Next Article in Journal
Advanced Architectures of Microfluidic Microcapacitor Arrays for 3D-Printable Biomimetic Electrostatic Artificial Muscles
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Avatar Utilization in Workplace and Educational Environments: A Study on User Acceptance, Preferences, and Technostress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/app15063292
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Differences in the Motivations of Elderly People to Use Senior Citizen Centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, Based on Old-Age Service Systems

by
Xiaolong Zhao
1,
Eun-soo Park
2,
Jinghao Zhao
1,
Jieun Kim
3,
Sang-Yup Lee
4 and
Heangwoo Lee
5,*
1
College of Design, Jilin University of Arts, Changchun 130021, China
2
Department of Architecture, Sahmyook University, Seoul 01795, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Spatial Culture Design, Kookmin University, Seoul 02707, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Republic of Korea
5
College of Design, Sangmyung University, Cheonan 31066, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(6), 3292; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063292
Submission received: 3 February 2025 / Revised: 12 March 2025 / Accepted: 13 March 2025 / Published: 18 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Design Solutions for Human Well-Being in Architecture and Urban Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study empirically analyzed whether any differences exist in older adults’ motivations to use senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system, focusing on senior citizen centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, South Korea. First, the main factors influencing older adults’ use of senior citizen centers were identified through previous studies. Subsequently, data were collected through a survey. Data groups were categorized according to the type of eldercare system, and multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between the main variables for each type of eldercare system. It was found that the primary age group of older adults using senior citizen centers was 65–69 years, with home- and community-based care being their primary choices. Furthermore, community-based and institutional care facilitated connections within the community, encouraged social interaction among older adults, and fostered intergenerational interaction and social contribution. Home-based care was strongly motivated by emotional stability and the desire to maintain independent living. Finally, participation in cultural activities was common and significant across all eldercare system types, confirming that senior citizen centers play a crucial role in providing cultural experiences and opportunities for older people, as opposed to simply serving as recreational spaces.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Purpose

As the global population continues to age rapidly, many countries have been implementing various policies and programs to enhance older adults’ quality of life and support healthy aging [1,2,3,4]. Asia covers approximately 30% of Earth’s total land area and houses more than 60% of the world’s population. This high population density can potentially accelerate the aging trend [5]. In South Korea, elderly welfare has become a substantial social concern owing to its rapidly aging population [6,7]. The government is actively working to improve the quality of life and promote the welfare of senior citizens via diverse welfare policies and systems [8,9]. The proportion of the elderly population aged 65 or older in South Korea has been increasing rapidly since the early 2000s [10]. By March 2024, this age group accounted for over 19% of the country’s population [11]. Based on these trends, South Korea is projected to become a super-aged society by 2025, and the elderly population is expected to comprise approximately 30% of the total population by 2036 [12].
In particular, Busan—one of the major cities in South Korea—is experiencing the aging phenomenon more acutely than other regions [13,14]. The city has become a super-aged society earlier than other metropolitan areas, as over 20% of its population has been aged 65 and above since 2022 [15]. Consequently, the demand for elderly welfare in the community is increasing rapidly [16,17,18]. Busan’s aging population has a substantial impact on the city’s economic and social structure, and the need for various welfare policies and programs to support health care, social participation, financial independence, and sustainable community development for older adults in their later years is becoming increasingly emphasized [19,20].
The city of Busan is actively operating various senior welfare facilities to address the challenges posed by a rapidly aging population. Among these, senior citizen centers provide essential community spaces where older adults can socialize, engage in hobbies, participate in joint workshops, exchange information, and enjoy leisure activities [21,22,23]. In addition, these centers play a pivotal role in promoting social participation among senior citizens and strengthening their connections to the community, thereby reducing feelings of social isolation and enhancing their quality of life [24,25,26]. Furthermore, as opposed to merely serving as recreational spaces, senior citizen centers fulfill important welfare functions that promote physical health, emotional stability, and social interaction among older adults [27,28,29]. In large cities such as Busan, where the aging population is increasing rapidly, senior citizen centers are indispensable. They can serve as models for establishing and implementing senior welfare policies in other urban areas. However, to date, domestic studies focusing on senior citizen centers have primarily examined physical conditions or satisfaction related to welfare policies, spatial planning, physical accessibility, facility satisfaction, and operational programs; psychological factors such as motivation for use remain underexplored [14,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. In particular, empirical studies that comprehensively examine motivations, frequency of use, and satisfaction are urgently needed as these variables significantly influence the utilization of senior citizen centers.
Furthermore, the later years of older adults are affected by various factors, including government policies, the diversity of services available, and the operations of private organizations [31,32]. Motivations for using senior citizen centers differ depending on the type of eldercare system selected by older adults. The eldercare system can be categorized into home-based, community-based, and institutional care models [33,34,35], and the welfare needs and usage patterns of older adults may vary according to these types. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the differences in older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers according to the type of eldercare system, thereby contributing to the development of customized services tailored to their welfare needs and serving as a foundation for policy improvement in aging services.

1.2. Research Scope and Previous Studies

Based on the hypothesis that people’s motivations for using senior citizen centers differ depending on the type of eldercare system, this study selected exemplary senior citizen centers located in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, South Korea, for empirical analysis. This selection was based on the region’s characteristics and the increasing demand for welfare due to aging. Yeongdo-gu is one of the 16 administrative districts in Busan, with an area of 14.13 km2 and a population of over 100,000 people. From 2011 to 2021, the total population of Yeongdo-gu steadily decreased, while the proportion of senior citizens aged 65 and older gradually increased [36]. As of 2022, the aging rate in Yeongdo-gu has exceeded 30%, which is a key reason for selecting this area as the primary focus of this study. In addition, many centers in Yeongdo-gu have been recognized as exemplary senior citizen centers by the Korean Senior Citizens Association for three consecutive years, namely, from 2021 to 2023 [37,38,39], indicating that these centers are relatively well managed compared to those in other regions. Therefore, the research focused on exemplary senior citizen centers in Yeongdo-gu (Table 1) to investigate the relationship between older adults’ motivations for using these centers and the eldercare system.
The review of prior research on senior citizen centers focused on studies published in domestic journals and on Google Scholar, specifically those related to older adults. The review was conducted from 10 May to 10 June 2024. The main search keywords included eldercare services, nursing facilities, motivations for using senior citizen centers, and elderly-friendly, with priority given to studies published since the 2000s that were highly relevant to the current study’s focus on senior citizen centers. This timeframe was selected for two reasons. First, South Korea transitioned into an aging society around 2000, leading to changes in the operation of senior citizen centers and the needs of older adults. Therefore, research conducted after 2000 is more likely to take these changes into account. Second, since the 2000s, the Korean government has pursued various policy reforms to address the aging population, such as revising the Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, expanding employment opportunities for older adults, and introducing community care policies. Consequently, articles published after this period are expected to address these different policy directions and research topics.
In recent years, several studies have been conducted on the role and significance of social service systems for older adults in an aging society [40,41,42]. Research on various welfare programs aimed at improving the quality of life of older adults and supporting their healthy aging has been conducted based on the unique institutional and policy contexts of different countries and regions [43,44,45,46,47]. In South Korea, senior welfare policies have been gradually expanded to address the aging society issue [48,49,50], and, as shown in Table 2 [24,25,26,27,28,29,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58], senior citizen centers play a crucial role as welfare facilities. In addition, these centers fulfill welfare functions beyond providing places for leisure and social interaction by addressing older adults’ physical, emotional, and social needs.
Research on the utilization of senior citizen centers has primarily focused on analyzing the usage patterns of older adults and the psychological, social, and economic factors influencing these patterns. Such factors include reducing social isolation, improving physical health, promoting leisure activities, providing emotional stability and support, and facilitating social interaction. Most studies have indicated that older adults utilizing these centers are more likely to overcome isolation and enhance their quality of life through social interaction. In addition, some studies have suggested that older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers vary according to their physical, emotional, and social needs, which are influenced by their personal backgrounds and circumstances.
The eldercare system is divided into three models: home-based, community-based, and institutional care. Users’ needs tend to differ depending on the type of service chosen. Older adults who opt for home-based care tend to seek independence [59,60], whereas those who use community-based care value community connections and social interaction [61,62]. Those who select institutional care prefer structured support and require medical and 24 h care services [63,64]. These findings provide theoretical evidence supporting the hypothesis that older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers differ based on the type of eldercare system.
Extensive research has been conducted on Busan, reflecting its social and economic characteristics. Busan has a significantly higher aging rate than other urban areas in Korea, engendering a surging demand for senior welfare services [16,17,18]. Most studies on senior citizen centers in Busan have focused on the efficiency of facility operations, user satisfaction, and physical accessibility [14,19,20]. Consequently, research on the motivations of senior citizen center users concerning social access and mental health is lacking [21]. Therefore, based on the previous studies listed in Table 2, this study aims to empirically demonstrate the relationship between older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers and the type of eldercare system, focusing on the district of Yeongdo-gu in Busan. This approach differs from previous studies in that it analyzes various factors influencing older adults’ motivations for using these centers, specifically in Yeongdo-gu. Figure 1 shows the dependent variable (motivation to use senior citizen centers) and the independent variables (relieving social isolation, improving physical health, promoting leisure activities, facilitating social interaction, and providing emotional stability and support), in addition to their sub-factors, used in this study. Although previous studies have suggested that environmental factors significantly influence the use of senior citizen centers, these are excluded from the scope of this study as it assumes that there are differences between the various eldercare system types.

2. Materials and Methods

A survey was conducted among older adults who were users of six exemplary senior citizen centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, South Korea. The survey period was set from Monday to Friday, aligned with the typical weekly schedule. Two primary reasons informed the choice of this standard weekly schedule. First, this research aimed to encompass the entire week to accurately reflect older adults’ daily rhythms and social activity patterns, thereby facilitating the comprehensive interpretation of a wide range of usage patterns and motivations. Second, weekdays are more likely to involve regular activities and participation in welfare programs, whereas weekends may be influenced by external factors such as visits from family or friends. Consequently, the survey period was evenly distributed throughout the week, excluding weekends, to ensure data representativeness and comprehensiveness. Given older adults’ information and communication technology literacy, this study employed an on-site visit method, as field surveys are more effective than online surveys for collecting reliable data. Furthermore, to increase participation rates and ensure more accurate and reliable data, the survey was conducted between 10:00 and 16:00—the hours when older adults typically use these centers. The details of the survey schedule are shown in Figure 2 and Table 3.
After determining the survey schedule, the main items of the questionnaire were designed based on the previously defined dependent and independent variables (Figure 1). In addition to the primary survey items, the respondents’ initials, type of eldercare system, age group, gender, and frequency of use were also included. The initials served as identifiers to screen for duplicate survey data, while the type of eldercare system was used to facilitate group analysis. Age group and gender were considered demographic variables for analyzing differences in the motivation to use senior citizen centers, and frequency of use was expected to facilitate an understanding of the current utilization status of these centers. Once the survey was finalized, the researchers visited the six centers according to a pre-planned weekly schedule to distribute the questionnaires and collect individual responses from users (including members and non-members). During the survey process, the intent and content of the items were clearly explained to the participants to enhance their understanding, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the responses. If the participants encountered difficulties or had questions while completing the survey, the research team assisted them by recording responses on their behalf in strict compliance with research ethics guidelines.
In addition, a verification procedure was introduced to prevent duplicate responses to the same question, thereby ensuring data reliability and accuracy. This procedure was designed to minimize inconsistencies and repeated responses and included systematic checks to maintain data integrity by cross-referencing potential duplicates using codes based on the respondents’ initials, type of eldercare system, age group, gender, and response order, as shown in Figure 3. The names encoded were solely for identifying data duplication. After cross-checking, the codes were reorganized based on the type of eldercare system, and the initial name codes were deleted.
After all the questionnaires were collected, invalid responses were removed. Subsequently, the data from valid ones were organized. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to examine users’ distribution based on age group, gender, and frequency of using senior citizen centers. Data groups were classified based on the type of eldercare system, followed by reliability and validity analyses to provide a basis for credible data analysis. To investigate the differences in motivations for using senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system, the data groups were divided, and statistical significance between the independent and dependent variables was confirmed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Following this, multiple regression analysis was applied to identify the main factors influencing motivations for using senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system. The specific research procedure is illustrated in Figure 4.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Analysis, and Validity Analysis

During the survey period (1 July 2024, to 13 September 2024), 516 questionnaires were collected from visitors to six exemplary senior citizen centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan. A total of 19 copies were deemed invalid owing to duplicate answers, missing information, or abnormally fast completion times. Subsequently, descriptive statistical analysis as well as reliability and validity analyses were conducted based on the remaining 497 valid surveys.
Table 4 shows the distribution of the participants by gender, age group, type of eldercare system, membership status, and number of visits per week. Among the respondents, 56.5% were men and 43.5% women. The age distribution revealed that the majority of the respondents were aged 65–69 years (63.6%), followed by those aged 70–79 years (27.6%), 80–89 years (8.2%), and 90 years or older (0.6%). Regarding the chosen type of eldercare system, 36.6% opted for home-based care, 47.9% for community-based care, and 15.5% for institutional care. In terms of membership status, 81.5% (405) were members, while 18.5% (92) were non-members. Concerning the frequency of visits per week, those who visited 1–2 times accounted for the highest proportion with 259 respondents (52.1%), followed by 183 respondents (36.8%) who visited 3–4 times, and 55 (11.1%) who visited five or more times.
To analyze the motivations for using senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system, this study categorized the data groups according to the type of eldercare system (Group Y-1: home-based care, Group Y-2: community-based care, and Group Y-3: institutional care) and then assessed the reliability and validity by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values. The results showed that all variables in the Y-1, Y-2, and Y-3 data groups had Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.8, indicating high internal consistency (Table 5 and Table 6). In addition, the KMO value was 0.8 or higher, confirming that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was below 0.001, which verified that the correlation between the data was statistically significant.

3.2. ANOVA and Multiple Regression Analysis

Following the reliability and validity analyses, ANOVA and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in the motivations for using senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system and identify the main variables influencing these motivations within each type (home-based, community-based, and institutional care). According to Table 7, the R-squared values for the home-based (Y-1), community-based (Y-2), and institutional (Y-3) care models were 0.708, 0.475, and 0.717, respectively. This signified that 70.8%, 47.5%, and 71.7% of the independent variables explained the dependent variable in the Y-1, Y-2, and Y-3 data groups, respectively. Furthermore, the autocorrelation test for the error terms in the regression models for Y-1, Y-2, and Y-3 showed Durbin–Watson values of 1.587, 2.192, and 1.628, respectively. As these values were close to 2, no significant correlation existed between the residuals of each regression model, thus confirming the reliability of the analysis results. In addition, as shown in Table 8, the variables related to the motivation for using senior citizen centers showed statistically significant differences in the Y-1 (F = 26.857, p < 0.001), Y-2 (F = 13.417, p < 0.001), and Y-3 (F = 10.281, p < 0.001) data groups, suggesting that motivations differed depending on the type of eldercare system.
As shown in Table 9, significant results from the multiple regression analyses according to the type of eldercare system included the following: Y-1: A-3 (β = 0.086, t = 1.977, p < 0.05), B-1 (β = 0.103, t = 2.354, p < 0.05), B-2 (β = 0.146, t = 3.421, p < 0.01), B-3 (β = 0.059, t = 2.385, p < 0.05), C-2 (β = 0.189, t = 3.567, p < 0.001), D-2 (β = 0.108, t = 2.314, p < 0.05), D-3 (β = 0.131, t = 2.809, p < 0.01), and E-1 (β = 0.131, t = 3.208, p < 0.01); Y-2: A-2 (β = 0.205, t = 2.514, p < 0.05), B-3 (β = 0.192, t = 2.361, p < 0.05), and D-2 (β = 0.166, t = 2.059, p < 0.05); and Y-3: A-2 (β = 0.184, t = 2.538, p < 0.05), B-2 (β = 0.245, t = 2.905, p < 0.01), and D-2 (β = 0.363, t = 3.774, p < 0.001). The VIF values for all corresponding variables were below or equal to 5, confirming that they passed the multicollinearity test. Variable D-2 emerged as a significant motivation across all eldercare system types, while variable A-2 was significant in both Y-2 and Y-3. In addition, variable B-3 had a significant effect only in Y-1 and Y-2. The usage motivations for Y-1 and Y-2 tended to be relatively straightforward compared to Y-3.

4. Discussion

This study examined the differences in older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system, focusing on centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan. The results indicated significant differences in motivations depending on the type of eldercare system, and the main variables could be interpreted in various ways.
Among the motivations related to reducing social isolation (A), A-2 (social networks) significantly influenced both community-based and institutional care. This finding aligns with research by Park et al. [25], which indicated that senior citizen centers play a crucial role in alleviating social isolation and fostering social interaction among older adults. Furthermore, Suzuki et al. [3] emphasized that senior welfare facilities are vital for providing mental stability through social interaction, supporting the results of the current study. Conversely, senior citizens opting for home-based care tended to prioritize emotional stability and independent living over relieving social isolation. This finding is consistent with another study demonstrating that self-esteem influences the motivation to use senior citizen centers [56], suggesting that individual psychological stability may be more significant than social interaction.
Although motivations related to promoting social interaction (B) (B-1 to B-3) were significant variables in home-based care, only B-2 (self-realization and contribution) and B-3 (intergenerational interaction) showed significant results in community-based and institutional care. In essence, senior citizens who preferred home-based care sought diverse forms of social interaction, whereas those in community-based and institutional care tended to focus more on specific interactions, such as intergenerational interaction and social contribution. These findings are consistent with those of Kang and Lee [57], who found the life satisfaction of older adults using senior citizen centers to be closely tied to intergenerational interaction and social contribution, with playing a role in the community emerging as a significant factor. In particular, satisfaction increases when older adults view themselves as contributing members of the community rather than mere facility users.
In the institutional care group, none of the motivations (C-1 to C-3) related to maintaining physical health (C) were found to be significant, indicating that the health care services provided in institutional care settings are already sufficient. In contrast, health care (C-2) was a significant variable in home-based care, and participation in exercise programs (C-3) was significant in community-based care.
These findings are in line with a study by Kim et al. [55], which suggested that leisure sports activities not only enhance the physical health of older adults but also improve their sense of social connectedness. In addition, Zhao et al. [14] emphasized that the residential environment and density of senior citizen centers are closely linked to health maintenance and that health promotion programs play a key role in community senior citizen centers.
Among the motivations (D-1 to D-3) related to promoting leisure activities (D), D-2 (participation in cultural activities) was found to be significant across all eldercare system types. This suggests that senior citizen centers play an essential role in providing cultural experiences and opportunities for older adults, as opposed to merely serving as recreational spaces [21,58]. Therefore, it is crucial to offer a range of cultural programs and explore ways to enhance older adults’ experiences in participating in such activities.
Furthermore, among the motivations (E-1 to E-3) related to emotional support (E), E-1 (providing emotional support) was identified as the primary variable in home-based care. This indicates that older adults opting for home-based care prioritize emotional stability and support [56], suggesting the necessity for counseling programs to enhance emotional support for users of home-based care and measures to improve communication among family members.
Overall, this study has confirmed that older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers vary based on the type of eldercare system, highlighting the need to develop customized programs for each type. While past studies have primarily focused on the operational conditions, facility satisfaction, and physical accessibility of senior citizen centers, this study provides an empirical analysis of the psychological and social motivations of senior citizen center users. Future research should delve deeper into the relationship between policies and people’s motivations for using senior citizen centers, offering empirical data that can inform the design of policies tailored to each type of eldercare system. Furthermore, it would be especially important to include the perspectives of senior citizen center operators and policymakers to derive more practical measures for operational improvement.

5. Conclusions

This study empirically analyzed whether differences exist in older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers based on the type of eldercare system, focusing on senior citizen centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, South Korea. The psychological, social, and health-related motivations of older adults using senior citizen centers were investigated using a survey, and the associations between key variables and eldercare system types were confirmed through multiple regression analysis. The main findings are as follows.
First, regarding the age group of older adults using senior citizen centers, those aged 65–69 were the primary users. Institutional care was the least common type of eldercare system chosen, and the majority of older adults visited senior citizen centers 1–2 times per week. Although senior centers are accessible to both members and non-members, most older adults involved in this study were registered as members. This indicates that older adults generally have a positive attitude toward the role and functions of senior citizen centers regardless of the type of eldercare system.
Second, among the three eldercare system types, community and institutional care play a crucial role in promoting community connections and interactions among older adults. Those who chose these eldercare system types tended to combat isolation through active social engagement. In contrast, the motivations of those who opted for home-based care appeared to be influenced by a combination of factors. Furthermore, older adults who selected community-based and institutional care systems were more likely to value intergenerational interaction and social contribution by realizing personal values.
Third, older adults who chose community-based care expressed a strong need for physical activity and health promotion programs, whereas those who preferred home-based care were more interested in maintaining independent living and health. The motivation for maintaining physical health was not significant in institutional care, which may indicate that health care services are already adequately provided in those settings. Moreover, older adults who opted for home-based care considered emotional stability and support essential factors and tended to maintain psychological stability. Hence, there is a need for counseling programs to enhance emotional support for those in home-based care and strengthen communication among family members. Participation in cultural activities was significant across all eldercare system types, demonstrating that senior citizen centers play an important role not only as places for leisure activities but also as spaces that provide cultural experiences and opportunities to participate in cultural activities.
This study has limitations owing to its survey-based design, which restricts in-depth exploration of the emotional and psychological experiences of people using senior citizen centers. The lack of discussion on practical operational improvements is another limitation as the perspectives of senior center operators and policymakers were not included. Therefore, future research should analyze the relationship between policies and people’s motivations for using senior citizen centers to propose ways to enhance the efficiency of welfare policies. In particular, follow-up studies are needed to provide empirical data for designing customized policies for each eldercare system type.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Z. and H.L.; investigation, X.Z., E.-s.P. and J.Z.; methodology, X.Z., E.-s.P., J.Z., J.K. and H.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.-Y.L. and J.K.; supervision, H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2024S1A5C3A01042885).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Cristea, M.S.; Pirtea, M.G.; Suciu, M.C.; Noja, G.G. Workforce participation, ageing, and economic welfare: New empirical evidence on complex patterns across the European Union. Complexity 2022, 1, 7313452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Hu, H.; He, X. Spatio-temporal characteristics of the supply and demand coupling coordination of elderly care service resources in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Suzuki, K.; Dollery, B.E.; Kortt, M.A. Addressing loneliness and social isolation amongst elderly people through local co-production in Japan. Soc. Policy Adm. 2021, 55, 674–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Greenfield, E.A.; Buffel, T. Age-friendly cities and communities: Research to strengthen policy and practice. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2022, 34, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Długosz, Z.; Raźniak, P. Risk of population aging in Asia. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 120, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, J.M.; Kim, J.H.; Hwang, J.E. Effect of intensity of persistent social isolation on mental health in the late middle-aged and older population: Results of the Korea Longitudinal Study of Ageing (2006–2020). Psychogeriatrics 2024, 24, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rony, M.K.K.; Parvin, M.R.; Wahiduzzaman, M.; Akter, K.; Ullah, M. Challenges and advancements in the health-related quality of life of older people. Adv. Public Health 2024, 1, 8839631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Woo, S.; Kang, K.; Lee, S. Analysis of energy-saving effect of green remodeling in public welfare facilities for net zero: The case of public daycare centers, public health centers, and public medical institutions. Buildings 2024, 14, 949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, D.; Kim, H.; Hwang, R.; Jung, S.; Kim, M.Y.; Ko, Y.; Kang, J.; Park, J.; Yun, S. A narrative review with strategic analysis of home care services for older adults in Seoul, South Korea: Toward a comprehensive care approach. Risk. Manag. Healthc. Policy 2024, 17, 3341–3353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, Y.G. Is the ageing society a social problem? Ageing from the complexity perspective. J. Korean Urban Geogr. Soc. 2023, 26, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 2024 Statistics for the Elderly, Statistics Korea. Available online: https://kostat.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10301010000&bid=10820&act=view&list_no=432917 (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  12. Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), Statistics Korea. Available online: https://kosis.kr/visual/populationKorea/PopulationDashBoardMain.do (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  13. Kim, H.; Kim, D. Changes in urban growth patterns in Busan metropolitan city, Korea: Population and urbanized areas. Land 2022, 11, 1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhao, X.; Park, E.S.; Kim, J.; Lee, S.Y.; Lee, H. Basic analysis of physical determinants affecting the distribution density of senior citizen centers around small apartment complexes, focusing on administrative districts in Busan. Buildings 2024, 14, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hong, H.K.; Roh, J.H. A study on physical space needs and satisfaction in elderly life: Targeting the elderly in Busan in the post-COVID 19 era. J. Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2023, 25, 85–94. Available online: https://www.earticle.net/Article/A425375 (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  16. Kim, K.M. An analysis of the structural characteristic of the interorganizational network for the elderly welfare service. Korean J. Gerontol. Soc. Welf. 2020, 75, 63–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, M.H.; Lee, H.K. A study on the classification of blind spots in administrative welfare service for the elderly. J. Korean Assoc. Geogr. Inf. Stud. 2024, 27, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moom, Y.J. A study on the validation of the safety culture scale of social welfare institutions: Focusing on community welfare centers, senior welfare centers, and welfare centers for people with disability. Korean J. Saf. Cult. 2024, 26, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lim, S.J.; Lee, Y.J.; Kwon, H.J. A study on person-centered care in long-term care facilities associated with evaluation. Korean J. Care Manag. 2024, 52, 139–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Park, M.J. The impact of life preparation for retirement and resources on latent profiles of retirees’ life satisfaction: Application of growth mixture model. Korean J. Gerontol. Soc. Welf. 2024, 79, 9–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shin, H.R.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, S.H. A study on the effectiveness of using senior citizen center in the late-stage elderly. J. Korean Gerontol. Soc. 2022, 42, 585–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cho, J.H. Building up functions of senior community centers: From infrastructure expansion to content expansion. Korean J. Res. Gerontol. 2018, 27, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ha, J.M.; Jang, Y.H.; Kim, J.Y. The application status of universal design in the community center for the elderly in Seoul. J. Korean Int. Spat. Des. 2022, 17, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Park, J.H.; Jeong, E.H. Determinants of vitalization of leisure activity program for respect-for-ageds house. Korean J. Gerontol. Soc. Welf. 2005, 27, 175–202. [Google Scholar]
  25. Park, D.S.; Shin, G.I.; Woo, Y.S.; Lee, H.S.; Park, H.Y. Status and prospect of the elderly living in small and medium-sized cities using the senior citizens’ center. Ther. Sci. Rehabil. 2021, 10, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jin, J.A.; You, Y.L. Understanding the perspectives of super-aged people using senior centers on successful ageing and suggestions of super aged people for the development of senior centers: A qualitative case study approach. Res. Case Manag. 2022, 13, 133–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Woo, B.H. A study on the development plan: Through the analysis of the actual condition of use of senior citizen center. Stud. Cult. Art 2022, 20, 16–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hyung, N.K.; Ha, T.H. Experiences in operating a dementia prevention program per senior centers: Focused on community health practitioners. Asia Pac. J. Multimed. Serv. Converg. Art Humanit. Sociol. 2019, 9, 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Roh, K.S. A study on elements that activates the functions of senior citizen hall. Stud. Cult. Art 2023, 22, 147–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Retuerta-Martínez, L.B.; Pérez-García, S.; Gallego-García, S.; García-García, M. Design and implementation of adaptable self-protection plans for public buildings: A nursing home case in Spain. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Byun, N.Y.; Lee, S.Y. Analysis of the middle-aged demand for elderly living service and present conditions of housing. J. Archit. Inst. Korean Plann. Des 2019, 35, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, M.Y. Comparison of community rehabilitation services for the elderly in South Korea and Japan: Focusing on the long-term care insurance system. Phys. Ther. Korean 2022, 29, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Seo, Y.J. A Study of the Senior Serviced Housing for Aging in Place in the Context of Urban. Ph.D. Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhang, Y.T.; Min, K.H. A study on the age-appropriate design of community public space. Des. Res. 2024, 9, 604–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yoon, H.S.; Choi, S.Y. Measures to improve the role and function of elderly residential facilities: Focusing on free elderly residential facilities in Seoul. Asia Pac. J. Converg. Res. Interchange 2023, 9, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. 2023 Statistics for the Elderly, Statistics Korea. Available online: https://kostat.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10301010000&bid=10820&list_no=427252&act=view&mainXml=Y (accessed on 12 December 2024).
  37. Yeongdo-gu, Busan Held Signboard Hanging Ceremonies at Several Exemplary Senior Citizen Centers, Yonhap News Agency. Available online: https://www.yna.co.kr/view/RPR20210223004700353 (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  38. Yeongdo-gu Selected Gyeongjeon Apartment Senior Citizen Center and Sinseon Senior Citizen Center as Exemplary Senior Citizen Centers in 2022, Busan Ilbo. Available online: https://www.busan.com/view/busan/view.php?code=2022122809233526682# (accessed on 21 December 2024).
  39. Yeongdo-gu, Busan Held Signboard Hanging Ceremonies at Two Exemplary Senior Citizen Centers, Dnews.co.kr. Available online: https://www.dnews.co.kr/uhtml/view.jsp?idxno=202404242322406080432 (accessed on 22 December 2024).
  40. Di, X.; Wang, L. The impact of accessibility of community elderly care services on quality of life of the elderly. Healthcare 2025, 13, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Qin, S.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, H.; Ding, Y. Home/community-based medical and elderly care services utilization in China: A cross-sectional study from the middle-aged and elderly population. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Carpentieri, G.; Guida, C.; Masoumi, H.E. Multimodal accessibility to primary health services for the elderly: A case study of Naples, Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, H.; Wan, H.; Lin, Y.Y. Analysis on the contents of Macao elderly care service policy. Heliyon 2024, 10, e40051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Akkan, B.; Şanlı, C.C. Aging and social protection in a familialist welfare regime: Elderly poverty and social pensions in Turkey. In Handbook of Aging, Health and Public Policy; Springer: Singapore, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Terraneo, M. The effect of material and social deprivation on well-being of elderly in Europe. Int. J. Health. Serv. 2020, 51, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Krings, M.F.; van Wijngaarden, J.D.H.; Yuan, S.; Huijsman, R. China’s elder care policies 1994–2020: A narrative document analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Noda, S.; Hernandez, P.M.R.; Sudo, K.; Takahashi, K.; Woo, N.E.; Chen, H.; Inaoka, K.; Tateishi, E.; Affarah, W.S.; Kadriyan, H.; et al. Service delivery reforms for Asian ageing societies: A cross-country study between Japan, South Korea, China, Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Int. J. Integr. Care 2021, 21, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, B.R.; Hwang, H.H. Analysis of major factors affecting the quality of life of the elderly in Korea in preparation for a super-aged society. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nari, F.; Jang, B.N.; Kim, S.; Jeong, W.; Jang, S.I.; Park, E.C. Association between successful aging transitions and depressive symptoms among older Korean adults: Findings from the Korean longitudinal study of aging (2006–2018). BMC Geriatr. 2021, 21, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Fong, J.H. Utilization of long-term care services and the role of institutional trust in South Korea. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2025, 37, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Lee, J.M. Study about the old’s character using of facilities for the old and their satisfaction degree. Korean J. Gerontol. Soc. Welf. 2004, 25, 101–120. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kim, W. Factors influencing self-esteem among the elderly utilizing senior citizen halls. Korean. J. Gerontol. Soc. Welf. 2006, 32, 271–293. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kim, T.K.; Kang, I. The effects of elderly people’s stress and social support on depression. Asia Pac. J. Multimed. Serv. Converg. Art Humanit. Sociol 2018, 8, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Eom, Y.S.; Ko, J.U. Effects of family health of elderly people in rural areas on their preparation for old age: Focused on the mediating effect of self-efficacy. Asia Pac. J. Converg. Res. Interchange 2022, 8, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kim, T.H.; Wang, S.J.; Yoon, S.M. The influence of leisure sports activities on cultural value orientation and perceived social connectedness in community elderly people. Korean J. Sport 2020, 18, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Han, D.S. Lifestyle Factors Affecting Life Satisfaction of the Older Adults. Korean J. Geriatric. Occup. Ther. 2022, 4, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kang, E.M.; Lee, Y.C. Analysis of factors affecting the life satisfaction of elderly users of senior citizen centers: Focus on senior citizen centers in Seoul. J. Converg. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, S.J.; Youn, K.H.; Lee, J.Y. A phenomenological study on focusing on the experience of use senior-only theater. Cult. Converg. 2021, 43, 1153–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chang, J.Y.; Hwang, Y.S.; Kim, J.Y. A study on the types of the senior community housing for AIP. J. Korean Int. Spat. Des. 2020, 15, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yun, J.H.; Jang, M.S. Analysis of the operational status of support programs for senior welfare housing from an aging in place perspective. J. Korean Hous. Assoc. 2025, 36, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lee, S.I.; Kim, J.Y.; Ahn, J.K.; Kin, S.B. A study on the old people complex community care space. J. Korean Int. Spat. Des. 2020, 15, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kim, H.S.; Park, S.B. Elderly needs in community facilities within residential areas. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2022, 38, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hwang, I.O.; Yoon, K.A.; Kim, E.K. A study on the residential satisfaction level of the aged in nursing facilities and affective factors. J. Korean Gerontol. Soc. 2007, 27, 847–860. [Google Scholar]
  64. Yim, J.B.; Hong, G.S.; Mun, S.Y. A study on the current state and improvement of long-term care facilities for the elderly: Focusing on the perception gap between demand and supply. Korean J. Local. Gov. Adm. Stud. 2024, 38, 165–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 03292 g001
Figure 1. Variable settings (created by the research team).
Figure 1. Variable settings (created by the research team).
Applsci 15 03292 g001
Applsci 15 03292 g002
Figure 2. Location of the target sites (created by the research team): (a) administrative districts in Busan and survey site locations and (b) photos of the six senior citizen centers.
Figure 2. Location of the target sites (created by the research team): (a) administrative districts in Busan and survey site locations and (b) photos of the six senior citizen centers.
Applsci 15 03292 g002
Applsci 15 03292 g003
Figure 3. Coding survey respondent information (created by the research team).
Figure 3. Coding survey respondent information (created by the research team).
Applsci 15 03292 g003
Applsci 15 03292 g004
Figure 4. Research process (created by the research team).
Figure 4. Research process (created by the research team).
Applsci 15 03292 g004
Table 1. Research scope and targets.
Table 1. Research scope and targets.
No.Senior Citizen CentersAddressYear of Being Selected as an Exemplary
Center
1Yeongno Senior Citizen Center (YR)333 Hana-gil (Sinseon-Dong 3-ga)2021
2Dongsam Senior Citizen Center (DS)27 Dongsam-ro 50 beon-gil (Dongsam-dong)2021
3Sinseon Senior Citizen Center (SS)542 Hana-gil (Sinseon-Dong 2-ga)2022
4Gyeongjeon Apartment Senior Citizen Center (GJ)10 Dongsamdong-ro (Dongsam-dong)2022
5Daewon Apartment Senior Citizen Center (DW)79 Namhangsaessak-gil (Yeongseon-dong 4-ga)2023
6Isongdo Senior Citizen Center (ISD)12 Hyangto-gil (Yeongseon-dong 4-ga)2023
Table 2. Previous studies on older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers.
Table 2. Previous studies on older adults’ motivations for using senior citizen centers.
Author (Year)PurposeVariables Considered
Park and Jeong (2005) [24]Validation of factors activating leisure activity programs at senior citizen centersOrganizational factors, cultural activities, community connections
Park et al. (2021) [25]Survey on the use of senior citizen center programsSocial interaction, exercise programs, hobbies and self-development, health care
Jin and You (2022) [26]Case study on senior citizen center participation experiencesSocial access, expansion of senior citizen center functions
Woo (2022) [27]Review of the correlation between the spatial characteristics and social functions of senior citizen centersKinship, social networks, community affiliation
Hyung and Ha, (2019) [28]Qualitative survey on the experience of operating dementia prevention programs at senior citizen centersEmotional expression, emotional support
Roh (2023) [29]Impact of leisure programs on the life satisfaction of older adults Satisfaction with leisure programs, health status, environmental factors
Zhao et al. (2024) [14]Analysis of physical determinants affecting the density of senior citizen centers around small apartment complexesHousing access, physical determinants
Lee (2004) [51]Investigation of the factors affecting satisfaction with the characteristics of senior citizen centers Access to health care facilities, leisure programs, health activities, hobbies, exercise programs
Kim (2006) [52]Factors influencing the self-esteem of older adults at senior citizen centersLeisure activities, hobbies, social activities
Kim and Kang (2018) [53]Effects of older people’s stress and social support on depressionStress management, emotional support, health care
Eom and Ko (2022) [54]Retirement preparation strategies for rural areas in an aging societyEmotional stability, leisure activities, family interaction
Kim et al. (2020) [55]Effects of leisure sports activities on cultural value orientation and perceived social connectedness Leisure activities, cultural values, social networks
Han (2022) [56]Examination of factors influencing life satisfaction and the level of lifestyle domains in the elderlyHealth-promoting lifestyle, leisure programs, social networks, residential environment, emotional support
Kang and Lee (2018) [57]Factors affecting the life satisfaction of older adults using senior citizen centersIntergenerational exchange, self-esteem, self-realization
Lee et al. (2021) [58] Review of the experience of using senior-only theatersCultural activities, leisure activities
Table 3. Survey schedule for each senior citizen center in Yeongdo-gu, Busan.
Table 3. Survey schedule for each senior citizen center in Yeongdo-gu, Busan.
CenterSurvey PeriodSurvey HoursPrimary Target
YR1 July 2024–5 July 202410:00–16:00Older adults who visited these centers (including members and non-members)
DS15 July 2024–19 July 2024
SS29 July 2024–2 August 2024
GJ12 August 2024–16 August 2024
DW26 August 2024–30 August 2024
ISD9 September 2024–13 September 2024
Table 4. Status of senior citizen center users (unit: %).
Table 4. Status of senior citizen center users (unit: %).
CategoryYRDSSSGJDWISD
Gender
(male/female)		8.7/7.29.1/6.810.8/6.19.9/7.612.2/10.75.8/5.1
Age group
(65–69/70–79/80–89/90 and older)		10.2/4.7/1.0/0.08.7/5.6/1.4/0.211.9/3.8/1.2/0.013.1/2.4/1.8/0.212.3/8.5/2.0/0.27.4/2.6/0.8/0.0
Eldercare system
(home/community/institutional care)		5.1/9.1/1.86.0/7.4/2.47.1/7.2/2.65.8/8.7/3.18.2/10.7/4.04.4/4.8/1.6
Membership status
(member/non-member)		13.1/2.811.9/4.013.9/3.014.1/3.419.6/3.28.9/2.1
Number of visits per week
(1–2/3–4/5 or more)		8.0/5.4/2.49.7/4.4/1.87.8/7.4/1.610.1/6.0/1.410.7/9.5/2.85.8/4.1/1.1
Table 5. Summary item statistics.
Table 5. Summary item statistics.
GroupMeanMinimumMaximumRangeMaximum/
Minimum		VarianceNo. of ItemsCronbach’s Alpha
Y-1Item mean3.1352.9953.3080.3131.1050.008160.830
Item variance1.2150.7891.3280.5391.6830.019
Inter-item covariance0.2840.0300.7620.73325.7560.031
Inter-item correlation0.2410.0230.6310.60726.9590.024
Y-2Item mean3.5083.4373.5880.1511.0440.002160.914
Item variance1.4241.3141.8040.4901.3730.014
Inter-item covariance0.5680.2490.9980.7504.0160.026
Inter-item correlation0.3980.1800.7070.5273.9330.012
Y-3Item mean3.2003.0913.3380.2471.0800.005160.897
Item variance1.3140.9141.5760.6621.7250.030
Inter-item covariance0.4650.0821.0520.97012.7740.042
Inter-item correlation0.3550.0640.7000.63610.8700.023
Table 6. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
Table 6. KMO and Bartlett’s test.
GroupBartlett’s Test of SphericityKaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
Approx. Chi-SquaredfSig.
Y-11101.9991200.0000.802
Y-22018.5761200.0000.895
Y-3644.0341200.0000.826
Table 7. Model summary.
Table 7. Model summary.
ModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error of the EstimateDurbin–
Watson
Y-10.8420.7080.6820.5011.587
Y-20.6900.4750.4401.0052.192
Y-30.8470.7170.6470.5681.628
Table 8. ANOVA.
Table 8. ANOVA.
ModelSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Y-1Regression101.107156.74026.8570.000
Residual41.6621660.251
Total142.769181
Y-2Regression203.2741513.55213.4170.000
Residual224.2222221.010
Total427.496237
Y-3Regression49.769153.31810.2810.000
Residual19.686610.323
Total69.45576
Table 9. Multiple regression analysis results.
Table 9. Multiple regression analysis results.
ModelUnstandardized
Coefficients		Standardized CoefficientstSig.Collinearity Statistics
BStd. ErrorBetaToleranceVIF
Y-1 (Constant)−0.6820.207 −3.2890.001
X/AA-10.0710.0420.0911.6830.0940.6001.667
A-20.0360.0450.0460.8060.4210.5501.820
A-3 *0.0860.0440.1111.9770.0490.5591.790
X/BB-1 *0.1030.0440.1282.3540.0200.5991.670
B-2 **0.1460.0430.1873.4210.0010.5901.695
B-3 *0.0950.0400.1232.3850.0180.6611.514
X/CC-1−0.0020.042−0.003−0.0500.9600.6411.561
C-2 ***0.1890.0530.2123.5670.0000.4972.012
C-30.0370.0480.0450.7690.4430.5131.950
X/DD-10.0770.0470.0961.6370.1030.5091.964
D-2 *0.1080.0470.1322.3140.0220.5361.865
D-3 **0.1310.0470.1642.8090.0060.5161.938
X/EE-1 **0.1310.0410.1693.2080.0020.6301.586
E-20.0500.0440.0641.1200.2640.5461.832
E-30.0180.0430.0230.4160.6780.5641.772
Y-2 (Constant)−0.4580.310 −1.4790.141
X/AA-1−0.0930.079−0.080−1.1720.2430.5091.966
A-2 *0.2050.0820.1762.5140.0130.4802.081
A-3−0.0160.084−0.014−0.1920.8480.4492.227
X/BB-10.1370.0820.1241.6660.0970.4282.338
B-2−0.0050.089−0.004−0.0560.9560.3882.580
B-3 *0.1920.0810.1712.3610.0190.4522.213
X/CC-1 *0.1900.0830.1622.2810.0240.4662.144
C-20.0020.0810.0020.0290.9770.4552.196
C-3−0.0360.080−0.032−0.4470.6550.4482.233
X/DD-10.0390.0840.0340.4670.6410.4532.207
D-2 *0.1660.0810.1422.0590.0410.4942.026
D-30.0660.0900.0590.7340.4630.3702.702
X/EE-10.1550.0800.1421.9440.0530.4412.268
E-20.0190.0820.0160.2280.8200.4542.204
E-30.1080.0850.0961.2640.2080.4122.426
Y-3 (Constant)−0.5080.337 −1.5090.136
X/AA-1−0.0100.095−0.010−0.1000.9200.4322.315
A-2 *0.1840.0720.2222.5380.0140.6081.644
A-3−0.0100.086−0.012−0.1180.9070.4322.313
X/BB-1−0.0320.085−0.037−0.3790.7060.4962.016
B-2 **0.2450.0840.2842.9050.0050.4872.054
B-30.1190.0860.1381.3900.1700.4742.109
X/CC-10.1340.0770.1591.7450.0860.5601.787
C-20.0690.0880.0810.7800.4380.4342.303
C-3−0.0080.087−0.010−0.0920.9270.3702.706
X/DD-1−0.0600.094−0.074−0.6390.5250.3422.926
D-2 ***0.3630.0960.4433.7740.0000.3372.964
D-3−0.0410.092−0.050−0.4520.6530.3842.601
X/EE-10.0090.0850.0110.1050.9170.4082.454
E-20.1290.0780.1691.6580.1020.4452.246
E-30.0530.0930.0700.5700.5710.3103.230
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhao, X.; Park, E.-s.; Zhao, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, S.-Y.; Lee, H. Evaluation of Differences in the Motivations of Elderly People to Use Senior Citizen Centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, Based on Old-Age Service Systems. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063292

AMA Style

Zhao X, Park E-s, Zhao J, Kim J, Lee S-Y, Lee H. Evaluation of Differences in the Motivations of Elderly People to Use Senior Citizen Centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, Based on Old-Age Service Systems. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(6):3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhao, Xiaolong, Eun-soo Park, Jinghao Zhao, Jieun Kim, Sang-Yup Lee, and Heangwoo Lee. 2025. "Evaluation of Differences in the Motivations of Elderly People to Use Senior Citizen Centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, Based on Old-Age Service Systems" Applied Sciences 15, no. 6: 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063292

APA Style

Zhao, X., Park, E.-s., Zhao, J., Kim, J., Lee, S.-Y., & Lee, H. (2025). Evaluation of Differences in the Motivations of Elderly People to Use Senior Citizen Centers in Yeongdo-gu, Busan, Based on Old-Age Service Systems. Applied Sciences, 15(6), 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop