3.8 Article

Comparison of the Built Environment of Homes for the Aged in China by Postoccupancy Evaluation

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000264

Keywords

Built environment; Homes for the aged; Postoccupancy evaluation; Satisfaction

Funding

  1. Anhui Social Science Program [AHSKQ2015D39]
  2. CIOB Bowen Jenkins Legacy (BJL) Research Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With more than 14.9% of the current population being elderly, an aging society is a challenge for China. To accommodate the rapid increase in the aging population, it is necessary to provide sufficient and satisfactory homes for the aged. However, currently, China's homes for the aged are different in terms of capacity, building size, built environment, and facilities. Using a postoccupancy evaluation method, this study aimed to compare the elderly residents' level of satisfaction with the built environment in homes for the aged. To achieve this, both individual surveys and site visits were conducted with residents in 15 homes for the aged. A total of 284 questionnaires were completed by elderly residents living in homes for the aged. The results indicated that there were significant differences among the levels of satisfaction with the built environment in different homes for the aged. Based on detailed investigations of the built environment in the 15 homes for the aged, a number of recommendations are made to enhance the satisfaction of residents, including financial support for the built environment within homes for the aged, review of current building requirements for elderly living spaces (e.g., over 30 m(2) for one to three persons per room, 4 m(2) for toilet/bathroom, 1.5-m-wide corridor, and at least 100 m(2) of outdoor green space), installation of air conditioning and heaters for a stable temperature, weekly changes in catering menus, and so forth. (c) 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available