What this was, and why

NEOBIOME is a Master's research project asking a straightforward question: could a purpose-built, technology-enabled, largely self-sufficient community work in Aotearoa New Zealand, and would anyone actually want to live in one? Most of the project is technical: a model that assesses land, energy, water and food for a given site. This survey covers the other half of the question. It asked members of the public what they would expect from such a community, what would draw them to it, what would hold them back, and what they would be willing to pay and to give up.

It was an anonymous online questionnaire, 30 questions across 10 pages, and it is now closed. Alongside it runs a strand of in-depth interviews, which continues.

Open

30 April – 31 May 2026

Responses

valid (23 received, 1 test removed)

Format

Anonymous online questionnaire, 30 questions

Recruitment

The researcher's own social media reach

Analysis

Descriptive only, no statistical inference

Ethics approval

MTF.8888.294

Five things worth knowing

1. Appeal ran far ahead of intent. 19 of the 22 found the concept appealing, but only 8 said they would seriously consider living in one within five years. Those 8 are not the same 8 who found it most appealing: 5 people fall in both groups, 3 who were strongly drawn to the idea would not currently consider it, and 3 who would consider it were only somewhat drawn. Liking the idea and moving are not the same thing, and how much someone likes it says little about whether they would go.
2. Community is the draw, not cost. Asked what matters most in choosing where to live, 13 chose a sense of community, more than twice as many as chose affordability (6).
3. Self-sufficiency is expected in energy and water, not in everything. 16 of 22 expect such a community to be mostly self-sufficient in energy and 14 in water, but only 8 in food, and just 6 in internet and communications.
4. Capital now, not bills later. 14 of 22 would accept a higher one-off cost to get there. Only 6 would accept higher ongoing costs, the one trade-off they consistently refused.
5. The setting they want is coastal or peri-urban. 10 chose coastal and 6 the edge of town. Not one person chose rural farmland, a signal about amenity and access, not about the concept.

The

How people found this survey matters more than it usually would, so it is worth being precise. It was advertised by the researcher on the social media channels he had access to: a peer school Slack channel, his personal LinkedIn, and a handful of thematic Facebook groups. That was the whole of the promotion.

It was not a marketing campaign, and it should not be mistaken for one. The researcher had no prior experience promoting a survey on social media. The project does not even have a Facebook page, and several private Facebook groups either declined access or did not respond in time, because they were approached too late. The response count is a direct reflection of that. Twenty-two people is what an under-promoted survey returns; it is not a measurement of how much public interest exists. That lesson is taken, and a future wave would be recruited properly.

The shape of who did answer follows from where it was advertised: mostly Auckland, mostly mid-life, mostly comfortable, and already warm to the idea. These were, after all, people willing to answer a survey about an eco-community.

Community beat affordability

Asked to pick the three things that matter most when choosing where to live, more people chose a sense of community than chose anything else, and more than twice as many chose it as chose affordability.

Warmth is easy. Commitment is not.

After reading a short description of the concept, almost everyone liked it. Far fewer would actually move. That gap, between finding something appealing and being willing to do it, is the most useful thing this survey found, and the easiest one to lose if you only report the headline.

Energy and water, yes. Internet, no.

People expect a community like this to look after its own power and water. They are markedly less convinced about food, and they expect to stay plugged into the normal internet like everybody else.

Capital now, not bills later

Self-sufficiency costs something. We asked what people would actually accept. They will wear a big one-off cost, and they will do the work themselves, but they will not accept higher ongoing bills. Of every trade-off tested, that was the one they refused.

What people said they'd pay

People who said renting or buying didn't interest them are not counted here: the questionnaire told them to enter zero, so a zero is a “no thanks”, not a low offer. Two respondents answered in euros; their figures were converted to New Zealand dollars at 1.98, the rate for the week the survey closed.

The rent answers are notably split: a cluster below $500 a week and a second cluster at $1,000 and above, with very little in between. At this sample size that is a curiosity worth testing, not a finding.

Coastal and peri-urban, not deep rural

Given a free choice of setting, ten people chose coastal and six chose the edge of town. Not one chose rural farmland.

This is not a rejection of the concept. It is a statement about amenity and access. People want the environmental quality and the community, but they also want to stay within reach of the services, schools and work that a town provides. The same survey backs this up elsewhere: 14 of the 22 said the longest they would accept to reach a town of 10,000 people is 45 minutes or less.

Read together, that points somewhere useful: an innovative, ecological, largely self-sufficient community is a desirable option for people around urban areas too, in line with the broader move toward peri-urban living, not only a proposition for those wanting to leave the city behind.

The garden is the one thing everybody wants

People could pick up to three shared facilities, and they spent the lot: 65 of a possible 66 picks, with 21 of the 22 using all three. That changes how the bottom of this list should be read. A facility that scored low was passed over by people who still had votes in hand, not merely left unranked. Being ignored here means something.

Community gardens and orchards are the only genuine consensus. They come first among households with children and households without them alike, the one facility whose position holds up however you cut the sample. And the demand for them does not depend on believing the community will feed itself: people who expect only partial food self-sufficiency wanted a garden just as much. It is wanted as a social place, not only a productive one.

Childcare's second place says as much about who answered as about the idea. Thirteen of the 22 respondents are families with children, a direct consequence of how the survey was promoted, and childcare is overwhelmingly their choice. Among households without children it falls well down the list. The same is true of the health and wellness facility. Read them as demand from this group of households, not as a general finding.

And the tech-forward crowd did not want the tech. This sample leans strongly toward technology: nine early adopters, eight comfortable users, and not one person who called themselves reluctant or resistant. Yet the two facilities most associated with “smart community” marketing, a co-working space and a shared EV pool, drew a single pick each. Among the early adopters specifically: co-working one, EV pool none, while five of the nine chose the garden. For a project built on the promise of a technology-enabled community, that is worth sitting with. People appear to want the technology in the infrastructure, the power and the water, and not in the things they share socially. What they want to share is a garden, a clinic and a hall.

What this survey cannot tell you

It would be easy to present warm responses as evidence of demand. They are not, and it matters more to say so than to look convincing.

• The sample is small. At people, these results describe this group and nobody else. There are no significance tests, confidence intervals or models on this page, because none would be honest. One person is roughly a twentieth of the sample: small differences between options mean nothing.
• The sample selected itself, and the recruitment was weak. People found the survey through the researcher's own social media reach: a school Slack channel, a personal LinkedIn account, and a few thematic Facebook groups. There was no marketing plan, no project page and no promotion budget, and several private groups were approached too late to grant access. So the sample is not merely self-selected. It is narrow in a specific and knowable way: skewed to Auckland, to mid-life, to higher incomes, and to people already sympathetic to the idea. A properly promoted wave would be a different instrument, not just a bigger one.
• Warmth here is not demand out there. Set against the Ipsos New Zealand Housing Monitor 2025, a nationally representative survey of 1,001 New Zealanders, this group shows no sign of housing dissatisfaction: 18 of the 22 here are happy with their current housing, against 73% nationally. On this sample size no claim is made that the group is more satisfied than average. The finding is the absence of the opposite. Their interest is therefore not driven by housing stress. It is values-driven interest from people who are already comfortable. That is a real finding, but it is not a market.
• Three respondents live in Europe and were assessing a New Zealand concept from the other side of the world. Their financial answers were converted from euros. They are reported as individual voices, never as a rate.
• It was one shot. There was no opportunity to ask a follow-up question, or to find out what someone meant.

The right way to use this page: as a set of hypotheses worth testing, and as a guide to what a bigger, better-recruited study should ask. Not as proof that anybody will build anything.

Where this goes next

These findings feed a Master's thesis and sit alongside a strand of in-depth interviews, which are still running. The survey itself is closed. If you would like to follow the research, you can leave your details on the main site.

Thank you to everyone who gave their time.