Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 939–952 | Cite as

A multi-dimensional assessment of the environmental and socioeconomic performance of community-based sustainability initiatives in Europe

  • Filippo CelataEmail author
  • Venere Stefania Sanna
Original Article


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.


Community-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 (, who gave a crucial contribution to the ideas developed in the article.

Funding information

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.

Supplementary material

10113_2019_1493_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1118 kb)


  1. Arentsen M, Bellekom S (2014) Power to the people: local energy initiatives as seedbeds of innovation? Energy, Sustainability and Society 4:2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argüelles L, Anguelovski I, Dinnie E (2017) Power and privilege in alternative civic practices: examining imaginaries of change and embedded rationalities in community economies. Geoforum 86:30–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axon S (2016) “The good life”: engaging the public with community-based carbon reduction strategies. Environ Sci Pol 66:82–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bai X, Roberts B, Chen J (2010) Urban sustainability experiments in Asia: patterns and pathways. Environ Sci Pol 13:312–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer US.
  6. Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Carlsson B, Lindmark S, Rickne A (2008) Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res Policy 37:407–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bourdieu P (1980) Le capital social. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 31:2–3Google Scholar
  8. Boyer RHW (2015) Grassroots innovation for urban sustainability: comparing the diffusion pathways of three ecovillage projects. Environ Plan A 45:320–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunori G, Rossi A, Guidi F (2012) On the new social relations around and beyond food. Analysing consumers’ role and action in Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale (solidarity purchasing groups). Sociol Rural 52:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne R, Byrne S, Ryan R, O’Regan B (2017) Applying the Q-method to identify primary motivation factors and barriers to communities in achieving decarbonisation goals. Energy Policy 110:40–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castán Broto V, Bulkeley H (2013) A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob Environ Chang 23:92–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 Accessed 27 Mar 2019
  14. Celata F, Sanna VS, Hendrickson CY (2016) Multi-criteria analysis for carbon efficient projects. Retrieved from Accessed 27 Mar 2019
  15. Cinelli M, Coles SR, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Colding J, Barthel S, Bendt P, Snep R, van der Knaap W, Ernstson H (2013) Urban green commons: insights on urban common property systems. Glob Environ Chang 23:1039–1051. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dinnie E, Holstead KL (2017) The influence of public funding on community-based sustainability projects in Scotland. Environ Innov Soc Trans (in Press) 29:25–33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feola G, Nunes R (2014) Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the transition movement. Glob Environ Chang 24:232–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Figueira JR, Mousseau V, Roy B (2005) Electre methods. In: Fiigueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multi criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 133–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer A, Holstead K, Hendrickson CY, Virkkula O, Prampolini A (2017) Community-led initiatives’ everyday politics for sustainability–conflicting rationalities and aspirations for change? Environ Plan A 49:1986–2006. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forrest N, Wiek A (2014) Learning from success—toward evidence-informed sustainability transitions in communities. Environ Innov Soc Trans 12:66–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Forrest N, Wiek A (2015) Success factors and strategies for sustainability transitions of small-scale communities –evidence from a cross-case analysis. Environ Innov Soc Trans 17:22–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Geneletti D (2013) Multi-criteria analysis. LIAISE Toolbox. Accessed 27 Mar 2019
  27. Gittell R, Videl A (1998) Community organizing: building social capital as a development strategy. Sage, London. Google Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. Grasseni C (2013) Beyond alternative food networks: Italy’s solidarity purchase groups. Bloomsbury, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Graugaard JD (2012) A tool for building community resilience? A case study of the Lewes Pound. Local Environ 17(2):243–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guitart D, Pickering C, Byrne J (2012) Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban For Urban Green 11:364–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heiskanen E, Johnson M, Robinson S, Vadovics E, Saastamoinen M (2010) Low-carbon communities as a context for individual behavioural change. Energy Policy 38:7586–7595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hicks J, Ison N (2018) An exploration of the boundaries of ‘community’ in community renewable energy projects: navigating between motivations and context. Energy Policy 113:523–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hjerpe M, Glaas E, Fenton P (2017) The role of knowledge in climate transition and transformation literatures. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 29:26–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobson K (2016) Closing the loop or squaring the circle? Locating generative spaces for the circular economy. Prog Hum Geogr 40:88–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hobson K, Hamilton J, Mayne R (2016) Monitoring and evaluation in UK low-carbon community groups: benefits, barriers and the politics of the local. Local Environ 21(1):124–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hopkins R (2008) The transition handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience. Green Books, TotnesGoogle Scholar
  38. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov J (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–3594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krasny M, Russ A, Tidball KG, Elmqvist T (2014) Civic ecology practices: participatory approaches to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. Ecosystem Services 7:177–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landholm D M, Holsten A, Martellozzo F, Reusser D, Kropp J P (2018), Climate change mitigation potential of community-based initiatives. Reg Environ Chang
  41. 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. Accessed 16 April 2018
  42. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mattijssen T, Buijs A, Elands B, Arts B (2018) The ‘green’ and ‘self’ in green self-governance – a study of 264 green space initiatives by citizens. J Environ Policy Plan 20(1):96–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mendoza GA, Martins H (2006) Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: a critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. For Ecol Manag 230:1–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Middlemiss M (2011) The effects of community-based action for sustainability on participants’ lifestyles. Local Environ 16(3):265–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Middlemiss L, Parrish BD (2010) Building capacity for low-carbon communities: the role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy 38:7559–7566. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, Geneletti D, Calfapietra D (2017) A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Pol 77:15–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ross T, Mitchell VA, May AJ (2012) Bottom-up grassroots innovation in transport: motivations, barriers and enablers. Transp Plan Technol 35:469–489. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saarikoski H, Barton D.N, Mustajoki J, Keune H, Gomez-Baggethun E, Langemeyer J (2015) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in ecosystem service valuation. Accessed 16 January 2018
  51. Sanna VS (2018) Grassroots initiatives for sustainability transitions: community-wide impacts and economic functioning. Manag Rev 29:349–380. Google Scholar
  52. 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.
  53. Sengers F, Wieczorek A J, Raven R (2016) Experimenting for sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. Technol Forecasting Social Change In press doi:
  54. Seyfang G (2007) Growing sustainable consumption communities: the case of local organic food networks. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 27:120–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seyfang G, Haxeltine A (2012) Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ Plann C: Government and Policy 30:381–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seyfang G, Longhurst N (2016) What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Tech Anal Strat Manag 28:1–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Seyfang G, Smith A (2007) Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ Politics 16:584–603. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Seyfang G, Park JJ, Smith A (2013) A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy Policy 61:977–989. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seyfang G, Hielscher S, Hargreaves T, Martiskainen M, Smith A (2014) A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environ Innov Soc Trans 13:21–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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:
  61. Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tuckman HP, Chang CF (1991) A methodology for measuring the financial vulnerability of charitable non-profit organizations. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q 20:445–460. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Walker G (2011) The role for ‘community’ in carbon governance. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 2(5):777–782. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wolfram M (2018) Cities shaping grassroots niches for sustainability transitions: conceptual reflections and an exploratory case study. J Clean Prod 173:11–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yotti Kingsley J, Townsend M (2006) ‘Dig in’ to social capital: community gardens as mechanisms for growing urban social connectedness. Urban Policy Res 24:525–537. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zamani-Sabzi H, King JP, Gardc CC, Abudud S (2016) Statistical and analytical comparison of multi-criteria decision-making techniques under fuzzy environment. Oper Res Perspect 3:92–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department MEMOTEFUniversity of Rome La SapienzaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations