Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Restructuring the Public Assessment of Housing Management Toward Standardization
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
  • Journal title : Architectural research
  • Volume 16, Issue 1,  2014, pp.17-25
  • Publisher : Architectural Institute of Korea
  • DOI : 10.5659/AIKAR.2014.16.1.17
 Title & Authors
Restructuring the Public Assessment of Housing Management Toward Standardization
Lee, Hyunjeong;
  PDF(new window)
This research is to restructure the public assessment of housing management in a standardized fashion, and a self-administered questionnaire survey was employed for data collection and analysis. In doing so, all the assessment tools nationwide were identified and assembled to extract the items included in the survey form. The survey form was mailed out to local officers in charge of housing management and professional housing managers in the nation, and the responses were statistically analyzed in order to structure the standard assessment tool of housing management. This research classified 3 main areas (General Maintenance, Operation and Community Living) in evaluating the housing management performance, and identified 35 essential items and 52 optional items. The 35 essential items were drawn from the 16 categories of the 3 areas (11 items of 5 categories for General Maintenance, 7 items of 4 categories for Operation, and 17 items of 7 categories for Community Living), and the rest 52 optional items were from the 16 categories of the 3 areas (24 items of 7 categories for General Maintenance, 26 items of 7 categories for Operation, and 2 items of 2 categories for Community Living). While all the items in the research are quantifiable, it`s suggested that qualitative measurements be complementarily utilized in the assessment not only to explore the best practices of housing management but also to refine and modify the standardized tool in response to various environmental changes. As the public assessment of housing management is context-sensitive and critically related to local housing profile, the continuous implementation of the assessment will facilitate shifting the housing paradigm from production and consumption to management and reproduction.
Housing Management;Public Assessment;Standardization;Professionalization;Housing Policy;
 Cited by
Constructing Housing Management Toward Its Professionalization in Korea,;

Architectural research, 2014. vol.16. 4, pp.139-147 crossref(new window)
Constructing Housing Management Toward Its Professionalization in Korea, Architectural research, 2014, 16, 4, 139  crossref(new windwow)
Boelhouwer, P., van der Heijden, H. & van de Ven, B. (1997). Management of social rented housing in Western Europe. Housing Studies, 12(4), pp. 509-529. crossref(new window)

Chang, Y. (2001). Development of an evaluation model for apartment complex management. Seoul: Seoul Development Institute.

Chiang, C.M. (2005). Government intervention in housing: The case of Macao. Housing Studies, 20(1), pp. 149-155. crossref(new window)

Chiu, R.L.H. (2006). Professional housing management practices in Hong Kong. Aberdeen, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Clapham, D. (1997). The social construction of housing management research. Urban Studies, 34(5&6), pp. 761-774. crossref(new window)

Clapham, D., Franklin, B. & Saugeres, L. (2000). Housing Management: the social construction of an occupational role. Housing, Theory and Society, 17(2), pp. 68-82.

Franklin, B. & Clapham, D. (1997). The social construction of housing management. Housing Studies, 12(1), pp. 7-26. crossref(new window)

Franklin, B. J. (1998). Constructing a service: Context and discourse in housing management. Housing Studies, 13(2), pp. 201-216. crossref(new window)

Franklin, B. J. (2000). Demands, expectations and responses: The shaping of housing management. Housing Studies, 15(6), pp. 907-927. crossref(new window)

Furbey, R., Reid, B. & Cole, I. (2001). Housing professionalism in the United Kingdom: The final curtain or a new age. Housing, Theory and Society, 18(1&2), pp. 36-49. crossref(new window)

Kemp, P. A. (2000). Researching housing management performance. Urban Studies, 32(4&5), pp. 779-790.

KMLTMA (Korea Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs) and LH (Korea Land and Housing Corporation) (2012) 2011 Urban Planning Statistics, Seongnam, South Korea: LH.

KMOCT (2007). 2007 annual report for the national territorial planning and use. Gwacheon, South Korea: KMOCT.

Lee, H. (2008). An exploration of public awards for excellence in residential property management and award-winning housing estates. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea - Planning, 24(1), pp. 63-70.

Lee, H. & Yoon, J. (2013). The impacts of the green growth policy on green living of residents in multifamily housing. Architectural Research, 15(2), pp. 59-68. crossref(new window)

Lim, S. H. (2005). A half century of housing policy. Seoul: Gimundang.

Lim, L.Y. & Han, S.S. (2000). Residential property management in China: A case study of Enjili, Beijing. Journal of Property Research, 17(1), pp. 59-73. crossref(new window)

Saugeres, L. (1999). The social construction of housing management discourse: Objectivity, rationality and everyday practice. Housing, Theory and Society, 6(3), pp. 93-105.

Seok, H. (2011). Development of housing management assessment tools for sustainable residential environment (thesis). Seoul: Kyung Hee University.

Somerville, P. & Bengtsson, B. (2002). Constructionism, realism and housing theory. Housing, Theory and Society, 19, pp. 121-136. crossref(new window)

Statistics Korea (2013a). E-national indicators.

Statistics Korea (2013b). Korea statistical information service.

Statistics Korea (2013c). Micro data service system.