ArticleCleaner food systems2026
Vertical farming as a land sparing strategy: GHG implications for UK agricultural landscapes.
Article in Cleaner food systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Growing pressure on UK land, driven by demands for food production, renewable energy, biodiversity recovery and climate mitigation, is intensifying competition for limited land. Vertical farming (VF) offers a land-sparing strategy: by relocating crop production indoors and achieving extremely high yields per unit area, VF can free agricultural land for other uses. However, VF has high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to traditional field farming due to intensive electricity demand, so its environmental value depends on whether land-sparing outcomes can offset production-stage impacts. This study provides the first UK-wide, full-system assessment of lettuce production, comparing business-as-usual field farming with national-scale VF and alternative uses of spared land. A primary-data life cycle assessment (LCA) quantifies the impacts of VF; a separate primary-data LCA of field farming incorporates DNDC-modelled national soil emissions; and the Land Use Net-Zero Advisor (LUNA) evaluates the GHG, land-carbon and energy implications of repurposing spared land for solar, wind, afforestation, agroforestry and bioenergy. VF reduces land demand by 93% but has higher GHG emissions per-kg than field systems. System-level outcomes depend on how spared land is used. Solar energy provides the strongest mitigation, fully offsetting VF's operational emissions and reducing total system impacts below the field baseline. Forestry and agroforestry generate positive land-carbon outcomes but more modest GHG reductions. Across all scenarios, peat soils dominate land-carbon losses, underscoring the need to avoid land-use change on peat and prioritise restoration. Overall, VF's environmental value arises from the land-use transitions it enables. When incorporated into multifunctional land-use planning, VF can support domestic food production while facilitating renewable-energy deployment and ecosystem restoration within a highly constrained UK land system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.