Analysis of Indoor Residential Environment Satisfaction among Social Housing Households in Seoul

Abstract

Social housing in Seoul has been provided since 2015 via collaboration between the city and the private sector to address the increasing housing burden for single-person households and the younger generation. Despite the eight years since the implementation of this initiative, there remains a lack of research regarding the satisfaction of residents with respect to indoor social housing environments. The aim of this study is two-fold: (1) to explore household characteristics, such as floor area and living room, bathroom, and kitchen issues; and (2) to examine the factors that affect indoor residential environment satisfaction. In May and June of 2022, 57 households from 22 social housing projects participated in the survey, and data were analyzed using frequency and descriptive methods. The results indicated that the interior layout of the house affected and influenced residential satisfaction. This was followed by accessibility to major facilities, interactions with the community, accessibility to transportation, and facility maintenance. The implications of these findings were discussed.

1. Introduction

Housing is a fundamental necessity for basic living and plays a vital role in determining the overall quality of life [1,2]. South Korea is witnessing significant changes in housing patterns, with worsening low birth rates, slow economic growth, increasing numbers of single-person households, and exacerbated housing issues for younger generations [3]. Young people, especially university students and those starting their careers, are facing escalating housing problems [4]. As the demand for rental housing in urban areas increases, large-scale public rental housing is transitioning to small-scale developments [4]. Accordingly, local governments are implementing tailored housing welfare policies for small-sized households and single-person households.

As of 2023, the population of South Korea is 51,627,000 people, with Seoul having a population of 9,411,000 and boasting a population density of 15,551 people per square kilometer, making it the area with the highest population density [5]. The property price index of 32.3 in Seoul, which ranks 13th among countries, implies a notably high housing cost [6]. These housing cost burdens have affected young people [7], leading to direct and indirect social issues such as non-marriage, delayed marriage, and low birth rates [8]. This is evidenced by the rapid increase in the number of single-person households, with such households now being most prevalent among those aged 20~30 years old. Therefore, there is a need for small-scale affordable housing due to the increasing number of single-person households [4,9]. Social housing is now an alternative solution for providing stable housing for vulnerable and low-income groups in order to improve their quality of life [10,11].

Since 2015, Seoul has been adopting the European ‘social housing’ model [12] and collaborating with the private sector to provide social housing. This initiative aims to address the increase in housing costs and community spirit decline among single households and the younger generation [11]. Eight years after the full-fledged initiative began, efforts are currently invested to expand the supply via various types of social housing and housing welfare roadmaps. Social housing projects in Seoul are primarily categorized into two types: land-rental-based social housing and remodeling-type social housing [13]. In the former type, land owned by Seoul City, the Real Estate Investment Trust (Seoul, Republic of Korea), or the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH Corporation, Jinju-si, Republic of Korea) is leased to private entities for housing construction and operations. The latter type involves renovating old or vacant houses for re-rental purposes. More details are available on the Seoul Special City Social Housing Platform [13].

In Seoul, social housing is referred to as rental housing that is supplied and managed by social and economic entities, targeting socially and economically disadvantaged individuals [9,13]. This includes housing provided and managed by non-profit organizations like social enterprises, housing cooperatives, and other similar entities [14,15]. While public rental housing implies government-owned housing for rent, social housing has a broader scope [15]. It covers housing owned and managed by entities like social enterprises and non-profit organizations, excluding typical public sector rental housing. This study focuses on collaborative housing provided and managed by both public and private sectors, specifically social housing.

Social housing faces physical limitations, such as small unit sizes and the potential for privacy infringement due to its corridor-style layout [16]. This inherent constraint contributes to a public perception that the quality of social housing itself and the indoor environment is poorer compared to privately rented housing in the competitive market [17], potentially impacting residential satisfaction. Residential satisfaction is defined as the satisfaction residents have towards both the tangible and emotional aspects of their living arrangements [18]. Residential satisfaction sources can include neighborhood characteristics, public facilities, and housing characteristics [19]. Due to the limited research on residential satisfaction in social housing in Seoul, the scope of the study was expanded to include research on satisfaction with respect to public rental housing. Most studies examining the satisfaction of social housing residents in Korea report that housing performance, finish conditions, facility conditions, barrier-free design, interactions with neighbors, lighting and ventilation, interior design, communal facilities within the complex, soundproofing, and overall maintenance conditions of the apartment complex are factors affecting satisfaction [20,21,22]. However, there is a lack of research on satisfaction concerning the indoor environment, like unit layouts. A few studies that examine young adults in diverse housing arrangements rather than solely focusing on social housing have found that factors like square footage, kitchen space, cleanliness of bathrooms, and interior design were the key factors affecting residential satisfaction [23].

As aforementioned earlier, there is a lack of research on the indoor environment that influences residential satisfaction. Studying satisfaction with respect to the indoor environment of social housing over the eight years since the official launch of Seoul social housing in 2015 is imperative. Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold: firstly, to explore the general characteristics of social housing households, the net floor area, and the characteristics and issues of the living room, bathroom, and kitchen areas; secondly, to identify the factors influencing indoor environment satisfaction among social housing households in Seoul.

2. Materials and Methods

This study selected 22 social housing projects, which were advertised on the social housing platform operated by Seoul City from which floor plan data could be obtained. The study excluded both empty-house remodeling and other housing unit remodels. This exclusion was carried out because the empty-house remodeling project halted in 2017 and other remodeling projects were discontinued from 2020 onwards [24].

The total number of households in the 22 selected social housing projects was 373. Recruitment notices were posted at the entrance of each housing unit and distributed to each household’s mailbox. The survey was conducted from 31 May to 6 June 2022. Those who voluntarily expressed their intention to participate in the survey were sent an online survey link via email. Of the participating households, 57 households completed the online survey and were provided with a gift voucher as a token of appreciation. Frequency analysis and descriptive statistics were conducted for data analyses using the IBM SPSS 24.0 program [25].

3. Results

3.1. General Characteristics of the Household

Seoul’s social housing is provided for rent to vulnerable populations, such as young adults and newlyweds [11].

Table 1. General characteristics of households (n = 57).

Variable		n	%
Gender	Male	23	40.4
	Female	34	59.6
Age	19–25	10	17.5
	26–39	45	78.9
	40≥	2	3.5
	Mean 27.50 (SD = 5.89), min and max (24, 58)
Occupation	Student	7	12.3
	Employee	37	64.9
	Self-employed	3	5.3
	Others	10	17.5
Monthly Income (USD)	<380	9	15.8
	More than 380 less than 1200	6	10.5
	More than 1200 less than 1900	14	24.6
	1900≥	28	49.1

presents the general characteristics of the households. With respect to gender, female individuals comprised 59.6% and male individuals comprised 40.4%. The mean age was 27.50 (SD = 5.89). More than two-thirds of the households were aged between 26 and 39 years old. Regarding occupation, the majority (64.9%) were employees, followed by others at 10%, students at 7%, and self-employed at 3%. Regarding monthly income, nearly half of the residents (49.1%) earned over USD 1900. From these results, it is evident that the majority of social housing households in Seoul comprise those in their late 20s to 30s, and they are employed by others who fall within the median income range (based on the 2022 median income chart from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Sejong-si, Republic of Korea [26]).

3.2. Net Floor Area

A house is a tangible structure, while a dwelling represents the place where individuals, as active participants, immerse themselves in life and culture [27]. It involves a complex interplay of psychological and social-cultural elements intertwined with the physical environment, and they are all intertwined with their inner emotional selves [27]. Within the realm of dwellings, various needs emerge, encompassing physiological, safety, social, self-esteem, and self-actualization requirements that align with the functions expected within a residence of particular significance are social needs that stem from humanity’s inherent social nature, as individuals seek connection, love, recognition, and the formation of human bonds, ultimately leading to the establishment of a community [27]. This spatial organization fosters a more abundant and prosperous life. Consequently, the planning of residential spaces is a multifaceted process that accommodates a range of functions and roles. It necessitates the careful consideration of factors like interior layouts, the arrangement and size of interior spaces (including the kitchen, living room, bedrooms, and bathrooms), and the overall room count. These aspects significantly influence the satisfaction of resident with respect to their living environment.

To comprehensively grasp the limitations and possibilities, defining the physical dimensions of a home is imperative. This step ensures that the spaces within the home are not only adequate but also functional. Housing with appropriately sized rooms that cater to residents’ needs and comfort is pivotal for creating a comfortable living atmosphere. Establishing these physical dimensions, including minimum area standards for each space, allows for flexible adjustments that accommodate specific requirements.

Furthermore, defining physical dimensions sets the groundwork for future social housing projects. It enables the consideration of precise area prerequisites, such as minimum bedroom or living room dimensions, contributing to overall residential satisfaction. With an understanding of these constraints and the establishment of physical dimensions, housing plans can be meticulously crafted to optimize space utilization while effectively meeting residents’ needs.

The characteristics of net floor areas for households are shown in

Table 2. Net floor area.

Variables	n	%
25 m2<	7	12.3
More than 25 m2 less than 33 m2	30	52.6
More than33 m2 less than 50 m2	15	26.3
More than 50 m2 less than 64 m2	2	3.5
64 m2≥	3	5.3

. The majority of households (52.6%) live in units with a net floor area of 25 m² or more but less than 33 m², followed by units with a net floor area of 33 m² or more but less than 50 m², comprising 26.3%. It is evident that current social housing in Seoul is designed primarily to address the housing needs of single-person or newlywed households, which is reflected in the most significant frequency of residences suitable for that demographic.

3.3. Preferences for Expansion and Reduction in Space

Seoul’s social housing program is conducted by the local government, Seoul Metropolitan City, and it provides residential spaces for young adults and newlyweds. Instead of being determined by the number of residents, the program follows the current minimum housing area standards as guidelines for social housing planning, which are 14 m² for one person, 26 m² for two people, 36 m² for three people, and 43 m² for four people [28].

Table 3. Preference for expansion and reduction in space.

	Living Room	Kitchen	Bathroom	Entranceway	Others	None
Expansion	27	11	4	2	7	6
(n/%)	(47.4)	(19.3)	(7.0)	(3.5)	(12.3)	(10.5)
Reduction	9	8	8	10	12	9
(n/%)	(15.8)	(14.0)	(14.0)	(17.5)	(21.1)	(15.8)

presents households’ preferences for expanding or reducing spaces while maintaining a constant total housing area. The majority of households (47.4%) reported that they expanded the living room. As for reducing spaces, 21.1% of households reported reducing “other” areas, and this was followed by the entranceway at 17.5%.

Considering the results, with 47.4% responses relative to living room expansion and 17.5% relative to entranceway reduction, it can be inferred that the importance of the living room, where most residential activities and time are spent, is significantly high among households. Conversely, there is a noticeable inclination towards a reduction in spaces where substantial activity time does not take place, such as the entranceway.

3.4. Living Room Issues

This section discusses the responses of residents regarding the architectural and environmental issues that they perceive in the living rooms of their units.

Table 4. Living room issues.

Variable		n	%
Planned issues in the living room (which doubles as a bedroom in studio units)	Unreasonable layout of the living room	16	28.1
	Lack of storage space	21	36.8
	Low ceiling height	8	14.0
	Other	12	21.1
Environmental issues in the living room (which doubles as a bedroom in studio units)	Lack of natural light	11	19.3
	Ventilation issues	12	21.1
	Limited view	19	33.3
	Orientation of the house	5	8.8
	Other	10	17.5
Storage space or net floor area	Sufficient storage space	30	52.6
	Maximizing available space	27	47.4
Securing a separate space	Yes	40	70.2
	No	17	29.8

presents the findings related to the floor plan of the living room, which also serves as a bedroom in studio units. In terms of planned issues, the predominant concern was the lack of storage space, accounting for 36.8%. This was followed by unreasonable living room layouts at 28.1%. “Other” concerns made up 21.1% and highlighted issues such as “unnecessarily long corridors” and a “lack of separation between the kitchen and living area”. Moving onto the environmental issues associated with the living room, the top concern was a limited view at 33.3%. This was followed by ventilation issues at 21.1%, a lack of natural light at 19.3%, and “other” concerns at 17.5%. These “other” concerns include issues like “noise between floors”, a “small floor area”, and “insufficient windows.” When examining preferences regarding storage space in the living room versus maximizing usable space, 52.6% of residents leaned towards ensuring adequate storage, while 47.4% opted for maximizing the available area. Notably, 70.2% of the surveyed households expressed a preference for a separate room.

Additionally, findings indicated a preference for a separated spatial layout using partitioning facilities, such as sliding doors, even if it led to a slight reduction in usable living room space. The results highlighted that 70.2% of respondents favored a separated spatial layout. While small-scale homes for single-person households are being planned, the concept of open studio-style units is of paramount importance in social housing. Nonetheless, the data unveiled a strong inclination among actual households towards spatial separation.

3.5. Kitchen Issues

This section discusses the responses of social housing residents regarding the most significant issues they perceive in the kitchen area (sink and adjacent space) of their units.

The results for issues related to the kitchen in the house are presented in

Table 5. Kitchen issues.

Variable	n	%
Lack of cooking space	23	40.4
Lack of dining area	24	42.1
Lack of storage space	2	3.5
Unreasonable kitchen layout	8	14.0

. About 42.1% of the households reported a lack of a dining area, followed by a lack of cooking space at 40.4%, unreasonable kitchen layouts at 14.0%, and a lack of storage space at 3.5%. Given that the proportion of insufficient dining and cooking space is quite high at 82.5%, it appears that improvements in the allocation of space for kitchens will be necessary in future social housing plans.

3.6. Bathroom/Toilet Issues

This section discusses the responses of social housing residents to questions regarding the current configuration of their bathrooms, their desired configurations, their satisfaction with the bathroom, and their preferences regarding the bathroom’s size.

Results concerning the configuration, satisfaction, and preferences of the bathroom/toilet are presented in

Table 6. Bathroom/toilet issues.

Variable		n	%
Current configuration of the bathroom/toilet	sink, shower, toilet	44	77.2
	sink, bathtub, toilet	1	1.8
	sink, toilet + shower	6	10.5
	sink + toilet + shower	6	10.5
Desired configuration of bathrooms/toilets	sink, shower, toilet	13	22.8
	sink, bathtub, toilet	10	17.5
	sink, toilet + shower	25	43.9
	sink + toilet + shower	9	15.8
Satisfaction	Mean (SD) = 3.46 (SD = 0.93), min–max: 2–5
Preferred bathroom/toilet area	A compact bathroom with minimal area	25	43.9
	A spacious bathroom/toilet area	32	56.1

. Regarding current bathroom/toilet configurations, 77.2% of households had no separation between the sink, shower, and toilet. In contrast, only 1.8% lived in units where the sink, bathtub, and toilet were each in separate spaces. In terms of preferred bathroom/toilet configurations, 43.9% of households favored separate toilet and shower areas, followed by the configuration without the separation of the sink, shower, and toilet. Satisfaction with the current configuration of the bathroom/toilet was measured on a 5-point scale (1 for “very dissatisfied” and 5 for “very satisfied”), resulting in a mean satisfaction score of 3.46 (SD = 0.93). Regarding the preferred bathroom/toilet area, 56.1% favored a spacious bathroom/toilet, while 43.9% preferred a compact bathroom/toilet with minimal area.

3.7. Desired Additional Space

In the case of social housing in Seoul, it is necessary to maximize the utilization of limited space. The objective was to collect tenant opinions on additional spaces beyond the primary areas, such as the living room, kitchen, and bathroom.

Table 7. Desired additional space.

Variable	n	%
Multipurpose room adjacent to the kitchen	10	17.5
Balcony	12	21.1
Entranceway	1	1.8
Study room	10	17.5
Dressing room	18	31.6
Other	6	10.5

displays households’ preferences for additional functionalities and spaces in their current homes. The dressing room emerged as the most sought-after addition at 31.6%, followed by a balcony at 21.1%. Both a multipurpose room adjacent to the kitchen and a study room were desired by 17.5% of respondents. Other preferences accounted for 10.5% of the responses, and the entranceway was mentioned by 1.8% of the participants. The “other” category included specific mentions of additional “rooms” and “kitchen storage spaces”.

3.8. Factors Associated with Residential Satisfaction

Table 8. Factors associated with residential satisfaction.

Variable	n	%
Interior housing layout (area, room, configuration, etc.)	35	61.4
Interaction with the community	4	7.0
Accessibility to transportation	11	19.3
Accessibility to major facilities (commercial and convenience facilities, parks, etc.)	5	8.8
Facility maintenance	2	3.5

shows both the overall residential satisfaction and satisfaction ratings for specific factors. In terms of factors influencing residential satisfaction, the “Interior layout of housing” factor had the highest proportion at 61.4%, followed by “Accessibility to transportation” at 19.3%, “Accessibility to major facilities” at 8.8%, “Interaction with community” at 7.0%, and “Facility maintenance” at 3.5%.

Summary of Residential Satisfaction

This section highlights the significant factors that determine satisfaction and that need to be considered in future social housing plans.

The interior layout of housing emerged as the most impactful factor affecting residential satisfaction. This factor emphasizes that housing plans need to prioritize spatial layouts, the arrangement and size of interior spaces, and the number of rooms. Sufficient and practical space was identified as a crucial factor in providing a comfortable living environment. Adequate-sized housing was seen to accommodate residents’ needs and comfort, with the housing area adjusted according to the number of household members and their activities. This finding is consistent with research studies that report residential satisfaction is affected by the size of the household [19,29]. The composition ratio of essential interior spaces was also recognized as a significant determinant of satisfaction. The proper arrangement and ratios of spaces, such as the kitchen, living room, bedrooms, and bathrooms, can influence the convenience and satisfaction of households. Lastly, responses concerning additional features and spaces demonstrated that dressing rooms and balconies were desired spaces for more than half of the respondents. This suggests that incorporating these desired features and spaces into housing plans should be considered when planning social housing.

Accessibility to transportation was found as the second most significant factor impacting residential satisfaction. This result is consistent with research indicating that the transportation network played a significant factor in determining residential satisfaction in public housing communities [30]. Convenient transportation plays a pivotal role in the daily lives and activities of households. Ensuring easy access to public transportation, well-designed road networks in the vicinity, parking facilities, etc., can provide convenience to residents when planning housing locations.

Interactions with the community influenced the satisfaction of the residential social housing environment. This finding aligns with findings that report that increased interaction with neighbors leads to higher residential satisfaction [31]. Facilities and activities that promote communication and mutual support among neighbors can enhance households’ social connections and happiness. Developing community spaces and shared facilities and activating cultural programs can contribute to a high-quality community culture that meets household needs.

With respect to residential satisfaction, facility maintenance needs to be discussed. Facility maintenance involves the upkeep and improvement of facilities and equipment in a residential area. Adequate maintenance and regular inspections ensure facility safety and functionality, enhancing household comfort. Conversely, frequent breakdowns or neglected maintenance can lead to discomfort and anxiety among households. Moreover, the cleanliness and maintenance status of facilities directly affect residential satisfaction [32]. Keeping shared facilities and public spaces clean maintains a pleasant and comfortable environment, thereby enhancing households’ contentment. Lastly, effective communication and soliciting feedback from households play a significant role in facility management. Residents’ ability to voice their demands and concerns to the facility management team allows for responsive actions, ultimately raising residents’ satisfaction.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

This study aimed to identify the factors that influence satisfaction with respect to indoor environments in Seoul’s social housing. The findings revealed that factors affecting satisfaction with indoor environments included interior layouts, accessibility to transportation and major facilities, interactions with the community, and facility management. These factors were recognized as crucial considerations for future social housing plans.

The interior housing layouts were identified as the most significant factor influencing satisfaction with respect to indoor environments. Furthermore, this study found that the living room emerged as the most preferred area for expansion. These findings show the importance of the living space for residents. Indeed, the size of the living space affects the well-being of residents [33]. This underscores the necessity of considering the size of the living room in future social housing construction relative to indoor environments.

In addition, this study indicated that the space most desired for expansion was the living room, while the space targeted for a reduction in size was the bathroom. This suggests the necessity to adjust the size of each space within a designated area. Furthermore, there is a need to establish minimum area standards for each space. In the UK, despite being among the countries with the smallest housing spaces in Europe, regulations specifying minimum space standards for all newly constructed homes were introduced in 2012 [34]. For instance, the minimum bedroom size for one adult is defined as at least 6.51 m² [34]. Although South Korea has minimum residential area standards, there are no specific standards for individual spaces such as bedrooms and living rooms. Consequently, it is essential to establish standards for specific areas. Thus, guidelines for indoor environment planning that incorporate feedback from the prospective occupants of social housing are necessary.

The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to its limitations. First, this study used a sample survey rather than a complete census during the research process; thus, the study’s representation may be constrained. Future studies should consider collecting a more extensive dataset to conduct a more accurate and representative analysis. Secondly, since this study focused exclusively on social housing in Seoul, future research should encompass social housing from various regions, including both urban and rural areas, in order to analyze regional differences. Lastly, since this study did not investigate satisfaction with respect to aspects such as parking facilities, convenience stores, leisure facilities, and rental costs in the local environment, future studies that incorporate these factors would be beneficial.