Communities creating climate solutions for a healthy planet and healthy people

The paper frames climate change as both a profound global health threat and an opportunity to advance public health through mitigation. WHO and Lancet reports highlight substantial projected health burdens (e.g., additional deaths from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, heat stress). The world is currently off track to meet 1.5–2°C targets. Against this backdrop, the authors argue that local, community-led initiatives—particularly ecovillages—are already implementing climate solutions that can deliver health co-benefits. The study investigates, via literature review and a case study of an ecovillage, how climate action intersects with health. Research questions: (1) What climate practices are implemented in the ecovillage? (2) What are the health implications of these climate practices for the ecovillage residents?

Determinants of health: Health is influenced by a complex system of factors including biological determinants, individual lifestyle, social/community networks, living and working conditions, and broader socio-economic, cultural, and environmental contexts. Climate change exacerbates disease burdens through polluted air, unsafe water, heat waves, and other stressors. IPCC WGII identifies three overarching pathways for climate-health impacts: direct (extreme weather like heat, drought, heavy rain), indirect via environmental/ecosystem change (vectors, water-borne disease, air pollution), and indirect via societal systems (occupational impacts, undernutrition, mental stress). The magnitude of impacts depends on exposure, vulnerability, and socio-economic/geographic factors. Co-benefits focus areas: The literature consolidates three major climate action tracks with significant health co-benefits: air quality, urban planning (including transport and infrastructure), and food systems. - Air quality: Reducing GHGs and co-pollutants, improving energy efficiency, enforcing air quality policies, and transitioning to affordable clean energy yield major health gains. Analyses for Europe suggest that enforcing current air policies could reduce life years lost from PM2.5 exposure by 78% (2005–2050) and, with ambitious mitigation, cut ozone-related premature deaths from ~48,000 (2000) to ~7,500 (2050). Estimated health benefits could reach €62 billion/year by 2050. Household air pollution remains a major concern, responsible for ~7.9% of global mortality. Studies indicate Paris-aligned renewable energy transitions could prevent 71,000–99,000 premature deaths annually by 2030. Health co-benefits can offset or exceed mitigation costs at the societal level. - Urban planning: Investments in clean, affordable public transport, shared clean mobility, and active transport improve air quality and physical activity, reducing risks of heart disease, cancer, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, mental illness, lung diseases, and traffic injuries/deaths. Green and blue spaces mitigate heat impacts and enhance mental well-being and cognition; exposure to nature improves attention, working memory, mood, and reduces stress. Buildings account for substantial energy use and CO2 emissions; green buildings improve indoor air quality, reduce heat island effects, and enhance comfort and equity. Evidence shows certified energy-efficient buildings saved $25.7 billion in energy costs and reduced 33 Mt CO2 (2006–2016) across multiple countries; the multiple benefits can equal or exceed costs. - Food systems: Food, agriculture, and land use contribute ~24% of global GHG emissions. Shifting to sustainable, plant-rich diets with moderate amounts of GHG-intensive animal products can reduce global mortality by 6–10% and GHGs by 29–70%, particularly in high-income countries. Reduced red meat intake lowers cardiovascular and colorectal cancer risks; higher fruit/vegetable intake reduces risks for cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, and cancer. Sustainable practices like agroforestry and permaculture provide mitigation/adaptation benefits, improve biodiversity, livelihoods, nutrition, and equity. Economic benefits of improved diets are estimated at $1–31 trillion by 2050 (0.4–13% of global GDP). Community-led initiatives: Ecovillages are highlighted as living laboratories implementing renewable energy, organic agriculture, permaculture, and shared-resource models. Evidence suggests ecovillages can reduce ecological footprints by roughly 50% compared with regional averages, offering practical knowledge for climate solutions while promoting healthy, democratic, ecological communities.

Exploratory qualitative single case study of the Sulzbrunn ecovillage (southern Germany), conducted April 3–10, 2022. Selection criteria for the case: membership in the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), existence ≥5 years, ≥30 residents, and a focus on environmental sustainability. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with adult residents explored sustainability practices, community engagement, living conditions, and perceived health impacts. Interviews were conducted in person (individually or in pairs) and by phone, recorded with participant consent. The researcher also engaged in informal observations and activities during a brief residency to gain contextual insights. The study aims to capture residents’ self-reported health perceptions linked to climate practices rather than quantitatively measuring health indicators.

Implemented climate practices in Sulzbrunn: - Sustainable agriculture and food systems: On-site production in greenhouses, fields, and gardens following Demeter and permaculture principles; integrated animal husbandry (sheep, pigs, horses, rabbits) for grazing, fertilizer, and occasional meat (based on household demand). Humane slaughter practices. A village store distributes self-produced foods and bulk-purchased goods; social farming model with monthly contributions; emphasis on package-free distribution; recovery of surplus organic produce to reduce waste. Residents reportedly source 80–90% of their food from the village store; organic foods are the norm. - Renewable energy and efficiency: Solar generation supplies up to ~80% of electricity on sunny days; purchased electricity is from renewable sources, aiming for 100% independence from fossil fuels for electricity supply. Residents monitor production via an app and shift usage accordingly. On-site energy also powers e-bikes and a children’s solar station. Building renovations include organic insulation (e.g., softwood panels) to reduce energy use. - Resource circularity and sharing: Strict waste separation; reuse of materials (wood, metal); on-site wastewater treatment; rainwater harvesting for irrigation; prioritization of regional sourcing. Shared kitchens within houses and community-scale cooking conserve energy and time. Extensive sharing models include car sharing (reducing private car ownership), e-bike sharing, and shared tools/workshops (wood/metal). Shared living spaces with a guideline that no individual occupies more than ~40 m². Perceived health co-benefits among residents: - Physical activity: Regular gardening, tending animals, walking, cycling, and construction work increase daily physical activity; residents report feeling fitter and healthier. - Diet quality: Predominantly organic, local, pesticide-free foods with high vegetable intake and low meat consumption (often from own livestock) support healthier diets; easy access via nearby village store reinforces healthy choices. - Mental health and social well-being: Strong connection to nature (green spaces, animals, soil) fosters satisfaction, reduced stress, and improved mood. Community cohesion, teamwork, and shared responsibilities enhance social support and well-being. Structured daily life and diverse tasks benefit mental fitness; children reportedly thrive through outdoor play, peer interaction, and experiential learning, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, climate practices reshape the environment to make health-promoting behaviors easy and often unconscious, yielding perceived gains in physical, mental, and social health.

Findings illustrate a reciprocal relationship between climate action and health within a community context. A holistic approach—spanning sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, resource sharing, active mobility, and access to healthy foods—supports both environmental sustainability and residents’ well-being. Empowerment and local stewardship enable residents to shape their environment, reinforcing responsibility toward nature and animals and potentially motivating sustained climate practices. Beyond the case, broader literature and policy (e.g., IPCC) emphasize that democratized, community-level engagement is essential to accelerate climate action and realize co-benefits. The study underscores that community-driven initiatives can complement top-down policies by prototyping practical, scalable solutions that improve health equity and resilience.

The study contributes evidence that local climate practices implemented in an ecovillage are associated with perceived health co-benefits, particularly increased physical activity, healthier diets, and improved mental health. It answers the research questions by documenting specific practices (sustainable agriculture and food provisioning, renewable energy use, resource sharing/circularity) and residents’ perceived health impacts. At the global level, climate policies targeting clean air, sustainable urbanization, and healthier food systems can simultaneously mitigate emissions and strengthen public health, with benefits likely exceeding costs. Ecovillages exemplify how community-driven, context-adapted solutions deliver tangible outcomes and serve as hubs of experiential knowledge. The authors advocate greater recognition and integration of such grassroots initiatives within governance frameworks. Future research should expand to more ecovillages and contexts to assess transferability, conditions for implementation, and measurable health outcomes.

Key limitations include a small, single-case sample that restricts generalizability; reliance on self-reported (qualitative) health perceptions without quantitative health metrics; and variability across ecovillages in demographics and practices, which may lead to different health implications. The study’s brief fieldwork window further limits depth. There is also a potential gap between the theoretical literature and observed practices, and sectoral differences (e.g., urban planning, construction, agriculture) may require distinct methods. Future studies should use larger, more diverse samples, include quantitative health indicators, and examine conditions that enable broader adoption and scaling to the general population.