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

The paper addresses the critical role of architectural design in mitigating climate change, impacting both human and natural systems. It focuses on ecovillages as holistic entities, studying their impact on architectural design across scales—from dwellings to territories, from spatial to social organization, from local to global networks. Each ecovillage embodies a unique, "empathic" form of eco-living, adapted to its bioregional context and emphasizing sustainable daily life. The bioregional approach, rooted in social and ecological responsibility, integrates scientific, cultural, biogeographic, and social ecological dimensions, evolving from 1960s community experiences into the contemporary "Territorialism" movement in Europe. The concept of "empathic design," as defined by Sim van der Ryn, is used as a theoretical framework to understand ecovillage approaches, connecting it to Patrick Geddes' earlier concept of "Place Work Folk." The paper examines ecovillages as potential laboratories of "empathic architecture," reconnecting with local contexts while maintaining global engagement, based on two assumptions: ecovillages build eco-housing consistent with a bioregional approach, fostering resilient lifestyles; and they share their commitments through global networks, creating a significant global impact. The study aims to provide a unique insight into ecovillages, relevant to social science researchers, architects, and those seeking sustainable lifestyles.

Existing literature directly addressing the relationship between ecovillages and architecture is scarce. The paper highlights the need for a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating sociology, economics, history of ideas, and philosophy, to fully understand the communal world and its various levels of action. It traces the influence of alternative architects like Sim van der Ryn, whose work since the 1970s reflects an alternative culture of space and eco-building relevant to communities and ecovillages. The paper also explores relevant byways in the tradition of regional planning and bioregionalism, drawing on the works of bioregionalist thinkers and sociological perspectives emphasizing the centrality of work in ecovillage social life. Furthermore, it examines the historical roots of ecological awareness in early environmental struggles and communitarian movements, the transmission of construction methods in ancient communities, and the influence of Deep Ecology on communitarian habitats. The paper acknowledges the limited research on the architectural contributions of the communitarian movement and the lack of documentation of their hybrid constructions.

This research employs a cross-disciplinary historiographical approach, using the history of contemporary architecture as its primary field of reference. The limitations of a purely formal, technical, or aesthetic approach are acknowledged, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach integrating sociology, economics, history of ideas, and philosophy. A historical data collection timeline (16th-21st centuries) was created, cross-referencing milestones across various disciplinary fields (sociopolitical history, history of intentional communities, history of architecture and architectural utopias, history of ecology, and history of technical progress) enabling a temporal "coring" to highlight concordances between utopia and ecology. The historical sequence (1965-2015) is used to contextualize the contemporary period, focusing on a geographical perimeter that initially focused on the USA but later expanded to include Europe due to the emergence of the ecovillage concept in the late 1990s. This resulted in two historical subsequences: 1965-1995 for sites in the USA and Canada and 1995-2015 for those in Europe. The research sample comprises eight active, long-standing communities in the USA, Canada, and Europe, selected based on three criteria: active community engagement with global issues; longevity of the experiences; and a commitment to ecological architecture. The identification of these sites was conducted through internet research and available literature, followed by email, videoconference, or telephone contact. Visits to the selected sites were undertaken in 2017 and 2018, using an open questionnaire to guide 21 interviews. Data processing involved analysis and synthesis grids constructed from information gathered (websites, on-site checks, interviews), supplemented by scientific and literary writings.

The study reveals that ecovillages address concerns inherited from 19th-century utopias: ideological, social, and architectural. Ideologically, they seek to escape urban pollution and live in harmony with nature; socially, they employ shared governance and collective practices (sustainable building, reduced consumption); and architecturally, they materialize their project through eco-designed and eco-built structures. Ecovillages often generate income through activities like environmental education, reflecting values of voluntary simplicity and degrowth. While acknowledging difficulties in assessing their income, the study notes most have established subsistence economies, providing local work and partially financing community costs. Ecovillages exemplify a sustainable approach that integrates Geddes' "Place Work Folk" and Van der Ryn's empathic-ecological design concepts, creating a "Russian doll system" of interlocking scales in harmony with their environment. Their "total architecture" is implemented through five principles: collaboration, climate-responsive design, educational environments, low-impact construction, and inclusive participation. This aligns with pragmatic philosophy. Architectural choices in ecovillages focus on reducing ecological footprints through bio-sourced materials and flexible, adaptable spaces. Restoration of old buildings and multi-functional spaces allows reuse and reduces environmental impact. The reconnection with local history and culture while preserving agricultural land reflects bioregional logic. Ecovillages strive for low energy consumption, often exceeding average urban dwellings. One study shows significantly smaller ecological footprints compared to conventional averages. Examples like Dancing Rabbit and Ithaca Ecovillages illustrate significant reductions in resource consumption and energy use. Dry toilets reduce water consumption. While often connected to official energy networks, ecovillages systematically integrate renewable energy sources, like solar panels. Aesthetic choices reflect voluntary simplicity. The ideal size tends to be small-village scale (5-150 inhabitants), integrating well into the landscape. Some ecovillages achieve high levels of self-sufficiency in food production. However, ecovillages represent a small percentage of global population and space. While acknowledging difficulties in quantifying their impact due to the high failure rate of community projects, the study highlights the qualitative significance of ecovillages. The study also explores the role of digital networks in connecting ecovillages globally, enabling communication, knowledge sharing, and community building, particularly highlighted by the 2020-21 Online Ecovillage Summit. The study concludes that ecovillages, although quantitatively limited, are valuable qualitative examples for addressing climate change, offering an alternative ecological approach.

The findings demonstrate that ecovillages, through their holistic approach, represent a valuable, albeit quantitatively limited, contribution to addressing climate change. Their success lies in the convergence of ideological history and practical, reality-based behaviors. The "empathic architecture" concept, as explored in the study, demonstrates ecovillages' engagement in sustainable actions through three key characteristics: ecologically sound methods and construction choices; reconnection with local territories; and global networking facilitating knowledge sharing and production. The limitations inherent to the small scale of ecovillages and the high failure rate of community projects are acknowledged. The study questions whether the power of digital networks can compensate for their limited representativeness, suggesting that even without large-scale replication, their qualitative contribution to architectural design and urban planning can significantly influence overall thinking on global warming.

This paper argues that ecovillages, despite their limited quantitative impact, serve as inspiring examples, rather than models, for addressing ecological challenges. Their unique, context-specific approaches should be valued for their intrinsic merit and influence. The study calls for a reevaluation of communitarian experiences, rehabilitating a history of alternative thought and production that has consistently foreshadowed current expert reports. The study encourages architects to question existing construction sector frameworks and engage with communitarian self-builders to create an architecture empathetic to planetary needs. The meeting of these two communities holds the potential for transformative change.

The research sample, while diverse, is not statistically representative. Numerical data on communities is often partial and difficult to verify due to the rapid turnover of projects. The focus on specific ecovillages may limit the generalizability of findings to other contexts. The study acknowledges that the high failure rate of community projects (90%) significantly impacts the overall quantitative assessment of their contribution to climate change mitigation.