Eco-building for eco-living, an essential step to face climate change

The paper posits that eco-building and eco-living are essential to confronting climate change, with architectural design impacting both human and natural systems. While social sciences often study ecovillages and intentional communities, the built environment is frequently overlooked; an architectural history perspective can reveal how ecovillages act at multiple scales—from dwellings to territories, spatial to social organization, and local to global networks—embodying bioregional, site-specific, and sustainable daily practices. The theoretical framing crosses Patrick Geddes’ Place–Work–Folk concept with Sim van der Ryn’s ‘empathic design,’ asking whether ecovillages can be considered laboratories of an empathic architecture that addresses climate change by reconnecting to territorial living systems without disconnecting from global networks. Two assumptions guide the study: (1) ecovillages build eco-housing consistent with bioregional, site-specific approaches that support resilient lifestyles; (2) they share commitments globally through networks, making their architectural production relevant at global and digital scales. The paper aims to provide insight for social scientists and architects into ecovillages as ‘total architectural’ endeavors and experimental methods for ecological sustainability.

The paper notes the scarcity of literature directly addressing the relationship between ecovillages and architecture; only one work specifically focuses on the subject. It emphasizes the need for pluri-disciplinarity to understand communal worlds, citing alternative architects like Sim van der Ryn since the 1970s who developed ecological design and eco-building methodologies relevant to communities. To connect practices with theory, the paper draws on regional planning and bioregionalism (McGinnis, Sale), voluntary simplicity/degrowth (Latouche), sociological perspectives on work and social life in ecovillages (Lallement), histories of environmental awareness and communitarian movements (Audier; Hayden), foundational myths of rural ideal versus industrial disruption (Marx; Thoreau; Ghorra-Gobin), and deep ecology (Naess; Callicott). It highlights research gaps: limited study of the communitarian movement’s architectural capacity to support better living; lack of analysis of continuity between 1960s communities and today’s ecovillages; insufficient documentation of hybrid, self-built, vernacular, and rural architectures that contribute to a minor history of architecture and local alternative resources.

Main methodological focus: cross-disciplinary historiography anchored in contemporary architectural history, complemented by sociology, economics, history of ideas, and philosophy to add depth and critical analysis. A historical data collection table (timeline from 16th to 21st centuries) cross-referenced milestones across sociopolitical history, intentional communities, architecture and utopias, ecology, and technical progress to reveal concordances between utopia and ecology. Historical sequence and geography: The study situates 1965–2015 to contextualize the emergence of ecovillages in the 1990s and their ecological stakes. The geographic perimeter is USA/Europe, divided into two subsequences: 1965–1995 (USA/Canada) and 1995–2015 (Europe: Italy, Denmark, France), reflecting the shift of momentum from North America to Europe (supported by Gaia Trust). Field sample: Eight sites founded between 1967 and 2011: Lama Foundation (NM, USA), Arcosanti (AZ, USA), Earthship (NM, USA), La Cité écologique (Ham-Nord, Canada; Colebrook, USA), Torri Superiore (Italy), Hallingelille (Denmark), Le Hameau des Buis (France). Selection criteria: (1) active communities engaged with ecological issues and open to visitors/testimony; (2) longevity to enable comparative analysis across experiences and periods; (3) ecological architectural commitment (new construction, rehabilitation of sites/territories). Identification via internet and literature; contacts by email/VC/phone. Site visits in 2017–2018; 21 semi-structured interviews (open questionnaire adapted to roles/availability). Data processing: Construction of analysis/synthesis grids from websites, onsite checks, interviews; triangulation with scientific and literary references to support a multidisciplinary, forward-looking analysis. The sample is diverse but not statistically representative; quantitative data on communities are partial and hard to verify due to frequent project turnover. Data and materials are available via the author and open archives.

- Buildings/construction account for over 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions in Western societies; sector energy use and CO2 emissions rose in 2021 above pre-pandemic levels, and the sector is not on track for 2050 decarbonization (UNEP 2022 Global Status Report). - Ecovillages operationalize ecological and empathic design across interlocking scales (from building to territory), aligning with Geddes’ Place–Work–Folk and Van der Ryn’s principles (collaboration spaces; climate-responsive design; educational environments; low-impact construction; inclusive participation). - Architectural approaches emphasize bioregional, site-specific design; bio-sourced and recycled/reused materials; adaptability/flexibility; retrofitting/restoration (e.g., Torri Superiore’s traditional restoration) and multifunctional spaces. - Resource/energy outcomes (examples): • Dancing Rabbit (Missouri, USA): resource consumption <10% of average American levels. • Ithaca Ecovillage (New York, USA): residents consume 35% less energy than local averages. • Sólheimar (Iceland): recycling habits achieved a 65% reduction (village-level household metric reported). • Dry toilets commonly reduce household water consumption by 25–30%. • La Cité écologique (Quebec, Canada): increased food self-sufficiency from ~35% (2017) to ~80% (2023) for ~150 inhabitants; extensive use of solar PV while remaining grid-connected. - Settlement scale/typology: small-village scale (~5 to ~150 inhabitants) supports social cohesion, governance, and low-impact spatial integration; many focus on permaculture, forestry, and diversified small-scale agriculture. - Despite qualitative strengths, ecovillages occupy a small share of land/population; many projects fail (approx. 90% failure rate), making global quantitative impact and precise population estimates difficult. Meanwhile, ~70% of world population projected to live in cities by 2050, and cities account for ~70% of GHG emissions. - Digital networking (GEN, FIC) and online education/summits have scaled knowledge sharing, strengthening global cohesion and the movement’s educational role.

The findings support the hypothesis that ecovillages function as laboratories of empathic, ecological architecture that integrate local bioregional contexts with global connections. By enacting Geddes’ Place–Work–Folk triad and Van der Ryn’s empathic design principles, ecovillages realize ‘total architecture’ whose nested scales (from building to territory and network) enhance resilience, reduce environmental impacts, and embed social governance and education. Architectural choices—bio-sourced materials, retrofits, bioclimatic design, flexibility—translate into measurable reductions in energy, water, and resource use in several cases, while qualitative benefits include strengthened community cohesion and educational outreach. Digital platforms extend their influence beyond locality, enabling knowledge circulation and collaborative learning, particularly evident during the GEN Online Ecovillage Summit. However, the movement’s quantitative impact remains limited due to small scale, high project turnover, and data scarcity. Even so, ecovillages’ qualitative contributions have salience for architectural and urban practice: they provide actionable examples of low-impact living, pragmatic experimentation, and place-based design that can inform broader decarbonization and adaptation strategies. The paper suggests reciprocal engagement between researchers and communities (e.g., living archives of testimonies, shared methodologies) to balance action with reflection and strengthen evidence for policy and practice.

Ecovillages should be viewed as architectural laboratories and inspiring examples—rather than standardized models—addressing climate change through: (1) ecological methods and construction choices grounded in pragmatic, sustainable practices; (2) reconnection with local territories and living systems consistent with bioregional context; and (3) networked architectures that facilitate learning and knowledge exchange. While their current quantitative impact is limited, their intrinsic, qualitative value can meaningfully guide architectural and urban responses to global warming. The paper calls for revaluing the alternative histories and practices of communitarian self-builders and for deeper collaboration with professional architects to co-develop empathic architectures aligned with planetary needs. Future directions include building living, global archives of ecovillager testimonies, enhancing cross-disciplinary research within networks like GEN Research, and translating ecovillage insights into adaptable, context-sensitive practices for broader settings without imposing standardizing ‘models.’

- Quantification challenges: limited, partial, and hard-to-verify numerical data due to rapid turnover of projects and small population base; difficulty estimating global adoption and impact. - Representativeness: the eight-site sample is diverse but not statistically representative; findings are primarily qualitative and case-based. - Scale constraints: ecovillages’ preference for small scales and high failure rates (~90%) limit aggregate quantitative influence. - Sectoral/systemic barriers: entrenched economic interests and policy orientations toward growth complicate broader uptake; the building sector remains off-track for 2050 decarbonization. - Generalizability: strong site-specific, bioregional grounding means practices are not straightforwardly replicable as standard models.