Evaluation of Common Activity and Life in Swedish Cohousing Units

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 Göteborg 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. INTRODUCTION Research BackgroundCohousing is one type of intentional communities that started in Scandinavian countries where typical nuclear families have changed rapidly in comparison to other countries. An intentional community is established by a group of people with same ideas as a settlement that forms a more humane housing environment. Since the 1970s, intentional communities have been spread to North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan to meet the needs of modern lifestyles.The history of intentional communities begin at Celtic Christian convents which were built on the shores of Ireland and Scotland during the 6-7 th century. Those were locally scattered, small sized, and mixed with males and females in the community. Though there were no festivals, they loved the earth and dreamt to be a role-model that 134International Journal of Human Ecology could lighten the darkness of the medieval era (Dawson, 2006). In the industrial society of the 20 th century a modern intentional community movement rose again as a solution for exhausted natural resources caused by a cost-driven society and intensified individualism (Lucas, 2006). People have initiated modern intentional communi...

Community and Civil Society Returns of Multi-generation Cohousing in Germany

“…They can be described as developments in which different kinds of people live together in intentionally built-up communities characterized by private homes but consisting of a strong social element through common facilities, proximity, and in some cases even shared premises and mandatory activities aiming at a more efficient and social-inclusive organization of daily life (Choi & Paulsson, 2011;Simon & Curtis, 2008;Williams, 2005). 1 Several studies evaluated cohousing.…”

“…1 Several studies evaluated cohousing. For example, Choi (2004) surveyed cohousing in Denmark and Sweden (N ¼ 536), and Choi and Paulsson (2011) conducted an in-depth analysis of Swedish developments (N ¼ 242). They conclude that residents are characterized by good health even in old age, share a lot of time and many activities with their neighbours, and are personally convinced that mutual support is more prevalent as compared with conventional housing.…”

Self-Build Homes

“…Durrett, 2009;Sangregorio, 2000;Sandstedt, 2010), or focuses on the practical or economic challenges of development (see, for example, Scott-Hunt, 2007;Scanlon and Fernández Arrigoitia, 2015;Tummers, 2015b). There are a few studies that describe the importance of community and social connection, as well as the greater quality of life and well-being that senior co-housing groups can offer (see, for example, Andresen and Runge, 2002;Choi and Paulsson, 2011;Kang et al, 2012). Forbes (2002, 6) finds that for co-housing schemes, 'connectedness and social participation contribute to a happier and healthier old age'.…”

Why Do People Move to Cohousing Communities in Sweden? - Are there any Significant Differences Between the +40 Cohousing and the Mixed-Age Cohousing?

“…In terms of age, a resident should be at least 55 years old or older to be subsidized for rental housing for the elderly by law in Denmark, or 50 years old or older in the Netherland. In Sweden, it had been as same as Denmark, but it changed into 40 years old or over instead of +55 cohousing (Choi & Paulsson, 2011).…”