JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Evaluation of Common Activity and Life in Swedish Cohousing Units
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Evaluation of Common Activity and Life in Swedish Cohousing Units
Choi, Jung-Shin; Paulsson, Jan;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
This study evaluates common activity and quality of life in Swedish cohousing units to examine whether Swedish cohousing functions properly or not. A questionnaire survey was fulfilled during the autumn of 2010 in Gteborg Sweden. The subjects of study were 12 of 44 cohousing units in Sweden that included 4 of the +40 cohousing and 8 of the mixed-age cohousing. A total of 242 of 353 distributed questionnaires were collected (68.6%) and analyzed by SPSS statistical program. The findings are as follow: 1) General characteristics of the respondents are that they are mostly healthy, evenly aged from age 50s to 70s and highly educated with significant proportions of academics and civil workers. There are more females than males and more singles than cohabitants. 2) The most frequent and preferred common activity is a common meal followed by a coffee meeting. A common dinner, the `hub of living together` is held almost every day or at least a few times a week. A common meal is considered one of the most important activities because of practical and social advantages in that residents can save time and cooking costs as well as engage in social contact. Referring to evaluation of frequency and content of common activity, more than a half of the respondents prefer the current situation. 3) All of the variables (except health conditions and education level) affect participation in common activity with statistical significance. 4) Most of the respondents indicate a high level of life satisfaction and are willing to recommend others move to cohousing. They agree that there is more mutual support among residents in cohousing units than in a conventional community. In conclusion, Swedish cohousing units function successfully as they have pursued intentional community ideology and most of the residents are proud of their current living situations.
 Keywords
Cohousing unit;Sweden;Common activity;Life satisfaction;Evaluation;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Why Do People Move to Cohousing Communities in Sweden? - Are there any Significant Differences Between the +40 Cohousing and the Mixed-Age Cohousing?,;

Architectural research, 2013. vol.15. 2, pp.77-86 crossref(new window)
1.
Differences of Participation in Common Activities and Life Satisfaction in Swedish Senior Cohousing by Longitudinal Analyses : Focus on Differences Between the Years of 2001 and 2010, Journal of Korean Home Management Association, 2016, 34, 1, 1  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Lessons Learned From a New Elder Cohousing Community, Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 2013, 27, 4, 348  crossref(new windwow)
3.
Community and Civil Society Returns of Multi-generation Cohousing in Germany, Journal of Civil Society, 2013, 9, 1, 41  crossref(new windwow)
4.
Self-managed co-housing in the context of an ageing population in Europe, Urban Research & Practice, 2015, 8, 1, 32  crossref(new windwow)
5.
Participation in Common Activities and Satisfaction with Common Space - In a Tentative Framework of Housing Adjustment for Swedish Cohousing Residents -, Journal of the Korean housing association, 2014, 25, 4, 125  crossref(new windwow)
6.
Beyond Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Cohousing Life in Contemporary Sweden, Housing, Theory and Society, 2015, 32, 2, 131  crossref(new windwow)
7.
Why Do People Move to Cohousing Communities in Sweden? - Are there any Significant Differences Between the +40 Cohousing and the Mixed-Age Cohousing?, Architectural research, 2013, 15, 2, 77  crossref(new windwow)
8.
Housing preferences among students: collective housing versus individual accommodations? A stated preference study in Antwerp (Belgium), Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 2016  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Ambrose, I. (1993), Etablering af seniorbofoellesskaber, Erfaringer fratre projekter i Odense, Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut, Kobenhavn, Denmark.

2.
Birgersson, L. (2000). Konsten att ta sin plats-om Skärkäll I Bohusln (The art of taking his spot-on kärkäll in Bohuslan). Arkitektur, Chalmers Tekniska Hgskola.10-30. Goteborg, Sweden.

3.
Choi, J. S. (2004). Evaluation of community planning and life of senior cohousing projects in Northern European Countries. European Planning Studies, 12(8), 1189-1216.

4.
Choi, J. S. (2006). Comparison of life satisfaction between the residents of Danish and Swedish senior cohousing projects. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 6(6), 149-161.

5.
Choi, J. S. & Cho, J. S. (2006). Differences between male and female in moving motivation and life satisfaction of senior cohousing residents in Scandinavia. Journal of the Korean Home Management Association, 24(1), 117-128.

6.
Choi, J. S. & Paulsson, J. (2006), Planning and Implementation of Scandinavian Senior Cohousing Projects, Seoul, Korea: Jipmundang Publishing Co.

7.
Choi, J. S. & Strid, M. (2011), Why do people move to cohousing communities in Sweden, -Differences between +40 cohousing and mixed-age cohousing-, Proceedings of IAPS International Network Symposium 2011, 152-153

8.
Choi, J. S. & Paulsson, J. (2011). Evaluation of common activity and life in Swedish cohousing communities, Proceedings of IAPS International Network Symposium 2011, 137-138.

9.
Cho, J. H., Lee, D. S. & Choi, J. S. (2008). Residents' participation and common activities in intentional community: a case of Mindlre Community. International Journal of Human Ecology. 9(2), 107-116.

10.
Choi, J. S. (2008). Characteristics of community life in foreign intentional communities focus on the differences between ecovillage and cohousing. International Journal of Human Ecology 9(2), 93-105.

11.
Cho, J. H. & Choi, J. S. (2011). A study on residents' participation and the characteristics of cohousing in USA. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 22(2), 11-20. crossref(new window)

12.
Dawson, J. (2006). Ecovillages, New frontiers for sustainability. UK: Green Books Ltd.

13.
FIC (2007). Community Directory (2007). USA: Rutlege.

14.
Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative Communities, Cohousing, Central Living, and other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

15.
Housing Study Group (2000). Cohousing in the World. Seoul, Korea: Kyomunsa Publishing Co.

16.
Lee, H. J. (2004), Provision of affordable housing for urban seniors in a new local era, Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea, 6(2), 1-9.

17.
Lucas, C. (2006). Forward of ecovillages, by Dawson, New Frontiers for Sustainability.UK: Green Books Ltd. UK.

18.
McCarment, K. & Durret, C. (1998), Cohousing, a Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, Berkely, CA: Ten Speed Press.

19.
Sarason, S. B. (1974), The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology, San Francisco, USA: Bookline Books.

20.
Vestbro, D. U. (1982). Kollektivhus frn enkokshus till bogemenskap, Stockholm, Sweden Byggforskingningsrdet 28, 1982.

21.
Vestbro, D. U. (1997). Collective housing in Scandinavia -how feminism revised a modernist experiment, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 14(4), 329-342.

22.
Vestbro, D. U. (1998), The Study of Collective Housing: A Swedish Perspective, The Meaning and Use of Housing Edited by Ernesto G. Arias, Avebury, USA: 405-424.

23.
Vestbro, D. U. (2000). From collective housing to cohousing -a summary of research, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(2), 164-177.

24.
www.kollektivhus.nu

25.
http://hem.www.fyristorg.comnKollektivhus och Ekobyar in Sverige