Global Ecovillage Network

From Communities for Future wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Founded atFindhorn Foundation
HeadquartersThe Park, Findhorn
  • Forres, Scotland
Region served
Main organ
General Asembly
SubsidiariesCASA Latin America, GENNA North America, GEN Africa, GEN Europe, GENOA Oceania & Asia

Global Ecovillage Network or GEN is ...


Purpose of GEN

History of GEN

Ecovillages can be seen as a modern-day manifestation of a history of counter-cultural intentional communities dating back hundreds or even thousands of years.[1][2]. Their concerns with environmental sustainability build on longer-standing movements such as bioregionalism, land stewardship and communitarianism[3].

The ecovillage movement in its present-day form emerged out of scoping and networking initiated by the Gaia Trust from the late 1980s onwards. Following release of the Gilmans' Eco-villages and sustainable communities report in the summer of 1991, Ross and Hildur Jackson convened meetings of ecovillage residents at their nascent ecovillage at Fjordvang in Western Denmark, in 1991 and 1994, and in 1993 formed the Danish Ecovillage Network, the first such national network. Participants in the 1994 meeting agreed to form a new network, which hosted a major conference at Findhorn in Scotland in 1995 [4]. Delegates at the Findhorn conference agreed to establish the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN)[5]. GEN has since grown to encompass thousands of projects around the world, with regional networks in Africa, Europe, Latin America, North America, and Oceania/Asia.

A research report by the TRANSIT project summarises the relationship between GEN and the wider ecovillage movement as follows:

While GEN was founded as a formal, international network with regional and thematic subnetworks, the ecovillage movement has always been a bottom-up movement, carried by a variety of single ecovillages. On the one hand, GEN is active in education, networking and information dissemination with political organisations like the EU and UNESCO. On the other hand, GEN provides a platform for support and exchange for the local ecovillages and welcomes not only new founded villages of the environmental movement but also traditional villages.[6]

Narrative of change

Read more about the concept of narrative of change

Scope of GEN

As well as intentional communities in both Global North and South, the Ecovillage movement also includes established communities and traditional villages in the Global South, where village living and subsistence-focused local economies are not the distant memories they are for many in the minority world. In some majority world cases, ecovillages have in some cases become alternative models for development on large scales. A major example is the 'thousand villages' project in Senegal, part of the Senegalese government's strategic development policy[7][8].

Despite the rural connotations that the term might infer, ecovillages have also been created in urban environments such as Inner City Los Angeles [9]. Some urban sustainable living projects such as Lilac Co-Housing in Northern England[10], while not ecovillages as such, can be seen to fit with the most widely accepted definitions. Similarly, urban permaculture is often described as a form of "distributed ecovillage"[11], while some writers see the more urban-focused Transition movement as a relative mainstreaming of ecovillage philosophy and practices[12][13]. Beyond Europe, the TRANSIT report also highlights the strength of the ecovillage movement in Latin America, Africa and Asia, and the creation by the Senegalese government of a ministry for ecovillages that supports traditional villages to become ecovillages.[14]


According to the TRANSIT research report on ecovillages, in 2017 GEN listed a total of 1000 ecovillages worldwide, 130 of these in Europe, while the Eurootopia directory of intentional communities listed 430 in Europe, of which an indeterminate number of ecovillages.[14]

Iniatives in numbers


Global Ecovillage Network is present in the majority of European countries:

Albania Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belarus
Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus
Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France
Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland
Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Latvia Liechtenstein
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Montenegro
Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal
Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia
Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine UK

Links to key examples

Numbers of people involved, and indirect beneficiaries

Impacts of GEN

A 2018 study reviewed 27 separate research studies covering more than 60 ecovillages and found ten criteria and 119 indicators (actions) in different categories and dimensions (social, ecological, economic and cultural) recognising ecovillages as best practices and inspiring cases in order to live sustainably in this planet. On this basis, it proposes a framework for all communities that would like to identify and develop as an Ecovillage to its full potential. The ten criteria are: 1) protection and conservation of the environment, 2) provision of appropriate and sustainable habitats (Climate design), 3) social, individual and spiritual capital, 4) a healthy lifestyle both physically and spiritually, 5) saving energy and resource mechanisms and effective transportation systems, 6) self-reliance and support of local economy, 7) water and wastewater management, 8) waste and scrap management, 9) human development and capacity building, and 10) foresight.[15]

Ecovillages are also working actively towards the Sustainable Development Goals, as shown by a series of impact assessments conducted GEN in ecovillages on five continents.[16] Results showed that the vast majority are already contributing in concrete ways to achieving the SDGs.

Ecological impacts

In relation to ecological impacts, 97% of showcase ecovillages are actively working to restore degraded ecosystems (SDG15), 90% sequester carbon in soil and/or biomass SDG13, and 97% work to restore or replenish water sources and cycles (SDG6). In terms of social impacts, all ecovillages provide education in sustainability-related fields (SDG4), women occupy at least 40% of decision-making roles in 90% of cases (SDG5), all nurture local traditions relevant to sustainable methods of building and food production (SDG11 on sustainable communities), 90% reuse or recycle over half their waste and 85% compost all food waste (SDG12 on responsible production and consumption), 80% have established conflict resolution procedures and all provide training in decision-making and mutual empowerment (SDG16 on responsible institutions, peace and justice), and 95% participate in campaigns to protect the rights of humans and nature (SDG17 on partnership).

Social impacts

Ecovillager Robert Hall has identified twenty key factors that allow ecovillages to provide high levels of wellbeing for residents while maintaining use of natural resources at levels far lower than in the population at large and therefore much closer to sustainable limits. These are: pooled economy, shared work, work-life balance, inclusive decision making, conflict resolution, limited hierarchy, dimensioned communal group, celebration, new values and common worldview, deeper personal relationships and openness, physical contact, child-centred perspective, self-development practices, inclusiveness, emphasis on arts and culture, healthy food, physical activity, proximity to nature, environmental activism and ecologically responsible behaviours. Ecovillages thus represent largely successful experiments in promoting sustainable wellbeing that could support and inform efforts by national governments to foreground wellbeing as a policy goal.[17]

A university study compared the subjective well-being of 84 residents of 30 ecovillages (and other intentional communities) in North America with those of Burlington, Vermont, a city in the USA reputed to offer residents a very high quality of life. Results indicated a slightly higher perceived quality of life among residents of intentional communities, despite markedly lower average levels of personal income and ownership of material goods. Quality of life in intentional communities correlated far more weakly with indicators of material affluence such as income, access to healthcare and levels of education, and more strongly with quality of social relationships, equitable allocation of workloads and access to collective resources. This suggests that intentional communities are better able to translate social capital, and to a lesser degree human and natural capital, into residents' wellbeing, and therefore less reliant on built capital. This allows residents to enjoy high quality of life on the basis of far lower levels of material throughput.[18]

Economic impacts

Impacts in other dimensions

Research on GEN

Ecovillages and their networks and networking organisations are actively involved in education and research, both formal and informal.



  1. Metcalfe, B., 2012. Utopian Struggle: Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities. Pp. 21-29 in Andreas, M. and F. Wagner (eds.) Realizing Utopia: Ecovillage Endeavors and Academic Approaches. Rachel Carson Centre Perspectives. Munich: Rachel Carson Centre.
  2. Brown, S. L., 2002. Intentional Community: an Anthropological Perspective. New York: SUNY Press.
  3. Anderson, E., 2013. Foreword to Lockyer, J. and J. Veteto (eds.) Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture and Ecovillages. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  4. Jackson, H. & R. Jackson, 2004. Global Ecovillage Network history 1990-2004.
  5. Dawson, J., 2006. Ecovillages: New Frontiers for Sustainability. Schumacher Briefings no. 12. Dartington: Green Books.
  6. Kunze, Iris and Avelino, Flor (2015): Social Innovation and the Global Ecovillage Network. Research Report, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169. P.6.
  7. Jackson, R., 2004. The Ecovillage Movement. Permaculture Magazine 40 (Summer 2004).
  8. Dawson, J., 2013. From Islands to Networks: the History and Future of the Ecovillage Movement. Pp. 217-234 in Lockyer, J. and J. Veteto (eds.) Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture and Ecovillages. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. P. 225
  9. Birmbaum, J. and L. Fox, 2014. Sustainable Revolution: Permaculture in Ecovillages, Urban Farms, and Communities Worldwide. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books. Pp. 226-230.
  10. Chatterton, P., 2014. Low Impact Living: a Field Guide to Ecological, Affordable Community Building. London: Earthscan.
  11. Haluza-Delay, R. and R. Berezan, 2013. Permaculture in the City: Ecological Habitus and the Distributed Ecovillage. Pp. 130-145 in Lockyer, J. and J. Veteto (eds.) Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture and Ecovillages. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.
  12. Lockyer, J., 2010. Intentional Community Carbon Reduction and Climate Change Action: from Ecovillages to Transition Towns. Pp. 197-215 in Peters, M., S. Fudge and T. Jackson (eds.) Low Carbon Communities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  13. Alexander, S., Rutherford, J., 2018. The “Transition Town” Movement as a Model for Urban Transformation, in: Moore, T., de Haan, F., Horne, R., Gleeson, B.J. (Eds.), Urban Sustainability Transitions, Theory and Practice of Urban Sustainability Transitions. Springer Singapore, pp. 173–189.
  14. 14.0 14.1 Kunze, Iris and Avelino, Flor (2015): Social Innovation and the Global Ecovillage Network. Research Report, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.
  15. Barani, Shahrzad, Amir Hossein Alibeygi, and Abdolhamid Papzan, 2018. “A Framework to Identify and Develop Potential Ecovillages: Meta-Analysis from the Studies of World’s Ecovillages.” Sustainable Cities and Society 43: 275–89.
  16. Accessed May 10th 2018.
  17. Hall, R., 2015. The ecovillage experience as an evidence base for national wellbeing strategies. Intellectual Economics 9: 30–42.
  18. Mulder, K., Costanza, R., Erickson, J., 2006. The contribution of built, human, social and natural capital to quality of life in intentional and unintentional communities. Ecological Economics 59: 13–23.