Source
doi:10.2478/euco-2021-0041 — original publication (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Peer-reviewed survey study (n=60 European ecovillages, 2020) examining empirical WEF (water, energy, food) self-sufficiency pursuit and achievement. Community characteristics: 4–250 residents (median 19), 0.45–414 ha (median 10.75 ha), 1–56 years in operation (median 10). Key finding: partial self-sufficiency is the universal goal; complete SS is rarely sought and rarely achieved — except for water, where a clear majority aim for and achieve 100% independence. Ecovillages are framed as “grassroots degrowth experiments” that test new socio-technical resource regimes at settlement scale, with value lying in the communal integration of available technologies, not in the technologies themselves. Ecovillages do not function as isolated islands — they cooperate with local and regional communities while covering a substantial but feasible portion of their own resource demand.
Key claims
Survey rates (N=60):
- 93% of communities pursue some self-sufficiency in ≥1 resource; 80% in food, 77% in water, 75% in energy; 50% pursue all three simultaneously — multi-domain SS is the minority position LIT_020
- Ecovillage ecological and carbon footprints are 35–50% lower than regional averages (Daly, 2017, synthesis of 16 studies / 23 communities — primary source RT_050) LIT_020
Water:
- 69% of water-seeking communities have achieved complete (100%) water SS; 79% plan to achieve it — water is the highest-achieved SS domain; only 24% remain connected to the mains network LIT_020
- Water technologies: water well 68%, rainwater collection 58%, wastewater reuse 37%, water retention 35%, surface water (springs/streams) ~30%, water purification ~28% LIT_020
- Predictor: land area is the only significant predictor of water SS (Spearman r=0.561*, p=0.046) — larger area enables higher water independence LIT_020
Energy:
- PV: 76% of energy-seeking communities; solar thermal heating 38%; biomass 35%; energy storage 43% (electrical 31%, thermal 20%); 65% remain grid-connected — zero-net-energy / net-supplier model is the norm LIT_020
- 21% have achieved complete energy SS; 45% plan to achieve it — complete energy SS is an ambitious minority target LIT_020
Food:
- Majority of communities at low/medium current food SS, targeting medium/very high — complete food SS is rarely achieved or sought; partial SS with local cooperation is the standard LIT_020
- Food technologies: composting ~90%, land cultivation ~85%, soil regeneration ~65%, food forests ~45%, wild foraging ~45%, animal husbandry ~35%, agroforestry ~25%, aqua/hydroponics ~8%, vertical farms ~0% LIT_020
- Predictor: years in operation (r=0.390*, p=0.019) is the only significant food SS predictor — population, area, and technology diversity are not significant; food SS is time-dependent (accumulated knowledge), not resource-dependent LIT_020
Sieben Linden (2014 empirical data, Bocco et al. 2019 — primary source RT_074):
- Electricity SS 67%, heat SS 100%, water SS 61%, food SS 29% (vegetables 64%, fruits 35%) — strongest multi-domain empirical benchmark from a single well-documented European ecovillage LIT_020
Degrowth framing:
- Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage: residents consume as little as 10% of US per capita average while maintaining high quality of life (Lockyer, 2017 — primary source RT_075) LIT_020
- Demand-side reduction is co-equal with supply-side generation: same production level + lower consumption demand automatically produces higher SS ratios — diet change, water recycling, and energy conservation are as powerful as new generation capacity LIT_020
SSI connections
- I07 Fulfilment of basic needs — survey rates, water/energy/food SS achievement levels, demand-side reduction framing
- I09 Environmental sustainability — 35–50% footprint reduction; degrowth framing of demand minimisation
- I02 Food security — food SS rates, technology adoption, time-as-predictor finding
- I06 Resistance to external shocks — water complete SS structurally eliminates water supply disruption risk
EDT connections
- D01 Renewable energy — energy technology adoption rates (PV 76%, solar thermal 38%, biomass 35%, storage 43%)
- D02 Smart food systems — food technology hierarchy; conventional biological methods dominant; vertical farms absent
- D03 Water, waste & circular — water technology adoption rates; complete water SS as empirical achievement
- D08 Biotechnology & nature-based — composting, soil regeneration, food forests, wild foraging as dominant food methods
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- RT_074: Bocco A, Gerace M & Pollini S (2019) — The Environmental Impact of Sieben Linden Ecovillage — London: Routledge — provides detailed multi-domain SS data (67% electricity, 100% heat, 61% water, 29% food) for one of Europe’s best-documented ecovillages; cited by Skrzypczyński (2021) as the strongest empirical SS benchmark
- [RT_075 — RESOLVED → LIT_081] Lockyer J (2017) — “Community, commons, and degrowth at Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage” — J. Political Ecology 24: 519–542. Ingested as LIT_081 — confirms the “10% of US per-capita” claim LIT_020 cites, with the full per-capita dataset + commons governance model.
Connections
Links to
Sources (1): LIT_081
Referenced by
Sources (6): CR_009 · LIT_046 · LIT_064 · LIT_077 · LIT_128 · URL_004
SSI indicators (4): I02: Food Security & Sustainable Agriculture · I06: Resistance to External Shocks · I07: Fulfilment of Basic Needs · I09: Environmental Sustainability
EDT domains (4): D01: Renewable Energy & Storage Systems · D02: Smart Food Systems & Agriculture · D03: Water, Waste & Circular Systems · D08: Biotechnology & Nature-Based Solutions