• Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association
• /
• v.42 no.12 s.202
• /
• pp.175-190
• /
• 2004

The purposed of this research was to suggest a basic material of Korean-typed cohousing plan for a dual-income family by examining the difference of cohousing residing environment needs. Selecting Employed and unemployed housewives as this research's subject, the following results were drawn from the analysis between the two groups. 1) The housewives takes responsibility of the household works regardless of whether or not they are employed. Also, more than half of employed housewives stated that the time of nursery facilities was shorter than their needs and that they favored a nursery facility located inside the residential area. 2) The most meaningful difference of cohousing residing environment needs was the demand for sharing household work in terms of cohousing need of the subjects. The desirable cohousing area is the suburbs of the metropolitan areas and the preferable resident organization is need to be organized by people sharing the same goal through an announcement. 3) The need of cohousing and residence intention were generally low, but the employed housewives' need was higher than the unemployed ones.

• Architectural research
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.77-86
• /
• 2013

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

• Journal of the Korean housing association
• /
• v.25 no.6
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this study is to gain an in-depth understand of the dwelling needs of residents who are interested in Cohousing. To do this, we interviewed 18 urban residents who wanted a community life; investigated consciousness of neighbor relationships; and analyzed their consciousness of Cohousing residences, preference types, and spatial needs. At first the research has revealed that the neighbor relationships of the participants were not very close and that there was a difference in awareness levels between a 'good neighbor' and 'strange neighbor' with regard to neighbors, though all of the participants required a vitalization of these relationships. Second, Cohousing residence types could be divided into the 'life preferred type' and 'space preferred type', depending on the differences of pursued dwelling interests. These could be further segmented into the 'leisure life preferred type' and 'daily life preferred type', 'public space preferred type' and 'individual space preferred type'. Thirdly, preferences for Cohousing types varied depending on differences in priority with regard to important concepts of the social-physical environment (e.g., community property, effectiveness, naturalness, economic feasibility, and individuality). Finally, we found that the greatest needs were for public gardens and exercise space as aspects of the common spaces. Agreements pertaining to special use were considered as most important during the design process of the common spaces.