KIEAE Journal

First, Korea is experiencing the most fast aging rate among member countries of OECD and the speed is so fast that we enter aging society starting from 2018(Huh, M.G. et al, 2004). However this shows the aging population ratio regarding the total population in Korea and we can see the difference in aging ratio by region from following <Figure 1>.

Fig 1. 
Proportion of elderly population according to region

Source: Statistical Report on the Aged, National Statistical Office(NSO)

The percentage of the elderly population of Seoul, the capital city and representative city of Korea is 11.4% but the provincial areas such as Jeonnam(21.8%), Jeonbuk(18.1%), Gyeongbuk(18.0%), Gangwon (16.8%), Chungnam(16.3%) and Chungbuk(14.9%) already entered the super aged society outrunning the aged society. However not only absolute number of elderly population and its percentage increase but also the number of the single or couple elderly households only consisting of 1, 2 elderly persons increases due to change of population composition²⁾. This changes are phenomena shown in both urban and rural area and it is expected that social cost such as sustenance allowance for elderly will be increased together with the occurrence of social problems such as elderly lonely death as single elderly household increases.

Elderly in Korea has low income level compared to general household and 49% of them experience elderly poverty problem which is four times higher than OECD average 13%. It was also shown that rural elderly has a high employment rate compared to urban elderly but with a low income level(Jung, K.H. et al, 2011) implying the fact that the employment does not always guarantee an appropriate income level, and in overall the rural elderly are economically quite weak than the urban elderly³⁾.

With elderly's economic vulnerability, poor housing environment is a big problem, too. Although the home ownership rate of elderly is high ⁴⁾ most of the house they live are deteriorated, and they don't have economic capacity to renovate or repair the house even if the environment is not suitable for elderly, they are exposed continually to the poor housing environment for they want to live in the place where they live now(Jung, K.H. et al, 2011). From shortfall household of minimum housing standard by region , we can see that rural housing level is poor for rural area has higher ratio (9.7%) than urban area(Choi, B.S. et al, 2013). In addition, the rate of the houses which lacks the minimum residential standard shows that 14.5% of rural elderly households and 9% of the urban elderly households are living under the environment poorer than the minimal standard. Especially, the rate was much higher than 10.6%, the average rate of the nation that the residential level of rural area is quite weak (Kim, D.Y., 2013).

Likewise there is a regional difference according to the regions of urban and rural area. Especially urban is favorable for various benefits and proper housing environment are provided with infrastructure concentrating in the city while rural area is not. However preparing housing alternatives for elderly is very important in the situation where personal and social burden toward them is increasing and where elderly housing environment is poor. Conducting an exploratory research regarding rural and urban area with different features in this process is seen useful for it can create comparable new perspective regarding two groups.

The space for elderly should provide environment that can support physical malfunction of elderly by applying universal design and barrier-free design basically. To examine this more specifically, this research examined the prior researches on elderly housing environment by classifying rural and urban areas. As a result, most of researches targeted urban elderly. They can be classified into researches such as preference on elderly housing alternative types(Lee, Y.S. et al, 2007a, Park, H.Y. et al, 2011), preference on space planning element(Hong, H.O. et al, 1999, Lee, G.S. et al, 2009), house renovation(Kim, Y.J., 2006) in urban area. And there are house renovation(Kim, Y.C. et al, 2010), way to utilize empty house(Choi, S.M. et al, 2002, Lee, C.W. et al, 2013, Hwang. J.I. et al, 2012), standard blueprint (Hwang, Y.W. et al, 2011, Lee. J.W., 2011, Lee, U.K. et al, 2011), space plan in the unit of town(Seo, J.H., 2013, Kim, H.R. et al, 2012) in the rural area. Researches mentioned above conducted both in urban and rural area each and emphasized housing environment suitable for each regional features should be provided. Compared to this, Choi, M.K.(2004) surveyed the overall awareness of elderly housing environment targeting rural and urban elderly and showed difference in region depending on the items of elderly housing types preferred, awareness of housing matters, residing reason, reason of unsatisfaction about current house as results.

Putting them together, urban elderly resided in current house continuously due to the conveniency of house and burden regarding moving although the satisfaction regarding the house itself is not that high for the reason of air pollution, noise, low maintenance level, too much housing expense and showed high preference toward house that provides service⁵⁾. Rural elderly had unsatisfactory elements such as inconveniency upon usage of public facility, low maintenance level of house but did not want to move out for they are attached to the house and surrounding environment and want to live even in the future after furnishing elderly support facility in current house rather than moving out to the house that provides service. This research has its meaning in that it is a comparison research targeting rural and urban area and clarified that there can be difference in house preference according to the region through this.

Although there are numerous researches implying that approach should be different toward urban and rural area, house space plan especially the research example targeting elderly is not being done so there is the need for various researches such as exploratory research, correlation analysis, experimental research clarifying these parts in the future conducted afterwards.

Elderly shares housing is one of elderly house types in a narrow sense and refers to so called shared housing which the residents share the space in a small group house, and refers to all types of houses which have a space the residents may share while each individual has its own independent space unit in a broad sense(Lee, Y.S., 2014)⁶⁾. The difference between the narrow sense and broad sense is that the former allows the individual to use a part of space instead of an independent residential unit while the latter has the independent residential unit for the individual including the space of various functions.

The previous studies which mentioned about the type of such elderly shared group house were carried out by Lee, Y.S., Oh, C.O.(1993), Choi, S.J.(1998) and Hong, H.O.(1999), especially, Lee, Y.S. et al(2007b) clarified the terms which were used as many meanings and defined them in viewpoint of residential aspects and architectural characteristics. Among the concepts they organized, elderly shared housing was classified into independent period and dependent period. House types for independent elderly are Shared housing, Congregate housing, Accessory housing in narrow meaning and types of housing for dependent elderly are Assisted living, Sheltered housing, Sheltered congregate housing. They are expressed as different terms each other but ultimately mean the houses where residents jointly use the house and are supported various services.. The scope of the service is provided widely from the type that simply provides the administrator providing close service for 24 hours(Weal Francis, 1993), simple livelihood supporting service needed for elderly to medical service(Kwon, S.J., 2001). Thus considering the fact that most of elderly might want to enter elderly shared housing when they need help their demand should be dealt(Seo, Y.M. et al, 2004), and considering these demands and that most of elderly might demand the service in near future, housing alternative that can actively deal with their demand is needed.

The elderly shared group housing used in this paper refers to a housing type where several elderly live under the same roof but each individual has its own independent space and jointly uses the living room, kitchen and dining room. This is a concept in wide meaning including these concepts all. In this case, the independent space includes the type where all functions such as kitchen, dining room, living room and bath room from the sleeping room only. In addition, since the service for the elderly is supported, it may support the independent life of the elderly.

These elderly shared housing has a possibility of living cost reduction because of shared space, profit creation through co-production, rental business in the case of house owner with many effects in social and economic aspect relieving the social stress for the elderly sustenance. Finally, shared living reduces stress from living alone and has an effect of increasing comradeship in people living together(Oh, C.O., 2008; Day-Lower, 1983 re-citation). Likewise, elderly shared housing can be seen as a type of sustainable housing not only saves resources by sharing space partially but also delays the phenomena of decreasing sociality durability due to rapid aging.

As a result of examining prior researches on houses in the scope of elderly shared housing, attitude and preference research, policy related research, foreign case studies, space planning research were classified and following <Table 1> is made for example with the researches after 2000.

As a result, research related to space planning utilized the questionnaire survey and grasped the preference and demand for space planning of the elderly shared housing. Among them, research result related to space planning showed that most people recognized the need for elderly shared housing positively but expressed stress regarding shared living and preferred to have supplied the private space different in size according to the single household (11-15pyeong), couple household(21-25pyeong) along with separate form of bedroom rather than studio type. (Hong, I.K. et al, 2005a, Yu. B.S. et al, 2005). Further, types of elderly shared housing was categorized according to these results and development direction was proposed at the back ground of these(Lee, J.H., 2007, Yeom, H.S., 2014). But these researches mainly target urban and seldom deals with elderly shared housing in rural area.

Elderly shared housing is supplied in various forms in European countries and Japan where experienced aging society already and is operated in the form of group home in the nation targeting economically vulnerable or physically not healthy elderly in most chances(Lee, Y.S. et al, 2009). Recently, 'shared living home' in domestic rural area and 'living together' business in Youngdeungpo are similar examples to this. First, rural shared living household is operated to provide pleasant housing environment and prevent elderly lonely death in rural area and is a system that enables many elderly to live by renovating town hall or senior citizen center. Together with economic support like renovation cost, livelihood cost, operation cost, various services related with local community is provided. This business is really helpful for rural elderly by reducing the burden of heating bills in the winter especially as well as being effective in decreasing elderly lonely death and elderly depression⁷⁾. And 'Living together' business of Youngdeungpo is a business that enables elderly to live depending on each other forming bond of sympathy as well as network with elderly in similar situation through an activity that cares single elderly who cannot move well and depression prevention through friendship promotion with members by forming self-help meeting (so-called farmer's cooperative group). (Press release of Youngdeungpo ward office, 2014). This business does not provide housing space to live with but can be said to be important in the aspect that it provided opportunity to interact with each other after forming network between single elderly. This is the same context in the aspect that continuous social interaction is possible through community life in elderly shared housing.

Likewise, elderly shared housing has its advantages in that it can overcome the vulnerable economic situation of elderly in the aspect that it can minimize the space by individual unit as well as using the space effectively by using joint space with each residential unit of many residents. Additionally, it also has a potential to solve or relieve the social problems such as elderly lonely death in the point that it can premise the social interaction between residents.

Workshop refers to the action that exchanges new knowledge, technology, insight method regarding a certain problem or task with each other(Naver Dictionary). Workshop is a concept developed at the background of experience-centered education in the field of pedagogy and has a feature valuing the bidirectional and multidirectional process showing intrinsic power such as knowledge and experience of each other through the process of asking and discussing with participants being main characters. (Matso Dadas et al, 2006). And small group is the most effective for active discussion and participation. And the panel survey is the method of conducting repeated survey at a certain time interval targeting same specimen. Time intervals are various enough to reach years from hours or minutes at minimum(Jung, K.H. et al, 2011) and panel survey in public sections in the nation are approximately 17 kinds done mainly in social field such as education, labor, female, medicine and there are labor panel, young man panel, aging research panel(Nam, G.S., n,d).

Small group workshop panel method is a method used to collect common opinion of groups by letting participants discuss and clarify the demand, problems and solutions after gathering the group composed of a few individuals. Through this in-dept and collective information can be disclosed and by reorganizing the demand of individual through interaction of group and comparison, examination, it can be said to be residents-participation type data collection method that can comprehend more precise demand with more stable data(Lee, Y.S. et al, 1997).We can grow critical view regarding given problems and improve communication skills with people through this(Cho, J.H., Choi, J.S., 2010). The difference between this method and questionnaire or interview is that common perception and demand are exposed beyond individual scope as mutual awareness, demand, information between group members are interacted. Thus, opportunities to find integrative solutions that cannot be obtained by individuals can be gained through discussion process(Lim, J.E., 2006)

Workshop has been utilized with various tools developed according to the topics in order to promote active participation of investigation targets. Participation tools in the process of space planning were analog tools such as sketch, pictogram picture and space image, model but as technology develops, GIS, 3D digital model, virtual reality are introduced supporting higher dimensional participation design(Jung, E.J et al, 2012). Especially it can be said to have developed more actively in the process of finding solutions for effective communication in modern society where the concept of residents participation is valued. This participation design tool induces the participation of participants naturally and should be developed into flexible tool easy to use and understand for ordinary people who are non-expert to enable reasonable discussion(Song, E.A., 2009).

There are many researches including Lee, Y.S et al(1993, 1994 a, 1994b, 1994c, 1997, 2009, 2010), Ko, Y.H.(1993), Yoon, M.K(1993), Kim, S.A. et al(2004), Lim, J.E.(2006), Cho, J.H. et al(2010), Lim, S.H. et al(2010), Lee, J.I.et al(2011a, 2011b), Lee, J.I.(2013), Jung, Y.J.(2013) and others that used small group workshop panel method in the researches related to housing environment. This research verified the usefulness of this research method by utilizing small group workshop panel method to the tasks that need social agreement induction and to the response of residents changing according to the time and information after acquiring massive amount of information that cannot be found in quantitative research method such as survey.

This workshop was planned to be conducted in three times by groups. The 1st workshop is a stage that rapport formation is important thus preference was understood regarding overall elderly housing types⁹⁾ not limiting to shared house and daily stories like current housing situations were naturally induced. Through this, we intended to find out the level of preference regarding shared type housing in whole elderly housing types. 2nd workshop is plan to the space directly by the participants. It can be said to be the stage with one educational function that enables more precise preference of individuals and mutual group utilizing this tool here¹⁰⁾. Finally, 3rd workshop is to understand the final preference of the participants through checking the initial floor plan based on the agreement of the group set forth by the 2nd workshop.

Researcher induced natural response from participants by forming comfortable atmosphere and especially helped induce agreements through discussion after providing the opportunity to think upon hearing each other's opinions by individual space composition in 2nd workshop and conducting the presentation regarding this. Besides, to help participants understand on their own, information was provided continuously at the proper point or providing extra information and questions that can awaken the parts that participants miss in conflict situation.

Fig. 2. 
Plan of workshop process

The summary of main points in these workshop process is shown in <Figure 2>.

That is to say, final preference of elderly shared housing was understood by comparing preference in the final workshop and initial preference in elderly housing types before providing information through workshop(①). This is to reveal the usefulness of this research method seen through comparison of initial response with the intention to understand more precise and stable preference through workshop being core. Second, understanding features of space composition(②) tried to understand the features of preferred space composition finally and ultimately through the process of re-confirming their preference using floor plan, space composition preference agreed in each group, individual space composition preference and examined additional changes shown in conclusion process of agreements. Third, the effect of workshop was to understand the main effect of workshop by examining the process of agreements conclusion regarding how educations such as regular opinion exchange, information transfer in second stage were reflected in the final result.

<Table 3> shows the summary of used research tool in workshop as well as organizing the workshop stages according to the objectives and contents.

1st Workshop	Objective	Grasping initial response toward Elderly Shared Housing
	Contents	Discussing the current housing environment (Discussion) Determining the preferred elderly housing type ((Educational material ①,②, Questionnaire ①) Understanding of ESH (Educational material ③) Identifying initial preferred space composition of ESH (questionnaire ②)
	Research tool
▼

2nd Workshop	Objective	Grasping initial response toward Elderly Shared Housing
	Contents	Reviewing the 1st workshop Understanding the space structure of Elderly Shared Housing (Educational material ④) Organizing the preferred space plan by individuals (Spatial pictogram block, Board ①, ②) Organizing the preferred space plan by groups (Spatial pictogram block, Board ①, ②)
	Research tool
▼

3nd Workshop	Objective	Grasping initial response toward Elderly Shared Housing
	Contents	Confirm & evaluation of final plan based on result of 2nd workshop (Floor plan) Evaluation workshop (Discussion, questionnaire ③)
	Research tool

Research tools used in this research are questionnaire, educational content, space-function pictogram block, space- extraction board(board①), space-placement board(board ②)and details are as follows.

The questionnaire were made in three types in total. One is for comprehending elderly housing types used in 1st workshop(questionnaire ①) and second is for understanding preference regarding elderly shared housing(questionnaire ②) and the third is for satisfaction survey of residents’ participation tool in 3rd workshop(questionnaire ③)

Educational content was used in 1st and 2nd workshop. In 1st workshop, image data regarding 8 types of elderly housing that Lee, Y.S.(1993) organized for preference understanding about elderly housing types(educational content ①) and image data for information provision regarding social burden increase because of aging(educational content ②) were produced. And as the data for space understanding and the concept of elderly shared housing(educational content ③, ④), concept of elderly shared housing and its features, similar concept examples, individual/shared space composition method were put together. Further, pictogram block that visualized the function of each space and service was produced and made participants choose easily and easy space composition. And the board that organizes extracted preferred space and service(board ①) was produced in A3 size and space composition board(board ②)was made in A4 size by downsizing the space of approximately 30㎡ to 1:100 scale.

Finally, researcher mapped the result of agreements of each group participants and showed the final opinion after checking the way of embodiment of participated elderly's opinions in visual space.

Among the conclusions generated by each stage of workshop, the concluding process of final agreements regarding space composition are as follows to be specific. Specific space composition was done starting from 2nd workshop. Here, preferred space and service elements were extracted by individual and group and space placement was done on the basis of it. Here, wanted shared space and service elements were not limited in number and space placement was done in the premise that 5 households reside in current housing type situation(single, couple, single+couple) in the space of approximately 330㎡. The results in this stage is classified into individual result(①) and group result(②) them organized as <Table 4> utilizing one example as a representative.

		① Preferred elements	② Space arrangement
Individual case example
Consensus Group arrangement	Rural
	Urban

In 3rd workshop, group conclusion drawn in 2nd workshop(② of table 4) were mapped utilizing CAD and discussion took place regarding the problems or improvement measure through confirmation regarding this(① of table 5). Based on this, final floor plan was drawn(② of table 5) <Table 5> shows the summary of this.

① Elderly’s feedback for initial floor plan	② Final floor plan corrected

When workshop started, awareness about elderly shared housing did not exist almost. So in 1st workshop, we examined the level of ratio of shared type housing through preference survey regarding elderly housing types of Lee, Y.S. not elderly shared housing. As a investigation result, results were shown different according to the information provision about aging society. Prior to information provision, preference ratio about shared house was 80% in rural area and 50% in urban area. Although preference ratio regarding shared housing was high even before information provision, they were shown higher after information provision with 80% in rural area and 50% in urban area. But there were some who worry about the repulsion regarding common living and especially urban elderly showed greater repulsion toward common living relatively to rural elderly. However, while three workshops are being done, understanding toward elderly shared housing increased and positive awareness regarding common living was formed. The positive factor about elderly shared housing was that it can have effects of living cost reduction and decreased in loneliness in old life and that it can give energy to the life. There results show that even elderly themselves recognize the seriousness of problems such as lonely death of elderly and aging and that they think it is the proper solution for these problems. These positive attitudes were reflected in moving plan as well so most of participants answered that they want to move if given a chance and they regarded the age of 80~85 as proper entering period. The followings are the summary of representative opinions showing positive responses regarding elderly shared housing.

But couple household desired moving out when they are left alone after partner's death thinking that having a rough relationship with partner would reveal their weakness and common living is not needed for they feel less loneliness by living depending on each other. The followings summarize the representative opinions that showed negative responses regarding elderly shared housing.

(1) Features of space composition and service by group

Space arrangement was done in 2nd workshop after extracting preferred space and service factors by individual group members and with the same method, one conclusion was drawn through group discussion process. On the basis of it, we examined the results regarding each factor by classifying into private space, shared fspace and service. Before examining the results of agreements, following <Table 6> shows the comparison of group agreements results and individual results by taking an example of shared space in group 1.

As a result, we can see the difference between individual results and agreements results. This difference showed that discussion can make people consider the parts they have not considered and that what majority preferred can be determined to be unnecessary through discussion. By comparison like this, we can know that participants put what they want into shape gradually as workshop is went along and this is the data in this research showing that agreements show their preference.

First, result of preference for the private space is shown in following <Table 7>. Both rural and urban area wanted to use private space for personalized use but differences were shown in the composition of private space and housing types. Urban area preferred detached house while rural area preferred apartment. This shows that urban area has a high demand toward living together with nature in a detached house while rural area has a high demand toward convenient physical environment of apartment. Regarding private space composition, some participants of urban group said they must have living room of private space for they have to host the private guests there rather than shared living room. Rural area wanted only bedroom and bathroom while urban area wanted private space even with kitchen and dining room, living room along with bedroom and bathroom. This means that there is a high demand toward independent living from urban area group relatively.

Second, following <Table 8> shows the preference result of shared space.

Shared space that all 4 groups desire was shared living room and garage. Shared living room was recognized as the center space of common living and garage was the space for guests such as children and friends who are not residents wanted by every group. But there was a difference in size because urban area wanted to have 4 cars while rural area requested 2. Another big characteristic is that urban area does not demand shared dining room. They basically wanted the method that they prepare and eat the meal individually in individual space and that they sometimes eat together in the shared living room. Besides, urban area had a demand for guest room. We could see the preference regarding independent life of urban area group when urban area said they need extra space for guests when there are guests while rural area thought of methods that share the private space with guests.

Third, result of preference for the service is shown in following <Table 9>.

The service that both urban and rural area want was meal support, cleaning support, healthcare and security/guard items. Considering health worsening in old life, health care service was wanted basically by most of them and to prepare for the difficulties of daily routine function performance, they wanted convenient and safe lives through domestic services like meal support, cleaning support and security/guard service. But there was a difference in the provision way of meal support service. Urban area wanted to cook the meal on their own after receiving food expenses, not food but rural area wanted to be provided with food such as side dish delivery. The items with difference between two groups are leisure support and building management. Rural area preferred leisure support service while urban area did not and the opposite was applied to security/guard. Rural area thought of receiving help from nearby neighbors as another way for building management item and did not want the service for it because of the burden of service cost above all. But since urban area cannot take care of building on their own in their old life, they wanted to be provided with more professional management service after hiring managers and giving him the responsibility regarding building management.

(2) Comparison of space arrangement by group

Comparison was done like following <Table 10> in the center of location relation with private space and shared space. As analysis results, both urban and rural area placed the space with similar function such as study and hobby room, laundry room-bathroom near and set them as one area despite they are composed of space with various functions. To add, we can see that private space is arranged in relatively distributed form centering on shared space in the center of whole space. Thus, shared space has a role of distinguishing private space. And we can see that urban area has a higher demand for independent space for they demand 3 private space area than rural area with 2 divided private space area.

	Group 1	Group 2
Rural
	Group 3	Group 4
Urban

: Private Space : Public Space

Elderly shared housing has its basis in common life and it is important to understand the demand of various residents and reflect their agreements and in the situation where awareness about elderly shared housing is deficient, we used workshop panel method determining that it is important to draw inherent thoughts of participants rather than conducting a simple survey. Using various visual educational content, pictogram block with spatial function, participants were able to participate actively and feel interests. To confirm the effect of this research method, workshop panel method and participation tool were classified and examined.

In the evaluation regarding the workshop which is the research method in this research, most participants recognized the process workshop that draws one agreement through discussion after hearing opinions of many people positively and by conducting a research at a certain time interval, understanding towards subjects increased and we could see the changes in attitude about elderly shared housing. Furthermore, they answered there must have been difficulties in using floor plan, pictogram block with space function and various educational content used in the workshop without help or explanation from researches although all participants had fun with them and were at ease with them understanding about them. Following is the representative opinion of participants regarding the contents mentioned above.

Likewise, space and service that each group prefers were organized and <Table 11> makes a pattern of the process drawing agreements based on this and we examined how the attitudes and opinions of participants change in that process.

· Pattern 1: Shared Space became better perceived as time changed
· Pattern 2: Private Space became better perceived as time changed
· Pattern 3: New Alternative or Eliminate the existing space

Pattern 1 show the change in preference for the shared space through exchange of the information for the purpose and advantages of the communal living in the discussion process while they had a high preference form the private space in the first. This shows that the understanding for the communal living expanded the area to accept the shared space, the installation of the shared laundry room is a good example.

Pattern 2 puts more significance on the private space even afterproviding the information for the communal living as opposite to Pattern 1. An example of this Pattern 1 is to include the bedroom+bathroom+kitchen and dining room+living room in the private space as well as the guest room.

Pattern 3 is for the case where they had preferred space but deleted the agreed space or induced another agreement. Group 2 members liked sauna but deleted it due to some problems arising from having 2 saunas due to gender matter and the difficulty for maintenance and management via discussion but installed a shared bathroom and group 4 also deleted sauna due to difficulty in maintenance and management.