A Study on the Healthy Housing Quality of Multi-family Attached House According to Dwelling Unit Age Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CrossMark

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Energy Procedia 62 (2014) 595 - 602

Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 2014, SEB-14

A Study on the Healthy Housing Quality of Multi-family Attached House According to Dwelling Unit Age

Na Na Kanga, Jeong Tai Kimb,Tae Kyung Leea *

"a Dept. of Housing and Interior Design, Pusan National University,Busan609-735, Korea"

_b Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin 446-701, Korea_

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand the healthy housing quality of four different multi-family attached house complexes that the constructions were finished at different years. In order to evaluate their healthy housing quality, the evaluation indicators of healthy housing, that have already existed, were used and the four complexes with different dwelling unit ages, located in Busan of Korea, were evaluated. For this, this study carry out residents' evaluations of healthy housing quality through surveys on their satisfaction, and the study mainly identified characteristic according to dwelling unit age. According to the study, the health housing quality of multi-family attached house, of which the dwelling unit age is 10, begins to decrease in terms of managerial aspect. The healthy housing quality of social and managerial aspects is important for dwellers. The evaluation results can then be utilized to develop guidelines to manage and maintain healthy housing environments for apartments.

© 2014PublishedbyElsevierLtd.This is anopenaccess article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of KES International

Keyword: Healthy Housing Quality, Multi-Family House, Evaluation Indicators, Dwelling Unit Age

1.Introduction

The multi-family attached house, which has been massively supplied from the 1970s, takes more than 50 percent of all urban dwellings now in Korea. The dilapidation of these housings is rising as a serious social problem. The market for remodelling and re-construction is vitalized as an option for dilapidated multi-family attached houses. In addition, as the attention on the life quality and health of the people is increasing, the demand for a health dwelling condition is rising [1 -2].

Health is a concept that comprehensively describes the quality of life. Since the WHO defined health as "a state of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82-51-510-2840; fax: +82-51-510-3019. E-mail address: sunney@pusan.ac.kr.

1876-6102 © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of KES International

doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.422

complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" in 1948, the concept of health, which goes beyond the narrow perspective of the absence of disease and pursues a comprehensive well-being at a wider level, has been widespread [3-4].

In this study, the approach to a healthy dwelling was started from the quality of dwelling that contributes to the improvement of life quality of dwellers [5-9]. The concept was further developed to a dwelling of a multi-family attached house that supports for health in the physical, mental, social and managerial aspects. The concepts and evaluation items of advanced research were reviewed and compared to each other so that the healthy housing quality of multi-family attached house would be developed into detailed concepts of physical, mental, social and managerial aspects [10].

Under the circumstances, the evaluation indicators of healthy housing quality were developed to comprehensively assess the health performance of dwelling conditions of Korea's multi-family attached houses; the characteristics of multi-family attached houses in Korea, high rise and high density, were taken into account when developing these indicators [11], and the concept of four major categories, on physical, mental, social and managerial aspects was developed for the evaluation. The structure of the evaluation has a hierarchy of evaluation item and evaluation attribute. The assessment is based on the index reflecting satisfaction of dwellers on the specified evaluation inquiries of each item.

The evaluation indicators of healthy housing quality, developed by previous researchers, were used for this study. The research was conducted for existing multi-family attached house complexes and the healthy housing quality according to dwelling unit age was studied. The results of this study will be provided as basic materials for establishing guidelines for a health multi-family attached house.

2.Study Methodology

Based on the evaluation indicators of healthy housing quality, the health level of multi-family attached house was evaluated and analyzed.

The evaluation indicators of healthy housing quality are made up of four aspects—physical, mental, social, and managerial aspects — and have 87 items (27 physical items, 22 mental, 20 social, and 18 managerial) are under these aspects. According to the evaluation aspect, they are categorized into four evaluation attributes. There are 16 attributes in total, in the hierarchical structure. Regarding the multi-family attached house, there are evaluation units of apartment, complex, and location. Therefore, the evaluation was made with questions of 87 items on the scale of 1 to 5 with 3 being fair. (1: very unsatisfactory 2: unsatisfactory 3: fair 4: satisfactory 5: very satisfactory)

A survey was carried out targeting housewives residing in four apartment complexes in Busan of Korea that have similar complex structure and surroundings and the ages differ.

While the basic approach for this study was empirical research using structural questionnaire, an observation survey was also implemented to enhance the accuracy of analysis. The researcher distributed the questionnaire for survey and 618 questionnaires in total were answered without any omission and used for final analysis. The apartment complexes, subjected to the survey, were 24, 20, 9, and 5 years of age, respectively..

3.Overview and Characteristics of Subject Apartment Complexes and Respondents

1. Characteristics of Subject Apartment Complexes

Table 1 is an overview of the subject apartments. Apartment A has been occupied by residents since January, 1991 when built. This is a high-rise (15 stories), high-density (1468 Households) and now over 24 years old building. Apartment B has been occupied by residents since March, 1995 when built. This is a high-rise (24 stories), high-density (1408 Households) and now over 20 years old building. Apartment

C was built and has been occupied by residents since February 2006. Apartment D was built and has been occupied by residents since August 2010. The building is also a high-rise, high density residential block.

Table 1 Overview of subject complexes.

Item Apt. A Apt. B Apt. C Apt. D

Location Busan, Buk-gu Busan, Geumjeong-gu Busan, Geumjeong-gu Busan, Geumjeong-gu

Occupation Jan. 1991 Mar. 1995 Feb. 2006 Aug. 2010

Number of Households 16 Buildings 15 Stories 1468 Households 10 Buildings 24 Stories 1408 Households 25 Buildings 26 Stories 1728 Households 15 Buildings 25 Stories 1306 Households

Heating Method Individual Heating Individual Heating Individual Heating Individual Heating

Fuel LNG LNG LNG LNG

91m2, 101m2, 124 m2, 80 m2, 104 m2, 140 m2, 79 m2, 81m2, 98 m2, 110 88 m2, 113 m2, 129 m2, 160

Size of Unit 135 m2, 139m2, 156 m2, 170 m2 159 m2, 198 m2 m2, 122 m2, 138 m2, 150 m2 m\ 183 m2, 200 m2

Parking 1 per household 1 per household 1.31 per household 1 per household

2. Characteristics of Respondents

The general characteristics of the subject households were as follows: The age of the housewives and husbands were 47.8(SD=10.3) and 50.4(SD=10.8) years on average respectively, and the level of education for both housewives and husbands was high - university graduate or higher. The percentage of stay-home housewives (57.5%) was high among the housewives, while for the husbands, the percentage of office workers (38.5%) was high. As for the family composition, 89.2% were a nuclear family.

Table 2 Characteristics of Respondents

Item Details Apt. A Apt. B Apt. C Apt. D

Age of Wives 30s or under 41(21.2) 13(14.4) 11(12.2) 57(31.8)

M = 47.8 40s 39(20.2) 39(43.3) 48(53.3) 41(22.9)

(SD = 10.3) 50s 57(29.5) 25(27.8) 28(31.1) 49(27.4)

60s or over 56(29.0) 13(14.4) 3( 3.3) 32(17.9)

Total 195(100.0) 90(100.0) 90(100.0) 179(100.0)

College Graduate or over 104(60.8) 45(52.9) 20(22.5) 134(67.0)

Education Level of Wives High School Graduate or under 67(39.2) 40(47.1) 74(77.5) 41(20.5)

Total 171(100.0) 85(100.0) 89(100.0) 175(100.0)

Occupation ofWives Housewife 95(58.6) 52(65.0) 47(52.8) 93(55.7)

Employed 67(41.4) 28(35.0) 42(47.2) 74(44.3)

Total 162(100.0) 80(100.0) 89(100.0) 167(100.0)

Age of Husbands 30s or under 39(20.4) 7( 7.8) 8( 8.9) 39(22.0)

M = 50.4 40s 30(15.4) 27(30.0) 38(42.2) 54(30.5)

(SD = 10.8) 50s 54(27.7) 32(35.6) 36(40.0) 38(21.5)

60s or over 68(35.6) 24(26.7) 8( 8.9) 46(26.0)

Total 195(100.0) 90(100.0) 90(100.0) 177(100.0)

Education Level of Husbands College Graduate or over 129(75.0) 29(34.1) 15(16.9) 154(87.5)

High School Graduate or under 43(25.0) 56(65.9) 74(83.1) 22(12.5)

Total 172(100.0) 85(100.0) 89(100.0) 176(100.0)

Occupation of Husband's White-colored 54(33.1) 24(26.7) 44(49.4) 60(33.9)

Self-employed 53(32.5) 20(22.2) 22(24.7) 36(20.3)

Production worker 28(17.2 26(28.9) 8( 9.0) 35(19.8)

Professional 28(17.2) 20(22.2) 15(16.9) 46(26.0)

Total 163(100.0) 90(100.0) 89(100.0) 177(100.0)

Family Life Cycle Pre-School 39(25.3) 9( 10.5) 8( 9.0) 38(24.8)

Primary 15(9.7) 8( 9.3) 22(24.7) 37(24.2)

Secondary 12(6.2) 17(19.8) 20(22.5) 12(7.8)

Adulthood 88(45.1) 52(60.5) 39(43.8) 66(43.1)

Total 154(100.0) 86(100.0) 89(100.0) 153(100.0)

Average Monthly Income Under 300 63(33.9) 25(27.8) 12(13.6) 31(16.2)

(ten thousand won) 300-400 48(25.8) 41(45.6) 19(21.6) 34(17.7)

400-500 38(19.5) 18(20.0) 23(26.1) 37(19.3)

500-600 21(11.3) 4( 4.4) 13(14.8) 27(14.1)

600 and over 16(8.6) 2( 2.2) 21(23.9) 63(32.8)

Total 186(100.0) 90(100.0) 88(100.0) 192(100.0)

Housing Size 79 rrf-95 rrf 54(28.3) 44(48.9) 15(16.7) 51(25.5)

105 rrf-119rrf 85(44.5) 26(28.9) 30(46.7) 97(48.5)

135 m!-148 rrf 52(27.2) 20(22.2) 33(36.7) 52(26.0)

Total 191(100.0) 90(100.0) 90(100.0) 200(100.0)

Residence Period Less than 2 years 41(21.5) 6( 6.7) 14(16.1) 85(43.6)

2-4 years 36(18.8) 6( 6.7) 38(43.7) 110(56.4)

4-5 years 32(16.8) 12(13.3) 35(40.2) -

5-10 years 42(22.0) 35(38.9) - -

10 years or more 40(20.9) 31(34.4) - -

Total 195(100.0) 90(100.0) 90(100.0) 195(100.0)

4.Result

All forty sub-attributes of evaluation (13 physical attributes, 11 mental, 8 social, and 8 managerial), the upper level of 87 items, weie measured for the study. The result from this study was that the health quality levels were different according to the dwelling ages of apartment complexes.

The health quality of apartment "A," the oldest with 24 years, turned to be the lowest among the most items. The numbers of the sub-attributes rated 3.0 and lower were 6 (noise, materials, home accident, natural disasters, space composition, human traffic line) out of 13 physical, 6 (attractiveness of apartments complex, noise level, green space, pride, menal security, prevention of crime and traffic accident) out of 11 mental evaluation sub-attributes (table 3). In the meantime, 6 evaluation sub-attributes out of 8 turned out to be 3.0 or lower in social and managerial aspects (table 4).

In case of the 20-year-old apartment "B," only the rating for a sub-attribute for 'User Manual' in managerial aspect was lower than 3.0.

The health quality of 9-year-old apartment "C" was rated lower than 3.0 in sub-attributes of User Manual, Residential Rules, and Rule & Regulations of Organization in managerial aspect, except for the noise, Materials, and Noise Level that have been issues since the construction.

On the other hand, apartment "D," the newest with 5 years, marked higher than 3.0 in all items of health quality.

In general, the housing quality of Apartment "A"(24 years) was low and Apartment "D"(5 years) was high. Apartment "B" (20 years) and "C" (9 years) turned out to have similar health quality in most items.

Na Na Kang et al. /Energy Procedia 62 (2014) 595 - 602 Table 3. Health Performance Evaluation Result of Physical and Mental Dimensions

Aspects Attributes Sub-Attributes Evaluation Items

Residents' Evaluation

Apt. A Apt. B Apt. C Apt. D F-test

Comfort

Physical

Mental

Air quality

Ventilation

3.7(0.8) 3.4(0.6) a b

3.6(0.7) bc

4.0(0.7) c

15.9 df=3

Noise Noise between unit 2.7(0.8) 3.2(0.7) 2.6(0.8) 3.5(0.8) 50.0 ***

Facility noise condition a b a c df=3

Light Easy control of lights 3.3(0.8) 3.3(0.6) 3.4(0.7) 3.8(0.7) 20.0 ***

Sunlight a a a b df=3

Thermal Easy control of temperature Insulation 3.3(0.8) a 3.4(0.7) b 3.4(0.8) ab 3.9(0.7) c 27.8 df=3 ***

Environment- Wind path and natural cooling 3.5(0.7) 3.5(0.7) 3.5(0.7) 4.2(0.7) 38.2

Friendliness Adoption of passive design a a a b df=3

Garbage disposal and recycle

Hygiene Cleanness facilities 3.2(0.7) 3.3(0.7) 3.4(0.6) 3.5(0.7) 7.5 ***

Ventilation and water purification a ab bc c df=3

systems

Materials Eco-friendly building materials Pollution-resistant materials 2.7(0.7) a 3.1(0.7) b 2.9(0.7) c 3.4(0.7) d 31.2 df=3 ***

Support for Physical Access to green areas 3.3(1.1) 3.4(0.7) 3.6(0.8) 4.3(0.7) 50.1 ***

Activities Space for exercise a a b c df=3

Safety Home Accident Safety of banisters, windows and steps 2.8(0.6) a 3.1(0.6) 3.2(0.6) 3.6(0.6) 54.8 ***

Safety of finishing materials Proper fire escape b b c df=3

Natural Disasters Safety to typhoon and flood Earthquake resistance 2.9(0.8) a 3.1(0.7) b 3.3(0.6) c 3.5(0.7) d 29.8 df=3 ***

GnvrieïE Space Composition Parking lot location and securement Room arrangement and location 2.4(0.7) a 3.3(0.7) b 3.6(0.8) c 3.8(0.8) d 122.5 df=3 ***

Facility Performance Convenient IT facilities 3.1(0.7) 3.3(0.7) 3.5(0.7) 3.7(0.8) 23.8 ***

Number and location of elevators a b b c df=3

Human Traffic Lines Proper segregation of sidewalk Space for kids and the disabled and elderly 2.4(0.7) a 3.3(0.7) b 3.2(0.7) b 3.7(0.8) c 92.4 df=3 ***

Attractiveness of Apartment Complex Landscape of the complex and balance with the surrounding environment 2.8(0.7) a 3.1(0.6) b 3.5(0.7) c 4.0(0.7) d 107.1 df=3 ***

Vitality Building facade

Floor Area Ratio Proper development density Views 3.0(0.7) a 3.2(0.6) b 3.0(0.7) ab 3.7(0.8) c 41.9 df=3 ***

Light Condition Sunlight conditions in each unit 3.5(0.8) 3.2(0.8) 3.2(0.9) 3.9(0.8) 24.9 ***

Sunlight conditions in public space b a a c df=3

Noise Level External noise 2.8(0.9) a 3.0(0.8) 2.8(0.8) a 3.4(0.8) 22.3

Internal noise b c df=3

Proper Space Size Adequate room size 3.2(0.6) a 3.3(0.6) a 3.1(0.8) a 3.7(0.7) 24.7

Adequate ceiling height b df=3

Stability Green Space Green space securement Quality of green space 2.9(0.9) a 3.2(0.7) b 3.3(0.7) b 3.9(0.7) c 53.3 df=3 ***

Privacy Visual privacy between unit 3.0(0.8) 3.3(0.6) 3.3(0.7) 3.7(0.8) 29.0 ***

/building

Use of public space and ownership ethos

Privatization

Level of privatization

Area of Territory

3.1(06) 33(0.7) 3.4(06) 38(0.71 443 *** a b b c df=3

Pride in one's own complex Pride in one's own unit house

29(08) 33(06) 36(06) 4.0(0.7) 823 *** a b c d df=3

Security

Mental Security

Emotional security from crimes

Emotional security from natural disasters

2.9(0.8)

3.3(0.7) b

3.3(0.7) b

3.8(0.7) c

Prevention of Crime

Security for pedestrians

and Traffic Accident Security and crime p^^oii

systems

2.4(0.8)

3.3(0.6) b

3.2(0.7) b

17.0 df=3

3.7(0.7) c

9.6 df=3

* p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001

As the Duncan test of Multivariate Analysis of Variance, in total eight sub-attributes (3 physical, 2 mental, 1 social and 2 managerial), the health housing qualities were highly different according to the dwelling unit age. In other words, residents residing in new apartments evaluated eight sub-attributes (materials, natural disasters, space composition, attractiveness of apartment complex, pride, complex reputation, short-term maintenance, residential rules) more positively .

The social aspect in this context refers to the life independence, social integration, community identity and stability in terms of community facilities and dwellers' intention that all the characteristics respond to the needs of dwellers regarding healthy social life. The definition on the managerial aspect is operational activities for complex facilities, maintenance and repair for improving physical performance of building and facilities, living information management related to dweller management including managerial guidelines and rules for dwellers, organizational management for dwellers' organizations. Therefore, social and managerial aspects are heavily influenced by the dwelling unit age, compared to physical and mental aspects. Looking at the health quality at managerial level, it was shown that from apartment "C" (9 years) to older apartments, the ratings were 3.0 and under. Given this, it is safe to say that the managerial aspect is the most sensitive among all four aspects.

Table 4. Health Performance Evaluation Result of social and Managerial Dimensions

Aspects Attributes

SubAttributes

Evaluation Items

Residents' Evaluation

Apt. A Apt. B Apt. C Apt. D

F-test

Social

sufficiency

Natural Usability of adjacent parks

Environmait Quality of adjacent parks

2.9(1.0) 3.3(0.8) 3.4(0.8) 4.0(0.7) 57.8 *** abb c df=3

Education Amenities

Sufficient Community Facilities (commercial, medical and leisure)

Sufficient education facilities_

Access to public transportation and the diversity_

2.7(0.8) 3.6(0.8) 3.7(0.6) 3.5(0.8) 69.0 *** a bc c b df=3

Social Integration

Neighbour Diversity of plan

Friendliness Diversity of size

3.0(0.6) 3.1(0.5) 3.2(0.5) a b b

3.6(0.7) c

Variability of unit

Family

Friendliness Composition of family life cycle

3.0(0.5) 3.2(0.6) 3.2(0.5) a b b

39.9 df=3

3.5(0.6) c

31.8 df=3

Identity

Complex

Complex image and reputation

2.7(0.6) 3.4(0.6) 3.6(0.6) 4.0(0.7) 159.4

Reputation Consistency of economic value

Composition and attractiveness of walking paths in the complex_

Settlement Consciousnes

Closeness to neighbours and kinship

Mutual support among residents_

Residents' participation in community activities or their intention

2.8(0.6) 3.1(0.6) 3.1(0.8) a b b

3.3(0.7) c

18.5 df=3

Open space composition

Residential Stability

Community Facilities

Adequate common facilities and welfare

amenities_

Adequate community program_

2.2(0.7) 3.0(0.6) 3.4(0.7) a b c

3.8(0.7) d

Settlement Ethos

Moving (Move-in/our) Rate Ownership Rate

2.9(0.5) 3.2(0.6) 3.2(0.6) a b b

3.6(0.6) c

9.6 df=3

12.9 df=3

Managerial Operation Activities

Cleaning Condition and Hygiene Management

Cleaning condition in/out of the complex Garbage disposal and cleaning systems Hygiene management (disinfection etc.)

3.0(0.7) 3.3(0.6) 3.4(0.6) a b b

3.6(0.7) c

Support and Operation of Amenities

Mail and parcel management_

Security and crime prevention activities,

parking management_

Adequacy of maintenance cost_

3.1(0.6) 3.3(0.6) 3.4(0.5) a b b

3.7(0.7) c

26.1 df=3

34.4 df=3

Mantenance Short-term Maintenance

Maintenance and safety management of

common space_

Quick and proper maintenance and management_

2.6(0.8) 3.2(0.6) 3.4(0.6) a b c

3.8(0.7) d

Mid/Long- Management of allowances for long-term

term and/or special repairs_

Maintenance Safety evaluates_

2.7(0.8) 3.2(0.7) 3.1(0.5) a b b

3.6(0.7) c

91.2 df=3

53.8 df=3

Infoimiitiai User Manual Management

User manual distribution

Operation and promotion of apartment complex website_

2.4(0.7) 2.9(0.7) 2.8(0.6) a b b

3.5(0.7) c

Residential Rules

Designation and promotion of basic rules

for living in the apartment complex_

Rule abidance of residents

2.5(0.7) 3.0(0.7) 2.9(0.5) a b c

3.4(0.7) d

83.6 df=3

55.0 df=3

Organization Management

Organization Appointment and roles and responsibilities Arrangement Member education and management_

2.6(0.7) 3.0(0.5) 3.0(0.6) a b b

3.3(0.7) c

Rule &

Regulations

Organization

Active residents' communities

Resident education

2.6(0.7) 3.0(0.6) 2.9(0.7) a bc b

28.7 df=3

3.1(0.7) c

23.5 df=3

* p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001

5.Conclusion

The demand for healthy dwelling has been increasing recently, due to the improvement of living quality and sustainable growth of interest in health. Under the circumstances, this study was conducted to understand healthy housing quality according to dwelling unit age, using the evaluation indicators of healthy housing quality. The results are as below:

First, a multi-family attached house aged approximately 10 years showed low health quality, in terms of managerial aspect, among all four evaluation aspects (physical, mental, social, and managerial). In other words, the managerial aspect is important to improve healthy housing quality and residents' satisfaction.

Second, a multi-family attached house aged approximately 25 years showed low health quality in all four aspects, so it is urgently necessary to plan of improving healthy housing quality.

Third, the quality of social and managerial aspects turned out to be particularly affected by dwelling unit age.

The evaluation result from this study can be used for exploring diverse directions to improve healthy housing quality, as it provides not only comprehensive evaluation on healthy housing quality of multi-family attached house, but also selective evaluation according to dwelling unit age. At the same time, it is also expected that the study would be utilized in managerial area of apartments if the evaluation on healthy housing quality is conducted sustainably, by using the evaluation indicators

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP)(No. 2008-0061908)

References

[1] Yu CWF, Kim JT. Holistic healthy building for human habitat. Indoor Built Environ 2011;20(1):3-4.

[2] Cho SH, Lee TK: A study on building sustainable communities in high-rise and high-density apartments - focused on living program: Build Environ 2011;46:1428-1435.

[3] WHO (2004). WHO technical meeting on Housing-Health Indicators.

[4] WHO (2006). Housing-Health regulation in Europe.

[5] Philomena M. B.:(2010), Towards new methods and ways to create healthy and comfortable buildings: Build Environ 2010; 45: 808-818.

[6] van Kamp I, Leidelmeijer K, Marsman G, de Hollander A: Urban environmental quality and human well-being Towards a conceptual framework and demarcation of concepts; a literature study: Landscape and Urban Planning 2003; 65: 5-18.

[7] Amerigo M, Aragones JI: A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction: J Environ Psychol 1997; 17: 47-57.

[8] Liu AMM: Residential satisfaction in housing estates: a Hong Kong perspective: Autom Constr 1999; 8: 511-524.

[9] Cho SH, Lee TK, Kim JT: Residents' satisfaction of indoor environmental quality in their old apartment homes: Indoor Built Environ 2011;20:16-25

[10] Cho SH, Kang NN, Kim JT: Energy-saving effects of residents' awareness and behaviour in apartments: Energy Build 2010; 46: 112-122.

[11] Cho SH, Kang NN: A Study on the Evaluating Indicators of the Healthy Housing Quality of Apartments: J Korean Hous Assoc 2011; 221(1): 43-55