Grassroots innovation literature proposes that ‘intermediately’ situated community-based projects—those which are neither too radical, nor too embedded in the mainstream—play an important cross-contextual bridging role in processes of innovation for sustainable development. This paper explores this intermediacy claim by comparing how three established ecovillage projects engage outsiders and diffuse their lessons learned. Employing comparative case-study methodology, I find that while all three projects successfully replicate alternative practices outside their boundaries—for example through education, outreach, and on-site activities—one project has partnered with municipal planners to translate ‘ecovillage concepts’ into a new zoning category that will facilitate similar development by mainstream actors. The argument is made that the landscape for grassroots innovation is uneven, and that niche-to-regime translation occurs through projects that position themselves as part of two action domains at once.
ArgyrisC, 1976, “Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making”Administrative Science Quarterly21363–375
2.
ArkinL, 1992, “The Los Angeles Eco-Village: A sustainable urban community”, in Sustainable Cities: Concepts and Strategies for Eco-city Development Eds WalterBArkinLCrenshawR W, EHM Eco-Home Media, Los Angeles, CA
3.
CheckowayB, 1980, “Large builders, federal housing programmes, and postwar suburbanization”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research4(1) 21–45
4.
ChristianD L, 2003Creating a Life Together: Practical Tools to Grow Ecovillages and Intentional CommunitiesNew Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC)
DawsonJ, 2006Ecovillages: New Frontiers for SustainabilityChelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT)
7.
EwingR HBartholomewKWinkelmanSWaltersJChenD, 2007Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate ChangeUrban Land Institute, Washington, DC)
8.
FlyvbjergB, 2006, “Five misunderstandings about case-study research”Qualitative Inquiry12219–245
9.
FultonWPendallRNguyenMHarrisonA, 2001Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC
10.
GalsterGHansonRRatcliffeM RWolmanHColemanSFreihageJ, 2001, “Wrestling sprawl to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept”Housing Policy Debate12681–717
11.
GeelsF W, 2002, “Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study”Research Policy311257–1274
12.
GeelsF W, 2004, “Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective”Technological Forecasting and Social Change72681–696
13.
GeelsF WRavenR, 2006, “Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: Ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003)”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management18(3–4) 375–392
14.
GeelsF WSchotJ, 2007, “Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways”Research Policy36399–417
15.
GilmanR, 1991. “The ecovillage challenge: The challenge of developing a community living in balanced harmony—with itself as well as nature—is tough, but attainable”In Context Summer 10
16.
GoodmanB, 2002, “EcoVillage at Ithaca sprouts new entities”The EcoVillage at Ithaca Newsletter11(1) 13
17.
HallP, 1996Cities of TomorrowBlackwell, Oxford)
18.
IPCC, 2013, “Summary for policy makers”, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Eds StockerT FQinDPlattnerG KTignorMAllenS KBoschungJMidgleyP M (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 3–29
19.
JacksonK T, 1985, “The drive-in culture of contemporary America”, in City Reader Ed. LeGatesR T (Taylor and Francis, London) pp 59–68
20.
KoennenC, 1994, “The new neighbors: Creating connections out of chaos”Los Angeles Times 12 May, E1–E5
21.
LitfinK T, 2009, “Reinventing the future: The global ecovillage movement as a holistic knowledge community”, in Environmental Governance: Knowledge and Power in a Local-Global World Eds KüttingGLipschutzR D (Routledge, London) pp 124–142
22.
LitfinK T, 2013Ecovillages: Lessons for Sustainable CommunityPolity Press, Malden, MA)
23.
McCamantKDurrettC, 1989Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing OurselvesTen Speed Press, Berkeley, CA)
24.
MoosMWhitfieldJJohnsonL CAndreyJ, 2006, “Does design matter? The ecological footprint as a planning tool at the local level”Journal of Urban Design11195–224
25.
OrnetzederM, 2001, “Old technology and social innovations: Inside the Austrian success story on solar water heaters”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management13(1) 105–115
26.
ReesW E, 1995, “Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation?”Journal of Planning Literature9343–361
27.
RipAKempR, 1998, “Technological change”, in Human Choice and Climate Change Eds RaynerSMaloneE L (Battelle Press, Columbus, OH) pp 327–399
28.
RobinsonJ, 2004, “Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development”Ecological Economics48369–384
29.
SchafferD, 1982Garden Cities for America: The Radburn ExperienceTemple University Press, Philadelphia, PA)
30.
SeyfangG, 2010, “Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low-carbon future”Energy Policy387624–7633
31.
SeyfangGHaxeltineA, 2012, “Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy30381–400
32.
SeyfangGSmithA, 2007, “Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda”Environmental Politics16584–603
