Ecovillages: More Than Green Houses - Living Laboratories for the Future?

Article by Zwaan Hoeksma on the bachelor thesis of Thom de Gelder.

Imagine: you live in a place where the bond with nature is central, where decisions are made in joint consultation, and where experiments are conducted with ways to live more sustainably. This is essentially what an ecovillage is. But make no mistake, behind this idyllic image lies a surprising diversity, especially when it comes to how these communities shape their living space.

At the climate march in Amsterdam in November 2023, no fewer than 85,000 people showed up (NOS, 2023), a clear signal that concerns about the climate crisis are widespread (Hickman et al., 2021). While governments struggle to achieve climate goals (Brown et al., 2019; CBS, 2023), various sustainable initiatives are emerging from society. Ecovillages are perhaps the most radical form surrounding the pursuit of sustainability. Other local initiatives try to make the current way of life more sustainable in some areas. While in ecovillages, the way of life is arranged from a sustainability perspective in all areas. They function as true 'living laboratories', places where new sustainability techniques and social structures are tested in practice (Dias, 2017; Kunze, 2012).

What makes these laboratories so fascinating is their enormous diversity. Some ecovillages are deeply rooted in an ideological conviction and strive to function as much as possible outside the current capitalist system. They may embrace a more ecocentric vision (Wagner, 2012; Ergas, 2012), where nature is valued for its own sake (Thompson & Barton, 1994). While other ecovillages are trying to realize a sustainable life within existing social structures.

These diverse visions are also clearly reflected in the way ecovillages approach their spatial planning. After all, the spatial organization of a society reflects the values and interests that people consider important. Where churches often occupy a central place in traditional cities (Harvey, 2020), in ecovillages you see an arrangement that emphasizes the relationship between humans and nature (Meijering, 2012). In his thesis Thom compares the spatial planning approach of three different ecovillages.

Figure 1: Ecovillage Klein Oers. (Source: GEN Nederland)

Take, for example, Ecodorp Klein Oers in Veldhoven. Here, a clear spatial planning plan has been developed, comparable to the planning of a conventional residential area. Initiator Cynthia inventoried how other ecovillages approached certain matters. She then involved future residents and an architect to arrive at a concrete plan through workshops. This planned approach may be more in line with the way municipalities are used to working, which made cooperation with the municipality in Klein Oers relatively smooth. Their vision on human-nature relationships? That is one in which nature is seen as vulnerable and must be protected, which is reflected in the use of bio-based materials and the creation of ample space for nature.

Figure 2: Ecovillage Ppauw. (Source: Ppauw)

Ecodorp Ppauw in Wageningen on the other hand, is formed through a completely different approach. Here, spatial planning is much more organic. Individual initiatives form the basis, and the community and nature respond to these spatial developments. It is a process of 'trial and error'. Initiator Erik emphasizes the importance of an open and free landscape, comparable to the constant change in nature. Their inclusive view of nature (Buijs, 2009), in which humans and nature are seen as one, leads to spatial planning that is not rigidly fixed. Because the land was squatted, the municipality is not involved in the spatial planning here.

Figure 3&4: Ecovillage Bergen (Source: GEN Nederland (up) & Ecodorpen Fonds (down))

Between these two extremes lies Ecodorp Bergen in North Holland. They also work quite planfully, but in a more incremental way. Spatial issues are tackled step by step, often arising from a concrete wish or problem of a resident. Sociocracy plays an important role here. In sociocratic circles, responsible for various sub-areas, plans are formed and implemented. Important decisions are taken based on consent decision-making (Christian, 2013), where a solution is sought with which everyone can agree (Christian, 2013). Although Ecodorp Bergen also has a holistic and ecocentric vision on human-nature relationships, this translates less directly into an all-encompassing spatial plan, but more as a framework for consideration in concrete projects. Cooperation with the municipality was difficult in the past, but seems to have improved recently.

Thom wants to elaborate on sociocracy. He says: “Sociocracy is indeed a decision-making system that is often applied within ecovillages. It emphasizes equality and efficiency. By working with circles and consent decision-making, everyone is involved in the decision-making process. This aligns well with the sense of community that prevails in many ecovillages.”

The diverse approaches to spatial planning in ecovillages show that there is no single perfect way to live together sustainably. They show that the vision on the relationship between humans and nature plays a fundamental role in how the living environment is designed. Ecovillages are therefore valuable 'living laboratories' (Kunze, 2012) that can inspire us to think about alternative ways of living and spatial development, where humans are no longer central, but are part of a larger, natural whole (Schultz, 2002). The insights gained here can also be applied on a larger scale in society (Singh et al., 2019), and we as spatial planners and designers can play an important role in this, according to Thom! In this way, experiments in these green oases could have a broader impact on the transition to a more sustainable society in the future.

References

Brown, C., Alexander, P., Arneth, A., Holman, I., & Rounsevell, M. (2019). Achievement of Paris climate goals unlikely due to time lags in the land system. Nature Climate Change, 9(3), 203-208.

Buijs, A. E. (2009). Lay people's images of nature: Comprehensive frameworks of values, beliefs, and value orientations. Society and Natural Resources, 22(5), 417-432.

CBS. (2023). Monitor Duurzame Ontwikkelingsdoelen 2023. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.

Christian, D.L. (2013). Transparency, equivalence and effectiveness. How sociocracy can help communities, part 1. Communities, 160, 59-63.

Dias, M. A., Loureiro, C. F. B., Chevitarese, L., & SOUZA, C. D. M. E. (2017). The meaning and relevance of ecovillages for the construction of sustainable societal alternatives. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20, 79-96.

Ergas, C. (2010). A model of sustainable living: Collective identity in an urban ecovillage. Organization & environment, 23(1), 32-54.

Harvey, D. (2020). The condition of postmodernity. In The New social theory reader (pp. 235-242). Routledge.

Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, S., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., ... & van Susteren, L. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863-e873.

Kunze, I. (2012). Ecovillages as places of social innovation: A case study analysis. RCC Perspectives, (8), 43-56.

Meijering, L. (2012). Ideals and practices of European ecovillages. RCC Perspectives, (8), 31-42.

NOS. (2023, 12 november). Tienduizenden betogers op klimaatmars in Amsterdam. 

Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 61-78). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Singh, B., Keitsch, M. M., & Shrestha, M. (2019). Scaling up sustainability: Concepts and practices of the ecovillage approach. Sustainable Development, 27(2), 237-244.

Thompson, S. C. G., & Barton, M. A. (1994). Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), 149–157.

Wagner, F. (2012). Ecovillage research review. RCC perspectives, (8), 81-94.