Residential Design for Future: Comparative Study on Benefits, Needs, and Characteristics of “Multi-Purpose Residential Architecture” Design Concept ^†

Abstract

As the population ages, the living environment for the elderly is receiving more attention. “Multi-Purpose Residential Architecture” is transforming the traditional ways of building horizontally to meet a person’s daily activity and living needs. We surveyed 140 seniors over the age of 55 years to find their perspectives on building and expanding space vertically. Differences between the needs and expectations for living spaces between different ages of seniors were found. There are not enough facilities and space in Taiwan to meet the seniors’ needs for their daily lives, social activities, care, and other support.

1. Introduction

Many countries are impacted by aging. Having an aging society does not only mean changes to a community’s composition but also the need to transform living spaces based on the changes between different generations, technologies, abilities, and environments [1]. The physical functions and abilities of humans deteriorate with age. However, through adequate social and physician activities, staying healthy can be achieved for a longer time and delay the aging process. There is a positive relation between the quality of life and our physical health [2]. Senior care policies set “aging in place” as one of the ideal goals. It is ideal for seniors to retire and age naturally in their original community to keep their abilities independent and be respected for their self-worth and privacy [3]. Seniors are used to “aging at home”, believing that they must stay in the environment they are most familiar with as the existing living space is the most appropriate for their age and daily needs. According to statistics from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, 70% of seniors over the age of 65 live in inadequate living conditions such as living in apartments without an elevator or in a multi-story house [4].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

2.1.1. Life Characteristics of the Elderly and Environmental Factors

With aging, physical conditions deteriorate. It also increases the risk of falling [5]. As the brain ages, mental and emotional changes are faced. With age, even if mental and emotional health remains, more time is needed to process and reflect thoughts, memories, and messages [6]. As people age, their physical and mental abilities change. Therefore, seniors need to stay active and engaged. Many seniors show a “grey strength” that influences public policies around living space and residential designs [7].

Statistics showed that approximately 40% of seniors found it difficult to leave their homes, 25% had challenges walking, 23% were worried about falling, 10% found it hard to cross the road, and 2% were worried about getting lost [8]. Seniors’ daily and social activities influence their physical and mental health. If seniors engage in social activities actively, they tend to have higher satisfaction with their lives and a positive influence on their physical and mental health [9]. When a senior’s physical abilities deteriorate, they tend to have smaller areas of activities [10]. Seniors may naturally withdraw from social life or reduce their social interactions when their physical condition deteriorates. This is why it is important to provide essential services from health care to social, financial, and entertainment facilities to meet seniors’ needs within walking distance [11].

Seniors mentally withdraw from social interactions due to the change in their physical conditions. Their areas of activities are often smaller than they had when they were younger. Depending on a senior’s physical health, it is ideal to access their daily needs within a 10 to 15 min walking distance, which is approximately 500 m [12].

2.1.2. Multiple-Purpose Residential Architecture for Elderly

Cohousing is an architectural design that originated in Denmark in the 1960s. It combines the characteristics of private, independent living with a network of public facilities and community support that are easily accessible. It also encourages members of the same community to actively participate and manage their space and community. It brings many social, economic, and environmental benefits to people living in the same community. Cohousing was later adapted into the “Senior Cohousing” concept to meet the unique needs of residents in their later years. It often adds an emphasis on universal design, accessibility, safety, co-caring and mutual support, or whatever else may emerge to meet the needs of residents. Senior Cohousing solves many issues facing seniors as they age. This type of new design concept changes how people perceive aging. It creates a new culture that helps to keep seniors staying active in their community through those transformative years [13]. This is a new concept to design condominiums to meet the needs of an aging society. It also differentiates the living space and prioritizes spaces to meet the needs of seniors and people with diverse abilities. For example, the “urban environment” concept is used to provide spaces for a person with diverse abilities (such as a person with vision problems, mobility issues, or a person in a wheelchair) that are easily accessible within a radius of 100 m, ensuring the “building entrance” meets the needs of individuals. It also includes areas such as the kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms as accommodating and accessible areas. These can be easily modified or renovated for the future based on the needs of an individual [14].

The principles of Multi-Purpose Residential Architecture (MPRA) include the following.

• Diverse: The residential space is not only designed for seniors but also for people of any age with diverse physical and mental abilities. The functionalities of the space can be commonly shared—meeting the diverse living needs of seniors and residents.
• Independent: Safety is a must-have when it comes to the space and facility design. It also provides flexible design and functionality to support seniors to live independently.
• Variety: We provide quality healthcare and senior care services with a variety of choices for food services and social and educational opportunities to better fulfill and support seniors’ healthy living.
• Meaningful: MPRA supports seniors’ daily activities and needs, a healthy and independent environment, and respect to enjoy their everyday lives with fulfillment and meaning.
• Network: MPRA is a service hub with the potential to build a network of hubs internationally so seniors can travel and reside in hubs and share the same principles and services. It is a franchise to be prompted globally [4].

2.1.3. Environmental Assessment Indicators of MRPA

Physical space impacts health and welfare. The World Health Organization has already determined that our physical space is a key element of the quality of life [15]. The National Design Guide of the United Kingdom indicates that environmental design impacts health, well-being, sense of security, level of tolerance, sense of belonging, and the level of community engagement. Environmental assessment indicators demonstrate the quality of life in different environments, identify issues, and improve the living environment [16]. In recent years, many studies assessed senior homes and facilities emphasizing the residents’ quality of life [17]. Key principles of “Inclusive Design” for urban living include Familiarity, Easiness, Uniqueness, Accessibility, Comfortableness, and Safety. These principles are set to ensure that all users can enjoy, understand, and have easy access to community amenities and streets [8].

The Environmental Audit Tool (EAT) has been used previously to evaluate senior homes. It started in Australia and includes assessments of Safety; Appropriate Ratios; Visibility; Reduced Irritants; Supporting Positive Environment Simulations; Promoting Activities and Engagement; Familiarity; Community Privacy; Providing Community Connections; and Encouraging Independent Living. EAT was designed to help front-line workers and service providers improve services through physical space. It was later used by architects and designers as a tool to inspect and evaluate existing physical space to support patients, residents, and workers, utilizing the facilities to enhance the quality of services and provide a healing and comforting environment [18].

The Sheffield Care Environment Assessment Matrix (SCEAM) is used to evaluate senior homes and residences. It includes assessments of Safety/Health; Actual Support; Cognitive Support; Normalcy; Personalization; Choices/Control; Privacy; Level of Comfortableness and Environment; Attentiveness to Outdoor Space; and Community [19].

Evaluation of Older People’s Living Environments (EVOLVE) is a design assessment tool developed by Sheffield College in 2010 to evaluate a variety of senior residences. It is based on the foundational principles of “SCEAM” in two major categories: General Needs and Senior Support Needs. General Needs include Personalization and Choices; Dignity and Privacy; Comfortableness and Control; Personalized Care; Social Support within the Building; and Outdoor Environment and Social Support. Senior Support Needs include Accessibility; Support for Independence; Sensory Stimulation; Dementia Support; Health and Safety; Security; and Care Work [20].

British Columbia, Canada, has a “Senior Guide” available, which includes environmental assessment tools that include home support, life choice, independence, community care, rehabilitation services, day services, temporary care for nursing staff, life support, home care, and small group nursing services (4–6 people) [21].

Since the concept of MPRA is new, there is no established assessment tool. Therefore, we compared popular environmental assessment tools to design the survey. Through observations and analysis, we listed the following categories based on the needs, environment utilization, and behaviors of seniors in Taiwan. The five categories for environmental factors and the explanations of their relations are as follows:

• Safety: Characteristics of the maximum environmental safety protection.
• Accessibility: Satisfy the needs of seniors to arrive, enter, unite, and access spaces.
• Comfortableness: Ensuring people reach their destination smoothly while enjoying outdoor living space and public amenities.
• Social support: Social activities and mental health support are available within the environment.
• Independence/Privacy: Seniors can easily join a variety of activities available in various spaces and scales with their privacy protected.

2.2. Data Analysis

We designed the survey to assess the respondents’ feedback on the MPRA for seniors referring to the previous research. The assessment indicators were selected for the seniors of the age of over 55 years. We divided the respondents into three different groups based on their age: 55–64, 65–74, and over 75 years old. We compared the answers from 140 responses of the three groups. We used SPSS20.0 to analyze the results.

2.2.1. Reliability Analysis

Reliability is tested to decide whether the results collected in a survey have consistency and stability. We used Cronbach’s Alpha to evaluate the survey. If the analysis and assessment value is higher, the results are consistent with a smaller deviation. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha was higher than 0.9 to confirm the reliability of the survey.

2.2.2. Basic Data Analysis

Among the 140 respondents, 37.9% were males and 62.1% were females. Moreover, 42.1% were 55–64 years old, while the rest were older than 65 years old. Furthermore, 9.3% had a junior high school education; 21.4% attended senior high school or career school; 55.1% had a junior college or university education; and 14.3% had a postgraduate degree. Regarding living situations, 48.6% lived in a house or townhouse; 2.9% lived in social housing; 36.4% resided in a condominium building with an elevator; and 11.4% lived in a condominium building without an elevator. Regarding cohabitation, 17.1% lived alone; 24.3% lived with a spouse; 24.3% lived with a spouse and at least a child; 17.1% had three generations living together; 5% lived with a caregiver; and 2.1% lived with at least a parent. These statistics were consistent with those of the Ministry of Health and Welfare showing that over 70% of seniors were in disadvantaged living conditions.

Furthermore, 60.7% were aware of MPRA, 79.3% were willing to live in a community utilizing the MPRA concept, 80.7% believed that their living space needed to be changed as they age, and 79% agreed that MPRA met the needs of seniors by transforming the traditional daily activity spaces into a network of services with buildings of a higher density. Regarding time spent away from their residence, 47.9% spent 10 min, 34.3% took 10 to 20 min, 8.6% took 20 to 30 min, and only 7.9% spent 30 min away. Regarding the number of residents in the MPRA community, 47.9% preferred having less than 10; 18.6% preferred 11 to 15; 25.7% preferred 16 to 30; and 7.9% preferred 30. This revealed the preference for living in smaller residential communities based on the residents’ diverse needs. It also showed how it was important to build a higher-density facility for seniors in Taiwan, including outdoor spaces. Several seniors needed to take a longer commute time to the areas of activities.

2.2.3. Analysis of Multiple-Choice Questions

Seniors’ needs for space and community environment change according to their physical and mental abilities were assessed. There are issues identified regarding improving the current environment and community amenities.

When being asked about preferred activities for social interactions, “arts and crafts” was required by 62.7% of the respondents followed by “volunteering” (54.2%); “weekend dining” (50.8%); “eco-farm visits” (50.8%); “community gatherings” (44.4%); “markets” (42.4%); and “theatre and performances” (39%). For preferred amenities in a community, “park and green space” was chosen by 87.9% with “convenient stores” (80.7%), “medical clinics” (77.9%), “exercise and gym space” (77.1%), “outdoor activity space” (77.1%), “community classes” (57.1%), “care hubs” (57.1%), “rehabilitation space” (27.1%), “senior care center” (57.1%), “religious space” (28.6%), “eco-farms” (33.6%), “community office” (27.1%), “child care” (23.6%), and “hotels and travel accommodation” (22.9%). For preferred services at a reasonable cost of MPRA, 86.4% believed that cleaning services were important. This was followed by “meal services’ (71.4%), “assisted rehabilitation” or “assisted outdoor walk service” (70%), “assisted living” (52.1%), and “medina delivery” (45.7%). Regarding the benefits of MPRA, physical and emotional health was important for the respondents (79.3%) along with a safe living environment (76.5%), diverse interactions (75.7%), the quality of life with public facilities (66.4%), community participation rate (54.3%), and inheritance from generations of experience (33.6%).

2.2.4. Environmental Indicators

• Safety: The visibility of traffic signs, pedestrian walk time signals, and the accessibility of simple and proper traffic guidance scored low with 74.3% of the respondents agreeing.
• Social Support: Community healthcare and senior care sanitation scored low as 63.6% expressed dissatisfaction.
• Privacy: The functionality of existing public amenities was scored low as 36% of the respondents indicated dissatisfaction.
• Accessibility: The distance between home and service locations in the existing community and the density of public amenities scored low as 40% expressed dissatisfaction.
• Comfortableness: The availability of different sizes of activity spaces in communities was scored low as 47.9% indicated dissatisfaction.

2.2.5. Significance

We used environmental indicators to assess the community’s inclusiveness for senior citizens to set five major indicators. We surveyed 140 respondents based on their individual needs, feedback, and level of satisfaction with their outdoor living environment. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent t-tests were conducted to understand the diverse needs of seniors and the differences between their cognition and attitude (

Table 1. Differences in environmental indicators.

Indicators	Question	Ages
Safety	The community environment makes people feel safe and secure	F = 4.910 p = 0.009 **
Independence/Privacy	Space with privacy and social functions	F = 7.298 p = 0.001 ***
Social support	Activities in the area where you currently live meet your needs	F = 4.391 p = 0.014 *
Social support	Nursing care and adult sunshine services in the current community	F = 3.855 p = 0.024 *

1 Source: compiled by this research. 2 statistically significant “*” as p < 0.05, statistically significant “**” p < 0.01, and statistically highly significant “***” as p < 0.001.

).

Regarding safety, 32.2% of the respondents aged 55–64 years strongly agreed, 17.2% of those aged 65–74 years disagreed, 5.9% aged over 75 years disagreed, and 8.5% of those aged 55–64 years, 12.5% of those aged 65–75 years, and 29.4% of those aged over 75 years strongly agreed. With independence and privacy, 34.9% of the respondents aged 55–64 years strongly disagreed, and 26.6% of those aged 65–74 years disagreed, while 70.6% of those aged 75 years disagreed. The respondents were dissatisfied with the availability of spaces and environments that encourage more social interactions while respecting their privacy. Thus, it is necessary to provide choices, diversity, and a variety of activities in space. Regarding social support, 45.8% of the respondents aged 55–64 years disagreed, while 31.3% of those aged 65–74 years and 23.5% of those aged 75 years also disagreed. Regarding day-care services, 16.9% of those disagreed, while 54.2% of the respondents aged 55–64 years, 4.7% of those aged 65–74 years, and 51.6% of those aged 75 years disagreed, too. Respondents aged over 75 years believed that there was a lack of services available for senior care, followed by those aged 65–74 and 55–64 years. It is necessary to improve the services available for senior care to make them feel confident about the availability of services (

Table 2. Differences in cognitive attitude.

Question	Ages
The living environment needs to change as we are getting old	F = 4.910 p = 0.009 **
Time from home to most frequently used facilities?	F = 19.822 p = 0.003 **
Do you think transforming horizontal service to vertical service is more suitable for the elderly?	F = 12.605 p = 0.050 *

1 Source: compiled by this research. 2 statistically significant “*” as p < 0.05, statistically significant “**” p < 0.01.

).

Regarding the time spent commuting to the space for activities, 55.9% of the respondents aged 55–64 years wanted to spend less than 10 min while 30.5% needed 10 to 20 min; 6.8% needed 20 to 30 min and 6.8% needed longer than 30 min. For the respondents between the ages of 65 and 74 years, 50% needed less than 10 min, 35.9% needed 10 to 20 min, 12.5% needed 20 to 30 min, and 1.6% needed longer than 30 min. For the respondents aged over 75 years, 29.4% needed less than 10 min, 41.2% needed 10 to 20 min, and 50% needed longer than 30 min. Moreover, 11.8% of the respondents ages 55–64 years disagreed that MPRA was necessary to transform the traditional ways of accessing daily activity spaces in the building with more density, while 76.5% agreed and 11.8% strongly agreed. Furthermore, 8.3% of the respondents aged 65–74 years strongly disagreed and 4.2% disagreed while 66.7% agreed and 20.8% strongly agreed. Lastly, 14.3% of the respondents aged over 75 years strongly disagreed and 35.7% disagreed, while 50% agreed.

3. Results

3.1. Needs for Living Space and Mpra Design Concept

In total, 79.3% of the respondents showed their willingness to live in a community designed with the MPRA concept, and 80.7% wanted to change their living space as they age. Their areas of activity are reduced as their physical and mental health deteriorates. Moreover, 47.9% of the respondents preferred to spend less than 10 min to arrive at the space, and 79.3% wanted to have the space in a building with a high density. The respondents believed the MPRA design concept could provide a safer living environment (76.5%), improve diverse interactions (75.7%), maintain their physical and mental health (79.3%), improve their quality of life (75.7%), promote the sharing of more public amenities (66.4%), and increase the level of community engagement (54.3%). Most respondents had a positive attitude toward the MPRA design concept.

Dissatisfaction was observed in social support, comfortableness, accessibility, independence and privacy, and safety. Moreover, 63.6% of the respondents were dissatisfied with social support. Services available for senior care, day-care, and social support were insufficient to meet the needs of the respondents in Taiwan. Over 50% of the respondents preferred “park and green space” (87.9%), “convenient stores” (80.7%), “medical clinics” 77.9%), “exercise and gym space” (77.1%), “community classes” (57.1%), “care hubs” (57.1%), “rehabilitation space” (27.1%), and “senior care center” (57.1%).

In adopting the MPRA design concept, the needs of diverse users must be considered. Based on the needs of residents and their physical and mental abilities, a range of options and spaces must be available to meet their needs. Then, satisfaction with and ability to access social supports and independent living can be enabled to mitigate the deterioration of their physical and mental abilities.

3.2. Ages and Cognitive Attitudes and Spatial Needs for MPRA

In total, 74.6% of the respondents aged 55–64 years, 93.8% of those aged 65–74 years, and 47.1% of those over 75 years needed changes in their living space as their physical and mental abilities changed. Moreover, 88.3% of the respondents aged 55–64 years, 87.5% of those aged 65–74 years, and 50% of the respondents aged over 75 years had preconceptions about the MPRA design. The level of acceptance for a change in environment became lower with age. Therefore, it is necessary to apply the MPRA design concept as early as possible to provide familiarity with aging. Moreover, 55.9% of the respondents aged 55–64 years and 50% of those aged 65–74 years preferred 10 min regarding travel time to their activity areas, but 50% of those aged 75 years needed over 30 min of travel time.

Many necessities do not meet the needs of the respondents’ regular activities. It is important to provide the respondents with a variety of space options and activities that meet their diverse needs.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Neighborhood social capital and cohesion are important for the life and well-being of the elderly [22]. The loneliness of the elderly affects their health, well-being, and longevity [23]. Leisure activities and social support help people resist stress, reduce the incidence of diseases, and maintain physical and mental health [24]. Residents’ participation, involvement, and dedication are positively correlated with well-being [25].

Most of the respondents in this study showed a positive attitude toward the MPRA design concept. They wanted their living space to be changed as they age because their areas of activities became more limited. By using the MPRA design concept, spaces can be vertically expanded to transform the traditional ways of expanding spaces horizontally. The new concept of the expansion allowed the respondents to be more engaged in social activities, delayed their aging process, and supported more positive and healthy interactions. It also promotes connections and relationships between residents, visitors, and MPRA residents.

The MPRA design concept must be used to provide a variety of housing options and services for the needs of the residents. In addition to adopting common design concepts and providing a therapeutic environment for residents, stronger connections between the residents and the local community and society must be provided for seniors to live independently with better accessibility. In the MPRA design concept, common design ideas and therapeutic design need to be integrated to connect it to the existing community and social welfare systems and the transportation network. This maximizes seniors’ abilities to live independently in an inclusive and accessible environment in an aging society.

The results of this study show the following necessities for seniors:

• Safety: Indoor carpets to reduce the possibility of slipping, falling, injury, and noise.
• Accessibility: The destination reached by public transportation and connected to the local community service.
• Comfort: The design of assistive devices to increase the sense of dignity for the elderly, such as intelligent lift cabinets and handrails embedded into the interior wall design or combined with other art installations (Figure 1)
• Privacy/Independence: different room sizes and households and an intelligent identification system.
• Social support: Day-care and temporary-care facilities to increase activity space and care.