Seite 292 [292]
OCR
290 ANDRÁS TAKÁCS-SÁNTA are in harmony with ecologically conscious thinking and lead logically to environment-conscious behavior (Takäcs-Sänta 2016a; 2017). Thirdly, the communities in question have common practical goals and they try to attain them together. Fourthly, only those groups can currently be termed communities that have at least three (sometimes several hundred) adult members that represent at least two different kinship lines. (A single family in today’s sense does not constitute a community.) As follows from the above, we are speaking about ecological local communities. They can be divided into two large groups: some strive to realize a complex alternative way of life, while others only focus on a single issue. The latter include, among others, communal gardens (Rosta 2014) or local exchange services (LETS, Jacsö 2013), most of which are urban communities. Hereafter, only the ecocommunities aimed at realizing a complex alternative mode of living are discussed, with the reservation that — in theory — they may also develop from “single-focus” communities. Under one typology, the local communities that realize an alternative ecological way of life can belong to one of three main groups (Takacs-Sdnta 2016a; 2017). One group comprises ecovillages. Ecovillages are separate settlements or parts of settlements, the dwelling places of communities living an ecological way of life.” The second group contains co-housing communities. A co-housing is a place of residence where people decide to launch a residential community, take part in planning the building and organize the life of the community. They share out the burdens — as well as the tasks and activities — among the members collectively (Takacs-Santa et al. 2017: chap. 10). Co-housings can predominantly be found in cities, but there are some in the countryside as well. Though only a smaller part of them were initiated for ecological purposes, it applies to them in general that their inhabitants exert less pressure on the environment than the surrounding majority society, due to their communal way of living (Meltzer 2005). The third group comprises the “scattered” eco-communities. Unlike the other two categories, here the members of the community are not close to each other but live scattered in the settlement (or in several nearby settlements), in a minority, compared to the population of the area. Such communities can be found in cities and rural settlements alike. The tightness of the relationship between the members may vary considerably among ecological local communities. In “scattered” communities, the connection between the members is typically looser than in ecovillages or co-housing communities, owing to greater physical distance. This implies that departing from an atomized community (where people are not socialized for communal existence), it is easier to found and run a “scattered” community than either of the other two types. Moreover, the initiation of a “scattered” community does not necessarily require extra capital for the purchase of land or construction, or people do not need to move, so in such communities potentially far more people could take part than in eco-villages or co-housing. ? A manysided overview of ecovillages — mainly those in Hungary with an international outlook — is provided by Farkas 2017.
