International Journal of Human Ecology

The Korean Home Economics Association (대한가정학회)
권호 표지

Characteristics of Community Life in Foreign Intentional Communities Focus on the Differences between Ecovillage and Cohousing

  • Choi, Jung-Shin (Department of Consumer & Housing Studies, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Published : 2008.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study investigates the different characteristics (mainly of community life) in representative intentional communities, between the ecovillage and cohousing, since the different purpose of the establishment of the community might result different characteristics. The study method is data analysis: the analysis material is Community Directory, A Comprehensive Guide to Intentional Communities and Cooperative Living (Rutledge, 2005). Of 750 listed communities, 397 (211 ecovillages and 186 cohousings) communities were analyzed. The findings of the study reveal that there are clear differences of community life between ecovillages and cohousings even though two communities are regarded as similar intentional communities. The similarities between the two communities are as follows: 1) Those mostly distributed in the USA, and established before 2000. 2) Dominant size of intentional communities is less than 20 residents and 20 houses. 3) They make decisions in consensus. 4) They eat together very frequently; at least once a week or more. 5) Shared work is required. The differences between the two communities are as follows: 1) They have different aims of establishment. For instance, ecovillage focus more on eco-living, while cohousing focuses more on the cohousing idea. 2) There are more female residents in cohousings than in ecovillages. 3) There are more cohousings in urban areas with a smaller area of land, contrary to that there are more ecovillages in rural areas with larger areas of land. 4) There are less identified leaders or leadership core groups in cohousing than in ecovillages. 5) Income sharing is more common in ecovillages than in cohousings. According to there findings, it is evident that a different purpose of establishment result in different characteristics of community life even though those belong to the similar category of the intentional community. Thus, it is recommended to adapt the correct characteristics that fit the aim of the community in the establishment an intentional community Topics and discussions about establishing intentional Topics and discussions abut establishing intentional communities could contribute to gather the intentional communities could contribute to gather the interests communities could contribute to gather the interests of residents as well as those of relevant civil-workers and administrators in Korea.

Keywords

References

  1. Ambrose, I. (1993). Etablering af seniorbofaellesskaber, Erfaringer frfaringer projecker I Odense. Statens Byggeforskningsinstitu, Copenhagen Denmark
  2. Cho, J. H., Lee, D. S., Kwak, Y. M., & Choi, J. S. (2008). A Case study of residents' participation and common activities of intentional community in Korea, - Mindlre Community-. Paper presented at ENHR International Conference, July 06-09, Dublin Ireland
  3. Choi, J. S. (2001). A case study of environmental movement and development of ecological architecture in Sweden. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 17(4)
  4. Choi, J. S., & P, Jan (2006). Planning and implication of senior cohousing projects in Scandinavian countries. Seoul: Jipmundang
  5. Choi, J. S. (2007). Analysis of intentional communities in foreign countries -In reference to cohousing community-. Paper presented at the 2nd annual conference of Korean association of home management, Seoul, Korea
  6. Choi, J. S. (2008). Actual condition and characteristics of residents' participation of intentional communities in Korea. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 19(5), 93-102
  7. Christian, D. L. (2003). Creating a life together, practical tools to grow ecovillages and intentional communities. New Society Publishers. Canada
  8. Christian, D. L. (2007). Finding community, how to join an ecovillage or intentional community. New Society Publishers. Canada
  9. FIC. (2005). Communities directory, a comprehensive guide to intentional communities and cooperative living (4th ed.). Rutledge, Missouri
  10. Jensen, S. P. (1994). Summary and conclusions of the conference on cohousing for senior citizens in Europe. BIC, Copenhagen Denmark
  11. Jeon, Hosang (2007). On the spatial organization of intentional community. Doctoral dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul
  12. Kozeny, G. (2007). In community intentionally, communities directory, a comprehensive guide to intentional communities and cooperative living. Rutledge, Missouri USA
  13. Kwak, Y. M., Cho, J. H., & Choi, J. S. (2005). A case study of ecovillage in vauban housing estate, Freibrug, Germany. Paper presented at the second annual conference of Korean Housing Institute, Seoul
  14. Kwak, Y. M. (2008). A common house plan in eco-friendly village for revitalization of community. Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul
  15. Dwelling Research Group (2000). Cohousing in the world: Dwelling with neighbors. Seoul: Kyomunsa
  16. Lowe, Ian (2005). Foreword, in sustainable community, learning from the cohousing model, by Meltzer, Graham. Canada: Trafford
  17. McCamant, Kathlyn, & Durrett, Charles (2003). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves (2nd ed.). Canada: Ten Speed Press
  18. Melzer, Graham (2005). Sustainable community, learning from the cohousing model. Canada: Trafford
  19. Walker, L. (2006). Itaca ecovillage. (Lee, Kyunga, Trarns.). Seoul: Hwangso-guleum
  20. Wann, D. (2005). Reinventing community. Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing