research-l Mailing List: Re: California Cohousing Communities

[David Entin (davidentin]

Angela, cohousing has traditionally used the six criteria that Chuck and Katy included in their original book to define cohousing.   I don’t recall them, but do remember, self-managed, democratic, not economic activity, etc.   Do check their book – may be listed on the cohousing.org website.    I don’t believe having a particular focus would exclude a community if other criteria met.   For example, a forming cohousing group around here is working to form a vegan cohousing community.  David

 

From: research-l [mailto:research-l-bounces+davidentin=comcast.net [at] cohousingresearchnetwork.org] On Behalf Of Angela Sanguinetti
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:55 PM
To: David Entin
Subject: [research-l] California Cohousing Communities

 

Hello Cohousing Research Network,

 

I am involved in some research regarding cohousing communities in California.  I am seeking feedback on our inclusion/exclusion criteria for identifying cohousing communities. 

 

We excluded communities based on the following: educational centers; focus on a particular religion/spiritual practice; exclusively queer/gay; single individual is leader; self-defined as eco-village, other IC type, or just IC broadly; senior cohousing also excluded because age-exclusivity would be a confounding variable in our particular study. 

 

First of all, what do you think about these criteria? The resultant list is below. Please let me know if you notice any communities missing or see any you think should be excluded.

 

All best,

 

Angela

 

 

 

 

Angela Sanguinetti, Ph.D.

Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA)

Behavioral Scientist, Consumer Energy Interfaces Lab at UC Davis

Director, Cohousing Research Network