Architectural research

Architectural Institute of Korea (대한건축학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Why Do People Move to Cohousing Communities in Sweden? - Are there any Significant Differences Between the +40 Cohousing and the Mixed-Age Cohousing?

  • Choi, Jung Shin (Department of Consumer and Housing Studies, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2013.01.06
  • Accepted : 2013.04.25
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Cohousing is based on collaborative network, or fictive kin in the community. It could facilitate the goal of self-sufficiency. This research aims to investigate the motivation of move to cohousing communities in Sweden, and to find out if there are any significant differences according to two different cohousing types; between the +40 cohousing and the mixed-age cohousing. The +40 cohousing is a kind of senior cohousing in which residents are supposed to be aged over 40. Questionnaire survey was applied and 242 collected data were analyzed by SPSS statistical program. Notable differences in demographic and dwelling variables are found between the 2 groups. There are more women, singles, academics, and small dwellings in the +40 cohousing than in the mixed-age cohousing. Referring motivation of move, "sharing common activity" and "idea of cohousing" are commonly noticed as the main reasons why people move to cohousing communities. Major difference between the 2 groups is that residents of the +40 cohousing tend to stress more on social interaction with neighbors than practical merit. On the contrary, ones of the mixed-age cohousing focus more on practical advantage than social interaction. As a conclusion, it is evident that motivation of move to cohousing communities is different by cohousing types, which have different residents' characteristics. Cohousing could contribute to elevate marginal group's quality of life as an alternative living environment. Therefore, cohousing design has to be tailored to adapt residents' specific needs of different life-stages. In order to implement cohousing model into other countries, for instance into Korea, it needs to experiment with the notion of transplanting selected cohousing principles to a public housing development. In the mixed-age cohousing where more dual income families with young children than conventional housing developments reside, residents would need more practical advantage than emotional support in the community, while as residents in the senior cohousing need vice versa.

Keywords

References

  1. Choi , M.R. & Park, K.C. (1996). A Study on the Estimated Residential Mobility in Local Cities. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea. 12(11), 3-14
  2. Choi, J. S. (2004). Evaluation of Community Planning and Life of Senior Cohousing Projects in Northern European Countries. European Planning Studies, 12(8), 1189-1216.
  3. Choi, J.S. (2006). Preference of Common Spaces and Shared Activities in Senior Cohousing Community by Korean 50s, Proceedings of ENHR International Conference 2006, Urban Planning Institute of the Republic Of Slovenia. Ljubljana, Slovenia.
  4. Choi, J.S. & Cho, J.S. (2006). Differences between Male and Female in Moving Motivation and Life Satisfaction of Senior Cohousing Residents in Scandinavia. Journal of the Korean Home Management Association, 24(1), 117-128
  5. Choi, J. S. & Paulsson, J. (2006), Planning and Implementation of Scandinavian Senior Cohousing Projects, Seoul, Korea: Jipmundang Publishing Co.
  6. Choi, J. S., & Paulsson, J. (2011), Evaluation of Common Activity and Life in Swedish Cohousing Units, International Journal of Human Ecology 12(2), 133-146. https://doi.org/10.6115/ljhe.2011.12.2.133
  7. FIC(2007). Community Directory (2007). Routledge. USA.
  8. Findlay, R.A. & Morris, E.W. (1976). Social Determinents of the Design of Housing for the Elderly, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, Vancouver, 25-29.
  9. Glass, A. P. (2009). Aging in a Community of Mutual Support: The Emergence of an Elder Intentional Cohousing Community in the United States, Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23.283-303 https://doi.org/10.1080/02763890903326970
  10. Hasell, M.J., Scanzoni, J. (2000). Cohousing in HUD housing - problems and prospects. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 (2), 133-145.
  11. Im, K.H. & Baek, S.J.(2011). A Study on Residential Mobility of Baby Boomers in Korea, Proceedings of Annual Conference of Korean Association for Housing Policy Studies . 1-10.
  12. Jensen, S.P. (1994). Summary and Conclusion of the Conference on Cohousing for Senior Citizens in Europe, BiC, Copenhagen, Denmark. 8-13.
  13. Kim,H.Y., Lee, Y.S. & Yoon, H.K.(2010). The Study on Housing Characteristics Preferred by Baby Boomer After Retirement, Focusing on Apartment's Residents of Gangnam Region in Seoul. Journal of the Korean Housing Association. 21(5). 83-92. https://doi.org/10.6107/JKHA.2010.21.5.083
  14. Lietaert, M. (2010). Cohousing's relevance to degrowth theories, Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 (6), 576-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.11.016
  15. Marcus, C.C. (2000). Site planning, building design and a sense of community: An analysis of six cohousing schemes in Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17 (2). 146-163.
  16. Meeks, C.B. (1980). Housing. Prentice Hall Inc. USA.
  17. Morris, E. W. & Winter, M. (1978). Housing, Family and Society. John Wiley and Sons. New York, USA.
  18. Nelson, L.M. & Winter, M. (1975). Life Disruption, Independence, Satisfaction and the Consideration of Moving, The Gerontologist 15. 23-35.
  19. Pedersen , M. (1999). Seniorbofaelleskaber hvorfor og, Bolitrivsel i Centrum. Kobenhavn, Denmark.
  20. SBI (1987). Cohousing Communities, Collection of Examples. Danish Building Research Institute, SBI-report 187.
  21. Seo, W.S. & Yoon, E.Y. (2011). Decision Factors on Residential Environment on Housing Mobility Intentions; Policy Implication in Korea through the Case of USA. Housing Studies Review 19(2). 151-170.
  22. Tchoukaleyska, R. (2011). Co-housing childhoods: parents' mediation of urban risk through participation in intentional communities, Children's Georgaphies, 9(2). 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2011.562384
  23. Toker, Z. (2010). New housing for new households: Comparing cohousing and new urbanist developments with women in mind. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 27 (4). 325-339.
  24. Yang, S.W. & Kim, M.J.(2011), A Comparative Study of Residential Mobility between Home-owning Households and Renting Households. Journal of Korean Home Management Association , 29(3). 13-22.
  25. Yang, L.a , Zhou, J.a , Yan, X.b (2010). Environmental Strategies Analysis of Cohousing Based on Ecological Footprint. Proceedings of 2010 International Conference on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering, MACE 2010, 4314-4317.
  26. Vestbro, D. U. (1997). Collective Housing in Scandinaviahow feminism revised a modernist experiment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 14(4), 329-342.
  27. Williams, J. (2008). Predicting an American future for cohousing, Futures, 40 (3), 268-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.08.022
  28. Zhang, R., Lv, Y.H. (2011). A new living concept based on lowimpact strategy - The sustainability of cohousing community, Advanced Materials Research, 224, 220-223. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.224.220
  29. www.cohousing.org
  30. www.kollektivhus.nu

Cited by

  1. Differences of Participation in Common Activities and Life Satisfaction in Swedish Senior Cohousing by Longitudinal Analyses : Focus on Differences Between the Years of 2001 and 2010 vol.34, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7466/JKHMA.2016.34.1.1
  2. Participation in Common Activities and Satisfaction with Common Space - In a Tentative Framework of Housing Adjustment for Swedish Cohousing Residents - vol.25, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.6107/JKHA.2014.25.4.125