ThesisPDF Available

The acceptance of vertical farming by the ecotourist population

October 2021

Thesis for: Bachelor degree in Business Administration of Hospitality Management
Advisor: Katina Gikas

Authors:

Hotelschool The Hague

This research paper explores the acceptance of the vertical farming concept, and more specifically, its acceptance in the ecotourist market. Vertical farming, which can be defined as the growing of vegetables and leafy greens in fully controlled indoor and urban environments, is a new agricultural method that shows great promises in tackling the future problems linked to feeding the World. In the tourism industry, the concept could be integrated in currents structure to diversify the offering of activities. However, people seem to have a reluctance towards the concept, due to numerous social, economic, and personal factors. While the acceptance of vertical farming has already been explored in other research papers, this paper investigates the specific ecotourist market who theoretically matches the underlying values of vertical farming. By means of a literature overview, five potential factors of resistance from ecotourist towards vertical farming were uncovered. They are the fact that ecotourist think vertical farming is a fake representation of natural farming, ecotourist question the ecological added value of vertical farming, ecotourist feel discomfort consuming high-tech produced goods, vertical farming, because of its economic scheme reinforces the idea that it is designed for a privileged population and finally, vertical farming can be seen as taking away the jobs of traditional farmers. After performing a survey research model with 118 participants, the researcher determined that the fake representation of nature, the elitist views and the employment perspectives were confirmed as resistance factors. The economic unrealism of vertical farming was also uncovered as a factor of resistance. While the research paper confirms that vertical farming is an agricultural method mistrusted by the wider population, the research outcomes also point out that there are great misconceptions on the concept, which leads to its unacceptance. The researcher thus concluded from this research that although vertical farming must evolve on its own to meet the ever-changing desires of ecotourists, much work must be achieved in correctly educating ecotourists on the concept of vertical farming to increase their acceptance.

PDM

…

Figures - uploaded by Tanguy de Lamartinie

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Tanguy de Lamartinie

Content may be subject to copyright.

LYCar

Company

Project Report

“What factors can influence the

acceptance of vertical farming by

ecotourists?”

Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie

672055

Prepared for: Ms Gikas & Ms Ortgies

Block: 2022AB

Campus: The Hague

Date submitted: 18/12/2021

Words: 11990 words

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Executive summary

The subject of this study is the expansion of ecotourism through the concept of vertical farming.

The researcher fostered an interest in vertical farming in 2020 and wished to illustrate his

accumulated knowledge in tourism and sustainable practice to cover the topic in an area that has

yet to be investigated.

In the problem definition, the researcher introduces the topic of ecotourism which is a sub-

category of sustainable tourism and tourism. The ecotourism industry, which has had a steady

growth of 5% since 2018 can be defined as a practice of tourism that focuses on the ecological

and social bottom lines to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Ecotourism is based on six

pillars: nature-based, preservation, education, sustainability, equal benefits, and ethical

responsibility. In the problem definition, the researcher also explained that ecotourism, an

industry that is always required to innovate, has expanded through the concept of vertical

farming. Vertical farming, which is an urban, indoor, and high-tech agricultural practice, complies

theoretically and practically with the pillars of ecotourism, making it a relevant aspect to explore

for the expansion of ecotourism.

However, the expansion of vertical farming in ecotourism is hindered by the low acceptance of

this new agricultural practice. Common factors include the low knowledge of the system, an issue

of unromanticized image, and a scepticism towards its financial feasibility. A situational scan led

to the realisation that external parties play a great role in decreasing the scepticism of the public

towards a specific new technology. Moreover, Urban farming, the cousin of vertical farming,

gathers high-acceptance results amongst the public due to its big similarities with the traditional

farming model. Finally, the researcher understood, that the ecotourist market is a resilient market

that usually raises its acceptance once personal benefits are illustrated to them. The problem

definition led the researcher to design the main research question of this study: “What factors

can influence the acceptance of vertical farming by ecotourists?”.

A literature review was undertaken to discover what were the factors of low acceptance that were

directly linked to vertical farming within ecotourism. The unified theory of acceptance and use of

technology was used to guide this literature review. Therefore, the factors were investigated and

categorised in the groups “performance expectance”, “effort expectance” and “social influence”.,

which are the three variables affecting the overall acceptance of a system. In performance

expectance, the researcher understood that people usually doubt the ecological added value of

vertical farming. Another factor discovered was the fact that vertical farming, through its high-tech

methods does not perfectly represent nature. In effort expectance, the factor of technophobia

was brought to light: technophobia causes discomfort or physical anxiety to the ecotourists when

consuming technology-produced goods. Finally, in social influence, the researcher understood

that vertical farming, through its elitist image could reinforce the already existing elitist image

associated with ecotourism. Secondly, vertical farming is a threat to employment by replacing the

jobs of traditional farmers with robotised systems.

Once all these factors were discovered, the researcher created a research design to understand

which of these factors are the most important to ecotourists. Primary data was collected by

means of a survey, distributed to the ecotourist population. The outcomes of the statistical tests

showcased that the most contributing factors to the scepticism of ecotourists towards VF were

the sustainable views, the employment practices, and the image of elitism. The factor of

technophobia was discredited, and the factor of the natural views was neither confirmed or

discredited. From the statistical test emerged another factor which was the misbelief in the cost-

benefit ratio of vertical farming. At this point, the researcher also realised that there was a gap

between the perception of people regarding vertical farming and the reality of the concept, which

points towards the miseducation of people on the concept, which is the root cause of all future

resistance.

In the next step, the researcher designed a solution to deconstruct the unfounded perceptions of

ecotourists regarding the image of elitism, sustainable views, and employment practices. A focus

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

group was held with Marjan de Jong, Gemma Gisy, and Francesco Filipetti to co-create an

optimal solution. The researcher ultimately combined the focus group outcomes, scientific

evidence, and his own understanding to develop the vertical farming learning module. This

educative tool, to be pilot tested at Hotelschool The Hague, in the Future of Food Minor, consists

of three phases. The main activities included in this module are a visit to a vertical farm in

Wageningen University, preparation of jigsaw presentations on different topics linked to vertical

farming and a reflection around the concept of vertical farming, to understand how the opinion of

the participants has evolved thanks to proper education on the topic. The learning module was

made bearing in mind the Taxonomy of Significant Learning Model by Dee Flink, ensuring its

quality as an educative tool to be implemented in a University. Financially wise, low costs also

guarantee its feasibility.

The evaluation plan has been set to understand the extent to which the learning module will

impact the opinion of the students and the wider ecotourist population when it comes to vertical

farming. The main tools will be displayed at the end of the learning module: for example, the

jigsaw presentation and their quality will give an overall idea of the knowledge gained. Moreover,

the time capsule concept will be applied to capture before and after the module the opinion of the

targeted students and see how opinions have changed on an individual level. On the larger

scale, the researcher hopes to influence the vertical farming industry, hospitality businesses, and

ecotourist population on the long term, however, as the solution is a pilot test, effects on the

wider scale will only be noticeable in the long term. Key performance indicators track in that

regard are the increase in hospitality/vertical farming projects or the overall acceptance evolution

of vertical farming that can be assessed by reutilising the survey from the analysis part.

In the dissemination chapter, the researcher defined the audience of this report as the

ecotourists, academicians, educative bodies, vertical farming employees, and hospitality

employees. Dissemination of the research results on ResearchGate enabled the researcher to

target the Academicians. On the social media platforms, an infographic targeted hospitality

businesses and ecotourists. An email summarizing the thesis outcomes and the full research

report was sent to 15 vertical farm enterprises to target the vertical farm employees. Finally, the

researcher aims at further disseminating to educative bodies and ecotourists by means of the

LYCar event and a planned urban farming event in January. Overall, the researcher is confident

that the results were widely spread, as shown by more than 100 views on ResearchGate.

However, very limited feedback was provided on the dissemination channels. The researcher

trusts that the direct communication with the targeted audience, during the planned events of

January 2022, will yield direct feedback.

In the final chapter, the researcher reflected on the project paradigms. The lack of existing

research on the topic of ecotourism and vertical farming limited the search of patterns and

paradigms in the literature review. However, the research project, through its methodological

design has a real added value for the Academician population, because it contributed to

increasing the knowledge on the topic, which can be further used as a steppingstone for

ecotourism or vertical farming research papers. The survey method, although limiting the

apparition of new paradigms, was a useful tool to gather many data and draw conclusions. For

the future, the researcher recognises that there would be added value in analysing the

acceptance of vertical farming while considering other variables (such as age, income level, or

psychographic and behavioural attributes). Relevant research to conduct, linked to this paper,

would be to gain a clear understanding of the ecological added value of vertical farming, find

ways to integrate vertical farming best practices within our traditional agricultural models, and

further the knowledge on the profile of ecotourists.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Preface and acknowledgments

Dear reader,

To validate the obtention of a bachelor’s degree in Hospitality management at Hotelschool The

Hague, the researcher completed a research project on the subject of ecotourism and vertical

farming. The research project is based on the Data-Base Research cycle, this is a 5-step

process that covers the definition of a problem to its analysis and then on to the design,

implementation and evaluation of a solution that tackles the problem.

For this project, the researcher investigates the problem of the low acceptance of vertical farming

amongst the ecotourist market. The researcher completed the first two steps of the Data-Base

Research cycle by handing in and validating a proposal of research (App.1). This new report

depicts the full cycle, including the validated and reworked proposal.

The researcher, in his project was able to benefit from the advice and the help of a circle of

dedicated and knowledgeable colleagues.

Special thanks go to Katina Gikas, who coached the researcher by providing insightful tips on

improve the quality of the report in its shape and in its content.

The researcher thanks Marjan de Jong who commissioned the topic and enabled the researcher

to develop his ideas and interest in the research topic.

The researcher also wants to share his gratefulness to his course group composed of Francesco

Filipetti and Daan van Houten, for their advice; to the lecturers who shared their knowledge and

contributed to the overall quality of the report, this includes amongst other Ms Schepel, Mr Chia

and Mr van Rheede; the participnts of the focus group: Gemma Gisy, Francesco Filipetti and

Marjan de Jong.

Finally, the researcher acknowledges and thank the SDG/CE community of Hotelschool The

Hague, all those who participated in the research survey for their support and help.

Yours Sincerely,

The researcher, Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Precondition checklist

Precondition

Status

Executive Summary

Completed

Complete report

Completed

Use of English

Completed

Word count CPR

11939 words

Word count career portfolio

Harvard referencing

Completed

Assessment & feedback form approved

proposal

App.1

Proof of dissemination

Chapter 6

Client evaluation

Appendices Career Portfolio

Last exam

Completed

Turnitin accepted

Status unknown

CPR submitted to larchive@hotelschool.nl

Completed

Data Management

App.16

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

List of abbreviations

Abbreviation

Meaning

AAR

After-Action Review

F&B

Food and Beverage

FoF

Future of Food

HTH

Hotelschool The Hague

LYCar

Launching Your Career

PDM

Project Dissemination Model

MRQ

Main Research Question

PLO

Professional Learning Outcomes

Research Question

SDG

Sustainable Development Goals

TSL

Taxonomy of Significant Learning

UTAUT

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of

Technology

Vertical farming

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague 
 

Table of contents 
 
Executive summary ...........................................................................................................2 
Preface and acknowledgments .........................................................................................4 
Precondition checklist .......................................................................................................5 
List of abbreviations .........................................................................................................6 
Table of contents ..............................................................................................................7 
Problem definition ................................................................................................ 10 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 10 
1.1. Scopes of tourism .........................................................................................................................10 
1.2. Expanding ecotourism ..................................................................................................................10 
2. Problem definition ....................................................................................................... 11 
3. Situational scan ........................................................................................................... 12 
3.1. External parties and public acceptance ........................................................................................12 
3.2. Acceptance of urban farming .......................................................................................................12 
3.3. Ecotourists and technology acceptance .......................................................................................12 
4. Reason for research ..................................................................................................... 13 
5. Research goals ............................................................................................................. 13 
Analysis and diagnosis .......................................................................................... 14 
1. Main Research Question (MRQ) ................................................................................... 14 
2. Literature review ......................................................................................................... 14 
2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................14 
2.2. Performance expectance factors involved in the acceptance of VF by ecotourists.....................14 
2.3. Effort expectance factors involved in the acceptance of VF by ecotourists ................................15 
2.4. Social influence factors involved in the acceptance of VF by ecotourists ....................................15 
2.5. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................16 
3. Methodology of stakeholder evidence .......................................................................... 17 
3.1. Research method ..........................................................................................................................17 
3.2. Sampling ........................................................................................................................................17 
3.3. Data collection ..............................................................................................................................17 
3.4. Ethical data management .............................................................................................................18 
3.5. Limitations.....................................................................................................................................18 
3.6. Research findings ..........................................................................................................................18 
3.7. Statistical tests ..............................................................................................................................24 
3.8. Conclusions and recommendations..............................................................................................26 
Solution Design ..................................................................................................... 28 
1. Design process ............................................................................................................. 28 
2. Solution draft............................................................................................................... 29 
2.1   Methodology ...............................................................................................................................29 
2.2  Module content ...........................................................................................................................29 
2.3  Reflection on proposed module ..................................................................................................33 

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague 
 
8 
4. Implementation .................................................................................................... 35 
4.1. Location....................................................................................................................... 35 
4.2. Time ............................................................................................................................ 36 
4.3. Communication plan .................................................................................................... 37 
4.4. Financial information ................................................................................................... 37 
5. Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 38 
5.1. Criteria to assess .......................................................................................................... 38 
5.2. Measurement tools ...................................................................................................... 39 
5.3. Future steps ................................................................................................................. 39 
6. Dissemination ....................................................................................................... 41 
6.1. Initial Analysis.............................................................................................................. 41 
6.2. Dissemination Design ................................................................................................... 44 
7. Academic reflection .............................................................................................. 46 
7.1. Reflection on research topics ....................................................................................... 46 
7.1.1. Concepts, literature, and paradigms ............................................................................................46 
7.1.2. Stakeholder needs ........................................................................................................................46 
7.2. Reflection on used methodology .................................................................................. 46 
7.3. Implications for future research ................................................................................... 47 
7.3.1. Setting changes for the research ..................................................................................................47 
7.3.2. Needs for extended research .......................................................................................................48 
8. Appendices ........................................................................................................... 49 
App.1: Proposal grade form .................................................................................................... 49 
App.2: Survey Design .............................................................................................................. 53 
App.3: Social Media message .................................................................................................. 55 
App.4: Quantitative Data Informed Consent ............................................................................ 56 
App.5: Statistical test outcomes .............................................................................................. 57 
App.6: Transcript focus group ................................................................................................. 84 
App.7: Introductory Resource ................................................................................................. 90 
App.8: Overview of HTH courses and learning objectives ......................................................... 91 
App.9: Research Gate dissemination ....................................................................................... 94 
App.10: Social media dissemination ........................................................................................ 95 
App.11: Dissemination to VF experts ....................................................................................... 96 
App.12: Dissemination to hospitality businesses ..................................................................... 97 
App.13: ResearchGate dissemination reactions ....................................................................... 98 
App.14: Social media dissemination reactions ......................................................................... 99 
App.15: VF experts dissemination reactions .......................................................................... 100 
App.16: Proof of Data Management upload .......................................................................... 101 

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Proof of word count ...................................................................................................... 102

List of references .......................................................................................................... 103

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

1. Problem definition

1.1. Introduction

1.1.1. Scopes of tourism

This study investigates ecotourism, which belongs to the broader scopes of tourism and

sustainable tourism.

Tourism was defined as the movement and the activities of individuals to new destinations

(Mathieson and Wall, 1982). Tourism rapidly expanded globally. By offering transport,

accommodation, entertainment and food and beverage (F&B)(Lafferty and Fossen, 2001), it

reached trillion USD ranging revenues in 2015 (Petliovana, 2016).

The branch of sustainable tourism emerged as a realisation that tourism could be used to

improve the societal, economic, and ecological bottom-lines, like the high employment value of

the industry (Swarbrooke, 1999). It reflects the need for sustainable changes, advocated by the

United Nations in 1987 in “Our Common Future” (D’Arco et al., 2021).

Ecotourism is a sub-category of sustainable tourism that focuses on the ecological and social

bottom-lines (Hasan, 2014). Although the definition is unclear (Donohoe and Needham, 2006),

this study will consider the six agreed-upon components pillars of ecotourism: nature-based,

preservation, education, sustainability, equal benefits, and ethical responsibility (ibid; TIES,

2021). An example of ecotourism is Agriturismo that provides 90%+ locally supplied F&B

services, accommodation, and activities (Bakerjian, 2019).

In 2018 (vs. 2017), tourism grew by 7%, sustainable tourism by 6%, and ecotourism by

5%(O’Connor, 2018; CREST, 2018). The growth of 5% is impressive when considering that

ecotourism is a niche market and justifies the relevance to studying it.

1.1.2. Expanding ecotourism

Because trends change rapidly, ecotourism must constantly innovate (Gurung and Scholz,

2008). Ecotourism has a high-potential innovative pattern: it focuses on adapting natural

resource-utilization activities into recreational activities (Asadi and Kohan, 2011). For

Agriturismo, the production of farming products is turned into F&B experience, farming

workshops, and lodging.

This innovative pattern inspired the American brand Tower Farms to exploit the concept of

vertical farming (VF) (Tower Farms, 2021). VF is an indoor and environment-controlled

agricultural consisting of growing crops on stacked shelves (Despommier, 2013). Tower Farms

partners with third parties to develop VF projects in customer-orientated firms (ibid).

Tower Farms showcases that VF can be integrated into ecotourism to add sustainable and profit-

orientated value. Moreover, VF theoretically matches the pillars of ecotourism (Table.1), making

it a relevant concept to study.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Table.1: Ecotourism and VF

Pillar

Explanation

Nature-based

VF aims at producing fresh produce (Despommier, 2011).

Preservation

VF reduces required arable land and preserves ecosystems by being

an urban practice (Despommier, 2013).

Education

VF is used in schools to educate on future food production methods

(Hopewell Elementary School, 2018; Pascual et al., 2018).

Sustainability

Socially, VF has high employment needs (Benke and Tomkins,

2017). Ecologically, VF reduces the needs for fresh water, arable

land and fuel (ibid; Saxena, 2021; Jasonos and McCormick, 2017;

Lyra et al., 2021).

Equal

benefits

VF offers agricultural opportunities in all parts of the World

(Despommier, 2013).

Ethical

responsibility

See equal benefits, sustainability, and preservation.

1.2. Problem definition

The researcher defined ecotourism and VF and showed that VF brings additional value when

integrated into ecotourism. However, there is a problem that hinders the expansion of VF

within ecotourism: the low public acceptance associated with VF. For example, the

recreational and production unit Uit je Eigen Stad listed non-acceptance of aquaponic vertical

systems in their bankruptcy report (de Graaf, 2016; Kartika, 2017).

The low knowledge of VF raises scepticism and misconceptions (Jürkenbeck et al., 2019;

Tablada et al., 2020). Moreover, the high-tech technology practice of VF conflicts with the

romanticized image of agriculture (Jürkenbeck et al., 2019; Specht et al., 2019). Finally, there is

economic scepticism towards VF (Specht et al., 2016).

The low acceptance of VF is one of the main obstacles to the materialisation of ecotourism-

based VF prototypes (such as Vertigrow in Sydney or the award-winning prototype of the

Aquaponic Experience hotel (Fig.1) (Cloherty, 2018; McKnight, 2017; Shah, 2018)).

Fig.1: Aquaponic Experience hotel

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

1.3. Situational scan

1.3.1. External parties and public acceptance

A study on public acceptance of new technologies shows that most new projects fail because

they are not well introduced to the public (Rogers et al., 2008). Third parties can be used to

reduce this.

Through their high visibility, governments can advertise ecotourist concepts (Bhuiyan et al.,

2011). For example, the Edible Garden City in Singapore owes its success to the local authorities

that provided building space and an accepting legal framework (Low, 2019). This example of an

urban farm differs from VF, which has low governmental support (Allegaert, 2019). The

researcher, therefore, advises to focus on public third parties.

Private firms also increase public acceptance. For example, the Netflix effect shows how

companies can popularize concepts: in 2020, there was an increase of 125% of sales of chess

boards, which coincided with the release date of the chess-based mini-series The Queen’s

Gambit (Crosby, 2021). Regarding VF, the case of Tower Farms is similar: by partnering with

Google and Nasa, the 11-employee company build strong credibility and reached 107 farms in

total (Tower Farms, 2021).

1.3.2. Acceptance of urban farming

Urban farming is the broader scope including VF (Dane, 2020). VF differs from all other urban

farming methods because only VF and greenhouses are indoor practices (ibid), and VF utilises

the most high-tech practices (ibid).

VF is the least accepted urban farming method (Kartika, 2017), and there is a preference for

green spaces methods (Jürkenbeck et al., 2019). Participants think that the most attractive

factors of urban farming are “fresh”, “local” and “green” (Grebitus et al., 2020). For example, the

Edible Garden City is successful because it manages to preserve the romanticized image of a

traditional vegetable garden (Low, 2019).

1.3.3. Ecotourists and technology acceptance

Tourism has undergone massive technological changes recently, such as online bookings, e-

commerce, social media marketing, or mobile applications (Ukpabi and Karjaluoto, 2017). The

touristic market is known for being very resilient, and consequently, the use of technology has

been normalised (ibid). The e-booking revolution shows that tourists are willing to adapt and

increase their acceptance if they benefit from it.

To improve technology acceptance, Mlekus suggests that technology should be adapted to

comply with stakeholders’ beliefs (Mlekus et al., 2020). This showcases that to increase

acceptance, it is crucial to understand what the customer wants and needs.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

1.4. Reason for research

Ecotourism constantly evolves and must innovate to meet the challenges of the 21st century

(Gurung and Scholz, 2008; Swarbrooke, 1999; Donohoe and Needham, 2006). Through the

study, the researcher contributes to innovating ecotourism in the high-tech agricultural field.

Furthermore, ecotourism mainly focuses on natural ecosystems (Donohoe and Needham, 2006;

Blamey, 1997), however, the World is rapidly urbanising (Ritchie and Roser, 2018). This shows

that ecotourism must find ways to implement itself in urban settings, such as through VF.

Finally, although VF shows great theoretical promises, its low acceptance is hindering its

successful implementation (Benke and Tomkins, 2017; Despommier, 2011; Jürkenbeck et al.,

2019). Therefore, the study is a step towards increasing the success chances of VF.

1.5. Research goals

For the client: understand concrete actions that can increase the successful implementation of

the VF concept linked to ecotourism.

For the researcher: provide some advice on how to enhance the acceptance of VF amongst

ecotourists.

2. Analysis and diagnosis

2.1. Main Research Question (MRQ)

“What factors can influence the acceptance of vertical farming by ecotourists?”

2.2. Literature review

2.2.1. Introduction

To understand the factors that play a role in the acceptance of VF, the researcher used the

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Soo Kang et al., 2011). The

UTAUT assesses overall acceptancy by analysing performance expectancy, effort expectancy,

and social influence (Oye et al., 2014). These variables are applied to the VF concept and the

ecotourist population.

2.2.2. Performance expectance factors involved in the acceptance of

VF by ecotourists

Performance expectance investigates if a system can achieve set goals (Oye et al., 2014). If VF

does not bring environmental and social added value (Donohoe and Needham, 2006), it will

score low in performance expectance.

It is unclear to ecotourists if VF contributes to the environmental bottom line. Therefore,

sustainable views negatively affect the performance expectance of VF by ecotourists.

Sustainability is a pillar of ecotourism (Ramaswamy and Sathis Kumar, 2010; Donohoe and

Needham, 2006), however, there seem to be disagreements if VF brings ecological added-value.

Perceived sustainability was recognised as a key factor in achieving acceptance of VF

(Jürkenbeck et al., 2019). However, individuals have a lack of knowledge on VF that leads them

to make wrong assumptions about its ecological impacts (ibid). For example, people wrongly

think that chemicals are necessary for VF processes (Yano et al., 2021). This lowers the

acceptance of VF because individuals’ subjective opinions take over the rational arguments

supporting the fact that VF is a sustainable practice.

For individuals that are familiar with VF, opinions converge, because Academia disputes that VF

is sustainable. For example, energy consumption was brought as a limitation of VF (Specht et al.,

2019). The researcher understands that some ecotourists might question the sustainability

impact of VF because Academicians themselves disagree.

VF is an urban practice, this conflicts with the original goal of ecotourism to be displayed

in a natural environment. Therefore, the poor representation of nature negatively impacts

the acceptance of VF by ecotourists.

Originally, ecotourism was described as activities linked to nature, which made the notion of

“natural practices” essential (Donohoe and Needham, 2006; Blamey, 1997). The first

interpretations suggested that there should be a complete immersion in natural ecosystems

(Valentine, 1992). This represents a challenge for VF, which can be considered unnatural due to

the soil-less practices, the use of LED lights, and the rapid robotisation of its practices (Muller et

al., 2017; Chuah et al., 2019). This uncertainty is emphasized by the preference of open and

green spaces practices when it comes to urban farming (Specht et al., 2016; Jürkenbeck et al.,

2019).

However, these interpretations date from the 1990s, and the definition must be adapted to the

current context. The International Ecotourism Society remains evasive on the topic (TIES, 2021),

highlighting a possibility to widen the interpretation of the definition. The link between VF and

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

nature exists as the plant remains the core interest of VF. Therefore, VF could exceed the

expectations of ecotourism by bringing the natural component to the urbanised World.

2.2.3. Effort expectance factors involved in the acceptance of VF by

ecotourists

Effort expectance can be defined as the extent to which it will be easy for an individual to use the

system (Oye et al., 2014). The more ecotourists are at ease while using VF, the more likely it is

that they will accept it. That makes effort expectance a moderator variable to the acceptance of

VF by ecotourists.

Discomfort while using VF reduces its ease of use on the psychological level. Therefore,

technophobia reduces the effort expectance of VF by ecotourists.

As was illustrated in the introduction of this study, a commonly encountered factor of low

acceptance of VF is the reluctance towards high-tech technology, also known as technophobia

(Yano et al., 2021). If an ecotourist shows signs of technophobia, it would increase its effort

expectancy, because it would psychologically be difficult for him/her to engage in high-tech-

related touristic activities.

A study showed that 85% of the population suffered technophobia symptoms in the form of

discomfort characterised by physical anxiety, nausea, sweating, gastrointestinal symptoms,

restlessness, and more (Hou et Al., 2017; Osiceanu, 2015; Juby, 2021), however, it is uncertain

to what extent this phenomenon touches ecotourists.

ecotourism used to be mainly practiced by highly educated individuals, however nowadays, it is

spreading to lower educational levels. The literature offers opposed opinions when it comes to

technophobia and educational level: while Wietgrefe supports that high education individuals

tend to resist technology (Wietgrefe, 2018) Friederes supports the opposite (Frideres et al.,

1983).

To conclude, it is uncertain if technophobia is present amongst ecotourists, however, it must be

considered, as it is a recognised obstacle to VF. There is a high chance that many ecotourists

are represented in the 85% of individuals experiencing technophobia according to Osiceanu’s

study (Osiceanu, 2015).

2.2.4. Social influence factors involved in the acceptance of VF by

ecotourists

Social influence is the last component of UTAUT and it acts as a mediator in the acceptance of

VF by ecotourists. Indeed, social influence refers to the degree that the user is influenced by his

surroundings to use a system or not (Oye et al., 2014). Through the pillars of ethical

responsibility and equal benefits (Donohoe and Needham, 2006), ecotourists consider their

social impacts. Therefore, if VF tarnishes the social image of ecotourists, they will not engage

with VF.

The elitism of VF is a social influence factor that negatively impacts its acceptance by

ecotourists. This is because elitism is a construct that conflicts with the equal benefit

pillar of ecotourism.

Through equal benefits, ecotourism attempted to reduce social inequalities (Donohoe and

Needham, 2006). However, in practice, ecotouristic activities in preserved natural ecosystems

are expensive due to the exclusiveness of the locations (Cater, 2006). For example, the

preserved ecosystem of the Ranch at Rock Creek near Yellowstone features glamping lodge

charged $2200 to $3200 per night (The Ranch at Rock Creek, 2021). These high prices

associate a negative image of elitism to ecotourists. The elitist image of ecotourism is further

reinforced by the mainly highly-educated profile of ecotourists (Wight, 1996).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Efforts should be made to reduce the elitist affiliation of ecotourism. However, VF goods currently

have an elitist image because of their high prices (Specht et al., 2019). Therefore, VF currently

reinforces an image of elitism that reduces the social image of ecotourism.

Employment practices of VF have consequences on the job market and especially the

traditional farmers. This negatively impacts the social influence that is associated with VF.

In VF there is uncertainty as to who the farmer because the employees running a VF are mostly

engineers or automated systems (Benke and Tomkins, 2017). Employment practices in VF

conflict with ecotouristic-minded values of preservation and equal benefits.

Firstly, the replacement of low-entry jobs by highly skilled jobs and automated systems is a threat

to the traditional agriculture employment model because it leads to lay-offs (Chuah et al., 2019).

VF remains a labour-intensive industry that requires high employment needs for diverse and

high-skilled workers (Despommier, 2013; Benke and Tomkins, 2017). However, these jobs

require a level of education that is not usually achieved by the current workforce of traditional

agriculture (ibid).

Secondly, in the reality of the 21st century, most traditional agriculture processes are robotised or

linked to high-technology systems (Specht et al., 2016). However, in urban areas, there is a lack

of knowledge regarding these farming advances, because most of the population keeps a

romanticized yet outdated image of the farmer vehiculated by retailers, children’s books, and

farmer associations (Specht et al., 2019). VF which is located at the heart of urban hubs can be

witnessed by all, and conflicts with the outdated traditional image of agriculture.

2.2.5. Conclusion

Through the literature review, the researcher aimed at understanding how the acceptance of VF

was perceived by the ecotourists. The UTAUT model was used to gather the most relevant

variables: by analysing patterns in the behaviours and the profile of ecotourists, and opposing

those to the practices of VF, the researcher uncovered five factors that decrease the acceptance

of by ecotourist: sustainable views, representation of nature, technophobia, image of

elitism and employment practices.

A conceptual framework illustrates the relationships of the study concepts (Fig.2).

Fig.2: Conceptual framework

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

2.3. Methodology of stakeholder evidence

2.3.1. Research method

The researcher collected primary data through a survey (App.2) to understand if the scientific

evidence uncovered in the literature review, is confirmed by the stakeholders.

Through the research model and the deductive approach, the researcher aims at answering the

following research questions (RQs):

RQ1: To what extent are the factor of low acceptance identified in the literature review

confirmed by ecotourists?

• Sub-component 1.1: Representation of nature

• Sub-component 1.2: Sustainable views

• Sub-component 1.3: Technophobia

• Sub-component 1.4: Image of elitism

• Sub-component 1.5: Employment practices

RQ2: What are the most important factors of low acceptance?

• Sub-component 2.1: Priority order

• Sub-component 2.2: frequency of most recognised factors

• Sub-component 2.3: Other factors

2.3.2. Sampling

The population of interest is composed of ecotourists.Any tourist that has partaken in an

ecotouristic activity in the past or plans on doing so can be considered an ecotourist (TIES,

2021). Ecotourism is mainly practiced by males (58%), and members of generation Y (aged 20 to

40)(TIES, 2000).

The latest data available reported that the ecotourist market generated $92.2 billion, which was

equivalent to 7% of the total tourism revenues. 7% of international tourists amounts to 93.57

million tourists (Correa, 2021).

The pool of ecotourist-minded individuals is 69% of international travellers. This is the

percentage of travellers that exhibited a desire to travel according to the pillars of ecotourism in

2019 (Ecotourism World, 2021). Considering the focus on generation Y, that is a potential pool of

approximately 266 million ecotourist-minded individuals.

Non-probability sampling, through convenience sampling, is used to collect valid data from

ecotourists (Shlomo et al, 2013).

Considering the willingness to answer and the study constraints, the researcher expects at least

100 answers from ecotourist-minded individuals (Chia, 2021).

2.3.3. Data collection

The survey was designed via the application ThesisTools.

The researcher distributed the survey on high visibility social media platforms (Facebook,

WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and Tumblr) (App.3)(Cremades, 2019). Moreover, social media appeal to

ecotourists which facilitates convenience sampling (Ukpabi and Karjaluoto, 2017). The hashtags

#ecotourist, #ecotourism, and #ecotravel are used to facilitate the spread of the survey to

ecotourist-minded individuals.

The survey is also distributed to specific Facebook groups (Table.2). This group targeting also

increases the reach to ecotourist-minded individuals.

The survey was distributed between 24 August and 14 September and the results were analysed

using SPSS version 27.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Table.2: Groups consulted for the survey

Group name

Eco-tourism, people, and

culture

HTH student sustainability

initiative

Sustainable Future

Eco-tourism and wildlife

students hang-out

Eco Tourism

2.3.4. Ethical data management

The research model follows the regulation of the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research

Integrity from 2018 (NAUAS, 2018). A Qualitative Data Informed Consent is added to the

beginning of the survey to apply ethical management in the research design (App.4).

2.3.5. Limitations

Project constraints: A sample size calculator advised collecting 384 answers (Creative

Research Systems, 2020). Due to the limited time available for this study, and the low willingness

to answer, the minimum number of answers required is 100 (Chia, 2021). The large difference

between the ideal and minimum number of answers highlights possible lower reliability.

Sampling reliability: Because the survey is shared on social media, the researcher does not

have full control over who answers it. Therefore, there is a chance that an individual that does

not belong to the population of interest answers the survey. To limit this undesirable outcome,

question 3 of the survey “to what extent do you consider yourself ecotourism-minded?” will be

further used as a filter.

Factor relevance: Through the survey, the researcher aims at understanding to what extent the

factors noticed in the literature review are valid. This limits the apparition of new patterns or

paradigms. To improve this, an “other” option offers participants to add additional factors of low

acceptance. The researcher considers an “other” factor relevant if at least 2 participants mention

it.

Complex concepts: In the survey, some complex concepts such as acceptance, ecotourism,

and VF are explored. This can lead to confusion amongst participants. To limit confusion, the

researcher defined the concepts before the questions.

2.3.6. Research findings

Descriptive statistics were drawn through SPSS data analytics platform and displayed in Table.3.

As per the sampling strategy, the researcher targets the ecotourist population, therefore

conditioned filtering was used to exclude the responses of the 18 participants that selected an

answer equal or lower to “neutral” for the question “To what extent do you consider yourself an

ecotourist”. This explains why the number of respondents decreases from 118 to 100.

The conclusions in Table.3 are true for the sample only; statistical tests were executed in 2.3.7 to

generalise the findings for the population.

Table.3: descriptive statistics

Variable

Frequency table (modes indicated in frame)

Visualisation

Extent of

ecotourism

Gender

Age

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Highest (or

current)

educational level

Current occupation

Familiarity with VF

concept

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Extent fake

representation of

nature

Extent ecologically

minded practice

Extent comfortable

eating robot

produced goods

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Extent elitism

Extent employment

problems

Most contributing

scepticism factor

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Other contributing

factors

(summarized in

categories after the

arrow)

• “It’s a lot of tech, energy, intrants (ulimately produced with fossil fuels), while ecological methods of farming e.g. food

forests or permaculture are just as productive without all that. It just takes more time. The quality is better, there’s less

energy involved and it contributes to the general quality of the environment.” Sutaianble views; representation of

nature; harmful to biodiveristy

• “Low diffusion and application. And skills of workers employed might not match the standard required by the high-tech

VF.” Cost/Benefit ratio; Employment practices

• “Farmers may not be able to pay for them which causes small farmers to go bankrupt.” Cost/Benefit ratio;

Employment practices

• “Expensive, cannot cope with the demand that traditionally grown food can.” Cost/Benefit ratio

• “Who does it matters: a local company? A multinational? A private seller? The bigger it is, the more sceptic I am.”

Sustainable views

• “The energy required for vertical farming to function (electricity ...) or the material required and their CO2 impact

regarding their journeys also negatively impact the environment and should be taken into consideration.”

Sustainable views

• “Not natural”. Representation of nature

• “Energy consumption” Sustainable views

• “I am very sceptic of using technology to solve problems” Representaion of nature

• “Taste, genetically modified crop/seeds” Reduced quality; harmful to biodiveristy

• “Lack of vitamines in the products” Reduced quality

• “I would need full transparency to be convinced”

• “Replacement of naturel energy such as the sun” Representation of nature

• “It seems to me that is asks for much more ENERGY CONSUMPTION than it would in natural and normal

environment” Sustainabe views

2.3.7. Statistical tests

Statistical tests were executed to draw conclusions for the whole population through SPSS

(App.5). The participants that do not consider themselves ecotourists have been filtered out of

these statistical tests to preserve the validity of the sample. The conclusions of the statistical

tests are summarized in Table.4.

Table.4: Summary of statistical test conclusions

Test

Reference

Related RQ

Conclusion

App.5.1

Descriptive statistics

Ecotourists are mostly female,

then males, then other genders.

App.5.2

Descriptive statistics

Ecotourists are mostly aged 18-25

years old, followed by 26-35 years

old category. Other age categories

are much smaller.

App.5.3

Descriptive statistics

Bachelor’s degrees and master’s

degrees are majorly represented

amongst ecotourists. There are

very few doctorate’s degrees,

professional degrees, and high

school equivalents.

App.5.4

Descriptive statistics

Most ecotourists are students or

employed. A few ecotourists are

out of work or have another

occupation.

App.5.5

Descriptive statistics

Ecotourists consider themselves

familiar with VF to a low extent.

App.5.6

RQ2.2;RQ2.3;RQ1.1

Ecotourists think VF is a fake

representation of nature to a

neutral extent.

App.5.7

RQ2.2;RQ2.3;RQ1.2

Ecotourists think VF is an

ecologically friendly practice to a

low-neutral extent.

App.5.8

RQ2.2;RQ2.3;RQ1.3

Ecotourists are comfortable

consuming high-tech produced

vegetables to a high extent.

App.5.9

RQ2.2;RQ2.3;RQ1.4

Ecotourists think VF is designed

for a privileged population to a

neutral-high extent.

App.5.10

RQ2.2;RQ2.3;RQ1.5

Ecotourists think that the

robotized systems used in VF take

the jobs of non-urban farmers to a

neutral-high extent.

App.5.11

RQ2.1

Ecotourists think that VF not being

an ecologically friendly practice is

the most contributing factor to

their scepticism towards VF.

App.5.12

RQ1.1;RQ1.2;RQ1.3;RQ1.4;RQ1.5

The gender of ecotourists does not

influence their scepticism towards

VF.

App.5.13

RQ1.1;RQ1.2;RQ1.3;RQ1.4;RQ1.5

To a small extent, the older an

ecotourist is, the more he will be

likely to think VF takes the jobs of

non-urban farmers. Besides, the

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

age of ecotourists does not

influence scepticism towards VF.

App.5.14

RQ1.1;RQ1.2;RQ1.3;RQ1.4;RQ1.5

Master’s degree students think

that VF is designed for a privileged

population to a lower degree than

any other education levels.

Besides, the highest education

level of ecotourists does not

influence their scepticism towards

VF.

App.5.15

RQ1.1;RQ1.2;RQ1.3;RQ1.4;RQ1.5

The current occupation of

ecotourists does not influence

their scepticism towards VF.

App.5.16

RQ1.1;RQ1.2;RQ1.3;RQ1.4;RQ1.5

To a small extent, the more an

ecotourist is familiar with VF the

less he thinks VF is a fake

representation of nature. Besides,

the extent to which ecotourists are

familiar with VF does not influence

their scepticism towards VF.

App.5.17

RQ2.1

The gender of ecotourists does not

influence the factor that most

contributes to their scepticism

towards VF.

App.5.18

RQ2.1

The age of ecotourists does not

influence the factor that most

contributes to their scepticism

towards VF.

App.5.19

RQ2.1

The highest education level of

ecotourists does not influence the

factor that most contributes to

their scepticism towards VF.

App.5.20

RQ2.1

The current occupation of

ecotourists does not influence the

factor that most contributes to

their scepticism towards VF.

App.5.21

RQ2.1

The extent to which ecotourists

are familiar with VF does not

influence the factor that most

contributes to their scepticism

towards VF.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

2.3.8. Conclusions and recommendations

Answering RQ1: To what extent are the factor of low acceptance identified in the literature

review confirmed by ecotourists?

Statistical tests enabled to understand if the factors that were identified in the literature review

were confirmed by stakeholders. Overall, not all factors were confirmed and recognised as

increasing the scepticism of ecotourists regarding VF, and it seems that the degree varies per

factor.

The technophobia factor was the only factor discredited by the survey outcomes (App.5.8), on

average, ecotourists have a high threshold when it comes to consuming high-tech produced

goods.

The fake representation of nature although not discredited, showed neutral results (App.5.6).

The statistical analysis enabled to confirm three paradigms of the literature review. Ecotourists

find it neutral-high that VF is designed for a privileged population (App.5.9) and that VF has a

negative impact on employment in agricultural industries (App.5.10). Moreover, ecotourists find it

low-neutral that VF is an ecologically friendly practice (App.5.7).

In the analysis, the researcher also understood that demographic and psychographic attributes of

ecotourist did not have a large impact on the extent to which they evaluate the acceptance

factors. While gender and current occupation do not have any influence (App.5.12 & App.5.15),

very small correlations were uncovered between age and the extent to which ecotourists think VF

takes the jobs of non-urban farmers (App.5.13). Moreover, master’s degree students have a

higher acceptance of the image of elitism factor (App.5.14). Finally, to a small extent, the more

an ecotourist is familiar with VF the less he seems to think that VF is a fake representation of

nature (App.5.16).

Looking at the literature review, the researcher understands that the survey results conflict with

the scientific evidence when it comes to the technophobia factor. The researcher hypothesises

that the discrepancy lies in the fact that the age of ecotourists is lower than initially anticipated

and younger generations have a higher acceptance of technology advances in general. The fake

representation of nature factor, by being neither confirmed nor discredited, the researcher is not

able to assuredly consider it as a factor that contributes to the scepticism of ecotourists towards

VF. Finally, the scientific evidence is positively complemented by the stakeholder evidence to

consider the image of elitism, the sustainable views, and the employment practices as factors

that contribute to the scepticism of ecotourist towards VF.

Considering the UTAUT model, the researcher can complement the literature review by

establishing that the social influence factors are most at play when understanding the

acceptance of VF by ecotourists; followed by the performance acceptance category. But more

importantly, as technophobia was not recognised a contributing factor, the effort acceptance

category does not affect the acceptance of VF by ecotourists.

Answering RQ2: What are the most important factors of low acceptance?

The researcher was able to identify what ecotourists thought to be the most contributing factor to

their scepticism towards VF (App.5.11). The outcomes of the test pointed out that all factors were

represented in unequal proportions, which shows that a priority order can be drawn. Looking at

the frequencies, the researcher concludes that the most recognised factor of scepticism is the

sustainable views factor. Followed by the fake representation of nature and the image of elitism

and finally, the technophobia factor was recognised as the least contributing factor.

For ecotourists, demographics and psychographic attributes such as age, gender, highest

educational level, current occupation, and extent of familiarity with VF do not influence the

likeliness of ranking one of the factors above another (App.5.17-App.5.21). This highlights the

fact that scepticism of the ecotourist population towards VF finds its roots causes in deeper

behavioural and psychographic attributes that were not considered. Besides, several ecotourists

pointed out that other factors contributed to their scepticism towards VF, such as reduced quality,

harmful to biodiversity and the low cost/benefit ratio.

Going back to the literature overview, the researcher was able to refine the analysis by

establishing a priority order between the factors of low acceptance of the ecotourist population.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Whiles paradigms were identified, the researcher was not able to uncover the scale and effect

size of each factor through the current methodological design.

Answering the MRQ: What factors can influence the acceptance of VF by ecotourists?

The image of elitism, the sustainable views, and the employment practice, which were paradigms

discovered in the literature review, were confirmed through stakeholder evidence. On the other

hand, previously identified factors of technophobia and fake representation of nature were

discredited and do not seem to contribute to the non-acceptance of VF by ecotourists. A priority

order was also identified between all factors which highlight the priority to resolve the sustainable

views factor. Additionally, the survey results enabled to discover a new factor of influence: the

low cost/benefit ratio, which belongs to the performance category of the UTAUT model and

relates to the ethical responsibility pillar of ecotourism. To conclude, the performance and effort

factors in the UTAUT model most influence the acceptance of VF by ecotourists.

Besides, when it comes to the profile of the ecotourist, the researcher discovered very small

correlations between demographic and psychographic attributes and the acceptance of factors.

But overall, the researcher concludes that more deeply rooted personal attributes probably

impact the acceptance of VF by ecotourists.

As an overall takeaway, the researcher was able to revise the conceptual framework (Fig.3).

Fig.3: Revised conceptual framework

The conclusions highlight an overall low perception of sustainability (both social and

environmental). This conflicts with the actual benefits of VF that were uncovered in the

introduction (such as its benefits in water management, role in providing employment, or role in

providing equal access to food in different parts of the World).

The researcher concludes that disinformation hinders VF and a clear lack of education on its

advantages negatively impacts the perception that ecotourists have of the concept. Better

educating the ecotourist market on VF will enable to break down the misconceptions on VF,

which is the first step towards improving its acceptance.

The researcher recommends focusing on the sustainable views, the image of elitism, and the

employment practices, as these were recognised factors that contribute to the scepticism of

ecotourists towards VF. The cost/ratio benefit by showing uncertain results could be discussed,

although it does not represent a priority. Finally, based on the profile of the ecotourist, the

researcher recommends focusing on students aged 18-25 years old.

The researcher recommends focussing on the educative pillar of ecotourism to resolve the

problem: by educating ecotourist students aged 18-25 years old, on the notions of social and

environmental sustainability, the researcher will spark their interest while giving them the tool to

form an unbiased opinion about the concept.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

3. Solution Design

3.1. Design process

From the statistical test outcomes, the researcher understands that most of the ecotourists are

students and that a majority of ecotourists are familiar with VF to a low extent.

From the literature review outcomes, which were confirmed through the statistical testing, there is

much disinformation amongst ecotourists regarding the ecological impact of VF: most would

agree that VF is ecologically not worth it due to LED energy costs and chemical pollution.

However, these respondents fail to consider the recognised advantages of VF when it comes to

water management, arable land use, and reduced transportation needs (Benke and Tomkins,

2017; Banerjee and Adenaeuer, 2014; Yano et al., 2021). The same can be said regarding the

employment practices, where ecotourists do not consider the high employment needs in high

technology of VF, and the elitist image that does not consider the progress brought forward by

VF to preserve agriculture in all parts of the World.

To fit the student characteristics and the recommendation that followed the methodological

design, the researcher imagines an educative module as a potential solution to break down

misconceptions on VF. The educative module will comply with the model of the Taxonomy of

Significant Learning (TSL) by Dee Fink, to ensure maximum learning efficiency (Fink,

2003)(Fig.4). Moreover, an educative module solution links to the findings of the situational scan,

that ecotourists can show resilience in acceptance if they are properly shown the benefits of a

concept.

Fig.4: TSL

By addressing students in general, a learning module will target both ecotourists and non-

ecotourists individuals. This entails that the researcher will not able to quantify how many

ecotourists will receive the solution; however, the fact that students match the demographics of

ecotourists ensures that sufficient ecotourists will be affected by the learning module.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

3.2. Solution draft

3.2.1 Methodology

The researcher organised a focus group (App.6) on 18/11/2021 with targeted stakeholders from

Hotelschool the Hague (HTH): Marjan de Jong (teacher and co-founder of the SDG community at

HTH), Francesco Filipetti (student and aspiring VF entrepreneur), and Gemma Gisy (student,

ecotourist and member of HTH’s sustainable community and beekeeping club).

The aim was to build a draft of what the learning module could look like. Focus groups are fast

and efficient processes to collect practitioner and stakeholder evidence (Krueger, 2014). By

providing a sense of group, the participants are more likely to share their problems and possible

solutions, while keeping spontaneity by reacting to the answers of others (Onwuegbuzie et al.,

2009).

The yielded data were analysed using the Constant Comparison Method (App.6). This consists

of isolating the relevant data, grouping it in colour-coded categories, and creating themes

gathering the relevant categories (Strauss, 1987). Table.5 depicts the overview of the categories

and themes of the focus group.

Table.5: Analysis overview of the focus group

Themes

related topic

The Jigsaw teaching method, suggested by Mrs de

Jong, is a participative teaching method, in which the

student is in charge of his/her own learning and the

other student’s learning (Resor, 2008). Besides

improving self-esteem, group relationships and

attitude, the Jigsaw method has shown to motivate

students to consult the recommended materials (ibid).

Lecturer

Students

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

This will ensure a higher interest towards the specific

content that the researcher wishes to vehiculate in the

introductory resources.

The Jigsaw topics must be diverse to avoid repetition

of knowledge between groups, which can lead to

boredom and loss of focus according to the focus

group outcomes. Potential topics include the triple-

bottom line aspects, the history of VF, the best

practices, and the future of VF. Here, it is important to

remember the targeted topics, outcomes of the

research: the sustainable views will be the core of the

research for the Environmental bottom-line Jigsaw

group. Similarly, the image of elitism and employment

practices will need to be covered by the Jigsaw group

dealing with the People bottom-line.

Module

Drafting of

questions

Initial phase of

preparation where

the students gain

understanding on

their topic of

expertise

in the Jigsaw process, students will have to define the

future needs to be answered, to have the complete

overview of their topic of expertise linked to VF.

Students

VF visit

Direct exposure to

the concept of VF to

understand it better

and find the

answers to their

questions

A field trip to a VF will enable students to receive direct

input for their Jigsaw presentations and will also

enhance their reflection, facilitate their meaning-

making and help them to connect more easily to the

novel concept of VF (Stern and Powell, 2020).

As per the focus group, the visit of the VF could

include a tasting workshop, which will facilitate the

deconstruction of misconceptions on the taste and

quality of VF products.

employees

Students

Lecturer

Preparation

of Jigsaw

output

Finalise the expert

presentations

In the Jigsaw process, the students will have to use

the knowledge gained during the visit, as well as their

desk research to finalise their presentations.

Students

Assessment

Delivering of

Jigsaw

output

Educate the other

students on a

specific area linked

to VF

In the Jigsaw process, the students will get the chance

to educate their peers by delivering summary

presentations on all the relevant topics that are linked

to VF.

Students

Lecturer

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Time capsule

update

Capture the

thoughts of the

students about VF

after exposure to

the VF concept

Closing the time capsule experiment by asking the

students to write a statement on their opinion

regarding VF and comparing it with their original

thoughts. This will provide a form of before/after

assessment on the effect of the module on the

student’s opinions. (Barends, 2021)

Students

Group

reflection

Debate to

understand how the

opinion of students

have evolved, and

what consideration

they have about VF

after understanding

the concept better

A debate to close off the module is the perfect

opportunity to tackle the subjects of sustainable views,

employment practice and elitism. After all their

exposure to VF, the researcher believes that the

students will have built a sufficient knowledge to

discuss these topics and express a reliable opinion

unclouded from an initial lack of knowledge.

Students

Lecturer

Module

owner

evaluation

Build an

understanding of

the module’s impact

on students after

completion of the

module

The researcher and lecturer must understand to what

extent the module bears an impact in the mind of the

students. More information is provided in Chapter 5.

Lecturer

(Researcher)

Fig.5: Learning module steps

3.2.3 Reflection on proposed module

The aim of the solution was to deconstruct misconceptions about VF through education. This is

achieved by the draft learning module. The focus of the solution was the misconceptions

regarding ecological sustainability, employment practices, and elitism. These subjects will be

tackled as they are key considerations for the Jigsaw topics of the people bottom-line and planet

bottom-line, as well as being directly discussed in the introductory resources and group reflection

step. Moreover, it can be noted that the solution proposed exceeds expectations by considering

the cost-benefit ratio factor in the profit bottom-line Jigsaw topic.

Another aim of the solution was to target ecotourists, which is achieved through the choice of

targeting students aged 18-25 years old, that match the key demographics of ecotourists as per

the research outcomes.

Finally, the proposed solution complies with the TSL model (Table.7), which is a foundational

model in educational design (Fink, 2003),and increases its feasible implementation.

Table.7: Overview of TSL elements linked to proposed solution

TSL component

Application explanation

Foundational knowledge

The foundational knowledge is transmitted through the Jigsaw

method where students educate each other. The knowledge is

supported by selected resources and the knowledge of the

Wageningen students

Application

The students by owning the responsibility of a topic of expertise

can display the knowledge acquired

Integration

The project connects two major universities in the Netherlands,

which will enable both people and ideas to mix and learn from

each other

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Human dimension

Students learn about themselves and others when working

together in groups. This is further supported through group

feedback

Caring

The solution is aimed at better understanding VF, which is

motivated by sustainable values and answers the problems of

tomorrow in a responsible way. The module therefore transmits

sustainable values to its participants

Learning how to learn

The solution is designed in progressive way students are

encouraged to take ownership of their learning progress

Overall, the researcher concludes that all set objectives set are met through the solution, which

makes it valid.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

4. Implementation

4.1. Location

The researcher when looking for a pilot location considers undergraduate and graduate

institutes, which best fit the demographics of the targeted group (Sharma, 2015). Furthermore,

introducing a VF-based learning module is a novel and hyper-complex decision which means

that there are limited benchmarks and there is a need for an empirical pilot test approach

(Barends, 2021). In this context of uncertainty, universities have the advantage of already

possessing educative resources that facilitate the implementation process (Sharma, 2015).

The researcher will utilise HTH to test his solution. HTH has two campuses with identical

courses, which means the solution can be introduced simultaneously on two campuses

(Hotelschool The Hague, 2021b). The institution of Higher Education fits the project for the

following reasons:

• Values: The values of HTH include openness, sustainability, and integrity (Hotelschool

The Hague, 2021b) that link to the pillars of ecotourism. Moreover, HTH focuses on F&B

structures and therefore has an interest in VF as it could be an ideal sustainable supplier

for its outlets. Finally, with the newly added beehives and taste lab in the campuses of

HTH, the researcher understands that the school seeks to follow its vision of “creating

hospitable structures” through an empirical and practical approach, which matches VF

(Hotelschool The Hague, 2021b).

• Stakeholders: HTH enjoys an extended network of students, alumni, lecturers, the local

community, and others (Hotelschool The Hague, 2021b). These stakeholders are aligned

with the characteristics of the ecotourist market. They have an interest in sustainable

practices, they understand ecotourism and their profile align: mostly 18-25 years old with

an educational background, knowledge in the tourism industry, and the financial means

to travel.

The researcher aims at utilizing the knowledge of relevant stakeholders in the design,

action, and evaluation parts. For example, the members of the HTH sustainability

committee and the SDG/CE committee.

Moreover, the students of HTH study hospitality, therefore they can directly grow an

interest towards expanding VF to ecotourism, which is an objective of this study.

• Teaching methods: The progressive methods of teaching are already implemented in

numerous courses of HTH, with the concept of Jigsaw methods and the flipped

classrooms (Hotelschool The Hague, 2021b; Focus Group). This facilitates the

implementation as the learning-module owners are already familiar with these teaching

tools.

When it comes to the visit of a VF during the learning module, the focus group outcomes

suggested considering visiting the Wageningen University in the Netherlands. The university

boasts VF facilities (GreenTech, 2017) and there are expert students on the topic of VF.

Receiving the knowledge from the students of Wageningen will be a form of peer-teaching which

holds benefits for the HTH students, as it boosts their participation, but also for the Wageningen

students presenting, as it boosts their autonomy, motivation, critical thinking, collaborative and

communication tools (Stigmar, 2016).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

4.2. Time

Out of all the courses offered at HTH (App.8), the imagined solution fits best with the course

Future of Food (FoF) from the bachelor’s programme, as confirmed through the focus group;

Circular thinking in the Hotel Ecosystem from the master’s programme and Hospitality

Experience Design from the MBA’s programme. Indeed all these courses are future-orientated

and involve elements of innovation, sustainability, and/or food production and consumption

(Hotelschool The Hague, 2021a).

As a pilot project consists of delivering the solution in one unique setting (Zbrodoff, 2012), the

researcher narrows down the project to FoF, which best fits the theme of VF. Moreover, at HTH,

in 2020 567 students entered the bachelor’s programme or the International Fast-Track

programme and 150 students on average participated in FoF each block; whereas only 25

students entered the master’s programme (Hotelschool The Hague, 2021a; Ling, 2021). The fact

that there are 22 times more bachelor’s students compared to master’s students highlight the

advantage of focusing on the larger group to test the module.

FoF is provided alongside all other minors twice per academic year. The course lasts 10 weeks

and its structure is described in Fig.6 (FoF Core Team, 2021). The proposed learning module

should be integrated into “the Feed” in the fifth week of FoF, dealing with the challenges of

feeding an increasing population (Ling, 2021).

Fig.6: Structure of FoF course

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

4.3. Communication plan

To ensure maximum efficiency of the pilot implementation, there will be a need to effectively

communicate the instructions and technical information to the module-owners: lecturers of FoF.

The following actions will be taken:

• The solution and research outcomes were kindly introduced to Ms Williams, core team of

FoF, by the research commissioner Ms de Jong in December 2021. Ms Williams

positively reacted to the learning module concept and objectives. The researcher will

further discuss the feasibility and implementation of the learning module with Ms

Williams, Mr Gallicano and Mr de Vos, the three core team members of FoF.

• Feedback from the lecturers will be implemented to perfect the solution outline and

content.

• The course will be provided for the first time by the researcher and the lecturer together.

• The solution will be evaluated (Chapter 5).

• When all necessary changes are implemented, the ownership of the module will switch

completely to the lecturers.

4.4. Financial information

The low cost (Table.8) and high potential of the solution for the values and development of HTH

induces a positive cost/benefit ratio, which increases the feasibility and positive impact of the

proposed solution (Barends, 2021).

Table.8: Estimated costs

Item

Estimated cost

Learning module design

Free; designed by the researcher

Visit of VF

Free; as part of a cooperation with another university

Tasting

1,14€ per participant*

Staffing costs

Included in lecturer’s salary; free for Wageningen student

guides, as part of their education learning

*For a tasting of salad and leafy greens; a traditional salad and a pack of leafy greens cost 1€

each and can be shared amongst ten students (AHnl, 2021). VF produced goods costs 4,7 times

more than traditional farming (Tasgal, 2019), which brings the cost to 4,7€ for a salad and leafy

greens to be shared by 10 students. Price= (2*(1+4,7))/10=1,14.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

5. Evaluation

5.1. Criteria to assess

The solution is a pilot, therefore it tests the feasibility of a concept, to understand how this

product can be improved in its content and shape (Zbrodoff, 2012). Table.9 describes the

different criteria that must be assessed in the evaluation process (Butcher et al., 2019).

Once the criteria are assessed, the researcher will be able to identify the potential of the solution

and consider subsequent implementation (Nordstrom, 2009). If most measures provide a

negative effect, it is advised to reorganise co-creation sessions to understand how to improve the

solution or consider discontinuing it (ibid).

Table.9: Criteria to be assessed

Criteria

Explanation

KPIs associated

Direct

effect of

the

solution

Retention of the

knowledge

Information retention creates

tacit knowledge that can be

widely spread thus create

awareness on VF (Mohajan,

2016)

-Jigsaw presentations

-Number of references to VF in

future work

Reducing

misinformation

Understand if the

misconceptions about VF have

been deconstructed

-Time capsules

-Average score for: “To what

extent do you consider

yourself familiar with VF?”

Acceptance of

The objective of the solution is

that ultimately there is an

increase in the acceptance of

-Average scores for: “To what

extent do you consider VF to

be an ecologically friendly

practice?”; “To what extent do

you think VF is designed for a

privileged solution?”

-Participation rate

-Group reflection outcomes

-number of references to VF in

future work

Effectiveness of the

learning method

Measuring to what extent the

method used in the learning

module is an enabler of the

objectives

-Jigsaw presentations

-Score on opinion about the

course

-Participation rate

-Number of questions on

instructions

Value of the solution

Measuring to what extent the

solution influences its

environment on a broader

scale.

-Number of VF projects

worldwide and ecotourism VF

projects

-Revenue generated by VF

-Global acceptance score of

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

5.2. Measurement tools

Jigsaw presentations: The quality and number of details used in the Jigsaw presentations,

gives a clearer idea of the extent to which students have assimilated the information regarding

VF.

Time capsules: The tool is comparable to a before-after assessment (Barends, 2021). The

students express an opinion about VF without the preparation exposure, and the end measure of

the capsule showcases how much the opinion of the student has evolved. The test shows

positive results if the student shows an evolution in his/her behaviour towards the development of

VF and is able to provide unbiased judgement on the concept.

Group reflection outcomes: The debates that will arise from the learning module contain

numerous qualitative data that give an idea to the module-owner of the perception of the

audience regarding VF. This data can be recorded for future analysis.

Number of references to VF in future work: Data mining can be performed on the database of

the media centre of HTH to scan for mentions of VF in the works of the HTH students (Laudon

and Laudon, 2017). The measure shows positive results if the number of references increases at

each measure.

Average scores/global acceptance scores: The execution of a quasi-experiment can be used

to evaluate the solution (Barends, 2021). A baseline measurement is taken by distributing an

adapted version of the methodology survey to two groups of students, the FoF population and

another group of students (App.2). After the minor, both groups are retested on their acceptance

via the same survey. The result is positive if there has been an improvement of the average

scores in the FoF group. The more the difference is great with the independent, the more

effective the module was.

Participation rate/number of questions on instructions: The module owner can count the

number of questions and enquiries regarding VF that were asked during the module. This figure

can be compared to the regular modules, to understand to what extent the module has led to

improved participation levels compared to other learning modules. Similarly, the module owner

can count the number of questions on the instructions to understand to what extent the Jigsaw

method was hard to execute. The fewer enquiries on instructions the better the solution format is.

Score on opinion of the course: A simple measure at the end of the module can be taken to

assess the overall opinion of the students with regards to the learning module. To execute this

measure, the module owner and researcher can make use of the HTH course feedback form,

which is commonly used to assess blocks at HTH.

Number of VF projects worldwide/ecotourism VF projects: Through web mining, the

researcher can track how many projects of VF and ecotourism VF are emerging (Laudon and

Laudon, 2017). Several measures will enable to map out the evolution. Particularly interesting

would be to pinpoint the creation of VF within the schools that boasted the VF learning module.

Although this long-term factor is not fully dependent on the solution efficiency, pinpointing

schools will enable to increase the causation ratio.

5.3. Future steps

If the results of the assessment tools show positive outlook for the solution and the perception of

VF by the HTH community, some steps will have to be taken to expand the idea within and

outside the boundaries of HTH. In case of positive results, the first step will be to implement the

pilot test within the curriculum (Zbrodoff, 2012). As per the focus group, other steps could include

the extension of the module to other courses of HTH such as Circular Thinking in the Hotel

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Environment, which is a course offered in the Master’s programme, or Hospitality Experience

Design, from the MBA programme (Hotelschool The Hague, 2021c; de Jong, Gisy and Filipetti,

2021).

Other future steps could include the expansion of the module to other universities that have an

interest in hospitality & tourism, circular economy, or agriculture. Finally, the most ambitious

project that could be launched in the future if the HTH community responds positively to the

module, would be to launch a VF project within the campus (de Jong, Gisy and Filipetti, 2021).

Depending on the financial aspirations of the project, this indoor VF could be considered a

project for LYCar students or in a more casual setting, similar to the beehive club, that was

launched in 2020 at HTH (Hotelschool The Hague, 2021b; ibid).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

6. Dissemination

To maximise efficiency, the researcher translated the ten steps to innovative dissemination

(Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020) into the project dissemination model (PDM) (Fig.7).

Fig.7: PDM

6.1. Initial Analysis

Define objectives: in this step, the researcher asks himself why there is a need to disseminate

(Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020).

By disseminating his results, the researcher indirectly influences the knowledge of individuals,

which impacts their behaviour and decision-making processes in the social, political, and

economic spheres (Akin and Scheufele, 2017; Marín-González et al., 2017). The researcher

disseminates his results in interest to creating a behavioural change when it comes to ecotourism

and agricultural methods. The researcher also aims at increasing the acceptance of VF by

ecotourists and increasing the successful implementation of VF-based ecotourism concepts.

Besides, the researcher acknowledges that not disseminating represents a waste of time and

effort used in the project (Derman and Jaeger, 2018).

Identify Stakeholders: mapping the audience, with their characteristics and reason of

involvement enable the researcher to prioritize the process of dissemination and align the

contents to the appropriate channels of communication (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020).

Based on the dissemination objectives, the researcher identifies the stakeholders of the

dissemination process as the ecotourists, the urban farm/VF employees, the educative entities,

the hospitality businesses, and the academicians. A persona is created for each stakeholder

group, which includes characteristics and stake in the project (Fig.8)

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Fig.8: Stakeholder personas

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

6.2. Dissemination Design

Finding the right tools: The researcher needs to design the message and align it with the most

appropriate channel (Ross-Hellauer et al., 2020). While doing so, the researcher must always

remember to respect diversity and to create the content in an attractive format (ibid). For

example, visual tools enable to bridge the gap between academicians and civilians by presenting

complex ideas in a manageable manner (Renfro, 2017).

Content design: Based on the characteristics of the target audience the researcher designed

dissemination acts to connect to his stakeholders:

• Academic publication: The research report was posted on Academician and public

database Researchgate.net and the HTH archives (LYCar core team, 2020; Resta et al.,

2010) (App.9). These databases are chosen because they are open access, which

means the student researcher can publish without additional fees; moreover (ibid).

Databases of journal articles are often consulted by Academicians (Resta et al., 2010);

this will enable to address of the Academician stakeholder group.

• Social media use: A blog post that summarizes the outcomes of the research in a visual

and concise manner was created (App.10). To finalise the follow-up of the survey, the

blog post is shared on the Facebook groups used to distribute the survey.

Social media improve the fast and immediate share of information (Buckarma et al.,

2017). To improve the specific targeting of ecotourists, use hashtags (#verticalfarming;

#ecotourist; #ecotourism). Finally, although mostly ecotourists are targeted through this

method, the blogpost will also affect any member of the society at large that reads it,

enabling accrued spread.

• Private sharing: The blog post designed for social media has been adapted to be

shared individually with 15 up-and-coming VF businesses, mainly located in the

Netherlands (App.11). Privately sharing the research outcomes with these companies

increases their knowledge of the targeted market. It also enables these businesses to

correct their practices to improve the market and approach the relevant audiences.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

• HTH alumni network: The research outcomes were shared on the alumni platform of

HTH to reach hospitality minded people (App.12). The research aims at planting seeds

of innovation within HTH alumni that also happen to share numerous characteristics with

the ecotourist population (as per the research outcomes).

• FoF research website: Thanks to the kind involvement of Ms de Jong, the researcher

can submit his research paper as a part of the FoF research website, accessible to all

students of HTH, but more specifically ecotourists of the FoF course and the educative

bodies behind the website.

• Oral dissemination: Through the co-creation session on 18/11/2021 and the LYCar

event, planned for January 2022, the researcher directly communicates his research

findings to targeted groups. Moreover, the research outcomes were presented to Ms

Williams, lecturer at HTH by Ms de Jong, to identify the feasibility of an implementation

within HTH. Furthermore, the commissioner of this research aims at organising an urban

farming event, in which the researcher will be able to present his findings. This event will

be held on the 13th of January 2022 and will be an optimal occasion to receive direct

feedback from VF businesses, educative bodies, hospitality professionals,

academicians, and ecotourists. Finally, the learning module solution will be an optimal

ool to keep on orally disseminating semester after semester to ecotourists and

educative bodies of HTH.

Through his dissemination acts, the researcher was able to achieve great reach; especially on

ResearchGate, where the publication was consulted by 106 people (including 41 full-reads) as of

12/12/2021 (App.13). Although the social media publication did not yield many reactions, the

researcher received some encouraging comments (App.14), this was like the emails sent to VF

start-ups (App.15). Overall, the dissemination met its objectives to spread awareness of the

research outcomes. The researcher points out that the project could have benefited from

additional comments on the content and what could be improved.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

7. Academic reflection

7.1. Reflection on research topics

7.1.1. Concepts, literature, and paradigms

Due to the novelty of the concept, the researcher had to deal with limited scientific evidence

(Barends, 2021; Gupta and Ganapuram, 2019). Especially for the literature, all evidence had to

be confirmed through a stakeholder-orientated methodology and thus it increased the risks of

incorrect interpretations (Barends, 2021). Moreover, the researcher deplores the low amount of

research available on VF and ecotourists. This limited the multiplication of paradigms on factors

hindering the acceptance of VF by ecotourists. This limits the study, as some factors might be left

undiscovered.

These observations also highlight the value of the research project: the researcher positively

contributed to the knowledge available on VF, creating opportunities to refine future related

research projects.

7.1.2. Stakeholder needs

By adding knowledge to a novel concept, the stakeholder needs are met: future scholars will be

able to elaborate their literature overview, which is a necessary foundation in any academic

research project (Boote and Beile, 2005), although the lack of paradigms must be considered by

future Academician as a limitation of this research project.

Moreover, the knowledge of the project led to the solution design that tackles the needs of

ecotourists, educative bodies, urban farming, and VF business and hospitality businesses. An

opportunity for diversification that creates demand, and generates supply thus brings added

value.

It can be noted that before generalising the contribution of this study, it will require a proper

evaluation. By deconstructing misconceptions on VF, the project improves acceptance of VF,

although more work must be executed to perfect acceptance of VF.

7.2. Reflection on used methodology

The elaboration of the literature review was based on scientific evidence and practitioner

knowledge of hospitality and VF. With the survey, the Academician’s point of view was

confronted and verified. This has enabled to collect data from multiple sources, which ultimately

strengthens the weight of the arguments (Barends, 2021).

The choice of executing a survey induced a quantitative approach (Sekaran and Bougie, 2003).

This approach is relevant because, as the concept of the research is novel and complex, and the

literature sources of inspiration were scarce, there was a need to generalise the outcomes of the

scientific evidence to a wider population. Thus, the survey is powerful in its ability to be easily

spread and generate numerous data (ibid). Moreover, an advantage of the quantitative approach

is the irrefutable interpretation of the outcomes. This limits biases that could emerge from the

opinions of the researcher in a qualitative methodology (ibid).

Some methodological challenges include the use of a questionnaire that limits the apparition of

new paradigms due to limited choices (Sekaran and Bougie, 2003). Furthermore, after

completing the survey and its analysis, the researcher notes that several limitations must be

considered to carefully use the outcomes of this study:

• The sample size of 118 participants is valid within the imposed conditions of the

research projects, however, it is inferior to the sample size advised to draw conclusions

on population level.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

• Despite a clear effort to spread the survey to the whole ecotourist population, the use of

social media draws more attention from younger populations (Pew Research Center,

2021), which might induce some uncertainty regarding the generalisations made on the

age and current occupation of the ecotourists.

• While the chi-square goodness-of-fit enabled the researcher to understand if the

variables are equally distributed or not (Snedecor and Cochran, 1989), there are no

available tests to provide a mean estimate for each value.

7.3. Implications for future research

7.3.1. Setting changes for the research

Needs for future research naturally arise from the research outcomes of the project. The settings

of the project were focused on the population of ecotourists. However, the objectives of

spreading awareness on VF do not limit themselves to the field of ecotourism. The population of

interest could be shifted to understand how the acceptance differs from population to others and

thus complete the initial objective of increasing the acceptance of VF.

Currently, the project based its analysis on understanding a population sorted through

psychographic segmentation, and especially, through the ecotourism lifestyle trait of

segmentation (Tynan and Drayton, 1987). It was discovered after the research, that the variables

used did not showcase relevant segmentation of the ecotourist population when it comes to

scepticism towards VF. The researcher identifies examples of the best potential variables of

interest to further the research in Table.10.

Table.10: Variable settings of interest for the development of VF

Segmentation

category (Tynan

and Drayton,

1987)

Variable

Explanation

Demographic

Age

Age affects the social perception of VF: different age groups

have different behaviours in the adoption of new

technologies (Chen and Chan, 2011).

Income

As seen earlier, VF is often considered elitist due to high

prices (Specht, Siebert, et al., 2016). This must be

considered to properly address individuals with varying level

of incomes.

Geographic

Place of

origin /

current

country

Agriculture and culture are often linked and hard to

dissociate; therefore, perception decreases when the

heritage conflicts with the new advances (Banks, 2004).

Psychographic

Diet

habits

The more people are concerned by eating vegetables, the

more they will take in interest in sustainable manners of

producing it. Moreover, through the reduction of pesticides

and the optimised used of nutrients (Despommier, 2011),

VF generates interest for those with high vegetable intake

diets.

Behavioural

Benefits

sought

Depending on the factors that influence customer behaviour

in the purchase of vegetables (e.g., price, quality, distance

to selling location, appearance…)(Chikkamath et al., 2012),

the interest in VF varies. Because it does not cater

proportionally to all these benefits.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

7.3.2. Needs for extended research

The research outcomes clearly show that although VF is an attractive concept, much more

research must be accomplished to make it a viable concept. To lead the way in the agricultural

methods of the future, research on VF should focus on:

Furthering the research on the ecological added-value: The water management and the

location advantage of VF installations unquestionably improve the ecological bottom line in the

field of agriculture (Benke and Tomkins, 2017). However, the use of energy-powered lighting and

aeration systems negatively impacts UNSDG 12 on responsible consumption and production

(Wong et al., 2020; United Nations, 2019). As noticed earlier in the analysis, these impacts

generate Academician and stakeholder doubts regarding the ecological added value of VF

(Specht et al., 2019). This highlights the need for future research in establishing what is currently

the most ecological manner of producing vegetables, and how can the VF consumption of energy

be best improved.

Integrating VF and traditional agriculture: As seen throughout this research, VF shakes

society by deconstructing the romanticized image of agriculture (Jürkenbeck et al., 2019).

Moreover, some people fear that through its robotised systems, VF redesigns the jobs within the

field of agriculture (Chuah et al., 2019). These uncertainties highlight the need for the

development of an integrated approach that would bind VF to the current agricultural methods

rather than developing VF and traditional agriculture separately.

Developing the profile of the ecotourist: while this research focused on VF linked to

ecotourism, it is important to highlight the fact that the ecotourism market represents a large

share of the touristic demand (O’Connor, 2018; CREST, 2018). Future research on the profile of

the ecotourist can be performed to understand how the tourism and hospitality industry can best

adapt to this profile and keep on diversifying towards reaching customer needs and wants.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

8. Appendices

App.1: Proposal grade form

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.2: Survey Design

1. What is your gender?

• Male

• Female

• Other

2. What is your age? (open answer)

3. What is your educational level?

• No schooling

• Middle school equivalent

• High school equivalent

• Bachelor’s degree

• Master’s degree

• Professional degree

• Doctor degree

• Other (open answer)

4. What is your current occupation?

• Working

• Student

• Retired

• Out of work

Ecotourism can be defined as touristic activities with environmentally and socially

friendly practices

5. To what extent do you consider yourself an ecotourist?

• Very high

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

6. To what extent do you consider yourself familiar with the concept of vertical farming?

• Very high

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

Vertical farming is an agriculture method that relies on a high-tech controlled environment

(e.g., soil-less, artificial lights, robotised systems) to produce vegetables and leafy greens

in urban indoor structures.

7. To what extent do you think that vertical farming is a fake representation of nature?

• Very high

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

8. To what extent do you think vertical farming bring ecological added value?

• Very high

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

9. To what extent do you feel anxiety symptoms at the idea of consuming vegetables

produced through high-technology?

• Very high

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

10. To what extent do you feel that vertical farming is an elitist practice?

• Very high

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

11. To what extent do you think that the robotised systems in vertical farming take the jobs of

farmers?

• Very high

• High

• Neutral

• Low

• Very low

12. Are there any other factors that increase your scepticism towards vertical farming? (open

answer)

13. Which of the statements selected in question 4 contributes the most to your scepticism

towards vertical farming?

• I think vertical farming does not represent a natural environment

• I do not think that vertical farming brings ecological added value

• I feel discomfort engaging with vegetables produced by high-tech means

• I think that the pricing of vertical farming reinforces it as an elitist practice

• I think the robotisation of vertical farming takes over the jobs of farmers

• Other (open answer)

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.3: Social Media message

Dear ecotourist enthusiast,

I am a student currently finishing my Bachelor at Hotelschool The Hague in The Netherlands.

I need your help to collect some data on ecotourist opinion on vertical farming, which is the

subject of my thesis. Here is the link to my survey, it should take approximately 3 to 5 minutes to

complete, on the secured website ThesisTools. And of course, the data collected will be kept

anonymous and will only serve the purpose of my thesis completion.

Thank you so much for your help!

Tanguy

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.4: Quantitative Data Informed Consent

Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this survey.

You, as the survey respondent, declare you are 18 years old or over and recognise that your

participation is voluntary, and you may withdraw from this research at any time.

This survey investigates the factors that contribute to the low acceptance of vertical farming

amongst ecotourists.

The information provided by you in this questionnaire design will be used for student research

purposes leading to the award of a Bachelor’s degree in Hospitality Management at Hotelschool

The Hague, Netherlands (Brusselselaan 2; 2587AH The Hague – The Netherlands).

The data will not be used in any manner which would allow identification of your individual

responses.

Anonymised research data will be archived at Hotelschool The Hague Media Centre Database,

to make such data available/accessible to other researchers in line with ethical data sharing

practices.

Should you be interested in the results of this study, please contact

Researchprojects@hotelschool.nl .

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5: Statistical test outcomes

App.5.1: Test variable gender (nominal) Chi Square goodness-of-fit

The researcher assumes the population is equally distributed amongst males and females.

Therefore, the proportion of genders to be tested is 0,33.

H01: The proportion of males is 0,33

H11: The proportion of males is not 0,33

H02: The proportion of females is 0,33

H12: The proportion of females is not 0,33

H03: The proportion of other is 0,33

H13: The proportion of other is not 0,33

P-value = .000<.005

Accept H11, H12 and H13: the genders are not proportionally distributed. Looking at the

frequencies, the most represented gender is females, followed by males and other genders

only represent a small percentage.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.2: Test variable age (ordinal) Chi Square goodness-of-fit

The researcher assumes the population is equally distributed amongst ages. Therefore, the

proportion of all age category is tested to be 0,143 which represents an exact proportionality.

H01: The proportion of >18 is 0,143

H11: The proportion of >18 is not 0,143

H02: The proportion of 18-25 is 0,143

H12: The proportion of 18-25 is not 0,143

H03: The proportion of 26-35 is 0,143

H13: The proportion of 26-35 is not 0,143

H04: The proportion of 36-45 is 0,143

H14: The proportion of 36-45 is not 0,143

H05: The proportion of 46-55 is 0,143

H15: The proportion of 46-55 is not 0,143

H06: The proportion of 56-65 is 0,143

H16: The proportion of 56-65 is not 0,143

H07: The proportion of 65+ is 0,143

H17: The proportion of 65+ is not 0,143

P-value = .000>.05

Accept H11, H12, H13, H14, H15, H16 and H17: the ages are not proportionally distributed.

Looking at the frequencies, the most represented are 18-25 years old, followed to a smaller

extent by 26-35 years old and to an even smaller extent by 46-55 years old, 36-45 years old

and 56-65 years old.

App.5.3: Test variable highest educational level (nominal) Chi Square goodness-of-fit

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

The researcher assumes the population is equally distributed amongst highest occupational

levels. Therefore, the proportion of all highest educational levels category is tested to be

0,125 which represents an exact proportionality.

H01: The proportion of none is 0,125

H11: The proportion of none is not 0,125

H02: The proportion of middle school equivalent is 0,125

H12: The proportion of middle school equivalent is not 0,125

H03: The proportion of high school equivalent is 0,125

H13: The proportion of high school equivalent is not 0,125

H04: The proportion of bachelor’s degree is 0,125

H14: The proportion of bachelor’s degree is not 0,125

H05: The proportion of master’s degree is 0,125

H15: The proportion of master’s degree is not 0,125

H06: The proportion of Doctorate degree is 0,125

H16: The proportion of Doctorate degree is not 0,125

H07: The proportion of professional degree is 0,125

H17: The proportion of professional degree is not 0,125

H08: The proportion of other is 0,125

H18: The proportion of other is not 0,125

P-value = .000<.05

Accept H11, H11, H12 H13, H14, H15, H16, H18 and H17: the highest educational levels are

not proportionally represented. Looking at frequencies, the most represented highest

educational level are bachelor’s degree and master’s degree, approximately equivalent,

followed to a way smaller extent by high school equivalent, doctorate’s degree and

professional degree.

App.5.4: Test variable current occupation (nominal) Chi Square goodness-of-fit

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

The researcher assumes the population is equally distributed amongst current occupation.

Therefore, the proportion of all current occupation category is tested to be 0,2 which

represents an exact proportionality.

H01: The proportion of employed is 0,2

H11: The proportion of employed is not 0,2

H02: The proportion of student is 0,2

H12: The proportion of student is not 0,2

H03: The proportion of retired is 0,2

H13: The proportion of retired is not 0,2

H04: The proportion of out of work is 0,2

H14: The proportion of out of work is not 0,2

H05: The proportion of other is 0,2

H15: The proportion of other is not 0,2

P-value = .000<.05

Accept H11, H12, H13, H14 and H15: the current occupations are not proportionally

distributed. Looking at the frequencies, the most represented are students, closely followed

by employed and followed to much smaller extent by out of work and others.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.5: Test variable familiar with vertical farming (scale) one-sample-t-test

The researcher aims at testing the hypothesis that people are neutrally familiar with vertical

farming. Therefore, the mean of fake representation of nature is tested to be 3 (neutral).

H0: The mean of familiar with vertical farming is 3

H1: The mean of familiar with vertical farming is not 3

P-value = .000<.05

Accept H1: The mean of familiar with vertical farming is not 3. With 95% certainty the

mean is situated between 3,77 (low) and 4,2 (low).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.6: Test variable fake representation of nature (scale) One-sample-t-test

The researcher aims at confirming the literature outcome that ecotourists consider it high that

vertical farming is a fake representation of nature. Therefore, the mean of fake

representation of nature is tested to be 2 (high).

H0: The mean of the fake representation of nature is 2

H1: The mean of the fake representation of nature is not 2

P-value = .000<.05

Accept H1. The mean of the fake representation of nature is not 2. With 95% certainty, the

mean of the fake representation of nature is between 3,08 and 3,48 (Neutral)

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.7: Test variable ecologically friendly practice (scale) One-sample-t-test

The researcher aims at confirming the literature outcome that ecotourists consider it low that

vertical farming is an ecologically friendly practice. Therefore, the mean of ecologically

friendly practice is tested to be 4 (low).

H0: The mean of ecologically friendly practice is 4

H1: The mean of ecologically friendly practice is not 4

P-value= .008<.05

Accept H1: The mean of ecologically friendly practice is not 4. With 95% certainty, the

mean of ecologically friendly practice is between 3,24 (neutral) and 3,64 (low).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.8: Test variable comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables (scale)

One-sample-t-test

The researcher aims at confirming the literature outcome that ecotourists consider it low that

they are comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables. Therefore, the mean of

comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetable is tested to be 4 (low).

H0: The mean of comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetable is 4

H1: The mean of comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetable is not 4

P-value = .000<.05

Accept H1: The mean of comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables is not 4.

With 95% certainty, the mean of comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables is

between 1,71 and 2,21 (high)

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.9: Test variable privileged population (scale) One-sample-t-test

The researcher aims at confirming the literature outcome that ecotourists consider it high that

vertical farming is designed for a privileged population. Therefore, the mean of privileged

population is tested to be 2 (high).

H0: The mean of the fake representation of nature is 2

H1: The mean of the fake representation of nature is not 2

P-value = .006<.05

Accept H1: The mean of privileged population is not 2. With 95% certainty the mean of

privileged population is between 2,32 (high) and 2,73 (neutral).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.10: Test variable jobs of non-urban farmers (scale) One-sample-t-test

The researcher aims at confirming the literature outcome that ecotourists consider it high that

vertical farming takes the jobs of non-urban farmers. Therefore, the mean of jobs non-urban

farmers is tested to be 2 (high).

H0: The mean of the fake representation of nature is 2

H1: The mean of the fake representation of nature is not 2

P-value = .000<.05.

Accept H1: The proportion of jobs of non-urban farmers is not 2. With 95% certainty, the

proportion of jobs of non-urban farmers is between 3,09 and 3,59 (neutral to high).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.11: Test variable most applicable statement (nominal) Chi Square goodness-of-

fit

From the literature there are no dominant factor, therefore the mean of each statement is

tested to be 0,20 which represents an exact proportionality.

H01: The proportion of statement 1 is 0,2

H11: The proportion of statement 1 is not 0,2

H02: The proportion of statement 2 is 0,2

H12: The proportion of statement 2 is not 0,2

H03: The proportion of statement 3 is 0,2

H13: The proportion of statement 3 is not 0,2

H04: The proportion of statement 4 is 0,2

H14: The proportion of statement 4 is not 0,2

H05: The proportion of statement 5 is 0,2

H15: The proportion of statement 5 is not 0,2

P-value = .000

Accept H11, H12, H13, H14 and H15: The statements that most apply are not proportionally

distributed. Looking at frequencies, the most represented are ecologically friendly practice,

closely followed by fake representation of nature and designed for a privileged population,

which seem to be equivalent, followed by discomfort towards consuming high-tech produced

vegetables.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.12: Test difference gender (nominal) on factors (scale) ANOVA

H01: There is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable

gender with regards to the fake representation of nature

H11: There is a difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable gender

with regards to the fake representation of nature

H02: There is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable

gender with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H12: There is a difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable gender

with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H03: There is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable

gender with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables

H13: There is a difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable gender

with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables

H04: There is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable

gender with regards to privileged population

H14: There is a difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable gender

with regards to privileged population

H05: There is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable

gender with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

H15: There is a difference between the groups male, female and other of the variable gender

with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

P-value factor 1 = .388>.05

Accept H01, there is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the

variable gender with regards to the fake representation of nature. The mean is situated at

2.64 (neutral).

P-value factor 2 = .283>.05

Accept H02, there is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the

variable gender with regards to ecologically friendly practice. The mean is situated at 4.50

(low to very low).

P-value factor 3 = .641>.05.

Accept H03, there is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the

variable gender with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables. The

mean is situated at 2.98 (neutral).

P-value factor 4 = .128>.05

Accept H04, there is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the

variable gender with regards to privileged population. The mean is situated at 2.27 (high).

P-value factor 5 = .708>.05

Accept H05, there is no difference between the groups male, female and other of the

variable gender with regards to jobs non-urban farmers. The mean is situated at 2.67

(neutral).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.13: Test difference age (ordinal) on factors (scale) Kruskal Wallis Test

H01: There is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to the fake representation of nature

H11: There is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to the fake representation of nature

H02: There is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H12: There is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H03: There is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables

H13: There is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech produced vegetables

H04: There is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to privileged population

H14: There is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to privileged population

H05: There is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

H15: There is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

P-value factor 1 = .062>.05

Accept H01: there is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55,

56-65, 65+ of the variable age with regards to the fake representation of nature. The mean is

situated at 2.64 (neutral).

P-value factor 2 = .968>.05

Accept H02: there is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55,

56-65, 65+ of the variable age with regards to ecologically friendly practice. The mean is

situated at 3.72 (low).

P-value factor 3 = .675>.05

Accept H03: there is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55,

56-65, 65+ of the variable age with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech produced

vegetables. The mean is situated at 2.98 (neutral).

P-value factor 4 = .390>.05

Accept H04: there is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55,

56-65, 65+ of the variable age with regards to privileged population. The mean is situated at

2.27 (high).

P-value factor 5 = .037<.05

Accept H15: there is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-

65, 65+ of the variable age with regards to jobs non-urban farmers.

The people aged in the category 36-55 years old tend to rank the factor higher. Which means

that the older the ecotourist is the more he will think that the robotized systems used in

vertical farming take the jobs of non-urban farmers.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.14: Test difference highest educational level (nominal) on factors (scale)

ANOVA

H01: There is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to the fake representation of

nature

H11: There is a difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to the fake representation of

nature

H02: There is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H12: There is a difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H03: There is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to comfortable consuming high-

tech produced vegetables

H13: There is a difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to comfortable consuming high-

tech produced vegetables

H04: There is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to privileged population

H14: There is a difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to privileged population

H05: There is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

H15: There is a difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high school

equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional degree and

other of the variable highest educational level with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

P-value factor 1 = .448>.05

Accept H01: there is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent,

high school equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional

degree and other of the variable highest educational level with regards to the fake

representation of nature. The mean is situated at 2.64 (neutral).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

P-value factor 2 = .580>.05

Accept H02: there is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent,

high school equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional

degree and other of the variable highest educational level with regards to ecologically friendly

practice. The mean is situated at 3.72 (low)

P-value factor 3 = .648 >.05

Accept H03: there is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent,

high school equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional

degree and other of the variable highest educational level with regards to comfortable

consuming high-tech produced vegetables. The mean is situated at 2.98 (neutral).

P-value factor 4 = .045<.05

Accept H14: there is a difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent, high

school equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional

degree and other of the variable highest educational level with regards to privileged

population.

From the Bonferroni test, the mean of bachelor’s degree is situated at 2.07 (high), alongst

with high school equivalent, professional degree and doctorate degree. However, the mean

of master’s degree is situated at 2.59 (neutral).

P-value factor 5= .150>.05

Accept H05: There is no difference between the groups none, middle school equivalent,

high school equivalent, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate degree, professional

degree and other of the variable highest educational level with regards to jobs non-urban

farmers. The mean is situated at 2.67 (neutral).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.15: Test difference current occupation (nominal) on factors (scale) ANOVA

H01: There is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to the fake representation of nature

H11: There is a difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to the fake representation of nature

H02: There is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H12: There is a difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to ecologically friendly practice

H03: There is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech

produced vegetables

H13: There is a difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to comfortable consuming high-tech

produced vegetables

H04: There is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to privileged population

H14: There is a difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to privileged population

H05: There is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

H15: There is a difference between the groups employed, student, out of work, retired and

other of the variable current occupation with regards to jobs non-urban farmers

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

P-value factor 1 = .186>.05

Accept H01: there is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work,

retired and other of the variable current occupation with regards to the fake representation of

nature. The mean is situated at 2,64 (neutral).

P-value factor 2 = .808>.05

Accept H02: there is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work,

retired and other of the variable current occupation with regards to ecologically friendly

practice. The mean is situated at 3,72 (low).

P-value factor 3 = .488>.05

Accept H03: there is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work,

retired and other of the variable current occupation with regards to comfortable consuming

high-tech produced vegetables. The mean is situated at 2,98 (neutral).

P-value factor 4 = .691>.05

Accept H04: there is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work,

retired and other of the variable current occupation with regards to privileged population. The

mean is situated at 2,27 (high).

P-value factor 5 = .242>.05

Accept H05: there is no difference between the groups employed, student, out of work,

retired and other of the variable current occupation with regards to jobs non-urban farmers.

The mean is situated at 2,67 (neutral).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.16: Test correlation familiar with vertical farming (scale) on factors (scale)

Pearson’s R

H01: There is no relation between variable familiar with vertical farming and the fake

representation of nature

H11: There is a relation between familiar with vertical farming and the fake representation of

nature

P-value = .022<.05

Accept H11, there is a relation between familiar with vertical farming and the fake

representation of nature. The correlation coefficient is -0,230, which means the correlation is

negative and weak; with many exceptions, the more someone considers himself familiar with

vertical farming, the less he thinks that vertical farming is a fake representation of nature.

H02: There is no relation familiar with vertical farming and ecologically friendly practice

H12: There is a relation between familiar with vertical farming and ecologically friendly

practice

P-value = .211>.05

Accept H02, there is no relation familiar with vertical farming and ecologically friendly

practice

H03: There is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and comfortable consuming

high-tech produced vegetables

H13: There is a relation familiar with vertical farming and comfortable consuming high-tech

produced vegetables

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

P-value = .109>.05

Accept H03, there is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and comfortable

consuming high-tech produced vegetables

H04: There is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and privileged population

H14: There is a relation between familiar with vertical farming and privileged population

P-value = .913>.05

Accept H04, there is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and privileged

population

H05: There is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and jobs non-urban farmers

H15: There is a relation between familiar with vertical farming and jobs non-urban farmers

P-value = .492>.05

Accept H05, there is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and jobs non-urban

farmers

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.17: Test correlation gender (nominal) on statement that most applies (nominal)

Fisher’s exact test (due to invalid Chi square test >20% of cells with expected count lower

than 5)

H0: There is no relation between gender and the statement that most applies

H1: There is a relation between gender and the statement that most applies

P-value = .810>.05

Accept H0: There is no relation between gender and the statement that most applies.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.18: Test difference age (ordinal) on statement that most applies (nominal)

Discriminant analysis

H0: There is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+

of the variable age with regards to the statement that most applies

H1: There is a difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-65, 65+ of

the variable age with regards to the statement that most applies

P-value = .174>.05

Accept H0: there is no difference between the groups <18, 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 56-

65, 65+ of the variable age with regards to the statement that most applies.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.19: Test correlation highest educational level (nominal) on statement that most

applies (nominal) Fisher’s exact test (due to invalid Chi square test >20% of cells with

expected count lower than 5)

H0: There is no relation between highest educational level and the statement that most

applies

H1: There is a relation between highest educational level and the statement that most applies

P-value = .292 >.05

Accept H0: There is no relation between highest educational level and the statement that

most applies.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.20: Test correlation current occupation (nominal) on statement that most

applies (nominal) Fisher’s exact test (due to invalid Chi square test >20% of cells with

expected count lower than 5)

H0: There is no relation between current occupation and the statement that most applies

H1: There is a relation between current occupation and the statement that most applies

P-value = .277 > .05

Accept H0: there is no relation between current occupation and the statement that most

applies.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.5.21: Test correlation familiar with vertical farming (scale) on statement that most

applies (nominal) Fisher’s exact test (due to invalid Chi square test >20% of cells with

expected count lower than 5)

H0: There is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and the statement that most

applies

H1: There is a relation between familiar with vertical farming and the statement that most

applies

P-value = .638 > .05

Accept H0: there is no relation between familiar with vertical farming and the statement

that most applies.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.6: Transcript focus group

Tanguy (T): So, I had a few ideas on how we could do a learning module. Mrs Gikas, my coach

for the thesis advised me to take a look at some models and see exactly what was important.

And a lot of models nowadays, they're focusing on participative learning. It's kind of like, you

know, what we got in MCH. And BMI, especially during phase three, it's like this progressive

learning where the student is kind of in charge of his learning.

Do you think there are ways that students can better educate themselves about vertical farming?

First more of in the preparation phase before the learning module? What do you think would be

interesting aspects? to approach this? My basic idea was maybe to send them some articles and

resources about it. Do you perhaps have any ideas on how can we prepare for a new learning

module?

Mrs. de Jong (M): I'm sorry, one question before: what is the target market? So you're talking

about students? But in what context?

T: Yes, so the target market for my thesis was ecotourists. And when I did my research, and I

found out about my demographics, I saw that a lot of my participants and it was confirmed to the

statistical testing, were mostly master's students and bachelor students aged 18 to 25. That was

the dominant group. So that would be my target market for now.

M: And would it then be something they learn and university? Or would it be something they

search for themselves because they're interested in topics?

T: I think it could be incorporated within courses for hotel school. I was thinking in the course the

future of foods they have this whole part about feeding the world and the world of the future. I

think it would make a lot of sense to maybe incorporate some elements into it as it is. feeding the

world is a problem completely linked to vertical farming. So could have been a great way to place

it there.

M: Yeah. Okay.

Francesco (F): Is it just from a theoretical or practical point of view, like actually just sending

them materials? Or is it something that, for example, you forecast to go and visit a farm or do a

little farm experiment?

T: So yeah, that was also something I was considering. The way I was thinking about it was to do

a pre module type of preparation. So, in the sense of progressive learning where they can first

build up a list of questions about it, then we could have the actual learning module, where we will

do something that I want to talk to you about. I thought about visiting some farms, why not

introduce a farming concept in hotel school, The Hague as we have the resources, and also the

mindset, I think people are quite open to the idea nowadays. Or other things, maybe something a

little bit more low key, then, because visiting a farm or building one are quite some ambitious

projects.

So definitely something we can touch upon. But let's keep this for later.

M: Maybe back to your question, probably because now I understand better the context.

T: Yes. So back to the question. In the preparation phase, I will go before a learning module.

What do you think is best like sending them resources and they can build a list of questions or…

Gemma (G): question about this sorry, like also still preparing kind of the answer? So,

preparation phase for the institution that would teach the model or preparation phase for the

students are ready who are the final recipients of this?

T: It would be for the recipients? Yep. Okay. Yep.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

G: I think it's always really important to…Yeah, maybe sounds overly simplistic, but to keep it

interesting, so do not, I would not send a bunch of articles or like really just diverse information

but concise. Like you know, like a one-pager where like, the whole concept of vertical farming is

introduced, maybe like starting with: Okay, where did it start? You know, what is the idea what is

like the why behind it? What is the potential to, you know, because I think the topic is super

interesting, but if I would receive an email with five documents in it and like, yeah, all kinds of

different information? I'm not sure I would go through all of that, even though I do care about it.

So, yeah, they weren't to, you know, think like, the people who receive it. Okay.

T: No, that completely makes sense. And then Gemma in this kind of thing, do you think that

video would be something more appealing to a student, for example?

G: could be, I think that same thing would apply just like for written texts and one-pager. I think

they're to keep it under 10 minutes, I think what makes sense because when it goes beyond that,

it quickly becomes not okay. You need to find time to sit down and do it. But also, obviously,

there, if it's kind of an obligation that you have because it's part of your course, you know, people

have I think, are more willing, or, you know, there's more motivation. So it's, I think you also need

to consider whether it's completely voluntary, you know, in that sense, or whether there's also

like some other motivators there.

T: Okay. Yeah. Francesco?

F: Yeah, kind of like an infographic that would introduce the topic, I still think is important to just

like, plant the seed, and send an email, but do not expect that if you send some documents

people are going to read it. I think is mostly just to introduce them to tell them like this is what is

going to happen. Because I think that there will be a big filter between the people that would read

it in the sense, probably, honestly, 90% would read it would be “cool”, and close the email. But

then you have a 10%, which I think is probably more about your target market, which is

something that would be interesting, what I think could be interesting, maybe it's not just doing it

from school, but include some other parties to send the emails or something. I'm thinking for

example, in HTH, the investment club, because I think since vertical farming is also something in

the future, something that maybe you have also a lot of people that could be interested in

investing. And that's why including also that type of market is, is a nice touch.

T: Okay, so you would like to maybe have a cooperation with some sort of a vertical farm outside

that directly prepares a well concise document aimed at students?

F: Already, then I think they will go a bit later. Like, because the thing as well as I think first, you

also have to check if there is this willingness to this day, like you should kind of first see and

check. Okay, the students of HTH, actually really interested. I don't know if you've already

confirmed that or not. Because if you then start and go with this project, but then you see that

there is a lot of likes, the ad reaction from the students… I think it could be a bit meh…

T: I think the plan of the solution was to kind of introduce the pilot, or it would be a test. And if it

were to be successful, and we would get a nice reaction from the students, it would be nice, and

I’d like to go further with the idea and then build up into projects into vertical farming and make it

a part of hotel school. Eventually, you know, but I was more seeing this solution as a bit of a pilot

test. Exactly. So, I didn't test it yet. But it would be the test. Somehow.

F: What comes to mind when I think about this is, for example, a lot of people will be like oh

really cool, but maybe they can also say: depends on if you propose it if it's to solve world

hunger. People might tell you “Okay, very clever. Very cool, but why vertical farm? Why not

something else?”

T: Yes, Mrs. de Jong?

M: Yes, I think there are lots of ideas I have in my head. So, what I was thinking is that, of

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

course: how to engage students and what kind of learning could you apply to it? In my

experience, most education we're sort of still too much sort of putting a job, so this is it, just read

it and do an assignment. And so, I would prefer if you would come up with something to flip that.

Okay well we're all interested in vertical farming or that that's the goal of this of use. That groups

of students are going to look into specific topics or known topics so okay you're going to dive into

this topic and now please present back in the first time we meet and then you have all the

specialists that are going to share information acknowledged. It's called the Jigsaw method. And

then you can learn from each other. If you want, I can send you the link if you like but there's a

difference here are you can use that differently and the learning should be the responsibility of

the students instead of the teachers. Because what are teachers going to say? “Okay, this is

what vertical farming is about. And okay, I just read it because that's it”. I don't think that's the

most inspiring. But of course, it is possible to develop a database with lots of articles that are

being collected by the students. So, I think if I look at the work you've done, we're not still

collecting that in one database or website or whatever. So, it would be great if we can actually

use that and build upon that and make it available and accessible for everyone. So that students

from this new course that hopefully will become reality, can be a starting point if they do their

research, for example.

T: Okay, that's a very good insight. Do you think maybe a good, I'm thinking out of my head right

now, from what you're saying, do you think the triple-bottom-line could be a good division.

Because, as I said in my introduction, there's a lot of aspects linked to employment, to elitism

that are kind of going towards people. We obviously have the problem of profits with vertical

farming: that people are really doubting the model at the moment. And of course, the big

ecological question mark as well. Do you think that could be a good starting point to think of the

triple-bottom-line in this type of Jigsaw situation?

M: Yeah, yeah, for sure. It might be too broad still, but depends on it indeed. I think that's

definitely interesting. To look into it from different perspectives, for sure.

G: Okay, maybe to add up to that. I think also, because I think we've applied this kind of model or

this kind of practice a couple of times in school, and I think it need more practice. So instead of

writing down the information on anything, I would really make sure to divide them: like different

groups or students with very different topics. So that there's less like, little repetition. Because

what we often experience in schools, that three or four groups have the same topic. And then

everybody's kind of saying the same and then you don't enjoy presenting and the people who like

listen to you are also not enjoying it because they have written the same thing. So, to really make

an impact there you maybe need more than the three elements of the triple bottom line. Maybe

one can look at the history, best practices, you know, these kinds of things.

T: Also thinking out of my head, so we've been taking this jigsaw right now as a kind of a starting

point. What would you think about doing it as the final point? As Francesco said, the potential

idea of visiting a farm, of having a more of a hands down experience. Wouldn't it be a nice thing

then for them to build up a list of questions to create their presentation and they can get their

actual answers from an experienced worker? So if they were to visit a farm, they can directly ask,

what is your opinion on this, on this, on this, and from those information and articles they read on

the site, they can build up their presentation and conclude it for the whole group?

F: If you talk about in the future of food course, they also do a lot of site visits, and this type of

projects that they go and visit and they can actually get information on site. So, I think, for me, it

would really match what you're saying.

G: Yeah. I think it's a nice idea. Maybe also a bit of what I think are these kind of time capsules

that I think schools or like different organizations sometimes sort of plan with students. Write

thoughts that people have at the time, but maybe you could kind of… Yeah, switch it around a

little bit and collect like I don't know statement about okay, their current opinion on vertical farms

at the beginning, before you start sharing any information, without doing any homework. And

then, kind of keep those I don't know, digital post for later, and then let them do the same thing in

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

the very end to really be able to contrast you know. And maybe then also have a bit of the

reflection sort of, okay, what they've learned through the experience on the vertical farm. You

know, like how you were able to change their opinions.

T: I really liked this idea. Because it would really fit my problematic that people are somehow

facing a type of miseducation. So, if you can see the before/after I really like this it and I think it's

also a good thing for them to realize that within the time of a course, they can actually change

their opinion about this so I think it's a very good idea Gemma. Okay, we don't have much time.

So, let's move on to another topic: the experience itself. So, we've been thinking about visiting a

farm which completely fits, I think, the hotelschool kind of vibe. Do you perhaps have any other

idea? I know that something I have come up with is that a lot of people from my survey, they

indicated that they thought products from vertical farming were not going to taste good. Do you

think it would be nice, as in future of food they do a lot of tastings, to perhaps do a blind tasting

where you give them like a vegetable from the supermarket and a vegetable from vertical

farming, and they kind of get to see for themselves.

F: Yeah, I think that's really cool, kind of like a workshop?

T: And that would fit maybe into the visit perhaps that could be organized as well. So yeah,

besides farming experience, tasting workshop, did you think that creating a farm at hotelschool

would be relevant or it's a project for later?

M: Depends what timeline you're talking about. I think it would definitely be relevant, but then it's

not that it's a must have for the course. But it would be nice to have, but it's more based on my

gut feeling than anything else.

F: I think it also depends on the size. If it's just to show or if it's actually to produce. Because to

show, you can do it. I mean, even if it doesn't produce it's just to show you, so it don't really

matter. But if you want to use it, I don't know. You want to incorporate it with products there is a

need for. And then you need something completely different.

T: Okay. I would need to look into it if it's true or not, but I believe one of the universities in the

Netherlands build their own vertical farm it might be Wageringen university. Do you think it would

be better to educate students through a vertical farm experts, so, go to a real vertical farm or to

get experience from students within education and visits like another school and get the feeling

from students that experience it's directly?

F: I think the second one personally, I think Wageringen is the most famous agricultural school in

the world. So that's also a bit of the difference. In the sense, not to talk against Hotelschool, but

like in the terms of vertical farming, they probably have way more knowledge because they're

masters. There's literally masters about vertical farming. And I think there is, because I met also

from the teachers, a lot of people that studied there, and I think what struck me was like, they're

all really passionate about it. So even the students and they are like our age, so I think could be

something very interesting, because maybe when you go to, or at least what I felt when you talk

to an expert and you don't know the topic, I felt sometimes a bit awkward even asking the

questions not to sound dumb. Like literally with this a student, he is just going to laugh about it.

And maybe he has 80% of the knowledge of the expert, but I feel way more comfortable in

asking the questions and I think I can feel the patience way more.

T: Okay, that's good insight. So, something to keep in mind for sure. Okay, so that was more of

the experience part and then the last topic I kind of wanted to talk about is how can I evaluate

this module. How can I see that it has planted seeds within those students and it actually made a

change? We discussed already, maybe doing a presentation to see like what they have retained

from the experience? Do you think of any other evaluation tools on how I can kind of test the field

and see if I'm actually making an impact with the solution?

M: I like the suggestion that Gemma made: measuring it upfront until measured afterwards.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Maybe if I may come back to the previous question. I think it would be great if you can visit

Wageringen. But I think what also is good to take into account that if I think about vertical

farming, I think about huge vertical farms. But there's also sort of relatively small initiatives that

create quite a lot of value. If you think about the vertical herbs planted. I think it's good to also

take that into perspective. Because the range is very different. And then if you look at triple-

bottom-line, I think there’s a lot to gain from relatively simple. So, it might be good to showcase

that somehow.

T: Okay.

F: I don't know if this could be possible Mrs. De Jong, but what if you actually do kind of like the

creation of the vertical farm as the steps afterwards? Kind of like a possibility for students to do

their LYCar in hotelschool and help launch a vertical farm? Like, perhaps from the students or

future food, and see I'm gonna say like, we're gonna take maybe one or two people from each

semester to see if they're interested and they can do their LYCar to help launch the vertical farm.

T: Then you would put it as a track three entrepreneurship type of thing? commissioned by the

school or a specific teacher, if I understand well?

F: Yeah, I don't know if it will be track three, because track three is your own company. I think is

more like track one.

M: Yeah, but it can be commissioned by SDG community. Because there's also money there,

and we can make that more operational part. But that makes it feasible to actually do some

experiments, I think. Yeah, to add to you, Francesco, I think, definitely it is possible, but I think

there's already some ideas on paper, but it would be great if sort of students can take over and

take their case to a real case and an experiment on that. Because my assumption is that it needs

to have a step by step plan and the basics if you start with the basics that I think there's still a lot

of potential to add information and knowledge but also actual physical plans to it. So yeah.

T: Maybe this is an outcome of the learning module. As first a confirmation whether hotelschool

is ready for something like this, because I don't think there's a point in running towards a vertical

farm if we see that the students are not reactive for this idea.

G: I think, in a way, maybe I'm also being very optimistic with this, but I think that there would be

a very, like, there would be a lot of openness. I mean, I've also been following a big club

beekeeping club kind of that's been happening, you know. And this kind of constantly reminds

me of what we're talking about now. So, I think that maybe you don't need crazy many students

to join in for like our kind of, but maybe to make it also an easier decision. It could be an option to

just turn it into more of a… Yeah, extracurricular kind of thing. So, like a club. Maybe to build it,

rather than to connect directly to LYCar because, you know, LYCar is still a very significant step.

And everybody's kind of… Yeah, I don't know, academic path, sort of, so not everybody might

want to commit to the risk of Okay, what if things go kind of sideways? What if there's a delay, it's

not happening and then you're just kind of sitting there and you're like, gross, not going as

planned. Or maybe you don't necessarily want to, like follow a career in that direction, but you

would love to participate. So maybe a more voluntary kind of less commitment. And kind of

option.

M: I think your question was, how can we assess deliverable? Right, so I think it depends on a bit

how you integrate it. So, if you would integrate it in the future of food, I would assume that you

could just use your information or the knowledge gathered from vertical farming into your final

future of food, deliverables. And to be honest, I don't know what it is. It's either report or pitch.

So, because then you're actually using the application to a broader set of knowledge.

T: Yeah, I think their final deliverable is they have like an outside company coming up with a

challenge and you need to fix it with a solution. The problem is, I don't think every block we can

make it about vertical farming. Maybe it can be the problematic for one block, but eventually…

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

And it's also a bit of a thing that I struggled with, because in the assessment tool, there's no test

in future of food. There's not like, they don't have a written exam. They only have this challenge

part. So, I don't think I can assess it. However, we can assess the consequence through the time

capsule idea of Gemma, which would be enough. And I also know that in future of food, they

already have like some tasting and they talk about I don't know that this whole part about also

like edible consumption and everything. So, they already touch upon this topic but they don't

really follow up with a written exam. So, I do think that it could fit the curriculum of future food.

M: Yeah, I think it's nice to also see if you can build all the resources and maybe use that as a

goal to expand the resources and the knowledge on online.

T: Yeah, Francesco?

F: I don't know if this could be something feasible. For example, I take maybe, as you said, you

cannot do this for like, three years in a row. But what if you use it in different blocks? Because I

think future food could be the beginning. Because it's probably where the people are more

interested, and they could actually choose to touch on vertical farming. But then, I don't know if

what you would if you use it in other blocks such as Mrs. De Jong could BMI and you take

vertical farming company, as a case study. More in the future, because I don't think probably

now, vertical farms would be ready for it. Their market would probably not be, let's say stabilized.

So, you can actually just plant the seed with future food and then maybe you go with BMI and

you grow I don't know, with SDV or something like this.

T: Yeah, I actually took the overview of the curriculum as well for the master programs of

hotelschool, and I found some links some courses do link or could potentially be affected by such

an idea. But as, as you say, Francesco, I think it's more of a future type of plan. If it works out the

pilot works out for future foods, which remains the most relevant, in my opinion, then it could be

an idea to implement it in the master's program. As I saw from my study, that a lot of ecotourist

are master’s students because they have more means they are more experienced with

everything. So yeah, I think it's the next step.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.7: Introductory Resource

Useful Links

Articles:

• Vertical Farming Using Information

and Communication Technologies

(infosys.com)

• Vertical Farming: Sustainable Food

Never Tasted So Good (forbes.com)

• 5 Exciting Vertical Farming Careers |

Eden Green Technology

• Rationale for Vertical Farms

Videos

• What is vertical farming? - YouTube

• Vertical farms could take over the

world | Hard Reset by Freethink -

YouTube

• TEDxWindyCity -- Dickson

Despommier -- The Vertical Farm -

YouTube

Source : INFOGRAPHIC: How vertical farming could help cities feed

themselves (inhabitat.com)

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.8: Overview of HTH courses and learning objectives

Degree

Year /

Block

Course

Content

Bachelor

Practical

education

Practical application in restaurant, hotel and

reception

Operations

Explore hospitality

Personal

leadership

Develop personal leadership skills

English

Communication in business setting

Tutoring / skills

Studying effectively

Finance

fundamentals

Cost accounting and management accounting

fundamentals

HR / culture

fundamentals

Understand the principles of HR functioning

2nd language

Communicating in another language

Marketing

fundamentals

Marketing communication plan

Market analysis

Market segmentation and mix

Data analysis &

research

fundamentals

Analyse a problem through design-based

research approaches

Practical

placement

Internship abroad

Entrepreneurial

business plan

Undertake an entrepreneurial project

Extended

finance

Feasibility of business projects

Cash flows

Time value of money

Revenue / yield

management

Setting prices in hotel industry

Project

management

Project management methodology

Data analysis

extended digital

skills

answering complex questions based on data

Personal

development 2

Leadership skills

Managing an

outlet

Running a business

Improving the

outlet

Improve the business

Business

transformation

Analyse business performance of a hotel

Business

inspiration day

Get inspired by different companies

Personal

development 3

Leadership skills

Minor future of

food

Linked to what happens in the food

industry

Minor future

guest

experience

Linked to advanced marketing

Minor future of

business

Linked to advanced finance

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

Minor future of

work

Linked to advanced HR

LYCAR

proposal

Personal project

LYCAR

execution

Personal project and intership

Master

Strategic

Foresight

Strategic planning

Future thinking strategies

Digital

development

Impact of technology on industry

Integrating technology in hotel industry

Sustainable

leadership in the

hotel ecosystem

Models of sustainable operating

Design Based

research

Research methods based on proper evidence

collection

Personal

leadership

Factors and biases involved in decision-making

Development of self-awareness

Development of decision-making skills

Innovation and

culture in hotels

Models to create an innovative corporate eco-

system

Agile and lean thinking

Circular thinking

in the hotel

ecosystem

Triple bottom line thinking in hotel

Understanding circular economy

Sustainable

leadership and

internal

stakeholders

Human resources management

Transformation

of the hotel

Business model transformation for hotels

Guest

experience in

the hotel

industry

Technology entering the industry

Integrating technology for the guest

experience

Final thesis

Personal research

MBA

Hospitality in

perspective

Understanding the meaning of hospitality

commercially, privately, and socially

Business

strategy

Analysis of strategy

Hospitality

Leadership

Journey

Leadership development

Financial

decisions

Investment proposal analysis

Computing costs and revenues

Organisation

behaviour

Human resources management

Digital

technology

Evaluating digital technology

Business

research and

consultancy

project intake

Designing a consultancy project

Hospitality

experience

design

designing innovative guest / customer

centred services

Hospitality audit

Service excellence framework

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

High tech / high

touch

Big data and information handling

Leading

hospitality

change

Organisational dynamics

Change strategies and interventions

Consultancy

project

Personal project

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.9: Research Gate dissemination

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.10: Social media dissemination

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.11: Dissemination to VF experts

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.12: Dissemination to hospitality businesses

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.13: ResearchGate dissemination reactions

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

App.14: Social media dissemination reactions

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

100

App.15: VF experts dissemination reactions

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

101

App.16: Proof of Data Management upload

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

102

Proof of word count

Words in body: 11241 words

Words in figures: 755 words

Total number of words: 11996 words

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

103

List of references

AHnl, 2021, Zoek binnen Ah.nl | online bestellen | AH.nl Available at:

https://www.ah.nl/zoeken?query=salad&merk=AH&soort=1525 (Accessed 21 November 2021).

Akin, H. and Scheufele, D., 2017 Overview of the science of science communication. In: The

Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. Oxford Handbooks., pp. 25–33.

Allegaert, S., 2019 THE VERTICAL FARM INDUSTRY: Exploratory research of a wicked

situation. Wageningen Univeristy & Research.

Asadi, A. and Kohan, M.F.Z., 2011 The role of Entrepreneurship on Ecotourism development.

International Conference on Sociality and Econoics Development, 10, p.6.

Bakerjian, M., 2019 Experience Italy with an Agriturismo Stay. TripSavvy. Available at:

https://www.tripsavvy.com/what-is-agriturismo-1547534 (Accessed 21 May 2021).

Banerjee and Adenaeuer, 2014 Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming. Journal

of Agricultural Studies, 2, pp.40–60.

Banks, J.E., 2004 Divided culture: integrating agriculture and conservation biology. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment, 2(10), pp.537–545.

Barends, E., 2021, HTH - Evidence Based Decision Making: Jan 2021 - Jan 2022 Available at:

https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/lms/students/syllabus.do?last=entry&section=16fa390e0a0001dc61a5

364a073804ea (Accessed 28 March 2021).

Benke, K. and Tomkins, B., 2017 Future food-production systems: vertical farming and

controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 13(1), pp.13–26.

Bhuiyan, M., Chamhuri, S., Mohamad Ismail, S. and Islam, R., 2011 The Role of Government for

Ecotourism Development: Focusing on East Coast Economic Region. Journal of Social

Sciences, 7. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235660250_The_Role_of_Government_for_Ecotourism

_Development_Focusing_on_East_Coast_Economic_Region (Accessed 24 May 2021).

Blamey, R.K., 1997 Ecotourism: The Search for an Operational Definition. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, 5(2), pp.109–130.

Boote, D.N. and Beile, P., 2005 Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the

Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), pp.3–15.

Buckarma, E.H., Thiels, C.A., Gas, B.L., Cabrera, D., Bingener-Casey, J. and Farley, D.R., 2017

Influence of Social Media on the Dissemination of a Traditional Surgical Research Article.

Journal of Surgical Education, 74(1), pp.79–83.

Butcher, C., Davies, C. and Highton, M., 2019 Designing Learning: From Module Outline to

Effective Teaching, 2nd Edition, Second Edition. | New York: Routledge, 2020. |, Routledge.

Cater, E., 2006 Ecotourism as a Western Construct. Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1–2), pp.23–39.

Chen, K. and Chan, A.H.S., 2011 A review of technology acceptance by older adults.

Gerontechnology, 10(1), pp.1–12.

Chia, M., 2021 Research class LYCar Hotelschool The Hague.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

104

Chikkamath, M., Atteri, B., Srivastava, S. and Roy, S., 2012 Factors influencing consumers

behaviour for vegetable purchase. Vegetable Science, 39, pp.35–39.

Chuah, Y.D., Lee, J.V., Tan, S.S. and Ng, C.K., 2019 Implementation of smart monitoring system

in vertical farming. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 268, p.012083.

Cloherty, L., 2018, Aquaponic hotel, one of three leisure concepts shortlisted for Radical

Innovation Award Available at: http://cladglobal.com/news?codeid=338452 (Accessed 6 May

2021).

Correa, D., 2021 Global Ecotourism Market to Generate $103.8 Billion by 2027: AMR.

GlobeNewswire News Room. Available at: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-

release/2021/01/18/2160003/0/en/Global-Ecotourism-Market-to-Generate-103-8-Billion-by-2027-

AMR.html (Accessed 29 May 2021).

Creative Research Systems, 2020, Sample Size Calculator - Confidence Level, Confidence

Interval, Sample Size, Population Size, Relevant Population - Creative Research Systems

Available at: https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm (Accessed 14 December 2020).

Cremades, A., 2019, How To Use Social Media To Pitch Investors Available at:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alejandrocremades/2019/03/05/how-to-use-social-media-to-pitch-

investors/ (Accessed 10 December 2020).

CREST, 2018 The responsible Trends & statistics,

Crosby, E., 2021 The Netflix Effect & How Pop Culture Impacts Ecommerce. Venture Stream.

Available at: https://www.venturestream.co.uk/blog/the-netflix-effect-how-pop-culture-impacts-

ecommerce/ (Accessed 25 May 2021).

Dane, K., 2020 An Introduction to Urban Farming, Types, Ideas, and Benefits. Agriculturegoods.

Available at: https://agriculturegoods.com/urban-farming/ (Accessed 25 May 2021).

D’Arco, M., Lo Presti, L., Marino, V. and Maggiore, G., 2021 Is sustainable tourism a goal that

came true? The Italian experience of the Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park. Land Use

Policy, 101, p.105198.

de Jong, Gisy and Filipetti, 2021 Focus Group Solution Design.

Deale, C.S. and Lee, S.H. (Jenna), 2021 To Read or Not to Read? Exploring the Reading Habits

of Hospitality Management Students. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 0(0), pp.1–12.

Derman, R.J. and Jaeger, F.J., 2018 Overcoming challenges to dissemination and

implementation of research findings in under-resourced countries. Reproductive Health, 15(1),

p.86.

Despommier, D., 2013 Farming up the city: The rise of urban vertical farms. Trends in

biotechnology, 31, pp.388–9.

Despommier, D., 2011 The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century, Picador.

Donohoe, H.M. and Needham, R.D., 2006 Ecotourism: The Evolving Contemporary Definition.

Journal of Ecotourism, 5(3), pp.192–210.

Eberly, M.B., Newton, S.E. and Wiggins, R.A., 2001 THE SYLLABUS AS A TOOL FOR

STUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING. The Journal of General Education, 50(1), pp.56–74.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

105

Ecotourism World, 2021 The Future of Travel 2021. Ecotourism-World. Available at:

https://ecotourism-world.com/the-future-of-travel-2021/ (Accessed 29 May 2021).

Fink, D., 2003 WHAT IS '''SIGNIFICANT LEARNING"? In: Intructional Development Program.

University of Oklahoma.

FoF Core Team, 2021 Future of Food Course Roadmap.

Frideres, J.S., Goldenberg, S., Disanto, J. and Fleising, U., 1983 Technophobia: Incidence and

potential causal factors. Social Indicators Research, 13(4), pp.381–393.

Garavalia, L.S., Hummel, J.H., Wiley, L.P. and Huitt, W.G., 1999 Constructing the Course

Syllabus: Faculty and Student Perceptions of Important Syllabus Components. Journal on

Excellence in COllege Teaching, 10(1), p.18.

de Graaf, P., 2016 Stadslandbouwtak Uit Je Eigen Stad failliet. Eetbaar Rotterdam. Available at:

http://www.eetbaarrotterdam.nl/2016/01/stadslandbouwtak-uit-je-eigen-stad-failliet/ (Accessed 6

May 2021).

Grebitus, C., Chenarides, L., Muenich, R. and Mahalov, A., 2020 Consumers’ Perception of

Urban Farming—An Exploratory Study. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. Available at:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00079/full (Accessed 25 May 2021).

GreenTech, 2017 Innovative story about vertical farming at the University of Wageningen,

Gupta, M.K. and Ganapuram, S., 2019 Vertical Farming Using Information and Communication

Technologies, Infosys.

Gurung, D.B. and Scholz, R.W., 2008 Community-based ecotourism in Bhutan: Expert evaluation

of stakeholder-based scenarios. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World

Ecology, 15(5), pp.397–411.

Hasan, A., 2014 GREEN TOURISM. Media Wisata, 12(1). Available at:

https://www.amptajurnal.ac.id/index.php/MWS/article/view/63 (Accessed 5 May 2021).

Hopewell Elementary School, 2018, Vertical farming project partners with school | Morning Ag

Clips Available at: https://www.morningagclips.com/vertical-farming-project-partners-with-school/

(Accessed 21 May 2021).

Hotelschool The Hague, 2021a 2020 Annual Report Hotelschool The Hague, Hotelschool The

Hague.

Hotelschool The Hague, 2021b, Hotelschool The Hague website Available at:

https://hotelschool.nl/en (Accessed 14 June 2021).

Hotelschool The Hague, 2021c MA programme overview. Available at:

https://cms.hotelschool.digitalnatives.nl/storage/media/Hotelschool-The-Hague-MA-Programme-

overview.pdf (Accessed 28 September 2021).

Hou et Al., 2017 Frontiers | Reading on Paper and Screen among Senior Adults: Cognitive Map

and Technophobia | Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology. Available at:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02225/full (Accessed 16 June 2021).

Jarvis, W.E., 2015 Time Capsules: A Cultural History, McFarland.

Jasonos, M. and McCormick, R., 2017 Technology Integration for Restaurants & Hospitality

Industry in the Year 2025. Haag Univeristy of Applied Sciencesa-Helia.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

106

Juby, any, 2021 Anxiety: Physical symptoms and how to cope with them. MedicalNewsToday.

Available at: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/physical-symptoms-of-anxiety

(Accessed 16 June 2021).

Jürkenbeck, K., Heumann, A. and Spiller, A., 2019 Sustainability Matters: Consumer Acceptance

of Different Vertical Farming Systems. Sustainability, 11(15), p.4052.

Kartika, S., 2017 Assessing influencing factors during diffusion of radical innovators: a case

study in urban farming in the Netherlands. TU Delft.

Krueger, R.A., 2014 Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd Edition, SAGE

Publications.

Lafferty, G. and Fossen, A. van, 2001 Integrating the tourism industry: problems and strategies.

Tourism Management, 22(1), pp.11–19.

Laudon, K. and Laudon, J., 2017 Management Information Systems, 15th Edition, Pearson.

Levitt, T., 1965 Exploit the Product Life Cycle. Harvard Business Review. Available at:

https://hbr.org/1965/11/exploit-the-product-life-cycle (Accessed 25 May 2021).

Ling, E., 2021 Feedback course Future of food.

Low, B., 2019 Building sustainable urban farms with government support in Singapore. Field

Actions Science Reports. The journal of field actions, (Special Issue 20), pp.98–103.

LYCar core team, 2020, Dissemination Available at:

https://www.myhotelschool.nl/portal/site/Lycar2020/tool/85729f58-82a4-440d-92a5-

4db13e637de4/ShowPage?returnView=&studentItemId=0&backPath=&bltiAppStores=false&erro

rMessage=&clearAttr=&messageId=&source=&title=&sendingPage=16513&newTopLevel=false

&postedComment=false&addBefore=&path=push&itemId=138417&topicId=&addTool=-

1&recheck=&id=&forumId= (Accessed 4 September 2021).

Lyra, A., Loukas, A., Sidiropoulos, P., Tziatzios, G. and Mylopoulos, N., 2021 An Integrated

Modeling System for the Evaluation of Water Resources in Coastal Agricultural Watersheds:

Application in Almyros Basin, Thessaly, Greece. Water, 13(3), p.268.

Marín-González, E., Malmusi, D., Camprubí, L. and Borrell, C., 2017 The Role of Dissemination

as a Fundamental Part of a Research Project: Lessons Learned From SOPHIE. International

Journal of Health Services, 47(2), pp.258–276.

Mathieson and Wall, 1982 Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts | Ana Morgado -

Academia.edu. Longman House. Available at:

https://www.academia.edu/2276934/Tourism_economic_physical_and_social_impacts

(Accessed 21 May 2021).

McKnight, A., 2017, Modular farm tower for sites across Africa wins international skyscraper

competition Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2017/04/14/mashambas-conceptual-farm-

tower-proposed-for-africa-wins-evolo-international-skyscraper-competition/ (Accessed 6 May

2021).

Mlekus, L., Bentler, D., Paruzel, A., Kato-Beiderwieden, A.-L. and Maier, G.W., 2020 How to

raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-inherent

determinants. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte

Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 51(3), pp.273–283.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

107

Mohajan, H., 2016 Sharing of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations: A Review. American Journal of

Computer Science and Engineering, 3, pp.6–19.

Muller, A., Ferré, M., Engel, S., Gattinger, A., Holzkämper, A., Huber, R., Müller, M. and Six, J.,

2017 Can soil-less crop production be a sustainable option for soil conservation and future

agriculture? Land Use Policy, 69, pp.102–105.

NAUAS, 2018 etherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, NAUAS.

Nordstrom, K., 2009 Designing Better Pilot Programs: 10 Questions Policymakers Should Ask.

NC General Assembly Fiscal Rsearch Division, p.6.

O’Connor, L., 2018, Climate Change and the rise of Ecotourism Available at:

https://medium.com/@uncclearn/climate-change-and-the-rise-of-ecotourism-3d78b9b15c26

(Accessed 2 June 2021).

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Dickinson, W.B., Leech, N.L. and Zoran, A.G., 2009 A Qualitative

Framework for Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 8(3), pp.1–21.

Osiceanu, M.-E., 2015 Psychological Implications of Modern Technologies: “Technofobia” versus

“Technophilia.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, pp.1137–1144.

Oye, N.D., A.Iahad, N. and Ab.Rahim, N., 2014 The history of UTAUT model and its impact on

ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1),

pp.251–270.

Pascual, M.P., Lorenzo, G.A. and Gabriel, A.G., 2018 Vertical Farming Using Hydroponic

System: Toward a Sustainable Onion Production in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Open Journal of

Ecology, 08(01), p.25.

Petliovana, L., 2016 Global Travel and Tourism Industry - Statistics & Facts, Khemelnytsjy

National Univeristy.

Pew Research Center, 2021 Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United

States. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Available at:

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/ (Accessed 15 September 2021).

Ramaswamy, S. and Sathis Kumar, G., 2010 Tourism and Environment: Pave the Way for

Sustainable Eco-Tourism, Rochester, NY, Social Science Research Network.

Renfro, C., 2017 The Use of Visual Tools in the Academic Research Process: A Literature

Review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(2), pp.95–99.

Resor, C., 2008 Encouraging students to read the texts: the jigsaw method. Teaching History: A

Journal of Methods, 33(1), pp.20–28.

Resta, R.G., McCarthy Veach, P., Charles, S., Vogel, K., Blase, T. and Palmer, C.G.S., 2010

Publishing a Master’s Thesis: A Guide for Novice Authors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 19(3),

pp.217–227.

Ritchie, H. and Roser, M., 2018 Urbanization. Our World in Data. Available at:

https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization (Accessed 5 May 2021).

Rogers et al., 2008 Diffusion of Innovations | Taylor & Francis Group, 2nd Edition, Routledge.

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

108

Ross-Hellauer, T. et al., 2020 Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research. PLoS

Computational Biology, 16(4), p.e1007704.

Saxena, N.N., 2021 The Review on Techniques of Vertical Farming. International Journal of

Modern Agriculture, 10(1), pp.732–738.

Sekaran and Bougie, 2003 Research Methods For Business: A Skill building approach, 18th

Edition, New Yor: John Wiley & Sons.

Shah, K., 2018 Vertigrow. Available at: https://issuu.com/kallolshah/docs/kallol_shah_vertigrow

(Accessed 5 May 2021).

Sharma, R.S., 2015 Role of Universities in Development of Civil Society and Social

Transformation, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.

Shlomo et al, 2013 Epidemiology, Evidence-based Medicine and Public Health, 6th Edition |

Wiley, 6th Edition, Wiley-Blackwell.

Snedecor, G. and Cochran, W., 1989 Statistical methods, 8th Edition, Iowa State Univeristy

Press.

Soo Kang, M., Im, I. and Hong, S., 2011 The Meaning and Measurements of the UTAUT Model:

An Invariance Analysis. ICIS 2011 Proceedings. Available at:

https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/researchmethods/3.

Specht, K., Siebert, R. and Thomaier, S., 2016 Perception and acceptance of agricultural

production in and on urban buildings (ZFarming): a qualitative study from Berlin, Germany.

Agriculture and Human Values, 33(4), pp.753–769.

Specht, K., Weith, T., Swoboda, K. and Siebert, R., 2016 Socially acceptable urban agriculture

businesses. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(1), p.17.

Specht, K., Zoll, F., Schümann, H., Bela, J., Kachel, J. and Robischon, M., 2019 How Will We

Eat and Produce in the Cities of the Future? From Edible Insects to Vertical Farming—A Study

on the Perception and Acceptability of New Approaches. Sustainability, 11(16), p.4315.

Stern, M.J. and Powell, R.B., 2020 Field Trips and the Experiential Learning Cycle. Journal of

Interpretation Research, 25(1), pp.46–50.

Stigmar, M., 2016 Peer-to-peer Teaching in Higher Education: A Critical Literature Review.

Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(2), pp.124–136.

Strauss, A., 1987 Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press.

Swarbrooke, J., 1999 Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI.

Tablada, A., Kosorić, V., Huang, H., Lau, S.S.Y. and Shabunko, V., 2020 Architectural quality of

the productive façades integrating photovoltaic and vertical farming systems: Survey among

experts in Singapore. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 9(2), pp.301–318.

Tasgal, P., 2019 The economics of vertical & greenhouse farming are getting competitive. AFN.

Available at: https://agfundernews.com/the-economics-of-local-vertical-and-greenhouse-farming-

are-getting-competitive.html (Accessed 21 November 2021).

The ranch at Rock Creek, 2021, 2018 & 2019 Rates at The Ranch at Rock Creek Available at:

https://www.theranchatrockcreek.com/rates/ (Accessed 22 May 2021).

LYCar CPR 2122B – Tanguy Pechoultre de Lamartinie – 672055 – The Hague

109

TIES, 2000 ecotourism statistical fact sheet,

TIES, 2021 What Is Ecotourism. The International Ecotourism Society. Available at:

https://ecotourism.org/what-is-ecotourism/ (Accessed 18 May 2021).

Tower Farms, 2021, Vertical Farming Examples - Explore Tower Farms Available at:

https://www.towerfarms.com/us/en/possibilities (Accessed 21 May 2021).

Tynan, A.C. and Drayton, J., 1987 Market segmentation. Journal of Marketing Management,

2(3), pp.301–335.

Ukpabi, D.C. and Karjaluoto, H., 2017 Consumers’ acceptance of information and

communications technology in tourism: A review. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), pp.618–644.

United Nations, 2019, Sustainable Development Goals .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge

Platform Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (Accessed 21 January

2019).

UNWTO, 2018 UNWTO Tourism Highlights: 2018 Edition, World Tourism Organization

(UNWTO).

Valentine, P., 1992 Review : nature-based tourism. In: Special Interest Tourism. Belhaven Press.

Wietgrefe, G., 2018 21st Century Technophobia and Busiphobia. Available at:

324574659_21st_Century_Technophobia_and_Busiphobia (Accessed 19 May 2021).

Wight, P.A., 1996 North American Ecotourists: Market Profile and Trip Characteristics. Journal of

Travel Research, 34(4), pp.2–10.

Wilson, J., 2014 Essentials of Business Research: A Guide to Doing Your Research Project, 2nd

Edition, PP.7, SAGE Publications.

Wong, C.E., Teo, Z.W.N., Shen, L. and Yu, H., 2020 Seeing the lights for leafy greens in indoor

vertical farming. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 106, pp.48–63.

Yano, Y., Nakamura, T., Ishitsuka, S. and Maruyama, A., 2021 Consumer Attitudes toward

Vertically Farmed Produce in Russia: A Study Using Ordered Logit and Co-Occurrence Network

Analysis. Foods, 10(3), p.638.

Zbrodoff, S., 2012 Pilot projects--making innovations and new concepts fly. Available at:

https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/pilot-projects-innovations-new-concepts-6043 (Accessed 15

September 2021).

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Encouraging Students To Read The Texts: The Jigsaw Method

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2008

Cynthia Resor

"The information in the book will be on the exam" is probably the most common technique used to inspire college history students to read assigned texts. Unfortunately, this vague threat does not always encourage students to read and analyze the assignment carefully. College history students are much more likely to read assigned monographs, chapters, or articles if the instructor provides a specific purpose for the assignment. The jigsaw method is a teaching and learning strategy with a specific purpose that can promote comprehension and retention as well as encourage in-depth scrutiny of assigned readings. Additionally, students enjoy the peer interaction involved in jigsaw activities and instructors appreciate lessons in which students must take the initiative.

Consumer Attitudes toward Vertically Farmed Produce in Russia: A Study Using Ordered Logit and Co-Occurrence Network Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2021

Vertical indoor farming under artificial lighting has gained attention as a novel means of food production. However, consumer acceptance of vegetable crops grown under artificial conditions is not well understood. Our nationwide online survey of 289 Russians gathered attitudes and opinions toward vertically farmed vegetables. Employing an ordered logit model and a two-mode co-occurrence network analysis, we show how respondents’ attitudes relate to their key demographic characteristics and opinions about the vegetables. Results indicate that respondents’ attitudes are heterogeneous and related to their region of residence, income level, and opinions regarding nutrients, safety, and taste. Respondents in the Central and Volga districts exhibited less favorable attitudes. Less favorably inclined respondents viewed the produce as unnatural, less nutritious, bad-tasting, and even dangerous, presumably because of misconceptions or lack of knowledge. On the other hand, respondents with monthly income above RUB 60,001 (1018 USD, 867 EURO) had relatively positive attitudes toward such vegetables. Respondents having positive attitudes saw the vegetables as safe, tasty, and of good quality. We discuss the political and commercial implications of these findings.

An Integrated Modeling System for the Evaluation of Water Resources in Coastal Agricultural Watersheds: Application in Almyros Basin, Thessaly, Greece

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2021

This study presents an integrated modeling system for the evaluation of the quantity and quality of water resources of coastal agricultural watersheds. The modeling system consists of coupled and interrelated models, including (i) a surface hydrology model (UTHBAL), (ii) a groundwater hydrology model (MODFLOW), (iii) a crop growth/nitrate leaching model (REPIC, an R-ArcGIS-based EPIC model), (iv) a groundwater contaminant transport model (MT3DMS), and (v) a groundwater seawater intrusion model (SEAWAT). The efficacy of the modeling system to simulate the quantity and quality of water resources has been applied to the Almyros basin in Thessaly, Greece. It is a coastal agricultural basin with irrigated and intensified agriculture facing serious groundwater problems, such as groundwater depletion, nitrate pollution, and seawater intrusion. Irrigation demands were estimated for the main crops cultivated in the area, based on precipitation and temperature from regional weather stations. The models have been calibrated and validated against time-series of observed crop yields, groundwater table observations, and observed concentrations of nitrates and chlorides. The results indicate that the modeling system simulates the water resources quantity and quality with increased accuracy. The proposed modeling system could be used as a tool for the simulation of water resources management and climate change scenarios.

How to raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-inherent determinants

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2020

This paper in the journal “Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO)” presents a study that investigated user experience characteristics as determinants of technology acceptance. Organizations planning to implement new technologies are confronted with the challenge to ensure user acceptance. Barely accepted technologies are used less often, result in lower job satisfaction, and ultimately lead to performance losses. The technology acceptance model (Venkatesh and Bala 2008) incorporates determinants of information technology use. The model’s predictors have a strong focus on interindividual user characteristics (such as computer self-efficacy) and the job context (e.g., voluntariness). Yet, what is lacking in the model, are characteristics of the technology itself that can be used as starting points to design better technologies. To bridge this gap, we introduce the User Experience Technology Acceptance Model, and provide a first test of this model. In our online survey (N = 281), we investigated how technological determinants, more specifically user experience characteristics, affected technology acceptance. Except for two paths of our proposed model, all path coefficients were significant with small to large effect sizes (f2 = 0.02–0.66). User experience predictors resulted in 60.6% of explained variance in perceived ease of use, 38.2% of explained variance in perceived usefulness, and 25.8% of explained variance in behavioral intention. Our results provide mostly support for our extension of the technology acceptance model. The technology-inherent characteristics output quality, perspicuity, dependability, and novelty were significant predictors of technology acceptance. We discuss theoretical and practical implications with the focus on technology designers, change managers, and users.

Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2020
PLOS COMPUT BIOL

How we communicate research is changing because of new (especially digital) possibilities. This article sets out 10 easy steps researchers can take to disseminate their work in novel and engaging ways, and hence increase the impact of their research on science and society. © 2020 Ross-Hellauer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Sustainable Tourism Management

Book

Jun 1999

John Swarbrooke

To Read or Not to Read? Exploring the Reading Habits of Hospitality Management Students

Article

Feb 2021

College educators may have concerns about the reading habits of their students in general and within disciplines, and may wish to understand more about their students’ reading habits. Therefore, this Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) study investigated students’ perceptions of their own reading habits; 124 surveys were collected from hospitality and tourism students at a university in the southeastern United States. Students at higher levels reported reading more than others, grade point average was related to reading, and several themes connected to their reading habits were identified. Based on the results of the study, implications are discussed, strategies for encouraging reading are provided, and further research is suggested.

Seeing the lights for leafy greens in indoor vertical farming

Article

Dec 2020
TRENDS FOOD SCI TECH

Background Agricultural production in controlled indoor farming offers a reliable alternative to food and nutrition supply for densely populated cities and contributes to addressing the impending food insecurity. Leafy vegetables, rich in vitamins, minerals, fibres and antioxidants, account for over half of the indoor farming operations worldwide. Light is the foremost environmental factor for plant growth and development, and the success of indoor farming largely depends on lighting qualities. The energy efficient light-emitting diode (LED) has been increasingly used in indoor farming systems. Scope and approach Here we provide an updated overview of the current indoor vertical farming systems, the mechanisms of light perception by photoreceptors, and the effects of LED spectra or intensity on growth and phytonutrient accumulation of leafy greens. We also outline the challenges in interpreting and applying the research findings in the field and highlight issues to be addressed. Key findings and conclusions Lighting quality and quantity can be manipulated to improve yield and phytonutrient contents of leafy greens. As responses of leafy greens to light are dependent on genotype and developmental stage, light recipe targeting different developmental stages should be formulated for different species for maximizing yield. While it has been known that blue wavelength has a more prominent positive impact on phytonutrient accumulation than red, little is known for other wavelengths. Moreover, recent findings that green wavelength inhibits plant growth in a blue-wavelength-dependent manner highlight the need for future research to investigate interactive effects of different wavelengths on modulating plant growth and metabolism.

Is sustainable tourism a goal that came true? The Italian experience of the Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park

Article

Feb 2021
LAND USE POLICY

According to previous research, in several countries, the achievement of the objectives for tourism development and the better functioning of protected areas is affected by bad governance activities. This paper provides a framework based on the combination between the Viable Systems Approach (vSa) and the actor engagement theory for improving the managerial effectiveness of protected areas. Exploring the case of the Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park, a well-known tourism destination in Southern Italy, we gave empirical evidence of the risks that can occur when the governing body of protected areas does not adopt a systems-based management approach, and therefore cannot handle the complexity of the territory, generate socio-economic benefits for local populations, resolve conflicts with local actors, or advance sustainable tourism goals. Findings suggest that the governing body should adopt specific strategies to engage local actors in decision-making and idea-generation processes. Such strategies could help to integrate resources within the system, co-create value and handle conflicts when the goals are not mutually aligned. Hence, actor engagement is necessary for achieving conditions of systemic consonance and resonance.

Field Trips and the Experiential Learning Cycle

Article

Apr 2020

Drawing on results from a recent national study, we draw attention to the importance of the experiential learning cycle for enhancing meaningful outcomes of interpretive and educational experiences. The experiential learning cycle involves participating in a concrete experience, reflecting on that experience, drawing out lessons learned and principles from that reflection, and putting that knowledge to work in a new situation. Recent studies reveal that attention to completing all four stages of the experiential learning cycle can enhance positive outcomes for participants in educational and interpretive experiences. We discuss what this might look like in practice for interpreter and educators interacting with visiting groups.

The acceptance of vertical farming by the ecotourist population

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

The acceptance of vertical farming by the ecotourist population

Vertical Farming: Revolutionizing Sustainable Agriculture in the 21st Century