Why Network Between Communities ?

By Ugo Dutil


GEN = Global Ecovillage Network

FIC = Foundation for Intentional Communities

CIs = Communautés Intentionnelles


As of 2025, there is no formal network of intentional communities in Québec. Current networking is informal: people living in community—or drawn to the movement—know each other and meet at various events. We visit one another, exchange ideas, and try to inspire each other, even though every project is unique.

While France has the Coopérative Oasis, the U.S. has the FIC, and Europe hosts the most active branch of GEN, no organization currently carries the torch for intentional communities in Québec


Not for lack of trying.

There was once a network of Québec’s eco-hamlets and ecovillages from 2003 to 2010, gatherings of eco-community founders during those same years, a day dedicated to intentional communities in Montréal in 2018, and immersive experiences in eco-communities between 2017 and 2022.

At La Cité, we even tried launching a GEN Québec. But with only three or four established communities identifying as “ecovillages,” it’s hard to build a robust network.


Everything needs to be rebuilt. It’s a bit discouraging and labor-intensive—but also deeply meaningful and exciting. 


If we want to move in this direction, we need to ask some important questions.


Recently, I spoke with Laurence Beaudry, who plans to launch a business (Transition) to help connect intentional communities in Québec (podcast: 24 ~ La Transition des Communautés du Québec). It’s a beautiful initiative that could give shape to the next version of a Québec-based network


In this article, I’d like to reflect on what the best version of such a network might look like—one that’s relevant, effective, inspiring, and built to last.


Quebec Network or Canadian Network ?


I don’t see much value in trying to build a Canada-wide network. It’s been attempted before—and ended in beautiful failures. 


Québec and British Columbia are the most fertile grounds for eco-minded groups seeking to live collaboratively. But geographically, BC is nearly as far from us as Europe. 


If we want to visit each other in real life, we’d need to fly. Not very eco-friendly. And at that point, why not fly to France, which has developed one of the strongest community-living networks in the past decade ?


If we’re thinking globally and acting locally, BC is just too far. 


There are a few intentional communities in Ontario—Whole Village, which I’ve visited several times, and some co-housing projects—but Ontario’s ICs naturally connect with the FIC.


If we’re going to build a network, I believe it should focus exclusively on Québec.    


Ecovillage, Cohousing, or Intentional Community ?


Since the publication of the Répertoire des éco-communautés du Québec en 2010, the term “intentional community” seems to have been set aside in favor of “eco-community” as a catch-all for collaborative living environments. Maybe it was never widely used to begin with.


There’s a lot of confusion around which terms to use to define one’s community: collective, ecovillage, intentional community, co-housing, eco-hamlet, cohabitation… I’ve even seen “intentional co-living,” among others. 


It would be helpful to choose a unifying term that works for everyone. 


“Intentional community” seems like the best option, though alternatives like “alternative community,” “eco-place,” or “living oasis” (borrowing from French terminology) could also work. 


That said, in my view, there aren’t enough ecovillages to form a network of ecovillages alone. Nor are there enough co-housing projects, eco-hamlets, or urban income-sharing communities to form separate networks.  


If we’re going to do anything, it needs to include all types of communities. Otherwise, there simply aren’t enough groups. 


And even with all current projects, there aren’t that many established and stable communities.


If we’re going to build a network, I believe it should be for all intentional communities in Québec. 


There are enough shared elements across all types of ICs to find common ground: shared spaces and resources, ecological building, group purchasing, collective work bees, communal meals, collaborative decision-making, and more.


Do We Have Enough Time ?


Even if we manage to bring all these intentional communities (ICs) together under the umbrella of collaborative culture, it’s perfectly valid to ask whether we have enough people and resources to support such an initiative.


What it will mostly require is time—and volunteers who feel naturally called to contribute, without any guarantee that their efforts will be financially compensated.


I don’t believe it would cost much to set up an organization (if we don’t count volunteer time as money). The real investment is time.


Time that many current community residents simply don’t have, as they’re fully engaged in maintaining their established communities, which demand constant attention.


So the question becomes: Are there people orbiting around the movement who have both the time and the drive to take this on? Are there enough of these wonderful individuals?


In the U.S., with a population of 347 million, the FIC manages to pay eight part-time staff to organize the network. Québec has 9 million people. If we apply the same ratio, that’s the equivalent of 0.2 part-time staff—or one-tenth of a full-time salary.


Yes, we’re probably more community-oriented than Americans. We’re more socially inclined and more likely to create ecovillages and co-housing projects per capita. But realistically, we’re talking about maybe one part-time position, possibly full-time at most, that could be funded.

If we’re going to build a network, we’ll need enough volunteers with enough time.

Personally, I’m willing to contribute some volunteer hours—but time is always scarce, and I need to be discerning and cautious about where I commit.


Why Network at All ?

Do we need a network to create ecovillages and co-housing projects? No. They’re already being created without one… though a network would likely help.

So why take on the extra organizational work?

Wouldn’t it be better to keep things informal—letting individuals contribute as they feel inspired, without the burden of structure?

I’ve often imagined this network as a large online forum where people could exchange ideas about living together:

“Hey, how did you handle the tricky issue of pets?”
 “What kind of collaborative governance structure did you set up?”
 “Does Nonviolent Communication really work? Have you had fewer conflicts because of it?”

In 2022, the FIC launched a forum that closely resembled what I had in mind, and I was happy to discover and contribute to it. But in practice, most posts were about:
 → finding people to start a community
 → finding people to join a community
 → finding a community to join

If there were a real desire to foster this kind of exchange, we wouldn’t need a formal network or a dedicated website.

Technically, it could be a Facebook group. There are already half a dozen—but they tend to end up the same way: little discussion about communal living, lots of posts selling goods and services.

In reality, few people share my passion for exploring the “living together” aspect as actual residents of intentional communities, rather than as founders.

Either people are deeply interested in theory because they want to start a community but lack lived experience, or they have experience but no time or interest in theory.

My ideal of sharing between ICs is personal. It’s not reason enough to build a network.


So Why Structure a Network ?

I’ve been reflecting on this for a while, and I see three concrete reasons:

1. Building Connections

If we create opportunities for people living in different ICs, those in the process of creating one, those who want to join, and anyone interested in the topic to meet—connections will form that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.

These relationships can lead to meaningful exchanges, collaborations, and potentially better communal living.

The more relationships we build, the more we know each other, the more the ice is broken—and the more informal support becomes possible.

It’s not a new concept. Think of chambers of commerce that organize events to foster interaction among entrepreneurs, creating opportunities for business relationships.

That’s the essence of networking: building and maintaining relationships that may prove useful professionally. In our case, it could help develop and sustain ICs—which require just as much work and creativity as starting and running a business.

I see many ways these relationships could be beneficial—and few ways they could be harmful.

2. Matching Individuals and Communities

During its “It Takes Community” webinar series, the FIC launched a new slogan:

“People need community.
 Communities need people.
 People and communities meet at the FIC.”

I believe that after decades of existence, the FIC has finally embraced its core purpose: facilitating the meeting of individuals and ICs.

Without becoming a dating app for communities and people—which would be complex to build—the network can offer tools and a central meeting point for natural matches to occur.

Every community experiences turnover. People leave, and new members are needed. Without long-term commitments and a steady flow of newcomers, a community faces existential risk.

At the extreme, Twin Oaks—a well-known income-sharing IC—has a 25% turnover rate. That means about 25 people leave and 25 new members join each year, in a group of roughly 100.

Not all ICs have such high turnover, but it highlights the constant need for new members.

On the other side, some individuals feel a deep need to explore communal living—to find meaning, grow as humans, meet social needs, or restore hope in humanity by imagining alternatives to individualism, competition, consumerism, domination, and fragmentation.

If we can facilitate these matches, we’d be meeting two existential needs at once. In my view, this is the network’s most important function—and the strongest reason to invest time and energy in it.


Matching People and Communities


During its year-end fundraising webinar series It Takes Community, the Foundation for Intentional Community (FIC) introduced a new slogan:

“People need community.
 Communities need people.
 People and communities meet at the FIC.”

I would translate it as:

“People need to live in community.
 Communities need people.
 People and communities meet through the FIC.”

After several decades, it seems the FIC has finally embraced its core purpose: serving as a bridge between individuals and intentional communities (ICs).

Without becoming a dating app for people and communities—which would be complex to build—a network can still offer tools and a central meeting point where these connections can happen naturally.

Every community experiences normal turnover. People leave, and new people are needed. Without long-term commitments and a steady flow of new members, the group’s very survival can be at risk. That’s why communities constantly need new members.

Take Twin Oaks, for example—an income-sharing IC with a 25% turnover rate. That means in a group of about 100 people, roughly 25 leave and 25 join each year.

Not all ICs have such high turnover, but it puts into perspective the ongoing need for renewal.

On the other side, many individuals feel a deep need to explore communal living—whether to find meaning, grow as human beings, meet social needs, or restore hope in humanity by imagining alternatives to individualism, competition, consumerism, domination, and fragmentation.

If we can facilitate these matches, we’d be meeting two existential needs at once. In my view, this is the network’s most important function—and the strongest reason to invest time and energy into it.

Sparking Inspiration

When I see the gatherings organized by GEN Europe or the Oasis Cooperative in France, I’m immediately drawn to the energy—they’re incredibly inspiring. Just watching videos of these events gives me goosebumps and awakens a powerful creative force.

It’s as if these gatherings reconnect me to an ideal that daily life and the realities of communal living tend to erode. Suddenly, everything feels possible—even after 12 years of seeing how difficult and unlikely it can be. These moments reset the clock and offer a fresh start.

It’s a balance I have to maintain between idealism and reality. Personally, I often lean toward the pragmatic to avoid the traps of magical thinking. But that can leave me off balance. Events like these restore my energy, my sense of purpose, and my joy in facing the challenges of collective life.

Intention and Sustainability

If we’re going to build a network, we need to start with clear intention—and ask ourselves how we plan to make it last.

I’ve seen many people burn out in the intentional community movement.

When we first get involved in communal living, we often arrive with immense energy, fueled by an inspiring ideal. We give a lot—because it gives us so much in return. It’s deeply meaningful and aligns with our values of environmental sustainability and social equity.

But over time, that ideal meets reality, and many become disillusioned, losing motivation.

And it’s not just disillusionment that leads to disengagement. There’s something worse: what I call eco-community burnout. It’s not just physical exhaustion—it’s emotional fatigue that creeps in if we don’t find ways to process and evolve the emotional baggage that inevitably accumulates.

If we build this network, we must do so with the intention of avoiding burnout—so that it can endure.

In the end, I believe we want to network between intentional communities for the same reasons people come together to form them in the first place: we don’t want to feel alone. We want to work toward something greater than ourselves—something meaningful.

But we must do it with intention, care, and discernment.

Ugo Dutil co-hosts the podcast Histoires D’ÉcoCommunautés and creates videos about communal living on his YouTube channel. He has been a resident member of La Cité Écologique since 2013 and also spent eight years of his childhood there.