same amount of investment and land constraints, (2) the associated water and energy use, and (3) the global warming potential (GWP) of the urban farming sector if each of the three farming systems was solely used in the tropical city-state of Singapore. A system dynamics (SD) model was constructed to map the potential quantity of leafy vegetables produced, together with the water and energy use of each farming system. The land and monetary investment constraints were set at an additional 0.3% of the total land area of Singapore and an annual investment of SGD 10-20 million (0.001-0.005% of Singapore's annual GDP). Vnat farming was predicted to have the highest production level (110,000 t) and self-sufficiency (76.9% of total demand) by 2050 based on the SD model. This would be >3 times the self-sufficiency level achieved by indoor and soil-based farming systems given the same investment and land constraints. Indoor farming was simulated to use <14% the land area of Vnat while soil-based farming exhausted the additional 0.3% of the land allocated. Indoor farming was also the most energy intensive system, requiring 100 times more than Vnat farming. Comparison of the GHG emission rates showed that indoor farming had the greatest GWP-at 2.51 kg CO 2 -eq per kg of lettuce produced. Our results suggest that Vnat farming may be the best form of urban farming system to provide large amounts of food in Singapore, considering the production level, the amount of resources used, and the environmental impacts., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)