Cohousing : problems and prospects for low-income communities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Winnipeg's North End neighbourhoods are experiencing significant decline in decent affordable housing units.Societal changes, including a shift away from the traditional nuclear family and need for single detached housing units, contribute to a call for new housing models.As well, governments increasingly reduced role in the provision of social housing has left third sector parties and non-profit housing organizations challenged with the task to develop affordable housing projects for low-income communities.This study explores non-profit housing organizations and the problems and prospects of developing cohousing projects for low-income communities.Cohousing is a relatively new housing typology that emerged from Denmark in the early 1970s.By working together and combining resources and energies, cohousing communities have the advantage of private homes and the convenience of shared services and amenities that enhance affordability by reducing household expenses.In reference to a cohousing case study proposed by one local non-profit housing provider, this thesis a) identifies barriers and opportunities to developing cohousing projects; b) explores the role(s) cohousing models play or are positioned to play in lowincome communities; and c) cultivates enhancement recommendations for non-profit housing groups interested in developing cohousing projects.The study includes findings from the proposed case study, a literature review and a series of qualitative interviews with case study and cohousing respondents.The literature review addresses related topics, such as the emergence of non-profit housing organizations in Canada, issues facing community-based non-profit housing organizations and cohousing projects in European and North American contexts.Through the empirical findings, it was established that a) cohousing is as much a process as it is a new housing model; b) non-profit housing organizafions best serve as facilitators to what should be a resident-or community-led cohousing process; and c) non-profit housing organizations require extensive internal and external supports to facilitate the planning and development of cohousing projects.Overall findings reveal that non-prof,rt housing organizations and low-income communities generally do not have the capacity nor the financial capital required to support collaborative cohousing planning processes and project costs associated with shared spaces and facilities.Consequently, this thesis argues for broader government support, additional resources and flexible funding for non-profit housing organizations to explore alternative housing models; facilitate the engagement of low-income communities in collaborative planning processes; and develop nev/ housing models for changing housing needs.DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to my mother.Everything that has led up to this moment and the future that lies ahead are thanks to you.lll To begin, I would like to thank the North End Housing Project, for allowing me to document a snapshot of their endurance, commitment and pursuit of affordable housing for low-income communities.To the members of my advisory committee, thank you.To Dr. Lawrie Deane, thank you for sharing with me your knowledge, persistence and enthusiasm for community development.To Dr
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,019 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».