A multi-dimensional assessment of the environmental and socioeconomic performance of community-based sustainability initiatives in Europe
- 109 Downloads
The contribution of community-based initiatives towards sustainability transitions is of growing interest. However, systematic, quantitative, and comparative assessments of their potential impact across different environmental, social, and economic dimensions are scarce. In this paper, we present a multi-dimensional assessment of 37 initiatives grouped in the following typologies: community gardens, solidarity purchasing groups, food cooperatives, community energy, recycling, and mobility initiatives. We provide evidence of the capacity of community-based sustainability initiatives to promote effective and efficient low-carbon solutions, social capital and inclusion, human capital, economic impact, and innovation. We show that, thanks in particular to their environmental effects, community energy initiatives are the best performing, although their social impact is weak. The opposite is true for community gardens. Mobility and recycling initiatives rank lower but can obtain meaningful impacts if they engage intensively within their communities. Food cooperatives and purchasing groups have the weakest effects. However, we show that results for individual initiatives are variable—indicating that the specific activities undertaken are less important than how they are conducted. Moreover, the best-performing initiatives are usually active in more than one typology, showing that diversification is an asset. We also show some interesting correlations between the degree of diversity of participants that initiatives can attract, their propensity to diffuse knowledge, and their creativity in finding carbon-efficient solutions. Finally, top-ranked initiatives overall rarely appear at the top of any separate assessment criterion: the possibility of a community-led transition rests on their performance across several dimensions combined.
KeywordsCommunity-based initiatives Active citizenship Sustainability transitions Grassroots innovation Environmental assessment Multi-criteria analysis
The authors owe a very special thanks to all the participants to the project TESS, Towards European Societal Sustainability (www.tess-transition.eu), who gave a crucial contribution to the ideas developed in the article.
The research received the financial support of the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under the grant agreement no. 603705.
Compliance with ethical standards
The content of the article is solely the responsibility of the authors. The European Commission is not liable for any use that can be made of the information contained herein.
- Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
- Bourdieu P (1980) Le capital social. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 31:2–3Google Scholar
- Buijis AE, Mattijssen TJM, Van der Jagt APN, Ambrose-Oji B, Andersson E, Elands BHM, Steen Møller M (2016) Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 22:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Celata F, Sanna V S (2014) Community activism and sustainability: a multi-dimensional assessment. Working paper, Dept. Metodi e Modelli per l’Economia il Territorio e la Finanza. Retrieved from https://web.uniroma1.it/memotef/sites/default/files/wpapers/documenti/FullTextWP137.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2019
- Celata F, Sanna VS, Hendrickson CY (2016) Multi-criteria analysis for carbon efficient projects. Retrieved from https://www.tess-transition.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/TESS_D4.2_Multi-criteria-analysis-for-carbon-efficient-projects.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2019
- Ehnert F, Frantzeskaki N, Barnes J, Borgström S, Gorissen L, Kern F, Strenchock L, Egermann M (2018a) The acceleration of urban sustainability transitions: a comparison of Brighton, Budapest, Dresden, Genk, and Stockholm. Sustainability 10(3):612. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ehnert F, Kern F, Borgström S, Gorissen L, Maschmeyer S, Egermann M (2018b) Urban sustainability transitions in a context of multi-level governance: a comparison of four European states. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 26:101–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Frantzeskaki N, Dumitru A, Anguelovski I, Avelino F, Bach M, Best B, Binder C, Barnes J, Carrus G, Egermann M, Haxeltine A, Moore ML, Garcia Mira R, Loorbach D, Uzzell D, Omann I, Olsson P, Silvestri G, Stedman R, Wittmayer J, Durrant R, Rauschmayer F (2016) Elucidating the changing roles of civil society in urban sustainability transitions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 22:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Geneletti D (2013) Multi-criteria analysis. LIAISE Toolbox. http://www.liaise-kit.eu/ia-method/multi-criteria-analysis. Accessed 27 Mar 2019
- Gorissen L, Spira F, Meynaerts E, Valkering P, Frantzeskaki N (2018) Moving towards systemic change? Investigating acceleration dynamics of urban sustainability transitions in the Belgian City of Genk. J Clean Prod 173:171-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.052
- Hopkins R (2008) The transition handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience. Green Books, TotnesGoogle Scholar
- Landholm D M, Holsten A, Martellozzo F, Reusser D, Kropp J P (2018), Climate change mitigation potential of community-based initiatives. Reg Environ Chang https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1428-1
- Lantz E, Tegen S (2009) Economic development impacts of community wind projects: an April 2009 review and empirical evaluation. Conference paper NREL/CP-500-45555 April. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45555.pd Accessed 16 April 2018
- Luederitz C, Schapke N, Wiek A, Lang DJ, Bergmann M, Bos JJ, Burch S, Davies A, Evans J, Konig A, Farrelly MA, Forrest N, Frantzeskaki N, Gibson RB, Kay B, Loorbach D, McCormick K, Parodi O, Rauschmayer F, Schneidewind U, Stauffacher M, Stelzer F, Rencher G, Venjakob J, Vergragt PJ, von Wehrden H, Westley FR (2017) Learning through evaluation. A tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition experiments. J Clean Prod 169:61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saarikoski H, Barton D.N, Mustajoki J, Keune H, Gomez-Baggethun E, Langemeyer J (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in ecosystem service valuation. www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/SP_MCDA.pdf Accessed 16 January 2018
- Schäpke N, Omann I, Wittmayer J, van Steenbergen F, Mock M (2017) Linking transitions to sustainability: A study of the societal effects of transition management. Sustainability 9:737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050737
- Sengers F, Wieczorek A J, Raven R (2016) Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. Technol Forecasting Social Change In press doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031
- Tikkanen J, Haara A, Dinnie L, Reusser D, Hujala T, Kajanus M, Kangas J, Kurttila M, Leskinen P (2019) Cognitive mapping and preference analyses to community-based transition initiatives. Reg Environ Chang doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01470-2
- Vafaei N, Ribeiro R A, Camarinha-Matos L M (2017) Evaluation assessment to select best normalization techniques for multi-criteria decision making methods: ELECTRE, TOPSIS, SAW, VIKOR, Conference Proceeding ICDSST 2017, May 29–31, BelgiumGoogle Scholar