Residential Use according to the Preferred Developer Type for Senior Congregate Housing

노인공동생활주택의 선호개발유형에 따른 주거사용 특성

  • Kim Yang-Hyun (Major of Housing and Interior Design, Division of Human Ecology, KyungHee University) ;
  • Hong Hyung-Ock (Major of Housing and Interior Design, Division of Human Ecology, KyungHee University)
  • 김양현 (경희대학교 생활과학부 주거환경) ;
  • 홍형옥 (경희대학교 생활과학부 주거환경)
  • Published : 2005.10.01

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to gain understanding about residential satisfaction and preference of the members of the future elderly generation who have an intention to develop senior congregate housing. The data for this study were collected from 600 participants who were in their 40s to 60s, residing in Seoul, and who have an intention to develop senior congregate housing. The data collection spanned from December 1st to 20th, 2004. The results of this study were as follows: Firstly, the respondents who had a higher level of education, higher income, and a high-ranking job showed relatively higher residential satisfaction with their present house. Similar satisfaction level came between their present house and expecting ones in their later life. Financial responsibility was the most serious expected problem when they continue living in the present house in the later life. It means that the economic ability is the primary factor that determines whether they will have a stable life later. Secondly, as for the preference for the senior housing developer type, the group who preferred collectively developed senior congregate housing far outnumbered the other who preferred independent developer type. Also, the group who preferred collective developer type had higher economic ability than that of the other. These results indicate that above all, economic competence is the must significant variable, which should be considered in the future life and residential planning for the elderly. Korean senior congregate housing models should be developed based upon elaborate research. It is also necessary to develop different types of housing, such as a more practical type and a high quality type, as well as to respond to different kinds of developmental objectives, such as marketability and public benefit.

Keywords

References

  1. 강병근(1999). 고령화사회에 대응한 노인주거유형. 대한건축학회, 15(10), 3-14
  2. 유병선(2005). 노인공동생활주택 공급 및 관리모델 개발방향에 관한 연구. 경희대학교 대학원 박사학위논문
  3. 홍형옥(1999). 한국의 지역사회통합형 노인주거의 대안적 모색-노인생활지원주택의 개념 도입과 제도적 탐색-. 주택연구, 7(2), 75-91
  4. 홍형옥(2001). 영구의 노인공동생활주택에 대한 검토. 한국가정관리학회지, 19(4), 49-68
  5. 홍형옥(2001). 노인공동생활주택에 대한 태도와 선호-한국에서의 노인생활지원주택개발 방향을 중심으로-. 한국가정관리학회지, 19(5), 147-166
  6. 홍형옥 . 서은미(2004). 중년층의 노후의 주거문제에 대한 태도와 노인공동생활주택에의 입주 의사 분석. 한국가정관리학회지, 22(6), 121-131
  7. 홍형옥 . 이경희 . 김대년 . 최정신 . 조재순 . 권오정(2004). 2020년 노후의 공간환경을 전망한다. 서울: 지식마당
  8. 홍형옥 . 유병선(2003). 노후의 일 . 여가 태도에 따른 노인공동생활주택 선호 경향. 한국가정관리학회지, 21(5), 13-24
  9. 홍형옥 . 지은영(2002). 사회계층별 노인생활지원주택에 대한 태도와 선호. 한국가정관리학회지, 20(2), 83-95
  10. 홍형옥 . 지은영(2004). 사회경제적 지위에 따른 노인공동생활주택에 대한 견해의 지역별 비교-서울 . 수도권, 부산, 광주, 대전 지역을 중심으로-. 대한가정학회지, 42(7), 별쇄본, 1-17
  11. Paulsson, J.(1996). New concept and design of housing for the frail elderly in Sweden. 1996 가톨릭대학교 생활과학 연구소 국제학술대회 자료집, 27-32
  12. 통계청. www.nso.go.kr