Abstract
University-affiliated public housing (UAPH) is planned for the purpose of coexistence with the local community as well as housing stability for university students. However, shared spaces such as auxiliary welfare facilities planned to achieve that purpose are not being used by residents because no services or programs are provided. Lifestyle is a useful approach for identifying housing preferences in housing projects for special groups that share similar demographic characteristics. Thus, this study analyzed and clustered the lifestyle of university students, and investigated the differences in preferred auxiliary welfare facilities and residential services by cluster. Data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire survey of 424 university students using an online survey. As a result of the survey, in the factor analysis of university students’ lifestyle types, three categories were identified as individual propensity factors regardless of demographic characteristics except gender. In addition, the characteristics of university students were crucial in examining the preference of auxiliary welfare facilities and residential services of UAPH in terms of community facilities, auxiliary facilities, residential services, and program/operation management. Community facilities showed a high need for academic facilities, a low overall need for residential services, and a high need for program/operational management in terms of cost (housing cost reduction). In this study, there were differences in UAPH opinions according to lifestyle. In particular, many respondents showed a lifestyle that pursued practicality, and accordingly, a preference to utilize practicality, sociality, information, and technology was high. Therefore, for the sustainable operation and management in order to facilitate UAPH construction, the issue of housing cost, including not only rent but also management costs, should be considered most fundamentally, and it is necessary to provide facilities and programs that can provide practical help to the difficulties students face when living alone.
1. Introduction
Public housing is a type of rental housing owned by central or local governments. A classical approach in public housing research on residential preferences has been adopted based on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics such as age, household status, income, and neighborhood environment [1,2,3]. However, even people with similar social backgrounds have different public housing preferences [4,5]. As housing types have recently become complex and diversified, such as an increase in single-person households, there is a limit to identifying housing preferences based on socio-demographic background [6]. In this regard, the lifestyle concept can explain the part related to taste, such as the aesthetics of the interior and exterior space and safety, in addition to the existing socio-demographic viewpoint of people’s preference and choice of residence [6,7]. In particular, lifestyle research is useful for community development or special housing projects for groups with shared demographic characteristics, such as the elderly and youth, because it focuses on identifying the psychological and behavioral factors associated with specific behaviors, rather than looking for general characteristics [6].
Recently, as low growth and high-interest rates have continued, the housing cost burden for young people has increased. Young people with relatively low incomes compared to middle-aged people have difficulty securing housing costs and fall into housing poverty. As a result, an increasing number of young people in South Korea are choosing non-marriage and to not have children, which creates serious social problems, such as a low birth rate (According to the Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), Korea’s total fertility rate was 0.81 as of 2021 [8]. It is the lowest among the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.). Accordingly, the government announced a “Housing Welfare Road Map” to provide customized support for residents by life stage and income level to cope with the low birth rate and aging population in 2017. Focusing support on youth was one of the main provisions, and the types of public housing supply were diversified to expand beneficiaries to include various youth groups. In this regard, for university students’ housing stability as well as coexistence with the local community, university-affiliated public housing (UAPH) was promoted by using unused land on university campuses or university-owned land in urban centers. Cheongju Gaesin Happy Housing, the first UAPH, was completed on the Chungbuk National University campus in 2020. Although auxiliary welfare facilities such as community, seminar rooms, and educational research facilities have been built, they have been left without specific utilization plans.
Therefore, for the sustainable development of UAPH, it is necessary to conduct research on auxiliary welfare facilities and residential services by residents. The purpose of this study was to investigate the opinions of university students, the main target of UAPH, from a lifestyle point of view. To closely investigate this, we specifically tested three research questions: “What is the lifestyle of university students these days?”, “What clusters are university students divided into according to lifestyle type?”, “What are the differences in the preferred UAPH auxiliary welfare facilities, residential services depending on the cluster?” We derived the direction for the actual UAPH plan and existing UAPH operation by employing the lifestyle approach theory related to housing preference. Furthermore, it will contribute to the sustainable development of public housing types for the development of local communities as well as housing stability for university students.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. University-Affiliated Public Housing (UAPH)
The “Housing Welfare Roadmap” announced by the Korean government in 2017 is a policy to supply public housing for the purpose of stabilizing housing for the underprivileged,, such as university students, newlyweds, and the elderly. Accordingly, the target for young people has been expanded to include the young without income activities. To achieve this, the government established a plan to build public housing in urban areas close to workplaces or universities, such as idle railway land or public land owned by the state or local government, in connection with urban regeneration projects. Moreover, public housing was built to revitalize the local economy and increase social exchanges among residents, commercial and public functions, and culture and arts [9,10,11]. This is because understanding and cooperation between local governments and residents were necessary for the smooth and sustainable implementation of the public housing project. Consequently, convenience facilities were installed with the cooperation of other government ministries, and programs associated with local residents were strengthened [11].
For the smooth and sustainable supply of public housing, the supply of youth housing and student dormitories has also expanded, and the form of supply has been diversified, such as shared houses, soho-type housing clusters, industry-affiliated housing, and women’s safe housing. Accordingly, in 2018, UAPH, which utilizes idle sites on the university campus and university-owned sites in the city, was promoted to reduce the housing cost burden on university students and stabilize their housing. It is a university-led project designed to improve the relationship between the university and the local community and revitalize the local economy through industry-university cooperative public housing [12].
The Cheongju Gaesin Happy House was the first UAPH to build a total of 150 units on a site of about 4000 m2 in the Gaesin Campus of Chungbuk National University, and was moved in 2020. In the case of the Cheongju Gaesin Happy House, spaces for auxiliary welfare facilities, such as seminar rooms, the common community, and open community were planned, but specific programs or services that fit the characteristics and needs of users were not provided, so they were not actually used, and were left unattended (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Community facilities of Chungbuk Gaesin Happy Housing; (a) Seminar room; (b) Common community; (c) Open community.
2.2. Lifestyle of University Students Segmentation
Lifestyle is a concept that expresses differences in psychology, attitude, and opinion about the way individuals or groups live [13,14]. The concept of lifestyle has been introduced in marketing to predict people’s preferences and choices more accurately [6]. A theoretical framework for lifestyle research on housing preferences was developed by Wirth [15], and the theory was further developed by researchers including Merton [16] and Bell [17]. Housing-related lifestyle studies emerged in the 1960s and the 1970s, and were used for research in the United States as variables related to residential location selection [7]. Furthermore, lifestyle was applied to special housing developments, such as senior communities, ecological housing, and architectural design; housing preferences were analyzed by identifying the specific aspects of the lifestyle of the selected target groups [6].
Categorizing lifestyle allows us to redefine key target layers and provide a new perspective on the market [14]. In the field of marketing, lifestyle begins with the three elements (activities, interests, and opinions) presented by Lazer [13], and many more typologies have been developed. Attitudes and beliefs are added [18], and values are also explained as important factors [19]. In particular, university students have been highlighted as a new resident group since the 1990s. Compared to the middle-aged, they earn less and are busy preparing for the future or newcomers to society, but they prefer social media and have their own consumption style and cultural influence. Moreover, many studies have explained the characteristics of university students as being familiar with the Internet and computers and spending their leisure time mainly with digital devices [20,21]. The lifestyle of university students is so diverse that it is difficult to generalize it compared to other middle-aged generations [22]. Thus, it is important to define and apply the lifestyle characteristics of university students in research settings. In previous studies on residential spaces, lifestyle characteristics were analyzed and categorized via a survey of university students in South Korea. The lifestyle typologies of the young generation aged 20–32 years (including university students) were divided based on their interests (trends, family, self-development, convenience, computers, practicality, exercise, and hobbies) [23]. Shin [24] introduced the lifestyle of university students, focusing on their beliefs and interests (trends, active self-expression, digital-oriented, wholesome consumption, home-oriented, gender equality). Lee and Oh [25] classified the belief-oriented lifestyle of university students, young adults, and newlyweds (information-oriented, personality, future, self-development, and practicality). Chung [26] focused on the interests of university students in more detail (style and brand, practicality, social media, expressing individuality, investing in oneself, being conscious of others, planned consumption, and price satisfaction). In these studies, there were differences in residential views and housing choices by lifestyle type [26], and opinions differed according to the characteristics of preferred residential and residential spaces and the importance of external residential environmental factors [25].
3. Methods
We reviewed previous research on the characteristics of UAPH and lifestyle typologies among university students to develop the questionnaire items. Next, two workshops and a case study of Cheongju Gaesin Happy House were conducted to supplement the questionnaire items with those of potential residents of the UAPH. And then, a survey was conducted among university students across the country to categorize lifestyle types and to collect opinions on UAPH. This study was conducted with the approval of the Chungbuk National University IRB Committee (CBNU-202110-HR-0176).
3.1. Data Collection
Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire survey, which was administered to university students over six days, from 11 to 16 November, 2021, by an online survey agency. The online survey agency has 429,250 panelists aged 20–29, accounting for 6.5% of the total number of people in their 20s in the South Korean population. The online survey was conducted in consideration of the situation in which face-to-face surveys were difficult due to COVID-19 and the characteristics of the research subjects who were familiar with the internet, so the survey was developed to prevent missing responses or outliers. The survey was also retrieved sequentially according to the sample allocated according to gender and residence area, and was randomly sent via email to the agency’s panel of university students. Accordingly, a total of 424 questionnaires were collected. The sample size for a survey about the lifestyle of a specific age group is about 200–400 [27,28,29,30,31]. Moreover, as of 2021, the number of university students in South Korea was 2,544,243, and the appropriate number of samples is 384 when calculated with a confidence level of 95% [25,32]. Therefore, all 424 responses were used for analysis after confirming that there were no problems with missing responses, outliers, duplicate responses, or data.
3.2. Specifying Questionnaire Items
In Table 1, the questionnaire comprised items in two survey areas: university students’ lifestyle evaluations, and opinions on UAPH. The questionnaire factors and items that investigate the lifestyle type of university students based on previous studies [25,26,33,34] are described in detail in Appendix A. In most lifestyle analyses using statistical techniques, fewer than ten categories are clearly separated [6]. Therefore, all questions were extracted from previous studies, consisting of 41 items and 10 factors, and were scored on a 5-point Likert scale.
Table 1.
Items for lifestyle evaluation and opinions on UAPH.
The items for opinions on UAPH was based on questions derived from previous studies [12,27,35,36] and added by collecting the needs and experiences of 18 students at Chungbuk National University who attended two workshops hosted by the research team. Moreover, the door-to-door survey of Cheongju Gaesin Happy House was also added to the items. The categories of affiliated welfare facilities refer to the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act of Korea (“welfare facilities” are stipulated as community facilities and neighborhood living facilities and “subsidiary facilities” refer to parking lots, management offices, garbage disposal facilities, etc.). The preference for each item was also scored on a 5-point Likert scale.
3.3. Analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 22.0. The respondents’ demographic characteristics were analyzed using frequency analysis. Factor analysis and reliability analysis was used to analyze lifestyle type. With 10 factors and 41 items, a factor analysis was conducted using the main component analysis of the VARIMAX rotation method to derive the lifestyle types of university students and determine their characteristics. After factor analysis, a reliability analysis was conducted for all items and factors. Items with a factor loading value of less than 0.55 were removed. This is because previous research has different criteria for factor loading values, but Comrey and Lee [37] describe that if the factor loading value exceeds 0.55, it can be judged as “good.” Moreover, items were also removed if the reliability value for the factor increased. Additionally, in an exploratory study, it can be considered reasonable if Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.6 or higher [38], so items with a reliability value of 0.6 or less were removed. As one of the commonly used methods for classifying lifestyle types is cluster analysis [39], this study performed a cluster analysis to classify the respondents into homogeneous groups based on the extracted lifestyle factors. Data commonly used for cluster analysis are distance values measured on an interval scale or ratio scale, and the Euclidian distance is commonly used to calculate them [40,41]. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted using Euclidean distance, and non-hierarchical cluster analysis was undertaken using the K-means method; thus, the most appropriate number of clusters was found. Finally, a chi-square test and one-way ANOVA were conducted to examine the differences in UAPH preferences for each cluster.
4. Results
4.1. Samples
The demographic characteristics of all 424 cases are presented in Table 2. Of the total respondents, 47.9% were male and 52.1% were female. The years of study included respondents in the first year, second year, third year, fourth year, and other (12.5%, 26.9%, 25.9%, 31.8%, and 2.8%, respectively). In terms of place of residence, Seoul represented 17.5%, Gyeonggi Province including Incheon represented 37.0%, Gangwon Province accounted for 2.8%, Chungcheong Province including Daejeon was home to 7.3%, Jeolla-do including Gwangju and Jeju represented 11.3%, and Gyeongsang-do including Daegu and Busan accounted for 24.1%. In terms of the location of the university they were attending, 29.2% in Gyeonggi-do, 22.4% in Seoul, 21.7% in Gyeongsang-do, 12.0% in Chungcheong-do, 10.1% in Jeolla-do, and 4.5% in Gangwon-do.
Table 2.
Demographic Characteristics.
4.2. Lifestyle of University Students
4.2.1. Factor Analysis
Eight factors and 25 items with an eigenvalue of 1 or more were extracted (the most used criterion in principal component analysis is to select factors with an eigenvalue of 1 or more [42,43]), as shown in Table 3. As a result of the reliability analysis for all items, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient had a value of 0.760, and the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) value was 0.755 (if the KMO value is greater than 0.50, it is suitable for factor analysis, and if it is between 0.70 and 0.79, it can be said to be middling [44]), which was suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity results was χ2 = 2671.132 (p < 0.001), indicating a significant difference. The cumulative explanatory power explained by all eight factors was 61.360%. In this regard, although there is no absolute standard for the explanatory power of all factors, there is a tendency to claim that it has explanatory power of around 60% in the social sciences [40]. Factor 1 was defined as “trend & personality”, factor 2 was “practicality”, factor 3 was “information-oriented”, factor 4 was “planned consumption”, factor 5 was “self-development & hobbies”, factor 6 was “hygiene & health concerns”, factor 7 was “high-tech concerns”, and factor 8 was “social interaction”. Although factors 6, 7, and 8 had only two items, each item had a factor load value of 0.7 or more, and when the factors were removed, the reliability value for all items, sample fit value, and explanatory power decreased, so these factors were not excluded.
Table 3.
Results of factor analysis by lifestyle evaluation items.
4.2.2. Cluster Analysis of Lifestyle Factors
As a result of the cluster analysis, respondents in this study were classified into 3 clusters, and the number of clusters in cluster 1 was 101, in cluster 2 it was 142, and in cluster 3 it was 181. The mean lifestyle factors for each cluster were calculated to clarify their characteristics. In addition, a variance analysis of the eight factors was conducted. The results are shown in Table 4, and there was a significant difference between the clusters for all factors.
Table 4.
Variance analysis of lifestyle factors by cluster.
In Cluster 1, the means for F5 (self-development & hobbies) and F3 (information-oriented) were higher than those of the other groups, but the mean was lower for F1 (trend & individuality), F4 (planned consumption), F7 (high-tech concerns), and F8 (social interaction). Cluster 2 had a higher mean than other groups only in F1 (trend & individuality), and had lower response values than other groups in F2 (practicality), F3 (information-oriented), F5 (self-development & hobbies), and F6 (hygiene & health concerns). Cluster 3 had a higher mean for all factors than did the other groups, except for F1 (trend & individuality) and F5 (self-development & hobbies). Based on the variance analysis of lifestyle factors, the characteristics of each cluster were described as follows. Cluster 1 is a “hobbyist” who prefers to be alone, but tends to gather around people with similar hobbies and tastes. They are active in their hobbies but do not spare money in such activities. Cluster 2 is a “value seeker” who can endure inconvenience if it matches their own values and beliefs. Cluster 3 is a “practical type” who sets and follows their own standards, not those of society. They pursue various lifestyles and show a practical tendency to fit in well with others. Therefore, when comparing the number of responses by cluster, it can be seen that the practical-type lifestyle is the most common among university students.
4.2.3. Demographic and Lifestyle Characteristics
Table 5 shows the demographic characteristics of the survey participants according to lifestyle type. There were significant differences among clusters in terms of sex. Among the male students, Cluster 3 (54.7%), “practical type” was the most prevalent, Cluster 1 (13.3%), “hobbyist”, was the least prevalent, and the number of respondents by cluster was different. On the other hand, female students had similar numbers of respondents across all types: Cluster 1 (33.5%), Cluster 2 (34.8%), and Cluster 3 (31.7%). In previous studies on housing preferences according to lifestyle, there were significant differences among clusters according to gender, age, and home ownership type [25], gender and age [45], and gender and family type [28]. However, as this study only focused on university students, the age group was not diverse; thus, a significant difference was noted only between the two sexes.
Table 5.
Demographic characteristics by lifestyle.
4.3. Opinions on UAPH by Lifestyle
Table 6 shows the analysis of the different opinions on the community facilities of UAPH according to the lifestyles of university students. Community facilities are largely divided into health, culture, education and start-up, leisure and hobbies, and public and convenience. All clusters chose public and convenience facilities as the most important, without significant differences by lifestyle (p-value = 0.237).
Table 6.
Overall community facilities needed by lifestyle type.
The opinions of 18 detailed community facilities according to the five categories above were investigated and analyzed by cluster (Table 7). Overall, the items with the highest average need were study rooms (3.92) and outdoor parks (3.92), followed by libraries (3.86), public laundry facilities (3.81), and gyms (3.67). The items with low average values were media rooms (2.00), saunas (2.56), guesthouses (2.69), and music practice rooms (2.75).
Table 7.
Community facilities needed by lifestyle type.
We checked whether there were significant differences in opinions about the community facility across groups. There were differences in the need for saunas, outdoor sports facilities, seminar rooms, media rooms, outdoor parks, music practice rooms, and public laundry facilities. Among the community facilities that showed a difference in preference, the average of Cluster 1 (hobbyist) was the highest in the music practice room and public laundry room, and the mean of Cluster 3 (practical type) was the highest.
Table 8 shows the results of the analysis of the differences in opinions by lifestyle on neighborhood living facilities. The mean was distributed from 3.19 to 4.39, and the average need for convenience stores was highest at 4.39. The preference for other facilities was highest to lowest in the order of café, ATM, vending machine, and bookstore, respectively. Convenience stores have a high need since they are where university students can purchase ready-made meals, daily necessities, and stationery items. Convenience stores, ATMs, and bookstores showed differences by lifestyle. Cluster 3 (practical type) needed bookstores more than the other clusters, and Cluster 1 (hobbyist) had the highest need for convenience stores and ATMs.
Table 8.
Neighborhood living facilities needed by lifestyle type.
Table 9 shows the results of the analysis of the differences in opinions by lifestyle regarding the need for subsidiary facilities. The average need for all facilities was distributed from 3.71 to 4.54, showing a high need in that all items exceeded 3.0. Among them, the need for recycling bins was the highest at 4.54, followed by the need for garbage disposal facilities at 4.3. This is consistent with the opinion in the workshop conducted prior to the survey that students, especially those in dormitories or those living alone, find it difficult to dispose of garbage, including food waste, and need facilities to assist with disposal. The next most required facilities were security offices, management offices, and parking lots, while the need for parking lots was the lowest at 3.71. This indicates that most university students living in UAPH do not own a car, which seems to reflect the fact that a car owner does not meet occupancy requirements. By lifestyle, there were differences in the need for security offices and recycling facilities. Cluster 2 (value seeker) and Cluster 3 (practical type) required more of these than Cluster 1 (hobbyists).
Table 9.
Subsidiary facilities needed by lifestyle type.
Table 10 shows the differences in the need for residential services according to lifestyle type in UAPH. Overall, the mean for each required residential service does not exceed four points, and the average value is distributed between 2.98 and 3.85. It appears that residential services are less needed than community facilities, neighborhood living facilities, subsidiary facilities, and programs/operation management functions. In the workshop conducted before the survey, the participants indicated that they did not want residential services and were rather concerned about the increase in rental costs due to these services, which is consistent with this result.
Table 10.
Residential services needed by lifestyle type.
Among the residential services, the most needed was parcel storage (3.85), showing no significant difference among the clusters. This indicates that all clusters require a parcel storage service. The next most needed service was disinfection (3.82), which seems to have been affected by COVID-19. Looking at the differences in lifestyle preferences, there were significant differences in health counseling, home cleaning, security guards, and disinfection services. Cluster 3 (practical type) showed a high need for health counseling and home cleaning services, while Cluster 1 (hobbyist) showed the highest need for security guards and disinfection services.
Table 11 shows the results of the analysis of the differences in opinions by lifestyle regarding the required program and operational functions. Overall, the item with the highest mean was cost (4.43), which was the highest need in all the clusters. This is in line with the goal of UAPH to provide affordable rental housing to university students. Other needed items, from highest to lowest, were facilities maintenance (4.29), autonomy (4.19), and lease period (4.09), and all of these items showed high values in the 4-point range. The items with relatively low average values were friendships (3.35), volunteer work (3.45), and start-up support (3.5).
Table 11.
Programs/operational functions needed by lifestyle type.
For many items, there were significant differences for each lifestyle type. Cluster 3 (practical type) showed a high need for start-up support, volunteer work, hobby support, and socializing programs; Cluster 1 (hobbyist) showed a high need for exercise, autonomy, lease period, and facility maintenance; and Cluster 2 (value seeker) showed a low need for all significant items.
5. Discussion
This study investigated the opinions of university students, the main target of UAPH, from a lifestyle point of view. For the sustainable development of UAPH, we aimed to propose auxiliary welfare facilities and residential services preferred by residents.
The results of this study are as follows. First, factor analysis of the lifestyle types identified eight factors: “trend & individuality,” “practicality,” “information-oriented,” “planned consumption,” “self-development & hobbies,” “hygiene & health concerns,” “high-tech concerns,” and “social interaction.” Based on these factors, a cluster analysis was performed to classify the lifestyle of the respondents into clusters: 1 (hobbyists), 2 (value seekers), and 3 (practical types), and cluster 3 was identified as the most common lifestyle type in the university student class. These results are different from previous studies [25,26,33], which emphasized individuality, hobbies, and self-development in the lifestyles of university students. This is because the respondents of the previous study were mainly from the M generation (born between 1981 and 1996), and the subjects of this study were the Z generation (born between 1997 and 2012), unlike the M generation, the Z generation showed lifestyle characteristics that pursue stability and communication with others, while acting cautiously according to their convictions [46]. Moreover, except for gender, demographic characteristics were not correlated with clusters, indicating that lifestyle types are determined by the individual’s personal propensities. This result supports previous studies that suggested that a lifestyle approach besides demographics is needed in housing preference research [6,7].
Second, overall, the characteristics of the university student class appeared mainly in the opinions about UAPH. Reflecting the situation in which study is the priority for university students and given that they have to live alone at UAPH, the need for study, health, convenience, and housing costs were high. For example, in community facilities, the study room, library, public laundry room, and outdoor park were the most needed. Convenience stores are needed in terms of neighborhood living facilities. Additionally, among subsidiary facilities, the need for recycling bins and garbage disposal facilities was very high, which coincided with the opinion that university students had great difficulties in directly throwing away garbage or disposing of recycled garbage in the workshop prior to the survey. However, the need for parking lots was the lowest, which indicates that most university students living in UAPH do not own a car because a car owner does not meet the occupancy requirements [12]. Furthermore, residential services were needed the least; this was also the opinion of the university students who attended the workshop, and it seems to reflect the concern that the cost will increase, owing to the housing service. Nevertheless, parcel storage and quarantine services appeared as residential services with relatively high needs, which is expected to reflect the changed lifestyle due to COVID-19 [34]. In terms of the need for program/operational functions, the cost was found to be the most needed and showed the highest requirement in all clusters. This is in line with the purpose of UAPH to provide affordable public housing to university students. UAPH has a high number of applications, but it also has a high contract termination rate owing to high rent [47], which ultimately proves that housing costs are the most important issue for university students [25].
Third, in the detailed items, there was a difference in opinions by lifestyle. Cluster 1 (hobbyists), who enjoy being alone and value spending time on their own hobbies and tastes, demonstrated a high need for music practice rooms, convenience stores, security guard services, exercise programs, and autonomy. By contrast, Cluster 3 (practical type) are not sensitive to trends and do not particularly value expressing their individuality. These people pursued practicality and actively utilized high-tech and information technology for their consumption behavior and sociability. People in this cluster request bookstores, health counseling services, and home cleaning services, and show a particularly high need in terms of program and programs/operational functions, such as start-up support, volunteer work, hobby support, and friendship. Cluster 2 (value seekers) tend to follow trends and value expressing their individuality. They claimed to have a low need in significant categories and thus demonstrated a passive attitude toward the need for auxiliary welfare facilities and the residential services of UAPH. In particular, among the subjects of this study, Cluster 3 individuals accounted for a large proportion, which can be referred to in future UAPH plans.
6. Conclusions
Based on the results, we present the following implications for the sustainable operation and management to facilitate UAPH construction. First, in UAPH, the issue of cost should be considered most fundamentally. Priority should be given to cost reduction, including not only rental costs but also management costs in auxiliary welfare facilities, residential services, and operation management programs. If there is a limit to lowering the rental cost, it is suggested to consider introducing a system for lowering the joint management costs by generating income from the common spaces. For example, while the need for a parking lot was low in this study, it may be needed when moving or visiting parents, so a parking lot that is normally open to visitors of a nearby shopping mall could be a profitable alternative. Second, a plan that can provide practical help by reflecting the situation and lifestyle of university students, the target of UAPH, is needed. Therefore, the facilities and programs that can provide practical help in preparation for study and employment should be prioritized. In addition, university students who live alone away from their families need support for the challenges they face in their daily lives. For example, housework subscription services such as laundry, cleaning, and separate garbage collection, the group purchasing of daily necessities, and automatic utility bill payment notification services can be provided.
Since the purpose of UAPH’s establishment was to not only promote residential stability for university students, but also to support their coexistence with the local community, UAPH’s auxiliary welfare facilities should be used together with local residents. Therefore, it is necessary to gather the opinions of local residents in future research. As mentioned in many lifestyle studies as a limitation, this study was also limited to a specific region, South Korea. However, systematically conducted lifestyle studies are expected to provide broad application to public project-related studies of specific groups in other regions.
Author Contributions
Data curation, J.-H.H.; Formal analysis, J.-H.H.; Methodology, H.L.; Supervision, H.L.; Validation, H.L.; Visualization, J.-H.H.; Writing—original draft, J.-H.H.; Writing—review & editing, H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by [National Research Foundation of Korea] grant number [2021R1A6A3A01088440, 2022R1G1A1010844].
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the Chungbuk National University Institutional Review Board Committee (CBNU-202110-HR-0176).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Questionnaire for Lifestyle Evaluation
| Factor | Questionnaire | |
| Individuality (f1) | Q01 | I like things that show my personality. |
| Q02 | I enjoy making and using simple accessories, props, and furniture for my own use. | |
| Q03 | After purchasing the item, I change the design or function according to my taste. | |
| Brand/trend (f2) | Q04 | I am sensitive to new fashion or trends. |
| Q05 | When new products are released, I tend to buy them faster than others. | |
| Q06 | It’s good to choose a famous brand because it’s reliable. | |
| Q07 | Even if it is financially straining, I should own at least one luxury product. | |
| Aesthetically focused (f3) | Q08 | When purchasing an item, I focus on the color or style rather than practicality. |
| Q09 | I tend to buy my favorite type of products even if I have to reduce other expenses. | |
| Q10 | Even if it is expensive, I will buy items that go along well with my house and are worth the price. | |
| Conscious of others (f4) | Q11 | I want to decorate my house so that others will envy it. |
| Q12 | I am aware of other people’s views or evaluations. | |
| Simplicity & practicality (f5) | Q13 | When I buy things, I consider whether they are easy to manage and clean. |
| Q14 | I prefer convenience over the aesthetics of the home. | |
| Q15 | When purchasing a product, practicality is more important than design. | |
| Q16 | I always make a plan before shopping. | |
| Q17 | When purchasing, I carefully compare performance quality to the price. | |
| Q18 | I want to live a simple/minimal life. | |
| Q19 | I try to buy only what I really need. | |
| Q20 | Prior to buying something, I think about where to place it in my home in advance. | |
| Self-development & hobbies (f6) | Q21 | I participate regularly in meetings or clubs for hobby activities. |
| Q22 | I prioritize space for leisure and hobby activities rather than day-to-day activities. | |
| Q23 | I usually enjoy the culture and the arts. | |
| Q24 | I have continued efforts to develop my expertise. | |
| Social media & social interaction (f7) | Q25 | My social media activities provide useful information to others. |
| Q26 | I spend a lot of time watching other people’s social media. | |
| Q27 | I consider Internet reviews and rankings important when purchasing goods. | |
| Q28 | I prefer living with someone to being alone. | |
| Q29 | I often invite friends (guests) to my house. | |
| Consumption oriented (f8) | Q30 | I prefer eating out or eating with meal kits. |
| Q31 | Even if it is a small house, it is better to be located in the center of the city. | |
| Technology & future concerns (f9) | Q32 | Saving for the future is more important than current day-to-day experience and enjoyment. |
| Q33 | I’m making plans for retirement. | |
| Q34 | Investing in my appearance is not a waste. | |
| Q35 | I am interested in high-tech products and services. | |
| Q36 | I consider intelligent services such as the Internet of Things and AI for my house. | |
| Q37 | I actively seek information to purchase a product I like. | |
| Hygiene & health concerns (f10) | Q38 | I pay attention to personal hygiene (hand disinfection, wearing a mask, etc.). |
| Q39 | I practice social distancing to prevent contagious diseases. | |
| Q40 | I exercise regularly for my health. | |
| Q41 | Even if it is expensive, I buy healthy food, natural food, and pollution-free food. | |
References
- Wang, D.; Li, S.M. Socio-economic differentials and stated housing preferences in Guangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2006, 30, 305–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opoku, R.A.; Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. Housing preferences and attribute importance among low-income consumers in Saudi Arabia. Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djebarni, R.; Al-Abed, A. Satisfaction level with neighbourhoods in low-income public housing in Yemen. Prop. Manag. 2000, 18, 230–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdullah, S.; Zubedy, S.; Najib, N.U.M. Residents’ maintenance priorities preference: The case of public housing in Malaysia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 62, 508–513. [Google Scholar]
- Beamish, J.O.; Carucci Goss, R.; Emmel, J. Lifestyle influences on housing preferences. Hous. Soc. 2001, 28, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansen, S.J.; Coolen, H.C.; Goetgeluk, R.W. (Eds.) The Measurement and Analysis of Housing Preference and Choice; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 177–202. [Google Scholar]
- Ær⊘, T. Residential choice from a lifestyle perspective. Hous. Theory Soc. 2006, 23, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KOSIS. Available online: https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1B81A21&checkFlag=N (accessed on 27 January 2023).
- Kim, S.Y. An analysis of policy factors on happy-house construction program: Debate on the happy-house construction planning in 2013. Hous. Stud. Rev. 2014, 22, 153–169. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, J.J.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, O.; Lee, Y.H.; Shin, B.H. Meaning of happy housing construction, overseas cases and implications. Urban Inf. Serv. 2013, 376, 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Park, C.H.; Ahn, J.G.; Bae, M.C. A study on characteristics of happy housing site planning in long term public rental housing. Resid. Environ. Inst. Korea 2017, 15, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, H.S.; Choi, S.H.; Park, J.K.; Park, S.J.; Ryu, I.S. A Study on the Supply Plan for Public Rental Housing in Cooperation with Universities; Korea Land & Housing Corporation (LH): Daejun, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lazer, W. Life Style Concepts and Marketing toward Scientific Marketing; Stephen Cresysered: Chicago, IL, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- Plummer, J.T. The concept and application of life style segmentation: The combination of two useful concepts provides a unique and important view of the market. J. Mark. 1974, 38, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirth, L. Urbanism as a way of life. Am. J. Sociol. 1938, 44, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure; The Free Press: Wilmington, IL, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, W. Social choice, life styles and suburban residence. In The Suburban Community; Dobriner, W.F., Ed.; Putnam’s: New York, NY, USA, 1958. [Google Scholar]
- Wells, W. (Ed.) Life-Style and Psychographics; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, A. The Nine American Life Styles; Warner: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Oblinger, D.; Oblinger, J. (Eds.) Educating the Net Generation; EDUCAUSE: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants I-II. Horizon 2001, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Törőcsik, M.; Szűcs, K.; Kehl, D. Lifestyle segments in generation Z–A new approach to identify groups among youth. Int. J. Bus. Insights Transform. 2015, 9, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, M.-E.; Yoon, B.-C. A Study on the Preference of Apartment Housing According to X-generations Life style Type. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2000, 11, 79–87. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, M.S. A Study on Future Housing Type Determination through Residential Plan of Potential Housing Consumer—Focused on the Lifestyle of university students in Daegu, Gyeongbuk area. Korea Real Estate Acad. 2011, 45, 238–251. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.-Y.; Oh, M.-W. A study on lifestyle type and housing preference for young adults and newly weds. J. Korean Inst. Inter. Des. 2019, 28, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, M. Lifestyles, do-it-yourself interior design perception, and experience differences of millennial-Z generation single-person households. J. Korean Inst. Inter. Des. 2020, 29, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.Y.; Eom, S.C. Analysis on the housing needs for young adults living alone. Korean Inst. Inter. Des. J. 2019, 27, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.-S.; Kim, M.-H. University student’s life styles and preferences for ubiquitous residential functions. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2009, 20, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Park, S.J.; Lee, H.; Kim, M.J. Mixed-Use Facility Model for the Welfare of the Elderly Based on Lifestyle. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2013, 12, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, W.-K.; Park, M.-Y. Priority Analysis of User Interface Evaluation Criteria for the Elderly Based on User’s Lifestyle. J. Ergon. Soc. Korea 2010, 29, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwon, H.J.; Lee, H.J.; Beamish, J.O.U.S. Boomers’ Lifestyle and Residential Preferences for Later Life. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2016, 15, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, J.H.; Choi, I.Y.; Park, H.K. A study on the residential environment preference and needs of the multi-academic young single family based on life style. Korea Sci. Art Forum 2019, 37, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, J.-H.; Bak, A.-R.; Han, S.-T. A phenomenological study of the lifestyle change experiences of undergraduate due to COVID-19. J. Korea Entertain. Ind. Assoc. 2020, 14, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.H.; Kim, S.K. Future residents’ opinions about architectural features and development strategies for the university based retirement community. J. Korean Hous. 2015, 26, 181–190. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, M.H.; Kim, S.K. Future residents’ opinions about the services and programs in the university-based retirement community—Focusing on the opinion differences depending on residents’ intention to live in the UBRC. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2015, 26, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comrey, A.L.; Lee, H.B. A First Course in Factor Analysis; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Wedel, M.; Kamakura, W.A. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations, 2nd ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Lim, J.H. SPSS 26 Manual; JypHyunJae Publishing: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Everitt, B.S.; Dunn, G.D. Applied Multivariate Data Analysis, 2nd ed.; Arnold: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Floyd, F.J.; Widaman, K.F.F. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol. Assess. 1995, 7, 286–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geffen, D.; Straub, D.W. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 16, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beavers, A.S.; Lounsbury, J.W.; Richards, J.K.; Huck, S.W.; Skolits, G.J.; Esquivel, S.L. Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2013, 18, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, J.A.; Shin, M.H. A study on lifestyle typology and the relationship between lifestyle and purchasing behavior of university students in Korea. Korean J. Advert. Public Relat. 2005, 7, 177–209. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, Y.R.; Kim, M.Y. An Exploratory Study on the Lifestyle Characteristics of the MZ Generation—A Focus on the 2010–2020 Studies. Fash. Text. Res. J. 2022, 24, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maeil Gyeongje. Available online: https://news.v.daum.net/v/20200427155707218 (accessed on 10 May 2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).