Housing Workers’ Evaluations of Residential Environmental Quality in South Korean Welfare Housing for Low-Income, Single-Parent Families

: This study evaluates the spatial conditions of the residential environment in welfare housing built for low-income, single-parent (LISP) families in South Korea to reveal the signiﬁcant residential environmental (RE) design criteria concerning housing quality and family well-being. The primary data were analyzed by surveying 30 housing directors from 29 welfare residences, in conjunction with facility visits and interviews. The survey data were supplemented by interviewing 11 stakeholders, including government institute o ﬃ cials, project architects, and former residents who exited the program. A statistical analysis examined the RE quality in relation to building and resident features. Most respondents reported insu ﬃ cient physical quality, speciﬁcally due to inappropriate units in size and number; poor indoor noise control; and substandard unit rooms, children’s rooms, and outdoor spaces. Furthermore, adequate rooms, family privacy, and a pleasant indoor environment (i.e., noise barrier, thermal comfort) were the most critical spatial design criteria. Particularly, the aforementioned housing environmental attributes were found to be di ﬀ erent depending on a building’s construction year and type, householder type and age, and children’s age. Practical and methodological implications and future research directions are discussed to elevate the housing quality and sustainable well-being in welfare housing.


Introduction
Low-income, single-parent (LISP) families receiving basic living support from the government constitute a growing share of South Korea's low-income households [1]. From the many obstacles they experience, housing stability is among the most urgent, primarily due to high rental costs and unreliable income sources [2]. The sudden transition to becoming the family's sole earner causes a dramatic shift from living in an adequate, centralized part of the city to a run-down neighborhood [3]; in extreme cases, this can lead to homelessness [4]. The move to a deteriorated house in a locale devoid of security and social connections may also impact LISP families' physical and psychosocial processes [5] and, consequently, impact their physical and mental wellness [6,7]. Thus, housing is distinctively linked to-and a vital part of-one's sense of well-being in vulnerable low-income households [8,9].
To mitigate the housing instability faced by LISP families, the South Korean Ministry of Women Equity and Family initiated a unique housing support program-the Welfare Housing Subsidy Program-that selects eligible LISP families with severe housing deprivation and offers them a transitionary, short-term residence combined with social services provided by in-house social service workers [10]. Serving as a bridge between a shelter and a longer-term rental housing subsidy [11], the program's goal is to help LISP families to raise children in a safe and secure home environment while concentrating on their economic and social self-sufficiency [10]. Therefore, the program aims for the family's physical and emotional health during the residency [2,10], which ultimately promotes its perceived well-being.
Although the program has served LISP families for many years (since the 1950s) [12], there is insufficient information on the residential milieu of welfare homes [11,13]. South Korean welfare and housing authorities have regularly monitored the overall housing circumstances, management attributes, and social services delivered by welfare housing workers (HWs) [14]. Government research institutes and scholars from various fields have studied the LISP families' welfare housing from a wide range of scopes [2]. However, the information does not sufficiently capture the detailed conditions of the residential context. In prior studies, physical layout features of several single-mother family residences [11] and the overall residential satisfaction of single-mother dwellers were examined in relation to multi-faceted dimensions of housing environments [13]. However, essential knowledge is still largely missing, particularly with respect to distinctive spatial aspects of welfare housing based on closer investigations of indoor and outdoor spatial conditions. Moreover, the projected needs and expectations by primary housing occupants, including various stakeholders [15], should be rigorously identified based on a variety of welfare housing types and in relation to building and household features. At present, such data remain scarce.
An exhaustive screening of the spatial conditions of various welfare residences and an analysis of building users' and relevant stakeholders' central views regarding these spaces can offer the following benefits: • They can provide more tangible knowledge and convincing strategies for the design of a residential environment in welfare housing. • They can offer more insightful remedies, targeting necessary spatial interventions centered on a distinct type of welfare residence with respect to building and household features.

•
They can help determine a more reasonable resource allocation and feasible methods in the delivery of a residential environment in welfare housing.

•
They can reinforce family well-being, aiming at the meaningful construction of welfare housing projects and progress toward their sustainability and sustainable development [16][17][18].
This study examines HWs' perception as a primary source of information, aided by perspectives from other stakeholders, such as relevant government institute officials, project design architects, and former residents who exited the program. HWs-as social service experts at the frontlines of managing overall housing facilities and daily social services [13,19]-are key components in welfare housing and provide an invaluable set of spatial information from a wider perspective. HWs are the most approachable and reliable sources to acquire more detailed information on housing conditions [13], particularly because access to welfare residences is restricted due to security and privacy reasons. Furthermore, HWs are essential in the final delivery of a satisfactory quality housing program [19] and are influential in the decision-making process of welfare housing policy [20]. The primary data were gathered by surveying HWs, at the level of the director, from different welfare residences across three major cities in South Korea. Along with the survey, facility visits and interviews were conducted to closely examine housing conditions, household characteristics, and daily residential lives, which provided essential knowledge to interpret the survey results. Additional perspectives gained from other stakeholders' interviews proved to be invaluable in the discussion and implementation of the survey analysis.
Based on the aforementioned objectives and data sampling, this study will explore the following three research questions: Q1: What is the overall residential environmental quality in the scope of neighborhood and housing spheres of welfare residences? Convenient access to neighborhood resources is a concern in terms of the neighborhood environment, since proximity to neighborhood facilities is a vital element of publicly subsidized housing [19]. Previous research has also reported structural building flaws in many welfare residences [20]. In this study, the overall standard of housing, based on the physical and socioemotional spatial attributes, is scrutinized to shed light on current defects. Q2: Which specific facility and spatial features need improvement to provide the occupants with a good-caliber residential atmosphere? How do housing workers assess such features differently in relation to housing characteristics?
Prior research is not informative in terms of looking at more detailed components of the physical sphere, such as facility and spatial traits. Personnel from different residences could provide unique views on inadequate facility and spatial aspects with respect to housing characteristics (the building structure and household features) in different welfare residences that need further enhancement in order to upgrade residential environmental (RE) quality.
Q3: What are the significant design criteria to fulfill the program's goal of providing a creditable residential environment in support of the occupants' well-being? How do HWs view such criteria differently in relation to housing characteristics?
Preceding studies have failed to extensively determine important spatial attributes that are imperative to RE quality, and, in turn, residents' well-being, in relation to housing characteristics (the building and family features); many have focused on social service and facility management issues [13] based on residents' sociodemographic profiles and facility classification prescribed in the legal standards [21].
HWs' perception of the aforementioned questions may differ in connection to certain facility and spatial traits, as well as key housing design criteria, including physical and socioemotional facets of residential spaces. Answers to these questions can also reveal useful implications, especially in relation to building and family features. Various stakeholders (residents, service providers, government officials, designers, etc.) can widely benefit from the findings of this study. Furthermore, the examination of the key residential environmental design principles concerning occupants' well-being is linked to a broader paradigm of sustainability and sustainable development from a psychological perspective [16][17][18]. Well-being is associated with environmental quality, quality of life, and sustainability [22,23], and is one of the essential goals for the sustainability of a project [16][17][18]. In the psychology of the sustainability framework, positive approaches such as growth, enrichment, and flexibility are highlighted to promote individuals' well-being at various inter-and intra-personal environment levels [16][17][18]24]. This paradigm may provide a valuable insight into directions and strategies in the construction and operation of LISP families' housing environments, aiming at their sustainable well-being.

LISP Families' Welfare Housing; Legal Standards, Residents, and Residence Buildings
Background and legal standards: The South Korean welfare housing for LISP families started as an emergency shelter for wartime widows and orphans in the late 1950s [10]. As legal acts evolved and the population of divorcees and unwed single parents increased, 121 welfare residences have come to serve LISP families across South Korea; 42 are located in areas surrounding Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi [10]. Welfare residences are particularly concentrated in urban zones, for the sake of convenience (e.g., job searches, work commutes, children's education), and generally managed by welfare agencies and supervised by national and local welfare municipalities and housing authorities who are involved in selecting welfare housing recipients and providing rent subsidies and facility operation fees [12].
Legally, welfare housing for LISP families is classified on the basis of the householders' gender and marital status, and whether households share housing units or each household dwells in a separate unit [21]. The reason for such classification is mostly the convenience and efficiency of family case-management and social service delivery [25]. For example, there are three types of residents: unwed single mothers, separated or widowed single mothers, and single fathers who are separated or widowed. There is also a shared housing type (mostly for unwed single mothers), whereas the basic type offers individual unit space for each household. Usually, residences for separated or widowed single mothers and fathers are classified under such cases [21].
Residency is guaranteed for 1-3 years, with a one-time extension of up to 1-2 years according to the law [21]. The national and local municipalities fully subsidize the housing rental fee; each family is responsible only for their utility expenses. During the residency, families are provided with a secure home environment to raise children and seek a stable income. The program strongly recommends single parents to improve their financial stability and prepare for their next housing choice, after they leave. However, low-wage employment and the lack of affordable housing become barriers to renting a home [25,26]. Although housing stability and economic self-sufficiency are not easily attained within a short-term residency, the program is considered a crucial first step for many homeless LISP families [25].
Residents: Eligible LISPs raising children under 18 should fall under the poverty level (52%) of a median income or higher (60% and higher for teenage single parents) [10]. Primal difficulties experienced by LISP families are mainly due to economic hardship. For single mothers, wage underpayment and job insecurity were the most commonly reported problems. Single fathers reported difficulties in child-raising as their primal concerns [26]. Single mothers (especially young, unwed single mothers) aimed to complete school so as to find better jobs, but are often discouraged by the competitive labor market, living expenditure, and childcare conflicts [27]. Single parents-male and female-reported a high interest in job training or skill building for a better occupation [28]. Singe parents with younger children have higher demands for childcare support (e.g., in-house or outsourced daycare), while those with adolescents seek educational aid (e.g., in-house study rooms, or outsourced institutes), as reported by the housing staff personnel. Children in LISP families tend to be more emotionally unstable, less accomplished, and less likely to succeed in school [28]. Children stay alone for longer time periods, and their parents spend less time with them due to work [28]. The average educational expenditure for children in LISP families was far less compared to median households [26].
Various social strata exist among LISP families due to parents' gender, age, education, income and marital status and to the children's age, among other factors; furthermore, these families are not homogeneous [25]. National and local social service institutes need to provide more targeted and integrated services catering to diverse family needs among different social groups in LISP families [26,27,29]. This can be a valuable step toward the sustainable development of socially and economically disempowered families such as the LISP families-which are integral agents of society-and special attention is necessary to help them attain a balanced sustainable living [30].
Residence buildings: Regarding the building structure, residences are typically 4-5 story walk-up apartments. There are three main spatial zones: (1) the individual family's unit space; (2) common space for residents; and (3) staff management space ( Figure 1). Outdoor areas are often unavailable in many urban welfare residences. A basic housing unit consists of a bedroom(s), a living/dining space, a kitchen, and a bathroom with a shower. According to housing staff, a single household dwells in an individual unit, whereas in the shared housing type two or three households have their own bedrooms, but share the living/dining area, kitchen, and a bathroom. In some residences for unwed single-mother families, a large bedroom with a toilet and a shower is shared by two or three households. Common spaces are available for all residents and used for numerous social activities (e.g., in-house meetings, mothers' and children's social programs, job training programs, etc.). Exemplary common spaces include a multipurpose room, a counseling room, a computer/education room, and a playroom, which are required by legal standards [21]. The management space is used for HWs' offices and as storage rooms. Outside, a small garden or playground is provided (and sometimes both) in some residences. Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 23

Residential Environment Quality, Well-Being, and Spatial Attributes in Publicly Subsidized Housing
(1) Housing and well-being for low-income families In the field of housing studies, many scholars have broadly explored the concept of well-being and highlighted a strong linkage between housing and family well-being [6]; housing is the determinant (e.g., satisfaction, attachment), component (e.g., happiness, hope, aspirations, health), and consequence of well-being [31]. For example, satisfaction with innate housing characteristics is among the most important indicators of a family's subjective well-being [22,32]. Housing is also closely associated with residents' attachment [33] (e.g., identity, belonging, and self-expression) and contributes to one's perceived well-being [34,35]. The presence or the absence of distinctive physical insufficiency is intimately related to a family's physical and mental health [9,36]; For instance, hazardous and unsafe housing conditions may threaten families' perceived well-being [7,36]. Securing stable housing is especially challenging for very-low-income families due to precarious access to safe and affordable housing [37]. The lack of affordable housing-or, in extreme cases, housing deprivation-is deeply detrimental to family well-being for both adults and children [9]. Therefore, good housing can "convey a sense of family well-being on a physical, social, and/or symbolic level" ( [38], p. 195). In terms of physical dimension, housing must be decent, nonhazardous, available, and affordable. In terms of social or psychological dimensions, it must provide inhabitants with sufficient (i.e., not overcrowded) space, opportunities for positive self-identity and empowerment, physical and psychological wellness, and a feeling of stability and security [8]. Therefore, the physical and structural quality of housing is intimately related to socioemotional attributes (e.g., privacy, crowding, security, stability, control) [3,6,31,38]. For example, better structural quality was associated with lower levels of distress among low-income women, especially because of less crowding [39,40]. Cases such as relocating to better housing in nicer neighborhoods or renovating original, poor-quality housing were relevant to families' reduced depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal because of improved physical settings [39,40].
Beyond the aforementioned underlying relationships between family well-being and RE quality, there has been extensive research to examine individuals' well-being in relation to the sustainability framework, particularly from a psychological perspective [16][17][18]23]. In this field, scholars have viewed that sustainable construction promotes individuals' well-being and the quality of life at various scales of environment surrounding individuals, families, community, organization, crosscultural, natural, global, etc. [16][17][18]24]. This paradigm emphasizes the adaptive balanced process of sustainable development in which inter-/intra-connection, fundamental meaning, and purpose are highlighted for individuals' well-being through the harmonization with these various environments [16][17][18]24,41]. As such, a flexible and transformable development is pursued to cope with the diverse challenges and unpredictability that may occur in the contemporary world [17,18]. Incorporating the psychological perspective of sustainability in the public social housing sector may be particularly beneficial for South Korean welfare housing; welfare housing programs aim at a flexible and adaptable RE for socially and economically underprivileged families with diverse back grounds [26,42], for their optimal healthy living and well-being.
(2) Residential environmental quality and housing attributes for LISP families  (1) Housing and well-being for low-income families In the field of housing studies, many scholars have broadly explored the concept of well-being and highlighted a strong linkage between housing and family well-being [6]; housing is the determinant (e.g., satisfaction, attachment), component (e.g., happiness, hope, aspirations, health), and consequence of well-being [31]. For example, satisfaction with innate housing characteristics is among the most important indicators of a family's subjective well-being [22,32]. Housing is also closely associated with residents' attachment [33] (e.g., identity, belonging, and self-expression) and contributes to one's perceived well-being [34,35]. The presence or the absence of distinctive physical insufficiency is intimately related to a family's physical and mental health [9,36]; For instance, hazardous and unsafe housing conditions may threaten families' perceived well-being [7,36]. Securing stable housing is especially challenging for very-low-income families due to precarious access to safe and affordable housing [37]. The lack of affordable housing-or, in extreme cases, housing deprivation-is deeply detrimental to family well-being for both adults and children [9]. Therefore, good housing can "convey a sense of family well-being on a physical, social, and/or symbolic level" ( [38], p. 195). In terms of physical dimension, housing must be decent, non-hazardous, available, and affordable. In terms of social or psychological dimensions, it must provide inhabitants with sufficient (i.e., not overcrowded) space, opportunities for positive self-identity and empowerment, physical and psychological wellness, and a feeling of stability and security [8]. Therefore, the physical and structural quality of housing is intimately related to socioemotional attributes (e.g., privacy, crowding, security, stability, control) [3,6,31,38]. For example, better structural quality was associated with lower levels of distress among low-income women, especially because of less crowding [39,40]. Cases such as relocating to better housing in nicer neighborhoods or renovating original, poor-quality housing were relevant to families' reduced depression, anxiety, and social withdrawal because of improved physical settings [39,40].
Beyond the aforementioned underlying relationships between family well-being and RE quality, there has been extensive research to examine individuals' well-being in relation to the sustainability framework, particularly from a psychological perspective [16][17][18]23]. In this field, scholars have viewed that sustainable construction promotes individuals' well-being and the quality of life at various scales of environment surrounding individuals, families, community, organization, cross-cultural, natural, global, etc. [16][17][18]24]. This paradigm emphasizes the adaptive balanced process of sustainable development in which inter-/intra-connection, fundamental meaning, and purpose are highlighted for individuals' well-being through the harmonization with these various environments [16][17][18]24,41]. As such, a flexible and transformable development is pursued to cope with the diverse challenges and unpredictability that may occur in the contemporary world [17,18]. Incorporating the psychological perspective of sustainability in the public social housing sector may be particularly beneficial for South Korean welfare housing; welfare housing programs aim at a flexible and adaptable RE for socially and economically underprivileged families with diverse back grounds [26,42], for their optimal healthy living and well-being.

(2) Residential environmental quality and housing attributes for LISP families
The notion of RE quality has been actively examined as a critical indicator of inhabitants' health and subjective well-being [15]. Satisfaction with occupants' residential milieu is one of the most indicative barometers to reveal RE circumstances [43] and is often gauged based on the degree to which inhabitants are satisfied with different components of their housing, neighbors, and neighborhood conditions [44]. To investigate publicly subsidized housing for low-income (including single-parent) families, numerous RE attributes in the housing and neighborhood contexts have been rigorously scrutinized.
Physical attributes demonstrate the availability (i.e., presence or lack thereof) and objective value of certain rooms, spaces, and facilities [45] (e.g., the size, number, location and arrangement, typology, intensity, ambient environment). For example, scholars have looked at the following elements in diverse multi-family housing or dormitory residence types: building form [43,46]; the height and level of rooms; the length of corridors [47,48]; room size; unit size [46,48,49]; structural adequacy and maintenance [50]; and ambient indoor/outdoor quality [45]. For single-parent or low-income female-headed families, physical traits such as housing type [51], site appearance, interior unit comfort, storage space [52], and neighborhood facilities [53] have been reviewed in relation to the satisfaction with housing and neighborhood environmental conditions. Socioemotional attributes shed light on safety, security, privacy, crowding, social relationships, management, and the neighborhood [44]. Perceived crowding and privacy are two of the most examined socioemotional features, and are critical indicators of tenants' RE appraisal [54]. Safety and security are other vital benchmarks of the RE atmosphere [55]. Neighborhood safety and attachment are linked to positive evaluations of the neighborhood environmental quality among low-income, single-mother families [53].
Interpersonal social relationships are also a significant socioemotional attribute. Hwang (2006) [42] emphasized stable social relationships among family members and with neighbors as significant emotional influences to low-income single mothers. Single mothers living in co-op housing reported positive living experiences because of the social support from their neighbors [56]. Prior literature has also stressed the role and effect of management for LISP families [52]. Operating rules, meeting residents' expectations regarding management, and friendly housing staff are key aspects of successful residential administration [57].
Although physical and socioemotional facets of residential settings play integral roles in families' assessment of housing quality and subjective well-being [6], prior literature has neglected to thoroughly explore such characteristics in the context of South Korean LISP families.
Based on a case study of three welfare residences in Seoul, Gang et al. (2007) [11] investigated the spatial layout and the use of spaces; they proposed an exemplary spatial layout scheme for efficient, functional space programs. Neighborhood facility resources were reviewed and found to be conveniently close to welfare residences, according to the surveys with housing staff [12,25]. National and local welfare bureaus have reviewed the overall housing quality of selected LISP family welfare residences at three-year intervals for their quality control and policy implication, evaluating a range of housing facets (facility, management, finance, service program, external relationship, etc.) [14].
However, to date, this field (i.e., building structure and spatial properties), lacks detailed data grounded in a large sample or based on the in-depth examination of spatial attributes. There is a need for closer examination concerning diverse building types and household features that convey more refined information on the use of, and need for, more specific spatial requests. In particular, household attributes indicating a household's family lifecycle are worthy of investigation, as family structure and size are associated with specific aspects of housing quality [58,59]. Family lifecycle data (i.e., householder's age, marital status, presence of children, etc.) can convey the household's housing need for space consumption and selection [59,60].

Sampling and Participants
A mixed methods approach was used combining facility visits, interviews, and a survey in the areas surrounding Seoul, Incheon, and Gyeonggi, in South Korea. In all, 36 of the 42 residences were initially contacted in the aforementioned areas (six were unavailable, as they were undergoing remodeling or transitioning to other single-parent family facility types), of which 16 agreed to allow the author to visit their facilities and conduct in-depth interviews (lasting 1 to 1.5 h) with an HW who was also a supervisory director. The survey participants' basic demographic profile was as follows. Most participants were women (n = 23, 76.7%), outnumbering the men (n = 7, 23.3%). Their job affiliation was distributed between directors (n = 24, 80%) and vice directors (n = 6, 20%). Each participant had had social service work experience for 10 years (n = 13, 43.3%) or 5-10 years (n = 17, 56.7%).
In addition to the interview, 30 housing directors from 29 residences agreed to participate in the survey (two workers from one residence participated because of the small number of single-father families' residences). Director-level personnel were interviewed and surveyed due to their long experience working with various LISP families in welfare housing, as they were in charge of the overall housing facility and program management, and because they had participated in various policy research and hearing events organized by national and local welfare agencies [19]. A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to the 30 participating workers, with a self-return envelope. For the collected questionnaires, missing answers were filled through subsequent telephone interviews, and all questionnaires were made suitable for further analysis.

Data Collection and Survey Instruments
The data were gathered through the following methods: (1) Facility visits: An employee from each of the 16 residences visited gave a guided tour both of the inside and the outside (including the housing unit, as well as the common, management, and outdoor spaces). During the tours, the author observed each building's appearance and floor plan, the sectional arrangement of the spaces, the furnishings, facility items (toilet, kitchen, doors/windows, etc.), and upkeep status.
(2) Interviews: The author interviewed a director or vice-director from each of the 16 residences. They discussed building management, in-house social service programs, the conditions of facilities and spaces, problems hampering a good-quality residential environment, and the impacts of the aforementioned aspects on residents' daily lives. In addition, the interviewees mentioned the challenges of offering social service programs due to limited spaces and facilities, and gave suggestions to advance policies for building spaces. Based on the perspectives of HWs, the interviewees also addressed how to boost residents' well-being through necessary physical improvements. Data from the field visits and interviews were employed to interpret the results.
(3) Survey: A survey questionnaire was developed to obtain data on housing characteristics, the personnel's evaluation of the general RE quality, and the means necessary to enhance the residential setting quality for the inhabitants' well-being.
The survey comprised the following three sections: (1) Building and resident attributes (8 variables): The author examined structural features (construction year, building type), aspects of the unit (occupancy type, bedroom type), and resident elements (number of households, the householder's marital status and gender, the householder's primary age, the last child's primary age) in order to analyze the RE quality in relation to physical building properties and the family's household features pertaining to their family lifecycle status.
(2) Overall residential environmental quality (2 variables): The RE quality was measured within the scope of the neighborhood and housing context. Neighborhood environmental circumstances were gauged based on the proximity to neighborhood resources using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not very accessible) to 5 (very accessible). The housing environmental quality was determined via the general physical conditions of structural deterioration and social quality (privacy, social support, safety, security) using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not very sufficient) to 5 (very sufficient).
(3) The significant means required to enhance the residential environment quality (3 variables): The author identified the most problematic facilities and the spatial attributes in need of improvement, as well as the most critical RE criteria for cultivating residents' well-being. Each question required respondents to assign an item to one of three top ranks in order to identify their perspectives in detail (from the most to the least necessary/important). The most needed traits to upgrade facilities included 11 items, those for spaces amounted to 9, and the most vital RE criteria covered 11 items (encompassing physical and socioemotional attributes of residential spaces such as size, density, arrangement, ambience, maintenance, upkeep, safety, comfort, privacy).
(4) Supplementary interview: Supplementary one-hour interviews were conducted to collect wider opinions from relevant stakeholders-specifically, three government institute officials (a Korean Women Equity and Family Ministry officer, an Incheon City Building and Planning Division officer, and a head-researcher from a National Women Policy Research Institute); six project architects who designed welfare housing facilities (two had remodeled unwed single-mother family residences in Seoul, one had designed a new construction in Incheon, two had remodeled a divorced/separated single-mother family residence and a single-father residence in Seoul); and two former residents who had exited the welfare housing program (the first lived in a divorced/separated single-mother family residence, while the second one lived in a unwed single-mother family residence).
The primal discussion related to the national and local government's policy direction for LISP families' housing support, the procedure for allocating housing facility budgets (addressed to the government institute officials), the architects' experiences and difficulties in welfare housing design and key design attributes for quality housing (addressed to architects), daily living experiences on a personal and interpersonal social level in the welfare residence, difficulties caused by structural deficiencies, and the importance of housing quality for families (addressed to former dwellers). Data from these interviews were utilized to interpret the results and discuss research implications.

Data Analysis
Three methods were implemented to analyze the survey data. First, descriptive statistics were used to describe all variables in the aforementioned three sections. Second, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the relationship between housing characteristics and the three variables of RE quality. Third, chi-square tests were computed to investigate the connection between building and resident attributes and the variables of RE quality. Variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 were chosen for detailed discussion.
With regard to facility visit and interview data, facility visit information was documented using photographs with the permission of the facility management personnel. All photos were taken by the authors and used to understand the physical properties of buildings objectively and subjectively. Interview data were recorded via note-taking, and important data were extracted for further analysis. Table 1 refers to the building, unit, and household components of welfare housing. The structural characteristics of buildings were scrutinized using the year of construction and the buildings' plan type. The year of construction for the majority of residences fell between the 00s and the present (n = 18, 60%), followed by houses built before the 80s (n = 8, 26.7%) and between the 80s and the 00s (n = 4, 13.3%). The building type was almost evenly distributed between the hall kind, with no corridors (n = 16, 53.3%), and the linear kind, with single or double-loading corridors (n = 14, 46.7%). The units were investigated based on their occupancy and bedroom types. As for the former, 15 (50.0%) residences had individually occupied private units, while 13 (43.3%) had partially shared units (in which 2-3 households shared living, dining, and kitchen spaces, while bedrooms were separated among households). Only 2 residences (6.7%) had entirely-shared units, meaning that 2-3 households shared a large studio (i.e., a single room with a kitchenette and a bathroom). In this case, the occupants were usually a single mother with a newborn or a pregnant mother. The unit bedroom type was almost evenly distributed among studios (n = 7, 23.3%), 1-bedroom (n = 7, 23.3%), 2-bedroom (n = 7, 23.3%), and 3-bedroom (n = 9, 30.0%) units, showing a roughly equal distribution.

Overall Residential Environmental Quality
(1) Neighborhood environmental conditions were assessed in terms of the proximity to neighborhood facility resources ( Table 2). In general, HWs perceived their residences to be located fairly conveniently in relation to urban neighborhoods, with easy access to neighborhood facilities. Proximity to public transportation ranked highest with regard to convenience (M  (2) Housing environmental quality was determined by surveying the physical and social quality of residences (Table 3). Employees believed that their residences were not sufficient in terms of overall physical quality (M = 2.30, S.D. = 1.119), whereas they thought their residences were fairly adequate regarding the overall social conditions (M = 3.20, S.D. = 1.471). This led to follow-up questions on detailed physical defects related to the facility and spatial attributes that were most in need of improvement, followed by the most critical RE criteria for occupants' well-being.

The Means Necessary for Improvement
The respondents assigned items to three top ranks for (1) facility features (item or element) and (2) spatial features (room or area) that were most in need of improvement, and (3) the most critical RE criteria for residents' well-being. For each question, the first rank and the sum of the first, second, and third ranks were examined. Then, the outcomes of the first rank were analyzed with a chi-square test in relation to the housing characteristics.
The relationship between the first-ranked facility element and housing characteristics was significant in terms of household type (χ 2 (df = 2, n = 30) = 18.654, p = 0.045) ( Table 4). The personnel at residences for families headed by divorced or widowed females considered that spatial area expansion required the most improvement (n = 5, 36.4%). In residences for families headed by unmarried females, the staff reported that the interior facilities needed the most work (n = 8, 53.3%). Finally, employees at residences for families headed by divorced or widowed males offered various responses among the listed facility features.
The relationship between the first ranked space and housing characteristics was significant in terms of household type and the householder's primary age ( Table 6). As for household type (χ 2 (df = 2, n =30) = 21.660, p = 0.017), employees at residences for families headed by unmarried females reported that unit space (n = 9, 60.0%) needed the most improvement. This outcome was similar among the staff at residences for families headed by divorced or widowed parents (n = 6, 54.5%); the personnel at such residences also considered that the outdoor zones needed the most upgrades (n = 2, 50.0%).
Regarding the householder's primary age (χ 2 (df = 2, n =30) = 20.627, p = 0.024), the personnel at residences where the parents were in their 20s or younger stated that unit space needed the most improvement (n = 9, 57.1%). A similar result appeared among the staff at residences where the householders were in their 40s or older (n = 5, 55.6%). The personnel at residences where the parents were in their 30s claimed that circulation space needed the most work (n = 3, 42.9%). (
The relationship between the first ranked criteria and the housing characteristics was significant in terms of the year of construction, building type, and the householder's primary age. Regarding the year of construction (χ 2 (df = 2, n =30) = 23.116, p = 0.010), the staff at residences built before the 80s affirmed that a pleasant indoor environment was the most crucial component (n = 3, 37.5%). The personnel at residences built between the 80s and 00s expressed that adequate physical space was the most vital element (n = 3, 75%). Meanwhile, the staff at residences built between the 00s and the present deemed family privacy to be the most significant feature (n = 8, 44.4%).
As for the relationship with the building type (χ 2 (df = 2, n =30) = 11.859, p = 0.037), half of the respondents from hall type residences stated that family privacy was the most pivotal aspect (n = 8, 50%), whereas the personnel at linear type residences maintained that a pleasant indoor environment was the most fundamental benchmark (n = 5, 35.7%).
Concerning the relationship with the householder's primary age (χ 2 (df = 2, n =30) = 22.694, p = 0.012), the employees at residences where the householders were in their 20s or younger said that family privacy was the most critical indicator (n = 6, 42.9%). Adequate physical space was another significant measure (n = 5, 35.7%). At residences where the householders were in their 30s, the majority of workers claimed that a pleasant indoor environment was the most important component (n = 5, 71.4%). About half of the staff at residences where the householders were in their 40s or older responded that family privacy was the most essential yardstick (n = 5, 55.6%).

Overall Residential Environmental Quality
The staff considered their neighborhood environmental quality to be fairly good in terms of access to surrounding public facilities. This result supports the outcomes of previous literature, which found that many welfare residences are located in convenient urban areas with proximity to jobs, schools, and public services [25]. According to the personnel, welfare residences of this kind need to have easy access to public transportation in order for residents to be able to use public facilities adequately.
In the housing context, HWs responded that social quality was sufficient, whereas physical structures were not. The staff mentioned that most residences had a safe, secure living environment. The staff made every effort to offer a better social setting by organizing social programs and regular meetings for parents and children [19]. However, regarding the physical circumstances, the respondents said that many residences were outdated, with over 40 years of history, and that they suffered from deteriorated structures and interior facilities. Although some residences were built relatively recently, and some were remodeled in the 80s-00s (20-40 years), various personnel members expressed negative attitudes toward the physical conditions of their residences, supporting prior data [25]. New construction, or a thorough remodeling, would be the best possible option. However, the poor standard of construction and the use of cheap materials often discouraged staff and residents, leading to the impression of inadequate building quality, according to the staff.
"It is difficult to receive a remodeling subsidiary from the government, as they don't set aside sufficient budget for the construction subsidiary for Welfare residences of this kind." Many workers criticized the quality of construction and the ineffective government subsidiary system as main reasons for the current low caliber of the physical milieu in numerous welfare residences.
Concerning the government subsidy system, the municipal officers stated that the construction subsidiary budget, in the form a yearly lump sum, accounts for all types of welfare residences (including homes for the elderly, people with disabilities, children, etc.) for the national and local systems. "Typically, a higher construction budget is assigned to elderly and disability homes. For LISP families' homes, the construction fee per square meter is assigned at a lower rate compared to other welfare home types, because such residences outnumber others and have more complex spatial requirements (e.g., dining hall, kitchen)." In the architects' interviews, similar difficulties were reported concerning the insufficient construction fee against the market rate. Another reported obstacle was the government's construction bidding system for such municipality-funded welfare facilities.
"Because of the present national construction bidding system, the quality of design and construction cannot be guaranteed. The total, allowable project fee is assigned very low to begin with. Anyone who cuts down more from the total cost wins the project, regardless of the design quality." To sum up, the interviewees agreed that the constrained, under-rated construction budget and the national construction bidding rules are key institutional barriers hindering a quality physical environment in welfare housing of this kind.

Specific Facility Features Needing Improvement
With regard to particular facility features needing improvement, the first ranks covered spatial area expansion and interior furnishing. In the sum of the first to third ranks, installing facilities to reduce noise and enhancing outdoor facilities appeared. As for the chi-square test, the household type variable was significant in relation to the first-ranked facility traits.
The personnel at residences for families headed by divorced or widowed parents ranked spatial expansion as the most necessary facility improvement characteristic.
"Limited space has been an ongoing problem in many residences, as quite a few buildings are outdated and were built small in the past. Keeping the amount of occupants at just under the maximum number of inhabitants is the only option for managing spatial issues, although this keeps residences accepting more occupants." "Our residence (remodeled walk-up residence) has relatively smaller spaces and fewer residents, but are still obligated to provide social service program spaces for parents as required by the legal building standard, even though not enough room is available." According to a former resident, the divorced/widowed single-mother residences do not provide furniture, requiring residents to bring their own furniture and household goods, which typically do not fit in the provided unit space.
"Most areas were tight. In particular, there was no personal storage space in my residence.
Families move in with their personal belongings including those of their children's. Rooms tend to get congested with things." Living in disarray due to space insufficiency could be harmful, as it can cause parental distress as well as the unhealthy development of children [61].
Respondents at residences for unmarried mothers selected interior furnishing. According to Evans et al. (2003) [6], good interior design (e.g., good lighting and display spaces) can potentially benefit residents' emotional wellness by contributing to the personalization of space and enjoyable activities. The degradation of interior furnishing has been a challenge in many similar short-term housing situations [62]. Staff interviewees also commented on problems of interior furnishing from a maintenance point of view: "Since residents move out frequently due to short-term stays, interior furnishings tend to deteriorate faster . . . Residences for unmarried single mothers provide the inhabitants with basic furniture. Many occupants do not care about keeping their interior furnishings in good shape because they think the furniture does not belong to them, and they figure they will move out soon." The former occupant from an unwed single-mother residence reported on interior furnishing from a different perspective, based on her daily living habits with a newborn.
"It feels good when the place is clean, bright, and soothing, regardless of a shorter or longer duration of stay. Most mothers in my former residence had newborns or toddlers, and tended to stay indoors longer as their children were small, which made it vital to stay in an atmosphere with good furnishing." As for the sum of the first to third ranks, the installation of facilities to reduce noise and the enhancement of outdoor facilities emerged, regardless of residence type. Noise in housing can cause physiological stress [6]. Perceived noise from neighboring apartments can reflect the social environment of a house and is important for an improved well-being [61]. In the interviews, many HWs reported having heard complaints of indoor noise from the corridor or adjacent neighboring units, resulting from weak sound barriers. Workers also stressed that noise could be related to personal privacy.
Concerning the improvement of outdoor facilities, many residences (regardless of type) have limited or no outdoor facilities (e.g., children's playgrounds, benches to rest on, gardens). It may be difficult to provide decent outdoor facilities due to the small lot sizes in numerous urban residences; hence, the staff may express the need to boost outdoor facilities. The presence of outdoor space and facilities such as courtyards, greenery, porches, and sidewalk-setbacks can enhance the social interaction among residents in various public housing communities [63]. The lack of outdoor facilities can affect the restrictions on children's play opportunities [64]. Nature at home can play a significant role in children's well-being in poor urban zones [65].

Specific Spatial Features Needing Improvement
With regard to specific spatial features needing further improvement, unit space was the highest ranked feature, followed by common space for children and outdoor zones. As for the sum of the first to third ranks, the staff chose unit space, followed by outdoor zones, common space for children, and common space for social service programs. In the chi-square test, the household type and householder's primary age were two significant variables in relation to the first-ranked spatial improvement traits.
Unit space had the most priority for improvement, both in the first rank and in the sum of all three ranks. According to the staff interview, unit space was viewed as a complex entity that is central to families' everyday living. This result is parallel to that of a prior study in which the significance of a personal unit is highlighted by single-mother residents [13].
"Personal housing unit space is perhaps the most important facet for families, because parents wish to have their own place to rest and live privately with their children." "Many mothers have part-time jobs or are in unstable positions, struggling to earn a better wage. After exhaustive, long hours at work, they hope to stay rested in their room." "Children do their school homework, watch TV, or invite friends and play with them at home." Common space for children and for social service programs have both emerged in the ranks. This result may coincide with previous reports that emphasize the importance of quality social services for children and parents [19,29], in relation to family features. For single parents with preschoolers and young children, the need for on-site childcare is acute [3]. In addition, for single parents who are unemployed or unsatisfied with their job status, on-site job counseling or training may be necessary [3]. For unmarried single mothers with newborns, a nursery or childcare area is necessary for antepartum/postpartum care and to raise babies in a healthier setting [25,29]. For example, at some residences, a nursery room or a daycare room is provided during the daytime for working mothers. Others offer a study room for school-age children. However, such residences are rare, and many do not have such privileges in terms of space and staff for children.
In terms of the relationship to the housing characteristics, many personnel members at residences-regardless of household type and householders' age (except for those in their 30s)-selected unit space as a primal spatial feature for improvement. The staff revealed their reasons in the interviews.
The staff at residences for unmarried single mothers stressed the need to provide a separate, more tranquil bedroom for mothers, especially after they had given birth.
"Mothers (mostly in their 20s) need to rest well before and after giving birth. However, in many residences, mothers share a room with others. Rooms for mothers and newborns to heal are not available at all." The personnel from the divorced/widowed single-parent residences emphasized the need to provide two-bedroom units, in order for teenage daughters to have their own rooms; the same went for mothers with teenage sons; "For parents in their 40s with school-age children, spacious units are needed to provide a separate a room in the unit for adolescent children to study and play." Hence, undesirable overcrowding (especially for parents in their 20s) and the need for separate rooms for school-age children (whose parents are in their 40s) may have caused the individual housing unit to be ranked as the most problematic space in need of improvement.
The aforementioned results illustrate that proper spatial features should be provided, reflecting each family's distinctive needs and its lifecycle stage (e.g., parents' age and children's age).

The Most Important Residential Environmental Criteria for Occupants' Well-Being
Many staff members ranked family privacy as the most important benchmark for good housing quality and residents' well-being. Other top-ranked indicators were adequate physical space (e.g., size, number, location, existence of rooms) and a pleasant indoor environment (e.g., daylight, ventilation, temperature control). In the sum of the first to third ranks, safety from hazards, accidents, and crime were included. In relation to the housing characteristics, the chi-square test revealed that the year of construction, building construction type, and householder's primary age were significant.
Family privacy was the most salient environmental criterion indicated by housing staff members for family well-being. This result coincided with individual unit space, which was ranked first as the most critical space improvement feature. Moreover, adequate physical space coincided with spatial expansion, which was ranked the most vital facility improvement trait. This result echoes previous studies in which dwelling in a dilapidated, poor-quality room potentially disturbs the family's everyday functioning and relationships [9,15] and satisfaction with their RE [66], affecting the individuals' physical and psychological illness and endangering their well-being [6,8]. Kaya and Erkip (2001) [48] found that the impression of a larger room is tied to an increased sense of privacy, stressing that one's awareness of crowding is affected by both the physical and socioemotional characteristics of unit rooms. Physical characteristics include room size, length, and design. Socioemotional elements include the relationships with residents, sharing activities, and sharing a bedroom with others, although personal traits and backgrounds may mediate the sense of overcrowding [36,39,49]. For example, Kim Y.K. et al. (2006) [29] reported the overcrowding of a number of residences for unmarried single mothers, caused by many households sharing a housing unit.
A pleasant indoor environment is another crucial environmental yardstick pinpointed by HWs at different residences. Previous literature has shown ambient indoor quality to be a major aspect of housing quality [36,39,61], which culminates in the residents' well-being [6,8]. Jung et al. (2017) [67] underscored that noise control, ventilation, daylight, and temperature control in the home setting are significant factors correlated with health. However, many low-income families in South Korea tend to live in degraded houses [2,68], with an unhealthy indoor milieu in terms of precipitation, daylight, and ventilation [69].
Many staff members from different residences stated that safety is another prime environmental indicator. Security creates a non-threatening atmosphere, a powerful facet of residential shelters for homeless families headed by single mothers [55]. In terms of crime safety, Cook (1994) [57] reported on the significance of safety education programs in urban transitional housing for single-mother families, which can raise residents' defensible actions against crime, in addition to ideal physical means for ensuring security (e.g., locks, alarms, monitoring, the placement of doors and windows).
In the case of welfare residences, security and safety are provided through various means-visitor restrictions, monitoring using closed-circuit televisions (CCTVs), etc. According to the staff: "Many families used to be victims of domestic violence. Maintaining a safe environment for children is particularly significant, ensuring that parents can focus on their jobs without having to worry about their children." Concerning the perspectives on the significant RE criteria from other stakeholders: Two former residents selected family privacy and safety as their primal option. The unwed single-mother resident emphasized family privacy in terms of social relationships with neighbors. "Often, my baby and I had a hard time when disturbed by other babies crying at night. Whenever such a conflict happened, I desperately longed for privacy and felt the need for a separate room." The other resident from the divorced/widowed-mother residence also mentioned family privacy in relation with other neighbors.
"I often wanted to keep to myself and withdraw from neighbors. Sharing a room with other families would have worsened the situation." All the government officials agreed that safety was a priority.
"Among many important values, providing a safe environment would be the top priority mission for a welfare home of this kind, as it serves families that include children." Although the architects agreed that the aforementioned criteria are essential and should not be trespassed, adequate physical space and a pleasant indoor environment were their priorities.
"I focused on providing an ample and pleasant living room for remodeling, as requested by the client, because many mothers share the living room and spend time there. Another key design effort was making a pleasant indoor space. As the daylight condition was difficult to achieve due to the building's original orientation, I designed the interior walls with bright and cheerful colors to make the indoor space more vibrant." "Even though the room size was reduced due to the limited construction budget, I tried to keep the norm for room separation, for siblings with different genders, or for fathers with girls." The chi-square test revealed that workers at the oldest residences (built before the 80s) ranked a pleasant indoor environment as the first priority. The staff at residences built between the 80s and 00s ranked adequate physical space first. Respondents at residences built between the 00s and the present ranked family privacy first. These results imply that the quality of basic ambient environmental factors remains an issue, especially in older structures. In newer residences, the adequacy of physical space and family privacy are more prominent matters. This may indicate that in older buildings, the most fundamental ambient setting is not sufficient, as the staff there prioritized the ambient environment as the principal criterion.
In relationship to the building type, family privacy and physical space adequacy had higher priority in hall type residences. One reason could be that hall type residences are much smaller in size and more crowded in density compared to the linear type. On the other hand, a pleasant indoor environment ranked high in linear type residences, which are more spacious and offer individual housing units, according to the staff. Hence, these benchmarks are sufficiently provided. As such, a pleasant indoor environment may be perceived to be more important [70].
Regarding the householder's primary age, in residences with parents in their 20s, family privacy and adequate physical size were prime concerns; likewise in residences with parents in their 40s. In residences with parents in their 30s, a pleasant indoor environment was more significant. This finding reflects the previous outcome, in which staff evaluated individual units for family separation, or in sufficient size for room separation, as a more critical spatial feature in residences where the parents were in their 20s and 40s. This suggests that a different spatial consumption is needed to reflect the family's lifecycle [59]. Individuals in their 20s, who tend to nurture babies or toddlers, need more independent family space, while those in their 40s, who tend to raise school-age children or adolescents, need privacy for their children's needs and individuality [71].

Conclusions
The results emphasize the potential role of spatial aspects in the RE quality in South Korean LISP families' welfare homes in order to promote the well-being of parents and children in these families.
The findings not only inform the present structural and maintenance deficits but also reveal the benefits of the socioemotional aspects of residential spaces (e.g., privacy, comfort, safety and security, social relationship with neighbors), which would jointly provide ways to manage these issues to successfully run welfare residences. Housing implies "a more active relationship of individuals to the physical, social, and psychological spaces around them" ( [72], p. 287). The physical aspects of buildings and household features, in relation to current drawbacks, might help establish a more strategic guide to determine which solutions hold a higher priority for certain residence types.
During the interviews, many directors of welfare residences presented their views from a management standpoint. HWs criticized the inadequacy of the present legal facility standards imposed by the municipalities, which hinder the overall construction and administration of welfare residences. The government officials viewed the standards as a basic principle to prevent overcrowding and environmental hazards. The design experts concentrated on the legal issues strictly under the project budget, although hurdled by scarce building benchmarks and no opportunities for conversation with the residents (but only with their clients, the welfare agencies). The legal standards helped safeguard the minimum facility requirements, but hampered flexible design approaches in accordance with the actual residential conditions. Hence, devising various means of spatial intervention was discouraged with respect to diversity (e.g., a linear walk-up apartment, or a remodeled hall type apartment; divorced/widowed/unmarried single parents; parents in their 20s/30s/40s; newborns or toddlers/children in daycare or kindergarten/elementary school/adolescents), even though the existing building conditions are diverse, and single-parent families are not a monolithic group [3].
HWs denounced the insufficient construction subsidies by the welfare and housing authorities, as they failed to reflect the actual market prices. In addition, the design experts criticized the present construction bidding system for government-funded welfare housing projects. Opportunities to strengthen the spatial quality of residences were rare. The staff and the architects stressed that the construction costs should be adjusted according to the actual size of spaces, to guarantee each family's privacy and unique needs (e.g., separate bedrooms for parents and school-age children, a nursery or playroom for afterschool care, an elevator for families with newborns and toddlers, etc.). Setting aside the aforementioned criticisms, government institute officials did not predict any substantial changes in the construction subsidiary budget with regard to the municipalities' push for increasing longer-term public housing rental subsidies for LISP families. This approach is welcomed in the housing welfare policy field. Researchers have suggested a strong policy shift toward a wider range of housing subsidiary programs, including vouchers for long-term rentals, or permanent rentals in public housing [2,26,27]. Short-term welfare residences cannot support the increasing number of homeless LISP families [2,68]. However, this does not tackle the aforementioned obstacles. Among the different types of housing aid, a short-term subsidy program such as LISP families' welfare housing is viewed as a useful bridge to mitigate the transition for homeless, very-low-income families from a shelter to longer-term, subsidized rentals [73,74]. As such, meaningful and positive living experiences for housing occupants [16][17][18] and the continuation of these experiences should be pursued during and after their residency. Design construction, resources, and management should be coordinated to create an adaptive housing environment that can promote the well-being of the LISP families.
The limitations of this study and the future research agenda are as follows: First, the findings may have certain restrictions due to the sample size and nonrandomized self-selection, since one or two director-level HWs participated in the survey and interviews as representatives of each residence. Other subsets of stakeholder interviewees were also limited in number and selection. Thus, the results may not represent universal opinions from different employees in diverse positions in welfare housing, nor substantially reflect wider perspectives from various stakeholders. In addition, all the examined residences were located in three major metropolitan cities; workers from other urban or suburban towns could have different perspectives.
Second, this study did not examine several other housing attributes. Although this study provides findings in relation to the selected building characteristics, further research can expand this investigation by scrutinizing other physical and spatial building aspects (e.g., building and room size, density, crowding in the building and room scale, indoor space color, green space, play room).
Third, more specific spatial perceptions from other sets of users and their different social strata (e.g., single fathers, children, length of residency, previous housing background) must be scrutinized to fully understand RE conditions from the occupants' standpoint. The RE criteria found to be significant might vary depending on the family traits. A follow-up study could assess the long-term effects of improving the RE, well-being, and quality of life (e.g., a comparison before and after building and outdoor space remodeling, or neighborhood environment rehabilitation). It is also worth examining the impact of the residents' participation in the physical enhancement process on their views on personal and interpersonal social relations (among family members, resident families, neighbors), and the sense of family well-being.
Fourth, a further rigorous exploration is necessary on the issue of well-being in the context of welfare housing for LISP families based on the paradigm of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development [16][17][18]. Examples of research topics: How does the occupants' perception of sustainability and sustainable development [16][17][18] relate to the intra-personal community and neighborhood environmental levels (e.g., social interaction, community participation, neighborhood attachment, connectedness to nature)? [63,[75][76][77] How does the quality of the community and natural environment affect the sense of well-being and the sustainability-oriented behaviors of the occupants? On the other hand, HWs' management approaches and leadership styles can also be exploited in relation to the well-being of HWs and the level of organizational sustainability in welfare housing facilities (e.g., workplace relation, organizational culture, management leadership) [17,18,78]. The empirical evidence gained from these studies will provide a more holistic view on the issue of well-being and lead to more balanced design, construction, management, and policy resolutions for sustainable welfare housing environments.
Combined with the future research agenda, HWs' perceptions, residents' views, and government institutions' direction could offer valuable insights and more practical approaches to pinpoint the urgent, essential design attributes, considering the limited subsidiary aids. This may not boost RE conditions substantially, but could help elevate daily living experiences to the best possible sustainable environments for LISP families.