sustainability
Article
Facilitating Low-Carbon Living? A Comparison of
Intervention Measures in Different
Community-Based Initiatives
Martina Schäfer 1,*, Sabine Hielscher 1, Willi Haas 2ID , Daniel Hausknost 3ID , Michaela Leitner 4,
Iris Kunze 5and Sylvia Mandl 4
1Center for Technology and Society, Technische Universität Berlin, Sekr. HBS 1, Hardenbergstraße 16-18,
2
Institute for Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Schottenfeldgasse 29,
3Institute for Social Change and Sustainability (IGN), Vienna University of Economics and Business,
4Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development, Lindengasse 2/12, A-1070 Wien, Austria;
5Center for Global Change and Sustainability (gW/N), University of Natural Resources and Life
*Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-30-314-26854
Received: 25 December 2017; Accepted: 28 March 2018; Published: 2 April 2018
Abstract:
The challenge of facilitating a shift towards sustainable housing, food and mobility has
been taken up by diverse community-based initiatives ranging from “top-down” approaches in
low-carbon municipalities to “bottom-up” approaches in intentional communities. This paper
compares intervention measures in four case study areas belonging to these two types, focusing
on their potential of re-configuring daily housing, food, and mobility practices. Taking up critics
on dominant intervention framings of diffusing low-carbon technical innovations and changing
individual behavior, we draw on social practice theory for the empirical analysis of four case studies.
Framing interventions in relation to re-configuring daily practices, the paper reveals differences
and weaknesses of current low-carbon measures of community-based initiatives in Germany and
Austria. Low-carbon municipalities mainly focus on introducing technologies and offering additional
infrastructure and information to promote low-carbon practices. They avoid interfering into residents’
daily lives and do not restrict carbon-intensive practices. In contrast, intentional communities
base their interventions on the collective creation of shared visions, decisions, and rules and thus
provide social and material structures, which foster everyday low-carbon practices and discourage
carbon-intensive ones. The paper discusses the relevance of organizational and governance structures
for implementing different types of low-carbon measures and points to opportunities for broadening
current policy strategies.
Keywords:
low-carbon municipalities; intentional communities; ecovillages; social practice theories;
interventions in practices; low-carbon measures
1. Introduction
The combined pressure of global climate change, peak oil, and other environmental challenges
are driving agendas towards low-carbon consumption patterns. Despite an increased policy interest
in combatting climate change, significant changes in shifting to low-carbon consumption patterns
have not yet come about [
1
]. Spurling et al. [
2
] point out that the dominant framings of motivating
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047; doi:10.3390/su10041047 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 2 of 23
changes towards more sustainable ways of living are those of technological innovation and influencing
the behavior of individual agents, in particular, by supporting people to make better choices for
the environment [
3
]. The adaption of low-carbon technological innovations and infrastructures are
thought to be “capable of sustaining present ways of life but with much lower carbon emission than
at present” [
4
] (p. 32) but leaving daily practices largely unchanged and unquestioned. Individual
behavior change programmes are mainly grounded in considering people as rational actors that, for
instance, want to save money or addressing attitudes and values in order to develop more sustainable
lifestyles, frequently through providing information and/or social marketing campaigns [
2
]. So far,
such approaches have had limited impact [
5
,
6
]. As a response, they have been criticized for their lack
of attention to the fact that individual behavior is embedded in social and material structures that
make a change in daily routines very challenging [4].
In parallel to this literature, community-based grassroots organization initiatives with “novel
bottom-up solutions for sustainable development and sustainable consumption; solutions that respond
to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” [
7
] (p. 585) have
emerged over the last two decades. These initiatives have gained increased interest from policy elites
and academics over the last several years, as they are said to play an important role in taking measures
that facilitate changes in daily practices and initiating real-world experiments in low-carbon living (see,
for instance, [
8
,
9
]). They are said to challenge existing values, norms [
7
], and institutional practices [
10
].
Further, Seyfang [
11
] has found that these initiatives have developed novel forms of organization
and systems of provision. Academic work on community-based sustainability initiatives has mainly
made use of frameworks derived from literature on socio-technical transitions such as strategic niche
management and multi-level perspective to conceptualize the activities of these initiatives [
12
]. This
literature has been potentially helpful in focusing attention on the processes through which grassroots
innovations play a part in the diffusion of low-carbon technologies. However, little attention has gone
into the examination of the dynamics of consumption [13].
In reaction to these critiques, emerging research within environmental sociology has begun to
challenge dominant approaches by drawing on the concept of social practices. Taking social practices as
the unit of analysis moves the emphasis away from concentrating on diffusing low-carbon technologies
and changing the behaviors of individuals to analyzing practices as processes of co-evolving technical,
economic, social, and cultural developments [
14
]. Within this literature, Strengers and Maller [
15
] have
recently stressed the need to examine how existing carbon-intensive practices can be changed and how
certain interventions can initiate such changes. In this context, Spurling et al. [
2
] have introduced three
types of “interventions-in-practice”: “recrafting practices,” “substituting practices,” and “changing the
ways practices interlock,” which, however, have thus far hardly been applied in empirical studies.
Drawing on social practice theory, in this paper, we investigate the low-carbon measures of
two types of community-based initiatives: “bottom-up” intentional communities and “top-down”
low-carbon municipalities. Their approaches to facilitating low-carbon living, and the challenges
they face in trying to implement them over time, can be extremely diverse. While some initiatives
tend to focus on sector-specific innovations within housing, food, and mobility, others offer an
integrative approach to initiating low-carbon living across the different sectors. Especially intentional
communities go beyond efforts to solely reduce CO
2
emissions and engage in broader issues than
environmental sustainability such as community building and participation (e.g., [
16
]). Drawing on
the intervention framings developed by Spurling et al. [
2
], we aim to provide a better understanding
of the potential to change daily practices associated with differing interventions implemented as a
result of community-based initiatives.
Summing up, the paper links literature on community-based initiatives with concepts from
social practice theory with the aim to address limitations of the dominant intervention framings of
technological innovation and influencing behavior of individual agents. Specifically, this paper
addresses the following research questions: How do intentional communities and low-carbon
municipalities differently design and implement low-carbon measures? What role do organizational
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 3 of 23
structures play when developing low-carbon measures and attempting to reconfigure carbon-intensive
practices? The analysis is based on in-depth interviews and workshops with actors from four
intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities in Germany and Austria.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2briefly provides a background on the two types
of community-based initiatives, before Section 3introduces the literature on social practice theory,
focusing particularly on possible ways of intervening in everyday practices. Section 4introduces the
four investigated case studies and outlines the methodological approach in the study. This is then built
upon in Section 5to empirically detail the low-carbon measures implemented in the community-based
initiatives, drawing on the three interventions-in-practice concepts. In the discussion, reflections on
the differing ways of designing and implementing of low-carbon measures are offered, in particular
considering the initiative’s organization and governance structures. Finally, we draw conclusions,
considering the potential of community-based initiatives to change carbon-intensive practices.
2. Background: Intentional Communities and Low-Carbon Municipalities
The term community-based initiative has been used to refer to several differing organizations,
groups, settlements, and projects, for example, solar settlements [
17
], eco-neighborhoods [
18
], and
low-carbon municipalities [
19
]. Walker and Devine-Wright [
20
] (p. 497) have argued that the term
“community” has been “a much used word that is readily attached to projects,” which vary greatly, for
instance, in how initiatives organize themselves, how they make decisions, which aims they attempt
to achieve, and how they make use of possible outcomes. In this paper, we investigate low-carbon
measures and activities of two types of community-based initiatives: intentional communities and
low-carbon municipalities. In the following section, we present some of the key characteristics of these
two community-based initiatives, including their organizational and governance structures.
The term “intentional community” encapsulates initiatives that are residence-led settlements
or neighborhoods with shared property and commons, such as ecovillages and cohousing projects.
These initiatives have spread globally over the last two to three decades. There are around “1000
local ecovillage projects and networks worldwide, among them approximately 130 in Europe” ([
21
]
(p. 6), referring to the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) platform; the GEN has received consultative
status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), has been an active participant in the
World Social Forum meetings, and is regularly sending representatives to climate summits and/or
part of civil society exhibitions). Additionally, there are an estimated “1000 cohousing communities
in operation and around the same number in the process of being finished” [
22
] (p. 578), creating
several country-based networks (in this paper, we have particularly focused on ecological-orientated
intentional communities). In recent years, governments have started to acknowledge the role of
such initiatives within various sustainability agendas, considering them to be “best practice” cases
for sustainable living and encouraging them to exchange their experiences with a wider public [
23
].
In terms of the ecological footprint, some ecovillages have proven to be successful models for reducing
energy consumption while maintaining a high level of quality of life [24–29].
Regarding organizational and governance characteristics, intentional communities (ecovillages
and cohousing projects) are consciously designed through participatory processes with the aim to
live more communally, while frequently creating their own locally owned physical infrastructure and
developing novel social and cultural ways of life [
29
,
30
]. They have collectively bought the land and
property, which is in most cases owned by a cooperative. The cooperative follows ecological and
social values, for instance, in developing eco-guidelines for the buildings, forestry and agriculture, and
affordable housing. The village infrastructure frequently consists of private flats in communally owned
housing estates and a variety of shared areas and buildings such as shared kitchens, playgrounds,
workshops, gardens, and laundry rooms. In building these settlements, low-carbon technologies are
often adopted and climate change adaptation measures are being taken [
31
]. Although there are many
similarities between different types of intentional communities, eco-villages can in some respects also
be considered a special subset of co-housing communities as they have a greater focus on sustainable
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 4 of 23
living compared with other co-housing communities [
32
,
33
]. Intentional communities are not an
administrative unit on their own but mostly are part of a municipality.
The organizational and governance structures of low-carbon municipalities are quite different to
intentional communities. They are coordinated and implemented by an administrative/political body.
Their governance is based on administrative structures that define a community, e.g., municipalities.
They draw from resources provided by the administrative structure itself and are typically connected to
top-down policy strategies and programmes. The relevance of low-carbon municipalities has already
been recognized internationally and globally (see [
8
,
34
]). The worldwide largest network of low-carbon
municipalities and districts that is dedicated to climate protection is the “Climate Alliance,” which was
founded in Frankfurt in 1990. By now, the network is comprised of more than 1700 municipalities from
26 European countries. With around 950 members, the network is of particular importance to Austria,
but there are also around 470 members in Germany. Each member of the Climate Alliance has agreed
to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and promotion of environmental justice.
Additionally, in Germany, municipalities can apply to be a recognized low-carbon community
through the “National Climate Initiative,” which is administrated by the Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. Based on a road map of low-carbon
measures, which has to be approved by the municipal council, it is possible to receive funding for
a “climate manager” for two to three years. However, prolongation of the funding depends on the
successful reduction of greenhouse gases in the first two years, which puts the municipality under
pressure to implement effective measures within a rather short period of time. So far, climate protection
is no compulsory task for municipalities, as is, e.g., provision with water and energy or educational
facilities. This means that especially smaller municipalities normally do not have special financial
or personal resources for such a task. A more recent program, the Austrian “e5 program,” combines
funding possibilities with external audits to implement energy efficiency measures. The aim of the
program is to provide low-carbon municipalities with long-term monitoring opportunities connected
to climate change. If a municipality has implemented at least half of the agreed measures, it will
be awarded the European Energy Award, which has been developed in 2002 in cooperation with
partners from Germany, Switzerland, and Poland to form a joint European qualification program
for municipalities [
35
]. By now more than 1300 municipalities all over Europe participate at the
program European Energy Award, which is also supported by the European Union [
36
]. In Germany,
the program “Masterplan Kommunen” was initiated in the year 2015 to provide special support to
municipalities with very ambitious objectives of reducing energy use and emission of greenhouse
gases (95% reduction of greenhouse gases and 50% reduction of end energy consumption until 2050
compared to 1990) [37].
Intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities have attracted the attention of academics
for some time now. The work on intentional communities includes studies, for instance, that have
examined the potential transformative nature of these initiatives for wider societal changes [
29
,
38
–
40
],
have critically interrogated how these initiatives might provide solutions for sustainable living [
31
,
41
],
and have linked intentional communities to degrowth ideas [
22
,
42
]. Other studies have had a narrower
focus, looking at the development and potential of renewable energies in these initiatives, innovative
uses of time and space [
43
], or motivations to join them [
44
]. The work on low-carbon municipalities has
mainly concentrated on their responses to climate change mitigation and adaptation targets [
19
,
45
–
47
],
examining, for instance, governance issues [
48
], obstacles for implementing responses [
49
], and
networking activities between initiatives [45].
This paper attempts to address the limitations of dominant intervention framings by comparing
low-carbon measures designed by low-carbon municipalities and intentional communities, drawing
on social practice theory to frame interventions in practice. By doing so, we seek to provide a better
understanding of the potential to change daily practices associated with differing intervention framings.
The next section outlines the theoretical framework, drawing on social practices theory.
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 5 of 23
3. Theoretical Framework
Introducing a practice perspective grounded in social practice theory, Spurling et al. [
2
] (p. 4)
have argued that “social practices are a better target of intervention [
. . .
] than ‘behavior’, ‘choice’ or
technological innovation alone.” According to Spurling et al. [
2
] (p. 4), through a practice perspective
the question of changing individual behaviors gets re-framed to “how do we shift everyday practice to
be more sustainable” such as heating and cooking. Transformations of daily practices are a result of a
co-evolution and/or re-configuring of several interdependent elements within complex socio-technical
systems [
14
]. Drawing on three interventions-in-practice framings outlined by Spurling et al. [
2
],
we compare low-carbon measures within two types of community-based initiatives in order to
examine the potential of different intervention framings to change carbon-intensive practices into
low-carbon ones.
3.1. Social Practice Theory
Social practice theory encourages a shift in analyzing current consumption patterns by focusing
on socially shared practices instead of individual behavior. People are viewed as “carriers of
practices” [
50
], who perform regular behavioral routines such as showering, heating, and preparing
lunch. Social practices are sustained not merely by norms or rational choices but by their regular
performance. Consumption patterns are therefore not necessarily a reflection of individual preferences
but rather are perceived to be a result of engaging in practices. The performance of practices relies
on co-evolution of the elements that make up a practice. These elements must come together and be
aligned to reproduce practices and keep them alive. Practices also exist beyond their performance,
as they are socially grounded in shared states of emotions, understandings, and a network of things,
norms, and embodied know-how [
51
,
52
]. Definitions of the elements of a practice vary [
53
]; one of the
most commonly used versions has been advocated by Shove et al. [54]:
“Meanings refer to ideas, aspirations, values, and symbolic meanings; competences to shared
know-how and practical intelligibility; and materials are the physical stuff, such as technologies,
objects and infrastructures” ([
14
] (p. 4), drawing on [
54
]) (see Figure 1for an illustration of the linkages
between the elements).
Figure 1. Elements of a practice: driving a car (own design, after [54]).
A more recent development within the literature of social practice theories has been the conceptual
development of “bundles of practices” (see, for instance, [
54
]). Such developments have been based on
the recognition that practices do not exist in isolation and are linked together through time and space.
They co-evolve to either become incompatible or closely coupled, as such linkages are characterized
“as either in harmony or in conflict” ([
55
] (p. 2), drawing on [
56
]). For instance, a change to a
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 6 of 23
vegetarian diet can re-configure people’s cooking and shopping practices and, potentially, connected
mobility routines.
3.2. Interventions-in-Practice
The regular performance of practices keeps them alive, but is also responsible for their
transformation [
51
,
56
,
57
]. Transformations can come about through changes in the arrangement
of elements—how they fit together [
58
]. The emergence and disappearance of single social practices
can be described by a shift from proto-practices to practices and ex-practices (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Proto-practices, practices, and ex-practices (own design, after [54] (p. 25)).
Besides the links between different elements, the population of “carriers” of the practice—the
people who perform it—can change ([
54
] and others) through the recruitment to, and deflection and
migration from, the practice [
59
]. Recruitment to practices can occur through social networks (see, for
instance, the Nordic walking study [
58
]), but also by law, material networks, and norms (in the case of
daily showering [
60
]). Moreover, connections between bundles of practice can strengthen or weaken
over time. They can become mutually dependent on each other or break apart, which influences the
reproduction of practices.
Despite studying such dynamics of practices over time, Strengers and Maller [
15
] (p. 2) have
argued that “social practice theorists have so far had relatively little to say about what it means to
intervene in social life; how to go about effecting, steering or governing change; and if this is possible
or desirable.” One attempt to explore what it means to intervene in daily practice and “open up new
‘sites’ for policy interventions” [
61
] (p. 78) has been Spurling et al.’s [
2
] conceptualization of three
intervention framings: (1) “recrafting practices,” (2) “substituting practices,” and (3) “changing the
ways practices interlock” (see Table 1).
“Recrafting practices” is grounded in “reducing the resource intensity of existing practices through
changing the elements of which they are composed” [
61
] (p. 79). Interventions can include “the use of
new technologies (for example, ultra-low emission vehicles), forms of training (for example, fuel-saver
courses) or social marketing and information campaigns” [
61
] (p. 80). Recrafting can be related to only
one of the elements (e.g., installing LED-light) or to several (e.g., installing pellet heating, which also
affords acquisition of new competences). Recrafting practices questions neither the necessity of the
practice (such as mobility) nor the means to fulfill the practice but aims to reduce its negative effects
(see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Recrafting practices by changing the elements [2] (p. 10).
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 7 of 23
“Substituting practices” focus on “discouraging current unsustainable practices and replacing
them with existing or new alternatives” (such as replacing car driving with cycling, see Figure 4).
The idea is to change “each of the practices in such a way as to stimulate fewer performances of
less sustainable and more performances of sustainable practice” [
61
] (p. 80). Through this process
“the balance of competition between more and less sustainable practice” shifts, i.e., car driving is less
frequently performed and cycling is performed more regularly [
61
] (p. 80). Spurling and McMeekin [
61
]
have argued that the need for a given practice (such as the need for mobility), i.e., its scale, spread,
and extent, is not negotiated, but rather the means of performing it (i.e., to cover the same distance by
using a bike rather than a car).
Figure 4. Substituting practices (replacing car driving with cycling) [2] (p. 11).
“Changing the ways practices interlock” focuses on the bundles of practices: “how changing
a practice—such as food shopping—has effects on and implications for other practices—such as
driving” [
2
] (p. 51). Here, interventions are based on changing several and sometimes unrelated
practices, i.e., beyond the practice itself (driving) and policy area (transport planning) to other practices
(see Figure 5). For instance, in relation to the practice of driving, interventions that enable people to
walk/cycle to the local shop, grow their own vegetables, or order their food online rather than taking
the car to an out-of-town supermarket can become relevant to how often people use their car. The need
for a certain practice and its performance is negotiated rather than viewing it as a given.
Figure 5. Changing the way practices interlock [2] (p. 13).
These intervention framings have explicitly been developed because social practices are
considered to be “a better target of intervention for sustainability policy than ‘behavior’, ‘choice,’
or technical innovation alone [
2
] (p. 4). However, to the best of our knowledge, there are only a handful
of studies that have made use of the intervention framings to examine empirically existing low-carbon
activities and measures. Examining the practices of housing professionals,
Macrorie et al. [62]
(p. 108), for instance, have argued for the importance of such “practice-orientated frameworks
for policy interventions” and have stressed that it is key not to intervene in single practices but to
“prioritise understanding of the flows and relations within and between the practices in question” [
62
]
(p. 109). In this paper, we build on this work by drawing on the three intervention framings to
examine the interrelations between low-carbon measures and daily practices within the two types of
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 8 of 23
community-based initiatives, comparing their design and implementation of low-carbon measures.
The findings presented here are drawn from qualitative research into community-based initiatives.
The methodological approach is outlined in the following section.
4. Methods
In this empirical paper, we draw from mixed-methods qualitative research into intentional
communities (i.e., ecovillages and cohousing communities) and low-carbon municipalities in Austria
and Germany. We conducted four in-depth case studies (see Table 1), sampled principally across
the two countries for diversity of activities, governance structures, infrastructural arrangements,
and pioneer/follow up initiatives. The case studies comprised site visits and in-depth face-to-face
interviews with 2–3 informants (such as founders and people involved in the area of mobility, food,
and shelter/energy), and were supplemented by a review of self-published material such as websites,
promotional materials, and academic reports.
Table 1. Four community-based initiatives.
Initiative Description Country Start Date
Cohousing: Lebensraum
Gänserndorf
Lebensraum (living space) is a co-housing project that consists of 32
clustered, ecologically constructed homes in which currently 83 people
live. Common facilities consist of a kitchen, dining room, laundry,
playground, and outdoor meeting areas. Lebensraum is a residence-led
non-profit cooperative that owns the real estate and land.
Austria
2001
Ecovillage: Ökodorf Sieben
Linden
Sieben Linden is an eco-village where 100 adults and 40 children have
settled over the years, focusing on closed energy and resource cycles
and building with natural and regional resources like straw, clay, and
timber. Common facilities consist of a kitchen, dining room,
educational center, horticultural areas, etc. Sieben Linden is a
residence-led non-profit cooperative that owns the real estate and land.
Germany
1997
Low-carbon municipality:
Klimagemeinde Laxenburg
The climate coalition Laxenburg was created in 2003 and includes one
municipality. Projects have addressed the following areas: sustainable
education, mobility, energy efficiency, renewable energy, etc.
Austria
2003
Low-carbon municipality:
Klimaregion Beeskow
The climate region Beeskow consists of several municipalities and was
created in 2012. Projects have addressed the following areas: renewable
energy, mobility, sustainable education, etc.
Germany
2012
Additionally, four half-day workshops (one in each initiative) were conducted within the
intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities. Between 4 and 6 participants from each
initiative attended the workshops (such as founders and a diverse set of people involved in the area of
mobility, food, and living). The aim was to discuss initial findings derived from the interviews and
document analysis with a larger group of participants. We investigated the historical development
of these initiatives and their activities, including important events, experiences, and related social
practices in the area of mobility, food, and shelter/energy. In addition to these first-hand accounts,
we have drawn upon secondary data through a review of existing academic literature on intentional
communities, in particular on ecovillage and cohousing communities (see, for instance, [28,29,43]).
The evidence gathered was originally coded, organized, and interpreted for inductive themes such
as governance structures and changing social practices over time and, additionally, we investigated
climate change interventions and related social practices in the area of mobility, food, and housing.
The aim was to develop an understanding of the everyday practices that are addressed through these
interventions and, in particular, the assumed reconfiguration of practice elements. We analyzed the
cases according to theoretically informed themes around “recrafting practices,” “substituting practices,”
and “changing the ways practices interlock” and inductive themes, such as the collectivization of daily
activities. This in-depth analysis of the intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities
has allowed us to gain insight into ways of intervening in social practices, the temporal and
spatial arrangements of daily life, and the connections between social practices. These case studies
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 9 of 23
were published as “innovation histories” that outline the development of the initiatives and their
activities [63–66].
In the next section, we draw on Spurling and McMeekin’s [
61
] work to empirically examine
several low-carbon measures within intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities. These
measures address the consumption categories of housing, food, and mobility. We have a closer look at
the dynamics that are linked to certain low-carbon measures in relation to the intervention framings of
“recrafting practices,” “substituting practices,” and “changing the ways practices interlock.”
5. Analysis of Low-Carbon Measures in Community-Based Initiatives
The empirical analysis looked at the kinds of low-carbon measures intentional communities
and low-carbon municipalities design and implement. They were analyzed in relation to
Spurling et al.’s [
2
] three intervention framings (see Section 3.2), shedding light on the entanglements
between social practices and low-carbon measures. The analysis is organized in three sections:
“recrafting practices,” “substituting practices,” and “changing the ways practices interlock”.
5.1. “Recrafting Practices” in Intentional Communities and Low-Carbon Municipalities
Both of the analyzed intentional communities are involved in “recrafting practices” (see Table 2)
across all three consumption categories (food, mobility, and housing). Such “recrafting” processes
are regularly grounded in participatory decision-making processes (such as regular plenums), where
low-carbon measures are collectively decided, developed, and implemented. Often, such “recrafting”
practices are grounded in setting up common rules. For instance, one of the cases collectively decided
on on a maximum square metre built-up area allowance per person in order to require less building
space and energy to heat living spaces (heating practices). Both of the intentional communities have
agreed on zero-energy building standards for their flats and houses. In addition, shared living spaces
and multifunctional rooms can be used by all members.
Table 2. Examples of “recrafting practices” across the consumption categories.
Consumption
Category Low-Carbon Activities—Practice Elements of Practice
Material Meaning Competences
Intentional community
Housing
•Regulation of
room size—heating
•Smaller rooms
•Large
common facilities
•All are
equal, eco-simplicity
•Living a
communal life
•Learning to live in
smaller spaces
•Learning to use common
facilities (such as adapting to
new rules)
Food
•Use of non-super-market
standard vegetables—cooking
•“second-rate” fruits
and vegetables
•Avoidance of
food waste
Mobility
•Cycling with
cargo bikes—cycling
•Cargo bikes •Fossil-free mobility
Low-carbon municipality
Housing
•Installation of renewable
energy technologies—heating
•Renewable
technologies such as
PV, wood pellet oven
•Low-carbon
energy supply
•Maintaining renewable
energy facilities
Food
•Information events about
regional food—cooking
•Value of regional
and seasonal
produce (low
food miles)
•Learning to cook with
regional/seasonal products
The creation of common rules frequently goes hand-in-hand with changes to the material
infrastructure (e.g., size of the room) and the development of competences (e.g., living in smaller
spaces). Efforts to agree on common rules that “enforce” the performance of low-carbon practices can
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 10 of 23
sometimes take years within plenums (differing opinions and ideas around low-carbon lifestyles, etc.,
can be the reason for more lengthy discussions). One of the cases therefore actively encourages diverse
performances of practices (such as eating at home or in the communal house). It is recognized that the
practices associated with low-carbon living are contested and that experiments are needed to make
them livable and to examine their social and environmental impacts when performed in daily life. The
analyzed intentional communities often experiment with innovative, sustainable technologies (e.g.,
pellet heating, loam constructing, composting toilets, and constructed wetlands) and act as pioneers
in establishing these technologies. In one of the case studies, it took years for the pellet heating to
produce enough heat for the community. The members had to acquire specialized competences of how
to operate and maintain the equipment. These processes are accompanied by intense discussions and
collective decisions on how to deal with these challenges.
The two low-carbon municipalities are also involved in “recrafting practices” (see Table 2). Such
processes occur mainly in the category of housing (and are rather rare within food and mobility). The
developments of low-carbon measures often involve local working groups of volunteers (Case Study
2) or the municipalities themselves (Case Study 3). Externally developed climate change strategies
often guide the measures. In Germany, these external strategies are helpful in gaining government
funding, usually for a two-year period, to implement the low-carbon measures. “Recrafting” efforts
are regularly grounded in “offering” or “informing” people about low-carbon alternatives rather
than “enforcing” them. They can consist of changing the local infrastructure, such as by installing
renewables in municipality-owned buildings (e.g., for heating) or creating events such as monthly
energy advice sessions (e.g., for heating, airing, showering, etc.), often only addressing one element of
a given daily practice (see Table 2).
Municipalities regularly take a “low-carbon role model” position, hoping that, as a result, the local
residents will also engage in low-carbon measures. Low-carbon measures are frequently conducted in
parallel to each other rather than linking them up to a coherent strategy, and the local residents are
only sometimes engaged or encouraged to participate. For instance, in one of the municipalities, local
residents show very little interest in taking up offers to gain free energy advice, which leaves those
responsible for implementing low-carbon measures with a feeling and attitude expressed as “we have
tried everything” and “what else could we possibly do?”
A comparison of low-carbon measures between the community-based initiative when looking
at “recrafting practices” shows that intentional communities more often experiment with “new”
and/or “forgotten” elements of practices (e.g., building straw houses). Part of these experimentations
are activities that aid the process of creating new competences and changing current daily routines
(e.g., chop wood for pellet heating). Low-carbon municipalities mostly draw on more established
low-carbon technologies and contract external companies to install and maintain them. While efforts
to recraft practices in intentional communities are discussed in the whole community and often have
an impact on people’s daily practices, the local residents within municipal buildings do not necessarily
perceive the changes or need to adapt their daily practices. Participative rule setting, discussions
about zero-energy housing standards, and shared values around agricultural and cooking practices
often lead to re-configurations of daily practices in intentional communities. In comparison, energy
advice in the low-carbon municipalities are voluntary and reach only a small group of residents (and
the influences on daily practices are uncertain). Changes to daily routines could mainly be observed
within the municipalities’ administrative practices (e.g., contracting low-carbon energy providers and
monitoring of energy use).
5.2. “Substituting Practices” in Intentional Communities and Low-Carbon Municipalities
Both of the intentional communities actively attempt to substitute carbon-intensive practices by
“growing” low-carbon alternatives across the consumption categories of food, housing, and mobility.
Forms of “substituting practices” are grounded in replacing carbon-intensive practices by (1) reducing
their performance, (2) “growing” existing low-carbon practices (that could be performed more often),
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 11 of 23
and (3) experimenting with (and growing) relatively novel or “forgotten” low-carbon practices (e.g.,
preserving vegetables and fruits). As part of these processes, all three elements of a practice are
addressed with the intervention. For instance, collective cooking is grounded in changing material
elements (such as collectively owned cooking utensils and spaces), meanings (such as collective
cooking and eating as an important part of communal living), and competences (such as cooking for a
large group of people and dealing with food waste). Practices are frequently changed in such a way
(e.g., from individual to communal eating) that new “recruits,” i.e., people who perform it [
66
], need
to be acquired if such practices are to survive over time.
“Recruitment processes”—assuring that people regularly perform the practice—are not always
straightforward and can take time. For one of the cases (Case Study 2), it took several years until
collective eating and cooking was part of the regular routines in the intentional community. Initial
issues arose because of the difficulty of synchronizing everyone’s routines (i.e., the spatial and temporal
organization of daily life, for instance, everybody arriving back from work at 6:00 p.m. to have dinner
together) and in developing competences and meanings that worked for all of the members. Efforts to
cook restaurant-type food (i.e., cooking several courses with the ambition to cook something “special”)
did not work; only after relying on home cooking (i.e., standard meals) could people be recruited to
the practice on a regular basis. Moreover, building the competence to cook vegetarian meals for a
large group of people was aided through cooking in pairs. Such low-carbon measures can entail the
development of new organizational and material requirements, i.e., how practices are organized, how
they link together, and on which material structures they rely [
67
]. In addition to replacing practices,
both of the intentional communities actively attempt to find ways to discourage carbon-intensive
practices. For instance, in one of the cases, car driving and ownership is actively prevented by offering
only a few parking spaces, making it socially unacceptable, and by building gravel roads (rather than
tarmac roads) in the village. One of the residents pointed to the positive effects of designing the village
in this way: “it is in fact a car-free village where children have all the freedom that they need and all of us can
move without being afraid that a car will pass.” Collective ownership of land and property is an essential
basis for implementing these kind of measures [28].
The two low-carbon municipalities also engage in “substituting practices” (see Table 3). Most of
these low-carbon measures belong to the category mobility. Measures that relate to food and housing
are rather rare (such as “growing” the shopping of organic food). Both of the low-carbon municipalities
attempt to increase the performance of cycling and taking public transport within their local area in
the hope that people will drive their car less often. This occurs through the installation of bike lanes
and bike racks (material element), the set-up of bike rental schemes (material element), the provision
of bike checks (competences element), and/or the organization of cycling training (competences
element). Both municipalities explored possibilities of installing car sharing options, but either these
activities were not sufficiently taken up by the local population or the professional providers were
not willing to trial the scheme due to poor economic estimates. Restrictive low-carbon measures that
could potentially decrease car driving are not considered (such as providing less parking spaces).
The dominance of car driving to commute to work or to shop outside the village is considered to be part
of the “normal” way of life in rural areas. The material infrastructures of the local area characterized by
the urban sprawl and lack of public transport are regarded as additional difficulties to the development
of low-carbon mobility patterns. One of the regional climate managers argued that “the region is so
rural and the quality of public transport so bad, that it is plausible that everybody needs a car. It is very difficult
to change something in this area.” Many solutions are considered to require long-term re-configuration of
multi-scale regional planning processes.
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 12 of 23
Table 3. Examples of “substituting practices” across the consumption categories.
Consumption
Category Low-Carbon Activities—Practice Elements of Practice
Material Meaning Competences
Intentional community
Housing
•Growing use of composting
toilet—using toilet
•Eliminating use of
flushable toilets
•Composting toilet •Support of natural
life cycle
•Resource efficiency,
i.e., use of
less water
•Maintenance, use
and upkeep of
composting toilets
Food
•Growing
collective cooking—cooking
•
Reducing individual cooking
•Communal kitchen
and utilities
•Communal
eating spaces
•Shared food
system/household budget
•Communal life
•Cheap and
high quality organic
food/prepared meals
•Cooking for a
large group
•Synchronization of
daily life
•Cooking for
everyone’s taste
Mobility
•Growing carpooling
•Reducing car driving in
village—driving a car
•Shared cars
•Village
infrastructure, e.g.,
gravel roads
•Blackboard
•Communal spaces
•Reduction of
mobility that relies
on fossil fuel
•Communal
organization of
daily life
Low-carbon municipality
Mobility
•Growing cycling •Cycling lanes •Healthy exercise,
carbon
friendly mobility
The analysis made apparent that both initiatives attempt to “substitute practices.” Low-carbon
municipalities regularly attempt to increase low-carbon practices such as cycling or using public
transport. Such measures are often conducted in isolation from each other and are rarely grounded in
considering how cycling is currently connected to car driving (such as asking the questions of when
and why people use the car rather than the bike) and how the uptake of cycling might influence, for
instance, how often people use their car (i.e., thinking about the scale and extent of cycling). So far, the
low-carbon communities do not really attempt to question today’s car dependency; no active attempts
are made to “shrink” car driving. It is hoped that people will start using their car less once they cycle
more often, but this just as well might not be the case.
In contrast, based on collective decision-making intentional communities are able to take
also restrictive measures. They also actively experiment with low-carbon food and housing
practices in order to “substitute” carbon-intensive ones. The development of such practices requires
experimentation and work. Practices such as preserving food, eating, and cooking communally are
not considered “normal,” nor are they widely performed—they are so-called “proto-practices” [
54
].
For instance, intentional communities question their car dependency and experiment with alternative
practices even if they are often located in very remote areas. In order to establish private carpooling
practices, they have had to experiment with different forms (formal/informal) of performing the
practice until carpooling was compatible with existing daily routines. More generally, infrastructures
need to be created (such as communal kitchens and food storage), competences need to be acquired
(such as how to cook for a large group), working hours need to be synchronized (to be able to eat
collectively), and shared meanings need to be found, just to mention a few elements that aid the
survival of these practices. These processes can take a long time because changing one practice
(such as shifting from family cooking to communal cooking) influences others (such as storing food,
buying food, and driving home from work) that are not always easy to foresee. Adjustments and
experimentation are needed in order to find configurations of practices that work [67].
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 13 of 23
5.3. “Changing the Ways Practices Interlock” in Intentional Communities and Low-Carbon Municipalities
Both of the analyzed intentional communities are also involved in “changing the ways
practices interlock” (see Table 4). Institutions (such as creating nurseries and home offices) and
communal infrastructures (such as leisure facilities) that are located in the village are created to aid
communal living through participatory decision-making processes and frequently shared values.
The “co-location” [
54
] of institutions and material infrastructures render the need for some mobility
practices nearly obsolete, including taking children to the nursery and driving to destinations at which
leisure activities can take place. As one of the residents puts it, “Of course, it really makes a difference
that we can spend our leisure time here. We can dance together, there is cinema, and a sauna. [...] A lot of
things happen in the village and then I don’t have to go somewhere else.” Intentional communities often think
about, debate, and attempt to change the “system of practices” [
68
] (p. 488). For instance, rather than
doing individual food shopping trips, food is collectively ordered from organic wholesalers and/or
from regional community-supported agriculture farms and/or grown in allotments and horticultural
fields, and then collectively preserved, stored, cooked, and eaten, thereby saving packaging and
transportation. The performance of one practice heavily relies on the performance of another, creating
a network of low-carbon practices. For instance, the practice of collective eating depends heavily on
collective food ordering and collective cooking.
Table 4. Examples of “changing the ways practices interlock” across the consumption categories.
Type of
Initiative Low-Carbon Activities Elements of Practice
Material Meaning Competences
Intentional
community
Housing
•Building play-grounds,
offering yoga classes
and other leisure
activities, creating
nurseries, home offices,
and work-shops
•Communal areas
for communal
services in situ
•Communal living
•Improving the
life-work balance
•Creating alternative
educational systems
•Self-sufficiency
•Organization of
communal daily life
•Knowledge of
educational system and
how to set
up alternatives
Low-carbon
municipality
Housing
•Refurbishing and
taking ownership of
empty buildings and
using them for local
health and
cultural facilities
•Energy
efficiency measures
•
Local infrastructure
•An attractive village in
which people want to
stay and live
•Solutions that address
shrinking of
rural communities
•Knowledge: What
makes an
attractive village
•Know-how: how to
gain finances to
refurbish local
buildings and sustain
their upkeep
Interventions that are connected to changing the ways in which practices interlock within
low-carbon municipalities are rather rare (see Table 4). Most of the time, if they do exist, they are not
connected to the portfolio of low-carbon measures but rather to other agendas (such as preventing
the decline in population in rural areas). “Yeah
. . .
, but this is not at all connected to energy and climate
policy
. . .
”, as argued by one of the local mayors. Endeavors to make the village more attractive for its
local residents have become increasingly significant for both of the low-carbon municipalities. Part
of these measures is to maintain and create an attractive village center with local shops, a post office,
doctors’ offices, and leisure activities. One of the cases (Case Study 3) has been particularly active
by buying up empty, run-down buildings, installing energy efficiency measures and then opening
them up as cinemas, doctors’ offices, etc. The upkeep of local leisure activities and public service, etc.,
is relevant to “how people negotiate space and time in the course of weaving together the activities
which comprise their days” [
68
] (p. 5). The possible impacts of these measures are difficult to foresee,
but they could be considered as active ways of “changing the ways practice interlock” and potentially
influence how often people use their car (considering that many services are offered in the village).
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 14 of 23
The consideration of “non” low-carbon measures seems to be key when considering how practices
that relate to low-carbon living interlock.
The comparison between low-carbon municipalities and intentional communities shows that
in both initiatives most measures for “changing the ways practices interlock” are primarily taken to
increase the quality of life for the local residents and attractiveness of living spaces in the respective
community. However, in the intentional communities, the synergies between creating home offices
and offering leisure activities to reduce the residents’ mobility practices are recognized and actively
pursued, while in the low-carbon municipalities this is not necessarily the case. To prevent an increasing
emptiness of the local towns’ centers and to ensure that small local shops and cinemas survive, one of
the mayors is willing to implement measures that restrict larger shopping malls and cinemas to be
built in the outskirts of the municipality. Such measures are not necessarily supported by everybody
but are still implemented. These are not considered to be low-carbon measures (in the sense that they
might reduce car driving), but rather ways to improve the quality of life in the rural area.
6. Discussion
The focus of this empirical paper has been a comparison of low-carbon measures conducted by
intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities across consumption categories (food, mobility,
and housing). Drawing on the three intervention framings of Spurling et al. [
2
], it was possible to
identify some differences in the design and implementation of low-carbon measures.
In the following subsections, we discuss these differences of design and implementation. First,
we reflect on the overall character of the low-carbon intervention strategies of the two initiatives
by drawing on the characterization of problem framings of Spurling et al. [
2
] (Section 6.1). Second,
we discuss the extent to which the organizational and governance structures of the two initiatives
influence the scope for experimenting with novel practices and reconfigure practices (Section 6.2) and
the legitimacy of restrictive measures to discourage unsustainable practices (Section 6.3). We close
the section with some reflections on the possible future orientations of intentional communities and
low-carbon municipalities to intervene in practices (Section 6.4).
6.1. Problem Framings of Low-Carbon Measures
Central findings of the empirical analysis are that the low-carbon municipalities mostly
stick to the two dominant problem framings/solutions to low-carbon developments described by
Spurling et al. [
2
]: (a) the diffusion of low-carbon technical innovations and (b) changes to individual
behavior by enabling low-carbon practices (e.g., bike lanes and bike repair workshops) and providing
relevant information via, e.g., energy consultation. Technological measures such as installing renewable
energy mostly do not require changing daily routines by the carriers of the practice (e.g., the users of
municipal buildings). Thus, low-carbon measures are often limited to “recrafting” material elements of
practices. Low-carbon municipalities also focus on “growing” low-carbon practices (i.e., substituting
practice) but do not apply measures to “shrink” carbon-intensive ones.
Councilors express their disappointment that, in particular, measures aiming at changing
individual behavior have had little impact on local residents’ mobility and energy consumption
patterns. Despite their efforts, they are partly confronted with an increase in private car use, indicating
that current measures have had limited impacts. It is notable that measures that could be connected to
“changing ways practices interlock” are not deliberately taken in the area of climate policy but in other
policy areas (such as health and planning). For instance, low-carbon municipalities could consider how
driving, shopping, and working practices are connected with each other. Could driving practice be
reduced by providing certain commercial shops, health services, or leisure facilities in the local area? So
far, low-carbon strategies within municipalities are characterized by a sectoral approach, implementing
measures disconnected from each other (regarding mobility and energy). Developing measures that
consider how practices (and related policy areas) interlock is not taken into account. These findings
confirm that a fragmented approach to introducing innovative technologies and awareness raising
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 15 of 23
measures (e.g., energy efficiency measures in the household) are not sufficient to enable far-reaching
changes towards more sustainable practices [69–71].
In contrast, intentional communities frequently attempt to reconfigure their daily practices, while
considering how they interlink with each other and attempting to make far-reaching changes to their
daily life (such as shopping, cooking, preserving, eating, and growing food practices). Central to
their interventions in practices are the collective agreement on rules and standards (meanings), the
provision of supportive infrastructures (materials), and fostering the acquisition of practical knowledge
(competences). Intentional communities engage in “growing” low-carbon practices (such as cycling)
as well as in “shrinking” carbon-intensive ones (such as reducing private car use by organizing shared
rides, providing only a small number of parking spaces, and disallowing car driving in the village)
while at the same time reflecting upon “changing the ways practices interlock.” Their endeavors
result in organizational, governance, and infrastructural arrangements, which facilitate low-carbon
ways of life and make them more “livable” than carbon-intensive ones (for instance, it is easier to
eat in the communal kitchen that offers vegetarian, organic food then having to shop and cook food
yourself). Different measures in all areas, i.e., food, mobility, and housing, are brought together in an
integrative approach that allows for modification of entire networks of practices instead of merely
single behaviors.
6.2. The Scope for Experimenting with Novel Practices
Members of intentional communities have a shared sense of being pioneers who strive towards
socially and environmentally sustainable lifestyles and follow the ambition to experiment with radical
innovations in order to reduce their resource use and to live a collective life. They are frequently
viewed as “laboratories for testing and demonstrating new ideologies and social structures” [
72
]
(p. 39). Shared values, visions, and aims that are frequently debated and reflected upon are the basis
for establishing material (infra-)structures, developing competences, and creating supportive rules. To
be able to integrate collective activities (such as cooking communal meals and shared use of washing
machines), the members experiment with different organizational and governance structures until
they find ways to make decisions and organize their lives according to what works for the community.
Certain practices, such as carpooling, do not necessarily immediately succeed to “recruit” the majority
of the members. Still, the members often recognize that it takes time to configure practices in a way
that work for a large part of the intentional community (e.g., developing informal private carpooling
practices instead of one particular way of performing it). In accordance with Marckmann [
31
], our
analysis demonstrates that especially eco-villages experiment with novel technologies, which require
a change in daily routines such as composting toilets, loam constructing, constructed wetlands, and
pellet heating. These experiments sometimes put into question what members have experienced to be
“comfortable” ways of living and require a great deal of effort to maintain innovative technologies
and (re)configure daily practices. Support from professionals, e.g., architects, construction managers,
and administrative bodies, is often very restricted since they have limited knowledge about these
innovations and associated ways of life. These challenges, which occur especially in the construction
period, often lead to conflicts and the withdrawal of single members, but they are part of the self-image
of being pioneers in low-carbon living.
The scope for experimenting with novel practices is much smaller in low-carbon municipalities.
The initial decision to become a low-carbon municipality, including developing a portfolio of
low-carbon measures is frequently derived from agendas within local governments. The local
residents are rarely integrated in these decisions, for instance, as part of participatory processes.
A joint vision of how to become a low-carbon municipality is often lacking. In comparison with the
intentional communities, one of the main differences is that the people who decide about the design
and implementation of low-carbon measures are not necessarily the ones who need to change their
daily practices such that they are low-carbon; thus, crucial improvements for making them suitable for
everyday use are often missing. Furthermore, low-carbon municipalities have to implement measures
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 16 of 23
that are grounded in established low-carbon technologies. Moreover, due to the lack of finances, most
of the measures have to largely re-fund themselves and demonstrate carbon emission reductions after a
short time period. For instance, because carpooling options are perceived to be uneconomical, they are
hardly ever tested in the communities. Current funding conditions and requirements to produce quick
carbon emission reductions might therefore be some of the reasons why low-carbon municipalities
have a limited scope for more experimental and long-term processes for designing and implementing
low-carbon measures.
6.3. Legitimacy for Restrictive Measures
The scope for experimenting with novel practices is closely linked to the perceived legitimacy
of implementing measures that aim to discourage the performance of carbon-intensive practices.
Based on shared values and collective decision-making processes (as mentioned above), intentional
communities are able to define binding rules on how to perform daily practices. On the one hand,
these put a limit to performing carbon-intensive practices but on the other hand, leave enough
space to diversify these performances. Regular discussions guarantee that these shared values and
rules are continuously reflected upon (or sometimes questioned), which is especially important for
newcomers. Restrictive measures such as banning private cars from the village or cooking only
vegetarian meals in the collective kitchen are part of the communities’ understanding of what it means
to “live a good life.” Discussions and collective performances of constructing, gardening, or cooking
activities assure a common level of practical knowledge and understanding around sustainability
issues. The implementation of novel technologies and shared infrastructures provide the members with
opportunities to discuss and reflect upon their daily practices [
31
] (p. 423). In line with other academic
work [
43
,
71
,
73
], we found that making collective decisions can sometimes take a considerable amount
of time. However, members of intentional communities reported that long-term experiences with
trying out different governance structures and collective decision-making approaches (e.g., sociocracy
and nonviolent communication) have created ways to ease and speed up these processes. Our analysis
confirms existing findings that discussions within intentional communities are often influenced by the
desire to ensure adequate levels of privacy and communality [
68
]. Members continuously attempt
to strike a balance between individual freedom to carry out plural and diverse social practices and
assuring sustainability standards and adhering to communal rules.
Due to a lack of a collective visions and the existence of binding national regulations, low-carbon
municipalities often feel that they do not have the legitimacy to interfere in local residents’ daily life
in terms of, for example, carbon-intensive social practices. The development of climate policies is
not compulsory for municipalities but remains “a voluntary task.” Low-carbon municipalities mainly
focus on “growing” low-carbon practices by providing information or building infrastructures (e.g.,
cycling lanes and energy advice) and hesitate to implement restrictive measures (e.g., banning cars
from the city center and/or reducing parking spaces). Our analysis made apparent that it seems to
be legitimate for low-carbon municipalities to develop restrictive policies and change “how practices
interlock” in policy areas that are not strictly related to low-carbon practices, such as assuring the
attractiveness of the town center. Even if these activities such as providing local services (e.g., doctors’
offices and shopping facilities) and leisure activities (cinema, swimming facilities, etc.) are primarily
motivated by other objectives, the possible synergies with climate policy could potentially be exploited.
As Shove has argued [
4
] (p. 41), “an understanding of how social practices are reproduced is of value
in highlighting the extent to which policy has a hand in perpetuating the conditions on which certain
ways of life [
. . .
] depend. This is especially significant in that policy makers frequently deny any such
responsibility.”
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 17 of 23
6.4. Recommendations for Policymakers to Support Community-Based Initiatives and Their
Low-Carbon Measures
Due to their organizational and governance structure, intentional communities have the scope for
experimenting with developing novel practices and social as well as technical innovations. Their role
as “models” or “real world experiments” has recently been recognized by policymakers and funders,
who have attempted to support these activities by setting up and funding projects which explore the
transferability of experiences and activities to other contexts.
Politics can support this pioneering role of intentional communities by increasing the scope for
experimenting with innovations and practices, which are partly possible through creating regulatory
exceptions. In particular, the scope for experimentation should be increased in cases where the transfer
of knowledge to a wider context is likely (such as the building of straw bale buildings, as pioneered
in one of the ecovillages, with sustainable architecture). Although intentional communities cannot
simply be considered to be blueprints for local climate governance and planning elsewhere, and
findings should not be extrapolated one-to-one into other contexts, they are valuable in terms of
developing novel innovations and reconfiguring daily practices, e.g., collective cooking, communal
gardens, compostable toilet systems, and innovative architecture and energy production systems.
These communities have found easy ways to organize themselves and make decisions collectively,
reducing their ecological footprint while maintaining a high quality of life. At this point, it is important
to note that intentional communities are set up in particular settings and represent a self-selected
group of people. Experience and knowledge gained in intentional communities cannot be transferred
one-to-one but have to be adapted within different contexts (e.g., urban neighborhoods and rural
municipalities). Insights from intentional communities could, e.g., be taken up by experimental
initiatives in urban contexts, such as urban living labs and urban laboratories [
74
–
76
]. Some future
work and support is needed to translate particular low-carbon innovations and infrastructures, derived
from intentional communities that allow for the development of more sustainable practices and for
novel ways of organizing, e.g., food and shopping practices, into different contexts. Some possible
options are as follows.
For low-carbon municipalities, a shift from existing problem framings of technical innovation
and changing individual behavior to a practice-oriented problem framing could be a valuable
step to reframe current policy measures. The comparison between low-carbon municipalities and
intentional communities shows that an integrative strategy, which links collective visions and binding
standards and rules (meaning) with the provision of supportive infrastructure (material) and the
acquisition of practical knowledge holds potential for re-configuring carbon-intensive practices
and facilitating low-carbon social practices. Initiatives such as “100 Percent Renewable Energy
Villages” or Transition Town initiatives are examples of how collective action can also be fostered
within municipalities. De Grift [
77
] (p. 1) has described Transition Town initiatives as “light
intentional communities” by “being motivated by explicit intentions and goals on the one hand
but leaving openness and flexibility regarding the level and specifics of participants” engagement on
the other hand.” In contrast to intentional communities, these are initiatives that involve community
building within an existing community that is not geographically or socially separated from other
communities [
77
]. Through the creation of collective visions and participatory processes, low-carbon
municipalities might have a greater chance of legitimizing restrictive measures that are aimed at
“shrinking” carbon-intensive practices.
There are some examples where municipalities have been able to support and foster collective
action, e.g., initiating neighborhood competitions (for saving energy or reducing waste) [
78
], providing
space for communal gardening, and supporting community energy initiatives. Existing measures
to increase the attractiveness of town centers and local recreation areas could be more strategically
linked to climate protection goals. One question that addresses this may be as follows: what does
a town in which more time is spent in the city center and that provides more sustainable modes of
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 18 of 23
transport need to look like? Measures might include creating a local cinema and offering direct bus
and cycling routes.
Lietart [
22
] points out that intentional communities often are attractive for single parents or
elderly people because they not only allow them to recreate social links in the neighborhood but also
ease the burden of everyday routines, e.g., by taking turns in looking after each other’s children and
helping each other with shopping activities. Municipalities could take up the goal of overcoming
social isolation or the needs of single parents and foster collective actions, which address these issues
and—at the same time—contribute to low-carbon living (e.g., through shared school runs and therefore
reducing amount of car driving). Furthermore, political funding programmes should acknowledge
that participatory processes and interventions into changing daily practices require time to experiment
and evaluate outcomes. Evaluation frames of one or two years seem to be counterproductive since
they urge municipalities to take isolated measures that can easily be implemented (such as installing
renewable energy) instead of pursuing an integrative approach, which is based on participatory
processes and considers the connections between different practices. The development of climate
policies within municipalities is currently a “voluntary task,” which means that there are no regular
financial and personal resources provided. The legitimacy to take restrictive measures, e.g., in the
field of city planning, could be increased through developing more binding national regulations and
providing regular resources to the municipalities.
7. Conclusions
This paper adds to the literature on intervention framings of community-based initiatives by
investigating low-carbon measures across several consumption categories (food, mobility, and housing),
drawing on a social practice theory perspective. While all of Spurling et al.’s [
2
] intervention framings
could be identified, intentional communities and low-carbon municipalities show a different mix of
measures, resulting in different degrees of potential for changing carbon-intensive daily practices.
As Coldham [
79
] points out, intentional communities “offer another scale of social organisation—an
intermediate scale between the single family and the town or municipality.” Grounded in creating
shared visions of socially and environmentally aware and collective living patterns, this intermediate
scale allows them to follow an integrative approach of agreeing on basic rules and standards, creating
low-carbon infrastructure and acquiring the necessary (practical) knowledge to perform low-carbon
practices in the areas of housing, food, and mobility. Collective decision-making and communal
ownership of land and buildings as well as collectively used facilities and spaces are key elements
of the communities’ organizational and governance structure, which explain some of the differences
between the two types of community-based initiatives. Since intentional communities are characterized
by specific structural conditions and members with a shared wish of living a more sustainable life, their
experiences cannot be easily transferred one-to-one to other rural and urban contexts. Still, they have
been understood as “laboratories” or “models,” which offer experiences and inspiration for societal
transformation on a broader scale [
71
,
72
]. Work that explores experiences and knowledge that can be
transferred to other contexts and that considers which practices need to be repurposed and adapted
needs to be undertaken.
So far, low-carbon municipalities primarily make use of dominant intervention framings,
implementing innovative technology and attempting to change individual behavior by addressing
individual choices, values, or attitudes. Since they usually cannot draw on shared visions and
participatory processes, they do not feel legitimized to actively discourage unsustainable practices,
which would impact daily practices of a bigger part of the population. Low-carbon municipalities
therefore mainly focus on implementing technological measures (recrafting single elements of
practices), try to change infrastructure, and provide advice on how to grow low-carbon practices
(mostly in the area of housing and mobility). By applying an intervention framing drawing on social
practice theory, low-carbon municipalities could be inspired to adjust and broaden their measures.
The interconnectedness of social practices is a strong argument to design more integrative approaches,
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 19 of 23
which consider all areas of daily life (housing, food, and mobility). Measures taken in other policy
areas (e.g., urban planning and health policy) could more deliberately be reflected upon to “change the
ways practices interlock.” For example, in rural areas, synergies between increasing the attractiveness
of small towns by providing health, shopping, and leisure facilities and reducing the need for mobility
can be exploited more systematically.
Collective action seems to be important in order to foster shared meanings, and develop
competences and infrastructures for more radical low-carbon measures. Low-carbon municipalities
can enable spaces for collective discussion, decision-making, and action. For instance, municipalities
can support processes of creating a renewable energy cooperative, a village shop, or a cultural center
on the basis of voluntary commitment and/or provide spaces for a weekly open market. Collective
action has to link to needs and values of the local population and should increase the local quality of
life. Therefore, fostering low carbon collective action (e.g., joint gardening or collective meals as well
as offering local leisure activities) could also more deliberately be linked to strategies of overcoming
isolation (e.g., single parents and the elderly).
The importance of local participation and the initiation of collective processes imply that climate
managers need to have community development skills, in addition to technical knowledge of low
carbon innovations. As already mentioned above, funding and monitoring periods need to change once
the focus shifts from mainly implementing technological innovations to also enable the development
of social innovations. Participatory processes and collective action take more time than installing
certain technologies, but they bear the chance of achieving long-term changes in everyday routines.
Participatory processes might need to be complemented with binding national regulations to clarify the
role of municipalities in achieving carbon reduction goals and permanent personal resources to pursue
low-carbon measures. A more directed regulatory framework could potentially increase the legitimacy
of the municipalities to discourage unsustainable practices as part of an integrative low-carbon strategy
that combines bottom-up activities with top-down policies. Fostering participation and collective
actions in order to facilitate low-carbon living can be seen as being complementary to current “smart
city strategies,” which focus on technological innovation and bear the risk of being rejected if they are
not embedded in participatory processes.
Overall, our research suggests that, while low-carbon interventions by intentional communities
cannot be taken as simple blueprints for local climate governance and planning elsewhere, they
offer a wealth of practical and organizational suggestions for shifting the focus of intervention from
technology and individual behavior change to more comprehensive transformations of social practices.
As a result, low-carbon interventions on the local level may become more effective and thus be more
likely to support a societal low-carbon transition.
Acknowledgments:
Research was funded from 2015 to 2017 in the project COSIMA (Governing community-based
social innovation for climate change mitigation and adaptation) by the Austrian Climate Research Programme
(ACRP) of the Climate and Energy Fund.
Author Contributions:
Martina Schäfer and Sabine Hielscher mainly wrote the paper, supported by Willi Haas
and Daniel Hausknost regarding the analysis and conceptual interpretation of the data. Michaela Leitner,
Sylvia Mandl and Iris Kunze were responsible for most of the empirical work.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the
decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Leitschuh, H.; Michelsen, G.; Simonis, U.E.; Sommer, J.; von Weizsäcker, E.U. (Eds.) Jahrbuch Ökologie 2013:
Wende überall? Hirzel: Stuttgart, Germany, 2013; ISBN 978-3777622781.
2.
Spurling, N.; McMeekin, A.; Shove, E.; Southerton, D.; Welch, D. Interventions in Practice: Re-Framing
Policy Approaches to Consumer Behaviour, Sustainable Practices Research Group Report. 2013. Available
online: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/85608 (accessed on 31 March 2018).
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 20 of 23
3.
Strengers, Y.; Moloney, S.; Maller, C.; Horne, C. Beyond behaviour change: Practical applications of social
practice theory in behaviour change programmes. In Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond
Behaviour Change; Strengers, Y., Maller, C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2015; pp. 63–77.
ISBN 9781138693043.
4.
Shove, E. Linking low carbon policy and social practice. In Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability:
Beyond Behaviour Change; Strengers, Y., Maller, C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 63–77.
ISBN 9781138693043.
5.
Jackson, T. Challenges for Sustainable Consumption Policy. In The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Consumption;
Jackson, T., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2006; pp. 109–128. ISBN 9781844071647.
6.
Bolderdijk, J.W.; Gorsira, M.; Keizer, K.; Steg, L. Values Determine the (In) Effectiveness of Informational
Interventions in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior. PLoS ONE 2013,8, E83911. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and
policy agenda. Environ. Politics 2007,16, 584–603. [CrossRef]
8.
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. Agenda 21. In Proceedings of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992.
9.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety. The German
National Climate Change Initiative. Available online: https://www.bmub.bund.de/en/topics/climate-
energy/climate/climate-initiative/general-information/ (accessed on 19 December 2017).
10.
White, R.; Stirling, A. Sustaining trajectories towards sustainability: Dynamics and diversity in UK communal
growing activities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013,23, 838–846. [CrossRef]
11.
Seyfang, G. The New Economics Of Sustainable Consumption: Seeds Of Change; Palgrave Macmillan: London,
UK, 2009.
12.
Hossain, M. Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of research. J. Clean. Prod.
2016
,137,
973–983. [CrossRef]
13.
McMeekin, A.; Southerton, D. Sustainability transitions and final consumption: Practices and socio-technical
systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2012,24, 345–361. [CrossRef]
14.
Brand, K.-W. Social Practices and Sustainable Consumption. Benefits and Limitations of a New Theoretical
Approach. In Environme Sociology: European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges; Gross, M.,
Heinrichs, H., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, Germany, 2010; pp. 217–235. ISBN 9789048187294.
15.
Strengers, Y.; Maller, C. (Eds.) Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour Change;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2015; ISBN 9781138693043.
16.
Fadaee, S. Post-contentious politics and Iran’s first ecovillage. Local Environ.
2015
,21, 1305–1316. [CrossRef]
17.
Freytag, T.; Gössling, S.; Mössner, S. Living the green city: Freiburg’s Solarsiedlung between narratives and
practices of sustainable urban development. Local Environ. 2014,19, 644–659. [CrossRef]
18. Barton, H. Eco-Neighborhoods: A Review of Project. Local Environ. 1998,3, 159–177. [CrossRef]
19.
Heiskanen, E.; Jalas, M.; Rinkinen, J.; Tainio, P. The local community as a “low-carbon lab”: Promises and
perils. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015,14, 149–164. [CrossRef]
20.
Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy
2008
,26,
497–500. [CrossRef]
21.
Kunze, I.; Avelino, F. Social Innovation and the Global Ecovillage Network (TRANSIT Research Report); TRANSIT:
EU SSH.2013.32-1 Grant agreement No: 613169; Transformative Social Innovation Theory: Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 2015.
22. Lietaert, M. Cohousing’s relevance to degrowth theories. J. Clean. Prod. 2009,18, 576–580. [CrossRef]
23.
WBGU. World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability; Flagship Report 2011; WBGU: Berlin,
Germany, 2011.
24.
Global Ecovillage Network Europe. Available online: http://www.gelebte-nachhaltigkeit.de/home/home/
index.htm (accessed on 19 December 2017).
25.
Simon, K.-H.; Matovelle, A.; Fuhr, D.; Kilmer-Kirsch, K.-P.; Dangelmeyer, P. Endberichte zum Vorhaben
«Gemeinschaftliche Lebens-und Wirtschaftsweisen und ihre Umweltrelevanz». Forschungsprojekt des
WZU (Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Umweltsystemforschung), Universität Kassel u. Kommune
Niederkaufungen e.V. 2004. Available online: http://www.usf.uni-kassel.de/glww/ (accessed on
20 October 2005).
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 21 of 23
26.
Simon, K.-H.; Herring, H. Intentional Communities and Environmental Sustainability. In Encyclopedia of
Community: From the Village to the Virtual World; Christensen, K., DaLevinson, D., Eds.; SAGE: New York, NY,
USA, 2003; pp. 690–693. ISBN 9780761925989.
27. Williams, J. Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures 2008,40, 268–286. [CrossRef]
28.
Kunze, I. Soziale Innovationen für Zukunftsfähige Lebensweisen. Gemeinschaften und Ökodörfer als
Experimentierende Lernfelder für Sozial-Ökologische Nachhaltigkeit; Ecotransfer-Verlag: Münster, Germany,
2009; ISBN 9783939019077.
29.
Kunze, I. Social Innovations for Communal and Ecological Living. Lessons from Sustainability Research and
Observations in Intentional Communities. Communal Soc. 2012,32, 50–67.
30.
McCamant, K.; Durrett, C.; Hertzman, E. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, 2nd ed.;
Ten SpeedPress: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1993; ISBN 9780898155396.
31.
Marckmann, B.M.M.; Gram-Hanssen, K.; Christensen, T.H. Sustainable Living and Co-Housing: Evidence
from a Case Study of Eco-Villages. Built Environ. 2012,38, 413–429. [CrossRef]
32.
Meltzer, G. Cohousing and Ecovillages. In Proceedings of the International Collaborative Housing
Conference, Stockholm, Sweden, 5–9 May 2010.
33.
Litfin, K.T. Ecovillages and the Transition to Integral Community. In Integral Ecologies: Nature, Culture, and
Knowledge in the Planetary Era; Kelly, S., Mickey, S., Robbert, A., Eds.; SUNY Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013;
ISBN 978-1-4384-6527-2.
34.
Beatley, T. Planning for Sustainability in European Cities: A Review of Practices in Leading Cities. In The
Sustainable Urban Development Reader; Wheeler, S.M., Beatly, T., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004;
pp. 249–258. ISBN 978-0415453813.
35.
E5 Österreich. E5 Programm für Energieeffiziente Gemeinden. Available online: http://www.e5-gemeinden.
at/index.php?id=42 (accessed on 3 January 2017).
36.
European Energy Award. Available online: http://www.european-energy-award.org/home/ (accessed on
19 December 2017).
37.
Nationale Klimaschutzinitiative. Masterplan 100% Klimaschutz. Available online: https://www.
klimaschutz.de/foerderung/masterplan-100-klimaschutz (accessed on 19 December 2017).
38.
Andreas, M. Vom neuen guten Leben: Ethnographie eines Ökodorfes; Transcript: Bielefeld, Germany, 2015; ISBN
9783837628289.
39.
Boyer, R.H.W. Grassroots innovation for urban sustainability: Comparing the diffusion pathways of three
ecovillage projects. Environ. Plan. A 2015,47, 320–337. [CrossRef]
40.
Hong, S.; Vicdan, H. Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages. J. Bus.
Res. 2015,69, 120–136. [CrossRef]
41.
Sanguinetti, A. Transformational practices in cohousing: Enhancing residents’ connection to community and
nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014,40, 86–96. [CrossRef]
42. Xue, J. Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth society? An urban planner’s perspective. Ecol.
Econ. 2014,105, 130–138. [CrossRef]
43.
Jarvis, H. Saving space, sharing time: Integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environ. Plan. A
2011,43, 560–577. [CrossRef]
44.
Kirby, A. Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca: A case study. J. Environ.
Psychol. 2003,23, 323–332. [CrossRef]
45.
Grandberg, M.; Elander, I. Local Governance and Climate Change: Reflections on the Swedish Experience.
Local Environ. 2007,12, 537–548. [CrossRef]
46.
Sippel, M.; Jenssen, T. What about Local Climate Governance? A Review of Promise and Problems; University
Library of Munich: Munich, Germany, 2009; p. 20987.
47.
Bulkeley, H.; Broto, V.C. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change.
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2013,38, 361–375. [CrossRef]
48.
Späth, P.; Rohracher, H. Local demonstrations for global transitions—Dynamics across governance levels
fostering regime changes. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012,20, 461–479. [CrossRef]
49.
Pitt, D.; Randolph, J. Identifying obstacles to community climate protection planning. Environ. Plan. C
2009
,
27, 841–857. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 22 of 23
50.
Shove, E. Changing human behaviour and lifestyles: A challenge for sustainable consumption? The Ecological
Economics of Consumption; Reisch, L.A., Ropke, I., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2004; pp. 111–131.
ISBN 9781843765127.
51.
Schatzki, T.R. Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996; ISBN 9780521062268.
52. Warde, A. Consumption and Theories of Practice. J. Consum. Cult. 2005,5, 131–153. [CrossRef]
53.
Gram-Hanssen, K. Standby Consumption in Households Analyzed with a Practice Theory Approach. J. Ind.
Ecol. 2009,14, 150–165. [CrossRef]
54.
Shove, E.; Pantzar, M.; Watson, M. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes; SAGE:
Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012.
55.
Blue, S.; Shove, E.; Carmona, C.; Kelly, M.P. Theories of practice and public health: Understanding (un)healthy
practices. Crit. Public Health 2014,26, 36–50. [CrossRef]
56.
Schatzki, T.R. The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change;
Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA, USA, 2002; ISBN 9780271046549.
57.
Reckwitz, A. Toward a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing. Eur. J. Soc.
Theory 2002,5, 243–263. [CrossRef]
58.
Shove, E.; Pantzar, M. Consumers, producers and practices: Understanding the invention and reinvention of
Nordic Walking. J. Consum. Cult. 2005,5, 43–64. [CrossRef]
59.
Southerton, D.; Olsen, W.; Warde, A.; Cheng, S. Practices and trajectories: A comparative analysis of reading
in France, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. J. Consum. Cult. 2012,12, 237–262. [CrossRef]
60.
Shove, E. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality; Berg Publisher: Oxford,
UK, 2003; ISBN 9781859736302.
61.
Spurling, N.; McMeekin, A. Interventions in practices: Sustainable mobility policies in England. In Social
Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour Change; Strengers, Y., Maller, C., Eds.; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 63–77. ISBN 9781138693043.
62.
Macrorie, R.; Foulds, C.; Hargreaves, H. Governing and governed by practices: Exploring interventions in
low-carbon housing policy and practice. In Social Practices, Intervention and Sustainability: Beyond Behaviour
Change; Strengers, Y., Maller, C., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 63–77. ISBN 9781138693043.
63.
Hielscher, S.; Schäfer, M. Klimaschutzgemeinde Beeskow. Fallstudienbericht COSIMA, 2016. Available
online: http://oin.at/_publikationen/PublikationenNEU/Forschungsberichte/Fallstudienbericht_Beeskow.
pdf (accessed on 30 March 2018).
64.
Kunze, I. Sieben Linden. Fallstudienbericht COSIMA, 2016. Available online: http://oin.at/_publikationen/
PublikationenNEU/Forschungsberichte/Fallstudienbericht_7Linden.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2018).
65.
Leitner, M.; Hielscher, S. Lebensraum Gaenserndorf. Fallstudienbericht COSIMA, 2016. Available online:
http://oin.at/_publikationen/PublikationenNEU/Forschungsberichte/Fallstudienbericht_Lebensraum.
pdf (accessed on 30 March 2018).
66.
Mandl, S.; Hielscher, S. Laxenburg. Fallstudienbericht COSIMA, 2016. Available online: http://oin.at/
_publikationen/PublikationenNEU/Forschungsberichte/Fallstudienbericht_Laxenburg.pdf (accessed on 30
March 2018).
67.
Leitner, M.; Littig, B. Doing Sustainability in a Viennese Cohousing Project. A Praxeological Case Study. In
Beyond’ Transition? Understanding and Achieving Sustainable Consumption through Social Innovation, Proceedings
of the SCORAI Europe Workshop, Vienna, Austria, 17 November 2015; Lorek, S., Backhaus, J., Eds.; Routledge:
London, UK, 2015; pp. 116–127.
68.
Watson, M. How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. J. Trans. Geogr.
2012,24, 488–496. [CrossRef]
69.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee. Behaviour Change. 2011. Available online: https:
//publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/179.pdf (accessed on
19 February 2018
).
70.
Bosselmann, K.; Engel, R.; Taylor, P. Governance for Sustainability—Issues, Challenges, Successes; IUCN: Gland,
Switzerland, 2008.
71.
Robert, H.W.; Boyer, R.H.W. Achieving one-planet living through transitions in social practice: A case study
of Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2016,12, 47–59. [CrossRef]
72.
Forster, P.M. Communities and academics: A developing dialogue. Commun. Work Fam.
1998
,1, 39–49.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018,10, 1047 23 of 23
73.
Tuckman, B. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol. Bull.
1965
,63, 384–399. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Voytenko, Y.; McCormick, K.; Evans, J.; Schliwa, G. Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities
in Europe: Towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,123, 45–54. [CrossRef]
75.
Kronsell, A.; Mukhtar-Landgren, D. Experimental governance: The role of municipalities in urban living
labs. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018,26, 988–1007. [CrossRef]
76.
Karvonen, A.; van Heur, B. Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res.
2014
,
38, 379–392. [CrossRef]
77.
Van de Grift, E.; Vervoort, J.; Cuppen, E. Transition Initiatives as Light Intentional Communities: Uncovering
Liminality and Friction. Sustainability 2017,9, 448. [CrossRef]
78.
B.&S.U. mbH. Available online: http://www.bsu-berlin.de/en/projects/selected-projects/energy-
neighbourhoods.html (accessed on 19 December 2017).
79. Coldham, B. The CoHousing path to sustainability. CoHousing J. CoHousing Netw. 1995,8, 19–21.
©
2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
