by Sydney Gutwein, Austin Marquardt & Haidyn Peterson

Sydney Gutwein (a Biomedical Engineering major), Austin Marquardt (Microbiology) and Haidyn Peterson (Computer Science and Chemistry) co-wrote this essay for Robert Scafe’s “Real Utopias” class.

Climate change: the ever-ticking countdown clock that clouds our futures with doubt and uncertainty. Global climate marches and individuals alike rally frantically against national governments to do something – anything – to stop the climate crisis. Go vegan! Install a solar panel! Compost! Recycle! But can individuals really make a difference? It’s undeniable that these sorts of small individual changes will have a negligible effect on our global march into a fiery doom with its melting ice caps, starving animals, and human population control. Or can they?

Although it is true that individual actions can’t make an impact – after all, the carbon footprint I have for my entire lifespan is recreated by any major corporation within just a couple of seconds – many small actions put together can make a change. This can be shown through the actions of intentional green communities like ecovillages. By researching how to bridge the gap between utopian communities in the real world, our team hopes to gain the ability to implement realistic anti-climate change measures. However, this research isn’t just about ecovillages and their impacts. It’s about how the efforts of many individuals working together can make a sizeable impact on difficult obstacles. Utopian communities, such as ecovillages, are real world hubs of cooperation and democracy, where people work together to create a small society that lives together in harmony. Ecovillages take this “real world utopia” one step further by basing their existence on sustainable living. Ecovillages work to ensure that they not only have a net neutral carbon footprint but also take active steps to have a negative footprint in their community and surrounding areas. Ecovillages are modern “real” utopias focused on sustainability. These small communities focus on restoring the environment both ecologically and socially, and they can be the key to a sustainable future. Their main goal is sustainable development through the utopian lens. These utopian societies share the goal of attainable sustainable living via reduced carbon emissions and environmental thoughtfulness. By building sustainable communities that focus on healthy living and spreading green ideologies, the shared efforts and influence of such movements can make a difference.

In today’s climate crisis, we must look to ecovillages and how they share their ideology in order to apply sustainable practices to the world. These sorts of utopian movements can make a longstanding impact on environmental progress. Ecovillages, like other utopias, reside outside of mainstream society and have independent societal guidelines. However, unlike most real utopias, ecovillages tend to be highly accepting of outsiders, and even share information and resources with outside communities. Some ecovillages accept interns and provide tours to share information about realistic efforts of climate change. Ecovillages also tend to be in sync with modern technology; many use solar panels, for example. Whereas other real utopias might shun modern technology and be “incidentally” sustainable, ecovillages intentionally produce less waste and emissions than normal parts of society, making them “intentionally” sustainable (Hong). This is an important distinction to make, as intentional sustainability is far more applicable to widespread anti-climate change efforts.

Our examples for analysis are Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, the Australian Green Bans movement, and Ecovillage at Ithaca, three collaborative efforts that inspire change in a world that is barreling down an ecologically reckless path. So, what conservation efforts do ecovillages make? How does a protest from the 1970s connect to ecovillages and utopian societies? How do ecovillages differ from one another? In short, each movement or community represents our interpretations of a different step on an ecovillage “diffusion pathway scale” proposed by Swedish sustainability researcher Robert H. W. Boyer. Our primary goal in this research is to unearth realistic and attainable sustainability methods. We are attempting to translate their methods on a larger scale that can be applied worldwide in an effort to increase global sustainability. We create a blueprint for the application of these sustainable methods by exploring three eco-utopias through the lens of Boyer’s scale.

THE THREE STAGES OF SUCCESS: DIFFUSION PATHWAYS

Most ecovillages have contact with the outside world; thus, these ecovillages must also have some impact on their surrounding communities. But how do they have a lasting impact? If success is quantified by the amount of lasting impact each ecovillage has, how do we classify the more successful ecovillages from the less successful?

Robert Boyer, a professor in the University of North Carolina’s Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, has an answer. In his article, “Grassroots Innovation for Urban Sustainability: Comparing the Diffusion Pathways of Three Ecovillage Projects,” Boyer explores three ecovillages to create his three-stage system of diffusion pathways for ecovillages. Boyer argues that ecovillages tend to spread in three main forms: replication, scaling up, and niche-to-regime translation. We argue that this model can be taken one step further and applied to federal governments in a stage called regime change. By exploring examples of these stages of diffusion, we will create a blueprint for how to apply sustainable practices to mainstream society.

The first of Boyer’s stages is replication. Replication occurs when an ecovillage spread’s its practices through a “network of dedicated activists” (Boyer, 322). Replication is not, as some may think, the replication of the entire ecovillage, but rather, the replication of ideology through a network of activists. Boyer asserts that this diffusion pathway is the most common of the three with grassroots innovation projects (i.e. ecovillages), and replication is seen in our first case study: Dancing Rabbit.

Projects that successfully reach replication may fail to extend beyond their “limited activist following” but have the possibility of reaching the next level in the diffusion pathway categorization, scaling up (Boyer, 322). Scaling up occurs when the ecovillage has “expanded beyond a committed activist core to a broader group of individuals” (Boyer, 322). The ideology and some of the practices are replicated, or scaled up, in a small environment, but fail to create large scale changes. For example, Austria began its solar thermal energy project as a grassroots response to an oil crisis, but quickly spread, or scaled up, to thousands of consumers via privatized industry. Our second case study focuses on a similar incident that occurred in Australia in the 1970s with the Green Bans Movement, when a construction union helped fight for environmental preservation.

Boyer’s third stage of translation is niche-to-regime translation. He defines translation as an “institutional adoption” of alternate practices from the “grassroots to the mainstream” (Boyer, 320). The previous two diffusion pathways both represented growth and change within a niche, but the third stage involves growth within a regime. The niche practices are translated to a small regime scale. Complex systems, including energy production, agriculture, and transportation, are difficult systems in which to invoke permanent change. These systems are “locked-in by overlapping physical, regulatory, financial, and symbolic structures,” what Boyer defines as regimes. “Regimes select against the introduction of radical new practices,” which is why niche-to-regime translation is the most infrequently achieved diffusion pathway (Boyer 321).

Niches are most apt to diffuse into mainstream society when their projects or practices “offer a coordinated and coherent alternative to regime practices” (Boyer 321). But by offering “coherent” alternatives, niche leaders are often required to compromise on their ideology, further complicating the likelihood of successful diffusion. However, a successful niche to regime translation is seen in the Ecovillage at Ithaca, our third case study. EVI is the only substantial example of a niche-to-regime ecovillage as this last pathway is the most difficult to achieve. Because of this, EVI is also Boyer’s primary example of the niche-to-regime pathway.

These three diffusion pathways allow us to understand why some ecovillages are able to create a lasting impact, while others only inspire change within their activist following. However, we propose an additional fourth stage: regime change. Niche-to-regime translation involves the incorporation of alternate ideology outside the niche, but regime change goes one step further by permanently instating those changes on an institutional level (i.e. the federal government).

CASE STUDY 1: DANCING RABBIT ECOVILLAGE

Flashes of a fire. Glimpses of laughter among the faces of newfound comrades. A grounded, melancholic song flooding your ears. You faintly hear the beating of the drums as silhouettes dressed in shadow dance around a blaze of glory. The harmonious atmosphere puts you at peace away from the worries of outside society, making you realize why this moment needs to be preserved for the future. While this primitive imagery indicates years far in the past, the year is 2018 at the Missouri Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, which is newly established, having formed in 1993 through email discussions of Stanford college students refusing to succumb to the individualistic workforce of America today (“How and Where”).

At the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage festivals, the so-called “Rabbits” or members of the community bring a lively experience to visitors of the ecovillage to inform these activists of their way of living while sharing ideas of previous ecovillages, reflecting Boyer’s stage of replication. Being a new ecovillage, they are focused on proving their sustainability to their members and the outside eye. To increase their desire for a renewable society, they rely on unconventional methods for reusable materials. For example, pooping in a bucket and sprinkling a bit of sawdust helps Dancing Rabbit provide fertilization for their biodiverse plants along with reducing water waste and pollution using “simple five-gallon buckets, sawdust, and compost bins” (Liloia 1).

However, these unconventional methods come at a price as it forms a large gap between the ecovillage and the average Americans that the ecovillage wants to reach out to. The common citizen roots themselves in judgement, looking to the ecovillage as unhygienic hippies while turning a blind eye to the ideology and climate threat the ecovillage was formed around. Therefore, members of the ecovillage and outside climate activists looking for action must consider that they will be viewed differently to most American citizens upon their affiliation with Dancing Rabbit. So how can you make members feel valued when the outside judgement constantly looms over them? How do you make them feel confident in these unconventional methods when their reduced carbon waste is insignificant when looking at big scale emissions?

Assimilation back into the regime at the replication stage would be the easy path when looking at options to expand the ecovillage. However, the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage provides high motivation by incorporating honesty as a foundation for their members. They encourage their members to seek outside income so as to not shut them off from the outside world like other utopias. This gives members a defense against outside judgement and provides an opportunity for these members to reach out to potential activists on education about the Dancing Rabbit ecovillage. According to Dr. Zach Rubin, a college climate activist who spent a year at the Dancing Rabbit community, the culture within Dancing Rabbit becomes entrancing to the outside viewer. He specifically mentions the weekly festivals where members and visitors alike indulge in a night of original songs that “are alternatingly joyous, dark, and ponderous” (Rubin 83). Afterwards, the men of the community branch off from the rest of the ecovillage members for a private meeting to reflect on the confidence of their masculinity as leaders of the community. Now why would an ecovillage bent on changing the capitalistic regime reinforce the gender roles that regime subscribes to? It is because the ecovillage is forced to not only take ideologies from more stable ecovillages, but to also take ideologies from the well-established regime. Dancing Rabbit must ensure their sustainability as a society before they can fully break away from the ideologies of the one they came from.

Found in these fire festivals at Dancing Rabbit, there is an homage to indigenous culture with an almost spiritual atmosphere revolving around fire and songs to convey emotion to an audience. This again reflects Boyer’s stage of replication as the ecovillage is more reliant on the ideology and activists of previously founded systems rather than expanding on their own foundation. The indigenous communities in a sense are examples of established ecovillages that have broken away from governmental authority while holding nature sacred, so Dancing Rabbit can also pull ideologies from more established ecovillages to blend with ideologies from the regime (UNEP). These festivals also enforce loyalty among members of the community by cultivating the connections between each member consistently. Doing this outweighs any possible insecurity from the outside critics as these “Rabbits” feel at home with their people. 

Dancing Rabbit provides transparency and honesty in a way that most utopias are unable to as both the leaders and members of the Rabbit community bring a depth and truth to each conversation held within their ecovillage. Ella Brocker, a more established climate activist who was curious about the communal living of ecovillages, expressed the sacredness of a climate community like Dancing Rabbit. She claimed to experience a “vibrancy of energy” and “mutual trust” throughout her conversations with members that were unmatched among other climate action protesters and communities. This led her to believe that “we as a collective have lost” a fundamental part of life by “separating family and friends,” but the Dancing Rabbit community has shown that there is promise for “mutual interdependen[ce]” again (Brocker 1). Brocker sees that the Dancing Rabbit ecovillage has grown to become more than just fighting a climate crisis battle, but they have started to form their own utopia through their reliance on one another for a common goal.  

Visitors of the ecovillage like Zach Rubin and Ella Brocker show the transformation that Dancing Rabbit has begun to the scaling-up stage that Boyer referenced. When the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage becomes more founded in their own ideology, they will shift away from ideals of the American regime and stand against its prejudice as Dancing Rabbit expands on the foundations already formed from the authenticity of its members.

CASE STUDY 2: AUSTRALIAN GREEN BANS MOVEMENT

Rewind to 1971. The park in your suburban neighborhood outside Sydney, Australia has just been rezoned for construction. Devastated, you join with thirteen other women from the neighborhood to protest. You march in the streets. The children carry signs. People notice. Your protest begins to grow; day in and day out, you fight for the survival of Kelly’s Bush. Eventually, your now-much-larger group catches the attention of a construction union, the New South Wales branch of the Builders Laborers’ Federation (NSWBLF). The NSWBLF arranged a meeting with the city of Sydney to reconsider the zoning of Kelly’s Bush. Despite the 600 people that attended this meeting, the city refused to rezone the park. In retaliation, the labor union refused to continue their work on an office project in Sydney, and the first green ban was enacted. The ban was called a ‘green ban’ to distinguish it from a ‘black ban’, the code name for a union action to protect the economic interests of its members. And thus, the Green Bans movement was born. But how is this movement a utopia?

According to Burgmann and Milner, the movement can be considered a “utopian project,” as utopias are “repositories for individual and collective hopes and fears,” which sometimes “unleash energies that can achieve at least part of what is hoped for.” (Burgmann and Milner, 127) This “project” contains the citizens of Sydney’s hopes and fears for the conservation of their environment, which is unleashed in a flurry of green bans that are implemented across the country after Kelly’s Bush. Although several ecologically damaging construction projects were still set in motion after 1971, many green bans were enacted, achieving “part of what is hoped for:” a not-insignificant amount of environmental conservation and ecological reform. Furthermore, if utopia can be defined as “social dreaming,” utopias depict societies that “contend that radical change is needed, not just piecemeal reform.” (Burgmann and Milner, 127) These utopian projects actively foster change, as the NSWBLF fostered the green bans movement.

As this change becomes more and more of a reality, the movement becomes a real utopian project. Burgmann and Milner go on to say that there are “utopian texts, utopian impulses, utopian programs, and utopian practices, ranging from the intentional community to revolutionary insurrection;” they are all directed at the prospect for “radical rather than piecemeal change.” (Burgmann and Milner, 127) The NSWBLF had a utopian mindset, wanting to improve society for everyone. The utopian desire to help all, not just a select few—specifically the unionized workers under the BLF—allows the union to radicalize their agenda. By expanding their fight from worker’s conditions to environmental concerns, they move away from piecemeal change and well into utopian radicalization territory.

The fight for Kelly’s Bush emphasizes the ability of small movements to have a sizable impact via replication, but how did one residential park become an example of scaling up? Kelly’s Bush was only the first of many green bans implemented during the movement’s existence. The success of the green bans movement suggests that the collective power of protesters can be amplified if coupled with the power of the workers. Without the help of the power of the union and the unionized construction workers, the Kelly’s Bush protesters likely would not have gotten further than a protest in the street.

Even though the movement only lasted for four years, many ecologically damaging construction projects were called off, and much legislation remains to protect the environment. Kelly’s Bush is still standing today, with a plaque in the park, pictured above, that details the struggles to preserve the area. This monument indicates that even small-scale changes can have lasting effects if only the public can be motivated to work together. In a short four-year timespan, the movement implemented over forty green bans, involved thousands of construction workers who refused to work on ecologically unsound projects, and halted projects worth over five billion dollars (at 1970s prices). About half of the green bans implemented prevented the destruction of individual buildings that played a useful role in society (most anything that wasn’t another empty office building) or the destruction of green areas. One such green ban prevented the destruction of Centennial Park, which had been rezoned for the development of a sports stadium. Another saved a part of the Botanical Gardens that would have become part of a parking lot for the Opera House. Others still thwarted development projects that affected entire suburbs, including the historic housing of The Rocks, the site of the first British settlement from 1788. The Rocks was set to become high-rise office blocks, only saved from demolition by a green ban.

The rapid country-wide spread of green bans exceeds the limited networking of Boyer’s replication. The NSWBLF’s guiding principle, which drove every green ban they implemented, was “the social responsibility of labor”: workers have the right to insist that their labor does not negatively impact society. (Burgmann and Milner, 129) Because this principle applied “ethical responsibility to the world of production”, it had considerable consequences. The lasting consequences and continuing reform that the green bans movement inspired is the work of scaling up. Because the movement is no longer going on, and did not take with large corporations or city legislation, the Green Bans Movement cannot be classified as niche-to-regime. However, there is still a lot of utopian ideology that the movement left behind, seen in the saved parks that still stand in Australia today—many of which have monuments documenting the green ban that saved the space from demolition.

CASE STUDY 3: ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA

Around a mile from downtown Ithaca, New York, there is a community known as the Ecovillage at Ithaca. On the 175 acres of land that make up this region, there are three neighborhoods, 100 homes, and approximately 210 full-time residents. From gardening to land-restoration to outreach and research, these environmental activists are leading the way in an attainable sustainable future.

Ecovillage at Ithaca is Boyer’s key example of the niche-to-regime pathway. As such, it is also the closest example we have to the top of the anti-climate change/regime revolution food chain. Indeed, the very fact that EVI is alone at the top of the pyramid is representative of its uniqueness and importance in this study. EVI stands out in its willingness to share resources and ideas with the rest of the world, working toward the ultimate goal of defeating climate change; instead of just providing a haven for those who want to live off the grid, EVI is actively working to bring about systemic change in the rest of the world. EVI is especially representative of the “niche-to-regime” pathway because of its role in the local community. Its “niche” lies in the innate self-contained nature of any real utopia; despite its many efforts, EVI will be alien to outsiders. (There are many reasons for this, the least of which include departure from capitalism in addition to sustainability efforts.)

However, in spite of its specialization and estrangement from typical society, EVI still makes its way into the “regime” category. By making sizeable impacts on the broader upstate New York region, EVI has attracted attention from even the federal government. EVI’s education branch, Thrive Ithaca, is a major part of spreading resources and knowledge in the New York area (and beyond). This part of EVI’s website is highly accessible. From in-person tours to online educational programs, EVI makes certain that anyone who wants to learn about their methods can. According to Boyer, Ithaca’s nonprofit branch, Learn@EVI, has worked with Cornell University and Tompkins-Cortland Community college to provide educational programs for local farmers and to develop research on environmental sustainability (329). EVI also offers “forest therapy walks” for Ithaca locals, including techniques for growing and foraging medicinal plants. These examples all highlight EVI’s ability to spread out of the ecovillage niche and into its community. More importantly, these actions have established EVI’s ability to attract attention from the government, broadening its platform significantly.

There are many methods found in ecovillages that are especially applicable to the niche-to-regime pathway. An article by Soonkwan Hong and Handan Vicdan cites that there are “three pillars of sustainable lifestyle at ecovillages” (129):

• Self and community responsibility: every individual is responsible for themself and also prioritizes the well-being of their community. By doing so, there is less of a capitalistic mindset that often leads to environmental disruption.
• Recycling economy: “resources, labor, income, and even production can be recycled” (Hong 129). Sustainability is increased significantly with minimal waste in all aspects.
• Shared governance mechanisms: no one person makes all of the decisions. Community members work together to solve problems and create guidelines, limiting the possibility of distrust of or rebellion against sustainable practices.

These pillars are vital within EVI’s community and are similarly vital in any niche-to-regime expansion of an ecovillage. Boyer argues that these actions are “evidence for translation” (329), for the assertion that Ithaca’s methods can be applied on a larger scale. Indeed, Liz Walker, executive director of EVI, cites the EPA Climate Showcase Communities grant, the very grant that Boyer attributed growth in zoning and housing development practices to. Most importantly, however, EVI doesn’t pretend to be perfect. In her book Ecovillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a Sustainable Culture, Liz Walker says that EVI isn’t “a fairytale-like utopia in which people will live happily ever after” (77). This is an important distinction to make; EVI recognizes that it is a work in progress, which means that it is accepting of growth.

EVI even works with outside communities to improve itself, setting a fantastic example for other climate activists and organizations. This isn’t to say that EVI hasn’t made revolutionary changes: residents use 40% less natural gas, 58% less electricity, and 71% less water than the average American, all while reporting a remarkably high quality of life. However, Boyer’s “niche-to-regime” can only do so much. Although EVI makes a notable impact on its local community, larger changes must happen if climate change is to be stopped. We believe that these pathways can be taken even further in order to reach the ultimate goal of attainable sustainability.

LOOKING FORWARD: LEGISLATIVE CHANGE

Perhaps 20 years from now, you’re looking out the window of your house. The sun glints off the solar panels that decorate every roof. You’ve just gotten home from work; today’s agenda? Your company was celebrating another year they’ve met emission requirements by implementing another green method to keep emissions low. Now, you’re on the phone with a contractor for a more personal matter: insulated window panes due to recent legislation requiring houses to have net-zero emissions. The news runs quietly in the background, “…another company has been sued for exceeding their allotted carbon emission rates…,” as the contractor pulls up available window pane choices. You decide to go with the triple-paned windows, as they will heat the house with sunlight.

All of this seems pretty hopeful, right? Surely this will slow or even stop the Climate Clock – attainable sustainability sounds great. However, no matter how many ecovillages we forge across the globe, widespread changes cannot succeed without the support of federal governments. Because of this, we propose a fourth and final step to Boyer’s model: legislative change. This pathway moves beyond local changes and explores large-scale methods intended for use by federal governments.

So, what does legislative change mean? It’s a slow and steady revolution, a reversal of centuries of unidirectional thinking. It is an action taken to drastically change the world around you. Think back to the Green Bans movement – it all started with a protest and ended up stopping billions of dollars’ worth of construction. It didn’t just protect Kelly’s Bush; it protected many other parks for decades to come. In truth, this method is a preexisting one given a new name; indigenous communities have been leaders in managing climate change through attainable sustainability for years (UNEP). We are simply seconding the idea that following the techniques of small-scale sustainable communities – whether in the form of ecovillages or generations of indigenous peoples – could potentially hold the key to slowing the climate crisis. One of the main obstacles that ecovillages struggle with, even in Boyer’s third step, is keeping their society sustainable when expanding past their semi-isolated community. How far can these methods be taken while still being effective?

Our fourth step highlights the hurdles society must overcome to spread the reach of the ecovillage method. As we can see from Ecovillage at Ithaca and the extensive research of many dedicated individuals, we’re not too far off from achieving this change. However, just like in the example of Kelly’s Bush, change must begin with a widespread movement. Protests must go beyond words alone, and the government must take an active role in these changes. In order for legislative change to even occur in our widely economically centered society, green alternatives must be incentivized. Environmental projects like the Green Bans movement and EVI, or in time, Dancing Rabbit, will diffuse their practices through Boyer’s model until they reach the stage of legislative change, where their efforts will draw international attention to green alternatives. Legislative change involves solar-powered green buildings and entire cities that produce little to no waste in the same way EVI does. And even now, these changes might sound dramatic or far-fetched to some, further proving how far society still needs to go. Ecovillages like EVI will then provide the data – the proof – that these alternate practices are more efficient than their fossil fuel ancestors (or at least that they work). Once the government has been forced to pay attention to the data, it will have the motivation required to pass legislation incentivizing companies to limit carbon emissions. And just like that, we’ve gone from one person deciding to recycle to halting the climate clock. Ecovillages, among others, have done the hard work for us–getting started. All we need to do now is that spark grow into a flame.

CONCLUSIONS

An ecovillage can grow far beyond 200 people. We believe that an ecovillage can be an entire country. But what is in it for our capitalistic society? People are too self-centered. Remembering our society of technology and innovation, the world’s carbon emissions are higher than ever before. Even Ecovillage at Ithaca, they receives generous funding from the local city and Cornell University to install an impressive solar panel and gas regulation. But why should the average American care? Will this investment actually pay off?

Society has proven time and time again that if issue isn’t in every headline, most citizens probably will pay no heed. However, we can use America’s individualistic mindset as an advantage. By viewing ecovillages as a long-term investment, we can provide a new perspective on the purpose of these proposed legislative changes. These communities fuse climate action with their daily lives in hopes that their humble green societies might inspire change in influential people and corporations. Indeed, large corporations are shown to be responsible for 71% of climate change, meaning that small groups of protestors and ecovillage members cannot remove much of the sizeable carbon footprint. However, they can – and do – raise awareness and provide data about these important issues, in hopes that they can make enough impact to convince these large corporations and federal governments to make a change. The stages of success are imperative to the maintenance of these communities as they continue to quietly prove their value to the future.

Works Cited

Axelrod, Joshua. “Corporate Honesty and Climate Change: Time to Own up and Act.” NRDC, 18 July 2022, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/corporate-honesty-and-climate-change-time-own-and-act.

Boyer, R. H. W. (2015). Grassroots Innovation for Urban Sustainability: Comparing the Diffusion Pathways of Three Ecovillage Projects. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(2), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1068/a140250p

Burgmann, Verity, and Andrew Milner. “Ecotopians in Hardhats: The Australian Green Bans Movement.” Utopian Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, 2011, pp. 125–142., https://doi.org/10.1353/utp.2011.0019.

Brocker, Ella B. “Sustainable Living Visitor Program.” Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, https://www.dancingrabbit.org/visit/.

Dickinson, Sophie. “This Climate Clock Shows How Long We’ve Got to Save the World.” Time Out Worldwide, Time Out, 21 July 2022, https://www.timeout.com/news/this-climate-clock-shows-how-long-weve-got-to-save-the-world-072222.

Ecovillage at Ithaca, Ecovillage at Ithaca, 2022, https://ecovillageithaca.org/.

Hong, Soonkwan, and Handan Vicdan. “Re-imagining the Utopian: Transformation of Sustainable Lifestyle in Ecovillages.” Journal of Business Research 69.1 (2016): 120-36. Web.

“How and Where It All Began.” Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage, 2022, https://www.dancingrabbit.org/about-dancing-rabbit-ecovillage/history/

“How Indigenous Knowledge Can Help Prevent Environmental Crises.” UNEP, 9 Aug. 2021, www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-indigenous-knowledge-can-help-prevent-environmental-crises.

Liloia, Brian (2022). Humanure at Dancing Rabbit. https://www.dancingrabbit.org/ecovillage-life/eco-living/resource-management/humanure

“The Kelly’s Bush Green Ban, 1971.” Libcom.org, 10 Sept. 2006, https://libcom.org/article/kellys-bush-green-ban-1971

Rubin, Zach (2018). My Year Pooping in a Bucket: Lifestyle, Cultural, and Social Movements in the “Node” at Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/66779/Research.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Walker, Liz. Ecovillage at Ithaca: Principles, Best Practices & Lessons Learned. 18 Jan. 2012, https://ecovillageithaca.org/download/evi-20-years-of-lessons-learned/

Walker, Liz. EcoVillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a Sustainable Culture. 2005. Web.