Can permaculture-inspired economic regeneration scale beyond localism to drive meaningful, systemic change? This article critiques the traditional community-level focus of permaculture, arguing that its transformative potential requires bold strategies for scaling up and influencing deeper economic and societal systems.

To use an agricultural metaphor, the economy is the compost in which the seed of permaculture lifeways with either germinate bountifully or wither and die. It is important for practitioners to reflects on what it means to “scale up” permaculture and where are the best leverage points are to do so, especially as an economic regeneration and resilience model.

The greatest possibilities for success come from being networked with other practitioners across as large a scale as possible, in order to exert influence at the deep system-level leverage points identified by Donella Meadows in her article Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The holy grail is to capture the critical mass that comes with size, in a structurally organised way, while maintaining the benefits of locally specific design and rhizomic diffusion.

There are two dimensions to how permaculture movement might scale up: horizontal scaling and vertical scaling. While horizontal scaling spreads permaculture practice widely through decentralised means, vertical scaling seeks systemic change by embedding permaculture into the foundational rules and structures of society, offering complementary but distinct pathways for growth and impact.

Horizontal scaling in the permaculture movement refers to the replication and adaptation of permaculture practices across diverse contexts and communities. This approach emphasises grassroots diffusion, enabling communities to adopt and adapt permaculture principles based on their unique cultural, ecological, and socio-economic circumstances (Habib 2014). As a social change methodology, the logic of permaculture design is to drive transformation of larger socio-economic systems by making alterations to the production-consumption cycle at the personal level, where the active individual change agent manifests change as a nested element of their household and local community (Bell 1992; Holmgren 2020).  

Horizontal scaling is facilitated by people-to-people networks of practitioners that are largely manifested through the Permaculture Design Course education model and demonstration sites, which empower individuals and groups to implement practices independently (Ferguson & Lovell 2014). The permaculture movement, through its model of rhizomic diffusion, has been reasonably successful in horizontal scaling (Habib & Fadaee 2021).

“I think the amount of focus here on scaling up and on getting to broader audiences shows that we’ve reached certain levels in certain societies, but that we need to make the next steps.  In others, we’re only just starting in other countries, so it’s creating that strong base.  And obviously permaculture is attracting to the activist movement first and to people passionate about environmental and food change first and that now much more social change as well, which is really important. But there needs to be a lot more effective mechanisms for getting into marginalised groups.  It’s interesting that permaculture can improve the lives of marginalised people the most.  And yet that’s an area in Western society where we’ve had least impact” (Interviewee #23).

In contrast, vertical scaling involves integrating permaculture principles into formal institutions, policies, and governance structures, aiming to influence systemic decision-making at regional, national, or global levels. This requires collaboration with governments, businesses, and international organisations to embed permaculture ethics into policy frameworks, land-use planning, and economic systems (Trainer 2010). It also requires networked activism and organised resistance to systems of power where constructive collaboration is not forthcoming (Altieri & Toledo 2011).

Permaculture economic regeneration and resilience strategies are inherently a vertical scaling project because they challenge the foundational assumptions of capitalist economies, such as perpetual growth, profit maximisation, and resource commodification, while advocating for systemic changes that prioritise ecological health, social equity, and community resilience. These strategies intersect with politics by seeking to redistribute power, redefine economic priorities, and realign governance structures, which makes their implementation and success contingent on engaging with and/or campaigning against political systems to achieve transformative outcomes (Altieri 1999).

The success of permaculture economic regeneration and resilience strategies rests on the vertical scaling of permaculture practice. In contrast to its success in horizontal scaling, the permaculture movement has been poor in scaling up its influence and impact vertically, which places significant limits on its ability to realise the systemic change objectives to which permies are rhetorically committed.

Donella Meadows’ work on leverage points to intervene in a system provides a framework for evaluating the potential effectiveness of permaculture economic regeneration and resilience strategies in transforming the capitalist economic system. Meadows (1999) identifies leverage points ranging from shallow (e.g., adjusting parameters) to deep (e.g., shifting paradigms), with deeper leverage points offering greater transformative potential at a system level.

Strategies addressing deep leverage points require significant collective action, institutional change, and shifts in power dynamics. In contrast, strategies targeting shallow leverage points or working within the existing system typically demand less effort and organisation. Below is a ranking of the strategies discussed in this thread, from most to least effective, based on their alignment with Meadows’ framework.

The shift from a growth-oriented capitalist paradigm to one rooted in permaculture’s ethics of sufficiency, cooperation, and ecological regeneration represents a critical political challenge, demanding widespread cultural and institutional transformation.

Permaculture represents a paradigmatic political project by contesting cultural norms that underpin capitalist economies, such as consumerism, individualism, and resource exploitation. By fostering values of sufficiency, cooperation, and stewardship, permaculture challenges hegemonic ideologies with an eye to broader cultural transformation (Sterling 2001). However, achieving this ideological shift requires political engagement, as cultural change intersects with education policies, public discourse, and media representation, necessitating efforts to influence these domains.

“I think we’ve gotten better at it, because I think what felt pretty fringe and put it that – that’s something that didn’t feel very outside of the mainstream for a long time, I think as we’ve increased conversations around sustainability and environment then a lot of those – what we’re saying before around, you know, people may not call it permaculture, but people are generally more familiar with practices and language that are pretty much permaculture principles and systems.  So, I think that crossed over into more mainstream conversation and government and industry and it’s not so foreign anymore.  So, yeah, I think that we’re in a much better place now to be able to impact policies and business and all of that sort of thing.  The people are more open.  It doesn’t seem like such a kind of hippie to be friends with me anymore” (Interviewee #47).

Permaculture’s foundational principles—Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Share—challenge the growth-oriented paradigm of capitalism by promoting sufficiency, ecological regeneration, and distributive justice. Shifting paradigms is the deepest leverage point in Meadows’ framework, as it redefines the goals and underlying assumptions of the system (Meadows 1999). Similarly, permaculture’s emphasis on long-term ecological health over short-term profit redefines economic priorities and societal values, potentially making it a transformative strategy.

Permaculture-adjacent degrowth and voluntary simplicity advocates challenge the dominant paradigm of economic growth as a measure of success, seeking instead to prioritise ecological balance, sufficiency, and well-being within planetary limits (Caradonna 2022; Alloun & Alexander 2014). Permaculture’s ethical framework—Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Share—reinforces this paradigm shift by promoting cultural and organisational designs that align with biophysical realities and ecological resilience (Holmgren 2017).

“Better connecting and understanding parallels with permaculture such as holistic management, regenerative agriculture, agroecology, syntropic farming, degrowth, sociocracy, transition, Compassionate communities, resilience programmes, indigenous practices and other similar movements and activities to improve collaboration, accessibility, demonstration projects and deepen understanding, opportunity and ability to support transition” (Interviewee #42).

However, actual paradigmatic change of this magnitude requires widespread cultural and institutional adoption of permaculture ethics and principles, not just locally but nationally and globally. To present a serious challenge to the growth imperative of capitalism, the permaculture movement needs to think global and act global in a coordinated way. Such deep cultural shifts require extensive grassroots movements, intellectual leadership, and the ability to counteract powerful capitalist narratives promoted by corporations, media, and states (Moyer 2001). Operationalising this paradigm shift is inherently complex because it requires rethinking fundamental societal norms, economic goals, and organisational structures (Randall 2015).

While permaculture offers a transformative vision for societal change, the journey to operationalise this shift requires overcoming entrenched political, economic, and cultural resistance, demanding a long-term commitment to systemic change and collaboration across diverse movements and sectors.

The move towards localisation and bioregional economies, central to permaculture’s regeneration strategies, offers a direct challenge to globalised capitalist systems by advocating for community-driven decision-making and self-reliance.

Permaculture economic regeneration and resilience strategies emphasise localism, self-reliance, and community-driven decision-making, which directly challenge globalised capitalist systems that rely on centralised production and distribution networks (Trainer 2010). For example, establishing bioregional economies through local governance structures and cooperative economic models can reduce the resource and pollution footprint of economic activity.

The promotion of localisation and bioregional economies directly targets the goals of the capitalist system, which prioritises globalisation and efficiency at the expense of resilience and equity. By re-localising production and consumption, permaculture aligns economic activities with ecological limits and community needs, challenging the centralisation of power and wealth. This strategy operates at a deep leverage point by redefining the purpose and structure of economic activity, fostering systemic resilience (Trainer 2010).

“The governments, I think more so probably at state levels and things like that – so, in the United States, for example, the California permies are very active in – ‘cause a lot of them were rooted in activism and came into permaculture, and so they understand the systems of change that’s required.  So, how do you even – who do you go and petition to?  What does that get to look like?  Who are actually the ones who will – do we even understand fully the system of lawmaking and policymaking and stuff like that and affecting change?  Even though the UN is in New York, I don’t personally know how much the FAO or WFP or some of those international organisations that can affect governments too are really looking to permaculture or if there is any – if permaculture has made its way there or not yet.  So, there’s some – Vermont is another state where I think permaculture and government – there’s definitely been – so I’ve seen it more in states that have always kind of been friendlier to movements and activism – seen permaculture be more successful in making some impact on government, but not in other process” (Interviewee #10).

However, are bioregional and cooperative models robust enough to resist a hostile legal landscape, external pressures from multinational corporations or international trade agreements? To make it so, localisation inherently involves political struggle, as it seeks to re-empower communities and limit the influence of political and economic forces from the local to the global (Foster et al 2010).

Promoting localisation and bioregional economies entails significant restructuring of global trade networks, economic systems, and governance structures. This strategy requires collective efforts to re-embed economies within ecological and social contexts, through extensive local-to-global alliances, including cooperative networks, municipalist movements, and grassroots organising (Anderson et al 2019).

Permaculture’s approach to decentralising economic control through community land trusts, worker cooperatives, and local currencies offers a strategic challenge to the concentration of wealth and power inherent in capitalist systems. For example, community land trusts, food cooperatives, and local currencies embody principles of shared ownership and collective governance (Bollier & Helfrich 2012). Such initiatives disrupt hierarchical power structures and require political advocacy to secure legal and institutional support, such as land reform policies or local government backing for community economic initiatives (Gibson-Graham 2006).

Community land trusts, worker cooperatives, and other forms of collective ownership intervene at the level of system rules and power dynamics, redistributing control over resources and decision-making (Bollier & Helfrich 2012). These strategies challenge the capitalist concentration of wealth and power by creating alternative governance structures. While not as deep as paradigm shifts, they represent a significant leverage point for structural change within the system.

“So those sorts of issues that people – some people maybe have felt was corporate so they kind of moved away and do they still want to connect with people.  I mean, I’m part of a group called the Squash Co-op, so we’re growing squash in little bits of land ‘cause there’s food security and food sovereignty and that, just food” (Interviewee #21c).

“I think that in North America there is a strong strand of individualism within the movement that reifies “self-reliance”, business ownership, and land ownership. I think this gets in the way of building a truly international movement. Decolonizing permaculture FOR REAL (not as a catch phrase) means questioning land ownership, geopolitical borders, and dealing with issues of economic disparity on a global scale” (Interviewee #30).

Establishing and maintaining community land trusts and cooperatives requires significant political and legal effort, often at the national or regional scale. These strategies of “contentious politics” rely on grassroots mobilisation, advocacy for legal reforms, and collaboration with policymakers (Tilly 2004).

Establishing and scaling cooperative models requires not only financial resources but also robust organisational structures to sustain collective ownership and governance. Establishing and scaling cooperative models demands more than financial resources; it requires robust organisational structures that enable collective ownership, transparent decision-making, and effective governance (Rajasekhar et al 2020). Without these, cooperatives risk fragmentation or inefficiency as they grow, undermining their potential as alternatives to traditional hierarchical organisations.

Elinor Ostrom’s work on common-pool resource management highlights the importance of clearly defined roles, shared norms, and adaptable governance frameworks in sustaining cooperative efforts (Ostrom 1990). Similarly, studies in cooperative economics emphasise the need for mechanisms that balance local autonomy with collective oversight to maintain cohesion and resilience at scale (Birchall 1997). Building such structures ensures that cooperatives can retain their values while expanding their impact.

In a world where education often reinforces existing power structures, permaculture offers a progressive approach to learning that empowers individuals to challenge the status quo and create lasting change. Education and cultural transformation efforts, such as permaculture design courses (PDCs) and other related ecological literacy initiatives, operate at a lower level of political organisation but require extensive grassroots outreach and network-building.

“So, it’s very vital to innovations, innovative approach to teaching.  That’s the main one or the specific, so that’s why we try to maintain this standard of 72-hour permaculture design course based on this curriculum developed by Bill Mollison because it’s really such a short or relatively short course.  It has a great impact on people’s life” (Interviewee #4).

“I think there is so much scope for getting it embedded in universities ‘cause already the – at the moment, there’s some like [edible] university campuses.  I mean this seems to be really spread as well in America and there’s a few examples in the UK at the moment of these [edible] university campuses ‘cause it’s marvellous model but the broader issues around permaculture and the ethics – if that was introduced to students, that would be very powerful” (Interviewee #2).

These strategies draw on Paulo Freire’s concept of critical consciousness (Freire 1970), empowering communities to challenge dominant paradigms through education. While not overtly confrontational, they demand sustained effort in curriculum development, teacher training, and community engagement. The permaculture movement can reorganise critical information diffusion if practitioners can work to embed ecological literacy and ethical frameworks across educational systems, not just in individual courses or schools.

What if the future of business and organisation looked less like a rigid hierarchy and more like the interconnected, adaptive systems found in nature? By applying permaculture principles to organisational design, advocates aim to create systems that embody the values of degrowth, such as multifunctionality, participatory governance, and adaptability (Starhawk 2011).

These structures challenge traditional hierarchical models and instead support regenerative practices that align with the vision of “permanent culture”. Permaculture-inspired organisational design calls for organisational structures that mimic the diversity and multi-functionality of natural ecosystems, that are participatory and allow for emergence, and are characterised by flat power structures over more traditional hierarchies (Mannen et al 2012; Starhawk 2011). 

Randall (2015) argues that permaculture-inspired organisational design should draw on the viral diffusion effect of a positive demonstration model to encourage the design of organisational structures and processes based on symbiosis and multi-functionality.  Akhtar et al (2015) argue that business organisations can also utilise permaculture design to integrate the three-legged stool of economic, social and environmental aims.

“I’m really excited about the social permaculture work that’s happening – trying to help business and organisational structures to take that step into next paradigm of business and enterprise.  I think that’s super exciting to see these organisational models like sociocracy and holacracy and other things that mimic the patterns found in nature with the beehives and everything” (Interviewee #25).

Mainstream adaptation of permaculture-inspired organisational design demands significant effort and political mobilisation at the organisational and inter-organisational level due to entrenched cultural, institutional, and systemic barriers in these contexts. Horizontal organisational governance that promotes participatory governance, decentralisation, and multifunctionality, challenge the dominant paradigms of hierarchy and profit maximisation.

Shifting these paradigms requires addressing cultural resistance and creating demonstration models that highlight the viability of alternative structures (Randall 2015). This process involves mobilising grassroots movements, building coalitions, and leveraging political opportunities created by crises (Tilly 2004; Gramsci 1971). Institutional resistance and structural inertia further complicate this effort, necessitating advocacy for legal and policy changes to enable the scaling of permaculture principles (Akhtar et al 2015). Strategic alliances with the union movement, who are the experts at this level of organising (McAlevey 2020), would be the most productive avenue here for permaculture practitioners.

By advocating for and embracing permaculture-inspired organisational models, we can cultivate workplaces that not only thrive on collaboration and sustainability but also challenge the entrenched systems that prioritise power and profit over people and the planet.

The permaculture movement has long imagined intentional communities and eco-villages where every action, from housing to governance, is designed to nurture both people and the planet.

Intentional communities and eco-villages function as living laboratories for permaculture design, offering a space for experimentation, innovation, and demonstration of regenerative practices (Escribano 2023). Through these models, new insights into sustainable collective living are generated, shared, and refined, influencing broader societal understanding of ecological resilience, sustainable building design, land tenure, and community dynamics (Pickerill 2013).

Mainstreaming intentional communities as a model for sustainable and collective living requires significant effort and political organisation, as it challenges entrenched cultural norms of individualism and profit-driven living while addressing institutional barriers such as restrictive housing regulations and land tenure systems. Demonstration communities play a crucial role in showcasing the ecological and social benefits of intentional living, catalysing broader acceptance through viral diffusion and public engagement (Randall 2015). As Shenker (2011) notes, the window of political opportunity for intentional communities tends to open prominently during times of significant social change and moral uncertainty, when the certainties of mainstream culture are challenged.

However, this effort faces challenges, externally from resistance from traditional institutions and the risk of co-optation, where core values of participatory governance and ecological harmony may be diluted in scaling efforts (Shiva 2005), and internally from poor internal governance and lack of diversity. Despite these challenges, intentional communities offer one potentially transformative model to address ecological crises and social fragmentation, making their mainstreaming a worthwhile endeavour (Fox 2013; Pickerill 2013).

“A lot of it is also happening online outside of the gatherings, and I think that’s where we could get a lot more structured even, ‘cause I feel like there’s all these disparate blogs and websites, but if we can create more databases to enable to find those resources easily, and I also think people who travel about and visit different farms and communities is another way that permies connect.  In my work with the Global Ecovillage Network, we have a rather formal structure for how we organise around eco-villages and that is based on a Sociocratic approach where we have circle of people from – representing all different corners of the world.  We’re operating in five global regions as GEN and I think that’s a really interesting model that permaculture could look at” (Interviewee #25).

Achieving systemic change thus requires sustained advocacy, strategic alignment of efforts across multiple levels, and a clear articulation of the core values underpinning these designs. Resource mobilisation, network building, and viral diffusion are essential to this transformation. Demonstration models showcasing permaculture-inspired practices can serve as catalysts, inspiring broader adoption through their practical benefits and adaptability (Starhawk 2011).

While the mainstream adaptation of permaculture-inspired educational models and organisational designs faces significant barriers, the efforts to embed ecological literacy and participatory governance hold transformative potential for reshaping societal priorities and fostering long-term cultural change.

In the face of capitalist economies that prioritise profit over ecological health, permaculture design is complimentary with economic models focused on circular economies and closed-loop systems (Raworth 2017), which seek to redefine resource use and waste management for long-term sustainability.

Capitalist economies prioritise GDP growth and profit maximisation, often at the expense of ecological sustainability and social well-being (Jackson 2009). Permaculture offers an alternative framework by emphasising principles which reorient economic activities towards long-term ecological health and equitable resource distribution (Holmgren 2017). This redefinition of priorities is a political act because it requires challenging dominant ideologies and influencing policy decisions to incorporate ecological and social metrics into economic governance, such as through regenerative agriculture subsidies or carbon reduction mandates (Shiva 2005).

“I think in China, a lot of people are using similar principles and ideas, and maybe they’ve always have been, and things like close-loop systems and in terms of access to resources and other things and sharing – I think there was an element of group culture as well and that seems apart of permacultures, you know, it’s like less of individual but a community or group will help you articulate it” (Interviewee #21c).

Permaculture’s focus on circular economies and closed-loop systems, such as composting, greywater recycling, and biochar production, addresses feedback loops that govern resource use and waste management. Strengthening feedback loops can stabilise the system by reducing environmental degradation and resource depletion (Geissdoerfer et al 2017). While impactful, these strategies primarily mitigate the symptoms of capitalism’s extractive logic rather than addressing its deeper drivers.

In examining the embedding of local currencies and time banking in permaculture-designed community development models (North 2010), the complementarity of economic exchange with other non-economic dimensions of human life are critical to the sustainability of the economic system, based on the diffusive power of social networks and the principle of reciprocity to create the social capital that can hold the economic system together (Váleka & Jašíkováa 2013).

“When I was first introduced to them, when I did my own PDC, I’m gradually actually becoming mainstream ideas.  I mean there are things like ethical investment in banking and local economies” (Interviewee #46).

Creating circular economies and closed-loop systems operate primarily at the local and regional levels. Political organisation is less intensive but still requires significant coordination among stakeholders, such as local governments, businesses, and community groups. Resource mobilisation theory highlights the importance of securing funding, expertise, and public support for these initiatives (Edwards & McCarthy 2004).

However, the political obstacles that practitioners need to overcome to scale up adoption of circular economies and closed-loop systems are significant, including slow authorisation pathways due to obstruction by bureaucratic actors and various other stakeholders, lack of buy-in from local-level implementers, and low political support (Jones 2021). While circular economies and closed-loop systems offer a powerful solution to environmental degradation, their success hinges on continued grassroots mobilisation, policy support, and the integration of ecological principles into broader economic frameworks.

As the urgency for systemic ecological change grows, permaculture-informed policy advocacy at all levels of power, can challenge existing power structures and clear a path toward more widespread sustainable practice.

Permaculture-informed policy reforms, such as advocating at the international level for the rights of nature (Boyd 2017), national-level agricultural and environmental laws (Robertson & Habib 2023), or local-level regenerative zoning laws (Gurran & Phibbs 2018), intervene at the level of system rules. These strategies can create enabling conditions for permaculture practices but often face resistance from entrenched capitalist interests. Their transformative potential depends on broader shifts in power dynamics and cultural paradigms (Shiva 2005).

“Well, I suppose from a – being a public health nutrition specialist, if you’re working in public health, you have to be political.  And I would say I am very political, and so, obviously wanting to be change in policies, I do feel that there is a gap with permaculture in policies.  And my area is around agriculture, food, nutrition and health, and what I would like to see is that we actually have the word “permaculture” – actually there overtly rather than inferred < sort of links to agro-ecology and I think that it will really help if just the word is present and there is a need as well to link in.  I think around advocacy and policy influencing, there’s a big gap – how to do that well, how to structure campaigns, think long-term, and meeting your goals around advocacy and policy.  So, I am actually involved in a project which hopefully will help the People’s Food Policy” (Interviewee #2).

Advocating for the rights of nature or policy reforms like agroecology subsidies demands well-organised political campaigns, coalitions of activists, scientists, and legal experts, and the ability to influence state and international policies. Theories of political opportunity structures (McAdam et al 2001) suggest that success depends on exploiting windows of opportunity, such as crises or shifts in political leadership. Examples include campaigns for the Rights of Nature laws in Ecuador and New Zealand (Tananescu 2022) and advocacy for climate justice at COP summits.

While advocating for the rights of nature and enacting policy reforms requires strategic political mobilisation, the potential to reshape global governance and ensure long-term ecological health makes these efforts essential for a just and resilient future.

Urban permaculture initiatives address the parameters of the economic system in Donella Meadows’ leverage points typology. These strategies are valuable for demonstrating alternatives but operate within the constraints of the capitalist framework, limiting their transformative potential (Rosol 2012). They are often palliative rather than systemic interventions.

As (Bane 2012) argues, permaculture offers an empowering system of community development that is accessible to all people across cultures and places. These interventions include rooftop gardens and community-supported agriculture, and participation in niche markets for organic and local products (Holmgren 2018). In this vein, permaculture sites can act as “everyday utopias,” where practitioners build new counter-normative experiences of social and political life, thus presenting a powerful critique of the mainstream through demonstration effect (Cooper 2014). 

Urban permaculture initiatives, like rooftop gardens or farmers’ markets, require moderate levels of organisation within existing political and economic frameworks. These efforts align with the theory of “prefigurative politics” (Boggs 1977), where small-scale experiments model the broader viability of alternative systems. Permaculture design has the capacity to increase the resilience of households and communities in which the self-reliant individual exists, minimise dependencies on distant food and resource supply chains, and reduce the environmental footprint of consumption (Holmgren 2014).

While these interventions are adaptive rather than transformative, they often build momentum for larger systemic change through demonstration effects and community engagement.

“So, first we need to show them working examples.  The most important in – or different situations is that people would understand that.  Now, many people say that “Okay, I don’t have garden, I don’t know permaculture.”  So, they need to understand those farmers and also people who live in the cities; so, we need different types of centres” (Interviewee #4). 

Clearly there is a broader socio-economic mandate embedded within even the most individualist interpretation of permaculture politics. Though these initiatives operate within the constraints of the global economic system, their ability to reshape local consumption patterns and foster community resilience highlights their locally-transformative potential.

In the pursuit of sustainability, permaculture’s focus on appropriate technologies, like small-scale renewable energy and regenerative water systems, introduces crucial substitutes that reduce environmental harm, yet often remain entangled within the broader capitalist system.

Permaculture’s emphasis on local-scale technologies, such as small-scale renewable energy or regenerative water systems, substitutes components within the system without altering its structure or goals (Winner 1986). While these technologies reduce environmental impacts, they are easily co-opted by the capitalist system without accompanying changes in paradigms, rules, or power dynamics.

“With technology, I mean that’s why I was thinking maybe one of the things is – ‘cause I think permaculture might be – it’s like, “Oh, I don’t want to use a computer” and there’s backlash or resist to it, which is kind of true, I don’t like actually spending too much time using devices and things like that, but I think there is also a lot of tools that are already useful like mapping and GIS, and it think the food movement and the permaculture are becoming a bit more tech-savvy and you kind of have to play the game a bit, so that is the challenge, I think, and some opportunity like it’s a big day to actually do it” (Interviewee #21c).

The adoption of appropriate technologies are a matter of individual choice and require relatively low levels of political organisation. These interventions often rely on market mechanisms, philanthropic funding, or individual adoption rather than collective political action. However, scaling their impact may require advocacy for supportive policies and infrastructure investment.

“At the moment not very well but improving. Permaculture has marginalised itself by a sustained focus on low tech and not on the mainstream, which is where most people are present” (Interviewee #38).

McBay (2011) argues that people working on sustainable technologies and alternative modes of living need also to be part of a “culture of resistance,” pairing new materialism with activist politics in order to explicitly challenge the dominant culture and prevent “the carefully tended permaculture gardens and groves of lifeboat ecovillages will be nothing more than after-dinner snacks for civilization.”  As Furze (1992) argues, the quest for a new set of human relations with nature that is championed by permaculture design necessarily must necessarily and symbiotically involve a new set of social relations. 

While these technologies offer essential solutions, their true transformative potential hinges on their ability to be integrated into a broader shift in social and political paradigms, challenging the very system that seeks to co-opt them.

The escapist middle-class permaculture dream is to buy a block of land in the countryside to set up a small permaculture farm and live off the land. I harboured this fantasy for a while too, I understand how powerful the idea of escape from the rat race is. Rural migration and self-reliance do offer temporary solace but ultimately fail to address the deeper systemic economic issues at play.

The notion of rural migration and self-reliance reflects a fantasy of escape from the capitalist system rather than an intervention to transform it. While it may provide localised resilience for individuals or communities, it does not engage with the broader destructive and unjust systemic problems of the economy, making it one of the least effective strategies from a systems perspective (Veteto & Lockyer 2008).

“Only the will of people to get out and live permaculture – referring to it as a movement will kill it” (Interviewee #36).

The strategy of rural migration and self-reliance demands minimal political organisation, as it represents individual or small-group responses to systemic collapse. However, its lack of engagement with broader structures limits its systemic impact. While inspired by survivalist tendencies, this approach aligns poorly with theories of collective action, which emphasise the necessity of organising for systemic change (Ostrom 1990).

Though appealing as a form of personal or community resilience, this strategy ultimately falls short in effecting the broad-based, collective change needed to challenge and transform the structures of the global economy. I will have more to say on the limits of rural escapism in Part IX of this article series.

From a complex systems perspective, the most transformative permaculture strategies are those that address deeper leverage points, such as shifting paradigms and redesigning system goals. Strategies targeting rules, feedback loops, and information flows hold intermediate potential, while those focused on parameters or substituting components tend to be more adaptive than transformative.

To maximise their impact, permaculture practitioners should integrate these strategies across leverage points, combining paradigm shifts with structural reforms and practical innovations to challenge the capitalist system holistically.

Strategies targeting deep leverage points, such as shifting paradigms and redesigning system goals, require the most political organisation and effort due to their challenge to entrenched systems of power and ideology. Intermediate strategies, such as changing power dynamics or modifying rules, demand significant but more focused political mobilisation.

Finally, shallow interventions, like adopting appropriate technologies or escapist rural migration, require minimal organisation but offer limited transformative potential. To maximise their impact, permaculture practitioners must integrate efforts across scales, balancing grassroots initiatives with strategic policy advocacy.