• Land and Housing Review
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.51-65
• /
• 2021

There were strong criticisms against the joint development method: the redevelopment corporation and developers would achieve the whole development profit. The existing tenants who lost their housing in the site argued their right to reside in the site after the development was completed. There was also strong political pressure that the Roh Tae-woo governing administration should resolve the social inequality caused by the situation. In such circumstances, it was introduced that a certain proportion of public rental housing should be built in the redevelopment site; then the government took over the dwellings at a price of construction and allocated them to the existing tenants. The aims of this paper are to understand the rationale behind the inclusion of the public rental housing in the redevelopment sites; and to investigate to what extent the legislation was implemented appropriately. Although the legislation was introduced in Seoul from August 1989, it was not until May 2005 when it was implemented nationwide. At the beginning, there was an ambiguous rule that the number of public housing to be included should be limited to the number of households who would want to remain in the redeveloped site. In 2005 the Seoul metropolitan authority introduced a mandatory proportion; 17% of the total housing delivered in the site should be public rental homes. Since then the proportion. The proportion has been fluctuated by the political agenda of each ruling party: the conservative tended to reduce the proportion, whilst the opposition parties increased the proportion. Currently the proportion is 20% of the total stock to be built. Initially the size of the public housing was exceptionally small- less than 40 m² but it has increased up to 60 m² since 2010. The rental price was reasonably lower than market rent. The competition toward redevelopment rental housing that are vacant due to move or death of tenants was very high; it was given to one household out of nine eligible households in 2020.

• Journal of agricultural medicine and community health
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.175-185
• /
• 1995

This study is to compare family support and mental health between the rural and the urban elderly. In order to do that I collected the data through questioning 238 people in 3 urban areas in Busan and 201 people in 9 rural areas near Daegu. The degree of their family support is 36.70 on the average in the rural area and 40.77 in the urban area. The degree of family support of urban elderly is a little higher. According to general characters between the differences of family support in both areas, in the rural area there are differences in sex, age, whether they have a spouse or not, education level, financial state, number of children, number of co living, status of co living, subjective health status, amount of pocket money and how much they are participating in leisure activity. In the urban area there are differences in sex, whether they have a spouse or not, religion, financial state, number of co living, status of co living, subjective health status, amount of pocket money, how much they are participating in leisure activity and house pattern. In the stepwise multiple regression analysis the main variables that affect degree of family support in the rural area are age, whether they have a spouse or not and financial state which account for 33% of the total variance and in the urban area are subjective health status, financial state, whether they have a spouse or not and number of co-living which account for 35%. Health status is better in the urban area(average 36.87) than in the rural area(57.42). In each item the people whose mark was more than 75%(low) have Depression 8.4%, Somatization 8.0% in the urban area and Somatization 8.5%, Depression 8.5%, Anxiety 4.0%, Phobic anxiety 4.0%, Obsessive compulsive reaction 2.5%, Hostility 2.0%, Paranoid ideation 2.0%, Psychoticism 1.5% and Interpersonal sensitivity 1.5% in the rural area. In the mental health condition, on the basis of 4 points in both areas, the average is Somatization(rural : 1.69, urban : 1.51), Depression (rural : 1.64, urban : 1.37) and Obsessive compulsive reaction(rural : 1.33, urban : 0.99). According to the differences between mental health conditions by general characters, in the rural area the differences are presented in sex, age, whether they have a spouse or not, religion, education level, financial state, number of children, status of co living, subjective health status, amount of pocket money and how much they are participating in leisure activity, in the urban area the differences are presented in sex, whether they have a spouse or not, religion, financial state, number of co living, status of co living, subjective health status, house pattern, amount of pocket money and how much they are participating in leisure activity. In the stepwise multiple regression analysis the main variables that affect mental health condition in the rural are family support degree subjective health status, religion sex, age and financial state which account for 43% of the total and in the urban area are family support degree, subjective health status and financial state which account for 51%. In the matter of family support degree and mental health condition the rural area was -0.4555, of urban area was -0.6446. The rural area that has a high percentage in family support degree and mental health condition Depression was -0.5036, Psychoticism was -0.4265 in the urban area Psychoticism was -0.6452, Depression was -0.5955. Family support has a great influence on mental health of old people and family support and mental health condition can be different according to living area. So in their problems nursing intervention through family and nursing strategies according to living area should be established.