Pull factors to Finnish senior houses

Authors:

Tanja TyvimaaTampere University of Technology

Karen M. GiblerGeorgia State University

The paper has been accepted to publish in International Real Estate Review.

ERES, Milan, June 2010

Question

•What are the pull factors to the senior houses in Finland?

Method

• Case study:• 3 cases in three cities in Finland, together 461 units

• Mailed questionnaires to residents in 2009

• Total response rate 34.5%

• We calculated the mean importance of each attribute (pull factors) and compared the means among the cases using an ANOVA F-test

• We used factor analysis to determine whether the 13 pull factors could be combined

Ranking of property attributes4

Pull Factors Ranking Mean

Grocery nearby 1 3.66

Hospital or health center nearby 2 3.32

Public transportation nearby 3 3.28

Outdoor sports nearby 4 3.10

Activity center nearby 5 2.69

Fitness center onsite 6 2.55

Swimming pool or fitness center nearby 7 2.55

Resident organized activities 8 2.54

Meal service onsite 9 2.50

Activity clubs onsite 10 2.48

Staff onsite 11 2.30

Beauty services nearby 12 2.30

Health care services onsite 13 2.03

*mean score based on a scale with 1 representing "not important and 4 representing "important.

TOTAL

Loppukiri

Pull Factors Ranking Mean

Public transportation nearby 1 3.97

Resident organized activities 2 3.82

Outdoor sports nearby 3 3.55

Grocery nearby 4 3.50

Activity clubs onsite 5 3.39

Meal service onsite 6 3.30

Fitness center onsite 7 3.07

Hospital or health center nearby 8 2.87

Activity center nearby 9 2.69

Swimming pool or fitness center nearby 10 2.53

Beauty services nearby 11 2.31

Health care services onsite 12 1.47

Staff onsite 13 1.24

*mean score based on a scale with 1 representing "not important and 4 representing "important.

Loppukiri

Kotosalla6

Pull Factors Ranking Mean

Grocery nearby 1 3.91

Hospital or health center nearby 2 3.74

Public transportation nearby 3 3.37

Staff onsite 4 3.29

Outdoor sports nearby 5 3.12

Meal service onsite 6 2.98

Fitness center onsite 7 2.92

Beauty services nearby 8 2.74

Health care services onsite 9 2.70

Activity center nearby 10 2.67

Activity clubs onsite 11 2.61

Swimming pool or fitness center nearby 12 2.28

Resident organized activities 12 2.28

*mean score based on a scale with 1 representing "not important and 4 representing "important.

Kotosalla

Hakatornit7

Pull Factors Ranking Mean

Grocery nearby 1 3.50

Hospital or health center nearby 2 3.15

Swimming pool or fitness center nearby 3 2.83

Outdoor sports nearby 4 2.77

Activity center nearby 5 2.72

Public transportation nearby 6 2.68

Resident organized activities 7 1.84

Beauty services nearby 8 1.80

Fitness center onsite 9 1.68

Activity clubs onsite 10 1.63

Staff onsite 11 1.46

Health care services onsite 12 1.29

Meal service onsite 13 1.24

*mean score based on a scale with 1 representing "not important and 4 representing "important.

Hakatornit

Comparison between the cases

• No remarkable differences in the pulls to senior houses among demographic groups• The oldest residents value more on-site services, neighbourhood

shops and access to medical services

• Hospital or health center nearby• Kotosalla and Hakatornit: 2nd important

• Loppukiri: 8th important

• Swimming pool or fitness center nearby• Hakatornit: 3rd important

• Kotosalla and Loppukiri: 12th and 10th important

8

Comparison between the cases

• Residents organized activities• Loppukiri: 2nd important

• Kotosalla: 12th important

• Meal service on-site• Loppukiri and Kotosalla: 6th important

• Hakatornit: 13th important

• Activity clubs on-site• Loppukiri: 5th important

• Hakatornit: 10th important

• Staff on-site• Kotosalla: 4th important

• Loppukiri: 13th important

9

Factor analysis10

% of Variance

Cronbach's Alpha

Factor Loadings

Factor 1: Lifestyle factor 39.1% 0.849 Meal service onsite 0.793 Resident organized activities 0.871 Fitness center onsite 0.589 Activity clubs onsite 0.912

Factor 2: Daily service and care factor 15.8% 0.822 Health care services onsite 0.686 Staff onsite 0.778 Grocery nearby 0.749 Hospital or health center nearby 0.826 Beauty services nearby 0.577

Factor 3: Activity factor 13.2% 0.707 Swimming pool or fitness center nearby 0.818 Activity center nearby 0.819 Outdoor sports nearby 0.702

Comparison

• No significant socioeconomic factors were related to the importance of Factor 1 (lifestyle)

• Factor 2 (daily service and care) was more important to residents 70 years of age and older, as these residents are likely to be less mobile and more dependent on the neighbourhood

• Physical activities in Factor 3 (activities) were more important for females than males

• Household income level or whether seniors live alone or not does not appear to be related to importance of the pull attributes

11

Comparison

• Factor 1 (lifestyle) was more important for residents in Kotosalla and Loppukiri than in Hakatornit

• Factor 2 (daily service and care) was more important for residents in Kotosalla than in Loppukiri and in Hakatornit

• Factor 3 (activities) was important for all residents

12

• Significant differences in the pulls between the cases• The communities can be differentiated based on the

on-site services and the type of neighbourhood• Results support earlier findings

• Seniors choose a retirement home that can support their existing lifestyle

• Seniors prefer communities that can provide new activities

• Seniors want activities and some luxury services more than health care services

• Investors should focus to activate residents and offer some extra for everyday life!

13

Conclusion

Thank you!