Ruokamo, E; Kylkilahti, E; Lettenmeier, M and Toppinen, A (2024) Are people willing to share living space? Household preferences in Finland. Buildings & Cities, 5(1), pp. 601-619. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
This paper explores citizens' interest in space sharing in private housing. It is based on a large-scale random sample citizen survey (N = 1448) conducted in Finland focusing on multiple aspects of low-carbon housing. Both quantitative preference-related results and qualitatively analysed open question responses show that the concept of shared space use is relatively low in popularity. However, there are differences depending on the space to be shared. Approximately half of the respondents are willing to use shared space for exercise, children playing and repairing activities, whereas a small fraction would use it for cooking, working and studying, or guest accommodation. Respondents' backgrounds only slightly impact the willingness to share spaces. However, people in urban areas are more willing to share spaces. Larger floor area per inhabitant is negatively associated with the willingness to share spaces. This implies that sufficiency in housing is linked with space-sharing interests. This paper concludes that space-sharing is relatively unattractive under present conditions. Improving functionality and social trust by attractive design, clearer user rules and spreading good examples could be approaches to enhance the situation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | buildings; co-housing; Finland; housing; housing design; shared space; sharing; social practices; space usage; sufficiency; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | preference, housing, urban area, housing design, social practice, questionnaire, functionality, survey, household, Finland, children, exercise, social trust |
| Subjects: | design features, construction type, health behaviours and lifestyles, demography, urban form and morphology, decision-making and reasoning, Geography, design process, data collection methods, sociology, social theory |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here