Understanding the Intentional Community Living Arrangements

“We have lived together longer than the average Australian family” Understanding the Intentional Community Living Arrangements

Jason Hilder B.App.Sc. UQ M. Natural Resources Studies UQ

ORCID: 0000-0001-5910-0143

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2021

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences

Abstract

Over thousands of years, humanity has moved from kinship-based modes of living towards the family and, more latterly, the individual as a household unit. Housing and living arrangements in the Global North reflect this ideation in the historical growth of separated dwellings in free-standing homes, units and apartments. While enabling greater personal freedom of expression, separated living has brought with it increased social disharmony, a growing ecological footprint and affordability crises. Situations where people reside communally, such as Intentional Community Living Arrangements (ICLAs), may provide opportunities for renewed social cohesion, ecologically sustainable applications, and improved economic efficiencies.

This thesis describes ICLAs as ‘A type of collaborative housing where a group of five or more unrelated people choose to combine their skills, resources and efforts to collectively build or rent and maintain homes and community structures, share social activities, offer neighbourly care for each other, and use a system of inclusive governance.’ ICLAs range in type from cohousing, to ecovillages and communes. The literature shows that ecovillage ICLAs are frequently in rural areas and, cohousing is a successful, tangible housing model that is suitable across housing densities yet primarily in urban areas. Prior to this research, it was unclear how ICLAs sat within the Australian housing landscape alongside other forms of communal living. The most important characteristics for successful communal living were also unclear.

This research performs an investigation on two fronts. Firstly, it introduces a typology of communal living arrangements and undertakes a statistical analysis of Australian Census data and alternative data sources to determine the extent and diversity of institutional communal housing, shared housing and ICLAs throughout Australia. There is nearly one-fifth of the Australian population resident in communal-like living arrangements and this proportion has increased by 42% between 2001 and 2016 according to Census enumerations. As ICLAs are missing from Census enumeration, analysis of data drawn from ICLA association websites and an online questionnaire estimated a population of 22,000 members across 1,700 communities. Secondly, a

- 2 of 297 -

combination of resident experiences from interviews within Australian and European communities and responses from an international online questionnaire enabled the investigation of social, ecological and economic characteristics relevant to ICLAs. Textual coding of ICLA resident responses enabled the creation of a hierarchy of characteristics that revealed significantly more reference to social aspects than ecological and economic aspects, thus highlighting the importance of social interaction in ICLAs. Critical elements of ICLAs as identified within the hierarchy were: having a communal vision, the use of group processes and governance, systems where resources were shared and regular organised group interaction that includes a choice as to whether individuals interact or not. Comparison between Australian and European ICLAs showed that communities differed more by urban and rural location than regional location across the world.

The conclusions of this research are fourfold. Firstly, the research adds to previous studies focused upon social, ecological or economic aspects of communal living and provides evidence that ICLAs provide collective benefits across all three aspects. Secondly, it highlights that collaborative and cooperative governance methods enhance and enable community longevity and cohesion. Thirdly, it highlights that micro-geographic – urban-rural – influences play a larger part in the social and ecological characteristics of a community more than macro-geographic – Australia- Europe – influences. By contrast, macro-geography influenced economic characteristics where European communities appeared more amenable to investing and co-owning together and were motivated by economic rationalisation than the Australian counterparts. Fourthly, it outlines the need for collaborative approaches to housing development where developer-led, top-down and grassroots, bottom-up groups can partner for more holistic community development across both Australia and around the world.

The thesis poses several recommendations to improve communal living in ICLAs and enable the benefits of ICLAs to be shared and included in other parts of the housing landscape. Group dynamics and conduct of meetings experienced in ICLAs is recommended as a framework for other living situations that could be developed through an Australian Centre for Research of Connected Communal Living. Funding and infrastructure improvements of ecovillages to increase their teaching and learning

- 3 of 297 -

potential is suggested. This thesis recommends the development of data gathering mechanisms that provide valuable insight into future ICLA research. Expansion of the professional education curriculum to include the study of ecovillage and cohousing ICLAs in the housing development industry. Diverting part funding from the development of institutional communal housing (ICH) into ICLA’s, employing collaborative approaches for development and supporting the implementation of cohousing communities may yield triple bottom line housing improvements.

Here lies an excellent opportunity for planners, governments and policymakers to support the most sustainable, socially connected and affordable forms of communal living arrangements – ICLAs – and, in doing so, alleviate some of the elements of unaffordability, social dysfunction and ecological degradation associated with the contemporary Australian housing landscape. .

- 4 of 297 -

Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co-authors for any jointly authored works included in the thesis.

- 5 of 297 -

Publications during candidature [1] Hilder, J, Charles-Edwards, E., Sigler, T., & Metcalf, B., Housemates, inmates and living mates: Communal living in Australia Title of your paper, Australian Planner, 02 January 2018, Vol.55(1), pp.12-27

Publications included in this thesis The following publication has been incorporated in the thesis in the following three chapters. 1. Introduction included in Chapter 1 2. Background in Chapter 2 3. Methods included in Chapter 4 4. The analysis included in Chapter 5 5. Discussion included in Chapter 8 6. Recommendations in Chapter 9 7. Conclusions in Chapter 10

[1] Hilder, J, Charles-Edwards, E., Sigler, T., & Metcalf, B., Housemates, inmates and living mates: Communal living in Australia Title of your paper, Australian Planner, 02 January 2018, Vol.55(1), pp.12-27

The detail of contributions made by authors from the paper is shown in the page prior to the beginning of each chapter.

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis “No manuscripts submitted for publication”.

Other publications during candidature “No other publications”.

- 6 of 297 -

Contributions by others to the thesis Research supervisor’s Dr Thomas Sigler, Dr Elin Charles-Edwards and Dr Bill Metcalf have provided guidance on the structure and direction of the research project and editorial review of the written material for this thesis.

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree “No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis”.

Research involving human or animal subjects “No animal or human subjects were involved in this research”.

- 7 of 297 -

Acknowledgements

This research has been made possible by the support of others. In many ways, while I wrote the thesis, it was an effort made with the support of the community.

I would like to acknowledge the continuing sovereignty of the First Nation’s People of the lands of Australia and all lands on the Earth. I pay respects to Elders both past, present and future.

For the help, tutelage, guidance and ongoing support, I would like to acknowledge and thank my research supervisors. In alphabetical order, to Dr Bill Metcalf, your reflections about community, help to make contacts within communities and arranging site visits, support in preparing for the rigours of extended field trips and the feeling of being in connected community are appreciated. To Dr Elin Charles-Edwards, your continued support both on the topic through the development of my first ever publication, and with the challenges of maintaining focus during the years of research. I have learned much from you. And to Dr Thomas Sigler, I appreciate your support and guidance with a big picture-to-attention to detail approach and enthusiasm for research. It is inspirational and helped me to navigate the PhD journey.

To my family, Gabriella, Wishinu, Percy, Linda, Britt, Tina, Lani, Cory, Catherine, Erin, Kay, and Taleeta, thank you for your love and support, and your belief in me over the years to help me follow through and complete this work. To Kahli Hall, thank you for your love and support from both close, and afar, to follow this path.

To my mother in law, Professor Kay Saunders, who has financially supported efforts towards this work, provided countless hours of reflections about communal living and offered experienced guidance of the PhD trials and tribulations. I am deeply grateful. Your help is forever valued.

To the many friends who have supported, heard, held space for my trials and tribulations while writing, cooked meals, been patient, taught me and learned from me throughout the time of writing this thesis thank you. To Cath and Brayden

- 8 of 297 -

Charlton, Ian Wilson, Huxley and Arlo McGuffin, Michael and Katja Bain, Nunumunganah Lawler, Sudeshana, Sheyana and Saskia Brough, Rob Clark and Robin Clayfield, Sy, Lizzie, Marcus and Leah Russel, Georgia, Malakai, Bhala and Marley Railton-Stewart, Sharon Nicoll, Lena Phillips, Geoff, Joe and Benny Airo- Farulla, Corrinne MacDonald, Fiona, Keith, Hunter, Elizabeth and Rex Curran, Tracey, Nigel, Logen and Daylen Jeffrey, Ruben Pellicer and Mathilde Vlieg, David, Michaela, Ady and Samara Kimber, Esther White, Suzi, Bluqui, Moss and Katura Scrimshaw, Andrew and Henry Lytton-Hitchins, Viv Adcock, Nei'ida Phoenix and Annajsha Ayatan, Emma Teitzel, Joan McVilly, Carsten Sunby Nielsen, Iris Kunze, Melinda and Chloe Clifford, Saly Lattin, Jhana Bowen and KanaLeya Pachimama, Kahlianna Hall, Aleksander and Kiri Stular, Rossco Duncan, Terrance Barber your love and support was felt and appreciated.

To my faithful four-legged companion Cheeky that walked with me in so many places in search of community you are always in my heart.

To the many people of communities who welcomed me to their homes, offered up so much of their knowledge and experiences and created the space for me to share a meal, thank you. Your approach to life has inspired the continuation of this work. In particular, I would like to thank Jim Allen, for providing his apartment as a base to working from in Adelaide, Don Gobbett for his hospitality, Beau Summer at AAEV for his introductions and extensive knowledge sharing, Claire Sherridan for arranging accommodation and warm welcome at Cascade Cohousing, Ilan Arnon and Karen Weldrick and community for their hospitality at Tasman Ecovillage, Trevor Russell and community members for a warm bed and shared meals at Rocky Cape Christian Community, Mark Healy for mateship and the use of his car throughout Tasmania. Thanks to Janus Hamann at ZEGG for arranging my stay and supporting me to meet others, Cornelia Featherstone at Findhorn Foundation for co-presenting at Christie Walk, many introductions and long conversations at The Park, Jurrian Arnold, Aafke Fraaije and Tim Hummel for their hospitality and accommodation at Oude Nieuwelaan, the welcome and introductions throughout the community from Henk Heikens at Woongroep Polter. And to Iris Kunze at Sieben Linden, thanks for your support and friendship as a fellow community’s researcher.

- 9 of 297 -

To Malcolm Holz and the associated team at the State Government, I would like to thank for the opportunity to work towards implementation of communal living within the planning industry and bring the lessons of this research to practical application.

To the staff at UQ SEES, Alan Victor, Eros Romero Bonilla, Michael Tobe, Jurgen Overheu, Judy Nankiville, Lia Whalley, Lara Atanzi, Alex O’Keefe, Genna Apted and Matt Rice, thank you. For the wider support of facilities and combined resources, I would like to thank the University of Queensland.

To those who have expressed fear and showed antagonism to the concept of communal living that caused me to doubt at times the validity of what I saw and believed in, thank you, for it helped me to fine-tune and honed my resolve to seeking deeper within the knowledge.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge and thank myself for continuing to follow the light of my long-held passion and dream to bring Intentional Community Living Arrangements to greater awareness in Australia.

- 10 of 297 -

Financial support

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship for living expenses and a University of Queensland School of Earth and Environmental Sciences research grant for partial funding for travel within Australia and European communities.

Family member Kay Saunders provided financial assistance for research travel throughout communities and ongoing living expenses during the research.

Jason Hilder provided additional funding for research travel, the online questionnaire cash prizes, interview transcriptions, ICLA association memberships and professional copy-editing of the thesis.

Keywords ‘intentional community, living arrangements, cohousing, housing landscape, ecovillage, social interaction, housing affordability’

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) ANZSRC code: 160404 Urban and Regional Studies 50% ANZSRC code: 120501 Community Planning 25% ANZSRC code: 200204 Cultural Theory 25%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification FoR code: 1604, Human Geography, 50% FoR code: 1205, Urban and Regional Planning, 25% FoR code: 2002, Cultural Studies 25%

- 11 of 297 -

Dedication

For Gabriella, Wishinu

…and all the children of the world for the next seven generations.

Image: www.animalia-life.club

- 12 of 297 -

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 13 Introduction ...... 24 1.1 Broad context for the research project ...... 24 1.2 Rationale for research ...... 27 1.2.1 Pragmatic approach ...... 27 1.2.2 The framework for research ...... 28 1.3 Research agenda ...... 31 1.3.1 Research problem ...... 31 1.3.2 Knowledge gaps ...... 31 1.3.3 Research aim, questions and objectives ...... 32 1.4 The structure of the thesis ...... 34 Background: communal living ...... 37 2.1 Community, Communitarianism and Communal Living Arrangements ...... 38 2.2 Types of Communal Living Arrangements ...... 41 2.2.1 Institutional Communal Housing ...... 42 2.2.2 Shared Housing ...... 45 2.2.3 Intentional Community Living Arrangements ...... 47 2.3 The evolution of ICLAs throughout the Western world ...... 54 2.4 Previous scholarship on ICLAs in Australia ...... 61 2.5 Modern ICLA types ...... 64 2.5.1 Cohousing ...... 66 2.5.2 Ecovillages ...... 71 2.5.3 Communes ...... 74 2.6 Motivating factors for the creation of ICLAs ...... 77 2.6.1 Ecological sustainability ...... 77 2.6.2 Economic sustainability ...... 82 2.6.3 Social sustainability ...... 83 2.6.4 Religious ideology ...... 87 2.7 Challenging aspects of ICLAs ...... 88 2.8 Recent developments in the ICLA movement from around the world ...... 92

- 13 of 297 -

2.8.1 Cohousing movements ...... 92 2.8.2 Ecovillage movements ...... 94 2.8.3 Other ICLA movements ...... 97 Communal living in Australia ...... 101 3.1 Australian historical roots – colonisation to urbanisation ...... 101 3.2 The modern Australian housing landscape ...... 103 3.2.1 The ‘Lucky Country’ ...... 104 3.2.2 Challenges within the Australian housing landscape ...... 107 Research design ...... 112 4.1 Previous research approaches ...... 112 4.2 Pragmatic epistemology enabling a mixed methods approach ...... 113 4.3 Research scope ...... 114 4.4 Researcher ICLA involvement and bias ...... 116 4.5 Phase 1: A literature review ...... 116 4.6 Phase 2: Demographic analysis ...... 116 4.6.1 Census data analysis ...... 117 4.6.2 ICLA data analysis ...... 118 4.7 Phase 3: Site visits and interviews ...... 119 4.7.1 Site visits for observations and resident interviews ...... 120 4.7.2 Analysis of the research interaction with the communities ...... 124 4.7.3 Online questionnaire ...... 126 Population characteristics of communal living in Australia...... 131 5.1 Assessing census data to measure communal living arrangements in Australia ...... 131 5.2 Living arrangements in Australia: insights from the 2016 Australian Census 134 5.2.1 Age and sex ...... 135 5.2.2 Education, employment, income and living locality ...... 136 5.3 Characteristics of ICLA residents ...... 141 5.3.1 Population estimates ...... 141 5.3.2 Age and sex, education, income and living locality ...... 143 5.4 Conclusions from the statistical analysis ...... 145 Communities researched ...... 149 6.1 An overview of communities from the questionnaire ...... 149 6.2 Descriptions of sites visited ...... 151

- 14 of 297 -

6.2.1 ICLAs under 25 members ...... 152 6.2.2 ICLAs with 26 – 100 members ...... 157 6.2.3 ICLAs with more than 100 members ...... 169 The attributes and practices of ICLAs ...... 180 7.1 Analytical structure ...... 180 7.2 Social aspects...... 181 7.2.1 Group dynamics – group development ...... 182 7.2.2 Group dynamics – communication ...... 183 7.2.3 Group dynamics – conflict resolution ...... 186 7.2.4 Governance - membership ...... 190 7.2.5 Governance – meetings and decision making...... 191 7.2.6 Governance – agreements and guidelines ...... 195 7.2.7 Member interaction – shared lives ...... 203 7.2.8 Member interaction – food growing and shared meals ...... 210 7.2.9 Working together - Work teams and time contribution ...... 219 7.3 Ecological aspects ...... 223 7.3.1 Equipment and materials sharing ...... 224 7.3.2 Ecological philosophy ...... 226 7.3.3 Sustainability Initiatives ...... 228 7.4 Economic aspects ...... 230 7.4.1 Investment and co-ownership ...... 230 7.4.2 Economic drivers towards communal living...... 233 7.4.3 Shared economies ...... 233 7.5 Characteristics that support community sustainability ...... 236 7.6 Geographical differences and similarities in community characteristics ...... 237 Discussion ...... 242 8.1 What the research shows about ICLAs ...... 242 8.1.1 Communal living typology ...... 242 8.1.2 Demographic characteristics of ICLAs in the Australian housing landscape ...... 243 8.1.3 The attributes and practices of Australian and European ICLAs ...... 245 8.1.4 Geographical contribution differences in ICLA structures and effectiveness ...... 246 8.2 Governance processes and their effects on community operation ...... 248

- 15 of 297 -

8.3 Shared housing trends and opportunities ...... 249 8.4 ICLAs now and possible future scenarios ...... 250 8.4.1 Cohousing communities ...... 251 8.4.2 Ecovillage communities ...... 253 Recommendations ...... 259 9.1 Group dynamics and conduct of meetings ...... 259 9.2 Develop a Centre for Research of Connected Communal Living Studies ..... 259 9.3 Support ecovillages to become learning and experimentation centres ...... 262 9.4 Data gathering mechanisms ...... 262 9.5 Professional education curriculum to include residential visits to ICLAs ...... 263 9.6 Divert a portion of funding from ICH to support ICLA development ...... 264 9.7 Encourage collaborative community design ...... 264 9.8 Accelerated implementation of cohousing throughout Australia ...... 265 9.8.1 Retrofitting existing unit complexes ...... 265 9.8.2 Retrofitting existing suburban houses to form a cohousing community .. 267 9.8.3 Allocating a portion of greenfield master-planned estates to cohousing 269 Conclusions ...... 272 10.1 Overall research findings ...... 272 10.2 Research contributions ...... 276 10.3 Research limitations ...... 277 10.4 Final comments ...... 278 References ...... 280 Appendix 1. ICLA interview questions ...... 294 Appendix 2. ICLA interview and questionnaire content summary ...... 297

- 16 of 297 -

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Title page of 'The eco-village people' article in The Australian (Legge, 2016b) ...... 26 Figure 1.2 ICLAs within the framework of society ...... 30 Figure 1.3 Outline of the thesis ...... 34 Figure 2.1 Types of community living arrangements with generalised characteristics ...... 42 Figure 2.2 Marandoo mining accommodation, Australia ...... 43 Figure 2.3 Co-living for younger generation individuals...... 44 Figure 2.4 Housing careers and lifecycle during the industrial society ...... 46 Figure 2.5 Housing careers and lifecycle during the post-industrial society ...... 46 Figure 2.6 Falanstere (Phalanstère) as drawn by Fourier ...... 57 Figure 2.7 Artistic rendition of Owen’s Parallelogram ...... 58 Figure 2.8 Ground floor plans for the working woman's house ...... 59 Figure 2.9 Johann Krummnow taken in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia...... 62 Figure 2.10 Comparison of ICLA location and size ...... 65 Figure 2.11 Nevada City Cohousing - Nevada City, California ...... 70 Figure 2.12 Duwamish cohousing West Seattle, USA ...... 70 Figure 2.13 Members of Earthsong, Auckland New Zealand ...... 70 Figure 2.14 Members of Ibsgaarden cohousing, Denmark ...... 70 Figure 2.15 Aerial view of Auroville, India ...... 74 Figure 2.16 Shared meal at Ithaca Ecovillage, USA ...... 74 Figure 2.17 Currumbin ecovillage, Australia ...... 74 Figure 2.18 Members of Crystal Waters Ecovillage, Australia ...... 74 Figure 2.19 Kibbutz members at Kibbutz Ein Harod in 1936...... 76 Figure 2.20 Community members of Urban Kibbutz - Mishol ...... 77 Figure 2.21 Ecological and carbon footprints of various ICLAs ...... 79 Figure 2.22 Overall ecological footprint ...... 79 Figure 2.23 Findhorn Foundation wind turbines ...... 80 Figure 2.24 The Living Machine wastewater treatment plant ...... 81 Figure 2.25 Sunshine Coast resident created a retirement community ...... 86 Figure 2.26 Community resistance to cohousing ...... 91

- 17 of 297 -

Figure 2.27 Shared meal at Murundaka Cohousing, Melbourne ...... 93 Figure 2.28 Murundaka cohousing building ...... 93 Figure 2.29 Artist's impression of future ReGen eco-village in The Netherlands...... 94 Figure 2.30 Conceptual view of 'The Cape' in Southern Victoria ...... 96 Figure 2.31 Luxury hotel and ecovillage planned for Sunshine coast ...... 96 Figure 2.32 Single mums and their children become flatmates ...... 97 Figure 2.33 The former Balmain workers cottage after the redesign...... 97 Figure 2.34 Tiny house with deck extension in suburban Brisbane ...... 99 Figure 2.35 Internal view of tiny house ...... 100 Figure 3.1 Post WWII community centre conceptualisation ...... 103 Figure 3.2 Australian population density by SA2 in 2014 ...... 105 Figure 3.3 Typical Australian suburban housing landscape ...... 106 Figure 5.1 Living arrangements within Australia ...... 133 Figure 5.2 Population pyramids per household types in 2016 ...... 136 Figure 5.3 Group household distribution per SA2 ...... 139 Figure 5.4 Group households per SA2 in Brisbane ...... 139 Figure 5.5 Three or more family household distribution per SA2 ...... 140 Figure 5.6 Distribution of ICLAs throughout Australia...... 145 Figure 6.1 Aerial view of SeliHoo ...... 153 Figure 6.2 SeliHoo food growing to garden in place of previous carport driveway . 154 Figure 6.3 Aerial view of Cennednyss ...... 155 Figure 6.4 Aerial view of Rocky Cape Christian community ...... 156 Figure 6.5 Homes and shared grounds within Rocky Cape Christian Community . 157 Figure 6.6 Aerial view of Tasman Ecovillage ...... 158 Figure 6.7 Communal area beside the kitchen and food gardens at Tasman Ecovillage ...... 159 Figure 6.8 Aerial view of Christie Walk ...... 160 Figure 6.9 Some of the sustainability features at Christie Walk ...... 162 Figure 6.10 Aerial view of Cascade Cohousing ...... 162 Figure 6.11 Outdoor areas of Cascade cohousing - view from the communal centre ...... 163 Figure 6.12 Aerial view of Cohousing Cooperative ...... 164 Figure 6.13 One of the houses in the Cohousing Cooperative ...... 165 Figure 6.14 Aerial view of De Oude Nieuwelaan ...... 166

- 18 of 297 -

Figure 6.15 View of a shared garden in Oude Nieuwelaan ...... 167 Figure 6.16 Aerial view of Woongroepen Polter 50+ ...... 168 Figure 6.17 Central garden space in Woongroepen Polter ...... 169 Figure 6.18 Aerial view of Sieben Linden ...... 170 Figure 6.19 Sieben Linden building design ...... 171 Figure 6.20 Approximate boundaries of ZEGG ...... 172 Figure 6.21 University building at ZEGG ...... 173 Figure 6.22 Approximate boundaries of Aldinga Arts Ecovillage ...... 174 Figure 6.23 Streetscape in Aldinga Arts Ecovillage ...... 175 Figure 6.24 Approximate area of Cluny Hill College, Findhorn Foundation ...... 176 Figure 6.25 Approximate area of The Park, Findhorn Foundation ...... 176 Figure 6.26 ‘Field of Dreams’ cohousing at Findhorn ‘The Park.’ ...... 177 Figure 6.27 Cluny Hill gardens ...... 178 Figure 7.1 Noticeboard at Cascade cohousing ...... 184 Figure 7.2 Letterbox area at Cascade Cohousing ...... 184 Figure 7.3 Meeting room layout Sieben Linden ...... 195 Figure 7.4 Outline of Tasman Ecovillage Association constitution ...... 198 Figure 7.5 Photo image from Tasman Ecovillage history book ...... 199 Figure 7.6 Wall mural of Sieben Linden's ‘Idea, Aim and Vision.’ ...... 201 Figure 7.7 Wall mural describing community life in Sieben Linden ...... 201 Figure 7.8 Findhorn Foundation Common Ground document ...... 202 Figure 7.9 Meal roster used at Cascade Cohousing ...... 215 Figure 7.10 Electric car-sharing system at Findhorn Foundation ...... 229 Figure 8.1 Electric car-sharing system at Findhorn Foundation ...... 255 Figure 9.1 Unit complex in Coorparoo, Brisbane ...... 266 Figure 9.2 Possible cohousing from typical suburban lots in Moorooka, Brisbane . 268 Figure 10.1 ICLAs within the framework of society (from Figure 1.2) ...... 273

- 19 of 297 -

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Waves of cohousing development throughout the world ...... 67 Table 2.2 Sources of community conflict ...... 90 Table 3.1 International house sizes (sq. m) ...... 107 Table 3.2 International housing affordability rankings ...... 108 Table 4.1 Research methodology and methods ...... 114 Table 4.2 Categorisation of community forms and inclusion/exclusion in the research scope ...... 116 Table 4.3 Communities visited in order of population size ...... 125 Table 4.4 Promotional channels to recruit respondents ...... 128 Table 5.1 Count of persons per household type from 2006 to 2016 ...... 134 Table 5.2 Education, employment and income per household composition in 2016 ...... 138 Table 5.3 Index of similarity for household types per SA2 ...... 141 Table 5.4 Estimate of ICLA population and communities across Australia in 2017 143 Table 5.5 Demographic characteristics of ICLA respondents ...... 144 Table 6.1 Community information from the questionnaire ...... 150 Table 6.2 Respondent information from the questionnaire ...... 151 Table 6.3 Communities visited during the research ...... 152 Table 7.1 Node and reference summary from Nvivo analysis ...... 181 Table 7.2 Most commonly referred to as social nodes ...... 182 Table 7.3 Processes for managing differences of opinion within communities ...... 188 Table 7.4 Entry processes and membership application for new members ...... 191 Table 7.5 Happiness level responses from the questionnaire ...... 207 Table 7.6 Motivation for community formation ...... 209 Table 7.7 Level of member interactions ...... 210 Table 7.8 Questionnaire responses for food growing on-site and meal frequency . 211 Table 7.9 Work teams within ICLAs visited ...... 220 Table 7.10 Work team statistics from the questionnaire responses ...... 220 Table 7.11 Most commonly referred to as ecological nodes ...... 224 Table 7.12 Shared equipment and materials within site visits ...... 224 Table 7.13 Shared equipment and materials from questionnaire responses...... 225

- 20 of 297 -

Table 7.14 Ecological philosophy within ICLAs and shared elsewhere ...... 226 Table 7.15 Questionnaire response for the reason to first live in an ICLA...... 227 Table 7.16 Sustainability initiatives within ICLAs visited...... 228 Table 7.17 Sustainability initiatives from questionnaire responses ...... 228 Table 7.18 Most commonly referred to as economic nodes ...... 230 Table 7.19 ICLA investment and co-ownership from site visits ...... 231 Table 7.20 Investment and co-ownership information from questionnaire responses ...... 231 Table 7.21 Economic reasoning for moving to an ICLA ...... 233 Table 7.22 Shared finances among ICLAs visited ...... 234 Table 7.23 Shared expenses across ICLAs from the questionnaire ...... 234 Table 7.24 Synthesis of nodes for ICLAs visited ...... 236 Table 7.25 Analysis of ICLA characteristics by geography ...... 237 Table 9.1 Initial communal living research projects ...... 261 Table 9.2 Approximate calculation for cohousing retrofit of pre-existing units ...... 267 Table 9.3 Approximate costing of cohousing retrofit of existing suburban houses . 269 Table 10.1 Selected nodes for thematic analysis ...... 297

Acronyms ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics FIC Fellowship for Intentional Communities GEN Global Ecovillage Network ICLA Intentional Community Living Arrangement ICH Institutional Community Housing

- 21 of 297 -

Preface: A personal questing for community

About the time that our daughter was due to be born, I reflected deeply on the concept of family and how that related to the world around. My questing led me to hear about the Findhorn Foundation1 in Northern Scotland. Later I enrolled in a weeklong ‘Experience Week2’ to understand different views on life. It was there I discovered a strong sense of community. I was inspired and sought to understand more of this model of community and find a way that my new nuclear family could live. Over the next two years, I visited Findhorn again and undertook ‘Life Purpose’ and ‘Life Purpose II’ courses to help me discover and solidify:

My life’s purpose is to use strength though the healing of countryside, changing the system, and planning for a better place, town, city, and world where people care and help each other3.

Unknowingly, my journey of Intentional Community Living Arrangements had begun and has been evolving over the years since then.

Since that time, I have visited and lived in various communities and attempted to form new communities in both Netherlands, Belgium and Australia. My passion for and knowledge of communal living expanded and through a series of events I was inspired to take up the challenge to undertake a Research Higher Degree at the University of Queensland to study this very research paper. It is one of my life goals to connect with others and play a supporting role in the co-creation and support of Intentional Community Living Arrangements.

1 Findhorn Foundation is a spiritual community, ecovillage and an international centre for holistic education, helping to unfold a new human consciousness and create a positive and sustainable future based in Scotland. 2 Experience week is a compulsory introductory course for visitors to the Foundation to ascertain whether community life is suitable for them. 3 I recently discovered this statement when I reviewed my journals of the time.

- 22 of 297 -

The following chapter contains excerpts from the paper stated in the preliminary pages of this thesis. The table below shows each author’s contribution to those excerpts.

Contributor Statement of contribution % Hilder, J writing of text 100 proof-reading 85 theoretical derivations 70 preparation of figures 100 initial concept 70 Charles-Edwards, E., writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 40 theoretical derivations 10 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10 Sigler, T. writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 55 theoretical derivations 10 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10 Metcalf, B. writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 5 theoretical derivations 10 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10

- 23 of 297 -

Introduction

“Intentional Community Living Arrangements” are a form of collaborative housing that accommodates multiple residents who share a common goal and intentionally live by adhering to self-created, common rules, structures, and principles. The cost of housing (ABS, 2014; Cox & Pavletich, 2017; Yates & Gabriel, 2006), social disconnection of people (Baker, 2012; Franklin, 2012) and ecological degradation from urban activities (Carruthers & Ulfarsson, 2002) suggest that alternatives to established practices in the housing landscape be sought. Recently ICLAs have become popular as they can address urgent and increasingly salient questions regarding the sustainability of the Australian (Crabtree, 2005; Tanner, 2007), and global, housing landscape (Chatterton, 2013; Daly, 2017a). This thesis examines the types of communal living arrangements in Australia and explores how the geographical location informs the characteristics and governance of ICLAs. This introductory chapter provides an overview of the thesis’s background, aims, and purported outcomes.

1.1 Broad context for the research project

Housing has historically been a major theme of academic and policy discussions in Australia. The concentration of the population in a small number of major cities has brought significant land pressures in and around those regions. In recent years (AHURI, 2015; Cox & Pavletich, 2017), concerns of housing affordability have triggered discussions about the sustainability of the status quo housing landscape, more specifically the single-family dominated suburban city. The ‘Great Aussie Dream’ of homeownership is a major motivation of Australians (Kellett, 2011) with one-third of the nation owning their dwelling outright, another third owning with a mortgage and only one third renting (ABS, 2016a). Separate houses dominate the housing landscape (72.9%) with smaller proportions of terrace housing (12.7%) and apartments (13.1%) (ABS, 2016a, 2019) implying a nation with strong tendencies towards individual family households rather than communal living arrangements. Despite these dwelling types and individualist tendencies, there is also a growing countertrend, nearly five million residents in 2016 forming one-fifth of the Australian population, that live in some form of communal living arrangement (ABS, 2016a).

- 24 of 297 -

Separate living and the ideal of individual home ownership bring a range of challenges. The current market conditions make housing costly, with Australia ranking second least affordable housing in the Western world (Cox & Pavletich, 2016; Wood & Stoakes, 2006; Yates & Gabriel, 2006). Australia has always been urbanised (Davison, 1979) and like other nations, has high urban growth where the population of Australia primarily live near the coast in the country’s larger cities. Urbanisation is bringing opportunities for increased social interaction and employment, yet is creating inequities in health care (Bentley, Baker, Mason, Subramanian, & Kavanagh, 2011; Capon, 2007). Urbanisation also increases social atomisation (Pincock, 2010), and raises concerns about ecological sustainability such as urban sprawl (Acott, 2014; Carruthers & Ulfarsson, 2002), loss of agricultural land (James & O'Neill, 2016) and excessive greenhouse gas emissions, (Gaigné, Riou, & Thisse, 2012; Glaeser & Kahn, 2010). The traditional ‘community has been lost in modern societies (Kunze, 2012).

Whilst this thesis assesses some of the historical precursors to modern Australian society and the subsequent salient concerns across the housing landscape, the focus of this work is upon the inspiring, practical movement of Intentional Community Living Arrangements (ICLAs). It researches how ICLAs are part of the spectrum of communal living within the Australian housing landscape and compares with European counterparts. ICLAs are instances where groups of people combine their efforts to create favourable, ecologically sustainable, socially connected and affordable living arrangements that improve upon the challenges faced by modern housing. ICLAs have a long history and exist in many societies around the world. They have been studied previously under a range of terms and definitions. The following definition is introduced to clarify the role of ICLAs within the housing landscape:

‘A type of collaborative housing where a group of five or more unrelated people choose to combine their skills, resources and efforts to collectively build or rent and maintain homes and community structures, share social activities, offer neighbourly care for each other, and use a system of inclusive governance.’

- 25 of 297 -

ICLAs take a range of built and organisational forms ranging from urban and rural co-housing, through ecovillages (Meltzer, 2010; Metcalf, 2004; Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004), kibbutzim (Chyutin & Chyutin, 2007; Gavron, 2000) to religious communes (Metcalf & Christian, 2004). ICLAs have been a feature, albeit small, of the Australian housing landscape since European colonisation (Metcalf, 1997; Metcalf & Huf, 2002). With parliamentary attention and growing population, focussed reviews of the size, composition and distribution of such communities in Australia were last undertaken by researchers Cock (1979) and Metcalf and Vanclay (1985). This thesis provides an updated estimate of people living in ICLAs. There is growing widespread recognition of this housing alternative in Australia, such as the Weekend Australian article about Australian Ecovillages (Figure 1.1). This recognition is also highlighted in overseas media overseas in ‘What do singles need more than a mate? Community.’ (DePaulo, 2016) and ‘Senior housing alternatives: Urban cohousing the Babayaga way’ (Abbit, 2016).

Figure 1.1 Title page of 'The eco-village people' article in The Australian (Legge, 2016b)

- 26 of 297 -

This research is undertaken with the premise ICLAs offer solutions to many challenges that exist in modern society. There are established social, ecological and economic benefits from people choosing to live communally. ICLAs provide the opportunity for residents to ‘give and receive socially supportive behaviours’ (Markle, Rodgers, Sanchez, & Ballou, 2015, p. 616), that due their close-knit nature, improve social connectedness and resident wellbeing (Grinde, Nes, Macdonald, & Wilson, 2017) and, can support positive political and social change (Ergas, 2010; Sullivan- Caitlan, 2004) Ecologically, ICLAs provide opportunities for residents to reduce their ecological and carbon footprints and work towards a sustainable lifestyle at the community scale (Daly, 2017b). ICLAs with a stated intention for ecological sustainability can be incubators of ecologically sustainable practices and technologies (Chatterton, 2013; Foundation, 2018). There are also economic benefits of living collectively such as a means for affordable home ownership due to shared tenure of the community’s buildings (Gray, Marcus, & Carey, 2005) and decreases in gas and electricity energy costs by using efficient building systems and equipment (Coimbra & Almeida, 2013). The benefits and challenges of ICLAs are explored in detail in Section 2.6 and 2.7 of this thesis.

1.2 Rationale for research

1.2.1 Pragmatic approach

A pragmatic epistemological research philosophy has been selected as the means for gathering and analysing the quantitative and qualitative data found in the research. Pragmatism focuses ‘on the consequences of the research, on the primary importance of the question asked rather than the methods, and multiple methods of data collection address the problems under study’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 23). Epistemology is concerned with the beliefs about the nature of knowledge, including those related to the objectivity/subjectivity dualism (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010, p. 5). Epistemology also asks how we gain knowledge and what is the relationship between the researcher and that being researched (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Further explanation of the research approach is provided in Section 4.1.

- 27 of 297 -

1.2.2 The framework for research

As with any research, it is important to describe the conceptual framework that provides a locale for the study. ICLAs are a cultural phenomenon with particular social interactions that have built design characteristics of which are an element of urban planning. Gleeson & Low (2000, p. 12) suggest that urban planning is an ‘activity of governance required to make sure that all of the services people need in the city are provided when and where the need occurs’. In this definition, they describe that ‘services’ include the built environment and that the ‘people’ are defined by the ‘space, time and culture’ of which they are part (2000, p. 13). Urban planning has been influenced by the Pragmatist Philosophy of ‘what works, works’ introduced by three founding scholars, Charles Peirce, William James and John Dewey early in the 20th century and ‘understood individual identity as formed in social contexts through all kinds of relations with others’ (Healey, 2008, p. 278). Healy went on to suggest that there should be no rules for planning and that everything should be discovered and asserted in the flow (p278). ‘Spontaneous pragmatism’ in urban planning from residents’ activities and actions may arise in the absence of proactive planning (Nuga, Metspalu, Org, & Leetmaa, 2015, pp. 36-37). The process of planning is influenced by the geographic, economic and cultural paradigms of the society at the time (Calthorpe & Fulton, 2011). Planners view people geographically and their interactions culturally from within the built environment in the wider regional community, the city scale and human-scale neighbourhood (Perry, 2011). In this model, dwellings are seen as the smallest interchangeable parts of the overall planning paradigm. Troy (1995) also acknowledges this and highlights that the institution of the ‘household’ is an important yet largely overlooked part of urban development and planning. This is likely to be true across many countries and for this study particular focus upon the Australian context is made. The ABS census enumerations consider dwellings to be the base statistical unit of the current structure in terms of the built environment (ABS, 2011c). Cultural norms of Australian society from European immigrant backgrounds have always supported the single nuclear family as the predominant household structure in Australian homes. The economic environment within Australia also influences the dwellings styles, sizes and neighbourhood services. Dwellings types common in Australia are separated houses, units and apartments. The current

- 28 of 297 -

planning paradigm of housing provision and urban design in Australia follows a structured process that provides well for the earlier household types within early 20th- century dwelling styles. To some extent, the household structure is informed and limited by the dwelling choices available.

Households in Australia in the later 20th and early 21st century have tended away from the nuclear family (Kellett, 2011) and brought forward a wider diversity of private households such as individuals living alone, single nuclear families living alone, families sharing with related and unrelated others, and instances of unrelated people sharing the housing of household structure (DePaulo, 2015; Hilder, Charles- Edwards, Sigler, & Metcalf, 2018).

Conversely, there is an awareness of living arrangements and community structures that are co-designed by the residents themselves to be collective in nature. These living arrangements involve both connections across diverse household types and the co-habitation in a range of dwelling styles. While existing within the same societal cultural and economic environment, and geographic location, ICLAs are divergent from the current household or dwelling terminology and planning processes in Australia and to a varying extent in other countries. This divergence may place limitations on the level of implementation of ICLAs throughout many countries, including Australia. A conceptual overview of the planning paradigm highlighting urban planning within the cultural, economic and geographic framework of society and the divergent nature of ICLAs is shown in Figure 1.2.

- 29 of 297 -

Figure 1.2 ICLAs within the framework of society

The literature highlights two established theories regarding ICLAs that will be accepted on face value. Firstly, as described later in Section 2.6, ICLAs that function effectively may have positive social and economic outcomes for member residents and positive ecological benefits within and outside the community. Metcalf, pers.com, 2017 shares that while it may not be a lifestyle suited to all people, the world would be a better place with more ICLAs in operation. Secondly, there is a high level of knowledge sharing and interest among existing and aspiring communards in the modern era that has led to successful ICLA implementations in Europe, North American countries and New Zealand. While a similar interest and ability to form communities in Australia exists, there appear to be fewer communities in operation. This research project hypothesises the following relationships between the theories mentioned above.

- 30 of 297 -

1. Which, if any, aspects of effective ICLAs lead to positive outcomes for residents and communities? 2. Which regional differences in structure and governance lead to successful outcomes? 3. Which factors in the Australian context help or hinder the development of ICLAs?

It is necessary to test these relationships within the contextual framework to provide further insight into the phenomena of ICLAs and answer the research questions previously mentioned.

1.3 Research agenda

1.3.1 Research problem

The review of the literature in Section 3.2 tells us that the Australian housing landscape is exhibiting ecological challenges, social estrangement and housing unaffordability. Against this backdrop, we can ask what are the positive outcomes of ICLAs, and why are there so few ICLAs in operation across Australia as compared to European countries? Furthermore, there are barriers to widespread implementation of ICLAs in Australia and internationally that are largely unknown. With this limited knowledge, it is problematic for policymakers and the general population to support widespread implementation of ICLAs.

1.3.2 Knowledge gaps

There have been many changes in the Australian housing landscape and Australian ICLAs since foundational Intentional Community research undertaken in the 1980s. Some assessment has occurred by researchers such as the continuing historical record-keeping of Metcalf; the daily lives within Intentional communities by Donehue (2006); ecological sustainability studies by Meltzer (2000a), O'Callaghan et al. (2012) and Daly (2016, 2017b); and design assessments by Thompson (1997), Nelson (2018b) and Holtzman (2014). Studies of International ICLAs often focus upon European (Tummers, 2016; Vestbro, 2010b) and North American countries (McCamant & Durrett, 2011) and overlooks Australian case studies leaving a lack of knowledge of Australian ICLAs as compared with International communities. In all

- 31 of 297 -

these studies aspects of ICLAs were investigated as housing alternatives separate to the mainstream, yet there has been limited assessment of ICLAs as part of the Australian housing landscape and apart from Daly (2017b) no investigation of how the lessons learnt can be applied to improve other living arrangements.

1.3.3 Research aim, questions and objectives

The literature regarding theory shown later in Chapter 2 and 3 provide a background for research and highlight that ICLAs are to be found in many countries and have characteristics that enable them to be socially connected, ecologically and economically sustainable. What is unclear, however, is to what extent ICLAs currently exist in Australia and which characteristics from international examples can be applied to the Australian housing landscape. The research sets out to achieve the following aim:

To inform policymakers of the current extent of ICLAs within Australia, the characteristics of successful ICLAs, the diversity of ICLA types found internationally and suggest solutions to enable widespread implementation in Australia.

Five objectives were developed from the above aim to guide the research and outline specific research questions (RQ). Each is described below.

Objective 1: Enumerate the size, composition, distribution and characteristics of communal living arrangements throughout Australia.

RQ 1: What are the various types of communal living arrangements and the demographic characteristics of ICLAs in the Australian housing landscape?

This involved conducting a quantitative empirical assessment of communal living arrangements in Australia to categorise their size, composition, distribution and characteristics. This assessment is covered in Chapter 5.

Objective 2: Describe and categorise a range of Australian and international ICLAs

- 32 of 297 -

RQ2: What are the attributes and practices of Australian and European ICLAs?

Addressing this objective enables a greater comprehension of the diversity of ICLA types and characteristics. A case study of each community visited is provided in Chapter 6 and detailed characteristics explored in Chapter 7.

Objective 3: Qualify ICLA characteristics from current member residents of communities in Australia and international settings.

RQ3: Does the geographical setting contribute to differences in ICLA structures and effectiveness?

This research explores the social interactions and mechanisms, ecological measures and economic aspects of ICLAs to establish detailed characteristics of successful communal living arrangements. This is covered in Chapter 7.

Objective 4: Identify and theorise the mechanisms by which ICLAs are governed, how these vary in scope and scale, and how these contribute to their success and failures.

RQ4: What are the governance processes of communities, and how do they support successful community operation?

By reviewing the characteristics of self-governance across each community enables valuable insight into the governance modes and mechanisms that may support ICLAs and other sectors of the housing landscape. Governance processes are discussed in Section 7.2.

Objective 5: Propose recommendations for planners, policymakers and ICLA representatives to support ICLA implementation.

RQ5: What practical elements of ICLAs can benefit the present housing landscape in Australia?

- 33 of 297 -

The intention is to combine the findings within the research and make recommendations for increased implementation of ICLAs across the Australian housing landscape. These suggestions are explored in Chapter 9.

1.4 The structure of the thesis

This thesis begins by defining communal living arrangements and providing an exploration of the evolution of communal living to the present from around the world in Chapter 2. A snapshot of Australian historical roots and present-day assessment of the housing landscape is outlined in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 places emphasis on the research method, and, summaries the approach is taken to address the research questions. The results gained from analysing the demographic components of communal living in Australia are given in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 provides descriptions of the communities visited and a summary of the communities identified within the online questionnaire. An analysis of the data taken directly from ICLA residents is undertaken in Chapter 7 to identify social characteristics and highlight the most significant characteristics of ICLAs. Chapter 8 synthesises the concepts that were identified from the literature, the research findings and highlights trends within the industry to pose future developments within the housing landscape. And lastly, Chapter 10 concludes and makes recommendations for future policy formation and implementation. A summary of this outline is shown in Figure 1.3.

Literature review Research design Results and analysis Discussion Chapter 2 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 8 Background: Research design Demographic analysis Communal living

Chapter 3 Chapter 6 Chapter 9 Australian setting Communities Recommendations description

Chapter 7

Chapter 1 -Introduction 1 Chapter Characterisitics of Chapter 10 - Conclusion - 10 Chapter ICLAs

Figure 1.3 Outline of the thesis Adapted from (Daly, 2017)

- 34 of 297 -

- 35 of 297 -

The following chapter contains excerpts from the paper stated in the preliminary pages of this thesis. The table below shows each author’s contribution to those excerpts.

- 36 of 297 -

Background: communal living

ICLAs are one of the predominant forms of communal living. In order to distinguish the physical and theoretical aspects of ICLAs from other forms of communal living, this chapter sets the background for the research. It begins by introducing meanings of communal living, community and ICLAs. It then describes the types of communal living arrangements and presents a historical summary of communality. It then provides an explanation for the motivations of ICLAs and describes possible negative aspects of ICLAs. The chapter concludes by highlighting recent developments among ICLAs throughout the world.

As social animals, humans share our lives, our homes, the care of each other and our environment, and may work collectively to continue our human evolution and ultimately the survival of the species. The means and established norms for how we interact and carry out the everyday activities of living together have evolved through the ages. It is asserted by researchers such as Bachofen (1967); Engels, Morgan, and Leacock (1972) that prior to the advent of advanced human civilisation, roving matrilineal kinship-based groups lived around available resources. We functioned in a collective fashion that enabled a division of labour amongst the group, allowed us to band together to protect against outside dangers and survive (Childe, 1950; Pincock, 2010). During our evolution skills improved (Childe, 1950) and some research suggests we transitioned to more patriarchal dominance (Engels et al., 1972). With the advent of agriculture and pastoralism approximately 12,000 years ago (Giddens & Sutton, 2013) we developed more permanent settlements enabling group sizes to be larger yet still requiring all members of the group to be involved in food production with limited specialisation of skills (Childe, 1950). Societies during this time numbered from small rural localities of hundreds of occupants to towns and cities of thousands of people that still exist in some parts of the world (Giddens & Sutton, 2013, pp. 112-117). As skills in food production, protection from harm and technologies continued to evolve, groups began developing a resource surplus that could be stored for later use by the group and for the first time enabled individuals to engage in developing specialist skills such as writing and science and began the age of civilisation (Childe, 1950) that arose approximately 6,000 years ago. Civilised societies with cities with populations numbering in the millions arose and are

- 37 of 297 -

prevalent until today (Giddens & Sutton, 2013). During industrialisation and the age of modernity, the family replaced kinship-based groups (Engels et al., 1972) but now living within larger interconnected societies, nation states (Giddens & Sutton, 2013, pp. 117-118) and eventually in sophisticated megacities throughout the world (Childe, 1950; Giddens & Sutton, 2013).

2.1 Community, Communitarianism and Communal Living Arrangements

An aim of many societal environments is the connectedness of the individuals and families, the collective nature of their activities and the commonality in their beliefs and means for interacting. These ‘co’ words describe another that is the focus of this research, the social phenomena of community and how that operates in communal living arrangements. According to the Dictionary of Human Geography, ‘community’ is defined as ‘A form of a social, and often spatial, organization centred on common interests and a locale’. The Merriam-Webster (2017a) dictionary specifies community as: ‘1. a unified body of individuals, 2. A state or commonwealth, and 3. Society at large’. The word stems from the Latin ‘commūnitās’ introduced in the 14th century (Merriam-Webster, 2017a).

Metcalf (2004, p. 10) highlighted the community connection between all people in his both humorous and yet important proposition that:

…Homo sapiens (wise people) should be called Homo communitas (community people) since ‘community’ of one sort, or another is something into which we are born, in which we live and where we shall all die and be long remembered-or soon forgotten.

The organised nature of human interaction has been written about throughout recorded history. Religion has played a major role in the various forms of communal living for thousands of years (Miller, 2013b, p. 1). The concept of community was likely strengthened during the socialist exploration in the 19th century when Karl Marx wrote in opposition to the capitalist growth of the industrial revolution of the time. His writings were one of the influences that prompted a wave of discussion, meanings

- 38 of 297 -

and ideologies of community and how it featured within the society of the era. Another 19th-century author Ferdinand Tönnies (1955) in his 1883 text ‘Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft’ (Community and association) explored the relationship of the two in light of preindustrial rural life and industrial city life proposing that:

(In preindustrial rural life) Gemeinschaft mapped out a social order in which interaction was intense, personal and based on primary social relations. It was marked by strong social solidarity - effectively, the individual was part of an integrated social collectively. By contrast, in the city Gesellschaft conditions predominated, characterized by transitory, fleeting social relationships. Individuals had become more interdependent on one another (because of the division of labour (Paddison, 2001, p. 195).

Paddison (2001, p. 194) also describes the term community as ‘the means by which the individual is able to develop a sense of belonging and identify with at least part of it [the city]’ to ‘counteract the size and potential alienation of it (the city). He further suggests that community ‘not only convey connotations of empathy and localness…but also harnesses new relationships between state and civil society’ a positive and cohesive description in contrast to Tönnies’ anti-capitalist antagonistic sentiment of 120 years prior.

Two important terms that frequent communal literature is dystopia and Utopia. Dystopia describes negative characteristics of the dominant societal paradigm of the era where ‘injustice, inequality, and disaster that would result from urban hubris, excess and expansion’ (Featherstone, 2017, p. 27) are perceived. Utopia, by contrast, is a positive, ideal future picture painted by individuals and groups that ‘seek to imagine a good life’ (Sargisson & Sargent, 2017) that can be real (Miles, 2008; Sargisson, 2012) or imaginary (More & Logan, 2011). These terms are explored further in Chapter 2.2.

The increase in the discourse surrounding community and communal movements prompted the term ‘Communitarianism’ in the late 19th and early 20th century (Fischer, 2015). It was promoted by people who were critical of liberalism (Fischer,

- 39 of 297 -

2015) and individualism (Rogers, Castree, & Kitchin, 2013). Communitarians valued the benefits that came with being part of a community (Fischer, 2015) such as improvements in social relations, institutions, and customs (Rogers et al., 2013).

The notion of community and communitarianism is also explored in other languages, yet they make no distinction with or without the family. The Japanese term 共生 kyousei’ (Nguyen, 2016) which means:

‘with, together’ (共) and sei (生) ‘to live, to be alive’ and the whole word represents the concept of ‘living together ’which translates to English as ‘Co- living’ or ‘Coexistence’. (Takabatake, 2007, p. 101)

And in detail the German term ‘gemeinschaft’ mentioned previously:

- a spontaneously arising organic social relationship characterized by strong reciprocal bonds of sentiment and kinship within a common tradition (Merriam-Webster, 2017b, p. No page given), and: - gemeinschaft is a natural, unplanned social entity [where] everyone knows each other (Sandstedt & Westin, 2015, p. 136).

The terminology in this social context is not to be confused with physical spaces, practices, or knowledge, rather that they are part of ‘the commons’ of the community. Gibson-Graham, Cameron, and Healy (2013, p. 130) describe the commons as ‘a property that is shared by a community’ yet it may also include other less tangible aspects. Traditionally there was a sense of imposed government control over the commons and more recently a trend towards privatisation of land that once was accessible to all. (Turner, 2017). However with growing awareness of the environmental problems of modern society and perception of ‘development as a failed socio-economic endeavour’ (Esteva, 2014), there is a movement towards taking back the commons or ‘commoning’ in a post-development world liberated from the dominion of development (Esteva, 2014) and transform our spaces and property

- 40 of 297 -

and change our economies to be based upon ethical guidelines as opposed to development (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013).

The ideologies and discourse from above highlight the diversity of terms used when discussing communal living arrangements. The following section categorises and describes three types of communal living arrangements to provide the basis for the thesis investigation.

2.2 Types of Communal Living Arrangements

In the context of the Global North, communal living arrangements differ from conventional single-family households in that the dwelling, or group of dwellings, is shared by those in a ‘living’ relationship rather than a primarily familial relationship. Communal living arrangements can take a wide range of forms, from student share houses to eco-villages, retirement villages, social housing complexes, hospitals and prisons. This thesis classifies these arrangements into three broad types: institutional communal housing; shared housing; and ICLAs. Several generalised criteria to characterise these three types of communal living arrangements. The criteria shown in Figure 2.1 are the approach towards formation; the formality of the living arrangements; the source of funding; the level of autonomy experienced by the residents; the resident population; and, the motivation for the creation of the living arrangement. Further detail of these criteria is explored below.

- 41 of 297 -

Communal living arrangements

Type Institutional Shared Intentional Community Communal housing Housing Living Arrangements

Institution led - top Resident led Approach Resident led-bottom up down - bottom up

Arrangements Formal Informal Formal

Funding External provider Residents Residents

Resident autonomy Limited Full Full

Resident population 10's-100's 2-10+ 5-100's

Practical Motivation Provide need Connected living reasons

Figure 2.1 Types of community living arrangements with generalised characteristics

2.2.1 Institutional Communal Housing

Institutional communal housing is a complex of connected dwellings or rooms funded, constructed and managed by an external organisation often built as a long- term initiative. The focus of institutional communal housing primarily regards the physical structure of the place by efficiently housing residents to meet their perceived needs. This type of housing is provided in non-private dwellings which according to the ABS (2016b) are defined as: establishments which provide a communal or transitory type of accommodation, such as hotels, nursing homes, corrective institutions, boarding schools, staff quarters and hospitals. In most cases, the institution charges a rental fee to the residents except for those in correctional facilities. These formalised arrangements are created for the duration of the facility irrespective of the members’ individual needs. This type of living arrangement often has a large population of unrelated people, with complexes ranging from tens of resident members in boarding houses, hundreds in schools, hundreds in employee housing and thousands in hospitals and jails.

- 42 of 297 -

Mining accommodation for workers is an example of institutional communal housing where companies provide housing for their employees on a temporary or infrequent basis. This may be on remote sites such as the 1000-person Marandoo mining accommodation in Western Australia (Figure 2.2). Other examples include employees working in the shipping industry or at offshore oil rigs.

Image: http://www.ertech.com.au/

Figure 2.2 Marandoo mining accommodation, Australia

Another example is the growing ‘co-living’ movement in the more expensive cities in the world, where for-profit organisations provide fully equipped accommodation for transient young professionals (Figure 2.3) who choose to share the living spaces and facilities with likeminded individuals (Cox, 2016; Kane, 2016; Kasperkevic, 2016) and share spaces ranges from single dwellings to complete building complexes comprising multiple dwellings. The residents are attracted to these facilities as they negate the stress of managing leases, house and equipment maintenance, and they are prepared to pay a premium for this service (Barbanel, 2017; Kadet, 2017). Critical observers have categorised these developments as “niche market developments, targeted at the [cohort of ] cashed-up, financially secure, healthy and active baby boomer” (Bosman, 2014) and spaces for millennial generation residents on a budget (Barbanel, 2017; Bosanac, 2016; Fenton, 2015; Kadet, 2017).

- 43 of 297 -

Image: www.theurbandeveloper.com Figure 2.3 Co-living for younger generation individuals

The living arrangements of institutional communal housing are usually formally defined and governed by the institutions who fund, manage the complex with a common set of rules for all residents, and they charge a rental fee to the residents of the institutional communal housing (Anon, 2020). These formalised arrangements are created for the life-term of the institutional communal housing buildings rather than being focussed upon the individual resident member’s involvement in the institutional communal housing.

In summary, institutional communal housing is implemented by organisations that fund, design and manage physical structures to efficiently house individuals. The providers determine and formalise the living arrangements that remain in force over generational periods. Resident numbers range from 10s to 1000s, and whilst they are large groups, they have limited input in operation or modification of the housing buildings and facilities. An overview of the institutional communal housing population and demographic characteristics of statistical analysis in Australia is described in Section 5.2.

- 44 of 297 -

2.2.2 Shared Housing

Throughout history, people have shared their home with their extended family, friends and sometimes strangers. The reasons people do so vary. It may be to share the costs of housing, to provide care for others, live similar lifestyles, to increase social contact and in some cases to generate an income from available rooms in the home. Whatever the driving force, Shared Housing is commonplace in many societies, including Australia, as will be shown in Section 5.2.

Shared housing is familiar to many Australians from their student days and early working life. Indeed, shared housing is an important step in the life course and housing careers of many people as they transition from childhood in a family home to living with other people in shared housing to relationship formation and marriage, child-rearing and finally to the empty nest and widowhood (Baum & Wulff, 2003; Faulkner & Beer, 2011). In the late 19th and early 20th century, the life cycle and housing career followed a simple linear pattern (Figure 2.4).

- 45 of 297 -

X Possible time for X house sharing

Figure 2.4 Housing careers and lifecycle during the industrial society

Source: Adapted from Faulkner & Beer, 2011 p.19 (adapted from Williams 2003, p166)

During the late 20th and early 21st century, political, economic and cultural changes have impacted both the housing career and life cycle of individuals (see Figure 2.5) that has resulted in a growing proportion of people across all age groups in shared housing for extended periods (Lovering, 2014).

X Possible time for house sharing

X X X X

Figure 2.5 Housing careers and lifecycle during the post-industrial society

Source: Adapted from Faulkner & Beer, 2011 p.19 (adapted from Williams 2003, p166)

- 46 of 297 -

Shared housing may be a reluctant form of housing rather than a preferred way of living. When the economic or family situation of the members change, they move to new housing situations quickly and easily.

While the living arrangement may be viewed as temporary, it does have advantages such as assisting members to achieve homeownership through shared equity (Saegert, Greer, Thaden, & Anthony, 2015), providing greater economic efficiency (Barrette, 2009), encouraging ecological sustainability (Stanes, Klocker, & Gibson, 2015), support situations for caring for each other (DePaulo, 2015, pp. 55-82) and the increase of social interaction (Clark, Tuffin, Frewin, & Bowker, 2017).

In summary, membership in shared housing is voluntary, generally transitory, and living arrangements formalised on a relatively ad-hoc basis for the set period (e.g. length of a lease). Shared houses tend to have relatively few residents (fewer than ten), reflecting that they are often limited to traditional dwellings intended for families and individuals. The makeup of the household may be unrelated students and employed people, multiple families or multigenerational families with or without lodgers who choose to live together for affordability or companionship. This is explored within the Australian context in Chapter 5.2. The residents fund the housing and create the living arrangements themselves according to their needs with changes occurring in the turnover of members.

2.2.3 Intentional Community Living Arrangements

ICLAs are distinct from other forms of communal housing, both socially and spatially. Socially they are frequently groups of unrelated individuals who formalise their intention to share resources, live connected lives with similar values and care for each other in a self-directed and self-governed manner for the collective benefit of the whole community. Commonly the community develops their own constitution or charter based on their own principles and values, an element that is explored in further detail in Section 7.2.6. They have a distinct spatial morphology with multiple separate dwellings or multiple unrelated people in larger, single dwellings often comprising a single community. They range from five or more people (Meltzer, 2000a; Metcalf, 2004; Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004) sharing a single dwelling, through to a diverse array of families of hundreds of people sharing ownership and

- 47 of 297 -

custodianship of multiple dwellings, land and community structures in a formalised ICLA.

The definition of Intentional Communal Living Arrangements provided in Section 1.1 is repeated here in context with its explanation.

The definition builds upon the previous scholarship of ‘Intentional community’ terminology, where the housing relationship of unrelated people shares aspects of their lives. ‘Collaborative housing’ suggests a group that is combining their effort, skills and resources to achieve and maintain their preferred living arrangement. Being ‘five or more unrelated people’ implies there are more members than a single- family. Sharing ‘social activities’ and ‘neighbourly care’ suggest that there is a shared philosophy to interact with others purposefully. The ‘inclusive governance’ highlights that each member has valuable input in decision making.

ICLAs stem from various ideologies that have waxed and waned over time according to the predominant guiding force at certain points in history. They range from utopianism where the objective was to create a perfectly functioning state as described by More and Logan (2011), to social and economic communitarianism, communism (about classlessness and resource rationalisation) and to the recent sharing economy movement throughout the world. These and other motivating factors are explained in Section 2.6.

There is a range of similar terminology that has been proposed in detail in a number of prior studies (Bouvard, 1975; Nelson, 2018a; Sargent, 1994; Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004) with the predominant and most widely accepted term being ‘Intentional Communities’.

- 48 of 297 -

In 1953, attempting to classify and categorise Intentional Communities, the Federation of Intentional Communities proposed and adopted the name and a definition for them (Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004). Bouvard (1975) assessed terminology within the literature at the time, and Sargent (1994) performed a detailed assessment of the literature surrounding Utopian and Intentional Communities and identified a large range of terms:

intentional community, intentional society, communal society, cooperative community, practical Utopia, commune, withdrawn community, enacted community, experimental community, communal experiment, alternative society, alternative lifestyle, communitarian experiment, socialist colonies, collective settlement, mutualistic communities, communistic societies, Utopian society, and Utopian experiment.

Bouvard (1975) proposed her own definition of Intentional Community as:

…a group of five or more adults and their children, if any, who come from more than one nuclear family and who have chosen to live together to enhance their shared values or for some other mutually agreed-upon purpose.

From his extensive research in the field of Intentional Communities, Metcalf (2004, p. 9) proposed a more detailed and specific definition for Intentional Communities as:

Five or more people, drawn from more than one family or kinship group, who have voluntarily come together for the purpose of ameliorating, perceive social problems and inadequacies. They seek to live beyond the bounds of mainstream society by adopting a consciously devised and unusually well- thought-out social and cultural alternative. In the pursuit of their goals, they share significant aspects of their lives together. Participants are characterised by a ‘we-consciousness’ seeing themselves as a continuing group, separate from and in many ways better than the society from which they have emerged.

It is interesting to note that Bouvard, Metcalf and Miller stipulated a minimum population of five or more members from more than one family in their definitions of

- 49 of 297 -

community. By contrast, Smith (2002) highlighted that The Fellowship for Intentional Community regarded groups with two or more adults who self-identified as communities were included in their community directories. A minimum of five as the basis for the community was chosen when creating the definition for this thesis.

Meltzer (2005, p. 2) provided perhaps the simplest and yet likely the most difficult to quantify the definition of:

An Intentional Community (as opposed to other types of the community) is a group of mostly unrelated people living together and dedicated ‘by intent’ to specific common values or goals.

Within the field of urban geography, an Intentional Community is frequently defined as:

…a self-contained, planned community that attempts to pursue a peaceful ideal, as opposed to a community created and run without an organizing principle (and generally competitive in nature). (Young, 2010)

Historical researcher of religious Intentional Communities Miller (2015, p. xi) outlined four criteria with detailed explanations that were required for a group to be considered Intentional Communities. He considers a group must:

1. be gathered on the basis of some kind of purpose or vision. 2. live together on the property that has some kind of clear physical commonality to it. 3. have some kind of financial or material sharing, some kind of economic commonality. 4. have a membership of at least five adults, not all of whom are related by blood or marriage

The purpose of introducing the term ICLA is not to rephrase the existing Intentional Community terminology but to highlight the specific point of negotiated arrangements made regarding a living situation. This terminology also introduces a previously

- 50 of 297 -

unidentified category in the field of demography to classify community living of this intentional nature within housing and population datasets both in this thesis and in future studies. Without this distinction, it is difficult to both characterise and compare ICLAs.

As the term ICLA is newly identified here for the above reasons, there is a range of literature that covers Intentional Communities and is directly relevant to ICLAs, and for simplicity, all future reference to Intentional Communities will be stated as ICLAs.

ICLAs take a range of built and organisational forms. The modern forms include cohousing, collaborative housing, ecovillages, kibbutzim, self-organised and managed housing, religious and sectarian communes which are explored further in Section 2.5. Bresson and Denèfle (2015) suggest that cohousing, a form of ICLA described in Section 2.5.1, where residents have strong bonds and are central in the design, development and management of their community project, which sets them apart from mainstream private development or social housing. This assertion could also be descriptive of all other forms of ICLAs.

The focus of ICLAs is the people, their relationships, systems of governance and the foundational and binding purpose for why they commit to living communally. While ICLA residents may seek to create a way of life that improves upon other types of living within the housing landscape toward a more Utopian4 lifestyle, there is an awareness that the community will not be perfect and require a commitment to maintaining. Agreements of the community are co-created by the members generally using inclusive consensus processes and formalised for the present and future members of the ICLAs. The residents proactively create their own community ‘based upon equality and neighbourly cooperation’ to meet their requirements without the explicit need for external institutions and government (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012). (Bresson & Denèfle, 2015) suggest that cohousing residents have strong bonds and are central in the design, development and management of their community project,

4 Utopianism is an idealised lifestyle in a perfect society (More, Bruce, Neville, & Bacon, 1999). This is further explored in Section 2.3.

- 51 of 297 -

which sets them apart from mainstream private development or social housing. This assertion could also be descriptive of all other forms of ICLAs.

The process of forming ICLAs is a smaller-scale version of the ‘Deliberative Development’ process for ‘Engaging ordinary citizens to “elicit and aggregate local knowledge” that can avoid the simplifications inherent in centralised decision-making’ (Donovan, 2012, p. 100). Groups manage the challenges faced in the operation of the ICLA and everyday interactions through various group processes, communication and conflict resolution processes that build longevity and resilience within the community. Within the ICLA, financial ownership of the property and resources are usually shared and often self-managed (Christian, 2013a). This level of interaction and group development can take years to build and requires a long- term commitment to working together and lifelong lifestyle choice by the resident members in order to be successful (Christian, 2007).

Agreements for the physical, spatial and financial design aspects of the ICLA is almost completely derived from the input of the residents albeit guided by the local legal and planning restrictions (Durrett & McCamant, 1988; Holtzman, 2014). ICLAs are often focussed upon the pluralistic makeup of family, religious beliefs or ecological conservation (Metcalf, 2004). Member residents can be from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds and family characteristics. They range in member population from five (Metcalf, 2004; Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004) to thousands as in the case of Auroville city, India (Kunze, 2005).

ICLAs studied throughout the world have been shown to offer many positive aspects such as improved affordability (McStotts, 2004; Rosenblatt, 2009); better social cohesion (Donehue, 2006); increased personal happiness (Grinde et al., 2017); enable older generations to be more self-reliant and socially connected (Bamford, 2005; Glass, 2013); and, improved ecological sustainability of households and community (Daly, 2017b; Ergas, 2010; Sherry & Ormsby, 2016; Torres-Antonini, Hasell, & Scanzoni, 2003; Zhang & Lv, 2011). Vestbro and Horelli (2012) suggest that the equalitarian ideals of cohousing ICLAs have contributed to an equal distribution of responsibilities for housework throughout Scandinavian countries. Specific models of resident-led housing developments such as ‘…French Habitat

- 52 of 297 -

‘Participatif’; German ‘Baugruppen’ and Dutch ‘Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap’ have featured in the research (Tummers, 2015). They have experienced success over four decades (Ache & Fedrowitz, 2012; Hamiduddin & Gallent, 2015). The recognition of ecovillages and cohousing as viable housing models is increasing in many European countries (Ache & Fedrowitz, 2012; Tummers, 2016) and throughout the world (GEN, 2019), where they contribute to economic affordability (Coimbra & Almeida, 2013), improved social outcomes (Grinde, 2017; Sanguinetti, 2014) and improved ecological sustainability (Chatterton, 2013; Daly, 2017a; Ergas, 2010; Sanguinetti, 2014).

There is a novel movement that is occurring where ICLAs are placing effort on self- sustainability and maintaining connections outside the community as opposed to their physical and structural characteristics. These communities have been found to endure longer than traditional neighbourhoods (Altus, 2016). After exploring the perspectives of several long-term ICLA members from around the USA, Altus suggested twelve key steps to help communities and the wider society to live peacefully. She purports that a community focussed upon inner and outer peace:

1. Nurtures and supports personal growth 2. Provides daily opportunities to live out one’s values 3. Nurtures deep connections and relationships among members 4. Nurtures deep connections and relationships with the land and natural world 5. Engages in celebration, rituals and traditions 6. Works on communication and group process 7. Defines and sticks to its core values 8. Develops a system for sharing the work 9. Involves the next generation 10. Pays attention to economics 11. Works to be good neighbours 12. Models and shares a cooperative culture (Altus, 2016, pp. 8-21)

Additionally, she reiterated the views of residents that ICLAs are learning centres offering practical solutions for peaceful community interaction and that ‘…the world desperately needs what we are learning about’ (Altus, 2016, p. 21).

- 53 of 297 -

An analysis of, institutional communal housing, share housing and ICLAs, is provided in Section 5.1 and places ICLAs within a contextual framework. All other sections of this thesis are specifically focussed upon ICLAs. The identification of the terminology conducted in this section provides the basis for its use throughout the thesis.

2.3 The evolution of ICLAs throughout the Western world

The evolution of communal living and its associated philosophy from ancient times until the modern era have been explored extensively (Cock, 1979; Metcalf, 1995; Metcalf & Huf, 2002; Pearson, 1988; Sargisson, 2011; Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004; Vestbro, 2010a). There is a broad consensus on the evolution of ICLAs from approximately 2500 years ago to the modern era. Whilst it is worthy of further historical research, this study does not attempt to critically assess the early origins of ICLAs beyond a cursory understanding of the concepts that underpin ICLAs historically. However, there are notable occurrences of theory, design or implementation and historical researchers assessing the evolution of ICLAs that are highlighted below.

Historically the formation of ICLAs has appeared in society over six different waves. Initially, new communities in ancient civilisations were formed by members who wanted to create a better way of living to address the challenges they faced in the dominant society at the time. The second wave comprised of communities that broke away from society, mostly due to religious differences and, was formed by members. The third wave of ICLA formation occurred during the industrial revolution to the middle of the 20th century and was motivated by economic rationalisation and created top-down by governments and businesses to provide affordable housing for their employees near places of work. The fourth wave of ICLA formation occurred during the late counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s and was grassroots by aspiring communards. The fifth wave involved cohousing which started in the Scandinavia in the 1980s before spreading to the United Kingdom and North Americas in the 2000s. In this model, families combine their resources to create shared living arrangements within the existing housing landscape, to enable sharing of resources, parenting, shared meals, community gardening and many other

- 54 of 297 -

activities of collaboration. Cohousing is discussed in detail in Section 2.5.1. The sixth and current wave is the bottom-up growth of ‘share housing’ and sharing economy driven by housing unaffordability throughout the Global North. These six waves are described in more detail throughout this section, and the motivation for their formation is provided in Section 2.6.

During the first wave, the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras with several hundred communards formed a vegetarian community in about 525 BCE called Homakoeion in an idyllic rural area, near Crotone, Italy, and espoused the equality of all members (Christian, 2003; Metcalf & Christian, 2004, p. 18; Metcalf & Huf, 2002). In his research, Metcalf suggests that the first recorded mention of political discourse around a mode of better society ideals was in Ancient Greece where Plato (Metcalf, 1995, 1997) philosophised about the tenets of a balanced society and spoke of these in ‘The Republic’. The Jewish Sect, the Essenes, withdrew from mainstream Palestine (Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004) and it is also suggested that Jesus Christ was born amongst the Essenes (Thiering, 1992) who were equalitarian and espoused sharing of material goods (Thiering, 1992) which would have influenced his life, and likely the early development of Christianity depended on his communal experiences (Metcalf & Huf, 2002). These early ICLA movements and discussions were based upon creating better societal situations for people and families. Nearly 1500 years later, Thomas Moore (1516), when observing the failings of British society at the time, built upon the concepts of Plato’s earlier philosophies and introduced the term ‘Utopia’ in his seminal text by the same name where he imagined an ideal lifestyle located on a perfect island state (More et al., 1999) and espoused equality as fundamental to Utopian life. Goodwin and Taylor (2009, p. 3) when reviewing the evolution, theory and practice of Utopian politics describe Utopia as being societal forms and ideas ranging from ‘unrealisable because hopelessly idealistic’ to ‘…connotes an ideal real alternative’ to the dominant societal paradigm. Whilst most other researchers identify theoretical or imaginary utopias, Zablocki (1980) also described Exhorted (fictional), Imposed (Institutional Housing) and Communitarian (ICLAs).

Throughout the middle ages and into the 19th century during the second wave, many dissenting religious groups such as Brethren of the Free Spirit (Metcalf, 2004)

- 55 of 297 -

Moravians, Amish, Hutterities, Mennonites, Bruderhof (Metcalf & Huf, 2002) sought new lands and formed breakaway communities to start a new life based upon religious principles of community functionality, some of which are still in existence today.

With the advent of capitalism and the industrial revolution during the third wave, Karl Marx observed the way society functioned (Fischer, 2015) and argued that the dominant ideas of age were reflective of the dominant way of life particularly the means of production (Giddens & Sutton, 2013). He wrote extensively about societal failings in this era and proposed more socially and environmentally just means of living as the foundations of Marxism and Socialism (Rogers et al., 2013). These writings inspired socially-minded leaders to instigate institutional communal housing projects that were both planned and implemented. Nineteenth-century socialist Charles Fourier (Cock, 1979), described a palace-style collective called Falanstere (Phalanstère) where the building was designed to enable greater efficiency of working activities such as farming, industrial production and shared kitchens. The sheer scale of the complex with hundreds to thousands of residents and external funding source denote that this was an institutional communal housing initiative. Whilst the intention of the design was to encourage and support communal interaction (Figure 2.6), its practical application was still limited by the dominant paradigm at the time (Vestbro, 2010b).

Figure 2.6 Falanstere (Phalanstère) as drawn by Fourier Image source: en.wikipedia.org

- 56 of 297 -

Robert Owen was an important socialist in the 19th century. Concerned about the negative aspects that the industrial revolution had brought upon society Owen wrote about Utopian societal ideals and published the ‘New World Order’ text describing utopian societal design elements and proposing modes of social interaction. He proposed a model for a society based upon the ideals of equality, common education and no private wealth. An example of the arrangements suggested is the excerpt from his discussion of ‘A general Constitution of Government’ where he describes the general arrangements for government:

‘XVII-Society shall not be composed, as at present, of single families, but of communities or associations of men, women, and children, in the usual proportions, from three hundred to two thousand, as local circumstances determine’ (Owen, 1840, p. 4)

He also founded the 1000-member colony ‘New Harmony’ in the USA and inspired the Owenite movement that still influences thinking today. In sharing his ideals of an institutional communal housing project, he proposed a large-scale building for his view on an ideal society called a Parallelogram (Figure 2.7). Its purpose was to improve agricultural efficiency and attempt to improve the lives of the poor (Cock, 1979; Vestbro, 2010b). Both Fourier’s and Owen’s concepts intended large scale approaches applied by an external investor were prohibitively expensive and never implemented.

- 57 of 297 -

Figure 2.7 Artistic rendition of Owen’s Parallelogram Image source: (Claeys, 2011, p. 133)

Another 19th-century idealist, Swedish born Jonas Love Almquist inspired by buildings designed for efficient and cooperative housekeeping that were popular across Europe at the time, wrote about his vision of a Universal Hotel (Vestbro, 2010b). While the project was never implemented, it was another example of the interest that institutional communal housing projects were generating. At approximately the same time in England, ‘Associated Homes’ for cooperative housekeeping were built where separate houses were designed with central servant’s quarters so that staff could provide household services to more than one wealthy middle-class family home (Pearson, 1988) as shown in the example floor plan shown in Figure 2.8 (Pearson, 1988, p. 141) and redrawn from A.D. Sanderson Furniss and Marion Phillips, 'The Working Woman's House 1920’ with the ‘back entrance.

- 58 of 297 -

Figure 2.8 Ground floor plans for the working woman's house

The philosophy driving these designs were from a society that was becoming more egalitarian and encouraged semi-autonomy of the working class. Catering for staff sharing between homes enabled greater affordability for the owners of the homes and yet remained a housing design that placed little or no importance on the social wellbeing of the working class.

The economic pressures experienced throughout Europe in the early 20th century created the backdrop for new designs and developments for greater housing efficiency were explored and attempted. These projects were primarily institutional community housing initiatives. Alva Myrdal and Sven Markelius developed the idea of a futuristic view of the collectively organised housing complex and published the design in the Swedish Modern Architecture Manifesto, Acceptera, and presented in the Stockholm Exhibition in 1930 (Vestbro, 2010a, p. 46). It was met with criticism and not implemented. Across Europe at the time, wealthy developers with genuine concerns for the disparity between the rich and poor of society, designed and created large scale multiple apartment complexes with shared facilities and spaces such as commercial size kitchens, laundries and school facilities promoted as Utopian living (Vestbro, 2010b). These apartments, as the name suggests, were in effect placing large numbers of people in collections of separated dwellings. Whilst enabling cost savings, and attempting to implement communal ideals, the scale of the projects became too large for effective regular social interaction and led to their

- 59 of 297 -

failure. Their poor image with governments led to this style of living arrangement, and references to Utopian housing being banned throughout many European countries (Vestbro, 2010b).

The next wave, the fourth, grew from a counterculture and reform movement of youth and hippie communes in the 1960s that pioneered changes in personal consumption, spiritual awareness and positive social interaction (Pitzer, 2012). This sentiment was also shared by Bresson and Denèfle (2015), who noted anarchist and self-management worker housing movements in France who pooled resources to enable them to obtain decent accommodation.

The fifth wave started during the 1980s and 1990s in countries of the global north. It was driven by a desire to build affordable housing, create a stronger sense of the neighbourhood (Pitzer, 2012) and growing environmental awareness that remained until early 21st century (Bresson & Denèfle, 2015). This wave led to increased development of community-led initiatives such as cohousing and ecovillage communities that are described further in Section 2.5.

The sixth and final wave started around 2010 when the global economy and increased urban population throughout the world have led to housing unaffordability in many countries (Cox & Pavletich, 2017). These challenges have inspired the ‘sharing economy’ stemming from is collaborative consumption where people offer and share underutilized resources in creative, new ways (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014). One of the advancements is co-living is a novel form of living arrangement where people share their living spaces with others (Steding, 2019) who may or may not be related. Co-living is different from house-sharing because the housing is provided by developers who build accommodation with multiple private spaces (bedrooms) around often luxurious communal facilities (Barbanel, 2017; Fenton, 2015). These accommodation types cater to larger numbers of residents than the traditional single-family home.

- 60 of 297 -

2.4 Previous scholarship on ICLAs in Australia

ICLAs have been a feature, albeit small and fluctuating part of the Australian housing landscape since soon after Europeans first arrived in Australia (Metcalf, 1997; Metcalf & Huf, 2002). There were religious and secular ICLAs in rural locations (Cock, 1979) created by European settlers and entrepreneurs. The economic and societal conditions likely inspired utopian and ideological yearnings to seek other living arrangements than was available in the cities at the time, as highlighted by Metcalf et.al.

During the latter half of the nineteenth century, many people in the western world became interested in self-sufficient communes as a means to avoid industrial squalor and poverty and to live more humane, liberated and moral lives. (Metcalf, Kerr, & Christie, 2015, p. 841)

In rural and remote areas of Australia, particularly along the Murray River in South Australia and Victoria (Cock, 1979), communal settlements were seen as a means to encourage settlement in the interior of Australia. Governments and investors encouraged and supported settlements by providing lands and funding (Metcalf & Huf, 2002). Australia’s first ICLA ‘Herrnhut’ was built in 1853 by a group of German immigrants led by a charismatic individual, Johann Friedrich Krumnow (shown in Figure 2.9) (Metcalf & Huf, 2002). The residents were invited to emigrate from Europe with the lure of a new life. Whilst it persevered for many years, it eventually failed because of the remoteness and lack of opportunity for children born there (Metcalf & Huf, 2002).

- 61 of 297 -

Image source: (Metcalf & Huf, 2002)

Figure 2.9 Johann Krummnow taken in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

Herrnhut and others like it were founded by groups of individuals who did not align with or approve of the dominant societal paradigms of the time and made attempts to create their own ICLAs. Throughout the 19th century, similar communal utopian ideals from the influx of American and European utopian literature at the time influenced the formation of many other ICLAs. Examples were Hill Plains in 1875, and agricultural Community Home 1889 both in Victoria, and New Italy in 1882 in New South Wales, leading to a peak in the 1890s (Metcalf, 1995). The economic depression in Australia at the time also influenced the interest in ICLA formation (Cock, 1979). One such very publicised ICLA was the ‘New Australia’ community that upon its formation members moved to Paraguay only to have it fail due to remoteness and lack of resources (Lang, 2014; Metcalf, 1995). In 1892 during a time of economic and political turmoil across the continent, the Queensland Government

- 62 of 297 -

took a radical approach and following the relative success of a particular ICLA commune Alice River, appointed a committee to investigate means to encourage communes and enacted the ‘Co-operative Communities Land Settlement Act 1893’ where 30 or more men meeting certain criteria could form a commune, cooperatively receive a parcel of land of 65 hectares and up to £20 support per member to assist the creation of their commune (Metcalf et al., 2015). Under this legislation, several communes were initiated throughout the state. However, after only two years of failures of the communes and changes in government, the legislation was rescinded (Metcalf et al., 2015).

During the late 20th century there was a revival of interest and development of ICLAs from artists, musicians, radical thinkers, wealthy individuals and in some cases squatters. During the 1960s and 1970s at the time of the Vietnam war, a section of the Australian population was disillusioned by the political and societal climate and was searching for other ways of living. They gathered, connected, developed a sense of solidarity and gained an introduction to the intentional community movement with others at music festivals such as Aquarius, Mulwala, Fairlight in Sydney, Mypanga, Canberra and Adelaide festivals and Sunbury festivals (Cock, 1979). Leading on from these gatherings a growing network of ‘crash pads’5, spiritual communes and a range of interconnected ICLAs on the ‘hippy trail’ throughout small towns on the East coast of Australia ran from Victoria all the way to far North Queensland (Cock, 1979). Whilst these idealist communities sought to create better means of living than their perception of the dominant societal paradigm at the time, they often failed. One explanation is that large numbers of transient members travelled from location to location depleting the natural and social resources of the local communities and surrounding environments, making them unsustainable.

Previous studies conducted in the 1970s (Cock, 1979) and 1980s (Metcalf & Vanclay, 1985) assessed the extent of people living in intentional communities across Australia and some of their social characteristics. They found that whilst there

5 Crash pad was the colloquial term among alternative seekers that described a place on the hippy trail where people travelling could stay for a period before moving on (Cock, 1979).

- 63 of 297 -

was great diversity, rural and small-town communities were generally comprised of older members, who were more likely to have trade qualifications, lower-income and higher unemployment than their urban counterparts. There was also a sex ratio differential between rural and urban communities. Males tend to exceed females in rural communities, while females exceeded males in urban communities. Whilst ground-breaking at the time, no subsequent overall analysis has been performed to update and expand on the statistical knowledge of ICLAs in Australia. One of the objectives of this research, as described in Section 1.3.3, is to update this information. Researchers such as Crabtree (2016); (Daly, 2017a); Donehue (2006); O'Callaghan et al. (2012) and Meltzer (2000a) have analysed various aspects of communal living situations within Australia yet have not assessed the localities nor population of ICLAs.

The socialist and communal nature of ICLAs has brought both inspirations to (Fernández Arrigoitia, 2016; Jarvis, 2011; Jarvis et al., 2016; Sumner, 2016; Tan, 2016) and criticism (Lang, 2014; Metcalf & Vanclay, 1985; Williams, 2017) from the dominant housing landscape and society. Examples of criticism are whereby some levels of government actively prevent the creation and existence of ICLAs (Dobney, 2015) municipalities such as Brisbane it is non-code compliant according to fire safety regulations to have more than five unrelated people residing in the same private dwelling6.

2.5 Modern ICLA types

ICLAs have evolved rapidly in the last two centuries bringing with them several attempts to classify their types. The study of Intentional Communities by Meijering, Huigen, and Van Hoven (2007) introduced a typology of communities that specified and investigated four types of communities: Religious, Ecological, Communal and Practical based upon their philosophical underpinning. This thesis poses a typology based upon the location and number of resident members of the community. Modern ICLAs generally fit into one of three types of communities:

6 Personal communication Brisbane City Council representative on phone 07 3403 8888 on 29-Oct- 2019

- 64 of 297 -

1. cohousing 2. ecovillages 3. communes – including but not limited to urban communes, student share housing, kibbutzim; rural and urban communes and survivalist communities7.

Student share houses, urban communes, rural communes and survivalist communities all tend to have smaller membership yet vary considerably in their location. Cohousing communities can vary in their member numbers and are primarily located in the urban environment. Ecovillages have the largest membership and vary widely in their location. Kibbutzim have large member numbers and are in rural areas. Figure 2.10. provides an approximation of the location of the community and the number of member residents within each community type.

Figure 2.10 Comparison of ICLA location and size

7 Survivalist communities are where a group are united in their belief of apocalypse. They gather resources and equipment to enable them to survive in a post-apocalypse world.

- 65 of 297 -

2.5.1 Cohousing

Cohousing is both a community design philosophy and a community of residents that interacts collaboratively (Vestbro & Horelli, 2012). They are community developments that ‘consist of private homes that are strategically positioned around [the] common area to facilitate the maximum possibility of social interaction between neighbours’ (McCamant & Durrett, 2017, p. 1) and where ‘the common facilities [in cohousing] are principally geared towards bringing residents together around every day’ (Bamford & Lennon, 2008, p. 1). Cohousing communities attempt to strike a balance between private and communal spaces (Jarvis, 2011; McCamant & Durrett, 2011; Meltzer, 2000a) that ‘create[s] a form of shared property ownership among a small group of individuals and families’ and can ‘create a community without sacrificing the privacy of individual households or their dwellings’ (Allderdice, 2016, p. 26). Bamford and Lennon additionally suggest that cohousing formation is motivated by ‘improved family life through greater sharing and cooperation’. Bresson and Denèfle (2015, p. 5) shares this view and includes an intention towards environmental awareness that Nelson (2018b) terms as eco-cohousing. While Marckmann, Gram-Hanssen, and Christensen (2012) agrees that resource sharing such as carpooling, tool banks and organic gardening enables greater sustainability, they also highlight that living connected to others with pro-environmental views encourages ‘individual's commitment to sustainable practices such as garbage sorting, using less heat and hot water, and using a clothesline instead of a tumble dryer’. The design of cohousing communities is intended to maximise community member interaction and build social cohesion (Williams, 2005a).

During the early 1970s groups of Swedish women who were feeling the pressures of maintaining a home, caring for the family while engaging with work outside the home pooled their efforts and created a municipally-owned living arrangement Live in Community (BiG in Swedish) (Vestbro, 2010b, p. 50) in Sweden where they could live and work together and assist each other. Later in the 1970s this early form of cohousing was taken up and developed in Denmark as bofællesskaber (Durrett & McCamant, 1988; Metcalf, 2004), Baugruppen (Droste, 2015) and Wohngemeinschaft (Vestbro, 2010a) in Germany and later evolved into kollektivehuis in Sweden. In 1984 and 1985 two North American architects Kathryn

- 66 of 297 -

McCammant and Charles Durrett studied cohousing communities throughout the Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden (Durrett & McCamant, 1988) and, in 1988, coined the English term which they describe as:

‘Cohousing communities consist of private homes that are strategically positioned around [the] common area to facilitate the maximum possibility of social interaction between neighbours’ (McCamant & Durrett, 2017).

This description implies that the design will facilitate communal interaction. They brought the concept to North America to facilitate the movement. Holtzman (2010) suggests that cohousing is an abbreviated form of ‘collaborative housing’ where Nelson (2018a) uses ‘collaborative housing’ to describe all types of intentional communities. Jarvis (2011, p. 560) adds to this description by highlighting that the homes are ‘smaller-than-average private residences’ as a trade-off to gain space for communal facilities. This thesis utilises the distinction provided by Nelson.

The development of cohousing has occurred in several waves throughout the world. The early work of Williams (2005b) highlighted that cohousing went through an assimilation wave in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s followed by a growth wave in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s and then a pioneering wave in Australasia and South East Asia in 2000s as shown in Table 2.1 (adapted from (Williams, 2005b, p. 149)).

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3

Time period of 1960's & 1970's 1980's & 1990's 2000+ development wave Location Europe USA Australiasia & South East Asia Phase in evolution Assimilation phase – Growth phase – rapid Pioneering phase – a of cohousing principles of cohousing market expansion and few demonstration have been assimilated into diversification of the projects, lack of mainstream residential development approach. awareness of developments, cohousing, no diversity governmental institutions in development support and fund projects. approach.

Table 2.1 Waves of cohousing development throughout the world

- 67 of 297 -

Today there are cohousing communities in many countries (Sargisson, 2011) each with their own association of connected communities to share knowledge and resources. This includes the Cohousing Association of the United States with a membership of 148 established and 140 forming communities ("The Cohousing Directory," 2018); UK Cohousing with 21 established, 43 developing (building) and 12 forming communities ("UK Cohousing Directory," 2018) and Germany with more than a thousand projects (Droste, 2015; Jarvis et al., 2016).

Each association has developed its own definition modified from the original of McCamant and Durrett. These provide a more holistic explanation of cohousing life that extends from the design elements such as:

Cohousing communities are intentional, collaborative neighbourhoods created with a little ingenuity. They bring together the value of private homes with the benefits of more sustainable living. That means residents actively participate in the design and operation of their neighbourhoods and share common facilities and good connections with neighbours. All in all, they stand as innovative and sustainable answers to today’s environmental and social problems. ("The Cohousing Directory," 2018)

Cohousing has specific characteristics that distinguish it from other forms of ICLAs. In 1988 (Durrett & McCamant) formalised a number of characteristics for what they believed constituted cohousing. In 2011 they published an updated version of these characteristics which were:

1. Participatory process: Residents organise and participate in the planning and design process for housing development and are responsible as a group for all final decisions 2. Designs that facilitate community: The physical design encourages a strong sense of community 3. Extensive common facilities: An integral part of the community, common areas are designed for daily use, to supplement private living areas

- 68 of 297 -

4. Complete resident management: Residents manage the development, making decisions of common concern at community meetings. 5. Non-hierarchical structures: Responsibility for decisions is shared by the community’s adults. 6. Separate income sources: Residents have their own primary incomes. McCamant and Durrett (2011, p. 25)

While Scott-Hansen and Scott-Hansen (2005, pp. 4 - 5) agree with the above criteria, they more accurately quantify the description by including the following characteristics: a. An optimum community size of between 12 and 36 dwelling units b. The design of the community has a purposeful separation from the car c. Regular shared evening meals feature in the weekly routine of each community. d. ‘Varied levels of community involvement in the design of the community buildings and surrounds’.

Some cohousing communities have an ecological focus and are termed ‘Eco- cohousing’ (Nelson, 2018b), and eco-collaborative communities (Nelson, 2018a) may be grouped together with ecovillages yet not all cohousing fits these criteria.

Examples of cohousing are shown in Figure 2.11, Figure 2.12, Figure 2.13 and Figure 2.14.

- 69 of 297 -

Figure 2.11 Nevada City Cohousing - Nevada Figure 2.12 Duwamish cohousing West

City, California Image: http://nccoho.org/ Seattle, USA Image: http://www.duwamish.net

Figure 2.13 Members of Earthsong, Auckland Figure 2.14 Members of Ibsgaarden New Zealand Image: cohousing, Denmark https://sites.google.com/prod/earthsong.org.nz/home/home

Cohousing ICLAs has generated interest as a more affordable and socially connected means of living for senior citizens (Bouma & Voorbij, 2008; Glass, 2013; Holtzman, 2010; Jarvis et al., 2016). According to Neshama, Kate, and Craig (2006, p. 62) cohousing is for ‘Baby boomers who began turning 60 in 2006 and do not want to retire or grow older in the same kind of aging institutions in which they placed their own parents.’ There are benefits for older residents who live in cohousing such as: being more interdependent and requiring less support from social workers (Glass, 2016) more connected (Brenton, 2011) and active, sociable, companionable and responsible for themselves and each other (Brenton, 1998).

Researching cohousing from around the world, Bamford and Lennon (2008) loosely describe communities ranging from a ‘handful of households to 80 or more’. McCamant, Durrett, and Hertzman (1994) found that most of the communities they

- 70 of 297 -

observed over three decades were between 12 and 35 households a range that is closely matched by Holtzman (2014) with 10 to 35 households.

Cohousing tends to be: implemented and integrated within urban environments; homogenous in their community membership (Meltzer, 2010, p. 106); have pragmatic and realistic purposes (Meltzer, 2000a, p. 106; Tummers, 2016, p. 2033); and a more acceptable conventional form of ICLA to mainstream society (Nelson, 2018b, p. 112). However, not all views of cohousing are positive. It is suggested that the design elements of cohousing that focus buildings upon a central shared space may lead to social, ethnic and ideological homogeneity (Chiodelli & Baglione, 2014). Bouma and Voorbij (2008) also suggested that, in addition to physical design factors, social interactions were also influenced by ‘age and the set of values, goals and behaviour of the individual’.

During the design phase of cohousing community development a collaborative creation between the residents and external stakeholders within a structured planning environment is required for it to be successfully implemented (Nelson, 2018b; Tummers, 2015). Despite this additional effort on community formation, it seems illogical that there are so few cohousing developments throughout Australia (Holtzman, 2014; Meltzer, 2000a). There are also researchers who are critical of various design elements of cohousing that focuses buildings upon central shared space may lead to social, ethnic and ideological homogeneity (Chiodelli & Baglione, 2014). Five of the thirteen sites visited during the field research were cohousing communities that are described in Chapter 6.2.)

2.5.2 Ecovillages

Ecovillages are types of ICLAs where members share specific ecologically sustainable values and focus their efforts towards ecological conservation, protection and self-sufficiency (Metcalf, 2004; Sargisson, 2012; Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004). These values are applied to many aspects of design, systems and everyday

- 71 of 297 -

life within the community. The Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) provides a comprehensive definition:

An ecovillage is an intentional, traditional or urban community that is consciously designed through locally owned, participatory processes in all five dimensions of sustainability (social, culture, ecology, economy and whole systems design) to regenerate their social and natural environments. Ecovillages are living laboratories pioneering beautiful alternatives and innovative solutions. They are rural or urban settlements with vibrant social structures, vastly diverse, yet united in their actions towards low-impact, high- quality lifestyles. (GEN, 2019, p. No page number provided)

Ecovillages are the physical manifestation of resident’s combined efforts to create practical, sustainable lifestyles at the human and community scale that collectively bring positive changes across the world well into the future (Daly, 2017b; GEN, 2019). The building and overall community design of ecovillages are usually considered by members to reduce energy and water needs, minimise waste and have a close connection with the natural world as much as possible with what is available (Sargisson, 2012). This innovative and aspirational intention common to many ecovillages (Litfin, 2014; Meltzer, 2010) often brings novel solutions and technologies, some of which are described in Section 2.6.1. Meltzer (2010) suggested that ecovillages tend to be predominantly in rural areas and exist on the periphery of mainstream society. By contrast, Litfin (2014) stated that they exist across the spectrum of society in many countries. The populations of ecovillages tend to be heterogeneous and larger than cohousing ICLAs (Meltzer, 2010) and ranging from 40 to thousands (Litfin, 2014).

Collectively an ecovillage or other community can implement changes and influence, reducing their ecological impacts. However, when communities combine their efforts, the benefits can be felt globally. Realising the potential for positive global ecological initiatives members from a number of ecovillages came together in 1995 and established The Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) (Litfin, 2014). Their mission has evolved over the years and at the time of writing is to envision ‘a world of empowered citizens and communities, designing and implementing their own

- 72 of 297 -

pathways to a sustainable future, and building bridges of hope and international solidarity’ (GEN, 2019). The network reaches out to approximately 10,000 communities across five global regions who share new ideas, take part in conferences and other educational events and also pool their efforts to lobby governments and organisations around the world for improved sustainability (GEN, 2019). Collectively, ecovillages have great potential to offer the means for society to transition into sustainable operation and survival, that is in harmony with the natural world (Avelino & Kunze, 2009). There is a vast diversity of ecovillages represented around the world. Auroville in southern India has thousands of residents who aim to create new models of connected humanity well into the future (Figure 2.15). Ithaca Ecovillage located New York, USA (Figure 2.16), where 200 residents live in three cohousing communities within the village to create ‘positive solutions to the [planetary] social, environmental and economic crises’("'Live' - Ecovillage at Ithaca," 2018). Australia also has notable ecovillages with two examples being Currumbin ecovillage, Gold Coast (Figure 2.17), which is an award-winning development showcasing ecologically sustainable development, and Crystal Waters permaculture village located in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland (Figure 2.18).

- 73 of 297 -

Figure 2.15 Aerial view of Auroville, India

Image: http:// www.auroville.org Figure 2.16 Shared meal at Ithaca Ecovillage, Image: USA https://sites.google.com/prod/earthsong.org.nz/home/home

Figure 2.17 Currumbin ecovillage, Australia Figure 2.18 Members of Crystal Waters Image: http://mongard.com.au Ecovillage, Australia

To further explore the characteristics of ecovillages, specific communities were included in data gathering during the research project, as discussed in Chapter 6.2.

2.5.3 Communes

Of all the ICLA types, communes have the most sharing of resident livelihoods, community resources, social interactions and consequently the least personal belongings and private spaces. Metcalf highlights this distinction in his definition of communes as:

‘an intentional community in which most property is owned collectively, where members work together within a larger collective economy, and where a significant amount of social life focusses on the group which appears to members and outsiders to be a pseudo-family.’ (Metcalf, 2004, p. 11)

- 74 of 297 -

Other researchers such as (Meltzer, 2005; Miller, 2015; Sosis & Bressler, 2003) group ‘communes’ with all forms of ICLAs across the spectrum of communal living situations. Metcalf’s assertion appears important for this research as it is likely communes share similar characteristics that are distinct from other ICLA types. Communes are often founded and maintained for religious and socio-political reasons by members with a similar belief system that may be exclusionary of other belief systems. Those outside the commune may view the community as extremists.

Several communes were visited as part of this research (see Chapter 6).

2.5.3.1 Kibbutzim Kibbutzim are specific types of communes in Israel that were set up by Zionist and socialist revolutionaries (Bang, 1998) to seek gender, economic and cultural equality. Initially, they were collective farming communes and were not unique to Israel as agricultural communes were found in countries such as Soviet Russia (Bernstein & Cherny, 2014) and farming cooperatives in Asian and Latin American countries. Modern Kibbutzim are also found as urban communes (Marks, 2018). Kibbutzim commonly share all their income and expenses. The first kibbutz, Degania, was founded in 1910 (Gavron, 2000; Marks, 2017; Metcalf, 2010). The kibbutzim movement in grew popularity throughout the early 20th century to host more than 7% of Israel’s population living within kibbutzim (plural of kibbutz) (Gavron, 2000) and is the largest ICLA movement in the world (Metcalf, 2010). However, with political and financial instability in Israel and the wider region in the 1980s, the kibbutz movement declined significantly (Metcalf, 2010; Sherwood, 2010). In 2012 there were 274 kibbutzim with a population of 141,000 within Israel (Marks, 2017).

Fundamental beliefs and cooperative agricultural production formed the basis of the community and all resources, all of the work required, communal meals were shared from a common purse8 used for financial management (Gavron, 2000; Marks, 2017). In recent decades kibbutzim have broadened to other industries such as plastic fabrication (Aisenberg, 2018). In most Kibbutzim the nuclear family ties were actively

8 A term used to describe the shared income and expenses of a community.

- 75 of 297 -

discouraged to the point where children were housed away from their biological parents in children’s dorms (Gavron, 2000) although recently and families are choosing to have their children live with parents in urban kibbutzim (Marks, 2018). An example of the community connection felt by members in Kibbutz Ein Harrod is shown in Figure 2.19 from (Sherwood, 2010).

Figure 2.19 Kibbutz members at Kibbutz Ein Harod in 1936. Image source: Polaris/Eyevine

The success of the kibbutz movement during the 20th century has led to many past members sharing the ideals with other communities around the world. Originally kibbutzim required members to share work, resources, livelihoods and money for the community to function well. As a contrast to sharing all goods, resources and livelihoods found in kibbutzim of the past, modern kibbutzim have relaxed some of the fundamentals such as reducing the frequency of shared meals, the redistribution of resources and enabling money allocated to personal budgets (Marks, 2017). Traditionally all kibbutzim were established in rural areas. Recently, however, some kibbutzim such as the Mishol Kibbutz (Figure 2.20) are being established in urban areas (Marks, 2018; Metcalf, 2010).

- 76 of 297 -

Image: (Marks, 2018)

Figure 2.20 Community members of Urban Kibbutz - Mishol

While there were no kibbutzim as part of the data gathering their outreach to the world is extensive with the sharing of knowledge and experience.

2.6 Motivating factors for the creation of ICLAs

Common motivations underpinning the formulation of ICLAs includes ecological, economic and social sustainability as well as spiritual beliefs. These are now discussed in turn.

2.6.1 Ecological sustainability

A willingness to prevent ecological degradation and move towards sustainability and improved society has been identified as a key factor in human development in early literature such as Plato’s The Republic (Plato, Emlyn-Jones, & Preddy, 2013) in Ancient Greece and Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia (More & Logan, 2011) in 16th century England. Yet the concept of environmental conservation and widespread awareness has only occurred relatively recently. Authors such as MacGillivray (2004) and Musil (2014) purport that the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 became a catalyst for this awareness that has led to many initiatives for environmental conservation and ecological protection. Diamond (2011) from his historical research of societal collapse highlights that the growing global population combined with overconsumption of resources has wrought significant global

- 77 of 297 -

ecological impacts. Since the 1960’s passionate and committed individuals have grouped their conservation efforts together (Cock, 1979; Metcalf, 2004) to form ecologically sustainable ICLAs where the people within ‘want to live in a way that expresses [their concern about environmental issues] and to protect, conserve and live closely with the non-human world’ (Sargisson & Tower Sargent, 2004). Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012) discuss the growing momentum of grassroots movements towards sustainable energy production in the UK that have become a compulsory feature of some ICLA developments such as LILAC in Leeds, UK (Chatterton, 2013). More recently, literature has highlighted the importance of ‘small and sustainable’ means of communal living that has prompted the tiny house movement (Nelson, 2018b).

Several ICLAs have realised practical outcomes that show ICLAs have the potential to provide significant ecological sustainability benefits. Although ICLAs are a minor movement in society, they contribute qualitatively to sustainable development throughout the world (Kunze, 2012). Chatterton (2013) assessed the household energy demand of the residents within LILAC9. From the use of sustainable building fabrics and micro-renewables, the modification of physical design elements of the community and commitment to behaviour changes the residents experienced demand of around 30 Kwh/m2/year significantly less than the average space-heating demand for existing UK housing stock of 140 Kwh/m2/year highlighting the achievements possible from collective community action. Daly (2016) in his assessment of ecological10 and carbon11 footprints of ICLAs from around the world found evidence to suggest residents experienced significant reductions in their environmental footprint (Figure 2.21) from such areas as car sharing, collective food growing and waste reduction. Sherry (2014) reported that the overall ecological

9 Low Impact Living Affordable Community, Leeds, UK 10 ‘An ecological assessment combines various environmental impacts (categories of impacts are often divided into food, home energy, transport energy, and waste disposal) into a common metric to facilitate comparisons of different projects over time and space, and against ecological limits.’ (Daly, 2017b) 11 Carbon footprint is a component of overall ecological footprint (Daly, 2017b)

- 78 of 297 -

footprint of three ecovillages (Figure 2.22) was less than half of the footprint of nearby mainstream communities and the United States national average.

From Daly 2016

Figure 2.21 Ecological and carbon footprints of various ICLAs

Figure 2.22 Overall ecological footprint Adapted from Sherry 2014

- 79 of 297 -

Communal electricity generation on-site is an initiative that many ecovillages employ to reduce their reliance upon distant generators and in so doing reduce the electricity loss from the transmission. These are also often communally owned, such as the turbines at Findhorn Foundation (Figure 2.23) that supply the village and export to the electric grid.

Image source: L. Schnadt - Living Technologies Ltd.

Figure 2.23 Findhorn Foundation wind turbines

Water utilisation has also been an area of scholarship yet studies have highlighted that apart from improvements in management (Tanner, 2007), ICLAs have no significant water-saving benefits compared to other forms of living arrangements (De Moura Leite, Bertolo, & Santos, 2016; O'Callaghan et al., 2012). However, there are specific communities that highlight what can be achieved when a community is motivated towards water conservation. Currumbin Ecovillage in the Gold Coast Hinterland of Australia has achieved a 98% reuse of all wastewater on-site (Tanner, 2007) and the ‘Living Machine’ system used at Findhorn Foundation (Figure 2.24)

- 80 of 297 -

recycles sewerage to useable clean water from all of the homes on ‘The Park’ site. Water conservation and ecological care of the riparian zones are likely to be areas where the sustainability focus of many ICLAs provide benefit, yet this remains to be demonstrated.

Image source: L. Schnadt - Living Technologies Ltd.

Figure 2.24 The Living Machine wastewater treatment plant

Reducing private car use, car sharing and use of alternative transport methods is another feature of many ICLAs that provides ecological benefits. For example:

‘Overall, [at LILAC] there are only ten car parking spaces (0.5 for each dwelling, which is below the average of 1.7 for the city) and 40 cycle spaces. The Society adopted a travel plan which outlines how car allocations will function and outlined that 50% of cars will be pooled or shared’ (Chatterton, 2013, p. 1661).

Chitewere and Taylor (2010) assessed ecovillages from an environmental justice perspective and found that ICLAs can provide opportunities for positive outcomes.

- 81 of 297 -

An example is where ICLA members from Israeli kibbutzim were integral in the creation of The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel12 which at one time the one-million active members was the largest organisation by membership in Israel and ‘per capita the largest environmental organisation of any country in the world (Bang, 1998).

An investigation of the attitudes towards ecological sustainability within communities is included in Section 7.3. Ecological conservation can also equate to economic efficiencies and improvements in social connection (see Section 7.2).

2.6.2 Economic sustainability

People who have chosen to live communally potentially have more opportunities to be economically sustainable than those not in ICLAs (Daly, 2017a; Litfin, 2014). There is less need for a member to provide every ‘thing’ and do every task they need to go about their everyday lives. There are four areas that ICLA members benefit economically: combined investment; cost efficiencies; exchanging goods and services; and, in some cases, income from business ventures.

Most ICLAs have an element of combined investment where members pool some of their funds and efforts together for purchases or expenses. Doing so enables the group to make purchasing and group-building decisions that they would not otherwise be able to achieve individually (McCamant & Durrett, 2011). This can increase their buying power and enable financial mechanisms to spread the payback costs over a longer period (Hamiduddin & Gallent, 2015). Residents of Quebec City Cohabitat in Canada were able to build their homes with a LEED Platinum rating at a ‘mere [CAN] $127 per square metre’ significantly less than traditional housing in the area (Allderdice, 2016). Community members are also able to invest in more sustainable and energy-efficient technologies and materials to reduce household energy costs such as 86% less heating and 56% less electricity in cooperative housing compared to the traditional apartment because they combined investment

12 The SPNI was founded in 1953 ‘to teach respect, understanding and love of the natural and historical heritage of Israel’.

- 82 of 297 -

(Coimbra & Almeida, 2013, p. 7). Housing in ICLAs is also brought within reach of residents who might otherwise not be able to afford it such as LILAC in the UK that offers homes within the community as a percentage of income rather than a fixed amount (Chatterton, 2013) Within the housing landscape ICLAs with a cooperative model have a proven track record for enabling multiple families to achieve homeownership and financial stability (Gray et al., 2005, p. 21)

ICLAs have a diversity of member skills that can be offered within the community and treated as a contribution or in exchange for other services. Examples are where members take on administrative roles such as legal and accounting or practical areas such as building maintenance and gardening. This can bring savings to the community by reducing running costs for external contractors. Some communities offer opportunities for income from services in exchange that works for both resident and community such as Greg Landuna from ‘The Farm’ USA who doesn’t have to:

…get into debt or pay expensive rent because I have chosen to live in communities that have some part of their internal economy geared towards services that I can provide (Rosenblatt, 2009).

ICLAs that have business ventures that provide goods and services outside the community provides a means to generate income and add to the community economic sustainability. Not all ICLAs have this feature. For most kibbutzim, this is a fundamental criterion of the community (Gavron, 2000; Marks, 2017) yet cohousing communities, by contrast, do not intentionally have combined business ventures as part of the community functionality (McCamant & Durrett, 2011; Meltzer, 2010).

This thesis further explores the economic drivers within ICLAs (Section 7.4).

2.6.3 Social sustainability

Perhaps the most important factor drawing people to live in an ICLA is the desire for greater social interaction and connectedness with likeminded people. In early human civilisations, people banded together for survival, yet in modern times it is becoming more so out of the need for social interaction and connectedness (Litfin, 2013). Metcalf (2004, p. 117) states that

- 83 of 297 -

The breakdown of traditional family values, the mobility of community-less people and the common human urge to belong to something both certain and greater than oneself, probably accounts for this popularity. It can be very attractive to many people to escape from moral relativism and uncertainty, from an anomic life where they seem to be mere cogs in a wheel, and to join a group where the rules are clear, the roles are prescribed, and they know they are part of a cohesive group

He was specifically referring to individuals attracted to ICLAs with a religious or spiritual focus, yet what he describes could be true of any ICLA. Increased social connections such as support during times of illness, care of persons with physical and mental disabilities (ABC, 2013; Kehl & Then, 2013) and crisis, to impromptu childcare and guidance and mentorship of children within the community compared to their neighbours outside the ICLA (Markle et al., 2015). Bouvard (1975) purports that Intentional communities can build a new moral world order. Cock (1979) talks of a whole new Nation that can be created where people intentionally choose to and should be supported to live communally. Meltzer (2000a) suggests that living communally can lead towards social sustainability, and Bochinski (2016) highlights that the experiences of community life transforms people’s lives and inspires them to be agents of positive change in the world outside the ICLA. Members of ICLAs may be additionally attracted to the perceptions of improved lifestyles attached to these communities. This is exemplified in the study by Grinde et al. (2017), who found that members of US and Canadian intentional communities reported improved levels of life satisfaction.

While at face value ICLAs may be seen as mechanisms to enable a similar land enclosure to gated communities (Quintal & Thompson, 2007; Roitman, 2010, 2012), when their inclusive and communal nature is examined more closely the difference becomes clear (Chiodelli, 2015). The key distinction is that ICLAs are designed, developed and managed, by the residents themselves. It is this grassroots-resident- led approach that distinguishes cohousing from gated communities that are top- down-developer-led communities (Ruiu, 2014, p. 316). Master-planned estates and gated communities can lead to privatisation, and socio-spatial polarisation

- 84 of 297 -

(Thompson, 2013) and declining social cohesion amongst community members were and an increase in perceptions of fear and loneliness (Caldeira, 2000; Low, 2003; Quintal & Thompson, 2007).

Mainstream media also shares the perceived improvements in social connectedness of ICLAs such as Living Together A Modern Answer to the Commune (Green, 2009), Houses united: For those who live in cohousing, home is where the community is (Perrigan, 2006) and How to create happy communities through co-housing (Sherwood, 2014).

One area where social connection is of high importance is the ageing population in Western countries. To alleviate disconnection from extended family and social exclusion people experience as they age, transition into retirement and have their adult children leave the large family home, people can actively seek and find community connection via life in an existing ICLA (Smith, 2009). Additionally, there are examples where individuals in the later stages of life join with others to form their own communal living arrangement that suits their collective needs and form their own ICLA for later years of their life (Arnold, 1999; Bamford, 2005; Choi, 2004; Glass, 2011; Neshama et al., 2006).

Older people can also benefit from the increased social connection of communal living offers. When adult children have left the family home, retired parents may experience disconnection from their extended family and social exclusion (Smith, 2009). With increased resistance to entering institutionalised retirement villages and care homes comes a growing trend for older age individuals and couples to form ICLAs specifically for those in their age cohort (Arnold, 1999; Bamford, 2005; Choi, 2004; Glass, 2011, 2013; Neshama et al., 2006). Similarly, aged individuals aging together has been found to improve mutual support among residents (Brenton, 2011; Glass, 2013, 2016; Glass & Schroeder, 2008). Interest in self-driven communal living for older people is also reflected in the media from around the world (Abbit, 2016; 2017; Mears, 2015) and in Australia (Figure 2.25).

- 85 of 297 -

Image: (Midgley & Coghill, 2016)

Figure 2.25 Sunshine Coast resident created a retirement community

Members may be attracted to those with similar social, ideological views. Sullivan- Caitlan (2004) found communal movements could be considered social movements. When interviewing cohousing residents, she found that several cohousing community members either were presently or had been in the past, part of social activist movements.

Joining a community may also be inspired by social activism. Sullivan-Caitlan (2004) found communal movements could be considered as social movements. Interviewing cohousing residents, she found that several cohousing community members had either presently or in the past been part of social activist movements.

Researcher Altus (2016, p. 21) captured the experiences of long term residents of ICLAs throughout the USA and one resident, Laird Schaub, suggested that:

- 86 of 297 -

I don’t think intentional communities will eliminate conflict in the world – yet we do think that living cooperatively can be a building block for world peace”.

He also shared that Intentional Communities can be viewed as the Research and Development centres of the greater society, as they work to:

figure out the nuts and bolts of social sustainability and create a successful cooperative culture.

Altus concluded that ‘the world desperately needs what we are learning about’ from intentional community living arrangements. This social connectedness is further supported by the view of that ‘if independence and mastery were the bywords of the old story [from recent society], interdependence and cooperation are the bywords of the new [society] (Litfin, 2013, p. 65).

The social aspects of ICLAs are explored further in Section 7.2.

2.6.4 Religious ideology

Religion has been the basis of most of ICLAs throughout history and is represented in both long-lived and newly formed ICLAs throughout the world today. Miller (2013b) suggests that religion has been the basis for most communities over millennia. His work provides a historical and chronological overview of religious ICLAS from the 2500 year old Buddhist Sangha community movements, to the rise and waning of Christian monastic communities from early references in the Book of Acts13, through the Middle Ages and up to the modern era with religious communities functioning throughout the world. Renard (2006) provides an additional chronological assessment of communities to uncover the spatial and artistic elements of religious communities. Other researchers have focussed upon specific timeframes or particular orders as the basis of their research such as the work of Brace, Bailey, and Harvey (2006) on the Methodists in Cornwall during the period 1830–1930,

13 Acts 2:44– 47 and 4:33– 37, Revised Standard Version.

- 87 of 297 -

British Quakerism 1860-1920 performed by Brown (2003), the charismatic natures of leaders of American Spiritual Communities from 1965 -2009 (Miller, 2010) and an attempt to quantify and classify spiritual communities across the world (Smith, 2002).

Over time religious ICLAs have been numerous and diverse as is the extent of research undertaken to understand religious ICLAs. Whilst it is worthy of additional exploration focussing upon religious ICLAs is not an objective of this research project. However, religious beliefs are widely accepted by researchers investigating ICLAs such as Miller (2013a, 2013b), Hayden (1976), Sargisson and Tower Sargent (2004), Metcalf (2002) and Cock (1995) to provide a sense of unification amongst otherwise seemingly different individuals and add the binding glue that can enable ICLAs to persevere over time. Miller also contends that secular communities have played major roles in the larger communities movement over the last two centuries (2013b).

While religion is identified as playing an important role in the formation and continuation of many ICLAs, it is not explored in-depth in this thesis.

2.7 Challenging aspects of ICLAs

The previous sections highlight that living in an ICLA can bring many benefits. There are also nay challenges that residents may experience that have also been identified within the literature.

During the formation stages of ICLAs, long before buildings are constructed, aspiring residents face barriers to access funding for that other forms of property developers often do not face. In the study of financial barriers to ‘deliberative development’14 in the Australian housing development industry, Sharam et al. (2015) identify the key financial barriers as the credibility of the project proponent; loan security, equity, pre- sales, profitability and the loan-to-value ratio. These factors reduce the likelihood of

14 Deliberative development is ‘where a group of intending owner-occupiers become the proponent of multi-unit developments in place of the developer’ (Sharam, Bryant, & Alves, 2015). Deliberative development is a term that is closely related to ICLAs.

- 88 of 297 -

development occurring and increase the timeframe of construction and implementation.

Challenges may also arise from disagreements between community members (Menkel-Meadow, 2003). Internal conflicts occur in every community and unless managed, can devastate a community and sometimes lead to disbandment. Christian (2005) has assessed cohousing ICLAs for over 30 years and has summarised four areas of community conflict with twenty-four separate sources that she observed. Conflicts among members arose in the areas of the structural community set up, differences in work and planning styles, interpretation of fairness and neighbour interactions. The specific points of conflict observed by Christian are shown in Table 2.2.

Decision making within ICLAs is frequently consensus-based and requires processes for member equality (Christian, 2013b). This can be time-consuming, and unless processes are in place to work through differences of opinions (Nock, 2011), decisions can involve long periods of exhausting discussion and may lead to instances of prolonged conflict (Christian, 2005).

- 89 of 297 -

Structural/ set up conflicts

•Vision and values differences •'Structural' power imbalances •Exhaustive, divisive or unproductive meetings •Lack of crucial information •Remembering verbal agreements differently •No communication or behavioural agreements •No processes for accountability •No membership criteria or new member screening process •Being swmaped with too many new members at once •High turnover

Differences in work and planning styles

•Processors Vs Doers •Planner Vs Doers •Spiritual Vs physical manifesters •Differences in information processing •Differences in communication style

Fairness issues

•Work imbalances or percived imbalances •Financial issues •Time-crunch issues •Gender imbalance or power-over issues

Neighbour issues

•Behavioural norms •Boundary issues •Care and maintenance issues •Cleanliness and order issues •Lifestyle issues

Table 2.2 Sources of community conflict Adapted from (Christian, 2005)

To meet the requirements of development applications, the founders of ICLAs invest additional time and financial costs compared to traditional housing developments. Faced with this challenge ICLA founders often become frustrated and experience burnout long before community construction. An additional challenge is the viewpoints of residents in the surrounding locality. ICLAs are, by their nature, contrary living arrangements to the dominant housing that could engender criticism or judgements from those outside the ICLA. Prior to implementation, this may stall or

- 90 of 297 -

prevent the development such as the rejection of the cohousing development in Frankston, Victoria, Australia (Figure 2.26).

Figure 2.26 Community resistance to cohousing Source: (Tatman, 2016)

As with any neighbourhood or locality, members of ICLAs are also affected by external influences and limitations. The lack of familiarity with ICLAs in the planning industry that makes it hard to facilitate or prohibit ICLA development. Section 2.6.2 shows that ICLA members can achieve cost reductions by sharing property

- 91 of 297 -

ownership and resources. ICLAs can also have unplanned price increases that affect their viability in both the short and long term. During a case study of two Australian ‘urban eco-communities,’ Cooper and Baer (2018) found that while the communities offered positive environmental solutions the higher cost of homes created a niche market that could exclude many would-be purchasers. The closer-to-nature lifestyle that ecovillages aspire to could also increase the property prices in the community compared to surrounding neighbourhoods.

It is also important to note that some ICLAs have challenging impacts on members and society. As ICLAs are self-governed, there is the danger that leaders can negatively influence members within the ICLA. With limited accountability to societal norms, some communities can develop cult-like behaviour and actions. Forster and Metcalf (2004, p. 3) discussed a range of instances where extremist communities with a cult-like following had gone ‘horribly wrong’, with mass-murder and mass- suicide such as ‘the Jonestown community in Guyana in 1978, the mass-suicide of the Heaven’s Gate community in the United States in 1997, and a firefight between members of the Branch Davidian and Texas local authorities in 1993’. These occurrences highlight that whilst aiming for the utopian ideal, communities may end in dystopian chaos.

2.8 Recent developments in the ICLA movement from around the world

2.8.1 Cohousing movements

The planning and architecture industry throughout the world are becoming more aware of the benefits of cohousing. Cohousing is increasing in implementation as evident from the growth in membership of cohousing associations from around the world. Collaborative community design and implementation models are being created by professionals to assist community members in developing their own communities. Architects such as McCamant and Durrett (2017) are showcasing and supporting cohousing developments in North America. International conferences that focus upon cohousing are held in multiple locations across Europe and North America each year that support research such as the ‘Cohousing Research Network’

- 92 of 297 -

and the International Communal Studies Association. ‘Cohousing Australia’ website15 has, at the time of writing, had several improvements and updates of events in 2019. This website is also supported by multiple social media group pages.

In Australia, architects are using collaborative housing design such as ‘The Nightingale Model’ (2018) to attract community members and implement connected communal housing solutions. Successful cohousing villages such as Murundaka Cohousing are increasing their prominence (Figure 2.27 and Figure 2.28). Small scale cohousing developments where a group of aspiring residents purchase 2-4 houses within the inner ring suburbs of major cities and retrofit the houses to increase dwelling density and support communal sharing of space and resources (Riedy, Wynne, McKenna, & Daly, 2019). This approach is similar to the “N-Street cohousing’ community, where residents in the street are gradually taking part in the cohousing community one house at a time (Meltzer, 2000b).

Figure 2.27 Shared meal at Murundaka Figure 2.28 Murundaka cohousing building Cohousing, Melbourne Image: https://www.murundakacohousing.org.au/ Image: https://www.murundakacohousing.org.au/

Designing and constructing new cohousing community buildings involves a long-term commitment over many years to bring the vision to life (Abbit, 2016; Mariano, 2018). To fast track this process, groups of individuals have looked within the existing

15 http://www.communities.org.au/

- 93 of 297 -

housing landscape to ‘retrofit’ buildings to suit cohousing interaction. Architects McCamant and Durrett (2011) suggest the major advantages of retrofit cohousing are the ability to locate in an established neighbourhood and the ability for residents to move in quickly. In this regard, Meltzer (2005) highlighted the N Street Cohousing, which started as one suburban home connected to the neighbouring home and eventually grew to include 15 neighbouring homes. Retrofit cohousing can increase the population of ICLAs quickly and easily. The uptake of cohousing is limited by the available housing stock (McCamant & Durrett, 2011) and may require changes in zoning to occur (Sanguinetti, 2013).

2.8.2 Ecovillage movements

Ecovillages are increasing in both the number of communities and overall population across all regions of the world. We find increased knowledge sharing of sustainable technologies and practices (GEN, 2019) such as the conceptual ‘ReGen Village in The Netherlands’ with a utopian eco-sustainable vision to ‘grow its own food, power itself and handle its own waste (Peters, 2016) (Figure 2.29) and the continuing population increase of Auroville in India.

Image: ‘Effekt’ within (Peters, 2016)

Figure 2.29 Artist's impression of future ReGen eco-village in The Netherlands

- 94 of 297 -

There are many instances of the growing ecovillage movement in the global south such as kampung in Malaysia and Indonesia (Ali, Dom, & Sahrum, 2012) and ecovillages in Senegal that are improving lives and at relatively low cost (Adigbli, 2012).

Australian ecovillage ICLAs are generating media interest, as shown in the national media by Legge (2016b) in Section 1.1. She describes the lifestyle of people in ecovillages in a 14-page showcase in national media, yet also implies a negative connotation to living communally (Figure 1.1).

Jumping on the back of the interest for more connected, ecologically sustainable and affordable living that ecovillages emulate, for-profit developers have taken on the word ‘ecovillage’ as a promotional term to sell greenfield developments. While promoting well-meaning high-tech and high-cost eco-elements into off-the-plan developments there is little collaborative involvement from residents such as the exclusive ‘The Cape’ in Victoria (Figure 2.30) ), and the luxury hotel and ecovillage planned for the Sunshine Coast, Queensland (Figure 2.31). Upon closer examination, these developments do not constitute an ICLA as they are developer- led, and there appears no scope for community co-design or management.

- 95 of 297 -

Figure 2.30 Conceptual view of 'The Cape' in Southern Victoria Image: liveatthecape.com.au

Figure 2.31 Luxury hotel and ecovillage planned for Sunshine coast

- 96 of 297 -

2.8.3 Other ICLA movements

There are attempts by residents to form their own type of living arrangement within the existing dwelling stock that is available. The challenge of the high cost of living has been highlighted in the Australian media, showing people creating alternative means to improve housing affordability such as Sydney Morning Herald’s ‘Single mums become flatmates to cope with Sydney rent prices’ (Marriner, 2015) as shown in Figure 2.32 and ABC Radio National’s ‘Multigenerational family home in Sydney's Balmain wins architecture prize’ (Ryan, 2014) as shown in Figure 2.33.

Image source: Nick Moir www.smh.com.au Photo Nick Moir Figure 2.32 Single mums and their children become flatmates

Photo: Katherine Lu, Courtesy Benn and Penna

Image source: Katherine Lu, Courtesy Benn and Penna www,abc.net.au

Figure 2.33 The former Balmain workers cottage after the redesign.

- 97 of 297 -

Ecovillages and cohousing are attracting increased media attention within Australia (Barnes, 2015; Knowles, 2017; Legge, 2016a, 2016b; Tatman, 2017; Today-tonight, 2017) and from around the world (Abbit, 2016; Fernández Arrigoitia, 2016; Sumner, 2016). This exposure is creating increased awareness within the general public about many of the advantages and possibilities that these styles of living can bring. This is also reflected in a range of social media group discussions within Australia, such as on Facebook the ‘Sustainable community villages’, ‘Alternative living arrangements’, ‘Tiny house intentional community Australia’, ‘Intentional communities of South Australia’ and many others with collectively thousands of members. It appears that there is a growing demand for communal living and, at the time of writing, the extent of this demand has not been researched.

There are various financial models that are currently being used. To name a few there is the German Baugruppen model (Hamiduddin & Gallent, 2015) where the development is built and funded by it is residents, the Co-buying model ‘Kohab’16, residents buy a share in properties towards homeownership and, ‘Brickx’17 where investors can buy a small share in properties with thousands of other investors for the specific purpose to generate a return. These models are highlighting both the challenge of homeownership and the possibilities that can occur when cooperative approaches occur.

There is opportunity to grow as Nelson (2018b, p. 161) extols ‘the future of collaborative housing such as eco-cohousing, ecovillages, collectively managed (‘self-managed’) social housing and self-build collectives.’ She also suggests that ‘the state, the market and grassroots’ form flexible partnerships with different leaders driving the outcomes during stages of implementation.

A relatively new feature in the communal living movement across the Global North is the growing interest in and development of tiny homes by aspiring communards to use them as part of their community development. Tiny houses, as their name

16 https://www.kohab.com 17 https://www.brickx.com

- 98 of 297 -

suggests, are smaller versions of separated dwellings in other sectors of the housing landscape. They appear to be a model of housing that is either a lifestyle choice to downsize and reduce the ecological impact (Anson, 2014) or to seek a more affordable means of homeownership(Shearer, 2017). They can be luxurious and be “compact, fully functioning and transportable dwellings” ("What is a tiny house," 2018, p. 1) (Figure 2.34 and Figure 2.35).

Image: http://www.tinyhousecompany.com.au Figure 2.34 Tiny house with deck extension in suburban Brisbane

- 99 of 297 -

Image: http://www.tinyhousecompany.com.au

Figure 2.35 Internal view of tiny house

Due to their size, they can be built quickly offsite and transported to a temporary or permanent location. In the Australian context, this has led to a growth in manufacturing companies that design and provide tiny homes of various sizes and budgets such as the listing of 19 separate companies on the “Tiny House Village” website ("Tiny House Village," 2018). Tiny houses in a village setting with associated facilities are increasingly utilised by governments and other organisations to provide housing for individuals experiencing homelessness (Heben, 2014). While tiny houses can provide immediate housing, they need land and a requirement for residents to function communally, and do not constitute an ICLA in themselves.

This chapter has provided a background of ICLAs in Australia and overseas as a contextual foundation for data gathering and analysis. This opens the research leads on to an analysis of the housing landscape in Australia in the next chapter.

- 100 of 297 -

Communal living in Australia

Though they comprise only a small percentage of the overall Australian housing stock, ICLAs are a persistent feature of Australia’s built environment. As the previous chapter avers, ICLAs take many different forms, and several philosophical underpinnings have supported their foundation throughout history. This chapter assesses the literature to gain insight into the past and present housing landscape to answer research question 1 of the thesis. It begins by exploring the historical antecedents of Australian housing and then assesses the discusses modern-day landscape.

3.1 Australian historical roots – colonisation to urbanisation

At the time of British discovery in 1770, the continent was inhabited by a multitude of tribal communities with a complex array of nations, languages and customs that had existed in relative harmony with the landscape and other nations between 50,000 (Bowler et al., 2003) and 125,000 (Bindon, 1997) years. Captain Cook declared the land terra nullius (Reynolds, 1996) and the sovereignty of First Nations peoples and rights to their traditional lands was removed. They were placed in government assimilation settlements (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013) and enslaved in unpaid labour and servitude to white settlers (Evans, Saunders, & Cronin, 1993). This sad feature of Australia’s societal history is still largely unreconciled today.

The first European settlement of the continent was in 1788 in Sydney and led by Governor Phillip. Noting the importance of access to land and housing for a prosperous future, Phillip proposed a plan of the settlement (Troy, 2012, p. 8) where:

[T]he land would be granted with a clause that will ever prevent more than one house being built on the allotment, which will be sixty feet in front, and one hundred and fifty feet in depth. This will preserve uniformity in the building, prevent narrow streets and the many inconveniences which the increase of inhabitants would otherwise occasion thereafter. (Phillip, 1788).

- 101 of 297 -

Whilst a high egalitarian ideal, the reality of its balanced implementation across all social classes was questionable, and it was likely a major factor influencing the Australian preference for quarter-acre blocks ever since (Troy, 2012).

During the 19th century, Australian cities were places of rapid urbanisation and relatively high individual income that was supported by the abundant natural resource extraction and agricultural production surrounding the cities (Davison, 1979; McCarty, 1974). In 1871 Australia cities contained one-quarter of the Australian population (McCarty, 1974) and in 1891, almost two-thirds of the population lived in towns and cities (Butlin, 1964). With high economic growth, governments had the financial means to support the development of extensive transport infrastructure systems throughout the cities, and enable the development of relatively cheap plots of land for suburban neighbourhoods on fringes of the cities (Bowles, 1997). The 19th century was a time of rapid and constant reshaping and reorganising of infrastructure in cities (Schedvin & McCarty, 1974). It was also a period where rapid development of industrialisation and urbanisation were criticised by social reformers that caused increased poverty, unsatisfactory housing for the poorer classes and the existence of slums (Troy, 2012). Parallel to this and possibly due to the burgeoning urban and suburban population, there was also a drive to create ‘ruralisation’ of urban environments and ‘bring the country closer’ by government and planning sectors that continued into the early 20th century with garden suburbs modelled from the garden cities in the UK (Murphy, 2009). Whilst there were urban slums in Sydney and Melbourne the standard of living of most Australians including the working classes was much higher than the dense urban areas in the UK and other parts of Europe (Murphy, 2009). Another feature of 19th- century Australian housing landscape not seen elsewhere in the world at the time was the level of housing built was predominantly for owner-occupiers. In 1911 almost half of the houses built were owner-occupied and with 36% in cities and 57% in non- metropolitan areas (Jackson, 1970, p. 138). This level of urbanisation and suburbanisation and owner-occupied homes still forms the basis for much of the housing landscape today.

Throughout the evolution of Australian society, there have been periods of a housing crisis where access to housing has been out of the reach of many individuals and

- 102 of 297 -

families. During the depressions of the 1890s, the 1920s, 1930s and post-WW1 the Commonwealth government has taken steps to improve housing availability and implemented housing legislation and infrastructure funding such as the Commonwealth Housing Act 1928 to enact housing developments (Troy, 2012). Although the developments were focussed upon efficiently housing people there was an awareness of the importance of community interaction (Figure 3.1) albeit separate from the housing:

Good housing in the modern community cannot, in itself, achieve its full function without the provision of adequate community amenities … one answer to this is the major problem is to be found in the Community Centre … It is a building providing the services for a fuller social life. (Troy, 2012)

Source: (Troy, 2012)

Figure 3.1 Post WWII community centre conceptualisation

3.2 The modern Australian housing landscape

The Australian housing landscape like that found in other nations is a result of its history, people, the societal norms, housing and community design, connection with the surrounding environment and the economic base within which it operates.

- 103 of 297 -

3.2.1 The ‘Lucky Country’

Australia has often been called the ‘Lucky Country’, and on account of its sustained economic growth, healthy lifestyle and other aspects of modern society, it is easy to see why. The population of 23.4 million (ABS, 2016a) primarily live in cities and towns (Figure 3.2) adjacent to the picturesque, fertile coastal areas on the Eastern, Southern and South Western Seaboards (ABS, 2011b). Australians living in the regions surrounding the cities enjoy a comfortable climate and a diverse array of different natural and urban landscapes available within a short travelling distance accessible via a network of well-maintained roads, multiple forms of clean, modern public transport and safe, reliably scheduled air transport throughout the continent. As a country with relatively low population density, Australia has the cleanest air measured with 5.9 micrograms of particulate matter and ranks 6th highest reported water quality across all OECD countries (OECD, 2017).

Image source: (ABS, 2015)

- 104 of 297 -

Figure 3.2 Australian population density by SA218 in 2014

Employment outcomes in Australia are moderately high compared to other OECD countries ranking 13th highest level employed, 14th lowest unemployed, 6th highest average working wage, 5th highest household net adjusted disposable income, 12th lowest yearly hours worked (OECD, 2017). Australian taxpayers experience a low tax burden of 14.0 % of GDP, which is significantly lower than the OECD-30 unweighted average (19.5%) (Warburton & Hendy, 2006). Australians have opportunities to experience a high-quality free education up to the upper secondary level and whilst only 77.1% of adults (24th ranking) have done so, the level of student skills is high ranked 11th amongst OECD countries (OECD, 2017). Living in Australia offers access to modern health care and an average life expectancy of 82.2 years for the majority of the population19 which is the 6th highest in OECD countries with little discrepancy between rich and poor or gender (OECD, 2017). The nation is a safe, ordered state with no military conflict and organised police, ambulance and fire emergency services. As a capitalist democracy everyone has the right to freedom of speech, religious beliefs and recreational pursuits.

In the housing landscape across Australia of the 9.1 million dwellings most (78.9%) is low density, single-family detached houses (ABS, 2014, 2016a) enjoying a separate parcel of land with possibilities for a swimming pool, backyard barbeque and ball games (Kellett, 2011). Owning a detached dwelling has been a cherished aspect of the housing aspirations of Australian households for generations (Baum & Wulff, 2003), and seen as one of the foundations of modern economies all around the world (Gibson-Graham et al., 2013). Despite some sign of countertrends occurring (Kellett, 2011), recent research demonstrates this continued desire (Willing & Pojani, 2017). A typical modern suburban street is characterised by similar

18 The Statistical Area Level 2 is an area defined in the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). 19 Indigenous Australians have life expectancies 12 years lower than non-indigenous Australians (Anon, 2018)

- 105 of 297 -

housing designs and connected by private vehicle access and as shown in the aerial image in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 Typical Australian suburban housing landscape Image: abcdunlimited.com/images/suburbia

Australians also enjoy the luxury of space inside the home as exemplified by the average size of new houses being 241.1m2 (ABS, 2013) and according to recent studies by Demographia International Australian’s have the largest new houses in the western world Table 3.1 (Cox & Pavletich, 2017).

- 106 of 297 -

Country All houses New Houses New detached Australia 206 235 Austria 91 96 Belgium 86 119 Canada 177 Denmark 109 137 Finland 77 81 France 88 113 Germany 87 109 Greece 80 126 Ireland 88 88 Italy 90 82 Japan 95 132 187 Luxembourg 125 101 Netherlands 98 116 New Zealand 176 200 Portugal 83 82 Spain 85 97 Sweden 90 83 United Kingdom 85 76 United States 203 221

Table 3.1 International house sizes (sq. m) (Cox & Pavleetich, 2017)

These larger living spaces are also shared amongst relatively small 2.7 person households (ABS, 2011a) and compounded by the fact that 2,024,984 (9.4%) of the population live alone (ABS, 2011a). By comparison, the U.K. has a household average size of 2.4 yet living in much smaller 86.9 m2 dwellings (Dol & Haffner, 2010).

3.2.2 Challenges within the Australian housing landscape

Modern housing in Australia has undergone changes in latter decades of the 20th century to the present that brings a range of economic, social and ecological challenges to be faced. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, modern housing careers have undergone significant changes compared to the earlier industrial era in Australia. These changes represent changes in household structure and reductions in housing affordability. When ranked against a selection20 of other nations (Table

20 T

- 107 of 297 -

3.2), Australia has the highest percentage of severely unaffordable metropolitan housing (metropolitan areas), and nearly 90% of the markets in Australia are considered either seriously or severely unaffordable. (Cox & Pavletich, 2017, p. 2).

Table 3.2 International housing affordability rankings (Cox & Pavleetich, 2017)

Research by AHURI21 analysing the affordability of housing within Australia shows that 15.8% of all households paid 30% or more of gross household income in meeting their housing costs (Yates & Gabriel, 2006). Yates and Gabriel also discovered that 11.3% of all households and 28.2% of all lower-income households were in housing stress. The ABS census shows a doubling of weekly housing costs in absolute terms for renters and owners alike in the period from 1998 to 2010 (ABS, 2014) outpacing average wages that have only increased by 1.6 times in the same period (Economics, 2017).

A concerning factor is the increasing intergenerational differences displayed through Australia. The older, better-off, generation aged 55 or older make up only 26% of the population (ABS, 2011a) yet own 45% of primary residences and 51 per cent of investment properties and holiday homes (Tomlinson, 2012). According to Burke and

The 15th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey covers 309 metropolitan housing markets (metropolitan areas) in eight countries (Australia, Canada, China [Hong Kong Only], Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States) for the third quarter of 2018 (Cox & Pavletich, 2017). 21 Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

- 108 of 297 -

Hulse (2010), these factors have contributed to Australia’s continued housing price boom that reduces housing affordability for younger first-time homebuyers. Tomlinson also suggested that generation ‘Y’22 were unlikely to inherit housing wealth from their parents, making homeownership difficult if not impossible. This has given rise to the ‘Generation Share’ which refers to people who are unable to own property due to housing unaffordability and are choosing to share a house with unrelated others for longer or indefinite periods (Maalsen, 2018; Maalsen, 2019).

Despite the relative economic prosperity, Australians grapple with many of the same social issues as other countries. One such concern is the social issue of loneliness. Australian housing design caters for the commodity market of private self-contained dwellings that can create resident loneliness rather than interconnected homes where neighbours interact such as in ICLAs. Until recently, loneliness has been invisible, yet the ‘scope and scale have grown such that robust policy initiatives are now warranted’ (Franklin, 2012, p. 11). A study assessing the social health of the Australian population between 2001 and 2009, found that one in three people experienced loneliness and of those, forty per cent reported more than one episode’ (Baker, 2012, p. 11). This may be exacerbated by the fact that almost one in ten people live alone (ABS, 2011a).

Feelings of personal safety within the current housing landscape are an issue for a significant proportion of the population. ‘In 2008–09, over four million adults, or 26% of those aged 18 years and over, reported feeling unsafe alone at home, walking alone at night in their neighbourhood, or taking public transport at night alone.’ (ABS, 2010, p. 1):

‘Feeling unsafe is a significant issue for many people and affects individual and community mental health and wellbeing. Feeling unsafe is strongly linked with the experience of crime, and with the number and type of problems reported in a neighbourhood. Gender is also a factor, as

22 Generation ‘Y’ cohort are born between 1980 and the mid 1990’s (Merriam-Webster, 2019)

- 109 of 297 -

women, whether they had been a victim of a crime or not, disproportionately felt unsafe. Adults living in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage experienced more crime, and felt more unsafe compared with adults living in less disadvantaged areas’. (ABS, 2010)

Additionally, there is considerable evidence from around the world that modern housing has negative effects on mental health (Bentley et al., 2011; Capon, 2007), increases social atomisation (Franklin, 2012; Pincock, 2010), leads to urban sprawl (Acott, 2014; Carruthers & Ulfarsson, 2002), causes loss of agricultural land (James & O'Neill, 2016), and produces excessive greenhouse gas emissions (Gaigné et al., 2012; Glaeser & Kahn, 2010).

These challenges within the Australian housing landscape are a prompt for planners and policymakers to seek and implement alternative solutions. As suggested previously in Section 2.6, ICLAs provide options that may address these problems that are explored more fully in Chapters 7 and 8 of this thesis.

- 110 of 297 -

The following chapter contains excerpts from the paper stated in the preliminary pages of this thesis. The table below shows each author’s contribution to those excerpts. Contributor Statement of contribution % Hilder, J writing of text 100 proof-reading 85 theoretical derivations 70 preparation of figures 100 initial concept 70 Charles-Edwards, E., writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 40 theoretical derivations 10 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10 Sigler, T. writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 55 theoretical derivations 10 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10 Metcalf, B. writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 5 theoretical derivations 10 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10

- 111 of 297 -

Research design

A variety of methodological approaches have been applied to ICLA research in the past, ranging from ethnographic approaches and grounded theory to deductive analytical design. This chapter provides a detailed description of the methods used to achieve the research objectives and answer the research questions by focussing on the pragmatic methods applied therein.

4.1 Previous research approaches

A range of epistemological philosophies and approaches have been applied in previous research to analyse ICLAs. Donehue (2006) used a constructivist approach when assessing behavioural patterns of people living in cohousing. A constructivist approach was also used by researchers Cock (1979); Metcalf (1995); Miles (2008); Sanguinetti (2014); Sargisson and Tower Sargent (2004) and (Vestbro, 2010b) to understand characteristics of life and communal interactions within ICLAs such as the frequency of community meals and the resources that are shared between members. Constructionism assesses ‘the understanding or meaning of phenomena, formed through participants and their subjective views’ (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 22). This approach has the advantage of placing the researcher in the environment being researched where observations can be made first-hand while also posing the potential challenge of affecting the research by the researcher’s involvement. Thompson (1997) reviewed the literature with a Critical Theoretical epistemology in his assessment of cohousing as a design solution to some of the pitfalls of modern housing. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research highlights that ‘Critical theorists raise the idea of counter-education as one of many different themes that seek out a self-cultivation that is in constant dialogical relation with others’ (2014, pp. 79-80). This continual critique of the topic can fine-tune the research yet it can also become arduous and lose the focus of the research. In his dissertation, Meltzer (2000a) used Grounded Theory Method (GTM), which offered an approach to the qualitative, social components centred around human subjects (Williams & Vogt, 2011). This theoretical approach is ‘an inductive research methodology for generating knowledge and understanding... [that] can be altered in the field as analysis suggests new directions (2014, pp. 388-399). That flexibility is a distinct advantage for research conducted with an ‘open slate and minimal

- 112 of 297 -

preconceptions’ yet has the potential risk of following a research path that leads some distance from the intended outcome. Daly (2017a) chose the epistemological stance of Pragmatism focused upon environmental research in his dissertation with case study research. Pragmatism is a philosophy that ‘aims to uncover practical knowledge—knowledge that works in a particular situation… [and] the acquired knowledge is evaluated by reference to its problem-solving capacity in everyday life rather than its universal applicability ("The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research," 2014, pp. 648-650). This approach enables the researcher to make observations as they are without prejudging or categorising the research according to preconceived frameworks making it effective for analysis of facts yet it can miss the subtleties and nuances that may not be considered facts. Kivinen and Piiroinen (2006) p303) argued that ‘pragmatist philosophy of social sciences is an appropriate tool for assisting social scientists in their methodological work’. From this analysis of prior research approaches it was apparent that, to meet the aim of the research and assess the facts as they were, a Pragmatic Epistemology would be useful.

4.2 Pragmatic epistemology enabling a mixed-methods approach

This study covers both quantitative and qualitative investigation from different data sources requiring a mixed-methods approach. As mentioned in Section 1.2.1, the epistemology of the research was from a pragmatic approach whereby multiple methods could be employed to collect and analyse data. There were three phases of data gathering and analysis. The first phase involved a review of literature related to ICLAs that is reported in Chapter 2 and 3. Phase two involved a descriptive statistical analysis of both Census data and ICLA association records and is given in Chapter 5. The last phase involved Social Constructionism by data gathering from an online questionnaire and community visits. Further detail is provided in Section 4.7. A summary of the methodology and methods employed are shown in Table 4.1.

- 113 of 297 -

Epistemology Pragmatism

Approach Mixed methods

Phase Methodology Method Details

1 Literature review Content analysis Literature related to ICLAs

Census data analysis Secondary data 2 Demographic analysis analysis ICLA association records

Mail out invitation to known Online questionnaire contacts 3 Social construstionism One-on-one interviews and site Community visits observations Table 4.1 Research methodology and methods Adapted from (Daly, 2017)

4.3 Research scope

While the researcher was interested in exploring the literature and ICLAs widely, the scope of the study varied in each phase according to time and financial resources. Firstly, the literature review explored the wealth of knowledge in different countries with no geographical limitations. The demographic analysis was limited to data about Australian ICLAs. During the survey stage, the online questionnaire was open to residents from any country. Finally, a purposive sample from Australian and European communities was chosen for community visits.

For the purpose of determining a comparison of terminology and descriptions from other sources, this thesis provides the ICLA definition in Section 1.1 and is highlighted again here as:

‘A type of collaborative housing where a group of five or more unrelated people choose to combine their skills, resources and efforts to collectively build or rent and maintain homes and community structures, share social activities, offering care for each other, and use a system of inclusive governance.’

- 114 of 297 -

The research focussed upon Australian and European ICLAs that matched the definition in the modern Global North context. European and North American communities are considered to be well established and often serve as examples for initiatives in other countries, including Australia. Whilst it is likely there is much to be learnt from Indigenous peoples, the fact that they live in clan groups excludes them from the ICLA research. Similarly, there is likely many valuable insights from ICLAs in other parts of the world, yet language differences, budget limitations and the time involved to develop connections in these countries preclude the scope of this PhD research.

The definition stated above was then applied across the spectrum of community forms throughout the world with a focus upon Australian and European ICLAs to develop a set of criteria that would identify which community forms were worthy of inclusion in the study. Some forms were more closely aligned with the definition of Institutional Communal Housing and therefore, not included in the study. Table 4.2 shows the criteria assessment of all the community forms and their inclusion/exclusion in the study.

Type of Community Five or Combine Care for Participatory Notes Living Arrangement more efforts each other decision unrelated making and people governance Within research scope Worldwide - Co- Yes Yes Yes Yes A selection see housing, co- section 4.7.1 operatives, ecovillages Australian Group Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Only in census Households analysis Australian Multiple Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe Only in census family households analysis Outside research scope Co-living Maybe Maybe Maybe Maybe

- 115 of 297 -

Caravan parks Yes No Maybe No Managed retirement Yes Maybe Maybe No villages Mining camps Yes Yes No No Religious communities Yes Yes Yes Maybe Affordable/social Yes Maybe No No housing Mental/physical care Yes No No No housing Prisons Yes No No No Table 4.2 Categorisation of community forms and inclusion/exclusion in the research scope

4.4 Researcher ICLA involvement and bias

In 2001 the researcher visited Findhorn Foundation, and since that time up to 2013 spent time in the field considering ICLAs. The PhD research commenced in 2014, and the researcher has continued field visits and been involved in ICLA initiatives in South East Queensland up to the time of writing. To ensure there was no personal bias in the information gathered from local communities that the researcher had visited prior to the study, research in South Australian and Tasmanian communities was chosen. Care and attention were given to the semi-structured interviews and online questionnaire to maintain an appropriate ‘distance’ from the research and the researcher.

4.5 Phase 1: A literature review

The review of the literature was conducted using the university library facilities using relevant keyword searches and extensive review of relevant literature available in areas such as intentional community, cohousing, ecovillage, communal housing, kibbutz among others. Endnote software was used to create a database of literature with groupings of references.

4.6 Phase 2: Demographic analysis

This phase of the thesis endeavoured to work out the number and composition of ICLAs and ICLA-like living arrangements in Australia. As there was an absence of primary data on the ICLA population, this phase involved the use of a range of

- 116 of 297 -

demographic statistical techniques to extrapolate ICLA populations from secondary data sources. Six separate secondary data sources were drawn from to complete the analysis. Addressing the lack of a single repository for information about ICLAs, data were compiled from two alternative sources: association records and questionnaire responses.

Estimates of ICLA numbers, population and location, were extracted from the second source, information held in ICLA association websites both internationally from ‘The Global Ecovillage Network’ (www.gen.org), ‘Fellowship for Intentional Communities’ (www.ic.org), Australian associations ‘Cohousing Australia’ (www.communities.org.au) and ‘Co-operative Living Information for Australian intentional communities’ (http://equilibrium.org.au). A detailed assessment of information held within these websites extracted relevant data and then cross- checked information between sources using a similar approach taken by Daly (2016). Unlike Census records, the information available was non-standardised across the websites, irregularly-updated, voluntarily provided by ICLA members, and thus difficult to verify and cross-reference. Despite this limitation, it remains the most reliable source of information for formalised ICLAs in Australia currently available.

The third source of data were results of a survey of ICLA residents from around the world, and interviews conducted during Australian site visits. The questionnaire was available for a 12-month period and advertised through ICLA focussed social media in Australia and overseas, through the ICLA networks in Australia, and through professional contacts of the researchers. Completion of each question was optional. The response target was 200 internationally with 17 persons from Australia who completed the questionnaire. Interviews with 34 persons were conducted during site visits of four South Australian and four Tasmanian ICLAs. Combined, these two yielded a total of 51 resident responses for data analysis.

4.6.1 Census data analysis

The quinquennial Australian Census of Population and Housing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is the principal source of information on population and housing in Australia. The Census captures data at the time of enumeration.an

- 117 of 297 -

evolving procedure that records information. Communal living arrangements are a part of contemporary housing landscape identified within that data store.

Queries were created using the ‘Tablebuilder Pro’24 tool provided by the ABS To extract relevant information from the 2006, 2011, and 2016 Australian Censuses of Population and Housing databases. The criteria of ‘five or more unrelated people’ was applied to these queries. Populations that represented Institutional Communal Housing and Shared housing were identified. The data extracted from the census covered age and sex, education levels, employment, income and location. Results of this analysis are shown in Section 5.2.

4.6.2 ICLA data analysis

By their very nature, ICLAs are alternative to the predominant housing style across the population with no specific, single data source as compared to the Census dataset. Alternative data sources were required to perform any analysis. A review of the literature revealed a means to do so. There was an attempt to quantify population estimates done in an earlier study by Metcalf and Vanclay (1985). They utilised the readership base of printed Australian periodicals that were aligned to the communal living movement – ‘Earth Garden’ and ‘Grass Roots’. This approach gave an idea of how to reach communities that are in existence today.

Since that time, communities and members are still interconnected, yet the means for which they communicate has evolved considerably. There are four associations where communities could list themselves and provide information as a community. The international associations of ‘The Global Ecovillage Network’, ‘Fellowship for Intentional Communities’ and the Australian associations of ‘Cohousing Australia’ and ‘Co-operative Living Information for Australian intentional communities’ provide a listing of communities. In addition, there were two offline databases. Records held by researcher Metcalf from over 40 years of data gathering yielded the name, location and details of communities. Records of communities held by researcher Hilder both

24 ‘Tablebuilder Pro’ is software provided by the ABS to build queries and analyse census data.

- 118 of 297 -

prior to the project and during the investigation were consulted in a similar manner to that of records held by Metcalf.

Unlike the traditional census repository, association websites hold information that is infrequently updated, non-standardised, volunteered from community members on an ad-hoc basis with partial information and in some cases communities refuse inclusion (Ergas, 2010, p. 34) rendering the overall data likely to be out of date and incomplete. It does, however, provide an indicator of the number, size and geographic distribution of communities throughout Australia.

A Microsoft Access® database was created to store the data from different sources. Community information was frequently held in more than one data source (meaning that the community had nominated themselves in more than one association). In these cases, only one record was included in the Access database. The database would be used to house data gathered from the various sources, to develop queries and summary reports. Central to the database was the use of unique data field keys for communities and residents that were used to correlate information offline to the database. It was developed with relationships between data tables and fields within to ensure data integrity and accuracy of data extraction from queries. A basic user manual was compiled to enable the repeat of the data gathering by other researchers in future. Information that was common to all sources - the name of the ICLA, the location and the number of residents within – provided a basis for analysis and comparison between ICLAs and contrast with other forms of communal living and therefore were included in this database. Due to the communal nature of the living arrangements, the terms ‘household’ and ‘dwelling’ used in the census information had little direct relevance. Instead, the structure chosen as the basis for the database and information gathering was the ICLA and the residents within each. Additional fields to house data that became available during the research were included to provide further insight into this research and provide the foundation for future studies.

4.7 Phase 3: Site visits and interviews

Attempting to understand life in ICLAs requires a local, hands-on approach where interactions and observations can be made. It was important to develop a level of

- 119 of 297 -

trust to participate in community life as a researcher to analyse community governance and social interaction. The best method to facilitate this was site visits and interviews.

4.7.1 Site visits for observations and resident interviews

Visiting and taking part in daily activities gave a much richer understanding of community life, community design, daily social interactions and what works and what doesn’t. This close connection enabled observations to be made, the opportunity for resident interviews, meeting attendance, photographs and gathering printed material. Additionally, visiting various communities enabled connections between communities and was a rewarding experience for both the research project and future opportunities for knowledge sharing.

Litfin (2014, p. 13), whilst researching ecovillages, selected communities using objective criteria including their: longevity, size, resource consumption and waste, economic prosperity. She also suggested: cohesiveness, embodied vision, happiness and satisfaction yet found these too subjective to categorise so adequately did not include them as selection criteria. An approach like Litfin’s was utilised in this research project to select communities yet modified to include a broader range of community types including urban cohousing, rural ecovillages and urban and rural communes. A range of Australian and overseas communities was selected to give an overview of ICLAs.

Due to the researcher living in Australia, site visits were affordable and easier to access, enabling a selection of Australia ICLAs in the field research. There is a well- connected network of ICLAs throughout Europe, and the researcher had prior experience of European travel, was fluent in Dutch and able to understand basic German language enabling site visits and interviews in European ICLAs. The data- gathering stage of the research was from February 2016 to February 2017 to enable a period for the data to be current and then to be assessed.

The process to select communities involved three stages. The first stage was to identify a listing of possible communities in Australia from the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) and the Fellowship for Intentional Community websites. From this

- 120 of 297 -

list, communities in operation for more than five years were selected. There appeared to be clusters of communities in Northern New South Wales, South East Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and less so in Western Australia. It was decided to narrow the selection to Adelaide S.A. region and Tasmania as these were locations outside the area of prior experience for the researcher and would enable a broader analysis of communities. Eight Australian communities were chosen.

The second stage involved assessing communities overseas. The Global Ecovillage Network and Fellowship for Intentional Communities websites were again consulted to identify countries in the proximity of each other. A further distinction was countries that were English speaking or had enough knowledge of English to be able to conduct interviews in English. Five communities, each of which had been operating for more than five years were selected. These were in Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. A listing and introductory overview of each community visited are provided in Section 6.2 and summarised in Table 6.3.

The third stage was to cross-check the communities chosen from Stage 1 and 2 with the guidance of experienced researchers in the field. They agreed with the communities chosen and identified two further communities SeliHoo and Cennednyss in South Australia that were known to them and was worthy of research.

Interviews followed a semi-structured format that covered areas of the social, ecological and economic topic. A proforma of the interview questions are shown in Appendix 1. Interviews were recorded on a Livescribe® voice recorder and notebook. Observations of sites were recorded in the Livescribe notebook, and photographs were taken to capture site-specific details. Upon return to the office, this data was uploaded into Echo Desktop® software which is the computer platform associated with the Livescribe® voice recorder, and photographs were stored on the server. Interviews were later transcribed into MS® Word format and then imported into the algorithmic software NVivo11® for inductive coding to analyse the interviews and develop conceptual and detailed themes.

- 121 of 297 -

As with any research involving the daily interactions of humans, this study required an assessment and approval of ethical considerations from the University of Queensland prior, during and after the research to ensure that the interactions with people and information storage were ethical. This approval was sought and given. During the site visits, many interviews and observations were conducted in homes and in community spaces. It was imperative to establish a good working relationship with the ICLA representative prior to each site visit and inform them of what was involved and how they could access information and contact details for an independent representative at UQ should any concerns arise. At each instance, permission was asked before entering the home, and at the beginning of the discussion, the interviewee was presented with a ‘Participant information sheet and consent form for interviews’ before proceeding. Interviews were undertaken with adults. On one occasion, a family with a teenage daughter were interviewed together and with her parents always present. At times during the recorded interviews, personal information arose, and at this time, the interviewee was politely asked if they wished the information to be removed from the transcript. When this occurred, a note was made in the Livescribe® notebook to remove those statements from the transcription. At any time during the interview, the interviewee had the option to suspend or cancel the interview; however, there were no occasions where this occurred. Prior to the site visits, contact was made with a representative of each planned ICLA to explain the research and schedule times to meet the community. The site visits were conducted in three separate periods: South Australia for ten days in February 2016, Tasmania for 20 days in March 2016 and Europe for 37 days from August to September 2016.

The first trip involved visiting communities in South Australia. The researcher stayed in Adelaide at Christie Walk and undertook day trips to nearby communities: Cennednyss, Aldinga Arts Ecovillage and SeliHoo occurred. During this period, the research topic was shared in a public presentation as part of a community forum with another researcher Cornelia Featherstone, from Findhorn Foundation. This forum informed the attendees and generated interest to schedule interviews. This first experience in field research during the project showed both the strengths of the research process and the challenges that needed improvement. Over ten days, ten one-on-one and four group interviews were conducted with a total of nineteen

- 122 of 297 -

resident members taking part. There were seven other residents of communities who volunteered for interviews but were unable to be interviewed due to the time constraints. Whilst this was an exciting process, it was the first immersion into field research, and while it gathered a large amount of data in a short period, it did not provide much opportunity to develop closer relationships with residents nor allow for involvement in group activities such as shared community meals and activities. Additionally, in group interviews, it was difficult to guide the discussion, make accurate records and later proved to be extremely time-consuming to transcribe due to the complexity of the discussion. There was a notable difference in the quantity and quality of data gathered, and the number of social interactions between the community stayed in and those that were only day visits. The energy and focus required for the busy schedule also were difficult to maintain and be fully present with meeting so many people in a short time. Due to the unfamiliarity of equipment, the audio recording for three interviews was lost during the system upload backup, which later required the interviews to be transcribed from written notes only.

Learning from the South Australian trip, the second leg throughout Tasmania was taken over a longer period with the intention to stay in each community for a minimum of three days and balance the data gathering between conducting interviews and taking part in community meals and activities. During this trip, there were twelve one-on-one interviews and two group interviews conducted with fifteen residents, thirteen shared meals attended, and three work teams from the four communities. Interviews were limited to a maximum of three per day to ensure the balance mentioned above.

The third leg of the research was conducted throughout Europe followed the same methodology employed in the second trip in Tasmania, yet with an even greater focus on communal interaction. Communities in Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland were scheduled so that it was possible to stay in each community for at least a week and then transition into the next community. This required a great deal of flexibility and independence from researcher to adjust from community to community. Whilst there were minor language challenges, the predominant language utilised for the research was English except for the interviews conducted in the Dutch cohousing community, due to the researcher’s ability to speak fluent Dutch. Over the

- 123 of 297 -

five weeks, there were twenty one-on-one interviews, one group interview conducted with two residents, sixty-one communal meals attended, taking part in nine work teams and attending four community meetings. The diversity of the interactions gained data both in broad areas and detailed.

Further detail of the sites visited, interviews undertaken, and the time frame involved is shown in Section 6.2.

4.7.2 Analysis of the research interaction with the communities

Most of the communities visited included a residential stay for the researcher and taking part in everyday activities within the community. As described in Section 4.7.1, travel arrangements were made with the designated community representative prior to the visits, and the community representative helped guide the amount of interaction and observation undertaken. In all communities, residents were invited to take part in the interviews via an introduction from the representative. The semi- structured interviews covered a range of open-ended questions for the three key areas of study – social, ecological and economic significance. In the communities where there was enough time to develop a working relationship with key community members, a greater response to resident interviews was noted, as well as an increased openness to being observed and studied in community meetings and activities. Table 6.3 shown previously shows the time period and the interactions that occurred in each community in order of date visited.

While each ICLA was unique, grouping them according to their characteristics enables them to be categorised, and allows the researcher to analyse their similarities and differences and provide answers to research questions 3, 4 and 5. All assessments throughout the remainder of this chapter are listed in order of population size, as shown in Table 4.3.

- 124 of 297 -

Country Community Pop’n (2016) Size Australia Seli Hoo 7 Australia Cennednyss 15 Small Australia Rocky Cape Christian Community 20 Australia Tasman Ecovillage 30 Australia Christie Walk 40 Australia Cohousing Cooperative 40 Medium Australia Cascade Cohousing 40 Netherlands De Oude Nieuwelaan 50 Netherlands Woongroepen Polter 50 Germany Sieben Linden 150 Germany ZEGG 125 Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage 300 Large Findhorn - Cluny Hill UK 800 Findhorn - The park Table 4.3 Communities visited in order of population size

To further understand the communities, observations were made of the site, printed material gathered, and photographs taken. During the site visits and interview process, demographic information was captured to gain insight into the characteristics of the individuals and each community. As the information may include personal details, the onus was upon the person being interviewed to divulge these details as they chose. For this reason, the number of interviews undertaken, and data gathered is different for each community.

The site visits and questionnaire yielded an extensive amount of qualitative data, from which it was difficult to determine themes and conclusions about ICLAs. As mentioned in Section 4.7.1, the qualitative research analysis software, Nvivo® was used to assist with this analysis. The software is structured by sources25, nodes26 and cases27 to enable the user to code28 information and structure ideas and concepts (QSR, 2018). This enabled the gathering of all material in one place to search for emerging patterns. Each documented interview was treated as a separate ‘source’. Likewise, the data from the questionnaire was exported from CheckBox®

25 The collective term for research materials

26 Virtual containers to collect content across sources to group related material together

27 Virtual containers that represent the research subjects

28 The action of assigning source content to a node or case

- 125 of 297 -

and imported into Nvivo® as a single source. Communities and interviewees were each assigned as a ‘case’ within the hierarchical coding structure.

From the analysis of the literature, there were concepts and ideas expected to be found in the data. These were arranged according to the major themes of community interaction, community philosophy, governance and financial arrangements, interaction with others outside the community, community demographics and community design elements. Once this setup was complete, the interviews and questionnaire data were manually reviewed to fine-tune the nodal structure and add additional nodes. Following this process, the overall nodal structure was reorganised into three areas from the original research objectives: ecological aspects, social aspects and economic aspects. Several nodes, while capturing data from the coding, did not fit within these three aspects and were assigned to a fourth aspect – ‘Other’. Nodes within ‘Other’ such as legal issues, developer interactions, building design and home preferences were interesting to ICLAs yet not within the scope of the research and have been retained for future research. The results of this analysis are shown in Chapter 7.

4.7.3 Online questionnaire

Whilst the site visits mentioned above and an associated statistical desktop review of Australian data repositories by Hilder et al. (2018) gave an in-depth analysis of the specific communities in the countries investigated, and they gave little insight of the breadth of communities around the world. To access information outside Australia and Europe, a questionnaire was developed where community members could input information and then be promoted across a range of mediums. The intention was to reach as many communities from around the world as possible. This approach provides additional data to understand regional differences between ICLAs to answer research question 4.

The questions built upon the experience gained during the first round of site visits and interviews in Australia and were of a similar nature to the interview questions. The questionnaire was structured to elicit responses about design elements, community structures, location proximity to neighbours and services, resources and

- 126 of 297 -

equipment that were shared, level of community interaction, governance, legal and financial matters.

Close-ended questions were created using number boxes, tick box lists, slider choices and matrices to gather quantitative data. Open-ended questions in textural boxes enabled the respondent to form the qualitative information freely.

The questionnaire was created using the Checkbox® platform and was chosen because it was used in many other research projects within the University, had extensive functionality to enable form creation, reporting and data download, had enough privacy protocols in place, and had a high likelihood to remain available for the next three years well outside the research timeframe.

Background information regarding the study, a detailed definition of ICLAs and a privacy statement approved by the University of Queensland ethics processes were available to respondents and required them to agree with the information before proceeding with the questionnaire.

The questions were written in language that a person with moderate education and English proficiency would be able to answer. The questionnaire was designed to strike a balance between gathering as much information as possible whilst keeping it short enough that the respondent would stay engaged and be completed in 20 minutes. All questions were non-compulsory, enabling the respondent to answer as few or many as they felt comfortable to answer.

Prior to publishing, a draft questionnaire was sent out to a selection of colleagues within The University of Queensland, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management for functionality testing to ensure it works as designed, the questions were easy to read and follow, and the time taken to complete the questionnaire is as stated.

An invitation to undertake the questionnaire was sent to ICLA member residents via social media and ICLA associations in Australia and overseas. The promotion channels that were used to recruit respondents are shown in Table 4.4.

- 127 of 297 -

Channels Examples Press release via ICLA association newsletters Cohousing Australia, Global Ecovillage Network, Direct publication through Online media groups ‘Research Announcement’ google group. https://groups.google.com/a/ecovillage.org/forum/#!forum/ research Direct contact with ICLAs from recorded data in Currumbin Ecovillage, Crystal Waters, Murandukka ICLA associations Cohousing, LILAC in UK etcs Facebook - groups with members already Sustainable Community Villages, Alternative aligned with ICLA interests Communities, SEQ communities, Off the grid communities. Further research of other Facebook groups will be undertaken to identify target respondents. By direct contact from researcher’s database of interested people Table 4.4 Promotional channels to recruit respondents

According to previous scholarship in the field (Donehue, 2006; Meltzer, 2000a; Metcalf, 1997), it is often difficult to gain sufficient numbers of responses, so a reward was offered as an attractor to take part in the questionnaire. Five prizes of US$50 vouchers to be used on the Fellowship for Intentional Communities online bookstore were offered. Due to the allocation of the school research funding towards site visits, the promotional prizes were funded privately by the researcher.

At the initial page of the questionnaire, the respondent was provided with a link to a downloadable version of the Research Information sheet that outlined the project details and the steps towards maintaining confidentiality. The respondent could not complete the questionnaire until they gave consent, were over 18 years of age, had read the information available, and agreed to participate. These mechanisms were included to ensure the ethical treatment of the information collected. At the completion of the questionnaire, the respondent was invited to submit their contact details for future updates if they choose. Personal information from respondents used in the research was given a record number to protect privacy during the analysis and the thesis transcription. Information regarding the community details was included as per responses. The data and reports are stored within the Checkbox system and downloaded for long term storage within the University servers. The questionnaire was opened on 28th July 2016 and remained open until 30th June 2017. The targeted number of respondents was 200 from across Australia, and a further 100 from overseas.

- 128 of 297 -

This chapter set out to explain the methods and methodologies employed to gather data from each source as a foundation for the analyses undertaken, starting with the first substantive Chapter 5 and followed by Chapters 6 and 7.

- 129 of 297 -

The following chapter contains excerpts from the paper stated in the preliminary pages of this thesis. The table below shows each author’s contribution to those excerpts.

Contributor Statement of contribution % Hilder, J writing of text 100 proof-reading 85 theoretical derivations 70 numerical calculations 85 preparation of figures 100 initial concept 70 Charles-Edwards, E., writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 70 theoretical derivations 10 numerical calculations 5 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10 Sigler, T. writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 25 theoretical derivations 10 numerical calculations 0 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10 Metcalf, B. writing of text 0 proof-reading 5 supervision, guidance 5 theoretical derivations 10 numerical calculations 5 preparation of figures 0 initial concept 10

- 130 of 297 -

Population characteristics of communal living in Australia

It is clear by this stage in the thesis that communal living arrangements differ from family living arrangements. As described in Section 2.2, there are several types of communal living arrangements, including Institutional Communal Housing, Share housing and ICLAS. This chapter analyses population characteristics across the communal living arrangements in Australia, and answers research question 2 of the thesis, which is ‘What are the various types of communal living arrangements and the demographic characteristics of ICLAs in the Australian housing landscape?’

The chapter starts by outlining relevant census data and leads to a structured demographic analysis of the data available. The chapter then focusses upon an analysis of non-traditional ICLA sources to gain an understanding of ICLAs throughout Australia. The chapter concludes by highlighting the shift in housing trends, gaps in statistical knowledge, and demographic characteristics of each type of communal living arrangement and provides practical suggestions to planners of the current role of ICLAs in the Australian housing landscape.

5.1 Assessing census data to measure communal living arrangements in Australia

Statistical measurements of living arrangements are conventionally based upon the way individuals relate to other members of their family within a household and those that reside in a single dwelling (Holdsworth, Finney, Marshall, & Norman, 2013). ‘Families’ and ‘Households’ are terms suggested by the United Nations (2017) to help statistical agencies in each country create their own definitions relevant to their specific country.

The Australian Census of Population and Housing is the principal source of data on households and living arrangements in Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) classification of living arrangements distinguishes between individuals in non- private and private dwellings, where a dwelling is a structure which is intended to

- 131 of 297 -

have people live in it, and which is habitable on Census night (ABS, 2016b). Non- private dwellings are establishments which provide a communal type of accommodation - such as hotels, motels, boarding houses, private hotels, public hospitals and child care institutions, and supported accommodation for the retired or aged (ABS, 2016b). Non-private dwellings therefore broadly correspond to the definition of institutional communal housing provided earlier in this paper. By contrast, a private dwelling is normally a house or flat and can also be a caravan, houseboat, tent, or a house attached to an office, or rooms above a shop (ABS, 2016b).

Each private dwelling occupied on Census night is home to a household, defined as one or more persons, at least one of whom is at least 15 years of age, usually a resident in the same private dwelling. Households range in size and structure and include lone-person, families and group households. By contrast, a family is defined as two or more persons, one of whom is at least 15 years of age, which are related by blood, marriage (registered or de facto), adoption, step or fostering, and who are usually residents in the same household (ABS, 2011c). Family data is based on responses to Census questions on relationship to head of household.

Figure 5.1 summarises how the Census captures living arrangements, including those in communal situations. The Census enumerates both shared housing and ‘Other (non-households)’. Shared housing occurs within private dwellings and covers group households and multiple-family households. The census defines ‘Other (non- households) as persons in non-private dwellings across a range of dwelling types such as prisons, monasteries, hospitals, caravans/residential park, camping grounds and marinas amongst others. For the purposes of this thesis ‘Other (non- households)’ will be referred to as institutional communal housing. As shown in Figure 5.1 with the grey background, census definitions do not distinguish ICLAs by either person or household type.

- 132 of 297 -

Figure 5.1 Living arrangements within Australia

- 133 of 297 -

5.2 Living arrangements in Australia: insights from the 2016 Australian Census

In 2016 there were 8,861,620 occupied private dwellings in Australia, home to 22,777,083 persons, and a further 23,479 non-private or other types of dwellings where 940,335 persons resided. Table 5.1 reports the number of individuals resident in different household types at the 2006, 2011 and 2016 Censuses. Non- communal ‘One family households with only family members present’ and lone person households have both declined collectively from 83.1% to 79.6% of the population. This is matched by various increases of all communal living arrangement types when combined showed a 42.2% increase compared to an 18.2% increase in the overall population during the same period.

Persons Houshold composition 2006 2011 2016 Non communal living arrangements Single family only 14,797,623 73.8% 15,779,823 72.6% 16,691,840 70.4% Lone person 1,864,641 9.3% 2,024,984 9.3% 2,190,783 9.2% Total non-communal 16,662,264 83.1% 17,804,807 81.9% 18,882,623 79.6% Communal living arrangements Group 638,600 3.2% 749,366 3.4% 865,325 3.6% Single family with non-family 523,563 2.6% 685,822 3.2% 862,764 3.6% members present Two family household 485,364 2.4% 668,224 3.1% 829,952 3.5% Three or more family household 29,645 0.1% 48,507 0.2% 59,263 0.2% Other (non-household) - Institutional 1,722,203 8.6% 1,770,433 8.1% 2,217,495 9.3% communal housing Total communal 3,399,375 16.9% 3,922,352 18.1% 4,834,799 20.4%

Total population 20,061,639 100% 21,727,159 100% 23,717,422 100% Table 5.1 Count of persons per household type from 2006 to 2016

Within institutional communal housing, there is a wide diversity of dwelling types too complex to share the detail of population growth in this thesis. However, two specific types that are examples of Institutional Communal Housing were ‘Prisons, a corrective institution for adults’ that showed a 50.1% increase over the ten-year period from 26,257 to 39,564 persons and ‘Staff quarters’ showing a 113.0% increase in the same period from 53,159 to 113,263.

- 134 of 297 -

5.2.1 Age and sex

The age and sex profiles of the population in shared housing and institutional communal housing are shown in Figure 5.2. When compared to the Australian population as a whole ‘One family household with non-family members present’ have a higher proportion of persons aged between 15 and 34 and a slightly higher proportion of males, suggesting people sharing housing economic or social reasons prior to having children. Two or more family households have a larger proportion of females across all ages, a higher proportion of young children (0-9), fewer household members between 10 and 14 years, a larger occurrence of 20-34-year-olds particularly females, and fewer 35-49-year-olds. This may reflect single mothers and friends sharing households for social reasons. Group households have a significantly greater proportion of males, a predominance of people aged between 20 and 29 for both genders, low incidence of people below 14 and, relatively few persons above 40 years of age. These age profiles suggest they are living together for economic rationalisation. Institutional communal housing has an atypical population pyramid with significantly more males than females throughout the ages except in later years where females are a greater proportion. The preponderance of males in working ages likely reflects the prison population and those in mining camps which are overwhelmingly male. At older ages, the sex ratio reflects the skewed sex ratios in aged care facilities as women live longer than men.

- 135 of 297 -

Figure 5.2 Population pyramids per household types in 2016

5.2.2 Education, employment, income and living locality

Information on education, employment, income and living locality provide greater insight into the makeup and likely motivation of each communal living arrangement type.

The means to measure the level of education was to review the selected persons in each household type who had completed year 12 and whether they were currently

- 136 of 297 -

studying either full or part-time. Across Australia, 41.7% of the population have completed education to that level, and 23.7% were studying. Single-family only households are like the overall population in study completion yet have greater proportion currently studying. Lone person households while similar in education level to single-family households have significantly fewer residents studying than the rest of the nation, reflecting the older age structure described above. Two and three family households have smaller proportions completed year 12, and both have a higher proportion of studying than across Australia. Group households have higher proportion completed and undertaking study than all other living arrangements and, with their relatively low numbers of children, as mentioned above, suggests that they are likely to be tertiary student share-houses. Overall, members of shared housing are more educated compared to the overall population and likely to be comprised of persons currently studying. Institutional communal housing displays the lowest education levels, yet show a high proportion still furthering their education.

The percentage of employment in non-communal households was like the overall Australian population. Communal living arrangements of group households and single-family with non-family members present households expressed significantly higher levels of employment than average for the nation while multifamily households and institutional communal housing arrangements were lower. Median incomes were the same across most living arrangements except for multiple family households, where incomes were significantly lower, suggesting that they may be formed for economic efficiency. A summary of the education, employment and income information is shown in Table 5.2.

- 137 of 297 -

Australia Non communal living arrangements Communal living arrangements

Houshold

composition

Group

housing

household

All persons

Lone person Lone

Total Total communal

Single Single family only

Three or more family more or Three

Total Total non-communal

Insitituional communal

Single Single family with non-

Other (non-household) - (non-household) Other

Two Two family household family present members 23,717,422 16,691,840 2,190,783 18,882,623 865,325 862,764 829,952 59,263 2,217,495 4,834,799

Persons 100.0% 70.4% 9.2% 79.6% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5% 0.2% 9.3% 20.4%

9,879,960 7,152,370 968,997 8,121,367 593,010 453,719 343,035 21,696 347,133 1,758,593 Completed year 12 or 41.7% 42.8% 44.2% 43.0% 68.5% 52.6% 41.3% 36.6% 15.7% 36.4% equivalent

5,614,243 4,631,634 137,459 4,769,093 247,478 251,069 199,095 14,299 133,209 845,150 Full and part time student 23.7% 27.7% 6.3% 25.3% 41.7% 55.3% 58.0% 65.9% 38.4% 48.1% status

Employed full, 10,683,844 8,015,375 980,466 8,995,841 533,555 471,768 350,185 20,572 311,917 1,687,997 part-time or 'away from 45.0% 48.0% 44.8% 47.6% 61.7% 54.7% 42.2% 34.7% 14.1% 34.9% work' Median $400-$599 $400-$599 $400-$599 $400-$599 $400-$599 $300-$399 $300-$399 $400-$599 personal income Table 5.2 Education, employment and income per household composition in 2016

The geographic location of the non-communal and communal living arrangements across Statistical Area level 2 (SA2) was examined. Group households were located across each of the major cities as shown in Figure 5.3, and when explored in detail clustered in locations surrounding tertiary institutions (as seen in Brisbane in Figure 5.4) which implies that a significant share of these household types were student share houses.

- 138 of 297 -

Figure 5.3 Group household distribution per SA2

Figure 5.4 Group households per SA2 in Brisbane

- 139 of 297 -

‘One family household with non-family members present’ showed a similar distribution to the overall population, concentrated in the Australian capital cities. By contrast, multifamily households showed a disproportionate occurrence in rural and remote areas of Western Australia and Northern Territory, perhaps reflecting indigenous peoples who are mobile and live in patrilineal clan-based land ownership groups yet due to the complexity of classificatory kinship and mobility makes it difficult for the ABS to specifically identify households (Taylor, 2009). A map of the distribution of three family households is shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5 Three or more family household distribution per SA2

The differences in distributions are supported by the Index of Dissimilarity (ID) measuring how much the distribution of each living arrangement type differed from the overall population distribution using the technique described by Robinson (1998) (Table 5.3). ‘Single-family only’ households, ‘lone person’ households and ‘Single- family with non-family members present’ were like the overall Australian population with ID values of 5.8, 16.4 and 16.8 respectively, which is consistent as these groups

- 140 of 297 -

form most of the population. All other living arrangements were significantly different from the overall population. ‘Three or more family households’ were the most divergent with an ID of 50.5, which suggests that over half of the population would need to move to have the same distribution as the Australian population. Group households, two-family households and institutional communal housing also showed high levels of dissimilarity. While there is some upward bias in the values of the ID due to the large number of SA2s, the overall picture should be broadly accurate.

Index of Houshold composition dissimilarity Non communal Single family only 5.8 Lone person 16.4 Communal Group 31.7 Single family with non-family members present 16.8 Two family household 26.0 Three or more family household 50.5 Other (non-household) - Institutional communal 29.1 housing Table 5.3 Index of similarity for household types per SA2

5.3 Characteristics of ICLA residents

The literature has highlighted that ICLAs can offer solutions to housing affordability (McStotts, 2004; Rosenblatt, 2009), social challenges (Glass, 2013; Torres-Antonini et al., 2003) and ecological sustainability (Sherry & Ormsby, 2016; Torres-Antonini et al., 2003; Zhang & Lv, 2011). Despite these factors, they are often overlooked. ICLAs are missing from the Census categorisation, and as the majority of ICLAs remain out of the limelight (Smith, 2002, p. 113) official statistics on ICLAs are unavailable. Information from the ICLAs association websites and purposive questionnaire of ICLA residents were combined to provide insights to age, sex, education, employment engagement and income levels of ICLA members, and locality distribution of the communities.

5.3.1 Population estimates

By combining data gathered at the time of publication from various association records described above and, data from the questionnaire, there are 212 known ICLAs throughout Australia. Over 75% of the communities listed had offered estimates of their community population. Bands with ten member intervals were created to summarise the population data and ranged from ‘5-15’ to ‘296-305’. No

- 141 of 297 -

communities reported a population greater than 306. Where population figures were unavailable, an assumption was made to allocate the community population to the 5- 15-member range. This was based upon the premise that communities smaller than that range may not register with the ‘Global Ecovillage Network’, the ‘Fellowship for the intentional community’, ‘Cohousing Australia’ or ‘Co-operative Living Information for Australian intentional communities’, and communities larger than this range would prefer to publish their population. While this assumption may inflate the numbers within this smaller population range, it provides a baseline for analysis. By multiplying the estimate of the average number of residents per community (a) by the number of communities identified (b), an initial ICLA resident population (x) of 5,830 was calculated. To further refine this estimate, we employed the expert judgement of an experienced researcher and author Hilder, to develop an estimation coefficient (y) based on their experience within communal studies. Authors noted that it was likely that all larger communities were identified due to the knowledge sharing between communities throughout Australia and therefore allocated an extrapolation coefficient of 99% for communities larger than 86 resident members. To simplify, this means that for every 99 larger communities, there may be only one that was unknown. At the other end of the spectrum, smaller communities were less likely to be identified as they could easily exist without the awareness of other communities and therefore given a low extrapolation coefficient and for everyone, community-identified it was possible for there to be another nine that were 1 unidentified. Using the formulae 푧 = 푥 ∗ the Total Population (z) was calculated, 푦 giving a total estimate of 22,007 ICLA residents across Australia. The same coefficient was used to give a total estimate of the number of ICLAs (za). Including a 10% margin of error and rounded to nearest 1000, a population estimate is classified between 20,000 and 24,000 people across 1,400 to 1,700 ICLAs. A summary of these figures is shown in Table 5.4.

- 142 of 297 -

Total Resident population Number Initial Extrapolation Total number of middle of ICLAs population coefficient population from to ICLAs (a ) (b ) (x ) (y ) (z ) (za) 5 15 10 124 1,240 10% 12,400 1240 16 25 20 33 660 20% 3,300 165 26 35 30 20 600 25% 2,400 80 36 45 40 9 360 50% 720 18 46 55 50 8 400 75% 533 11 56 65 60 3 180 75% 240 4 86 95 90 2 180 99% 182 2 96 105 100 3 300 99% 303 3 106 115 110 1 110 99% 111 1 126 135 130 1 130 99% 131 1 136 145 140 1 140 99% 141 1 146 155 150 1 150 99% 152 1 176 185 180 2 360 99% 364 2 196 205 200 1 200 99% 202 1 216 225 220 1 220 99% 222 1 296 305 300 2 600 99% 606 2 Total 212 5,830 22,007 1,533 Table 5.4 Estimate of ICLA population and communities across Australia in 2017

This updated estimate is less than half of the 60,000 member residents estimated by Metcalf and Vanclay in (1985). However, as this recent study utilises the internet and electronic communication, it is likely to be more accurate than the previous estimate using paper and subscription-based information only. Notwithstanding the methodological differences, the recent estimates suggest an actual decline in the number of people living in ICLAs. The reasons for this decline may relate to the baby boomer cohort “ageing out” of ICLAs and institutional pressures to close ICLAs by institutions such as that by the NSW government (Dobney, 2015). It is not possible from the data available to distinguish between long term decline and more recent trends, however, given the benefits of ICLAs as shown in Section 2.6, the growing challenges within the current housing landscape as discussed in Section 3.2.2 and recent media attention sharing the advantages and existence of ICLAs, the population of ICLAs is likely to increase once again.

5.3.2 Age and sex, education, income and living locality

There was no complete dataset for ICLAs to enable a direct comparison to demographic information found in the Census. Data from 17 responses to the questionnaire and 34 resident interviews was extracted to provide a summary representation of ICLAs and is shown in Table 5.5. Due to the small number of

- 143 of 297 -

responses, it was not possible to assess differences in gender, so female and male responses were combined. No consistent employment information was recorded to enable analysis in this thesis. . Variable n=51 Persons under 35 5 36-45 3 46-55 13 Age 56-65 14 66-75 10 76+ 3 Unspecified 3 High school 7 Trade qualified 7 Education completed Univeristy graduate 10 Post graduate qualifications 22 Unspecified 5 <$18,000 20 $18,001-$37,000 4 $37,000-$80,000 12 Income $80,000-$180,000 4 $180,000+ 1 Unspecified 10 Table 5.5 Demographic characteristics of ICLA respondents

There was a greater proportion of persons in the age bands ranging from 46 – 75 years than age bands both younger and older. Metcalf and Vanclay (1985) found that respondents were aged in their thirties and forties in rural communities and aged in their twenties in urban communities. While it is impossible to quantify accurately, we conclude that a significant proportion of member residents identified in the 1985 study have aged and remained in the ICLAs, highlighting the longevity of Australian ICLAs. This is supported by the fact that four of the twenty-three residents interviewed and three of the seventeen respondents to the questionnaire had lived in the same ICLA since 1985.

Respondents report higher levels of education and a larger proportion of both low and middle incomes suggesting that respondents were either retired professionals or experiencing decreased levels of employment.

- 144 of 297 -

In contrast to other forms of communal living arrangements, the greatest concentration of ICLAs (Figure 5.6) is found in South East Queensland and Northern NSW highlighting a similar distribution of the research conducted 30 years prior. This, in part, reflects the historical presence of a significant counterculture in this region which persists to this day.

Figure 5.6 Distribution of ICLAs throughout Australia

5.4 Conclusions from the statistical analysis

ICLAs are often considered by many as peripheral to the predominant single-family household and an ‘alternative’ to the mainstream society. The analysis highlights that ICLAs are in fact, an integral part of the housing landscape and not ‘apart’ from it.

The Census provides detailed housing and population information across that spectrum yet while formalised ICLAs exist they are not identified in the Census. Despite this limitation, this chapter was able to investigate communal living arrangements from the Census. A key finding of this analysis is that approximately one-fifth of the population of Australia (4,834,799) live in some form of communal

- 145 of 297 -

living arrangement either by choice or due to life’s circumstances despite the predominate dwelling style across the nation catering towards single families. It is evident that there is a clear demand for alternative dwelling styles, yet virtually no dwellings purposefully cater to this population. This factor highlights the importance of studies such as this thesis that offer a deeper understanding of the phenomena of communal living arrangements.

An intriguing finding from this thesis, that was also the most unexpected – the trend of eroding ‘One family households with only family members present’ population towards communal living arrangements with a 42.2% increase in the years from 2006 to 2016. This movement is occurring despite the predominant cultural values towards single families, the focus of the design of modern housing catering for single families (ABS, 2014; Greig, 1995, p. 99; Kellett, 2011; Troy, 2012) and planning mechanisms to prevent and restrict communal living in private dwellings (Dobney, 2015).

Group housing, a form of share-housing for housemates, were clustered around educational facilities in each of the major cities and showed a high proportion of persons educated and advancing their education, with few children suggesting they chose to share primarily for economic affordability. Multi-family households comprising the remaining share-house living arrangements were located across the cities like most of the population and had higher proportions of younger children, but with a small, yet significant, proportion of three or more family households in remote areas.

Living arrangements that meet the criteria of formally created ICLAs are a relatively smaller population of about 25,000 compared to house-sharing and institutional communal housing. The estimated ICLA population is significantly smaller than about 60,000 estimated from thirty years prior. The majority of the ICLAs in both studies were in rural areas with similar characteristics – fertile, arable hinterlands previously utilised by the declining sugar cane, dairy and other horticultural cropping industries of the 1980s. This was also coincidentally, the peak of the communal living arrangement movement in Australia. The existence of these ICLAs over the long- term shows they are resilient. Persons living in ICLAs who were included in the

- 146 of 297 -

research have higher education levels, are ageing and have relatively lower incomes. We conclude that it is likely that that at least some of the cohort of rural ICLA residents from the 1980s are ageing and still living in this manner in 2017. These same areas have, as expressed by resident interviews and likely reflected in real estate statistics, experienced property price increases challenging the longevity and expansion of ICLAs.

Urban ICLAs measured in 2017 are predominantly fewer in size per community than rural counterparts highlighting that housing stock available limits the formation of communal living arrangements in urban areas a factor mirrored in shared housing data from the ABS census. Despite this, there is a growing trend of communal living arrangements in urban areas in shared housing, and increased media interest in house-sharing and urban ICLAs such as (Barnes, 2015; Tan, 2016; Tatman, 2017).

Single-family dwellings are and will continue to make up most of the housing stock. Yet there can be a change of focus towards neighbourhood-sharing such as reduced car access in favour of increased communal use of the streets and thoroughfares for pedestrians and bicycles. Additionally, lessons learned from cohousing ICLAs such as common areas for community gardens, community resource sharing and regular community meals (McCamant et al., 1994) may facilitate social improvement and community development in traditional, single-family neighbourhoods. Implementation can range from retrofitting a group of four to eight dwellings in a traditional suburban streetscape to enable yard and resource sharing, to the urban regeneration of brownfield or light industrial sites with a communal focus and purposeful social interaction, to new developments of connected dwellings. The spatial elements are varied, and possibilities abound. The key point, however, is to enable a process of greater self-autonomy of residents to co-create the communal living arrangements they desire (McCamant et al., 1994) rather than living in unsustainable, unaffordable, disconnected dwellings. For-profit mechanisms such as retirement villages, top-end co-living (Barbanel, 2017) and full facility tertiary student accommodation while meeting the demand for short-term accommodation it is questionable whether they support community cohesion and ecological sustainability. Encouraging these providers to facilitate community services such as regular community meals and

- 147 of 297 -

social activities may improve the quality of the resident lived experiences that may, in turn, affect the economic viability of the venture.

- 148 of 297 -

Communities researched

At this stage of the research, it is important to describe the communities that were investigated and provide an introduction into the social, ecological and regional differences and similarities of the communities. Doing so addresses research question 2 and provides a foundation for later analysis and discussion in Chapter 7. This chapter begins with an overview of the communities from the online questionnaire. It then moves to descriptions of the communities that were visited and where interviews took place.

6.1 An overview of communities from the questionnaire

The questionnaire was an opportunity to interface with residents of communities from all over the world. It was designed to gather information about the characteristics of ICLAs. As mentioned in the research by Metcalf and Vanclay (Metcalf & Vanclay, 1985), it is difficult if not impossible, to establish a sample population from a questionnaire. Without a reliable denominator, statistical information is considered a representation of an unknown population of ICLAs and their residents rather than an accurate measurement of communities. A summary of the questionnaire responses is provided below.

At the close of the questionnaire, 83 respondents accepted the questionnaire agreement and completed the questions. While not a substantial level of response, the data provided was very detailed and offered extensive qualitative information. There were three communities where multiple people responded. All other communities had only one person responsible. All the questions were optional, and response rates for each question varied from no response to 83. There were 41 respondents who completed the questionnaire on the last page. Additionally, there were 1,141 people who followed the link to the questionnaire but did not accept the agreement and therefore, did not proceed to answer and questions. There is no capability to ascertain why so many people were interested enough to proceed to the questionnaire yet stopped there. The questionnaire involved extensive development of the question structure, promotion and subsequent analysis. The responses were few in comparison to the effort invested. However, the responses provide insight into the characteristics that define ICLAs.

- 149 of 297 -

Table 6.1 provides a summary of the information provided by respondents about their communities. The communities were primarily located in Australia and New Zealand and smaller proportions in the USA, UK, Netherlands and Denmark (Group 1 Table 6.1). This representation is likely due to the professional connections of the researchers and the interconnectedness between communities. It was interesting that the questionnaire did not attract a greater number of responses across a diversity of other countries. Feedback from some respondents was that the questionnaire took longer than the estimated 20 minutes. Further studies would benefit from questionnaires with single foci and shorter time involvement.

Most of the respondents were from ICLAs founded within the last 20 years (Group 2 Table 6.1). The types of communities ranged across various dwelling styles (Group 3 Table 6.1). ICLAs within a single, separated house most resemble communes and constituted 16% of the respondents. Those living in multiple separate houses; semi- detached, row or terrace houses, townhouses; and, a single building made up of flats, units or apartments most likely resembling Cohousing ICLAs and collectively represent 56% of the respondents. The respondents living in multiple buildings made of flats, units or apartments most likely resemble ecovillages and represent 12%.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Founding Likely Country # % # % Building type # % year community type

Australia 19 23% >1970 0 0% A separated house Commune 13 16% Denmark 5 6% 1970's 2 2% Multiple separate houses Cohousing 25 30% Netherlands 1 1% 1980's 2 2% Semi-detached, row or terace Cohousing 16 19% houses, townhouses etc New Zealand 12 14% 1990's 6 7% Single builing made up of flats Cohousing 6 7% units or apartments UK 2 2% 2000's 18 22% Multiple buildings made up of Ecovillage 9 11% flats, units or apartments USA 5 6% 2010's 10 12% Other 5 6% Not stated 39 47% Not stated 45 54% Not stated 9 11% Table 6.1 Community information from the questionnaire

Demographic information about ICLAs from residents who responded is summarised in Table 6.2. The respondents are likely to be those within the community who are motivated members who choose to represent their ICLA in an official capacity. Their demographic information is unlikely to represent the individual community fully.

- 150 of 297 -

However, it does provide some basis for understanding differences across communities. The respondents were across all the age groups, although there was dominance from the 60-64 age group (Group 1 Table 6.2). Females represented 40% of the respondents (Group 2 Table 6.2). Nearly half (49%) of respondents reported higher levels of education completed (Group 3 Table 6.2) and 37% were engaged in employment (Group 4 Table 6.2).

Group 4 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Highest education Age # % Gender # % # % Employment # % completed 25-29 2 2% Female 33 40% Graduate 17 20% Full time 14 17% 30-34 2 2% Male 13 16% Postgraduate 24 29% Part time 17 20% 35-39 1 1% Other 1 1% Secondary 4 5% Student full time 0 0% 40-44 4 5% Not stated 37 45% Technical 2 2% Student part time 2 2% 45-49 5 6% Prefer not to say 1 1% Retired 13 16% 50-54 2 2% Not stated 36 43% Unemployed 2 2% 55-59 3 4% Pensioner 2 2% 60-64 13 16% Not stated 37 45% 65-69 6 7% 70-74 6 7% 75-79 1 1% Not stated 38 46% Table 6.2 Respondent information from the questionnaire29

Further detail of the questionnaire responses is provided in the analysis of ICLA characteristics in Chapter 7.

6.2 Descriptions of sites visited

Site visits are an in-depth way to understand the diversity of community life across various ICLA types. As discussed in Chapter 4.7.1 visits to eight Australian and five European communities were included in the research. Table 6.3 shows the Australian and European communities visited. A summary of each community is provided below in the order of population size to enable comparative analysis.

29 Quantities do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

- 151 of 297 -

Country Community Date Guest Days Interviews Interactions visited conducted

Australia Christie Walk Feb ‘16 Yes 7 8 Shared meal Australia Seli Hoo Feb ‘16 No 1 1 Group interview with 5 members Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage Feb ‘16 No 1 2 Day site visit Australia Cennednyss Feb ‘16 No 1 2 Day site visit Australia Cascade Cohousing Mar ‘16 Yes 10 5 Shared meal Australia Cohousing Cooperative Mar ‘16 No 1 2 Shared meal Australia Tasman Ecovillage Mar ‘16 Yes 7 6 Shared meal, garden work team and community meetings Australia Rocky Cape Christian Mar ‘16 Yes 3 3 Shared meals, farm work team Community Germany ZEGG Aug ‘16 Yes 6 1 Shared meals, garden work team and community meetings Germany Sieben Linden Sep ‘16 Yes 10 5 Shared meals, garden work team and community meetings Netherlands De Oude Nieuwelaan Aug ‘16 Yes 7 3 Shared meals Netherlands Woongroepen Polter Aug ‘16 No 1 5 Shared afternoon gathering UK Findhorn Aug ‘16 Yes 7 6 Shared meals, garden work team and community meetings Table 6.3 Communities visited during the research

6.2.1 ICLAs under 25 members

Members of these communities tended to be involved with each other daily sharing equipment, resources and facilities. They lived in a single building or in buildings located within 5-minute walking distance of each other.

The urban commune of SeliHoo was the smallest community visited. Seven resident members live in a large single suburban house that has been modified for communal living. The house is in Adelaide, South Australia. Figure 6.1 shows an aerial view of the home and some of the outdoor facilities.

- 152 of 297 -

Home Vegetable patch

Outdoor shed with solar PV

Figure 6.1 Aerial view of SeliHoo

Each member has their own private bedroom and shares all other areas communally with the other members. This community was formed in 1978 by four members who purchased the home collectively and invited others to share the home on a rental basis. The four founding members have remained consistent in the home. Throughout the 40 years of operation, there have been 54 other members staying for varying lengths of time. There have been periods with families and small children in the past. While each member has a separate income, all costs are shared equally from a common purse as a fixed dollar amount. It is a requirement that members contribute time each week to the functioning of the community. The general ethos of the ICLA is towards ecological conservation and social change. This is evident in the extensive amount of ecological sustainability features of the home and the interconnectedness with communal activities outside the home. All the current members are of a similar aging demographic, and the founders have contemplated the closure of the community when they pass on. Contrary to other houses in the neighbourhood, the community has chosen to use bikes and public transport as an

- 153 of 297 -

alternative to private cars. They have converted the carport and driveway space for vegetable gardens to further their attempts towards ecological sustainability (Figure 6.2).

Image: J. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.2 SeliHoo food growing to garden in place of previous carport driveway

Cennednyss is a commune of three families who purchased rural land with two houses in 1978. It is in Summertown, a township of the Adelaide Hills, South Australia. An aerial view of the approximate boundary and community components is shown in Figure 6.3. Since the formation in 1978, they have built other dwellings and grown food collectively. They share the costs and ownership of all property, equipment, materials via the ethos of a common purse. From the beginning, members chose to share the details of each of their income and expenses from both within and outside of the community. This information is used to calculate a ‘percentage of income’ for community costs that is consistent for all members regardless of income levels. Over the lifetime of the ICLA children have been born, grown and left the community. While still connected to the community, they and some of the original founders, live elsewhere. Fifteen resident members currently live in 5 houses. Each house has a mix of resident ages that is made up of a diversity of family and non-family household types. The buildings are primarily self-contained

- 154 of 297 -

dwellings situated throughout a hundred-acre rural property (Figure 6.3). The land has undulating hills, fruit trees, a vegetable patch, wood lot forestry and farm buildings. All the land, the buildings, cars and other equipment are owned collectively by the members. The ethos of the original founders that is still embedded today is one of sharing lives and living more simply. The intention of this ethos was a conscious attempt to contrast the single nuclear family paradigm experienced elsewhere in society. The community has the dual benefit of a country town environment while also being 30 minutes’ drive to Adelaide CBD. An aerial view of the community is shown in Figure 6.3.

Houses

Figure 6.3 Aerial view of Cennednyss

The twenty community members of Rocky Cape Christian Community (RCCC) live in North-West Tasmania. The site is in a rural area within a 30-minute drive to nearby regional towns and two hours to a major city with an airport. Their commune is founded upon Anabaptist church beliefs and is part of the religious outreach seen in ICLAs of this type throughout the world. The families live in a cluster of self-

- 155 of 297 -

contained dwellings located around a communal kitchen, schoolroom, workshops and rural buildings that are shown in Figure 6.4.

Community Houses garden

Community kitchen and hall

Engineering work shed

Figure 6.4 Aerial view of Rocky Cape Christian community

The land and buildings were previously a retreat space for other Christian groups and, in 2005, was taken over by the commune members. While each family has a private home for sleeping and some daily activities, most of the member’s time is shared with the whole community in the communal spaces. Collectively they grow food, make clothing, and operate income-generating business enterprises. All the income and costs are shared from a common purse, and there are no individual monetary assets. This community is the only ICLA within the research with this characteristic. All the buildings and property are owned by the religious organisation. The homes within the community (Figure 6.5) are self-contained dwellings clustered around the central communal buildings. Members are multigenerational ranging from small children to elders. The commune welcomes visitors from within the church and those aspiring to the faith.

- 156 of 297 -

Image: J. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.5 Homes and shared grounds within Rocky Cape Christian Community

6.2.2 ICLAs with 26 – 100 members

The communities within this group ranged from a single building to multiple buildings within 100 metres or 5 minutes walking distance of each other. Five of the communities were classified as cohousing, and one is a dorm-style commune. The design of the buildings enables purposeful shared interaction between members on a daily or weekly basis. These communities are a mix of cohousing living arrangements.

Tasman Ecovillage is an ICLA formed in that was in 2013, the youngest of the communities visited were instigated by a single individual who, with a vision for a communal living arrangement purchased land and buildings and then invited members to join, co-create and transition towards an ICLA. An aerial view of the approximate community boundaries is shown in Figure 6.6.

- 157 of 297 -

Motel and home units New homes

Community Additional gardens home

Figure 6.6 Aerial view of Tasman Ecovillage

Previously the property was a motel with café and small golf course. The motel has been partially converted to self-contained dwellings with a central communal kitchen, dining, lounge room, food gardens, sauna, shed and other spaces following cohousing design principles (Figure 6.7).

The master planning and services have been created in preparation for future members to buy land, build and take part in ICLA life within a 1-minute walk of the community centre. All members share a weekly meal, meetings, work teams and social events and pay a regular contribution to communal costs and facilities. The community is situated within the township of Nubeena on the Tasman Peninsula of Tasmania and in addition to the services of the town residents have access to Hobart within 1.5 hours drive.

- 158 of 297 -

Figure 6.7 Communal area beside the kitchen and food gardens at Tasman Ecovillage

Christie Walk is a cohousing community situated in Adelaide central business district in an area undergoing significant urban regeneration. It was built in 2008. The 2200 square metre parcel of land provides a home to a community of 35 permanent residents living in 27 privately-owned, fully self-contained dwellings who additionally share the use and ownership of common facilities and equipment such as kitchen and dining room, laundry and extensive outdoor gardens at ground and rooftop level—an aerial view of the site and surrounding developments are shown in Figure 6.8.

- 159 of 297 -

Apartment building

Communal kitchen and laundry

Straw bale units

Figure 6.8 Aerial view of Christie Walk

The costs of the communal facilities and utilities are funded by contributions from each member equally to the body corporate. Members have the option to share in regular monthly work teams’ events for gardening and recycling projects and meet for informal, spontaneous social gatherings. Uncharacteristic for cohousing communities there is organised no shared meals or roster for meal preparation except for monthly work team tea and coffee and Adhoc communal gatherings where food may be part. As the community is in the CBD with extensive public transport the community was designed to minimise cars and has an allocation for 11 car parks only, has formal and informal car sharing and bike storage area. There are many sustainability features such as fruit trees throughout the complex; solar PV electricity and solar hot water; and strawbale building construction (Figure 6.9).

- 160 of 297 -

Roof top shared garden

Strawbale construction

Solar P.V and hot water

Fruit trees surrounding courtyards

Image: J. Hilder 2016

- 161 of 297 -

Figure 6.9 Some of the sustainability features at Christie Walk

Situated in southwest Hobart is the community of Cascade Cohousing. Cascade boasts the title of the first and longest operating cohousing in Australia built-in 1991. Based upon extensive research of ICLAs around the world, the founders co- designed a cluster of 16 homes and a central building that contains a large kitchen, dining room, library, children’s play area and guest accommodation (approximate boundaries shown in Figure 6.10).

Figure 6.10 Aerial view of Cascade Cohousing

The members went ahead and built their homes collectively with the purpose to build community connection and save construction costs. The dwellings are now home to approximately 35 residents. The gardens (Figure 6.11) feature chickens, fruit trees and community vegetable patch accessible for all members. In keeping with cohousing design, the ten car parks are located at one end of the development and, car-sharing occurs between members. The freehold titles for each dwelling enable the properties to be sold on the open market. Meals are shared twice weekly with an invitation for all community members to attend and to contribute in meal preparation

- 162 of 297 -

via a monthly roster. Each member pays a fixed dollar contribution for communal costs to a body corporate.

Image: J. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.11 Outdoor areas of Cascade cohousing - view from the communal centre

A short 5-minute walk from Cascade Cohousing is the Cohousing Cooperative which is a cluster of eleven dwellings for 17 adults and 22 children that was built in 2000 (approximate boundaries are shown in Figure 6.12). The self-contained dwellings range from 2 to 5 bedrooms in size and are situated within 50 metres of the community building that contains kitchen, dining room, lounge room and guest accommodation.

- 163 of 297 -

Play area & Nature walks to farm animals Mt Wellington

Homes in unit buildings

Community centre

Carpark

Figure 6.12 Aerial view of Cohousing Cooperative

All cars are arranged at one end of the property (Figure 6.12), and the other has large open space for chickens, guinea pigs and horses and areas for members to explore and the neighbouring forest) that is connected to the foothills of Mt Wellington. Community meals are shared three times per week, and all the community members, including the children, take part in the roster for meal preparation each month. Costs for meals and all other communal facilities are paid as a fixed dollar amount equally by each member to a communal committee and managed as a common purse. The houses are double story townhouses arranged around a central walkway and the community centre (Figure 6.13). Originally it was primarily funded by a Federal and State Government loan to the housing cooperative. The cooperative is paying off the loan over a 30-year period.

- 164 of 297 -

Image: http://www.cohousing.coop/

Figure 6.13 One of the houses in the Cohousing Cooperative

De Oude Nieuwelaan in Delft, The Netherlands was a retrofitted group of homes to enable greater sharing of spaces in an interesting spectrum of interaction (Figure 6.14). In 1981 a group of squatters who had taken over the vacant buildings successfully negotiated with the local council to enable a transfer of ownership to community title and refurbishment of the building as an alternative to demolition. Within four houses, there were 37 people living approximately 10-12 per house and sharing six kitchens and dining rooms. In each house, members had their own private bedrooms in the front towards the street and shared spaces and gardens (Figure 6.15) to the rear of the ICLA All members collectively own the property via an association and pay a regular contribution for space and living expenses from a common account that does not include meal costs. The ICLA is in the CBD of Delft with public transport and bike access to all parts of the city. There are no car parks allocated to the ICLA.

- 165 of 297 -

Shared garden

Four homes combined into cohousing

Figure 6.14 Aerial view of De Oude Nieuwelaan

- 166 of 297 -

Image: J. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.15 View of a shared garden in Oude Nieuwelaan

- 167 of 297 -

In the northeast suburb of Almere in The Netherlands, Woongroepen Polter 50+ is home for 50 residents aged 50 or more within 34 self-contained dwellings clustered around a central garden space (Figure 6.16).

Figure 6.16 Aerial view of Woongroepen Polter 50+

Built-in 2005, the two-storey construction enables ground floor dwellings to have street and garden access while all first storey dwellings are accessed via the balcony that adjoins all entrances to the lift and staircases. The gardens, as shown in Figure 6.15, are maintained by the residents each day during the warmer months and is the site for shared weekly afternoon social get-togethers. The complex contains a kitchen with some cooking and tea and coffee facilities, a library, pool table and area for games that enables community interaction during wet weather and the colder months of the year. There are no formalised shared meals where the whole community takes part. The members collectively own the properties via an

- 168 of 297 -

association and manage communal costs via a body corporate account. The site is located within a 5-minute walk to public transport, 15 minutes’ drive to the services of Almere city and 1 hour to Schiphol airport.

Figure 6.17 Central garden space in Woongroepen Polter

6.2.3 ICLAs with more than 100 members

All the above communities were relatively small, comprising one household or cohousing group in a relatively simple communal living arrangement. The communities listed below comprise larger member numbers and more complex living arrangements.

Following the reunification of East and West Germany, a group of families who had been sharing community interaction in various locations for aa number of years decided to take advantage of relatively cheaper agricultural land available after the reunification and in 1997 purchased 100 acres (40.5 hectares) to form Ökodorf Sieben Linden (Seven Linden trees ecovillage). Today approximately 150 residents of all ages live in several group houses and trailers. An aerial view of the approximate boundaries of the community is shown in Figure 6.18. The primary philosophy of Sieben Linden is for collaborative efforts towards ecological

- 169 of 297 -

sustainability. The houses range in size from two and three storey buildings with straw bale and mud-brick construction, as shown in Figure 6.19. Each house is in a neighbourhood and comprises 3-5 families sharing two or more kitchens, bathrooms, lounges and offices. Some of the buildings have partially self-contained dwellings although sharing laundry and other facilities.

Forestry Cohousing homes in unit buildings

Communal Food facilities producing area

Figure 6.18 Aerial view of Sieben Linden

- 170 of 297 -

Figure 6.19 Sieben Linden building design

Some members dwell in the trailers during the warmer months, although these are individual dwellings and are progressively being replaced by communal buildings. In addition to the facilities shared within each neighbourhood, there are also community facilities including two communal kitchens, dining halls, library, mediation and meeting rooms, extensive food cellars and education facilities for visiting students attending workshops. Community members pay a fixed euro contribution for all communal expenses, including the common purse for food and meals. The farming area comprises 3.5 hectares, and the wood lot comprises 32.5 hectares and the remaining land houses buildings and communal facilities. All food and community expenses are shared across the community equally via a monthly contribution. Cars are restricted to the car park entry area, and many of the cars are operated in communal car-sharing schemes. Each person takes part in communal work teams, including roster meal preparation. Shared meals are offered to the whole community each lunch and evening meals every day. Almost all the 1650 members eat at the communal dining room at least once per week. Due to the size of the community and the experience with communal living, Sieben Linden offers workshops to students from outside the community for seven days to 3 months several times throughout the year. The workshops generate income sources for the community.

- 171 of 297 -

Sixty-six kilometres southwest of central Berlin, Germany, is ZEGG – ‘Zentrum fűr experimentelle Gescellschaftsgestaltung’ (Centre for Experimental Cultural and Social Design). ZEGG is an ICLA of approximately 125 people of all ages operating since 1991 who work together to support each person to achieve their full potential, while continuously exploring new ways of living together in social and ecological harmony. The accommodation ranges from separate cottages for single families, dorm-style accommodation for youths in the ‘children’s house’ to multiple family buildings. The relatively small population is well serviced with communal facilities such as a library, artist’s rooms, a pub, café, large dining and kitchen, central laundry, professional offices and extensive food-producing gardens. An aerial view of the ICLA is shown in Figure 6.20.

Homes in unit Festival area University Communal buildings facilities

Food production Reed & fishpond & area swimming pool

Figure 6.20 Approximate boundaries of ZEGG

Members pay a fixed euro amount that funds their membership in the common purse for all community expenses, including food. The community places a priority on ecological sustainability and produces electricity on-site, woodlot for heating, recycles human faeces and urine for fertiliser and has extensive waste sorting for recycling and resale to the municipality. Most meals are prepared and shared within

- 172 of 297 -

the common facilities for the whole community, and member residents take part in the roster for meal preparation each month. Approximately 30% of the food needs for the community are grown on-site by member contribution. With the extensive communal living experience, skilled facilitators for communication and group dynamic processes ZEGG is also an education centre that offers a wide diversity of residential, experiential courses for approximately 16,000 person nights per year. The community also enables visitors to explore communal living and provides accommodation and board in exchange for their efforts in work teams. The ‘University’ (Figure 6.21) is the location for many teaching and communal activities for visiting students and is also where the youth shared dorm-style accommodation. ZEGG also takes part and hosts yearly gatherings as part of the Global Ecovillage Network activities across Europe.

Image: J.D. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.21 University building at ZEGG

Aldinga Arts Ecovillage (Aldinga Arts Ecovillage) is situated 49 kilometres south of Adelaide CBD in a previously rural area that is quickly becoming suburbanised. An aerial view showing the approximate boundaries of the community is shown in Figure 6.22. The community was formed in 1996 by a group of people with shared interests in developing a permaculture and arts community and purchased the 34-hectare property in a community title. Today approximately 300 residents across all ages live

- 173 of 297 -

in 181 privately-owned, fully self-contained dwellings and share ownership and management of the communal lands. An example of the streetscape is shown in Figure 6.23. At the time of the visit, there was no central building for communal meals or other activities apart from picnic facilities and a farm shed for meetings, yet the members were very excited that a decision was made to progress with the construction of a multipurpose building that could cater for whole community meals, media facilities, offices and other gatherings. Communal activities involved gardening and other work teams as well as a schedule of yearly social activities to foster communal connection. Smaller than traditional house blocks within the district, residents living along a street formed a ‘neighbourhood’ for self-governance and decision related to their street and communicated via Sociocracy methods with the whole community regularly. The houses were designed to be clustered on one side of the community block so that the other half could be used for food production and woodlot. The area has infrequent rainfall, and food production for the community is a fraction of the community needs. Residents pay a fixed dollar amount to the body corporateaccount to fund communal expenses.

Water management Homes in area residential area

Food production area

Figure 6.22 Approximate boundaries of Aldinga Arts Ecovillage

- 174 of 297 -

Image: J.D. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.23 Streetscape in Aldinga Arts Ecovillage The largest community visited Findhorn Foundation (FF) in northwest Scotland, was situated across two separate sites – ‘Cluny Hill college’ (aerial view shown in Figure 6.24) nearby the township of Forres‘ and ‘The Park’ nearby Findhorn village (aerial view shown in Figure 6.25).

Started in 1962, Findhorn Foundation considered one of the earliest modern ICLAs in the Global North. It is difficult to fully ascertain the size of the resident members as people from nearby towns take part in daily activities and a proportion live in other communities for part of the year—however, estimates of the population range from 500 to 800. While spirituality is a foundational part of daily life within the Findhorn Foundation, there is no one religion or belief system that determines membership. Initially, the community formed at The Park and resident members built communal facilities and accommodation where all members took part daily. As more members joined, the community groups of homes were built, and at the time of the visit, there are several cohousing clusters within the overall ecovillage. An example is the cohousing cluster of ‘The Field of Dreams’ at The Park that is shown in Figure 6.26.

- 175 of 297 -

Cluny College

Figure 6.24 Approximate area of Cluny Hill College, Findhorn Foundation

Wind turbine area East & West Whins Cohousing

Food production area

Field of dreams cohousing

Caravan park Communal facilities

Figure 6.25 Approximate area of The Park, Findhorn Foundation

- 176 of 297 -

Image: J. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.26 ‘Field of Dreams’ cohousing at Findhorn ‘The Park.’

Communal facilities are extensive ranging from kitchen and dining, laundry, supermarket, function centre, artists’ studios, professional offices and consultancies. Previously Cluny Hill College (Figure 6.27) was a country hotel that has been converted to dorm-style communal living for residents and students during courses and communal living internships. Residents have their own room, share all other spaces, facilities and eat meals communally.

- 177 of 297 -

Image: J.D. Hilder 2016

Figure 6.27 Cluny Hill gardens

Like ZEGG and Sieben Linden, Findhorn Foundation has become an education centre for communal living, ecological sustainability and philosophy with thousands of students per year and offers internships and volunteer programs for people wishing to experience communal living. In fact, the author was so inspired by attending three courses in 2000-2001 that seeded the journey for researching ICLAs ever since. Findhorn Foundation is the staging point for the Global Ecovillage Network and outreach to hundreds of thousands of members worldwide. The membership costs of Findhorn Foundation are tiered to those who live on the sites and work for the ICLA, those who live there yet work elsewhere, those that work there and live elsewhere. These funds are a fixed GBP amount transferred into association accounts for use to pay for communal expenses. There is a mix between separate funds and communal purse where live-in members have costs of living paid for and additionally receive a small income.

This chapter described and categorised the communities that were visited during the research in answer to research question 2. The communities ranged in size from 7 – 800 members and were in central business districts to rural areas. Additionally, this chapter highlights that even within similar types of community, be it a commune,

- 178 of 297 -

cohousing or ecovillage, and each community is unique in its makeup and characteristics. The detail covered in this chapter provides a platform for the analysis of attributes and characteristics in the following chapter.

- 179 of 297 -

The attributes and practices of ICLAs

This chapter explores the ideas and concepts that relate to the attributes and practices of ICLAs which emerged from the survey data and site visits. In doing so it provides answers to research question 2. The analysis also examines differences in attributes and practice across different geographical settings in answer to research question 3. Within the literature, there has been a tendency to study communities within five main foci – design (Holtzman, 2014), ecological (Crabtree, 2005), economic (Gray et al., 2005), social (Grinde, 2017), and spiritual (Brace et al., 2006; Miller, 2010, 2013b) aspects. Some studies analysed the relationship of two or more foci such as design and social aspects by Bijen and Piracha (2012) and Bouma and Voorbij (2008) In this study, it was chosen to draw out and explore the social, economic and ecological attributes of communities, and this thesis does not place focus upon design or religion. This chapter follows the methodology outlined in Section 4.7.2.

7.1 Analytical structure

The site visits and questionnaire yielded an extensive amount of qualitative data, from which it was difficult to determine themes and conclusions about ICLAs manually. As mentioned in Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, the qualitative research analysis software Nvivo® was used to assist with this analysis. The software is structured by sources, nodes and cases to enable the user to code information and structure ideas and concepts (QSR, 2018). All material was digitised and uploaded to one Nvivo® file to search for emerging patterns. Each documented interview was uploaded as a separate source. The data from the questionnaire was exported from CheckBox® and imported into Nvivo® as a single source. Communities and interviewees were assigned separate case identifiers.

From the Nvivo® analysis, 56 nodes with 4066 references relevant to the research questions were found. Social aspects formed most of all nodes, and there were much fewer references to ecological and economic aspects in the data (Table 7.1). There were a further 56 nodes and 1,272 references in ‘Other’ aspects that were not related to the research questions and not included in the discussion for this thesis. These aspects may be useful for future study.

- 180 of 297 -

Ecological 10 18% 869 21% Economic 12 21% 687 17% Social 34 61% 2,510 62% Total within research scope 56 100% 4,066 100% Table 7.1 Node and reference summary from Nvivo analysis

Within each of the three aspects, the nodes were arranged according to the number of references for each node. Similar nodes were clustered to develop a second level of concepts and ideas. Given that the discussion could not efficiently involve all 56 nodes, a decision was made to extract the most significant nodes, and the number of references for each node was allocated a percentage of all references. A full listing of the nodes and percentages is shown in Table 10.1 in the appendix. Nodes ranging from 6% (the most frequently referred to the concept) to a base level of 1% were included in the discussion. It was considered that due to the complexity and timeframe available the study was unable to perform analysis on minor nodes that were less than 1%. A summary of the clusters, the most significant nodes and discussion are provided for each of the three major aspects below.

7.2 Social aspects

Given that ICLAs are places where people interact and live, social aspects constituted the majority (62%) (Table 7.1) of the content from the research. Four clusters of social content (Table 7.2) were found and prompted analysis and discussion in the following sections: Group Dynamics, Governance, Interaction and Working together. By assessing the social aspects regarding these clusters, a rich understanding is given to provide answers to research question 4 of the thesis.

- 181 of 297 -

Cluster Nodes Sources References D Conflict resolution 20 121 D Group development 16 90 D Communication means 11 73 G Governance - Meetings 29 269 G Governance - membership 31 264 G Governance - Decision making 32 247 G Governance - Agreements and guidelines 24 83 I Shared lives 35 268 I Shared meals 23 122 W Work teams 31 208 W Contribution 30 139 Cluster key D Group dynamics G Governance I Interaction W Working together

Table 7.2 Most commonly referred to as social nodes

7.2.1 Group dynamics – group development

Community’ membership’ can be viewed as a dynamic component as people are leaving and new people joining all the time. Maintenance of the group dynamic is vital to ensure the group remains cohesive and heading in the same direction. The cohesiveness of the community has been referred to by other researchers as community ‘glue’ (Christian, 2013a; Jarvis, 2015; McCamant & Durrett, 2011). All communities visited carried out regular social get-togethers to develop this glue and strengthen community ties. An example is Cascade Cohousing, where there was a yearly party that was attended by current and past residents and, had become a ritual for the community. Residents of SeliHoo had a range of activities that they did together as a pseudo-family such as game playing:

We are also quite a big game-playing family. Board games, you know cards and other games…spontaneous games of Boggle (Interviewee #18 SeliHoo)

Some of the communities visited proactively attended development workshops together to improve the community cohesion and help manage any differences of

- 182 of 297 -

opinion. Tasman Ecovillage, Findhorn Foundation, ZEGG and Sieben Linden scheduled yearly retreats exclusively for community members and engaged facilitators to guide them through the development courses.

“It is an agreement that we have once a year, we all come together…as a group and we decide in the months coming up to that what is it we want to do. It is not set; it is not the same every time, and we do whatever we think we need” (Interviewee #3 Cohousing cooperative).

ZEGG members engaged in more frequent group retreats:

“…and we have intensive [retreats] times, four intensive times per year and these are six or seven days long…It is about different issues … we had an intensive time about transforming of the generations … sometimes we also invite people from outside to lead that.” (Interviewee #53 ZEGG)

This group development required collective and individual commitment. While this was an additional investment in time and resources, the benefits to the community to building cohesion and understanding, both as a group and individually were invaluable. It is notable that the larger European communities of Sieben Linden, ZEGG and Findhorn Foundation invested more in group development workshops and retreats than the Australian community of AAEV, which is a similar size. The smaller and medium-sized communities show no geographical tendencies towards investment in group development.

7.2.2 Group dynamics – communication

Effective communication is perhaps one of the most important aspects to ensure communities function well. The means of community communication both within and outside the community depended on the size and complexity of the community. Methods of communication ranged from sharing daily operational interactions to long-term strategic community changes.

Communication for daily operations was primarily verbal, through email or through noticeboards placed at strategic locations within the community. The noticeboard

- 183 of 297 -

(Figure 7.1) and letterbox system (Figure 7.2) at Cascade Cohousing were placed in the community centre. While these were places for written communication to be displayed and shared, they also provided an opportunity for members to interact on an ad hoc basis.

Image: J.D. Hilder Image: D.J. Hilder

Figure 7.1 Noticeboard at Cascade cohousing Figure 7.2 Letterbox area at Cascade Cohousing

SeliHoo relied on verbal communication between members and messages in the central areas. This focus upon verbal communication is in part because they were a community that consciously chose to reduce their ecological footprint by not having printed messages and not needing electronic technology for documenting their agreements. In fact, one member consciously chose not to have a computer or email account because he did not want to take part in the extraction of resources needed to make the computer and the ecological impact that that process would entail. The

- 184 of 297 -

group facilitated this by coordinating meetings as verbal agreements and recording hand-written agreements in a notebook.

Rocky Cape Christian Community utilised the daily meals for the verbal sharing of information. Within their community, they did not rely upon electronic communications as they spent much of their time with each other. They had a communications person who kept in contact with the headquarters of the spiritual organisation and maintained some exposure to the external regional community via email and phone.

Many of the medium-sized communities utilised noticeboards for people to both share their input and take note of what was happening within the community for operational factors. Christie Walk residents used a variety of communication means:

“It is really important to have different fora. So the working bees will attract a different type of conversation [as well as] the community meals, and the free-form agenda-less part of the meeting will attract different part of the conversation. All of them are really important.” (Interviewee #28, Christie Walk)

The larger communities such as the Findhorn Foundation, Sieben Linden and ZEGG were multilayered organisations with work teams across many functional areas to carry out activities from the daily operation to long-term strategic changes. Work teams primarily relied upon verbal means of communication with some documentation for reporting. Communication across teams was conducted using electronic media to report to other parts of the organisation. Communication with the surrounding district and beyond involved electronic and written promotional material about courses, events and activities.

In summary, the styles and means of communication varied across communities. For each, there was an intention for respectful communication and a valuing of the unique contribution that each person brought to community life. This factor is an important part of community interaction. There were no notable geographic tendencies between communities in Australian and European regions. There was,

- 185 of 297 -

however, a notable difference between communities that required working contribution and those that didn’t, where members who worked together communicated more by verbal means. Work teams are explored more fully in Section 7.2.9.

7.2.3 Group dynamics – conflict resolution

Group dynamics and the level of organisational maturity impacts community operations by creating a structure that undoubtedly affects the cohesion and operation of a community. The analysis of the statements from community members highlighted two important characteristics: managing differences and a means of resolving conflict. While related, they involve different factors and require different processes. In every community, there are differences of opinion related to value systems, processes, activities and the overall operation of the community. These differences help make communities diverse, interesting and encourage the group to evolve. However, when communities overlook or ignore differences, they have the potential to get out of hand and bring conflict within the group. A member’s comment reflected this point

“…well differences opinion is one thing, and conflict is another…a difference of opinion can range from agreeing to disagree…we had one very large acrimonious conflict in the very early days” (interviewee and community withheld to protect privacy).

How the community responds when differences and conflicts arise is a measure of their success and continued operation.

“And the other thing was to acknowledge the need for repair. There are a few times we have trod on each other’s toes so badly that we’ve needed to talk about that … and there has been [a] repair. And repair in the public forum has been really healing” (Interviewee #28, Christie Walk)

During the resident interviews, each participant was queried about how their community-managed differences of opinion. In every one of the interviews, the

- 186 of 297 -

interviewee alluded to, or directly spoke about, the emotions that arose when differences of opinion between members occurred, such as:

“…people were fighting, and meetings were just a dog’s breakfast. So we worked hard to resolve the issues that happened … but things had degenerated so that she and her husband were at loggerheads with virtually everyone else bar a few couples and they were really fuelling each other on to worse behaviour” (Interviewee and community withheld to protect privacy).

This suggests that developing emotional awareness and creating opportunities to express emotions in a healthy way is a requirement and important component of successful communal interaction within communities.

Interactions in an ICLA can be for the longer term, so it is important to be aware of interactions. One resident compared interactions in the ICLA compared to another community form:

“In the broader world, a lot of people might have a bad interaction with someone from their community, but the community is so loosely-knit that it doesn’t matter in a way how you deal with that person whereas, in a community here, where we’re hoping to live with each other for the rest of our lives, if you respond in a way which really harms, then how’s that going to live for a long time”. (Interviewee #24, AAEV)

Most communities had implemented, or were developing, formalised processes to address differences as shown in Table 7.3. Two communes, SeliHoo and Rocky Cape Christian community did not have formalised written processes yet had used informal practices that had worked well over many years. The former was a small, close-knit group, and they preferred to use organic discussion to work out any conflicts amongst themselves. The four founders have lived together for over 38 years; they likely know each other very well and have developed a level of acceptance for each other’s points of view over the years. The latter community called upon the use of prayer and teachings of the church to ask for guidance for

- 187 of 297 -

differences to be resolved, and in rare cases, they invited the support of church officials.

Process Country Community implemented Australia Seli Hoo Informal Australia Cennednyss Implemented Australia Rocky Cape Christian Community Informal Australia Tasman Ecovillage Implemented Australia Christie Walk In progress Australia Cohousing Cooperative Implemented Australia Cascade Cohousing Implemented Netherlands De Oude Nieuwelaan Implemented Netherlands Woongroepen Polter Implemented Germany Sieben Linden Implemented Germany ZEGG Implemented Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage In progress UK Findhorn Implemented Table 7.3 Processes for managing differences of opinion within communities

All communities recommended that, initially, those persons with differences of opinion should take responsibility to approach each other with respectful communication to work it out. Differences in approaches between communities became apparent when that initial attempt was unsuccessful. Some communities suggested inviting a third person to support the discussion and, if still unsuccessful, bring it to the community group for discussion. The larger European communities invited persons to share their concerns from a holistic point of view, including their thoughts and feelings. ZEGG and Sieben Linden used the process of ‘Forum’30 to enable individuals to both expresses and be heard by others. This was also used to a lesser extent by the Findhorn Foundation and Tasman Ecovillage. In these communities, differences of opinion, and even conflicts, were opportunities for growth:

30 Forum was developed at ZEGG. It is “a ritualized form of transparent communication for larger groups. One person, “the presenter” steps into the middle of the circle of the group and starts to express herself…[it] is a culture building process” ("ZEGG Forum," 2018).

- 188 of 297 -

“…it’s not a dirty word it’s just an opportunity learn something about the other person…an opportunity to come up with an even better solution than you had before” (Interviewee #15, Tasman Ecovillage).

By contrast, the European communities of Oude Nieuwelaan and Woongroep Polter and most of the Australian communities with formalised processes appeared to be singularly focussed upon practical ideas, with a notable resistance to speaking about emotional or heart-centred aspects of the issues. While not expressly formalised, it is likely there are other means to invite feelings into the discussion to be resolved within the daily interactions of these communities.

During the interviews, there were recounts of differences of opinion between members that had deteriorated into conflict. One interviewee shared:

“[This conflict] caused a significant rift in the community where the community started to feel beleaguered in their own homes, community meals stopped, yelling [at each other occurred], [we] couldn’t make decisions anymore and it was all starting to break down” (interview number and community withheld to protect privacy).

If unresolved, the conflict between members can escalate and disband the community. The following statements illustrate this point and highlight the level of intensity that can arise in these communities:

“I mean there was a point there that the community nearly didn’t go ahead because of the conflict between me and [X] was so great” (interviewee and community withheld to protect privacy),

And

“It had come to a point where they were not able to work together in any sort of fashion and [members] had decided that they had had enough” (interviewee and community withheld to protect privacy).

- 189 of 297 -

The above statements from residents of communities highlight how important it is to manage differences of opinion, make attempts to prevent conflict and utilise processes for conflict resolution. There was no regional or geographical distinction of group development nor conflict resolution processes noted between communities. Perhaps the most significant influence on interest in group development and conflict resolution was the level of commitment to a unified purpose and vision within each community. The comments also showed how important it was to create opportunities for people to express issues, both logically and emotionally if needed. While this may be true for any group endeavour, members of ICLAs interviewed shared that they actively invited the resolution of differences and conflict to help the group to grow and evolve, an intention that other types of living arrangement could learn from.

7.2.4 Governance - membership

Any organisation or group always contains systems of governance that ensure the group functions effectively. This section explores the ICLA characteristics for membership, meetings and decision-making, principles, values and vision.

Membership is a complex area involving the processes of entry for new members, the exit of members, the unfortunate situation of ICLAs requiring a member to leave the community, as well as the expectations of behaviour and involvement of members while taking part in community life. Membership was the topic that was most frequently discussed in the research. Membership processes were also embedded in the literature of every community investigated, highlighting the importance of communal interaction. Many communities required a staged approach to membership, which enabled existing members to get to know an aspiring member and for the entrant to take the time to ascertain whether the community was a suitable fit for their preferred lifestyle. Membership also ensured the continuation of established processes and allowed time for new members to familiarise themselves with these. Thirty-two of the forty-seven questionnaire responses and twelve of the thirteen communities visited required aspiring members to take part in a program of visits before living in the community for an extended period. Twenty-nine questionnaire respondents and ten site visit communities required new members to apply for membership to enable voting rights in community decisions (Table 7.4).

- 190 of 297 -

Questionnaire Site visits Number of Communties 47 13 Entry process Come for short visits (a day to a week) 20 42.6% 3 23.1% Come for longer visits (a week to 3 months) 12 25.5% 8 61.5% No repsonse 15 31.9% 0 0.0% Membership Apply for membership 24 51.1% 10 76.9% There is no process (they can move in immediately) 3 6.4% 1 7.7% Other 6 12.8% 0 0.0% No repsonse 14 29.8% 0 0.0% Table 7.4 Entry processes and membership application for new members

Approval of new members was primarily determined by the existing community members using processes of decision-making. The criteria for member approval varied across communities from practical aspects of living arrangements to a

“feeling based on mutual belonging that is necessary for entry to the community”. (Interviewee #21, Cennednyss)

Communities such as Tasman Ecovillage, Findhorn Foundation, ZEGG and Sieben Linden, also had staged levels of decision-making by new members to enable them to have greater insight into the overall community functioning before they could take part in community-wide decisions. These factors highlight the importance of membership processes for ICLAs that reinforces the scholarship by McCamant and Durrett (2011).

7.2.5 Governance – meetings and decision making

The uniqueness of the meeting types, scheduled routines and decision-making processes were as diverse as the communities themselves. Smaller communities involved all members in most meetings and decisions and used consensus decision- making. As the size of the community grew, there were additional levels of complexity in the organisation and, far from having every member involved in every decision, there was a multi-levelled process for strategic or community-wide decisions that involved some input from all community members, followed by a second, or in some cases third, level for work teams regarding day-to-day operational decisions. Larger communities, such as the ecovillages, had a schedule

- 191 of 297 -

of community-wide meetings where the input for decisions could be presented days, weeks or even months in advance. These would then be followed by the process of hearing all concerns and possible options before moving to a consensual decision- making process by all members. Sociocracy31 was used either partly or fully to facilitate the community-wide decisions in Findhorn, ZEGG, Sieben Linden, Tasman Ecovillage and, to some extent, the Aldinga Arts Ecovillage. Respondent comments were positive:

“The community uses sociocratic circles for decision making and communication. Prior to this, it was very difficult to have meetings as we really long and didn’t achieve much. However, since using Sociocracy, the process is a lot better, and they have good experiences of decision making”. (Interviewee #3 Tasman Ecovillage)

Two of the communities visited, Woongroep Polter and Oude Nieuwelaan, used a majority vote rather than the more commonly employed consensus decision-making. This departure may be due to cultural differences as both communities were in The Netherlands. Another interesting approach was used by the Rocky Cape Christian Community religious community, in which they discussed the topic and allowed time and input from prayer for the decision to manifest rather than specifically calling for a decision to be made by the group. Findhorn Foundation used a similar approach, yet this was based upon meditation rather than a specific religious process.

Meetings and decision-making also appeared to be an area that members found challenging. By the very communal nature of the communities, decisions encourage the input and inclusion of each member. Meetings can be for extended periods or require repeated sittings to address significant issues, and this can be tiring for members, illustrated by the following quote:

31 ‘Sociocracy (which means governance by peers) is a whole-system self-governance process and a decision making tool’ (Christian, 2013b, p. 59).

- 192 of 297 -

“big ones and it felt tiring…trying to get consensus you start to get pretty tired”. (Interviewee #9, Cohousing Cooperative)

In some cases, meetings were viewed as a distraction from work required within the community:

“There is good merit in the discussion, hearing everyone’s opinion and respecting is everyone’s ideas, but at the end of the day it’s time for action”. (Interviewee #4, Tasman Ecovillage)

Individual points of view may arise in the meeting space and affect the process of decision making:

“a couple of times, actions were held back and stopped just due to discussion” (Interviewee #4, Tasman Ecovillage) and elevate tensions between members:

“some members complain...withhold consent, withhold constructive feedback…generally being very awkward [and] really stop[s] things from happening”. (Interviewee #45, Findhorn Foundation)

Despite these challenges, the members continued to engage in communal life and improve meeting methods, such as a member from Sieben Linden, who said:

“But I kind of see as well, it is the bad side of the community, if you want to do something really fast then you can’t…a community decision is, however, with many people and it does take more time”. (Interviewee #36, Sieben Linden)

Some communities stipulated a range of meeting types as part of their regular schedule involving future planning and operational activities. In communities such as Tasman Ecovillage, Findhorn and Sieben Linden, there were additional meetings that related to group development and spiritual growth, frequently referred to as

- 193 of 297 -

‘Heart’ meetings rather than ‘Head’. This terminology signified the importance of group development alongside the practical functioning of the community. There were diverse responses to these types of meetings, and some communities, such as Christie Walk, Cascade Cohousing, Woongroep Polter and Oude Nieuwelaan specifically highlighted that their meetings were focussed upon the business of the community without any focus upon group development. Interestingly, communities who took part in group development appeared more familiar with each other.

Findhorn Foundation, ZEGG, Sieben Linden, Tasman ecovillage, SeliHoo employed a personal ‘check-in’ process, whereby each member could briefly share how they were prior to engaging in the detail of the meeting agenda. At SeliHoo, the chair will invite members to check by saying:

“who would like to start on moods?” The idea is to say how you are going in the last couple of weeks or how you are at the moment”. (Interviewee #51, SeliHoo)

It was expressed that by doing so, all the members would be more connected, aware of each other and further develop respect for each other. At the end of the meeting, there was also a ‘check out’ to ascertain how each person felt when leaving the meeting. This process and use of ‘Heart’ meetings suggest that there is a benefit for residents to become more connected and improve communication among them.

An additional component of the meetings was the level of comfort in the space where the meetings were held, as well as the layout. The ecovillages used spaces with chairs arranged in a circle with no tables and introduced an element of beauty, such as candles or flowers, into the centre, which encouraged equality among all members, as exemplified in Sieben Linden (Figure 7.3).

- 194 of 297 -

Image: J. Hilder 2016

Figure 7.3 Meeting room layout Sieben Linden

Meetings, as well as the methods of decision-making and the location, form an important foundation for how the ICLA functions and the individuals within it connect. This is highlighted in the research by the number of references made to these issues (McCamant & Durrett, 2011; Meltzer, 2000b; Torres-Antonini et al., 2003). It is suggested that aspiring ICLA members, planners and developers would benefit from placing a focus upon ensuring these foundations are incorporated into communal designs and operation.

7.2.6 Governance – agreements and guidelines

Founders of a community have both the freedom and the responsibility of collectively identifying and documenting the principles, values and the vision of their community, all of which will set the tone for the community’s future operation. This is highlighted in the statement from a resident at Tasman Ecovillage:

“…the agreements you keep become the culture of the place… And this is [really] what we’re putting in place now. And anyone who is in this village now and joining the village in the next two years is really creating the culture.” (interviewee #15 Tasman Ecovillage

Once established, they also form a consistent thread between new members and existing members of the community:

- 195 of 297 -

“So people flow through, and you get a different group of people, repetition and practising of the intent or the recitation of the rules” (Interviewee #24 Aldinga Arts Ecovillage).

All the ICLAs visited, and some of the ICLAs from the questionnaire responses had developed their own agreements and guidelines that enabled their community to function effectively. Each community stipulated how the agreements were followed relevant to their situation. These were developed over time and modified according to changes within the community and the size of the membership needs.

The smaller ICLAs had informal agreements, where existing and new members were made aware by taking part in community activities. The strength of the agreements was firm, without the need for formality or requiring a level of enforcement. For instance, in SeliHoo, there were no written agreements, yet members knew through community involvement that it was a television-free, egalitarian and vegetarian household and those not agreeing to these values would be asked to leave. Rocky Cape Christian Community drew from the religious beliefs to support them yet had no formalised agreements for daily activities of the community.

“Our objective is, we be the people that the bible talks about. And if you are, you’ll do the things you are supposed to.” (interviewee #5 RCCC)

Cennednyss members followed a mixture of formal agreements such as their handling of financial matters and informal agreements such as deciding upon the community work teams. These factors imply that smaller communities may operate well, at least in the beginning phases, without all matters needing to be formalised.

Medium-sized communities were variable in their level of documented agreements and guidelines. The Dutch and Australian cohousing communities, which were both well-established and limited to further building expansion or increases in member size, focused in their agreements upon the legal, financial and operational matters with little reference to social interaction. These ICLAs utilised pragmatic legal definitions and section references within their constitutions like that found in body

- 196 of 297 -

corporateagreements. In contrast, the Tasman Ecovillage, which is still expanding in both membership and building construction, highlighted the importance of group development, personal growth, social interaction and collective formation of agreements and guidelines as a foundation of their constitution. The community initially included a working bee contribution in their bylaws to build group cohesiveness and get some of the work of community done, however, they had to remove this as

“The banks hated that; they didn’t want too many restrictions on purchases in case of a mortgagee sale. So, we actually took the working bee requirement out of our bylaws” (Interviewee #15, Tasman Ecovillage).

They still used similar legal definitions in their formal constitution (Figure 7.4). However, they also have a second document, the Vision and History book that contains photos and hand-written notes, in which the focus is balanced between pragmatism and heart centred connection (Figure 7.5).

- 197 of 297 -

Figure 7.4 Outline of Tasman Ecovillage Association constitution

- 198 of 297 -

Image: D. J. Hilder 2016

Figure 7.5 Photo image from Tasman Ecovillage history book

This was likely inspired by one member who regularly visited the larger ICLAs in Europe, highlighting the cross-germination of ideas between communities. When

- 199 of 297 -

new members are interested in joining the Tasman Ecovillage, they are provided with copies of both documents to facilitate a smooth transition and ensure they feel included in the community.

At the other end of the spectrum, larger ICLAs had detailed documented agreements that were well-established and available to all existing and aspiring members to refer to. In all the communities visited, the agreements and guidelines were informed by the established principles and values of the ICLA and reviewed periodically. Agreements and guidelines that focussed upon the buildings and grounds were frequently detailed and stipulated in firm bi-laws and rules. Aldinga Arts Ecovillage stipulated strict design elements for housing construction consistent with their eco- sustainability principles and required residents to apply for approval from a community committee prior to building self-contained homes. This was also reflected in the building approvals within Sieben Linden, although in their case, it was groups that were applying to build new neighbourhoods. Consistently, these agreements and guidelines were created and implemented by community residents themselves. This was in addition to adherence to local government building regulations. Agreements and guidelines that focussed upon the social aspects of individual and group interaction, in addition to the documentation, were often presented in other formats. For example, the murals (Figure 7.6 and Figure 7.7) on the entry walls to the communal buildings at Sieben Linden and the Findhorn Foundation Common Ground (Figure 7.8) are documents that are freely available for electronic or printed distribution and are referred to in meeting protocols and gatherings. These visually stimulating and informative presences helped reaffirm the guidelines and agreements of the community on a regular basis.

- 200 of 297 -

Image: J.D. Hilder 2016

Figure 7.6 Wall mural of Sieben Linden's ‘Idea, Aim and Vision.’

Figure 7.7 Wall mural describing community life in Sieben Linden

- 201 of 297 -

Figure 7.8 Findhorn Foundation Common Ground document

- 202 of 297 -

There appears to be a contrast between the larger European communities and Aldinga Arts Ecovillage. The latter has agreements and guidelines primarily focussed upon the practical aspects like smaller communities. The reasons for this difference are unclear.

In summary, it appears that smaller communities place more focus upon informal community agreements and guidelines which are held by existing members and shared with new members verbally and through experience. It takes focussed effort to create the documentation, and smaller communities appear to either decide not to do so or do not have the time to allocate to this process. Medium-sized communities place more focus upon practical agreements and guidelines related to the buildings and operation of the community and have informal agreements around social interactions. Larger communities have well-established, formalised practical agreements in logical and legal formats and, in addition, have spent time developing heart-centred visual presentations of their principles and values. This highlights that community size is a major determinant upon the formalisation of agreements and guidelines, although there may be other influencing factors.

7.2.7 Member interaction – shared lives

ICLAs are, by their nature, places where member residents interact with each other on a regular basis and follow the established guidelines of the interaction of the community. This section explores how much and the types of interaction occur between community members in their daily lives. In all the communities researched, there was an intention to share lives and interact with each other to varying degrees within the overall philosophy of the ICLA. These intentions affected the building design choices and social schedules of community life. This focus on communal interaction is a distinguishing factor of ICLAs and helps attracts membership from people who seek and value that kind of interaction. There is a spectrum of sharing lives together from sharing everything through to no interaction. This section discusses the interactions and shared lives within the communities.

- 203 of 297 -

In the smaller communities, the size of the community structures meant that there was potential for individuals to interact with other members more frequently than larger communities. A level of respectfulness towards each other is needed for the community to run well. Whether this is more, or less, than a share house without intentionality is unclear. Residents of SeliHoo, the smallest community visited, experienced the benefits and challenges of living in one house together.

“Because living in [the] community we have got to deal with everyone’s other emotional agenda that is going on in life. Someone might be going through a really tough time, and it is not an excuse, not getting any sleep or totally wrecked for other reasons outside of the community and you are bringing that into the house. That can be tough for the person and other people”. (Interviewee #18, SeliHoo)

Despite this, the community take pride in their interactions that have endured for 38 years: “I mean in a way; we have lived long together than the average Australian family”. (Interviewee #20, SeliHoo)

Whilst living in separate houses, the community of Cennednyss shared the ownership of all the buildings, the cars and equipment, and paid for expenses from a common purse. This meant increased opportunity for interaction and sharing lives together. The weekly ‘working bee’ and morning tea was one such opportunity to share time together and build the bonds of the community regularly.

“Someone will create morning tea for everybody, and we usually have that under the pines in warm weather. Otherwise, we go into each other’s houses”. (Interviewee #21, Cennednyss)

The medium size communities had purposely designed and built a mixture of private and shared spaces to help facilitate social interactions between members.

“There are lots of common spaces that [are] used for concerts and meals… [the] laundry is shared with a washing machine. It can be a traffic

- 204 of 297 -

jam there sometimes. [The] laundry is also a social space”. (Interviewee #17, Oude Nieuwelaan)

The mixture of private and shared spaces also enabled each community member to choose the level of social interaction that they desired:

“I think we are a close-knit community at heart which is nice. When you want to spend time on your own, you can and when you want to talk to someone you can if you really want to as well, which is nice”. (Interviewee #25, Christie Walk)

To reinforce this point, all three of the smaller communities, which were communes, used a common purse for community expenditure for day to day costs of living and operational costs of the community. This factor implies that they used a shared economy between all members of the community. Sharing of this nature meant that a high level of trust in the close relationships between community members had been developed. By contrast, all the medium-size communities, all of which were cohousing communities, shared operational costs of the community and separated expenditure for each family’s day to day living. This reinforces the views of McCamant et al. (1994) and Nause (2010), where it is an element of cohousing that they do not have a shared economy. The larger communities, all of which were ecovillages, in Australia and the European countries had purposefully designed the private and shared spaces for interaction, which was like the medium-size communities, yet they had an additional level of shared interaction – a working relationship. In all the larger communities, there were enterprises either run as part of the community operations or as self-standing businesses providing employment for members. This meant that the residents of large communities were sharing and relied upon other community members for social pastimes, work activities and a shared economy to some degree. From this discussion, it appears that the number and diversity of relationships that community members take part increases with the size of the community. It is also interesting that by the omission of shared economy cohousing communities may be limiting the diversity of relationship types immaterial of the size of the community.

- 205 of 297 -

A cohesive and connected community as space for children to grow up in was an important aspect of shared interaction among community members:

“…when my kids were really little, and I just loved living here it was just so supportive. I was thinking if I were living in a little house out in the suburbs, I would go insane.” (Interviewee #3, Cohousing Cooperative) and:

“I love that I’m so excited for my daughter growing up here you know every morning we come down to say hello to the guinea pigs and the bunnies and ponies and the chickens and the neighbour’s hens. There are guinea pigs in these hutches as well. She is just going to have this wonderful rural life 10 minutes from the city.” (Interviewee #9, Cohousing Cooperative).

This was also reflected by younger residents

“For those who grew up here, it has been an extremely settled experience...a great way to grow up being surrounded by people who you know and like and trust in a safe environment” (Interviewee #22, Cennednyss).

Elderly residents expressed a sense of finding their place and a desire to remain there for the rest of their lives:

“I think my life is a lot more satisfying…I have lived in many places, this is my 60th house, and I cannot imagine living anywhere else…this is the best place I have ever lived.” (Interviewee #27 Christie Walk) and even afterlife:

“…I bought myself a burial plot here” (Interviewee #46, Findhorn Foundation).

- 206 of 297 -

Happiness was another aspect of shared lives that surfaced in the research. While this research was not exploring happiness or wellbeing to the extent explored by Grinde et al. (2017), findings of individual happiness did appear significant. The challenge with this factor is that it is a subjective measure that means something different to each person. For the interviews and questionnaire, a scale of ‘not happy’ to ‘very happy’ compared to their previous living arrangement was offered to respondents. While this was a closed question, the interviewees often responded with a long response as to the different experiences and themes that led to their state of happiness.

Social connectedness is an element that invoked happiness in various members:

“I would say I am more definitely happy at peace and satisfied just in mainly in the relationships I have here…I was living well before, I enjoyed it there, but I felt quite isolated.” (Interviewee #53, ZEGG) (Interviewee #53, ZEGG).

The level of happiness of community members is an area that can be used as a marker of the quality of life within a community (Grinde et al., 2017). This study covered this factor briefly in the questionnaire by asking whether the residents were happy in their previous living situation as compared to living in their current community. While the sample of respondents is not enough to conclude whether there is a significant change or not, the results allude to an increase in happiness in the current living situation since moving there Table 7.5.

Somewhat Somewhat Happiness Not happy OK Very happy unhappy happy In your previous living situation? 2 4% 11 22% 14 28% 11 22% 12 24% In your current community? 1 2% 1 2% 5 10% 15 30% 28 56% Table 7.5 Happiness level responses from the questionnaire

- 207 of 297 -

There were instances where respondents reported on matters that they did not like about community life that affected their experience; however, despite this, they remained in the community and maintained a happy lifestyle:

“I am quite happy living in the community and have always wanted to live in a communal setting and really value living in (the community). I do not like everyone at the community, yet I have some great friends too.” (Interviewee #16, Tasman Ecovillage) and:

“…we have got our difficulties, but I feel I am actually loved and accepted here.” (Interviewee #5, Rocky Cape Christian Community)

The reason that people chose to seek out and share their life with others in an ICLA was diverse. It may have been to seek an alternative lifestyle to some of the failings of dominant society such as “…people recognise that there is something kind of broken about our kind of society, the way we just drive home and park in our garage put the door down and put the TV on and never see our neighbour other than collecting the post may be” (Interviewee #23, Aldinga Arts Ecovillage)

and,

“I think in Holland, loneliness. Loneliness is the biggest sick[ness] maker…of people. You are never alone here [in the community]” (Interviewee #42, Woongroep Polter).

Seeking common spirituality is another attraction for residents. RCCC was the only non-secular community as they were formed upon Anabaptist beliefs. Whilst the other communities did not have a central religious belief system, and there was a tendency towards a similar spiritual worldview among the larger ecovillages in Europe. Ecological conservation was another motivation where resource and equipment sharing, waste minimisation and energy production were common among

- 208 of 297 -

the communities. This is explored further in Section 7.3. Economic efficiency was an additional incentive for community formation and operation and is explored more fully in Section 7.4. A summary of the motivation for community formation for each community is shown in Table 7.6.

Pop’n Country Community Motivation for formation (2016) Australia Seli Hoo 7 Social interaction and ecologicial conservation Social interaction, mulitiple families to share lives Australia Cennednyss 15 and helping each other. Rocky Cape Christian Social interaction, religious worship and evangelical Australia 20 Community outreach Social interaction, ecological conservation and Australia Tasman Ecovillage 30 economic efficiency Social interaction, ecological conservation and Australia Christie Walk 40 economic efficiency Australia Cohousing Cooperative 40 Social interaction and economic efficiency Australia Cascade Cohousing 40 Social interaction and economic efficiency The De Oude Nieuwelaan 50 Social interaction and economic efficiency Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter 50 Social interaction and economic efficiency Netherlands Social interaction, ecological conservation, Germany Sieben Linden 150 economic efficiency and similar worldview Social interaction, ecological conservation, Germany ZEGG 125 economic efficiency and similar worldview Social interaction, ecological conservation and Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage 300 economic efficiency Findhorn - Cluny Hill Social interaction, ecological conservation, UK 800 Findhorn - The park economic efficiency and similar worldview Table 7.6 Motivation for community formation

In summary, it appears that shared life in an ICLA has rewards of meaningful interaction and helping each other yet also requires a commitment to getting on with others. This point is consistent across all the communities. Smaller communities tend to have close relationships as there are fewer people, and there is an increase in the diversity of relationship types as the community grows in the member number. There is a direct relationship between a shared economy and, communes and ecovillages. This relationship does not, by design, exist in cohousing communities. The reasons for community formation and operation are diverse, yet a consistent factor is an intention for social interaction. And one final point shared by a resident highlights the level of life that can be shared in the community:

- 209 of 297 -

“You can share the dog with the neighbours”. (interviewee #23, AAEV)

7.2.8 Member interaction – food growing and shared meals

Shared food growing and shared meals form an important aspect of communal life worthy of analysis. Traditionally and tribally since time immemorial humans have shared in the gathering, preparation and eating of food collectively. In the modern era however it is becoming more common for people to live and eat alone which can lead to feelings of loneliness and disconnection (Franklin, 2012; Glass & Vander Plaats, 2013; Pincock, 2010). As discussed in the previous section, the vision of many ICLAs is to create an antidote to living alone and increase interaction among community members. This section analyses the interaction centred around food growing and shared meals.

All the ICLAs visited in this study had food growing areas included in the physical design of the community, kitchen and dining facilities, and shared at least some of their meals together. Table 7.7 shows how the communities visited fared around these three factors from site visit observations. Table 7.8 shows the questionnaire responses to the level of food production and a portion of community meal sharing.

Food growing Kitchen Shared meals Country Community Shared Shared and Multiple Daily Weekly Adhoc garden(s) farm dining in week Australia Seli Hoo Australia Cennednyss Rocky Cape Christian Australia Community Australia Tasman Ecovillage Australia Christie Walk Australia Cohousing Cooperative Australia Cascade Cohousing The De Oude Nieuwelaan Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter Netherlands Germany Sieben Linden Germany ZEGG Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage # Findhorn - Cluny Hill UK Findhorn - The park Table 7.7 Level of member interactions

- 210 of 297 -

# At the time of visit in 2016, AAEV did not have a community building with kitchen and dining facilities that could cater for shared meals for everyone. At the time of writing, however, the community building for mixed-use is in construction according to comments from a community member.

Food needs grown on site (n=67) Repsonses Frequency of shared meals (n=54) Repsonses None 5 Multiple times per day 2 Some 52 Daily 10 Most 4 Mutiple times per week 12 Other 6 Weekly 4 Fortnightly 1 Monthly 10 Rarely 9 Table 7.8 Questionnaire responses for food growing on-site and meal frequency

Food growing was analysed by communities that shared a community garden or those that shared a community farm. All communities that shared a garden did so to provide an opportunity for social interaction and the possibility for some harvest of the food. The produce from the garden was minimal compared to the overall food needs of the community. By contrast, communities that shared a farm used labour from the community members and, the produce met a greater portion of the community’s food needs.

When assessing the level of food growing, SeliHoo had limited space for food production as it was on a suburban block. They did, however, manage to use the space available:

“This used to be a driveway [yet is now a veggie patch]”. (Interviewee #22, SeliHoo)

The other two small communities had greater land availability and operated the property as a farm that produced a share of the community food needs on-site. By contrast, all the medium-sized cohousing communities shared gardens only as a place to interact and receive some or none for the food production.

“There is no way you could sustain yourself from [the gardens], although there a few people that do tell me they do lots of their picking from there…

- 211 of 297 -

I would like chooks as eggs are my favourite food. We just don’t have the space for that, and it would be tricky…we have settled for bees…a large number of the community come here [to the veggie garden] and for me, that is good because if I do want to interact I can sit out there and [see] everyone who comes past if I want and talk to them”. (Interviewee #28, Christie Walk)

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) which is run as a profitable enterprise, was a feature of Tasman Ecovillage in the past and planned to return. Fruit tree production was one area where medium-sized communities could produce some of their food needs and shared with others.

“So when the fruit is ready, people will pick it, some will make jam with it, others will stew it, and they share it…it is just given, not sold”. (Interviewee #28, Christie Walk)

A similar theme was found in Woongroepen Polter

“The garden is shared with fruit and use of the space, yet there is no vegetable growing”. (Interviewee #44, Woongroepen Polter)

All the larger ecovillages had a working farm that produced a major portion of the food needs of the community and for visitors. There was a diversity of exchange time spent on working the land for a reduced cost of the food that they utilised. Sieben Linden used a complex yet fully operational system where residents would pay a monthly fee to the community organisation and then had access to bulk supplies of the food grown on-site and stored in the community centre.

“For example, the people who are working in the garden [the Land Association], or in the forest, they harvest vegetables or fruits and wood. The vegetables and fruit are sold from the Land Association to the Community Association … [who] have to provide the food for all of us for as to what we need. [Our food needs are] more than what we can produce

- 212 of 297 -

such as rice or peanut butter and whatever, so they buy other things from biological groceries [health food stores] and then they sell all the fruit and also a bit of the non-food, such as the liquids to inhabitants… There is a complex system of money running around…it is a bit like a circle because we are members of the Community Association and the [Land] Association.”. (Interviewee #38, Sieben Linden)

All the larger communities sold their excess production outside of the community. An example is AAEV:

“Trees on streets and around houses are fruit/food-producing…the farm has 400 fruit trees, adjustment for sheep, large chicken run and a community woodlot…produce is sold to residents as well as outside the village”. (Interviewee #23, AAEV)

There appears to be a relationship between the location of the community and whether the community chose to operate a community garden or a shared farm. All urban communities used a community garden, and all rural communities operated a farm for food production. This is likely due to land availability to allocate areas for food production. Yet it is more than that factor alone. There appeared a willingness of rural communities to purposefully share the work together to save costs of buying food external to the farm that was not found in the urban communities except SeliHoo. This finding was consistent across the communities immaterial of the country that they were located. There was no distinction for garden or farm food growing from the online questionnaire so that no comparisons can be drawn.

When reviewing the regularity of shared meals across the spectrum of communities visited there appeared no correlation between community size nor geographic location where each community was unique in its frequency of shared meals. SeliHoo members shared an evening meal each day where there was a roster for preparing the meals. If members were unable to attend mealtimes, their meal was set aside for when they returned home. The roster for weekly shopping and preparing meals was set each month, and everyone registered for their part, balancing their contribution over the month. This enabled each person to enjoy a

- 213 of 297 -

healthy, home-cooked meal every night, but only needed to cook once per week. Of course, this also created an opportunity for everyone to catch up and share tales of their day and what was going on in their lives, as well as communicate any matters about the community. Food was bought in bulk, stored in a large pantry and dispensed into smaller jars within the kitchen, enabling economic efficiency and less wastage from packaging – both were in keeping with the community principles. The community chose to be vegetarian and ate primarily organic food due to their ecological conservation and humanitarian philosophies.

Kennedy's was a collection of self-contained homes, and community meals were rotated from house to house each Thursday evening, where members brought a meal to share. This balance between regularity and randomness for the food that was offered created a sense of togetherness and enabled freedom of expression in the meals. Shared meals reflected what was seasonally available in the garden. This was for economic and ecological savings, as well as communal interaction and health benefits. The shared meals were a part of Cennednyss life as shared by a community member who has grown up in the community:

“I have been having weekly meals and weekly gardening working bees my entire life, so I really know, that’s just what you do”. (Interviewee #22, Cennednyss)

The religious community of Rocky Cape Christian Community had a kitchen, and dining room were lunches and evening meals were prepared and shared for the whole community. All the community buildings, except for the workshop and the chicken house, were clustered within 50 metres of the kitchen and dining room, making it easy for people to walk there quickly. This was an opportunity for everyone within the community to be in the same place, and share prayer prior to eating, enjoy conversation about the day’s events and hear announcements. The community followed clear gender roles, with the women preparing the meals. However, both men and women shared in the clean-up. Other meals, particularly lunch, were shared by the nuclear families in their self-contained homes. This also enabled the fellowship of religious beliefs to be shared and supported throughout their meals.

- 214 of 297 -

The next style of living arrangement was the cohousing ICLAs of Cascade, Cohousing Co-operative, Christie Walk and Tasman Ecovillage in Australia. In keeping with the cohousing model, all homes were self-contained with their own kitchens and dining rooms, and there was also a separate, larger communal kitchen and dining room for community-wide meals.

The Tasmanian cohousing communities (Cascade, Co-op Cohousing and Tasman Ecovillage) utilised a monthly community roster for members to nominate when they were preparing meals and a separate roster to show which meals they would like to attend, enabling the chef to estimate meal numbers (Figure 7.9).

Figure 7.9 Meal roster used at Cascade Cohousing

Community-wide meals were shared two to three times per week. Interestingly, the persons who nominated to prepare the meals also purchased and paid for the ingredients specifically for that meal. At first, this seemed to be an expensive

- 215 of 297 -

method, yet it has historically been shown to work, and the size of the community meant that each member would only need to cook and pay for one to two meals per month yet be able to enjoy a meal prepared two to three times per week. These ICLAs had space to have a kitchen and dining room that could cater to the entire community as well as visitors. All these ICLAs had buildings and homes within 50 metres of the communal kitchen and dining room.

De Oude Nieuwelaan commune in Delft is a retrofitted group of homes to enable greater sharing of spaces in an interesting spectrum of interaction. Within four houses, there were thirty-seven people sharing six kitchens and dining rooms. Each member primarily shared facilities, including kitchens and dining rooms, with their immediate cohousing housemates. Four of the kitchens were located on the ground level, which opened on to the shared garden and courtyard, enabling all members of the ICLA to interact in whichever kitchen and dining space they wished. The other two kitchens were located on the first floor with balconies overlooking the garden and, while they were open to anyone, they were used primarily by those within that house. This design of the kitchen catered towards the diverse needs of the members. Within each kitchen, there was a separate storage area in the pantry and designated areas within the refrigerator to enable individuals to prepare and eat meals alone if they wished or together if they chose. While there was no formal guideline or requirement to shared meals, a loose roster occurred in each of the houses, and there was an intention to share a meal with all the ICLA each Sunday.

Each of the European ecovillages was unique, yet they all showed similarities in the overall characteristics and design, whereby there was a larger community centre that provided a kitchen and dining room that could cater for the whole community and additional visitors. A common theme for each of these ICLAs was that they provided self-development courses and opportunities for volunteers to work within the community. The kitchens were commercial-sized and could provide meals for all residents and several visitors at one sitting. An example is Findhorn which was located on two sites: The Park and Cluny Hill. The Park primarily provided meals for resident members, while Cluny Hill, as the education facility, provided a larger portion of meals for guests. In each of the villages, the meals were prepared and placed on serving tables in the centre of the dining room. Those in attendance were

- 216 of 297 -

invited to join hands in a circle around the meal, take a moment to reflect, and one person shared a blessing of thanks for the meal before people would start serving. This process occurred for each shared meal and, while not religious in nature, gave a chance for the whole group to connect for a moment as one and appreciate the food source and those that had prepared it. The researcher’s experience was that mealtimes were lively with constantly changing dynamics at each meal, and they presented an opportunity to engage in a range of topics. Shared dining facilities can also have the challenge of inappropriate discussion such as a comment from a ZEGG member:

“…I go into the restaurant, and I am eating, and three people come to me and wanting some organisational talk about something …Actually, I want to have my space for eating and relaxing” (Interviewee #53, ZEGG).

This involved a level of agreement between community members that meals needed a balance between connecting social time, an opportunity to share operational discussions if agreed upon and some protection from ‘the business’ of community. A delicate balance that all communities face and, in this case, one that ZEGG was acknowledging and trying to create solutions for.

In contrast to the above communities, where meals were a regular and important part of communal activities, there were others that placed much less importance on the practice of meal sharing within their community. Three of the eleven communities visited (Table 7.7) did not regularly schedule meals for the whole community, and nineteen of the fifty-four questionnaire respondents (Table 7.8) reported their community gathered less than fortnightly for shared meals.

Christie Walk, as a cohousing ICLA in a high-density urban area in South Australia, had a small communal kitchen and dining room that was used as a meeting space and shared morning tea for garden work teams or the occasional pot-luck meal (where members would bring a prepared meal to share with others.

Woongroep Polter like Christie Walk, while there were the small kitchen and dining facilities, the space lacked full cooking capabilities. The facilities were only shared for

- 217 of 297 -

snacks and small, weekly group scheduled events, such as Friday afternoon ‘hapje’ snacks and aperitifs provided by one of the members, scheduled on a monthly roster. This event was regularly attended by approximately ten people, representing a quarter of the community, and highlighting that approximately three-quarters of the community did not take part in this or other regular events. The omission of a communal space large enough to cater for meals and social events for everyone, and the two-storey nature of the design, may have been factors inhibiting the connectedness of the community. While the ICLA was for the 50+ age group, there were many more elderly residents who may have been unable to attend due to the physical challenge of getting there easily, particularly for those on the other side of the building.

A significant diversion from other, larger ecovillages was Aldinga Arts Ecovillage, which did not share regular meals or have central facilities to do so at the time of the visit. The households prepared and ate meals primarily within their private homes. There was a regular group of community activities, such as working bees and yearly social events enabling food sharing, as this had been part of the evolution of the community philosophy since its inception. These events occurred in the grassed, park areas and a small, ageing work shed. The vision and intention of the community were to utilise profits from the sale of all private dwelling sites across the ICLA to fund the construction of a central facility that would cater for meals, gatherings, art spaces, event hire, a library and children’s activities for the whole community and would be open to guests and visitors. This approach was pragmatic and was aimed at being implemented within the next two years; however, it is unclear of the impacts this culture change will have across the community when communal meals are introduced.

The amount of interaction depends on the intention and awareness of the benefits of meals by the ICLA members and is also affected by the space available for meal sharing. ICLAs, where shared meals were valued and prioritised, had spaces deliberately designed to cater for such interactions. Conversely, ICLAs that did not value that interaction had reduced these types of facilities. There is little evidence to suggest the reverse causality, where included design elements affected shared meal interaction.

- 218 of 297 -

Overall social interactions during meal preparation and eating were an important element of the member responses, highlighting that it is a central aspect of ICLAs. How that interaction occurred differed between communities. Three key findings that affected the meals and interactions were:

1. There was a direct relationship between the availability of kitchen and dining facilities that could provide for meals for the whole community and the regularity of that occurring at least once per week. 2. The social connectedness among community members appeared directly related to the regularity of these meals. 3. Each community developed their own balance between the order of scheduled meals and the fluidity of more random meal sharing according to the availability and interest of members – there was no ‘one size fits all’ approach.

7.2.9 Working together - Work teams and time contribution

This section explores the element of member interaction that involved working together either for business and income purposes or performing tasks within the community, or both. In some cases, this was a requirement of membership, and in others, the work was on a voluntary basis. ‘Work teams’, or ‘working bees’ as they were frequently referred to, had multiple purposes of getting the work done, enabling regular opportunities for members to build social connections and providing economical savings rather than employing people from outside the community. The work teams primarily focussed upon buildings and grounds maintenance, construction of new buildings and infrastructure, community processes such as financial and legal management, community meal preparation, growing food on-site, taking care of other members and income generation from community enterprises. Data from the site visits was available to provide a summary of work team involvement and requirements (Table 7.9), and this was supported by questionnaire responses (Table 7.10).

- 219 of 297 -

Country Community Pop’n Work teams

(2016)

Time Time

Income Income

Kitchen

Building Building

required

/grounds /grounds

expansion

processes

generation

Community Community

contribution contribution

Maintenance

Growing food Growing care Member

Australia Seli Hoo 7 Y N N Y Y N N Y Australia Cennednyss 15 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Rocky Cape Christian 20 Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia CommunityTasman Ecovillage 30 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Australia Christie Walk 40 Y N N N Y N N N Australia Cohousing Cooperative 40 Y N Y Y N N N Y

Australia Cascade Cohousing 40 Y N Y Y Y N Y N The De Oude Nieuwelaan 50 Y N Y N N N N Y Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter 50 Y N Y N N N N N Netherlands Germany Sieben Linden 150 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Germany ZEGG 125 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage 300 Y Y Y N Y N N N UK Findhorn 800 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Table 7.9 Work teams within ICLAs visited

Maintenance Care of other Community Work teams Garden team Kitchen Income generation team members Member responses 30.7% 26.0% 18.9% 66.6% 32.7% Table 7.10 Work team statistics from the questionnaire responses

From this information, most communities engage in work teams for the maintenance and operation of the community on some level. All the ICLAs who engaged in community meals required members to be involved in the meal preparation. There were differences between communities that were established and those that we're continuing to expand. The established ICLAs that were not actively expanding tended to have fewer work teams with no requirement for members to contribute their time. This suggests they have largely completed the task of community building and now have the choice of whether to interact for social cohesion in a less structured fashion. This was true of Woongroep Polter, who had no requirement for contribution and offered a weekly routine of social events and some social gardening that members could choose to attend. Those ICLAs that were established and continuing to expand membership-primarily had requirements for work team contributions, suggesting that building and caring for the community was done by the community members. ZEGG, Sieben Linden, Findhorn Foundation and Rocky Cape Christian Community-engaged a step further by formally requiring members to take

- 220 of 297 -

part in income-generating work teams or operational work teams that helped the ICLA function.

While the work teams involved time and effort to get things done alongside busy family and out-of-ICLA work lives, many of the member residents shared the positive benefits of working together and getting to know each other:

“…it usually means that you’ll be working with someone so you have chats while that’s going on and then we meet for morning tea…Saturday mornings (working bees) can be very satisfying socially and practically.” (Interviewee #21, Cennednyss) and:

“…working bees are great…you can just hear everyone out there…a few of the older residents like (resident name removed) love the gardens and come with secateurs and gloves on working bee days”. (Interviewee #28, Christie Walk)

Smaller communities needed to share the work across a relatively smaller number of members. Members of RCCC had religious faith to support their commitment to function together:

“…the Anabaptist people have some very good strengths. One of their strengths is that they persevere…they just go through it together”. (Interviewee #7, RCCC)

Cohousing communities of Cascade and Christie Walk had been committed since their formation to work together. One cohousing resident shared her admiration of the community members that in the beginning, built the homes and community structures from the ground up:

“I was really impressed [by] their ability to work. They were able to sort things out [with] their kind of levelheadedness and their analytical kind of

- 221 of 297 -

way of looking [at working together]”. (Interviewee #8, Cascade Cohousing) and another shared of the joy when people committed to working together to finish a task:

“That courtyard is 300 square metres, and every brick was laid by residents. There is a joy of creating things together”. (Interviewee #26, Christie Walk)

Committing to work together is also committing to form and maintain a working relationship.

“You can’t always be right and have everyone aligning to everything. But it is how you negotiate that…being in cohousing is being in a relationship”. (Interviewee #8 Cascade Cohousing)

Situations where the level of commitment is lacking, and indecisiveness can have an effect of stifling the progress of the community work possible:

“But what would I change in my own community, I’d love to have more commitment and more participation, and not so much sitting on the fence... [we] understand and realise that everything is subject to change. The best intentions sometimes work [, and] sometimes don’t work. It is about being flexible and open and willing.”. (Interviewee #4, Tasman Ecovillage)

The larger European communities appeared to see the value of working together.

“…that is why we put so much effort into personal relationship development. I have never had so many allies in doing what I like to do …and to really have a commitment [to] supporting one another for [reaching] their potential”. (Interview #53, ZEGG)

- 222 of 297 -

“It’s one of the great things about living here you [are] not just living here for yourself you’re living here to work for the place as a collective”. (Interviewee #46, Findhorn Foundation)

“We are doing, doing, doing and not taking enough time for both the celebration part where we appreciate what people have done that is an extremely important part of community building [is] giving each other appreciation for the work we’ve done.”. (Interviewee #36, Sieben Linden)

Working together to achieve tasks has the advantages of reducing costs for contractors outside the community and involves the building of the social dynamic of the community. Garden spaces also offered the opportunity for interaction and to deepen relationships between members.

“…we make [the working bee] enjoyable. It’s fun to hang out together. It’s a good way of just having chats with people when you’re working with them. And we have a big long morning tea, so that’s become the defacto- community meeting if you like…these are my friends”. (Interviewee #31, Christie Walk)

In summary, all the communities created opportunities for members to work together on either a voluntary or required basis. This benefitted the overall community by reducing costs for getting the work done and negated the need for external contractors. This also increased opportunities for members to interact, a factor that is explored further in the following section.

7.3 Ecological aspects

From the analysis, ecological aspects formed 20% of the content of the interview scripts (Table 7.1) highlighting its significance to ICLA members. Three clusters of ecological content were identified and discussed below: equipment and materials sharing ecological philosophy and, lastly, sustainability initiatives (Table 7.11).

- 223 of 297 -

Cluster Nodes Sources References E Resource sharing 24 103 E Car sharing 19 50 P Ecological - philosophical 23 162 S Food production 21 144 S Energy efficiency 26 142 S Water management 12 116 S Waste management 14 88 S Car alternatives 15 44 Cluster key E Equipment and materials sharing P Ecological philosophy S Sustainability inititiatives

Table 7.11 Most commonly referred to as ecological nodes

7.3.1 Equipment and materials sharing

Communal sharing is a key element of life within an ICLA. Sharing resources reduces the ecological resources required by the community, while at the same time, it increases social interactions that occur from sharing and reduces costs of individual ownership. A selection of shared equipment and materials was analysed to gauge the level within communities and is shown in Table 7.12 for site visits and Table 7.13 for questionnaire respondents.

Country Community Equipment and materials shared by community Garden Cars Kitchen Laundry Shed equipment Australia Seli Hoo N/A Y Y Y Y Australia Cennednyss Y Y Multiple N Y Australia Rocky Cape Christian Y Y Y Y Y Australia CommunityTasman Ecovillage Y Y Y Y Y Australia Christie Walk Y Y Kitchenette Y Y Australia Cohousing Cooperative N Y Y Y Y

Australia Cascade Cohousing Y Y Y Y Y The De Oude Nieuwelaan N Y Multiple N Y Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter N Y Kitchenette N Y Netherlands Germany Sieben Linden Y Y Y Y Y Germany ZEGG Y Y Y Y Y Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage N Y BBQ area N Y UK Findhorn Y Y Y Y Y Table 7.12 Shared equipment and materials within site visits

- 224 of 297 -

Garden shed and Communal Cars (n=44) Kitchen (n=58) tools (n=62) laundry (n=64) Count 31 44 32 51 Table 7.13 Shared equipment and materials from questionnaire responses32

Not everyone needs their own washing machine, car and garden equipment when they can be shared and used when required. Cars were shared between members in eight of the thirteen site visits, and thirty-one of the forty-four questionnaire respondents, highlighting the members’ willingness to do so, which is not usually present in other forms of communal living. Cars are energy-intensive and high polluters, thus sharing cars would reduce CO2 emissions (Rabbitt & Ghosh, 2013), reduce traffic congestion and reduce the materials required to maintain the vehicles, such as tyres and lubricants. Cars are often used on many occasions per day, so it would take a commitment to share effectively to ensure that all users were adequately serviced. This level of commitment is evidenced in Christie Walk where the members of the community wanted to reduce the need and space for individual cars, so they negotiated with Adelaide City Council to have fewer car parks in the design phase with 11 car parking spots for 27 dwellings and instigated the introduction of GoGet, a car-share company in Australia, to come to Adelaide.

The equipment and materials used to care for gardens and buildings are another infrequently used resource, and where there is no need for each individual or family to have their own. In all the site visits and forty-four of the sixty-two questionnaire respondents, these were shared across the community. There was a level of comfort in lending among residents of all communities. An example is AAEV:

“If you need anything, you just ask. There is a lot of borrowing and sharing of equipment”. (Interviewee #23, AAEV)

All the communities visited, and most questionnaire respondents shared some form of the kitchen for communal use. Ecologically sharing one set of equipment across greater numbers of people can benefit the community by reducing the need for each

32 Results extracted from responses to several questions.

- 225 of 297 -

individual home to have a full set of each item and providing the opportunity to purchase larger, more water- and energy-efficient appliances. Another ecological saving from central kitchen usage is the practice of communal food growing and bulk food purchasing, as discussed in Section 7.2.8. This practice reduces waste from packaging, as well as ecological pollution from the transport of goods.

Overall, the fact that communities shared equipment and materials is a step towards ecological sustainability. Whether this was pushed by the ethos of the community, as is the case in communities with specific ecological intentions or created as a by- product of other reasons, the result is savings, and this has positive benefits within the community and externally.

7.3.2 Ecological philosophy

The philosophy of each ICLA is created by the member residents and influences the operations of the community. As discussed in Section 2.6.1, many ICLAs prioritise ecological sustainability as an important part of their community operations. However, it has previously been unclear as to what extent. This is supported by the research findings, where seven of the thirteen site visits made specific reference to ecological sustainability within their documented principles (Table 7.14) and forty of the fifty-six questionnaire respondents reported that they chose to live in an ICLA to reduce their ecological impact (Table 7.15).

Country Community Within principles Outreach Australia Seli Hoo Y N Australia Cennednyss N N Australia Rocky Cape Christian N N Australia CommunityTasman Ecovillage Y Y Australia Christie Walk Y Y Australia Cohousing Cooperative N N

Australia Cascade Cohousing N N The De Oude Nieuwelaan N N Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter N N Netherlands Germany Sieben Linden Y Y Germany ZEGG Y Y Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage Y Y UK Findhorn Y Y Table 7.14 Ecological philosophy within ICLAs and shared elsewhere

- 226 of 297 -

Reason (n=56) Not all all Slightly Moderately Very To reduce my ecological impact 0 11 13 27 Table 7.15 Questionnaire response for the reason to first live in an ICLA

The influence of ecological sustainability varied from community to community, with examples such as: • A member of Sieben Linden would volunteer to represent the needs of the land and ecology during the decision process, ensuring that shared ecological beliefs of the community were adhered to (Meeting observations September 2016). • Aldinga Arts Ecovillage used sustainability guidelines within their building approval process to prevent unsustainable construction materials, such as PVC piping for drainage (excerpts from Interviewee #23, Aldinga Arts Ecovillage). • During an on-site induction, new residents to Christie Walk were provided with a copy of the ‘Christie Walk residents pack’ (UrbanEcology, 2015) that contains a section called ‘Guidelines for eco-friendly living’, whose specific initiatives highlighted ‘Maximum re-use, maximum recycling, minimise waste’.

Aware of the global nature of ecological sustainability, six of the communities visited also implemented programs to share and interact with others outside their community. The three European ecovillages and Tasman Ecovillage provided workshops for attendees and live-in volunteers to have hands-on experience with ecological sustainability techniques and technologies. Christie Walk offered a regular weekly tour of the site for the public to share mechanisms of eco-living in an urban environment.

There was also a significant portion of the communities both visited and from questionnaire responses that placed lesser or no importance upon ecological sustainability within their philosophy. While the reasons for this are unclear, it highlights that there is a diverse range of reasons that people choose to live in ICLAs.

- 227 of 297 -

7.3.3 Sustainability Initiatives

There was a range of sustainability initiatives employed across the communities. Table 7.16 shows that car alternatives, food growing, and rain-water capture was the most commonly utilised, and wind power was the least common across the communities.

Country Community Sustainability intitiatives Car Extra Food Rainwater Solar hot Waste Water Wind Solar PV alternatives Insulation growing capture water sorting recycling power Australia Seli Hoo Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Australia Cennednyss N N Y Y N N N Y N Australia Rocky Cape Christian N N Y Y N N N Y N Australia CommunityTasman Ecovillage N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Australia Christie Walk Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Australia Cohousing Cooperative N N N N N N N N N

Australia Cascade Cohousing Y N Y Y N Y N N N The De Oude Nieuwelaan Y N N N N Y N N N Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter Y N Y N N N N N N Netherlands Germany Sieben Linden Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Germany ZEGG Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N UK Findhorn Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Table 7.16 Sustainability initiatives within ICLAs visited

Food growing and household waste recycling were the most common responses from the questionnaire.

Sustainability intitiatives Food growing Solar hot water Household waste Waste water Water storage Solar PV n=41 n=51 n=41 sorting n=45 recycling n=32 n=45 Count 50 7 25 45 31 42 Table 7.17 Sustainability initiatives from questionnaire responses33

All the ecovillages within the research primarily relied upon private cars for getting around. Car sharing was common within cohousing communities, which supported the findings of (Daly, 2017b). This is a contradiction to the intention of ecovillages, and increased awareness of this has brought about positive solutions. For example, the Findhorn Foundation implemented a system for sharing electric cars within the

33 Results extracted from responses to several questions.

- 228 of 297 -

village (Figure 7.10). Findhorn and other communities also operate a regular bus service between the community and nearby neighbourhoods.

Figure 7.10 Electric car-sharing system at Findhorn Foundation

The cost of implementing the initiative and its cost-benefit over time determined whether the community implemented it or not. This may be the reason that certain technologies, such as wind power, were not as widely implemented as solar electricity systems or on-site water recycling. This may also explain why lower-cost initiatives, such as communal food growing, were more widely incorporated.

Individual initiatives can have marginal ecologically sustainable benefits, but when initiatives are combined, there is a much greater ecological effect. Overwhelmingly, ICLAs implemented a diversity of sustainability initiatives, and this appears whether the community had a philosophy of ecological sustainability or not. This illustrates that when communities combine, they can create positive ecologically sensitive processes and mechanisms.

- 229 of 297 -

7.4 Economic aspects

When a group of people join in an ICLA, there is always economic activity, like any other group endeavour. From the textual analysis of the research data, the most common nodes discovered related to ongoing expenditure, investment and shared incomes (Table 7.18) and these form the basis for the following discussion.

Cluster Nodes Sources References I Costs - overheads 24 228 I Investment 11 102 P Affordability - philosophy 11 126 S Costs - Utilities 16 87 S Income - Shared 12 45 Cluster key I Investment & Ownership P Economic drivers (Philosophy) S Shared economies Table 7.18 Most commonly referred to as economic nodes

7.4.1 Investment and co-ownership

It is important to comprehend the ownership of communal and private spaces when investigating the economic aspects of ICLAs, as these determine the initial investment, the funding and expenditure for ongoing costs and any income generated from the community. The individual philosophy, vision and principles of each community informed the ownership structure and governance for the community facilities and private spaces. An analysis of the data available from the site visits showed that founders provided the initial funding for the majority of ICLAs, with some instances of partnerships between government and members, as well as instances where private spaces were a mix of privately and communally owned or all communal spaces were communally owned (Table 7.19). The questionnaire responses reflected these findings (Table 7.20).

- 230 of 297 -

Private dwelling Communal facilities Country Community Initial investment Exclusive private space ownership ownership Australia Seli Hoo Founders Bedroom Private Owned by founders Australia Cennednyss Founders Self contained dwelling Association Owned by all in association Australia Rocky Cape Christian Religious Self contained dwelling Association Owned by organisation Community organisation Australia Tasman Ecovillage Founders Self contained dwelling Private Owned by all in association Australia Christie Walk Founders Self contained dwelling Private Owned by all in association Australia Cohousing Cooperative State government Self contained dwelling Association Owned by all in loan association Australia Cascade Cohousing Founders Self contained dwelling Private Owned by all in association The De Oude Nieuwelaan Partnership between Bedroom Association Owned by all in Netherlands founders and local association government

The Woongroepen Polter Partnership between Self contained dwelling Private Owned by all in Netherlands founders and local association government

Germany Sieben Linden Founders Mix of some bedroom Association Owned by all in and some self- association contained dwellings Germany ZEGG Founders Mix of some bedroom Association Owned by all in and some self- association contained dwellings Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage Founders Self contained dwelling Private Owned by all in association UK Findhorn Founders Mix of some bedroom Some private ownership Owned by all in and some self- and some association association contained dwellings members rent Table 7.19 ICLA investment and co-ownership from site visits

Initial investment n=53 Partnership Developer between Founders External owner Government grant Gifts funding developer and founders Number 38 1 2 5 4 3 % 72% 2% 4% 9% 8% 6%

Ownership Dwelling n=55 Land, buildings, and structures n=78 Somebody Our A A no-for- Me or my Owned Rented Other not related community government profit Other family to me as a whole organisation organisation

Number 33 7 15 15 3 39 1 9 11 % 60% 13% 27% 19% 4% 50% 1% 12% 14% Table 7.20 Investment and co-ownership information from questionnaire responses

The fact that all communities shared the ownership of the communal spaces, facilities and infrastructure is an aspect that distinguishes ICLAs from other forms of communal living arrangements and highlights the element of intentionality that enables resident autonomy over these facilities. This intentionality is shown in the high amount of initial investment by the founders and, when reviewing the data, many of the investments were interest-free or family loans to the founders to get started:

- 231 of 297 -

“When we started, we had some people who lent us money...lent us 20,000 and then (name withheld) paid them back gradually. That sort of large loan is much better than mortgage”. (Interviewee #21, Cennednyss)

All the ICLAs have some form of communal ownership over the land, and the buildings, which is contrary to the predominant housing model in Australia. All the groups reported that they invested high costs and effort to implement this style of ownership and found that even though the legal, planning and council institutions were against this, they persevered with the process.

There were three exceptions to communal ownership of the communal facilities land and buildings. Firstly, Rocky Cape Christian Community was owned by the religious organisation that the community was part of, yet the community members on site were entrusted with full autonomy over the communal property management and economic decisions. Secondly, SeliHoo was owned by four of the seven members. However, all resident members were involved in economic decisions related to the communal spaces and facilities in keeping with the community philosophy. And, thirdly, one community from the questionnaire respondents was based in a house owned by a private landlord, and in this case, the economic decisions about the facilities were limited by landlord objectives. Despite these three examples, it appears that ICLAs predominantly have an intention towards communally owned, managed and funded communal facilities.

As shown in Table 7.19 and Table 7.20, ownership of private spaces was more varied across the communities. Six of the thirteen site visits and twenty-two of the fifty-five communities from the questionnaire respondents had different ownership of private spaces. Where the private, exclusive space was limited to bedrooms, this was primarily owned communally and therefore unable to be bought and sold by the individual. The opposite was true in those ICLAs where the private member space was expanded to self-contained dwellings; in these cases, the spaces could be privately owned and sold by individual members. Cultural differences may play a part in the occurrence of communal ownership of private spaces, as most European communities visited had communal ownership of private areas, whereas Australian

- 232 of 297 -

communities were primarily privately owned. The size of the community member does not have a direct relationship with the extent of ownership of private spaces. The relevance of this is that communities with communal ownership of all facilities and spaces appear to place more of a focus on community interactions and vice versa. By contrast, communities with a focus upon private ownership of assets tend to place less importance upon community interactions. While it may seem a complex exercise to comprehend ownership differences between private and communal spaces, doing so provides valuable insight into how the community shares its resources and finances that are explored in the next section.

7.4.2 Economic drivers towards communal living

From the literature explored in Section 2.6.2, it was envisioned that housing unaffordability and economic efficiency would be significant drivers for people entering and remaining in ICLAs. During interviews with four of the thirteen communities visited – SeliHoo, Cohousing Cooperative, Cennednyss and De Oude Nieuwelaan – the members shared that their community had an element of housing affordability as part of its philosophy. Other communities had some references to economic efficiency included in the community documentation, yet it did not seem to be a primary motivation. This is also reflected in the questionnaire responses to the reason that residents first chose to live in an ICLA, whereby less than half were ‘moderately attracted’ or ‘very attracted’ because of the perceived affordability, and 16% were ‘moderately’ or ‘very unable’ to afford their own place. Table 7.21 shows a selection of the questionnaire responses and, highlights that while affordability is perceived as a benefit, it may not be a key driver. This further suggests that respondents were not people on the margins of housing affordability.

Reason (n=56) Not all all Slightly Moderately Very It seemed more affordable 8 16 12 11 I was unable to afford my own place 33 5 5 4 Table 7.21 Economic reasoning for moving to an ICLA

7.4.3 Shared economies

All ICLAs have expenses and income as part of their operations, and some communities also share income from the enterprises operated by the members. Sharing money requires a level of trust, as well as checks and balances, to ensure

- 233 of 297 -

accountability. Each community is unique in the way they manage these transactions, and the level of sharing that occurs. An assessment of the shared finances for the ICLAs visited is shown in Table 7.22.

Shared finances by all members Country Community Community Community Utility costs Food costs Income overheads maintenance Australia Seli Hoo N Y Y Y N Australia Cennednyss Y Y Y Y Partial Australia Rocky Cape Christian Community N Y Y Y Y Australia Tasman Ecovillage Y Y Y Partial Partial Australia Christie Walk Y Y Y N N Australia Cohousing Cooperative N Y Y Partial N Australia Cascade Cohousing Y Y Y N N The Netherlands De Oude Nieuwelaan Y Y Y N N The Netherlands Woongroepen Polter Y Y N N N Germany Sieben Linden Y Y Y Y Partial Germany ZEGG Y Y Y Partial Partial Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage Y Y N N N UK Findhorn Y Y Y Partial Partial Table 7.22 Shared finances among ICLAs visited

Amount you pay All of the cost More than others Equal to others Less than others None of the cost Electricity 3 8% 1 3% 31 79% 1 3% 3 8% Water 2 5% 1 3% 35 88% 0 0% 2 5% Food 2 6% 0 0% 20 65% 1 3% 8 26% Table 7.23 Shared expenses across ICLAs from the questionnaire

From the site visit results, ICLAs tend to share most of the costs for operating and maintaining the community collectively. Each community had different ways to cover its expenses equitably. Some communities chose to spread the efficiencies of group buying across all the members equally. SeliHoo calculated a dollar value of $58 per person, per week for food and utilities that was consistent for all members. By contrast, other communities chose to be equal by determining costs as a percentage of income. Cennednyss residents paid 19% of their yearly income for their cost of living, which included food, cars and community operating costs (Interviewee #22, Cennednyss). Both approaches aimed to achieve an efficient cost of living. This data was not consistently available across all communities, so comparative assessments cannot be fully made. Given the above statistics, however, this is an important topic for future research.

As previously mentioned in Section 7.2.8, meals form an important element of ICLAs. Four of the thirteen visited communities and 65% of communities from the

- 234 of 297 -

questionnaire shared all the food costs equally. Within the four communities visited, all ingredients were available to members for use in the communal kitchen or within their private dwelling. Sieben Linden employed a system where bulk food was purchased by the association and stored in a larder accessible 24 hours a day to all members of the community to dispense their household needs. There was a level of trust in the responsibility of each member to take what they needed and notify others when stocks were running low. The diversity of food available was extensive and catered to different dietary needs and tastes. SeliHoo employed a two-bottle system so that when one bottle in the pantry was getting low, new stocks were ordered and then the other bottle put on the shelf, thus ensuring that food would always be available. Apart from the obvious economic savings from bulk food purchases and the reduction in packaging, shared food buying also encouraged communal interaction during the buying and dispensing of ingredients. Other communities observed during the site visits partially shared food purchases by providing for community meals that were attended by the whole community. Five of the thirteen communities visited did not have a formal system for sharing the cost of food across members, rather, as is the case for De Oude Nieuwelaan, members took turns to purchase ingredients for the meals that they would offer to those interested. Despite the seeming ad hoc nature of meal costs that varied from person to person, it worked well: ‘it was not a problem how much it cost; it was an advantage because somebody could cook a great meal with really cheap ingredients because he didn’t have a good income. And somebody else that had really fancy ingredients it was also nice’ (Interviewee #40, De Oude Nieuwelaan).

There were a number of communities that grew food on-site for community consumption. While difficult to quantify from the data available, this would have resulted in cost savings. The larger ICLAs of Sieben Linden, ZEGG and Findhorn Foundation reported growing approximately 40% of their food needs on-site during the growing season. This factor alone is an inspiration to other communal living arrangements and housing models for the efficiencies that can be achieved.

Shared income was a factor that was less common across ICLAs, where only one visited community fully shared income and another five partially shared income.

- 235 of 297 -

Thirty-five of the fifty-two questionnaire respondents (67%) stated that their communities operated businesses together, yet it was unclear as to the extent that income was shared across the members. The larger European communities that generated income from ecovillage lifestyle courses were able to provide income to resident members employed by the association to support community activities. This required an extensive administrative system to track both income and costs for members, yet in all three cases, their system had been working effectively for decades. Cennednyss and Tasman Ecovillage generated income from some of the enterprises in the ICLA, and this was shared across the members. The remaining ICLAs did not share income, highlighting that this is not a deciding factor of life in an ICLA, a finding that mirrors the recommendations proposed by cohousing specialists (McCamant et al., 1994) and academics (Nause, 2010).

7.5 Characteristics that support community sustainability

When combining the analysis from sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 characteristics that were exhibited in almost all communities visited (Table 7.24) highlight that they are likely to be important for the success of the community. Their interrelationship suggests these are practices that can enable ICLAs to be sustainable and add benefits within and outside the community.

Country Community

other

Group Group values

outside outside

methods

community

Car sharing Car

development

Management

Care of each each of Care

Connection to to Connection meals Shared

Principles and Principles and

Communication Communication

Food production Food Resource sharing Resource Australia Seli Hoo (SH) N/A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Cennednyss (Cen) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Rocky Cape Christian Community Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (RCCC) Australia Tasman Ecovillage (TEV) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Christie Walk (CW) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Australia Cohousing Cooperative (CC) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Cascade Cohousing (Cas) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y The De Oude Nieuwelaan (NO) N/A N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Netherlands The Woongroepen Polter (WP) N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Netherlands Germany Sieben Linden (SL) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Germany ZEGG (Ze) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Australia Aldinga Arts Ecovillage (AAE) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N UK Findhorn (FF) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Table 7.24 Synthesis of nodes for ICLAs visited

- 236 of 297 -

7.6 Geographical differences and similarities in community characteristics

As with other societal forms, the geographic setting of a community has a large influence on how the community is structured and how effectively it operates. In performing analysis, it is important to consider the macro-geographical: in this case between Australia and Europe, and the micro-geographical: contrasting urban and rural communities. The analysis of sections 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 above was reviewed and summarised placing focus upon the geographical setting that the communities were located in. Each community was assessed on the level that the community displayed with a measure of a high, medium and low for each characteristic. Where communities did not display that characteristic was shown as a blank. The summary of this assessment is shown in Table 7.25. The following discussion covers the social, ecological and economic aspects of the community characteristics.

Australia Europe Characterisitics Urban Rural Urban Rural Cas CC CW SH AAE Cen RCC TEV NO WP FF Ze Ze Social aspects Investment in group M M L H M H H H M L H H H development Communication methods H H H H H H H H H H H H H Conflict resolution process H H M H M H H H H H H H H Membership process L H L H L H H H H H H H Meetings and decision making H H H H H H H H H H H H H processes Agreements and guidelines H H H H H H H H H H H H H Shared lives M M L H M H H H M L H H H Food growing L L L M M M H M L L H H H Shared meals M M L H L M H M M L H H H Work teams and time L L L M M M H M L H H H contribution Ecological aspects Equipment and materials M M H H H H H H M L H H H sharing Ecological philosophy L L H H H M L H L H H H Sustainability initiatives M M H H H M L H L L H H H Economic aspects Investment and co-ownership M M M M M H H H H M H H H

Economic drivers towards M H M H M H H H H H H H H communal living Shared economies L H L M M M Table 7.25 Analysis of ICLA characteristics by geography

- 237 of 297 -

All bar one of the communities visited exhibited all the social aspects that were applicable to life in an ICLA to at least some level. The exception was Woongroepen Polter that had no formal membership process nor required some time involved in work teams. This was likely because WP was a retirement community, and members may have had physical challenges that restricted their involvement. All communities had high levels of communication methods, agreements and guidelines and, meetings and decision-making processes. Nearly all had a high level of conflict resolution processes with the exceptions being AAE and CW who were implementing their process. Understandably there are differences in the social characteristics between urban and rural locations.

The European rural communities and RCCC were similar in all characteristics except how RCCC had less of an ecological or sustainability focus, and the European rural communities did not have fully shared economies. The other Australian rural communities – AAE, Cennednyss and TEV – showed greater variability across all three aspects. AAE had levels of social characteristics more closely aligned to urban communities which may be because the overall design of AAE resembles a housing development rather than a community based upon rural pursuits. This finding implies that there appear to be no major differences in the social characteristics between Australian and European communities based upon rural lifestyles. The urban communities in both Australia and Europe exhibited variability in levels of the same social characteristics. As with the rural communities, this finding implies that there are again no major differences in the social characteristics of urban communities across the regions.

Reviewing the ecological characteristics of the communities showed that rural communities were mostly similar across each region. There was a greater diversity of the level of ecological characteristics applied between the urban communities both within and between regions. It appears that interest in ecological sustainability is important to rural communities yet is variable across urban communities immaterial of their region.

- 238 of 297 -

Analysis of the economic aspects showed that while all communities showed some level of interest in investing and co-owning together, the European communities were more aligned with it than Australian communities. European communities also appeared to be more likely to live collectively for economic rationalisation than Australian communities. A shared economy was only used by six of the thirteen communities visited and appeared to have no regional or locality distinctions.

In summary, the evidence-based analysis indicated that interviewees and questionnaire respondents showed that social aspects dominated the discourse, while ecological and economic aspects still featured; they were much less so dominant. Research Question 2 asked what the attributes and practices of Australian and European ICLAs were. This research highlighted the characteristics which are likely to lead to long term, community cohesion and functioning are sharing resources, caring for each other, a strong connection to outside of the community, effective means for communication including conflict resolution, growing food communally, a focus upon group development, managing the operation of the community, spending time to develop and update the group principles and values, and lastly, yet most importantly, sharing meals. Commitment to these activities and characteristics varied across communities yet was particularly evident in the social aspects of group development, conflict resolution, shared lives and work teams Communities that place a focus upon all of the above characteristics have a greater chance to be successful in their group endeavours.

Additionally, in answer to Research Question 3, which inquired whether the geographical setting contributed to differences in ICLA structures and effectiveness, an analysis was undertaken. It appears that micro-geographic – urban-rural – influences play a larger part in the social and ecological characteristics of a community much more than macro-geographic – Australia-Europe – influences. By contrast, macro-geography influenced economic characteristics where European communities appeared more amenable to investing and co-owning together and were motivated by economic rationalisation than the Australian counterparts.

- 239 of 297 -

- 240 of 297 -

- 241 of 297 -

Discussion

After an extensive review of the literature, an analysis of the statistical information and an investigation of the characteristics and resident experiences within communities, a wealth of information has been collected to assist with a greater comprehension of ICLAs within and across the geographic regions. This chapter looks critically over the research performed and begins by drawing out key findings of the typology of ICLAs, their demographic characteristics, their attributes and characteristics and how geography plays a part in their differences. The discussion continues by exploring the implications of ICLA governance systems and how collaborative approaches can have practical application to housing developments and the housing landscape in general. The chapter concludes with a discussion of shared housing trends and possible future trends in two of the common ICLA models: cohousing and ecovillages.

8.1 What the research shows about ICLAs

Communal living arrangements have always been a part of human society and likely always will be. As seen in section 2.3, ICLAs appear to wax and wane historically according to the level of interest and determination of motivated individuals responding to challenges that society is facing at the time. In past centuries, societies around the world were separated by distance, and the challenges faced were localised. Diamond (2011) suggested, for possibly the first time in history, nations throughout the world are banded together in both experiencing growing social, ecological and economic challenges and needing to co-create solutions. The premise of ICLAs is a connection, sharing and working together.

8.1.1 Communal living typology

Much of the previous literature surrounding ICLAs has observed and discussed them as entities separate from other parts of society distinguished by definition posed by the researcher such as the examples described in section 2.2.3. This thesis proposed how ICLAs fit alongside other types of communal living arrangements within the full spectrum of modern societies. The first component of Research Question 1 inquires of the types of communal living arrangements. The typology outlined in Figure 2.1 and shown in the Australian context Figure 5.1 highlights a

- 242 of 297 -

clear distinction between communal living in private dwellings that includes shared housing and ICLAs, and communal living in non-private dwellings to answer this question. While this study focussed upon ICLAs, this typology provided a basis for quantification of all types of communal living arrangements in Australia from the ABS census and alternative ICLA data sources. This typology is a useful addition to the literature and can be applied in other doctrines when studying other regions throughout the world.

8.1.2 Demographic characteristics of ICLAs in the Australian housing landscape

The demographic analysis from the census presented in Chapter 5 showed that, even though most of the existing housing in Australia caters for single-family households, there is a trend moving away from single-family households towards various types of communal living arrangements. This finding is new to the body of knowledge and suggests that policymakers, planners, councils and developers need to adjust planning systems to enable communal living arrangements in retrofitted dwellings in the existing housing landscape and allocate a portion of dwellings to this style of living in future developments. This underlines the need to refine definitions and collect better data on the size, composition and distribution of ICLAs This analysis provided demographic quantification of ICLAs requested to address the second component of Research Question 1.

ICLAs, however, is not specified in the census and, therefore, the use of alternative data sources was employed to analyse and estimate the ICLA population and location throughout Australia. Compared to previous studies in the 1980s, the 2017 calculation shows a decline in ICLA population. This finding was a surprise for three reasons.

Firstly, considering that Australian housing markets continue to be ‘severely unaffordable’ (Cox & Pavletich, 2020), that communal ownership models have been found to have a positive effect on housing affordability (Coimbra & Almeida, 2013; Saegert et al., 2015), that sharing can reduce the overhead costs of community operation (Chatterton, 2013) the communities researched (section 7.4.2) all favoured communal ownership to some degree for financial reasons, and recent media places

- 243 of 297 -

focus upon affordability (Legge, 2016a; Ryan, 2014) it would seem logical that there be more instances of ICLAs throughout Australia. The second reason that it seemed likely there would be more ICLAs across Australia was the social benefits that communal living can offer (Bamford, 2005; Glass, 2016; Glass & Vander Plaats, 2013; Grinde et al., 2017; Meltzer, 2000a), the majority of the aspects and characteristics that were referred to during the site visits and interviews (section 0 and 7.2) and, that have been the focus of a wide variety of media articles throughout Australia (Cape, 2019; Tatman, 2017; Today-tonight, 2017) and overseas (BBC, 2018; Cox, 2016; DePaulo, 2016; Kropf & Cummings, 2019). And lastly, the ecological benefits that studies of communal living ventures have been found to exhibit (Chatterton, 2013; Daly, 2017a; Jarvis et al., 2016; Tanner, 2007) that are evident in the communities researched (section 7.3) and are shared in the media (Knowles, 2017; Legge, 2016b; Midland-Express, 2017) suggest that communal living ventures would be on the increase.

This study concluded that the decline rather than the increase in the population of ICLAs occurred for two possible reasons. The first reason was that in the 1980s rural land near major coastal cities previously used for agricultural and horticulture purposes that were on the financial decline allowed access for groups to purchase larger tracts of land at an affordable price (Cock, 1979; Metcalf, 1995, 2003; Metcalf & Vanclay, 1985). These lands clustered in areas around Australia in North Queensland, South East Queensland, Northern New South Wales as shown in Figure 5.6, are today areas where large tracts of land are both not available and along with all property prices across Australia have increased in value making a communal purchase either unattainable or very difficult. The second reason is that the population of Australian communities may still contain the founders or other long- term residents who are aging in place, and there are less new members. While this factor was not expressly investigated in-depth, there were references to this in four of the eight Australian communities that was also reflected in four of the five communities visited in Europe.

From observations of the interactions from international sources (GEN, 2019), the developments of ICLAs around the world, and the interest in connecting with others outside of ICLAs, it is likely that there will continue to increase in the number of these

- 244 of 297 -

types of communities and their populations around the world. Australian ICLAs are likely to follow this global trend. The research from section 5.2 tells us that one-fifth of the Australian population lives communally, and this number has been increasing in recent decades. Despite a lack of consistent historical data, the research estimates that in 2017 there was a population of about 22,000 people living in ICLAs across Australia. With greater awareness of the social (Bamford, 2005; Christian, 2003, 2007; Glass, 2013, 2016; Glass & Vander Plaats, 2013; Grinde et al., 2017; Meltzer, 2005; Sanguinetti, 2014; Torres-Antonini et al., 2003), ecological (Chatterton, 2013; Daly, 2017a; Ergas, 2010; Tanner, 2007) and economic (Gray et al., 2005; Rosenblatt, 2009) benefits that ICLAs have been found to exhibit, it is possible that a growing proportion people in existing share housing and institutional communal housing may transition to ICLAs.

8.1.3 The attributes and practices of Australian and European ICLAs

Despite the challenges of long lead times, institutional regulatory limitations and the development of social skills required during implementation, ICLAs display attributes and practices that have triple-bottom-line benefits. These were explored in detail in Chapter 7 and summarised below. The attributes and practices identified supports and build upon previous research such as that performed by Christian (2003); Jarvis et al. (2016); McCamant and Durrett (2011) and (Sargisson, 2012). These characteristics, while interesting in themselves, can guide improvements in ICLAs and other housing types. This analysis provided insight to answer Research Question 2.

Overwhelmingly, the resident responses in both interviews from site visits and the survey highlighted the importance of social interaction and the benefits they experienced from developing social cohesion. Community members shared that they looked out for each other, created opportunities to develop their connection to each other, cooked and shared meals. Woven through the many documents of principles and values of ICLAs, the responses from residents and during observations of meetings, gatherings, workshops and celebrations were words such as ‘we’, ‘us’ and, ‘our’. These words highlight the culture of a community and the mindset of sharing and togetherness found in all ICLAs.

- 245 of 297 -

While the ecological benefits featured less in the resident responses, there was an underlying awareness of the importance in seeking ecological sustainability, reflected in initiatives such as waste reduction, onsite communal electricity production and resource sharing. These findings highlight whether by intention or by consequence, ICLAs appear to exhibit ecologically sustainable benefits. This supports the research of Daly (2017a) and Chatterton (2013).

Lastly, the economic characteristics featured the least in resident responses, suggesting that these motivations were of lower importance to the residents. However, when assessing the responses, there were many opportunities for cost savings from shared resources and utilities, and in some cases, opportunities for communal ventures to generate income. Ecovillages and communes researched appeared to create many opportunities for building relationships as they have some shared economy where working together is a regular activity. Cohousing communities researched also showed economic efficiencies yet had no shared enterprises owned and operated by the ICLA – a factor that reinforces cohousing communities specifically do not have a shared economy and people make their livelihood outside the community as described in the literature (McCamant & Durrett, 2017; Meltzer, 2010; Torres-Antonini et al., 2003) that. By having no shared income efforts differences of opinion related to financial matters would be – a benefit for the longevity of the community yet also decreases the opportunities for members to develop close working relationships that may not support the community over the long term. There is limited research in this area, specifically with ICLAs apart from cursory studies such as interview responses by Rosenblatt (2009). By contrast, there are more extensive studies assessing the ICLA-like housing cooperatives such as the work by Coimbra and Almeida (2013) and Gray et al. (2005). Future studies to compare ICLAs to similar neighbourhood settings would provide insight into whether ICLAs fare better economically and which characteristics of ICLAs could inform the design and operation of traditional communities.

8.1.4 Geographical contribution differences in ICLA structures and effectiveness

Prior research by Meltzer (2000a), Sargisson (2012), Jarvis et al. (2016), Jarvis (2015) and Vestbro (2010c) provided an overview of ICLAs and various

- 246 of 297 -

characteristics across regions. Whilst this thesis assessed the same communities such as the ‘Cohousing Cooperative’ and ‘Cascade Cohousing’ that previous researchers Meltzer (2000a) and Bamford and Lennon (2008) had covered, it specifically identifies geographic differences between European and Australian communities, a factor that the previous research had not covered in depth. This analysis provided answers to Research Question 3.

This research found that despite cultural and geographic differences, all communities researched exhibited systems for governance, effective communication and managing conflict among members. This suggests that geographical location was not a distinguishing factor for these characteristics of ICLAs. As ICLA residents self- manage their interaction within their community, these systems are a foundation for social harmony and effective communal interaction. This is a key distinction between ICLAs and non-ICLA neighbourhoods where the latter may have less intended interaction and differences of opinion are referred to local councils or other external organisations for resolution. Residents within ICLAs choose to live collectively, so the onus is on them to find the means to get along with each other. In addition, having these systems in place enables the community to focus their combined endeavours on social, economic and ecological sustainability.

The analysis in Section 7.2.8 shows that there is a relationship between community type, community size and the food amount produced by that community to meet their needs. The larger communities, the ecovillages, were in rural areas and had access to increased land for food production. By contrast, cohousing communities produced much less than the food needs for the community, and the purpose of their communal gardens was primarily for social interaction rather than meeting the food needs of the community. This analysis of the type of community between ecovillages and cohousing and their food production is not explored by Chatterton (2013); Meltzer (2010); Vestbro (2010c) nor Jarvis et al. (2016). There appears to be no geographically regional differences between Australian and European communities with regards to food growing and sharing in communal settings.

- 247 of 297 -

8.2 Governance processes and their effects on community operation

The communities researched were considered successful as they had existed for an extended period which is a measure supported by the literature (Meltzer, 2000a; Miller, 2013a; Sargisson, 2011). The analysis identified that governance processes for membership, meetings, decision making, keeping agreements and forming guidelines were frequently identified in the communities (sections 7.2.4 to 7.2.6). Therefore for communities to be successful, they require the development and common use of these processes a factor that supports the literature (Jarvis, 2015; McCamant & Durrett, 2011). One novel governance method, Sociocracy, was found in all three of the European ecovillages (Findhorn Foundation, ZEGG and Sieben Linden) and one Australian ecovillage (Tasman Ecovillage) researched. In these communities. This finding shows that while Sociocracy is progressing as a style of governance among the network of ICLAs as mentioned by Christian (2013b), it may be some time before it is likely to be commonplace in both ICLAs and across other approaches to community developments.

- 248 of 297 -

8.3 Shared housing trends and opportunities

This thesis introduced shared housing to observation and covered demographic analysis rather than the motivations, functionality or experiences of individuals within these living arrangements. It is evident from the research in Section 5.2 that shared housing and other forms of communal living are on the rise in Australia and occurring in existing housing stock that may not be best suited for this purpose. It is questionable whether local municipalities have the resources or the political will to adjust their regulations quickly enough to these situations and support appropriate building changes. There may be an increasing occurrence of dangerous situations where there are significantly more occupants than the building can cater for. Fire safety, hygiene, adequate shared spaces and access to public services may be inadequately provided for. Additionally, there is an increasing likelihood of illegal rooming accommodation where individuals take advantage of those in need. The planning, regulatory and development industries may choose to understand these growing demographics and cater to suit the demand.

The main focus for providers of communal housing is to meet the housing needs of those unable to do so themselves. Co-living facilities built by for-profit developers offer extensive facilities to meet the needs of residents for a fee. While this concept is not new, the promotion of these facilities as a ‘community’ suggests that communal living arrangements are becoming an acceptable lifestyle, that until recently would have been viewed with disdain. This promotion and occurrence of co- living also generate interest in ICLAs. However, the use of the word ‘community’ for promotional purposes without enough awareness of the important elements of successful communal living arrangements, as discovered in Section 7.5, may compromise the ICLA movement.

Not-for-profit organisations and governments provide a range of housing for those who may have few other housing options. These facilities are often costly to build and maintain. While residents live near each other, their living arrangements have few of the characteristics of sustainable communities described in Section 7.5. Despite continual improvements in planning design, materials and technology, there is still a focus upon the individual within the facilities. This research did not

- 249 of 297 -

investigate whether there was an awareness or interest to change this mindset within institutional communal housing residents or providers, but this would be an interesting area for future research.

While separate from the research on ICLAs, the study of communal living within the Australian population provided context for how ICLAs were placed in the housing landscape. Most dwellings across Australia are designed to cater for the single- family or lone person households, inspired by the ‘Great Australian dream of homeownership’. However, a statistical analysis of Australia’s population shows that there has been a consistent growth in communal living arrangements over the last decade and a comparative trend away from single-family and lone person households. The drivers of this growth are unclear, yet housing unaffordability and changes to family makeup are likely contributing factors. Whatever the reason, the change in household structure is not being met by a subsequent change in dwelling stock, and there is an increasing likelihood of living arrangements that are incompatible to the type of dwellings available. ICLAs, by contrast, challenge the regulatory definitions of household and dwelling situations, and therefore their measurement within the traditional population is difficult. While their population appeared to decrease from 1985 estimates to 2017 estimates, it is likely they will increase in population in line with the rest of Australia.

8.4 ICLAs now and possible future scenarios

Observing the growth in the Global Ecovillage Network and Cohousing Associations from around the world, there appears to be an expansion in both population and interconnectedness of ICLAs overseas so much, so that communal movement appears to be thriving. However, in Australia, there appears to be two countertrends occurring. The 1986 to 2017 comparison of the traditional types of ICLAs shows an apparent decline in population, yet the census data shows an increase in the population and therefore demand of ICLA like forms. While the uptake of cohousing has been slower in Australia than other nations of the Global North, it is likely from the increased media attention that cohousing developments will become more commonplace.

- 250 of 297 -

The findings from Chapter 7 provide a greater understanding that when people live communally, there are improvements in resident social health and connectedness, economic savings occur and, groups achieve improved ecological sustainability. There is a culture of ‘we’ and ‘sharing’ created by the community that endures through generational changes and external challenges. While this culture is common to most ICLAs, there are similarities and differences between the types of communities.

8.4.1 Cohousing communities

Cohousing is a finely tuned design, and the social model successfully developed over four decades throughout the world (Durrett & McCamant, 1988). There are notable long-lived examples in Australia that provide a precedent for new and existing communities. The literature in Section 2.5.1 outlines specific characteristics of cohousing that are common to all communities. One factor that is important to note is the balance between self-contained private residences and co-created communal spaces and facilities (Allderdice, 2016; Bamford & Lennon, 2008; Meltzer, 2010). This enables residents to have autonomy over their private space and choose when and how much they wish to interact in the shared spaces. Interview and questionnaire responses shown in the analysis of Section 7.2.7 affirmed this by showing that cohousing residents tend to prefer a private self-contained private home and freely choose to interact with others when it suited them. Apart from regular, formalised, operational meetings, there were few instances where residents were required to interact or contribute the time towards communal activities. This choice to interact is ‘pushed’ from the initial design elements and formalised agreements rather than ‘pulled’ from the intended community cohesiveness. Time contribution by members adds to the community capital rather than being necessary for the basic operation of the community. It becomes clear that cohousing communities are places where people live and socialise rather than places of intended interaction or work efforts. The awareness of the benefits these communities offer is increasing rapidly among social and mainstream media and to a lesser extent by the planning industry. Urban populations are projected to increase in most regions of the world (2018), including Australia, and this brings with it triple bottom line housing challenges. These two factors create the situation where cohousing – known to provide solutions to housing challenges – will likely feature

- 251 of 297 -

more widely in planning mechanisms. It is likely that the ability to choose the level of interaction is key to attracting aspiring communards towards new and existing communities. With the extent of positive media attention that cohousing is receiving, as shown in section 2.8.1, they are likely to become more common across the Australian housing landscape.

Meltzer (2010) suggested that cohousing communities are a model that is well suited to higher density, urban and suburban settings. The research affirms this as all cohousing communities studied were in this sector of the housing landscape. These communities enable resource sharing, as shown in Section 7.3.1. Residents of cohousing communities show a willingness to share cars, garden equipment, laundries, energy production and many other resources that are less likely in contemporary neighbourhoods.

Cohousing communities within the research all had 20-50 adult members with no intention to expand the population significantly. There appear to be functional benefits for this size of the population. The size enabled the economy of scale to support the financial investment for communal facilities and an ability to contribute the time required to keep the community and facilities operational. The population density also required smaller land and building envelope than ecovillages to cater for the size of the community. In the modern urban and suburban housing landscape, there would be few opportunities to grow larger than this while maintaining the functional characteristics of cohousing. Additionally, with increased access to external activities, it may be more difficult to maintain close relationships within the ICLA as the population increases. The research does not identify a specific maximum or minimum, yet from the observations, it appears the range mentioned above is sustainable. All cohousing communities studied had already passed the establishment phase, and their dwellings appeared to be occupied with no plans for expanding either population or the number of dwellings in the future. This implies that once established cohousing is a model to cater to the needs of the present living arrangements. Modifications or improvements would be limited to minor technological or operational changes to the buildings or grounds. There would be few instances where population increases would be possible unless neighbouring land and property would become available.

- 252 of 297 -

While not a specified housing type in planning regulations the cohousing built form is similar to the design of established retirement villages and gated communities with notable differences such as open and private spaces without boundary fences and car parking to the edge of the community land (Chiodelli, 2015; Roitman, 2012; Ruiu, 2014), this similarity could make the design amenable to the planning and development industry with minor or no changes to regulations. The community-led design and management of cohousing communities could provide valuable insights into how to improve the social wellbeing of residents over the long term.

The literature and published goals of individual cohousing developments highlight that they exhibit social (Glass, 2013; Grinde et al., 2017), ecological (Chatterton, 2013; Daly, 2017a; Tanner, 2007) or economic (Chatterton, 2013) benefits or a combination of these three. The research shows that in practice however, the daily lives of cohousing residents primarily focus upon affordable living while improved social cohesion and ecological sustainability experienced as secondary benefits. The exception to this is eco-cohousing communities such as Christie Walk (Section 6.2.1) and LILAC (Section 2.6.1) that have a specified ecological intention.

Cohousing requires a minor shift in resident lifestyles and planning regulations for successful implementation. Living in smaller dwellings and sharing common resources may take time for residents to adjust yet the findings from this research and the previous literature show that the benefits far outweigh the changes required. There is unlimited scope for cohousing to become commonplace in the Australian housing landscape.

8.4.2 Ecovillage communities

Ecovillages are found throughout Australia and in most countries of the world (GEN, 2019). The analysis of Chapter 5 grouped ecovillages with cohousing communities and thus restricting accurate estimation of ecovillage population or trends in Australia. However, through the Global Ecovillage Network, there is increased awareness of the benefits of interconnected, sustainable communities, and it is likely that ecovillages will continue to be built throughout Australia and overseas. The rate of uptake is dependent on several drivers.

- 253 of 297 -

Unlike cohousing, ecovillages are more inclined to have a multifaceted intention for implementation and operation as described in Section 2.5.2. Communities aim towards ecological and economic self-sufficiency and social cohesion. To do so, they require larger tracts of affordable land and access to resources for food and energy production, water cycling and waste management. For these reasons, they tend to be in rural and remote areas such as those identified in Australia in Section 5.3.2. However, with increasing property prices, appropriate land is becoming less available and, without intervention, this limitation may force the development of future ecovillages on less suitable landscapes, making it harder to achieve the community aims of sustainability. Ecovillage movements, by their very nature, intended to create positive solutions to diverse challenges. For this reason, it is likely that ecovillages will encroach upon suburban areas. A significant effort to modify the current housing landscape to contain elements of ecovillage holistic approaches would be a worthwhile exercise for the likely triple line benefits.

Residents within communities are also part of the external community for work, schooling, shopping, healthcare and a range of other services. Accessing these services requires a means of transport. All the ecovillages within the research primarily relied upon private cars for getting around. This factor supported the findings of (Daly, 2017b). This is a contradiction to the intended ecological sustainability intentions of ecovillages. Awareness of this has brought positive solutions. An example is the Findhorn Foundation, where they implemented a system for sharing electric cars within the village (Figure 8.1).

- 254 of 297 -

Figure 8.1 Electric car-sharing system at Findhorn Foundation

Findhorn and other communities also operate a regular bus service between the community and the nearby neighbourhoods. This highlights the positive solutions that are evident within collective communities.

Self-sufficiency requires an element of contributed efforts from resident members to meet the operational duties of the community. It is a necessity rather than a choice. The ecovillages in the research had populations of 150 and above. It appears that communities smaller may not have the necessary labour to undertake all the tasks the community requires. The community of Findhorn shows that communities with populations above 300 need a second nearby location and build additional levels within their governance model to manage the extra work teams and logistics. Each person contributes in different ways and is more skilled in certain areas than others.

- 255 of 297 -

This requires a delicate balance of welcoming involvement yet, at the same time, ensuring that the needed jobs are done. Additionally, time involved with community contribution can be challenging to meet while members are working on low-income jobs external to the community. These two factors can mean that residents of ecovillages often have much lower incomes than others outside the community and experience financial hardship. Many ecovillages create enterprises that support an internal economy and use community exchange systems such as LETS35 and, also provide goods and services external to the community. However, this is still a marginal income for the members and means to access other income is necessary.

With the development of the GEN, ecovillages realise the importance of sharing their positive solutions and, invite visitors to conferences and training events. This brings income and builds enterprises that can improve the sustainability of the remote ecovillages. What we have learnt from this is that people who need to work together in their everyday lives create positive solutions to challenges and are willing and able to share it with others.

In the Australian context, there is a spectrum of wealth and technology across ecovillages. At one end, there are high tech ecovillages such as Currumbin Ecovillage (Tanner, 2007) with affluent members who use the most efficient technology from all over the world. At the other, there are the minimalist communities with a modest socioeconomic base such as Crystal Waters in Queensland Australia, who aspire to use technologies and materials that are only available on site. These both add significantly to the knowledge on how to live with a low ecological impact yet in different ways. Nelson (2018b) proposes that our future as a species is dependent upon living with less and more interconnected. Ecovillages are the laboratories where we can experiment and learn to do so. For that reason, it is necessary to support our ecovillages with investment and complementary planning mechanisms.

35 Local Exchange Trading Systems are alternative to national economies that enable trade of goods and services at the local level (Hopkins, 2009)

- 256 of 297 -

Of all the ICLA types, ecovillages are learning grounds for people to explore what it means to live together and learn techniques of getting along with others and in improved harmony with the environment. They have the greatest potential for experimentation and research as their increased land use enables practical implementation and research. Providing education services can offer additional income sources to ecovillage residents. The European ecovillages of Sieben Linden, ZEGG and Findhorn Foundation were mature in their development and offered lived experience training for those interested in ecovillage life. By contrast, the Australian ecovillages visited were younger and, seeing the benefits of offering training opportunities, were developing their facilities to cater for that. While these efforts are inspiring, it shows that Australia is lagging in the knowledge sharing opportunities available, and ecovillage ICLAs would benefit from institutional financial and resource support to accelerate this movement. Recommendations to support this are provided in 9.3.

This chapter discussed how the major findings from the research either added new knowledge to or correlated with the existing research. This discourse is based upon answering the research questions and is a culmination of all the research undertaken to provide fact-based, points of view that lead into and strengthen the recommendations posed in the following chapter.

- 257 of 297 -

- 258 of 297 -

Recommendations

This research conducted an in-depth analysis of ICLAs and their characteristics to form conclusions and build upon the existing knowledge and theory both within the literature and experience of the researcher to address the research aim. Research Question 5 asks what practical elements of ICLAs could benefit the present housing landscape in Australia. Throughout the research period, ideas and avenues where the praxis of the knowledge could be applied arose and were captured. This chapter outlines eight recommendations in turn that can achieve that aim and bring about improvements across the network of ICLAs and the housing landscape.

9.1 Group dynamics and conduct of meetings

The analysis of Section 7.2 highlighted a range of social attributes of successful communities. It is recommended for ICLAs and other forms of communal living arrangements to implement these attributes in group processes. Of importance is the use of: 1. Development and maintenance of the group dynamic by focussed retreats and training in group processes as highlighted in section 7.2.1. 2. Establishment of processes for managing differences of opinion and conflict resolution within the ICLA as described in section 7.2.3. 3. ‘Heart’ meetings of various ICLAs discussed in section 7.2.5 signified the importance of group development alongside the practical functioning of the community over the long term. 4. Statements of values, principles and guidelines that the group has developed and practice themselves as assessed in section 7.2.6 which set the tone for the community’s present and future operation.

9.2 Develop a Centre for Research of Connected Communal Living Studies

The knowledge available from ICLAs is extensive and generational, yet it is largely unresearched or unavailable to many sectors of society. At the beginning of this research, the extent of materials focussed upon ICLAs available within the academic

- 259 of 297 -

arena was limited. Successful attempts have been made to increase the literature available in the university library and to create exposure to online resources. There were at the outset only a small number of researchers active in the knowledge gathering and sharing of research throughout Australia.

It is suggested to develop a Centre for Communal Living Studies where resources can be shared, research projects are aligned and funding applications made. The Centre would support planners and architects trialling novel housing developments with factual and peer-reviewed literature to support their efforts. Government bodies and policymakers in the development industry would benefit from the knowledge that this centre would offer. A range of suggested research projects is shown in Table 9.1. It is recommended for this centre to collaborate with the GEN Research Working Group36, the Cohousing Association of Australia and The Communal Studies Association37 from within the network of ICLAs and form partnerships with industry and academic groups including the Critical Urban Governance Research Program through the RMIT Centre for Urban Research in Melbourne for knowledge sharing, hosting conferences and supporting funding for new ICLA developments. Implementing such a centre would enable the greater connection between Australian and overseas researchers to accelerate further the knowledge gathering and sharing of this important work.

36 https://ecovillage.org/our-work/research-ecovillages/ 37 The Communal Studies Association is an international not for profit organisation based in USA who sets out to share knowledge and research related to historic communal sites and existing communities around the world. (https://www.communalstudies.org/about/)

- 260 of 297 -

Project Detail First Nations - First Nations peoples have a great need for improved housing as current housing community support models often do not fit with traditional ways of living. The characteristics of ICLAs may be part of the bridge between traditional ways and modern ways to improve their living conditions. - Work with Elders and representatives of First Nations peoples to identify what is needed - Ecovillage characteristics may provide housing solutions - Assess the steps to make it happen and the funding requirments - Prepare strategy documents to present to all stakeholders Develop - Future studies of cohousing populations are recommended to develop analysis methodologies for methodologies that can distinguish cohousing populations ICLA populations - Current housing developments have markers for eco measurement and affordability with some social health markers, such as liveability and satisfaction. This could be extended to ICLAs without much effort and Shared housing - Further investigation of the shared housing population to detrermine locality, transition to household structure and motivations for the living arrangement. cohousing - Investigate the limitations and opportunities to assist members transition from current dwellings to cohousing ICLA locational - Develop baseline characterisitics for cohousing and ecovillages analysis - Assess cities for locations that may be suitable for (re)development of cohousing - Assess periurban areas around population centres that may be suitable for ecovillage (re)development - Outline a strategy for implementation - Adjust regional planning strategies to include ICLAs Measure economic - Perform detailed longitudinal measures of overhead and operating costs of sustainabilty of ICLAs ecovillages and cohousing - Develop data gathering mechanisms such as surveys that assesses social markers assessed at the design stage, implementation stage and yearly for two years. - Compare and contrast to nearby neighbourhoods Measure social health - Perform detailed longitudinal measures of the social health of ICLA residents of ICLAs members - Develop data gathering mechanisms such as surveys that assesses social markers assessed at the design stage, implementation stage and yearly for two years. - Compare and contrast to nearby neighbourhoods Measure ecological - Perform detailed longitudinal measures of waste, energy and water management, impact and food production, resource sharing and ecological care of the community and sustainabilty of ICLAs surrounding areas of ecovillages and cohousing - Develop data gathering mechanisms such as surveys that assesses social markers assessed at the design stage, implementation stage and yearly for two years. - Compare and contrast to nearby neighbourhoods

Measure economic - Perform detailed longitudinal measures of overhead and operating costs of sustainabilty of ICLAs ecovillages and cohousing - Develop data gathering mechanisms such as surveys that assesses social markers assessed at the design stage, implementation stage and yearly for two years. - Compare and contrast to nearby neighbourhoods

Regulatory - Assess the regulatory classification of household and dwellings that include/exclude assessment for each ICLAs in each state planning regulations state - Identify restrictions that may limit ICLA development - Recommend policy and regulatory changes to enable ICLAs to be included in the housing landscape Assess property title - Perform an assessment of how land and property is owned within Australia and from characterisitics in around the world to determine ownership models that both enable private tenure and ICLAs protect communal title in perpetuity. Assess optimum ICLA - Assessing optimum ranges of cohousing from existing cohousing in Australia and population size overseas - Advise planners and future residents embarking upon new cohousing ICLAs Table 9.1 Initial communal living research projects

- 261 of 297 -

9.3 Support ecovillages to become learning and experimentation centres

The European rural ecovillages within this study of Findhorn Foundation, ZEGG and Sieben Linden were learning and experimentation centres where aspiring residents can attend residential workshops and learn about social, economic and ecological sustainability. The availability of larger land area with a range of facilities for training and accommodation for students enabled them to make these courses possible, factors that were limitations in urban communities. At the time of the study the Australian ecovillages of Tasman Ecovillage and Aldinga Arts Ecovillage offered some learning and accommodation to visitors in exchange for their labour yet there was limited formal training compared to the European ecovillages.

There is an opportunity for the Australian ecovillages to learn from their European counterparts and develop their training and research capability. Of course, this is dependant upon the interest and commitment whether they choose to do so. This could provide a unique and perfect opportunity for suppliers of sustainable technologies and governments to invest in experimental projects within these communities and achieve sustainable outcomes for community development. There would be a direct benefit to the ecovillages by providing an income source and work opportunities in these areas. This would require a willingness of the residents to develop relationships with investors and an openness to have part of their community life under research scrutiny. The increased knowledge sharing of GEN highlights that residents of ecovillages do have a willingness to take part in collaborative sustainability projects.

9.4 Data gathering mechanisms

The research and analysis of Chapter 7 identified several social, economic and ecological characteristics that enabled comparison between ICLA types. Unlike ecovillages, cohousing communities have similar built design and with the growing interest in cohousing, it is recommended to develop data gathering mechanisms that assess social, economic and ecological markers at design stage, implementation stage and yearly for two years. This would enable a greater understanding of successful and challenging aspects of community design and operation. Simple

- 262 of 297 -

surveys can be repeated over time to provide longitudinal data to ascertain the level of sustainability achieved in each community. Current housing developments have markers for eco measurement such as ‘Green Star rating’38, affordability measures such as ‘Housing and occupancy costs’39 and social health markers such as ‘liveability’40. These measures could be extended to include ICLAs specifically with minor additional effort. It is also recommended for there to be greater analysis of ABS Census data to give further understanding of possible ICLAs and other types of communal living.

9.5 Professional education curriculum to include residential visits to ICLAs

Architects, planners and developers attend years of formal training to learn the ways urban space is traditionally designed. Yet few, if any, ever attend ecovillages or cohousing projects to learn sustainable living design. It would be sensible to include a component of planning education within ecovillages. As mentioned in section 9.3 the European ecovillages visited already offer residential courses covering ecovillage aspects that could be extended to their Australian counterparts. This would help designers broaden their perspective to building more sustainable urban and rural communities. Ecovillages would receive significant immediate and long-term benefits to their internal economy and support their evolutionary practices. It is suggested for planners and architects to attend residential visits to ICLAs in Australia and overseas as part of their education. Visiting living arrangements with positive, solution- focussed intentions would add significantly to awareness of ICLAs and bring benefits across the whole of the housing landscape. This would also enable further research in the design elements of communal living arrangements and assist in regulatory changes throughout Australia.

38 Green Star is an internationally recognised sustainability rating system. https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system 39 Housing costs as a proportion of gross household income (ABS, 2017) 40 A measure of liveability in Australia’s state and territory capitals (RMIT, 2017)

- 263 of 297 -

There is a network of connected ICLAs throughout Australia and the world through GEN and cohousing associations. It is recommended to support this network in conjunction with the research centre to increase the offerings of training programmes available in Australia and formalise these within architectural and planning industries.

9.6 Divert a portion of funding from ICH to support ICLA development

It may be sensible to divert a portion of the extensive national budget currently allocated to institutional communal housing into seed funding for the collaborative development of ICLAs. The Cohousing Cooperative in Tasmania (described in Section 6.2.1) is a practical example where government funding allocated in 2000 supported the development of a community that continues to function effectively 18 years later. Initially, the project was funded by the government to kick start the housing cooperative with a view that members would pay back the loan over a 30- year time frame (Described by interviewee#3, Cohousing cooperative). The community utilised the cooperative homeownership model that is still available today. The purpose was to assist low-income families in long-term affordable housing and enable autonomy over community lifestyles. As a working model, this could be replicated in many other locations across the income spectrum. The potential triple bottom line benefits that could be realised by undertaking initiatives in this area are likely to be higher than those that would be experienced within institutional communal housing.

9.7 Encourage collaborative community design

One aspect that attracts members to ICLAs is that they can influence the design and construction of the buildings and infrastructure of the community. Christie Walk, Cascade Cohousing and Tasman Ecovillage residents shared their experience and enjoyment, despite the challenges faced in being part of the design. These are examples of bottom-up/resident-led development. The downside of this approach is that residents who were often not experienced or trained in property development, learned as they progressed and likely taking both a longer timeframe to implement and making unintended mistakes.

- 264 of 297 -

This thesis recommends combining both future resident-led (bottom-up) and developer-led (top-down) to achieve better outcomes for all concerned. Practically this could mean that residents are primarily involved at the design stage with support from development professionals. Then once the concept design is agreed, the development professionals lead the process to implementation. During this second stage, the residents continue to be informed by the process and place time and effort in developing social processes and governance that will aid the long-term social sustainability of the community.

In principle, this collaborative approach may seem easy. In practice, however, it requires a change of focus and attitude for both parties. The advantages for residents would be improved access to development funding, reduced planning limitations and ultimately shorter timeframes for development. The advantages for governments, developers and planners would be successful communities that have improved sustainability and valuable additions to society.

9.8 Accelerated implementation of cohousing throughout Australia

There are possible means to implement cohousing quickly and easily in the Australian housing landscape. Retrofitting existing buildings and streetscapes is achievable by the following recommendations:

9.8.1 Retrofitting existing unit complexes

Select suitable existing medium density unit complexes built in the 1970s-1980s that contain six to twelve units for cohousing suitability. The inner-ring suburbs of Australian cities contain a diversity of these unit complexes. An example is shown in Figure 9.1 from the Brisbane suburb of Moorooka. Many of these need renewal and situated beside other complexes of the same type.

A group of residents could purchase the entire complex, convert one of the units and car parks to communal facilities with minimal effort while complying with current planning regulations. Combined sustainability initiatives such as solar photovoltaic power, food scrap digesters for kitchen gas cooking, shared laundry facilities and kitchen garden creation implemented during the retrofit would reduce long term running costs. Additional benefits would be cost savings by resource sharing,

- 265 of 297 -

increased usability of the outdoor space and a short time frame to implement. Table 9.2 shows an approximate investment for retrofitting a six- and twelve-unit complex. In this calculation, it is assumed that the market price per unit is $298,00041 and a 10% ($29,800) investment for retrofitting one unit and one car park for communal use. The additional investment is more cost-effective in the twelve-unit conversion due to the investment being spread across more owners. In practical terms, this means homeowners in the twelve-unit complex would pay an extra $33,091 for the convenience of living in a cohousing complex and access to a communal space and equipment. Likewise, members of the six-unit cohousing complex would pay an extra $72,800 to share the space collectively.

Image: https://www.realestate.com.au

Garage conversion to ground floor communal kitchen or lounge

Garden area conversion for food production and communal activities

Figure 9.1 Unit complex in Coorparoo, Brisbane

41 Market price for a two bedroom unit in Moorooka, Brisbane (Anon, 2019)

- 266 of 297 -

Units in complex 6 12 Market price Unit purchase price $298,000 $1,788,000 $3,576,000 Refurbishment 1 unit $32,000 $32,000 1 carpark $32,000 $32,000 gardens $2,000 $2,000 Total cost $1,854,000 $3,642,000 Investment unit holders $370,800 $331,091 extra cost per owner $72,800 $33,091 Table 9.2 Approximate calculation for cohousing retrofit of pre-existing units

9.8.2 Retrofitting existing suburban houses to form a cohousing community

Detached dwellings built on 600 square metre lots dominate much of the inner suburbs in Australian cities. These dwellings currently cater for single-family households in detached high set buildings. With population projections to increase local councils have relaxed building regulations allowing homeowners to subdivide the lot and build extra dwellings(s) on the newly created lot(s) for sale or rent. While this increases density and enables a financial return for owners, it decreases open space and ‘squashes’ households together. An alternative approach would be for a group of residents to co-operatively purchase four or more separate properties (such as in Figure 9.2), raise the dwellings to increase the housing density by having a dwelling upstairs and another downstairs, allocate one of the dwellings to communal facilities, remove fences and combine back gardens for communal spaces.

- 267 of 297 -

‘Look and feel’ of streetscape maintained Combined back yards for communal garden and activities

Image: modified from Google Earth

Figure 9.2 Possible cohousing from typical suburban lots in Moorooka, Brisbane

This provides an opportunity for implementation of sustainability initiatives and communal use of the outdoor spaces while maintaining the streetscape and complying with planning regulations. There would be additional social benefits, activation of the back-yard spaces, improved community safety and possible expansion to neighbouring properties. This retrofit model is both easily achievable and has immediate benefits to the residents and the nearby community.

Assuming that the market price per house is $615,00042 and a 20% ($123,000) investment for retrofitting all houses to include a second dwelling and purchase one house as community house the calculation is shown in Table 9.3. As was shown in

42 Market price for a three-bedroom house in Moorooka, Brisbane (Anon, 2019)

- 268 of 297 -

the unit complex above, the investment is more cost-effective in the twelve-house complex. Practically the development would change from detached dwellings to become a cluster of units around central gardens. The purchase price would be less per dwelling as the original houses are shared. A dwelling in the twelve-house complex would be approximately $367,000 a saving of $248,500 in a now 23-unit complex for the convenience of living in the cohousing community. While this is an $8 ½ million-dollar investment, the cost is shared across 23 families.

Original house numbers in the complex 1 4 8 12 Retrofitted dwelllings in cohousing community 1 7 15 23 Market price Purchase price * $615,000 $1,845,000 $4,305,000 $6,765,000 House retrofit (30% of purchase Refurbishment price) N/A $369,000 $861,000 $1,353,000 Community house $307,500 $307,500 $307,500 Landscape improvements $12,000 $18,000 Total cost $615,000 $2,521,500 $5,485,500 $8,443,500 Investment cost per house owner $615,000 $360,214 $365,700 $367,109 Savings per owner $0 $254,786 $249,300 $247,891 Table 9.3 Approximate costing of cohousing retrofit of existing suburban houses

A major challenge with this approach is finding streetscapes where several homes side by side is available for sale. As discussed in Section 2.8.1, a modified approach could be to start an informal living arrangement were two households agree to remove boundary fences and share some or all their resources. Over time a third, fourth, fifth and so forth households could join organically.

9.8.3 Allocating a portion of greenfield master-planned estates to cohousing

Making scope for ICLAs at the planning stage is the easiest means to introduce cohousing. By combining four or more separated housing lots under community title and building smaller separated dwellings such as tiny homes could be clustered around a central communal kitchen and lounge building. Space utilisation would be improved with shared laundry, reduced car parking from car-sharing, enabling both affordable purchase and communal interaction. This new build could mean a new housing option for aspiring residents and developers that is currently not offered in Australia.

- 269 of 297 -

Each of the above recommendations has both challenges that may arise during implementation and benefits that can be realised afterwards. By implementing a mixture of some or all the recommendations would increase the occurrence of ICLAs within the Australian housing landscape that could have benefits for generations to come.

- 270 of 297 -

- 271 of 297 -

Conclusions

This chapter provides a summary of the findings of the research and concludes how the research questions have been addressed. The contribution that this research has made to the field of knowledge and research limitations are described, followed by the final comments of the thesis.

10.1 Overall research findings

This thesis set out with the aim:

As described within section 1.2.2 previous literature was explored to give a conceptual framework for the research from overseas and within the Australian context. The conceptual framework is repeated in Figure 10.1 here to clarify the conclusions described below.

- 272 of 297 -

Figure 10.1 ICLAs within the framework of society (from Figure 1.2)

In an attempt to address the demographic characteristics of Australian communal living arrangements of Research Question 1, a detailed analysis of how the population of Australia currently lives in traditional housing and an estimate of the population living within ICLAs was undertaken. The following finding as discussed in Chapter 5 resulted from this research:

1. While there are only 22,000 people (approximately) people living in formalised ICLAs throughout Australia, there are nearly 5 million people, or one-fifth of the Australian population resident in communal-like living arrangements and this proportion has increased by 42% between 2001 and 2016 according to Census enumerations. According to the literature, the dominant dwelling type within Australia’s current housing landscape is based upon the premise that single-family households are what is needed by the population. This guides the planning and development industry to build dwellings to cater to this

- 273 of 297 -

section of society that is represented by the urban planning loop in the diagram above. However, these industries appear not to place focus upon the growing population that is cohabitating with people outside their family unit. This oversight is potentially creating a shortage of dwellings that can cater for cohabitation and a missed opportunity for strengthening community ties among residents throughout many regions of Australia. This finding adds information to the body of knowledge that was available before the research.

Australian and European ICLA sites were visited, residents interviewed, and a questionnaire was undertaken to explore and identify their attributes and practices. This provided detailed information about the attributes and practices of international ICLAs in answer to Research Question 2. This assessment was further investigated to ascertain whether the geographical setting and community type contributed to differences in ICLA structures and effectiveness, and so address Research Question 3. From this combined assessment, the following research findings became apparent:

2. Figure 10.1 suggests that ICLAs sit within the geographic framework of human geography. The study shows that the effectiveness of the community operation is determined by the residents’ involvement irrespective of the geographical location. However, the geographical location of Australian and European ICLAs plays a major part in how each ICLA is structured and operate their meetings. This study explored the similarity and differences of community characteristics between Australian and European ICLAs. The literature shows the differences between rural and urban communities that are reflected in this study. However, the literature places little or no distinction between Australian and European ICLAs. The analysis from section 7.6 highlight that Australian community members prefer privately owned, self- contained dwellings within communal settings, whereas European counterparts are more amenable to shared use and ownership of their living arrangement. This finding is new to the literature.

3. Themes and characteristics of ICLAs explored in Chapter 7 highlight the social, ecological and economic aspects of ICLAs that are affected by and to a

- 274 of 297 -

lesser extent have to influence over the economic, cultural and geographic environment that they exist within. In general, despite some challenges faced such as differences of opinion among members (section 7.2.3) and the increased time involved in decision making (section 7.2.5), ICLAs exhibit positive outcomes. This concurs with much of the literature surrounding ICLAs. The hierarchy of characteristics of existing ICLAs can be useful to aspiring communards and have an application to other community types within the housing landscape both in Australia and overseas.

4. The governance practices of each ICLA are influenced by the dominant society they exist within as shown by Figure 10.1. However, due to their divergent nature, they are places that explore other practices such as the occurrence of ‘heart’ meetings in European ecovillages as described in section 7.2.5 that encouraged the expression of the emotional viewpoint of members. The European ecovillages experienced many exchanges of residents between them either attending courses and, or gatherings. This cross-pollination enabled sharing of ideas and practices. One area that appeared prominent was the use of ‘heart’ meetings as part of the schedule of monthly operational meetings. During these meetings, the attendees were encouraged to express how they felt about the community initiatives and life within the community. This style of sharing enabled the attendee to express their feelings as well as their thoughts towards the meeting’s agenda. By contrast, all Australian communities, except for Tasman ecovillage, specifically kept emotional or feeling based discussion separate from the meetings. It is not clear why Australian and European communities differed in this way.

5. The greatest changes and benefits from ICLAs will likely be experienced in the urban environment by the implementation of cohousing developments because their built form is constructed similar to established mechanisms in planning frameworks, the occurrence of best cases such as those visited (Chapter 6) and others promoted widely in the media (Figure 2.25 to Figure 2.28). With increasing urbanisation throughout Australia and overseas, there will be greater pressure placed upon planners, developers and governments

- 275 of 297 -

to increase density while attempting to balance the social, ecological and economic needs of urban regions. The research supports the literature that cohousing is a viable form of community implementation that can balance those needs and this would be dependent on and also affect the economic, cultural and geography of society. There is, however, as expressed by cohousing residents a significant amount of time and commitment required to see the project through to implementation that affects the rate up uptake within societies across regions.

10.2 Research contributions

This research has contributed to the field of communal living and other sectors of the housing landscape within the field of planning spanning the economic, cultural and geographic aspects of society in several areas. It provides much needed original scholarship in the taxonomy of the broad spectrum of living arrangements, including the distinction of ICLAs and their counterparts ‘Institutional Communal Housing (ICH). This study developed a means to categorise all communal living arrangements, distinguished between institutional communal housing, shared housing and ICLAs, and provided a baseline statistical analysis of the population living communally in Australia that has not been performed previously (Section 5.2). The method and findings are useful to assist studies and policymaking in other countries. In addition, the research showed that ICLAs were not measured in the census data and provided an alternative means for measurement. This enabled an updated population approximation of ICLAs from 1985 estimates and discussed demographic characteristics. The analysis of ICLA characteristics provides a new approach to organising the social, ecological and economic aspects hierarchically and identifying the most important characteristics experienced in ICLAs. This is an addition to the previous knowledge that focussed upon one or at most two aspects concurrently. These findings may be useful for existing ICLAs in seeking improvements, as well as aspiring ICLA developments and stakeholders working in other areas of housing provision. Lastly, this research provides new insight into the differences and similarities between Australian and European communities. The information provided in the overview is useful to show practical examples of communities and how they function.

- 276 of 297 -

10.3 Research limitations

This thesis set out to investigate the status of ICLAs in Australia and learn from both Australian and international ICLAs using a mixed-methods approach. While achieving this goal, various limitations became apparent.

The online questionnaire was created to gather a diversity of information from ICLA residents internationally. The rate of 41 completed and 42 partially completed responses described in Section 6.1 was significantly less than the 300 responses anticipated from the methodology outlined in Section 4.7.3. Of those, nineteen respondents identified Australia as their resident country from the estimated population of 22,000 ICLA residents described in Section 5.3.1. This sample was not statistically large enough to draw robust conclusions about Australian population characteristics. Comments made by the respondents indicated that the questionnaire required more than 20 minutes, as suggested on the introduction page of the questionnaire, and they found it time-consuming to complete. Future research should consider employing many questionnaires, each with a different focus, rather than one covering all topics for investigation. This may enable a greater response rate. Confining the scope of the questionnaire to geographical areas would also ensure the data was region-specific.

The research was conducted with a finite amount of time and resources; thus, the scope of the site visits was limited to a selection of eight Australian and five international ICLAs, as defined in Section 4.7.1. This limitation meant it was not possible to carry out an in-depth investigation of the full spectrum of ICLA types, as well as integrate regionally specific characteristics. However, the research does provide an overview and different perspectives. Future research efforts would be advised to conduct studies focussed upon a single type of ICLA, such as cohousing, within specific regions. This would enable the extraction of the similarities and differences of that type within the spectrum.

Site visits were conducted within the time frame of both the research and the community’s availability. The earlier round of visits in Australia was a mixture of day visits and residential visits, which created minor inconsistency in the observations

- 277 of 297 -

made and, the availability for interviews. This limitation informed improvements in the second round of visits to international sites, where all but Woongroep Polter were residential visits, and this enabled greater access to community interaction and interviews. The schedule of the visits was demanding upon the researcher, with a total of three months spent in a range of communities. Each new site required meeting new people and adjusting to the routine and guidelines of the new community – both of which required flexibility and considerable effort to maintain close contact with the community members and be available for interviews whenever the residents were available. If possible, future research would benefit from having periods in between each community to assess the learnings before immersing in the next community.

The semi-structured interviews described in Section 4.7 enabled the interviewees to freely discuss the experiences in community life unique to them and their community. This gave greater comprehension of ICLA life, yet also broadened the range of themed characteristics for the coding analysis in Chapter 7, and thus limited the ability to fully explore the aspects in depth. It is suggested for future research to focus upon one of the aspects – social, ecological or economic – during the semi- structured interviews. This would be efficient for the research and would also require less involvement from the interviewee.

10.4 Final comments

It is clear from the literature and research that communal living brings a range of benefits that outweigh the challenges faced. The current five million people within the Australian population that live communally within the economic, cultural and geographic framework of Australian society is increasing in proportion, either out of necessity or by choice. Of this number, a much smaller proportion live in ICLAs. Residents of these living arrangements appear to be informed of the benefits that communal living offers and balance their needs with the needs of others, a factor that is experienced less so in other parts of modern society. Over recent decades, members of ICLAs have fine-tuned processes and community design to function effectively, built connections with communities elsewhere, and developed an extensive knowledge base to share societal solutions with others. Much greater than a mere form of housing, ICLAs are places where residents can interact in healthy

- 278 of 297 -

and sustainable ways. Institutional organisations, perhaps once fearful and unaware of ICLA characteristics, appear to be listening to the groundswell of interest in ICLAs and investigating collaboration with aspiring resident movements. From the extensive knowledge of existing communities, this research distilled the most important social, ecological and economic characteristics that designers, developers, institutional providers and residents would be wise to incorporate into the present and future projects. A suggested ‘collaborative zone of influence’ for stakeholders across the spectrum of community development approaches to work together for mutual benefit was introduced. Here lies an excellent opportunity for planners, governments and policymakers to support the most sustainable, socially connected and affordable forms of communal living arrangements – ICLAs – and for members of ICLAs to reach out and collaborate with institutional organisations to co-create positive solutions. Doing so could alleviate some of the elements of unaffordability, social dysfunction and ecological degradation associated with the contemporary Australian housing landscape.

Communal living may not be for everyone, but those who do are socially connected appear to have a lighter impact on the planet and develop the means to live more affordably. Our present and future generations are calling for the means to live in harmony with each other and our environment that ICLAs may provide possible solutions for.

- 279 of 297 -

References

Abbit, L. (2016). Senior housing alternatives: Urban cohousing the Babayaga way. Retrieved from http://seniorplanet.org/senior-housing-alternatives-urban-cohousing- the-babayaga-way/ ABC. (2013). Community gives hope to people with disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/intentional-community-gives-hope-to- people-with-disabilities ABS. (2010). Who's afraid? Feelings of personal saftey. ABS Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features40Jun+ 2010#. ABS. (2011a). 2011 Census of Population and Housing. Tablebuilder Pro - 2011 database, from Australian Bureau of Statistics https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2011b). 2011 Census Quickstats. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2011c). 2901.0 - Census Dictionary, 2011. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2013). 8752.0 - Building Activity, Australia, Jun 2013. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2014). 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2012-13. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2015). 3218.0 - Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2013-14. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2016a). 2016 Census of Population and Housing. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2016b). 2901.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Census Dictionary, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ ABS. (2017). 4130.0 - Housing Occupancy and Costs, 2015-16. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4130.02015- 16?OpenDocument ABS. (2019). 2016 Census QuickStats. Retrieved from https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/q uickstat/036?opendocument Ache, P., & Fedrowitz, M. (2012). The development of co-housing initiatives in Germany. Built Environment, 38(3), 395-412. doi:10.2148/benv.38.3.395 Acott, K. (2014). Urban sprawl Perth's big problem. The West Australian. Retrieved from https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24340072/urban-sprawl-perths-big-problem/ Adigbli, K. E. (2012). Eco-Villages Breathe New Life Into Rural Senegal [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/eco-villages-breathe-new-life-into- rural-senegal/ AHURI. (2015). Research and Policy Bulletin - Addressing recurring or protracted episodes in housing affordability stress 2001–11. Retrieved from Online: Aisenberg, L. (2018). Kibbuttz Mishmar Haemek at 96. ICSA Bulletin, 62(May), 10-13. Ali, H. M., Dom, M. M., & Sahrum, M. S. (2012). Self-Sufficient Community through the Concepts of Collective Living and Universal Housing. Aice-Bs 2012 Cairo (Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies), 68, 615-627. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.253 Allderdice, J. (2016). The cohousing option. The Canadian Architect, 61(4), 29-31. Altus, D. (2016). Perspectives on Inner and Outer Peace from Long-Term Membrs of Intentional Communtiies in the USA. Paper presented at the Institute of Secretaries and Administrators: The Governance Insitute Annual Conference 2016, London. https://www.icsa.org.uk/events/conferences-and-summits/annual-conference-2016 Anon. (2018). Closing the gap : Prime Minister's report. Australian Government Retrieved from http://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/.

- 280 of 297 -

Anon. (2019). Moorooka suburb profile. Retrieved from https://www.domain.com.au/suburb- profile/moorooka-qld-4105 Anon. (2020). What is co-living? Retrieved from https://coliving.com/what-is-coliving Anson, A. (2014). “The World is my Backyard”: Romanticization, Thoreauvian Rhetoric, and Constructive Confrontation in the Tiny House Movement. In From Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global Concerns and Urban Efforts (Vol. 14, pp. 289-313): Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Arnold, P. (1999). We're in charge: Cohousing communities for older people in the Netherlands: Lessons for Britain. Health & Social Care in the Community, 7(6), 513- 515. Avelino, F., & Kunze, I. (2009). Exploring the transition potential of the ecovillage movement. Paper presented at the KSI European conference on sustainability transitions. Bachofen, J. J. (1967). Myth, religion, and mother right / selected writings of J.J. Bachofen. London: Routledge & K. Paul. Baker, D. (2012). All the lonely people: Loneliness in Australia, 2001-2009. Retrieved from Bamford, G. (2005). Cohousing for older people: housing innovation in the Netherlands and Denmark. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 24(1), 44-46. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 6612.2005.00065.x Bamford, G., & Lennon, L. (2008). Cohousing and rethinking the neighbourhood: the Australian context. Environment Design Guide, 1-10. Bang, J. M. (1998). Challenge and Response: The Environmental Crisis and the Kibbutz Movement. Communal Societies, 18, 1-8. Barbanel, J. (2017, 9-Aug-2017). Friends With Amenities: New York Apartment Developers Embrace 'Co-Living'. Wall Street Journal (Online). Retrieved from https://search- proquest-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/docview/1927249840?accountid=14723 Barnes, A. (2015). Introducing co-housing: Australia’s urban housing solution [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.domain.com.au/news/introducing-cohousing- australias-urban-housing-solution-20150425-1msgz1/ Barrette, E. (2009). Householding: Communal Living on a Small Scale. Communities(144), 32-35. Baum, S., & Wulff, M. (2003). Housing aspirations of Australian households. Retrieved from BBC. (2018). France builds first Alzheimer's 'village' in pioneering experiment2018(06-Jun- 2018). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44376247 Bentley, R., Baker, E., Mason, K., Subramanian, S. V., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2011). Association Between Housing Affordability and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Nationally Representative Household Survey in Australia REPLY. American Journal of Epidemiology, 174(7), 753-760. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr161 Bernstein, S., & Cherny, R. (2014). Searching for the Soviet Dream: Prosperity and Disillusionment on the Soviet Seattle Agricultural Commune, 1922–1927. Agricultural History, 88(1), 22-44. doi:10.3098/ah.2014.88.1.22 Bijen, G., & Piracha, A. (2012). Evaluating the urban design and community life in public housing in Australia. Australian Planner, 49(4), 349-360. doi:10.1080/07293682.2012.678872 Bindon, P. R. (1997). Aboriginal people and granite domes. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 80(3), 173-179. Bochinski, L. (2016). Alumni of Experimental Communities: Agents of Change at a Critical Time. In G. Gershuny, J. Aldern, & D. Cooper (Eds.): ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Bosanac, A. (2016). Co-living is the new solitude.(Next Big Thing). Canadian Business, 89(2), 34. Bosman, C. (2014). Gerotopia: producing lifestyle communities for baby boomers. Australian Planner, 51(1), 15-23. doi:10.1080/07293682.2013.770770 Bouma, J., & Voorbij, L. (2008). Factors in social interaction in cohousing communities. Bouvard, M. G. (1975). The intentional community movement : building a new moral world. Port Washington, N.Y.

- 281 of 297 -

London: National University Publications, Kennikat Press. Bowler, J. M., Johnston, H., Olley, J. M., Prescott, J. R., Roberts, R. G., Shawcross, W., & Spooner, N. A. (2003). New ages for human occupation and climatic change at Lake Mungo, Australia. Nature, 421, 837. doi:10.1038/nature01383 Bowles, K. (1997). Representing suburbia: strategies of looking at Australian suburbanisation (BL). (Dissertation/Thesis), Brace, C., Bailey, A. R., & Harvey, D. C. (2006). Religion, place and space: a framework for investigating historical geographies of religious identities and communities. Progress in Human Geography, 30(1), 28-43. doi:10.1191/0309132506ph589oa Brenton, M. (1998). 'We're in charge' : cohousing communities of older people in the Netherlands : lessons for Britain? : Bristol, UK : Policy Press. Brenton, M. (2011). Cohousing: Supportive Local Networks in Old Age. In S. Bunker, C. Coates, M. Field, & J. How (Eds.), Cohousing in Britain (pp. 115-124). London: Diggers and Dreamers Review. Bresson, S., & Denèfle, S. (2015). Diversity of self-managed co-housing initiatives in France. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 1-12. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011423 Brown, K. D. (2003). Thomas C. Kennedy. British Quakerism 1860-1920: The Transformation of a Religious Community. The American Historical Review, 108(1), 259-260. doi:10.1086/533175 Burke, T., & Hulse, K. (2010). The Institutional Structure of Housing and the Sub-prime Crisis: An Australian Case Study. Housing Studies, 25(6), 821-838. doi:10.1080/02673037.2010.511161 Butlin, N. G. (1964). Investment in Australian Economic Development 1861-1900. Cambridge. Caldeira, T. P. R. (2000). City of Walls : Crime Segregation, and Citzenship in Sao Paulo: University of California Press. Calthorpe, P., & Fulton, W. (2011). “Designing the Region” and “Designing the Region is Designing the Neighborhood”: from The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl (2001). In T. L. Richard & S. Frederic (Eds.), The City Reader (pp. 486-498): Taylor and Francis. Cape, T. (2019). Live at The Cape. Retrieved from https://www.liveatthecape.com.au/ Capon, A. G. (2007). The way we live in our cities. Med J Aust, 187(11-12), 658-661. Carruthers, J. I., & Ulfarsson, G. F. (2002). Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence from Interregional Analysis. Growth and Change, 33(3), 312-340. doi:10.1111/1468- 2257.00193 Chatterton, P. (2013). Towards an Agenda for Post-carbon Cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK's First Ecological, Affordable Cohousing Community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1654-1674. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12009 Childe, V. G. (1950). The Urban Revolution. The Town Planning Review, 21(1), 3-17. Chiodelli, F. (2015). What is really different between cohousing and gated communities? European Planning Studies, 1-16. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.1096915 Chiodelli, F., & Baglione, V. (2014). Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban Research and Practice, 7(1), 20-34. doi:10.1080/17535069.2013.827905 Chitewere, T., & Taylor, D. E. (2010). Sustainable living and community building in ecovillage at Ithica: The challenges of incorporating social justice concerns into the practices of an ecological cohousing community. In D. E. Taylor (Ed.), Environment and Social Justice: An International Perspective (Vol. 18, pp. 141-176). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Choi, J. S. (2004). Evaluation of community planning and life of senior cohousing projects in northern European countries. European Planning Studies, 12(8), 1189-1216. doi:10.1080/0965431042000289296 Christian, D. L. (2003). Creating a life together: Practical tools to grow ecovillages and intentional communities: New Society Publishers. Christian, D. L. (2005). 24 Common Sources of Community Conflict. Communities(128), 25.

- 282 of 297 -

Christian, D. L. (2007). Finding community: how to join and eco village or intentional community: New society publishes. Christian, D. L. (2013a). Self-Governance with Circles and Double Links: How Sociocracy Can Help Communities, Part II. Communities(161), 61-66. Christian, D. L. (2013b). Transparency, Equivalence, and Effectiveness: How Sociocracy Can Help Communities, Part I. In (pp. 59). Rutledge: Fellowship for Intentional Community. Chyutin, M., & Chyutin, B. (2007). Architecture and utopia: the Israeli experiment. Burlington, VT; Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub. Claeys, G. (2011). Searching for Utopia : the history of an idea / Gregory Claeys. London: London : Thames & Hudson Ltd. Clark, V., Tuffin, K., Frewin, K., & Bowker, N. (2017). Housemate Desirability and Understanding the Social Dynamics of Shared Living. Qualitative Psychology. doi:10.1037/qup0000091 Cock, P. (1979). Alternative Australia: communities of the future? Melbourne ; New York: Quartet Books. Cock, P. (1995). From communal theory to Eco-Spritual practice. In B. Metcalf (Ed.), From Utopian Dreaming to Communal Reality (pp. 154-169). Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. Coghlan, D., & Brydon-Miller, M. (2014). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. London. Cohen, B., & Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), 279-296. doi:10.1177/1086026614546199 The Cohousing Directory. (2018). Retrieved from www.cohousing.org/directory Coimbra, J., & Almeida, M. (2013). Achieving Cost Benefits in Sustainable Cooperative Housing. Buildings, 3(1), 1-17. doi:10.3390/buildings3010001 Cooper, L., & Baer, H. A. (2018). Urban Eco-Communities in Australia : Real Utopian Responses to the Ecological Crisis or Niche Markets? : Singapore: Springer. Cox, H. (2016, 28 April 2016). Communal living moves upmarket in London, New York and Hong Kong. Financial Times. Cox, W., & Pavletich, H. (2016). 12th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. Retrieved from Cox, W., & Pavletich, H. (2017). 13th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. Retrieved from http://demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm Cox, W., & Pavletich, H. (2020). 16th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey. Retrieved from http://demographia.com/db-intlhouse.htm Crabtree, L. (2016). Self-organised housing in Australia: housing diversity in an age of market heat. International Journal of Housing Policy, 1-20. doi:10.1080/14616718.2016.1198083 Crabtree, L. o. (2005). Sustainable housing development in urban Australia: exploring obstacles to and opportunities for ecocity efforts. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 333- 350. doi:10.1080/00049180500325728 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Daly, M. (2016). Practicing sustainability: Lessons from a sustainable cohousing community. Paper presented at the State of Australian Cities Conference 2016. Daly, M. (2017a). “The most powerful form of activism is just the way you live”: grassroots intentional communities and the sustainability of everyday practice. (PhD), University of Technology Sydney, Daly, M. (2017b). Quantifying the environmental impact of ecovillages and co-housing communities: a systematic literature review. Local Environment, 1-20. doi:10.1080/13549839.2017.1348342

- 283 of 297 -

Davison, G. (1979). Australian Urban History: a Progress Report. Urban History, 6, 100-109. doi:10.1017/S0963926800003953 De Moura Leite, F. B. V., Bertolo, L. S., & Santos, R. F. (2016). Practices and perceptions on water resource sustainability in ecovillages. Water Resources Research, 52(8), 6004- 6017. doi:10.1002/2015WR018117 DePaulo, B. (2016, 18-May-2016). What do singles need more than a mate? Community. Washington post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/05/18/what-do-singles-need- more-than-a-mate-community/ DePaulo, B. M. (2015). How We Live Now: Redefining Home and Family in the 21st Century. Diamond, J. (2011). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Penguin. Dobney, C. (2015). Multiple occupancy zonings being ‘abolished by stealth’. Echo Netdaily. Retrieved from https://www.echo.net.au/2015/09/multiple-occupancy-zonings-being- abolished-by-stealth/ Dol, K., & Haffner, M. (2010). Housing Statistics in the European Union 2010. Retrieved from www.bmwfw.gv.at Donehue, P. (2006). Having the time for your life: An examination of the relationship between the commodification of land and housing and daily activity in intentional communities. (Doctor of Philosophy), Queensland University of Technology, Donovan, K. (2012). Seeing Like a Slum: Towards Open, Deliberative Development. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 13(1), 97-104. Droste, C. (2015). German co-housing: an opportunity for municipalities to foster socially inclusive urban development? Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 79-92. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011428 Durrett, C., & McCamant, K. (1988). Cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Berkeley, Calif: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press. Economics, T. (2017). Australia Average Weekly Wages. Retrieved from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/wages Engels, F., Morgan, L. H., & Leacock, E. (1972). The origin of the family, private property, and the state. New York: International Publishers. Ergas, C. (2010). A Model of Sustainable Living: Collective Identity in an Urban Ecovillage. Organization & Environment, 23(1), 32-54. doi:10.1177/1086026609360324 Esteva, G. (2014). Commoning in the new society. Community Development Journal, 49(suppl1), i144-i159. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsu016 Evans, R., Saunders, K., & Cronin, K. (1993). Race relations in colonial Queensland: a history of exclusion, exploitation, and extermination (Vol. 3rd). St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Faulkner, D., & Beer, A. (2011). Housing transitions through the life course: aspirations, needs and policy. Bristol, U.K: Policy Press. Featherstone, M. (2017). Planet utopia : utopia, dystopia, and globalisation / Mark Featherstone. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge. Fenton, W. (2015). What You Need to Know About Co-Living. PCmag.com. Fernández Arrigoitia, M. (2016). A sense of belonging: the case for more communal living in the UK. The Guardian. Fischer, N. A. (2015). Marxist Ethics Within Western Political Theory A Dialogue with Republicanism, Communitarianism, and Liberalism: New York : Palgrave Macmillan US : Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan. Forster, P. M., & Metcalf, B. (2004). Communal Groups: Social Laboratories or Places of Exile? Communal Societies, 20, 1-11. Foundation, F. (2018). Ecological waste water treatment. Retrieved from http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.org/index.php/water Franklin, A. (2012). A lonely society? Loneliness and liquid modernity in Australia.(Report). Australian Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 11.

- 284 of 297 -

Gaigné, C., Riou, S., & Thisse, J.-F. (2012). Are compact cities environmentally friendly? Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2-3), 123-136. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2012.04.001 Gavron, D. (2000). The kibbutz: awakening from Utopia. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. GEN. (2019). Global Ecoviliage Network. Retrieved from https://ecovillage.org/ Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy an ethical guide for transforming our communities. Minneapoli: University of Minnesota Press. Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2013). Sociology (Seventh Edition ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Glaeser, E. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2010). The greenness of cities: Carbon dioxide emissions and urban development. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(3), 404-418. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.11.006 Glass, A. P. (2011). An evaluation of an elder cohousing community. Gerontologist, 51, 504- 504. Glass, A. P. (2013). Elder cohousing: an environment that facilitates optimal aging through aging together. Gerontologist, 53, 5-5. Glass, A. P. (2016). Resident-Managed Elder Intentional Neighborhoods: Do They Promote Social Resources for Older Adults? Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(7-8), 554-571. doi:10.1080/01634372.2016.1246501 Glass, A. P., & Schroeder, M. (2008). Mutual support: expectations and challenges in an elder cohousing community. Gerontologist, 48, 703-703. Glass, A. P., & Vander Plaats, R. S. (2013). A conceptual model for aging better together intentionally. Journal of Aging Studies, 27(4), 428-442. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2013.10.001 Gleeson, B., & Low, N. P. (2000). Australian urban planning : new challenges, new agendas: St Leonards, N.S.W. : Allen & Unwin. Goodwin, B., & Taylor, K. (2009). The Politics of Utopia : A study in therory and practice: Peter Lang AG INternational Publishers. Gray, J., Marcus, J., & Carey, J. (2005). A Model Worth Considering for Affordable Homeownership and Strengthened Communities: Cooperative Housing. Journal of Housing and Community Development, 62(6), 20-24. Green, P. (2009). Living Together A Modern Answer to the Commune. New York Times Home and Garden. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com Greig, A. W. (1995). The stuff dreams are made of : housing provision in Australia 1945- 1960 / Alastair Greig. Carlton, Vic.: Carlton, Vic. : Melbourne University Press. Grinde, B. (2017). Happiness in Communal Life : A scientific project. Retrieved from http://www.ic.org/author/bjorn-grinde/ Grinde, B., Nes, R. B., Macdonald, I. F., & Wilson, D. S. (2017). Quality of Life in Intentional Communities. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1615-3 Hamiduddin, I., & Gallent, N. (2015). Self-build communities: the rationale and experiences of group-build (Baugruppen) housing development in Germany. Housing Studies, 1- 19. doi:10.1080/02673037.2015.1091920 Hayden, D. (1976). Seven American utopias: the architecture of communitarian socialism, 1790-1975. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Healey, P. (2008). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 277-292. doi:10.1177/0739456X08325175 Hilder, J., Charles-Edwards, E., Sigler, T., & Metcalf, B. (2018). Housemates, inmates and living mates : Communal living in Australia. Australian Planner, 55(1), 12-27. doi:10.1080/07293682.2018.1494612 Holdsworth, C., Finney, N., Marshall, A., & Norman, P. (2013). Population and Society: Sage Publications. Holtzman, G. (2010). Introduction to cohousing & the Australian context. Retrieved from Holtzman, G. (2014). Community by design, by the people: Social approach to designing and planning cohousing and ecovillage communities. Journal of Green Building, 9(3), 60-82. doi:10.3992/1943-4618-9.3.60

- 285 of 297 -

Hopkins, R. (2009). The transition handbook : creating local sustainable communities beyond oil dependency (Australian and New Zealand ed.. ed.): Lane Cove, N.S.W. : Finch Publishing. Housing, N. (2018). Nightingale Housing. Retrieved from http://nightingalehousing.org/ Jackson, R. V. (1970). Owner–Occupation of Houses in Sydney, 1871 to 1891. Australian Economic History Review, 10(2), 138-154. doi:10.1111/aehr.102002 James, S. W., & O'Neill, P. M. (2016). Planning for Peri-urban Agriculture: a geographically- specific, evidence-based approach from Sydney. Australian Geographer, 1-16. doi:10.1080/00049182.2015.1130676 Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 560-577. doi:10.1068/a43296 Jarvis, H. (2015). Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 93-105. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011429 Jarvis, H., Scanlon, K., Fernández Arrigoitia, M., Chatterton, P., Kear, A., O’Reilly, D., . . . Stevenson, F. (2016). Co-housing: Shared Futures. Kadet, A. (2017, 15 Aug 2017). The Shortest Commute: Where Co-Working and Co-Living Collide. Wall Street Journal (Online). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1928780757?accountid=14723 Kane, A. (2016). Creative co-living in Australia: did Beethoven knock off at six o'clock? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable- business/2016/aug/23/creative-co-living-in-australia-did-beethoven-knock-off-at-six- oclock Kasperkevic, J. (2016, 20-Mar-2016). Co-living – the companies reinventing the idea of roommates. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/20/co-living-companies-reinventing- roommates-open-door-common-?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Email Kehl, K., & Then, V. (2013). Community and Civil Society Returns of Multi-generation Cohousing in Germany. Journal of Civil Society, 9(1), 41-57. doi:10.1080/17448689.2013.771084 Kellett, J. (2011). The Australian quarter acre block: the death of a dream? The Town Planning Review, 82(3), 263-284. Kivinen, O., & Piiroinen, T. (2006). Toward Pragmatist Methodological Relationalism: From Philosophizing Sociology to Sociologizing Philosophy. Philosophy of the social sciences, 36(3), 303-329. doi:10.1177/0048393106289794 Knowles, D. (2017). Driver reviver: A $900M shot to Coolum back on course. Courier Mail. Retrieved from www.couriermail.com.au Kropf, N. P., & Cummings, S. (2019). https://theconversation.com/from-cohabitation-to- cohousing-older-baby-boomers-create-living-arrangements-to-suit-new-needs- 121592. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/from- cohabitation-to-cohousing-older-baby-boomers-create-living-arrangements-to-suit- new-needs-121592 Kunze, I. (2005). Experimentierfelder für zukunftsfähige Lebensformen. Was leisten Soziale Gemeinschaften für die Umsetzung einer Ethik der Nachhaltigkeit? In. Kunze, I. (2012). Social innovations for communal and ecological living: Lessons from sustainability research and observations in intentional communities. Communal Societies, 32(1), 39-55. Lang, J. (2014). Australia's Experiment in Communism. Retrieved from www.ironbarkresources.com Legge, K. (2016a, 25-June-2016). The Baby Boomerangs. The Weekend Australian, pp. 14- 18. Legge, K. (2016b, 5-Sep-16). The eco-village people. The Australian. Retrieved from www.theaustralian.com.au Litfin, K. (2013). From Me To We To Thee: Ecovillages And The Transition To Integral Community. Social Sciences Directory, 2(5), n/a. doi:10.7563/SSD_02_05_04

- 286 of 297 -

Litfin, K. (2014). Ecovillages: Lessons for Sustainable Community: John Wiley & Sons. 'Live' - Ecovillage at Ithaca. (2018). Retrieved from http://ecovillageithaca.org/live/ Lovering, M. (2014). AHURI Evidence Review 061 - Objecting to building affordable housing. Retrieved from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/housing_information/review/evrev061 Low, S. M. (2003). Behind the gates: life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. New York: Routledge. Maalsen, S. (2018). ‘Generation Share’: digitalized geographies of shared housing. Social & Cultural Geography, 1-9. doi:10.1080/14649365.2018.1466355 Maalsen, S. (2019). I cannot afford to live alone in this city and I enjoy the company of others: why people are share housing in Sydney. Australian Geographer, 50(3), 315- 332. doi:10.1080/00049182.2019.1613026 MacGillivray, A. (2004). Rachel Carson's Silent spring. Wingfield, S. Aust: Cameron House. Marckmann, B., Gram-Hanssen, K., & Christensen, T. H. (2012). Sustainable Living and Co- Housing: Evidence from a Case Study of Eco-Villages. Built Environment (1978-), 38(3), 413-429. doi:10.2148/benv.38.3.413 Mariano, M. (2018). A high-performance building for cohousing: from vision to move in. Communities, 179(Summer 2018), 6. Markle, E. A., Rodgers, R., Sanchez, W., & Ballou, M. (2015). Social support in the cohousing model of community: a mixed-methods analysis. Community Development, 1-16. doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1086400 Marks, A. (2017). The Kibbutz Movement. Retrieved from http://communa.org.il/icsa/index.php/the-kibbutz-movement Marks, A. (2018). Urban Kibbutzim: A Growing Movement. ICSA Bulletin, 62(May), 14-15. Marriner, C. (2015). Single mums become flatmates to cope with Sydney rent prices. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from www.smh.com.au McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (2011). Creating Cohousing : Building Sustainable Communities: New Society Publishers. McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (2017). Cohousing is.... Retrieved from http://www.cohousingco.com/cohousing McCamant, K., Durrett, C., & Hertzman, E. (1994). Cohousing : a contemporary approach to housing ourselves (2nd ed. / with Ellen Hertzman.. ed.). Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley, Calif. : Ten Speed Press. McCarty, J. W. (1974). Australian Captial Cities in the Nineteenth Century. In C. B. Schedvin & J. W. McCarty (Eds.), Urbanization in Australia : The Nineteenth Century. Sydney: Sydney University Press. McStotts, J. C. (2004). Dwelling together: using cooperative housing to abate the affordable housing shortage in Canada and the United States. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 32(1), 131. Mears, T. (2015). How Baby Boomers Are Creating Their Own Retirement Communities. U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved from https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2015/04/20/how-baby- boomers-are-creating-their-own-retirement-communities Meijering, L., Huigen, P., & Van Hoven, B. (2007). Intentional Communities in Rural Spaces. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 98(1), 42-52. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 9663.2007.00375.x Meltzer, G. S. (2000a). Cohousing: toward social and environmental sustainability. (Dissertation/Thesis), St.Lucia, Qld. Meltzer, G. S. (2000b). Cohousing: Verifying the importance of community in the application of environmentalism. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(2), 110- 132. Meltzer, G. S. (2005). Sustainable community: learning from the cohousing model. Victoria, B.C: Trafford. Meltzer, G. S. (2010). Cohousing and Ecovillages: A personal take on their similarities and differences. Paper presented at the International Collaborative housing, Stokholm.

- 287 of 297 -

Menkel-Meadow, C. (2003). Conflict Resolution. In K. Christensen & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World (pp. 320-323). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/community. doi:10.4135/9781412952583 Merriam-Webster. (2017a). "Community". Online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Merriam-Webster. (2017b). "Gemeinschaft.". Retrieved from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/gemeinschaft Merriam-Webster. (2019). Generation 'Y'. Online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Metcalf, B. (1995). From utopian dreaming to communal reality: cooperative lifestyles in Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. Metcalf, B. (1997). Australian Utopias. In W. Hudson & G. Bolton (Eds.), Creating Australia: Changing Australian History (pp. 122-130). Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Metcalf, B. (2003). Intentional communities in Australia and New Zealand. In K. Christensen & D. Levinson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World (Vol. 1, pp. 706-712). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com/reference/community. doi:10.4135/9781412952583 Metcalf, B. (2004). The Findhorn book of community living. Forres, Scotland: Findhorn Press. Metcalf, B. (2010). Mish'ol: An Urban Kibbutz. Communities(149), 57. Metcalf, B., & Christian, D. L. (2004). Intentional Communities. In G. J. S. George R. Goethals, and James MacGregor Burns (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 735-740). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications Inc. Metcalf, B., & Huf, E. (2002). Herrnhut: Australia's first utopian commune. Carlton South, Vic: Melbourne University Press. Metcalf, B., Kerr, R., & Christie, I. (2015). 'Protestant Unity' Commune and the establishment of Pomona. Queensland History Journal, 22(11), 841-858. Metcalf, B., & Vanclay, F. (1985). Social characteristics of alternative lifestyle participants in Australia. Nathan, Qld.: Nathan, Qld. : Institute of Applied Social Research. Midgley, J., & Coghill, J. (2016, 26.Nov-2015). Unique sustainable commune for single baby boomers being built on Sunshine Coast. ABC Radio Sunshine Coast. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-25/unique-sustainable-commune-for-solo-baby- boomers-being-built/6972648 Midland-Express. (2017, 15 May 2017). Eco viliage excites. Midlan Express. Retrieved from http://www.elliottmidnews.com.au/story/4662667/eco-village-excites/ Miles, M. (2008). Urban Utopias : the built and social architectures of alternative settlements. Miller, T. (2010). The Evolution of American Spiritual Communities, 1965–2009. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 13(3), 14-33. doi:10.1525/nr.2010.13.3.14 Miller, T. (2013a). Introduction: Persistence over millennia: The perennial presence of intentional communities. In (pp. 1-14). Miller, T. (2013b). Spiritual and visionary communities: out to save the world. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Miller, T. (2015). The Encyclopedic Guide to American Intentional Communities (Vol. Second edition): Richard W. Couper Press. More, T. S. S., Bruce, S., Neville, H., & Bacon, F. (1999). Utopia. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. More, T. S. S., & Logan, G. M. (2011). Utopia: a revised translation, backgrounds, criticism. New York, N.Y: W.W. Norton & Co. Murphy, K. (2009). ‘The modern idea is to bring the country into the city’: Australian Urban Reformers and the Ideal of Rurality, 1900–1918*. Rural History, 20(1), 119-136. doi:10.1017/S0956793308002616

- 288 of 297 -

Musil, R. K. (2014). Rachel Carson and her sisters: extraordinary women who have shaped America's environment. Nause, D. (2010). 6 defining characterisitics of cohousing. In M. S. U. o. L. Architecture (Ed.), LA 8731 Seminar in Community Based Planning (pp. 1). Nelson, A. (2018a). Planning for eco-collaborative housing. Planning News, 44(2), 21. Nelson, A. (2018b). Small is Necessary : Shared Living on a Shared Planet: Pluto Press. Neshama, A., Kate, D., & Craig, R. (2006). Elder Cohousing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? In (pp. 60). Rutledge: Fellowship for Intentional Community. Nguyen, H. K. (2016). Kyosei: A Co-Living Approach in Japanese Culture and Design Practice. The Design Journal, 19(5), 789-808. doi:10.1080/14606925.2016.1206705 Nock, M. (2011). Living with communal decision making: Laughton Lodge. In S. Bunker, C. Coates, M. Field, & J. How (Eds.), Cohousing in Britain (pp. 65-78). London: Diggers and Dreamers Review. Nuga, M., Metspalu, P., Org, A., & Leetmaa, K. (2015). Planning post-summurbia: From spontaneous pragmatism to collaborative planning? Moravian geographical reports, 23(4), 36-46. doi:10.1515/mgr-2015-0023 O'Callaghan, B., Green, H. J., Hyde, R. A., Wadley, D., & Upadhyay, A. (2012). Exploring the influence of housing design and occupant environmental attitudes on energy and water usage. Architectural Science Review, 55(3), 176. doi:10.1080/00038628.2012.693813 OECD. (2017). OECD Better Policies for Better Lives. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/australia.htm Owen, R. (1840). An outline of the rational system of society, founded on demonstrable facts, developing the constitution and laws of human nature. Manchester: A. Heywood. Paddison, R. (2001). Handbook of Urban Studies. London: London : SAGE Publications. Pearson, L. F. (1988). The architectural and social history of cooperative living. London: The MacMillan Press LTD. Perrigan, D. (2006). Houses united: For those who live in cohousing, home is where the community is. The Chronical. Retrieved from www.sfgate.com Perry, C. (2011). The neighborhood unit from The regional Plan of New York and its environs (1929). In T. L. Richard & S. Frederic (Eds.), The City Reader (pp. 486- 498): Taylor and Francis. Peters, A. (2016). This New Neighborhood Will Grow Its Own Food, Power Itself, And Handle Its Own Waste. Retrieved from www.fastcoexist.com Phillip, G. A. (1788). HRA series1, vi 4. Pincock, S. (2010). The great Australian loneliness. Australian Doctor. Pitzer, D. E. (2012). Developmental communalism into the twenty first century. In E. Ben Rafael, I. c. Oved, & M. e. Ṭopel (Eds.), The Communal Idea in the 21st Century: Brill. Plato, Emlyn-Jones, C. J., & Preddy, W. (2013). Republic / edited and translated by Chris Emlyn-Jones, William Preddy. Cambridge, Mass. ; London: Cambridge, Mass. ; London : Harvard University Press. QSR. (2018). Nvivo - Glossary of key terms. Retrieved from http://help- nv11.qsrinternational.com/desktop/concepts/Key_terms.htm Quintal, D., & Thompson, S. (2007). Gated Communities: The search for security. Paper presented at the State of Australian Cities Conference, Adelaide. www.soac.fbe.unsw.edu.au Rabbitt, N., & Ghosh, B. (2013). A study of feasibility and potential benefits of organised car sharing in Ireland. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 49-58. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.004 Renard, J. (2006). Religious Community, Place, and the Spatial Arts: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives from Around the World. Religion and the Arts, 10(2), 271-290. doi:10.1163/156852906777977789

- 289 of 297 -

Reynolds, H. (1996). Aboriginal Sovereignty: Three Nations, one Australia. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd. Riedy, C., Wynne, L., McKenna, K., & Daly, M. (2019). "It's a Great Idea for Other People": Cohousing as a Housing Option for Older Australians. Urban Policy and Research, 37(2), 227-242. doi:10.1080/08111146.2018.1531750 RMIT. (2017). Creating Liveable Cities in Australia. Retrieved from https://cur.org.au/project/national-liveability-report/ Robinson, G. M. (1998). Methods and techniques in human geography / by Guy M. Robinson. Chichester : New York: Chichester : New York : J. Wiley. Rogers, A., Castree, N., & Kitchin, R. (2013). Community. In A dictionary of Human Geography: Oxford University Press. Roitman, S. (2010). Gated communities: definitions, causes and consequences. Proceedings of the ICE - Urban Design and Planning, 163(1), 31-38. doi:10.1680/udap.2010.163.1.31 Roitman, S. (2012). Close but Divided: How Walls, Fences and Barriers Exacerbate Social Differences and Foster Urban Social Group Segregation. Housing, Theory and Society, 30(2), 1-21. doi:10.1080/14036096.2012.728150 Rosenblatt, A. (2009). Financial Benefits of Communal Living. In (pp. 66). Rutledge: Fellowship for Intentional Community. Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between Cohousing and Gated Communities. A Literature Review. Sociological Inquiry, 84(2), 316-335. doi:10.1111/soin.12031 Ryan, J. (2014, 5-Aug-2014). Multigenerational family home in Sydney's Balmain wins architecture prize. Radio National - By Design Segment. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bydesign/moving-back-in-with- mum/5639108 Saegert, S., Greer, A., Thaden, E. P., & Anthony, D. L. (2015). Longing for a Better American Dream: Homeowners in Trouble Evaluate Shared Equity Alternatives. Social Science Quarterly, 96(2), 297-312. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12147 The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. (2014). In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. London. Sandstedt, E., & Westin, S. (2015). Beyond Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Cohousing Life in Contemporary Sweden. Housing, Theory and Society, 32(2), 131-150. doi:10.1080/14036096.2015.1011687 Sanguinetti, A. (2013). Cohousing: A Behavioral Approach, Transformational Practices, and the Retrofit Model. In D. Stokols, A. Garde, & S. Rosenberg (Eds.): ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Sanguinetti, A. (2014). Transformational practices in cohousing: Enhancing residents' connection to community and nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 86- 96. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.003 Sargent, L. T. (1994). The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited. Utopian Studies, 5(1), 1-37. Sargisson, L. (2011). Cohousing Evolution in Scandinavia and the USA. In S. Bunker, C. Coates, M. Field, & J. How (Eds.), Cohousing in Brittan (pp. 23-42). London: Diggers and Dreamers Publications. Sargisson, L. (2012). Fool's gold : Utopianism in the Twenty-First century: Palgrave Macmillan. Sargisson, L., & Sargent, L. (2017). Lived Utopianism: Everyday Life and Intentional Communities. Communal Societies, 37(1), 1-23. Sargisson, L., & Tower Sargent, L. (2004). Living in Utopia: New Zealand's Intentional Communities. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Schedvin, C. B., & McCarty, J. W. (1974). Urbanization in Australia: the nineteenth century. Sydney: Sydney University Press. Scott-Hansen, C., & Scott-Hansen, K. (2005). The cohousing handbook building a place for community (Rev. ed. / Chris Scott-Hansen & Kelly Scott-Hansen.. ed.). Philadelphia: New Society.

- 290 of 297 -

Seyfang, G., & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing Grassroots Innovations: Exploring the Role of Community-Based Initiatives in Governing Sustainable Energy Transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381-400. doi:10.1068/c10222 Sharam, A., Bryant, L. E., & Alves, T. (2015). Identifying the financial barriers to deliberative, affordable apartment development in Australia. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 8(4), 471-483. doi:10.1108/IJHMA-10-2014-0041 Shearer, H. (2017). Tiny houses: Interest is growing but who wants them and why? The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/interest-in-tiny-houses-is- growing-so-who-wants-them-and-why-83872 Sherry, J. (2014). Community supported sustainability: How ecovillages model more sustainable community. In C. Andrews (Ed.): ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Sherry, J., & Ormsby, A. (2016). Sustainability in Practice: A Comparative Case Study Analysis of the Eco Village at Ithaca, Earthaven, and Sirius. Communal Societies, 36(2), 125-151. Sherwood, H. (2010, 13-Aug-2-10). The kibbutz: 100 years old and facing an uncertain future. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com Sherwood, H. (2014, 21-Nov-14). How to create happy communities through co-housing. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com Smith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods: place attachment and social exclusion. Bristol: Policy. Smith, W. L. (2002). Intentional communities 1990-2000: a portrait. Michigan Sociological Review, 16, 107-131. Sosis, R., & Bressler, E. R. (2003). Cooperation and commune longevity: A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-cultural research, 37(2), 211-239. Stanes, E., Klocker, N., & Gibson, C. (2015). Young adult households and domestic sustainabilities. Geoforum, 65, 46-58. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.007 Steding, D. (2019). Coliving: an emerging term without a common definition. In Coliving: en växande term utan gemensam definition. Sullivan-Caitlan, H. (2004). “A Good Borderland”: Cohousing Communities and Social Change. Communal Societies, 24. Sumner, J. (2016). Could co-owned homes help solve the housing crisis? Retrieved from www.citymetric.com Takabatake, S. (2007). Co-living (共生 kyousei) with barbaroi: from archaic to classical Greece. Co living キョウセイ kyousei with barbaroi from archaic to classical Greece(5), 101-114. Tan, S.-L. (2016). Co-housing because everyone needs good neighbours. Australian Financial Review, p. 70. Tanner, C. J. (2007). A case study for the Ecovillage at Currumbin - integrated water management planning, design and construction. In C. A. Brebbia & A. Kungolos (Eds.), Water Resources Management IV (Vol. 103, pp. 33-41). Southampton: Wit Press. Tatman, C. (2016, 3-Oct-16). Frankston Council rejects Co-housing project. Leader. Retrieved from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/frankston-council- rejects-cohousing-project--despite-report-it-is-consistent-with-planning-policy/news- story/e4befc1a754bfceeee029b7f4653b9ac Tatman, C. (2017). Frankston co-housing supporters drawn to sense of community. Leader. Retrieved from http://www.heraldsun.com.au Taylor, J. (2009). Indigenous demography and public policy in Australia: population or peoples? Journal of Population Research, 26(2), 115-130. doi:10.1007/s12546-009- 9010-9 Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of Contemporary Issues in Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2 ed., pp. 5). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE

- 291 of 297 -

Publications, Inc. Retrieved from https://methods.sagepub.com/book/sage-handbook- of-mixed-methods-social-behavioral-research-2e. doi:10.4135/9781506335193 Thiering, B. (1992). Jesus the man: a new interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Sydney: Doubleday. Thompson, C. (2013). Master-Planned Estates: Privatization, Socio-Spatial Polarization and Community. Geography Compass, 7(1), 85-93. doi:10.1111/gec3.12021 Thompson, S. D. (1997). Cohousing in Australia : an exploration of the issues and effects of cohousing in Australia. (Dissertation/Thesis), The University of Queensland,, Today-tonight (Writer). (2017). New style of communal living underway in Denmark WA [Current Affairs programme on Television]. In C. 7 (Producer), Today Tonight. Tomlinson, M. (2012). Gen Y and Housing Inheritance in Australia. In (Vol. 30, pp. 327-337): TF. Tönnies, F., & Loomis, C. P. (1955). Community and association = (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). London: Routledge & Paul. Torres-Antonini, M., Hasell, M. J., & Scanzoni, J. (2003). Cohousing as a basis for social connectedness and ecological sustainability. In G. Moser, E. Pol, Y. Bernard, M. Bonnes, J. A. Corraliza, & M. V. Giuliani (Eds.), People, Places and Sustainability (pp. 123-130). Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Troy, P. N. (1995). Australian cities : issues, strategies, and policies for urban Australia in the 1990s: Cambridge, UK. Troy, P. N. (2012). Accommodating Australians : Commonwealth government involvement in housing. Annandale, N.S.W.: Annandale, N.S.W. : Federation Press. Tummers, L. (2015). Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how? Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 64-78. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.1011427 Tummers, L. (2016). The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2023-2040. doi:10.1177/0042098015586696 Turner, M. D. (2017). Political ecology III: The commons and commoning. Progress in Human Geography, 030913251666443. doi:10.1177/0309132516664433 UK Cohousing Directory. (2018). Retrieved from https://cohousing.org.uk/information/uk- cohousing-directory/ UN. (2017). Households and families. Online: United Nations. UN. (2018). 2018 Revision of World Urbanization Prospects. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/2018-revision-of-world- urbanization-prospects.html UrbanEcology. (2015). Christie Walk resident's pack. In (pp. 12): Urban Ecology Australia. Vestbro, D. U. (2010a). Concepts and terminology. In D. U. Vestbro (Ed.), Living together - Cohousing Ideas and Realities Around the World (pp. 21-29). Stokholm: Division of Urban and Regional Studies, KTH and Kollektivus NU. Vestbro, D. U. (2010b). History of Co-housing - Internationally and in Sweden. Paper presented at the Living together - Cohousing ideas and Realities Around the World, Stockholm. Vestbro, D. U. (2010c). Living together - cohousing ideas and realities around the world. Paper presented at the International collaborative housing, Stockholm. Vestbro, D. U., & Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality: The history of co-housing ideas and realities. Built Environment, 38(3), 315-335. doi:10.2148/benv.38.3.315 Warburton, R. F. E., & Hendy, P. (2006). International Comparison of Australia's Taxes. Retrieved from http://www.ag.gov.au/cca What is a tiny house. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.tinyhousecompany.com.au/about- what/ Williams, J. (2005a). Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of Cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), 195-227. doi:10.1080/13574800500086998

- 292 of 297 -

Williams, J. (2005b). Sun, surf and sustainable housing-cohousing, the Californian experience. International Planning Studies, 10(2), 145-177. doi:10.1080/13563470500258824 Williams, M. (Writer). (2017). Life on a Commune on Blueprint for Living : Why do some communes thrive and others fall apart? In. Online: Radio National. Williams, M., & Vogt, W. P. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods. London: London : SAGE Publications. Willing, R., & Pojani, D. (2017). Is the suburban dream still alive in Australia? Evidence from Brisbane. Australian Planner, 54(2), 67-79. doi:10.1080/07293682.2017.1296875 Wood, G. A., & Stoakes, A. K. (2006). Long-Run Trends in Victorian Housing Affordability and First Transition into Homeownership. Urban Policy and Research, 24(3), 325- 340. doi:10.1080/08111140600876927 Yates, J., & Gabriel, M. (2006). Housing affordability in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_nrv3_research_paper_3 Young, N. J. (2010). Intentional Communities. In N. J. Young (Ed.), The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Peace: Oxford University Press. Zablocki, B. (1980). Alienation and charisma : a study of contemporary American communes. New York: Free Press. ZEGG Forum. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.zegg-forum.org/en/ Zhang, R., & Lv, Y. H. (2011). A New Living Concept Based on Low-impact Strategy - The Sustainability of Cohousing Community. In X. K. Wu & H. Xie (Eds.), Green Building Technologies and Materials (Vol. 224, pp. 220-223). Stafa-Zurich: Trans Tech Publications Ltd.

- 293 of 297 -

Appendix 1. ICLA interview questions

- 294 of 297 -

- 295 of 297 -

- 296 of 297 -

Appendix 2. ICLA interview and questionnaire content summary

Thematic Nodes Sources References Total theme % of Theme nodes % of all research references nodes Ecological Ecological - philosophical 23 162 869 18.6% 4.0% Food production 21 144 16.6% 3.5% Energy efficiency 26 142 16.3% 3.5% Water management 12 116 13.3% 2.9% Resource sharing 24 103 11.9% 2.5% Waste management 14 88 10.1% 2.2% Car sharing 19 50 5.8% 1.2% Car alternatives 15 44 5.1% 1.1% Solar electricity 14 20 2.3% 0.5% Economic Costs - overheads 24 228 687 33.2% 5.6% Affordability - philosophy 11 126 18.3% 3.1% Investment 11 108 15.7% 2.7% Costs - Utilities 16 87 12.7% 2.1% Income - Shared 12 45 6.6% 1.1% Return on investment 11 21 3.1% 0.5% Income - internal 6 18 2.6% 0.4% Costs - Membership 9 14 2.0% 0.3% Affordability - economic 9 13 1.9% 0.3% Income - external 4 12 1.7% 0.3% Costs - Meals and services 7 9 1.3% 0.2% Challenges - Cost of build 1 6 0.9% 0.1% Social Governance - Meetings 29 269 2510 10.7% 6.6% Shared interaction 35 268 10.7% 6.6% Governance - membership 31 264 10.5% 6.5% Governance - Decision making 32 247 9.8% 6.1% Work teams 31 208 8.3% 5.1% Contribution 30 139 5.5% 3.4% Shared meals 23 122 4.9% 3.0% Conflict resolution 20 121 4.8% 3.0% Happiness 15 121 4.8% 3.0% Group development 16 90 3.6% 2.2% Governance - Agreements and guidelines 24 83 3.3% 2.0% Care of each other 29 82 3.3% 2.0% Connection to outside community 25 79 3.1% 1.9% Communication means 11 73 2.9% 1.8% Respect for each other 20 65 2.6% 1.6% Choice to interact 16 36 1.4% 0.9% Governance - Sociocracy 10 32 1.3% 0.8% Challenges - Group Dysfunctionality 9 28 1.1% 0.7% Pets 10 22 0.9% 0.5% Attraction to community 12 21 0.8% 0.5% Governance - Consensus 12 21 0.8% 0.5% Sharing goods 11 16 0.6% 0.4% Challenges - Constant interaction 8 15 0.6% 0.4% Challenges - Rules and guidelines 7 15 0.6% 0.4% Challenges - Sharing equipment and resources 9 15 0.6% 0.4% Equality 8 13 0.5% 0.3% Challenges - Structured interactions 7 12 0.5% 0.3% Governance - Pets 8 11 0.4% 0.3% Challenges - Voting 7 8 0.3% 0.2% Challenges - Imbalanced contribution 1 7 0.3% 0.2% Comprimise 2 4 0.2% 0.1% Challenges - Busyness 2 2 0.1% 0.0% Custodianship 1 1 0.0% 0.0% Table 10.1 Selected nodes for thematic analysis

- 297 of 297 -