Senior co-housing communities offer an in-between solution for older people who do not want to live in an institutional setting but prefer the company of their age peers. Residents of co-housing communities live in their own apartments but undertake activities together and support one another. This paper adds to the literature by scrutinizing the benefits and drawbacks of senior co-housing, with special focus on the forms and limits of social support and the implications for the experience of loneliness. Qualitative fieldwork was conducted in eight co-housing communities in the Netherlands, consisting of document analysis, interviews, focus groups, and observations. The research shows that co-housing communities offer social contacts, social control, and instrumental and emotional support. Residents set boundaries regarding the frequency and intensity of support. The provided support partly relieves residents’ adult children from caregiving duties but does not substitute formal and informal care. Due to their access to contacts and support, few residents experience social loneliness. Co-housing communities can potentially also alleviate emotional loneliness, but currently, this happens to a limited degree. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for enhancing the benefits and reducing the drawbacks of senior co-housing. Original article at MDPI; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193776
MULTIFILE
Energy efficiency has gained a lot of prominence in recent debates on urban sustainability and housing policy due to its potential consequences for climate change. At the local, national and also international level, there are numerous initiatives to promote energy savings and the use of renewable energy to reduce the environmental burden. There is a lot of literature on energy saving and other forms of energy efficiency in housing. However, how to bring this forward in the management of individual housing organisations is not often internationally explored. An international research project has been carried out to find the answers on management questions of housing organisations regarding energy efficiency. Eleven countries have been included in this study: Germany, the United Kingdom (more specifically: England), France, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Austria and Canada. The state of the art of energy efficiency in the housing management of non-profit housing organisations and the embedding of energy efficiency to improve the quality and performance of housing in management practices have been investigated, with a focus on how policy ambitions about energy efficiency are brought forward in investment decisions at the estate level. This paper presents the conclusions of the research
DOCUMENT
Population ageing has become a domain of international discussions and research throughout the spectrum of disciplines including housing, urban planning, and real estate. Older people are encouraged to continue living in their homes in their familiar environment, and this is referred to as “ageing-in-place”. Enabling one to age-in-place requires new housing arrangements that facilitate and enable older adults to live comfortably into old age, preferably with others. Innovative examples are provided from a Dutch social housing association, illustrating a new approach to environmental design that focuses more on building new communities in conjunction with the building itself, as opposed to the occupational therapeutic approaches and environmental support. Transformation projects, referred to as “Second Youth Experiments”, are conducted using the Røring method, which is based on the principles of co-creation. De Benring in Voorst, The Netherlands, is provided as a case study of an innovative transformation project. This project shows how social and technological innovations can be integrated in the retrofitting of existing real estate for older people. It leads to a flexible use of the real estate, which makes the building system- and customer preference proof. Original article at: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8070089 © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI.
MULTIFILE
