1 Introduction

Renting a dwelling, either in the private sector or as part of government-assisted housing schemes, is becoming the main attainable option for many people on low-to-middle incomes in many homeownerships dominated countries worldwide. However, renters’ lived experience in Latin American and Liberal economy country-contexts is often accompanied by potential evictions, constant increase in prices, low-quality physical spaces, difficulties in making claims or personalising the house (Byrne & McArdle, 2022; Chisholm et al., 2020). Conceptually, these negative lived experiences equate to insecure occupancy, limited control, and a lack of sense of home (Hulse & Milligan, 2014).

Sense of home varies across tenure types (Saunders, 1989; Saunders & Williams, 1988; Sharpe et al., 2022). ‘Homeowners/owner-occupants’ for instance typically have a high degree of secure occupancy and autonomy over the dwelling, which provides stability. The more time people live in a dwelling, they more likely to develop feelings and attachment through ritual and routine, including the opportunity of adapting the residence to personal preferences (Dupuis & Thorns, 1998; Hulse & Milligan, 2014). The ability to construct a sense of home in tenancy arrangements also varies among renters and rental models. Understanding sense of home within rental housing requires in-depth qualitative analysis across and within rental types. This also includes forms of collaborative housing that are managed as a common resource, such as cohousing communities or housing cooperatives (Crabtree, 2018; Crabtree et al., 2019a; Khatibi, 2022; van den Berg et al., 2021).

Security is often considered a necessary element for human wellbeing (Maslow, 1954; United Nations, 1948). In housing studies, security and control are indicative of feeling at home (Easthope et al., 2020; Mallett, 2004; Saunders, 1989), a concept associated with ontological security, which represents the importance of achieving a sense of constancy and permanency (Ambrey et al., 2018; Barrie, 2017). Ontological security is based on the development of trusted relationships, which are strengthened by mutually supportive activities (Dupuis & Thorns, 1998; Giddens, 1993). A secure home can render a sense of ontological security, although this process is also influenced by factors such as the surrounding society and residents’ sociodemographic profile (gender, age, ethnicity) (Dupuis & Thorns, 1998). Nevertheless, security, along with sense of home, is most associated with property possession in homeownership dominated contexts (Ambrey et al., 2018; Dupuis & Thorns, 1998).

In the literature, secure occupancy and autonomy capacity are frequently bundled (i.e., Ambrey et al., 2018; Barrie, 2017; Bunce, 2013; Hiscock et al., 2001; Rosenberg et al., 2021). From a practical policy innovation perspective, however, this equates to an assumption that the distinct characteristics of ontological security are not separately related to wellbeing, but only as a bundle. This suggests that enabling homemaking innovation and diversity in owner-occupied dominant societies requires solutions that encompasses each of these dimensions equally, but also introduces additional institutional and social-political complexity. A deconstructed analysis of home and homemaking process in RHC can enable identification of activities or practices that strengthen, or limit, the sense of home, depending on the control perceived or experienced by its residents; how a sense of home is developed in relation to the construction of social capital, personal wellbeing or access to appropriate housing; and, improve the evidence based for regulatory and institutional reforms in the rental sector in general. In this paper we draw on the lived experiences of residents in Rental Housing Cooperatives (RHC) in Honduras and Australia (two societies dominated by homeownership), and ask how the experience of ontological security in RHC is shaped by its distinct characteristics – secure occupancy or autonomy/control?

Conceptually, this paper draws on the relational approach, that is, analysing the relationship between people, power and their residence (Easthope et al., 2020); thus, providing understanding of home and homemaking in a specific setting. Housing cooperatives are defined as legal organisations established for the objective of providing shelter to members (Crabtree et al., 2019b; Khatibi, 2022). Housing cooperatives are characterised by the role of residents in influencing the built environment and the constant social interactions between them (Daly, 2017; Sousa & Quarter, 2004; Tummers, 2016). There is a dearth of analysis on sense of home and homemaking processes in RHC to date (Arbell et al., 2020; Bossuyt, 2021; Heath, 2020).

A qualitative assessment framework is utilised to evaluate interviewees’ lived experiences of secure occupancy and autonomy/control along a continuum (the homemaking process) from ‘being housed’ to ‘being at home’. The homemaking processes in RHC allow residents some degree of autonomy, control and the ability to make decisions about resources, and consequently the possibility of feeling at home (Bate, 2018; Czischke, 2018). To explore home and homemaking within collaborative housing forms, in this paper we focus particularly on housing cooperative models in contexts where the private housing sector predominates, specifically Honduras and Australia. Empirical evidence indicates that in both countries residents’ lived experience in the private rental sector is unstable, insecure and negatively affects their physical and mental health; and that being a homeowner is becoming unaffordable for low-to-middle income earners (Guevara & Arce, 2016; Cárdenas Escobar & Euceda, 2022; Morris et al., 2021; Bate, 2021).

The article is organised as follows: after this introduction, a literature review is presented including an analysis of the significance of home and homemaking process for housing security and a description of the Honduras and Australia housing cooperative sector. Next, the methodology is outlined, before findings are presented. The results, organised using a relational approach, illustrate the attributes that allow autonomy and secure occupancy for RHC residents and contribute to the homemaking process. Finally, the discussion and conclusion section detail the significance of this article indicating that sense of home in RHC is promoted by social or environmental activities and are more closely linked to elements of secure occupancy, compared to autonomy and control capacity.

2 Background literature

2.1 Home and homemaking processes as critical components of housing security

Understanding homemaking processes and the meaning of home requires paying attention to subjective aspects of dwellings (Heath, 2020). According to Arbell et al. (2020), housing has predominantly been studied from positivist approaches (i.e., state policy, geographic, neo-classical or economic), but using only these perspectives can be limited. While such studies provide information about authorities’ roles, innovative environmental practices or housing costs, they may inform about trend and dynamic data but are limited in their account of relational aspects of home (Clapham, 2005). Consequently, ‘in order to understand the fulfillment that housing provides, it is necessary to employ a framework that places the subjective nature of the meanings held by households at the centre of the analysis’ Clapham (2005: 17). Whereby the homemaking process for housing cooperative´s residents is supported by a series of individual or shared practices and probable benefits generated from these interactions. This peculiar dynamic of the housing cooperatives potentially results in a greater sense of ontological security and (sense of) home when analysing/contrasting the lived experience of people who rent in the private or social sector as the empirical evidence indicated.

Ontological security can be operationalised focusing on residents’ secure occupancy and control or autonomy capacity (Bate, 2018; Bunce, 2013; Dupuis & Thorns, 1998; Hulse & Milligan, 2014; Saunders, 1989). Exercising power over one’s environment is essential when conceptualising home, since sense of home is manifested by having control (total or partial) over space, which intrinsically means taking control over their own lives (Li et al., 2022; Parsell, 2012). This control capacity in the RHC may be delimited by residents’ property rights, which in these communities, to some degree, are exercised collectively. The homemaking process, according to Clapham (2005), is a social construct, in which collective goods, services, power relations and individual experiences manifest as a result (or in a set) of daily practices. In the RHC, making a home is also related to the control or capacity that their residents have in self-established norms, influencing the environment and the possibility of carrying out activities collectively (Parsell, 2012; Somerville, 1992). Identifying and understanding these attributes is relevant, since our argument is that they may allow the transition from house (only having a roof) to home (a place that represents security and stability) within rental housing cooperative contexts.

Additionally, international evidence suggests a series of benefits associated with sense of home that includes increased social capital, financial savings, environmental wellbeing (typically achieved by homeowners) experienced by housing cooperative residents due to co-habiting in RHC (Arbell et al., 2020; Crabtree et al., 2019a; Glass, 2020). RHC ability to create home and the potential benefits that arise are distinct from usual market logic, since it allows low-income populations within capitalist contexts the possibility of co-creating and co-managing a resource with some independence (Khatibi, 2022; Silver, 1991). It is important to establish here that, on the contrary, renting in the private or public sector are more linked with insecurity and lack of tenant control (Bate, 2020; Morris et al., 2021). Therefore, a qualitative analysis of RHC homemaking processes as offered in this article contributes to the academic and political debate on the limitations and potential of the RHC and the housing rental sector in general.

2.2 Housing cooperatives presence in Honduran and Australian contexts

Honduras and Australia are market-based country contexts in which homeownership and renting are the two predominant housing tenures. Housing cooperatives, in each country-context, operate under a prevalent capitalist system that privileges individual property rights. Consequently, the state (influenced or not by the market and vice versa), can dictate norms in favour or against cooperatives (Ferreri & Vidal, 2021). Housing cooperatives presence within the housing sector is quite marginal in each context. Australian housing cooperatives are dominated by rental cooperatives embedded in the social housing system, that is owned and managed by the government or by housing providers (Crabtree et al., 2019b). In Australia for instance, 200 cooperatives were identified nationwide in 2017 (Crabtree et al., 2019b). Around 72% of Australian housing cooperatives are located in the state of Victoria and are mainly gathered under Common Equity Housing Limited (CEHL), a licenced housing association that focuses on creating and supplying affordable housing (Crabtree, 2018). CEHL’s board of directors comprises five cooperative elected directors (RHC residents), five appointed directors and one managing director. The appointed and managed directors in the Australian case do not necessarily have to be cooperative inhabitants (Raynor & Coenen, 2022), which is an important distinction from Honduras where the umbrella organisation is integrated completely with cooperative residents.

In Honduras, historical obstacles have hampered the growth of the housing cooperative sector (Guevara & Arce, 2016). However, home sharing has always existed in this country’s history, due either to cultural considerations or financial constraints (Shlomo, 2002). Concerning (formal) housing cooperatives, nine were identified by Bredenoord (2017), mostly located in the southern region. Empirical evidence indicates that the Honduran cooperative model is for homeowners (Bredenoord, 2017). However, in our understanding, the Honduran cooperative housing sector in practice is a mixed model. Our experience researching Honduran cooperatives, visits to them and the interviews conducted for this study, reflect that a considerable population lives in rental conditions, or at least may rent for a period within the cooperative and later aspire to own a cooperative home. Honduran housing cooperatives are inspired by the Uruguayan model of Self-Managed Cooperatives Housing by Mutual-Assistance (Domínguez, 2017). In this model, residents have an active participation not only when the houses are inhabited, but also working together with experts in the construction of their houses (Barenstein et al., 2021; Machado Macellaro, 2020; Semprebon & Vicari Haddock, 2016). In Honduras, family and community support (informal) or formalised support based on the principle of mutual assistance, are key to housing and home (Guity-Zapata et al., 2023). In Honduras, the umbrella organisation MECOVISURH (Mesa de Cooperativas de Vivienda del Sur de Honduras, Spanish acronym), oversees the coordination and promotion of housing cooperatives (Bredenoord, 2017).

Socioeconomic and political conditions are key areas of distinction between Australia and Honduras. In comparison to Honduras, Australia has a better-established welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990, 1996). Australian welfare configuration allows RHC as part of the social housing scheme to receive benefits, mainly subsidies that reduce the monthly rental payment for its residents (Prentice & Scutella, 2020). In contrast, in Honduras there is no legal framework or public support directly targeting the housing cooperative sector (Guevara & Arce, 2016). The current legal framework in Honduras covers the entire cooperative sector (agriculture, forestry, transportation, industry, housing, savings, and credit, etc.) and is primarily concerned with the conditions for a cooperative’s constitution and/or dissolution as well as its financial obligations in relation to government institutions (Congreso de la Republica de Honduras, 1987). The housing cooperative sector in Honduras promotes its development and growth autonomously and in some cases with the technical and financial support of international cooperation (Guity-Zapata et al., 2023).

Acknowledging differences and similarities between the Honduran and Australian housing contexts, a key similarity is that RHC represent an alternative avenue to home in each context, as the two countries are experiencing a housing crisis (Burke et al., 2020; Guevara & Arce, 2016). Homeownership is becoming increasingly expensive in each country, and the private rental sector is associated with insecurity and uncertainty for persons with low to moderate incomes (Nethercote, 2020; Hulse et al., 2020). Consequently, affordable housing solutions like RHC, which can in turn lead to social outcomes such as social connectedness or a sense of community, are required and being sought in Honduras and Australia (Cárdenas Escobar & Euceda, 2022; Wijburg, 2021). Importantly, our focus on RHC in Australia and Honduras also responds to a geographic knowledge gap in the current housing literature since research in RHC has to date had a predominantly European focus (Lang et al., 2020; Machado Macellaro, 2020). Our research from a comparative perspective allows to understand the homemaking process in RHC located in less researched country contexts. A comparative research perspective is recommended in housing studies to learn about the differences and similarities between societies (Lowe & Lowe, 2004; Aalbers, 2022).

In short, even with the small participation of housing cooperative sector within the housing stock in both countries, (in a context characterised by capitalist and political barriers); housing cooperatives in Honduras and Australia are becoming an alternative means of feeling ‘at home’ for populations with limited income or who cannot aspire to a home in the private market.

2.3 Methodology

This paper is a differential analysis of secure occupancy and residents’ autonomy/control as constituent attributes of ontological security in rental housing cooperatives. The research design and data analysis are undertaken using a relational approach. Consistent with Easthope et al. (2020), in the present study a relational approach allows us to understand the relationship between people, power and property. As described in the introduction, housing cooperatives in the homemaking process for their residents, require a degree of control from them. A relational approach enables operationalising secure occupancy and residents’ control/autonomy through interpersonal relationships and mutual help characteristics of RHC. Relational thinking is related to the social constructionism approach. Social constructionism considers the communal and daily activities that people carry out and how the face-to-face activities facilitate the establishment of interpersonal relationships, given the possibility of offering or receiving support, as part of the homemaking process (Fopp, 2008; Kemeny, 2017; Pham, 2018; van den Berg et al., 2021).

As argued by Easthope et al. (2020) and Jaakkola (2020), studying housing from a relational perspective can lead to positive outcomes such as: enhancement of methodologies or development of new conceptualisations/theories that in turn promote different angles to comprehend the sense of home. Thinking relationally helps to see home as a dynamic agent given the role played by its residents (Heslop et al., 2020). A relational approach also challenges traditional perspectives to understanding home and homemaking since it permits analysing housing from a broad perspective; considering the particularities of each context (Jacobs, 2012), in this case RHC and country contexts.

A relational approach contributes to examining how distinctions and similitudes interact to analyse housing dynamics, its problems, and potential solutions (Heslop et al., 2020). Accordingly, even when the two RHC considered in this paper are framed in different sociocultural contexts (Honduras and Australia), a relational approach can illuminate how home is created within each case study, but also between each case (Cook et al., 2016; Jacobs & Malpas, 2013). Studying home and homemaking in RHC from a relational perspective allow us to understand and imagine new forms of collective living and to think about housing solutions that are different from conventional forms (Chatterton, 2016; Huron, 2015).

To analyse homemaking processes in RHC we draw on a total of 15 in-depth interviews in Luna Housing Cooperative (Honduras; 8 interviewees) and Moon Housing Cooperative (Australia; 7 interviewees)Footnote 1, both located in peri-urban areas. The interviews were undertaken between August and December of 2021. In both contexts the saturation point was reached. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 restrictions in both countries at the time of data collection, interviews were conducted electronically using a Zoom platform. Three and six of the interviewees in Honduras and Australia were women, respectively. All participants were adults, ranging in age between 20 and 60 years, and who agreed to participate voluntarily in this study following the ethical guidelines approved for this research. On average, participants had lived in their cooperatives for 65 months, or just over 5 years. Table 1 presents the sociodemographic information of the participants in this study.

Table 1 Interviewees sociodemographic information
Full size table

For the recruitment of participants, in both cases the objectives of the research were first presented and discussed with the representatives of the cooperative. Subsequently, volunteer participants were requested. Also, snowballing was applied with the residents who agreed to participate. The interviews were audio recorded with the participants´ consent. Interviews lasted 67 min on average and were then transcribed and loaded to NVivo software for thematic analysis. Interviews with Australian participants were conducted in English, and their Honduran counterparts in Spanish. These were translated to English by the main author, who is a native Spanish speaker. The interviews’ purpose was to listen to the voices of RHC residents to reflect on the attributes (secure occupancy and autonomy and control capacity) that are linked to the homemaking process in RHC. The interview covered aspects such as meaning of home and its importance, individual and collective practices that contribute to creating home, enabling residents to share their meaningful experiences in the homemaking process. As part of the analysis stage, field notes taken immediately after each interview were also included.

The results section includes textual quotes that summarise the trend or common responses of RHC members. To understand the homemaking process in RHC, our relational approach analysis is focused on secure occupancy and residents’ autonomy or control capacity. We qualitatively evaluate these two aspects of the homemaking process against a sense of home amongst RHC tenants. For analytical purposes we distinguish between the physical notion of being housed and RHC tenants’ sense of home: a convergence of physical and ontological wellbeing.

Secure occupancy in relation to renting is defined by Hulse and Milligan (2014:642) as ‘the extent to which households who occupy rented dwellings can make a home and stay there, to the extent that they wish to do so, subject to meeting their obligations as a tenant.’ There are several essential elements in the operationalisation of secure occupancy in collective forms of housing. We developed our analysis based in Bossuyt’s (2021) proposal, which is built on Schlager and Ostrom (1992) approach. Bossuyt’s proposal aligns with a relational approach since is focused on understanding social practices in specified contexts. Bossuyt’s conceptual typology of property regimes to analyse collaborative housing has an emphasis on three rights and the possibility of exercising them. Withdrawal: understood as the right to obtain (withdraw) resources within the common space. For instance, withdrawal right enables residents to cook in the communal kitchen, use shared appliances, and partake in the overall shared lifestyle. Management: refers to the right to establish internal regulations, leading to the maintenance or improvement of common resources. Individuals possessing management rights wield the authority to dictate the manner, timing, and location of the utilisation of a shared resource. Exclusion: the right to define who can access (be excluded from) resource use. Essentially, this represent the authority to establish the criteria individuals must meet to become a resident (i.e., openness to living according to values of mutual help and social interactions). To explore secure occupancy in RHC our interview schedule included the following seven lines of questioning, as well as prompts:

1) What motivated you to apply for this housing cooperative?

2) How long is your current tenancy agreement?

3) How secure is the dwelling you live in within this housing cooperative? How about your physical/personal safety or your belongings?

4) Do you think you can stay in this RHC for as long as you need it? - why? Why not?

5) What would happen if in the future the circumstances of your family change and you have unused space in the house (i.e., empty room)?

6) Do you feel at home here? How?

7) What is that helps make you feel at home here?

To analyse the autonomy and control capacity in RHC we are guided by Steven Luke’s (1974) influential book on power relations: “Power: a radical view”. This proposal is mainly focused on understanding the degree of freedom or not that people can experience in relation to established power patterns (Cooper, 2022; Dowding, 2006). Residents’ control capacity also arises depending on the length of stay. Residents living longer in the RHC may exercise a level of authority over new residents given they have more experience (Heath, 2020; Heath et al., 2017). In doing so, is necessary to focus on tangible and non-tangible aspects alike (Lukes, 2005). Lukes’ framework is aligned with Blandy et al.’s (2006) proposal to analyse power relationships in multi-owned residential developments. Lukes (1974) suggests three dimensions to understanding power relations in different contexts, including housing. Decision-making: suggested that power relations are visible or tangible, manifesting when residents have capacity to modify the physical environment of the house and communal areas (i.e., implementing structural changes or renovate shared spaces); No decision-making: indicated that power relationship issues can manifest when one of its residents is ‘forced’ to choose a certain option, in respect of the majority’s decision (i.e., feeling obligated to support a communal expenditure plan that may not align with individual priorities or financial constraints); Invisible power: occurs when an excess of information (confusing or contradictory) is presented, in which people ‘prefer’ that others make the decisions (i.e., if residents have had negative experiences in their prior housing situations, or if there is ambiguity surrounding household responsibilities: unclear delineation of utility expenses or cleaning duties). To explore autonomy and control capacity in RHC, questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 were considered, as well as the following three lines of questioning:

  1. a)

    Are you allowed to modify your dwelling?

  1. b)

    Have you added anything distinctive (or personalised) to your house, either inside or out? Is there any restriction?

  1. c)

    What types of activities (individual and collective) do you carry out in the cooperative?

For the qualitative evaluation of secure occupancy and autonomy capacity, our interviewees’ responses and the empirical analysis, as reflected in the background literature section, were considered. This allowed assessing which attribute is most linked to housed or sense of home and whether its presence is low or high as reflected in Fig. 1. An assessment of high, for example, was determined by identifying a practice with the following two characteristics: (a) Affirmatively and constantly mentioned by the interviewees as an important activity/experience that allows them to feel at home (i.e., gardening), (b) a practice elaborated as a result of a personal decision or taken in consensus (not imposed) allowing the RHC to reflect their identity (i.e., modify the dwelling). Consequently, in Fig. 1 elements such as “no-decision making”, assessed as “housed and low”, indicates that RHC have limitations on it; this suggests that these actions cannot be carried out as residents would like. Conversely, the attributes related to “sense of home and high” for instance “withdrawal”, indicates a greater possibility to perform actions that are linked or contribute to feeling at home. Additionally, in this analysis differentiation is presented in which elements are highly linked to sense of home even when the RHC have low control over them.

In the discussion section, the strength of occupant security and autonomy/control are mapped against the tenants’ sense of home. Bringing the qualitative assessment together in a 4-quadrant map enables us to compare and contrast the two dimensions of the homemaking process, shedding further insight on the extent to which these dimensions are conjoined - i.e., exist together in defining the homemaking process that generates a sense of home, or – at least to some degree – are independent aspects of the homemaking process and therefore, potentially, responsive to different forms of housing interventions. In other words, provide insight on whether both dimensions are equally required for generating a sense of ontological security in alternative housing options.

3 Results

In this findings section, results are organised based in a relational approach using the verbal responses of interviewees. Focusing on RHC voices allows us to illustrate, from their perspective, how the homemaking process is developed. Results are presented in two sub-sections: first, we explore how secure occupancy is manifested; second, we focus on autonomy/control capacity development. The analysis presented in this results section (graphically illustrated in Fig. 1 and summarised in Table 2) demonstrates how the elements within secure occupancy and autonomy capacity are manifest from the RHC residents’ perspective.

3.1 Secure occupancy in rental housing cooperatives

This sub-section focuses on examining how secure housing manifests itself in an RHC. We explore the possibility/independence that residents have to use or benefit from common areas (withdrawal), influence internal regulations (management) that promote the possibility of personalising individual and collective spaces, or deciding who can be a new community member (exclusion). These formalised actions, and the informal ones that derive from them; both contribute to promoting mutual help in the community, a sense of belonging and collective learning. These actions, being co-created by RHC residents, reflect their identity or worldview, which in parallel contribute to create a secure home. As explained, secure occupancy refers to the degree to which households in rented housing can make a home and remain there, subject to fulfilling their responsibilities as tenants. Like any rental housing option, RHC residents have obligations. However, RHC promote a secure occupancy:

In my cooperative, as long as I fulfil my duties, they will not kick me out. And if I have a financial problem, I know that the cooperative will support me (Interviewee #4).

3.1.1 Withdrawal

The manifestation of this element was similar in both contexts analysed, RHC residents described the role of common areas (i.e., gardens) as generators of reciprocal support and informal interactions. These collective spaces play a vital role in the homemaking process since, in addition to contributing to improving the residents’ diet, they also promote teamwork that leads to a sense of community. As reflected in the language of our interviewees (i.e., “We learn” “Our garden”), the benefits impacted the entire community. Both cooperatives share these benefits and work collectively to generate them, strengthening the feeling of being at home:

…If we talk about the organoponic garden in our cooperative, it is a very beautiful garden. We learn here, how to plant radishes, cabbage, coriander, lettuce and to work without chemicals. Apart from that it improves the diet of the entire community since everything is completely healthy.(Interviewee #1).

Well, we have chooks at the cooperative and the chickens produce eggs, and somebody will make sure I get a few here and there. Right now, I’m sharing an organic veggie box with another member of the community. We’re going half and half, so I pick up my veggies this afternoon. I don’t have to go to a market or go shopping. They just arrive, and they are products from our garden.(Interviewee #14).

3.1.2 Management

In this regard, interviewees from Honduras revealed that the possibility of establishing regulations in the cooperative was associated with feeling happy by been at home. The possibility of self-determination of the rules of co-living contributes to the sense of home; on the contrary when cooperatives are highly influenced by external actors (i.e., government or overarching organisation) the sense of home can be threatened. Harmonious co-living and autonomy to establish rules are aligned with feeling at home as illustrated by this interviewee:

So, when I returned to Luna, my heart seemed to rejoice, because I was going back to my home… I think the co-existence that occurs here has a lot to do with it, so that one feels that way… happy at home, right? Also, that we put rules and regulations in the cooperative which we try to always follow.(Interviewee #6).

In the Australian case, two factors were notable regarding the possibility of creating internal regulations. First, the different hierarchical levels within the RHC are related to the delay in responding to the requests of other residents. Second, not reaching consensus can affect other members of the community:

I am the maintenance director; I’ve got three more people in the committee. When we have a request from one tenant, we make the decision in consensus… If there’s not a consensus, things just don’t generally go ahead. So, consensus can be quite hard on the coop occasionally; since sometimes the government rules confuse us, I think. Things will come up that someone has a strong view, and you have to work towards it, but generally speaking, just trying to get the job done.(Interviewee #11).

3.1.3 Exclusion

As described in the background literature section, Honduras has a limited welfare state configuration. The support of public and private institutions to respond to housing demand and need is scarce. Consequently, access to housing and the possibility of feeling at home (mainly in rural or peri-urban areas as the RHC analysed here), is strongly linked to the informal support provided by relatives and friends. In this regard, in the Honduran case, a simplified and ‘informal process’ was reported as part of becoming a resident of the cooperative. The experience of Honduran cooperative members reflects that there are a series of values outside the capitalist logic that contribute to the homemaking process. Here, family and friendship ties are highlighted based on principles of trust and solidarity as revealed by this RHC member:

…My wife and I had to find another place to live that was more accessible to public transport to go to our jobs… A cousin of hers, has a house here in the cooperative and she offered it to us. We only talk to her to live here at Luna housing cooperative… It is an act of trust and solidarity. Trust, because she gives us the house so that we can be there, and solidarity to favour us, to have a place to live accessible to our jobs. Basically, that is what it consists of, there is no legal contract or any deed that binds us more than that… Solidarity, trust that’s all.(Interviewee #7).

On the contrary, the Australian experience revealed a delayed process in which actors outside the cooperative intervene. This process includes a stage to be a ‘potential member’ that can take up to two years. Our interviewee cautiously points out the periodic evaluations to which they were subjected to, by the government:

I’ve been in my coop for ten years, but I think from being accepted as a potential member, it was two years and then there was the application process - I think through CEHL - and the wait after that probably took eight or ten months… The tenancy agreement works as long as you pay the rent. You’re there for as long as you meet the program requirements. Because each year we are assessed by the government, again for income and eligibility to be low enough to stay in the program.(Interviewee #14).

3.2 Autonomy and control capacity of rental housing cooperatives

I suppose to feel at home I would need to be able to decorate a place to my satisfaction with my things, like eclectic taste in my case… So, if I couldn’t put up any pictures, I don’t think I’d feel at home. I’d feel like I was in a motel or just staying in an Airbnb.(Interviewee #10).

This sub-section shows how power relations are mobilised to examine autonomy and control capacity in an RHC. First, we illustrate the process and factors that influence in modifying the built environment (decision-making). Subsequently, we describe how the collective decision-making dynamics of the RHC can limit individual preferences, needs or aspirations (no decision-making and invisible power).

3.2.1 Decision-making

In this dimension, power relations manifest with the modifications that residents can make to their personal and collective space. In the Honduran case, in relation to the modification of built spaces, a direct relationship process was found between the owner and the tenant in which the latter is not obliged to request permits to make modifications. The tenant is limited only to informing the owner before or after making the modification, as indicated by this interviewee:

Yes, it is possible to make modifications, for example before when my brother-in-law lived here, he installed some power outlets for the refrigerator and the television. We only told the owner that we installed some extra power outlets; and she told us, alright, no problem… But if it were a bigger modification like building a room, I would tell her first because it is more expensive.(Interviewee #5).

The Australian experience suggests a formalised process, in which the applicant does not have total certainty that their request/need will be answered:

We can do modifications with consent from the maintenance committee. There’s a committee that we can put in a request for modifications, and they will either approve or not. But it’s, generally a yes. We can’t just make modifications because they have to be properly done, and then if I did move out, I could be expected to take those modifications away or negotiate if they were something that the coop wanted to keep.(Interviewee #10).

3.2.2 No decision-making

In the case of RHC, it is possible that some of its residents are dissatisfied but they do not express it: power is hidden. Some reasons for no decision-making in RHC includes: residents consider it as part of normal dynamics, prefer to avoid a potential personal problem, or feel that others residents have more powers or experience to make decisions (Chisholm et al., 2020). Here we find similarity in both contexts studied. Decision-making at RHC is made by consensus; potentially generating conflicts with parties with different opinions. This is a limitation to feel at home:

I think the biggest difficulty by living in a cooperative is that people sometimes try to behave individually or to have their own benefit. But there is something within the cooperative that is decision-making in assembly. So that’s where personal ideas survive or decay. Why? Because at the end, the decision-making that is going to affect something important within the cooperative is taken in the assembly… So, there you have to abide by what the others decide is correct. Although your idea may be the most suitable.(Interviewee #2).

In the Australian case, the difficulty that residents with more time living in the RHC have to open up to changes was highlighted. The new generation of residents sees their ability to make decisions in the cooperative limited, given the power held by people with more time in the cooperative. This was referred to by one interviewee as the founder’s syndrome:

There are people that have been living here for ten years who’ve been trying to do things but haven’t been successful. But there is also a deep sense of grief that the initial group still hold based around what they anticipated Moon cooperative was going to be like and what actually is; and how they are contributing to the dysfunction is sort of beyond their comprehension. So, it’s what I call founder’s syndrome… The founders struggle to move and make decisions about what the community needs are and to accept that their original vision needs to change based on the participants who live in the community.(Interviewee #15).

3.2.3 Invisible power

This element manifests itself when people appear to be satisfied, with their home physical conditions and interpersonal relationships; but in reality, they do not have the necessary information to decide (Chisholm et al., 2020). This dimension is influenced by previous experiences of the residents, who ‘cannot see’ the poor quality of their housing and/or power relationships because their previous situation was worse (Ekström & Danermark, 1991). As illustrated by interviewees in both cooperatives, situations such as housing overcrowding, and assaults were normalised when contrasted with previous dwelling:

Now in this coop we have privacy. It is a house, the fact that it is a house, the physical structure influences a lot… So, there are activities that we do now as a family. So, it is totally different here, because before renting in Choluteca, we did not have privacy. For example, here we have two rooms for four people.(Interviewee #3).

I feel very safe here, in my coop… I haven’t worried about people breaking in. I know some people have had… like I’ve had my car rifled through in the car park, but that was because I left the car door open, and I kind of go, whoa, that’s alright. We have had, a few things stolen from the washing line and stuff. I’m actually, pretty surprised that we don’t have more issues of theft. I think a few people have had their bikes stolen, but not me.(Interviewee #12, previously lived in a caravan).

Table 2 Summary of Honduran and Australian rental housing cooperatives attributes to sense of home
Full size table

4 Discussion

This study investigated elements for ensuring housing security within rental housing cooperatives that are collectively administered. By doing this, we frame our relational approach focused on RHC residents’ secure occupancy and control capacity, as key attributes embedded in the homemaking process. Our study reveals that to feel at home instead of just being housed, emotional aspects converge both with physical space and people. The homemaking process is actively developed, and each housing resident can have an individual or personal learning curve experience. The findings of this research reflect that secure occupancy, control and autonomy capacity embedded in the ontological security are elements that can be used as a framework in the analysis of RHC as part of the homemaking process. Residents’ ontological security is what contributes to the sense of home in an RHC. To visually examine the results reported above, the attributes embedded in our two-key concept (secure occupancy and autonomy/control capacity) are graphed along two axes as shown in Fig. 1. The intersection of the points indicates which elements are more or less significant in the homemaking process in RHC.

In each context analysed, the relevance of withdrawal right (W) stands out. The two RHC considered for this study have, for example, community gardens and all residents in a planned or organic way can benefit from them. This collective space of interaction, in addition to the economic benefit, allows the establishment of friendship ties, mutual learning, teamwork, which ultimately generates social capital and sense of community in Jarvis and Bonnett (2013) terms. Additionally, the possibility of making resolutions (E) as a community (i.e., who can be a member of the cooperative), individuals, (i.e., painting the house inside) or other aspects related to the management of the RHC (M), contributes to feeling at home in both contexts. Making decisions reflects residents’ autonomy and control capacity. Here we identify one of the contextual differences between both RHC analysed. Australia has a formalised process for becoming a member of an RHC in which government institutions take part. Government intervention can shape and/or delay the process of becoming a member of the RHC, consequently affecting the homemaking process. In Honduras, an informal process based on trust and friendship was identified; the formalisation through document signing was not identified in the Honduran RHC studied.

Furthermore, the Australian welfare configuration allows institutions to support RHC. Nevertheless, is critical to note that Australian RHC residents perceive that their autonomy is influenced by an umbrella organisation, the state or some committee within the community (D). External actors as identified in the Australian context can influence decision-making (D, N) or define who can be a RHC member (E), affecting at some extent RHC autonomy capacity. In Honduras, where the umbrella organisation is integrated exclusively by RHC members, higher levels of autonomy are observed for decision-making. In terms of the homemaking process and further policy interventions, the umbrella organisations have a nuanced impact in both RHC. In Australia, autonomy is limited to a certain extent due to delays in access processes (i.e., becoming a RHC member can take up to 2 years); but the umbrella organisation has a more direct relationship with stakeholders. In Honduras the umbrella organisation is a channel for solving problems more expeditiously; however, lobbying actions are required if external support is needed. Consequently, response times (and embedded bureaucracy) are aspects that need policy interventions because influence the homemaking process in RHC. The umbrella organisation dynamic may be limited by the role of judge and party that the RHC play in some instances. Results of this investigation are consistent with studies conducted about multi-owned and collectively-managed dwellings in New Zealand and England (Blandy et al., 2006).

Unbundle ontological security attributes constituted a useful framework to understand the elements more linked to sense of home in RHC. However, feeling at home can be influenced by previous lived experiences and housing pathways (Bates et al., 2019; Blair et al., 2014). Negative previous experiences (I, N), for example, can ‘hide’ or make less visible precarious conditions in the current residence. As reported by Jarvis and Bonnett (2013), the conditions of the past influence how the current dwelling is perceived. This is an important consideration in the research reported here, as of the 15 interviewees, prior to living in their current RHC, 11 rented in the private sector, three lived in family houses and one in a caravan. In general, these living arrangements had less favourable conditions than afforded by RHC, according to participant responses.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Key components of the homemaking process in Honduran and Australian rental housing cooperatives

Full size image

The relational analysis of this paper reflects that RHC residents in general have a strong sense of home. As illustrated in Fig. 1, as an outcome of the analysis carried out in the results section, most of the examined attributes are located in the right part of the quadrant, which represents sense of home. Although, feeling at home in RHC can vary depending on whether residents are in a position of power (board of directors versus new tenants), mechanisms for response to individual and collective needs and policy regulations. For RHC residents, the sense of home is linked to secure occupancy and having communal and personal control over them. Collective spaces, for example, strengthen social capital, promote communal learning and contribute to improving the community’s diet. Private spaces are related to the sense of home by being able to adapt them to personal needs. In both cases, feeling at home in RHC is also reflected in the power relations that are presented as in the case of self-determining coexistence regulations.

5 Conclusion

In this paper we ‘unbundle’ components of the homemaking process in relation to sense of home, drawing on the relational approach and a qualitative assessment framework applied to specific attributes within each component. Our findings revealed that the elements within secure occupancy (withdrawal, management and exclusion right) are strongly linked to the sense of home. The attributes analysed within autonomy and control capacity (decision-making, non-decision making and invisible power) contribute less to the sense of home for two reasons. First, the excess and confusing information that is generated affects/limits decision-making capacity for some residents. Second, a form of seniority, also referred to as the founder syndrome, in practice, articulates power relationships whereby (consciously or unconsciously) people with more experience or time living in the cooperative exercise control over decision-making or are in a position to impose their sense of home on new residents. Although control capacity was more limited this did not appear to affect people’s feeling of security (or a sense of home); since security and control are not necessarily conjoined in the RHC homemaking process.

While our results reflect that in the homemaking process for RHC residents, secure occupancy is more linked to feeling at home compared to autonomy capacity, this may occur for various reasons. First, different tenure; it is probable that the manifestation of specific attributes differs in other forms of renting/living collectively (i.e., cohousing, non-rental housing cooperatives). Second, people interviewed; participation in this research was voluntary as indicated in the ethical parameters approved for this study. In RHC there is an expectation for all members to participate in activities to create a strong sense of community and strengthen interpersonal relationships. Therefore, residents who agreed to participate were mostly leaders or, reflecting the being-active expectation, active members in their RHC. It is feasible that both RHC also is home to less active members, although in both cases this would, in principle, constitute an atypical RHC residents or representative of the housing cooperative values. Our 15 key informants meet the definition of information power due to the knowledge they accumulate given their constant engagement in different roles in their RHC. In qualitative studies information power, is used to indicate that the more significant information to the study an interviewee possesses, fewer interviews are required to be conducted (Malterud et al., 2016). Nevertheless, research focused on specific population groups (i.e., women, children, the elderly, or even less active members as a contrasting group to the typical RHC) about the homemaking process is suggested in future studies. Third, country-context: it is likely that RHC in another country context will have a different experience given the socio-political and economic dynamics in place. However, our study can serve as a basis for future investigations that seek to explore how the homemaking process is developed within other local contexts and from the perspective of diverse residents and stakeholders.

This study also reflected that RHC - in different socioeconomic and cultural contexts - can allow their residents to feel at home and, that for them, secure and stable housing is more important than housing tenure. This finding is very relevant given that the current global housing crisis requires seeking social and economic viable solutions. Our findings illustrate variation in contribution to sense of home across key components and elements within these components. On the one hand this underlines the potential for RHC to enable homemaking processes and render a sense of home. Hence, as a policy response more attention ought usefully to be paid to alternative and collective forms of housing such as RHC, as a feasible option for people with low-to-middle income to attain a sense of home. In line with Crabtree (2019b) policy interventions must include a regulatory framework and financial investment specifically targeted to the housing cooperative sector. Future studies could then focus on the financial feasibility of RHC, and how these can represent an alternative for populations with less organisational capacity.

On the other hand, our findings open up avenues for further research in other forms of rental arrangements that might lead to refinement of tenancy laws and the role of social landlords, in recognition of the differential role of diverse components (and their elements) in the homemaking process. For instance, our results from a relational approach in which power relations are assessed in a specific context and the ability to continue living indefinitely (including the possibility of adapting personal and common areas to preferences), reveals that RHC residents exercise some control and autonomy over their ways of co-inhabiting.

Findings of this study are relevant for housing policies. First, secure occupancy may be fundamental to enabling home making and may also be foundational for residents’ sense of autonomy/control capacity. The RHC residents quite consistently considered that withdrawal, management, and exclusion rights contribute more to the sense of home than attributes embedded in autonomy/control capacity. However, while secure occupancy thus is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition. Housing policy interventions must also target how to enhance residents’ autonomy/control capacity, this entails a greater independence to manage the RHC and speed up administrative processes. For instance, specifically in the Australian context, findings here suggest RHC require greater autonomy to adapt the built environment to the needs or preferences. The bureaucratic and lengthy process that includes the response of the umbrella organisation and government agents is detrimental to feeling at home. In Honduras, it is necessary to study whether formalising some processes (i.e., who can become a member), can help RHC to opt for governmental or private support. Further policy discussions about social inclusion must centre on enhancing housing security, which calls for closer coordination between housing and other social policies. A secure home is a foundational way to solve other socioeconomic problems.