“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