Search results

Purpose – This chapter focuses on notions of community as related to the discourse around “community living” for people with labels of developmental disabilities, especially as they emerged during and after deinstitutionalization. Following Foucault, this chapter asks whether institutionalization and community living should be conceived of as two separate epochs or as governed by similar logic. The second focus of the chapter is in the ways notions of “community” were evoked by various stakeholders such as parents of children with labels of mental retardation, professionals in the field of developmental disability, and those of formerly institutionalized peoples themselves.

Methodology/approach – This chapter employs the methodological aspects of the work of Michel Foucault and constructs a genealogy of notions of community in relation to deinstitutionalization and the field of developmental disabilities.

Findings – “Community” has been discursively produced in several forms: as a binary opposite of “institution,” as a set of human relationships, and as a paradigm shift in relation to the way developmental disabilities should be conceptualized. It remains unclear whether we have truly moved from an institutional model to a “community-based” model for those with developmental disabilities.

Originality/value of the chapter – Reconceptualizing deinstitutionalization and community living as discursive formations aids in the understanding of the difference between abolition of institutionalization as a mindset and other formulations of the concept of “community” in the field of developmental disabilities.

Through a case study of the Po Klaong Girai temple in Vietnam, this paper explores how indigenous community perceive tourism benefit sharing (TBS) associated with their cultural tourism at sacred living-heritage sites and how this TBS enhances the equality and inclusion for indigenous community in the context of tourism in Vietnam.

This study employed ethnographic fieldwork and semi-structured interviews with 35 indigenous Cham priests directly associated with managing and preserving the Po Klaong Girai temple.

This research found that Cham community perceive inequality and exclusivity on tourism benefit sharing at this religious site. While Cham Ahier priests face economic barriers in providing these services to the community, annual tourism revenue is allocated to local government budgets. Such economic pressure forces the priests to seek alternative economic avenues to support their families at the expense of their traditional commitments to communal, cultural and religious activities, significantly impacting sustainable heritage conservation. This has led to strained relations between the local community and local authorities.

This research provides evidence to improve living heritage management practices by proposing tourism development policies for equality and inclusion among stakeholders, especially minorities and disadvantaged groups. This can be an experiential and necessary lesson for “dealing” with sustainable heritage management in heritage living sites in other ethnic minority areas in Vietnam and globally.

The findings from this study address the knowledge gap on equitable revenue sharing in heritage tourism, where financial benefits from the commodification of minority cultures should be used to support local communities and the custodians of indigenous heritage.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the concept of strategy in the field of heritage conservation, with a focus on a new conservation approach that promotes the empowerment of local communities and sustainable development: a living heritage approach.

The approaches to heritage conservation are outlined: a material-based approach defines the principles of western-based conservation, a values-based approach expands these principles, while a living heritage approach clearly challenges the established principles. These approaches are, then, analysed from the perspective of strategy, and a living heritage approach is seen as an example of strategic innovation. The process by which ICCROM develops a living heritage approach at an international level is also examined.

Choosing the “appropriate” conservation approach depends on the specific conditions of each heritage place. Yet, for the cases of living heritage in particular (with communities with an original connection with heritage) a living heritage approach would be more preferable. Living heritage approach can be seen as an example of a strategic innovation in the field of heritage conservation: it proposes a different concept of heritage and conservation (a new WHAT), points at a different community group as responsible for the definition and protection of heritage (a new WHO), and proposes a different way of heritage protection (a new HOW).

A living heritage approach (presented in the paper) may potentially influence the theory as well as the practice of heritage conservation in a variety of parts and heritage places in the world, especially in terms of the attitude towards local and indigenous communities.

Developing a new approach is, in a sense, developing a new strategy. In this context, the paper aims at bringing the insight of business strategy into the field of heritage conservation.

Initiating a practical model for embedding transformative learning in education that will promote sustainable development is a challenge for higher education. Siam University decided to assign a task force with the mission to work with communities in order to propose guidelines of learning for sustainability (LfS) based on real-life experiences. Selected communities which have agreed to be the community living labs for teaching and learning activities of the university were chosen based on the Bray and Thomas’ Cube Model. There are differences in sizes (number of members), locations (urban, suburban), and histories (old settlement with long history and rich culture and the newly settlement communities consisting of migrated members). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) was applied in the study. The initial model was developed from the synthesis of experiential work with communities in sustainability-related projects. After revision, the “Learning for Sustainability Action Model” was proposed. Success factors in implementing the model were also suggested.

Purpose – Ecological cohousing communities, or ecovillages, are emerging as contemporary housing models that attempt to recreate a sense of community and encourage an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. This chapter analyzes a rural ecovillage (Ecovillage at Ithaca – EVI) to find out how the community conceptualizes and practices sustainability. The chapter also examines whether and how the community incorporates issues of equity and social justice into its activities.

Design/methodology/approach – The chapter uses a multi-method approach. It is a case study; however, participant observation was conducted at the site. In addition, interviews with residents were conducted and archival materials from the community's newsletters as well city government documents were also used.

Findings – As practiced at EVI, the green lifestyle emphasizes comfortable living that is both esthetically appealing and good for the environment. In making the decision to focus on building a community for the middle class, residents have limited their engagement with social justice issues and have struggled with incorporating minorities and the poor into their community.

Originality/value – This is one of the first papers to analyze the ecovillages from an environmental justice perspective. It shows where there are overlaps between the ecovillage and environmental justice movements. The chapter also fits into a growing body of scholarship that examines the concept of sustainability from a social justice perspective also.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate different approaches to effective campaigning in support of the Living Wage and so this paper contributes to the broader debate over the nature of the union movement’s engagement with community groups in pursuit of workplace and social issues.

The paper presents a systematic comparison of a union-led and a community-led campaign, drawing primarily upon interview and survey data.

Though different, both campaigns met with a measure of success in improving employee pay and in increasing union membership suggesting a pragmatic approach to the building of union-community relationships.

The paper shows the need for campaigners to adopt a strategic approach in identifying the target for their campaign, and also the importance of shaping a persuasive argument.

The paper reaffirms the importance of traditional union-led campaigning alongside campaigning through engagement with community groups and so offers a broader framework for exploring the relationships between union and community groups.

In March this year the European Coalition for Community Living published Wasted Time, Wasted Money, Wasted Lives… A Wasted Opportunity? This reported on how the current use of European Union Structural Funds perpetuates the social exclusion of disabled people in central and eastern Europe by failing to support the transition from institutional care to community‐based alternatives. This paper summarises its key findings and recommendations.

This article starts with a brief overview of the history of housing for people with intellectual disability in Austria. The system of care and Austrian disability policy are also examined, focusing on implementation of deinstitutionalisation and community living. The following analysis of services provided in the field of housing for people with intellectual disabilities shows that support is provided in undistinguished, generalised service packages based on a competency model. Academic research on community living is quite rare in Austria, and fails to take into account the subjective perspective of people with intellectual disabilities.

The paper aims to improve consumer awareness of the complexities of community living. It does this by clarifying how living in a managed community is different from a “traditional” neighbourhood; and identifying matters that can become disputes.

The paper builds on research by other authors into strata scheme disputes by examining recent Queensland cases.

Many disputes appear to result from a lack of understanding of the complexities of community living. Matters that should be able to be easily resolved are therefore escalated to formal disputes.

The paper considers law and cases from Queensland. The types of matters considered, however, are relevant for any managed community and therefore the research is relevant for all jurisdictions. The research will be of particular interest to jurisdictions looking to boost living density by increasing the development of managed communities.

The research will assist in consumer transactions by providing guidance as to the matters to be considering prior to moving into a managed community. More informed decision making by prospective residents will lead to a decreased likelihood of disputes arising.

The paper is an up‐to‐date consideration of the issues arising from community living. It highlights the benefits arising from increased consumer awareness of the complexities of community living and the potential for consumer education to reduce the number of disputes.

China’s population is ageing. Continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) are an emerging living arrangement of older Chinese. Incorporating social sustainability features into CCRCs helps to create age-friendly residential environments for residents. However, it is still unclear what kinds of social sustainability features are incorporated into the residential environments of CCRCs in China. Therefore, this study aims to address this research gap.

Qualitative content analysis is adopted to analyse the retrieved business information of representative CCRC developers in China.

This study revealed 36 social sustainability features in CCRCs, with the top-ranked ones being health care and management, social connection and engagement, high-quality and diverse services and daily life support and assistance. Additionally, a preliminary social sustainability framework of CCRCs was proposed, and this framework includes the five components of care and health, environment and management, service and facility, age-friendly life philosophy and social support and inclusion.

In theory, this research’s findings clarify the meaning of social sustainability within the context of CCRCs, which supports future relevant explorations in the CCRC research community. In practice, these findings enhance stakeholders’ understanding of the social sustainability in CCRCs, which promotes the development of age-friendly living environments for older people in an ageing society.