Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Understanding Residential Needs of Single or 2-Resident Households with a Focus on Communal Amenities of Multi-Family Housing Complexes

Understanding Residential Needs of Single or 2-Resident Households with a Focus on Communal... Due to rapid socio-demographic changes in Korean society, the number of single or 2-resident households i.e. small households, are increasing at a faster rate than expected. This research aimed to achieve a clear understanding of the residential needs of small households, which are distinctively different from those of regular households created by blood relations. A survey was carried out to identify the general residential needs of small households, and their communal amenity needs. It was found that small households had clearly different residential needs compared to regular households; the needs were generally uniform among regular households, while small households showed significant differences according to socio-demographics, residential conditions, lifestyle and continuation period of households. Given this, small households were categorized into four subgroups and characterized by type, according to the specific residential needs and communal amenity needs of each subgroup. As a result, this research was able to empirically embrace previous researches, which were sporadically carried out on some subgroups of small households, and to formulate residential conditions that the residents of small households want, based on the understanding of their residential needs rather than simple socio-demographic characteristics. Keywords: small households; residential needs; communal amenity; multi-family housing 1. Introduction up for these shortcomings, it is necessary to conduct When speaking of changes in the population and research to find out the unique residential needs and family structures of Korean society, we can never lifestyles of small household residents and identify broach the subject without mentioning the rapid ideal housing conditions for them. growth of single or 2-resident households. According to the Population and Housing Census of the National 2. Theoretical Background Statistical Office in 2010, the ratio of single or Due to a rapidly decreasing population in this 2-resident households was 48.1%, almost half of all aging society with low birthrates, there has been households. As the number of small households is growing interest in the changes of demographic increasing at a fast pace, changes in the existing policy structures, which initiated the researches on single- for housing supply are inevitable. resident households. Lee et al. (2011) analyzed As a response to such changes, the government has the growth patterns of single-resident households made various efforts to increase the supply of housing according to socio-demographic characteristics, for small households by introducing new types of small and found that single-resident households in Korea multi-family housing. However, as such policies were showed differentiated growth patterns depending designed to increase the supply of small residences on their gender, age, marital status, and educational in a short period of time, they failed to reflect the background. Hong et al. (2011) defined single and conditions of the housing market and the residential 2-resident households in Seoul as "small households". needs of single or 2-resident households. To make They claimed that 2-resident households had characteristics similar to those of 4 or more-resident households. There have been researches on social, *Contact Author: Eunjoo Lee, Ph.D. Candidate, cultural, and economic characteristics, and regional Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, distribution of the young, unmarried, and elderly A508 Architectural Engineering, 50 Yonsei Str. Seoul, 120749 Korea residents, which are particular subgroups among whole Tel: +82-2-2123-2790 C.P: +82-10-2801-6710 single-resident households (Kim & Kwon, 2012). E-mail: julijoo@naver.com In recent years, researches have been conducted on ( Received April 7, 2015 ; accepted February 12, 2016 ) the lifestyle (Kang et al. 2011) of specific subgroups DOI http://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.263 Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/May 2016/270 263 of single-resident households such as undergraduates respondents were looking for a new place to move (Han & Yoon, 2011), the low-income class (Lee, 2012), into, on the condition that residential expenses females (Kim, 2013), and on specific residential needs and the unit area of households are the same as the (e.g. crime prevention) of single-resident households current residence. First, respondents were instructed (Hwang, 2013). However, those researches were rather to mark their own preference on a 7-point scale fragmented and have failed to offer a comprehensive (1 = don't care at all, 7 = care very much) for 30 perspective to help find out how the individual questions about general residential needs, and then residential needs of each subgroup were related to the were instructed to choose the top 3 priorities among residential needs of the entire small households and how them. Secondly, respondents were given 24 kinds of they were different from those of the regular households. the most representative communal facilities and were In addition, it was noticeable that although asked to mark their preference using a 7-point scale, researches on the communities of regular households and then were instructed to choose the top 3 priorities at multi-family housing complexes have continuously in the categories of "indoor facilities" or "outdoor been carried out, researches on the relationship among facilities". Thirdly, for the availability of communal small households have not yet become active possibly facilities, 6 questions were related to the utilization because the researches on the residential needs of small scope of communal facilities accessible by foot or by households were still at an early stage. car; another 13 questions were on the social influence through utilizing communal facilities rated by using a 3. Amenities in a Residential Complex and 7-point scale. The questions regarding the following Residential Needs were also included, which added up to a total of 93 The mos t typical hous ing type for regular questions: residential conditions, lifestyle, households' households is multi-family housing in Korea. The continuation period, and general demographics. standard multi-family housing complex allows private · Procedure: After a preliminary survey on 30 people spaces for residents; i.e., residential unit allow access with snowball sampling from December 3-13 in 2013, only to residents, and communal spaces are shared the main survey was carried out by commissioning it to by residents within the complex. Park & Choi (2012) a professional online survey company from February argued that the communal spaces, which this research 5-17 in 2014. Respondents were sampled according was focused on, are not inactive spaces serving only to the stratified sampling method, in order to prevent as backgrounds, but are active spaces. The physical possible biases in age, gender, and regional distribution environments should be willingly utilized and managed (against the number of households), and regular by all residents, to include the meaning of social and households living in a unit area of 60m and above were psychological aspects. Park & Choi (2012) classified excluded (the standard scale of small housing according communal spaces into "environment and landscape" to the Housing Act of Korea). As a result, 328 effective which includes green zone and planned landscape, responses were obtained and the results of this research "life support environment" which includes humans were analyzed by using SPSS Statistics 21. and vehicle traffic routes within the complex and life support and maintenance support facilities, and 5. Comparison of General Residential Needs of "social behavior support environment" which supports Regular Households and Small Households interactions of residents within the housing complex. To date much of the previous researches have In this research, the criteria of communal 'amenities' been conducted under the premise that differences in were limited to only those buildings and structures residential needs between residents of regular blood- occupying floor area, and excluded devices or related households (hereinafter, "regular households") equipment that did not take up physical space. The and residents of single or 2-resident households post occupancy evaluation indicators used by Park et (hereinafter, "small households") exist, but this has al. (2005) in their research on "A POE Process Model never been proven. This research first focused on for Super-Tall Residential Buildings" were partially nding out how they dif fi fer in general residential needs, applied. However, all evaluation indicators related to before looking into the details of the residential needs the unit household were excluded, since remaining of small households. indicators were applied to evaluate residents' needs for 5.1 Results communal amenities by classifying them according · Frequency Analysis: Among a total of 328 to the three functions mentioned above. Among the respondents, 53 (16.2%) belonged to regular evaluation indicators, communality included the households, while 275 (83.8%) belonged to single or availability and social influence aspects of facilities as 2-resident small households. The majority of regular well as physical environmental aspects. households were three-resident households, which consist of a child and two parents with occupations as 4. Method and Procedure office workers, living in Seoul. The majority of small · Method: In the introduction of the structured households were married couples who were office questionnaire, the premise was given that the workers living in Seoul. For the housing conditions, 264 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee Table 1. Different Residential Needs Between Small and the majority of regular households lived in multi- Regular Household Residents family housing complexes with a unit area of 50-60m , Needs Household N M t p which have the largest number of supportive facilities General residential needs n.s among the communal amenities. Comfortability Small 275 5.36 -.26 .79 Regular 53 5.39 · Comparison: After comparing the mean values of all n.s Convenience Small 275 5.05 -1.06 .29 responses on questions regarding the general residential Regular 53 5.21 n.s Safety & security Small 275 5.26 .37 .71 needs, it was found that a significant difference existed Regular 53 5.20 ** only in communality. For the preferred types of Communality Small 275 4.01 -2.85 .00 Regular 53 4.53 communal amenities, there were significant differences Variety of amenities ** in productive facilities including communal office Resting Small 275 4.40 -3.38 .00 Regular 53 4.85 spaces, garden farms, care facilities for children, n.s Exercising Small 275 4.47 -1.46 .15 adolescents and the elderly, and outdoor facilities rather Regular 53 4.74 n.s Cultural Small 275 4.21 -1.74 .08 than indoor facilities (Table 1., T-test). However, there Regular 53 4.52 n.s was no significant difference regarding the availability Supportive Small 275 4.57 -.55 .58 Regular 53 4.64 of communal amenities. In terms of general socio- Socializing Small 275 3.88 -2.14 .03 demographics, a majority of regular households lived Regular 53 4.27 ** Productive Small 275 3.69 -2.60 .01 in a house with a unit area of 30-50m , whereas small Regular 53 4.21 households lived in houses with widely different unit Caring Small 275 4.61 -2.36 .02 Regular 53 5.12 areas. Significant differences were also shown in vehicle Indoor Small 275 4.03 -2.41 .02 ownership and continuation periods of household with Regular 53 4.40 n.s Outdoor Small 275 4.83 -1.90 .06 the current resident, in the current residence, and in the Regular 53 5.09 current community (Table 2., χ -test). Availability of amenities n.s Access by foot Small 275 4.48 .49 .63 To figure out internal deviations inside of the Regular 53 4.39 n.s respective small and regular households, general socio- Access by car Small 275 3.67 .99 .32 Regular 53 3.41 demographics, residential conditions, lifestyle, and n.s Availability Small 275 4.87 -1.58 .12 continuation periods of the current households were Regular 53 5.08 n.s Communal Small 275 4.87 -.33 .74 set as independent variables. Then, every significant influence Regular 53 4.91 difference in general residential needs and communal *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; n.s: not significant facility needs were collected (Table 3., χ -test). Regular households indicated generally uniform characteristics, Table 2. Different Influential Factors on Small and Regular due to a very few significant differences among Household Residents Small Regular them. In contrast, small households showed many Factor χ2 p n % n % significant differences in general residential needs Total 275 83.8 53 16.2 Demographics and communal amenity needs depending on diverse Marital status ** variables, including marital status, age, residence scale, Unmarried 104 31.7 9 2.7 14.88 .00 Married 139 42.4 42 12.8 residential type, and vehicle ownership. Divorced,bereaved 32 9.8 2 0.6 5.2 Discussion Relationship ** Married couple 119 49.0 0 0.0 65.15 .00 A significant difference was found only in Parents & children 55 22.6 40 16.5 communality, a variable related to general residential Others 16 6.6 13 5.3 Residential condition needs, between small households and regular households, Scale of residential unit 2 ** which was mainly consistent with the findings of -14m 16 4.9 1 0.3 63.22 .00 14-30m 36 11.0 2 0.6 previous researches. Comfortability, convenience, and 30-50m 50 15.2 20 6.1 safety & security were chosen as the essential functions 50-60m 50 15.2 30 9.1 60m - 123 37.5 0 0.0 of housing, regardless of the scale of a household. Lifestyle However, as small households have relatively simpler Car ownership Not own 132 40.2 17 5.2 4.55 .03 lifestyles, they showed lower needs in communality and Own 143 43.6 36 11.0 for communal amenities where residents can get along Household continuance Living with same resident with each other (socialization), which can help residents ** - 1 year 39 11.9 1 0.3 15.39 .00 to become engaged in productive activities (production), 1 - 3 years 61 18.6 5 1.5 3 - 5 years 33 10.1 5 1.5 and which provide caring service for the residents 5 years - 142 43.3 42 12.8 (welfare). However, it was obvious that they had greater Living in same residence - 1 year 45 13.7 2 0.6 8.54 .04 needs for resting facility, compared to the regular 1 - 3 years 80 24.4 12 3.7 households. It is noteworthy that there were no significant 3 - 5 years 39 11.9 9 2.7 5 years - 111 33.8 30 9.1 differences between the regular households and small Living in same community households in their perception about the communal - 1 year 27 8.2 2 0.6 8.21 .04 1 - 3 years 53 16.2 4 1.2 influences of communal amenities, given that an easy 3 - 5 years 31 9.5 5 1.5 access and the frequent use of communal amenities were 5 years - 164 50.0 42 12.8 *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01 considered to improve social interaction among residents. JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee 265 As well as differences between small and regular was the largest subgroup (N = 129), followed by cluster 2 households, it is important to pay attention to Cluster 1 (N = 64), and Cluster 3 and Cluster 4 cluster 1 disparities inside of each group. Even though the single (N = N = 41). cluster 3 cluster 4 or 2-resident households were distinguished from Table 4. Segmentation of Small Resident Households regular households by the number of family members, Cluster they showed significant differences in residential Needs F p 1 2 3 4 needs depending on various variables. These results N 275 64 129 41 41 demonstrate that diverse subgroups with heterogeneous General residential needs ** Comfortability 5.79 4.91 5.69 4.76 28.02 .00 characteristics exist even within the small household ** Convenience 5.68 4.70 5.19 4.08 44.17 .00 ** groups indicating that it is inappropriate to consider Safety & security 5.84 4.83 5.70 4.18 38.32 .00 ** Communality 5.01 3.86 3.59 2.49 80.74 .00 small households as a single group simply based on Amenity needs the number of household members. These showed that ** Resting 5.36 4.00 4.54 2.79 122.85 .00 ** the findings of previous socio-demographic researches Exercising 5.43 4.23 4.37 2.82 91.51 .00 ** Cultural 5.25 4.12 3.61 2.70 105.56 .00 suggesting that there might exist great heterogeneity ** Supportive 5.24 4.45 4.46 3.38 76.73 .00 among the subgroups of small households (Bahn, ** Socializing 4.97 3.85 3.21 2.27 135.74 .00 ** 2012) were proven to be true in the aspect of residential Productive 4.84 3.61 2.99 2.08 106.47 .00 ** Casing 5.67 4.13 4.85 2.74 77.46 .00 needs. Therefore, it is necessary to identify each ** Indoor 5.04 3.89 3.63 2.47 230.20 .00 subgroup's respective residential needs by segmenting ** Outdoor 5.63 4.48 5.01 3.362 170.89 .00 ** small households into various subgroups. On foot 4.86 3.37 5.14 4.89 31.08 .00 ** By car 3.93 2.52 4.63 4.04 21.35 .00 Table 3. Summary of Comparing Differences within Each ** Availability 5.33 4.55 5.03 4.24 24.72 .00 ** Group of Small Households and Regular Households Influence 5.37 4.46 5.03 4.27 23.28 .00 Needs Small Regular **: p<0.01 Factor Resi. Vari. Avail. Re. Vari. Avail. Demographics · Frequency Analysis: Looking into the residential Gender C Age B,D E L,M L conditions by cluster, the multi-family housing Resident D E,K L complex accounted for the highest rate in all 4 Relationship A,B,C F clusters. In terms of the studio type housing, Cluster Marital status A,B,C,D E,K M,N Occupation A,B L M,N 1 accounted for the highest rate. Cluster 3 showed the District D E,F,K O lowest rate regarding the single-family housing, but Residential condition it had the highest rate of 19.5% in respect to Quasi- Residence type A,B,C,D E Scale of unit B,C,D E Housing and dormitory among all 4 clusters. When Scale of complex A,B,C,D E it comes to the scale of household unit, Cluster 2 Lifestyle represented the highest rate of 50.4% in a unit area of Car B,C,D E,H D Weekdays A,B,C E more than 60m , while Cluster 3 took up the largest Weekend A 2 rate of 48.8% in a unit area of 14-30m . In terms of Household continuance the scale of housing complex, less than 10 households With resident M,N In residence E,I L accounted for the highest rating in all 4 clusters. In At community contrast, Cluster 2 indicated the highest rate of 34.1% general residential needs in terms of housing complex scale, of more than (A) comfortability, (B) convenience, (C) safety & security, (D) communality 300 households. In terms of the current condition of amenity needs communal amenities, the supportive facility accounted variety (E) resting, (F) exercising, (G) cultural, (H) supportive; for the largest rate in all 4 clusters, followed by resting, (I) socializing, (J) productive, (K) caring availability (L) access by foot, (M) access by car, (N) availability, (O) cultural, exercising, socializing, caring, and productive communal influence facility. Meanwhile, in terms of lifestyle, Cluster 3 6. Comparison of Residential Needs among had the highest vehicle ownership rate of 74%, while Subgroups of Small Households Cluster 2 showed the longest time of staying home on Based on the results above, small households were weekdays. Cluster 2 showed the longest household divided into subgroups according to their different continuity, which included the continuation period residential needs. Each subgroup was identified again with the current household residents, in the current according to all independent variables, which are general residence, and in the current neighborhood. socio-demographics, residential conditions, lifestyle, · Comparison: The differences among the 4 clusters and continuation period of the current households. were verified. In a comparative analysis of general Then, each was characterized depending on the general residential needs of 4 clusters, significant differences residential needs and communal amenity needs. were observed among the mean values of each cluster 6.1 Results (Table 5., 1-way ANOVA). Cluster 2 indicated the · Classification : Small households were categorized highest mean values in all residential needs, whereas into 4 clusters according to general residential needs Cluster 4 showed the lowest mean values out of all 4 and communal amenity needs (Table 4.). Cluster 2 clusters in all residential needs except for communality. 266 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee Also, through the Post Hoc Comparison test (Duncan the residence during the daytime and noise elimination test), Clusters 1 and 3 demonstrated similar tendencies between units and floors as their 1st or 2nd priority, in convenience needs, while they had no similarities to respectively. Noise and vibration elimination inside the both Clusters 2 and 4. residential complex was chosen as the 3rd priority by Cluster 1, crime prevention by Cluster 2, privacy within Table 5. Different General Residential Needs Among 4 Clusters the household unit by Cluster 3, and accessibility to Needs Cluster M f p P.H.C General residential needs neighboring service facilities by Cluster 4. ** Comfortability a. cluster 1 4.78 69.10 .00 b>c>a,d b. cluster 2 5.97 ( D3 ) Table 6. Different Amenity Needs Among 4 Clusters c. cluster 3 5.21 Needs Cluster M f p P.H.C d. cluster 4 4.48 Variety of amenities ** sum 5.36 Resting a. cluster 1 4.11 100.40 .00 B ** Convenience a. cluster 1 4.63 88.46 .00 B b. cluster 2 5.11 A . b. cluster 2 5.76 A . c. cluster 3 2.66 C c. cluster 3 4.54 B d. cluster 4 4.39 B d. cluster 4 3.98 C sum 4.40 (D ) ** sum 5.05 ( D ) Exercising a. cluster 1 4.32 51.47 .00 B ** Safety & a. cluster 1 4.63 75.44 .00 b>c>d b. cluster 2 5.10 A . Security b. cluster 2 6.06 b>a c. cluster 3 2.93 C c. cluster 3 4.85 ( D3 ) d. cluster 4 4.24 B d. cluster 4 4.16 ※ sum 4.47 (D ) sum 5.26 ** Cultural a. cluster 1 4.21 59.86 .00 b>a>d>c ** Communality a. cluster 1 3.76 97.38 .00 b>a>c,d b. cluster 2 4.87 ( D3 ) b. cluster 2 4.90 ( D3 ) c. cluster 3 2.68 c. cluster 3 2.68 d. cluster 4 3.65 d. cluster 4 2.94 sum 4.21 sum 4.01 ** Supportive a. cluster 1 4.48 45.87 .00 B D: Duncan; D3: Dunnett T3; : similar in same characters b. cluster 2 5.04 A . * *: p<0.01 c. cluster 3 3.52 C d. cluster 4 4.28 B In comparison of communal amenity needs, the ※ sum 4.57 (D ) ** mean values of each cluster were significantly different Socializing a. cluster 1 3.95 65.78 .00 b>a>d>c b. cluster 2 4.53 ( D3 ) from each other (Table 6.). Regarding the various needs c. cluster 3 2.23 of communal amenities, Cluster 2 showed the greatest d. cluster 4 3.41 mean values in all types of communal amenities, while sum 3.88 ** Productive a. cluster 1 3.76 46.03 .00 b>a>d>c Cluster 3 demonstrated the lowest mean values in all b. cluster 2 4.35 ( D3 ) communal amenities. Through the P.H.C test, the same c. cluster 3 2.23 results were confirmed both in Duncan and Dunnett T3 d. cluster 4 2.98 tests; Clusters 1 and 4 demonstrated similar tendencies sum 3.69 ** Caring a. cluster 1 4.30 48.33 .00 B in terms of resting, exercising, supportive, and caring b. cluster 2 5.31 A . facilities, while they indicated no significant similarities c. cluster 3 2.76 C to Clusters 2 and 3. In regard to the availability needs d. cluster 4 4.72 B sum 4.61 (D ) of communal amenities, differences were also found Availability of amenities among clusters. In terms of accessibility, Cluster 1 ** Access a. cluster 1 3.38 20.59 .00 a<b,c,d was found to have the smallest scope of access by foot By foot b. cluster 2 4.74 ( D3 ) c. cluster 3 4.83 and by car, among the 4 clusters. Cluster 2 showed the d. cluster 4 5.04 highest expectation for improving communality due to sum 4.48 ** the frequent utilization of communal amenities. Access a. cluster 1 2.18 26.05 .00 a<b,c,d In regards to general socio-demographics, it was By car b. cluster 2 4.01 ( D3 ) c. cluster 3 3.97 found that significant differences among the clusters d. cluster 4 4.63 were caused by age, the number of residents, marital sum 3.67 ** status, relationship between residents, scale of Availability a. cluster 1 4.53 19.51 .00 B b. cluster 2 5.26 A .. household units, vehicle ownership, and the amount 2 c. cluster 3 4.38 B of staying time at home on weekdays (Table 7., χ - d. cluster 4 4.66 B test). The married couples of age 50 and above were sum 4.87 (D ) ** Communal a. cluster 1 4.55 14.27 .00 B concentrated in Cluster 2, and the unmarried residents influence b. cluster 2 5.25 A .. in their 20s were mostly distributed in Cluster 1. c. cluster 3 4.46 B Cluster 2 showed the highest rate in a unit area of 50m d. cluster 4 4.54 B and above, while Cluster 3 had the greatest rate in a sum 4.87 (D ) D: Duncan; D3: Dunnett T3; : similar in same characters unit area of 14-30m . Cluster 2 indicated the highest **: p<0.01 rate in vehicle ownership and the longest time of staying home on weekdays. In terms of prioritization of communal facilities · Ranking: In prioritization of general residential needs, inside of the housing complex, all 4 clusters commonly all 4 clusters commonly chose sunlight coming into chose parking area as their 1st priority and waste JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee 267 collecting lot as the 2nd priority. As the 3rd priority, could be characterized into 4 types (Table 7.). It is cultural facilities such as small library and book café necessary to pay attention to the distinctive traits of were selected by Clusters 1 and 3, resting facilities each type of single or 2-resident households. They such as green zone and landscape were chosen by were categorized according to the general residential Cluster 2, and indoor exercising facilities like fitness needs and communal amenity needs, which were not center were chosen by cluster 4. All clusters indicated fully consistent with those of the subgroups that have widely varying differences in terms of prioritization of been categorized according to conventional socio- communal facilities outside of the housing complex. demographics. Cultural facilities such as small library and book café, · Type 1 with the largest number of respondents was a and resting facilities such as green zone, landscape, group mainly consisting of married couples in their 50s and pergola, were chosen relatively often as the 1st and above. They were living in houses with a relatively or 2nd priority. Meanwhile, Clusters 1 and 4 chose larger unit area considering the number of residents, outdoor exercising facilities including a basketball and had the longest time of staying home on weekdays court as the 2nd priority; Cluster 3 chose restaurant as among 4 types. Also, they indicated the highest values the 1st priority and outdoor gym equipment as the 3rd in all items related to residential needs and communal priority. amenity needs among the 4 types; they especially cared 6.2 Discussion highly on safety needs, and thought a crime prevention All of the results above were taken into account, facility was top priority over anything else. Most and 4 clusters of single or 2-resident households respondents of Type 1 owned cars, but they had the Table 7. Characteristics of Segments of the Small Households Type 1 (n=129) Type 2 (n=64) General residential needs General residential needs Highest on all residential needs among 4 types. Relatively high on most residential needs among 4 types. Highest on safety & security needs within the type Highest on comfortability needs within the type (Cf) day lighting > (Cf) noise elimination within unit (Cf) noise elimination between households > (Cf) day lighting > (Cf) > (SS) crime prevention noise elimination within complex; sensitive to noise Amenity needs Amenity needs Variety Variety Highest on all amenity needs among 4 types. Relatively high on most amenity needs other than needs of resting Highest on caring facility needs within the type. and caring facility, among 4 types. Highest on supportive facility Priority (R) green > (Sp) refuse receptacles > (E) indoor exercise needs within the type in Priority (Ct) library, book café > (R) pergola > (Sc) club room Priority (Sp) refuse receptacles> (Ct) library, book café > (R) green out in Priority (R) pergola > (E) outdoor exercise > (Sp) restaurant out Availability Availability Relatively narrow neighboring scope both by foot and car. Highest Narrowest neighboring scope both by foot and car among 4 types. awareness of availability and communal influence of public Inactive availability but relatively high awareness of communal amenities influence of public amenities General characteristics General characteristics Largest number of married couples in their 50s and above among 4 Largest number of unmarried residents in their 20s among 4 types. types. High ratio of residents in 30s and household unit with area of 14 m Largest scale of unit household among 4 clusters, highest ratio or below, compared to other types of household unit with area of 50m and above, highest vehicle ownership, and longest time of staying homeon weekdays Type 3 (n=41) Type 4 (n=41) general residential needs general residential needs Lowest on all residential needs except for communality, among 4 Lowest on communality needs among 4 types and relatively low on types. all other residential needs. Highest on convenience needs within the type Highest on comfortability needs within the type (Cf)day lighting > (Cf)noise elimination within unit (Cf)day lighting > (Cf)noise elimination within unit > (Cf)privacy > (Cv)location of facilities amenity needs amenity needs variety variety Relatively low on most amenity needs other than needs of resting Lowest on all public amenity needs among 4 types and caring facilities, among 4 types. Highest on supportive facilities needs within the type Highest on caring facility needs within the type Priority (Sp)refuse receptacles> (Ct)library, book café > (R)green in Priority (Sp) refuse receptacles Priority (Ct)library, book café > (E)outdoor exercise space > (E) in out > (E) indoor exercise space > (R)green zone exercise equipment Priority (Ct)library, book café out > (E)outdoor exercise space, (R)green zone availability availability Widest neighboring scope both by foot and car among 4 types Relatively wide neighboring scope both by foot and car. among 4 Relatively active availability of public amenities types Lowest awareness of availably and communal influence of public amenities general characteristics general characteristics High ratio of residents in their 30s and household unit with area of High ratio of single resident households in their 40s, divorced or 30-50 m , compared to other types bereaved, compared to other types. Highest ratio of residence with 2 2 area of 14-30m and of 14m or below. Very high ratio of residents who don't have a car compared to other types, and relatively long time of staying home on weekdays. (Cf)comfortability (Cv)convenience (SS)safety&security (Cm)communality ; (R)resting (E)exercising (Ct)cultural (Sp)supportive 268 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee narrowest scope of accessibility to neighboring facilities. In terms of general residential needs, the 4 types On the contrary, they had the greatest expectation for commonly shared the highest comfortability needs improving their communal interaction by actively and the lowest communality needs. In particular, utilizing the communal facilities. Eventually, Type 1 there was great priority placed on sunlight being able was found to have characteristics most similar to general to shine into the residence during the daytime, and households among the 4 types (confirmed by T-test). noise elimination within the household units. In terms · Type 2 was the group with the largest number of of communal amenity needs inside of the residential unmarried residents in their 20s; and the residents in complex, they commonly had the lowest needs for their 30s showed a relatively higher population rate productive facility and higher needs for outdoor facility than other types and had the highest rate of houses than indoor facility. Additionally, given the fact that with a unit area of 14m and below. Type 2 had higher they all wanted a parking area and waste collecting lot general residential needs than the other types and within their complexes, it could be inferred that their was especially sensitive to noise between household current residences did not have a sufficient number of units and inside of the housing complex. Their needs these facilities. All of the types commonly preferred for communal facilities were also generally high. cultural facility outside of their residential complex, They placed priority on outdoor exercising space such as small library and book café, as well as resting and restaurants adjacent to the housing complex. It facility including green zone and outdoor landscape is noteworthy that although they had the narrowest with pavilion and pergola. There were no significant scope of accessibility to communal facilities in and differences in relation to gender, occupation, and around the complex and were not willing to actively region. Also, there were no meaningful disparities in utilize the communal facilities, they had a relatively respect to time of staying home on weekends and in high awareness of improving social interaction through most of the current residential conditions including frequent use of communal facilities. residence type, scale of the housing complex, and · Type 3 demonstrated no remarkable characteristics, communal amenity experience. except that the residents in their 30s living in houses with a unit area of 30-50m showed a relatively higher 7. General Discussion and Conclusions population rate than others. Among all 4 types, Type First, the results of this research demonstrated the 3 had the lowest rates in all kinds of residential needs obvious relevance between general traits of single except for communality, and also had the lowest rates or 2-resident households and the residential needs in most of the communal amenities except for resting of their respective subgroups. It is noteworthy that and caring facilities. Type 3 had the largest scope some subgroups of small households that have been of accessibility to communal amenities, placed top categorized in the perspective of socio-demographics priority on indoor and outdoor exercising facilities, and to have distinctively different characteristics, failed had relatively high needs for communal facility. They to show significant differences in terms of residential had a rather short time of staying home on weekdays, needs (e.g. undergraduates vs. unmarried office compared to the other types, and had a tendency of workers). Therefore, the number one factor that has having less interest in the residence itself. the greatest influence on the residential needs of each · Lastly, Type 4 had a high rate of single households subgroup of the small households is the relationship in their 40s, who were divorced or bereaved, compared with a cohabitant and the age of household members, to the other types. The rate of those residents living in which are related to the marital status of residents. houses with a unit area of 14-30m was the highest and Especially, the 2-resident households created by that of 14m and below was also high. Their overall marriage showed needs for residential and communal residential needs were low, and Type 4 showed the facility, which was much similar to the regular lowest communality needs among the 4 types. Notably, households. However, the researches on residential Type 4 was the only type that placed top priority on needs of small households have so far been carried protection of privacy between the household units. out on some of the subgroups selected by extremely They had the lowest expectation for communal simple criteria such as single-resident household, influences of communal amenities. Type 4 had the undergraduate students, newly married couples, etc. lowest needs for communal facility, compared to the Therefore, more in-depth researches need to be carried other types, and had the highest needs for supportive out in the future. facility among all types. Although they had a relatively Secondly, the subgroups of single or 2-resident small scope of accessibility to facilities outside of the households showed widely varying needs in terms of housing complex, they prioritized outdoor space for communal amenity of multi-family housing complex, exercising and gym equipment, which was similar to compared to the regular households. Wider differences Type 3. Type 4 had an extremely high percentage of among the subgroups of small households were found those who did not own cars, and had a relatively longer outside rather than inside the residential complex. The time of staying home on weekdays. They showed the current Housing Act in Korea commonly places top least sociable characteristics among all types. priority on parking lots among all communal facilities JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee 269 of multi-family housing complexes and second priority together residents, in order to meet the new residential on outdoor playground and hall for senior citizens needs of this changing society. regardless of residents' needs. A complementary 7.2 Limitation housing policy must be established based on a firm In this research, small households did not show understanding of the residential needs of small significantly high levels of needs for safety and security, households. unlike our initial expectation. This research excluded Lastly, small households that are not created equipment and facilities that do not occupy physical by marriage were found to have low needs and floor space. But most safety-related equipment is usually expectations for social interaction between residents. not considered as space or facilities, so they were not However, they indicated varying levels of needs for included as the evaluation items of this research. availability of communal amenities and a certain degree The number of samples was highly concentrated of expectation for social interaction through active on Type 1, due to a large number of married couples utilization of communal amenities. This is because out of 2-resident households at the sampling stage. most of them rarely had communal experiences among The members of small households in their 50s and residents, due to the absence of communal amenities 60s included a high ratio of married couples, in the in their current housing complexes. Therefore, multi- stratified samples according to gender, age, and unit residences for small households should physically region (χ2=44.62, p<0.01). In future research, it provide substantial alternatives in order to prevent would be helpful to separate 2-resident households residents of small households from being engrossed created by marriage from other subgroups of small inside their household unit in their daily lives. households, since they have similar residential needs 7.1 Implications to regular households. This will be helpful for a This research was conducted to clearly understand better understanding of the residential needs and the residential needs of single or 2-resident households, characteristics of single or 2-resident small households. in order to suggest an ideal housing model, since their population is on the rise causing a significant structural Acknowledgement change in Korean socio-demographics. This research was conducted with the support What makes this research unique compared to the of grants provided as a part of the 2013 research previous researches is the heuristic approach to identify support project for general researchers by the National the general residential needs of the small households Research Foundation of Korea under the Ministry of overall, as well as the specific residential needs of each Education, Science and Technology. subgroup, rather than dealing with the current housing Project No.: NRF-2013R1A1A2013370 conditions of a certain subgroup of small households. In the process, we found the differences in residential References 1) Frenkel, A. et al. (2013) Residential Location Choice of needs between small households and regular households Knowledge-workers: The Role of Amenities, Workplace and created by blood relationships. We then divided small Lifestyle, Cities, 35, pp.33-41. households into subgroups according to their residential 2) Bahn, J.H (2012) Socio-economic Features and Changes of one person Household, Korea Labor Institute, v. 85, pp.55-67. needs, and identified and analyzed the respective 3) Hwang, S.E et al. (2013) A Research Study on Crime Prevention residential characteristics of each subgroup. This study Kang, S.J. et al. (2011) A Study on 1-2 Person Household's empirically embraced the previous researches, which Lifestyle and Needs of Small Houses, Journal of Korean Housing Association, 22(2), pp.121-129. have been sporadically carried out up until now. 4) Kim, J.Y (2013) Housing Consciousness and Needs of Single Another distinctive feature of this research is that Woman Household for the Small-sized Rental Housing it is focused on the needs for communal amenities Development - Focused on the Residents of Seoul, Inchon, and Gyeongi–do, Journal of Korean Housing Association, 24(4), of multi-family housing complexes, unlike the pp.109-120. previous researches which have mainly focused on the 5) Lee, D.H (2012) A Study on the Rental Housing Types for household units. It was intended to offer substantial the Low-income One Person Household in Seoul, Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea, 28 (12), pp.75-84. solutions to the pending problem; the residents of 6) Lee, H.Y & Noh, S.C, Choi, E.Y (2010), Growth Pattern and current multi-family housing are rather satisfied with Spatial Distribution of One-person Households by Socio- the location and internal furnishing of their housings, Economic Demographic Characteristics, Korean Geographical Society, 46(4). but they are not satisfied with the communal amenities 7) Park, S.B & Choi, I.Y (2012) A Study on Evaluation Items for (Lee, 2013). Shared Space Performance of Apartment in Korea, Journal of Therefore, the results of this research provide Architectural Institute of Korea, 28 (10), p.49-56. 8) Park et al. (2005) focused on qualitative analysis of residents' and conditions for ideal housing, desired by members of facility managers' experiences = A POE Process Model for Super- small households. This was the original purpose of Tall Residential Building, Architectural Institute of Korea, 21 (11), our research, and these data can be utilized to suggest pp.137-146. 9) Shin, H.K, Jo, I.S (2012) The Improvement of Related Legal practical guidelines for housing supply policies. In Systems of Community Facilities for Community Activation addition, with the results of this research, communal Korean Housing Association, Journal of Korean Housing amenities of multi-family housing can start to become Association 23(2), p.47-57. 10) Statistics Korea (2010) Population and Housing Census. a form of communal living room or garden by bringing 270 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering Taylor & Francis

Understanding Residential Needs of Single or 2-Resident Households with a Focus on Communal Amenities of Multi-Family Housing Complexes

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/understanding-residential-needs-of-single-or-2-resident-households-1gD9ACFFrp

References (11)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2018 Architectural Institute of Japan
ISSN
1347-2852
eISSN
1346-7581
DOI
10.3130/jaabe.15.263
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Due to rapid socio-demographic changes in Korean society, the number of single or 2-resident households i.e. small households, are increasing at a faster rate than expected. This research aimed to achieve a clear understanding of the residential needs of small households, which are distinctively different from those of regular households created by blood relations. A survey was carried out to identify the general residential needs of small households, and their communal amenity needs. It was found that small households had clearly different residential needs compared to regular households; the needs were generally uniform among regular households, while small households showed significant differences according to socio-demographics, residential conditions, lifestyle and continuation period of households. Given this, small households were categorized into four subgroups and characterized by type, according to the specific residential needs and communal amenity needs of each subgroup. As a result, this research was able to empirically embrace previous researches, which were sporadically carried out on some subgroups of small households, and to formulate residential conditions that the residents of small households want, based on the understanding of their residential needs rather than simple socio-demographic characteristics. Keywords: small households; residential needs; communal amenity; multi-family housing 1. Introduction up for these shortcomings, it is necessary to conduct When speaking of changes in the population and research to find out the unique residential needs and family structures of Korean society, we can never lifestyles of small household residents and identify broach the subject without mentioning the rapid ideal housing conditions for them. growth of single or 2-resident households. According to the Population and Housing Census of the National 2. Theoretical Background Statistical Office in 2010, the ratio of single or Due to a rapidly decreasing population in this 2-resident households was 48.1%, almost half of all aging society with low birthrates, there has been households. As the number of small households is growing interest in the changes of demographic increasing at a fast pace, changes in the existing policy structures, which initiated the researches on single- for housing supply are inevitable. resident households. Lee et al. (2011) analyzed As a response to such changes, the government has the growth patterns of single-resident households made various efforts to increase the supply of housing according to socio-demographic characteristics, for small households by introducing new types of small and found that single-resident households in Korea multi-family housing. However, as such policies were showed differentiated growth patterns depending designed to increase the supply of small residences on their gender, age, marital status, and educational in a short period of time, they failed to reflect the background. Hong et al. (2011) defined single and conditions of the housing market and the residential 2-resident households in Seoul as "small households". needs of single or 2-resident households. To make They claimed that 2-resident households had characteristics similar to those of 4 or more-resident households. There have been researches on social, *Contact Author: Eunjoo Lee, Ph.D. Candidate, cultural, and economic characteristics, and regional Department of Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, distribution of the young, unmarried, and elderly A508 Architectural Engineering, 50 Yonsei Str. Seoul, 120749 Korea residents, which are particular subgroups among whole Tel: +82-2-2123-2790 C.P: +82-10-2801-6710 single-resident households (Kim & Kwon, 2012). E-mail: julijoo@naver.com In recent years, researches have been conducted on ( Received April 7, 2015 ; accepted February 12, 2016 ) the lifestyle (Kang et al. 2011) of specific subgroups DOI http://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.263 Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering/May 2016/270 263 of single-resident households such as undergraduates respondents were looking for a new place to move (Han & Yoon, 2011), the low-income class (Lee, 2012), into, on the condition that residential expenses females (Kim, 2013), and on specific residential needs and the unit area of households are the same as the (e.g. crime prevention) of single-resident households current residence. First, respondents were instructed (Hwang, 2013). However, those researches were rather to mark their own preference on a 7-point scale fragmented and have failed to offer a comprehensive (1 = don't care at all, 7 = care very much) for 30 perspective to help find out how the individual questions about general residential needs, and then residential needs of each subgroup were related to the were instructed to choose the top 3 priorities among residential needs of the entire small households and how them. Secondly, respondents were given 24 kinds of they were different from those of the regular households. the most representative communal facilities and were In addition, it was noticeable that although asked to mark their preference using a 7-point scale, researches on the communities of regular households and then were instructed to choose the top 3 priorities at multi-family housing complexes have continuously in the categories of "indoor facilities" or "outdoor been carried out, researches on the relationship among facilities". Thirdly, for the availability of communal small households have not yet become active possibly facilities, 6 questions were related to the utilization because the researches on the residential needs of small scope of communal facilities accessible by foot or by households were still at an early stage. car; another 13 questions were on the social influence through utilizing communal facilities rated by using a 3. Amenities in a Residential Complex and 7-point scale. The questions regarding the following Residential Needs were also included, which added up to a total of 93 The mos t typical hous ing type for regular questions: residential conditions, lifestyle, households' households is multi-family housing in Korea. The continuation period, and general demographics. standard multi-family housing complex allows private · Procedure: After a preliminary survey on 30 people spaces for residents; i.e., residential unit allow access with snowball sampling from December 3-13 in 2013, only to residents, and communal spaces are shared the main survey was carried out by commissioning it to by residents within the complex. Park & Choi (2012) a professional online survey company from February argued that the communal spaces, which this research 5-17 in 2014. Respondents were sampled according was focused on, are not inactive spaces serving only to the stratified sampling method, in order to prevent as backgrounds, but are active spaces. The physical possible biases in age, gender, and regional distribution environments should be willingly utilized and managed (against the number of households), and regular by all residents, to include the meaning of social and households living in a unit area of 60m and above were psychological aspects. Park & Choi (2012) classified excluded (the standard scale of small housing according communal spaces into "environment and landscape" to the Housing Act of Korea). As a result, 328 effective which includes green zone and planned landscape, responses were obtained and the results of this research "life support environment" which includes humans were analyzed by using SPSS Statistics 21. and vehicle traffic routes within the complex and life support and maintenance support facilities, and 5. Comparison of General Residential Needs of "social behavior support environment" which supports Regular Households and Small Households interactions of residents within the housing complex. To date much of the previous researches have In this research, the criteria of communal 'amenities' been conducted under the premise that differences in were limited to only those buildings and structures residential needs between residents of regular blood- occupying floor area, and excluded devices or related households (hereinafter, "regular households") equipment that did not take up physical space. The and residents of single or 2-resident households post occupancy evaluation indicators used by Park et (hereinafter, "small households") exist, but this has al. (2005) in their research on "A POE Process Model never been proven. This research first focused on for Super-Tall Residential Buildings" were partially nding out how they dif fi fer in general residential needs, applied. However, all evaluation indicators related to before looking into the details of the residential needs the unit household were excluded, since remaining of small households. indicators were applied to evaluate residents' needs for 5.1 Results communal amenities by classifying them according · Frequency Analysis: Among a total of 328 to the three functions mentioned above. Among the respondents, 53 (16.2%) belonged to regular evaluation indicators, communality included the households, while 275 (83.8%) belonged to single or availability and social influence aspects of facilities as 2-resident small households. The majority of regular well as physical environmental aspects. households were three-resident households, which consist of a child and two parents with occupations as 4. Method and Procedure office workers, living in Seoul. The majority of small · Method: In the introduction of the structured households were married couples who were office questionnaire, the premise was given that the workers living in Seoul. For the housing conditions, 264 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee Table 1. Different Residential Needs Between Small and the majority of regular households lived in multi- Regular Household Residents family housing complexes with a unit area of 50-60m , Needs Household N M t p which have the largest number of supportive facilities General residential needs n.s among the communal amenities. Comfortability Small 275 5.36 -.26 .79 Regular 53 5.39 · Comparison: After comparing the mean values of all n.s Convenience Small 275 5.05 -1.06 .29 responses on questions regarding the general residential Regular 53 5.21 n.s Safety & security Small 275 5.26 .37 .71 needs, it was found that a significant difference existed Regular 53 5.20 ** only in communality. For the preferred types of Communality Small 275 4.01 -2.85 .00 Regular 53 4.53 communal amenities, there were significant differences Variety of amenities ** in productive facilities including communal office Resting Small 275 4.40 -3.38 .00 Regular 53 4.85 spaces, garden farms, care facilities for children, n.s Exercising Small 275 4.47 -1.46 .15 adolescents and the elderly, and outdoor facilities rather Regular 53 4.74 n.s Cultural Small 275 4.21 -1.74 .08 than indoor facilities (Table 1., T-test). However, there Regular 53 4.52 n.s was no significant difference regarding the availability Supportive Small 275 4.57 -.55 .58 Regular 53 4.64 of communal amenities. In terms of general socio- Socializing Small 275 3.88 -2.14 .03 demographics, a majority of regular households lived Regular 53 4.27 ** Productive Small 275 3.69 -2.60 .01 in a house with a unit area of 30-50m , whereas small Regular 53 4.21 households lived in houses with widely different unit Caring Small 275 4.61 -2.36 .02 Regular 53 5.12 areas. Significant differences were also shown in vehicle Indoor Small 275 4.03 -2.41 .02 ownership and continuation periods of household with Regular 53 4.40 n.s Outdoor Small 275 4.83 -1.90 .06 the current resident, in the current residence, and in the Regular 53 5.09 current community (Table 2., χ -test). Availability of amenities n.s Access by foot Small 275 4.48 .49 .63 To figure out internal deviations inside of the Regular 53 4.39 n.s respective small and regular households, general socio- Access by car Small 275 3.67 .99 .32 Regular 53 3.41 demographics, residential conditions, lifestyle, and n.s Availability Small 275 4.87 -1.58 .12 continuation periods of the current households were Regular 53 5.08 n.s Communal Small 275 4.87 -.33 .74 set as independent variables. Then, every significant influence Regular 53 4.91 difference in general residential needs and communal *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01; n.s: not significant facility needs were collected (Table 3., χ -test). Regular households indicated generally uniform characteristics, Table 2. Different Influential Factors on Small and Regular due to a very few significant differences among Household Residents Small Regular them. In contrast, small households showed many Factor χ2 p n % n % significant differences in general residential needs Total 275 83.8 53 16.2 Demographics and communal amenity needs depending on diverse Marital status ** variables, including marital status, age, residence scale, Unmarried 104 31.7 9 2.7 14.88 .00 Married 139 42.4 42 12.8 residential type, and vehicle ownership. Divorced,bereaved 32 9.8 2 0.6 5.2 Discussion Relationship ** Married couple 119 49.0 0 0.0 65.15 .00 A significant difference was found only in Parents & children 55 22.6 40 16.5 communality, a variable related to general residential Others 16 6.6 13 5.3 Residential condition needs, between small households and regular households, Scale of residential unit 2 ** which was mainly consistent with the findings of -14m 16 4.9 1 0.3 63.22 .00 14-30m 36 11.0 2 0.6 previous researches. Comfortability, convenience, and 30-50m 50 15.2 20 6.1 safety & security were chosen as the essential functions 50-60m 50 15.2 30 9.1 60m - 123 37.5 0 0.0 of housing, regardless of the scale of a household. Lifestyle However, as small households have relatively simpler Car ownership Not own 132 40.2 17 5.2 4.55 .03 lifestyles, they showed lower needs in communality and Own 143 43.6 36 11.0 for communal amenities where residents can get along Household continuance Living with same resident with each other (socialization), which can help residents ** - 1 year 39 11.9 1 0.3 15.39 .00 to become engaged in productive activities (production), 1 - 3 years 61 18.6 5 1.5 3 - 5 years 33 10.1 5 1.5 and which provide caring service for the residents 5 years - 142 43.3 42 12.8 (welfare). However, it was obvious that they had greater Living in same residence - 1 year 45 13.7 2 0.6 8.54 .04 needs for resting facility, compared to the regular 1 - 3 years 80 24.4 12 3.7 households. It is noteworthy that there were no significant 3 - 5 years 39 11.9 9 2.7 5 years - 111 33.8 30 9.1 differences between the regular households and small Living in same community households in their perception about the communal - 1 year 27 8.2 2 0.6 8.21 .04 1 - 3 years 53 16.2 4 1.2 influences of communal amenities, given that an easy 3 - 5 years 31 9.5 5 1.5 access and the frequent use of communal amenities were 5 years - 164 50.0 42 12.8 *: p<0.05; **: p<0.01 considered to improve social interaction among residents. JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee 265 As well as differences between small and regular was the largest subgroup (N = 129), followed by cluster 2 households, it is important to pay attention to Cluster 1 (N = 64), and Cluster 3 and Cluster 4 cluster 1 disparities inside of each group. Even though the single (N = N = 41). cluster 3 cluster 4 or 2-resident households were distinguished from Table 4. Segmentation of Small Resident Households regular households by the number of family members, Cluster they showed significant differences in residential Needs F p 1 2 3 4 needs depending on various variables. These results N 275 64 129 41 41 demonstrate that diverse subgroups with heterogeneous General residential needs ** Comfortability 5.79 4.91 5.69 4.76 28.02 .00 characteristics exist even within the small household ** Convenience 5.68 4.70 5.19 4.08 44.17 .00 ** groups indicating that it is inappropriate to consider Safety & security 5.84 4.83 5.70 4.18 38.32 .00 ** Communality 5.01 3.86 3.59 2.49 80.74 .00 small households as a single group simply based on Amenity needs the number of household members. These showed that ** Resting 5.36 4.00 4.54 2.79 122.85 .00 ** the findings of previous socio-demographic researches Exercising 5.43 4.23 4.37 2.82 91.51 .00 ** Cultural 5.25 4.12 3.61 2.70 105.56 .00 suggesting that there might exist great heterogeneity ** Supportive 5.24 4.45 4.46 3.38 76.73 .00 among the subgroups of small households (Bahn, ** Socializing 4.97 3.85 3.21 2.27 135.74 .00 ** 2012) were proven to be true in the aspect of residential Productive 4.84 3.61 2.99 2.08 106.47 .00 ** Casing 5.67 4.13 4.85 2.74 77.46 .00 needs. Therefore, it is necessary to identify each ** Indoor 5.04 3.89 3.63 2.47 230.20 .00 subgroup's respective residential needs by segmenting ** Outdoor 5.63 4.48 5.01 3.362 170.89 .00 ** small households into various subgroups. On foot 4.86 3.37 5.14 4.89 31.08 .00 ** By car 3.93 2.52 4.63 4.04 21.35 .00 Table 3. Summary of Comparing Differences within Each ** Availability 5.33 4.55 5.03 4.24 24.72 .00 ** Group of Small Households and Regular Households Influence 5.37 4.46 5.03 4.27 23.28 .00 Needs Small Regular **: p<0.01 Factor Resi. Vari. Avail. Re. Vari. Avail. Demographics · Frequency Analysis: Looking into the residential Gender C Age B,D E L,M L conditions by cluster, the multi-family housing Resident D E,K L complex accounted for the highest rate in all 4 Relationship A,B,C F clusters. In terms of the studio type housing, Cluster Marital status A,B,C,D E,K M,N Occupation A,B L M,N 1 accounted for the highest rate. Cluster 3 showed the District D E,F,K O lowest rate regarding the single-family housing, but Residential condition it had the highest rate of 19.5% in respect to Quasi- Residence type A,B,C,D E Scale of unit B,C,D E Housing and dormitory among all 4 clusters. When Scale of complex A,B,C,D E it comes to the scale of household unit, Cluster 2 Lifestyle represented the highest rate of 50.4% in a unit area of Car B,C,D E,H D Weekdays A,B,C E more than 60m , while Cluster 3 took up the largest Weekend A 2 rate of 48.8% in a unit area of 14-30m . In terms of Household continuance the scale of housing complex, less than 10 households With resident M,N In residence E,I L accounted for the highest rating in all 4 clusters. In At community contrast, Cluster 2 indicated the highest rate of 34.1% general residential needs in terms of housing complex scale, of more than (A) comfortability, (B) convenience, (C) safety & security, (D) communality 300 households. In terms of the current condition of amenity needs communal amenities, the supportive facility accounted variety (E) resting, (F) exercising, (G) cultural, (H) supportive; for the largest rate in all 4 clusters, followed by resting, (I) socializing, (J) productive, (K) caring availability (L) access by foot, (M) access by car, (N) availability, (O) cultural, exercising, socializing, caring, and productive communal influence facility. Meanwhile, in terms of lifestyle, Cluster 3 6. Comparison of Residential Needs among had the highest vehicle ownership rate of 74%, while Subgroups of Small Households Cluster 2 showed the longest time of staying home on Based on the results above, small households were weekdays. Cluster 2 showed the longest household divided into subgroups according to their different continuity, which included the continuation period residential needs. Each subgroup was identified again with the current household residents, in the current according to all independent variables, which are general residence, and in the current neighborhood. socio-demographics, residential conditions, lifestyle, · Comparison: The differences among the 4 clusters and continuation period of the current households. were verified. In a comparative analysis of general Then, each was characterized depending on the general residential needs of 4 clusters, significant differences residential needs and communal amenity needs. were observed among the mean values of each cluster 6.1 Results (Table 5., 1-way ANOVA). Cluster 2 indicated the · Classification : Small households were categorized highest mean values in all residential needs, whereas into 4 clusters according to general residential needs Cluster 4 showed the lowest mean values out of all 4 and communal amenity needs (Table 4.). Cluster 2 clusters in all residential needs except for communality. 266 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee Also, through the Post Hoc Comparison test (Duncan the residence during the daytime and noise elimination test), Clusters 1 and 3 demonstrated similar tendencies between units and floors as their 1st or 2nd priority, in convenience needs, while they had no similarities to respectively. Noise and vibration elimination inside the both Clusters 2 and 4. residential complex was chosen as the 3rd priority by Cluster 1, crime prevention by Cluster 2, privacy within Table 5. Different General Residential Needs Among 4 Clusters the household unit by Cluster 3, and accessibility to Needs Cluster M f p P.H.C General residential needs neighboring service facilities by Cluster 4. ** Comfortability a. cluster 1 4.78 69.10 .00 b>c>a,d b. cluster 2 5.97 ( D3 ) Table 6. Different Amenity Needs Among 4 Clusters c. cluster 3 5.21 Needs Cluster M f p P.H.C d. cluster 4 4.48 Variety of amenities ** sum 5.36 Resting a. cluster 1 4.11 100.40 .00 B ** Convenience a. cluster 1 4.63 88.46 .00 B b. cluster 2 5.11 A . b. cluster 2 5.76 A . c. cluster 3 2.66 C c. cluster 3 4.54 B d. cluster 4 4.39 B d. cluster 4 3.98 C sum 4.40 (D ) ** sum 5.05 ( D ) Exercising a. cluster 1 4.32 51.47 .00 B ** Safety & a. cluster 1 4.63 75.44 .00 b>c>d b. cluster 2 5.10 A . Security b. cluster 2 6.06 b>a c. cluster 3 2.93 C c. cluster 3 4.85 ( D3 ) d. cluster 4 4.24 B d. cluster 4 4.16 ※ sum 4.47 (D ) sum 5.26 ** Cultural a. cluster 1 4.21 59.86 .00 b>a>d>c ** Communality a. cluster 1 3.76 97.38 .00 b>a>c,d b. cluster 2 4.87 ( D3 ) b. cluster 2 4.90 ( D3 ) c. cluster 3 2.68 c. cluster 3 2.68 d. cluster 4 3.65 d. cluster 4 2.94 sum 4.21 sum 4.01 ** Supportive a. cluster 1 4.48 45.87 .00 B D: Duncan; D3: Dunnett T3; : similar in same characters b. cluster 2 5.04 A . * *: p<0.01 c. cluster 3 3.52 C d. cluster 4 4.28 B In comparison of communal amenity needs, the ※ sum 4.57 (D ) ** mean values of each cluster were significantly different Socializing a. cluster 1 3.95 65.78 .00 b>a>d>c b. cluster 2 4.53 ( D3 ) from each other (Table 6.). Regarding the various needs c. cluster 3 2.23 of communal amenities, Cluster 2 showed the greatest d. cluster 4 3.41 mean values in all types of communal amenities, while sum 3.88 ** Productive a. cluster 1 3.76 46.03 .00 b>a>d>c Cluster 3 demonstrated the lowest mean values in all b. cluster 2 4.35 ( D3 ) communal amenities. Through the P.H.C test, the same c. cluster 3 2.23 results were confirmed both in Duncan and Dunnett T3 d. cluster 4 2.98 tests; Clusters 1 and 4 demonstrated similar tendencies sum 3.69 ** Caring a. cluster 1 4.30 48.33 .00 B in terms of resting, exercising, supportive, and caring b. cluster 2 5.31 A . facilities, while they indicated no significant similarities c. cluster 3 2.76 C to Clusters 2 and 3. In regard to the availability needs d. cluster 4 4.72 B sum 4.61 (D ) of communal amenities, differences were also found Availability of amenities among clusters. In terms of accessibility, Cluster 1 ** Access a. cluster 1 3.38 20.59 .00 a<b,c,d was found to have the smallest scope of access by foot By foot b. cluster 2 4.74 ( D3 ) c. cluster 3 4.83 and by car, among the 4 clusters. Cluster 2 showed the d. cluster 4 5.04 highest expectation for improving communality due to sum 4.48 ** the frequent utilization of communal amenities. Access a. cluster 1 2.18 26.05 .00 a<b,c,d In regards to general socio-demographics, it was By car b. cluster 2 4.01 ( D3 ) c. cluster 3 3.97 found that significant differences among the clusters d. cluster 4 4.63 were caused by age, the number of residents, marital sum 3.67 ** status, relationship between residents, scale of Availability a. cluster 1 4.53 19.51 .00 B b. cluster 2 5.26 A .. household units, vehicle ownership, and the amount 2 c. cluster 3 4.38 B of staying time at home on weekdays (Table 7., χ - d. cluster 4 4.66 B test). The married couples of age 50 and above were sum 4.87 (D ) ** Communal a. cluster 1 4.55 14.27 .00 B concentrated in Cluster 2, and the unmarried residents influence b. cluster 2 5.25 A .. in their 20s were mostly distributed in Cluster 1. c. cluster 3 4.46 B Cluster 2 showed the highest rate in a unit area of 50m d. cluster 4 4.54 B and above, while Cluster 3 had the greatest rate in a sum 4.87 (D ) D: Duncan; D3: Dunnett T3; : similar in same characters unit area of 14-30m . Cluster 2 indicated the highest **: p<0.01 rate in vehicle ownership and the longest time of staying home on weekdays. In terms of prioritization of communal facilities · Ranking: In prioritization of general residential needs, inside of the housing complex, all 4 clusters commonly all 4 clusters commonly chose sunlight coming into chose parking area as their 1st priority and waste JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee 267 collecting lot as the 2nd priority. As the 3rd priority, could be characterized into 4 types (Table 7.). It is cultural facilities such as small library and book café necessary to pay attention to the distinctive traits of were selected by Clusters 1 and 3, resting facilities each type of single or 2-resident households. They such as green zone and landscape were chosen by were categorized according to the general residential Cluster 2, and indoor exercising facilities like fitness needs and communal amenity needs, which were not center were chosen by cluster 4. All clusters indicated fully consistent with those of the subgroups that have widely varying differences in terms of prioritization of been categorized according to conventional socio- communal facilities outside of the housing complex. demographics. Cultural facilities such as small library and book café, · Type 1 with the largest number of respondents was a and resting facilities such as green zone, landscape, group mainly consisting of married couples in their 50s and pergola, were chosen relatively often as the 1st and above. They were living in houses with a relatively or 2nd priority. Meanwhile, Clusters 1 and 4 chose larger unit area considering the number of residents, outdoor exercising facilities including a basketball and had the longest time of staying home on weekdays court as the 2nd priority; Cluster 3 chose restaurant as among 4 types. Also, they indicated the highest values the 1st priority and outdoor gym equipment as the 3rd in all items related to residential needs and communal priority. amenity needs among the 4 types; they especially cared 6.2 Discussion highly on safety needs, and thought a crime prevention All of the results above were taken into account, facility was top priority over anything else. Most and 4 clusters of single or 2-resident households respondents of Type 1 owned cars, but they had the Table 7. Characteristics of Segments of the Small Households Type 1 (n=129) Type 2 (n=64) General residential needs General residential needs Highest on all residential needs among 4 types. Relatively high on most residential needs among 4 types. Highest on safety & security needs within the type Highest on comfortability needs within the type (Cf) day lighting > (Cf) noise elimination within unit (Cf) noise elimination between households > (Cf) day lighting > (Cf) > (SS) crime prevention noise elimination within complex; sensitive to noise Amenity needs Amenity needs Variety Variety Highest on all amenity needs among 4 types. Relatively high on most amenity needs other than needs of resting Highest on caring facility needs within the type. and caring facility, among 4 types. Highest on supportive facility Priority (R) green > (Sp) refuse receptacles > (E) indoor exercise needs within the type in Priority (Ct) library, book café > (R) pergola > (Sc) club room Priority (Sp) refuse receptacles> (Ct) library, book café > (R) green out in Priority (R) pergola > (E) outdoor exercise > (Sp) restaurant out Availability Availability Relatively narrow neighboring scope both by foot and car. Highest Narrowest neighboring scope both by foot and car among 4 types. awareness of availability and communal influence of public Inactive availability but relatively high awareness of communal amenities influence of public amenities General characteristics General characteristics Largest number of married couples in their 50s and above among 4 Largest number of unmarried residents in their 20s among 4 types. types. High ratio of residents in 30s and household unit with area of 14 m Largest scale of unit household among 4 clusters, highest ratio or below, compared to other types of household unit with area of 50m and above, highest vehicle ownership, and longest time of staying homeon weekdays Type 3 (n=41) Type 4 (n=41) general residential needs general residential needs Lowest on all residential needs except for communality, among 4 Lowest on communality needs among 4 types and relatively low on types. all other residential needs. Highest on convenience needs within the type Highest on comfortability needs within the type (Cf)day lighting > (Cf)noise elimination within unit (Cf)day lighting > (Cf)noise elimination within unit > (Cf)privacy > (Cv)location of facilities amenity needs amenity needs variety variety Relatively low on most amenity needs other than needs of resting Lowest on all public amenity needs among 4 types and caring facilities, among 4 types. Highest on supportive facilities needs within the type Highest on caring facility needs within the type Priority (Sp)refuse receptacles> (Ct)library, book café > (R)green in Priority (Sp) refuse receptacles Priority (Ct)library, book café > (E)outdoor exercise space > (E) in out > (E) indoor exercise space > (R)green zone exercise equipment Priority (Ct)library, book café out > (E)outdoor exercise space, (R)green zone availability availability Widest neighboring scope both by foot and car among 4 types Relatively wide neighboring scope both by foot and car. among 4 Relatively active availability of public amenities types Lowest awareness of availably and communal influence of public amenities general characteristics general characteristics High ratio of residents in their 30s and household unit with area of High ratio of single resident households in their 40s, divorced or 30-50 m , compared to other types bereaved, compared to other types. Highest ratio of residence with 2 2 area of 14-30m and of 14m or below. Very high ratio of residents who don't have a car compared to other types, and relatively long time of staying home on weekdays. (Cf)comfortability (Cv)convenience (SS)safety&security (Cm)communality ; (R)resting (E)exercising (Ct)cultural (Sp)supportive 268 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee narrowest scope of accessibility to neighboring facilities. In terms of general residential needs, the 4 types On the contrary, they had the greatest expectation for commonly shared the highest comfortability needs improving their communal interaction by actively and the lowest communality needs. In particular, utilizing the communal facilities. Eventually, Type 1 there was great priority placed on sunlight being able was found to have characteristics most similar to general to shine into the residence during the daytime, and households among the 4 types (confirmed by T-test). noise elimination within the household units. In terms · Type 2 was the group with the largest number of of communal amenity needs inside of the residential unmarried residents in their 20s; and the residents in complex, they commonly had the lowest needs for their 30s showed a relatively higher population rate productive facility and higher needs for outdoor facility than other types and had the highest rate of houses than indoor facility. Additionally, given the fact that with a unit area of 14m and below. Type 2 had higher they all wanted a parking area and waste collecting lot general residential needs than the other types and within their complexes, it could be inferred that their was especially sensitive to noise between household current residences did not have a sufficient number of units and inside of the housing complex. Their needs these facilities. All of the types commonly preferred for communal facilities were also generally high. cultural facility outside of their residential complex, They placed priority on outdoor exercising space such as small library and book café, as well as resting and restaurants adjacent to the housing complex. It facility including green zone and outdoor landscape is noteworthy that although they had the narrowest with pavilion and pergola. There were no significant scope of accessibility to communal facilities in and differences in relation to gender, occupation, and around the complex and were not willing to actively region. Also, there were no meaningful disparities in utilize the communal facilities, they had a relatively respect to time of staying home on weekends and in high awareness of improving social interaction through most of the current residential conditions including frequent use of communal facilities. residence type, scale of the housing complex, and · Type 3 demonstrated no remarkable characteristics, communal amenity experience. except that the residents in their 30s living in houses with a unit area of 30-50m showed a relatively higher 7. General Discussion and Conclusions population rate than others. Among all 4 types, Type First, the results of this research demonstrated the 3 had the lowest rates in all kinds of residential needs obvious relevance between general traits of single except for communality, and also had the lowest rates or 2-resident households and the residential needs in most of the communal amenities except for resting of their respective subgroups. It is noteworthy that and caring facilities. Type 3 had the largest scope some subgroups of small households that have been of accessibility to communal amenities, placed top categorized in the perspective of socio-demographics priority on indoor and outdoor exercising facilities, and to have distinctively different characteristics, failed had relatively high needs for communal facility. They to show significant differences in terms of residential had a rather short time of staying home on weekdays, needs (e.g. undergraduates vs. unmarried office compared to the other types, and had a tendency of workers). Therefore, the number one factor that has having less interest in the residence itself. the greatest influence on the residential needs of each · Lastly, Type 4 had a high rate of single households subgroup of the small households is the relationship in their 40s, who were divorced or bereaved, compared with a cohabitant and the age of household members, to the other types. The rate of those residents living in which are related to the marital status of residents. houses with a unit area of 14-30m was the highest and Especially, the 2-resident households created by that of 14m and below was also high. Their overall marriage showed needs for residential and communal residential needs were low, and Type 4 showed the facility, which was much similar to the regular lowest communality needs among the 4 types. Notably, households. However, the researches on residential Type 4 was the only type that placed top priority on needs of small households have so far been carried protection of privacy between the household units. out on some of the subgroups selected by extremely They had the lowest expectation for communal simple criteria such as single-resident household, influences of communal amenities. Type 4 had the undergraduate students, newly married couples, etc. lowest needs for communal facility, compared to the Therefore, more in-depth researches need to be carried other types, and had the highest needs for supportive out in the future. facility among all types. Although they had a relatively Secondly, the subgroups of single or 2-resident small scope of accessibility to facilities outside of the households showed widely varying needs in terms of housing complex, they prioritized outdoor space for communal amenity of multi-family housing complex, exercising and gym equipment, which was similar to compared to the regular households. Wider differences Type 3. Type 4 had an extremely high percentage of among the subgroups of small households were found those who did not own cars, and had a relatively longer outside rather than inside the residential complex. The time of staying home on weekdays. They showed the current Housing Act in Korea commonly places top least sociable characteristics among all types. priority on parking lots among all communal facilities JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee 269 of multi-family housing complexes and second priority together residents, in order to meet the new residential on outdoor playground and hall for senior citizens needs of this changing society. regardless of residents' needs. A complementary 7.2 Limitation housing policy must be established based on a firm In this research, small households did not show understanding of the residential needs of small significantly high levels of needs for safety and security, households. unlike our initial expectation. This research excluded Lastly, small households that are not created equipment and facilities that do not occupy physical by marriage were found to have low needs and floor space. But most safety-related equipment is usually expectations for social interaction between residents. not considered as space or facilities, so they were not However, they indicated varying levels of needs for included as the evaluation items of this research. availability of communal amenities and a certain degree The number of samples was highly concentrated of expectation for social interaction through active on Type 1, due to a large number of married couples utilization of communal amenities. This is because out of 2-resident households at the sampling stage. most of them rarely had communal experiences among The members of small households in their 50s and residents, due to the absence of communal amenities 60s included a high ratio of married couples, in the in their current housing complexes. Therefore, multi- stratified samples according to gender, age, and unit residences for small households should physically region (χ2=44.62, p<0.01). In future research, it provide substantial alternatives in order to prevent would be helpful to separate 2-resident households residents of small households from being engrossed created by marriage from other subgroups of small inside their household unit in their daily lives. households, since they have similar residential needs 7.1 Implications to regular households. This will be helpful for a This research was conducted to clearly understand better understanding of the residential needs and the residential needs of single or 2-resident households, characteristics of single or 2-resident small households. in order to suggest an ideal housing model, since their population is on the rise causing a significant structural Acknowledgement change in Korean socio-demographics. This research was conducted with the support What makes this research unique compared to the of grants provided as a part of the 2013 research previous researches is the heuristic approach to identify support project for general researchers by the National the general residential needs of the small households Research Foundation of Korea under the Ministry of overall, as well as the specific residential needs of each Education, Science and Technology. subgroup, rather than dealing with the current housing Project No.: NRF-2013R1A1A2013370 conditions of a certain subgroup of small households. In the process, we found the differences in residential References 1) Frenkel, A. et al. (2013) Residential Location Choice of needs between small households and regular households Knowledge-workers: The Role of Amenities, Workplace and created by blood relationships. We then divided small Lifestyle, Cities, 35, pp.33-41. households into subgroups according to their residential 2) Bahn, J.H (2012) Socio-economic Features and Changes of one person Household, Korea Labor Institute, v. 85, pp.55-67. needs, and identified and analyzed the respective 3) Hwang, S.E et al. (2013) A Research Study on Crime Prevention residential characteristics of each subgroup. This study Kang, S.J. et al. (2011) A Study on 1-2 Person Household's empirically embraced the previous researches, which Lifestyle and Needs of Small Houses, Journal of Korean Housing Association, 22(2), pp.121-129. have been sporadically carried out up until now. 4) Kim, J.Y (2013) Housing Consciousness and Needs of Single Another distinctive feature of this research is that Woman Household for the Small-sized Rental Housing it is focused on the needs for communal amenities Development - Focused on the Residents of Seoul, Inchon, and Gyeongi–do, Journal of Korean Housing Association, 24(4), of multi-family housing complexes, unlike the pp.109-120. previous researches which have mainly focused on the 5) Lee, D.H (2012) A Study on the Rental Housing Types for household units. It was intended to offer substantial the Low-income One Person Household in Seoul, Journal of Architectural Institute of Korea, 28 (12), pp.75-84. solutions to the pending problem; the residents of 6) Lee, H.Y & Noh, S.C, Choi, E.Y (2010), Growth Pattern and current multi-family housing are rather satisfied with Spatial Distribution of One-person Households by Socio- the location and internal furnishing of their housings, Economic Demographic Characteristics, Korean Geographical Society, 46(4). but they are not satisfied with the communal amenities 7) Park, S.B & Choi, I.Y (2012) A Study on Evaluation Items for (Lee, 2013). Shared Space Performance of Apartment in Korea, Journal of Therefore, the results of this research provide Architectural Institute of Korea, 28 (10), p.49-56. 8) Park et al. (2005) focused on qualitative analysis of residents' and conditions for ideal housing, desired by members of facility managers' experiences = A POE Process Model for Super- small households. This was the original purpose of Tall Residential Building, Architectural Institute of Korea, 21 (11), our research, and these data can be utilized to suggest pp.137-146. 9) Shin, H.K, Jo, I.S (2012) The Improvement of Related Legal practical guidelines for housing supply policies. In Systems of Community Facilities for Community Activation addition, with the results of this research, communal Korean Housing Association, Journal of Korean Housing amenities of multi-family housing can start to become Association 23(2), p.47-57. 10) Statistics Korea (2010) Population and Housing Census. a form of communal living room or garden by bringing 270 JAABE vol.15 no.2 May 2016 Sang Ho Lee

Journal

Journal of Asian Architecture and Building EngineeringTaylor & Francis

Published: May 1, 2016

Keywords: small households; residential needs; communal amenity; multi-family housing

There are no references for this article.