THE ECOVILLAGE MOVEMENT ——- A case study of Suderbyn Ecovillage - challenges and possibilities of contributing to a sustainable transition
Cindie Ørnstrup 52076 David Magrane 53524
Caroline Terese Vangstrup 52629 1 PROBLEM FIELD AND PROJECT MOTIVATION ...... 3 Research and working questions ...... 5 Problem Development ...... 5 2 KEY CONCEPTS ...... 6 Intentional Communities ...... 6 Ecovillages ...... 6 Ecovillage, cohousing - or traditional community ...... 7 Sustainability ...... 8 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 10 Case study method ...... 10 Field study ...... 11 Semi structured interviews ...... 11 4 LIMITATIONS ...... 14 Interviews ...... 14 Language barrier ...... 14 Location ...... 14 Bias ...... 15 Diffusion theory ...... 15 Strategic Niche Management of Grassroots Innovations ...... 17 5 SUDERBYN ECOVILLAGE ...... 20 Suderbyn field study ...... 20 Suderbyn Earthcare, Fairshare and PeopleCare ...... 22 Suderbyn RELEARN NGO, Networking and learning processes ...... 23 Suderbyn as an educational learning institution ...... 25 Economic challenges for Suderbyn ...... 27 Conclusion ...... 28 6 ECOVILLAGES AS A GLOBAL MOVEMENT ...... 30 Individuals ...... 30 Community Orientation ...... 31 Social Dimension ...... 31 Decision Making Structure ...... 32 Living Conditions ...... 32 Networking ...... 33 6.2 DIFFUSION OF THE ECOVILLAGE MOVEMENT ...... 34 Replication ...... 34 Scaling Up ...... 35 Niche to Regime Translation ...... 36 Increasing awareness ...... 37 Change of behaviour ...... 37 Think tanks ...... 37 Influence policy ...... 38 Conclusion ...... 38 7 GLOBAL ECOVILLAGE NETWORK AS A CHANGE AGENT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ...... 40 History ...... 40 Goals and visions ...... 40 Strategies and Projects ...... 41 Partners and funding ...... 43 GEN Africa, GENOA, GENNA and GEN CASA ...... 43 GEN Europe ...... 44 Other eco-networks ...... 45 Social innovation spread via GEN ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 46 8 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 48 9 FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 50 10 LITERATURE ...... 52
2 1 Problem Field and Project motivation
Our normative point of departure is that climate change and environmental degradation is a key challenge of our time. There are several reasons as to why this is happening, but we believe that one major problem is our consumerist culture in western societies leading to high use of fossil fuels, pollution and loss of ecosystems around the globe. Environmental concerns have led many individuals to take steps to lower their footprint and live more sustainable. Problems such as pollution, climate change, waste disposal and biodiversity loss are just a few of the environmental issues that must be confronted in order to prevent a major crisis. Much of the planet’s fresh water is no longer considered drinkable, respiratory diseases are on the rise as air pollution has spiralled out of control and the increase in global temperatures have made it easier for infectious diseases to spread (Peters et al, 2010). These are just a few, of the countless, environmental effects that citizens of the earth face daily. To many people, simply modifying their daily behaviour to reduce the risk of environmental degradation is enough, but others feel the need to drastically alter their lives. Some people turn to renewable energy, others to things like veganism, ecology and organic produce, or other alternative consumptions patterns within society. Our motivation for this project is thus to examine possibilities of a more sustainable lifestyle, while choosing to decrease the CO2 footprint. As ecovillages are an example of a group of people, whose goal is to achieve a more sustainable lifestyle, both socially as well as environmentally, we seek to discover how this is achieved and if it is possible to use ecovillages as inspiration to the rest of society to adapt a more sustainable lifestyle. Ecovillages are seen by some, as a potential stepping stone on the path to repairing the damage caused by human interference. Others believe that these villages will never be large and mainstream enough to create change. Furthermore, one can argue that ecovillages are a niche and that only a very small percentage of the world population would even be remotely interested in living in one. Nonetheless, ecovillages continue to expand and, according to the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), there are currently ecovillages in over 70 countries on 6 continents (Taggart, 2009), offering opportunities for individuals to congregate in an environmentally and socially conscious living arena. At the same time ecological produce has evolved from being a niche to a common consumer option in nearly all supermarkets. A possible criticism is that these ecovillages are simply too alternative for the general population, and end up isolating themselves instead of promoting change outside their village walls, but it is widely accepted that Earth cannot continue to support the current expanding world population if there is no change in
3 consumption and production patterns. This is an issue that must be addressed in order to create a sustainable way of life on Earth. An examination of these ecovillages are needed to investigate how they manage the solutions of environmental issues, and at the same time how to promote environmental behaviour and strategies, to influence society and expand their niche further. The focus of this research is to evaluate the position of ecovillage and the ecovillage movement and their potential to influence society towards a more sustainable way of life. We will look at solutions that are presented by many of the current ecovillages and evaluate their strategies to diffuse their behaviour, innovations and technologies, as well as gaining political influence as a change agent. Our focus is on the ways concepts are distributed and promoted and with a point of origin from the ecovillages themselves, we take a look at what they themselves are doing to both gain awareness of the problems about consumerist society and also to teach about potential solutions as an ecovillage community.
In order to investigate this, we must first look at cases of ecovillages to get a holistic understanding of their structure and general practise. Using different cases of ecovillages, we will work our way to an understanding which can lead us to the central aspects of what components in an ecovillage, as well as what kinds of ecovillages are helping to promote and expand the ecovillage network. Asking ourselves questions like how is an ecovillage constructed as an organisation and how does it work? From here we are going to analyse their role as transition actors using our findings about different ecovillage cases and identify their role as a common network characterised as the ecovillage movement. We analyse what role they have as a change agent to gain impact on social transformation using diffusion theory from this we are lastly trying to get an overview of GEN’s initiatives and its role as a mediator for the ecovillage movement and what they are doing to promote and expand the ecovillage movement. Together, we are trying to figure out what they should try to focus on in order to further expand and gain awareness of the global ecovillage network and ecovillages in general. These considerations are portrayed in following questions using a multi level governance framework and diffusion theory to identify their progress on a transitional impact from niche to regime.
4 Research and working questions
What are barriers and opportunities for the ecovillage movement to act as a change agent of a sustainable transition of society?
Working questions:
1. What is the internal structure of Suderbyn Ecovillage and how do they attempt to create and diffuse practises who can contribute a sustainable transition of society? 2. What are the common characteristics of the ecovillage movement as change agents and how could these have an impact on societal transformation? 3. What are the goals and strategies for GEN to share ecovillage practises and act a change agent for sustainable transition of society?
Problem Development
We have segregated our field of analysis in three different sections in order to keep a focus and structure throughout our research. First, we will explain and analyse one particular case of an ecovillage called Suderbyn Ekoby, located on Gotland, Sweden. We, as a group, went here to conduct interviews and collect practical knowledge about the mechanism of an ecovillage. This, we use to try and gain an example of the diffusion strategies of what one particular ecovillage is capable of doing in order to influence society towards sustainable living. Second, we use this case to compare Suderbyn’s strategies and structure with other leading examples of ecovillages, primarily in Europe, investigating their possibilities as actors in the ecovillage movement to gain a transformative impact on society. We are hereby trying to understand the extent of their influence and their benefits as a united movement to diffuse the ecovillage practise.
5 2 Key Concepts
Intentional Communities
Intentional communities are where like-minded individuals can live, work and play with other like-minded individuals. The desire to belong leads many individuals to seek out these communities. While intentional communities can be based upon a number of different principles, they are generally founded on the basis that all residents share similar social, political or spiritual views. These shared core values result in the creation of sub-cultures which allow individuals to follow a lifestyle that is often drastically different from the surrounding communities.
The Fellowship for Intentional Communities (FIC) defines and intentional community as “A group of people who live together or share common facilities and who regularly associate with each other on the basis of explicit common values.” (Fellowship for Intentional Community, 2016). An intentional community can range from a few homes to large and complex villages. Additionally, although intentional communities can be quite diverse in both lifestyle and philosophy, they generally “[...] place a high priority on fostering a sense of community–a feeling of belonging and mutual support that is increasingly hard to find in mainstream Western society” (ibid).
Among nearly all intentional communities is the strong desire to create an extended-family environment. This is often a major reason why many choose to live in an international community. Although all intentional communities are not governed by a central power, according to the FIC, the most common form of governance is democratic (ibid). Governance is decided on a community level, with many choosing alternative forms of government such as an Authoritarian approach. Furthermore, acceptance into an intentional community is dependent upon each individual community.
Ecovillages
With the growing concerns about the environment, as well as the feeling that change is necessary, many individuals are searching for new ways to lower their environmental impact. Ecovillages bring together many like minded individuals in a setting that promotes the spread of common environmental interests. According to the Global Ecovillage Network an ecovillage is “An intentional or traditional community (formed by at least 8 persons) that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes to regenerate social and natural environments” (GEN Europe, 2016, p. 3). Furthermore, ecovillage scholars Robert and Diane Gilman, have defined and ecovillage as “An intentional community, which is human-scaled, full-featured, harmlessly integrated with nature, supports healthy human development and is sustainable.” (Gilman, 1991,
6 p. 1). Essentially, as these two definitions explain, ecovillages are intentional communities with a major focus on sustainability and personal growth. While many individuals choose to live in these ecovillages strictly to lower their environmental impact, many other factors that constitute an intentional community are often present. Motivation to create positive change is one of the strong core values that occur in an ecovillage. This is commonly reflected upon by the individuals that choose to live within the community.
Ecovillage, cohousing - or traditional community
The line between an ecovillage and an ecologically oriented co-housing project is sometimes quite thin and many people in the world actually already live under some of the physical conditions of an ecovillage. That could be, for example, the Pennsylvania Dutch Amish people in the United States, or isolated tribes around the world, such as Amazon or African tribes. All places where people live a non-industrial life in traditional existence dependant of the surrounding nature and climate and in most cases also strictly dependant on the social community with a limited access to the surrounding world. In many such villages and societies, the inhabitants live closely, personally and spiritually, co-existing with nature just like the inhabitants of ecovillages. The difference is obvious, and yet still they are surprisingly similar. One can argue that many traditional communities live far more environmental friendly than most ecovillages in developed countries. We will elaborate on the possibilities of complementing traditional communities and ecovillages in developed countries. The special notion of the ecovillage is that there is a need for a global system and consensus among various communities instead of isolating local communities. There is an engagement for ecological farming and agriculture, as well as a need for green energy and technology to provide society with electricity that can ensure electronic use, transportation, heating etc. (AEID, 2013). Also, the ecovillage movement can be characterised as a united movement with many sub societies or villages all arising from the notion of social, environmental, economic and cultural sustainability. The intentional communities of ecovillages and the whole ecovillage movement has its own history where early ecovillages start to established themselves as a silent protest as co-housing community living, later to be classified when the Global Ecovillage Network was established and started by widely using the term ecovillages in 1995 (GEN Annual Report, 2015). Our main way operationalising ecovillages is under the broad concept ‘ecovillage movement’. It is used as a way to analyse the movement as a global actor with a sustainable agenda. We use Suderbyn as a way to exemplify which possibilities and challenges are visible in communities of the ecovillage movement while being aware that the movement is very diverse and will often have very different characteristics. However,
7 the generalisation will allow us to understand how a grassroots movement with a focus on sustainability is able to act in a global context.
Sustainability
Social, economical and environmental sustainability are defined by the The Global Ecovillage Network, which is a platform and NGO that unites ecovillages around the world, and functions as a global network for ecovillages. GEN emphasises four dimensions of sustainability, which are socially, culturally, ecologically and economically, which are all united in a holistic system theory (GEN Annual Report, 2015), and consists of the same ideals and solutions as most ecovillages strive to achieve. Once we have accepted the fact that these four dimensions are not something that, in all cases, are always fulfilled and that many GEN-member villages are nothing more than ecological co-housing, we must conclude that there will always exist fragments of ecovillages in all communities that host the intentions of the four dimensions of sustainability. We feel that it is necessary to explain these four dimensions, as they will be utilised throughout our project and will allow for a better understanding of the underlying structure of an ecovillage. The Economic dimension is needed to ensure that the ecovillage can continually cover their operating costs, as well as allowing them to further expand if necessary (GEN Annual Report, 2015). Many ecovillages are ran similarly to a traditional community. Each individual has financial responsibility to pay their rent, but any excess earned income belongs to each individual. While this is the most common economy in ecovillages, ecovillages such as Svanholm in Denmark, require every resident to submit up to eighty percent of their income to the community. It is then used to cover all operating and investment costs (Svanholm, 2016).
The Ecological dimension is of great importance to the ecovillage. Sustainability is of utmost importance, therefore, it is essential that these communities be inhabited by individuals who respect nature. Whether it is growing organic crops, building houses out of locally sourced materials or ensuring waste management is handled in a way that protects the water, soil and air. Ecology plays a major role and must be considered when managing an ecovillage (Ibid). One cannot solely define an ecovillage by the measure of how environmental eco-conscious it is, but it is likely to benefit from being eco-conscious and by being an active community, with the intention to lower the ecological-footprint and impact on the planet, or at least spread awareness of this.
The Social Dimension of an ecovillage is, according to Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, often the primary reason many individuals choose to join an ecovillage (Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, 2016). The sense of belonging to a relatively small like minded group provides the feeling of safety as well as the added benefit of being seen
8 and heard (ibid). In large societies, the feeling of anonymity can lead a person to feel lonely and unimportant. Many ecovillages, such as Suderbyn, strive to maintain small close knit communities, encouraging residents to live and work together, as well as build strong friendships. Residents commonly share the responsibilities of cooking and cleaning during frequent communal dinners. These practises are in place to create a large family atmosphere, which is necessary for ecovillages to continually thrive.
The Cultural Dimension focuses on respect and support of the planet and living beings. Acceptance of others is essential in an ecovillage, without it, bitterness and conflict can arise. Ecovillages emphasise the importance of respect in an effort to live in a harmonic environment. Commonly, cultural activities and rituals are celebrated throughout the community. This provides understanding and tolerance, ultimately helping to create a loving and peaceful community for everyone (Ibid).
Understanding these four dimensions allows for a deeper comprehension into how and why ecovillages exist. While ecovillages can resemble a traditional community in many ways, these four dimensions, if properly adhered to, ensure that ecovillages can bring together many like minded individuals willing to dedicate a large portion of their lives to create a better planet. In this paper we will primarily talk about ecovillages as social community that live, and actively arrange their lifestyle and environment, according to the four dimensions of sustainability.
9 3 Methodology
In our research we found that we needed some first hand practical inside knowledge on an ecovillage before we could begin to understand the concept. We chose to combine secondary literature with interviews and a case study performed as a field study. This not only to collect some inside knowledge from expert interviews, but also to be able to understand the daily life practices of an ecovillage, as well as gain a more contextual detailed vision on the innovation possibilities and diffusion mechanisms the movement is hosting in their holistic approach. We decided to visit one or more ecovillages to get a practical view of the field because we understood that there was an important social aspect of ecovillages and their function. We did have an idea of how an ecovillage functioned, but to understand the way people convert their lives according to this specific ideology in practice, we needed a physical field study to find out what we were actually centring our research about. In the early stages of our research, we chose to visit a nearby ecovillage to gain inspiration. Our visit to Munksøgård included a private tour from a member of the community who has lived in there for nearly ten years. She was our only contact with the ecovillage, as our visit was conducted on a weekday, many of the residents were either at their place of employment or school. Nonetheless, our visit allowed us to get our first look at an ecovillage and provided a valuable starting point for our research. Additionally, we chose to conduct expert interviews of some key participants of the ecovillage movement as well as gain knowledge through informal conversation with community members of the ecovillage and by taking personal observation notes during community meetings, show a rounds and via active participation in the community such as volunteer work and daily tasks. The origin of knowledge is therefore based on the expressed values and facts from the members of the community and not the cultural underlying tendencies, as this study wishes to gain knowledge to determine the overall sharing of innovations and influence on a societal level and not on a deeper cultural social level.
Case study method
The case study itself is one part of our research and functions as a more hands on experience for the project group to create a foundation for our understanding of the practical and social function of an ecovillage. It is based on our five-day stay at Suderbyn Ecovillage and it cannot be seen as an isolated example used to generalise all ecovillages. We acknowledge that many ecovillages are completely different from each other, with different types of form, size and management methods. Instead, we combine the knowledge we have gained from these ecovillages with secondary literature from a series of other case studies of ecovillages to analyse the ecovillage movement in general. We also acknowledge that we do not seek to produce
10 generalizable knowledge, but instead wish to investigate cases of ecovillage and their function, and purpose, in the international ecovillage movement as a political actor (Brinkman et al. 2010). The case study of Suderbyn thereby functions as an example in the situated context that we use to compare and understand the deeper mechanism and functions of an ecovillage, as some of the same principles and ideals are echoing throughout the rest of the ecovillage movement worldwide.
Field study
We conducted our case study as a field study staying at Suderbyn for five days We started out by exploring the environment and conducting daily tasks and functions in the ecovillage. Before we decided on what community members to interview, we needed an overview of the role of the different individuals in order to decide who had the knowledge on the field we wanted to investigate. We also gained personal experience and insight on how the social community was working on daily basis and what general social mechanism was existing. Before arrival, we agreed to participate in the daily work tasks in return for interviews, which was not a large part of our research, but still benefited us by allowing us to become community members ourselves. Conducting this field study, it was inevitable for us to participate as a part of the community and thereby influencing the behaviour of the community members, when, if not participating in the community procedures potentially would be regarded by the ecovillage community members as absurd and impolite, if not directly rude. During our stay we tried to participate in the community while making our presence as natural as possible. The members were used to the presence of new visitors, so our role immediately turned from participatory students to temporary volunteers (Brinkman et al. 2010).
Semi structured interviews
Combining semi-structured interviews with field research and various academic articles, journals and other publications has allowed us to create a complete picture of how an ecovillage functions. While our research could have been completed solely through the use of journals, books, and other publications, we believe that the use of interviews add a dimension that allows us to gain insight which otherwise would not be assessable. Conducting interviews allows us to create specific questions that are relevant to the problem area and will directly influence the outcome of our research. Our field research included observation of projects and meetings, and formal and semi structured interviews, as well as informal interviews in the form of casual conversation. This allowed for deeper understanding of ecovillages and greatly benefited our interviews.
11 Although conducting interviews can greatly contribute to our research, they also present risks. Biases are a strong possibility since we are interviewing members that are heavily involved in ecovillages. It is likely that much of what they say will be pro-ecovillage. We must accept this, but as researchers, it is our responsibility to create well formulated interview questions that will help remove the possibility of a biased response and remain critical when analysing the interviews. Additionally, by creating a relaxed and semi informal interview environment, we were able to lessen the possibility of receiving a biased response.
We chose to conduct semi-structured interviews, creating a few main questions with additional sub questions that we could ask if needed. Additionally, we chose to use many of the same interview questions for both our interviewees. Although the questions were largely identical, using a semi-structured format, allowed for the comparison of both individual’s responses and provides the benefit of identifying possible biases that one interviewee might present. However, utilising this type of interview allows for little flexibility in relating the interview to particular individuals and circumstances. Therefore, we chose to add additional questions to take advantage of each of our interview subject’s area of expertise. Although we did have very specific interview questions, we allowed and encouraged further elaboration on many topics. This resulted in a more relaxed atmosphere and created a friendly discussion, rather than a very structured question and answer interview. We felt that it was less stressful for both the interviewer and interviewee.
Using our fields study we selected interviewees after 3 days at Suderbyn, and formulated appropriate questions on extension of the knowledge we had already gained the first 3 days. We chose to conduct two interviews at Suderbyn Ecovillage. The interviewees were Robert Hall and Alisa Dendro, the two people that are most involved in the networking in Suderbyn. Robert Hall, being the current President of GEN Europe was important in regards to gaining a personal insight into GEN. He has been a part of Suderbyn since its inception in 2008 and remains very active in the community today. Young activists make up the primary population of Suderbyn but Robert seems to be one of the few exceptions. Robert, a father of three, has been actively involved in ecovillages since the age of 17. This experience has given him the ability to act as the senior member of Suderbyn. In the past he has served in many ecovillage movement roles and he is the former President of the Swedish Ecovillage Network and is currently the President of GEN Europe. Robert has also been very active in the effort to expand the ecovillage network. Outside of Suderbyn, he is actively involved in local politics which allow him showcase the achievements of eco villages, as well as influence other community leaders.
12 Alisa Dendro came to Suderbyn in December of 2015, to conduct a study about the community. As a 25-year- old, she is of similar age to the majority of residents residing at Suderbyn. Her active involvement in ECOLISE, Bridgedale360 and EVS make her an ideal candidate for an interview. While she does not have the experience to the extent that Robert Hall does, she displays a strong passion for spreading the ecovillage model to people outside these villages. She sees social investment into youth, as the potential solution to world’s problems and wishes to find a way to educate young individuals into making the right choices.
13 4 Limitations
Due to the nature of our investigation, there will be areas that will not be researched. We will briefly explain which areas will be excluded and why we feel that they will not contribute to the overall research.
Interviews
Although interviews can be a valuable tool in research. The fact that we only conducted two can be seen as a limitation. However, we feel that we have selected two very knowledgeable individuals to interview. These two were Robert Hall and Alisa Dendro who are the people we could find in Suderbyn that had most knowledge about Suderbyn and ecovillages general impact and role in society, as well as inside knowledge about GEN. These interviews coupled with our field research, has allowed us to create more complete picture of Suderbyn and the ecovillage movement as a whole. We carefully selected questions to ensure we were able to gather the information we needed.
Language barrier
Since ecovillages are spread out worldwide, language can be seen as a limitation. During our research we have discovered that many of the websites that are maintained by individual ecovillages are only in the language of their location. Although we are able to use an online translator to translate the websites, it is often very time consuming and difficult to translate their publications. However, English, being a language that is widely spoken, has allowed us to find many ecovillages that choose to do all their publications in English. We do not see language as being a major obstacle, but only as a slight inconvenience, but feel it is necessary to mention as a limitation in our research.
Location
As previously mentioned, ecovillages exist across the globe. Therefore, due to different political systems, it is difficult to say that what works in one location will work in another. However, due to the Global Ecovillage Network, ecovillages have the ability to influence local and national government policies. We feel that location is only a limitation if we were focusing on a specific country, however we have chosen to place emphasis on the global movement. Additionally, due to our current geographical location, time and money constraints, we have chosen to focus more specifically on European ecovillages.
14 Bias
Our group consists of three individuals that consider themselves environmentally conscious. We try to reduce our overall consumption, produce less waste and eat sustainably. Therefore, we run the risk of becoming overly biased, believing that ecovillages are environmentally better than mainstream society. To help alleviate this bias, we attempt to identify challenges and disadvantages of the ecovillage movement, in order to remain critical. However, we do analyse with a normative point of departure that environmental degradation is a serious problem in modern society, that changes has to be made to be to convert to a sustainable society, but we are aware that there are a wide variety of solutions for this, which ecovillages are not necessarily able to provide.
Diffusion theory
The main goal of our project is to analyse how the ecovillage movement attempts to gain influence and spread their ecovillage ideal and practises. We will examine diffusion theory based on social movements, which focuses on a process that would lead to the widespread adoption of a change agent’s innovative practices and ideas (Givan et al, 2010). We use diffusion theory to understand the mechanisms of ecovillages networks, actors involved in the networking, how they communicate and how these actors spread the norms, frames and tactics relevant to reaching the common goals of ecovillages.
Not all ecovillages have the exact same goals and are created based on a variety of values. Therefore, we have chosen to focus on the ones who aim to live by the four dimensions of sustainability, earlier described in the conceptualisation of ecovillages. Examples of tactics may include recycling, effective use of energy and other resources, technological innovation etc. While norms may include a focus on community, closer interaction with nature etc. Part of upscaling a social movement involves diffusing horizontally, with new actors coordinating with others, creating new representatives to spread their discourse into a larger political arena (Givan et al, 2010). We will explore how the ecovillages do this by interacting with political institutions, NGOs, individuals etc.
The content of diffusion is shaped by efforts of political actors to engage in dialogue, borrow and adapt to knowledge, and frame and reframe the issues of the movement. As exemplified with our case of Suderbyn, some ecovillages are more receptive to outside influences, while others are less open to networking and reframing their tactics and norms. Diffusion is thus characterised by political learning, adaptation and innovation, which we examine by analysing the learning processes of ecovillages, how and if they are willing to adapt to new solutions and how the movement contributes to social innovation (Givan et al, 2010).
15
Our theory argues that learning processes are central to diffusing a social movement. These occur when actors discover tactics of frames used by others, and use these as tools to achieve their goals, creating support for their projects etc. (Givan et al, 2010). This is exemplified by the Suderbyn ecovillage, who has workshops for hosting EVS volunteers, building wind turbines, and shares/receives knowledge on how to gain funding for their projects. Not only can learning processes contribute to improving existing networks, but they can also activate new ones (Givan et al, 2010), as seen by GEN who helps establishing new ecovillages and have consultative status with the UN and EU, which distribute the message, and expands the scale, of the ecovillage movement. We will elaborate on this in the analysis of GEN.
Diffusion theory identifies 3 kinds of networking mechanisms; relational, non-relational and mediated diffusion. Relational diffusion includes direct, interpersonal networks between individuals and organisations, in our context the direct relationship between 2 ecovillages, or and ecovillage and other relevant organisation, or simply between individuals involved. We consider the entire ecovillage movement as one network, sharing information and ideas as well as communicate and facilitate common goals. These networks can be somewhat segregated from other networks. How far the innovations of a movement travel depend on the connections of members beyond the network. Also since these relations mostly depend on trust the range of diffusion to networks, built on personal ties, are limited (Givan, 2010). Thus, in the context of ecovillages, it may not be enough if an ecovillage has personal ties to others and it might be necessary to spread awareness through other channels such as media or become a member of larger networks. Non-relational diffusion occurs when actors are not in direct contact with each other. They can be linked by media, and may simply share the same understanding of the message as the movement. These are not dependent on interpersonal trust, which may be an advantage because they are not a segregated network, and hereby remain open to other actors. Based on the knowledge of the actors, they may imitate each other. This kind of diffusion is important for spreading awareness and makes it possible for messages to reach new audiences, who are not already connected to the networks. However, while trying to create a message that appeal to the masses, it may be overly simplified. Which means that the receivers can interpret the message as they like, leading to misinterpretations. While being an effective way to reach far into new audiences the media and internet may not be able to create strong trust networks, which can make the influence shallow and short term (Givan et al, 2010). Lastly, mediated diffusion occurs when actors are connected through a third actor, who facilitates the diffusion of information and actions. In our case, the most obvious example is GEN. The mediator may be
16 able to gather a large amount of receivers of diffusion, which can contribute to upscaling the movement. The discourse of the movement, however, can be influenced by the preferences and interest of the mediator, which may compromise some of the interests of other members (Givan et al, 2010). Some members may not agree with GEN's cooperation with certain organisations and projects, if GEN reframes the general discourse of the ecovillage movement, making it fit into the discourse of larger scale organisation.
Strategic Niche Management of Grassroots Innovations
According the strategic niche management theory (SNM), which also analyses diffusion processes, the diffusion of an innovation is influence upon:
• The quality of the innovation itself
• Communication channels
• Social system
• Constraints/enabling factors of the current regime
• A strong connection to broader developments (in the same niche) SNM identifies three key elements that leads to diffusion of the niche: visions and expectations, networks and learning. The visions and expectations should be widely shared, specific, realistic and achievable. Networking activities should include many different stakeholders, who draw resources from their organisations to support the niche emergence. Learning should contribute not only to everyday knowledge and expertise, but also to 'second order learning' wherein people question the assumptions and constraints of mainstream systems altogether. This may involve knowledge sharing, identifying best practises, model building through fx conferences, workshops, documentation etc. (Seyfang & Longhurst, 2013).
While SNM focuses on business-led technological innovations as green niches, grassroots innovation approach applies SNM to a civil society context with further attention to radical community based action for sustainability (Seyfang et al., 2014). Seyfang and Smith define grassroots innovations as: “networks of activists and organizations generating novel bottom–up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved. In contrast to mainstream business greening, grassroots initiatives operate in civil society arenas and involve committed activists experimenting with social innovations as well as using greener technologies” (Seyfang & Smith, 2007, p. 585).
The diffusion of innovative practices and institutions can lead to outcomes such as their replication within the niche, “bringing about aggregative changes through many small initiatives” (Seyfang et al. 2012, p. 384),
17 its growth in scale with more people participating and the translation of niche ideas into a language that mainstream can understand and/or value. So, the ideas need to have potential to grow, needs to be replicable, and possible to adapt to the mainstream structure.
Grassroots movements exert political influence with a bottom up approach, outside established institutions. They attempt to build up examples of alternative systems, aiming for mainstream society to follow their influence. Grassroots movements often depend more on personal, group and community action, rather than top down policy-makers (Dahle, 2007).
Grassroots innovations are often made to fit a specific context, which can be challenges to spread in other contexts. (Smith & Seyfang, 2013a). For instance, eco-technologies like wind turbines in ecovillages are designed to the specific local context and are made easy to do yourself in an effort to make it possible for small communities to provide renewable energy off grid. These can be difficult to diffuse to wider contexts than small communities and are also challenging to develop since they are not created from a market-based approach. Therefore, increasing the possibility to struggle with legislation that does not have experience with the technology. As opposed to traditional market innovations, grassroots innovations are based on ideology and social need, rather than market demand trying to provide alternatives to traditional innovations based on certain values. They often do not have a large amount of resources and do not necessarily aim for profit, but to fill a social or ecological need. (Boyer, 2015) Other factors such as structures of land ownership can often challenge the creation of eco-buildings and energy initiatives (Smith and Seyfang, 2013a). However, when struggling with these challenges, grassroots movement go through a learning process which may be beneficial for fulfilling their goals. First, knowledge about the technology is acquired (even if the attempt is not successful), knowledge of the local context of which the technology is implemented is gained (such as community, challenges of volunteer work), as well as revealing the limitations of the existing political economic and social structures (Smith and Seyfang, 2013a). However, the more a certain ideas or practice are adopted, the easier it is for new actors to employ (Givan et al, 2010).
The link to institutions are also an effective way for movements to diffuse. They can help guide the movement and provide resources, such as research grants, investment in new technologies, planning events etc. Acceptance from established institutions can also help create awareness and credibility for the movement (Givan et al, 2010).
18 Relationships with institutions often change how movements frame their messages to fit the interests of the institutions, as well as adding new ideas. Institutions may then compromise some of the ideas of the movements while helping increasing the scale of the movement (Givan et al, 2010).
Innovation of grassroots movements typically require organisation and activist networking, creating solutions for local communities, that is suitable for their needs and interests (Smith & Seyfang, 2013a). One of the ways to access how grassroots innovation networks diffuse is by examining their processes of replication, scaling- up and translation into institutions (Smith & Seyfang, 2013a). Three pathways of diffusion can be defined; replication, scaling up and translation. Replication can occur through networks of activists, often by identifying best practices and sharing these through workshops, education programmes etc. (Boyer, 2015). Some possibilities for replication is through education, spreading ideas through the internet, other media, lectures/workshops, attracting visitors, volunteers and researchers, which can teach to how to replicate the innovation. Teaching the methods and spreading awareness about the innovation, will be it possible to replicate. Scaling up includes applying the innovation beyond the original activists, to a broader audience. This includes networking as well. It involves projects recruiting more participants, as well as growth in size, activity, or impact (Seyfang & Longhurst, 2016). Scaling up also includes expanding beyond the core group of activists and their activities (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012), in the case of the ecovillage movement, up scaling includes up scaling the innovations (such as their eco-technologies and community values) beyond the green movement, and into the mainstream. If movements have difficulties up scaling, it may be a sign of a lack of resources (Seyfang & Longhurst, 2016). Ecovillages may not necessarily want to scale up, preferring a small scale community, or simply do not want to aim for everyone to live in ecovillages, but rather be inspired by their ideas. The translation of the innovations involves spreading the ideas at a regime level, in a different context than originally intended. It is challenging for radical niches (compared to mainstream innovations) to actors of the ruling regime, because it requires structural changes, because it is made for another context. On the other hand, if the niche is too similar to the ideas of the existing regime, it will inspire little change (Boyer, 2015). To avoid comprising the unique aspects of the grassroots innovation, it can be useful to cooperate with regime actors, to reconfigure the innovation to this context, and gain feedback and to share knowledge. Grassroots movement can try to influence or change the current regime by suggesting ideas for reform, by translating their ideas to this setting, reframing it (Smith & Seyfang, 2013a).
19 5 Suderbyn Ecovillage
In the following chapter we will provide an overview of Suderbyn, their activities and status as an NGO activist community. We will also define their structural characteristics in order to gain an overall view of their organisational positions. We want to know what they are doing as a NGO to communicate and spread their social innovations and eco-technology concerning sustainability and therefore, we must gain an overview of their role in society as a change agent and political bottom up actor who is involved as an upscaling influence to larger political arenas.
Suderbyn field study
• What is the internal structure of Suderbyn Ecovillage and how do they attempt to create and diffuse practises who can contribute a sustainable transition of society?
Originally, the community was a simple farm with a barn and a main house surrounded by a large field. When Suderbyn was established and built in 2008, hills and ponds were created. The small horseshoe shaped hills
20 are formed of soil and bedrock and help create a wind shield to protect the crops. The ponds provided water reservoirs during droughts and, during floods, lead water away from the gardens and house. The small ponds/lakes also benefit the local ecosystem, providing the ducks and chickens with water. Additionally, the largest lake is placed south of the main residence in order to reflect light into the house. The winters are dark and cold, so the more light provided to the main house the better. Everybody in the community has their own small room or bungalow, but are dependant on the main building which is where the shower and kitchen are. The place has its own outdoor compost toilets around thirty meters away, where human waste is made into fertiliser for crops grown by the villagers. They also use water pump management that circulates the water from their own private well. Therefore, people who stay there are encouraged to only eat organic, as their waste decomposes and chemicals can potentially go into both the crops and groundwater. Suderbyn grows much of their crops by themselves, but most of their food is ordered from local farmers, which prevent them from going to the grocery store too often. They are ecological, organic and anti-waste orientated and try to limit consumption of disposable one time use products of all kinds. Organic waste is fed to the chickens or the worm farm and all waste is sorted by type in the scullery next to the kitchen. Several areas of the kitchen have notes, calendars and weekly schedules. As well as project agendas, events, programs, personal notes, daily tasks, letters etc., that keep the community members informed and updated about everything that is happening.
The daily meetups consist of a morning meeting and lunch, which is usually around 1 pm, and they rotate between being the one person who is responsible for preparing lunch. The person who cooks is free from other tasks for the day. The food is health oriented, organic, vegetarian and always includes an option for vegans. They aim for groceries to be local and seasonal. The morning meeting, daily lunch and weekly community meetings function as a centre of the community. There are certain tasks to be done, such as emptying the compost toilets, cooking dinner or in our case, a storm rehearsal of lowering the wind turbine down so it would not be damaged by powerful winter storms. We also participated in one of their monthly RELEARN meetings regarding the status of the current and future projects. Paying attention to each other and listening to one another is highly valued and even though we were just visitors, we participated personally in the projects and daily routines of the village. The community members work closely together and spend the majority of their time in each other's company, creating close bonds, even though some only stay a few months. The community members are from many different countries and on different programs, many from the EVS programme.
21 Suderbyn Earthcare, Fairshare and PeopleCare
As an organisation, Suderbyn aims towards building up a trio of organisations to secure the future of the ecovillage. These three organisations together form Suderbyn Ekoby and have different purposes, functions and institutional possibilities. The piece of land that Suderbyn is located on was bought in May 2008 by Suderbyn Cooperative. The cooperative, Suderbyn PeopleCare, is a non-profit business and has the job of providing sustainable housing, transportation and food, so people can live sustainably. It controls the economy of Suderbyn, emphasising on subject such as loans, debts, invoices etc. Currently, Suderbyn is in the process of creating a foundation that will take ownership of the land from the cooperative, essentially protecting Suderbyn from bankruptcy. The new foundation, called Suderbyn EarthCare, would receive the land as a gift from the cooperative and ensure that the nature and surrounding area remains protected for the extended future, even if Suderbyn has no funds. RELEARN is under the name Suderbyn FairShare, managing the projects and activist activities concerning learning processes, networking etc. Separating Suderbyn into three organisations opportunistically benefit the community financially. It also frames Suderbyn as a ‘project’ for sustainability rather than simply eco-cohousing.
22 Suderbyn RELEARN NGO, Networking and learning processes
Suderbyn RELEARN is an NGO that was originally called The Gotland Ecovillage Network, and was taken over by Suderbyn in 2007. This meant that Suderbyn received funding to develop their webpage and were able to establish RELEARN as the organisation that manages all ecovillage projects on Gotland (Hall, 2016). Suderbyn RELEARN hosts both the Erasmus+ and EVS programs which enables students and young adults to live and work in Suderbyn Ecovillage. RELEARN is primarily organised and ran by youth. Their focus is centred on various topics concerning environmental and social sustainable development, as well as spreading their practises out to broader mainstream society. RELEARN is cooperating with many different organisations across Europe. They have educational projects, such as Green skills, a youth camp, KA2, Closed Loop, Bridges, Bridgedale 360, a wind turbine course, social inclusion in the Baltic Sea Region and many more projects (Relearn, 2016). Common across all projects is a strong focus on learning, and as an NGO, this allows RELEARN to host volunteers and university students and provides the projects with funding. The various learning projects function as a way to spread awareness about environmental or social issues and how to solve them. Green skills is a one year experienced based learning program that hosts the EVS’ers at Suderbyn and gets funding from EU youth in Action and Erasmus+ Youth. The program aims to empower young people to live sustainably and is an educational program promoting holistic personal development in environmental, economical, social and cultural sustainability. Young people come and live in Suderbyn for one year and learn practical skills. This program affects the people participating and has a high impact on the individual through social innovation and activism. Green skills is educating youth to replicate the ecovillage values and culture worldwide.
The Wind turbine project (See picture on page 24) is being a prime example of teaching eco-technology, providing skills in order to build and run a personal wind turbine that is able to provide wind energy. This practice was brought to Suderbyn by inventor Hugh Piggott and implemented by Marie-Laure Brunel, who stayed at Suderbyn for seven weeks teaching community members to build a wind turbine on location with local reused materials. This form of eco-technology is able to provide small communities renewable energy, providing independence from the electricity provided by local authorities. The turbine project is an attempt to show the surrounding society the possibility to become self-sufficient by using renewable energy. Suderbyn’s wind turbine is not yet completed and recent high winds have caused extensive damage to it. This has caused the upscaling process to stall, although they intention is to continue to project.
23
24 The Closed Loop (see picture on page 24) is an eco-technology pilot project intended to develop and implement small scale food and energy production. Additionally, when fully functioning, it will prevent nutrient run-off and make it possible to grow soil-free food in cold climate. It is operated with a biogas digester and a heating element fuelled by compost. The closed loop itself is a big plastic bubble greenhouse with a biogas station in the centre. The project is intended to function as a learning project when it is finished in order to teach others to implement and run a closed loop system. It is funded by the Baltic Sea Conservation Foundation and sponsored by LUSH Cosmetics, who paid to transport the tank. This Closed Loop concept is a social eco-innovation and a pilot invention, as the technology is intended to be diffused and replicated out to others once finished. They are still working on permits from the municipalities to complete the biogas system and, once finished, the project will be the first privately owned, legally run biogas digester system in the world. Once completed, it will simplify the process for others wishing to implement this technology, allowing them to follow the example set forth by Suderbyn.
RELEARN also participates in many smaller projects in cooperation with other international actors. These are not centred in Suderbyn specifically. Among them are:
• Social inclusion in the Baltic Sea Region, which expands beyond the European Union and appeal to countries around the Baltic sea as well. This is another attempt of replicating social sustainability elsewhere.
• KA2, which is the second level of a two-year training project between ten partners training youth workers and providing them with methods for different topics of sustainability. Central to the KA2 programme includes using the four P’s, people, planet, profit and purpose.
• Youth Camp is a five-day residential program located in Italy that corresponds with a festival and conducts many ecological workshops.
• Bridgedale 360 is a free online toolbox focused on inspiring youth to adopt sustainable living and active citizenship. It is ran by Erasmus+ and serves as an online channel for sustainable learning. These above mentioned programs are examples of how Suderbyn is trying to communicate ecovillage practises and educate society about sustainability. These are clear examples of replication, although their effect of upscaling is not clearly visible.
Suderbyn as an educational learning institution
Their motivation for working with many volunteers and young people, is to educate individuals to live more sustainably and to have idealistic visions for new projects. As community member Alisa said in an interview: “Time here (Suderbyn) moves differently, it’s very intense. There are many social interactions and when you
25 live here for three months it feels like you have been living here for much longer” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 1). The community is very operative and the constant interactions between community members ensure this high activity level and strong community building Suderbyn is based upon. Activities include common yoga exercise, demonstrations, games, movies and Swedish lessons. The personal ambition level seems very high among the community members, with residents freely choosing what tasks they would like to work on. Some of our observations include witnessing one guy putting in a lot of effort to perfect his bread recipes, and another girl spent nearly all day developing a recipe, out of clay, sand and horse faeces, to construct a small hut to the closed loop project. Somebody had previously built a sauna for the community, which actually turned out to inoperable because of lack of permits. Yet, experimenting was still encouraged, even if it does not succeed. Failure allows residents to identify shortcomings, therefore they are able to build upon their experiences.
Before our visit to Suderbyn, we made agreement to work four hours a day, yet no one verified our time spent on our tasks. It seemed that this uncontrolled, non systematic work ethic was purposely implemented as part of Suderbyn’s daily practise, intended to motivate the residents to take responsibility for their learning process. The social interactions can potentially encourage activities and make people talk and debate new visions and projects. As Alisa Dendro again explains “The mission changes depending who comes. Every person brings things. Musicians come and suddenly everyone starts playing music. A technical person comes and suddenly everyone starts to work on these things” (Alisa Interview, 2016, p. 2).
Volunteers and visitors that come to Suderbyn are integrated in the daily practises in an effort to present Suderbyn’s alternative ways of living and learning. The compost toilets, waste disposal sorting system, vegetarian and organic food, cosmetic use, general culture, work ethic and moral within the community are introduced to all new individuals. Robert Hall explains: “If those people were to have social interaction with each other, then it would work, but if they do not have social interaction with each other then the ecovillage has no function of supporting them to behaviour change. If you’re ten friends who discuss what type of food we eat or what type of energy we buy or how we transport ourselves, you will influence each other” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 5). Robert argues that it is the community that are the major difference between an ecological co-housing and an ecovillage. He points out that a central focus of environmental change is behavioural change in people. This, he explains, is an area that ecovillages and community can provide assistance in.
26 This active participation from volunteers creates relational diffusion, placing a focus on mutual learning processes, dialogue and intense interaction in a physical environment promoting environmental behaviour and activism in the individuals of Suderbyn.
The dynamics and composition of the community members change regularly as people arrive at Suderbyn with different expertise and skills. The result of the EVS, Erasmus+ and regular temporary volunteers create a network among people with a common connection to this particular place, while creating direct relational diffusion through hands on learning processes. The majority of Suderbyn residents are temporary, which while encouraging experimental projects and creating a ‘learning centre’, can have negative effects. They are required to utilise valuable resources to educate new residents on their current projects, which may slow down development and limit the amount of qualified members. Robert Hall agrees that consisting of a large number of volunteers brings many challenges as well. He states that, “It is hard to build up an organisation when people change too often. People are always learning and things are getting broken or lost because we are changing people too much. There are some problems, but the place is built up on volunteer hours and nothing would have happened if it was paid hours.” (Hall Interview, 2016). Furthermore, during our stay, other community members expressed that it is socially exhausting to host the large amount of short term volunteers during the summer. Work camps can regularly consist of 15-20 new people that only remain at Suderbyn for a two-week period.
Suderbyn is very internationally oriented, hosting people from all around the world. The majority are from Europe, but residents from North America and Africa frequently arrive. Therefore, many international and global relations are built. Similarly, the many different RELEARN projects have a different audience, scale and reach. As RELEARN aims to create awareness, spread social innovation and generate knowledge about sustainable living, their many different international projects are wide reaching and gather a variety of people from many countries. Relearn is directly and indirectly spreading the activist network to a global audience.
Economic challenges for Suderbyn
This flexible form of housing practise does not provide Suderbyn with a substantial amount of funding. Additionally, limited economic resources prevent them from developing their facilities much (Hall Interview, 2016). The cooperative is repaying their debts from the funds they receive from EVS and Erasmus +, but the lack of facilities and primitive living has possibly prevented permanent residents and families from settling down in Suderbyn (Ibid). The original intention of Suderbyn was altered when the cooperative was forced to lower the membership fee from 100.000 SEK to 5000 SEK. Suderbyn gradually became more an activist NGO,
27 temporarily hosting young experimental volunteers and students. They remain more interested in working as a NGO and network actor towards sustainable transition, instead of just being a comfortable ecovillage for people to actually live permanently (Ibid).
They are, as an independent ecovillage, still only at the level of replication. They are developing the activist community and expanding the niche, but they are aiming towards scaling up these eco-tech projects to broader society. However, neither of them are finished solutions yet, and Suderbyn continues working on their own development. “We can’t handle net takers at the moment. We are in a pioneer phase where we are building something up right now. We need net givers, people who can give more than they can take” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 10). It is entirely possible that they may have resources to build up the infrastructure at a later time or work closer to higher institutions, but at this point Suderbyn is not fully established and its key goal is to experiment with new solutions based on the expertise and interests of the current residents. Despite their active NGO status, they are limited in their progress because of a lack of resources to expand and develop their village in order to attract more permanent residents. They have a high educational impact, but as a cooperative they are dependant on external project funding in order to diffuse their social structure and eco-technology (Hall Interview, 2016). A lifestyle based on limited resources, coupled with a sharing economy, can be unappealing for many people who want to settle down. Likewise, those who want private houses and a large bank account are not ideal candidates for living at Suderbyn. If Suderbyn were able to generate more economic resources, they could quite possibly expand their physical environment, resulting in the hosting of additional residents that will, in turn optimise their diffusional scaled up initiatives on mainstream society.
Conclusion
We can conclude that Suderbyn, as a change agent, is developing a series of initiatives and social innovations that arise from their way of promoting experimental learning processes. They educate people by practical experiential learning processes, influencing them to think creative and innovative concerning environmental and social initiatives. Suderbyn is promoting environmentally conscious behaviour through their design of community being interactive and highly social. Thus, keeping the entire community active and motivated to work and progress. They use volunteers and exchange students to develop their village while also ensuring the expansion of their activist network in an ever changing community environment. Additionally, it creates a fundamental, structural and economical challenge for Suderbyn, leaving their community fragile and vulnerable to external changes. Also, they rely on face-to-face social relations to spread their ideas internationally. This can
28 potentially have a great impact on the individual, however, if they rely mainly on this kind of diffusion, only a limited number of people can be influenced since it remains to be such a small community. The challenges for Suderbyn to successfully scale up is evident in their unattractiveness towards luring permanent residents and families to reside in the community. The lack of resources, hard work, isolation and basic living conditions attribute to Suderbyn’s challenges. The most important characteristics of Suderbyn as a change agent can be considered their active role in hosting and educating individuals. As well as, influencing them and “schooling” them in the holistic ecovillage approach and lifestyle. This is diffusing and expanding the ecovillage activist network and incubating new environmental social technological solutions through a bottom up approach. Despite the effort, they still remain only on a very low level of gaining a greater influence. While Suderbyn has begun to work on upscaling projects, they have not reached an upscaling in these strategies.
29 6 Ecovillages as a global movement
During our research we realised that there are many different shapes that an ecovillage can take. Central to nearly all ecovillages is the desire to gather with other like-minded individuals that wish to lower their environmental impact. As environmental concerns are becoming more mainstream, the number of ecovillages are increasing. Although environment is one factor that leads to the creation of ecovillages, it is only one of the many reasons these communities desire to exist. Eco-consciousness can take many forms and this can be seen in the, often vastly, different ecovillage communities. While some choose to merely build eco-friendly housing, others choose to create a whole new lifestyle that encourages residents to change their behaviour drastically. According to Robert Hall, many ecovillages have the intent to create an active ecovillage, but after the initial building phase is completed, they realise that their expectations were set too high and they often fail to achieve their goals. Suderbyn, being largely populated by young activists, has the benefit of a constant influx of new motivated residents. This ensures Suderbyn does not become stagnant and continues to maintain their eco consciousness. We feel that it is necessary to illustrate the many similarities and differences between Suderbyn and other ecovillages. This will be used to display to the reader that ecovillages do not need to follow a single mould in order to be considered an ecovillage, as well as having different paths of diffusion. Our visit to Suderbyn had allowed us to see first-hand many of the daily practises of the village. We chose to focus on an ecovillage who is considered very activist and open to the outside world. We have chosen not to limit our focus on only one or two specific ecovillages, but to utilise many different ecovillages to demonstrate contrasts between them and identify general patterns. It would be difficult to conclude which system is closer to the ecovillage ideal than the other, therefore we will be careful to not treat Suderbyn as the “right” ecovillage. Based on our research, our goal is to present it in a way that allows for the reader to see ecovillages from many angles in an effort to show that there is no single definition of an ecovillage.
Individuals
Ecovillages attract a wide variety of individuals. There is no single reason why someone chooses to live in an ecovillage. Speaking casually to the residents of Suderbyn has revealed a myriad of reasons for them to move there. The desire to live with other like minded individuals was popular among almost all residents, as was the ability to create societal change. Our interview with Alisa, has revealed that she was inspired to move to Suderbyn while meeting individuals involved in the ecovillage movement while she was studying at University (Alisa Interview, 2016). As mentioned earlier, much of the population of Suderbyn is young and motivated. Contrast to Suderbyn, many ecovillages, such as RegenVillage outside of Amsterdam, have the desire to
30 attract high income individuals who wish to lower their environmental impact (Regenvillages.com, 2016). This results in many of the residents having little time for communal involvement (Ibid). Furthermore, during our visit to Munksøgard, our guide informed us that it took nearly two years before she felt that she belonged to the community (Foldager & Dyck-Madsen, 2002). A possible reason for this could be because many residents simply choose not to interact with other residents. Although, we were unable to verify this, because our visit was conducted on a workday and were unable to view how the residents interact with one another. However, our guide informed us that many community members simply do not make social interaction a priority.
Community Orientation
We have discovered that ecovillages largely fit into three main community categories. They are left-leaning alternative communities, eco-alternative communities and eco-spiritual self-awareness-oriented communities (Lambing, 2014). While many ecovillages choose to resist labels, most of them are based primarily on one of the above categories. Many more can combine two or even all three of the above categories. Suderbyn, for example, displays both left-leaning and eco-alternative characteristics and to a lesser extent, allows for the eco-spiritual aspect to exist. Ecovillages such as ZEGG in Germany choose to emphasise spirituality, stating that “[their] common thread is the quest for new forms of love and sexuality and the manifestation of personal and global healing” (ZEGG, 2016). ZEGG residents “[...] are committed to radical transparency, free love and world peace.” (Ibid). Although this is a central focus of ZEGG, they are still very much committed to developing and implementing techniques and innovations that will benefit the environment. They state that their desire is to “develop and implement practical models for a socially and ecologically sustainable way of living.” (Ibid). While Suderbyn does not openly promote themselves as a “free love” community, during our time there it was evident that many of the residents were quite close. Other communities such as Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage in the United States, offer an opportunity for left-wing feminists to live with other like-minded environmentalist (Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, 2016).
Social Dimension
Another theme that often plays a major role in the majority of ecovillages is the sense of community. Although, most ecovillages are built in a way that attempts to promotes community, they often are not used in the intended way. During our interview with Robert Hall, he stated that, “Most ecovillages are residential ecovillages, which 90% of their purpose is to offer eco housing for its members and maybe 10% is some sort of social thing” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 3). Suderbyn tries to alleviate this by having their residents sleep in very basic houses, encouraging the use of the communal house for eating and socialising. While not necessary
31 required, GEN stresses that an ecovillage must create a harmonic environment, free from prejudices and hate (GEN Europe Annual Report, 2015). During our visit to Suderbyn, we quickly realised the social dimension is a central focus of the community. The days begin with a morning feeling circle and finish with the majority of the residents relaxing in the communal house while watching a film, playing a game or just conversing. Many new villages are being built with eco-housing, but less emphasis is placed on creating a community. We can see an example when we look at the Los Angeles Ecovillage. Their website states that “there are still many residents in the two block neighbourhood who may not be aware that they live in the Los Angeles Eco- Village” (Laecovillage.org, 2016). Residents of these communities often spend the majority of their time either at their place of employment or inside their living space. The feeling of community is often lacking and many residents rarely interact with their neighbours. Robert Hall states, “the lack of community often results in the ecovillage losing touch with their initial goals of a social living environment and eventually the ecovillage is nothing more than eco housing.” (Hall Interview, 2016).
Decision Making Structure
In our research, we have discovered that nearly all ecovillages have some form of political structure. It can range from completely democratic to authoritarian, but most villages deploy a variation of democracy (Würfel, 2013). Many choose to have a few community leaders make decisions for the village, while others allow for every member to have the power to influence decisions (Ibid). Suderbyn, for example, according to Robert Hall, chooses to follow a form of sociocracy, which requires all residents to agree with any implemented decision. While it is not required to agree with a new proposal one hundred percent, each resident must accept it, otherwise it will not go forward. Ecovillages such as Schloss Tonndorf are ran on a “consent” model (Schloss-tonndorf.de, 2016). Here, they have a small group of community politicians who create proposals and if the rest of the residents do not object, then they enact these proposals.
Living Conditions
As mentioned above, living conditions vary widely between ecovillages. There are many new ecovillages being built, such as the Detroit Shoreway-Cleveland ecovillage, with a focus on using the latest technology to build low impact sustainable housing (Agency, 2015). Material for their buildings was locally sourced and much of it was from recycled waste (Ibid). Depending on locations and climate, many houses can sustain both hot and cold weather while using minimal energy. This is the case with the popular earthship houses that are being built in many new ecovillages (Earthship Biotecture, 2016). Ecovillages, such as Ithaca Ecovillage in New York, tend to build individual living quarters with indoor plumbing and full kitchens (Ecovillageithaca.org,
32 2016), while Suderbyn chooses to keep the resident housing simple to encourage the use of the communal house, resulting in a very communal feel. Living conditions can play a major role in determining who the residents will be. Due to the living quarters in Suderbyn, the community attracts many young activists, rather than established professionals (Hall Interview, 2016). This keeps the village young and active, but has the downside of a high turnover rate, resulting in the possibility of an uncertain future. Robert stresses that modern residential living spaces generally attracts individuals or families that have established themselves and unfortunately, these are often the residents that have little time, or interest, in involving themselves deeply into the community (Ibid).
Networking
Throughout our stay at Suderbyn, we were continually told how networking is an important aspect of a successful ecovillage. Without this, ecovillages will likely fail to implement new innovations. Initially, many ecovillages are built with lofty dreams and expectations, but “After 5 years they have zero energy for this and then you go to an ecovillage that has been there for 30 years you can't even realise that it is even an ecovillage.” (Hall, 2016). Through networking, Gaia stresses that ecovillages will have continuous contact with many other ecovillages, allowing them to use a worldwide pool of knowledge (Gaia School, 2016). This is the view of Suderbyn, they feel that through networking they have a steady source of information, as well as, motivation to continually update their community to keep pace with other ecovillages. Their gardening techniques are constantly evolving, the resident houses are constructed through many different methods and styles and their closed loop bio dome system is created through extensive networking of information received from others. As new residents move in, new knowledge and expertise also arrives. Everyone in Suderbyn brings something unique to the village. If a new project is beyond the scope of the current residents, through their large network, they will find the expertise they need. GEN provides a central organisation for ecovillages across the globe to connect with each other. According to GEN, there are as many as 15,000 ecovillages worldwide, of these, only about 10,000 are connected through their network (Connecting Communities for a Sustainable World, 2016). This shows us that many ecovillages simply choose not to network. It is difficult to find any data on these ecovillages though, and many may not even consider themselves and ecovillage at all.
33 6.2 Diffusion of the Ecovillage Movement
According to GEN, an ecovillage is “An intentional or traditional community (formed by at least 8 persons) that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes to regenerate social and natural environments” (Gen-europe.org, 2016). If we were to carefully evaluate many ecovillages, then most likely many will fail to meet this definition. However, they consider themselves an ecovillage. Additionally, this description describes many communities that would not consider themselves an ecovillage. While this is only one of many variations, it is widely respected as the definitive definition of and ecovillage. The requirements to be considered an ecovillage are really quite lenient. Therefore, ecovillages take on many shapes and sizes. From the very active to the nearly dormant, it is imperative to conduct an evaluation on their ability to become a successful change agent is necessary. This chapter provides a detailed description of the many characteristics that ecovillages portray. These different aspects of ecovillages create the look and feel of the communities, but they also play a major role in the replication, scaling up and niche to regime translation. Here we will analyse the individual characteristics to demonstrate if, and how, ecovillages ultimately become a change agent with the ability to influence both local and global policy.
Replication
The vast number of worldwide ecovillages allow for the extensive networking between them. They have the ability to learn from each others failures while improving on their successes. One can argue that ecovillages need to communicate to survive. Without this essential communication, many ecovillages simply may not have the experience or expertise to operate successfully. Many of the innovations that ecovillages implement are specific only to ecovillages and other niche communities. Our stay at Suderbyn has shown us that they strive to stay closely connected to many national and international networks. In addition to their attachment to these networks, they are very active in promoting themselves as a progressive community involved in many projects “spanning a range of organisations” (Suderbyn ecovillage, 2016). Suderbyn is composed almost entirely of young activists who take on a large amount of community responsibilities. Many of them are active in outreach and education programmes, whilst others host seminars, give tours or host workshops. Together, these activities help to ensure Suderbyn spreads their internal knowledge to a wider audience. This audience is often other ecovillages, but their goal is to target mainstream society, hoping to bring awareness to the ecovillage movement as a whole. The number of ecovillages across the planet is expanding at an incredible rate. Whilst Suderbyn can be seen as a model of replication, many others fail in this field. According to Diana Leaf Christian, an American
34 ecovillage presenter, “[...] ecovillages confront multiple existential obstacles that mainstream residential development initiatives do not face. Indeed, an estimated 90% of ecovillage initiatives struggle to survive past their initial formation stages due to regulatory, financial, and interpersonal hurdles that profit-oriented residential developers typically do not confront” (Christian, 2003). Whilst economics and community population are major factors, lack of communication plays a large role in ecovillage failure. It is important for ecovillages to continually network to ensure that their ecovillage is gaining new knowledge and expertise.
Scaling Up
The next major obstacle in the quest for global improvement is creating change outside of the niche practises of ecovillages. Developing innovations does little for the planet if only other ecovillages are knowledgeable about them. Therefore, it is essential to reach out to a broader audience and encourage non activists to take action or implement many actions that are commonly conducted on ecovillages (Seyfang, G. and Longhurst, N. ,2016). Many of Suderbyn’s practises are exclusive to ecovillage living and this may be attributed to them being in a constant stage of development. Their goals may be to spread their message to the general population, but for this to happen they need to shift their focus to a more mainstream friendly approach. In our research, we have come across many ecovillages that are very successful in the scaling up process. One such example of this is the Los Angeles ecovillage. The community started an initiative called the Bicycle Kitchen. Their missions statement is “[...] promote the bicycle as a fun, safe, and accessible form of transportation, to foster healthy urban communities, and to provide a welcoming space to learn about building maintaining, and riding bicycles.” (bicyclekitchen.com, 2016). They created a space, run by knowledgeable ecovillage residents, that offer both tools and expertise for individuals to come and repair their personal bikes. It is completely free, but they ask for a $7/hour donation, but will not turn anyone away due to lack of funds (Ibid). The initiative has become very successful and has inspired other similar bike maintenance workshops across southern California (Boyer, 2015). While this is only one example, we can see how a seemingly small program can be implemented into the mainstream. Most ecovillages are comprised of many different people from all walks of life. They may not all be experts in solar energy or composting, but most ecovillage residents have something unique that can be taught to society beyond the community they live in. The many niche practises of ecovillages must be presented in a way that the mainstream society will accept. If something is considered too extreme then individuals or outside communities may dismiss it, rather than adopt it (Hamson, 2013). Dancing Rabbit ecovillage is another example how the scaling up process can take form. They actively strive to ensure their innovations are done in a way that could easily be utilised outside
35 their ecovillage. Furthermore, they state that although they “strive for self-sufficiency and economic independence, we do not sequester ourselves from mainstream America. Rather, outreach and education are integral to our goals.” (Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, 2016).
Niche to Regime Translation
Ecovillages are often quite different from mainstream society, and experiment with alternative structures than the dominant regime. During our visit to Suderbyn, we quickly realised that their community does not resemble the typical Swedish village. Our initial research into other ecovillages revealed the same. Although, many larger and more established ecovillages resemble mainstream society in various ways. Our visit to Munksøgård, has shown us that an ecovillage does not need to differ much from mainstream society. Additionally, Ithaca Ecovillage residents live in many separate houses, complete with many modern amenities (Ecovillageithaca.org, 2016). These are the often the ones that can make the most impact outside their villages. While much of the practises in ecovillage are created for the niche that is an ecovillage, many more can be translated to a wider audience. It is these practises that will most likely influence outside policy. On one hand, it can be a huge challenge for ecovillages to inspire mainstream society if they are too radical, creating an ‘us vs. them’ dynamic. On the other, if ecovillages become too similar to ‘mainstream society’ their lifestyle and solutions will not be ground-breaking enough to inspire the rest of society. For policy to change, adaption of ecovillage practise at a higher institutional level will need to occur (Boyer, 2015). This could be through a wide range of ideas or practises. Many ecovillages have built close relationships to the nearby cities and municipalities, and many more are actively involved in outside politics as well, such as the Los Angeles Ecovillage who has been consulted by the local government to improve local infrastructure (Ibid), as well as Robert Hall of Suderbyn who is elected in the city council (Hall Interview, 2016). These relationship allows for possible adoption of ecovillage practises into mainstream society.
As stated previously, ecovillages do not all resemble one another. Since ecovillages differ, they provide an opportunity for nearly anyone to become part of a community. Whether ecovillages have the intention to create a better planet through reducing their environmental impact, creating a more social world or hoping to influence others, ecovillage continue to increase in numbers (GEN Annual Report, 2015). This increase will likely create more interest from individuals. As mainstream society becomes aware of ecovillages, the image of ecovillage residents can become normalised. Eventually this could lead to higher institutions implementing many practises that have been done in ecovillages for years. Collectively, ecovillages not only bring attention to environmental issues, they demonstrate that it is possible to live alternative from the mainstream, or even assist in creating a new image of what is mainstream.
36
We have briefly explained how ecovillages, as a collective movement, create niches that can translate into regimes. Here we will further look into how this is achieved.
Increasing awareness
Many ecovillages are founded on the premise of decreasing their environmental impact while bringing to life a society that thrives on the social atmosphere (Kunze, 2015). This is only possible if people know that there is an alternative to mainstream society. Many people simply live their lives based on their upbringing and their current social group (Hamson, 2013). Ecovillages have the benefit of increasing awareness of environmental problems while demonstrating that there is an alternative way to live. Although many ecovillages prefer to keep to themselves, many others actively search out for new residents. ZEGG, with a population of approximately 100 residents, has a long waiting list for admittance (ZEGG, 2016). It is the popularity of these ecovillages that assists them to become successful change agents. Through seminars, educational programs, demonstrations and other activities, a large number of ecovillages introduce a new way of life to many people who would never otherwise have known that an alternative exists. Replication, scaling up and niche to regime translation all begin through awareness. Therefore, we feel it is important to emphasise the it’s importance.
Change of behaviour
Through increased awareness, comes increased interest in this new alternative lifestyle. According to GEN, there are 10,000 ecovillages networking with GEN, and they estimate that there can be as many as 15,000 worldwide (GEN Europe Annual Report), while GAIA trust estimates that there are only 4-5,000 ecovillages worldwide (Jackson, 2005). Reasons for joining can vary greatly, but once part of an ecovillage, new members are surrounded by other members who live in a way that often represents an alternative to the societal norm. Being surrounded by a new “culture” heavily influences individuals whom may be unsure how to change their behaviour. Although total immersion may be more effective, behaviour change can also occur through simple interaction and does not necessarily require an individual to join an ecovillage (Azjen, 1991).
Think tanks
Ecovillages are often communities of like-minded individuals. Although this is only a generalisation, it is often the case, as stated by the Fellowship of Intentional Communities (Fellowship for Intentional Community, 2016). This is of great benefit to many people who either feel uncomfortable in mainstream society or just need the support of others to demonstrate to themselves that their actions are appreciated (Ibid). Many
37 ecovillages, such as Suderbyn, have a strong focus on social interactions. Additionally, ecovillages provide a place for individuals to come with new and experimental ideas. In ecovillages it is possible to experiment with new sustainable ways of living, from social structures to new technologies, among people who are willing to explore new alternatives. Even if the experiments fail, the lessons learned can help create new solutions. The additional benefit of belonging to a global ecovillage network allows for collective thinking. This leads to improving many current practises and provides a cleaner pathway for the general public to adopt these practises.
Influence policy
Although the desired outcome of many ecovillages is to simply create an environment for an alternative lifestyle, many ecovillages are built with the intention to influence awareness, change people’s behaviour and, ultimately, change society through policy change. Such is the case with the initiative, VEGOA, they are a purpose built organisation that strives to construct ecovillages that “lead by example and inspire others to also follow a sustainable and ethical lifestyle” (Vegoa.org, 2016). Through the process of diffusion, they create niche practises and evolve them into practises that can be implemented into mainstream society, which may lead to policy change. In order to influence legislation, ecovillages can create links to the municipality or government, offering solutions based on their own experiences, which is effective if the solution has been implemented in different contexts and is cost-effective. Ecovillages can also illustrate a need for change in legislation, if they have been unable to gain certain permits for a new system or technology.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we looked at various different ecovillages. This was to demonstrate that ecovillages do not all resemble one another. While they may differ in many ways, there are also many similarities. Together, ecovillages are creating a global movement. Whether their individual goals are to remove themselves from mainstream society or to ultimately influence international policy change, the collective movement of ecovillages is having a tremendous effect on the global environment. Currently, ecovillages exist in more than seventy countries on six continents (Taggart, 2009). The great number of ecovillages provide a large knowledge pool for innovation and these innovations are rapidly being created and developed in a way that can be translated into the public sphere. Many ecovillages are actively engaged in local and international communities. They are able to implement their ideas on a grander scale and, through this, are able to provide enough strength and popularity to get politicians to notice. From Replication of niche practises, to the scaling
38 up and taking their ideas to the mainstream, to ultimately translating their grassroots (niche) practises into the adoption and implementation at the institutional level, we can see that ecovillages are effectively creating change. Although positive changes are created through the ecovillage movement, there are many practises that simply fail to make it outside these communities. Not all ecovillages strive to spread their ideals and many more simply lack of resources to do so. In addition to this, many ecovillages are considered an extreme departure from “normal” society. This is the case with Suderbyn. The rustic living residences, outdoor bucket toilets and lack of privacy scare many people away. As with Suderbyn, many other ecovillages choose to live in a way that does not attract a lot of interest. If this is the case, then these innovations remain niche practises and ecovillages serve no other purpose than providing an environment for a specific population.
39 7 Global Ecovillage Network as a change agent of sustainable development
History
One of the first steps of GEN was in 1991 with the development of a report of the best ecovillages around the world by editors of Context magazine, Robert and Diane Gilman. While the report concluded that many promising communities existed with a different lifestyle, they argued that an ideal ecovillage did not truly exist. After this, the Gilmans met with the founders of Gaia Trust, Hildur and Ross Jackson, to discuss a strategy on how to advance and spread the ideas of sustainable communities (Jackson, 2004). Relationships were created among who would later be key leaders of GEN. They agreed that forming a network of intentional communities aiming for a sustainable lifestyle, would be important to show good examples of living close to nature in sustainable way. In 1995 at a conference in Findhorn, Scotland, ‘Ecovillages and Sustainable Communities in the 21st Century, GEN was officially formed. The event lasted a week and was attended by 400 people. The establishment included 3 regional networks in Germany, USA and Australia, with the main office being in Gaia Trust in Denmark. Gaia Trust funded GEN the first 3-5 years, until deciding that they could not fund the global network, so after this they have only funded GEN Europe irregularly (Jackson, 2004).
Goals and visions
According to the GEN 'Constitution' (GEN Constitution, 2015) the organisation's main purposes is to 1. educate individuals based on experiences and best practises from ecovillages and sustainable communities, 2. advance human rights, conflict resolutions and good communication, 3. to advance environmental protection by serving as a think tank and international partner organisation and help projects for sustainable lifestyles and 4. to coordinate ecovillage networks and cooperate with policy makers to advance a sustainable transition.
GEN-President Kosha Joubert explains that a village is seen as an ecovillage and can become a full member if its residents actively say: “we do not want the future of our settlement or urban neighbourhood to be dictated by outside forces – we are going to co-design our own pathway into the future” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 19), the transition is thus the key goal of GEN, and a requirement of it’s members (Ibid).
40 Strategies and Projects
GEN states that their main strategies for reaching their goals are "to coordinate the activities of a number of regional ecovillage networks around the world" and "to serve as an incubator and platform for international projects and initiatives that accelerate the shift to sustainable lifestyles and more resilient societies" (GEN VMA, 2015). For promoting this they have monthly 'Open Forum' meetings, in which members of GEN are welcome to participate to share knowledge and evaluate their experiences. Also each year GEN makes an annual report summarising evaluations of their members, based on annual surveys and other relevant meetings (Ibid). One of their strategies for sharing best practice experiences is through their online 'solution library', which includes practical solutions and experiences from ecovillages to become culturally, socially, economically and ecologically sustainable. Thus, providing links and instructions about things like social inclusion, politics, economics, legal issues, personal development, spirituality, green building/waste/water/energy systems, and other solutions based on the 4 pillars of sustainability (GEN solution library, GEN Annual Report). Other main projects are the education programmes, “The Ecovillage Design Education (EDE) course” and “The Ecovillage Incubator”. The EDE also generally instructs about reaching the 4 pillars of sustainability, officially contributing to the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, based on ecovillage best practice experiences. The Ecovillage Incubator is a course for people who are beginning a fresh Ecovillage project or another type of sustainable community project (GEN Education, 2016). GEN also offers education on how to start a project and using social competences, where there are self- organised groups who create their own structures (Kunze & Avelino, 2015). Through their solution library and education programmes, they also focus on community building and social activities (GEN Solution Library; GEN Annual Report, 2015). As former GEN president Kosha Joubert explains: “The emotional level is crucial. The forum is central as a learning method for going through your own processes. Singing and massaging each other: these are small non-mental activities.” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 28). Challenges of this strategy may be that GEN is lifting the solutions off their original local context and trying to apply them on an international and national level. One of the reasons why some ecovillages are involved in their national ecovillage network and not in the regional or global, may be that their solutions are more suitable in their local context and of a particular place.
Besides helping to start up new ecovillages (GEN Annual Report, 2015), GEN also attempts to prevent existing ecovillages from failing, as explained by GEN Europe president Robert Hall: “trying to get those communities back into GEN, trying to get someone to sit on the GEN Europe council. Tamara [ecovillage in Portugal] was
41 sort of lost, then we brought then into the council and now they are much more involved. We reach out and try to keep in contact with them” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 8). “They say that 90% [Dawson, 2006] of ecovillages die or disappear within 5 years. Most ecovillages fail within the first or second year because of social problems. It can be economic problems, but mostly its social problems. So we really need to try to catch and help” (Hall Interview, 2016). Even though there are many 'failed' cases of ecovillages, one can argue that the lessons learned are an important part of the experiences. They can help identify challenges in local legislations, flaws of certain technologies and the lacking of organisational and social skills (Avelino & Kunze, 2005). The advantage of having a network such as GEN is that ecovillages can identify common challenges and help avoid shortcomings in future attempts. Through the many attempts, one can also identify new solutions and ways of living, even though they have flaws, and may try adjusting the technique. Since many techniques and lifestyles of ecovillages are still new, there is a high risk that some of them may not succeed, but the searching and learning process can be vital to discovering new sustainable solutions (Avelino & Kunze, 2005).
GEN is also very focused on informal networking, with many ecovillagers moving from one to another, visiting and staying for free. "GEN is a very informal network that relies on personal contacts and shared experiences of working together for ecological projects (...) The members of GEN are building their feeling of belonging through shared emotional experiences, visions of ‘a better world’, and being part of a world-wide movement towards more social cooperative and ecological ways of living" (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 31). This kind of relational diffusion is thus a large part of GEN, who is acting as a mediator for individual ecovillagers. This is beneficial because the relationships are based on trust, but a lack of structure and membership fees can also prove politically unsustainable for ecovillagers if core members are lost, which may result in lost relationships from important institutions. GEN has links with the UN in a number of ways, such as consultative status with the UN-Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) commission and is a partner of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). Their education programmes are also inspired by the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014. GEN is critical of large scale systemic structures and tries to build up small scale structures based on face-to- face contact and and transparency (Kunze & Avelino, 2015). As a GEN member living in Findhorn describes, “GEN tries to collect and create communities that is relatively independent of the macro-level, such as economic crises, with local communities being able to design their structures from their own interests, with the potential of influencing the regime.” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p27). Part of this strategy includes cultural change and norm spreading, originating from personal development.
42 Partners and funding
Gaia Trust is a charity organisation founded in Denmark in 1989 by Ross and Hildur Jackson, who have been key figures in the ecovillage movement. Gaia Trust mainly funds sustainable and spiritual initiatives (Jackson, 2004). Gaia Trust has funded GEN on and off since the beginning in 1995, and now only funds some of GEN Europe's projects (Ibid). A spin-off project of Gaia Trust is Gaia Education, an education programme about the 4 dimensions of sustainability, with 190 programmes in 34 countries (Ibid).
GEN receives different funding from project to project, across the regional and national networks. The German Foreign Ministry has funded several projects, including development aid projects and education projects. As mentioned the EU has funded a variety of projects focused on youth (GEN Funded Projects, 2016), the EVS programme being an important part of the social structure in Suderbyn. Some larger ecovillages such as Findhorn, Sieben linden, ZEGG, Damanhur also supports by hosting, projects and workshops and providing office space (Hall Interview, 2016). Mainly, GEN is based on volunteers and donations (GEN Annual Report, 2015; Hall Interview, 2016) with salaries for employees being quite low (Hall Interview, 2016). Many ecovillages of GEN also visit each other for free, and some exchange resources, such as olive oil from Damanhur in Italy (Ibid).
European Volunteering Service (EVS) is supported a large amount of European ecovillages, which helps networking informally through youth Some separate GEN Europe projects are 'Sustainable Community Incubator Partnership Programme' (SCIPP), which helps developing new sustainable communities. RefuGEN is a volunteer programme helping refugees on Lesvos, Greece. The programme includes using skills from ecovillages, such as vegetable gardens, and share experiences of community building. GEN Europe also got funding from the German government to run an Ecovillage Design Education (EDE) 2 week course in Palestine (GEN Europe, Annual Report, 2015).
GEN Africa, GENOA, GENNA and GEN CASA
GENOA (Oceania and Asia) includes a variety of modern ecovillage projects, as well as projects focused on land restoration and growing out of poverty. As well as traditional villages transitioning to ecovillages. GENOA believes that there is much to be learned from traditional villages and their relationship with nature, cultural heritage and social traditions (GEN Annual Report, 2015). GEN attempts to complement the strategies of the Global South to the Global North. GEN CASA (Latin America) focuses on unique medicinal practices, agricultural techniques and spiritual knowledge from traditional villages and is utilised extensively in order to provide a pathway between South to North transition (Kunze & Avelino, 2015).
43 "Projects in developing countries get support from ecovillages in industrial countries regarding the application of eco-technologies like solar panels. In return, ecovillages from developing countries teach traditional methods of natural buildings as well as spiritual and social knowledge about community building, which is often perceived to be missing in industrial countries" (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 23). The regional GEN networks thus aim to build bridges between developing countries and developed concepts, focusing on building new social structures with positive experiences from different cultures.
The American GEN networks (CASA and GENNA), the Asian networks (GENOA) are “networks that welcome projects that want to do this work on the ground and want to be part of this network, but there is no official membership process and no fee” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 24). GEN Europe has membership fees, and GEN Africa is in the process of establishing membership structures (Kunze & Avelino, 2015).
There are many overlapping groups within GEN CASA and GEN Africa: “For activists on the ground in Chile, South Africa or Senegal, it would make much more sense to work with Transition Towns, GEN, and permaculture together. “They are very frustrated that we are three different organizations.” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 29). Overlapping networks can be efficient for diffusing the ecovillage movement into to a broader movement regarding local sustainability. They share many different experiences which can be simpler for initiatives who are in between, or easier to reframe into solutions applicable for a wide range of contexts. On the other hand, the networks can lose focus or motivation about the individual projects, or lose the unique potential of each initiative. The small scale community aspect of ecovillages, may be less likely to find in the larger scale transition town movement, which many ecovillagers argue are core to their attempt of a sustainable lifestyle. In Europe, ECOLISE (European Network for Community-led Initiatives on Climate Change and Sustainability) is networking sustainable communities of permaculture, transition towns and ecovillages, and research and education, attempting to collect the initiatives (Kunze & Avelino, 2015).
GEN Europe
A formal membership procedure with membership fees is only used by GEN Europe at the moment. GEN Europe has a particular process of deciding on membership. “You have to have at least two years of implementation before you are fully recognized as a member of GEN, so we do not get those projects that just last six months” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 26). GEN Europe aim to build national networks around Europe. Robert Hall, GEN Europe president states:” [...] in Sweden there are 3 ecovillages that are members of GEN, but there are about 50 ecovillages in Sweden
44 that are not members. I have written a letter to all 50 of them. The national network (GEN Sweden) is able to reach out to many more of them. I’m sure that GEN Sweden has contact with at least 30 of the 50. It does have more contact that GEN Europe has. It is important to reach out and penetrate in to reach all those ecovillages. I am sincerely worried about those ecovillages that do not have connection with other ecovillages” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 8). Robert Hall, who states that GEN Europe maintains contact with ecovillages who are not members, claims that ecovillages in contact are much more ‘fresh and awake’ than the ones who do not keep contact. “Those people living in those ecovillage have mostly, or entirely contact with other mainstream people living in a mainstream context” (Hall Interview, 2016, p). When people socialise mainly with others living in an ecovillage, living in a certain lifestyle sustainably, they will talk more about sustainable solutions, and see other people act on these solutions, which is likely to motivate this behaviour further. These personal relationships are important for strengthening and diffusion the ecovillage concept. However, when they have limited contact with ‘mainstream people’, they are also more likely to have radical solutions that are incompatible with mainstream society. This can also create a certain ‘us and them’ dynamic, making diffusion outside the ‘ecovillage bubble’ less likely. Other challenges for GEN Europe is that they have limited resources, has to rely largely on volunteer gestures, as well as being involved with members who are busy with running their own place, networking nationally and regionally (Ibid). Some ecovillages also have jobs outside the ecovillage, so networking and being activist can be challenging in general, especially if you have a family. Hall also considers this to be a challenges, when people start families, and argues that youth often are more idealistic and activist (Hall Interview, 2016).
Other eco-networks
Robert Gilman one of the founders of GEN express that: “ecovillages must not become insular, exclusive, or sheltered but must interact with and integrate wholeheartedly with the surrounding culture” (Kunze & Avelino, 2015, p. 21). This express GEN’s focus and awareness of the relations to mainstream society. GEN is criticising western regimes by not taking responsibility for social issues in third world countries, and hereby taking a political stand in this debate and proposing GEN’s own methods as a solution. GEN launched refuGEN and offered to host refugees (GEN3 and TH2). Robert Hall expressed in the interview that most of the ecovillage members of GEN are very active in trying to change and influence society, especially in urban areas (Hall Interview, 2016). Some ecovillages are therefore trying to move closer to mainstream society. Initiatives such as the transition town movement, eco-cohousing and urban ecovillages can be seen as a way of mainstreaming the ecovillage concept. These initiatives are moving away from farm-like lifestyle and closer to city life. Whereas, ecovillages are based on bottom-up planning and small scale communities, eco-cities
45 are developed by top-down planning by local authorities and are likely to be profit-based (Avelino & Kunze, 2009). One of the disadvantages of this top-down planning is the lack of involvement of the local residents, which may exclude some of their values and/or interests. Here are the inputs of ecovillagers and their ideas about upscaling initiatives to urban areas. They are important in order to promote sustainable solutions.
Social innovation spread via GEN
Like mentioned above GEN has many projects, initiatives and collaborating organisations that are extending and diffusing the sustainable practices and GEN’s four dimensions of sustainability throughout a large network of different actors. One of their main purposes is to coordinate between different projects and the individual ecovillages while working as a meditator because their belief is that networking is the key towards strengthening all relations. Translating and upscaling innovations and technologies can be a problem because some of these innovations and technologies that the ecovillages develop, are situated in their local context and might only function in an ecovillage context and not in mainstream society. Also, they are not created on a market based level, making it difficult to fit into legislations and regulations (Smith & Seyfang, 2013a). Communicating social innovations and eco-technologies throughout society is another challenge for GEN who, despite their wide network, do not seem to have much influence on a policy making scale. Robert Hall express GEN’s limited level of influence on a higher political level, “These are the ones that really actually address people and get people to change their behaviour. Why is the European movement not more working with these things…?” (Hall Interview, 2016, p. 13).
Conclusion
GEN has many overall main strategies as a mediator for the ecovillage movement to make a transformative impact on society. First, it includes Identification of best practices from their solution library. Second, they educate and share knowledge of sustainable practices using different education programs such as the ecovillage design education (EDE), and ecovillage incubator. Third, they help new upstart projects to succeed using, for instance, the solution library and their own experience and expertise, as a big international network to support new ecovillages in their development. Also, they strengthen the local communities by influencing local institutional planning. In developing countries, they help local village communities with eco- technological solutions, while they gain information about natural traditional constructions in return. GEN makes it easier for ecovillages to share their experiences and innovations, but they face challenges integrating the solutions into the mainstream regime and out of a local context. As opposed to top-down environmental planning, ecovillages have the opportunity to consider the particular environmental and social
46 needs of the local context, while networks like GEN can facilitate conversations about best practices and new ideas.
Some of the main potentials of GEN is to create political contacts with international organisations such as the EU or UN, as well as communicating the ecovillage model to policy-makers and corporations by presenting the concept of ecovillages. Like Suderbyn, and other ecovillages in general, GEN use relational diffusion and face to face strategies to influence individuals and strengthen an informal relation network, while at the same time developing and experimenting with new sustainable solutions and innovations. These relations can be criticised and GEN’s lack of structure in managing its members without a specific membership agreement decrease their economic resources as an NGO and threaten their political sustainability. Therefore, their political informal organisational structure can be seen as problematic and their scepticism towards large scale systematic structures might prevent them from upscaling and translating their principles and innovations into greater society. Also, they have difficulties reaching out to all ecovillages, which might be due to a lack of resources, effort or interest from external ecovillages.
47 8 Discussion and Conclusion
In this section we will discuss the main findings of our report and conclude what we believe are the biggest contributions and challenges for the ecovillage movement to diffuse their attempts of sustainable living. Ecovillages are a pathway on the road to realising sustainable solutions and alternative structures by living in a community independently from energy systems and general consumer habits. They are able to experiment with new ways of living, which can be adopted by higher institutions levels. The learning processes promoted by their social communities is a key to discovering sustainable ways of living. They also place large emphasis on community living, which promotes a sustainable lifestyle involving close living, making it more likely that individuals will share resources, such as housing, food and clothes, while limiting the use of resources. According to our experience in Suderbyn Ecovillage, the fact that they socialise with many like minded individuals, in effort to make sustainable solutions, will motivate a person to act upon and experiment with alternative environmentally sustainable ways of living and behaving.
As opposed to higher institutions and policymakers trying to implement solutions, ecovillages do not have many restraints, because they are not a bureaucratic political organisation dependant on many different decision levels and investment interests. They can collectively gather with other individuals who have the same agenda and are not influenced by lobbyists, such as oil companies, which means they can implement solutions without many restraints by experimenting and deciding on their own initiatives. Opposed to bigger institutions, they are operating on a much smaller scale. While government and municipalities are able to implement large scale solutions with many decision making processes and a long timeframe. Instead of just setting a goal, ecovillages have concrete strategies with immediate effect, using relatively small amount of resources, making these initiatives and environmental solutions happen without being dependent on a lot of economic resources. Here, ecovillages can inspire the municipality and local government with a certain technology or practise to be implemented on a smaller scale, which can possible be translated to another context, or expanded to a wider scale. When creating new projects and technologies there are often a lot of legislations getting in the way of implementing new alternative technologies, because these are vastly different from normal constructions. Ecovillages are hereby working with pilot projects and evolving ‘know how’ in dialogue with the local municipalities, to facilitate new alternative technologies. This can be very important because they help identify gaps in the legislation and inspire governments, as well as identify unnecessary obstacles hindering alternative initiatives and environmental solutions. A challenge here can be that practises which may work in an ecovillage may not be applicable in other contexts. For example, if others do not have the
48 same degree of community or if they do not live as close to nature as ecovillages normally do, they may not be able to implement solutions appropriate for an urban context.
On a wider scale, community and networking, encourage ecovillages to share their solutions with others, as well as motivate and gain new knowledge on how to further develop their projects. Mediating organisations, such as GEN, are important actors in identifying the best practises of ecovillages and sharing them internally among ecovillages, in order to help them develop and strengthening their ideas, as well as spreading awareness to the outside world about solutions and practises that may be applicable in other contexts outside ecovillages, both on local and global scale. One example where GEN has been able to introduce sustainable solution, in a different context than originally intended, is illustrated in the cooperation between traditional villages and ecovillages in industrial societies. Through internal knowledge sharing, traditional villages can help ecovillages in industrial societies with practises such as community building and relationship with nature, as well as concrete practical knowledge, which communities in western societies have little knowledge about. Meanwhile, western ecovillages can help these traditional villages and tribes by implementing modern technology and teaching entrepreneurial knowledge.
One of the challenges in diffusing the ecovillage practise, is that many ecovillages are founded on an ideology that is against economic growth and consumerist society. The dominant paradigm in industrialised countries is that economic growth is vital for our society. This is a culture clash when most people in mainstream society cannot make a compromise. Ecovillage lifestyles being too radical compared to the mainstream regime are often hard to implement, because they will be looked at as being too alternative. Ecovillages represent a certain lifestyle and ideology and the clash between these two can potentially hinder the mainstream society in acknowledging ecovillages. Also, if ecovillages try too hard to conform into a mainstream context, they would not be able to provide the unique alternative solutions. Therefore, it is important that ecovillages do not isolate themselves in a bubble, limiting their translational potential.
Other challenges that can occur for established ecovillages is the loss of engagement in development of environmental initiatives. This can happen if the ecovillage community stops progressing after their start-up phase and settle on a stable structure that does not promote social activity. When an ecovillage is well established, community members can get demotivated in keeping the activity level high and thereby work less for the community.
49 One of the methods proposed by the president of GEN-Europe, Robert Hall, to avoid the loss of motivation, is to increase networking with other communities. GEN is able to function as a mediator If they notice lack of communication between ecovillages, thereby restoring the link and allowing information to flow once more.
Ecovillages are trying to develop micro-level solutions and they operate for individual and community initiatives. They are commonly operating on a local scale, as many ecovillages choose not to work globally, because abstract and general solutions can be more difficult to relate to. For many ecovillages, it is better to focus on the local municipality and work with local actors. Global and national governments and organisations, such as the EU and UN do not really have much potential to implement local solutions. Ecovillages can, with great benefit, focus on cooperating with local actors instead of big international actors to gain influence, because their main advantage in diffusing their methods are locally embedded. At the same time, they need a global voice such as GEN to distribute information and knowledge. Additionally, GEN can be utilised to gain awareness and promote their practises into the larger system. Although, this is only if an ecovillage desires to spread their ideals.
9 Further Research
Our report has been focusing on examining general characteristics of the ecovillage movement and how they attempt to spread their knowledge, with a point of departure in Suderbyn Ecovillage as an example of how an ecovillage can function. We have attempted to limit our focus, but there are several ways that other researchers can examine the ecovillage movement further. From a theoretical point of view, we have included elements of strategic niche management theory, but have not examined the diffusion mechanisms of expectations very closely, choosing to mainly focus on learning processes and networking. We have not been able to find examples of how expectation management can have an important effect on how the ecovillage messages are diffused, and we have not directly sought out to find patterns of expectations, for instance by content analysis of GEN and ecovillages in general or asked directly in our interviews. If we had such an approach, we might have been able to investigate if managing expectations, a certain way may have had a significant impact. Our research has also identified general patterns of diffusion of the ecovillage movement, but have not made a concrete conclusion of how successful their attempt is since we believe it is based on the specific interactions with other actors and the results of their projects, which could further be examined by other researchers. Suggestions of how the movement could diffuse more effectively, such as how to frame their message and which actors to cooperate with would be useful for ecovillages to improve their strategies. In
50 general, a detailed analysis of interactions between ecovillages, municipalities, national governments and other institutions can provide knowledge on how ecovillage strategies can be implemented in a legislative context. Our analysis did not include a detailed examination of the eco-technologies of Suderbyn or a closer examination of the typical technologies used particularly in the global ecovillage network, which could be analysed further with diffusion theory as a framework. While we focused on the GEN region of Europe, differences between ecovillages in regions of the world could also be further examined with a focus on regional GEN networks in Latin America, North America and/or Oceania. We have already identified an attempt to complement solutions from ecovillages in developed countries versus traditional ecovillages of Latin America and Africa, but these patterns could be examined much more detailed, including an explanation for how these communities function differently and how they interact. Further, we have identified several other similar networks to GEN, such as ECOLISE and the transition town movement, which we have briefly touched upon, but could be analysed further to identify how they may have diffused similarly or differently, which can be beneficial when suggesting how GEN might have gotten more or less influence if their diffusion processes were different.
Another way to find out how ecovillages can diffuse their practices further, could be to interview current residents in Suderbyn and try and gain knowledge about their personal motivation and reason to why they joined an ecovillage in the first place. This would be another and more individual based focus on the diffusional aspects of eco villages, with the potential towards creating solutions for ecovillages to attract more people by the strategy of self advertising to gain awareness through development and growth in size of their communities.
51 10 Literature
AEIDL, (2013). Local communities leading the way to a low-carbon society. Europe in Transition.
Ajzen, I. (2011). Theory of planned behaviour. Handb Theor Soc Psychol Vol One, 1(2011), 438.
Bicyclekitchen.com. (2016). Bicycle Kitchen, Los Angeles. [online] Available at: http://www.bicyclekitchen.com/index.php?/about-this-site/ [Accessed 11 Dec. 2016].
Biesenthal, C. and Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), pp.1291-1308.
Boyer, R. (2015). Grassroots innovation for urban sustainability: comparing the diffusion pathways of three ecovillage projects. Environment and Planning A, 47(2), pp.320-337.
Brinkmann, S.Tanggaard Pedersen, L. and Flyvbjerg, B. (2010). Fem misforståelser om casestudiet, Feltarbejde. Kvalitative metoder. 1st ed. Kbh.: Hans Reitzel, pp.464-469 & pp.59-72.
Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24(8), pp.875-902.
Christian D L. (2013) Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional Communities (New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC)
Connecting Communities for a Sustainable World. (2016). Global Ecovillage Network | "Connecting Communities for a Sustainable World". [online] Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016].
Corfee-Morlot, Jan, Lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Michael G.
Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. (2016). About Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. [online] Available at: http://www.dancingrabbit.org/about-dancing-rabbit-ecovillage/ [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
52 Donovan, Ian Cochran, Alexis Robert and Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale (2009), “Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance”, OECD Environmental Working Papers N° 14, 2009, OECD publishing, ©OECD.
Earthship Biotecture. (2016). Global Model Earthship - Earthship Biotecture. [online] Available at: http://earthship.com/blogs/earthship-designs/global-model-earthship/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Ecovillage incubator. (2016). Ecovillage INCUBATOR | Global Ecovillage Network. [online] Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/de/node/2482 [Accessed 11 Dec. 2016].
Ecovillageithaca.org. (2016). For Sale in TREE – 306 # 3B Rachel Carson Way | Ecovillage at Ithaca. [online] Available at: http://ecovillageithaca.org/live/rentals-sales/for-sale-in-tree-306-3b-rachel-carson-way/ [Accessed 02 Dec. 2016].
Fellowship for Intentional Community. (2016). A Structured Community('s) (of like-minded people) - Fellowship for Intentional Community. [online] Available at: http://www.ic.org/directory/a-structured- communitys-of-like-minded-people/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Ford, L. (2003). Challenging Global Environmental Governance: Social Movement Agency and Global Civil Society. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), pp.120-134.
Gaia School. (2016). Deep Ecology & Mindful Gardening 19Feb-5 March. [online] Available at: https://gaiaschoolasia.com/gaia-school-asia-ashram/deep-ecology-mindful-gardening/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
García-López, G. (2013). Scaling up from the grassroots and the top down: The impacts of multi-level governance on community forestry in Durango, Mexico. International Journal of the Commons, 7(2), p.406.
Gertler, M. and Wolfe, D. (2004). Local social knowledge management: Community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises. Futures, 36(1), pp.45-65.
53 GEN Annual Report, (2015). GEN Europe Activities Report. [online] GEN International Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/en/page/documents-reports [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
GEN Dimensions of Sustainability (2016) | Global Ecovillage Network. [online] Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/en/article/dimensions-sustainability-0 [Accessed 04 Dec. 2016].
GEN UN Advocacy(2016). UN Advocacy | Global Ecovillage Network. [online] Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/en/page/un-advocacy [Accessed 13 Dec. 2016].
GEN Europe (2016). GEN Global Ecovillage Network Europe: What is an ecovillage. [online] Available at: http://gen-europe.org/home/what-is-an-ecovillage/index.htm [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
GEN Education (2016). Education | Global Ecovillage Network. [online] Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/en/page/education [Accessed 20 Dec. 2016].
GEN Funded projects (2016). Funded projects | Global Ecovillage Network. [online] Available at: http://ecovillage.org/en/page/funded-projects [Accessed 09 Dec. 2016].
GEN Solution Library. (2016). Solution library | Traditional and innovative solutions for sustainable living. [online] Available at: http://solution.ecovillage.org/ [Accessed 11 Dec. 2016].
GEN VMA (2016) ‘Vision, Mission, Goals, Main Activities & Strategic Goals And Targets’ Available at: http://gen.ecovillage.org/sites/default/files/files/gen_international_vision_mission_goals_main_activies_st rategic_goals_and_targets.pdf
Hamson, N. (2013). Why Innovation Doesn’t Work: And What To Do About It. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 9(1).
Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2013). Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.868-880.
Jackson, R. (2004). The Ecovillage Movement. Permaculture Magazine, (#40).
54 Jackson, H. and Jackson, R. (2004). Global Ecovillage Network History 1990-2004. [online] Available at: http://gaia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/HJackson_GEN-History.pdf [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Kim, M. (2016). The Influences of an Eco-village towards Urban Sustainability: A case study of two Swedish eco-villages. Masters Thesis. Uppsala Universitet.
Kunze, Iris and Avelino, Flor (2015): Social Innovation and the Global Ecovillage Network. Research Report, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169
Laecovillage.org. (2016). About : Los Angeles Eco-Village. [online] Available at: http://laecovillage.org/home/about-2/ [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Lambing, J. (2014). Ökologische Lebensstil-Avantgarden - Eine kurze Analyse sozialökologischer Gemeinschaften und ihres Innovationspotenzials. E. B. C. f. S. Energy. Karben: 168.
Loft, L., Mann, C. and Hansjürgens, B. (2015). Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosystem Services, 16, pp.150-157.
Martin, C. and Upham, P. (2016). Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, pp.204-213.
Newig, J. and Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective?. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), pp.197-214.
Peters, Michael D, Shane Fudge, and Tim Jackson (2010) ‘Low Carbon Communities’ 1st ed. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar refuGEN. (2016). GEN Global Ecovillage Network Europe: refuGEN. [online] Available at: http://gen- europe.org/activities/news/news-detail/artikel/refugen/index.htm [Accessed 02 Dec. 2016].
Regenvillages.com. (2016). RegenVillages. [online] Available at: http://www.regenvillages.com/# [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
55 Relearn. (2016). RELEARN's projects. Suderbyn Ecovillage [online] Available at: http://www.suderbyn.se/relearns-projects.html [Accessed 18 Dec. 2016].
Seyfang, G., and N. Longhurst 2013a. “Growing Green Money? Mapping Grassroots Currencies for Sustainable Development.” Ecological Economics 86: 65–77.
Seyfang, G., and N. Longhurst. 2013b. “Desperately Seeking Niches: Grassroots Innovations and Niche Development in the Community Currency Field.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 881–891.
Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), pp.584-603
Seyfang, G. and Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), pp.381-400.
Seyfang, G. and Longhurst, N. (2016). What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(1), pp.1-23.
Schloss-tonndorf.de. (2016). Gemeinschaft auf Schloss Tonndorf - Startseite. [online] Available at: http://www.schloss-tonndorf.de [Accessed 12 Dec. 2016].
Socialphobia.org. (2016). Social Anxiety: Symptoms & Treatments | Social Anxiety Association. [online] Available at: http://socialphobia.org/social-anxiety-symptoms-and-treatment [Accessed 17 Dec. 2016].
Smith, A., Fressoli, M. and Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp.114-124.
Strang, D. and Soule, S. (1998). Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), pp.265-290.
56 Suderbyn ecovillage. (2016). Ecovillage. [online] Available at: http://www.suderbyn.se/ecovillage.html [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Svanholm.dk. (2016). Svanholm: Fællesøkonomi. [online] Available at: http://www.svanholm.dk/index.php?id=18 [Accessed 16 Dec. 2016].
Taggart, Jonathan (2009). Inside an ecovillage. bNet - CBS Interactive Business Network. Retrieved on: 2011- 08-11
Vegoa.org. (2016). Vegoa – Sustainable & Ethical Living. [online] Available at: http://vegoa.org [Accessed 19 Dec. 2016].
Vidickiene, D. (2013). Living in harmony. 1st ed. Vilnius: BMK Leidykla.
Würfel, M. (2013). Eurotopia Directory 2014. 1st ed. Beetzendorf: Einfach Gut Leben.
ZEGG. (2016). ZEGG Community - Intentional Community ZEGG. [online] Zegg.de. Available at: http://www.zegg.de/en/community/zegg-community.html [Accessed 14 Dec. 2016].
57