Source
https://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/entities/publication/b6d2965e-d4f8-4850-b978-75b1082bd7fc — original source (opens in a new tab; the file is not redistributed)
Summary
Olive Jones (2011) PhD thesis (Sociology, University of Waikato). Comparative qualitative study of four long-established intentional communities (ICs) in New Zealand: Wilderland (Coromandel Peninsula, 73ha, late 1960s), Renaissance Community (Motueka Valley, 23ha, 1970s), Tui Community (Golden Bay, 72ha, early 1980s), and Riverside Community (Lower Moutere, Nelson, 208ha, ~1940s). All four are held in charitable trusts. Central thesis: charitable trust land ownership is the primary structural mechanism that has allowed NZ ICs to persist beyond the lifecycles of founding members, preventing dissolution through land sale or private reversion. Secondary themes: decision-making models, membership dynamics, economic sustainability, and the universal community drift from gemeinschaft (communal bonds) toward gesellschaft (associational ties) over time.
NZ context: NZ has an unusually large number of long-lived ICs relative to comparable countries (Sargisson & Sargent, 2004); Jones proposes the charitable trust structure as the primary explanation. Modern ecovillage and cohousing models are described as “the fastest growing area of the alternative living movement” (Brignall 2009; Dawson 2006; Kozeny 2003). Three of the four communities are in the project’s site-visit programme.
Key claims
Governance and longevity (I05, I06)
- Charitable trust ownership is the primary mechanism enabling long-lived NZ ICs: land cannot revert to private ownership, preventing dissolution under member departure or internal conflict; Jones identifies this as the structural explanation for NZ’s disproportionate share of long-lived ICs. LIT_015
- All four communities are held in charitable trusts; NZ ICs survive longer than the international norm partly because community house values are far below freehold equivalents — there is no equity to extract and start again. LIT_015
- Within Tui’s first 5 years, half the founding group left; the trust structure prevented dissolution — the land could not be sold or divided regardless of member departure. LIT_015
- Cyclical nature of community change: all four communities experienced repeating cycles of vitality and decline across generations; no linear trajectory of growth or decline observed. LIT_015
- “The problem of establishing a viable and satisfying system of power, authority and decision-making is among the most difficult for communal orders.” (Kanter, 1973) — the central governance challenge of intentional communities, confirmed across all four cases. LIT_015
- Contrasting decision-making models: Riverside — full consensus (“minus one” rule, all members involved in all decisions; slow, increasingly stagnating); Tui — empowered management groups (finance, land, garden, technical development, building, community facilities, festivities) each authorised to act within broad community policy + ‘tuki’ heart meetings 3–4 times/year for interpersonal and ideological issues, separating business from relationship work. Tui reduced decision meetings from 1am+ to ~1.5 hours. LIT_015
Membership and social capital (I04)
- Universal trend across all communities: gemeinschaft (communal bonds, common purpose) gradually shifts toward gesellschaft (associational, contractual ties) over time — communities become less communal as generations turn over. LIT_015
- Mean age of IC members was in the high forties and increasing at approximately half a year per year (Metcalf & Christian, 2003); by 2011 estimated at early 50s — ageing is a systemic structural risk, not an individual community problem. LIT_015
- Tui Community capped new membership at age 35 or under as a direct counter-measure to its ageing membership profile. LIT_015
- One in three probationary members at Riverside Community perseveres to full membership — the conversion rate from trial to committed membership is the critical throughput metric for community renewal. LIT_015
- New members are simultaneously destabilising (disrupting established culture) and vital (renewing energy and skills); the balance between productive core group and peripheral unproductive group is critical to community viability. LIT_015
Financial and economic sustainability (I01)
- Riverside Community: complete income pooling for ~70 years — all earned income pooled; members receive a modest allowance. The only NZ IC with this model still operating at time of study; 70-year continuity is unique in NZ. LIT_015
- Risk of shared income model: reduces individual incentive, dampens entrepreneurship and innovation, creates a “culture of dependency” among members — identified as a structural trade-off of full economic communalism. LIT_015
- Riverside apple orchard phased out: organic/commercial conflict, lost key manager, became uncompetitive. Community café operated at a loss. Dairy farm became primary income source from 2009. LIT_015
- Enterprise conversion cost: approximately $50–60k per hectare (Riverside context) — prohibitive barrier to shifting from one agricultural enterprise to another, locking communities into legacy income models. LIT_015
Research targets
Documents to retrieve
- [RT_066] Sargisson L & Sargent L (2004) Living in Utopia: New Zealand’s Intentional Communities — first substantial survey of NZ intentional communities; primary source for the claim NZ has an unusually large proportion of long-lived ICs; cited throughout Jones (2011)
- [RT_067] Metcalf B & Christian D (2003) — intentional community canonical definition and ageing membership data; source of “high forties, increasing at half a year per year” membership age data
Research gaps
- [RT_068] Dawson J (2006) Ecovillages: New Frontiers for Sustainability — cited by Jones as source of “fastest growing area of the alternative living movement” claim for modern ecovillages; useful thesis background
Connections
Referenced by
Sources (7): LIT_016 · LIT_030 · LIT_070 · OT_192 · URL_004 · URL_028 · URL_029
SSI indicators (4): I01: Financial & Economic Self-Sufficiency · I04: Human Development & Social Capital · I05: Good Governance & Transparency · I06: Resistance to External Shocks
Cases (3): Riverside Community · Tui Community · Wilderland