Navigating off-grid living: Dignity and resilience on urban waterways

Research approach

The seven-month research on the houseboat was guided by the premise that social science requires a “double hermeneutics” (Giddens, 1987). To produce trustworthy knowledge, researchers must understand their own position without projecting it onto the study. Bourdieu (2003, p. 281) calls this “participant objectivation,” which involves reflexive awareness as essential for authentic, reliable, and transferable knowledge (Lincoln and Guba, 1986). This entails situating ourselves within the social field and recognising our positionality, revealing implicit structures and power relations without projection. Guided by Bourdieu (2003), the research engaged deeply with liveaboard boater communities engaged in continuous cruising, continually examining our positionality and its impact on our understanding of the socio-spatial dynamics of urban waterways and the communities within them.

Throughout our research, we recognised that we were not privileged academics; our work was shaped by our health, housing, profession, and foreign-accented precarity, grounded in our experience. One of us brought an embodied perspective that provided insight into how health conditions, including a long-term hidden disability (Equality Act, 2010) since childhood, and physical constraints influence waterways experiences, helping to make our positionality explicit, aligning with calls for embodied reflexivity in social research. The other’s itinerant liveaboard trajectory was shaped by professional precarity and housing insecurity. Both perspectives informed our questions and resonated with participants’ accounts. Our personal experiences are invaluable analytical resources, part of our methodological scrutiny.

For us, thus, precarity encompasses more than economic instability; it also signifies broader insights of health, well-being and social ethos. We adopt a reflexive stance that frames embodied experience, including living with a long-term health condition, not as a limitation but as a generative methodological positioning.

One of us spent about 15 days a month on the houseboat and the rest on the grid. Time on the boat was adjusted due to a long-term health condition (Equality Act, 2010). Although one was occasionally absent, constant communication, regular visits, and presence on inner waterways enabled active participation, including living aboard and attending community meetings, which were essential for accessing unspoken knowledge and building trust. Another author, an itinerant liveaboard mainly on the River Lee and Stort, provided further insights. During this period, we conducted conversational interviews with current and former itinerant liveaboards from diverse backgrounds, ranging from economic and safety precarity to racial subjugation to those deliberately choosing itinerant liveaboard as a lifestyle preference. We also included (1) service providers operating near the locks, such as water point maintenance contractors, who retained responsibility for pump-outs, lock operations, and maintenance; (2) those working in the cafes near inland waterways; (3) and Canal & River Trust volunteers and fundraisers. Social events that were organised to inform the public and broader communities about fundraising and protests were observed. We collected and contextualised media and social media discourses about living on the houseboat, but used them primarily as a confirmatory tool. Contact with the liveaboard boaters was maintained throughout the research process. A photographic journal was used as a memoir and incorporated into the analysis. Guided by ethnographic intent, research is obliged to be rooted in its socio-cultural and geopolitical context to explore research phenomena without essentialising them (Wolcott, 1985). We analysed our data using reflective thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), searching for patterns within the discourse and utilising both semantic and latent coding to identify them (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Reflective thematic analysis was performed using a six-stage recursive analytical process that consists of 1) familiarisation with the “collected” fieldwork data, 2) semantic and 3) latent coding, 4) theme development through identifying discourse patterns, 5) review and 6) refinement. Reflected thematic analysis yielded the themes of ‘dignity’, ‘freedom’, and ‘solidarity’, which served as an anchoring point for discussion. The occasional direct quotes we present are not selected at random; instead, they reflect a pattern that emerges from the reflective thematic analysis.

Accordingly, we treat Polanyi’s concept of the countermovement as both the theoretical anchor and an empirical question, using London’s liveaboard continuous cruisers as a grounded case through which to explore how countermovement dynamics are enacted and how they may be constrained, institutionalised, or commodified in the process.

The countermovement

Polanyi (1944/2012) argued that limiting the economic sphere to market phenomena overlooks significant aspects of human history. Various forms of value creation, such as integration, sharing, and cooperation, have historically co-existed with market dynamics, particularly in the context of indigenous knowledge (Cabrales Salazar et al., 2021). These alternative practices can reshape the mobilisation, production, and consumption of goods while preserving cultural identities, thereby diverging from the free-market ideologies prevalent today (Goodwin, 2018). Thus, it is conceivable to explore urbanisation practices that differ from those based on constant commodification, consumerism, competition, and individualism. A paradigmatic shift occurs once an overwhelming personal understanding of the meaning of value is disrupted (Ateljevic, 2020). One of the most important differences between Marx and Polanyi lies in their views on the role of social class in society. Marx identified the working-class struggle against capitalist exploitation as the key driver of social transformation (Selwyn and Miyamura, 2014). In contrast, Polanyi emphasises that countermovement(s) transcend class boundaries, uniting diverse groups almost spontaneously and instinctively in pursuit of social change (Polanyi, 1944/2024; Maertens, 2008).

Polanyi explores the society’s spaces and its social order through the lens of various classes and insists on regulation to protect itself. Polanyi argues that the countermovement transcends class lines to unite everyone in the struggles they face as a community. Thus, there is a clear distinction in how the class is understood within the social class system. In order for society to challenge the oppression, there must first be recognition of the main challenge that is shared between the classes within the society that comes from the different (class) background in relation to that particular context that oppresses them. That is the key discourse to be elaborated in the following sections.

Vernacularity of off-grid living

Various off-the-grid vernacular urban initiatives are present globally. Researchers stress the importance of considering off-grid transitions among economically affluent populations (Lemanski, 2023) and learning from co-production in informal sectors (Lategan and Cilliers, 2017). They ultimately aim for transformative change rooted in the needs and aspirations of those living in off-grid contexts. O’Neill (2024) explores the phenomenon of suburban off-the-municipal-grid living in Bucharest, mainly focusing on the experiences of residents, examining how the individuals, often from upwardly mobile backgrounds, are trading the comforts of socialist-era apartments for bigger, newer homes in the suburbs that lack essential municipal services such as treated water and sewage. Off-grid living symbolises a desire for a more affluent lifestyle and a claim to belonging in an “imagined First World” (ibid., p. 1). However, relying on private alternatives to municipal services leads to significant challenges and indignities, undermining the aspirational aspects of suburban living. Co-producing knowledge with social movements is crucial for improving urban development outcomes but requires addressing power dynamics and inequalities in research relationships (Mitlin et al., 2019). One of the most prominent manifestations of the vernacular concept of off-grid living is the tiny house movement, which is not simply about the size of the house but also considers non-structural factors such as design, legality, community, and environmental impact (Shearer and Burtun, 2018). The primary assumption of the tiny house movement is that living in a small space reduces the environmental impact and spatial footprint (Ford and Gomz-Lanier, 2017). Due to limited space, consumption patterns and energy use are controlled, and possessions are reduced. Living in a tiny house is considered a countercultural act against the legacy of living in large cities and large houses. Shearer and Burton (2021) illustrate ways to live that are less harmful to the environment, reduce energy costs, and support compliance with climate change regulations (Dóci and Vasileiadou, 2015).

Exemplified by the Exarcheia neighbourhood of Athens, Greece, Chatzidakis (2022) argues that the socioeconomic crisis has transformed consumer activism, shifting its focus from ideological purity to a more pragmatic approach that addresses immediate social needs. This evolution reflects a broader struggle between maintaining original anti-consumerist values and responding to the urgent demands of a crisis-ridden society. Being outside the consumerist ethos can also be interpreted as being off the grid in spatial and temporal contexts and considered as a vernacular off-grid initiative. Thus, although the citizens of Exarcheia in 2015, during the Greek crisis, did not live off-grid in its technical meaning, they went off-grid in its vernacular sense by shifting their value system.

Many movements on the periphery of the system, from permaculture (Ateljevic, 2020), being partially financially off-grid (Gelleri, 2009), doing the tiny house movement (Shearer and Burtun, 2018) and changing the nature of consumer activism (Chatzidakis, 2022), do not take the meaning of the word off-grid only technically, i.e. as a simple disconnection from the utilities (Vanini and Tagart, 2016), but in a vernacular sense to pave the way for an alternative future.

Given the infrastructural conditions of liveaboard life, we attend to off-grid living in both its technical and vernacular socio-political senses. Among continuous cruisers, off-grid practices may be adopted as a survival strategy or pursued as a matter of choice. Off-grid living, therefore, denotes, on the one hand, reduced reliance on conventional utilities and networked infrastructures and, on the other, an ideological orientation that distances everyday life from mainstream capitalist imaginaries. We position London’s liveaboard continuous cruisers in this liminal terrain, at the intersection of the material definition advanced by Vannini and Taggart (2016) and the vernacular framing developed by Chatzidakis (2022).

However, Polanyi (1944/2024) posited that countermovement can paradoxically enhance commodification.

For instance, the tiny house movement can be co-opted by social media’s influence on the desire to consume extraordinary experiences, show them to the world, and capitalise on them (Penfold et al., 2018). For instance, critics of the Slow Food movement, initiated in 1989 in Italy to promote autonomy from global industrialised food systems (Thompson and Kumar, 2018), argued that its growing popularity led to its commodification and the reinforcement of neoliberal ideals (West and Domingos, 2012). Yet, the slow food movement remained rooted in its original legacy, which politicised the therapeutic ethos of Italian left-wing politics, enabling it to remain a counterculture. This highlights the significance of intent (Thompson and Kumar, 2018) over the form of the off-grid movement in understanding the factors linking off-grid living to societal developments. In Polanyian terms, this could be framed as decommodification, since the meanings of abundance and value do not align with the dominant doctrine. Yet, decommodification in the context of successful off-grid projects does not appear as an opposition to commodification, but rather as its better versions, as it makes communities resilient to global changes, provided that the ideas remain focused on the well-being of the local environment.

Liminality and precarity of off-grid living on London Waterways

In contemporary London, precarity is a prominent feature (Kambouri, 2024). The high cost of urban housing pushes some towards narrowboats as affordable alternatives (Pérez-Martínez and Fernández, 2021). Contemporary discourse on liveaboard cruising mainly highlights precarity, with Herman and Yarwood (2024) coining ‘mobile precarity’ as an ‘ontological condition’ (ibid:1) of living on London Waterways.

Liveaboard residence on barges and narrowboats in Britain dates to the late eighteenth-century expansion, when living on the inland waterways was bound up with work on them, such as the transport of goods and materials. In contrast, most contemporary liveaboards work on the shore (Worrall, 2019). Building on the shift from work-based liveaboard to liveaboard as an alternative housing strategy, liveaboard living in Greater London took on countercultural tones mainly from the 1960s onward. In England and Wales, the British Waterways Act 1995 regulates the residential use of rivers and canals and is enforced by the Canal and River Trust (CRT, 2012). The CRT is a charitable operator (Register of Charity Commissions, 2012). Liveaboard continuous cruisers pay an annual licence fee to the CRT, starting around GBP 1,400, which increased by 9% in 2023 and 14% in 2024, in 2026 by 15%, in 2027, and by 20% and in 2028 by 25% (CRT Canal & River Trust, 2024). Reflecting societal changes in urban London’s landscapes, inland waterways deserve attention to understand precarity and instability in city life. Many London liveaboards on continuous cruising work in creative industries and universities, often under precarious contracts. In 2022, around 165,000 Londoners were on zero-hours contracts, up from 14,000 in 2010 (Office for National Statistics, 2023), with estimates that the number continues to rise. Off-grid living stems from this social precarity (Brione et al., 2024). Yet the number of itinerant liveaboards has almost doubled in the last decade (CRT, n.d.), mainly due to long-lasting austerity, the housing crisis, and energy poverty (Herman and Yarwood, 2024). According to the CRT (n.d.), the number of itinerant liveaboards on London’s canals and rivers was about 2000 boats in 2010 in the Greater London area, with around half being itinerant liveaboards on continuous cruise. By 2023, the number of boats on continuous cruising was approximately 4000 (ibid.), reflecting rising demand and a growing boating community. Thus, more use of the London Waterways requires various strategies for waterway restoration.

The research recognised many challenges related to waterways management, including pollution, degradation, and loss of socio-cultural importance (Paul and Bardhan, 2022). Alasauskaite (2021) explores one of the eco-restoration schemes piloted by CRT and London Islington City Council, in which boaters can use moorings on the Regent’s Canal in Islington if they pay an extra 33 GBP per day to use cleaner, less polluting fuels while mooring. Although this project was environmentally driven, it did not holistically consider social outcomes. The itinerant liveaboards who could not afford this charge, or did not want to move there in principle and solidarity, were pushed away from the Regents Canal, resulting in severe congestion in areas where they were not charged. These eco-charges can be sidelined through greenwashing, as they are used to push out the itinerant liveaboards and replace their presence with more commercially driven activities. Local governments, thus, co-opted consumerist discourse as a tool for economic competitiveness (Walker, 2015). Dooling (2009) coined the term “eco-gentrification” to describe the consequences of environmentally driven urban development on socially marginalised groups, a term that can indeed be applied to the pilot scheme. Sylvester and Underhill (2024) argue that London boaters are in a so-called ‘dwelling paradox’. London boaters are not counted as customers of private water companies because they are off-grid, thereby illustrating the liminality of itinerant liveaboard existence on London’s inland waterways. However, they are exposed to water and sanitation risks (ibid). Further challenges for the London liveaboard on continuous cruising include accessing National Health Service appointments, though this is partially mitigated by the availability of walk-in clinics. Another challenge is the postal address: liveaboards on continuous cruising either registered it with friends or family, or occasionally with their employer, or obtained a post box from the city council, expressing the liminality of their existence.

Although it is not legally possible to remove liveaboards from London’s inland waterways, CRT is doing so indirectly by not providing the necessary infrastructure maintenance (Cowan and Hardy, 2023, p. 175), or by monetising of mooring rights thus disturbing the ethos of liveaboard living by trying to achieve social gentrification of the mooring spaces through eco-mooring initiative thus transforming essential housing infrastructure into a market-driven asset (NBTA London brunch, 2024; CRT, n.d). Accessible only to economically wealthier boaters (Bowles, 2024), moorings that require payment beyond the licence fee thus cut out the identity and spirit of continuous cruising among liveaboards. As observed, eco-moorings remain largely empty (Figure 2). The income from eco-moorings was not achieved; the free mooring spaces are congested, resulting in an indirect attempt at social cleansing. London Boaters thus navigate between commodification and decommodification, highlighting the liminality of their existence and the paradoxical social context in which they are situated.OPEN IN VIEWER

Dignity, but also pride and respect

As a counteract to the precarity, a sense of dignity, pride, and respect is also observed through the lens of the vernacular off-grid lifestyle. We incorporated some of the itinerant liveaboards’ quotes to present the argument. These quotes were not chosen randomly, but illustrate a pattern observed through reflective thematic analysis.

These cases are related to housing status, i.e. homelessness, renting, and ownership and the context of subjugation, both contexts being antithetical to dignity and respect. Many itinerant liveaboards have traumatic experiences with housing and subjugation, In 2024/2025, there were 4 times as many rough sleepers in London as in 2009/2010 Trust for London (n.d.). While off-grid living is mainly individual, everyday mooring routines and shared infrastructure foster informal networks and support (Bowles, 2024). One of the reasons observed throughout the thematic analysis was that the itinerant liveaboard community was less prejudiced and expressed a capacity for care and inclusion. As observed, there is a sense of solidarity among the itinerant liveaboards to help address the chaos and precarity. Darius [pseudonym] did not understand that the previous Housing Benefits welfare scheme was replaced by the so-called Universal Credit in 2012. It resulted in the eviction. After sleeping rough in a tent, the city council confiscated their belongings. Moreover, the mob physically attacked them, leaving both physical and mental injuries. They were given shelter by a liveaboard boater. It was a 4-metre-long fibreglass boat without the engine, as the owner needed to refurbish it. With sharply increasing homelessness in London, fibreglass boats provide shelter (Worrall, 2019), thereby linking rough sleepers to life on London's inland waterways and to the liveaboard community. Another liveaboard boater, Emmanuel (pseudonym), who moored nearby, donated a tarpaulin due to an insulation challenge. Although fibreglass boats are not well insulated, former rough sleepers prefer living on inland waterways rather than on London streets or in occasional shelters. Emmanuel also accompanied Darius to the walk-in clinic, registered them with the National Health Service, and prepared food. As Darius got better, another itinerant liveaboard provided a foldable bicycle. One of the liveaboards who worked on the inland waterways and distributed coal, diesel and wood gave Darius occasional work. Helping rough sleepers was very common among London itinerant liveaboards.

Some boaters were victims of racism and prejudice, such as the case of Irish travellers being mistreated by the public. Zack (pseudonym) mentioned that despite being a skilled carpenter, they were paid as ‘nonqualified’ while working in the city. ‘Everyone thought I was a thief,’ said Mr Zack, illustrating the position of many marginalised communities in London. Zack now only serves boaters, and said: ‘These people [community-boaters] never judge me [sic].’ One boater mentioned that caring has always been part of community life; for instance, boats in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s accommodated same-sex couples in the UK, as only a few landowners would rent properties to same-sex couples, as Carol (pseudonym) told us. In the contemporary context, boaters are marginalised in the inland waterways’ discussions and decision-making, as one of the activists mentioned, ‘Bargee Travellers have a long-standing and unenviable reputation for being on the wrong end of right-wing persecution.’

Thus, it not only helped in economic terms but also restored dignity to individuals marginalised by systemic and epistemic violence. Besides recognising the precarity of liveaboard living on London waterways, there is also an earned dignity and respect that persists in the context of liveaboard boating. Community solidarity thus became an evident pattern. Although the economic precarity is widely visible, so was the abundance of solidarity and care.

Liveaboard arrangements range from boat ownership at £10,000–£40,000 for habitable vessels (Battersby, 2025; Canal Junction, n.d), compared to London’s average property deposit of £144,000 (Hughes, 2023). Unlike property, boats incur no council tax, ground rent, or service charges, but do incur annual CRT licensing fees (£700-£1500). Itinerant liveaboards also engage in informal, trust-based renting or sharing of project boats needing refurbishment.

As one participant noted, being able to cover living costs independently brought back dignity. An NHS administrative worker, for instance, on a fixed-term, yet working full-time, needed to claim housing benefit to rent. Landlords and estate agents were hesitant to rent to those seeking benefits, so they temporarily lived on a friend’s boat. Years of austerity and crony politics, with many working full-time on precarious contracts, have led to socioeconomic precarity (Haile, 2023). Another pattern was that itinerant liveaboards chose the lifestyle to avoid renting or buying land-based property.

Emmanuel (pseudonym) mentioned that although they ‘dreamed of living off-grid and being more self-sufficient’, it took courage to rent a friend’s boat on trust. The main reason for living on the boat was to live alone, which was unaffordable despite a full-time job. Emmanuel, a captain with relevant skills, chose the boat as an option.

My parents would like to visit me, but it is not possible in a shared flat. I could not afford to rent a flat alone, so my only possibility was to live on the boat. I only needed a trigger to move to the boat, and welcoming my parents was that trigger.

Furthermore, the high rents and challenging contracts with agencies and property developers were very stressful; thus, as one of the boaters said directly, ‘…Living on a boat brought me back my dignity [sic]…’

One liveaboard boater on continuous cruising said they could not obtain a mortgage because they were self-employed with fluctuating income. Instead of making a mortgage deposit, they bought a boat…‘I had some savings, and instead of using them as a deposit for a mortgage, I bought a houseboat.’ They benefited from not being dependent on fluctuations in mortgage interest rates that brought many London households to the verge of collapse. Indeed, the Monetary Policy Committee's previous rate cycle rose from 0.1% in December 2021 to 5.25% in August in response to rising inflation (Brione et al., 2024).

Freedom, but also responsibility and sacrifice

Itinerant liveaboards utilise mainly off-grid solar energy, supplemented with wood and coal in winter. They manually handle off-grid energy production. Living off the grid is paired with energy poverty. As communicated by Emmanuel (Pseudonym)…It is freezing. You go for a walk to gather the wood, chop the wood and afterwards add smokeless briquettes to light the fire. You appreciate it when you are aware of this effort and how much energy it takes to heat the home…

Wood-burning stoves on liveaboard vessels present an environmental paradox. While often perceived as a sustainable heating option, they emit CO2 and, more critically, particulate matter (PM2.5), with impacts exacerbated in dense urban settings.

UK emissions inventories identify domestic solid-fuel burning as a major source of PM2.5, but usually do not separate emissions from wood-burning stoves on liveaboard boats. Yet, emissions from the boats are likely small compared to heating a larger flat. A boat’s smaller volume requires less energy for heating and cooking and is used sparingly only when solar energy is insufficient. Thus, nationally, boat emissions are small but can occasionally be significant in dense urban moorings in winter (EMEP/EEA, 2019). An itinerant liveaboard understands the effort to generate energy off-grid and uses it responsibly. It is not only about responsibility towards the natural environment, it also requires liveaboards' time and energy to produce energy when solar panels are insufficient.

Awareness of resource scarcity also significantly influenced water usage. For instance, one itinerant liveaboard commented, I think twice about showering on the boat, noting that refilling the water tank requires significant time and organisation. The boat's physical space constraints, along with time and logistics, also had a major impact. Because the boat's volume is much smaller than a flat, residents had to reduce their material possessions. The analysis shows that these circumstances led to a distinct shift in consumption habits, as written.

I only wanted to live on the boat temporarily until I get a mortgage, but I do not want to leave anymore. I minimised the number of possessions I own… so rewarding to be part of this and to feel a sense of community.

The sense of becoming part of the community is observed and discussed in both semantic-implicit and latent-explicit forms. Within this context, value is redefined, shifting from material accumulation towards community resilience and resource autonomy. The daily labour of producing energy, rationing water consumption, and curating possessions is not only a mundane routine but also a political practice. This work is the basis for pairing responsibilities with achieving freedom from the economic pressures of high rent, centralised utility costs and mortgages. This autonomy is not a passive state but one that must be actively produced and maintained. It depends on a deep sense of responsibility, manifested in mindful resource consumption that is in stark contrast to their taken-for-granted status in conventional urban spaces. For these itinerant liveaboard, managing their mobile domestic space becomes an act of earned sovereignty, where freedom and responsibility are inextricably linked.

Furthermore, this behavioural transformation may persist beyond the duration of living liveaboard, as one former boater explained:

We no longer live on the boat, but we learned so much about resources… and how to be grateful when we have them. We will never take them for granted.

The quotation illustrates how practical necessities can be turned into lasting principles. The gratitude and resource awareness developed on the water are adopted as a permanent ethic, changing how individuals consume regardless of their living environment. Itinerant liveaboard status thus functions as a pedagogical space, imparting lessons that persist even when individuals transition back to life on land. The daily discipline of managing scarce resources fosters an enduring consciousness that outlasts the material circumstances that gave rise to it.

Solidarity: Keeping the community together

‘People from all walks of life have continuously inhabited the rivers and canals. Some wealthy, some not, some temporary, some permanent…’ as one of the itinerant liveaboards wrote.

While class privilege remains a distinct determinant of success in the UK (Ashley and McDonald, 2024), the shared precarity of the “itinerant liveaboard, i.e. continuous cruiser” lifestyle fosters a unique cross-class solidarity. Itinerant liveaboards, regardless of background, face identical infrastructural deficits, from water shortages to congestion, which necessitate an ethics of care and sharing. This communal ethos operates as a counterculture to the hegemonic values of London’s financial sector, characterised by individualism, inequality, and wealth accumulation (Edwards-Dashti, 2022; Onaran et al., 2022). The UK economy, dominated by the financial sector, accounted for 12.8% of the UK’s economic output in 2022 and 13% in 2023 (City of London Corporation, 2024).

However, itinerant liveaboards are existentially threatened by the Canal & River Trust’s (CRT) shift toward a neoliberal “user-pays” model following a £300 million reduction in state grants (Figure 3). To survive, the CRT aggressively commodified waterways (CRT, Canal & River Trust, 2024). As Cowan and Hardy (2023, p. 175) argue, since direct eviction is legally complex, the CRT instead effects indirect displacement by withholding necessary infrastructure maintenance. When combined with the privatisation of public canal paths and mooring spaces ( CRT, 2025), this strategy transforms essential inland waterways housing into a market commodity accessible only to the itinerant boaters willing to pay (Bowles, 2024). This “social cleansing” disturbs the liveaboard ethos; yet, as bookable eco-moorings remain largely empty (Figure 2), the strategy appears to generate displacement without the anticipated financial return, indirectly disturbing the itinerant liveaboard ethos and existence, creating fear and anxiety.OPEN IN VIEWER

Complementing these economic pressures, the CRT tried to deploy specific spatial governance mechanisms, most notably ‘Water Safety Zones’ (WSZs), to effectively reduce residential mooring capacity (CRT, 2023). These zones facilitate enforcement against boaters in areas re-designated for corporate and leisure consumption. The NBTA London brunch (2024) characterises this as “forced commodification,” arguing that the enclosure of waterways and displacement of the liveaboard community are prerequisites for introducing high-yield, for-profit activities (Cowan and Hardy, 2023).

The implementation of WSZs revealed a procedural bias: while complaints regarding “visual disturbance” were solicited from residents of new luxury waterside developments, liveaboard communities were largely excluded from consultation, generating existential insecurity about their housing tenure. Despite protests, the CRT commenced enforcement in January 2022 (CRT, 2025). Based on recent Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosures, the Canal & River Trust (CRT) spent £860,000 on external contractors for boat removal in the 2024-25 financial year. This expenditure is part of a broader, costly enforcement framework, with total enforcement costs—including internal teams and legal fees—amounting to approximately £4.31 million in that period (ibid.).

 This expenditure reinforces the view of NBTA representatives that the policy seeks to erase the existence of the itinerant liveaboard community, thereby impoverishing the urban landscape of inland waterways.

In response to these existential threats, the NBTA mobilised campaigns such as ‘Stop the Boat Cull’ and ‘Boats are our Homes,’ transforming the River Lee into a site of political contestation where visual media (Figure 4) asserted collective resilience against displacement. This resistance is grounded not only in the physical defence of space but also in the legal assertion of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; i.e., the right to respect for one’s private life and home. As one London-based NBTA representative articulated:

This is my home–it is where I’m raising my daughter. To have CRT try to force me out of it makes me more resolved to defend it so that the waterways can remain a place for everyone.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Stop the Boat Cull! and No Mooring sign, London, Hackney. Source: Author.

This resolution highlights a crucial theoretical distinction observed on the waterways. While a traditional Marxist analysis views class conflict as the primary engine of change, the situation on London’s canals is better understood through a Polanyian lens. Marx focuses on the structural conflict between classes, such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, to dismantle capitalism; however, Polanyi (1944/2024) focuses on the tension between the self-regulating market and society’s protection and solidarity. The CRT’s attempt to enforce a dominant market logic, i.e. commodifying waterways and treating housing as a revenue stream, triggered what Polanyi described as a “countermovement.” On the canals, this countermovement transcends traditional class lines. Whether from privileged backgrounds or precarious working conditions, itinerant liveaboards face a threat to their existence. Thus, instead of fracturing along class lines, the community converges around a shared aim: to live with dignity. This solidarity confirms Polanyi’s argument that when the market threatens the fundamental substance of human life, in this case, the home, society organises a protective response that bridges social divides.