SOEE5020M 201190252
LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS IN ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES:
THE FINDHORN ECOVILLAGE CASE, SCOTLAND
The School of Earth and Environment
Vicente Lombardozzi
Master of Science in Ecological Economics
SOEE5020M: Research Project
August 2019
Supervisor: Professor Julia Martin-Ortega
Wordcount: 11,999
1
SOEE5020M 201190252
Academic integrity declaration
2
SOEE5020M 201190252
List of Contents, Figures and Tables
Title page...... 1
Academic integrity declaration ...... 2
List of Contents, Figures and Tables ...... 3
Abstract ...... 6
Acronyms and abbreviations ...... 7
1. Introduction ...... 8
1.1. Contextualization and justification ...... 8
1.2. Aim and research questions...... 10
1.3. Research project structure ...... 11
2. Conceptual basis ...... 13
2.1. Ecovillage, a relatively new concept ...... 13
2.2. GEN, international efforts and coordination ...... 16
2.3. Ecological performance: the strength of ecovillages ...... 17
2.4. Economy: a hard task for communities ...... 18
2.5. Expanding resilience: towards a new community resilience approach ...... 20
3
SOEE5020M 201190252
3. Case study: Findhorn Ecovillage ...... 24
4. Methodology ...... 26
4.1. Interview design and sampling procedure...... 26
Table 4.1 Interview versions ...... 27
4.2. Interview participants ...... 28
Table 4.2 Interview list ...... 28
4.3. Analysis of responses ...... 28
5. Findings and discussion ...... 30
5.1. Results structure ...... 30
Table 5.1 Themes matrix ...... 31
5.2. Income sources and jobs...... 32
5.3. Level of satisfaction with current economic situation ...... 34
5.4. Benefits and costs of living in the ecovillage ...... 37
5.5. Personal economic choices and worldview ...... 39
5.6. Community resilience: integrating social capital and institutional support ...... 43
6. Conclusions ...... 47
7. References ...... 49
4
SOEE5020M 201190252
8. Appendices ...... 54
8.1 Appendix 1: Interview questions (Interview type 2) ...... 54
8.2 Appendix 2: Interview-guidance matrix ...... 56
8.3 Appendix 3. Nodes matrix ...... 60
8.4. Appendix 4: Letter of consent and informed consent ...... 62
8.5. Appendix 5: Members’ economic situation ...... 64
5
SOEE5020M 201190252
Abstract
Ecovillages are communities that aim to live in a sustainable, resilient way. Since their formal origins in the 1990s, when the concept was formally coined, several studies have shown their ecological benefits. However, there is a lack of research about the economic dynamics of these modern settlements.
The present study aims to contribute to the knowledge of the economics of ecovillages by researching the livelihood options of its members and how capable they are to generate enough resources to create a community resilient environment. For this motive, one of the most famous and long-lived ecovillages in the world, Findhorn Ecovillage, was used as a case study. Eleven interviews were applied, trying to understand the overall economic situation of Findhorn Ecovillage’s members. Results indicate that, while basic needs are successfully met and there is high job satisfaction, the feeling of members about their economic situation, especially regarding secondary needs, is ambiguous. Also, the youngest interviewees have uncertainties about their financial future. On the other hand, the worldview of the members shows a lack of financial ambition and monetary goals. Theirs is a philosophy of voluntary simplicity. In this way, the presence of social capital seems to counteract the deficiency of financial richness, as a source of well-being and community resilience. The research concludes with new understandings of communal resilience and with potential ways to enhance it.
Key words: community resilience, ecovillages, Findhorn Ecovillage, social capital, voluntary simplicity.
6
SOEE5020M 201190252
Acronyms and abbreviations
B&B Bread & Breakfast
CC Community Centre
EU European Union
FC Findhorn College
FE Findhorn Ecovillage
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEN Global Ecovillage Network ha hectares ph per hour pm per month
UN United Nations
US United States (of America)
7
SOEE5020M 201190252
1. Introduction
1.1. Contextualization and justification
To keep the economic engine working, growing economies tend to encourage the culture of consumerism. Jackson (2009, p.99) expresses that this materialist culture can even act as a “substitute for religion consolation.” In modern societies, consumerism and merchandise function as identification. The upper classes try to differentiate themselves from the rest, which, according to the Veblen's (1899)
“conspicuous theory”, are constantly trying to imitate the former. For Jackson (2009) this creates an “Iron
Cage of Consumerism”, based on anxiety:
Materialistic values such as popularity, image and financial success are psychologically opposed
to ‘intrinsic’ values like self-acceptance, affiliation, a sense of belonging in the community …
People with higher intrinsic values are both happier and have higher levels of environmental
responsibility than those with materialistic values. (pp.148-149)
After realizing that there is a threshold in which more GDP per capita growth does not increase happiness, Dietz and O’Neill (2013, p.163) recommended that to achieve a steady state economy1, consumerism should be replaced with nonmaterialistic lifestyles. One example that presents such a lifestyle shift are ecovillages (Dietz and O’Neill, 2013, p.164). They are offered as an alternative to individualistic and consumerist systems (Andreas and Wagner, 2012) and even as a “third political way”, different from capitalism and communism (Gilman et al., 1995).
These modern settlements has been identified as a source of inspiration in a transition to a sustainable society (Accioly Dias et al., 2017) and how a “degrowth world” would look like (Cattaneo,
1 Steady state economy is a “dynamic society in which quantitative growth is replace by qualitative social development and whose rates of resource extraction and pollution are compatible with the rates of resource production and waste assimilation by supporting ecosystems” (Rees, 2003).
8
SOEE5020M 201190252
2015). The latest philosophy, which aims to overcome perpetual economic growth, may be one of the main theoretical and practical products of the strong sustainability viewpoint. This approach, differently from the weak sustainability one, claim that natural capital2 is not replaceable for other kinds of capital.
According to Gowdy (2014), ecological economics represents the strong approach, whereas neoclassical economics represents the weak. Raworth (2017) adds that whereas neoclassical economics focuses on an individualist methodological approach, ecological economics is based on a systemic paradigm.
Understanding practical and concrete cases of those sustainability paradigms might be useful to cope with the current ecological crisis and its potential solutions. Socio-ecological systems not only need to mitigate harmful ecological practices to ameliorate global warming, but they should also adapt to potential changes (IPCC, 2014) – community resilience is an indicator of the social sustainability which facilitates adaptation to stressors (Magis, 2010).
Ecovillages try to deal with the global crisis not in an individualist but in a systemic way. This systemic view is supposed to be exhibited through three dimensions: ecological, cultural-spiritual and social-economic (Jackson and Svensson, 2002). However, Lombardozzi (2017) argues that the economic dimension has not been sufficiently studied. Andreas and Wagner (2012) also identify this theoretical gap, mentioning that they could find just one study that shows (partially) the economy of an ecovillage.
Moreover, in contrast to businesses, the ecovillage’s economic activities tend to focus upon generating community resilience rather than generating income3. This can create some difficulties that might paradoxically debilitate community resilience. Especially considering that on the one hand, some ecovillage initiatives depend heavily on owning enough personal assets that bring the security needed for living in a simpler, low-consumption lifestyle (Jackson, 2009) – but on the other hand, most ecological- communities struggle financially (Ludwig, 2017).
2 Natural capital refers to natural resources, both non-renewable and renewable (Gowdy, 2014).
3 Melissa Godbeer (Research Director, Findhorn College), email message to the author, April 26, 2019.
9
SOEE5020M 201190252
Therefore, identifying the proper academic discipline and concepts that explain ecovillages’ dynamics is important. Otherwise they could be judged and analysed according to values and purposes with which they do not identify. In this sense, it may be relevant to understand the general worldview and livelihood options of ecovillagers, and in which economic approach they better fit in, in order to clarify the communal resilience concept.
Findhorn Ecovillage (FE), situated in the highlands of Scotland, has been commonly known as
“the mother of all ecovillages” (Meltzer, 2018, p.25). In 1995, the terms ecovillage and Global Ecovillage
Network (GEN) were coined in a Findhorn Foundation (FF) meeting (Lombardozzi, 2017). Besides its protagonist role in the ecovillage movement, FE has remained since its foundation in the 1960s as one of the most long-lived ecological communities in existence. Therefore, its experience makes it one of the most resilient ecovillages in the world. This becomes suitable for the purposes of this study, as will be understood in the following section.
1.2. Aim and research questions
The aim of this paper is to:
• document livelihood options of the FE members to understand better community
resilience and the economies of ecovillages; and with this,
• contribute to fill in the present literature gap, addressing ecovillage economics and its
relationship with community resilience; to secondarily,
• offer valuable information to new ecovillage projects.
The main research question of this study is:
1. How successfully have ecovillages a resilient community environment?
10
SOEE5020M 201190252
And the secondary research questions are:
2. What are the main personal economic choices and the general worldview that members
have about their economic lifestyle?
3. How comfortable are members with their current economic situation?
4. What are the main income sources of the members? Do they depend mainly of jobs inside
or outside the community?
5. Are there some benefits, either financial, intangible or subjective, that come with living
inside the ecovillage? If so, what are they?
1.3. Research project structure
The main content of this dissertation is presented in six chapters. In the next chapter, the conceptual basis is developed: First, a brief review of the ecovillage concept and its origins is exposed.
The role of GEN, the broader and most important organisation of ecovillages in the world, is also described. Then, the ecological and economic dimensions of ecovillages are inspected to consequently develop the community resilience concept, offering a definition of it in order to guide the following research structure.
Chapter three acts as a bridge between the previous conceptual basis and the methodology; explaining FE’s history, its main characteristics, complexity and the boundaries chosen in this research to approach it.
The fourth chapter contains the methodology, which is partitioned in three phases:
1. First, the interview design and sampling are developed; then,
2. A list and characteristics of the interviewees is shown; and,
3. The process used to analyse the responses is described.
11
SOEE5020M 201190252
Chapter five exposes the results and their discussion. The structure of this chapter is as follow: first, the results structure is shown to then continue with the discussions’ sections. These ones were organised according to the five objectives that are inferred from the responses of the research questions.
However, the secondary themes were presented first, to finalised with the main theme, related with community resilience.
Finally, the conclusions were presented, proposing new understandings of communal resilience and potential ways to enhance it.
12
SOEE5020M 201190252
2. Conceptual basis
2.1. Ecovillage, a relatively new concept
Ecological-communities have been identified from the 1960s (Concha, 2010). However, ecovillages, as a concept and a deliberate project have their origins in the 1990s. The concept appeared for first time in 1991, in a sustainability report by Gaia Trust (Tinsley and George, 2006). This Danish organization was created in 1987, the same year when the Brundtland report was issued, in which sustainable development (SD) was understood as: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987).
Since its origin, ecovillages have been aligned with sustainability efforts. GEN explicitly agrees with the SD-Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement (GEN, 2017). This influence can be also seen in the most popular ecovillage definition: “a human scale, full-featured settlement, in which human activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world, in a way that is supportive of healthy human development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future” (Jackson, 1998, p.2).
Beneyto (2011) declared that there is not an official definition of ecovillage. In 2010, Concha explained that there is not any one particular GEN criteria to define ecovillages. However, nowadays
GEN does offer a formal definition: “An ecovillage is an intentional, traditional or urban community that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes in all four dimensions of sustainability (social, culture, ecology, economy into a whole systems design) to regenerate its social and natural environment” (GEN, 2019).
Litfin (2009, p.125) understands ecovillages as a response to modernity: “I characterize ecovillages, emerging in an astonishing diversity of culture and ecosystems, as a planetary knowledge community grounded in a holistic ontology and seeking to construct viable living systems as an
13
SOEE5020M 201190252 alternative to the unsustainable legacy of modernity.” In this conceptualization, the most important philosophical milestone of ecovillages are their holism and radical interdependence. This response to the crisis of modernity challenges individualism, trying to construct a concrete alternative rather than just deconstructing modernity. In this train-of-thought, the former GEN president, Dawson (2006) highlights that one of the most important political characteristic of ecovillages is that they transcend the pure idea of protest, trying to be focused on proposing new alternatives, an idea shared by other studies on ecovillages
(Accioly Dias et al., 2017).
Despite of the previous characterization, Litfin (2009, p.127) concludes that ecovillages movement “does not do away with individualism.” The tension between individualism and communitarianism seems to permeate the ecovillages debate. For instance, Pickerill (2016) exalts the idea that for the individual to be part of the eco-communities, he or she should be considered as a communitarian: someone that shares his “life, belongings, time, knowledge and often money” (p.2). On the other hand, without denying the benefits of community-belonging, Lombardozzi (2017) proposes that ecovillages, as a new type of community based on organic solidarity, that is, social cohesion based on differences, have a deep respect for the individual freedom in contrast to the old communities based on mechanical solidarity (cohesion achieved thanks to similarities and the repression of the different). The author also includes ecovillages within the degrowth movement, understood as the ecological and economical movement that looks to diminish consumption levels to stop economic growth and therefore, decrease the production of waste (Lombardozzi, 2017, p.31).
In order to delimit ecovillages from other ecological initiatives, Tinsley And George (2006) mention that the former put a greater emphasis in which:
• communal practices are of central importance.
• shared values and sharing of economics are the norm.
• members have control of their own resources (food, energy, livelihoods, houses).
14
SOEE5020M 201190252
• the community generally is created by a group of “common people”, more than by
private or public institutions.
• the ecovillage acts as a centre of research and training.
Pickerill (2016), in turn, identifies five positive attributes:
1. Reduced environmental impact (many needs, such as food, work, childcare and social events
are satisfied inside the community).
2. More efficiency: due to sharing resources, tasks, abilities and knowledge. Also, common
activities as food production, childcare or cleaning can be divided between members, taking
advantage of economies of scale.
3. Socially rewarding. For example, Leafe (2003) states that interpersonal relationships can
affect positively in health, which it can be seen in that the elders living in community live
longer than the elders who do not.
4. Self-governing (e.g. providing own educational system).
5. Living beyond capitalism: minimise economic needs through self-provision rather than
working for someone else4.
In addition, Mattos (2015 in GEN, 2019) shows that even consuming less, people living in ecovillages tend to report a high-quality of life.
On the other hand, the same points have been criticised by other authors. For instance, Shepherd
(2019) states that ecovillages’ enterprises, as all enterprises within capitalist economies, depend on the culture of consumerism that goes far beyond basic needs satisfaction. Takis Fotopoulos (n.d. in Accioly
4 For instance, in the study of Lombardozzi (2017) all the ecovillagers work in an independent way, highlighting the positive effects that type of freedom gives them. Similarly, members of Lammas in Wales declared that the most fulfilling aspect was the freedom and tranquillity given by not depending on external work and managing their own time (Fanfare For The Conscious, 2017).
15
SOEE5020M 201190252
Dias et al., 2017) more than identifying ecovillage movement as one that goes beyond capitalism, criticizes it as one of utopianism, apoliticism and escapism/isolationism. Nonetheless this is a contested point, as it will be seen in the next section.
2.2. GEN, international efforts and coordination
GEN is the acronym of Global Ecovillage Network. This organization, which has its main headquarter in Findhorn, Scotland, was created in 1995. Its political nature can be seen in its close relationship with United Nations (UN). GEN was officially presented in a UN conference in 1996, and today acts as a formal consultative organization for the UN (Accioly Dias et al., 2017).
In direct opposition to the critics of the last section, Litfin (2009) explains that differently to other ecological movements such as earlier intentional-communities or back-to-the-land experiments, ecovillages are not apolitical, isolated organizations, but institutions compromised with international politics. For instance, GEN looks to facilitate solutions to the local application of the 17 SD-Goals and the
Paris Agreement. It also acts as a consulting firm of several topics, including social resilience and economic sustainability, having as a goal the eradication of poverty (GEN, 2017).
GEN cooperates with five global regions: Oceania and Asia, North America, Latin America,
Africa and Europe. Governments have not been indifferent to the GEN movement; 22 of them have expressed interest in the broad implementation of ecovillage’s development. EU-funded TRANSIT research-project has identified ecovillages as key actors for the transition to sustainability (GEN, 2017).
Coinciding with the previous, some ecological economist leaders -such as Jackson (2009), Cattaneo
(2015) or Dietz and O’Neill (2013)- have also identified ecovillages as important efforts to achieve sustainable economies.
16
SOEE5020M 201190252
Although its presence in politics could be considered as irrelevant, there are approximately 1,500 ecovillages around the world. However, according to the ex-president of GEN, Dawson, nobody knows exactly the number (Naidu, 2008); especially having in mind that there are around 15,000 traditional- villages in the developing world that could be added after the GEN’s conceptualization of ecovillages as not only intentional-communities but also as traditional ones. Moreover, the critic of apoliticism could be contrasted to the understanding of some authors, who conceive ecovillages not as a capitalism or communism movement but as a third way or even as an anarchism movement (Andreas and Wagner,
2012). If one sums up to the previous that ecovillages are considered a “rapidly growing movement”
(Litfin, 2009, p.127), and that they might show how a sustainable world could be (D’Alisa et al., 2015), its political irrelevance could be overcome in the future. Nonetheless, for the moment, more than for their political nature, ecovillages have been better known for their ecological successes, as it will be shown in the next section.
2.3. Ecological performance: the strength of ecovillages
Generally, ecovillages are defined as containing three main dimensions: ecological, social and spiritual. Ecological dimension is probably the one that has been more researched. That might be due to the present ecological crisis. According to Nissen (2014), global north’s ecological footprint should be reduced by an 80% before 2050. Ecovillages demonstrate a lifestyle where the ecological and carbon footprints can be reduced.
The per capita ecological footprint of the suburban Ecovillage at Ithaca represented 40% less than the US average (Litfin, 2009). The present case study, FE, has over the half of the UK footprint; being the lower registered in the industrial world (Nissen, 2014).
17
SOEE5020M 201190252
The per capita carbon emissions of the German ecovillages Siben Linden and Kommune
Niederkaugungen are 28% and 48% lower than the German average. Similarly, Danish ecovillages produce 60% less CO2 emissions than the Danish average (Nissen, 2014).
As it can be inferred, the lower consumption in ecovillages and its ecological practices make them relevant agents, if not quantitatively, at least symbolically, in dealing with climate-crisis problems.
And this role could increase in the near future, considering that some authors predict that fossil fuels -the main energy source of “growth economies”- are reaching their peak, likely before 2030 and even before
2020 (Kerschner, 2015). According to Norris et al. (2008) this peak might produce a “postmodern cultural chaos” and a consequent “descendent culture.” On the other hand, ecovillages try to fortify social life, decreasing materialism and its conspicuous consumption. This is the case of the UK’s Tinkers Buble
Ecovillage, which claims to live a virtually fossil-free lifestyle (Swan-Hutton and Mulvey, 2015).
Although the consumption level of ecovillages seems to be sustainable, the “production level” (income sources) needed still to be research.
2.4. Economy: a hard task for communities
Ecovillages aim to some degree of self-sufficiency – principally of food and energy (Accioly Dias et al., 2017). For instance, Sieben Linden produces 75% of the vegetables they consume (Dawson, 2006).
Self-sufficiency is also looked through strengthening the local financial economy. One way to do this is to base local economy on communal resources, circulating the money internally (Litfin, 2009). To enhance the previous, some ecovillages, such as Damanhur (Italy) and the present case, Findhorn, have developed their own currency and bank (Assadourian, 2008).
Another way to strengthen local economy is the developing of on-site jobs. According to Dawson
(2006) many more ecovillagers work within the community than outside – even though the former
18
SOEE5020M 201190252 normally earn lower wages than the latter. For example, in Ecovillage at Ithaca, 60% of the wage-earning members work at least partially within the ecovillage.
The local economical emphasis is a main characteristic of ecovillages. In this way some authors believe that one of the main characteristics of these communities is their opposition to economic globalisation due to “the process of economic globalisation has severely undercut the viability of local economies” (Dawson, 2006, p.45). Thus -the author continues-, because people feel each time more powerless about the negative effects of globalisation, ecovillages should propose three ways to counterbalance them, enhancing communal resilience:
1. Communal currency and banks.
2. Voluntary simplicity: This philosophy would deliberately try to reduce the need
of consumption, with different practices such as sharing and recycling of clothes,
toys and different kinds of equipment.
3. Economic solidarity: The sharing of the resources would decrease the necessity
of external financial capital.
The previous communal emphasis varies according to the community. For example, in Kommune
Niederkaufungen there is no private property (Dawson, 2006). On contrast, FE’s rules explicitly demand the respect of private property (FF, 2019a).
Besides ecovillages have been known because of their ecologically-friendly lifestyle, Jackson and
Svensson (2002) claim that one of the main pillars of ecovillage movement is that the social-economic dimension is just as noticeable and important as the ecological one. However, meanwhile there are considerable studies about the ecological impacts of ecovillage lifestyles, there is almost no studies about their economies. Moreover, meanwhile practically all countries’ macroeconomies are based on economic growth, ecovillages are aligned with a different paradigm, more familiar with the degrowth movement
(D’Alisa et al., 2015). In this way, it is important to identify which characteristics are the main pillars of
19
SOEE5020M 201190252 the economies of ecovillages, being careful of not imposing the same view and goals of the mainstream economics paradigm.
2.5. Expanding resilience: towards a new community resilience approach
As it was mentioned before, FE’s economic structure is based more on making a community- resilient environment rather than a profit-making structure. The concept of resilience can be considered as a bridge between different academic disciplines, that goes along a broad spectrum: engineering sciences, psychology, ecology and economy, among others. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify how this concept is understood in each field, so that it can be discerned how it should be understood when applied to communities.
According to Sherrieb et al. (2010) the term resilience was originally used in physics and mathematics, mainly to explain how fast a material could achieve its original state after external disturbances. In those fields, the concept was separated from “resistance”, which alludes to the force necessary to move the system from its “original equilibrium.” As it can be seen, system theory is the main paradigm where resilient theory has been developed. As Magis (2010, p.403) claims: “One aspect of resilience focuses on a system’s capacity to absorb disturbance and reorganize in order to retain the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks, that is, remain robust.”
But meanwhile within the engineering field the resilience-function allows a material to come back to a previous balanced state, in ecology, on the other hand, it is broadly accepted that there is not just a pre-defined equilibrium state, but several potential homeostasis in the ecological systems. According to
Norris et al. (2008) this last approach is more adequate to analyse human communities. Moreover, from about 2000, the resilience literature started to conceptualize environmental systems with human societies, on what has been popularised as the socio-ecological system’s terminology (Berkes and Ross, 2013).
20
SOEE5020M 201190252
However, according to Berkes and Ross (2013, p.6) “many resilience scholars tend to look for social- ecological systems, rather than communities … resilience literature at the level of ecosystems is well developed, but the same cannot be said for the local and community level.”
Furthermore, the resilience studies about socio-ecological systems tend to be more focused on the environmental catastrophes (such as tornadoes) more than on the social crises, understood as: “what happens when a surprise reveals a failure of the rules, norms, behavior or infrastructure used to handle that type of surprise” (Norris et al., 2008). In this sense, the social dimension of resilience would be broader, going further away than just environmental shocks; as it can be seen in the first definition of social resilience given by Adger (2000 in Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2015, p.8): “the ability of communities to withstand external shocks to their social infrastructure.” Some of the key parameters of social resilience include equitable distribution of income and stability of livelihoods (Norris et al., 2008). However, for
Adger, another important parameter is economic growth. Also, social resilience might imply a sense of catastrophe. Cutter et al. (2008 in Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2015, p.9) defines social resilience as “the ability of a social system to respond and recover from disaster.”
The literature about community development tends to describe communities in a context of constant change and uncertainty (Chaskin et al. 2001 in Magis, 2010). According to Lombardozzi (2017) in modern times there is a will of “coming back to community” due to the common threats, risks and uncertainties that produce ontological insecurity, i.e., the fear of losing the continuity of our identity and social-action environments. Thus, the concept of community resilience is embedded in the aim of security looked in modern times, as Ludwig (2017) expresses:
So what do the words “security” and “resilience” mean for us right now? For me, these are closely
related concepts. To be [economically] secure means to have your core needs met and to feel some
degree of certainty that those needs will continue to be met … Being resilient means that you can
roll with changes as they come, with (relative) ease. A resilient system comes back to a place of
21
SOEE5020M 201190252
equilibrium when it is thrown off. A resilient person is less likely to be thrown completely off-
killer by change and loss. A resilient community is one that provides for its members’ needs and
can change how it does so in response to the circumstances it and its members find themselves in.
(p.59)
Therefore, more than just being adapted to natural catastrophes, community resilience is also related to the thrive capacity of community members in a modern world of change, uncertainty, unpredictability and surprise (Magis, 2010). One of the main stressors5 against being secure are the ones produced out of economic vulnerability, understood as “the exposure of an economy to exogenous shocks” (Briguglio et al., 2008, p.1). Economic vulnerability is overcome by economic resilience, which is the strength of an economy to recover, adjust or avoid those exogenous shocks (Briguglio et al., n.d.).
But economic strength is not the only quality that makes a community resilient (Magis, 2010).
One part of the community resilience is made by social capital (Norris et al., 2008). Some authors understand social capital as an (utilitarian) investment in social networks in order to gain returns (Lin,
2001 in Norris et al., 2008), or as potential resources obtained by a durable social network (Bourdieu,
1985 in Norris et al., 2008). On the other hand, Lombardozzi (2017) opposes the previous utilitarian view found in societies to a more affectional-supported present in communities. In that sense, the main characteristic of the social capital of community resilience, besides the sense of community, place attachment and citizen (communal) participation (Norris et al., 2008), would be social support, understood as the “social interactions that provide individuals with actual assistance and embed them into a web of social relationships perceived to be loving, caring, and readily available in times of need”
(Barrera, 1986, in Norris et al., 2008).
5 Stressors are “aversive circumstances that threaten the well-being or functioning of the individual, organization, neighborhood, community, or society” (Norris et al., 2008, p.132).
22
SOEE5020M 201190252
In conclusion, community resilience could be understood as the capacity to avoid, resist or adapt external shocks that threaten the economic and ontological securities of community members.
23
SOEE5020M 201190252
3. Case study: Findhorn Ecovillage
The Findhorn Foundation (FF) was founded in 1962 (Joubert and Dregger, 2015). Although this organisation is intrinsically connected to the ecovillage, it is not strictly the same. The FF has four main territories, all in Scotland: two small ones outside Findhorn, that act mainly as places for spiritual retreats and workshops. They are in the islands of Iona and Erraid. But the most important territories are Cluny
Hill, an 100-room hotel, where most of the staff live; and “The Park”, five miles away (Meltzer, 2018), which is considered here as the ecovillage itself.
Since the beginning of the 1960s the founders lived in The Park. However, this one, as an ecovillage recognised project, was initiated in 1982 with some land purchases within The Park (FF,
2019b). Before that, the place was mainly presented as a part of the FF, which is “an educational charity that holds most of the workshops, conferences and events and owns most of the community land and buildings” (Meltzer, 2018, p.28). On the other hand, “The Park consists of eco-houses, four wind turbines and a biological sewage treatment plant called ‘The Living Machine’ … [it] also contains private houses and independent businesses” (Tinsley And George, 2006, p.6), such as a publisher, a café, printers, charities, arts and crafts. It also has communal buildings, such as a hall for theatre and a Community
Center (CC), which offers two meals per day. Although the ecovillage project was identified two decades after the community foundation, its leadership in the ecovillage movement has been notorious, to the degree that it has been called “the mother of all ecovillages” (Meltzer, 2018, p.25). For instance, the
GEN’s main office it is in Findhorn, just one block from FE’s farm.
The number of people living in FE is a controversial issue, because its limits are not totally well defined. According to Tinsley And George (2006) there are 300 individuals in The Park, of which 200 are staff. On the other hand, other authors and members considers the ecovillage as a more open community –
24
SOEE5020M 201190252 rather than people directly related to the FF and their several related institutions6. According to this view, there are over 600 people in the community; 120 co-workers of the FF and 500 living locally (Joubert and
Dregger, 2015). However, according to the newest book publication emitted by the GEN, there are about
250 permanent residents and around 300 additional visitors who are involved in workshops, conferences and events; and 700 members living in and around The Park (Meltzer, 2018).
The community area consists of 180 hectares: 80 ha of nature reserve, 16 ha of forest, 4 ha for agriculture and 20 for housing and village. The housing consists of 60 detached houses, 30 row houses,
10 apartments, 30 residential caravans and 10 ecomobiles (Meltzer, 2018).
FE has their own currency, the EKO, which value is the same as the pound sterling. Each day there are three free buses running from the ecovillage to Forres town and Cluny Hill. The car-park slots in the ecovillage are also free. Four wind turbines supply all the ecovillage electricity, though each resident must pay to a community organisation a fixed amount per month.
Meanwhile in 2015 the FF registered around £5 million in assets and £2 million in average annual income, around £1 million has been invested in several community projects, such as the Moray Steiner
School, Findhorn Wind Park and the Phoenix Community Stores. There are over 45 social enterprises within the FE; the highest concentration in UK (Joubert and Dregger 2015). Between the FF and FE around 400 local jobs are created (Nissen, 2014). The present research is nonetheless, more focused on individual livelihoods rather than the overall economy of the community7, as it will be explained in more detail in the next section.
6 The high complexity of FF’s organisations can be seen in FF (2019c).
7 For a review of its communal financial aspects, see FF (2018).
25
SOEE5020M 201190252
4. Methodology
4.1. Interview design and sampling procedure
This research is empirical. The methodology of this research is qualitative. Therefore, it does not aim to be a generalizable study. According to Babbie (2013) the qualitative approach seeks to understand the meaning and reasoning behind the views of those whose the tool will be applied to. One of the main challenges of ecovillages is the cost of living (Accioly Dias et al., 2017), thus, it might be relevant to analyse the economic concerns of the members of a famous ecovillage that has remained through time, as FE has done. As the success of an ecovillage could be understood as an intersubjective topic (rather than as an explicit objective issue that can be measured quantitatively), which depends among other things on the members’ worldview and perceptions, qualitative methodology was considered more suitable for this research, because its characteristic of facilitating the exploration on deeper meanings, needed to understand what could be considered as a success for ecovillagers.
The method used was in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interviews have some advantages over other qualitative methods, such as participant observation, because they allow to research issues that are hard to obtain through observation (such as economic viewpoints and livelihood options); and the reconstruction of events (Bryman, 2012), like the previous history of members before arriving the community.
Having in mind the complexity of FE, the sampling approach was maximum variation sampling.
This way of sampling tries to get the most diverse variety of the dimension of interest (Bryman, 2012), which in this research is members that lives within the ecovillage. Considered the previous, nine interviews were planned originally. Then, two more were added: one to clarify common concepts
(Interview 1), and another (interview 10), recommended by the community. Thus, eleven interviews were applied. Ten of them were face-to-face and the first was realised through email communication. Two interviewees that do not live in the ecovillage itself were considered: one ex-member, to contrast the view
26
SOEE5020M 201190252 and give alternative viewpoint; and one individual that works within The Park and for the FF but lives outside the ecovillage, in order to test potential livelihood contrast. All the interviewees were facilitated by the Findhorn College (FC). Therefore, their responses might not show the most critical views.
Notwithstanding, as the aim of this research is to understand how successful the ecovillage is for its members, this was considered acceptable. Interview 9 was done in Spanish language. Its quotes were translated by the researcher.
Four different versions of interviews were used. Interview 1, to clarify some concepts and to avoid repetitive common responses among members. This interview was sent by email to the FC, charity in charge of any academic course or research done in the FF-FE. Remembering that the main objective of this research is to explain how successfully has been FE in creating a community-resilience environment, the rest three different interview versions were aimed at getting information of the five main topics
(directly related with the five research questions): income sources and general job information; level of satisfaction about current economic situation; cost and benefits of living in the ecovillage; personal economic choices and the worldview about economic lifestyles; and the potential community-resilient environment of FE. In order to view the most used type of interview (of which the other two types of interviews were based on), see Appendix 1. To see how the questions of the previous type of interview filled the previous themes, see Appendix 2. These last two interview types had slight changes in a few questions according to the nature of the interviewee (ex-member or FE-worker living outside the ecovillage). All face-to-face interviews lasted around one hour on average.
Table 4.1 Interview versions Interview type Purpose Interviews applied 1 Get common features of FE Interview 1 2 Get information of FE members From interview 2 to interview 9 3 Get information of outside-worker Interview 10 4 Get information about ex-member Interview 11
27
SOEE5020M 201190252
4.2. Interview participants
The unit of analysis is the ecological-community, FE, i.e. the community of people living within
The Park. The units of observation are different individuals related with FE.
Table 4.2 Interview list Unit of observation Gender Age Purpose 1. FC staff Female 68 Clarify the different organisations and kind of memberships within the community; and the ecovillage’ boundaries 2. Member with a business Female 70 See how the community facilitates business opportunities inside the within FE ecovillage 3. Single woman living in the Female 68 Examine gender opportunities ecovillage 4. Ecovillager who is more than Male 77 Examine senior lifestyles 65 years old 5. Ecovillager working in Male 43 Approach the most rural lifestyle within the community agriculture 6. Parent living in the ecovillage Female 47 See if FE’s community resilience facilitates to live in the community, with kids raising a family 7. FF staff living in the Female 71 Identify if FF payment is enough to live in the ecovillage and examine the ecovillage but working in the complexity between the ecovillage and the hotel hotel 8. Member living in the Male 54 Look the dynamics of people that choose to live within FE but not to work community but working in a job directly with them not related with any community organisation 9. Ecovillager working in the Female 46 Examine one of the main communal facilities and the dynamics of the kitchen different kind of members that use it 10. Individual working within Male 28 Contrast the viewpoint of ecovillagers with people that decided to live FE but living outside it outside the ecovillage and the reason behind it 11. Former ecovillager Female 54 Contrast the viewpoint of the current ecovillagers
4.3. Analysis of responses
The coding was structured through thematic analysis, having in mind that “the search for themes is an activity that can be discerned in many if not most approaches to qualitative data analysis, such as grounded theory, critical discourse analysis, qualitative content analysis, and narrative analysis” (Bryman,
2012, p.578). The approach consisted in dividing the narratives in five themes organised according to the five research questions. Therefore, the five themes are: income sources and general job information; level of satisfaction about current economic situation; cost and benefits of living in the ecovillage; personal
28
SOEE5020M 201190252 economic choices and worldview about economic lifestyles; and the potential communal-resilient environment of FE.
The results were interpreted through narrative analysis frame, which “is an approach to the analysis of qualitative data that emphasizes the stories that people use to account for events” (Bryan,
2012, p.584). Narrative analysis tries to understand how people make sense of the events of their lives.
This approach was selected because of the nature of the research questions, whose meaning needed a deep understanding of member’s worldview and perceptions. The three first research questions are directly related to the members’ perceptions. The last two questions are subsidiaries of the first ones. Therefore, narrative analysis was supposed to help exposing the subjective meaning of the themes previously analysed, trying to understand the deep implications for the members themselves and this way, allowing an easier implication of those perceptions with the broader discussion aimed in this case study about the economies of the ecovillages.
Interviews were analysed through NVivo. This software facilitated the emergence of new sub- themes (nodes), as it will be seen in the next section.
29
SOEE5020M 201190252
5. Findings and discussion
5.1. Results structure
As it was mentioned in the previous chapter, the analysis of the interviews was based having five themes in mind. Then, a spontaneous coding process emerge, trying to conceptualise any relevant information that could contribute to answer the research questions but also having present new literature not cited in the previous sections. Specifically, the community capitals framework (Magis, 2010) was included in the coding. This theory implies not only social capital, but also financial, built, cultural, human and symbolic capitals. Also, due to interviewees relevance given to social capital, this was decomposed in bonding social capital and bridging social capital8 (Magis, 2010). Both frameworks will be developed in more detail in the discussion.
The themes matrix is presented in the next page, showing which nodes helped to explain each theme. To see the nodes matrix, which contains the description of each node, in how many interviews was involved and of how many quotes it is composed, see Appendix 3.
8 This framework also considers linking social capital, which basically express the links of the community to those with power or authority. However, this was not relevant in the interviews; and therefore, not coded.
30
SOEE5020M 201190252
Table 5.1 Themes matrix
Communal resilience Incomes and Satisfaction with economic Costs and benefits of Personal economic jobs situation living in the ecovillage choices and worldview
-Autarky -Businesses -Current economic situation -Admission -Education
-Bonding social capital -Commute -Economic security -Benefits -Money
-Bridging social capital -Findhorn -Housing -Bonding social capital -Prosperity organisation -Built capital -Incomes -Bridging social capital -Worldview -Government -Businesses support -Wellbeing -Built capital -Housing
-Community resilience -Job -Businesses satisfaction -Cultural capital -Commute -Jobs -Economic security -Community resilience -Volunteering -Education -Costs -Working hours -Environmental benefits -Cultural capital
-Facilities -Education
-Financial capital -Environmental benefits
-Government support -Facilities
-Human capital -Health
-Incomes -Human capital
-Jobs -Job satisfaction
-Natural capital -Natural capital
-Ontological security -Payments
-Political capital -Private-public
-Social capital -Services
-Spiritual benefits -Social capital
-Symbolic capital -Spiritual benefits
-Volunteering
31
SOEE5020M 201190252
5.2. Income sources and jobs9
Most of the interviewees work for the FF. Residential members receive £260/month plus room and board, meanwhile full-time non-residential employed co-workers would earn between £14.5 to £18K a year. Full-time job means 35-hours-week. Meanwhile before 2017 the FF wage was equal to the
National Living Wage, in that year FF organised a raise above it: £2.20/hr more for key residential- workers positions and £65/month for non-residential (FF, 2018). Notwithstanding, with the previous modification FE has distanced from other ecovillages, such as Oaks in Virginia, where all the work is valued equally (Dawson, 2006). Meanwhile in the past any kind of FF-job received the same income, some changes have been done, implementing a three-tier-payment: “Res: Base £260 pm, Anchor £290pm,
Steward £325pm. NonRes: Base £8.46 ph = £1,283 pm, Anchor £9.41 ph = £1,427 pm, Steward = £10.61 ph = £1,609 pm” (Interview 1).
Residential staff also receive payment-in-kind: free meals, accommodation and energy (Forster and Wilhelmus, 2005). The four wind turbines produce 40% more electricity than the community needs; selling the excess (Assadourian, 2008). One could say then that FE energetic resilience is very strong.
Moreover, the income ratio between the lowest and the highest FF paid employee is 1 to 1.3 (FF, 2018), which strengthen social resilience (Norris et al., 2008).
In general, several jobs are created in the community. For example, a study done in 2002 identified that FF economic impact created around 400 jobs (Dawson, 2006). Similarly, Naidu (2008) says the organisation in the community facilitates 300 jobs. The jobs of the FF members are secure (no interviewee recognised any person fired). In this sense, the community resilience of jobs is stable. GEN
(2017) also claims to create wealth and jobs opportunities through its five ecovillage programs.
9 To see a detailed framework of each interviewee incomes and jobs, see Appendix 5.
32
SOEE5020M 201190252
According to Jackson (1998) ecovillages aim to provide meaningful jobs and material livelihoods to all its members. Although FE does not completely fulfill this, due to people that rent in the community must find their own income source, any new FF member, on the other hand, is given a job permanently (or they are change to another job within the community).
Almost all the interviewees worked within FE (with the only exception of the deliberately selected woman that worked in the hotel). This tendency seems to be common in other ecovillages: totally in the case of Lombardozzi (2017), 60% in The Ecovillage at Ithaca (Dawson, 2006). The opinion about on-site jobs between authors is contested. Meanwhile Jackson and Svensson (2002) argues that nobody expect that ecovillages should provide jobs for all its members, Nissen (2014), as Jackson (1998), state that ecovillages aim communal solidarity and the provision of local workplaces; and even some dream in self-sufficiency. For example, the German ecovillage Sieben Linden cultivates 75% of the vegetables they eat (Dawson, 2006). Correspondingly, FE farm provides 70% of the community fresh-food requirement
(Naidu, 2008). Therefore, although the farmer interviewee claims that 100% food self-provision is almost impossible in Findhorn (due to the climate) and that the FC claimed that self-sufficiency was ever the goal of FE, if one consider the high production of food, the total sufficiency of energy, and the FF-jobs security, the self-provision of the ecovillage encourages its community resilience.
On the other hand, practically all members complement the main source of their income in one way or another. There were basically three kinds of alternative incomes, besides the main job:
Government support, rent and B&B services, and informal jobs -such as massages or alternative healing therapies-. These last ones were often not considered as proper income, because they were usually given as voluntary payments and very sporadically. For instance, the Chilean member could not explicitly charge by their alternative healing services because of VISA restrictions. For this same limitation, those services could only be given inside the community. It is important to mention that this member, a civil engineer, felt economically more vulnerable than the rest (UK or EU members), who could enjoy from
33
SOEE5020M 201190252 government support. As Accioly Dias et al. (2017) show, some formal FF courses gave also occasionally some extra-incomes to the “facilitators”, though it was also very randomly, usually between two or three times a year. These courses were both, on spiritual themes (Interview 3, 7, 9) and ecological topics
(partner10 of interviewee 8).
Moreover, Nissen (2014) explains that FF -the main job-source in the FE- survives just because a lot of individuals are willing to work as a volunteers, meanwhile the wider community affluence is hard to achieve, as it will be seen in more deep in the next section.
5.3. Level of satisfaction with current economic situation
All the older interviewees manifested comfort with their current economic situation. This was not only due to pension support but also, as it will be seen in more detail later, because of “spiritual beliefs of material detachment.” It is important to mention that they were all living alone, without family members whom to be responsible for. The member that works outside the FF -as a translator- also was comfortable with his current economic situation, which was the most affluent (complemented also by his B&B business), along with the woman that owns her own business.
On the other hand, the mother -who lives with his builder partner- expressed some financial struggles, especially due to the money needed to travel to her country, Switzerland. This problem was also found in the Chilean member, who said she had to do extra-work to save money to travel. The other two youngest interviewees and the ex-member, though they all said they could satisfy their basic needs living in the ecovillage, when concerned with other needs, they showed some financial limitations as
10 However, in the case of this specific ecological workshops source (ecovillage design), it was the main source income of the woman, who completed with a secondary B&B business.
34
SOEE5020M 201190252 well: “I'd like to go to the doctor, or dentist, I am postponing that because it costs money... that is not the way it should be, actually” (Interview 5).
The interviews confirmed the view of Dawson (2006), who claimed one of the challenges of the ecovillages in the global north was the increase of land price. For example, the co-worker living outside the ecovillage, when talking about the reasons of why he decided to live outside the ecovillage, expressed:
“If you live in The Park, it gets expensive. To have a house; maybe I could not afford a house
there … there is no ways I can make to achieve the prosperity I want to achieve by working in the
community … people already had some money, most people but not like me. They have a life, they
had a work, they have been working for a few decades. They are 50s, they are 60s... They could
have income in the bank, they could have a house, they could have some rent income, they have
money. Besides, this “Experience Week”11, people come from thousands of miles away, thousands
of pounds for doing all these courses...they own all this money, so they have extra-money for these
people. But people as me, I don’t have money, so if I live residential in the community, I get paid
£200 a-month which is £1,200 a-year, which is less money that you get paid as one month as
living outside.” (Interview 10)
According to Dawson (2006) many more ecovillagers tend to work within the community than outside – even though the former normally earn lower wages. However, in FE those proportions are changing:
“For me is not sustainable to stay here. I am 46 years old, I have to think in my future and if I stay
here it is not the way to save or to have something for the future … There are other people that
live outside and are paid the monthly minimum. And those people, in the past, were a 20% against
an 80%. Now is more than 60% to 40%.” (Interview 9)
11 He refers to the main seminar given by the FF (which must be done before being a member), that up to this day, has a three-tiered prices: £490/£610/£780, according to the freewill of the person (FF, 2019b). Ecovillages in the global north are generally composed by middle and upper-middle-class (Accioly Dias et al., 2017).
35
SOEE5020M 201190252
As it can be seen, although most interviewees expressed they can fulfill their basic needs, the present case study is not the exception: as Ludwig (2017) discloses, ecological-communities tend to struggle financially. In the present case the most uncomfortable sector were the youngest people that works for the FF and lives in the FE. The discomforts were produced by more secondary needs, such as travelling, not urgent medication needs and the plans for their future (specifically, due to the hope of saving for their own elderly years and to own a house).
The uncertainty about the future shows individual ontological insecurity that affects the perception of their economic security (extrapolating it to the ecovillage). In other words, because some members are doubting if they would continue living in the future in the ecovillage, they feel discomfort in front of the difficulty of not being able to save (because if they stay, they will have food and shelter).
Ludwig (2017) defines economic security as “being able to cover your basic needs without public assistance” (p.130). She also says that part of the reason we cannot meet our needs it is because the impossibility of saving. But ecovillagers express that they can meet their basic needs.
The individual ontological insecurity can be also understood when comparing young with old members. Meanwhile old members are quiet because they could live in the houses and receive food for the rest of their lives, the young ecovillagers express doubts about their future. But the situation of them is relatively similar. For example, 71-year-old FF-worker (interviewee 7) confessed to not have any assets, equivalently to 46-year-old FF-worker (interviewee 9). The first one expressed high levels of satisfaction, expressing she has all she needs living there, whereas the second one doubts about the possibility of remaining there on the future.
On the other hand, it is also true that meanwhile interviewee 7 counts with EU support, interviewee 9, due to being South American, have no extra permanent income. Leaving outside the personal past economic situation (for instance, 76-year-old interviewee 4 counted with inheritance; 68-
36
SOEE5020M 201190252 years-old interviewee 2 has a flat), the previous open a new discussion: should ecovillages create affluence themselves or accept, or even ask, for government support?
Furthermore, most of the members knew about the economic situation they would experience in the chosen conditions. As Mankiw (2009) explains, one of the most important principles of economics is that people have to face trade-off. In this sense, ecovillagers tend to privilege some other (unmonetized)
“benefits” and the opportunity to live according to their worldview, as it will be seen in the next two sections.
5.4. Benefits and costs of living in the ecovillage
On the previous section was shown that although ecovillagers tend to express they can fulfill all their needs living in FE, the levels of satisfactions are different between individuals. However, there are some other benefits, that because of being not monetised could be passed unperceived. For example, as mentioned before, FF members have not to paid accommodation, food12 nor energy consumption. Any person, for example the partner of the co-worker living outside FE, who works daily in FC, can park freely in The Park.
One common perceived satisfaction were the facilities of the FE. For example, interviewee 8 not only said that he enjoyed going to The Hall, where weekly paid shows are given; he highlighted how wonderful was for him to live less than five minutes of that theatre, going for instance for some snacks during the breaks. The enjoyment of local activities seems to be a non-monetised transversal benefit of ecovillages. Jackson (1998) features that in ecovillages the most essential goods are produced and
12 In FE two meals are offered. In this sense, although some interviewees tend to think that for them each meal costs £1, interviewee 7 claimed the opposite: that they have free meals, but they receive 1 EKO when not eating in the CC.
37
SOEE5020M 201190252 consumed within or relatively close to the ecovillage, which also avoid commute problems. On this sense, the previous interviewee explained that he sees a unique beneficial characteristic in ecovillages: although not denying you can find partially each component in cities or rural places, he expressed that FE has both at the same time; the tranquillity of the countryside but the active and exciting life of big cities, where a lot of cultural exchanges happen. Nonetheless, as it will be seen in more detail later, this is a specific characteristic of FE. It has a symbolic capital due to its story and spiritual popularity. In this sense, although a lot of ecovillages, such as Auroville or Damanhur enjoy of the same context (Joubert and
Dregger, 2015), it would be hard to support the idea that any ecovillages could (Interview 10).
The most important benefit that counteracts the perceived lack of affluence is probably social capital. As GEN (2017) declares “ecovillages provide numerous and diverse intangible benefits, such as building social capital, providing a sense of purpose and belonging, improving well-being, and empowerment.” Social capital can also contribute with financial help:
“He was a massage client. I just gave him a massage. I said: ‘I want to do this training [in the
US], but I’d not have enough money.’ So, he said ‘ok, I will pay for you’ … [I went] alone.”
(Interview 11)
Social capital is expressed in several ways. Although Forster and Wilhelmus (2005) argue that historically has been really difficult (but not impossible) to be a FF full-member worker and have a family, the FF is making efforts to overcome this. For example, mothers have a free network to take care of other community children. They also receive an extra monthly income of 100 EKOS per child.
There are also voluntary individuals who take free-care of old or ill people. For instance, Dorothy
Maclean, one of the community founders, now 99 years old, has full-time voluntary people taking care of her (interview 2). Jackson and Svensson (2002) mention that the affectional support received in community might improve health.
38
SOEE5020M 201190252
Activities for children are also organised, liberating in this way parents to work and not to spend money in domestic workers.
Also, there is a boutique. In this place several goods are left, such as clothes, books, DVDs, toys and even food (when there is a surplus of it). Only for food a voluntary donation is asked, but the rest of goods can be taken freely without the trade imperative of depositing any other good. This practice can be usually seen in ecovillages (Lombardozzi, 2017).
On the other hand, interviewee 3 argued that everything in the community is paid and nobody tends to do a free favour, like fixing a computer. However, this kind of complaint was more the exception than the rule. As it will be deepen in the next section, in general, alike other communities, there is a perception of having a better quality of life even with lower income, because the appreciation of other capitals, especially social capital (Nissen, 2014).
5.5. Personal economic choices and worldview
As it was mentioned in the previous section, ecovillagers tend to have an alternative approach to the personal economic choices. For example, the Italian ecovillage Torri Superior aims to low consumption to get higher quality of life (Dawson, 2006). Similarly, the purpose of FE is not to generate an income-making environment, but a community-resilient environment (interview 1). Jackson and
Svensson (2002) support this idea, explaining that the main intention of ecovillages is to be open to help each other.
To the eyes of international politics, focused on growing GDP, ecovillages could be financially unsustainable. But the ecovillage movement seems to better fit in other political paradigms, such as the
Bhutanese “Gross Happiness Index”, which considers other dimensions such as spiritual and social well- being; or to the degrowth movement:
39
SOEE5020M 201190252
“For pure financial prosperity, I don’t think that is the main function or purpose of the ecovillage.
That is not what it stands for. It’s not to create in financial prosperity. Nobody is really interested
in that here. If you talk about prosperity in sense how you feel and you are happy, it’s more like, a
sense of wellbeing, abundance … I would say the ecovillage is not that focused on the financial
aspects of that. It’s not its first impulse. It’s not the first reason why people are here. So, it’s a
kind of by-product. It’s good. For most people is good enough; their financial situation. I'd say
most people are more interested in no-material, no-financial aspect of abundance and prosperity
and they can get that need, and that is happening for them in the ecovillage very well, and actually
helps to create that kind of prosperity and abundance.” (Interview 8)
In this sense FE is aligned with what usually happens in ecovillages (such as in Lombardozzi,
2017; Respectful Revolution, 2016): money has not a primary importance (Cattaneo, 2015). Therefore, following Meltzer (2018), ecovillages could be better framed within the voluntary simplicity philosophy:
“In our ecovillage tend to be happy with less money. So, here, people are happy with just the basic
needs: food, roof, clothes ... So, people don’t really need expensive holidays abroad13. To own
their fancy big car. To have a big house. To have jewellery. People tend to eat simple, and
healthy. To grow their own food. Tend to be vegetarian, which also saves money. Tend not to be
alcoholic or smokers. So, there is a lot of, ecovillage-living, which is quite economical in a sense
people are just happy with simple-life. Which means that not that such of money is needed to
survive and be happy. So yes, that's why I can say yes: I am happy. It's enough what I am earning.
Maybe wouldn’t be enough for other people but for me is enough. It pays the bills. House. Food.”
(Interview 8)
13 As it was mentioned before, there were two exceptions to this. However, the travels were inspired on visiting family. On the other hand, there is a sense that there is no need to travel because people from all over the world travel to the community (Interviews 4-6-8).
40
SOEE5020M 201190252
Ludwig (2017) explains that voluntary simplicity is not enforced poverty. Whereas mainstream economics emphasises on GDP growth, ecological economics proposes to measure progress and wellbeing in an alternative, wider way (Dietz & O’Neill, 2013). In this sense, ecovillages can be better understood using an ecological economics approach. Otherwise, because they tend to not be willing to growth (but the opposite), it could be considered as a failure by mainstream economist. As it can be seen in the following figures, the ecovillage dynamics structure the same as the ecological economics paradigm:
Figure 6.1. “Doughnut economics” (Raworth, 2017, p.44). Figure 6.2. “Living laboratories for a Sustainable Future” (Ludwig, 2017, p.1).
The similar dynamics between both pictures show how ecovillage’s efforts are aligned with doughnut economics, which graphically represents ecological economics paradigm.
Ecovillages offer mainly three kinds of strengths that are not usually highlighted in mainstream economics: natural capital, environmental benefits and spiritual benefits. In other words, the enjoyment of ecosystem services (interview 5), a non-stressful environment (interview 10), and the possibility of living according to its own spiritual view and the high likely to meet people with the same beliefs (interview 8).
The most prominent aspect of environmental benefits was the high satisfaction in job. All members were very satisfied with their jobs:
41
SOEE5020M 201190252
“The way I work here is healthy, it’s not too fast. It’s fresh air. Community around me, which it’s
a very important part of me here. To have people around … I do have that. Yeah! I do have that,
that I go with joy, 99% of the days, I go with joy to my work. That's important that I wake up
happy.” (Interview 5)
Another important effect of job’s satisfaction -as in other ecovillages- was the lack of social alienation, normally present in our current societies (Lombardozzi, 2017). On the one hand, the BBC has just published an article that shows how people in the three countries with higher GDP (i.e. what could be considered -using mainstream-economics logic- as the three most successful economies) worked considerable hours: “The average American works 44 hours a week and receives just 10 days of holiday.
In China, the 72-hour, 6-day week is common. Japan works such long hours there’s even a word for
"death by overwork": karōshi” (Smedley, 2019). On the other hand, the interviewee 5 expressed joy because he could eat what he grew; even after confessing some financial difficulties and being asked if he would sell the extra food produced instead of giving it freely or by voluntary donations, he denied it, arguing that he would prefer to assign all the food production to community consumption.
At this point it would be useful to mention Sen’s conceptualization (in Jackson, 2009, pp.37-44) of opulence (availability of material commodities), utility (satisfaction that commodities bring, which are also social and psychological in nature rather than just material) and capabilities to flourish (nutritional health, life expectancy, participation in society). Summarizing, whereas FE might have some weaknesses on opulence, it is better positioned on utility14 and capabilities to flourish.
14 The utilitarian satisfaction of ecovillagers might be produced for the practically non-existent inequality between them. This opens a new gap for further research.
42
SOEE5020M 201190252
5.6. Community resilience: integrating social capital and institutional support
According Forster and Wilhelmus (2005) while most new communities disappear before their third year, FE has remained more than 40 years since began. In this way, it would be hard to support the idea that this community is not resilient. It is important to highlight here that FE can be considered as one of the most resilient ecovillages in the world thanks to its symbolic capital, based on the charismatic spirituality of the founders, and some “myths” about the special “magic of the place” (Interview 10). In this sense, having this kind of resilient environment could be even more difficult to achieve in other ecovillages.
Although practically all FE members declared they think they could fulfill their needs within the ecovillage, when some more secondary needs showed up, they expressed some doubts about their economic situation. Even though the community offered zero interest-rate loans in case of emergencies
(Interview 8), some members expressed the difficult of saving money, especially full-residential members.
If one understands resilience as coming back to the previous equilibrium state, then the lack of comfort about incomes should not be an indicator of community resilience in FE, because within FF, though small in quantities, the financial incomes slightly increased through time (Interview 5). Moreover, as residential-staff are guaranteed a permanent job, the ontological-security dimension of community resilience is strong enough. However, when talking about the projection, especially in terms of pension and the owning of houses, the community economy presented some weaknesses. In this way, the economic security of community resilience, while strong enough in the main pillar (perceived fulfilment of present basic needs), could be strengthened.
On the other hand, according to the community capitals framework, financial capital, though important, is just one of many capitals and therefore, it cannot transform only by itself, a community resilient (Daniels 2004; Daubon and Saunders 2002; Fey et al. 2006; Stedman et al. 2004 in Magis, 2010).
43
SOEE5020M 201190252
In this way, it is important to highlight how important was social capital to enhance community resilience.
Some scholars separate social capital in three categories: bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Probably the most common and appreciated form of social capital present in ecovillages is bridging social capital. Aldrich and Meyer (2015, p.5) shares that “Bonding social capital describes the connections among individuals who are emotionally close, such as friends or family, and result in tight bonds to a particular group (Adler & Kwon, 2002).” Some of the interviewees expressed that in their past they felt alone and one of their main motivations to live in FE was that there they could find very rich relationships: “The live [here] is... it has certain advantages, like... there is a lot of support. You live with like-minded people. So, it’s easier to make friends” (interview 8). Aldrich And Meyer (2015) highlights that the strong bonds of this type of capital makes it good for providing social support and personal assistance. Therefore, one could say it is very useful to strengthen community resilience.
Although not so repeated and highlighted in the discourses as bonding social capital, the presence of bridging social capital also could be found, basically describing the benefits involved due to links with acquaintances which share a common feature, such as race, class, a club (Small, 2010 in Aldrich And
Meyer, 2015), or in this case, being member of the ecovillage or one of its organisations. For example, meanwhile for registered members in the CC each meal costs £7, for non-residential co-workers it costs
£2 and it was practically free for residential members (although they also might receive 1 EKO for each of any of the three daily meals not consumed). Another example of this form of capital was the benefit of car-scheme:
44
SOEE5020M 201190252
“Maybe about £5015 a-month to have a car available to go to shopping, to the dentist. To trips, to
walking in the hills. But we don’t need to own our own car … the car-scheme is a formal structure
of that, you share, you share the resources … I think that to own your own car, [you need] £300,
£400 a-month … otherwise we wouldn't be able to drive a car. Because it’s too expensive to own
your own car.” (Interview 8)
Therefore, to the initial definition of community resilience, a social part of it should be highlighted in order to be more complete: Community resilience could be understood as social capacities to adapt, resist or avoid external shocks that threaten the economic and ontological security of community members.
As it was shown before, members that have government support tend to feel more economic security than the ones that not. Like Ludwig (2017), some members (Interview 5) expressed that the communal sustainability should mean not to depend on government support. Notwithstanding, the factual truth is almost all the interviewees complement their incomes with state assistance. In concordance with this situation, the ex-president of GEN, Dawson (2006) proposed that states should work with ecovillages in order to face climate problems.
Hence, government actors could also be applied to community resilience understandings:
Community resilience could be understood as the social and institutional16 capacities to adapt, resist or avoid external shocks that threaten the economic and ontological security of community members.
15 The average monthly payment is £16 plus £0.21 per mile and £0.75 per hour; this would save around £1,085 per year on an “average driver” (Moray Carshare, 2014).
16 Institutional concept is preferred here instead of governmental or state ones. There is a branch that understood ecovillages as an anarchist movement (Dawson, 2006). In the latter sense, institutional could be applied in a different way, like the political capital of decision-making staff in contrast to “grassroot” social capital. This should avoid restrictions in the use of the definition.
45
SOEE5020M 201190252
Considering the former reflection, one of the new research branches that could be researched could be the relationship between ecovillages’ autarky17 intentions and the level of dependence with governmental institutions:
Social capital and networks, sense of place, values, and social identity all appear across the
strengths identified earlier. One relative silence in the community resilience literature is the
relevance of power relationships. While the literature recognizes the importance of the ability to
cope with divisions within the community (Kulig 2000; Hegney et al. 2008a), the ability to deal
with power will be most relevant in self-organizing ability. Migration18, changes in age structure19,
and gender balance are clearly important in community functioning and thus presumably in
community resilience as well.” (Berkes and Ross, 2013, p.17)
17 In contrast to Dawson (2006) vision of ecovillages, FC declares that FE intention was never to be self- reliant. The model of business was considered highly dependent on international visitors (Interview 10). On the other hand, as mentioned before, the financial sustainability of some members depends on government support. All these issues open new conflicts that need clarification: on what does it mean to be financially sustainable in a community level (if it means to be autarkic, not to depend of government, be able to sustain throughout time, etc.).
18 The constant migration was the main current stressor against FE ontological security. As interviewee 11 explained:
“People constantly changes. For example, we make a decision, and ‘let’s do it!’ and people leave...so it’s like, living here for long time it’s always like being, it’s like being a process, never I feel like, something, you know? I achieve something. Never is not [sic] right word. But a little bit difficult, feel, I achieve something. Because you know, that constant change. People just coming and going. And ‘oh, you need to say goodbye, to my friend’”.
Migration issues are also the main potential stressors to ontological security. For instance, Interviews 1, 4 and 5 spontaneously expressed their worries about Brexit.
19 This seems to be a big challenge to FE: Although there are some financial challenges, such as the debt of the community (interview 5), Interviewee 8 confessed there were not discussions about what to do with old people that do not work and use houses. She herself offered that one solution could be to apply an internal policy, such as the one applied in the Netherlands, in which young people live with older ones, taking care of them. However, this could be a potential problem considering ecovillages are struggling in attracting younger population (Dawson, 2006).
46
SOEE5020M 201190252
6. Conclusions
In this dissertation ecovillages economies were analysed, considering community resilience as the main concept to focus on. Using Findhorn Ecovillage as a case study and income sources, economic situation, non-monetised benefits and ecovillagers’ worldview as themes, eleven interviewees were applied.
The results showed that FE dynamics is complex and not always uniform among its members.
Meanwhile all interviewees expressed that they could fulfill their basic needs within the ecovillage, some of them, specially the youngest ones, declared some discomfort about their economic situation. This was mainly caused because of the FF-workers difficulty to save. Although FF-workers do not have to pay for some things (such as accommodation, food or energy), their salary is on average, close to the minimum.
While the equality strengthens social resilience, youngest members’ doubts about the possibility of leaving the ecovillage in the future, cause them some distress. Summarizing, the weakest dimension of the community resilience of ecovillages is economic security. Ontological security, on the other hand, positions itself in the middle: being sometimes strong (for old adults) and sometimes weak (for youngest members). Social capital is by far, the strongest dimension of these communities. New research is needed in order to clarify the relevance of the institutional dimension. Some potential trends to approach this, will be exposed in the following last paragraphs.
According to the ecological economics paradigm, inspired on justice (Faber, 2008) and distribution (Daly, 1992) pillars, there are several unmonetized goods in society. If ecovillages are analysed through mainstream economics logics, it may seem they are condemned to a fragile economic security. Nonetheless, if society starts to explicitly assess non-monetised goods and services, as ecological economist proposed, the ecovillages might be appraised as giving a lot of wellbeing to the broader society. Not only because of their social capital, but also because of the maintenance -and even
47
SOEE5020M 201190252 increasement20- of natural capital (shown for instance in low carbon footprints) and the development of environmental benefits (present mainly as examples of open non-stressful environments).
Therefore, if society considers ecological negative impacts and their consequent climate crisis as a societal cost to avoid -and inspired in social justice and fair distribution principles-, ecovillages (who fulfill some specific ecological goals) could be rewarded in some way by the states. One manner to do this might be through a basic universal income to all ecovillagers. This could help to increase financial capital and therefore, to enhance one of the main weaknesses of community resilience: economic security, liberating some of ecovillages’ present resources.
In conclusion, community resilience has different elements. The present study proposed at least three or four dimensions of it. In this way, systems theory could be a good approach to deepen this concept in future research. Having this in mind, it is important to try to balance all the aspects of community resilience (ontological security, economic security and social capital21), because if “specified resilience risks becoming too focused; increasing resilience of particular parts of a system to specific disturbances may cause the system to lose resilience in other ways” (Folke et al. 2010 in Berkes and Ross,
2013). Therefore, new research and proposals should be done in the future, in order to find possible ways to increase the financial capital of ecovillages, on one hand, and to see their relationship with governments, on the other.
20 For instance, reforesting (Joubert and Dregger, 2015).
21 The institutional capacities could also be conceptualised through the linking social capital.
48
SOEE5020M 201190252
7. References
Accioly Dias, M., Loureiro, C.F., Chevitarese, L. and De Mello e Souza, C. 2017. The Meaning And
Relevance Of Ecovillages For The Construction Of Sustainable Societal Alternatives. Ambiente &
Sociedade. 20(3).
Aldrich, D.P. and Meyer, M.A. 2015. Social Capital and Community Resilience. American Behavioral
Scientist. 59(2), pp.254–269.
Andreas, M. and Wagner, F. 2012. Realizing Utopia: Ecovillage Endeavors and Academic Approaches.
RCC Perspectives. (8), pp.81–94.
Assadourian, E. 2008. Engaging Communities for a Sustainable World In: State of the World _ The World
Watch Institute. The Worldwatch Institute, pp.150–246.
Babbie, E. 2013. The Practice of Social Research [Online] 13th ed. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Available from:
http://tailieuso.udn.vn/bitstream/TTHL_125/9039/1/ThePracticeOfSocialResearch.TT.pdf.
Beneyto, N. 2011. Glosario de términos de sostenibilidad.
Berkes, F. and Ross, H. 2013. Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach. Society and
Natural Resources. 26(1), pp.5–20.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Bugeja, S. and Farrugia, N. n.d. Conceptualizing And Measuring Economic
Resilience.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N. and Vella, S. 2008. WIDER Research Paper 2008/55 Economic
Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements. pp.1–23.
Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
49
SOEE5020M 201190252
Cattaneo, C. 2015. Eco-communities In: G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria and G. Kallis, eds. Degrowth: A
vocabulary for a new era. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.165–168.
D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. and Kallis, G. (eds.). 2015. Degrowth: A vocabulary for a new era. New York:
Routledge.
Daly, H.E. 1992. Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and
sustainable. Ecological Economics. 6(3), pp.185–193.
Dawson, J. 2006. Ecovillages: New Frontiers for Sustainability 2010. Schu. Foxhole, Dartington, Totnes,
Devon: Green Books for The Schumacher Society.
Dietz, R. and O’Neill, D. 2013. Enough is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite
Resources. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Faber, M. 2008. How to be an ecological economist. Ecological Economics. 66(1), pp.1–7.
Fanfare For The Conscious 2017. Lammas Ecovillage - Finding my Mecca. [Accessed 14 August 2019].
Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0m84YOX9T4.
FF 2018. Annual Report & Financial statements [Online]. Available from: https://www.findhorn.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/AR18V18-1-1.pdf.
FF 2019a. Common ground: Findhorn Foundation Community. Findhorn.
FF 2019b. Findhorn Foundation. Available from: https://www.findhorn.org/.
FF 2019c. Organisational Map of the Findhorn Ecovillage Community. [Accessed 14 August 2019].
Available from: https://kumu.io/embed/f5d7241e9d0dc2b69564f4e0d139c404.
Forster, P.M. and Wilhelmus, M. 2005. The Role of Individuals in Community Change Within the
Findhorn Intentional Community. Contemporary Justice Review. 8(4), pp.367–379.
50
SOEE5020M 201190252
GEN 2017. Catalyzing communities for a regenerative world. Findhorn.
GEN 2019. Global Ecovillage Network. [Accessed 14 August 2019]. Available from:
https://ecovillage.org.
Gilman, R., Ochre, G., Jordan, J., Norberg-Hodge, H., Lindegger, M., Harland, M. and Harland, T. 1995.
Ecovillages and Sustainable communities: Models for the 21st Century. Findhorn.
Gowdy, J.M. 2014. Scological . 28(1), pp.26–33.
IPCC 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. New York.
Jackson, H. 1998. What is an Ecovillage? Thy.
Jackson, H. and Svensson, K. 2002. Ecovillage Living: Restoring the Earth and Her People Barcelona.
Foxhole, Dartington, Totnes, Devon: Green Books for Gaia Trust.
Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity Without Growth. Economics for a Finite Planet 2011th ed. New York:
Earthscan.
Joubert, K. and Dregger, L. (eds.). 2015. Ecovillage: 1001 ways to heal the planet. Axmister, Devon.
Keck, M. and Sakdapolrak, P. 2015. What is social resilience ? Lessons learned and ways forward.
Erdkunde. 67(March 2013), pp.5–19.
Kerschner, C. 2015. Peak-oil In: G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria and G. Kallis, eds. Degrowth: A vocabulary for
a new era. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.129–132.
Leafe, D. 2003. Advance Praise for Creating a Life Together. Gabriola Island: New Society.
51
SOEE5020M 201190252
Litfin, K. 2009. Reinventing the future: The global ecovillage movement as a holistic knowledge
community In: R. D. Lipschutz and G. Kütting, eds. Environmental Governance: Power and
Knowledge in a Local-Global World., pp.124–142.
Lombardozzi, V. 2017. Organizational forms of a Chilean ecovillage: The "X Community" case
(undergraduate thesis). Universidad de Viña del Mar, Viña del Mar, Chile. Available from:
https://understandingecovillages.blogspot.com/2020/01/sociological-thesis-organizational.html
Ludwig, M. 2017. Together Resilient: Building Community in the Age of Climate Disruption. Rutledge:
Fellowship for Intentional Community.
Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: An indicator of social sustainability. Society and Natural
Resources. 23(5), pp.401–416.
Mankiw, N.G. 2012. Principles of Economics Sixth Edition. Mason, OH.
Meltzer, G. 2018. Findhorn Scotland. Love in action In: F. Miller, ed. Ecovillages around the World 20
Regenerative Designs for Sustainable Communities. Rochester: Gaia Education, pp.24–33.
Moray Carshare 2014. Cost comparison Moray Carshare versus Own Car. Available from:
http://s3.spanglefish.com/s/31371/documents/cost-of-mcs-vs-own-car.pdf.
Naidu, N. 2008. A model life ? Ecologist., pp.36–41.
Nissen, D. 2014. Lifestyle Change as Climate Strategy. Losnet. 61–62, pp.4–9.
Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F. and Pfefferbaum, R.L. 2008. Community
resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American
Journal of Community Psychology. 41(1–2), pp.127–150.
Raworth, K. 2017. Doughnut Economics 2018th ed. London: Random House Business Books.
52
SOEE5020M 201190252
Rees, W.E. 2003. Economic Development and Environmental Protection: An Ecological Economics
Perspective. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 86(November 1992), pp.29–45.
Respectful Revolution 2016. My Life in the Dancing Rabbit Eco Village. [Accessed 14 August 2019].
Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJc4w6RBL04.
Shepherd, K. 2019. Findhorn Foundation: Problems. [Accessed 14 August 2019]. Available from:
https://www.kevinrdshepherd.info/findhorn_foundation_problems.html.
Sherrieb, K., Norris, F.H. and Galea, S. 2010. Measuring Capacities for Community Resilience. Social
Indicators Research. 99(2), pp.227–247.
Smedley, T. 2019. How shorter workweeks could save Earth. BBC Worklife. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190802-how-shorter-workweeks-could-save-
earth?ocid=ww.social.link.facebook&fbclid=IwAR0tXv9Z-
uqcLhJQtmcKWznfpOMe_jl3wZY8hp48R-MMwLd1yDJZxXawYi8.
Swan-Hutton, L. and Mulvey, S. 2015. Tinkers Bubble Documentary [Online]. Available from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjsuPCjskc.
Tinsley, S. and George, H. 2006. Ecological footprint of the Findhorn foundation and community.
Sustainable Development Research …. (August).
Veblen, T. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions 1994th ed. (D.
Thrift, ed.).
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987. Our Common Future. Our common future.,
p.300.
XE 2019. Conversor de divisas XE. Available from:
https://www.xe.com/es/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=EUR&To=GBP.
53
SOEE5020M 201190252
8. Appendices
8.1 Appendix 1: Interview questions (Interview type 2)
GENERAL INTERVIEW
1- What is your job and why did you choose it?
2- Do you work for the community or outside?
- if both, where do you work the most?
3- How many hours do you work per day?
-Do you work on weekends?
- If you do, for community (paid or not) or for outside job?
4- Do you get some ‘extra-incomes’ beyond your job?
- If you do, from which sources (from rent, shares, family support, etc.)?
5- How much do you earn on average?
-Have you earned the same income through the years?
6- How satisfied are you with your current economic situation?
-Do you think you can fulfill your needs here?
7- How satisfied are you with your job?
-Do you think the ecovillage is involved in your perception of the previous level satisfaction?
-How would you think the community could help you to create a more satisfied job environment?
8- How would you describe your current situation in terms of well-being?
-How important is FEV on this?
9- How relevant do you think is FEV in facilitating you an environment to success on your livelihood?
-How stable do you perceive the environment of FEV?
10- How satisfied are you with your current diet and health?
-Do you think it would be different if you would live outside the community? Why?
11- Do you think you will have the same or similar lifespan here than you would have living outside the community?
-And what about the life quality you think you will have in your last years?
54
SOEE5020M 201190252
12- Why did you decide to join FEV?
-How was your life like prior to arriving here?
13- What is abundance and prosperity for you?
-Do you think FEV offers such an environment?
14- What do you understand for ‘community resilience environment’?
-How resilient is FEV environment for you? Why?
15- Do you think your prosperity has increased since you arrived here?
-And what about your well-being?
16- How important is prosperity for your happiness?
-Do you feel you have achieved here the level of prosperity necessary for your well-being?
-Do you aspire or want more of it? Why?
17- What are the most important aspects for you to prosper?
-Do you think you have them here or you eventually could get them here? Why?
18- What are the most important aspects for you to be happy?
-Do you think that FEV environment gives you the chance to fulfill them? Why?
19- How much do you feel that you can participate in the life of the FEV?
-Do you think people living outside your community enjoy the same level of freedom participating in society?
20- How important are relationships for you to flourish?
-Could you have the same quantity and quality of them if you would live outside FEV? Why?
21- How much do you pay for the annual payment for services required from the ecovillage?
-Which are they?
22- Do you own your house?
- If not, how much do you pay for it?
23- How often do you eat in the common dining room? Why?
24- Do you have children?
- If you have, approximately how much do you need to cover their necessities? - Do they live in FEV? Why?
25- How much do you pay for a living here?
-Do you think it is a fair price? Why?
26- Do you use “ekos”?
- If you do, how relevant is this currency for you and why?
27 -Which facilities or benefits does FEV facilitate you and how important are them for you?
55
SOEE5020M 201190252
8.2 Appendix 2: Interview-guidance matrix
Theme Interview-questions
1- Communal resilience environment 2- Do you work for the community or outside? -if both, where do you work the most?
5- How much do you earn on average?
-Have you earned the same income through the years?
6- How satisfied are you with your current economic situation?
-Do you think you can fulfill your needs here?
7- How satisfied are you with your job?
-Do you think the ecovillage is involved in your perception of the previous level satisfaction?
-How would you think the community could help you to create a more satisfied job environment?
8- How would you describe your current situation in terms of well-being?
-How important is FEV on this?
9- How relevant do you think it is FEV in facilitating you an environment to success on your livelihood?
-How stable do you perceive the environment of FEV?
13- What are abundance and prosperity for you?
-Do you think FEV offers such an environment?
14- What do you understand for ‘community resilience environment’?
-How resilient is FEV environment for you? Why?
16- How important is prosperity for your happiness?
-Do you feel you have achieved here the level of prosperity necessary for your well-being?
-Do you aspire or want more of it? Why?
17- What are the most important aspects for you to prosper?
-Do you think you have them here or you eventually could get them here? Why?
18- What are the most important aspects for you to be happy?
-Do you think that FEV environment gives you the chance to fulfill them? Why?
56
SOEE5020M 201190252
2- Income sources and job information 1- What is your job and why did you choose it?
2- Do you work for the community or outside? -if both, where do you work the most?
3- How many hours do you work per day?
-Do you work on weekends?
-If you do, for community (paid or not) or for outside job?
4- Do you get some ‘extra-incomes’ beyond your job?
-If you do, from which sources (from rent, shares, family support, etc.)?
5- How much do you earn on average?
-Have you earned the same income through the years?
3- Contentment about current economic 6- How satisfied are you with your current economic situation? situation -Do you think you can fulfill your needs here?
7- How satisfied are you with your job?
-Do you think the ecovillage is involved in your perception of the previous level satisfaction?
-How would you think the community could help you to create a more satisfied job environment?
8- How would you describe your current situation in terms of well-being?
-How important is FEV on this?
15- Do you think your prosperity has increased since you arrived here?
-And what about your well-being?
16- How important is prosperity for your happiness?
-Do you feel you have achieved here the level of prosperity necessary for your well-being?
-Do you aspire or want more of it? Why?
57
SOEE5020M 201190252
4- Costs and benefits of living in the ecovillage 19- How much do you feel that you can participate in the life of the FEV?
-Do you think people enjoy the same level of freedom participating in society outside your community?
20- How important are relationships for you to flourish?
-Could you have the same quantity and quality of them if you would live outside FEV? Why?
21- How much do you pay for the annual payment for services required from the ecovillage?
-Which are they?
22- Do you own your house?
-If not, how much do you pay for it?
23- How often do you eat in the common dining room? Why?
25- How much do you pay for a living here?
-Do you think it is a fair price? Why?
26- Do you use “ekos”?
-If you do, how relevant is this currency for you and why?
27 -Which facilities or benefits does FEV facilitate you and how important are them for you?
5- Personal economic choices and worldview 10- How satisfied are you with your current diet and health? -Do you think it would be different if you would live outside the about economic lifestyle community? Why?
11- Do you think you will have the same or similar lifespan here than you would have lived outside the community?
-And what about the life quality you think you will have in your last years?
12- Why did you decide to join FEV?
-How was your life like prior to arriving here?
13- What are abundance and prosperity for you?
-Do you think FEV offers such an environment?
17- What are the most important aspects for you to prosper?
-Do you think you have them here or you eventually could get them here? Why?
18- What are the most important aspects for you to be happy?
58
SOEE5020M 201190252
-Do you think that FEV environment gives you the chance to fulfill them? Why?
24- Do you have children?
-If you have, approximately how much do you need to cover their necessities?
-Do they live in FEV? Why?
26- Do you use “ekos”?
-If you do, how relevant is this currency for you and why?
59
SOEE5020M 201190252
8.3 Appendix 3. Nodes matrix
Node name Description Files References
Admission Elements related to how become a member of the FF and FE 3 5
Autarky Hints or wishes of economic self-reliance within the community 6 15
Benefits Perceived benefits of living in the ecovillage 9 40
Bonding social Relationships made in the ecovillage that are emotionally close, based on affection and support capital 10 50
Bridging social Relationships made in the ecovillage that are based on the privilege of being a member of FE or of a capital related organisation 10 32
Built capital FE and its members physical assets and built infrastructure 8 37
Businesses All information related with businesses within the ecovillage or related with its members 5 23
Community Social cohesion that might facilitate the avoidance, resistance or adaptation to external stressors resilience 11 42
Situations where jobs or activities normally done outside home, can be realised within the same Commute ecovillage, saving time of travelling 7 19
Costs Financial costs or perceived costs of living in the ecovillage 9 35
Cultural capital Institutionalised acquired knowledge gains that might increase the financial value of member’s job 2 3
Current economic Own perceptions about current economic situation; financial data or economic assets of the FE members situation 10 30
Elements related with the past, present or future stability of FE economic life: both, of the community as Economic security a whole and its potential to give or facilitate economic means to FF and FE members; or from the individual itself 11 122
Everything related with education features: related with FF and FE courses or informal opportunities to Education child development; or to institutional academic education 9 24
Environmental Unmonetized gains produced for the wellbeing of living in a healthy, unstressful and beautiful benefits environment; and the members’ satisfaction due to living an ecologically friendly lifestyle 9 20
Facilities Buildings facilitated by the FE to its members’ (or specifically subscribed members’) use 6 19
Financial assets owned by the FF-FE (and related organisations) and its members; and the context Financial capital around its absence or possibilities to generate them 5 8
Findhorn FF-FE organisational dynamics organization 7 12
Government Elements related with the financial support given to FE members from any national government (UK or support EU ones) 10 28
Health and diet current situation perceived by members and the causes-environment that might facilitate Health or difficult its optimal outcomes 8 23
Housing Everything related with the price, rent or life within houses 8 37
Human capital Formal or informal acquired skill gains that might increase the financial value of member’s work 5 14
Incomes All kind of income flows to members and the FE itself 11 66
60
SOEE5020M 201190252
Job satisfaction Perceived level of satisfaction in jobs, both within FE-FF or any not related job 9 23
Mention of specific jobs-professions and its activities, both within FE-FF or any not related job; and the Jobs context that might facilitate or difficult to find or generate them 11 58
Money Members’ perceptions about money and its importance for FE and its own lives 7 14
Unmonetized gains thanks to the enjoyment of ecological resources and ecosystem services from the Natural capital natural world 6 13
Elements related with the facilitation or perturbation of the continuity of members’ identities and their Ontological security social-action environments 10 40
Payments done by members to any of the FE organisations in order to stay in the ecovillage or enjoy a Payments specific facility or service 1 2
Members’ abilities and possibilities to access resources and power within the FE, influencing (or not) the Political capital communal decision-making process 5 7
Private-public Perceptions about the private and public spheres within the ecovillage 8 17
Prosperity Perceptions about what prosperity is, and how important it is for the members 7 26
Services Services given by the FE or related organisations 5 11
Social capital Members’ social support and communal participation and the community bonds produced by them 8 46
Perceived benefits obtained by the satisfaction of spiritual activities given or found in the FE or by the Spiritual benefits context-relationships that it facilitates; and the consequent purpose meaning obtained by members living in the ecovillage 5 21
Symbolic capital Elements related to the prestige of FE 7 20
Taxes Taxes paid by community members 3 5
Volunteering Everything related with volunteering activities within the FE-FF 7 12
Wellbeing Perceived wellbeing enjoyed by members and the ideas they have about it 10 40
Working hours Quantification of the time worked in any kind of jobs and when it is realised 8 34
Worldview Members perceptions about the community and its values and the ideas members have about life 8 31
61
SOEE5020M 201190252
8.4. Appendix 4: Letter of consent and informed consent
8.4.1. Consent letter.
62
SOEE5020M 201190252
8.4.2. Consent form.
63
SOEE5020M 201190252
8.5. Appendix 5: Interviewees’ economic situation
Unit of observation Average Eventual extra income Quotes about income, jobs and Quotes about ‘level of satisfaction income per assets with current economic situation’ month
1- Findhorn College staff No-data No-data No-data No-data
Female; 68 years old; U.S.
2- Member that has a business £2,400 Around £1,000 a year ‘My salary from Ecologia is £2,000 ‘-How satisfied are you now with your within The Park a month’. current economic situation?
Female; 70 years old; South African ‘Sometimes I have people living in I am fine, yes. I earn less than a lot of my house as bed & breakfast, so people in the commercial world. But -Owner and director of Ecologia they pay me. But again, it is that a with this project, I don’t need more than Youth Trust charity friend needs something, so I don’t that’. really run it as a proper business. -Occasionally runs B&B ‘-So, you think you can fulfill your -How often do you receive people needs here... -Own her house there? Yeah, yeah’. I have 3 people there now. But not very often. Maybe every 2 months or something like that’.
‘They pay me £35 for the night and breakfast. So maybe, I don’t know, maybe £1,000 a year, not more than that. And then in my house I have someone who lives, because I have 2 floors, so I have someone that lives downstairs and he lives there and pay my rent.
-how much?
£400 a month’.
3- Single woman that lives in the £1,100 £150 around each 6 months ‘For now, I do several things. I run ‘-How satisfied are you with your ecovillage my little two B&B bed and current economic situation now? £200 twice a-year breakfast in the hall of the 68 years old; British community’. It’s enough for me. £500-700 per month Ex-teacher (seasonally-based) ‘Run laugh yoga leader trainers. I -Do you think you can fulfill your needs train people to be laugh leaders. I here? -Gets pension run transformation games (…) Yes.’ -Run B&B within community not very much. I don’t know...it’s not...I don’t know, in the last 6 ‘-Do you feel you have achieved here -Owns a flat in Forres months it’s like a £150, it’s not, it’s that level of prosperity? not proper income. -Laugh-yoga teacher Yes. Yeah, I believe yes. -And what about this -Run FF’s “transformation game” “Transformation Game”, how often -So, do you think do you have the workshops do you…? aspects to prosper...?
Not very often, no... Yes! yes...and I feel like I have them already that I could eventually get them.
64
SOEE5020M 201190252
I got them now.’ -At a year, 2 times?...
Probably twice a year, maybe I have a £100 on each’.
‘-So what about the place when you are not here?
So well I rent out to one person, here.
- The whole place?
Yeah’.
‘-When you worked as a teacher did you live here in ecovillage?
yes.
-do you remember how much do you earn when you worked as...?
So, I was part time teacher, so I was taking home about £1,000 a- month when I was a teacher’.
‘Yes, I don’t get a pension because I signed myself out of the system, but I get a pension from the state.
-How much is that pension?
That pension is around £650 a month’.
‘-And about this place, how often do you receive people? How much per-month on an average?
How much money a month?
-Yes...
Well, of course is seasonal based. But...probably on average, maybe about £500 to £700 a month’.
‘The other entry is that I own a small flat in Forres. So, I get £410 a-month. For my flat in Forres’.
4- +65 years old that live in the £848 £2000-3000 a-year ‘-How satisfied are you with your ecovillage current economic situation? ‘I also look after the community Male; 76 years old; U.S. hot tub. Which is my love and my My current economic situation is spiritual practice and even enough to support me comfortably here. Philosopher. PhD in Philosophy. generates a bit of money’. Primarily because I built and own my own home. So, I don’t have to pay rent -Gets pension ‘Hot tub got probably £2,000 or or mortgage’. £3000 a-year, something like that. -Runs a hot-hub Not all of a lottery. It’s totally ‘-How would you describe your current supplementary. I live of my economic situation in terms of well- personal savings and I had a piece being?
65
SOEE5020M 201190252
of property, I got that property -Pays no rent nor bills because I came here. I am happy camper. You know? I feel my majority of needs are taken care and And I got a rent from that property my life is primarily my own, I am not in for a while and finally I sold it, and a kind of work program. The activities I lived from that money for a taken on, I take it on voluntary. I have to while. And then, my parents died perform them. Then I contribute to the and I had a legacy; I lived from community. So, as long as I don’t that for a while. travel! hahaha...and partly the reason I don’t travel because one of my job in And then, from recently, I applied ecovillage trust is to call on attention on from pension credits for the British the CO2 that are involved on flying. I try government. And I received it. So to model not flying. Primarily of being that is essentially my primarily here and find that my life is really rich economic mainstream for the rest just being here.’ of my life really’.
‘I receive a £162 a-week. Which is about £640 a-month. Not a lot. Not a lot. But also, I got a little bit of rent (…) I own a little place behind my house which I rent to another community member and between those I am able to sustain myself, only just to maintain myself, but nevertheless sustain myself.
-how much do you earn from this renting?
£200 a month’.
5- Member that lives in the £794 (£90 to ‘At the moment I receive £260 ‘-And what about the current situation ecovillage and works in spent only from April on...I get $260, per- here. Do you think that is sustainable in agriculture locally) month. Plus accommodation. Plus that way [financially]? 90 EKOS. EKOS is the same as Male; 43 years old; Dutch pounds. Ah...if I speak for myself, then, yeah, because I receive support from the Agricultural engineering -Ok, I see. And do you get some government, then I'd turn on. But I don’t extra incomes beyond your job? know how many people do that over -Pays no rent nor bills here. I think a lot’. Yes, because I am from the EU. And the UK still belongs to the ‘-Do you think the FE, offer you such an EU. I think so... so I am able to get environment, an abundant, a prosper benefits from the UK government. environment? Which is 211 a-week I think’. Abundance and prosperity come to... ‘It has changed. Because the ahh... living together with people for foundation started paying me in me, makes my life rich. And I think if it March 2018 when I became staff. comes to accommodation. If it’s come And then I had £220 per-month. to ... the money that we receive, then I'd And April 2018 we became £240. not, I not call that abundance. It could And April 2019 it became £260’. be better. yeah...’
‘In November 15 I was ‘-Do you feel you have achieved the unemployed in the Netherlands, so level of prosperity necessary for your I received unemployed benefit. wellbeing here?
-Ok, how much was that? Aaah... mmm ... yeah, for my wellbeing,
66
SOEE5020M 201190252
now that I am talking with you about it, I think 600 euros a month’. I'd like to have more money so the life it [sic] would be a bit easier here, actually...
-So, do you say you have had some difficulties?
Yeah. For money...yeah.
Yeah, sometimes I feel, when I notice like, I am bit, if it comes the time to have something, I'd like to go to a doctor, or dentist, I am postponing that because it costs money... And I am bit... I know that I am bit... that is not the way it should be, actually.’
6- Parent that lives in the £400 (£100 to From £3 to £20 three times a ‘-Do you have another job? And ecovillage with kids spent only month other incomes? locally) ‘So, it was a huge salary compare with Female; 47 years old; Swiss Not particularly. Sometimes I cut now. So, back then I had some savings. hairs. People give me donations, And in general, yeah, I had to change a Ex-teacher hahaha. lot of my way of life (…)
-Pays no rent nor bills -How often? Well, before, I had some saving, and I just if I want to go holiday, I have -Counts with her couple’s support. 2 to 3 times a-month. money to go on holidays. I would buy more things more easily. Now I go -How much are the donations on second hand shops. I would've spent average? much more, in general than now.’
From £3 to £20, it depends. But ‘-Why did you decide to change of it’s, it’s, I don’t count on that. It’s school? donation so they can give me whatever they want’. One is the financial aspect, for sure. We got some funds for the first years, when ‘It’s £260, I guess. But plus, I he was in kindergarten. receive an allowance because I am a mother and I have a child, so, I -Some grants because you lived here? receive £50. In a month I receive £310’. Anyone who puts a child in Scotland in childcare, when they are 3, you can have ‘-What is his job [partner]? some contributions from the government
He is a builder. So, he builds -How much was that? houses, or whatever... Maybe I don’t know, £2000 or $3000 -How much does he earn on per-year. I can’t remember how much average? was exactly. But that stopped.’
£17,000, £18,000 I don’t know ‘I have some savings at the moment. But exactly; a-year. He works a lot in I don’t know if I would use them summer, it all depends’. towards really trying to get a house or you know, finance him [child ‘I worked as a teacher for children university]. I don’t know exactly...’ with especial needs, and I had a very good working condition. My salary in Swiss francs -which is different from pounds- I had about 16,000 to 17,000 a-year. Plus, I had 13 weeks of holidays.’
67
SOEE5020M 201190252
‘So, I have some EKOS for me and some EKOS for my son, so it could be around 100 EKOS a-month. So that’s on top of the £310 I receive, so it is £400. So, it’s a big help.’
7- Findhorn Foundation Staff- £630 member who lives in the ecovillage but works in the hotel [400 euros = ‘-Do you get some extra incomes ‘-How satisfied are you with your £37022] besides the income you receive for current economic situation? Female; 71 years old; Dutch the FF? More than satisfied. Never counted ever -Pays no rent nor bills Indeed, because since a few years I getting a pension...’ am on retirement age. So, I am getting... I started getting all day ‘I get the economic means for more than pension. Which is quite amazing. I desire. Because that time I was still on the Netherlands. -What do you mean with more than you desire? -So, is this pension for the Netherlands? All my life I didn't have more than the bare minimum. Some years ago, that Yes meant travelling on the bus. And not flying. And now, it’s if I want to travel -And how much is this? to Forres I can afford it. I can afford quite a bit.’ about 400 euros.’
‘-So, how much do you earn on average, it would be like, 200, more these 500, it could around 700?
Well, it’s...the euro...so ... I am not quite sure. 500 euros. but it’s less than £500. Maybe £400’.
8- Member that lives in the Around from ‘My 2 main income streams, and ‘-How satisfied are you now with your community but works outside the £760 to £3,080 it’s about 50-50... 50% it’s current economic situation? ecovillage in a job not related [500 euros = connected to the ecovillage. And with any community organization £460; 3,000 the other 50% is completely Very. I am satisfied.’ euros = £2780] unconnected to the ecovillage. So, Male; 54 years old; Dutch the first half is that we are, and together with my partner, we are Independent translator (English, running a B&B. A guest house, German, Dutch) kind of 1 room. Which means during the summer months, -Runs B&B within the community probably about 6, 7 months in a- year. 8 months, we are runnning a B&B. And the high-season, May, June, July, August it can be almost
22 All currencies were converted approximately, rounding the figures, using XE (2019).
68
SOEE5020M 201190252
full. So, I would say it’s about 50% of our incomes.’
‘I can earn 3000 euros. So, around £2,500, something like that, on a good month. A bad month still would, £500, £700. So, on average...
-Is that the combination?
No, that is only the translation work. The B&B, I would say that on average gives about, but we share that, with my partner; Me, I would say, personally, about £300 a-month. So now that I think about it, my translation is probably more than 50% of my personal income, is more like 60 or 70%.’
‘-How much does she earn on average?
I don’t know exactly. I think it’s probably in the range of maybe £700, £800 a-month.
-That includes the B&B…
Yes, something like that’.
9- Member that lives in the £260 £150-200 a-month ‘-And how much extra, do you earn ‘-Are you satisfied with your current ecovillage and works in the doing those therapies? economic situation? kitchen I make like £200. £150’. No, not really, but I already knew that Female; 46 years old; Chilean when I came here.’
Civil engineering
-Offer alternative healing therapies as complement
-Pays no rent nor bills
10- Individual working for the £641 From £3,000 to £10,000 a-year ‘Monthly is 641’. [FF-part-time] ‘-If you could change any aspects of the Findhorn Foundation and the FEV. What would you change and why? community but living outside it ‘-What about your business, approximately how much do you I think if Findhorn needs to get more Male; 28 years old; British earn? income.’
-Run its own photography business It varies. One year was £7,000, another year was £5,015, another year was £10,000. But there is insurance, there was equipment to buy and so on...
- So, discounting the insurance and all that equipment, do you know approximately how much?
Sometimes between, let’s say I spend from £3,000 to £4,000
69
SOEE5020M 201190252
buying things. [So, it would be] Between £3,000 up to £10,000 pounds’.
11- Former Ecovillage member £540 (in Japan). ‘(…) massage...
Female; 54 years old; Japanese Around £440 -Can you remember how much did when was you usually earn on a monthly -Complemented her FF job with living in the basis? massages. ecovillage Easy, not so much. Maybe £40 (…) 1-hour massage for £40 (…)
£160 [a month] or sometimes I get nobody. I do exchange a lot. With other practioners. Then I don’t have to pay for it. Also, I was part of the "LEDS." Do you know LEDS? As exchange. For example, I give you massage...it’s like money, but it’s not really money. Not EKOS. LEDS’.
‘In total was £440 [on monthly average]?
mmm...yeah…’
[How much earns now]:
‘Not much. Maybe... 70,000 yen [£540 app.] in a month. Sometimes is less. 200,000 [£1540] a year. Last six months.’
70