University Students’ Lifestyle and Opinions for University-Affiliated Public Housing: Focusing on Auxiliary Welfare Facilities and Residential Services

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).

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. Items for lifestyle evaluation and opinions on UAPH.

Categories		Items
Part 1: Lifestyle
Individuality (f1)		Q01, Q02, Q03
Brand/trend (f2)		Q04, Q05, Q06, Q07
Aesthetically focused (f3)		Q08, Q09, Q10
Conscious of others (f4)		Q11, Q12
Simplicity & practicality (f5)		Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20
Self-development and hobbies (f6)		Q21, Q22, Q23, Q24
Social media & social interaction (f7)		Q25, Q26, Q27, Q28, Q29
Consumption oriented (f8)		Q30, Q31
Technology & future concerns (f9)		Q32, Q33, Q34, Q35, Q36, Q37
Hygiene & health concerns(f10)		Q38, Q39, Q40, Q41
Part 2: Opinions
Community facilities	Health	Gym, sauna, outdoor sport facility
	Culture	Movie theater, library
	Education & Start-up	Seminar room, study room, computer lab, media room
	Leisure & Hobby	Outdoor park, workshop room, music practice room
	Public & Convenience	Shared kitchen, lounge, guest house, public laundry room
Neighborhood living facilities		Convenience store, café, vending machine, ATM, bookstore
Subsidiary facilities		Parking lot, management office, security office, recycling bin, garbage disposal facility
Residential services		Parcel storage, home appliance rental, health counseling, breakfast, home cleaning, car sharing, luggage porter, security guard (when returning home), luggage storage (warehouse rental), disinfection
Program/ Operations	Program	Job search support, start-up support, education, volunteer work (local area), hobby support, friendship, exercise
	Operations & Maintenance	Cost (rent, utilities), autonomy, academic atmosphere, lease period, group buying, facility maintenance

, 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.

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. Demographic Characteristics.

Categories		N	%
Total		424	100.0
Gender	Male	203	47.9
	Female	221	52.1
Year of study	1st year	53	12.5
	2nd year	114	26.9
	3rd year	110	25.9
	4th year	135	31.8
	Other	12	2.8
Place of residence	Seoul	74	17.5
	Gyeonggi-do	157	37.0
	Gangwon-do	12	2.8
	Chungcheong-do	31	7.3
	Jeolla-do	48	11.3
	Gyeongsang-do	102	24.1
Location of university	Seoul	95	22.4
	Gyeonggi-do	124	29.2
	Gangwon-do	19	4.5
	Chungcheong-do	51	12.0
	Jeolla-do	43	10.1
	Gyeongsang-do	92	21.7

. 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.

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. Results of factor analysis by lifestyle evaluation items.

Factor	Item	Factor Value	Eigen Value (Value Rates)	Cronbach’s Alpha
F1: Trend & individuality (f1 + f2)	Q08	0.741	4.053 (16.21)	0.742
	Q04	0.679
	Q09	0.631
	Q10	0.590
	Q01	0.586
F2: Practicality (f5)	Q14	0.713	3.428 (13.71)	0.636
	Q18	0.674
	Q15	0.660
	Q13	0.567
F3: Information-oriented (f5 + f7 + f9)	Q37	0.761	1.727 (6.90)	0.613
	Q27	0.668
	Q17	0.624
F4: Planned consumption (f5)	Q16	0.739	1.430 (5.72)	0.600
	Q20	0.718
	Q19	0.562
F5: Self-development & hobbies (f1 + f6)	Q22	0.722	1.334 (5.33)	0.624
	Q02	0.574
	Q03	0.568
	Q23	0.560
F6: Hygiene & health concerns (f10)	Q38	0.865	1.232 (4.93)	0.786
	Q39	0.845
F7: High-tech concerns (f9)	Q36	0.810	1.102 (4.41)	0.688
	Q35	0.745
F8: Social interaction (f7)	Q28	0.829	1.036 (4.14)	0.655
	Q29	0.785

. 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.

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. Variance analysis of lifestyle factors by cluster.

Factor	Cluster	Mean	Root Mean	F	Sig
F1	C1	3.03	13.41	14.250	0.000 ***
	C2	3.19
	C3	3.03
F2	C1	3.66	25.95	29.445	0.000 ***
	C2	3.34
	C3	3.80
F3	C1	4.05	4.04	4.096	0.017 *
	C2	4.02
	C3	4.05
F4	C1	3.27	14.46	15.443	0.000 ***
	C2	3.43
	C3	3.67
F5	C1	3.33	72.52	109.844	0.000 ***
	C2	2.64
	C3	3.21
F6	C1	3.99	16.80	18.161	0.000 ***
	C2	3.70
	C3	4.20
F7	C1	2.73	50.42	65.895	0.000 ***
	C2	3.16
	C3	3.73
F8	C1	1.97	54.51	73.090	0.000 ***
	C2	2.40
	C3	3.02

N = 424, df = 2, * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

, and there was a significant difference between the clusters for all factors.

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. Demographic characteristics by lifestyle.

Category			Cluster			Total	χ2
			C1	C2	C3
Gender	Male	n	27	65	111	203	31.465 ***
		%	13.3	32.0	54.7	100.0
	Female	n	74	77	70	221
		%	33.5	34.8	31.7	100.0
Location of residence	Seoul	n	13	24	37	74	9.632
		%	17.6	32.4	50.0	100.0
	Gyeonggi-do	n	40	49	68	157
		%	25.5	31.2	43.3	100.0
	Gangwon-do	n	2	7	3	12
		%	16.7	58.3	25.0	100.0
	Chungcheong-do	n	5	13	13	31
		%	16.1	41.9	41.9	100.0
	Jeolla-do	n	11	15	22	48
		%	22.9	31.3	45.8	100.0
	Gyeongsang-do	n	30	34	38	102
		%	29.4	33.3	37.3	100.0
Location of their universities	Seoul	n	21	33	41	95	9.418
		%	22.1	34.7	43.2	100.0
	Gyeonggi-do	n	28	38	58	124
		%	22.6	30.6	46.8	100.0
	Gangwon-do	n	7	9	3	19
		%	36.8	47.4	15.8	100.0
	Chungcheong-do	n	10	18	23	51
		%	19.6	35.3	45.1	100.0
	Jeolla-do	n	8	15	20	43
		%	18.6	34.9	46.5	100.0
	Gyeongsang-do	n	27	29	36	92
		%	29.3	31.5	39.1	100.0
Year	1	n	15	16	22	53	4.873
		%	28.3	30.2	41.5	100.0
	2	n	24	34	56	114
		%	21.1	29.8	49.1	100.0
	3	n	28	42	40	110
		%	25.5	38.2	36.4	100.0
	4	n	32	46	57	135
		%	23.7	34.1	42.2	100.0
	Other	n	2	4	6	12
		%	16.7	33.3	50.0	100.0
Total		n	101	142	181	424
		%	23.8	33.5	42.7	100.0

*** p < 0.001.

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.

4.3. Opinions on UAPH by Lifestyle

Table 6. Overall community facilities needed by lifestyle type.

Community Facilities		Cluster			Total
		C1	C2	C3
Health	N	25	25	44	94
	%	26.6	26.6	46.8	100.0
	% within the cluster	24.8	17.6	24.3	22.2
Culture	N	5	15	24	44
	%	11.4	34.1	54.5	100.0
	% within the cluster	5.0	10.6	13.3	10.4
Education & start-up	N	8	16	23	47
	%	17.0	34.0	48.9	100.0
	% within the cluster	7.9	11.3	12.7	11.1
Leisure & hobby	N	23	32	36	91
	%	25.3	35.2	39.6	100.0
	% within the cluster	22.8	22.5	19.9	21.5
Public & convenience	N	40	54	54	148
	%	27.0	36.5	36.5	100.0
	% within the cluster	39.6	38.0	29.8	34.9
Total	N	101	142	181	424
	%	23.8	33.5	42.7	100.0
	% within the cluster	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

df = 8, p-value = 0.237.

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).

The opinions of 18 detailed community facilities according to the five categories above were investigated and analyzed by cluster (

Table 7. Community facilities needed by lifestyle type.

Community Facilities			N	Mean	SD	F	p-Value
Health	Gym	C1	101	3.67	0.950	0.012	0.988
		C2	142	3.68	0.793
		C3	181	3.67	0.844
		Total	424	3.67	0.852
	Sauna	C1	101	2.42	0.962	5.396	0.005 **
		C2	142	2.42	0.902
		C3	181	2.74	1.077
		Total	424	2.56	1.004
	Outdoor sport facility	C1	101	3.34	0.930	5.302	0.005 **
		C2	142	3.14	0.888
		C3	181	3.46	0.860
		Total	424	3.33	0.895
Culture	Movie theater	C1	101	3.10	1.072	2.606	0.075
		C2	142	2.86	0.979
		C3	181	3.10	1.062
		Total	424	3.02	1.041
	Library	C1	101	3.94	0.881	1.269	0.282
		C2	142	3.76	0.930
		C3	181	3.88	0.939
		Total	424	3.86	0.923
Education & start-up	Seminar room	C1	101	3.17	0.960	3.547	0.030 *
		C2	142	3.08	0.826
		C3	181	3.34	0.939
		Total	424	3.21	0.913
	Study room	C1	101	3.93	0.886	0.394	0.675
		C2	142	3.87	0.662
		C3	181	3.95	0.818
		Total	424	3.92	0.786
	Computer lab	C1	101	3.31	1.231	2.136	0.119
		C2	142	3.18	1.006
		C3	181	3.43	1.096
		Total	424	3.32	1.104
	Media room	C1	101	1.72	0.862	9.804	0.000 ***
		C2	142	1.92	0.855
		C3	181	2.23	1.106
		Total	424	2.00	0.992
Leisure & hobby	Outdoor park	C1	101	3.94	0.822	3.241	0.040 *
		C2	142	3.77	0.910
		C3	181	4.01	0.782
		Total	424	3.92	0.841
	Workshop room	C1	101	3.03	0.953	2.677	0.070
		C2	142	2.88	0.941
		C3	181	3.13	1.008
		Total	424	3.02	0.977
	Music practice room	C1	101	2.88	1.107	3.416	0.034 *
		C2	142	2.57	0.985
		C3	181	2.82	1.003
		Total	424	2.75	1.029
Public & convenience	Shared kitchen	C1	101	3.46	1.082	0.280	0.756
		C2	142	3.41	0.961
		C3	181	3.49	0.964
		Total	424	3.46	0.991
	Lounge	C1	101	3.78	0.912	2.349	0.097
		C2	142	3.53	0.897
		C3	181	3.56	1.029
		Total	424	3.60	0.962
	Guest house	C1	101	2.61	1.113	0.396	0.673
		C2	142	2.69	0.991
		C3	181	2.73	1.158
		Total	424	2.69	1.092
	Public laundry facility	C1	101	4.04	0.958	3.321	0.037 *
		C2	142	3.74	0.950
		C3	181	3.74	1.103
		Total	424	3.81	1.026

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). 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).

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. Neighborhood living facilities needed by lifestyle type.

Neighborhood Living Facilities		N	Mean	SD	F	p-Value
Convenience store	C1	101	4.56	0.684	4.055	0.018 *
	C2	142	4.32	0.679
	C3	181	4.34	0.748
	Total	424	4.39	0.716
Café	C1	101	4.15	0.865	1.974	0.140
	C2	142	3.99	0.808
	C3	181	4.15	0.749
	Total	424	4.09	0.799
Vending machine	C1	101	3.65	0.994	1.401	0.248
	C2	142	3.44	0.971
	C3	181	3.57	1.023
	Total	424	3.55	1.000
ATM	C1	101	4.22	0.890	4.627	0.010 *
	C2	142	3.87	0.885
	C3	181	3.98	0.906
	Total	424	4.00	0.903
Bookstore	C1	101	3.22	1.110	6.893	0.001 **
	C2	142	2.94	0.921
	C3	181	3.37	1.060
	Total	424	3.19	1.042

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

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 9. Subsidiary facilities needed by lifestyle type.

Subsidiary Facilities		N	Mean	SD	F	p-Value
Parking lot	C1	101	3.69	0.956	0.199	0.819
	C2	142	3.69	0.901
	C3	181	3.75	0.818
	Total	424	3.71	0.879
Maintenance office	C1	101	4.14	0.617	2.707	0.068
	C2	142	3.93	0.750
	C3	181	3.97	0.741
	Total	424	4.00	0.720
Security office	C1	101	4.28	0.585	3.443 *	0.033 *
	C2	142	4.04	0.733
	C3	181	4.10	0.734
	Total	424	4.13	0.705
Recycling bin	C1	101	4.72	0.512	6.741	0.001 **
	C2	142	4.51	0.604
	C3	181	4.46	0.601
	Total	424	4.54	0.590
Garbage disposal facility	C1	101	4.37	0.845	1.363	0.257
	C2	142	4.22	0.818
	C3	181	4.34	0.693
	Total	424	4.30	0.775

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

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 10. Residential services needed by lifestyle type.

Residential Services		N	Mean	SD	F	p-Value
Parcel storage	C1	101	3.97	0.806	1.404	0.247
	C2	142	3.82	0.878
	C3	181	3.80	0.833
	Total	424	3.85	0.843
Home appliance rental	C1	101	3.43	0.942	2.078	0.127
	C2	142	3.35	0.860
	C3	181	3.55	0.826
	Total	424	3.45	0.868
Health counseling	C1	101	3.07	1.003	4.247	0.015 *
	C2	142	2.82	0.872
	C3	181	3.12	0.979
	Total	424	3.00	0.958
Breakfast	C1	101	2.97	1.127	2.730	0.066
	C2	142	2.94	1.023
	C3	181	3.20	1.124
	Total	424	3.06	1.096
Home cleaning	C1	101	3.32	1.058	3.723	0.025 *
	C2	142	3.05	1.054
	C3	181	3.37	1.126
	Total	424	3.25	1.093
Car Sharing	C1	101	2.88	1.042	1.062	0.347
	C2	142	2.95	1.041
	C3	181	3.06	1.034
	Total	424	2.98	1.038
Luggage porter	C1	101	3.60	1.096	2.557	0.079
	C2	142	3.32	1.006
	C3	181	3.50	0.987
	Total	424	3.46	1.024
Security guard	C1	101	4.01	0.954	9.919	0.000 ***
	C2	142	3.44	1.048
	C3	181	3.57	1.028
	Total	424	3.63	1.039
Luggage Storage	C1	101	3.87	0.956	3.812	0.023 *
	C2	142	3.56	0.964
	C3	181	3.61	0.873
	Total	424	3.65	0.930
Disinfection	C1	101	3.98	0.980	3.984	0.019 *
	C2	142	3.65	0.976
	C3	181	3.86	0.899
	Total	424	3.82	0.952

* p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

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.

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. Programs/operational functions needed by lifestyle type.

Programs/Operational Functions		N	Mean	SD	F	p-Value
Job Search Support	C1	101	3.65	0.984	2.136	0.119
	C2	142	3.62	0.936
	C3	181	3.81	0.787
	Total	424	3.71	0.890
Start-up support	C1	101	3.37	0.977	6.443	0.002 *
	C2	142	3.36	0.917
	C3	181	3.68	0.841
	Total	424	3.50	0.912
Education	C1	101	3.90	1.005	1.893	0.152
	C2	142	3.68	0.845
	C3	181	3.80	0.801
	Total	424	3.78	0.870
Volunteer work	C1	101	3.52	0.901	5.309	0.005 *
	C2	142	3.25	0.887
	C3	181	3.55	0.826
	Total	424	3.45	0.874
Hobby support	C1	101	3.59	0.982	7.003	0.001 **
	C2	142	3.31	0.844
	C3	181	3.66	0.784
	Total	424	3.53	0.867
Friendship	C1	101	3.20	1.030	4.111	0.017 **
	C2	142	3.28	0.886
	C3	181	3.50	0.873
	Total	424	3.35	0.924
Exercise	C1	101	4.08	0.783	4.173	0.016 **
	C2	142	3.77	0.886
	C3	181	3.95	0.805
	Total	424	3.92	0.834
Cost	C1	101	4.56	0.639	2.449	0.088
	C2	142	4.40	0.772
	C3	181	4.38	0.661
	Total	424	4.43	0.698
Autonomy	C1	101	4.31	0.758	5.255	0.006 **
	C2	142	4.03	0.762
	C3	181	4.25	0.706
	Total	424	4.19	0.745
Academic atmosphere	C1	101	3.75	0.984	2.817	0.061
	C2	142	3.51	0.865
	C3	181	3.70	0.849
	Total	424	3.65	0.892
Lease period	C1	101	4.32	0.706	10.066	0.000 ***
	C2	142	3.89	0.840
	C3	181	4.13	0.659
	Total	424	4.09	0.750
Group buying	C1	101	3.85	0.984	2.046	0.131
	C2	142	3.65	0.885
	C3	181	3.83	0.928
	Total	424	3.78	0.930
Facilities maintenance	C1	101	4.45	0.793	5.831	0.003 **
	C2	142	4.12	0.794
	C3	181	4.33	0.731
	Total	424	4.29	0.776

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

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).

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.