Integrating Vertical Farming into Residential Buildings in Egypt: A Stakeholder Perspectives-Based Approach

Abstract

As cities grow faster and food systems grow more fragile, architects and planners are increasingly challenged to design spaces that not only house people but also support environmental and social well-being. This study investigates how vertical farming can be integrated into residential building facades in Egypt as a strategy to promote local food production and sustainable design. Focusing on a government housing project in Port Said, three façade-based design options were developed and assessed through structured surveys targeting two stakeholder groups: experts and residents. This research revealed a strong interest and awareness across both samples. While users prioritized benefits such as esthetics, air quality, and the ease of use, experts emphasized feasibility concerns, maintenance needs, and policy barriers. Both groups favored the second design option as the most balanced and applicable solution. By foregrounding stakeholder input, this study fills a gap in the existing literature on building-integrated agriculture and provides design and policy recommendations grounded in the local context. It advocates for inclusive design thinking, where technical viability and community values are considered together. While limited to single case and visual assessment methods, this research offers a foundation for further applied studies and broader sustainable design frameworks.

1. Introduction

Many parts of the world continue to have food crises. Furthermore, the COVID-19 epidemic, wars, and weather changes have contributed to an increase in the number of people experiencing hunger. According to the 2023 edition of the state of food security and nutrition in the world report, between 691 and 783 million people experienced hunger in 2022, a 122 million rise from 2019 [1,2]. Urbanization has a huge influence on food production, with the urban population accounting for about half of the global population in 2008. By 2030, this number is predicted to reach two-thirds [3]. To address the issue of food security in urban areas, governments and policymakers must take into account the tendencies of urbanization and how they affect food security. They should also look for creative solutions to this problem.

In the past few years, building-integrated agriculture (BIA) has become more prevalent in urban areas. This is a way to increase food security in response to the expanding urban population [4]. Designers, professionals, and farmers have worked to develop urban agriculture by using unoccupied open spaces such as roofs, facades, and courtyards of buildings in cities to produce food. Several terminologies have emerged in the literature to study and investigate urban agriculture [5], including building-based agriculture [6] and the most widespread term rooftop agriculture [7]. In addition, the term productive facades have emerged as a facade system that incorporates PV modules as shading devices as well as vertical farming (VF) systems on balconies and windows [8]. These concepts emerged in response to the use of existing urban buildings and building envelopes that are exposed to solar radiation to generate energy and food.

Due to its large population and limited arable land, Egypt faces numerous challenges related to food security. As urbanization accelerates, the demand for new ways to ensure access to fresh food becomes critical in cities. Vertical farming—as one of the (BIA) systems—is an advanced agricultural practice that can present an inventive solution to urban food security issues, as it provides an opportunity to produce fresh food in densely populated urban environments, reducing the reliance on traditional agricultural practices [9,10].

In this context, the present study aims to explore the potential of integrating vertical farming into the facades and balconies of government residential buildings in Egypt. The core objective is to develop a framework that incorporates stakeholder perspectives—specifically those of design professionals and everyday users—to assess the feasibility, perceived benefits, and challenges of such integration. To achieve this, this study adopts a quantitative, survey-based methodology, targeting two key groups: experts (e.g., architects, planners, academics) and non-expert users (e.g., residents). Through a comparative analysis of their responses, this research evaluates three proposed design options implemented in a real-life building in Port Said. This approach allows for the generation of data-driven insights that can inform both policy and practice, offering a grounded contribution to the field of environmentally responsive architecture.

This emphasis on stakeholder engagement reflects an evolving understanding in environmental architecture that sustainable design cannot succeed in isolation from the communities it serves. As Egypt continues to face mounting pressure from urbanization, resource scarcity, and a growing demand for resilient food systems, identifying innovative and context-sensitive architectural interventions becomes vital. Vertical farming, when embedded within the residential fabric of cities, presents an opportunity not only for local food production but also for enhancing the microclimate, improving façade esthetics, and promoting resident well-being. Yet, for these benefits to be realized, it is essential to understand how diverse stakeholders perceive this integration, what concerns they raise, and what design preferences they express.

2. Literature

BIA within building facades has been a new rising trend in modern urban agriculture in cities over the past two decades. One of its most important features is that it takes advantage of the existing spaces and capabilities of buildings without the need for additional spaces. The terms vertical greenery system, vertical garden, green wall, and vertical landscaping refer to plants grown vertically [11,12], while the terms productive façades (PFs), vertical farming, vertical farms, and vertical farming on facades refer to crop production in buildings [8,13]. The classification of these categories depends on the technology used, construction system, method of planting, and growing media [14], which resulted in different concepts of urban agriculture integration with buildings, Refs. [15,16,17], as shown in

Table 1. Different concepts of urban agriculture integration with buildings.

	2D Green Surfaces		3D Green Surfaces
Description	A green wall is any plant-covered vertical surface, while a living wall is a green wall with a specially designed system with integrated irrigation and nutrients.		Three-dimensional green spaces can be designed with rich spatial variations, such as distributing multiple projecting green modules across the façade, integrating greenery into recessed balconies or openings to provide shaded green pockets, or integrating 3D green spaces across the entire façade.
Diagram
Examples of buildings	[18]	[19]	[20]	[21]	[22]
Term	Green façade, green wall, vertical greenery system	Living wall, vertical greenery system	Vertical farming on facades, vertical garden, vertical landscaping, green pockets, garden terrace, vertical forest, elevated forest, sky farming	Vertical farming on facades, indoor sky garden, vertical landscaping, green pockets, sky/hanging garden, vertical forest, elevated forest, sky farming	Vertical farming on facades, vertical landscaping, green pockets, sky/hanging garden, vertical forest, elevated forest
Spatial configuration	Surfaces	Inside and on the surface of the buildings	Volumes	Volumes in the buildings	Volumes into building facades
Substrate depth	Less than 25 cm	Less than 25 cm	More than 25 cm	More than 25 cm	More than 25 cm
Plant types	Climbing plants	Grasses, small to medium shrubs, climbing plants	Trees, small to medium-large shrubs, climbing plants	Trees, small to medium-large shrubs, climbing plants	Trees, small to medium-large shrubs, climbing plants
Growing media	Soil	Soil or mix, water-hydroponics	Soil or mix, water-hydroponics, or aeroponics	Soil or mix, water-hydroponics, or aeroponics	Soil or mix, water-hydroponics, or aeroponics
Capacity to accommodate intensive vegetation	NA	NA	Applicable	Applicable	Applicable
Possibility of producing crops	Low capacity	Low–medium capacity	High capacity	High capacity	High capacity

.

Recent studies attempt to redefine the term “vertical farming” as an environmentally controlled, soilless agricultural technique where crops are grown inside urban buildings vertically in stacked layers [23,24,25]. Other studies focus on the idea of food production within urban areas, regardless of whether the soil is used as the growing media or not [26]. Benefits of vertical farming are revealed through a comparison with traditional farming [27,28], which highlighted the increased space efficiency by stacking crops in vertically inclined layers and using hydroponic or aeroponic systems to reduce water usage and soil depletion [29]. Furthermore, it offers a creative way to produce food in cities while cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions and transportation expenses [17,30], as well as the quantities of crops produced from integrating vertical farming into buildings [31,32,33]. However, some studies have also argued about the environmental, social, and economic benefits expected from integration [17,29,34].

It is worth mentioning that the current study advances the literature on vertical farming by providing a stakeholder-driven framework that is contextually tailored to Egypt’s urban and socio-economic conditions—an area where research remains scarce despite the growing global interest in Controlled Environment Agriculture and vertical greenery systems. While prior studies in the Gulf Cooperation Council have highlighted the potential of advanced Controlled Environment Agriculture CEA technologies to address food security and resource constraints in arid regions [35] and others in Egypt have identified key challenges to vertical greenery systems adoption, including economic barriers, limited government awareness, and cultural perceptions [36], few have examined how stakeholder preferences can directly inform feasible, publicly accepted design solutions. Additionally, continental-scale analyses, such as those assessing African countries’ readiness for vertical farming [37], have recognized Egypt’s strong potential yet noted the need for locally adapted, cost-effective systems. By integrating expert and user perspectives into the evaluation of three real-world design options, this study bridges these knowledge gaps, offering context-sensitive insights that can inform both policy and investment strategies in the Egyptian and broader Middle Eastern urban contexts.

A bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer (version 1.6.17) to map current research trends, patterns, and gaps related to integrating vertical farming into building facades to achieve food security in urban areas. This method applies statistical and mathematical techniques to process large volumes of bibliographic data, offering a data-driven perspective that complements the narrative review. By analyzing indicators such as co-authorship, co-citation, keyword frequency, and bibliographic coupling, the analysis reveals underexplored areas and validates this study’s objectives. VOSviewer, known for its strong visualization capabilities—including its network, density, and overlay maps—is widely used to present research connections and emerging themes, making it a valuable tool for identifying knowledge gaps and guiding future investigations [38,39].

The “Documents” search option was used to search for publications on vertical farming in the buildings facades topic and within the “Article Title, Abstract, Keywords”. The following keywords were used to search through the Scopus database: “vertical farming–food security”. Upon a quick filtration concerning the subject area and language, 42 relevant documents were shortlisted in the Scopus database. The keywords analyzed were words that were repeated at least two times. As a result, 79 keywords were obtained.

Figure 1 illustrates an overlay visualization of the co-occurrence analysis type. It shows that the most popular keywords in recent years related to publications on the topic of vertical farming into building facades were as follows: (1) food security, (2) food supply, and (3) vertical farming.

Despite that, it is obvious—as shown in Figure 2—that few studies have addressed the relationship between buildings, vertical farming, and food security, as these topics appear with lower co-citation weight values and total link strength.

These, in turn, denote the originality of the present research’s scope. Moreover, Figure 3 indicates that there is a lack of focused experimental and practical research on integrating farming into buildings, especially in Arab countries and countries in the Middle East and North Africa region such as Egypt, which lacks studies in this field despite the escalation of food security problems therein.

Despite the growing interest in integrating vertical farming (VF) into building facades [26,40], numerous social [24,29,41], environmental [42,43,44,45], and economic benefits [46,47,48] have been associated with VF applications. However, several critical issues remain underexplored [10,33]. These include the actual efficiency of VF in producing crops and contributing to food security within urban areas. Additionally, questions remain about the capacity of stakeholders to support such initiatives and participate in the related decision-making processes. These concerns form the central focus of the present study. Accordingly, it is worth mentioning that integrating vertical farming into residential buildings has not received significant attention in practical studies. In addition to pointing out the lack of studies on integrating vertical farming into building facades for the purpose of achieving food security. Furthermore, there is a lack of real experiments or field studies on integrating vertical farming into the facades of residential buildings in Arab countries, the Middle East, and especially Egypt.

Although vertical farming has gained growing attention in recent years due to its environmental and spatial benefits, many studies still focus primarily on the technological efficiency, yield, and integration with architectural systems [13]. Few studies have examined the role of stakeholders in shaping the design and implementation of VF projects [10,49]. However, some scholars emphasize that early and sustained stakeholder engagement is crucial for the long-term success and social acceptance of such initiatives, particularly in urban contexts [50]. Engaging a diverse group of stakeholders together form a collaborative ecosystem that supports not only the practical implementation of vertical farming but also the development of policies and frameworks that can be scaled and adapted [49,51,52]. Hence, this present study places stakeholder engagement at the heart of its approach. It addresses that gap by considering the vital role of relevant key stakeholders and understanding their level of acceptance and support. It aims to explore how involving both decision-makers and the public can help define the opportunities and challenges of integrating vertical farming into residential buildings.

3. Case Study

Port Said, Egypt, was selected as the location for the case study. As a coastal city characterized by a mild climate, Port Said offers favorable environmental conditions for integrating terraces into façades, which can effectively accommodate vertical farming systems. The project under consideration is a government-funded, economically designed housing development targeting middle-income households, thereby ensuring both social significance and practical feasibility. Its façade design features terraces. It is also a popular architectural style in many Egyptian governorates due to its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and ease of construction. This prevalence ensures this study’s feasibility, scalability, and potential to generalize findings to similar urban contexts.

Figure 4 shows the chosen residential building in the Nasser Project in Port Said. The Nasser Project consists of 20 residential buildings for middle-income housing. Each residential building consists of 12 floors, with four apartments per floor. The front facade of the building was chosen to provide options for integrating vertical farming into it.

To support this study’s objective of assessing stakeholder preferences toward integrating (VF) into residential buildings, three distinct design options were developed based on the selected case study. These proposals were tailored to reflect varied approaches for incorporating planting systems into two common architectural elements, terraces and windows, while maintaining harmony with the building’s existing character. The aim was to provide realistic options that could be evaluated by stakeholders in terms of usability and visual integration. A quantitative, survey-based methodology was then applied, targeting two key groups, residents and experts, to gather professional insights on design practicality and implementation challenges.

Concerning design option#1, L-shaped planting trays are placed within the terrace space, allowing good sunlight exposure and easy access for maintenance. Design option#2 places trays on both sides of the terrace, leaving room to reach the railing and care for the plants without obstruction. Design option#3 shifts the planting system to the window, using wall-mounted trays that slide inward on steel supports for maintenance, accessible through a small operable window. As shown in

Table 2. The proposed design options.

Design Option#1

The option idea is to integrate L-shaped planting trays into the terrace space so that the plants are exposed to sunlight and are easy to care for.

Design Option#2

The second option implies integrating planting trays on both sides of the terrace so that there is space to reach the terrace railing and also to take care of the plants.

Design Option#3

The third option idea is to integrate plant trays on the window façade, so that they are mounted on the wall below the window, and an opening is made in the wall to take care of the plants, and a window shutter is installed to close the opening. A steel cantilever beam is installed on the outer wall of the room, and a floor with channels is installed on the beams to pull the trays into the room.

, these three options represent different levels of integration and interaction between the user and the system. Their evaluation from multiple stakeholder perspectives, via structured surveys, forms a core part of this study’s methodology.

4. Method

This study employed a descriptive statistical approach as the primary analytical method, reflecting its aim to reveal patterns and trends in stakeholder perceptions rather than test causal hypotheses. This choice is well-suited to the exploratory nature of this research, allowing for a clear, unbiased representation of the surveyed population’s views without imposing assumptions beyond the scope of this study.

Two separate surveys were designed to target two key stakeholder groups. The first survey focused on residents, considering the end users, to assess their awareness, acceptance, expected benefits, concerns, and overall perception of integrating (VF) systems into residential building balconies. The aim was to collect data from a sufficiently large and representative sample to enable the generalization of findings to broader urban populations with similar demographic and environmental contexts. The second survey targeted experts, including professors, architects, and professional designers, to capture their academic and professional perspectives on the integration of VF in residential balconies. This survey explored themes such as design considerations, esthetic implications, implementation challenges, and the anticipated benefits of this innovative approach in sustainable urban living.

All survey steps are outlined in the subsequent sections, including the sampling strategy, instrument structure, validation process, time horizon, data collection method, and analysis procedures.

4.1. Data Collection Method

A structured questionnaire was developed to assess both residents’ readiness and preferences, based on their daily experiences within the residential settings of Port Said city, and to capture experts’ opinions grounded in their academic and professional expertise. The instrument consisted of closed-ended questions and was structured into five main sections, beginning with basic demographic information, followed by four core thematic parts. In the residents’ survey, these four sections focused on (1) the awareness and acceptance of the VF concept, (2) individual fears and concerns, (3) expected benefits, and (4) preferences among the three proposed design options to understand users’ attitudes and expectations. Similarly, the experts’ survey addressed (1) the perceived benefits of (VF), (2) associated design and implementation challenges, (3) relevant design considerations and professional codes/regulations, and (4) preferences among the same three design options to evaluate expert perspectives from both academic and practical viewpoints.

The questionnaire was created using Microsoft Forms and was made available in both English and Arabic to accommodate the local population and professional community. To ensure clarity and content validity, a pilot test was conducted with five participants to ensure clarity, cultural appropriateness, and relevance to the Egyptian context, particularly the Port Said case. Based on their feedback, several questions were revised to enhance readability and eliminate ambiguity. This preliminary testing helped confirm the instrument’s suitability for broader data collection.

The questionnaire items were developed through a combination of literature adaptation and context-specific design. Several questions and response options were adapted from prior studies on vertical greenery systems, productive façades, and stakeholder engagement in sustainable architecture, ensuring the alignment with established research practices. Other items were directly derived from the three proposed vertical farming design options introduced in the case study, allowing respondents to assess context-specific features in a realistic setting. This process ensured that the survey captured both internationally recognized factors and locally significant considerations for integrating vertical farming into residential façades.

4.2. Sampling

This research employed simple random sampling as the probability sampling technique, ensuring that every individual in the target population had an equal chance of being selected. The sampling process was conducted without introducing any demographic segmentation or selection bias, thereby maintaining the integrity of the sample. The representative sample size was calculated as 384 residents, based on the total population of Port Said city (798,407 residents) as reported recently by the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics [53], using a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, as shown in

Table 3. Sample size for various population sizes.

Population Size	Sample Size
	Sample Table
	95% Confidence Level		99% Confidence Level
	5% Error	1% Error	5% Error	1% Error
75	63	74	67	75
300	169	291	207	295
800	260	739	363	763
2500	333	1984	524	2173
25,000	378	6939	646	9972
100,000	383	8762	662	14,227
250,000	384	9248	662	15,555
500,000	384	9423	663	16,055
2,500,000	384	9423	663	16,478

. Within sixty days of distributing the questionnaires, 384 valid responses were received for the residents’ survey, fulfilling the required sample size. Additionally, 50 expert responses were collected for the expert survey, which exceeded the minimum threshold for expert validation [54,55]. Table 3 shows the required sample sizes for various population sizes at a 95% confidence level. Source: [56].

4.3. Data Analysis Method

All collected responses were subjected to a statistical analysis to determine the averages and percentages, then the results were visualized using bar and donut charts.

4.4. Time Horizon

This study employed the cross-sectional method as one of the time horizon techniques, since data were collected by questionnaires at a specific time during the period from 20 April 2025 to 20 June 2025.

4.5. Study Limitations

This study was developed to propose a framework for integrating vertical farming into government housing in Egypt, with a focus on engaging stakeholders throughout the process. The scope was shaped by several contextual and methodological boundaries. The analytical approach relied on stakeholder perceptions and visual-based preference scoring, without incorporating simulation tools or long-term performance assessments related to productivity, energy, or the environmental impact. This research was also carried out within the regulatory and physical context of a single case study in Port Said, where local building codes and existing regulations may have influenced how feasibility was perceived by experts. The selected building typology—government residential housing—along with the urban character of Port Said shaped the architectural and cultural backdrop of this study. This coastal city, with limited agricultural activity, may represent different motivations or levels of receptiveness to vertical farming compared to more agriculturally driven settings.

The participant pool included architects, academics, and general users, offering relevant but focused insight, without involving broader groups such as policymakers, contractors, or maintenance staff. Additionally, local cultural attitudes toward planting, shared space use, and maintenance may have influenced user expectations and feedback. Finally, as this study measured self-reported interest rather than observed long-term behavior, the results may be influenced by socio-cultural novelty bias, and future longitudinal assessments are recommended to verify sustained adoption.

These factors together define the study context and offer opportunities for future research to build on.

5. Results of Experts’ Survey

Table 4. Main findings from the expert responses, including design implications and result analysis.

Q.#	Implications	Results Analysis
03	Motivation for integration	Most experts (62%) identified sustainability and environmental benefits as their primary motivation for integrating vertical farming into residential design projects. This dominant preference strongly reflects the growing emphasis on eco-friendly and climate-responsive architecture.
04, 05	Modifications and adjustments	Almost 75% of experts believe that vertical farming can be effectively integrated into existing residential balconies with only minor adjustments and modifications to the current architectural layout.
06	Biggest concern	Maintenance emerged as the most pressing concern, cited by 54% of the experts as the top challenge when adopting vertical farms in residential settings.
07	Structure challenges	Over half of the experts (56%) identified drainage and irrigation management as the most critical structural challenge when designing vertical farming systems. Other concerns, such as the system’s weight (16%), balcony layout (14%), and weather resistance (10%), were noted but considered less significant.
08	Construction barriers	High construction and installation costs (28%) and insulation requirements (26%) were highlighted as the most likely barriers to implementing vertical farming on balconies.
09	Maintenance challenges	The most expected maintenance challenge was regular irrigation, watering, and drainage, reported by 32% of experts. Resident involvement and knowledge followed at 22%, while concerns about system durability and pest control were each cited by 14%.
10	Design challenges	The most cited design challenge in incorporating vertical farming into residential balconies was the balcony’s façade relation (34%), followed closely by limited balcony area (30%) and unfavorable length-to-width proportions (24%).
11	Visual harmony	The most anticipated challenge in maintaining visual harmony when integrating vertical farming was the size and distribution of farming elements over the façade, cited by 44% of experts. This was followed by concerns about the proportion of the farming coverage area to the façade area (30%).
12	Environmental benefit	Improving air quality was identified by 32% of experts as the most effective environmental benefit of implementing vertical farming systems on balconies. This was followed by decreasing temperature (22%).
13	Building codes	Most experts (44%) believe that current building codes and regulations do not support the implementation of vertical farming on residential balconies, while 42% think the codes need to be updated, highlighting a clear need for regulatory revision to accommodate this emerging design trend.
14	Cost–benefit balance	Most experts (72%) indicated that the cost–benefit balance of vertical farming depends largely on how residents perceive and utilize it, whether as a personal use feature or a commercial investment.
15	Property value	Most experts (60%) believe that vertical farming could moderately increase property value in residential buildings due to its sustainability and self-sufficiency benefits.

presents the main findings from the expert responses to different parts of the survey. It highlights what experts see as the key motivations, challenges, and benefits of integrating vertical farming into residential balconies. From structural and maintenance issues to design concerns, costs, benefits, and regulations, the summary gives a clear picture of the most important factors shaping how this concept could work in real-life residential projects.

To explore how vertical farming could be integrated into residential building balconies, experts were asked to compare three design options based on five key aspects: structural concerns, maintenance, connection to nature, esthetic appeal, and environmental benefits. The expert responses shown in Figure 5 illustrated in the following five doughnut charts reveal nuanced preferences and concerns regarding the three design options.

Option 3 raises the greatest concerns regarding both structural implications (44%) and maintenance requirements (54%), suggesting it may be more complex or technically demanding despite its potential benefits. In contrast, Option 2 is consistently rated the lowest in these two concern categories—structural (23%) and maintenance (23%)—positioning it as the least problematic in terms of feasibility and upkeep. Moreover, Option 1 demonstrates a strong appeal in contributing to the esthetic value (48%) and improving indoor environmental conditions (58%), reinforcing its potential to enhance living quality. Interestingly, Option 2 also leads in promoting a connection to nature (44%), reflecting its strength in supporting biophilic design goals.

To further evaluate the practicality of the proposed design options, experts were asked to rank them based on two important factors: (a) the level of intervention or modification each option would require to be integrated into existing residential buildings and (b) the estimated cost of installation. This ranking helps illustrate how each option is perceived in terms of the feasibility and financial impact. The following charts summarize the experts’ collective responses, offering a clearer picture of which options are considered more adaptable and cost-effective.

As shown in Figure 6, in both charts, Option 2 consistently ranks as requiring the least intervention and lowest cost, making it the most practical and economically feasible choice according to the experts. Option 1 occupies a moderate position in both aspects, while Option 3 is seen as demanding the highest level of building modification and the greatest installation cost. These consistent rankings suggest a clear expert preference for Option 2 when balancing the ease of implementation with economic considerations.

To explore potential differences in perspective, the expert responses were categorized into two groups, as shown in Figure 7: consultants and project managers and faculty members and academics. The following figure highlights how each group views two key aspects—regulatory support and design challenges—related to the vertical farming integration into residential balconies. This comparison helps to uncover how professional practice and academic insight may shape different priorities and expectations.

Concerning the regulatory support, the results show a clear difference between the two expert groups. While both groups almost agree that current building codes need updates with similar percentages, a higher percentage of faculty members (48.57%) believe the codes do not support vertical farming compared to consultants (35.71%). This difference may reflect academics’ focus on regulatory gaps from a research and policy perspective, while consultants may see more flexibility in real-world applications.

As for design challenges, the comparison reveals a notable difference in design priorities between the two expert groups. Consultants focused more on the proportion of balconies (35.71%) as the main challenge, while academics highlighted both the balcony’s façade relation and area equally (37.14% each). This suggests that practitioners are more concerned with the spatial layout, whereas academics place equal weight on the visual and spatial integration within the building envelope.

6. Results of Users’ Survey

Table 5. Main findings from the public users’ responses, including design implications and result analysis.

Q.#	Implications	Results Analysis
03, 04	Awareness and interest	Slightly more respondents (72%) indicated prior awareness of vertical farming, reflecting a relatively high level of public familiarity with the concept. In parallel, 75% expressed strong interest in having a vertical farming system on their home balcony, with an additional 22% showing partial interest. Together, these findings demonstrate both awareness and a high degree of public receptiveness, suggesting strong potential for community acceptance and future adoption.
05	Most expected benefits	Users prioritized esthetic and green space value (29%), followed closely by environmental benefits (27%) and personal health and well-being (26%). Economic returns came last (16%), showing that residents are more driven by quality-of-life and environmental improvements than financial gains.
06	Plant preference diversity	Most respondents (60%) preferred a mix of all plant types, like edible crops, flowers, climbers, and medicinal or aromatic plants, when using a vertical farming system. This broad preference indicates a desire for multifunctional balcony gardens that combine beauty, utility, and wellness.
07	Cost vs. benefits	A combined 77% of respondents were open to growing food on their balconies as an economic option; 35% agreed outright, while 42% supported the idea if associated costs were low. This indicates potential public interest in the implementation of vertical farming with reasonable costs.
08, 09, 10	Health and esthetics	The responses reflect strong public belief in the multiple benefits of vertical farming. Most participants agreed that it can support organic food security (67%), enhance diet and health (66%), and serve as a healthier option to store-bought produce (66%). Additionally, 71% believed it would improve the visual appearance of their balconies. These results highlight a clear appreciation of vertical farming’s environmental, health, and esthetic value.
11	Concerns and challenges	Participants expressed a range of concerns about integrating vertical farming on balconies. The most cited worry was pest control and maintaining cleanliness (74%), followed by wind-related safety and structural stability issues (60%). Time and effort required for plant care (51%) and irrigation needs (46%) were also significant. These results highlight practical maintenance and environmental challenges as key user apprehensions. “Respondents were able to pick all that apply.”
12	Management preference	A total of 40% of respondents favored specialist maintenance (e.g., hiring a gardener). Meanwhile, 23% preferred individual personal systems over shared ones. These results suggest that ease and professionalism are key factors in user preference.

summarizes the key insights gathered from the public’s responses to the user-focused survey. It highlights how residents perceive the idea of integrating vertical farming into their balconies, covering levels of awareness, interest, potential benefits, plant preferences, and economic considerations. It also addresses perceived challenges, concerns, preferred management models, and the broader value users associate with this concept. These findings provide a grounded understanding of community readiness and priorities that can inform the successful implementation of vertical farming in residential settings.

The following charts in Figure 8 present users’ evaluations of the three design options. Participants assessed each option based on five key aspects: the ease of use, connection with nature, compatibility with existing balcony functions, balance between farming and esthetics, and overall preference. This analysis helps reveal which design features align most closely with user comfort, practicality, and lifestyle needs.

The user responses, illustrated across five doughnut charts, reveal a clear preference for Option 2 in most evaluation aspects. It was rated highest for smooth utilization (45%), the compatibility with other balcony functions (49%), and the overall preference (42%), indicating that users find it the most practical and user-friendly. While Option 1 led slightly in enhancing the connection with nature (42%) and shared the top score for the farming–esthetic balance (36%) compared to Option 2, it was generally less favored in functional aspects. Option 3, although scoring modestly across all criteria, consistently ranked lowest in user preferences. These results highlight a user inclination toward design options that balance efficiency, comfort, and spatial compatibility, resulting in Option 2 as the most integrated and acceptable solution.

Moreover, to explore potential differences in perspectives, the users’ responses were categorized into two groups, as shown in Figure 9: male and female. The following figure highlights how each group views two key aspects, the overall preference and compatibility with other space functions, related to the integration of vertical farming into residential balconies. This comparison helps to uncover how the gender parameter insight may shape different priorities and expectations.

Concerning the overall preference, the comparison reveals a general agreement between male and female users in preferring Option 2 for integrating vertical farming, with 45.95% of males and 37.63% of females selecting it as their top choice. However, the female group showed a more distributed preference, with Option 1 receiving 35.05%, making it a close second. In contrast, male respondents showed a more concentrated preference, with Options 1 and 3 both receiving only 27.03%.

When analyzing compatibility with other space functions, such as clothes drying, both male and female respondents consistently preferred Option 2. Among males, 45.65% selected Option 2, followed by 39.13% for Option 3. However, female participants showed a stronger preference for Option 2 (52.31%), indicating a higher sensitivity among females to maintaining functions like clothes drying when integrating vertical farming.

Additionally, to explore how age might influence the familiarity with vertical farming, the survey responses were grouped by age category, as shown in Figure 10: youth (19–39 years) and elderly (40 years and above). The aim was to assess whether generational differences play a role in the awareness and interest levels related to integrating vertical farming into residential balconies.

The chart reveals that 35.9% of the youth group (19–39 years) lack an awareness of vertical farming, compared to only 22.8% among the elderly (40+ years). This gap may suggest a shortfall in early educational exposure and public communication targeting younger generations. While older individuals may be more familiar due to traditional gardening practices or broader sustainability concerns.

Eventually, both expert and public user evaluations converged on Option 2 as the most balanced and practical approach for integrating VF into residential buildings. From the experts’ perspective, it was distinguished by its lower structural and maintenance demands, alongside the minimal required intervention and installation costs. Users similarly selected Option 2 for its smooth day-to-day use, compatibility with other balcony functions, and overall functional efficiency, making it the most adaptable and space-conscious choice. While Options 1 and 3 have slight potential, Option 2’s combination of ease, cost-effectiveness, and user comfort positions it as the most context-appropriate and scalable solution for practical implementation.

7. Discussion

A comparative analysis of the expert and user survey results reveals both a convergence and divergence in the evaluation of vertical farming integration into residential balconies. Both groups expressed a strong interest in the concept, with experts prioritizing sustainability and environmental benefits (62%) and users showing high awareness (72%) and enthusiasm (75%) for adopting vertical systems. A shared emphasis on esthetic value and improved environmental quality also emerged, reinforcing the cross-cutting appeal of green architecture. However, notable divergences were observed. Experts highlighted technical and regulatory challenges—such as irrigation management (56%) and insufficient building codes (44%)—while users were more concerned with practical issues like pest control (74%) and cleanliness. In terms of design preferences, both groups favored Option 2 for its spatial compatibility and ease of use, yet experts viewed Option 1 more favorably in terms of environmental performance (58%), while users appreciated its biophilic connection (42%). These distinctions reflect the different lenses through which each group evaluates environmental architecture: experts through feasibility and performance, users through daily comfort and perceived value.

The integration of vertical farming into residential balconies, as examined through expert and user surveys, produced several compelling findings; however, these must be interpreted in light of distinct limitations embedded in the research design.

First, the reliance on visual and descriptive perceptions without the use of simulation modeling or longitudinal performance assessments limited the analytical depth of this study. For example, while experts rated Option 1 highly for enhancing indoor environmental conditions (58%) and users favored Option 2 for its ease of use (45%) and compatibility with other balcony functions (49%), these perceptions were not validated against empirical performance metrics, such as the thermal gain, daylight autonomy, or irrigation efficiency, which can be investigated through further studies. Second, this study was conducted within the regulatory context of Egypt, where experts viewed current building codes as unsupportive (44%) or in need of revision (42%). This may have affected their evaluation of feasibility, potentially underestimating the applicability in countries with more progressive codes or implementation incentives. Third, the stakeholder types included only design professionals and end users, excluding other actors such as municipal authorities, contractors, and maintenance providers. This exclusion might affect the operational relevance of results such as the users’ preference for specialist maintenance (40%) or experts’ concerns about drainage and irrigation (56%), which depend heavily on institutional and technical implementation capacities. Fourth, the building typology selected—government residential housing in Port Said—may have influenced spatial judgments. Experts and users both preferred Option 2 for its spatial integration, yet such assessments might vary considerably in high-rise towers, villa typologies, or mixed-use buildings. Fifth, socio-cultural dynamics specific to Egypt—such as a limited shared-space maintenance culture or unfamiliarity with vertical farming—could influence user responses to practical challenges, particularly pest control (74%) and cleanliness. Finally, Port Said’s coastal and non-agricultural identity may have increased residents’ interest due to the novelty of food production at home. This context may have contributed to the high user interest (75%) and perceived health benefits (66%), outcomes that could differ in agriculturally dense or peri-urban settings.

Collectively, these limitations suggest that while this study reflects meaningful stakeholder preferences, further research is required to test its conclusions across diverse environmental, regulatory, and cultural scenarios.

The outcomes of this study closely align with the literature on BIA, particularly the benefits and constraints of vertical farming on facades. As noted by [13,33], productive façades hold potential for enhancing food security, esthetics, and environmental quality. This is reflected in the current survey results, where both experts and users prioritized environmental and visual benefits. The strong expert emphasis on environmental motivations (62%) and user interest in esthetic enhancement (71%) reflects themes found in [29,30], which advocate for integrating food production in dense urban areas to reduce the ecological footprint. Furthermore, this study expands upon the prior literature by directly engaging stakeholders—a gap identified by [10]—and revealing an alignment as well as a divergence in design priorities and concerns. For example, while experts focused on drainage challenges and regulation, users highlighted pest control and the ease of use. These distinctions underscore the value of integrating multidisciplinary and user-centered approaches, as suggested in integrated design processes [32]. Finally, this study adds a meaningful layer to the current literature by connecting expert insights with real user experiences, offering practical, locally grounded strategies for integrating vertical farming into residential buildings—especially in regions like Egypt that have been largely overlooked in previous research.

To contextualize Egypt’s scenario, the results were benchmarked against two relevant case studies. The first, conducted locally, examined public perceptions of non-productive vertical greenery systems in Egypt [36], identifying major barriers such as high costs, limited awareness, cultural resistance, and climatic constraints, with benefits mainly framed around environmental and esthetic gains. The second, from Singapore, surveyed the acceptance of “productive façades” integrating photovoltaics and farming in public housing blocks [26]. Here, the high receptiveness was driven by self-sufficiency, gardening enjoyment, and community engagement—factors supported by a favorable climate and strong governmental backing. The current study shares economic and maintenance concerns with the Egyptian vertical green systems case yet aligns more closely with the Singaporean model through its focus on productive, food-oriented systems adapted to Egypt’s unique socio-economic and climatic conditions. This positions vertical farming façades not merely as decorative features but as context-responsive strategies for urban food resilience.

Finally, the survey results revealed that maintenance emerged as one of the most pressing concerns among both experts and residents, with experts specifically citing irrigation, watering, and drainage as the most challenging aspects. Addressing these concerns in the long term requires durable system design, easy access for repair, and the integration of automated irrigation solutions to reduce operational complexity. Cost implications were also consistently highlighted, particularly the high initial investment and ongoing upkeep expenses, which could be mitigated through shared funding models, subsidies, or public–private partnerships. The findings indicate that without clear institutional responsibilities, vertical farming systems may fall into disrepair. Governance frameworks ensuring regular maintenance, technical oversight, and adherence to safety and environmental standards are crucial to preserving their environmental, esthetic, and social benefits.

8. Conclusions

This study set out to explore how vertical farming can be meaningfully integrated into the balconies of government residential buildings in Egypt, with a focus on including the voices of both experts and everyday users. Within the wider context of rising urban density, food security challenges, and the growing demand for environmentally responsive design, vertical farming was examined not only as a food production strategy but also to enhance the esthetic and environmental quality of residential buildings.

Through two structured surveys, key areas of agreement and difference between experts and users were identified. Both groups showed strong support for the concept, recognizing its sustainability potential, its ability to improve the air quality, and its contribution to visual appeal. Option 2 stood out as the most preferred design, praised for being practical and easy to integrate. However, experts were more concerned with structural and regulatory issues, like drainage systems and installation costs, while users focused on everyday challenges such as cleanliness and pest control. These differences highlight the importance of combining professional insight with user experience in design decisions. Moreover, the findings highlight a pressing need for awareness campaigns, particularly within educational institutions and media platforms, to better inform younger demographics about the value and potential of vertical farming.

To translate this study’s findings into actionable guidance for practitioners and policymakers, a set of suggested environmental and economic Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is proposed, as shown in

Table 6. Suggested environmental and economic KPIs for comparing vertical farming (VF) design alternatives.

KPI Category	Example Indicator	Relevance to Survey Findings
Environmental	Annual CO2 savings from local food production (kg CO2/year)	Users and experts emphasized VF’s environmental contribution, especially in reducing carbon footprint from food transport.
	Irrigation water use efficiency (liters/m2/year)	Maintenance challenges were a top concern; experts highlighted irrigation and drainage efficiency as critical issues.
	Shading and cooling effect (average façade temperature reduction, °C)	Both groups valued VF for improving microclimate and reducing heat gain, enhancing comfort in residential units.
Economic	Initial installation cost per m2 of VF system (SAR/m2)	Cost was cited as a significant barrier; a KPI enables comparison of affordability across design options.
	Annual maintenance cost per m2/year	Concerns over long-term upkeep were frequently mentioned by stakeholders; this KPI helps assess operational feasibility.
	Payback period from produces sales or energy savings (years)	Experts and users acknowledged VF’s potential for economic return; this KPI captures the viability of such returns.

. These KPIs, derived directly from the survey results, can support the evaluation and comparison of alternative VF design options in residential buildings. They aim to ensure that stakeholder priorities—such as environmental benefits, cost efficiency, and long-term maintenance—are incorporated into decision-making and policy development.

Variations among experts’ and users’ responses have implications for implementation; overlooking user maintenance concerns or regulatory constraints raised by experts could limit the adoption or functionality of the application. Therefore, aligning expert-informed design strategies with user-centered preferences is critical. Incorporating both technical insight and lived experience allows for more inclusive, adaptive, and sustainable vertical farming applications within residential settings.

The observed convergence between experts and users on the environmental and esthetic benefits of vertical farming suggests a strong public readiness for adoption, which policymakers can leverage when framing supportive regulations and incentive schemes. Divergences, such as experts’ emphasis on technical feasibility and users’ focus on cost and ease of maintenance, highlight the need for design guidelines that balance innovation with affordability and user-friendliness. These findings can inform implementation strategies by aligning technical standards with community expectations, ensuring that projects are both viable for developers and acceptable to end users.

This study adds to the field by demonstrating how stakeholder engagement can lead to more grounded and practical sustainable design solutions. It also offers useful guidance for architects, developers, and decision-makers—suggesting that updated regulations, clear maintenance plans, and public awareness could help support the wider adoption of vertical farming.

That said, this research had some limitations. It focused on a single city, relied on visual-based evaluation, and did not include voices from other key actors like policymakers or facility managers. Accordingly, future studies could build on this by testing actual performances over time, covering more urban contexts, engaging other key actors, and experimenting with real-life implementation. Future studies could build upon the current findings by incorporating inferential and multivariate statistical techniques—such as group comparisons, significance testing, or regression modeling—to explore potential relationships between stakeholder characteristics, design preferences, and perceived challenges. Such analyses could provide deeper insight into the factors influencing stakeholder attitudes and help identify statistically significant predictors of support for VF integration. Furthermore, future research should explore the development and real-world testing of a physical prototype for Option 2 to validate its technical performance, maintenance feasibility, and user acceptance under actual operating conditions and technical investigations into different environmental parameters.

While the primary focus of this study was on integrating edible plant species within the proposed vertical farming systems to support urban food security, the design framework and evaluation process are equally applicable to ornamental and flowering plants. Incorporating such species could enhance the visual appeal of building facades, aligning with the strong esthetic preferences expressed by respondents, particularly among the user group. This flexibility allows the system to be adapted to varying project priorities, whether emphasizing food production, environmental benefits, or architectural esthetics, thereby broadening its potential application in diverse urban contexts.

Finally, this research highlights the value of blending ecological goals with real human needs. With thoughtful and inclusive design, vertical farming has the potential to transform how we think about food, space, and sustainability in everyday urban life.