Development of a design checklist for housing for the elderly*

Seo-Ryeung Ju and You-Jin Cho

Housing and Interior Design Dept., Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemoon-ku, Seoul, Korea, 130-701

Tel. 82/2/961-0648, E-mail: jcl@KHU.ac.kr I. Introduction and Research Methods

A rapid increase of the elderly population and changes in the social structure, family type and lifestyle bring us to the moment for considering the various aspects of supporting the elderly including the elderly housing facilities.

Traditionally it is considered as a merit for a son to support parents in his own house. But recently the elderly increasingly want to live independently without support from their children. To satisfy these needs, new housing facilities for the elderly were developed by private non-profit foundations. A number of outstanding housing facilities for the elderly have been built in the last five years. These facilities show significant progress in housing for the elderly. Unfortunately, there are no standard design checklists or guidelines for housing for the elderly available in Korea. The housing facilities were built based on foreign design guidelines or architect's experience. This research aims to develop an affordable design checklist that can meet the needs of the Korean elderly lifestyle.

This research was conducted in two parts. First, we evaluated one unit of housing facility for the elderly based upon Woo's checklist (Woo, Jung-Min, 1999). Woo's checklist was mainly developed by compiling checklist items of reliable foreign and Korean researches. The objective of the first part is to verify the reliability of the Woo's checklist with a goal to develop a more systemized and practical checklist. Interviews with the residents were also conducted to understand their needs and ideas about improving their housing.

Second, we conducted a questionnaire survey to assess each item's degree of importance in the checklist. The 27 professionals related to housing management, architectural planning, interior design and researchers answered the questionnaire. The 7-point scale method was applied and SPSS window programs for the analysis of data, frequencies, means and percentage were used. II. Case Studies 1. Methodology The current status of the elderly residential facilities were evaluated by visiting N facility in Kyeonggi Province and S facility in Seoul from February to March 2004. Assessment of the facilities were

* This work was supported by the Brain Korea21 Project in 2004.

2

conducted with Woo's checklist and then interviewing the residents for their requirements to understand their requirements for the improvement of their house.

Table 1. Number of Items of Woo’s Checklist

SPACE

CATEGORY

Bedroom Living

room

Bathroom Kitchen/

Dining room

Entrance

/hallway

balcony

Space

planning

76 25 28 27 18 24

Furniture 15 7 142 128 9 3

Window 13 8 10 1 14 2

Equipment 28 7 23 35 3 3

Lighting 13 1 9 13 1 .

Material 4 2 9 6 . 1

Color . . 2 4 . .

Total 149 50 223 214 45 33

2. Results 1) N Facility (Located in Yongin City, Kyeonggi Province) The facility we studies had total area of 153 m2 and was used by a couple in mid 70's. There were 2 bedrooms. No balcony was provided probably for safety reason as the facility was a 14th floor high rise building. After inspecting the entrance area and the hallways, we found that the subjects of 'No threshold on the floor', 'Chair to help putting on and taking off the shoes', 'Non-slippery floor' and 'Self-turning lights' were in good compliance with the guideline while 'Sufficient space for the wheelchair to turn' and 'Minimum width for the hallway' were not satisfactory. For the bedrooms, 'Minimum space', 'Direction', 'Storage space' and 'Emergency call system' were satisfactory while 'Height of the light switch', 'Sub lighting' and 'Adjustable light direction' were not. For the living room, 'Emergency calling system', 'Storage space' and 'Lighting' were in good agreement with the guideline while 'Height of the window opening/closing device' and 'Ceiling structure safe enough for the lift' were not. For the bathroom, 'Minimum space', 'Finishing material', 'Hot water adjustment' and 'Floor heating' were satisfactory. But the guideline for the bathroom was based on the foreign facilities, and the standards for 'Position of the safety handle', 'Heating through the ceiling heating lamp', 'Towel drier' and others were not realistic conditions for Korea. For the kitchen, ‘Enough access space' and 'Lever type tap' were in good compliance, but the sink and the storage space were not satisfactory for the standards for the wheelchair users. Overall, this facility satisfied most of the design guidelines except in the areas of providing the special appliances in the kitchen and bathroom as well as the height of the devices for the wheelchair users. 2) S Facility (Located in Seoul) This unit with total area of 77 m2 was about the average size in the S facility which was 20th floor building. It used non-slippery finishing material for the bathroom floor and throughout other spaced in consideration for the residents' safety. It provided other safety related features including a nurse call system which enables direct communication with a nurse in case of health abnormality; emergency call system which can be immediately activated in case of emergency; and medical accident monitoring system which enables monitoring of the residents' emergency conditions from the computer located in the nursing room and the front. However, the floor plan of the facility did not seem

3

to consider for the convenience or safety of its residents. There was not enough space for the wheelchair to turn in front of the door. The thresholds between the entrance and the living room as well as underneath the door to the bedroom were not appropriate for the wheelchair users or the senior people. The bedrooms were too small to fit for various arrangements. We found that other spaces were also smaller than what the guideline suggested. Except for the finishing material and the safety calling system, we found that the place lacked the facilities for the senior residents. 3) Validation of the Design Checklist of Woo’s After evaluating the unit floor of the N and S facilities using Woo's checklist, we have found that some items were not realistic under Korean condition; some were duplicated; some were the same but with different dimension standards; some were essentially the same except for a few phrases. As the result, we reduced the items for the entrance/hallway to 30 from 45, the balcony to 18 from 32, the bedrooms 37 from 149, the bathroom to 80 from 223, living room to 17 from 50, and the kitchen to 58 from 214.

Table 2. Selection of Checklist items from Woo’s checklist

Space

Number

of items

Bedroom Living

room

Bathroom Kitchen/

Dining

room

Entrance

/hallway

balcony Total

Woo’s

items

45 33 149 223 50 214 714

Selected

items

30 18 37 80 17 58 240

III. Questionnaire Survey 1. Methodology After consolidating the checklist of Woo’s through the case studies, we conducted a survey of 30 experts in architectural design, interior design and senior residential studies to evaluate relative importance of each item in order to make the new checklist more complete and reliable. The surveyed subjects included the basic planning ideas (4 subjects) when designing the senior residential facilities and the importance of the checklist (240 subjects). Of the returned answers, 27 were used for statistical analysis. Frequency, average (%) and standard deviation were calculated using SPSS window program. 2. Results 1) Basic Planning Ideas for Senior Residential Facilities Analysis of the experts' response concerning required considerations when designing the senior residential facilities shows the following: 63% of the experts have agreed that the living by furniture style is better for the seniors than the more sitting on the floor type. For the bathroom organization, 63% preferred 'sink + toilet stall + bathtub with shower' followed by 'sink + toilet stall + shower booth'.

4

For the question concerning the wheelchair users, 40.7% thought that it was better to design the unit of facility originally for general use with an option to change it for wheelchair users. 77.8% of the experts selected bathroom as the most important space that need to comply with the design guideline. This shows that the experts believe the bathroom is the most important space in relation to the residents' safety and needs careful consideration and attention.

Figure 1. Concerning required considerationswhen designing bedroom of housing for the

elderly

37%

63%

Sitting on thefloorLiving by furniture

Figure 2. Concerning requiredconsiderations when designing bathroom

of housing for the elderly

63%

37%

Sink+Toiletstall+Bathtubwith ShowerSink+toiletstall+Showerbooth

Figure 3. Most important space for housingfor the elderly

78%

4%7%11%

BathroomLiving room BedroomKitchen/ diningroom

5

2) Degree of importance on the checklist items ∗ Out of 1 to 7, the averages for the items were mostly around 5. This shows that the experts agree that the surveyed items are all relatively important subjects for the senior residents. In general statistical analysis, the upper 25% and lower 25% are considered as the extreme regions. However, most answers were concentrated in the region around 5 in our case. For the purpose of this study, we listed the items in terms of its importance and classified them as '6 or Higher', '5 or Higher' or 'Below 5'. And, although it does not have much significance, we further classified them as upper group 25%, middle group and lower group 25% levels. ① Entrance / Hallway Space (30 subjects) This space showed an overall average of 5.44. 'Minimum clear width for wheelchair' received the highest average at 6.63 followed by 'Non-slippery floor material' with 6.48. This subject is critical to protect the residents from slipping and must be complied with in our opinion. The next high scored subject was 'No threshold' at 6.33 followed by 'Installation of hand-rail' at 6.18 and 'Wheelchair turning space' at 6.11. The lowest scored subject was 'Level difference between entrance and living room' at 4.04. This indicates that the experts do not believe having the level difference is not that important.

Table 3. Degree of importance of entrance/hallway checklist

Variables

M

Distribution

By mean

Distribution

By quartile

deviation

1 Minimum clear width for wheelchair (90㎝) 6.6296

2 None slippery floor material 6.4815

3 No threshold 6.3333

4 Installation of hand-rail 6.2222

5 Grab-bar on wall 6.1852

6 Wheelchair turning space 6.1111

7 Color & material design for identification 6.0741

M≥6

8 Wheelchair turning space in front of

doors(150*150㎝)

5.8519

9 Minimum clear width for corridor

(90~120㎝)

5.8148

Upper

25%group

10 Decoration space of unit identification 5.6667

11 Lighting for corridor 5.6667

12 Bright finishes 5.5926

13 Sitting in entrance 5.5926

14 No changes in level 5.5556

15 Automatic light of bell 5.5556

16 Closet space 5.5185

17 Door with windbreak, sound proof 5.4444

Middle

25%Group

18 The height of bell (85㎝) 5.4074

19 Character height -Letters &Numbers

(above 1.5㎝)

5.3704

20 Areas of entrance 5.1852

6>M≥5

Middle

25%Group

∗ The sentence on the checklist was omitted.

Example) Balcony should allow maximum sun penetration -> Sunny location (Balcony)

6

21 Short pathway to rooms 5.1481

22 Two way communication system 5.1111

23 Installation of shelves 4.9630

24 Entrance hall area for storage coats and

shoes etc.

4.8889

25 Safe and durable material of door 4.8519

26 Door view (150~160㎝ height) 4.7407

27 Vision glass 4.5185

28 Recessed handrail 4.4074

29 Moth-proof watching door 4.3333

30 Level difference between entrance and

living room

4.0370

5>M Lower

25%group

mean 5.4419

② Balcony Space (18 subjects) The overall average was 5.16 somewhat below that of entrance/hallway space. The highest scored subject was 'Non-slippery floor material' at 6.11. This again indicates that safety is the most important consideration when designing the senior residential facility. The lowest scored subject was 'Balcony with a table and two chairs', verifying that, unlike the western countries, Korean residents usually do not use the table and chair in the balcony.

Table 4. Degree of importance of balcony checklist

Variables

M

Distribution

By mean

Distribution

By quartile

deviation

1 None-slippery floor material 6.1111 M≥6

2 Sunny location 5.9259

3 Good view 5.8519

4 View of activity 5.7407

5 Width of the gripping surfaces of rail 5.7037

Upper

25%group

6 Storage space 5.4815

7 Drainage 5.4444

8 Easily movable doors 5.4444

Middle

25%Group

9 Space for shelter, growing flowers 5.2963

10 Faucets 5.1852

11 Variable folded screen 5.1111

6>M≥5

12 Space for drying clothes 4.7778

Middle

25%Group

13 Accessibility of wheelchair 4.7037

14 Transparent rail 4.6296

15 Built-in shelves 4.5185

16 Privacy 4.5185

17 Built-in electrical fixture 4.4074

18 Balcony areas for chairs and tables 4.1111

5>M

Lower

25%group

mean 5.1646

7

③ Bedroom Space (37 subjects) The overall average was 5.45. The high scored subjects included 'Operability of controls - being able to control while lying on the table', 'Non-slippery floor', 'Emergency call system' and 'Consistent floor heating'. Again, these subjects are mostly related to preventing of and responding to the emergency situations that can occur in the bedroom. The lowest scored subject was 'Designing the bedrooms for sitting on the floor type', indicating that the experts believed the living by furniture was better for the senior residents who have lost mobility. 'Additional bedroom' was the next lowest scored subject. This was very surprising since the interview with the residents showed high preference for the second bedroom. We believe that there should be further detailed study on this issue.

Table 5. Degree of importance of bedroom checklist

Variables M Distribution

By mean

Distribution

By quartile

deviation

1 Convenience of controls 6.2963

2 None-slippery floor 6.1852

3 Emergency alarm system required 6.1852

4 Floor heating 6.1852

5 Control equipment for ventilation and heating 6.1481

6 Night lighting system 6.0741

7 Equipment of telephone, TV 6.0000

M≥6

8 The width and height of beds 5.9259

9 Levels of lighting (150Lux) 5.9259

10 Various lighting 5.9259

11 Low window 5.8889

12 Prevent glare and bright light 5.8519

13 Round corner 5.7778

14 Accessibility of wheelchair 5.7407

15 Western stand-up style 5.7037

Upper

25%group

16 Good task lighting 5.6296

17 Portion illumination 5.6296

18 Direction of room 5.4444

19 Soundproof material 5.4074

20 Enough area 5.4074

21 Walk-in closet or attached room 5.3704

22 The height of shelves and hangers 5.3704

23 Minimum width of door, the height of door

hands

5.3333

24 Enough storage space 5.3333

Middle

25%Group

25 The height of side table 5.2593

26 Enough space for various location of

furniture

5.2222

27 Minimum width of window 5.2222

28 Adjustment of direction of lighting 5.1111

29 Fire proofed door 5.0741

30 Drawers in closets 5.0370

31 Space for nursing support 5.0000

6>M≥5

Middle

25%Group

8

32 Height of window (100~150㎝) 4.9630

33 Automatic hangers 4.9259

34 Affordable areas (10.53~13.50㎡) 4.8148

35 Second bedroom 4.4074

36 Footage for bed 4.1852

37 Traditional sit-down style (sedentary style) 3.5556

5>M

Lower

25%group

mean 5.4464

④ Living room space (17subjects) This space should an overall average of 5.4. The highest scored subject was ‘Establishment of emergency alarm system in proper location’. And the lowest scored subject was ‘Affordable living room area(16~20 ㎡). Table 6. Degree of importance of living room checklist

Variables

M

Distribution

By mean

Distribution

By quartile

deviation

1 Emergency alarm system 6.2963

2 Location of emergency alarm system 6.1111

M≥6

3 Location of window lock 5.8148

Upper

25%group

4 Enough area for various setting 5.7037

5 Easy operable and cleanable window 5.6296

6 Direction of living room 5.4815

7 Direct and non-direct lighting 5.4444

8 Planning pathway 5.4074

9 Structural safety for installing lifts 5.3704

10 Telephone fixture 5.3704

Middle

25%Group

11 Cozy space 5.2593

12 The height of operating fixture (85㎝) 5.2593

13 Minimum space for wheelchair( above 22㎡) 5.0741

14 Multiple electrical fixture 5.0741

6>M≥5

Middle

25%Group

15 Wide window design 4.8519

16 Window design for view 4.8519

17 Affordable area (16~20㎡) 4.7778

5>M Lower

25%group

mean 5.3987

⑤ Bathroom Space (80 subjects) At 5.51 the overall average for this space was higher than others. The high scored subjects included 'Elimination of the protrusion', 'No level difference' and 'Emergency call system at easy access'. The low scored subjects were 'Built-in toilet brush and cup for tooth brushing' and 'Air towel'. As the experts were consistent in their concern for the residents' safety, any guideline dealing with them must be strictly complied. On the other hand, the researchers had different opinion of guideline standards for the size of the bathtub, size and height of the sink, height of the toilet stall, and location and height of the hand-rail. We believe that further detailed analysis of the Korean senior people's behavior is needed to present the appropriate standards for them.

9

Table 7. Degree of importance of bathroom checklist

Variables

M

Distribution

By mean

Distribution

By quartile

deviation

1 Elimination of protruding object 6.6667

2 No-level difference 6.5926

3 Emergency alarm system 6.4444

4 Identification of hot &cold water on faucets 6.3704

5 Support for bathing 6.3333

6 Non-slippery floor tiles 6.2963

7 Waterproof &non-slippery floor tiles 6.2963

8 Notice of emergency alarm system 6.2222

9 Safe installation of bathroom fixtures 6.1481

10 Lock system 6.1111

11 Accessibility to fixtures 6.1111

Upper

25%group

12 Durability of material of bathroom 6.0370

13 Enough heating 6.0370

14 Lever-style faucet 6.0370

15 Emergency calling system with strings 6.0370

16 Location of shower spray &faucet 6.0370

M≥6

17 Accessibility of wheelchair 5.9630

18 Flexible change of fixture 5.9630

19 Height adjustable shower spray 5.9259

20 Toilet stalls 5.8889

21 Folded seat for shower stalls 5.8889

22 Laboratory 5.8519

23 No threshold for shower stalls 5.8519

24 Enough area for wheelchair 5.8519

25 Ventilation 5.8148

26 Floor heating 5.7778

27 Hanger for toilet paper 5.7778

28 The height of grab-bar (81.5~96.5㎝) 5.7778

29 Structural strength for fixture 5.7407

30 Location of grab-bars near toilet stalls 5.7037

31 Hot &cold mixed faucets 5.7307

32 Location of electrical fixture 5.7307

33 Rotation degree of lever of faucets 5.6667

34 Size of seat for shower stall 5.6667

35 Installation of bathing fixture 5.6667

36 Sliding door 5.6296

37 Lighting 5.5926

38 Grab-bars 5.5926

Middle

25%Group

39 Easily operable shower spray 5.5926

40 Seat on the toilet stall 5.5926

41 Minimum width of door 5.5926

42 Width of grab-bar 5.5556

43 Height adjustable toilet stall 5.5556

6>M≥5

Middle

25%Group

10

44 The height of toilet stall 5.5556

45 Material of grab-bars 5.5556

46 Location of hanger of toilet paper 5.5556

47 Adjustment of height of grab-bars 5.5185

48 Good surroundings of bathroom 5.5185

49 Flush controls 5.5185

50 Adjustment of angle of mirror 5.4444

51 Considering material of handle 5.4444

52 Built-in storage facilities 5.4444

53 Roll in shower 5.4074

54 Accessibility to storage facilities 5.3333

55 Automatic self cleaning videt 5.3333

56 Support equipment for bath 5.3333

57 Height of flush 5.2963

58 The height electrical fixture 5.2593

59 Hand-held shower spray 5.2593

60 Consistent heating 5.2593

61 The size of mirror 5.2222

62 The location of hanger 5.1852

63 Installation of shower curtain 5.1111

64 No protruding soap dish 5.1111

65 Back of chair of bathtub 5.0741

66 Size of bathtub 5.0000

67 Flexible change of bathtub 4.9630

68 Shelves 4.9259

69 Accessibility to water faucet 4.9259

70 Finishing material 4.8519

71 Area (4.6~5.5㎡) 4.8148

72 Heating lamp on ceiling 4.8148

73 Adjustable laboratories 4.7778

74 Outside closet space 4.7778

75 Liquid soap 4.6667

76 Mirror in front of toilet stall 4.5185

77 Air towel 4.1481

78 Dryer for towel 4.0741

79 Built-in cup for tooth brushing 4.0370

80 Built-in toilet brush 3.7778

5>M

Lower

25%group

mean 5.5151

⑥ Kitchen Space (58 subjects) The average for the kitchen space was 5.62, the highest of all spaces. The highly scored subjects were 'Floor material for easy cleaning and non slipping' and 'Bright lighting'. 'Built-in chopping board', 'Counter area' and 'Frost free mirror' were the lowest scored, indicating that these appliances that the Korean senior people are not familiar with are not yet much needed.

11

Table 8. Degree of importance of kitchen/dining room checklist

Variables

M

Distribution

By mean

Distribution

By quartile

deviation

1 Floor material 6.3333

2 Bright lighting 6.1852

3 Lever style faucet 6.1481

4 Height adjustable counter 6.1111

5 Fire proof 6.1111

6 Task lighting 6.0741

7 Safe fuel 6.0370

8 Round corner 6.0370

Upper

25% group

9 Design for elderly 6.0000

M≥6

10 Fire fixture 5.9630

11 The height of table (67㎝) 5.9630

12 Easily operable controls 5.9630

13 Signage for safety 5.9630

14 Ventilation 5.9259

15 Signal for operation 5.9259

16 Easily operable door of refrigerator 5.8519

17 Color and material design for identification 5.8519

18 Location of controllers 5.8148

19 Handles of sink 5.8148

20 Automatic fire extinguisher 5.8148

21 Fixing of dining table 5.8148

22 Accessibility of wheelchair 5.8148

23 Identification for operating switches 5.7778

24 No digital signal 5.7778

25 Variability of sink 5.7407

26 Material of range 5.7407

27 Signal of range 5.7407

28 Enough space for wheelchair 7.7037

Middle

25%Group

29 The height of dining chair 5.6667

30 Simple and short pathway 5.6667

31 The height of refrigerator 5.6296

32 Sill of counter 5.5926

33 Pathway planning 5.5926

34 Barrier free space 5.5926

35 Open space 5.5556

36 Enough dining space 5.5556

37 The appropriate area of main counter 5.5556

38 View window in dining space 5.5185

39 Enough work space 5.4815

40 Manual operating of automation facilities 5.4444

41 Non-glossing finishing 5.4444

42 The height of cabinet 5.4074

6>M≥5

Middle

25%Group

12

43 Non-movable sub-cabinet 5.3704

44 Non path through way 5.3333

45 Adjustment of drainage pipe 5.2593

46 The height of shelves 5.2222

47 Extra storage 5.2222

48 The height of counter 5.2222

49 The height of cabinet 5.1852

50 The length of counter (180㎝) 5.1481

51 Smell filtration finishing 5.1111

52 Rotary shelves (Lazy Susan) 5.0741

53 Automatic shelves 5.0000

54 Doors of cabinet 4.8148

55 Small dining space in kitchen 4.8148

56 Frost free mirror 4.7778

57 Appropriated area of counter (1.1㎡) 4.7037

58 Built-in chopping board 4.6296

5>M

Lower

25%group

mean 5.6152

As the result of this study, we presented the checklist subjected in upper group 25%, middle group, lower group 25% distribution and 6, 5, 4 categories in the order of importance. The higher ranked the subject is, the more important it is. When designing the future senior residential facilities, a constraint can be made based on the scope and financial factors of the facility first and then determine how extensive the application of this checklist should be. IV. Conclusion This study evaluated the senior residential facilities using Woo's checklist (Jung-min Woo, 1999) which consolidated the guidelines available here and abroad. Through the first step of the case studies, 714 items of Woo's checklist were consolidated to 240 items. And then, we conducted a survey of the experts to further assess relative importance of these 240 items. After analyzing their assessment, we classified the subjects into 6 classes in terms of importance. This result can be used as a guideline for designing the new senior residential unit as well as evaluating the existing ones. It should be noted that discussing the actual dimensional standards were not part of this study. As the follow-up research, we recommend a study of characteristics of Korean senior people to present the standard dimensional guidelines for them. Ⅴ. References Kang, Byoung-Keun (1996), Design Guidelines for Elderly People, The Science of Construction Journal, 9603,9604,9605,9606. Lee, Yeon-Sook (1993), Interior Design Guidelines for the elderly housing, Seoul: Kyungchoonsa. Han, Young-Ho, Kim, Tae-Hwan, Lee, Jin-Young (2000), A Study on the Development of Interior Design Guidelines for Safety Plans of Elderly Housing, Korean Institute of Interior Design Journal No.25, pp.49-60. Regnier, V (1987), Housing the Aged, N.Y.: Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. Wasch, W.K. (1996), Home Planning for Your Later Years, Middletown Conn.: Beverly Cracorn Publications.

13

Woo, Jung-Min (1999), A Study on Design Directives for the Elderly Housing Environment-Based on ecological approach, Kyunghee University Yi, Hyun Ae (2003), A Study on the Residential Environment of Fee charging Housing Facility for the Elderly, Yonsei University