Aquaponics (AP) is a food production system that combines hydroponic (HP) crop production with recirculating aquaculture. Different types of hydroponic systems have been used for growing crops in aquaponics. However, very few studies have compared their suitability and efficiency in an aquaponic context. The study presented here compares tomato yield, morphological (external) and biochemical (internal) fruit quality, and overall tomato plant vitality from three different HP systems (nutrient film technique, drip irrigation system, and floating raft culture) and examines the distribution of nutrients in different parts of the tomato plant. Three replicate AP systems were set up, each incorporating the three different HP systems coupled with a separate recirculating aquaculture unit growing Nile tilapia. The results showed that the choice of the cultivation system had little influence on most of the above-mentioned properties. Tomato fruit mineral content was found to be in similar range for N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn as reported in the literature. Yield and fruit quality were similar in all three systems. However, the drip irrigation system did perform slightly better. The slightly higher oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) of the fruits grown in AP in comparison to commercially produced and supermarket derived tomatoes might indicate a potential for producing fruits with higher health value for humans.

A framework developed by the COST Action Circular City (an EU-funded network of 500+ scientists from 40+ countries; COST = Cooperation in Science and Technology) for addressing Urban Circularity Challenges (UCCs) with nature-based solutions (NBSs) was analyzed by various urban sectors which refer to different fields of activities for circular management of resources in cities (i.e., reducing use of resources and production of waste). The urban sectors comprise the built environment, urban water management, resource recovery, and urban farming. We present main findings from sector analyses, discuss different sector perspectives, and show ways to overcome these differences. The results reveal the potential of NBSs to address multiple sectors, as well as multiple UCCs. While water has been identified as a key element when using NBSs in the urban environment, most NBSs are interconnected and also present secondary benefits for other resources. Using representative examples, we discuss how a holistic and systemic approach could facilitate the circular use of resources in cities. Currently, there is often a disciplinary focus on one resource when applying NBSs. The full potential of NBSs to address multifunctionality is, thus, usually not fully accounted for. On the basis of our results, we conclude that experts from various disciplines can engage in a cross-sectoral exchange and identify the full potential of NBSs to recover resources in circular cities and provide secondary benefits to improve the livelihood for locals. This is an important first step toward the full multifunctionality potential enabling of NBSs.

Cities are producers of high quantities of secondary liquid and solid streams that are still poorly utilized within urban systems. In order to tackle this issue, there has been an ever-growing push for more efficient resource management and waste prevention in urban areas, following the concept of a circular economy. This review paper provides a characterization of urban solid and liquid resource flows (including water, nutrients, metals, potential energy, and organics), which pass through selected nature-based solutions (NBS) and supporting units (SU), expanding on that characterization through the study of existing cases. In particular, this paper presents the currently implemented NBS units for resource recovery, the applicable solid and liquid urban waste streams and the SU dedicated to increasing the quality and minimizing hazards of specific streams at the source level (e.g., concentrated fertilizers, disinfected recovered products). The recovery efficiency of systems, where NBS and SU are combined, operated at a micro- or meso-scale and applied at technology readiness levels higher than 5, is reviewed. The importance of collection and transport infrastructure, treatment and recovery technology, and (urban) agricultural or urban green reuse on the quantity and quality of input and output materials are discussed, also regarding the current main circularity and application challenges.