Source
https://siebenlinden.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/StudieUniTurinFinal.pdf — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Bocco, Gerace & Pollini 2018 — ecological footprint of Sieben Linden ecovillage (LIT_066)
The deepest single-case footprint anchor for I09
A full component-by-component ecological-footprint (+ building-LCA) of one of Europe’s best-documented ecovillages. Total 3.08 gha/person = 1.8 planet-equivalents — dramatically better than the German average on goods/waste, but food and services keep even a flagship ecovillage above a “fair share.” Complements the Daly systematic review (LIT_064).
Summary
Bocco, Gerace & Pollini (DIST, Politecnico di Torino) measure the ecological footprint of the Sieben Linden ecovillage (Germany) component by component — energy, goods, waste, travel, food, built-up land, services — plus a building-level LCA, benchmarked against the German national average and a “fair share” footprint. The community’s total footprint is 3.08 gha/person (1.8 planet-equivalents): far below the German average on goods and waste (~90% lower) and slightly below on energy (100% renewable, firewood-dominated), but food and services remain the categories that keep even this ecovillage above a globally sustainable share. It is the deepest single-case complement to the Daly review.
Key claims
- claim: "SCOPE. A detailed ecological-footprint + building-LCA study of the Sieben Linden ecovillage, Germany (DIST, Politecnico di Torino; final report 22 February 2018 - the study underlying the 2019 Routledge book). The footprint is built up component by component (energy, goods, waste, travel, food, built-up land, services) and compared against the German national average and the 'fair share' ecological footprint (world mean biocapacity)."
source_location: "Contents; Section 2 (Ecological Footprint)"
- claim: "OVERALL FOOTPRINT. The total ecological footprint of Sieben Linden residents is 3.08 gha/person (the whole ecovillage 391.67 gha) - equivalent to 1.8 'Planet Equivalents'. Without the services category the footprint 'would almost equal the fair share EF' (i.e. within world mean biocapacity) - services are the category that tips it above a sustainable share."
source_location: "Section 2.3.8 (Overall footprint, Table 10); Section 2.4.2 (fair share)"
- claim: "VS THE GERMAN AVERAGE. Sieben Linden 'fares significantly better than the average' in most categories: 'Goods and waste are almost 90% lower' (frugal buying patterns + sharing); the energy footprint is slightly lower (firewood is >96% of the energy footprint and electricity is 100% renewable - a green supplier + on-site PV - versus German energy dominated by fossil-CO2); cars per person are <0.3 vs the German average of 0.572. Separately, the buildings' ecological footprint is 32% lower than the German national average."
source_location: "Section 2.4.1 (vs German average, Table 11); Section 4 (buildings EF)"
- claim: "MECHANISM. The reductions come from renewable + biomass energy, low material consumption (a frugal/sharing culture), low car ownership, and on-site food - with FOOD and SERVICES the hardest categories to bring below a fair share. Firewood dominating the energy footprint reflects the community's extensive on-site forest and wood-based heating."
source_location: "Sections 2.3.1-2.3.8 (component footprints)"Neobiome Intelligence / thesis relevance
The deepest single-case empirical anchor for I09 (Environmental Sustainability), pairing with the Daly systematic review (LIT_064): Daly gives the distribution across 23 communities; Sieben Linden gives the mechanism inside one. It reinforces the same honest nuance the model must respect — even a flagship ecovillage lands at 1.8 planet-equivalents, with food and services the stubborn categories, so “ecovillage” does not automatically mean “one-planet living.”
Not a calculation input — the NI engine scores resource self-sufficiency (energy/heat/water/food), not ecological footprint. This is I09 framework evidence; the same resource-SSI ≠ carbon/footprint caveat handed to the modelling work for LIT_064 applies here too. Feeds i09_environmental_sustainability.
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- None. This resolves both RT_017 and RT_074 (duplicate targets for the same Sieben Linden source).
Research gaps
- The footprint is 2014 data for a German ecovillage; no NZ intentional-community footprint study exists in the corpus (a standing gap, not opened as a new RT here).
Notes
Primary — the DIST/Politecnico di Torino report, read verbatim. data_quality: verified. Downloaded from siebenlinden.org (the community’s own copy of the university study); not AI-prepared. context: both — thesis I09 evidence with the model-side footprint caveat noted. The 2019 Routledge book The Environmental Impact of Sieben Linden Ecovillage is the published version of this study (OA under CC BY-NC-ND).
Connections
Links to
Sources (1): LIT_064
SSI indicators (1): I09: Environmental Sustainability
Referenced by
SSI indicators (1): I09: Environmental Sustainability
Sources (1): LIT_082