Aquaponics in Urban Agriculture

15 Pages·2017·0.55 MB·English

horticulturae
Article
Aquaponics in Urban Agriculture: Social Acceptance
and Urban Food Planning
GeorgiaPollard*,JamesD.WardandBarbaraKoth
SchoolofNaturalandBuiltEnvironments,UniversityofSouthAustralia,MawsonLakesCampus,Adelaide,
SA5095,Australia;[email protected](J.D.W.);[email protected](B.K.)
* Correspondence:[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
AcademicEditor:DouglasD.Archbold
Received:27April2017;Accepted:10June2017;Published:15June2017
Abstract: Aquaponics is emerging as a novel technology with particular potential for urban
agriculture (UA). The social acceptance of aquaponics and its place in urban food planning has
notpreviouslybeenstudied. Thisstudyusedfocusgroups,keyinformantinterviews,andscenario
analysestoinvestigatethereactionsofAdelaide’surbanfoodopinionleadersandlocalgovernment
area (LGA) officials to aquaponics. Most of the focus group participants were unfamiliar with
aquaponics. Theperceivednegativesofthetechnologyreceivedgreaterattentionthantheperceived
benefits. Aquaponicswasthoughttobemostcompetitiveineithernicheorwholesalemarkets,with
aneedforscaledguidelinesfrombackyardtolarge-scalecommercialproduction. Foraquaponics
inurbansettingstheinfluenceofurbanplanningandpolicyisanimportant,buttodateunstudied,
consideration. Theurbangrowers’opinionsoftheovercomplicatednatureofurbanfoodplanning
corresponded with the mixed policy responses of the LGAs towards UA. This further supports
theparticipants’desireforasupportiveStateGovernmentstanceonUAtoencourageconsistency
inLGAs.
Keywords: aquaponics; business models; community perception; local food systems; social
acceptance;urbanagriculture;urbanfoodplanning
1. Introduction
Sustainability and food security are gaining greater concern both globally and in Australia,
leadingtoarevivalofinterestandengagementinourfood’sprovenance. Inoursuburbsandcities,
communitygardens,thesourcingoflocalfood,andgrowingyourownfood,arebecomingincreasingly
popular. Foodproductionwithincityboundariesorperipheries,regardlessofsize,isknownasurban
agriculture(UA)[1]. UAisregardedasonewaytoachievegreaterurbanfoodsecurity,aswellasto
helpreconnectpeoplewiththeirfoodsystems[2–4].
Beyond individual or community use, there is also a strong entrepreneurial take-up of UA
businesses [5,6]. One such form of emerging UA to be considered for commercial expansion is
aquaponics. Aquaponicscombinestwowidelyknowntechnologies,recirculatingaquacultureand
hydroponics. It is defined as “a bio-integrated system that links recirculating aquaculture with
hydroponicvegetable,flowerorherbproduction”[7]. Aquaponicsisoftenendorsedasasustainable
foodsystemthatiseasilyadaptedtourbansites[8,9]. AlthoughUSandEuropeanaquaponicssystems
dominateresearchoutput,globalstudiesshowentryintotheproductionsectorinallworldregions[10].
WithinAustraliathereisalargebackyardscaletake-upofaquaponics[11]. Thisisalsoevidencedby
multipleAustralianonlinediscussionforums.
AquaponicshasbeenlessextensivelystudiedthanmorecommonformsofUA,suchascommunity
gardens. Previousaquaponicsresearchhastendedtofocusonthetechnicalandmanagementaspects
suchas: theoptimalmixofspeciesoffishandvegetablesthatworkwelltogether,theuseofdifferent
Horticulturae2017,3,39;doi:10.3390/horticulturae3020039 www.mdpi.com/journal/horticulturae
Horticulturae2017,3,39 2of15
biofiltersandgrowingmedia,orcomparingonesystemtoanother[12]. Twobaselineproducerstudies
from the United States and Europe show distinctly different (albeit both male) producer profiles.
BackyardsystemsandhobbyistsdominatedintheUnitedStates[13],whereastheEuropeanstudy
includedmoresmall-scalecommercialproducersandeducators/scientists[14].
Alackofresearchintotheeconomicviabilityofaquaponicssystemshasbeennoted[15]. Thereis
also a lack of knowledge on what people or communities, in major markets, think of aquaponics
systems. Milicˇic´ et al. [16] moved beyond more common aquaculture and hydroponics consumer
acceptancestudiestoEuropeanpreferences,findingthatoverhalfofrespondentshadneverheardof
aquaponics. Innovationandsustainabilityenthusedparticipantsreportednegativeassociationswith
thelinkbetweenfishexcrementandfood,fishwelfare,andmistrustofoverreachingpositiveclaims.
InLikertscalestatements,greatersustainability,advantagesascomparedtoaquaculture,andavalues
preferenceforasoil-basedgrowthmediumshowedtheonlymarketsegmentswithpurchasepotential
were“Innovators”(16%)andthosewillingtopaymoreforaquaponicsoutput(23%)onceinformation
levelswereincreased.
SouthAustraliaiswellknownforitsagriculturalproduction, althoughitisfamiliarwiththe
stressesofwaterrestrictionanddrought. Adelaidehasmuchofitsfoodproducedcloseby(within
60kmofthecitycentre)[17]. Ithasalsobeenestimatedthat80%ofthenearbymarketgardenproduce
issoldlocally[18]. However,thegrowingneedsoflandforhousingdevelopmentcompeteswiththat
offoodproductionwithinthegreaterAdelaideregion[19]. Asthiscompetitioncontinues,thevalueof
small-scaleintensiveformsofUA,suchasaquaponics,couldbeexpectedtogrow.
For aquaponics in urban settings the influence of urban planning and policy is an important,
buttodateunstudied,consideration. Thiscorrespondswiththeconcernincurrentliteratureonthe
absenceofurbanfoodplanningandlackofleadershipbyurbanplannersandmunicipalcouncilsalike
tofacilitateUA[20,21]. ThislackofcohesiveurbanfoodplanningisalsoapparentinAustralia,where
thelinkbetweenland-useplanningandfoodsecurityislittleunderstood[20,22,23].
AnanalysisofexistingregulatorysystemsinAustraliabyPires[24]foundthatmunicipalcouncils
tendtounintentionallyimpactandrestrictUAratherthansupportit. ArecentreviewoftheAdelaide
MetropolitanCityPlan[20]foundAdelaidelaggingbehindwhencomparedtootherAustraliancapital
citieswithnomentionoradoptionofoneoftheUNHabitattrendsforurbansustainability,‘Senseof
Place’. Thistrendlinkstolocaleconomicdevelopmentandplace-basedsocialcapital,whereUAcould
fitduetoitsstrongtiestophysicalinhabitation[25].
Thiscurrentpaperaddressesthepaucityofsocialandregulatorydataonaquaponicsbypresenting
theresultsoftwoimportant,complementaryinvestigations. Firstly,theresultsfromaseriesoffocus
groupsandkeyinformantinterviewsmapthereceptivityofAdelaide’surbanfoodopinionleaders
towardsaquaponics,withinthecontextofUA.Secondly,wepresenttheresultsofpreliminaryscenario
analyses of the policy positions (implicit or explicit) of different local government areas (LGAs)
towardsUAingeneral,andaquaponicsinparticular. Thecombinedresultsofthesecomplementary
studieswillhelpinformfuturefoodplannersandUApractitioners,particularlythoseinterestedin
thedevelopmentofanurbanaquaponicsindustryandsmall-scaleintensiveUAmorebroadly, by
mappingthecurrentsocialandregulatoryopportunitiesandbarriers.
2. MaterialsandMethods
Three methods were used to collect data on awareness, appreciation, and potential business
modelsofaquaponicssystems.Themethodswerefocusgroups,keyinformantinterviews,andscenario
analyses,allofwhicharedescribedindividuallybelow.
2.1. FocusGroups(FG#1–3)
TobegininvestigatingthereactionsofpeoplealreadyfamiliarandengagedinAdelaide’surban
foodsystemtowardsaquaponics,threefocusgroupswithadirectedlineofquestioningwereheld.
Focusgroupsdrawonpeople’sattitudes,beliefs,experiences,andreactions[26,27]andareespecially
Horticulturae2017,3,39 3of15
usefulwhenmeasuringtopicconsensus[28]. Participantswereselectedviabothpurposivesampling,
the process of identifying people heavily involved in the chosen research field to ensure they are
information-richandrelevanttothetopic[29],andsnowballsampling,whereselectedparticipantsare
askedtorecommendothersuitablepeoplefromwithintheirnetwork[30].
Participantswereselectedduetotheirinvolvementorexperienceinurbanfoodrelatedproduction,
development, management, or marketing and sales. This resulted in a combination of growers,
urbanfoodbusinessconsultants,councilrepresentatives,marketstallowners,wholesalesellers,and
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) members being present. The attendance numbers are
listedbelow:
1. FocusGroup#1(FG#1);n=8
2. FocusGroup#2(FG#2);n=9
3. FocusGroup#3(FG#3);n=7
Average group size roughly matches the desirable size range of six to eight people for focus
groupsrecommendedbyKruegerandCasey[31]. Ofthe42peopleinvitedtoparticipate,23ofthem
werepresentforthefocusgroups,aresponserateof55%(n=23;65%males/35%females). Thetwo
topreasonsfornon-participationwerebeingtimeshortduetomultiplepriorcommitments,anddue
to not perceiving themselves as ‘expert’ enough to participate. Each session lasted approximately
90min,wasaudiorecorded,andhadtwoseparatesetsofnotestaken.
Focusgroupparticipantswerefirstlyshownphotosofvarioussizedaquaponicssystemsand
givenanexplanationofhowtheyworked. Thephotoswerecarefullyselectedbytheresearchteamto
representthefullrangeofaquaponicssystems: largetosmallandcommercialtobackyard. Theywere
thenaskedfortheirinitialreactions,leveloffamiliarity,andwhattheyperceivedasthepositivesand
negativesofthetechnology. Ashortlistofthestrengthsandweaknessesofaquaponics(accordingto
recentliterature)wasshown. Eachgroupwasaskedtoaddanyotherstheythoughtweremissing.
Suggestionswereaddedtotheoriginallistandincludedforsuccessivefocusgroups. Thefinalisedlist
includedallsuggestedpointsandwaslaterpresentedduringthekeyinformantinterviews.
Analysis was conducted using key-point transcripts created from each audio recording and
notes. Thisformofanalysishasmoderatetohighlevelsofperceivedrigorandlowriskoferror[31].
Codingbeganearlyafterthefirstfocusgroup. Analysiswascompletedusingthequalitativeanalysis
softwareQSRNVivo11(QSRInternationalPtyLtd,Melbourne,Australia).
2.2. KeyInformantInterviews(KI#1–18)
Initialbroadtopiccodingoffocusgroupresponsesrevealedquestionsonwhichtobasethetopic
guideforthekeyinformantinterviews,allowingustopursuetheseideasingreaterdepth.Topicguides
ensureinclusionofimportantquestionswhilststillallowingeachparticipanttheopportunitytoexpand
ontopicsthatthey,frompersonalexperience,considerimportant[32].
Atotalof18keyinformantinterviewswereconductedoutof22identifiedpotentialinterviewees.
Participants were identified either by being an opinion leader involved in Adelaide’s urban food
system(n=15),orwerenotabletopreviouslyattendafocusgroupsession,butindicatedadesireto
bepartofthestudy(n=7). Eighteeninterviewsiswithinthedesiredrangeof15–20recommendedby
Mason[33].
Eachparticipantwasabletochoosebetweenaface-to-faceandatelephoneinterview,although
face-to-face was presented as the preferred method. It was felt that having the telephone option
would encourage more people to take part and so ensure a better response rate. The use of
telephoneinterviewsinqualitativeresearchisincreasingasmoreresearcherslearnaboutthelogistical
conveniences and methodological strengths such as time, speed, and cost [34,35]. Thirteen of
the interviews were conducted face-to-face, four by telephone, and one via Skype. A study by
Vogl[35]foundnodifferenceinreliabilitybetweenphoneandface-to-faceinterviews. Theinterview
Horticulturae2017,3,39 4of15
responseratewas78%(n=18),withanapproximatelyevendistributionoffemale(n=8)andmale
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 4 of 15
(n=10)participants.
ParPtaicritpicaipnatsntws ewreereem emaialeildeda ap paartritcicipipaanntt iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn sshheeeett, ,ccoonnsseennt tfofromrm, a,nadn da sahsohrot rbtobookolekt loent on
aquaaqpuoanpiocnsitcos tfoa mfaimliailriaisreisteh tehmemseslevlveessw witithht thhee tteecchhnnoollooggyy pprriioorr toto ththeeiri rinintetrevriveiwew. T.hTeh seessseisosnios nwsewree re
audaiuodrieoc roercdoerddeadn adntdr atrnasncsrcibriebdedv verebrbaatitmimd diirreeccttllyy aafftteerrwwaarrddss.. TThhee fufulll luunnalatletreerde dinitnertevrievwie wtratnrsacnrsipcrt ipt
waswtahse nthreent urerntuerdnetod etoa cehacpha rptaicritpicaipnatntot tcoh cehckecfko rfoarc acuccruarcayc.yA. nAanlyalsyissios fotfh tehec oclolellcetcetdedd dataataf ofolllolowweeddt he
samtheea nsaamlyes isanparloycseiss sparsocfeosrst haes ffoocr utsheg rfooucupss ,gargoauipnsu, saignaginQ uSRsinNgV QivSoR. INnVteirvvoi.e wIntdearvtaiewwa dsactoam wpaasr ed
compared to focus group data to search for repeating concepts and underlying themes.
tofocusgroupdatatosearchforrepeatingconceptsandunderlyingthemes.
2.3.2S.3c.e SncaernioarAion Aanlyasleysse(sS (AS#A1#–17–)7)
Comparing urban agriculture policies at the local level helps to map the varying levels of
Comparing urban agriculture policies at the local level helps to map the varying levels of
administrative awareness and commitment to supporting, ignoring, or discouraging local food
administrative awareness and commitment to supporting, ignoring, or discouraging local food
production. The 17 local government areas (LGAs) of Metropolitan Adelaide were divided into
production. The17localgovernmentareas(LGAs)ofMetropolitanAdelaideweredividedintoNorth,
North, South, East, West, and Central regions, with one LGA from each region selected. These regions
South,East,West,andCentralregions,withoneLGAfromeachregionselected. Theseregionsare
are shown edged in Figure 1. An extra two areas were included from the East region, as it contains a
shownedgedinFigure1.AnextratwoareaswereincludedfromtheEastregion,asitcontainsagreater
greater number of councils over a wide geographical spread. Adelaide; Mitcham; Salisbury; Charles
numberofcouncilsoverawidegeographicalspread. Adelaide;Mitcham;Salisbury;CharlesSturt;
Sturt; Norwood, Payneham, and St. Peters; Tea Tree Gully; and Prospect LGAs were selected to
Norwood,Payneham,andSt. Peters;TeaTreeGully;andProspectLGAswereselectedtorepresenta
represent a mixture of geographical representation, population, average annual wage, and cultural
mixtureofgeographicalrepresentation,population,averageannualwage,andculturalheritage.
heritage.

Figure 1. The seven selected Local Government Areas of Metropolitan Adelaide.
Figure1.ThesevenselectedLocalGovernmentAreasofMetropolitanAdelaide.
Horticulturae2017,3,39 5of15
SevenhypotheticalUAscenariosweredeveloped,coveringarangeofsimplefoodproduction
activitiesthatpeoplemaywanttoengageinwithintheircouncilarea: vegetablegardening,keeping
chickens,keepingfish,plantingfruitstreettrees,havingcommunitygardens,andstartingasmallhome
producebusiness. Thoughthisstudyfocusedmoreonaquaponics,itwasfeltthatsincethisisstilla
relativelynewandunknowntechnology(evenamongthosefocusgroupandinterviewparticipants
deeplyinvolvedintheUAscene),includingarangeofsimplerandmorecommonUAactivitieswould
providebettercontextforthecouncilemployeesquestioned.
RelevantCouncilemployeessuchasEnvironmentalHealthOfficers,CommunityDevelopment
Officers, or Planners at each Council were contacted. They were asked for broad and instinctive
responsesonwhethertheythoughteachofthesevenscenarioswasconsideredacceptableornotfor
theirLGAandwhy. AllofthesevenCouncilscontactedresponded. TheCouncilresponsesgavea
broadimpressionofhowawareeachLGAisoffoodproduction,andofthevariousUAactivitieswithin
theirarea. Specificpolicies,guidelines,by-laws,andplansmentionedintheresponseswerereviewed
oneachCouncil’swebsite. OtherdocumentssuchasTreePoliciesorPoultryKeepingGuidelineswere
alsoinvestigatedforrelevancetotheUAscenarios.
3. Results
Theresultsofthisstudyweredevelopedbyweavingtogetherthefindingsofthethreedistinct
research methods. The various acronyms used to identify the quotes are as follows, FG#1–3 for
thefocusgroups, KI#1–18forthekeyinformantinterviews, andSA#1–7forthescenarioanalyses.
Thissectionhasbeendividedintotwoparts,Part1focusesontheperceptionofaquaponics,while
Part2coverstheurbanplanningaspectsoftheresults.
3.1. Part1: PerceptionofAquaponics
Two-thirdsofthefocusgroupparticipantswerecompletelyunfamiliarwithaquaponics,andof
thosewhowerefamiliar,onlythreeparticipantsconsideredthemselvesexperienced. Initialreactions
toaquaponicsrangedfrompositive,throughneutraloruncertain,andtosimpledislike,asevident
fromthefollowingquotes:
“Theaestheticsofthebackyardsystemsareexciting”FG#1and“Iliketheexperimental
side.”FG#1
“Seemstohavethescopetoscaleup,sowhyhasn’tithappened?”FG#1and“I’dreally
misstheearthandallthethingsthatareintheearththatfeedmyplants.”FG#3
“Ithinkmyhonestgutreactionissuspicion”FG#3and“[I’m]interestedinlookingata
futureofenergyconstraints;aquaponicslooksveryenergyandmaterialbased.”FG#2
Thefocusgroupparticipantswereaskedtoputforwardtheirownopinionsofthestrengthsand
weaknessesofaquaponics. Theiropinionsvariedfromthe‘technical’literaturebasedstrengthsand
weaknesses,beingmoreconcernedwiththeeaseofoperationandhowaquaponicsmaybeperceived
(Table1).
Althoughthediscussiontopicsrangedconsiderably,theperceivedweaknessesreceivedthemost
attention. The persistent concern over the barriers to aquaponics was particularly evident during
analysisoffocusgroupdata. Wheneverafocusgroupparticipantcommentedontheexpansionof
aquaponics, their comment was categorised into one of the following topics: ‘Benefits or Value of
Aquaponics’,‘BarrierstoAquaponics’,or‘BusinessRelatedExpansion’. Contentanalysisofthesethree
topicsrevealedthattherewere395mentionsof‘BarrierstoAquaponics’,271mentionsof‘Business
RelatedExpansion’,andonly113mentionsof‘BenefitsorValueofAquaponics’.
Horticulturae2017,3,39 6of15
Table1.ComparisonofStrengthsandWeaknessesofAquaponics.
FocusGroupBased Literature1Based FocusGroupBased
Literature1BasedStrengths
Strengths Weaknesses Weaknesses
(cid:4) Space-efficient.Suitable (cid:4) Canlook (cid:4) Combiningtwohybrid (cid:4) Havehad/heardof
forurbanland(e.g., greataesthetically systemsincreasesthe badexperiences
unused/unproductive (cid:4) Space-efficientand potentialfor withaquaponics
land/backyards) modular—suitable problems (cid:4) Lookstoo
(cid:4) Sharedcostsbetween forurban (cid:4) Anaquaponicsgrower complicated/requires
theaquaculturesystem environments needstobecompetent technicalexpertise
andthehydroponics (cid:4) Sustainabledueto atraisingfish (cid:4) Prefer/more
system(startup, nutrientcycling andplants comfortablewithsoil
operating,infrastructure) (cid:4) Nottime (cid:4) Availablenutrientsfor (cid:4) Expensivestart-up
(cid:4) Reducedwaterusage consuming plantsaredependent costsand
andwastedischarge oncebuilt onthenumberoffish, infrastructure
(compared (cid:4) Canbeusedon thesizeofthefish,and ifcommercial
withaquaculture) landthatcannot theamountthey (cid:4) Lackofknowledge
(cid:4) Reducednitrogenloss growfood(e.g., arefed andresearchdone
asexperiencedby contaminatedland) (cid:4) Fishareverysensitive (technical,business,
conventionalfieldcrops (cid:4) Foodgrowncloser tochemicals,socan people,nutrients)
(cid:4) Increasedprofit toconsumers(e.g., onlyusebarriersand (cid:4) Fishcareandethics
potentialfrom veryurbanand biologicalcontrols (e.g.,temperature
simultaneouscashcrops local) (cid:4) Mustcompromisethe control)
(cid:4) Foodgrowncloserto pHbetweentheplants (cid:4) Looksvery
consumers andthefish “built”/aestheticscan
(cid:4) Candiversifyrevenue; (cid:4) Mustcompromisein beugly
educationaltool, temperaturebetween (cid:4) Muchmoreplant
agri-tourism, theplantsandthefish producegrown
andtraining. (cid:4) Fishmealasthemain thanfish
proteininfishfoodis (cid:4) Isnotsustainableto
unsustainable feedfishmealto
growfish
1Aquaponicspositivesandnegativessourcedfrom[15,32,36].
3.1.1. Barriers
Whenaquaponicswasfirstintroducedtofocusgroupandinterviewparticipants,themajority
wereunfamiliarorunsure,andallhadquestionsaboutvariousaspectsofhowthetechnologyworks.
Outof14barriersidentifiedagainstorpreventingadoptionofaquaponics,thetopfourwere:‘Negative
preconceptions’(n=17outof18interviews),‘Ethicsaroundfish’(n=15),‘Suitability’(n=14),and
‘Aesthetics’(n=11). Thesetopfourbarrierswerealsopresentinallthreefocusgroupsessions.
Furtheranalysisofthenegativepreconceptionsfoundthateverynegativecomment,withone
exception,eitherreflectedalackofawareness,understanding,andexperience(n=12),orrelatedto
alackofcurrentexamplesofviableaquaponicsbusinesses(n=7). Thissuggeststhatitisalackof
familiarityandunderstandingofsuchsystemsthatholdspeoplebackfromeasyacceptanceofthe
technology. Withoutwidelyvisibleexamplesofsuccessfulaquaponicsenterprises,thereiscurrently
littleopportunityforpeopletofamiliarisethemselveswiththetechnology.
Participantswereveryinterestedinthefishproductionsideofaquaponicssystems. The‘Fish
Ethics’topic(n=16,FG=3)includedconcernsofwhetheritwasrighttogrowfishintensively,and
storiesofpeoplehavingsomethinggowrongwiththeiraquaponicssystemandhavingmany(orall)
thefishdie. OthersaskedabouttheparticularspeciessuitableforAdelaideandwhatyouwouldfeed
them. Inonefocusgroupthisledtoadiscussionoftheenvironmentalsustainabilityofusingfishmeal
togrowfish.
The consideration of ‘Suitability’ not only related to the suitability of the fish species or the
temperatureforAdelaide’sclimate,butwasalsoconcernedwiththeculturalsuitabilityofaquaponics.
Culturalsuitabilityincludedgardeningtypepreference,whetherfishispartofapeoples’cultural
diet,andpotentialstigmaaroundtheconsumptionortasteoffreshwaterfishwhencomparedwith
saltwaterspecies.
Horticulturae 2017, 3, 39 7 of 15
Hortaicquultaupraoen20ic1s7., C3,u3l9tural suitability included gardening type preference, whether fish is part of a people7so’f 15
cultural diet, and potential stigma around the consumption or taste of freshwater fish when
compared with saltwater species.
AeAstehsetthiectsicos fotfh tehes ysysstteemmss wwaass aa sstrtroonnggere rcocnocnecrenr tnhatnh aonrigoirniaglilnya elxlypeecxtepde c(tne d= 1(1n, F=G1 =1 ,3)F. GTh=e 3).
Thearatriftiicfiicaila olro rcoconnstsrturcutcetde dapappepaeraarnacne coefo tfhteh eaqauqaupaopnoicnsi cssyssytesmtesm dsidscioscuoraugreadg esdomsoem peepopeolep. lSeo.mSoem e
parptiacritpicainptasnatssk aesdkeidf tihf tehsey ssytsetmemssc ocouuldldb been naattuurraalliizzeedd,, aanndd ccoommmmeenntetedd ththata tthtehye ywwouoludl hdahpappilpyi hlyavhea ve
a‘par e‘pttrye’ttsyy’ sstyesmtemsu scuhcahs atsh tehee xeaxmampplelep phhoottoo ooff oonnee eennccaasseedd iinn ttimimbbeer r(F(Figiguurer e2)2, )b,ubtu ntont ootnoen weiwthi ltohtslo ts
ofpoifp peispsehs oshwoiwngin.gH. Havaivnigngth tehes ysystsetemmfi ftiti innttoo tthhee llooookk ooff tthheeiirr bbaacckkyyaardrd cacmame eacarcorsoss assa as satrsotnrogn fagcftaocr tor
inpina rptiacritpicainptasn’tws’ iwlliinllginngensesstso toa daddda qaquuaappoonnicicss ttoo tthheeiirr eexxiissttiinngg ggaarrddeenn. .

FigFuirgeu2re. P2h. Pohtootoof owf owoodoednenb abcakcykayradrda aqquuaappoonniiccss ssyysstteemm.. RReepprroodduucceedd wwitiht hpepremrmissisiosnio fnrofmro mJusJtuinstei ne
WilWliaimlliasm(Cs i(tCyiFtyo oFodoGd aGrdarednesn).s).
3.1.2. Benefits or Value
3.1.2. BenefitsorValue
There were five perceived benefits and values of aquaponics, the top being ‘Diversity’ (n = 16,
Therewerefiveperceivedbenefitsandvaluesofaquaponics,thetopbeing‘Diversity’(n=16,
FG = 3). Less frequently mentioned, but still within the top three were, ‘Water and nutrient cycling’
FG=3). Lessfrequentlymentioned,butstillwithinthetopthreewere,‘Waterandnutrientcycling’
(n = 13, FG = 2), and ‘Size’ (n = 11, FG = 2).
(n=13,FG=2),and‘Size’(n=11,FG=2).
The apparent diversity of the technology appealed to most of the participants (n = 16, FG = 3).
Theapparentdiversityofthetechnologyappealedtomostoftheparticipants(n=16,FG=3).
Discussion on this included some systems’ modular design and small adaptable size, thus potentially
Disscuuistasibolne iof nretnhtiisngin (cFlGud#1e)d. Psaormticeipsyasnttesm thso’umgohdt oufl amradneys ipgonssainbdilistimesa flolra adqaupatapbolneicssi:z teo, gthrouwsp foootedn otina lly
suitcaobnlteamifirneantteidn gor( FuGn#d1e)r.-uPtailritziceidp alanntds t(hno =u g7h, tFGof =m 3a)n, ytop uosses itbhieli twieastefor rcayqcluinagp oton ihces:lpt oclgeraonw a fdoaomd on
con(tKamI#9in),a ftoedr voerruyn idseorla-utetdil izruedralla cnodm(nm=un7i,tiFeGs (=K3I#),4t)o, fuosre stchheowola teedruccyactiloinng (tKoIh#1e1lp), calneadn tao daasmsis(tK inI# 9),
forbvreereydiinsgo leanteddanrguerraeldc noamtimveu fnisihti esspe(cKieI#s 4f)o,rf coornsscehrvoaotlioend, ufocar teioxanm(KplIe#, 1M1)u,rarnayd Ctooda s(sMisatcciunllborceheeldlai ng
endpaeenlgii)e raend icnoantiicv aenfids thhrsepaetceineesdf ospreccoienss ienr vAautisotrna,lifao (rKeIx#a1m0).p le,MurrayCod(Maccullochellapeelii)an
iconicanTdhet hcryecalitnegn eodf stphee cnieustriinenAtsu satnradl imau(KchI# 1o0f )t.he water (although not a closed loop cycle) was
apTphreecciaytceldin bgy omfatnhye pnaurttirciiepnatnstsa (nnd = m13u, FchG o= f2)t.h Tehwis actoeurld(a pltohsosiubglyh bne ofotra itcsl oliskeednelsoso tpo ac yncalteu)rawl as
appsryescteiamte, dsubiytinmga snoympea ortfi cthipea pnatsrt(icnip=a1n3ts,’F sGus=ta2in).aTblhei svacoluuelsd. Tphoes saibplpyebale ofof rsaitvsinligk ewnaetsesr tion aSnouatthu ral
Australia (the driest state in Australia) was also mentioned (FG#1, KI#1, and KI#18).
system, suiting some of the participants’ sustainable values. The appeal of saving water in South

Australia(thedrieststateinAustralia)wasalsomentioned(FG#1,KI#1,andKI#18).
3.1.3. BusinessConsiderations
Whenaskedwhatscaleofanaquaponicsbusinessthefocusgroupparticipantsthoughtwouldbe
themostsuccessful,twoscaleswereselected: small-scaleniche(FG=3)andlargerwholesaleselling
(FG=3). Eachfocusgroupdiscussedtheappropriatenessofhavingaseriesofscales. Thesescaleswere
Horticulturae2017,3,39 8of15
presentedineachkeyinformantinterviewforfurtherdiscussion. Whenaskedtoconsiderthemerits
andweaknessesofeachmodel,theideaofanaquaponicsbusinessevoked16differentconsiderations
fromparticipants. Thetopfiveconcernswere: ‘Needtodoseriousbusinessresearchfirst’(n=15),
‘Marketingandbrandperception’(n=14),andthenequally,‘Aquaponicsstoryvalue’(n=12)and
‘Communityandfamilyeducation’(n=12),andfinally,‘Needdemonstrationsofaquaponics’(n=12).
Theseresponsesarebroadlyreflectiveofthesocialbarriersidentifiedearlier.
Theneedforseriousbusinessresearchcoveredeverythingfromstart-upcosts,acceptabletime
tobreak-even,volumeofproductionpersystem,theintensityofproduction,whatkindofsupport
youwouldneed,andwhethertoconsidervalueadding. Participantswantedallthedetailsavailable
beforetheywouldconsiderit.
Quiteafewparticipantssuggesteddemonstrationsofaquaponics(n=12)forpeoplenotonlyto
becomefamiliarwiththetechnology,butalsotohelpovercomesomeofthenegativeperceptions,and
toassistincommunityandfamilyeducation(n=12),asevidentinthefollowingquote:
“Ithinkpeopleneedtotouchandfeelandsmell. Theyneedtoseeitworking. Togetclose
toit,tounderstandit.”KI#1
The marketing and brand perception of such a business, especially whether or not it was
possible to tell the difference between produce grown traditionally or with aquaponics, was also
astrongconsideration:
“IfIwenttoafarmers’marketandtherewasalettuceforsale,couldIdistinguishbetween
onegrownusingaquaponicsorconventionally? Iftryingtosellit—asaconsumer,why
wouldIchooseoneovertheother?”KI#2
Thereweremanypotentialmarketablepointsraised: localproduction(FG#3,KI#3,KI#6,and
KI#14),waterefficiency(FG#1,KI#9,andKI#18),andfreshness(KI#3andKI#14). Valueofthestory
was closely tied to brand perception. This would be how those trying to sell their produce could
attempttoengageandconnectwithpotentialbuyers(n=12):
“Sellingthestory.Differentiated,e.g.,sellingKingfishtoSydneyrestaurants.Ihadtosaywhy
itwasspecialandonlyavailablethroughhere... ... You’resellingfood,notafish.”KI#3
Thereweremanybusinessstructureideaspromotedwithsomevariationsonsimilarthemes.
These ideas are assembled into a variable scale of business deployment, presented in Table 2.
Theyrangefrombackyardsizestolarge-scalewholesale. Small-scalenichemarketandwholesale
commercialmarketsizeswereconsideredthemostpotentiallycompetitivecommercially.
Table2.Aquaponicsbusinessdesignoptions.
Structure Suitablefor
Onefamily
1.Backyardscale
Twofamilies(sharing)
Communitygarden
2.Community
Communitycollective
Farmersmarket
3.Limitednichemarket
Restaurants
Unemploymentworkprogram
Migrantsupportprogram
4.Socialenterprise
Home-basedsales
Youthtraining
Wholesaletosupermarket
5.Largewholesalecommercial
Commercialpartner
6.Foodgardenservice Partofgardendesignandbuildbusiness
Horticulturae2017,3,39 9of15
The success of UA at the niche market scale is dependent on selling at retail prices direct to
consumers, otherwisetheeconomiesofscalearenotviable. Bysellingdirect, thisstrengthensthe
importanceofamarketingstrategythatmakesthemostofsettingswhereconnectioncantakeplace,
suchasafarmers’market. Tomakethislinkworkinpractice,however,the“story”iscritical—people
willnotbuyfromastallatafarmers’marketiftheydonotliketheproducer’sstory. Sellingproduce
insuchapublicplacealsoensurestheopportunityfordemonstrationsandeducationofthepeople
thereinordertoallowthemtobetterunderstandandappreciatetheproduce. Hence,thesocialand
communityperceptionsidentifiedinthisstudyhaveflow-onimplicationsfortheviableformationof
astory,toproducer-consumerconnections,toretailpricingstructure,andfinallyleadingtoaniche
businessmodel.
Considerationofstartinganaquaponicsbusinessatthewholesalescaleraisedtheideaofdoing
sowithacommercialpartnertomakethemostoftheirexistingsetup(n=8,FG=1). Theaquaponics
businesswouldbenefitfromtheexistingstructuresandthebusinesscoulduseaquaponicsasapoint
ofdifferenceinsales(KI#10).
Therewerealsoconcernsfortheproductionvolumeandconsistencynecessaryforawholesale
business(n=4,FG=1). Althoughsomedidthinkthatonceyouhadtheproductionvolumeconsistent
thatitcouldbeamoredependablemarketthanthenichescalemarket(KI#6,KI#15,andFG#1).
Anotherbusinessdesignputforwardwasthatofanaquaponicssocialenterprise(n=6,FG=3).
Theseparticipantsthoughtthatanetworkofpeoplecouldworkcollaborativelyonalargerscaleproject
to develop their own brand and share in the profits. The other persistent idea linked aquaponics
socialenterprisetosocialjusticeandcommunitycapacitybuildingwithtwooptions. Firstly,asan
‘Unemployment Work Program’ type setup where those receiving public financial support could
contributetheirtimeinexchangeforskilldevelopmentandproducevouchersforsomeoftheproduce
grown,andsecondly,asa‘YouthTrainingProgram’,whichwasdescribedasparticularlyvaluablefor
suburbswithhighyouthunemploymentrates,suchasSalisburyandPlayfordinAdelaide(KI#11).
3.1.4. ScaledGuidelines
Theparticipants’desireforseriouslogisticalbusinessconsiderations,combinedwiththemany
potential structures for aquaponics systems, culminated in the idea that a set of scaled guidelines
isneeded(n=7,FG=2). Suchguidelineswouldincludefinancial,logistical,productionvolumes,
time requirements etc. for each scale from backyard (for one or two families), community-sized
(for a community garden or collective), niche market size, social enterprise, or large commercial
operation.Itshouldbenotedthatcurrentlybackyardaquaponicssystemsarethemostcommonformof
aquaponicsinAustralia[12]. However,havingthisbackgroundbusinessinformationpreparedwould
meanthatanyindividual,communitygroup,business,orcouncilconsideringanykindofaquaponics
systemcouldbrowsethisinformationandmakeamoreconfidentdecisionthaniscurrentlypossible.
Focusing on the different purposes of the aquaponics structures differs from previous
considerations of aquaponics system viability. Goodman [15] researched inclusion of community
benefitsinadditiontothefinancialfeasibilityofaquaponicsbusinesses. Goodman[15]determined
thenetincomeofonesmall,onemedium,andonelargesizedaquaponicsbusiness,andfoundthat
thelikelihoodofthesebusinessesgeneratingprofitpurelyfromtheaquaponicsproductionoffish
and plants was slim. The odds did improve if the purpose of the system was for more than just
financialprofit,forexample,ifalsoforcommunitybenefit,suchasGrowingPowerinMilwaukee.
Goodman [15] made recommendations for cost-cutting: vertical integration (producing necessary
inputsonsite;e.g.,growwormsforfishfood),gettingthingsforfree,anddiversifyingrevenuestreams.
Theseareallsuitableoptionsforthesmallerscaledaquaponicssystems,suchasnichemarketselling
orsocialenterprise.
Horticulturae2017,3,39 10of15
3.2. Part2: UrbanPlanning
3.2.1. FocusGroupandInterviewResponsestoUrbanFoodPlanning
OfthefocusgroupandinterviewparticipantsactivelyinvolvedingrowingfoodinAdelaide,all
ofthemalludedtoalackofCouncilsupportwhenaskedabouttheirexperienceswithurbanplanning.
Thisbeliefwasexemplifiedinthefollowingquote:
“Ithinkit’smuchbetterjusttoflyundertheradaraslongasyoucan.”FG#3
When asked if (and how) current urban food planning could be improved, many
recommendationsweremade. Thetopsixsuggestionswere: ‘Importanceoftop-downgovernment
supportorapositivestance’(n=17),‘Valueofsmarturbanplanning’(n=14)and‘Useofdifferent
planningtoolstosupportUA’(suchasincentiveschemes)(n=14),‘NeedtoprovidespaceforUA’
(n=13),‘Adoptplanningexamplesfromothercitiesorcountries’(n=13),and‘Dependencyofurban
foodplanningonindividuallocalCouncil’(n=13).
3.2.2. TopDownSupport
Theidea,andapparentnecessityoftopdownsupportwasbestdescribedbyoneparticipant,an
environmentalpolicylecturer:
“Ifthegovernmentsupportssomethingordoesn’t,therecanbeapolicyvacuum. Youhave
tohaveahigh-levelpolicyposition. Fromtheseyoucanbuildprogramsandunderthem
particularprojects. Butyouneedthedriveruptop.”KI#2
There have been previous calls for strong top level support (federal and state) of urban food
planning, both in the US [37] and in Australia [38]. When questioned whether they thought this
supportshouldcomefromstateorfederallevel,moreparticipantsagreedwithstatesupport(n=13),
overfederal(n=3). TwocurrentplansthatcouldbeexpectedtomakesomereferencetoUAinSouth
Australiaarethe30-YearPlanforGreaterAdelaide,andthePremiumFoodandWinefromourClean
EnvironmentInitiative.
In 2010, the South Australian Government published the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide.
AsubmissiononthedraftPlanbythePlanningInstituteofAustralia(SADivision)commentedon
whattheycalledunresolvedconflictbetweenthePlan’sdesignsforacompact,transit-orientedcity,
with protection of primary food production land, and the land supply for housing development
growth[19]. Oneinterviewparticipant,aCommunityDevelopmentOfficer,hadnoticedhowthePlan
discussesgreenspacebutnoturbanfood.
ThePlanningInstitute’ssubmissionalsopointedoutthatthereisonlyasinglepolicy(ChapterD,
HealthandWellbeing,Policy3)thatmentionsprotectionofsomefoodproductionareas. Uponfurther
reading,itwasnoticedthatoneotherpolicy(ChapterD,HealthandWellbeing,Policy2)doesvow
topromotethedevelopmentofcommunitygardens,albeitonlyfor“socialinteractionandphysical
wellbeing” (Government of South Australia 2010, p. 101), and not for production capability or
foodsecurity.
Another state level plan is the Premium Food and Wine from Our Clean Environment
Initiative. Whenaskedwhetherthisprogram,whichisassistedandimplementedinpartbyPIRSA
(Primary Industries and Regions South Australia), only supported the large-scale producers, one
participantresponded:
“In terms of the farmers themselves, if you’re small-scale, PIRSA helps in terms of
over-arching policies and things but doesn’t get involved in the day to day ... So if
you’resmall,youeitherbecomeamemberofabodythatcanrepresentyouoryoujustdo
yourownthingandnotworryaboutanyoneelse.”KI#15