Bibliography

Peer reviewed research related to Cohousing :: April 12, 2021

Altobelli, Dario. “La Comunità Debole: Cohousing Tra Utopia Sociale E Mercato Capitalistico.” Etnoantropologia 2.1 (2014): 141-50.
The term cohousing indicates a particular social phenomenon that makes its first appearance in Denmark in 1972. It consists of a community of people who have chosen to live together in villages or condominiums which have established in advance the rules of coexistence and in which there are areas of common use. The cohousing observed in recent years a significant spread in the world by binding to the ideas of ecological matrix, and there are some pilot projects in northern Italy.The paper intends to present the phenomenon in its general aspects, focusing in particular on what can be called the “philosophy” that animates these communities of residence, which appear, for many reasons, “weak”. An analysis made above with reference to publications and interviews with developers and some members of the Italian projects shows critical aspects. Among these, the absence of a political vision wider and more general, an ambiguous relationship with the marketing and the logic of capitalist market and, finally, a reminder at times casual to cultural values, symbols and discourses which refer to a logic of “good time past” and a now-lost “community spirit”.

Angioni, Margherita, and Fabio Musso. “New Perspectives from Technology Adoption in Senior Cohousing Facilities.” TQM journal 32.4 (2020): 761-77.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the integration of industry 4.0 related technologies of telehealth within innovative housing models addressed to senior population, in order to facing the growing issue of a sustainable management of the population ageing. Design/methodology/approachA qualitative exploratory analysis of four case studies of senior cohousing facilities located in different countries was performed. The cases analysed were selected as pioneering cases in the adoption of innovative and economically sustainable organizational solutions.FindingsThe study made it possible to identify which are the common characters that successful experiences have highlighted. Although each facility needs to adapt to the social, cultural, demographic and economic context in which it is located, there are some recurring aspects, which have proved to be key success factors.Research limitations/implicationsThis research analyses only four cases. This suggests that the sample does not provide an exhaustive representation of the models adopted in this field. However, the study is an exploratory research and it can provide a basis for further analyses.Practical implicationsThis study provides valuable indications for the design and management of senior cohousing facilities, as regards the services to be offered, the network of services and facilities that can be complementary to the residences, the activities to be conducted and organized, the degree of involvement of the elderly in the planning of activities and services. With regard to the adoption of telehealth-related technologies, the study provides indications on which new technologies resulting from the industry 4.0 revolution are going to be adopted, that is, remote surveillance, remote diagnostics and the use of sensors and video. These technologies, thanks to the artificial intelligence, can detect anomalies and provide predictive analyses on the behaviour and health of the elderly.Originality/valueThe study made it possible to identify the key success factors for senior cohousing facilities regardless of the characteristics of the context in which they are located. In addition, it provides a first analysis of the potential of telehealth-related technological solutions, paving the way for further studies aimed at assessing how, thanks to new technologies, the level of economic sustainability of senior cohousing solutions can be improved.

Arrigoitia, Melissa Fernandez, and Lidewij Tummers. “Cohousing Professionals as ‘Middle-Agents’: Perspectives from the UK, USA and the Netherlands.” Built environment (London.1978) 45.3 (2019): 346-63.

Basas, Carrie Griffin. “Olmstead’s Promise and Cohousing’s Potential.” Georgia State University law review 26.3 (2010): 663.

Berg-Weger, Marla. “Cohousing: A New Way Forward for Active Older Adults: By Cummings, S. and Kropf, N.P., New York, Springer Briefs in Aging, 2019, 82 Pp., $44.99 (eBook), ISBN 978-3-030-25362-2 (eBook).” Journal of gerontological social work (2020): 1-3.

Berggren, Heidi M. “Cohousing as Civic Society: Cohousing Involvement and Political Participation in the United States.” Social science quarterly 98.1 (2017): 57-72.
The civic‐society literature argues that members of voluntary civic associations engage in community building and other activities that hone political skills and cultivate a sense of efficacy, which can lead to higher levels of participation in politics. This study situates cohousing in the civic‐society literature and asks whether cohousing as a form of civic association encourages participation in electoral politics. Methods Data from the U.S. National Cohousing Survey, Phase III were used in bivariate correlation, Jonckheere‐Terpstra, and chi‐square procedures to test the hypothesis that cohousing involvement facilitates political participation. Results There were ordered increases in levels of the dependent variable, political activities index, for increasing levels of cohousing‐involvement variables. Chi‐square tests were significant for relationships between cohousing‐involvement variables and three dummy variables comprised of the activities included in political activities index—writing to Congress increased (since moving to cohousing), campaign contributions increased, and campaigning door‐to‐door increased. Conclusions The chi‐square results bolstered the evidence, on an aggregate level, in support of the hypothesis. Cohousing holds out promise as a means of revitalizing democratic citizenship.

—. “Is Cohousing Good for Democracy? Comparing Political Participation among Residents of Cohousing Communities and Traditional Condominium Developments.” Housing and society ahead-of-print.- : 1-26.
This study assesses the argument that cohousing constitutes a politically fertile form of civil-society association, which hones political skills and cultivates political efficacy among residents, by comparing self-reported political participation levels of residents of cohousing and residents of condominiums. This design allows for more causal leverage than found in past research. However, the findings are still exploratory. Data from a nationwide survey of residents of cohousing and condominium developments in the U.S. were used to test the hypothesis that cohousing residents participate in politics at a higher level than do residents of condominiums. While the sample was small (n = 311), the results suggest both a strong self-selection effect among residents of cohousing and independent effects for involvement in housing-community practices and activism. The results also suggest that residents of condominiums increase their political participation due to cohousing-like practices and activism. Overall, the findings constitute a tentative step toward establishing causation, thus augmenting earlier research on cohousing as a form of civil society that fosters political engagement, and potentially bolster a civil-society case for repurposing condominiums into cohousing communities.

Bigonnesse, C., and H. Chaudhury. “Mobility and Aging in Place Experience in Urban Settings among Older Adults Living in Cohousing and Norc.” Innovation in aging 2 (2018): 10.
This presentation shares findings of a multi-case study of the influence of the social and physical environments of home and neighbourhood on the processes of aging in place. Twenty older adults living in three cohousing and two Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) in British Columbia, Canada were recruited to conduct photovoices and semi-structured interviews. Data was collected and analyzed adopting the constructivist grounded theory methodology. Findings show that mobility was central to participants’ experience of the neighbourhood. Walking was the most common form of mobility in the older adults’ experience of their neighbourhoods. Purposes for walking included physical activity, active transportation, and social engagement. Findings suggest that the walking distances varied based on the purpose and factors such as proximity of services and amenities, while terrain and weather impacted their mobility levels. A typology of neighbourhood definitions based on how older adults move in their neighbourhoods is discussed.

Blomberg, Ingela, and Kerstin Kärnekull. “Do-it-Yourself: The Stony Road to Cohousing in Sweden.” Built environment (London.1978) 45.3 (2019): 280-95.

Boyer, Robert H. W., and Suzanne Leland. “Cohousing for Whom? Survey Evidence to Support the Diffusion of Socially and Spatially Integrated Housing in the United States.” Housing policy debate 28.5 (2018): 1-15.
Cohousing is a resident-led neighborhood development model that clusters private dwelling units around collectively owned and managed spaces, with potential to address long-term social and environmental challenges in American metropolitan regions. To date, however, the cohousing model has been slow to diffuse beyond a demographically narrow following. This limited following may signal to policymakers that cohousing is an unappealing housing model, and therefore an impractical policy objective. Drawing from a survey of 1,000 American residents, the results of a multivariate regression model suggest that (a) many of the characteristics of the current resident population of cohousing in the United States have no statistical association with the individuals who indicate interest in cohousing nationwide; (b) other characteristics serve as better predictors of interest in cohousing; and therefore (c) the slow diffusion of cohousing is likely the consequence of inaccessibility rather than low appeal. Overcoming these challenges demands shifts in policy.

Boyer, Robert. “Sociotechnical Transitions and Urban Planning: A Case Study of Eco-Cohousing in Tompkins County, New York.” Journal of planning education and research 34.4 (2014): 451-64.
The sociotechnical transitions framework describes how novel practice emerges from marginal “niche” contexts to the mainstream. Scholars of various fields have used sociotechnical transitions to explain processes of structural change for sustainability, yet little research examines the role of local plans or planners in transition processes. The author offers an in-depth case study following the evolution of an eco-cohousing model from its grassroots origins to its current application in the housing market of Ithaca, New York. Planners used existing planning documents to translate innovative practices to the public, defying assumptions of the rational-linear model still common in planning scholarship.

Brenton, Maria, and Hedi Argent. “Growing Older and Remaining Empowered: The Cohousing Model.” Nursing & residential care 22.4 (2020): 1-3.
Remaining autonomous, productive and engaged when growing older is a goal that many would like to achieve. For the residents of the Older Women’s Cohousing Community, this dream has become a reality, with the establishment of their own independent, intergenerational cooperative.

Carrere, Juli, et al. “The Effects of Cohousing Model on People’s Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review.” Public health reviews 41.1 (2020): 1-22.
Background Housing is a social determinant of health. Extensive research has highlighted its adverse effects on health. However, less is known about the effects of cohousing typology on health, which has the potential to create lively social networks and healthy communities and environments. We report the findings of a scoping study designed to gather and synthesise all known evidence on the relationship between cohousing and wellbeing and health. Method Using the scoping review method, we conducted a literature review in PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct and JSTOR in May 2019 and selected articles published from 1960 onwards, with no geographical limit and no design restrictions. Retrieved articles underwent three sequential screening phases. The results were described through a narrative synthesis of the evidence. Results Of the 2560 articles identified, we selected 25 full-text articles analysing 77 experiences. All of them were conducted in high-income countries. Ten studies analysed the impact of cohousing on physical and mental health or quality of life and wellbeing. Eight of the 10 studies found a positive association. In addition, 22 studies analysed one or more psychosocial determinants of health (such as social support, sense of community and physical, emotional and economic security) and most found a positive association. Through these determinants, quality of life, wellbeing and health could be improved. However, the quality of the evidence was low. Discussion The cohousing model could enhance health and wellbeing mediated by psychosocial determinants of health. However, extreme caution should be exercised in drawing any conclusions due to the dearth of data identified and the designs used in the included studies, with most being cross-sectional or qualitative studies, which precluded causal-based interpretations. Because housing is a major social determinant of health, more evidence is needed on the impact of this model on health through both psychosocial and material pathways.

Chatterton, Paul. “Towards an Agenda for Post-Carbon Cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s First Ecological, Affordable Cohousing Community.” International journal of urban and regional research 37.5 (2013): 1654-74.
This article explores an agenda towards post‐carbon cities, extending and deepening established debates around low‐carbon, sustainable cities in the process. The label post‐carbon builds upon issues beyond those of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, energy conservation and climate change, adding a broader set of concerns, including economic justice, behaviour change, wellbeing, land ownership, the role of capital and the state, and community self‐management. The article draws upon a case study of an embryonic post‐carbon initiative completed in early 2013 called Lilac. Based in Leeds, Lilac stands for Low Impact Living Affordable Community and is the first attempt to build an affordable, ecological cohousing project in the UK. Its three aspects each respond to significant challenges: low‐impact living and the challenge of post‐carbon value change; affordability and the challenge of mutualism and equality; and community and the challenge of self‐governance. I conclude the article by exploring six lessons from Lilac that tentatively outline a roadmap towards post‐carbon cities: the need for holistic approaches that deal with complex challenges, prioritizing self‐determination rather than just participation, engaging with productive political tensions, adopting a process rather than an outcomes‐based approach, developing strategy for replicability, and finally, embracing a non‐parochial approach to localities.

Chiodelli, Francesco, and Valeria Baglione. “Living Together Privately: For a Cautious Reading of Cohousing.” Urban research & practice 7.1 (2013): 20-34.
The paper analyses cohousing as a part of the phenomenon of private residential communities. First, we provide an overview of cohousing and we identify its five constitutive characteristics. Second, we propose a comparison between the constitutive features of cohousing and of other kinds of private residential communities. Third, we argue that the interpretation of cohousing within the context of private residential communities raises some doubts about a completely positive interpretation of the phenomenon and about policies for promoting it.

Choi, Jung Shin. “Evaluation of Community Planning and Life of Senior Cohousing Projects in Northern European Countries1.” European planning studies 12.8 (2004): 1189-216.
Cohousing schemes were evolved as alternative housing to reduce housework for working women, and to reduce loneliness of elderly people by promoting active mutual relationship with community residents in northern European countries. This article discusses how residents manage their life in senior cohousing projects in Sweden and Denmark. The purpose of this study is to investigate residents’ life satisfaction connected with demographic characteristics of residents, physical environment and common activities in the senior cohousing communities, so that it could offer usable information for the establishment of new senior cohousing projects in other countries, as well as an empirical evaluation of the existing projects in Scandinavian countries themselves. Important variables influential to residents’ life satisfaction are also discussed in order to improve senior citizens’ quality of life. The methods used for the study are literature review, interviews, field trips and questionnaire. Nine hundred and thirty-five postal questionnares were sent to 28 senior cohousing communities throughout Denmark and Sweden. Of those 536 replies were collected and analysed by SPSS program using frequency, mean and Chi-square test. As a result, it was found out that most of the respondents are healthy, 70-year-olds, and satisfied with their current living in the community. The majority of them also would like to strongly recommend others to move to senior cohousing schemes to improve quality of life in their later years. Residents’ intensive concern about building location and design is a noteworthy reminder for designers and architects as well as for professionals and decision-makers who work in the elderly welfare sector.

“A Comparison of Elder Cohousing in Europe and the United States.” The Gerontologist 55 (2015): 94.

“Elder Cohousing as a Choice for Introverted Older Adults: Obvious Or Surprising?” The Gerontologist 56 (2016): 172.

Glass, A. P. “A Longitudinal Study at an Elder Cohousing Community: After 10 Years, Who Left and Who’s Left?” Innovation in aging 1 (2017): 305.
Long common in Europe, the first senior cohousing communities opened in the USA in the last decade. These communities are run by the residents themselves and offer the potential for mutual peer support and a strong sense of community. A longitudinal mixed methods study has been conducted by annual data collection at one such community since it opened in 2006. One outcome explored is retention, which is important to sustainability and future-proofing. The cohousing community is comprised of both owned units and income-subsidized apartments, with 31 units in total. Of the original 39 first “charter” residents, 38 were white, 8 were male, and the mean age at move-in was 70.4 (range=63–84). Thirteen (33%) of these charter residents were still living in the community in 2016: 11 were females, all were white, with a mean age of 79.5 (range=73–94). Reasons why they have stayed included friends, the location, liking the community and the mutual support, and pride in their creation of a new model of housing for older adults. Six (15%) charter residents died locally. The remainder (projected mean age in 2016=79.7, range=73–88) moved due to health issues and the need for greater care, to be near family, because of the income-subsidized housing regulations, or because they found that living “in community” was not a good fit for them or was too much work. Lessons learned about sustainability and the value of cohousing for older adults will be shared and suggestions for similar housing models will be discussed.

Glass, A. “Promoting Aging Literacy: Can Elder Cohousing Help Members Age Better Together Intentionally?” Innovation in aging 2 (2018): 736.
Some of the new senior cohousing communities in the US have expressed a goal of helping members age better together, intentionally sharing their knowledge, support, and experience. To measure this, three elder cohousing communities (Community A, n=25; Community B, n=23; and Community C, n=13) completed questionnaires during onsite visits by the researcher. Respondents did not differ significantly between communities on age at move-in (M=69.6, SD=6.344), gender (77% female, n=47), race (100% White), and self-reported physical and mental health, among many other items (ps>.05). Twenty-two items based on a conceptual model of “aging better together intentionally” were used to measure whether communities supported their residents in embracing the aging process. Chi-square tests showed significant differences on 15 of 22 items, which included: not denying the realities of aging (p=.001); aging well together is a goal (p=.004); opportunities to talk about aging (p<.001), acceptance of aging (p=.001), and sharing humor about aging (p=.003). Community C was consistently less positive in these responses, suggesting these questions successfully differentiated between communities. Follow-up review of the communities’ websites indicated more emphasis on aging together in Communities A and B, with almost no mention for Community C. As this was a small sample, these variables should be tested with other communities wishing to promote aging better together intentionally for their residents. Such results may help communities identify ways to strengthen aging literacy and acceptance of the aging process for their residents, particularly if the members of the community agree that this is a shared goal.

Glass, Anne P. “Aging in a Community of Mutual Support: The Emergence of an Elder Intentional Cohousing Community in the United States.” Journal of housing for the elderly 23.4 (2009): 283-303.
This initial report details the origin, development, and “charter residents” of the new ElderSpirit Community, a resident-managed elder-only cohousing community focusing on mutual support and affordable housing. The 33 resident sample was white, 79% female, averaged 70.4 years of age (range = 63 to 84 years), and was more likely to be childless and/or divorced/never married compared to the general older population. Mutual support was significant in choosing the ElderSpirit Community, and this case demonstrates that elders can proactively choose this new option: living intentionally with neighbors to provide an added layer of support. The ElderSpirit Community is important given the caregiver shortage and desire for nursing home alternatives.

—. “Elder Cohousing: The Embodiment of Aging in Community.” Innovation in Aging 3 (2019): S408.
Abstract A new alternative living arrangement has emerged in the U.S., in which older adults proactively choose how, where, and with whom they want to live, in a close-knit community where neighbors look out for each other. Adopting the cohousing model originally established in northern Europe, these elder intentional communities are distinctive, as they are run by the residents themselves, and there is a focus on neighbors helping each other. Drawing from over a decade of research incorporating data from six communities, the challenges and benefits of establishing such a community will be addressed and the requirements necessary for mutual support to thrive will be identified. Finally, the model of aging better together intentionally, developed from the senior cohousing experience, will be shared, as well as the implications for how the model can be used for planning and policy in other settings.

—. “Lessons Learned from a New Elder Cohousing Community.” Journal of housing for the elderly 27.4 (2013): 348-68.
As an alternative to traditional housing options, the first elder cohousing communities in the United States have recently emerged. This study reports findings from a mixed methods longitudinal evaluation of one such self-managed intentional community. Respondents were asked about the process of community building and the benefits/challenges of living in elder cohousing, using both surveys and in-depth interviews. Despite challenges, respondents indicated feelings of safety and comfort through being part of an interdependent community. Life improved after the first two years, when much foundational work was completed. Their experience reinforces the thought that elders can create and manage their own communities and provide mutual support.

Greenleaf, Gale Robin. “”Cohousing in the United States: Utopian Ideals in the Twenty-First Century”.” American quarterly 55.4 (2003): 808.
An abstract of Gale Robin Greenleaf entitled Cohousing in the United States: Utopian Ideals in the Twenty-First Century is presented. This dissertation explores a recent variant from Denmark, cohousing, to compare it to past utopian ideas and ideals; in particular, comparing aspects such as architecture, process, relationships with the outside world, and membership.

Haddow, Adam. “Cohousing: Driving Housing Innovation by Changing the Way we Live.” Architecture Australia 107.3 (2018): 95-8.
A shared desire to live more communally could encourage greater housing diversity, according to Adam Haddow. Here, he looks to student housing, “build-to-rent” models, and the new WeLive project in the USA for cues on how to conjure an alternative, more versatile Australian housing market.

Hammond, Mark. “Spatial Agency: Creating New Opportunities for Sharing and Collaboration in Older People’s Cohousing.” Urban science 2.3 (2018): 64.
Older people’s cohousing enables individuals to share spaces, resources, activities, and knowledge to expand their capability to act in society. Despite the diverse social, economic, and ethical aims that inform the creation of every cohousing community, there is often a disconnect between the social discourse developed by cohousing groups and the architectural spaces they create. This is a consequence of the building development process in cohousing, in which groups of older people are tasked with making decisions with considerable spatial implications prior to any collaboration with an architect. The concept of “spatial agency” offers an alternative model for the creation of cohousing, in which the expansion of architectural practice beyond aesthetic and technical building design enables social and spatial considerations to be explored contemporaneously. This study uses a two-year design-research collaboration with a cohousing group in Manchester, UK, to test the opportunities and constraints posed by a “spatial agency” approach to cohousing. The collaboration demonstrated how spatial agency enables both the architect and cohouser to act more creatively through a mutual sharing of knowledge, and, in doing so, tests new opportunities of sharing that are currently outside the cohousing orthodoxy.

Heidi, M. Berggren. “Cohousing as Civic Society: Cohousing Involvement and Political Participation in Massachusetts.” The New England journal of political science 7.1 (2013): 2.
This study asks whether cohousing as a form of non-political association has spill-over effects on participation in politics. The civic-society literature has shown that organizational and persuasive activities engaged in by members of voluntary civic associations constitute on-the-job training in political participation skills and can lead to higher levels of participation. Using original survey data on members of nine of the twelve cohousing communities in Massachusetts, I test the hypothesis that the exercise of quasi-political skills among members of cohousing communities leads to higher levels of political participation. I find that involvement in cohousing is positively related to political participation and that involvement in cohousing and political participation are positively related to self-reported change in political participation since joining cohousing. These results, in view of data limitations, suggest limited support for the hypothesis to the extent that members claim that their political participation has changed since moving to cohousing. PUBLICATION ABSTRACT].

Holtzman, Gilo. “Community by Design, by the People: Social Approach to Designing and Planning Cohousing and Ecovillage Communities.” Journal of green building 9.3 (2014): 60-82.

“The Influence of Physical and Social Environments on Aging in Place in Norc and Cohousing in Canada.” The Gerontologist 56 (2016): 7.

Jakobsen, Peter, and Henrik Gutzon Larsen. “An Alternative for Whom? the Evolution and Socio-Economy of Danish Cohousing.” Urban research & practice 12.4 (2019): 414-30.
Cohousing has caught the attention of activists, academics and decision-makers, and Danish experiences with cohousing as bofællesskaber are routinely highlighted as pioneering and successful. This article presents a mainly quantitative analysis of the development of Danish intergenerational cohousing and investigates socio-economic characteristics of residents in these communities. First, the article demonstrates how the development of Danish cohousing has been undergirded by distinct shifts in dominant tenure forms. Second, it shows that inhabitants in contemporary Danish cohousing are socio-economically distinct. This does not diminish the value of cohousing, but it problematises assumptions about the social sustainability of this housing form.

Jumadi, Norhaslina, Noorsidi Aizuddin Mat Noor, and Ahmad Ariffian Bujang. “An Introspective View of Sustainable Cohousing with the Malaysian Housing Concept.” MATEC web of conferences 66 (2016): 55.
Sustainable development strategies are becoming demanded in assisting in wealth distribution and improving living conditions for mankind. A sustained community is one of the sustainable development agendas that encourage community involvement and participation in contributing to sustainability. Moreover, with the rapid population growth, especially in urban cities as the proportion of urban dwellers will reach two-thirds of the world population, this will lead to several problems including the social life changing intensely. Sustainable Cohousing is one of the suggested answers for an innovative form of neighbourly accommodation. Generally, Cohousing is formed by a group of people who are committed to living as a community and who actively participate in the design and operation to shape their own neighbourhood. Through this concept, the community can decide how they can implement sustainability principles in terms of social, economical and environmental terms in their neighbourhood. Therefore, it is important to bring back the sense of togetherness amongst the people and improve their social wellbeing through an effective neighbourhood. The objective of this study is to isolate the basic concept of Cohousing and to identify the conceptual framework of Sustainable Cohousing that may apply to improving the sustainable living in Malaysia. The research methodology was through identifying and reviewing the issues in existing literature on cohousing chosen from various dimensions, such as principles and elements, sustainable value, development model and so on, which can be suited with the Malaysian culture. The findings of this research are useful for property development practitioners and policy makers in promoting sustainability through the new concept of modern housing.

Kang, Mihyun, Melinda Lyon, and Jessy Kramp. “Older Adults’ Motivations and Expectations Toward Senior Cohousing in a Rural Community.” Housing and society 39.2 (2012): 187-202.
Senior Cohousing is a type of cohousing that specifically focuses on adults aged 55 or older by accommodating varying levels of physical abilities as well as varying levels of financial status (The Cohousing Association of the United States, 2010). The purpose of this study was to examine older adults’ motivations and expectations toward Senior Cohousing in a rural community. Environmental assessments were conducted in the current houses of older adults who had decided to move into Senior Cohousing in a rural Midwestern town, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with the same individuals. The interview transcripts were coded and analyzed inductively by three researchers who then reached consensus on the emerging themes. The most common themes related to the motivations to move into Senior Cohousing were community, autonomy, and downsizing. Regarding older adults’ expectations for environmental factors, respondents expected an area for conversation, natural light and a view to the outdoors, neutral color, and energy efficiency for their living environment. This study provided insights into the views of participants in a rural Midwestern community toward Senior Cohousing as a new option for a senior living environment.

Kehl, Konstantin, and Volker Then. “Community and Civil Society Returns of Multi-Generation Cohousing in Germany.” Journal of civil society 9.1 (2013): 41-57.
Multi-generation cohousing and community developments have been promoted for more than a decade in Germany. They are confronted with rising expectations of success regarding their effects on the health, care, and well-being of their residents, as well as on local civil society. This article analyses their impact on residents and associational life by surveying eight German developments. The empirical findings underline the relevance of an informal sphere between communities and civil society for welfare and quality of life. However, relevant questions concerning their future funding and their relationship to local civil society merit further discussion and analysis.

Kärnekull, Kerstin, and Bertil Egerö. “Dick Urban Vestbro A Pioneer Researcher and Activist in Cohousing.” Built environment (London.1978) 45.3 (2019): 430-2.

Lee, Mina. “Economic Feasibility Analysis and Policy Implication for Photovoltaic System at Cohousing in KOREA.” Renewable Energy 144 (2019): 30-40.
Although the highly recognized matters of ‘fine dust’ from fossil-fuel combustions and increasing ‘safety fear’ from nuclear power in Korea, the energy transition from the traditional sources to renewables causes another concerns about stable energy supply for the demand increasing every year and the unexpected future electricity price. However, the current energy sector, that heavily relies on fossil fuels and accounts for 45% of GHGs emission, should seriously consider using renewable energy technology (RET) in the new climate regime. The purpose of this study is to perform an economic feasibility analysis and policy implication of photovoltaic system for cohousing Korea that accounts for 71.9% of residential type. The result shows that the current price of residential photovoltaic system for cohousing is economically feasible without subsidy and it will increase positively acceptability of renewable energy.

Lies, Melissa M., Mihyun Kang, and Rachel K. Sample. “Place Attachment and Design Features in a Rural Senior Cohousing Community.” Housing and society 44.1-2 (2017): 41-63.
The purpose of this study was to examine the design features that assist residents of a rural senior cohousing community with enhancement of place attachment. Participants for this study were recruited through purposive sampling. A total of 10 older adults, ages 60s to 80s, had resided for 6 months or more at a Midwestern senior cohousing community established in 2012. Data was collected through visual research methods, photo-elicitation, and interviews. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and organized with the computer software NVIVO. Content analysis revealed themes that were categorized using the five dimensions of place attachment (place dependence, place identity, friend bonding, family bonding, and nature bonding). The findings showed that friend bonding and nature bonding were the most dominant dimensions, while family bonding was the least. Friend bonding was promoted with design features for spontaneous, proposed, and organized interaction. Nature bonding was enhanced by design features that allow connection and interaction with nature. Design features related to autonomy and transition were related to place dependence. Design features that enable personalization and connection to the past helped place identity. Family bonding was connected to policies that allow for family, rather than to the physical environment.

Maria, Laura Ruiu. “The Social Capital of Cohousing Communities.” Sociology (Oxford) 50.2 (2016): 400-15. This article aims to discuss the possibility that cohousing communities might combine both civil engagement and governance systems in order to simultaneously generate three forms of social capital: bonding, bridging, and linking social capitals. Cohousing communities intend to create a ‘self-sufficient micro-cosmos’, but struggle against the relationships of ‘anonymous’ neighbourhood. Cohousers build their bonding social capital through the creation of a supportive (formal and informal) network within the community; while at the same time they develop bridging social capital when they try to integrate with the wider context, by organizing activities and making available spaces towards the outside. Finally, when cohousers try to collaborate with external partners (e.g. non-profit organizations and public institutions) they build linking social capital in relation to the ideas, information and advantages obtained through the collaboration with these institutions.

Nasution, M., and B. K. Napitupulu. Bauhäusle as a Cohousing Project. 328 Vol. , 2019.

Pereira, Gabriela Fonseca, Melissa Lies, and Mihyun Kang. “A Case Study of Place Attachment in Rural and Urban Senior Cohousing Communities.” Housing and society 46.1 (2019): 3-22.
Place attachment has implications for older adults’ well-being and psychological benefits such as belonging, enjoyment, connection, and privacy. The purpose of this study was to examine the presence of older adults’ place attachment in comparison to urban and rural senior cohousing communities, highlighting similar and contrasting design features that assist place attachment. Both communities in this study are located in the Midwest of the United States. A total of 24 older adults participated in this study: 10 participants from the rural community and 14 from the urban community. Participants attended individual interviews where researchers asked questions related to place attachment and design features that affect their experiences in the senior cohousing community. Results show that when comparing the rural and urban communities, the design features that were more prevalent in the rural community focused more on community and guest aspects (Friend Bonding) and natural elements within the community (Nature Bonding). The urban location, however, had design features that were associated with functionality (Place Dependence), the relationship between residents (Friend Bonding), and the natural elements surrounding the community (Nature Bonding). This analysis could be used as evidence-based design for the development of future senior cohousing communities and other older adult facilities.

Pfaff, Rosalind, and Barry Trentham. “Rethinking Home: Exploring Older Adults’ Occupational Engagement in Senior Cohousing.” Journal of occupational science ahead-of-print.- : 1-15.
Global demographic trends and the current limitations of housing options for older adults mean new housing models are needed for this diverse population. Alternative ways of living, like senior cohousing, are emerging. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the home environment and occupational engagement for older adults living in a Swedish cohousing model. Using a critical realist lens and case study design, interviews were completed with eight older adult cohousing residents, as well as home observation and document analysis. Findings expand current insights about occupational engagement by revealing the importance of both individual and collective occupations and their interplay in senior cohousing. Residents’ accounts also suggest personal and occupational development in later life. Senior cohousing provides an innovative way of ‘aging-in-community’ that may be a piece of the housing solution in other western contexts, though further investigation of cultural and institutional factors is warranted.

Renz, Mary Ann. “The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups.” Small group research 37.4 (2006a): 351-76.
This study examined the meanings of consensus and a block of consensus for 47 residents of one forming and three formed cohousing communities. Interviews revealed that the groups in this study constructed the meaning of consensus in their communities over time. Residents’ metaphors for consensus revealed a multilayered and often contradictory understanding of consensus as a process that was capable of leading to a decision no member had previously envisioned, to increased member insight, and to firmer relationships within the group. Descriptions of a consensus block revealed themes related to the motives for blocking and to the pivotal role blocking has in improving the group’s thinking, stopping its progress, transforming its energy, isolating members, or building community.

—. “Paving Consensus: Enacting, Challenging, and Revising the Consensus Process in a Cohousing Community.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 34.2 (2006b): 163-90.
This study focused on a cohousing community’s use of consensus to make a decision about surfacing a parking area. It revealed that the community’s use of consensus decision making allowed the residents to balance three goals: making an appropriate decision, meeting members’ needs, and maintaining the community’s well-being. Reaching agreement, however, was complicated by members’ value differences and discontinuity in their participation. The analysis of this case reveals three qualities characteristic of the enactment of consensus: the role of structured communication within and between group meetings, a tension between maintaining process openness and reaching decision closure, and the expectation that group members will work within the consensus process. The analysis also highlights the importance of timing in the interpretation of conflict in a consensus-oriented group and the role of process change when a group reaches the limits of members’ commitment to consensus.

Ruiu, Maria L. “Differences between Cohousing and Gated Communities. A Literature Review.” Sociological inquiry 84.2 (2014): 316-35.
On the basis of the literature (produced mainly by sociologists, architects, and geographers) about gated and cohousing communities, this work analyzes how these communities differ from each other. The analysis suggests that cohousing and gated communities are different in the nature of relationships between residents and in the reasons why they arise, even if there are some points of similarity. The risk of a degeneration of cohousing in the gated type is linked in particular with a complete transformation of the grass‐roots model (typical of cohousing) to the top‐down speculative scheme (typical of gated communities).

Ruiu, Maria Laura. “Participatory Processes in Designing Cohousing Communities: The Case of the Community Project.” Housing and society 43.3 (2017): 168-81.
Cohousing communities’ participatory processes take place from the preliminary phases of the development process when the group is expected to collaborate and negotiate its private stakes with those of the whole community. Even after the establishment of the community, every choice regarding the common spaces has to be discussed and approved by the whole group. Results obtained from qualitative research on cohousing in England show how the internal dynamics of the Community Project are highly different from an “ordinary” condominium, mainly because it is an “intentional community.” At the same time, the case study shows that when some constitutive features of the participatory process are not respected, the community dynamics are negatively influenced. Theoretically, the cohousing formula produces a cooperative and communitarian organization rationally constituted in order to ensure not only livelihood, but also a higher quality of life and higher degree of socialization inside and outside the community. Practically, it requires a great effort of inhabitants in terms of intentionality, time, financial resources, and willingness to collaborate and negotiate private stakes. The Community Project represents evidence of the difficulty in reaching equilibrium between creating an “open” community and preserving the privacy typical of a condominium.

Sanguinetti, Angela, and K. Hibbert. “More Room for Cohousing in the United States: Understanding Diffusion Potential by Exploring Who Knows about, Who Likes, and Who would Consider Living in Cohousing.” Housing and society 45.3 (2018): 139-56.
Early adopters of cohousing have been relatively homogenous in many regards. For example, most are white, politically liberal, Democrat, and have a post-graduate education; females are also overrepresented compared to the general population. Little is known about the degree to which this lack of diversity is due to lack of broader appeal, lack of awareness or access, or other factors. The present study sought to further understanding of this issue. Through a diffusion of innovations lens, we explored a wide range of potential demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal predictors of knowledge of and interest in cohousing among the general US population, via an online survey of 157 individuals. Regression analysis revealed that being older, not heterosexual, more educated, and voting in the 2012 presidential election predicted greater knowledge of cohousing, and being liberal and a working woman predicted interest in cohousing. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for understanding the profile of cohousing early adopters and potential for the movement to expand to broader segments of the US population.

Sargisson, Lucy. “Second-Wave Cohousing.” Utopian studies 23.1 (2012a): 28.

—. “Second-Wave Cohousing: A Modern Utopia?” Utopian studies 23.1 (2012b): 28-56.
Cohousing is an increasingly popular form of tenure that combines elements of private and collective ownership and affords its occupants a combination of the advantages of individual proprietorship with some of the benefits of living in a community that shares some of its space and activities. People join cohousing groups because they believe that there is something wrong with life in most villages, towns, and cities and they want to develop a better alternative. Sometimes this has been seen to articulate a utopian aspiration to secure a better way of living, of the kind more normally associated with self-consciously intentional communities. But many influential spokespeople in the contemporary cohousing movement, in North America particularly, deny this association and take an explicitly anti-utopian stance, distancing cohousing from the communal movement and intentional communities. This article undertakes an examination of cohousing in North America today and asks the following questions: What is the real character of people’s lived experience with modern cohousing? Why do people choose cohousing? Is it a form of intentional community? Is it utopian? Or is it just an attractive form of housing tenure for people who want a nice place to live with good neighbors?.

Scanlon, Kath, and Melissa Fernández Arrigoitia. “Development of New Cohousing: Lessons from a London Scheme for the Over-50s.” Urban research & practice 8.1 (2015): 106-21.
There is increased interest in the UK in cohousing as a desirable alternative for older people. The economics of developing cohousing differ from the normal model for residential development; in particular, the participatory nature of the process increases the time required and there are higher risks for both resident/purchaser and developer. We examine the nature of supply and risk using the case of a new senior cohousing community in south London. Given its evident benefits, senior cohousing may eventually become more widespread, and perceived risks will fall. However, the nature of the residential development process means that cohousing will always be at a disadvantage when competing for land in high demand areas like London, and the time required for participatory processes increases costs. To currently increase the small number of cohousing communities in the UK and ensure affordability, targeted measures may be necessary to enable groups to access land and mitigate the higher costs associated with longer term collaborative processes.

Schelisch, Lynn, Annette Spellerberg, and Maximilian Vollmer. “The Cooperative as Legal Form for Cohousing Projects in the German State of Rhineland-Palatinate: A Status Report.” Built environment (London.1978) 45.3 (2019): 416-29.

Scheller, David, and Håkan Thörn. “Governing ‘Sustainable Urban Development’ through Self-Build Groups and Co-Housing: The Cases of Hamburg and Gothenburg: GOVERNING ‘SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT’ THROUGH SELF-BUILD GROUPS AND COHOUSING.” International journal of urban and regional research 42.5 (2018): 914-33.

Sullivan, Esther. “Individualizing Utopia: Individualist Pursuits in a Collective Cohousing Community.” Journal of contemporary ethnography 45.5 (2016): 602-27.
Through a fourteen-month ethnography of a cohousing community, this study explores how community members reexamine and redefine their collectivist values in an attempt to develop their ideal community. Cohousers voice distaste for the isolation of contemporary U.S. residential arrangements and collaboratively plan neighborhoods that promote common space, increased social interaction, and collective decision making. Despite these organizing principles, I find that the conditions for social cohesion in one cohousing community are based primarily on concessions to autonomy and privacy, and emphasis on personal rewards for individual members. I demonstrate how this occurs in “Sunrise Place” as the group’s members (1) develop spatial arrangements that emphasize domestic privacy and (2) practice consensus decision making in ways that prioritize individual self-reflection over group debate. I show that cohousers’ apparently contradictory focus on the individual actually aids their collectivist agenda by buttressing members’ investment in the project during a prolonged development process; however, the community they develop is physically and spatially insulated, reproducing aspects of domestic privatism they seek to subvert.

Wang, Jingjing, and Karim Hadjri. “The Role of Cohousing in Building Sustainable Communities: Case Studies from the UK.” Asian journal of quality of life 3.13 (2018): 187-97.
This paper explored the role of cohousing models in the UK and discussed the benefits and limitations of cohousing models by exploring residents’ motivation and daily living. Through case studies in the UK, semi-structured interviews were carried out to establish the environmental and social sustainability of cohousing and to understand residents thinking and behaviour. This study found that cohousing could benefit various age groups, and promote residents’ thinking and behaviour change towards sustainable living. The findings of this research will establish a better understanding of UK cohousing and highlight the potentials and possibilities of cohousing communities.Keywords: sustainable communities, cohousing, environmental sustainability, social sustainability.eISSN 2398-4279 © 2018. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/ajqol.v3i13.176.

Wang, Jingjing, Yiru Pan, and Karim Hadjri. “Exploring Collaborative Design and Sustainable Living in British Cohousing Communities.” Asian journal of behavioural studies 3.14 (2018): 30.
Cohousing is a new collaborative housing concept to foster closer social bonding and sustainable communities. This paper discusses the key principles, priorities, and challenges of Cohousing design through interviews with four architects and four Cohousing community residents. The interviews were carried out 1) to demonstrate the application of the design standards, 2) to understand residents’ thinking and behaviour change, and 3) to establish the environmental and social sustainability in a cohousing setting. The findings could lead to a toolkit and guide for Cohousing design process and to establish a better understanding of Cohousing design and development process in the UK.Keywords: Cohousing Community; Cohousing Design; Environmental Sustainability; Social Sustainability;eISSN 2398-4295 © 2018. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

—. “Social Sustainability and Supportive Living: Exploring Motivations of British Cohousing Groups.” Housing and society ahead-of-print.- : 1-27.
“Cohousing” is a collective housing model, which has the potential to offer socially and environmentally sustainable housing for a community. It is a collaborative housing concept designed to foster meaningful relationships, closer social bonding, and more efficient use of resources. This study aimed to examine the motivations of cohousing groups to create or enter a cohousing community in the UK and identify potential issues to improve future cohousing development. In total, 24 people participated in this study: 18 cohousing group members and 6 project architects. Interviews were conducted in eight cohousing communities in the UK. The results showed that the social aspect was the driving characteristic attracting people to a cohousing project. This study focused on social aspects related to cohousing, but environmental, financial, family, and health aspects were analyzed as well. Potential issues were identified based on the experiences of group members and the architects, which showed the concerns and obstacles experienced by cohousing group members. The findings of this study could be used as an evidence-based tool to enhance social engagement for the development of future cohousing communities and other collaborative residential facilities.

Wankiewicz, Heidrun. “The Potential of Cohousing for Rural Austria.” Urban research & practice 8.1 (2015): 46-63.
Spatial living conditions have been changing fast because of economic and demographic transition. Rural areas in particular face the challenge of maintaining the infrastructures of everyday life. This article argues that cohousing projects are successful in co-developing and maintaining flexible infrastructures for everyday life for their residents and the neighbourhood. The article understands cohousing and planning as mutual learning processes and proposes a feminist approach to planning for everyday life. The potential of innovation of planning practice is explored on the basis of three Austrian cases. Conclusions show the potential and obstacles of planning and housing policies that favour cohousing and of planning innovation in rural Austria.

Weeks, Lori E., et al. “Barriers Faced in the Establishment of Cohousing Communities for Older Adults in Eastern Canada.” Journal of housing for the elderly 34.1 (2019): 1-16.

Wei, Lv, April D. Allen, and Lee Davis. “Cohousing and Sustainability Rating Systems: Opportunities for Planning Groups and Developers.” The open construction & building technology journal 9.1 (2015): 154-63.
To identify specific priorities of existing cohousing residents with regard to sustainable building design and practice as outlined in the LEED for Homes design protocol. This article examined the level of importance of various sustainability features have with residents for cohousing residents in cohousing communities and Having an understanding of the environmental priorities of existing cohousing groups will give some direction to future residents and developers to focus on areas that are most appealing to those who choose to live in a socially connected community. Knowing that generations of users may have different priorities helps to target decisionmaking within a group so that consensus can be reached.

White-Harvey, Robert. “Cohousing: A Scandinavian Longhouse, Or Traditional Approach to Modern Housing?” Canadian journal of native studies 13.1 (1993): 69.

Williams, Jo. “Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of Cohousing.” Journal of urban design 10.2 (2005): 195-227.
Does design influence social interaction in cohousing? How crucial is it? What other factors are involved? Can the impact of design be enhanced by the personal characteristics of residents or the formal social structures operating in a cohousing community? How can we design communities to increase social interaction in the future? Cohousing provides a useful case study because it uses design and formal social structures to encourage social interaction in neighbourhoods. In addition, informal social factors and personal characteristics of those living in cohousing communities predispose them to social interaction. Thus, cohousing is a housing form with optimal conditions for social interaction. Cohousing also provides a unique opportunity to study these variables in one setting to determine the relative importance of each and how social and personal factors may help to enhance the outcomes of design.

—. “Predicting an American Future for Cohousing.” Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies 40.3 (2008): 268-86.
Cohousing is an innovative form of accommodation. It offers economic, environmental and social advantages over existing forms of development. Cohousing emerged in the USA during the past 20 years as an innovative housing form with a niche market, but adoptions to date have been limited. This paper seeks to determine the future for cohousing in the USA, using innovation diffusion theories. It reviews the factors influencing the rate of diffusion of cohousing (relative advantages, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability). It investigates the impact of path dependencies and the existence of disruptive technologies on adoptions. It considers the potential for cohousing to “cross the chasm” and be adopted by the mainstream. The findings of the research suggest that “grass-roots” approaches to the creation of cohousing communities are likely to result in the greatest number of adoptions in the future.

—. “Sun, Surf and Sustainable Housing—cohousing, the Californian Experience.” International planning studies 10.2 (2006): 145-77.
Increasing environmental problems associated with the domestic sector and the decline of local social capital and resident participation in their locality has led the UK government to seek more sustainable housing models. Cohousing could provide one option. However, cohousing has been relatively unsuccessful in the UK so far. The author sets out to prove that cohousing is a more sustainable housing model (using international examples) and that it in fact achieves many of the sustainability objectives of the new urbanist movement. An international comparison of the experience of cohousing in the UK and California and the factors influencing success and failure of cohousing in both locations are then explored. Drawing on the Californian experience the author then tries to provide some indication of how the development of cohousing could be encouraged in the UK in the future.

Zhang, Rui, and Yan Hang Lv. “A New Living Concept Based on Low-Impact Strategy – the Sustainability of Cohousing Community.” Advanced materials research 224 (2011): 220-3.
Cohousing is a type of collaborative housing in which residents actively participate in the design and operation of their own neighborhoods. Low-impact strategy is one of the core features of such communities. In this paper, we will in-depth analysis the sustainable features of the cohousing from the perspective of physical and lifestyle, as well as the empowerment between these sustainability measures.