Exploring the Factors Influencing Kaohsiung Residents’ Intentions to Choose Age-Friendly Housing
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Method
3.1. Logistic Regression Model
3.2. Description of Variable Settings
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
3.2.2. Independent Variables
- (1)
- Socioeconomic characteristics
- (2)
- Current housing attributes
- (3)
- Desired housing attributes
- (4)
- Questionnaire design
4. Data Description and Sample Statistics
4.1. Data Collection
4.2. Descriptive Statistics of Samples
4.2.1. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents
4.2.2. Current Housing Attributes
4.3. Desired Housing Attributes
5. Empirical Analysis Results
6. Conclusion and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- Please state your birth year:
- Please select your gender: 1. □ Male 2. □ Female.
- Please state the administrative district you are currently living in: District.
- Please state the current owner of your house: 1. □ Myself (or my spouse) 2. □ My parents/son/daughter 3. □ Landlord 4. □ Other.
- Please state the number of family members that are currently residing with you:
- Please state the monthly income of your family: 1. □ Less than NT$30,000 2. □ NT$31,000 to NT$60,000 3. □ NT$61,000 to NT$90,000 4. □ NT$91,000 to NT$120,000 5. □ NT$121,000 to NT$150,000 6. □ More than NT$151,000.
- Please state your highest level of education attained: 1. □ Lower than elementary school and below 2. □ Elementary school 3. □ Junior high school 4. □ Senior (vocational) high school 5. □ Associate’s degree 6. □ Bachelor’s degree (includes two-year and four-year technical programs) 7. □ Master’s degree 8. □ Doctoral degree.
- Please state the preferred location of your purchased house if you decide to move out: 1. □ The city center (Sinsing, Cianjin, Lingya, Sanmin, Gushan, Tsoying, and Fongshan districts) 2. □ The suburban area (Yancheng, Cianjhen, Siaogang, Nanzih, Ciaotou, Renwu, Niaosong, and Daliao districts).
- Please state your desired living arrangement if you decide to move out: 1. □ Living in the same house with parents/son/daughter 2. □ Living in the same neighborhood with parents/son/daughter 3. □ Living in the same area with parents/son/daughter 4. □ Living as far away from parents/son/daughter as possible.
- Please state the number of family members that you desire to reside with in the future if you decide to move out:
- Please state your house-buying priority if you decide to move out: □ Housing type (age friendly housing/ordinary housing) 2. □ Housing location (city center/suburban area).
- Please state your desired housing type if you decide to move out: 1. □ Age-friendly housing 2. □ Ordinary housing.
- Please state your desired room type if you decide to move out: 1. □ Suite 2. □ 1 bedroom 3. □ 2 bedrooms 4. □ 3 bedrooms 5. □ 4 bedrooms 6. □ 5 bedrooms or more.
- Please state your desired housing floor area if you decide to move out: 1. □ Less than 20 ping 2. □ 21 to 30 ping 3. □ 31 to 40 ping 4. □ 41 to 50 ping 5. □ 51 to 60 ping 6. □ More than 61 ping.
- Please state your desired housing total price if you decide to move out: 1. □ Less than NT$3 million 2. □ NT$3.01 to NT$5 million 3. □ NT$5.01 to NT$7 million 4. □ NT$7.01 to NT$9 million 5. □ NT$9.01 to NT$11 million 6. □ NT$11.01 to NT$13 million 7. □ NT$13.01 to NT$15 million 8. □ More than NT$15.01 million.
- Please state your desired housing unit price (NT$ per ping) if you decide to move out: 1. □ Below $140,000 2. □ NT%141,000 to NT$150,000 3. □ NT$151,000 to NT$160,000 4. □ NT$161,000 to NT$170,000 5. □ NT$171,000 to NT$180,000 6. □ NT$181,000 to NT$190,000 7. □ NT$191,000 to NT$200,000 8. □ NT$ NT$201,000 to NT$210,000 9. □ NT$211,000 to NT$220,000 10. □ NT$221,000 to NT$230,000 11. □ NT$231,000 to NT$240,000 12. □ More than NT$241,000.
- Please state your acceptable housing price range if you decide to move out: 1. □ Equivalent to the quoted price 2. □ by 1% to 5% higher than the quoted price 3. □ 6% to 10% higher than the quoted price 4. □ 11% to 15% higher than the quoted price 5. □ 16% to 20% higher than the quoted price.
- Please state the acceptable management fee range of your purchased house after you have moved out: 1. □ Less than NT$60 per ping 2. □ NT$61 to NT$70 per ping 3. □ NT$71 to NT$80 per ping 4. □ NT$81 to NT$90 per ping 5. □ More than NT$91 per ping.
- Please state your minimum desired loan-to-value ratio if you decide to move out: 1. □ No loan required 2. □ Less than 30% 3. □ 31% to 40% 4. □ 41% to 50% 5. □ 51% to 60% 6. □ 61% to 70% 7. □ 71% to 80% 8. □ 81% to 90% 9. □ 91% to 100%.
- Please check the factors that influence your choice of age-friendly housing(multiple choice): 1. □ Availability of age-friendly public infrastructure 2. □ Multigenerational-multiunit living arrangements 3. □ Lifetime home designs 4. □ Flexible space planning 5. □ Safety information system 6. □ Remote care services 7. □ Holistic spatial mechanisms. ~ Applicable for those who answered “Age-friendly housing” in Question 4 only; please leave this question blank if your answered “Ordinary housing.”
- Please check the factors that influence your choice against age-friendly housing (multiple choice): 1. □ Availability of age-friendly public infrastructure 2. □ Multigenerational-multiunit living arrangements 3. □ Lifetime home designs 4. □ Flexible space planning 5. □ Safety information system 6. □ Remote care services 7. □ Holistic spatial mechanisms. ~ Applicable for those who answered “Ordinary housing” in Question 4 only; please leave this question blank if your answered “Age-friendly housing.”
References
- Forsyth, A.; Molinsky, J.; Kan, H.Y. Improving housing and neighborhoods for the vulnerable, older people, small households, urban design, and planning. Urban Des. Int. 2019, 24, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.R. Feasibility of Aging in Place and Foundation of Life-time Housing Development. Taiwan Geriatr. Gerontol. 2006, 1, 138–150. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.H. The Concept of Total Planning for Senior Housing. Taiwan Geriatr. Gerontol. 2006, 1, 122–139. [Google Scholar]
- Szanton, S.L.; Leff, B.; Wolff, J.L.; Roberts, L.; Gitlin, L.N. Home-based care program reduces disability and promotes aging in place. Health Affairs 2016, 35, 1558–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.I.; Gollamudi, S.S.; Steinhubl, S. Digital technology to enable aging in plac. Exp. Gerontol. 2017, 88, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Bolling, K.; Mao, W.; Reichstadt, J.; Jeste, D.; Kim, H.C.; Nebeker, C. Technology to Support Aging in Place: Older adults’ perspectives. Healthcare 2019, 7, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahn, M.; Kwon, H.J.; Kang, J. Supporting aging-in-place well: Findings from a cluster analysis of the reasons for aging-in-place and perceptions of well-being. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2020, 39, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanguinetti, A. Diversifying cohousing: The retrofit model. J. Archit. Plan. Res. 2015, 32, 68–90. [Google Scholar]
- Scheidt, R.J. Coming of age in aging America. Gerontologist 2017, 57, 1187–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, X.L.; Liu, C.W.; Zhu, Y.F. Study on the Item Development and Distribution Model of an Age-Friendly Retirement Community. Hous. Sci. 2020, 2, 184–211. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, M.Y. Building a Friendly and Smart Living Space Suitable for All Ages. Consum. Rep. Taiwan 2019, 462, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, W.A.; Onaka, J.C. An empirical test of joint model of residential mobility and housing choice. Environ. Plan. 1985, 17, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhat, C.R. A comprehensive dwelling unit choice model accommodating psychological constructs within a search strategy for consideration set formation. Transp. Res. Part B 2015, 79, 161–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnet, O. Individual Housing Choices and Aggregate Housing Prices: Discrete Choice Models Revisited with Matching Models. Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Political Studies, Paris, France, 2018. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, St. Louis. [Google Scholar]
- Coulter, R. Parental background and housing outcomes in young adulthood. Hous. Stud. 2018, 33, 201–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsieh, C.L.; Tsai, R.U. Urban Development and Quality of Life: A Study on Housing Choices of the Elderly and Younger Generations. J. Reg. Soc. Dev. Res. 2014, 5, 37–62. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.M. Cross-Generation in the Same Neighborhood 1 + 1 Residential Living Pattern Study—Blue Ocean Strategy of Yungching Real Estate Inc. Master’s Thesis, National Chiayi University, Chiayi, Taiwan, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, C.; Lin, J. Types of relations between adult children and elderly parents in Taiwan: Mechanisms accounting for various relational types. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 2009, 40, 305–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.-C. The Effect of Co-Residence Preference and Filial Norms on Intergenerational Living Arrangement; University Graduate Institute of Department of Urban Planning: Tainan, Taiwan; NCKU: Tainan, Taiwan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Y.T. Intergenerational Relationships and Adult Children Support to Ageing Parents in Taiwan. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Development Studies—Taiwan Experience 2.0: Local and Global Development Studies and Practices, Taipei City, Taiwan, 27–28 October 2018; pp. 582–606. [Google Scholar]
- Shih, Y.P. Parenting in Three-generation Taiwanese families: The dynamics of collaboration and conflicts. Contemp. Perspect. Fam. Res. 2019, 15, 231–256. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, C.H. A Study on the Housing Requirement on All-Age Housing Community: A Case Study in Tainan City. Master’s Thesis, Kun Shan University Graduate Institute of Real Estate Development and Management, Tainan, Taiwan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Naess, P.; Peter, S.; Stefansdottir, H.; Strand, A. Causality, not just correlation: Residential location, transport rationales and travel behavior across metropolitan contexts. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 69, 181–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiang, C.K. A Study of Affecting Factors on the Decision making of House Purchasing-A Case Study in Kaohsiung. Master’s Thesis, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences Graduate Institute of Civil Engineering and Hazard Protection, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, L.Y.; Chign, C.H.; Chen, S.M. An Analysis on the Living Arrangement Choices of the Elderly: A Discussion on Intergenerational Relationships. J. Hous. Stud. 2006, 15, 45–64. [Google Scholar]
- Kuo, H.P. Effects of Filial Piety on Living Arrangement between Baby Boomers and Generation-X. Master’s Thesis, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, Y.H.; Peng, C.W. Married young adults living with parents-an analysis of regional differences. Int. Real. Estate Rev. 2019, 22, 431–462. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, G.L.; Chang, C.O. Transitions in Living Arrangements and Living Preferences among Elderly: An Analysis from Family Values and Exchange Theory. J. Popul. Stud. 2010, 40, 41–90. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, C.C. A Review and Outlook of Methods for Assessing the Requirements in Adult Education in Taiwan. Adult Educ. Bimon. 1993, 11, 31–38. [Google Scholar]
- Chien, W.Y.; Yi, C.C. The Dynamic Development of Taiwanese Families: Structural Fission and Expansion. J. Popul. Stud. 2001, 23, 1–47. [Google Scholar]
- Chao, T.Y. City Living and Empty Nesters—Attitudes to Mixed-Use Areas. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.Y. The Research on the Influences of Population Structure Change Scenarios on Housing Purchase Behavior Preferences: A Study of Taipei City. Master’s Thesis, National Cheng Chi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, C.P. Model for Housing Duality and Household Movement Decision. J. Archit. Plan. 2013, 14, 131–146. [Google Scholar]
- Lein, C.Y. Fuzzy Linguistic Approach and Discrete Choice Theory for Building Choice Behavior Model in Household Purchase. Ph.D. Thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Tefera, B.P.D. Factors Affecting Real Estate Customers Choice of Residential Houses; Evidence from Some Selected Real Estate Ccompanies in Ethiopia. Master’s Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W.D.; Hung, C.Y. Parental support and living arrangements among young adults in Taiwan. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2019, 34, 219–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, T.-C. Gender Selection in Destination Choices of Labor Migration. J. Hous. Stud. 2013, 22, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, K.S.; Liao, Y.T.; Hsueh, S.L. Implementing smart green building architecture to residential project based on Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2017, 5, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, K.C. Effect of distinct land use patterns on quality of life in urban settings. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2019, 145, 261–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.; Chen, S.; Somerville, T. Economic and social status in household decision-making: Evidence relating to extended family mobility. Urban Stud. 2003, 40, 733–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.L.; Lin, C.C. Wealth Effect, Income Effect, and Housing Demand. J. Hous. Stud. 1998, 7, 83–99. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, C.C.; Chang, C.F. Family and gender in Taiwan. East Asian Gend. Man. 2019, 13, 156–169. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, C.Y. The Effects of Housing Tenure on the Subjective Social Status and Self-Rated Health Status of the Elderly. J. Hous. Stud. 2018, 27, 85–110. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, T.; Horner, M.W. Exploring spatial effects on urban housing duration. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1415–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.L. Parent-child Living Arrangement under Intra-& Inter-Household Members’ Power Interaction. J. Hous. Stud. 2005, 14, 51–82. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Measurement Method | Expected Signs |
---|---|---|
Dependent variable | ||
Housing type (BCHOICETYPE) | There were two housing types in this study - age-friendly housing and ordinary housing. Respondents who chose age-friendly housing were set as 1 while the others who choose ordinary housing were set as 0. | |
Independent variables | ||
Socioeconomic characteristics | ||
Generation (GEN) | This study utilized an age of 66 years and above as a reference group, and older adults aged 66 years and above were set as 1 while younger adults aged under 66 years were set as 0. | + |
Gender (SEX) | In this study, gender was designed as a dummy variable in which males are set as 1 while females are set as 0. | + |
Current living location (CLOC) | Current living location was designed a dummy variable, in which city centers were set as 1 and suburban areas were set as 0. | + |
Monthly family income (INCOME) | Monthly family income was divided into low (less than NT$60,000); middle (between NT$60,000 and NT$120,000), and high (over NT$120,000), in which the low income group served as a reference, and two dummy variables (INCOME1 and INCOME2) were designed. In INCOME1, high income buyers were set as 1, while others were set as 0; in INCOME2, middle income buyers were set as 1, while others were set as 0. | + |
Education level (EDU) | Education level was divided into low, medium, and high, in which low education level served as the reference group, and two dummy variables (EDUH and EDUM) were designed. In EDUH, high education level was set as 1, while medium and low education level was set as 0. In EDUM, medium education level was set as 1, while high and low education level was set as 0. | + |
Current housing attributes | ||
Current house ownership (COWNSHIP) | In this study, there were three types of current house ownership: consumers’ (or their spouse’s) sole ownership; joint ownership between parents and sons/daughters; and tenancy and others, in which Tenancy and other served as a reference group, and two dummy variables (COWNSHIP1 and COWNSHIP2) were designed. In COWNSHIP1, sole ownership was set as 1, while joint ownership and tenancy and others were set as 0. In COWNSHIP2, joint ownership was set as 1, while sole ownership and tenancy and others were set as 0. | + |
Current family type (CTYPE) | Current family type was determined by the number of family members in a family. Family types included nuclear family and stem family, and a dummy variable was designed. A family with one to four current members is a nuclear family while a family with five or more members is a stem family. Consumers with a stem family were set as 1, while consumers with a nuclear family were set as 0. | + |
Desired housing attributes | ||
Desired living location (HLOC) | For the desired living location variable, suburban areas served as the reference group, and a dummy variable (HLOC) was designed, in which city centers were set as 1, and suburban areas were set as 0. | + |
Desired living arrangement (HLIVETYPE) | This study divided living arrangement into three types based on distance: parents-sons/daughters co-residence; living in the same neighborhood with each other; and living as far apart as possible. The latter served as the reference group, and two dummy variables (HLIVETYPE1 and HLIVETYPE2) were designed. In the former, parents-sons/daughters co-residence was set as 1, while other living arrangements were set as 0. In the latter, parents and sons/daughters living in the same neighborhood with each other was set as 1, while other living arrangements were set as 0. We surmise that the coefficients of the two desired living arrangement variables have positive values. | + |
Desired family type (HFAMTYPE) | Two desired family types were designed, stem families (five members or more) and nuclear families (one to four members), in which nuclear families served as a reference group, and a dummy variable (HFAMTYPE) was designed. Respondents who were part of a stem family were set as 1, while those who were part of a nuclear family were set as 0. | + |
House-buying priorities (BCHOICE) | Respondents prioritized two factors - housing type (age-friendly housing and ordinary housing) and housing location (city center or suburban area) when buying a house. Respondents who prioritized housing type were set as 1, while those who prioritized housing location were set as 0. | + |
Desired housing unit price (HUP) | There were three types of desired housing unit prices - high (more than NT$180,000); middle (between NT$140,000 and NT$180,000), and lower (NT$140,000), in which lower-priced housing served as a reference group, and two dummy variables (HUPH, HUPM) were designed. In the former, high-priced housing was set as 1, while middle- and lower-priced housing were set as 0. In the latter, middle-priced housing was set as 1, while high- and lower-priced housing were set as 0. As of September 1, 2020, 1$US is equal to 29.75$NT. | − |
Variable | Frequency | (%) |
---|---|---|
Generation (GEN) | ||
Parents (above 66 years of age) | 17 | 5.7 |
Sons/daughters (below 66 years of age) | 283 | 94.3 |
Gender (SEX) | ||
Male | 141 | 47.0 |
Female | 159 | 53.0 |
Current living location (CLOC) | ||
City center | 140 | 46.7 |
Suburban area | 160 | 53.3 |
Monthly family income (INCOME) | ||
Low (below NT$60,000) | 124 | 41.3 |
Middle (between NT$61,000 and NT$120,000) | 124 | 41.3 |
High (over NT$121,000) | 52 | 17.4 |
Education level (EDU) | ||
Low (elementary school and below) | 25 | 8.3 |
Medium (senior high school and junior college) | 147 | 49.0 |
High (university and above) | 128 | 42.7 |
Current house ownership (COWNSHIP) | ||
Respondent’s (or their spouse’s) sole ownership | 129 | 43.0 |
Joint ownership between parents and sons/daughters | 111 | 37.0 |
Renting and others | 60 | 20.0 |
Current family type (CTYPE) | ||
Nuclear family | 205 | 68.3 |
Stem family | 95 | 31.7 |
Living in the same neighborhood | 83 | 27.7 |
Living in the same area | 99 | 33.0 |
Living as far away as possible | 14 | 4.7 |
Desired family type (HFAMTYPE) | ||
Nuclear family | 221 | 73.7 |
Stem family | 79 | 26.3 |
Desired housing type (HTYPE) | ||
Age-friendly housing | 151 | 50.3 |
Ordinary housing | 149 | 49.7 |
House-buying priorities (BCHOICE) | ||
Housing type | 123 | 41.0 |
Housing location | 177 | 59.0 |
Desired housing unit price (HUP) | ||
Lower-priced (less than NT$140,000 per ping) | 116 | 38.7 |
Middle-priced (NT$141,000 to NT$180,000 per ping) | 106 | 35.3 |
High-priced (more than NT$181,000 per ping) | 78 | 26.0 |
Variable | Estimated Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald Statistic | p-Value | Odds Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Generation (GEN) | −1.623 | 0.784 | 4.293 | 0.038 ** | 0.197 |
Gender (SEX) | −0.150 | 0.268 | 0.315 | 0.575 | 0.860 |
Current living location (CLOC) | 0.866 | 0.283 | 9.350 | 0.002 *** | 2.377 |
High monthly family income (INCOME1) | 1.109 | 0.435 | 6.503 | 0.011 ** | 3.032 |
Medium monthly family income (INCOME2) | 0.538 | 0.312 | 2.978 | 0.084 * | 1.712 |
High education level (EDUH) | −0.305 | 0.668 | 0.209 | 0.648 | 0.737 |
Medium education level (EDUM) | −0.703 | 0.660 | 1.134 | 0.287 | 0.495 |
Sole ownership (COWNSHIP1) | 0.256 | 0.384 | 0.446 | 0.504 | 1.292 |
Joint ownership (COWNSHIP2) | −0.237 | 0.381 | 0.388 | 0.533 | 0.789 |
Current family type (CTYPE) | 0.589 | 0.349 | 2.847 | 0.092 * | 1.802 |
Desired living location (HLOC) | −0.509 | 0.314 | 2.640 | 0.104 | 0.601 |
Co-residence (HLIVETYPE1) | −0.059 | 0.344 | 0.029 | 0.864 | 0.943 |
Living in the same neighborhood (HLIVETYPE2) | 0.608 | 0.328 | 3.436 | 0.064 * | 1.836 |
Desired family type (HFAMTYPE) | 1.690 | 0.394 | 18.412 | 0.001 *** | 5.419 |
House-buying priorities (BCHOICE) | 0.835 | 0.279 | 8.947 | 0.003 *** | 2.304 |
High desired housing price (HUPH) | −0.061 | 0.364 | 0.028 | 0.867 | 0.941 |
Middle desired housing price (HUP) | −0.376 | 0.310 | 1.472 | 0.225 | 0.686 |
LR chi2(17) Prob> chi2Pseudo | 64.100.0010.154 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wu, K.-K.; Lee, C.-C.; Liang, C.-M.; Yeh, W.-C.; Yu, Z. Exploring the Factors Influencing Kaohsiung Residents’ Intentions to Choose Age-Friendly Housing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217793
Wu K-K, Lee C-C, Liang C-M, Yeh W-C, Yu Z. Exploring the Factors Influencing Kaohsiung Residents’ Intentions to Choose Age-Friendly Housing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):7793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217793
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Kun-Kuang, Chun-Chang Lee, Chih-Min Liang, Wen-Chih Yeh, and Zheng Yu. 2020. "Exploring the Factors Influencing Kaohsiung Residents’ Intentions to Choose Age-Friendly Housing" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21: 7793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217793