JBR-08494; No of Pages 17

Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages

Soonkwan Hong a,⁎, Handan Vicdan b,⁎⁎
a
Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, USA
b
EMLYON Business School, Écully, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research elucidates the transformative nature of sustainable lifestyles in ecovillages as ostensibly utopian
Received 1 September 2014 spaces. Using archival data from several ecovillages, in-depth interviews with ecovillage residents, and participa-
Received in revised form 1 March 2015 tory observations made at the EcoVillage at Ithaca (EVI), New York, and Imeceevi, Turkey, the article explains the
Accepted 1 May 2015
processes by which utopian ideals are re-imagined and re-configured based on the social configuration of the sus-
Available online xxxx
tainable lifestyle. The findings suggest that consumers organize alternative life modes in their quest to explore
Keywords:
and internalize environmentally sustainable lifestyles in multi-faceted ideological fields. The study documents
Sustainability the transformation of ecovillages from intentional to incidentally utopian communities where residents equally
Ecovillage prioritize and contest relational sustainability. Drawing on these findings, the article also presents public policy
Utopia implications on new educational programs and sharing economy.
Escapism © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Heterotopia
Sharing

1. Introduction et al., 2012; Maclaran & Brown, 2001, 2005). However, past research
does not sufficiently document the relational and organizational issues
of socio-politico-culturally innovative residential spaces to further
theorize the dynamics involved in a lifestyle transformation.
I think anything that can be dreamt of within reason can be made
One type of an outwardly utopian space that environmentally con-
possible, can be brought to life. If you keep on following a certain
scious consumers occupy is the ecovillage, which originates from the
path, I do not find certain dreams that utopic. If you really want it
Danish concept of bofællesskab (living communities). The idea of this
and make an effort for it, perhaps you may not make it to the tipping
co-housing is to practice communal living that empowers, and yet
point you targeted (nirvana, top level), but on the way to that point,
responsibilizes, individual residents to proactively collaborate for
you always learn and make change, you learn stuff, all of which are
shared goals such as environmental sustainability and safer neighbor-
different manifestations of utopia. I speak from my own experiences
hood (Chitewere & Taylor, 2010). Noteworthy social changes between
in life, of course. (Yasemin, Imeceevi Turkey)
the 1960s and 1990s, such as the peace, feminism, and alternative edu-
cation movements, also fueled alternative lifestyles (Dawson, 2006).
Consumption of utopian spaces, as well as utopian domains of
Ecovillages, as one of many forms of co-housing communities, pursue
consumption, has been of interest to consumer researchers (Belk &
a distinct goal of practicing sustainable lifestyles that often locate
Costa, 2002; Chatzidakis, McLaran, & Bradshaw, 2012; Kozinets, 2002;
them outside the city. Ecovillages date to the formation of the Global
Maclaran & Brown, 2001, 2005). However, the field gives disproportion-
Ecovillage Network (GEN) in 1995, envisioning cohesiveness, shared
al attention to the production (i.e., creation and development) aspect of
vision, and happiness in the sociocultural and geographical fringes
such ideological and physical spaces. Much remains unexplained or
(Liftin, 2014). The GEN (n.d.) defines an ecovillage as “an intentional
under-explained with respect to both the varied meanings of utopia
or traditional community using local participatory processes to holisti-
and consumers' conscious embodiment of the utopian ideology. Some
cally integrate ecological, economic, social, and cultural dimensions of
research discusses utopian space in relation to heterotopian space crea-
sustainability in order to regenerate social and natural environments.”
tion/consumption in commercial and public settings (e.g., Chatzidakis
Such an impulse toward co-housing is not surprising, given the global
environmental degradation, skyrocketing ecological footprint, and the
ever-increasing degree of social isolation. People who valued self-
sufficiency and spirituality initially settled in those villages and started
⁎ Correspondence to: S. Hong, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI, USA, 49931.
Tel.: +1 906 487 2285; fax: +1 906 487 2944.
internalizing the essence of intentional communities (Oved, 2012).
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: H. Vicdan, 23 Avenue Guy de Collongue, Écully, France, 69130. Their ambitious visions and goals, however, made unsubstantial impact
E-mail addresses: shong2@mtu.edu (S. Hong), VICDAN@em-lyon.com (H. Vicdan). on a global scale. As a result, those communities slowly steered their

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
0148-2963/© 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
2 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
purposes toward educational programs, well received by insiders and
outsiders (Liftin, 2014).
As GEN connects co-ops, communes, co-housing, and permaculture
projects to each other, ecovillages also bear a substantial amount of
archival narratives and socio-politico-cultural discourses. Archives and
stories help explain the (arguably) demodernization process by which
consumers try to responsibilize themselves (Giesler & Veresiu, 2014) or
to escape (Kozinets, 2002)—at least in a spatial sense—their modernity-
levied consumptive reality and confront their unsustainable lifestyles.
Therefore, this research first aims to critique and scrutinize utopian ideol-
ogies in forming and transforming a sustainable lifestyle, and then discuss
whether the ecovillage is truly a manifestation of a utopian lifestyle and
how the lifestyle formation and transformation process differs from
what residents initially imagine and plan. The research emphasizes rela-
tional aspects of the process because previous research does not suffi-
ciently reflect the perceived necessity of social sustainability for utopian
ideals. This discussion identifies public policy imperatives and initiatives
with respect to societal-level collaboration and educational programs.
Additionally, the research sheds more light on the alternative economy
(sharing) that has already become one of the most important concepts,
if not a new paradigm, in the business culture (e.g., Belk, 2014).
Such a task is particularly important for the present literature be-
cause of the inherited presupposition that society envisions and builds
sustainability upon utopianism (e.g., Humphreys, 2014; Kozinets,
2008), even though the central tenets of sustainability hinge on individ-
ual and governmental practices (Prothero et al., 2011). Ecovillages as in-
tentional communities display many attributes and properties similar to
those of a utopia (Sargisson, 2012). A few shared characteristics in par-
ticular make intentional and utopian aspects seem more similar to each
other: distance from the mainstream, challenge to the status quo, and
collectivistic natures (Levitas, 1990; Mannheim, 1936). Nonetheless,
the general agenda of intentional communities, including ecovillages,
involves more than the aforementioned characteristics shared with
utopianism. In addition to core values, intentional communities need
co-operative practices, such as interpersonal interactions, economic
sharing, real existence, and critical mass, for sustainability (Miller,
1998). The potentially volatile presence of utopian ideals in ecovillages
helped draft the research objectives and elaboration on the incidentality
of these ideals (which refers to the alternative organization of life
modes without purposeful or pretentious individual or group attempts
to achieve a utopian version of a sustainable world). Consequently,
this article explores the actions and processes through which
consumers transform and re-imagine these utopian ideals in leading a
sustainable lifestyle. The discussion also provides businesses including
but not limited to developers, architects, and designers with an
abundant source of practical information to better understand the
nitty-gritty of sustainable living as a marketing theme—as well as one
of the most important projects for all civilizations. Such discussion
seems especially timely because conscientious consumption and
production has become almost a requirement rather than a lifestyle
choice (Giesler & Veresiu, 2014).
In sum, the objectives of this article are (1) to contribute to the cur-
rent literature on utopian spaces by illuminating their imaginary and
emancipatory characteristics and, more importantly, juxtaposing them
with other pertinent theories (escapism and heterotopia) to understand
the theoretical and empirical particulars in a more nuanced manner;
(2) to review studies conducted in worldwide ecovillages, many con-
structed as utopian spaces with a must-achieve ideal of an indefinitely
sustainable future; (3) to empirically examine the meanings and the
transformative (ecological, economic, and social/relational) nature of
sustainability at the ecovillages at Ithaca, New York (EVI hereafter),
and Imeceevi, Turkey; (4) to reflect on the multi-discursive dynamics
of a sustainable lifestyle by discussing the dialogical and co-operative
process by which these ideals are re-imagined and re-configured;
(5) to draw public policy implications and facilitate the ongoing
discussion on sharing economy as a relatively new business model.
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
2. Theory
2.1. Utopia, escapism, and heterotopia
The extant body of literature provides a distinct theoretical lenses
through which the ideological reservation known as an ecovillage
could be construed as a utopia (Hetherington, 1997), a manifestation
of escapism (Tuan, 1998), or a heterotopia (Foucault, 2008b; Soja,
1996). However, these alternative theoretical foundations do not specif-
ically discuss human relationships, a significant building block of organ-
ic community as a created space. The following discussion of differences
and similarities among the theories argues that the current literature
overlooks the relational aspect of sustainable lifestyles.
Utopian literature contends that the conscious pursuit of an imag-
ined nowhere is emancipatory as well as reactive to current limitations
(Levitas, 1990). Although the utopian ideal is a very modern phenome-
non that considers spatial enlightenment a societal-level priority, how
exactly the phenomenon manifests in practice is quite debatable be-
cause of its embeddedness in current spatial configurations (Kumar,
1991; Lefebvre, 1991). Nonetheless, as these ideals of utopics (play
between textual spaces and the materialization process) advance, two
inherent issues become palpable (Marin, 1984). First, the utopian
otherness must be tamed. In other words, the re-imagined social order
becomes another calcified order that the very utopian ideal refutes
(Genocchio, 1995). Second, modernity as a manifestation of utopian
ideals (relative to economic growth) inadvertently fosters ostentatious,
lavish, and fruitless consumption habits that create the “accursed
share”—an unbearably dystopian consequence of utopian imagination
(Bataille, 1991). As such, utopian ideals do not seem to hold because
they are inevitably paradoxical and deal with incommensurable values,
practices, and outcomes without much specific consideration or a
blueprint of human relations to better lives. Although intentional
communities emphasize the value of living together, many fail because
they lack contextualized and nuanced appreciation of that value over
time (Chitewere, 2006).
Escapism emphasizes the unconscious and instinctive nature of the
practice. Some contemporary consumers—victims of ruthless, destruc-
tive corporate capitalism ideals—instinctively seek healing in a place
where such demonized practices seldom reach (Kozinets, 2002). Escap-
ism, however, immediately encounters inexorable paradoxes, especially
in the ecovillage context. Tuan (1998) illustrates that escape to nature
inherently contradicts the human project of escape from nature, in
which humans constantly struggle to control and conquer nature.
Depending on Mother Nature for self-sufficiency as a practice of
escapism negates the ideals for which humanity has thus far worked.
Moreover, escape from convenience, corporeal pleasure, and other
hedonic values embedded in consumerism becomes paradoxical. Ideals
such as stoicism or asceticism teach individuals how to control instinc-
tive impulses rather than how to escape them by relocating the body. In
other words, escape to nature and escape from body may represent an
undercover desire for ultimate entertainment and pleasure in an esoter-
ic and indeterminate time and space. Also noteworthy, as with utopian-
ism, escapism does not elaborate on the social and relational aspects of
lives. However, at least escapism literature internalizes the ideology's
eternal confusion and oscillation among a few binaries: indifference
and bonding; disconnectedness (solitude) and communality; unique-
ness and group cohesion; chaos and order (Tuan, 1998). Paradoxes
recur as themes in contemporary spatial discourses.
Foucault's (1967/1997) notion of heterotopia inculcates the idea
that the utopia or destination of escapism is not necessarily the absolute
opposite of what society currently witnesses and experiences. Rather, a
place more conceivable, livable, and sustainable must mirror the current
social and spatial configurations. That is, heterotopia is a liminal space
where control and freedom, order and resistance, marginalization and
internalization, the absolute and its alternatives, absence and presence,
and difference and resemblance co-exist (Deleuze & Guattari, 1983;
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

Turner, 1969). Principles that more lucidly characterize the spatial man-
ifestation describe heterotopia as other spaces (Foucault, 1967/1997).
These principles can condense into four distinct and significant features:
heterochronism, thematization, membership-orientation, and macro-
interaction. Heterotopia is an embodied and, in fact, thematized version
of what society imagines and necessitates. Examples include cemetery,
theater, museum, library, and church spaces. Such spaces normally
require individuals to be members to use the spatial systems.
Heterotopia greatly deals with time, linking different sensitivities of
time (past, present, and future) with the current spatial representation
of what it ought to be. Heterotopia is not only a socially co-constructed
space but also stimulates its current design, configuration, and practice.
In other words, as society creates a previously undetermined and simply
abstracted space, it is conceivable to experience a society-level transfor-
mation as a consequence.
Foucault views heterotopia as neither dialectical nor transcendental
but polysemic and polyvalent in time and space. Although the imagined
and somewhat romanticized place can take multiple forms and paths,
they all inherit properties from both utopian and mundane spaces as
the destination of escapism. Utopia and heterotopia share commonali-
ties with a twofold distinction. First, whereas society envisions utopian
ideals as a realizable end state (the modern market system was once
regarded as one), the discourse about heterotopia views the textual
Fig. 1. Theoretical foundations of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages.
and spatial epitomes as a process in which social orders, including
human interactions and relations, undergo constant amendment
(Hetherington, 1997). Second, unlike utopia, heterotopia actually ethnographic analyses into the current discussions of environmentally
operates to embrace unintended consequences from the ongoing and relationally sustainable living in ecovillages, which will also help
process that often involve considerable communal interactions and identify public policy initiatives.
relational efforts (Shields, 1991). Thus, the ecovillage phenomenon
bears many of the above characteristics but is neither an ideal to be 3. Methodology
realized in a certain way nor a completed process.
Discussions of the theoretical parallax of spatial manifestations of the 3.1. Archives
imagined better places to be clearly demonstrate that the literature
insufficiently contemplated the fact that all such spaces are shared In order to better explore the sustainable lifestyle that is still new to
with others—which brings interpersonal, relational, social, and many people, the research began with archival analysis of multiple
governing issues into play. Realizing that no manifestation is like ecovillage contexts (e.g., Kookaburra Park, Australia; Findhorn,
Myspace, but instead a communal space, illuminates the area that Scotland; Ithaca, New York; and Okodorf Sieben Linden, Germany). The
previous researchers had not satisfactorily addressed. initial search for information and data on ecovillages aimed to obtain
general information on ecovillage communities worldwide and analyze
2.2. Ecovillages as other spaces the results of research on similar issues and communities. Archival data
on ecovillages worldwide helped not only with comparative analysis of
Ecovillages serve as platforms that enable consumers to appreciate ecovillages over time but also with comparison of different ecovillages
different orders. Their encounters bring the possibility for negotiation, worldwide. The Google Scholar search engine provided access to previ-
unlike the scripted and predetermined order of modern cityscapes ous research, such as books and book chapters, academic journal articles,
(Bauman, 1993). The orders in ecovillages facilitate and embody chang- and dissertations and theses written on ecovillages. Some sources
es to sustainable lifestyles based on social, relational, economic, and provided data from previous research conducted at the EVI, where the
ecological grounds, and the possibility of constant negotiation based authors visited and collected data. Past data on the EVI allowed compar-
on built-in relationship among the residents at the individual-, meso- ison of current-resident data with past-resident data, which helped trace
(communal), and macro-levels (Walker, 2005). This relationship- the evolution of sustainable lifestyles and transformations occurring in
laden nature of ecovillages provides an opportunity to study production the ecovillages. Table 1 summarizes information and data sources for
of space differently from earlier studies, in which authorities archival analysis, including research specifically conducted on the EVI.
(e.g., government or private space owners) organized the spaces The extant documents and texts about ecovillages provide insightful
(Benjamin, 2002; Miller, 1998; Urry, 1995). Inhabitants of ecovillages conventions and practices at such locales, which furthers the unortho-
design its space as a means to connect people to the environment, dox displays of utopia. This analysis yields a few theoretically
themselves, and each other. This transition from space consumption to noteworthy dynamics of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages. First, al-
space production is an actively participated, negotiated, and transforma- though the ecovillage concept emerged from the past counter-cultural
tive process involving contestation (Goodman, Goodman, & Redclift, movements (Kirby, 2004), many ecovillages grew more evolutionary
2010). than revolutionary in nature. They share qualities such as experiential,
Historical analysis of ecovillages also indicates a three-stage process. experimental, educational, economical, ecological, and sociocultural
An ecovillage serves first as a space designed to improve and enhance embeddedness.
the experience of being sustainable, second as a space constructed to The observations and archival analysis of multiple ecovillages where
provide alternative means (practices) to organize lives, and third as heterotopian liminality prevails uncovered several thematic representa-
the space in which residents constantly negotiate their space—a process tions. Similar to Foucault's (1967/1997) conceptualization of heterotopias
laden with ideological tensions (Soja, 1996). Fig. 1 summarizes the (Marin, 1984), ecovillages manifest into liminal spaces—betwixt and be-
theoretical underpinnings of a sustainable lifestyle in an ecovillage. tween space (Sherry, 1990; Turner, 1967) and provide a negotiated script
This theoretical framework provides a basis to integrate archival and for their residents. Incessantly transformative interplays (Meethan,

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
4 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

https://www.facebook.com/pages/EcoVillage-at-Ithaca/341917376090?fref=ts
Anderson, & Miles, 2006) among local residents who politically oscillate
between privacy and sharing; segregation and (hyper)inclusion; idealism
and pragmatism; micro (individual), meso (communal/local), and macro
dynamics; and consensus and sociocratic governance also characterize
the themes. This indeterminacy complicates the process of constructing
fixed lifestyles but provides alternative means to organize different life
modes.
The archival analysis also reveals that ecovillages encounter,
Global Ecovillage Network: http://gen.ecovillage.org/

http://www.siebenlinden.de/index.php?id=1&L=2
promote, contest, and transcend multiple tensions that together form
a multi-discursive, polyvalent dynamic in the formation of sustainable

https://www.facebook.com/imeceevi?fref=ts
http://www.kookaburra.eco-village.com.au/
lifestyles. As shown in Fig. 2, the binary components of the aforemen-
tioned tensions correspond to the theoretical characteristics of utopia,
heterotopia, and escapism.
Practical epitomes of each literary and spatial manifestation of
ecovillages in the archives emerge from analysis of the texts. Ecovillages
http://ecovillageithaca.org/

http://www.imeceevi.org/
http://www.findhorn.org/

lie between theoretically distinct spatial representations of other spaces.

However, due to their liminal and polyvalent characteristics, they
sometimes appear to be none or all of the representations. In other
words, altogether, the palpable tensions between the dualistic practices
uphold the process in which life in ecovillages portrays an incidentally
Websites

ideological position that embraces an unexpected embodiment of the

ideal and its subsequent practices. Through such constant, dynamic
interplay among these contrasting and counteracting ideals and
Book on realizing utopia in ecovillages by General information and critique on the word “ecovillage” and ecovillage PHD dissertation on constructing a
from Findhorn and Okodorf Sieben

Master's thesis on individuality in

discussion and field research (including http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol2/vol2_no2_Garden.htm Chitewere (2006) (data from the

practices, communities re-imagine, re-configure, and consequently

Master's thesis by Gesota (2008)

community by Holleman (2011)

sustainability by Breton (2009)

sustainable development (data

transform a sustainable life mode.

Master's thesis on organizing
on ecovillages as models for

green lifestyle at the EVI by

Based on the theoretical framework, at least three immanent,

PhD and Master's theses

noteworthy themes that epitomize life in ecovillages emerge from the

(data from the EVI)

(data from the EVI)

Linden ecovillages)

archival analysis to derive ethnographic exploration, analysis, and

subsequent documentation of the phenomenon of ecovillages: pragma-
tism, macro-level interaction, and sharing. The pragmatic aspect of
heterotopia facilitates the understanding of constant “conflict and
EVI)

compromise” in ecovillages (Giesler, 2008). The unsatisfactory level of

macro-level co-operation, but with specific emphasis on sharing,
Book on ecovillage at Ithaca published by Data from EVI on redefining social and environmental relations by Kirby

redefines the particular issues as a public discourse rather than a

Data from UK ecovillages formed as new consumption communities by

geographically or socioculturally confined enterprise. This understand-

ing should also illuminate ways in which governments and business
can recognize ideals, practices, and impacts of the relatively new
lifestyle choice, and ultimately instill them into grassroots consumption
practices.

3.2. Ecovillages at Ithaca, NY, and Imeceevi, Turkey

Book on ecovillages in general by Dawson Data from UK ecovillages on waste reduction

The initial appreciation of ecovillage life from the archival analysis

Academic research (journal articles)

parallels the genealogical (Foucault, 1978) and hermeneutical

(Thompson, 1997) interpretation of the participatory observations
Anders and Wagner (2012): Theoretical movement by Garden (2006):

that accompanied the nine in-depth interviews with individuals at the

EVI, NY (Song and Frog neighborhoods), and four interviews at the
by Bekin et al. (2007)

Imeceevi, Turkey. The 13 interviews yielded 262 single-spaced tran-

Moraes et al. (2008)

scription pages. The authors, as a research team, visited the EVI and
interacted with residents in a natural setting to facilitate understanding
of what is called (or mythologized as) the sustainable lifestyle—a pivotal
Liz Walker, the executive director of the (2003)

element of the contemporary utopian ideal. During the one-week

immersion in the EVI community, the team set their position as partic-
ipatory observers who regularly intermingle with multiple residents for
Sustainability. Devton: Green Books Ltd.

informal, casual chats documented in field notes and constantly explore

Book chapter by Liftin (2009) on global
(2006) Ecovillages: New Frontiers for

issues not necessarily revealed in the formal interviews or spontaneous

data from EVI and Okodorf Sieben

conversations. Interacting in informal settings (e.g., home visits, com-

munity dinners, and unplanned exchanges on the streets, playgrounds,
or community houses) allowed the team to first develop rapport and
Books and book chapters

Linden) on ecovillages
ecovillage movement
Summary of archival data.

later conduct formal interviews, and to develop common vocabulary

and empathy with informants' lived experiences (Hirschman, 1985;
McAlexander, Dufault, Martin, & Schouten, 2014; Ozanne & Saatcioglu,
Archival data

2008). The research team coded, analyzed, interpreted, and discussed

the data multiple times (jointly as well each author independently) to
EVI
Table 1

ensure credibility and dependability (Belk, Fischer, & Kozinets, 2013;

Wallendorf & Belk, 1989).

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Theoretical and archival representation of sustainability in ecovillages.
The research team chose the EVI for its long history of successful man-
agement and implementation of environmental and relational sustain-
ability initiatives. Its rigorous educational programs for the public and
researchers, as well as its constant innovation of daily practices, have
attracted approximately 15,000 people since 1991. The EVI has intensive-
ly advertised their policy on consensus-based decision-making processes
and its status as a significant global player in the network of intentional
communities justify further ethnographic exploration of the community.
To triangulate the multi-sited approach and help researchers avoid a
limited cultural view of a certain phenomenon (Ekstrom, 2006), one
researcher also explored a site at Imeceevi, Turkey, that aspires to be an
ecovillage. This embryonic community positions itself as a school—a
space to experiment with a sustainable life—soon to be converted to an
ecovillage. The data collected at Imeceevi serves as a negative case to con-
trast expectations, premises, and working theories about sustainability
initiatives that seem successful—or at least sustain themselves (Hill,
1991; Wallendorf & Belk, 1989). Very few cases—if not only
Imeceevi—have not thrived as self-sustaining communities but still
exist. Imeceevi has thus far failed to become an ecovillage. However, com-
mitted residents who still hope to become an ecovillage someday contin-
ue to experiment with likeminded people who visit Imeceevi hoping to
learn to live sustainably and transform their lives as a result. The research
team systematically sought specific cases that disconfirm or diverge from
the analysis of archival, observational, and textual data from the EVI. Such
attempts help establish the credibility of our analysis and identify bound-
ary conditions for the practical underpinnings of transforming a sustain-
able lifestyle. The Imeceevi data also demonstrate the transformation of
the idea and ideals of a sustainable lifestyle before being brought to life
in an ecovillage context. Distinctive data from two sites—one that aspired
to become an ecovillage, the other already established—allowed observ-
ing the trajectory of transformations in leading sustainable lives. Table 2
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
5
and Table 3 summarizes the archival resources, research activities, and in-
formants' profiles.
The EVI, well known for its originality and attractive surroundings,
sits on a hill approximately two miles (three and a half driving miles)
west of the socio-politico-culturally progressive city of Ithaca, New
York (Picture 1). Liz Walker, the EVI executive director, imagined and
initiated the village nearly 20 years ago. The first residents moved into
the Frog community (bottom right neighborhood, Picture 2) in the
mid-1990s (completed in 1997). Six years later, enthusiastic environ-
mentalists moved into the Song community (bottom left neighborhood,
Picture 2) completed in 2006, and created and re-created the space
already occupied with the first residents of Frog. A third community
called Tree became available in 2013 (neighborhood at top, Picture 2).
Tree adopts Passivhaus technology to maximize solar energy utilization
and minimize environmental damage by installing thick insulation
made with an innovative material throughout the house, as well as
airtight doors and special windows available only from Lithuania.
According to the current demographic data that EVI provided, the
ecovillage comprises approximately 175 residents in 75 homes on 175
acres. Frog and Song each have 30 houses; the new neighborhood,
Tree, will have 40 when the project is completed. Overall, the communi-
ty will host about 160 adults and 80 children. No larger co-housing
community has existed in the world. The majority of the residents are
either retired without children (20%) or stay-at-home parents (20%);
the rest cover a wide range of professions such as musicians, teachers,
professors, engineers, designers, writers, and farmers. The environment
is highly family oriented and child friendly, which helps grow their
youth population. Individuals with or without families and temporary
residents rent a few homes; thus, precise demographic information
was not available, and many long-term residents did not deem it
necessary.
6 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Summary of data sources.

Ecovillage archival Imeceevi Village (Turkey) EVI (NY, USA)

data
Participatory observation Interviews with Participatory observation Interviews with residents
residents

Kookaburra Park, Participated in one community meal In-depth interviews One-week stay at the site Nine interviews
Australia Gathered general perceptions of the with four residents Participated in three community meals 60–120 minutes each
Findhorn, Scotland ecovillage from non-residents Informal chat with site Frequent informal interactions with Four female residents in their
Okodorf Sieben Took videos, photos, and field notes visitors residents 20s–60s
Linden, Germany Gathered general perceptions of the Five male residents in their 50s–60s
Ithaca, New York ecovillage from non-residents All had bachelor's degree or higher
Took videos, photos, and field notes A few professionals; many work in
or for the community

At arrival, the first impression is that the village seems quite isolated
from normal spatial elements such as paved roads, typical subdivisions
layouts, and connections to the outside world. Perhaps this seclusion is
the reason for the term ego village. As an Ithaca resident stated:
There are other people who think that we're very exclusive and
much more critical and secluded…that we think we're better than
everybody else.…Some people will refer to it as ego village. …The
fact that it's up on the hill, and not down in the town…there's a legit-
imate criticism about that, I think. But it is what it is. (Wyatt, Ithaca)
As soon as the paved road ends, obsolete-looking shared carports
with many hybrid model automobiles (Picture 3) appear. Next come
the (at least) 100-year-old-looking wooden houses (Picture 4) that
appear to have once been burnt because of their blackish, wooden con-
struction materials that are supposedly long lasting and free of toxic
substances. At the symbolic gates (Picture 5) to the respective commu-
nities (Frog and Song), each neighborhood hosts two common houses
where meetings and common meals occur at least two or three times
every week. The research team stayed in a bed and breakfast (B&B)
owned by the designer of the second neighborhood because a visiting
Japanese family and an Australian couple occupied the guest rooms in
the common houses. The designer chose the typical layout of the resi-
dential houses to maximize fuel (natural gas) efficiency. Some houses
have solar panels; others do not. All the houses, built as duplexes, face
south to more efficiently retain heat during winter. The buildings
stand very close to one another with neither fences nor boundaries
between them.
The most noticeable difference between the two neighborhoods is
that Frog (the first community) has no open space where children can
ride bicycles, play, or run with their pets. Because of the tree line in
the middle of Frog's main access road, the residents cannot see across
the road, which is only about 20 feet wide. In contrast, the Song
(Picture 6) neighborhood has at least two very large open spaces
(Picture 7), and Song residents can see nearly the entire neighborhood
from their windows that face the main access road. Some residents
landscape their gardens; others leave their gardens natural or plant
only indigenous species.
This study focuses more on the relational and social aspects of a new
technology of lifestyle, and initial research observations provided some
hints to better grasp what makes an intentional community incidentally
utopian. The practices at ecovillages are a new technology of lifestyle be-
cause they require design, planning, execution, maintenance, perfor-
mance, and innovation. The balance between physical proximity and
maintaining some privacy brings some tension to every resident. At
the same time, decisions made by consensus immediately contradict in-
dividual free will, an imperative of utopian ideals. Residents, as well as
research observations, indicate that even trivial matters must undergo
a rather onerous decision-making process that sometimes, ironically,
rejuvenates the relational dynamics in the communities but other
times produces deeply rooted grudges. More interesting is to observe
and explicate how individual residents make sense of their lives,
which must be sustainable in all aspects—especially when they realize
such a permanent task requires constant redefinition of their lifestyles
within the innovative social setting. The research reveals paradoxes
prevalent in residents' consumption practices, relationship manage-
ment, and politics toward various external forces. Such struggles and
remedies also present themselves in the in-depth interviews, which
allowed better elucidation of the meanings of sustainability as the
crux of the new technology of lifestyle in the next section.
4. Findings: Utopian-heterotopian doublet
Each finding section represents one or more theoretical foundations
(utopia, escapism, and heterotopia) and shows the archival and ethno-
graphic interpretations of sustainability in ecovillages as a highly trans-
formative practice. The following discussion first presents overall
findings, portrayed as multi-discursive dynamics, and then continuous
dialogical negotiations between dualistic characteristics of the sustain-
able lifestyle. Each section also concisely examines business and public
policy implications to better discuss such issues accumulatively later.
Consumers who desire to live in ecovillages displayed various
motivations to (1) escape from their present life and the fragmentation
of modern life; (2) increase their quality of life (Garden, 2006); (3) com-
munally escape the capitalist system, increasing consumerism, and
alienation (Bang, 2005); and (4) achieve sustainability, in a desire to

Table 3
Summary of informants.

Imeceevi Village (Turkey) EVI (NY, USA)

Pseudonym Age Education Gender Occupation Pseudonym Age Education Gender Occupation

Ismet 50s Bachelor M Farm owner Ashley 40s Master F Community manager
Faruk 30s Bachelor M Engineer Jessica 60s Bachelor F B&B owner, farmer
Yasemin 20s Bachelor F Yoga instructor John 60s Bachelor M Administrator
Rana 30s Bachelor F Housewife Martha 40s Master F Writer
Michelle 20s N/A F College student
Ron 60s Master M Designer, writer
Sean 60s Bachelor M Designer
Scott 60s Master M CEO
Wyatt 50s Master M Professor

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 3. The incidentality of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages.

Picture 1. Aerial view of Ithaca.

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
8 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Picture 2. Aerial view of the EVI.

lead a transparent, low-key, and low-impact lifestyle (Dawson, 2007;
Garden, 2006). However, the concept of sustainability itself counteracts
romanticized, idealized visions of ecological living (Carter, 2003). Many
ecovillages have been criticized for their self-indulgent nature and
relentless pursuit of an escapist ideal (Liftin, 2009).
However, ecovillages neither idealize the past nor create a more
sustainable (utopian) future for all. Rather, they achieve a balance
among varying types (i.e., relational and environmental) and levels of
sustainable orders. The dynamics in these ecovillages influence their
residents' lives and actions, and researchers must understand the
processes that uphold their ideals and how such projects originate,
evolve, culminate, and transform in the ideological trajectory for
constructing sustainable lifestyles and negotiating spaces in ecovillages.
The interwoven discourses in ecovillages indicate mostly relational-

Picture 3. Carport at the EVI.

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 9

Picture 4. Wooden house.

conflict resolution, dialogical communal decision-making, and remedies
for the paradoxical nature of a lifestyle that requires constant reconfig-
uration of ideals and relocation of sociocultural resources. Idealization
and practices of the utopian imaginations inevitably evidence unstable,
fluid, and sometimes even unintelligible characteristics—as do
Foucault's (1994) doublets that instigate and dismantle establishments
and normative prescriptions of utopian ideals. Data from the archives
and in-depth interviews with the residents tended to support that the
experiences and knowledge necessary for the sustainable lifestyle also
manufacture a transient lifestyle to be re-imagined. The indissoluble
relationship between ideals (cogito) and experiences (unthought)
continuously produces tensions that, ironically, catalyze the new
technology of lifestyle.
4.1. Multi-discursive dynamics of ecovillages as heterotopian spaces
In the following sections, we discuss issues specifically related to this
study's objectives (3, 4, and 5). The ethnography, in conjunction with
archival analysis, shows the transformative aspect of a sustainable life-
style and the multi-discursive nature of such a transformation, which
is expected to provide more concrete foundations for developing public
policies on sustainable and responsible consumption. Collectively, the
theoretical underpinnings of utopia, escapism, and heterotopia (despite
their distinctive natures) characterize the transforming ideologies and
practices in ecovillages. The dualistic practices evidenced in the archival
data consistently haunt the community. However, through ethnograph-
ic analysis, as well as multiple iterations between archival and empirical

Picture 5. Bumper stickers.

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
10 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Picture 6. Symbolic entrance to Song community.

data, three pillars of sustainable lifestyle at ecovillages emerge. First,
individual-level self-sufficing practices embedded in most daily
operations and community-level responsibilities help transform the
seemingly perpetual conflicts among different ideals that also produce
unforeseen and unintended compromises. Second, the noteworthy
practice of a recycling economy—in which resources, labor, income,
and even production can be recycled—entails governance issues that
resemble “controlled decontrol” (Wouters, 1986). Ironically, self-
sufficiency, one of the most important mottos of these communities,
remains under-maintained, cheated, reduced, and under-achieved,
which further warrants more pragmatic and participatory (shared)
governance mechanisms as the third significant element. These
potentially evanescent ideals, impregnated with daily practices,
transform the ideals of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages. They
support an alternative, prolific model of life that requires acknowl-
edgement and acceptance of unplanned consequences as byproducts
of a more sustainable lifestyle to release those palpable tensions
identified in the theoretical framework and archival analysis. Resi-
dents co-constitute sustainability and eventually embody it as an
emergent, negotiated, communal, and inconsequential mode of
being. Fig. 3 delineates the incidentality and transformative nature
of sustainability in ecovillages discovered from archival and ethno-
graphic data (more detailed presentations based on analysis of
narratives and observations follow).

Picture 7. Open space in Song community.

Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
4.2. Micro- (individual), meso- (communal), and macro-transformation
The transformative nature of ecovillages appears as no surprise
considering the varied expectations and ideals of residents whose
motives could be escape, pursuit of utopia, or quest for thirdspace
(heterotopia) discussed in the theoretical framework and archival
analysis (Soja, 1996). To sustain the essentially transformative lifestyle,
residents must constantly compromise and renegotiate conflicts
between individual ideals and the reality of living in ecovillages,
tensions caused by the required amount of sociality, and lack of
macro-level co-operation.
As such, three levels of transformations manifest. Individual trans-
formation is one level. For example, Jessica, the owner of the B&B
where the research team stayed, experienced personal changes from
living in the EVI:
I mean, the opportunity to get involved. I'm not outgoing. I'm an
introvert. I don't make friends quickly and easily. Having a B&B is
very helpful in that way, too. You know, if I, ah, if you were just in
the same common-house setting and the same common room with
us, we probably wouldn't say a word to one another, you know? I
wouldn't step up to you because you're strangers, and you might
appreciate it. I wouldn't take the initiative. I probably wouldn't go
there. But, because I own the B&B, it's my business. You come to
my door, and, ah, I'm sort of in charge of showing you what's what
and striking up a conversation and clueing you in. That helps me to
feel engaged in a way that I'm not used to.
The intensity and frequency of interactions in the community might
overwhelm an introvert such as Jessica, who has lived that mode of
being her entire life. McCracken (2008) explains the discovery-
oriented nature of transformation (expansion) of self that necessitates
the “de-stereotyping of self.” Jessica also perceives her own transforma-
tion as pleasantly surprising because she accepts ideals as futile, dispos-
able, and transformable:
[Life at the ecovillage] is not ideal, it's less than ideal, in the ways in
which the conflicts arise. So, ah, no, we're just trying to live a life that
works for us, the way that anybody else anywhere is trying to do.
And I think that, surely, we're well aware that a great many people
are never going to be interested in this kind of life.
Jessica's story also bodes for communal- (meso) level transforma-
tion, where residents collectively realize living in an ecovillage is far
from ideal, and allow each other to evolve so that the community to
gradually immerse into a new life mode that valorizes practical and
social conflicts crucial for a sustainable lifestyle:
We've seen in each neighborhood, and we're seeing it in the third
neighborhood, that there is a honeymoon phase, where we
haven't moved in yet. Where everybody was really happy and re-
ally charged about what we were going to do together. And then
there was the landing, one major stress in everybody's life, social-
ly. Where you all move in at the same time, and you've got that
just within your personal space to figure out, but you've also got
to figure out what's an ecovillage. How do we interact now?
And there's that on top of it. So it's a big deal to do that. And grad-
ually the honeymoon phase was gone and the conflicts started
showing up where they hadn't been before, you know. And there
were some major ones. We had conflict resolution people coming
in. Sometimes psychologists spending a weekend with us because
of how big the conflict was.
The expectation that accompanies new residents necessitates
individual- and social-level transformations. In other words, the nature
of transformation in ecovillages is to lose initial expectations and ideals
as soon as possible and replace them with day-to-day practices that
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
11
residents collectively define and constantly revise. Ron, another EVI
resident, echoed what Jessica shared about her experiences:
Well, there is what I would call the honeymoon phase. Yeah, and I
think that that is very real. And we experienced the same thing here.
When we were just barely built and there was hardly any grass seed
in or anything, I think we were putting the playground in the middle
and no one wanted to go home. They kind of wanted to spend more
time together, order a pizza, and continue. Just hang out. That kind of
wears off after awhile, and you're kind of looking forward to getting
home and having your own space, things like that take over. Um, I
can't really say that that is the way it must be, but I suspect that if
you were to watch this new neighborhood come into being, that
over time it will drift to a little more spread out and less social group,
too. And, they will arrive with a lot of expectations of how it's going
to be.
Individualism is both a uniting principle and a disruptive force that
stimulates further transformations in ecovillages. The core value of
freedom to pursue individualistic and nonconformist lifestyles
maintains diversity in ecovillages. Yet, the EVI does not give individual-
ity enough room. The community becomes too homogenized as it
constantly seeks consensus. A number of residents, however, underline
the importance of the ability to say “no” when necessary. Individuality
disrupts the full commitment to the shared vision of the ecovillage,
the community.
The ambiguity of the ecovillage mission, its optional aspect of the de-
gree to which one identifies with the community mission, and its
satisficer culture that strives to be all-inclusive causes the ecovillage to
achieve only average sustainability. Many residents experience the di-
lemma of whether they just live in a nice, green suburb or collectively
and intentionally created a place that is a truly sustainable model for
the world (Holleman, 2011). Informants seem confused about how
they should define their lives in context; many expressed that they
had come for the eco part but valued the village part more. Congruent
with the identified research gap, social and relational aspects of the
sustainable lifestyle become much more pivotal and instrumental for
residents to carry on their initial purposes of living green. One EVI
resident explained:
I just really wanted to be somewhere where there was a lot of water,
which is why we moved here. This tends to be a fairly wet climate,
and I just needed to be around water again. For me it's probably
the community part that weighs more than the ecology part. The
eco part is an added bonus, and I'm constantly pushed here to learn
more about how to grow things. …One of the reasons why commu-
nity is important is because one of the main things for me is social
sustainability, what does it mean to live with other people in
ways…because if we can't get along here, then the whole thing will
fall apart. So one of the things that I'm most interested in is how do
you live together with other people from such disparate back-
grounds? Because all of us come here from…almost nobody who
lives here lived in Ithaca before they moved here....I was looking
for…more of a cohesive community. Which for me is interesting,
because in many ways I'm an introvert, and so I wanted to find
community to force myself to socialize, because otherwise I would
self-isolate, and so I did this both for my kids, and I have to say that
this has been a wonderful place to have children, to raise children.
(Ashley, Ithaca)
The level of commitment to achieving the shared vision of
sustainability differs based on owner (active) or renter (observer
and temporal, hence not dedicated enough to the ecovillage's ideals)
status. Because renters do not seek to be included in the intentional
community, and not all are future oriented, some owner residents
think renters disrupt the community's social fabric (Garden, 2006;
Holleman, 2011).
12 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Further, individuality impedes achieving the sustainable vision and
loosens the glue that bonds the community (Atkisson, 1991). The archi-
val data suggest that residents initially imagined many ecovillages from
individualistic motives, and the communities materialized as such. For
example, Findhorn and Okodorf Sieben Linden organically evolved
when people with a similar vision to organize their lives came together
and worked toward this ideal without a messianic drive to create more
Findhorns in the world (Gesota, 2008). However, they still considered
themselves part of an experiment seeking alternative spaces to lead
sustainable lives. Practicing and achieving sustainability communally
is easier than living up to it individually:
We're more sustainable than we otherwise would be, and part of
that is due to fact that we do have community, it makes it a lot easier
to be sustainable in many way, because we have a strong communi-
ty. So [the] community aspect makes it easier. I think it's very impor-
tant because a few determined people can be very sustainable by
themselves, but most people need the nexus of others around them
doing the same thing, to feel comfortable with what they're doing.
(Sean, Ithaca)
Despite its facilitator and enabler characteristics, the community
aspect at times infringes on the commitments and responsibilities
residents devote to their lives outside. Informants commonly voice
that they experience social loafing, meaning some residents do not
donate enough community services hours, even though everyone is
expected (and all agree) to do so:
Well, there's conflict and sometimes, because you have to work
here…the outside life often conflicts with the inside life. Because if
you're totally busy at work, you sometimes let your community
work slide. …For a while, I was also on the board of two nonprofits
downtown, and I'm also the chair of the parent-caregiver group for
my son's school, so you have to balance all the things in your life
and try to make everything work right, and that doesn't always
happen…we all have lives outside of here, and balancing all those
things is often very difficult. (Ashley, Ithaca)
When it comes to macro-level interactions and their potential impli-
cations, however, ecovillagers do not seem too concerned about collab-
orating with the government or other global institutions. Most
ecovillages residents cannot go beyond community or local levels in
organizing their lives to achieve sustainability. The EVI practices
administrative-level public relations; however, such efforts appear
insufficient, as many other local residents in Ithaca mock the lifestyle,
calling it ego village. Informants, including the administrative staff, do
not make special efforts to be better recognized. They lack the connec-
tion with macro forces (governments and corporations) to make an
impact toward achieving the best possible sustainability beyond the
local level (Gesota, 2008; Liftin, 2009). For example, they generally
lack media networking (Garden, 2006), which also misleads public
perception and opinions about ecovillages. For example, Ismet, the
founder at Imeceevi, Turkey, shared his frustration with the media.
Discussing how the media draws a rosy, utopic picture of ecovillages
and ecological farms, he stated:
For example, we had a documentary on Iz TV (a local TV channel),
which showed our life in Kazdagi. Once it started to broadcast, the
number of emails increased tremendously, people came here as if
they found a treasure. …People come from the city, from great recre-
ational areas with awesome cityscape and surrounding, and observe
that Imeceevi is a desert-like land, it is dry and full of rocks, why did
we come here, to make soap? We could have learned how to make
soap in the city. …People display such reactions. Then one says, for
example, OK, we will learn stuff, but why don't you have a refriger-
ator here so we put our beer in the refrigerator and drink it as we
perform our tasks here?
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
The lack of collaboration with the mainstream media inadvertently
creates a false depiction of the sustainable lifestyle, which also affects
the potential to implement practical changes with government agen-
cies. Even the GEN, founded by Findhorn Village to connect ecovillages
worldwide, lacks cooperation with macro forces and embodies mostly
ecovillages with spiritual overtones in its network (Garden, 2006).
Ecovillage residents' definitions and practices of the innovative lifestyle
are rather more sustainable within than sustainable altogether. Education
programs, such as those that the EVI regularly provides for a variety of
participants (high school and college students, public, researchers,
etc.) through different channels and media can remedy and improve
this less-than-desirable and rather discouraging situation. Those out-
reach efforts can gradually develop a better working relationship with
bigger organizations, institutions, and government agencies.
4.3. Segregation and (hyper)inclusion
Ecovillages juggle two kinds of social and relational concerns—one at
a practical level, as discussed earlier; the other at an ideological level as-
sociated with class discourse. Ecovillages aspire to achieve traditionally
feminine ideals of life, such as inclusion of differences, social support,
less competitiveness and judgment, fewer privacy concerns, and greater
willingness for communing (Holleman, 2011). However, such ideals
lead to extreme idealization of social relations. That is, people seek
more tolerance in their relations with other ecovillagers and desire to
play their disowned selves, which tends to disrupt social sustainability
(Garden, 2006). At the EVI, an increased desire to claim differences as
rights leads to hyperinclusivity and disrupts the shared vision of social
sustainability (Breton, 2009; Holleman, 2011). Consequently, some
unspoken tensions emerge between the two existing neighborhoods
(Frog and Song) at the EVI.
For example, the designer of the Song neighborhood and a few other
informants repeatedly emphasize the perceived necessity of "keeping
track of other people," which imposes a more "liberal surveillance"
system. The research team observed individual-level cliques (if not
antagonistic social practices) when the villagers sit at the communal
dinner tables. Once seated, they never mingle and hardly greet people
at other tables. Hyperinclusivity as a utopian ideal simply brings more
tension to the (figurative and literal) table. Hence, ecovillages seek
alternative means to achieve their visions of social sustainability. For
example, Findhorn organizes festivals and community events and
cares for special needs people (Gesota, 2008). Okodorf Sieben Linden
organizes activities that include meditations, music and dance events,
spiritual quests, and the like, and considered the needs of children in
the ecovillage design (Gesota, 2008).
Segregation occurs in terms of ownership and social class and, as a
property of escapism, helps individuals demarcate between the self
and others (Tuan, 1998). Residents consider renters of ecovillage houses
“outsiders” compared with those who purchased a home, whom they
consider more “real” ecovillage members (Holleman, 2011, p.13). The
EVI also discriminates against pet owners for ecological reasons. For
example, the outdoor cat policy, which bans unleashed cats outside,
fails to convince many cat owners. In sum, the ecovillage dictates
restrictions in order to lead a sustainable lifestyle emphasizing low
environmental impact, despite basing its construction on equally social
and ecological concerns (Holleman, 2011; Kirby, 2003).
More interesting is that the ecovillage excludes people who cannot
afford to be green, which impedes achieving the envisioned sustainable
lifestyle (Chitewere, 2006). A resident expressed such a financial
concern:
My ideal would be that you have people of different economic levels
and support for people with less money, and you have different cul-
tures, different races, and…much more diversity. I don't feel like you
can have an ideal that doesn't serve everyone. This is not going to be
all inclusive. Because the houses keep getting more expensive.
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Because every time someone sells it, they take a little bit more. These
houses' costs have gone up the same as any other house when they
sell them, and they're expensive for average people, so…and there
aren't [sic] really anything in place to control that cost escalation. Con-
cerned about…hmm…who will be here in ten years? (Martha, Ithaca)
This distinction mainly evidences in the United States, which
constructs a green lifestyle based on middle- and upper-class expecta-
tions. Ecovillages promote the green lifestyle as exclusive and capitalize
on this green fashion. The wealthy's downshifting motives cause them
to pursue life in an ecovillage (Garden, 2006). For the wealthy, being
green is an alternative lifestyle exclusive to elites who can afford and
fully enjoy it without making sacrifices. Hence, elitism gets in the way
of achieving utopian sustainability. Nonetheless, presumably more
people will be able to access and afford the third neighborhood at the
EVI, Tree (Holleman, 2011). However, the technology used to build
the houses actually cost more than expected, which financially
segregates less-affluent consumers. The pro-social community's aspira-
tion inadvertently made the community discriminating. As living green
becomes more fashionable and even more expensive than many prefer,
experienced community members, marketers, and public policy makers
may have to devise more affordable options for conscious and conscien-
tious consumers. The EVI residents recognize that they should not let
the lifestyle become a word to describe a noble kind of “luxury-hippies.”
4.4. Privacy/private/property and sharing/public/commons
A balance between privacy and belongingness manifested into
sharing practices is crucial to maintaining and pursuing further environ-
mental and social sustainability. More practical assistance from various
marketers and the local government can help achieve the balance.
Ecovillages differ in their privacy levels among residents. For instance,
the EVI neighborhoods adopted different designs that reveal these differ-
ences. The designer of the Song neighborhood claims that he adopted op-
timum privacy and open space as design principles. However, some
residents occupy themselves too much with designing their own
homes, which tends to disrupt the community's social cohesiveness. The
Frog neighborhood, on the other hand, offers little privacy or space
(Kirby, 2003); therefore, Frog residents interact with each other more:
I think it's harder to do, when you have people buying land and
building their own houses, because they tend to be more focused
on their own plot and their own house. …In Song, each person
contracted to design and build their own house. And that resulted
in a lot more focus on their house. It took a lot of…it changed the en-
ergy. And to this day, for example in Frog, it's not uncommon for
someone to say “Have you got any orange juice?” I say “Sure, just
go in my house, it's in the fridge, just get it,” and clearly that happens
much less in this neighborhood. People just waltz into the other
houses. (Sean, Ithaca)
Kookaburra Park also promotes a close-knit community setting,
which serves as a surveillance mechanism to prevent crime and vandal-
ism. Ecovillages challenge the envisioned radical forms of sharing in
favor of maintaining private space (Garden, 2006). The researchers ob-
served differing levels and types of sharing. The EVI houses share hot
water and heating facilities to reduce environmental impact. Song resi-
dents pay equally for the laundry room, regardless of the number of
people in the household or frequency of use (Holleman, 2011). Frog res-
idents practice car sharing as a material organization of socialization,
which increases connectedness with the community and the environ-
ment (Kirby, 2003). In fact, one Frog resident has been trying to develop
a mobile application for car sharing, which is exactly the envisioned
practice in ecovillages:
Here's something the transportation committee is working on—well,
I'm working on with the transportation committee, whatever…a
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
13
way to make ride sharing easier. And that is, we combine a
website—a very simple website, that's easy accessible from smart
phones, with text messaging. So the idea is, wherever you are, you
can ask for a ride, or offer one. And if you're about to leave the house
and you want to see if anybody needs a ride, it's a lot safer to check a
website than it is to open your email. (Sean, Ithaca)
Having negotiated with the municipality about delivering public
transportation to the ecovillage, Sean stated that the municipality did
not consider this service a good use of resources—since it requires two
people per ride on average, and the ecovillage cannot show enough
ridership. Consequently, they are developing alternative means to
contribute to ecological and social sustainability.
The Frog common house also contains a re-use room, where
residents donate possessions they no longer use for other residents to
take (Holleman, 2011). Some ecovillages commonly practice bartering
and purchasing second-hand products. Many Findhorn residents have
their own cars (hence no carpooling) and private homes. In Okodorf
Sieben Linden, car sharing is available only for long-distance travel,
and offers both private house ownership and co-housing possibilities
(Gesota, 2008). Income sharing is not yet evident at the EVI
(Holleman, 2011; Kirby, 2003), which is considered an economical chal-
lenge to the community (Kirby, 2003). Nonetheless, the co-operative
mindset manifested in alternative ways. Establishing co-ops enables
ecovillages to invest in high-tech designs for ecological sustainability.
For example, Frog finances its ecological initiatives through its wealthier
residents, who contribute to a co-op at an interest rate less than a com-
mercial bank rate but higher than a regular savings account rate. The
monthly payment depends on the amount of electricity bills for the
respective residents (Holleman, 2011). As such, sharing and commons
represent utopian ideals, insofar as the practices are financially plausible
and beneficial for the individuals and the community as a whole. This
unprecedented level of sharing and co-operative practices deserves
further deliberation from financial institutions and policy makers.
4.5. Idealism and pragmatism
The lack of alternatives in ecovillages reduces consumerist motives
and practices among residents (Moraes, Szmigin, & Carrigan, 2008).
However, Findhorn and Okodorf Sieben Linden engage in increasing
consumerism and materialism (Gesota, 2008), which stands against
the vision of creating a permaculture that stresses waste reduction by
balancing the production–consumption cycle (Liftin, 2009). Hence, the
ecovillage lifestyle, once envisioned to be an alternative lifestyle, para-
doxically turns into a generally promoted, quasi-mainstream lifestyle
(Gesota, 2008). Ironically, the utopian ideal of being ecological takes a
disturbing hit at the EVI, when residents host bumper sticker contests
and reward plastic bumper stickers to be used on cars (Picture 5) for
promoting an ego village identity (Holleman, 2011). Further, residents
increasingly use electronic goods, and quality of life and convenience
reign over green consumption (Bekin, Carrigan, & Szmigin, 2007;
Moraes et al., 2008). Frog residents demonstrated a reluctance to buy
solely local due to the high cost of local goods. Residents founded
Okodorf Sieben Linden on the idealistic vision that the community
would become radically self-reliant, independent of bank loans for
land purchases; would produce local and organic food; and would
establish local businesses. Nevertheless, this idealism surrenders to
pragmatism as the village depends on local authorities and planning
regulations during setup and for legitimation of the ecovillage (Gesota,
2008). Furthermore, the utopian ideal of setting themselves apart
from mainstream society fails when residents deal with differences.
For example, the EVI provides less access for disabled people, which
prevents the disabled from socializing and participating in community
practices and functions (Holleman, 2011). Similarly, Kookaburra Park
not only displays less interest in ecology but also experiences increased
consumerism and pretense and less tolerance in relational exchanges
14 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
among residents than in the outside world (Garden, 2006). The ideal-
ism/pragmatism dialectic also represents escapism, which frequently
renders ideal practices futile; the futile often become pseudo-ideals.
Ashley commented on mainstream technology:
I'm a Luddite, so I use technology of course, because you can't really
survive in this world without it, but I do it very grudgingly! [Laughs.]
Someone explained to me, the whole phones and stuff…buying, get-
ting phones every couple of years, and someone described that to me
as not even the wanting of the new phone, it's just the wanting of the
wanting. …And the end product almost doesn't matter, and how do
you fight that? How do you fight that because those cellphones go
somewhere that you've discarded, and mostly it's some landfill
somewhere, so how does one curb desire in a commodified culture?
I think that's one of the things I struggle with also. (Ashley, Ithaca)
Although such a struggle deserves individual and collective
attention and efforts, it appears transient and topographically confined
to ecovillages, which, in turn, contributes to the transformative dynam-
ics in the context. As residents distance themselves too far from the
mainstream, they sometimes collaterally damage diversity and reverse-
ly affect the essentially anti-consumerism approach. They need to deal
with the deterioration of their initial intention to live simply and
sustainably in a broader spectrum in which co-operative educational
programs sponsored by multiple ecovillages must continually manage
epidemic consumerism—even among vanguard consumers. Residents,
marketers, and policy makers must find a position where they can
protect a sustainable lifestyle from the imminent threat of consumer-
ism, and yet co-exist with the current market system.
4.6. Governance
As an embodiment of social and relational dynamics in ecovillages,
governance mechanisms both facilitate and convolute the transforma-
tive processes in which individual- and communal-level negotiations
become the nitty-gritty of the sustainable lifestyle. The elements of sus-
tainability as a practice often evolve from dialogues and compromises.
Decentralization and residents' full commitment to the village
design and operation characterize the envisaged ecovillage governance
structure. The manifestations of these ideals seem to vary among
ecovillages. For example, Findhorn practices organized decentralization,
consensus decision-making, and attunement (spiritual decision-
making: listen, then meditate silently, and then express opinion). It
represents smaller communities that have specialized responsibilities
and practice autonomous decision-making. Residents established the
New Findhorn Association to bring structure to these small communi-
ties. Okodorf Sieben Linden practices hierarchical decision-making and
designates a trusted leader as the community grows and manages
several smaller neighborhoods with different lifestyles and values
(Gesota, 2008).
The EVI residents voluntarily responsibilize at different levels. Some
residents assume responsibility for gardening, and others for cooking
for the community and outside visitors. Residents typically join one or
two committees dealing with many different community-level issues.
Those responsible for gardening choose which vegetables to grow but
contribute equally to the gardening, which prevents alienation (Bekin
et al., 2007). Committees assign tasks based on each individual's skills
and expertise, and the individuals voluntarily perform those tasks. Res-
idents also exert implicit public pressure on those who do not engage in
community work. They create eco-awareness through research, remind
each other of the essential values to be ecological, and assign roles for
each individual to pursue these values (Holleman, 2011). Residents
also parodically responsibilize (e.g., put bumper stickers on their cars
that read “Honk if I'm not car pooling!”) to encourage social control
(Holleman, 2011, p. 42).
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
Autonomy cultivates cultural and environmental innovativeness,
but some feel the price tag for the new technology of lifestyle is higher
than it ought to be. Governance issues prevail in all theoretical and em-
pirical landscapes of ecovillages: escapism, utopia, and heterotopia. One
prominent issue at the EVI—the pursuit of consensus—only convolutes
the governance issues. Discussing more people coming to the ecovillage
with the inclusion of the new Tree neighborhood, one resident stated:
More people. There are concerns about whether we can stick to
consensus governance. Now, I think it has a good chance of actually
being able to do that, but a lot of people are…assuming we won't be
able to. …With democracy, it's like, “Well, how can I get enough
votes for this?” With consensus, it's, “How can I make this work for
everybody?” It's some people's sociocracy…someone in between.
It's representative but it tries to have modicums of consensus. …
We need to figure that one out. Because consensus is time consum-
ing and it's very prone to calling in the veto process. …If you don't
put in the time it takes, you end up with the veto process and lots
of ideas that haven't gotten off the ground because somebody
blocked them. (Sean, Ithaca)
Another resident added to the discussion of the problematic
practice:
We had to replace a swing set because it was broken. It took a year
because there were several meetings to discuss what to do with
the old one. Do we recycle it? Are we throwing it away? What kind
of new one do we get? What do the kids need? How much will it
cost? Who will pay for it? Do we have the money? And although
there was a committee in charge of making recommendations, the
whole group didn't really trust. …I think when there's a lack of trust,
it's hard for a committee to come forward and say, “Do this,” because
the whole community is like, “What about this, what about that,”
and…it takes a long time.…I think that consensus in this neighbor-
hood has been abused in the past and not used right. …I think Frog
and Song are really different in that way. I think they're an older
community. Maybe they've been through more. Maybe they were
more intentional in the beginning…I don't know. Maybe individual
personalities can just have that big of an impact. (Martha, Ithaca)
Such practices, however, create conflicts, and subsequent resolution
processes often become a target of filibuster. Consensus in a bona fide
sense occurs very rarely, but the most likely consensus would be on
the inevitability of collateral damage to individual ideals that are slightly
incongruent with what others generally accept or promote. Neverthe-
less, such practices legitimize consensus as a transformational process
through which people learn to listen, overcome ego, live with, and de-
velop a sense of community. Several policies and community bylaws
guide people to lead and organize a sustainable lifestyle, but they also
create the greatest tensions in community meetings. Residents expect
some policies, including the pet policy (cats and dogs must be leashed
outside, no animals in the common house), detergent policy (scent-
free zones, only specific detergents allowed in the common house and
laundry room), plant-growing policy (invasive species not allowed),
to be perceived and applied not as lifestyle restrictions but as respect
for others' needs. They achieve social and relational sustainability—as
at least a co-requisite, if not a pre-requisite, for environmental
sustainability—through concession and tolerance, which must be
emphasized in educational programs and public policies.
4.7. Recycling economy and self-sufficiency
The utopian ideal of economic sustainability rests on constructing a
local economy based solely on community resources, recycling of in-
come within the community, and establishing community businesses
(Liftin, 2009). Recycling and self-sufficiency are, de facto, the common
characteristics of utopia and heterotopia. Ecovillages imagine self-
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
sufficiency and dependence solely on residents' resources (Dawson,
2006) and gaining control over production of their consumption
(Bekin et al., 2007). The EVI and Findhorn organize educational
programs as the community's main income source, establish local and
ecological businesses to support the local economy, and recycle income
gained outside through these local businesses (Gesota, 2008). Okodorf
Sieben Linden aims to achieve economic sustainability through in-
house income recycling and labor provision. For example, it uses
wood from the forest and employs community residents rather than
contract an outside wood dealer. The capital needed to build houses
then returns to the community. Money gained from monthly contribu-
tions for rent and residents' use of communal resources pays for utilities
and community workers (Gesota, 2008).
Ecovillages, however, do not fully achieve the intended goal of
producing and consuming locally. For example, the EVI displays varying
degrees of self-sufficiency and involvement in food production. The
Findhorn depends on outside sources to accommodate food needs for
guests coming to the ecovillage for training. Residents attribute such
difficulties and complications to (if not a direct result of) a lack of shared
economy. One informant in Imeceevi pointed out that the varying
degree of participation in and commitment to a shared economy
prevents the community from achieving a higher standard of self-
sufficiency at the communal level:
People come here with their own economic sources; hence, they do
not feel the need to create a shared, common economy. This
prevents the project to be realized. They are currently busy with
establishing an order in their own spaces; hence, we rarely meet
them. …When you buy land here, you become our neighbor. You
can only make it an ecovillage and become a part of it if you are a part
of our shared economy. Unfortunately, those who have independent
economy do not feel the need to become a part of that shared econ-
omy. He earns 500 Turkish lira and he can lead a life easily in the
village; he does not have to work in the ecovillage. He does not come
to us with the consciousness or need we have. (Ismet, Imeceevi)
Ismet further argues that shared economy is the ultimate catalyst for
sustainable life, but the current consumer culture in Turkey does not
necessarily allow even conscientious consumers to implement and
maintain such a quintessential practice:
The rule to initiate a sustainable life is to solve the issue of common/
shared economy. If they cannot solve this, they cannot make prog-
ress. First, start with becoming a neighbor; then, for example, as
you go to the city, share your car to go to the city with others, or
buy a common car that is hybrid, or consumes less gas, or runs on
biodiesel. You can even produce your own biodiesel. We have such
opportunities in a city; we can collect used oil. I especially tell friends
who have just come here that I will not tell them anything until they
realize that they do not need 50 cars or tractors or washing machines
and that we can share and collaborate. Until that time, these people
will do whatever they want. They will go to the bazaar with 50 cars.
Once they realize this, then we will sit down and talk about how we
can share.
Unfortunately, the lack of understanding and the absence of true
commitment to a shared economy contribute to the failure of the
imagined community in Imeceevi. Along with shared economy, most
residents concur that adopting a do-it-yourself philosophy, repairing
and bartering practices as means to pursue simple lifestyles, reusing
products consumed, and reducing waste would increase their self-
sufficiency (Bekin et al., 2007).
If the alternative economy is indeed the stumbling block for
ecovillages and their residents to self-suffice, marketers should identify
opportunities to provide financial systems and physical platforms for
ecovillages to operate as quasi-independent economic units that
promote a sustainable local economy. More relevant policies also need
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
15
to be in place to propel a healthier cycle of local production, consump-
tion, recycling, and ultimately, a healthier economy as a whole.
5. Discussion: Public policy implications
The key findings agree with previous research on ecovillages
(Garden, 2006; Gesota, 2008; Liftin, 2009), in terms of ecovillages' col-
laboration with macro forces in promoting and disseminating a sustain-
able lifestyle. However, such collaboration at the macro level does not
seem to be ecovillagers' priority. Instead, ecovillagers focus mainly on
individual achievement of a sustainable lifestyle or, at most, pursuit of
sustainability at the community level. The archival and ethnographic
analyses suggest this issue stems from ecovillages' detachment from
the mainstream and promotion of green lifestyle as an elitist movement
(e.g., unaffordable housing and lack of diversity), insufficient education-
al efforts to convey sustainable living in their communes, and lack of
media networking due to the their ambiguous, utopian vision of
sustainable life in ecovillages (e.g., Cummins, Reilly, Carlson, Grove, &
Dorsch, 2014).
Although the EVI initiates local- (meso) level endeavors to contrib-
ute to collective sustainability, such efforts are somewhat obstructed
or discouraged at the macro level. Macro-level reasons for this difficulty
include (1) government agencies and sustainable individuals/commu-
nities lack a shared understanding of what constitutes a sustainable life-
style (Humphreys, 2014); (2) the elitist, utopian, and leftist perceptions
of sustainable communities, and their failure to provide alternatives to
dominant lifestyles and systems (Press & Arnould, 2011; Visconti,
Minowa, & Maclaran, 2014); and (3) government agencies' prevailing,
corporate-capitalist-like mindset toward supporting sustainable living
(e.g., the cost-concerned municipality requirement for a minimum of
two persons per ride to provide public transportation for the EVI).
These findings also substantiate that although ecovillagers are open
to working with government agencies to create solutions and make sus-
tainable living easier, the macro forces' lack of support demonstrably
leads ecovillagers to pursue alternative modes of organizing their
lives. Government authorities' norms and structural impediments to
dictate the organization and management of a sustainable lifestyle cre-
ate tensions among the entities that wish to contribute to sustainable
living (Guillard & Roux, 2014). Consequently, the situation warrants
improved communication for constituents' shared understanding of a
sustainable lifestyle (Prothero, McDonagh, & Dobscha, 2010), as well
as policies to transform a sustainable lifestyle through collaboration
between macro forces and individuals/communities.
One of the most effective ways to sustain the discourse of sustain-
ability in a more socially beneficial fashion is government's investment
in education (Prothero et al., 2011). Environmentally conscious
consumer researchers almost unanimously voice that society must
substantially reorganize the fundamental logics and ideologies
(i.e., the dominant social paradigm in Kilbourne, McDonagh, &
Prothero, 1997) of the good life due to its possessive, consumptive,
and destructive nature. In its place, society should instill a new socio-
politico-cultural trend into the current and, more importantly, next gen-
eration of consumers through new education programs (e.g., McGregor,
1999; Prothero et al., 2011). Although the literature identifies the prop-
er domain of our social system to make a significant change, it does not
consistently address the contents for such education systems. Hence,
the findings suggest at least two possible entries for the curricula.
First, as problematized by Scott, Martin, and Schouten (2014),
scholars need to revise the dominant worldview arguably present in
the current curricula—dualism. Such revision can provide twofold
benefits for sustainability education: (1) recognition of the inseparabil-
ity between a materialistic culture and environmental degradation and
(2) understanding that social relations must be present to pursue an
environmentally healthy lifestyle. In other words, sustainability may
realize itself as consumers appreciate the organic nature of the relations
within and among materials, nature, humans, and culture, and preserve
16 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
them without jeopardizing one at the expense of another. This revision
essentially calls for a worldview based on monism (Scott et al., 2014).
In particular, the revised curricula must promote the importance of
sustainable human relations, as demonstrated in the empirical findings.
Additionally, the anthropocentric view prevalent in current education
systems and public discourses also equally, if not more so, contributes
to the amnesty and amnesia of the environmentally harmful (and often
disastrous) practices of individuals and corporations (e.g., Humphreys
& Thompson, 2014).
Second, the findings suggest that the agenda of new educational
programs should reasonably include cultivating a culture where
consumers increasingly become consumer-citizens (Prothero et al.,
2011). The word citizen implies that consumption practices require
more than simply acquiring and consuming ever-increasing
amounts of material. Recently, Giesler and Veresiu (2014) explained
that realization of a responsible consumer subject requires
capabilization, which entails socio-politico-economical efforts to
create a (market) system that enables conscious and conscientious
consumers to play their roles as consumer-citizens and to allocate
those efforts to the education system. Classrooms, wherein rejecting
the general ideas of consumerism should not be inculcated as a
potential impediment to the economic prosperity, can better achieve
legitimation of “excessively green” (i.e., ecovillagers) consumer
status. In other words, at least within the scope of green
consumerism, individual consumers' transformations into moralized
consumer-citizens based on educational support may need to pre-
cede capabilization, which calls for a macro-level transformation.
Educators can benefit extensively from various ecovillage establish-
ments because many, including this study's empirical contexts,
provide educational services (i.e., seminars and workshops) and
materials and support the proposed curricula changes.
The findings also indicate that ecovillages present complex dynam-
ics that include elements of utopia, heterotopia, and escapism. Hence,
the process of materializing and transforming a sustainable lifestyle
involves tensions and the subsequent negotiation between utopian
ideals and everyday practices to collectively sustain the alternative
mode of being. Among these daily practices, sharing involves multiple
social entities (Barhdi & Eckhardt, 2012; Belk, 2010, 2014). Collabora-
tive and access-based consumption has become normative ingredients
of sustainable and responsible consumption. As Belk (2010) postulates,
sharing is essentially a communal act that is quite evident in ecovillage
contexts; public policy initiatives must extend the existing formats and
practices of communal-level sharing to larger, macro contexts. In doing
so, government agencies and regulating bodies must communicate with
various stakeholders. They must address such claims that pro-social
practices, namely, sharing and collaborative consumption (i.e., car/
room/house sharing and other peer-to-peer sharing platforms in gener-
al), cause more legal and social complications than serve the greater
good. Despite having more social and environmental merits than
regulatory encumbrances, the public discourse on sharing economy
clearly splits (e.g., Uber, Airbnb, Wimdu, and Lyft). Therefore, current
and future policy and policy makers should seek not to make a substan-
tial change in a relatively short time but to allow and foster an environ-
ment in which many alternatives are discussed for their own values
without restricting certain ideas for the sake of status quo. This study
contributes to the newly envisioned social order because ecovillages
provide a range of alternative perspectives for environmentalism,
including but not limited to urban planning, community building,
sustainable consumption practices, self-sufficient agriculture, consumer
responsibilization, macro-level collaboration, and motivations for socio-
cultural transformation.
In all, the aforementioned changes require a revision of the mis-
conception of ecovillages as utopian spaces. That is, life in ecovillages
should not be presented as a product of a utopian vision but as alter-
native and complementary life modes to the dominant lifestyles that
are based in the dominant social paradigm (Kilbourne et al., 1997;
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
Visconti et al., 2014). Consequently, as noted above, public policy ini-
tiatives should (1) support ecovillagers' efforts to mobilize and edu-
cate people, (2) transform thoughts and values into practices toward
achieving a sustainable lifestyle, and (3) establish collaborative gov-
ernance mechanisms between ecovillages and government agencies
(e.g., land management and house-pricing policies, taxation, sus-
tainable public transportation, and education services) to overcome
challenges to macro-level sustainability. Importantly, these initia-
tives must recognize that the publicized substitute for the current,
dominant social paradigm will take time to establish, just as any dis-
ruptive technology follows its due course to diffuse. The new tech-
nology of lifestyle theorized in this study will be normalized and
ultimately embedded in the culture of production/consumption
much faster when multiple stakeholders at least agree on the urgen-
cy of the alternative art and science of living.
6. Conclusions
This study's contribution to the literature on sustainability as a trans-
formative process, rather than a status to achieve, rests in identifying
the means and processes by which conscientious consumers organize
alternative life modes in their quest to explore and internalize sustain-
able lifestyles beyond identity struggles and projects in a pro-social,
hyper-collective, and multi-faceted ideological field. The study provides
a multi-discursive depiction (Fig. 3) of relationship-oriented (perhaps
relationship-ridden) sustainable living in ecovillages as other spaces
and investigates a variety of contexts that made such an enterprise
more imaginable. The relational and social aspects of the new lifestyle
(which require individuals to be more tolerant and forgiving) contradict
the notion of neoliberal governmentality that underscores individual
determination and efforts to pursue and realize their own well-being
(see Foucault, 2008a).
Ecovillage residents value and sometimes mandate experimental
practices, participation, and even spontaneity, which together define
their sustainability as an organic community (Turner, 2012). An organic
system in which individuals are disciplined and programmed to be
more autonomous and self-correcting has always been imagined,
articularly in ecovillages, but never sufficiently realized. Instead, resi-
dents deprioritize such ideals because of the allegedly greater ideals of
an environmentally sustainable lifestyle. However, what has rendered
the current outlook of ecovillages is not necessarily the environmental
consciousness, but rather the relational dynamics within the communi-
ties. The new technology of lifestyle appears to require individuals to be
more sensible and conscientious with respect to the human relation-
ships in ecovillages, which actually prescribe and transform the ongoing
projects endorsed as “the sustainable lifestyle.” This finding suggests the
need for more sensible public policy directives with respect to macro-
level transformation. Such policies should embody a redesigned, more
functional education system to cultivate a sustainable culture of produc-
tion and consumption and continuously innovate current forms of
alternative economy.
This study also explicates the heterotopian liminal dynamics of
sustainable living in ecovillages and illustrates the transformation
of ecovillages from intentional communities (the intended goal to
become ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable) to inci-
dental communities. The term incidental draws attention to the
multi-faceted processes of forming and transforming a sustainable
lifestyle, which yields multiple divergences from and negotiation of
the utopian ideals of leading a sustainable life. As the three compet-
ing theories suggest, the orthodox ideals of sustainability operate as
protocols, but the actual makings and workings of intentional
communities are incidental to how the social domain of the living
space is configured, contested, revised, and politicized. The new
technology of lifestyle is sustainable only if the engineering of living
is socially ideal.
 S. Hong, H. Vicdan / Journal of Business Research xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
References
Anders, M., & Wagner, F. (2012). Realizing utopia: Ecovillage endeavors and academic
approaches. Munich, Germany: Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society.
Atkisson, A. (1991). A cluster of eco-villages. In Context, 29(15) (Retrieved from www.
incontext.org).
Bang, J. (2005). Ecovillages: A practical guide to sustainable communities. Boston, MA:
Society Publishers.
Barhdi, F., & Eckhardt, G.M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing.
Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 881–898.
Bataille, G. (1991). The accursed share, Vol. 1, New York, NY: Zone Books.
Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Bekin, C., Carrigan, M., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Beyond recycling: "Commons-friendly" waste re-
duction at new consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 271–286.
Belk, R. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 715–734.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption
online. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1595–1600.
Belk, R., & Costa, J.A. (2002). The rendezvous as a bounded utopia. Advances in Consumer
Research, 29, 62–64.
Belk, R., Fischer, E., & Kozinets, R.V. (2013). Qualitative consumer and marketing research.
London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Benjamin, W. (2002). The arcades project. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Breton, P.E. (2009). Organizing for sustainability at a small scale. A case study of an
ecovillage. (Masters thesis) Ottawa, Canada: Heritage Branch: University of Northern
British Columbia, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies.
Carter, N. (2003). The politics of the environment: Ideas, activism, policy. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Chatzidakis, A., McLaran, P., & Bradshaw, A. (2012). Heterotopian space and the utopics of
ethical and green consumption. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 494–515.
Chitewere, T. (2006). Constructing a green lifestyle: Consumption and environmentalism in
an ecovillage. (Phd. Dissertation) New York. Retrieved from ProQuest Information
and Learning Company: Binghamton University, Department of Anthropology.
Chitewere, T., & Taylor, D.E. (2010). Sustainable living and community building in
Ecovillage at Ithaca: The challenges of incorporating social justice concerns into the
practices of an ecological cohousing community. In D.E. Taylor (Ed.), Environment
and social justice: An international perspective (Research in social problems and public
policy, Vol. 18) (pp. 141–176). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Cummins, S., Reilly, T.M., Carlson, L., Grove, S.J., & Dorsch, M.J. (2014). Investigating the
portrayal and influence of sustainability claims in an environmental advertising
context. Journal of Macromarketing, 34, 332–348.
Dawson, J. (2006). Ecovillages: New frontiers for sustainability. Devton, United Kingdom:
Green Books.
Dawson, J. (2007). Ecovillages achieve lowest-ever ecological footprint results. Global
Ecovillage Network–Europe Newsletter, Winter 2006/2007.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota.
Ekstrom, K. (2006). The emergence of multi-sited ethnography in anthropology and
marketing. In R.W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing
(pp. 497–508). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York,
NY: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1997). Of other spaces: Utopias and heterotopias. In N. Leach (Ed.), Rethink-
ing architecture: A research in cultural theory (pp. 330–336). New York, NY: Routledge
(Original work published 1967).
Foucault, M. (2008a). The birth of biopolitics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (2008b). Of other spaces. In M. Dehaene, & L. De Cauter (Eds.), Heterotopia
and the city: Public Space in a postcivil society (pp. 13–30). London, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Garden, M. (2006). Leaving utopia. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, 2.
Genocchio, B. (1995). Discourse, discontinuity, difference: The question of "other" spaces.
In S. Watson, & K. Gibson (Eds.), Postmodern cities and spaces (pp. 35–46). Oxford,
United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Gesota, B. (2008). Ecovillages as models for sustainable development: A case study approach
(Master's thesis). Freiburg, Germany: Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat.
Giesler, M. (2008). Conflict and compromise: Drama in marketplace revolution. Journal of
Consumer Research, 34, 739–753.
Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moralistic gover-
nance regimes and consumer subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 840–857.
Global Ecovillage Network (2015). What is an ecovillage? Retrieved from http://gen.
ecovillage.org/en/article/what-ecovillage (n.d.)
Goodman, M.K., Goodman, D., & Redclift, M. (2010). Consuming space: Placing
consumption in perspective. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Guillard, V., & Roux, D. (2014). Macromarketing issues on the sidewalk: How ''gleaners''
and ''disposers'' (re)create a sustainable economy. Journal of Macromarketing, 34,
291–312.
Hetherington, K. (1997). The badlands of modernity: Heterotopia and social ordering. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hill, R.P. (1991). Homeless women, special possessions, and the meaning of "home": An
ethnographic case study. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 298–310.
Hirschman, E.C. (1985). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method,
and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 237–249.
Holleman, M. (2011). Individuality in community at the EVI. (Master's thesis) Amsterdam,
Netherlands: VU University.
Please cite this article as: Hong, S., & Vicdan, H., Re-imagining the utopian: Transformation of a sustainable lifestyle in ecovillages, Journal of Busi-
ness Research (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.026
17
Humphreys, A. (2014). How is sustainability structured? The discursive life of environ-
mentalism. Journal of Macromarketing, 34, 265–281.
Humphreys, A., & Thompson, C.J. (2014). Branding disaster: Reestablishing trust through
the ideological containment of systemic risk anxieties. Journal of Consumer Research,
41(4), 877–910.
Kilbourne, W., McDonagh, P., & Prothero, A. (1997). Sustainable consumption and the
quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm.
Journal of Macromarketing, 17, 4–24.
Kirby, A. (2003). Redefining social and environmental relations at the EVI: A case study.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 323–332.
Kirby, A. (2004). Domestic protest: The ecovillage movement as a space of resistance. Bad
Subjects, 65 (Retrieved from http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/65/kirby.html).
Kozinets, R.V. (2002). Can consumers escape the market? Emancipatory illuminations
from Burning Man. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 20–38.
Kozinets, R.V. (2008). Technology/ideology: How ideological fields influence consumers’
technology narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 865–881.
Kumar, K. (1991). Utopianism. Buckinghamshire, UK: Open University Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Levitas, R. (1990). The concept of utopia. New York, NY: Allen.
Liftin, K. (2009). Reinventing the future: The global ecovillage movement as a holistic
knowledge community. In G. Kutting, & R. Lipschutz (Eds.), Environmental
governance: Power and knowledge in a local-global world (pp. 124–142). London,
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Liftin, K. (2014). Ecovillages: Lessons for sustainable community. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Polity Press.
Maclaran, P., & Brown, S. (2001). The future perfect declined: Utopian studies and
consumer research. Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 367–390.
Maclaran, P., & Brown, S. (2005). The centre cannot hold: Consuming the utopian
marketplace. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 311–323.
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Marin, L. (1984). Utopics: The semiological play of textual spaces. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:
Humanities Press.
McAlexander, J.H., Dufault, B.L., Martin, D.M., & Schouten, J.W. (2014). The marketization
of religion: Field, capital, and consumer identity. Journal of Consumer Research, 41,
858–875.
McCracken, G. (2008). Transformations: Identity construction in contemporary culture.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
McGregor, S. (1999). Towards a rationale for integrating consumer and citizenship educa-
tion. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics, 23, 207–211.
Meethan, K., Anderson, A., & Miles, S. (2006). Tourism, consumption and representation.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom: CABI.
Miller, T. (1998). The quest for utopia in the twentieth century: 1900-1960. New York, NY:
Syracuse Press.
Moraes, C., Szmigin, I., & Carrigan, M. (2008). Consumer resistance, coherent inconsis-
tencies, and new consumption communities. 1st International Conference on
Consumption and Consumer Resistance, IRG-University Paris 12.
Oved, Y. (2012). Globalization of communes: 1950-2010. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Ozanne, J., & Saatcioglu, B. (2008). Participatory action research. Journal of Consumer
Research, 35, 423–439.
Press, M., & Arnould, E.J. (2011). Legitimating community supported agriculture through
American pastoralist ideology. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11, 168–194.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K., et al.
(2011). Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public
policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30, 31–38.
Prothero, A., McDonagh, P., & Dobscha, S. (2010). Is green the new black? Reflections on a
green commodity discourse. Journal of Macromarketing, 30, 147–159.
Sargisson, L. (2012). Second-wave cohousing: A modern utopia. Utopian Studies, 23,
28–56.
Scott, K., Martin, D.M., & Schouten, J.W. (2014). Marketing and the new materialism.
Journal of Macromarketing, 34, 282–290.
Sherry, J.F. (1990). Dealers and dealing in a periodic market: Informal retailing in
ethnographic perspective. Journal of Retailing, 66, 174–200.
Shields, R. (1991). Places on the margin. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Soja, E.W. (1996). Thirdspace. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Thompson, C.J. (1997). Interpreting consumers: A hermeneutical framework for deriving
marketing insights from the texts of consumers' consumption stories. Journal of
Marketing Research, 34, 438–456.
Tuan, Y. (1998). Escapism. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Turner, V. (1967). Betwixt and between: The liminal period in rites of passage. In L.C.
Mahdi, S. Foster, & M. Little (Eds.), Betwixt and between: Patterns of masculine and
feminine initiation (pp. 3–19). Chicago, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.
Turner, V. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine.
Turner, E. (2012). Communitas: The anthropology of collective joy. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Urry, J. (1995). Consuming places. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Visconti, L.M., Minowa, Y., & Maclaran, P. (2014). Public markets: An ecological perspec-
tive on sustainability as a megatrend. Journal of Macromarketing, 34, 349–368.
Walker, L. (2005). EVI: Pioneering a sustainable culture. Gabriola Island, Canada: New
Society Publishers.
Wallendorf, M., & Belk, R.W. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer
research. In E.C. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive consumer research (pp. 69–84). Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Wouters, C. (1986). Formalization and information: Changing tension balances in
civilizing processes. Theory, Culture, and Society, 3, 1–18.