New Design Ideas

Vol.7, No.3, 2023, pp.535-556

A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING: A POSSIBLE

LIVING OPTION FOR ELDERLY AND YOUTH

Swara R. Nayak1, Shanta Pragyan Dash2*, Pragathi S. Amin1,

K.G. Priyashantha3
1
Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education,
Manipal, Karnataka, India
2
Centre for Socio-Architectural Studies, Manipal School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal
Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
3
Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Management and Finance, University
of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka

Abstract. The increasing preoccupation of individuals with their daily lives and jobs poses a challenge
in connecting with older generations. To address this issue, the concept of co-living arrangements can
serve as a strategy to instill concern for the elderly in the minds of younger members of society. This
study aims to explore the viability of intergenerational co-living as a housing preference for the elderly.
The research evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of cohousing from two perspectives: the
physical environment and social interactions. While mixed-age approaches aim to integrate different
generations for mutual support and assistance, the study suggests that planning and design strategies
should also consider the aging process of the elderly. It proposes that an intergenerational community
can be a viable alternative to age-specific care housing, care models, and private home living. The main
objective of this review is to understand how the design of a living space can influence the residents'
lifestyle, creating an environment that fosters various emotions and positively impacts the human mind
through supportive interactions and engaging activities for both the elderly and the youth, while
respecting individual privacy. The study explores different types of co-living arrangements, including
cohousing, home-sharing, and housing association-supported intergenerational living. Through analysis,
four major attributes are identified as key factors contributing to the feasibility of co-living and
intergenerational living in today's context: social support, social isolation, sense of community, and sense
of security. The research findings conclude with design recommendations based on these attributes and
opportunities, offering valuable insights for the successful implementation of co-living and
intergenerational living spaces that create a supportive and thriving environment for residents of all ages.

Keywords: Co-living community, residential environment, cohousing, health, well-being, space,

architecture, intergenerational experience.
*
Corresponding Author: Shanta Pragyan, Dash, Centre for Socio-Architectural Studies, Manipal
School of Architecture and Planning, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka,
India, Tel.: +91-8105831256, e-mail: dashshanta5@gmail.com

Received: 25 March 2023; Accepted: 5 August 2023; Published: 8 December 2023.

1. Introduction

Co-living concept is an initiative to develop a platform for older people and young
people to share experiences. The demographic changes brought about by the growing
aging population in India is creating increasing pressure on housing and social care

How to cite (APA):

Nayak, S.R., Dash, S.P., Amin, P.S., & Priyashantha, K.G. (2023). A review on intergenerational cohousing: A possible
living option for elderly and youth. New Design Ideas, 7(3), 535-556.

535
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

provision. Co-living can be broadly defined as an alternative housing model which seeks
to promote social contact through the living environment which could be achieved in
different ways. It could be on a small individual scale, where an older person is matched
with a younger person in order to provide support and companionship. It refers to a
housing arrangement where individuals or sometimes small groups live together in a
shared space. Co-living spaces are typically designed to provide private bedrooms or units
along with shared common areas. The primary focus of co-living is on creating a more
social and collaborative living environment (Carrere et al., 2020). It refers to a type of
intentional community where individuals or families live in private homes or units within
a larger shared property. As stated by Dash & Thilagam (2022), the key characteristic of
cohousing is the emphasis on creating a strong sense of community and shared resources
among residents. Typically, cohousing communities are designed to promote social
interaction and cooperation while also respecting individual privacy. “Intentional
communities” are formed when a group of people buy a site or an existing building
together and create a self-managed combination of private dwellings and communal
spaces, or when existing housing is adapted to allow for communal living. (Quinio &
Burgess, 2019).
Like India, many other developing countries in the world is witnessing the rapid
aging of its population. This is compounded by the relative lack of appropriate housing
options for later life and the fact that older people are particularly exposed to loneliness
and isolation. The transformation of urbanization, modernization, and globalization has
led to shifts in the economic framework, the deterioration of traditional societal values, a
decline in social cohesion, and the weakening of social institutions like the extended
family. The younger generation's traditional sense of duty and obligation towards the
older age is eroding. The older generation is caught between the decline in traditional
values on the one hand and the absence of an adequate social security system on the other.
Co-living has been proposed as one remedy to address loneliness and this lack of
diversity in available housing options, an alternate housing option that could address
concerns of loneliness and isolation in particular, as well as address vulnerability among
an increasing age group. (Quinio & Burgess, 2019). Recently, increasing numbers of
scholars are paying attention to older people's living needs, especially those related to
their housing environment and social lives. Due to the aging of the population and a
constant increase in life expectancy, ‘aging in place 'has emerged as a necessary and
valuable guiding strategy in addressing and meeting the needs of elderly people. Aging
in place is described as "continuing to live in the community with a degree of freedom
rather than residential care" (Davey et al., 2004). "cohousing" has gained significant
public attention and is viewed as a potential living alternative for those who want to age
in place (Wang & Pan, 2021). Change is family patterns, impact of the western cultures,
interpersonal relationships and change in the mindsets of young generations urge towards
the need to propose a co-living space to bring both youngsters and elderlies together
(Figure 1). There has been researches on the potential benefits of intergenerational co-
living spaces, which bring together individuals of different age groups in a shared living
environment. Such spaces may offer opportunities for mutual support, learning, and
socialization between individuals of different generations. As per Chitgopkar et al (2020),
Intergenerational co-living contributes to the emotional well-being of residents by
providing a supportive and diverse community. Older adults may experience a sense of
purpose and fulfillment through their interactions with younger residents, while younger
residents can benefit from the wisdom and life experiences of older adults. It fosters a

536
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

sense of community and mutual support. As stated by Dash & Thilagam (2022), older
residents can offer guidance, wisdom, and mentorship to younger residents, while
younger residents can provide technological expertise, assist with day-to-day tasks, or
offer a fresh perspective. Co-housing model is characterized by participatory design,
where residents actively engage in the planning and development of the community. It
combines private homes with shared facilities, emphasizing the importance of social
connections and community-oriented living. Residents in co-housing communities share
responsibilities and participate in decision-making processes, fostering a sense of
collective ownership and collaboration. Sustainability and environmental considerations
are often prioritized, and diverse age groups and backgrounds are welcomed, encouraging
intergenerational interactions and mutual support. Overall, co-housing offers a unique
living arrangement that promotes community, shared resources, and a sense of belonging
within a supportive and sustainable environment. However, concerns have also been
raised about potential conflicts and challenges in creating a cohesive community.

Figure 1. Depicts the attributes contributes towards the need of co-living spaces
(Source: Collated by Authors)

Past research on co-living spaces for both elderly and younger individuals suggests
that these spaces can offer benefits in terms of socialization, community building, and
access to support services. However, more research is needed to fully understand the
potential challenges and benefits of co-living spaces in different contexts and for different
populations.
This study investigates whether the intergenerational cohousing model (mixed-age
cohousing) can be a possible supportive living option for aging in place. The research
aims towards addressing the four major aspects related to the ageing of elderlies as
mentioned below:
a) Understanding the concept of aging in place in a cohousing environment: It could
provide knowledge not only for increasing the home-environment adaptation of
older residents but more importantly, the findings of this study can enrich the
meaning of ‘aging in place and provide more explanations for cohousing
community living (elderly and youth). A needs-based approach to aging
populations undervalues the worth of older people and their contributions to
society. Obviously, living longer is a positive thing, but people must ensure to live
stronger, with purpose, and with a sense of belonging. Intergenerational
cohousing and senior cohousing are the two types of cohousing that are most
closely associated with older people. This study focuses mainly on
intergenerational cohousing. When discussing older people’s needs and their
current living status, it is important to understand the term ‘aging in place’ (Wang
& Pan, 2021a). It is important to describe daily duties, environmental barriers,
functional limits, and housing preferences among residents, especially for older

537
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

persons, when discussing which sort of house design in a cohousing community

can result in a better and independent lifestyle. The older generation's everyday
activities and participation are greatly influenced by their home environment.
(Wang & Pan, 2021b)
b) Investigating the spatial program that supports the needs of all ages:
“Affordability” for instance, communal housing with private living units and
some shared spaces not only reduces the cost of living but also encourages social
interaction between residents. To be able (economically) to live in adequate
housing is an essential right of everyone, and affordability is also a tool for the
creation of a strong supportive community with mechanisms of mutual support
and self-help. And for instance, communal housing with private living units and
some shared spaces not only reduces the cost of living but also encourages social
interaction between residents an important element of home shares is that the
householder does not need or receive personal care or medical care from the home
sharer. Older householders benefit from an element of practical support and
companionship, enabling them to stay in their homes for as long as possible. For
householders, the primary aim of home-sharing is to improve well-being
(specifically mental health), reduce loneliness and isolation, and to receive
practical help with household tasks to maintain independence at home. For home
sharers, the primary aim is to provide access to affordable housing and better-
quality accommodation.
c) Developing a socially responsible environment: Architecturally the environment
should prevent social isolation and conflicts between generations and at the same
time promote a sense of community and encourage social interaction and to
accommodate services and facilities (both public and commercial) that are
required in the local neighborhood. In this way, development can act as a catalyst
in an area, whilst providing for its own residents in a financially sustainable way.
This will take different forms in each context. This works best when a
development connects into the social neighborhood first, which can be achieved
through a collaborative design process with local people. In this way, schemes can
benefit from local knowledge and gain local acceptance ensuring the viability of
services and facilities. (Epimakhova, 2016).
d) Addressing the attributes of Universal design: It is crucial that pathways and
spaces in the built environment have a universal character and be physically
accessible to every user with various physical, cognitive, and age-related abilities
and important attributes of a healthy community is designing compact, high-
density, mixed-use, and walkable environments. These features make the
environment physically accessible to everyone. Another dimension of
accessibility is that physical access of the built environment refers also to services
available at an acceptable distance that could be freely reachable by everyone. It
is crucial that pathways and spaces in the built environment have a universal
character and be physically accessible to every user with various physical,
cognitive, and age-related abilities. The principles of universal design are forward
to make the environment and other design products usable by everyone. universal
Design is also targeted on the prevention of errors and accidents. This feature
makes the environment safe for usage by everyone. The issue of protecting the
living environment from crime is another essential dimension of quality in the
built environment. Wood described the importance of a strong sense of

538
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

community and territorial identification to strengthen the behavior and attitudes

of residents to protect their community. One of the methods to increase the
responsibility for the built environment and evoke a protective attitude of
residents for their community is to make it adaptable which means an environment
that is able to respond to the individual needs of every user and to accommodate
future changes in these needs. (Epimakhova, 2016).
Based on the four aspects addressed above and the background study, the focus of the
research is towards addressing the following research questions:
How can intergenerational cohousing be a positive living option to support aging in
place for older people?
1. How architecture can play a role in improving the quality of lifestyle of the senior
aging population.
2. What are the effective strategies that can be applied to achieve it? How a common
platform can be created through design for developing intergenerational
relationships between a senior aging population with youth?
3. How built environment can contribute towards sharing knowledge and
experiences of both generations?

2. Methodology

2.1. Search
The literature review commences by conducting keyword searches on several
platforms such as Scopus, Wiley online library, Research Gate, Google Scholar, Elsevier,
Lens.org, and PubMed. Selected articles published between 2010 and 2022 are included
without any geographical limitations. The search was conducted focusing on exploring
the literature regarding the feasibility and benefits of intergenerational co-living as a
supportive living option for the elderly. To organize the retrieved articles, an advanced
search function is utilized, employing search keywords like “co-living”, “elderly”,
“youth”, and “intergenerational aspects”. The search results are then conducted using
two-phase process, involving the use of "OR" and "AND" operators to link two sets of
search outcomes. Finally, the findings are presented through narrative evidence. The
review intends to extract the various attributes of cohousing living and the detrimental
factors that influence the design of intergenerational cohousing for the youth and elderly
which is analyzed through VOS viewer analysis (Priyashantha et al., 2022) and findings.
The study involved 3 stages: Collection of data: finding of research papers through
various sites, Sorting of data and the research outcomes. Of the 48 articles identified, we
selected full-text 26 articles. 10 studies analyzed the impact of cohousing on the elderly.
Around 10 had a positive association with the co-housing concept. In addition, 10 studies
analyzed one or more psychosocial determinants of health (such as social support, sense
of community, and physical, emotional, and economic security), and most found a
positive association that could be used to study the spaces that need to be built for
cohousing community. Through these determinants, quality of life, well-being, and health
could be improved.
During the sorting process in excel, the number “0” “1” and “2” were used. Where
“0” refers to excluding the papers, “1” refers to including the paper, “2” refers to maybe
might be useful or not”.

539
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

2.2. Screening
The following information were extracted from each study: Authors, author id, title
of the paper, year, source title, issue, Doi links, affiliations, abstract, keywords, publisher,
language, document type, publication type, open access (yes or no), source, pdf (yes or
no). The authors used PRISMA-2020 model towards the screening of the papers for
review which is conducted for inclusion in the review, based on predefined inclusion and
exclusion criteria. This involves reviewing the titles and abstracts of all identified studies,
and then reviewing the full text of potentially relevant studies (Figure 2). The PRISMA
model (Shamseer et al., 2015) provides a structured and comprehensive framework for
reporting systematic literature review that ensure transparency and completeness in
reporting the review process, including the identification, screening, eligibility
assessment, and inclusion of studies. This comprehensive reporting enables the researcher
to evaluate the review's methodology and assess the validity of its findings. This model
helped to scrutinize the papers which are exclusively related to intergenerational aspects
and cohousing features and to review the past researches conducted addressing this issue
which is the focus of the paper.

Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 article selection process (Source: Authors)

When selecting papers for a systematic literature review on intergenerational

cohousing, several criteria are considered to ensure the relevance and quality of the
included studies. These criteria typically focus on the topic, study design, data sources,

540
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

and publication status. Firstly, the papers should specifically address intergenerational
cohousing, examining the social, environmental, and economic aspects of this housing
model. Studies that explore the benefits, challenges, design considerations, and outcomes
of intergenerational cohousing are particularly relevant. Secondly, the study design of the
papers should meet certain standards preferably primary research studies, such as
empirical studies, qualitative or quantitative research, case studies, or evaluations. This
ensures that the selected papers provide original data and insights into intergenerational
cohousing. Thirdly, the data sources used in the papers are to be reliable and credible.
Papers that utilize data from multiple sources, such as surveys, interviews, observations,
or architectural plans, can offer a more comprehensive understanding of intergenerational
cohousing. It is essential to include papers that draw on diverse perspectives, including
residents, professionals, and experts in relevant fields. Lastly, the papers to be published
or available in reputable academic journals, conference proceedings, or recognized
research databases. This criterion ensures that the included papers have undergone a peer-
review process, indicating a certain level of quality and validity. By applying these
criteria, the selection process aims to include studies that contribute to the existing
knowledge on intergenerational cohousing, offer reliable data and insights, and meet the
standards of academic rigor. This helps ensure that the systematic literature review
provides a comprehensive and reliable overview of the topic.

2.3. Search outcomes

This research focused at 48 studies conducted by 96 authors in 8 countries. They
have been published in 25 journals. There were 120 keywords and 490 references in total
(Table 1).

Table 1. Primary information of the selected articles (Source: Authors)

The computer program used to build and display this bibliometric networks is called
VOS viewer. The networks were built based on relationships between citations,
bibliographic coupling, co-citations, and co-authorship and included articles, researchers,
or individual publications. It provides text mining capabilities that can be used to create
and display co-occurrence networks of significant terms. From a body of scientific
literature (https://www.vosviewer.com/). In order to relativize the links between the
keywords and learn crucial information about the research field, the network visualization
must be normalized. So, the VOS Viewer constructs a network in a two-dimensional

541
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

space by default and uses the association strength normalization. The strongly linked
keywords are denoted by nodes in that area (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014).
The density visualization that results from the examination of keyword co-
occurrence is presented as a further analysis. It was employed to accomplish the study's
second goal, which was to identify the gaps in empirical research. According to the VOS
viewer documentation, the default color scheme for the item density visualization map's
keyword density at each place ranges from blue to green to red. The more objects are in
close proximity to a spot, the redder it is, and the heavier it is. The closer a point's color
is to blue, the fewer objects are nearby and the lighter the weights. Green indicates an
average item in a point (Priyashantha et al., 2022). Therefore, a VOS viewer was used to
analyze the final data abstracted from PRISMA 2020 methodology.

3. Results and findings

In our study, we utilized the minimal keyword occurrences feature of VOS viewer
software to identify the most commonly appearing terms across the included studies. This
feature allowed us to determine the frequency of keywords and select those that appeared
frequently enough to be considered significant (the 14 keywords mentioned in Table 2).
To accomplish this, we progressively increased the frequency of a keyword, starting from
one and continuing until we reached a threshold level that captured a broader range of
keywords. This process was carried out systematically, and the results were documented
in Table 2.

Table 2. Co-occurrences of keywords (Source: Authors)

At a minimum keyword occurrence of 1, we found 97 threshold keywords that met

our criteria. We chose this level because we believed it provided a sufficient
understanding of the study's focus areas, while still being considered for analysis and
interpretation. These 97 threshold keywords were significant in capturing the essence of
the studies included in our analysis. Among these threshold keywords, we identified 16

542
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

keywords that appeared most frequently. Figure 3 displays these 16 keywords, along with
their correlations, providing a visual representation of their relationships. Additionally,
Table 3 presents the frequency of these 16 keywords, illustrating their prominence across
the included studies. By employing the minimal keyword occurrences feature of VOS
viewer software, we were able to identify the most common and significant keywords in
the analyzed literature. This approach allowed us to gain insights into the focus areas and
recurring themes within the studies, providing a foundation for further analysis and
discussion.
Furthermore, to determine the number of keywords to be included in the map, we
initially selected 137 keywords. However, due to redundancy issues where some
keywords had similar meanings, we limited the final number of keywords to 100. To
make this selection, we considered the overall link strength of each keyword. Therefore,
we chose the 100 keywords with the highest link strength, ensuring that the most
influential and informative keywords were included in the map.

Table 3. Minimum keywords occurrence (Source: Authors)

3.1. VOS Viewer Analysis

Cluster formation in VOS viewer: The figure given above shows the relationship
between each node. The nodes in Figure 4 are in 5 clusters: RED, GREEN, BLUE,
YELLOW AND PURPLE. The keywords for each of these cluster are given in the Table
4.
Table 4. Keyword co-occurrences network visualization (Source: Authors)

The keywords are grouped in such a way that they represent the similar topics.
A. Red Cluster – Loneliness: Ageing - Ageing is always accompanied by a decline
in wellbeing, which leads to increased economic, health, and social insecurity
among the elderly (Rajkumari, 2021). The natural process of ageing has always
piqued the interest of the civilized world. The care of the elderly in society has
become one of the central topics of our modern welfare state. People who are 60

543
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

years of age or older are common in countries with huge populations, such as
India. In India, the number of people over 60 has tripled over the past 50 years
and is expected to continue growing (Akbar et al., 2014).
B. Green Cluster – Older people: Housing – The main goal of the housing
component of design was to provide a variety of options for residents with a
variety of needs. The year of cohousing project creation, country of cohousing
project, age target, and co-ownership tenure were cohousing project
characteristics. (Carrere et al., 2020). Senior cohousing communities - Senior
living communities come in all shapes and sizes, and are generally classified based
on the levels of care they provide. Some communities have an age restriction.
C. Blue Cluster – Co-living: Group living – Individuals' knowledge flows more
easily among themselves in mixed-age groups representing different perspectives,
skills, and skill levels, which can result in increased levels of knowledge. If the
social aspect was the dominant reason for people to choose a cohousing system,
then the benefits of mixed age groups and mutual support from different
generations were the main reasons why older people choose an intergenerational
cohousing. (Wang & Pan, 2021a).
Assisted living facilities - A home for older people or people with disabilities who
can live fairly independently but need some help with everyday tasks such as
preparing meals, bathing, and dressing.
D. Yellow Orange Cluster – Home care: Dwelling - Cohousing typically consists of
10- 15 individual dwellings and one common dwelling for sharing daily activities.
Living arrangements – Spaces like shared spaces- Public rooms, co-living homes
rooms, formal spaces, informal spaces.
E. Purple Cluster – Elderly care: Intergenerational – Intergenerational housing is a
progressive concept based on the idea that seniors should not be segregated from
other generations and that people of all ages benefit from connecting with one
another in daily life. The patterns of intergenerational living on a bigger scale in
many cultural contents can be found in a traditional village, where spatial and
social structures stimulate beneficial coexisting of all generations. (Epimakhova
2016). Homes - The place where one lives permanently, especially as a member
of a family or household.

Figure 3. Keyword classified into clusters (Source: Authors)

544
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

Figure 4. Keyword density visualization map (Source: Authors)

3.2. Areas where empirical research is lacking

The following section addresses the second objective of the study. Older people is
the most commonly used keyword in studies, as seen in Table 4, indicating that it has
been extensively researched. The density visualization map created by the VOS viewer
shows it in the node with the yellow background (Figure 4). According to the Vos viewer
manual, a node in the yellow background indicates sufficient research for established
knowledge. However, keyword nodes with a light green background indicate that there
has been less study on those keywords. Thus, all other keywords in Figure 3 are in the
green background, indicating insufficient research. The co-living, intergenerational
arrangements, group living, elderly care can be viewed as insufficient for established
knowledge.

3.3. Reporting bias assessment

The PRISMA guidelines required the assessment of biases due to missing the
results in reporting. No systematic assessment was performed for this task; however, we
followed systematic and objective software tools and PRISMA guidelines to avoid bias
in reporting the results.

4. Discussion

Based on the aforementioned analysis, we have identified four key attributes that
play a pivotal role in making the concept of co-living and intergenerational living not
only viable but also highly relevant in today's society (Figure 5).

545
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

Figure 5. Factors considered in research papers for the future design of co-living spaces
(Source: Authors)

4.1. Social support

Social support was assessed through 15 studies using a mixed methods design
including two with a comparison group, nine qualitative; (Glass, 2013; Glass & Vander
Plaats, 2013) emotional support such as having close friendships, listening or providing
support when someone had a personal problem; and recreational support, provided
through different social activities organized by residents themselves. (Bamford, 2005;
Epimakhova, 2016; Fromm, 2000; Labit, 2015; Pedersen, 2015; Philippsen, 2014;
Tchoukaleyska, 2011; Tyvimaa, 2011; Williams, 2005; Markle et al., 2015; Jolanki &
Vilkko, 2015).
From the studies, it is found that social support plays a crucial role in
intergenerational housing due to its positive impact on residents' well-being and quality
of life. It fosters a sense of belonging, connection, and mutual aid, addressing feelings of
isolation and loneliness. Intergenerational housing also facilitates the exchange of skills
and knowledge, promoting personal growth and enrichment. Through social support,
practical assistance can be provided to address age-related challenges, establishing a
reciprocal support system. Furthermore, social support enhances community engagement
and social integration, fostering a collective identity and shared purpose within the
intergenerational housing community. Overall, social support is indispensable for
creating a supportive and thriving environment in intergenerational housing.

4.2. Social isolation

The three studies that looked at social isolation found that cohousing residents were
less lonely using quantitative, mixed-methods, and qualitative techniques (Glass, 2013;
Glass & Vander Plaats, 2013; Tyvimaa, 2011). None of them included a comparison
group as part of the analysis. According to the 26-research focusing on the elderly
population, living an active lifestyle helped residents avoid social isolation and loneliness,
which are common issues for seniors. The architectural design of both indoor and outdoor
common areas improved social interaction and was also described as an effective method
of reducing social isolation, particularly among older residents who were ill and feeble.
Since privacy was regarded as being important, it was not always perceived as being
advantageous. (Carrere et al., 2020).
The presence of social isolation poses significant challenges within
intergenerational housing, emphasizing the necessity of social support. By addressing
social isolation, it is found that the intergenerational housing can cultivate a sense of

546
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

belonging, connection, and mutual aid among its residents. Feelings of loneliness
resulting from social isolation can have detrimental effects on the well-being and overall
quality of life of individuals in the community. Hence, the establishment of social support
systems within intergenerational housing becomes crucial in mitigating social isolation.
These systems facilitate opportunities for meaningful social interactions, emotional
support, and active participation in communal activities. Through the cultivation of social
connections and the reduction of isolation, intergenerational housing can foster a thriving
and inclusive environment for all its residents.

4.3. Sense of community

Four qualitative studies, six mixed-method studies—one of which included a
comparison group—and one research utilising quantitative methods all served as sources
of evidence. (Anon, 2019; Epimakhova, 2016; Fromm, 2000; Glass, 2013; Markle et al.,
2015; Jolanki & Vilkko, 2015). Numerous researches, both on senior and
intergenerational projects, demonstrated the positive effects of the cohousing concept on
participants' sense of community. Being a part of a cohousing community boosted one's
sense of belonging, but it might also be difficult and draining to keep up. The studies
documenting positive outcomes revealed some perceptions of community-building
pathways. For instance, according to two studies, people consciously picked the
cohousing model in search of a sense of community. Additionally, they described how
important it is for residents to be involved at all stages of the cohousing development
process as a critical source of community building, including participation in the initial
phases of co-ownership projects, self-management of common areas and facilities, and
day-to-day community and mutual support. (Carrere et al., 2020). Establishing a sense of
community is crucial in intergenerational housing, as it nurtures a supportive and united
atmosphere. Creating a strong community within intergenerational housing offers
numerous advantages. It fosters social connections, cooperation, and understanding
among residents of various age groups. The sense of community motivates residents to
participate in shared activities, develop friendships, and build a support network. It
amplifies feelings of belonging, safety, and collective identity. A robust sense of
community in intergenerational housing stimulates collaboration, communication, and
the exchange of knowledge and experiences across generations. This not only enhances
the residents' lives but also contributes to their overall well-being, forging a harmonious
and flourishing intergenerational living environment.

4.4. Sense of security

The effect of cohousing on a person's sense of security was looked at in 9 studies.
(Bamford, 2005; Fromm, 2000; Glass, 2013; Glass & Vander Plaats, 2013; Manjari,
1997; Pedersen, 2015; Tchoukaleyska, 2011; Tyvimaa, 2011; Jolanki & Vilkko, 2015).
They all claimed there was a beneficial link. Three qualitative research, one quantitative
study, and five mixed-methods studies were used to gather the evidence. Both senior and
intergenerational projects reported feeling more secure. According to the studies,
cohousing boosts inhabitants' sense of security by improving both their physical and
social environments. Additionally, it lessened the feeling of economic uncertainty among
locals. The physical characteristics that were emphasized were well-lit, open areas, secure
playgrounds, and a vibrant, welcoming neighborhood. Social ties and trust, communal
coping, and social support among neighbors were the social aspects that contributed to

547
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

feelings of secure. (Carrere et al., 2020). Ensuring a sense of security is essential in

intergenerational housing, as it establishes an environment that is safe and protected.
Developing a strong sense of security within intergenerational housing offers numerous
advantages. It provides residents with peace of mind and a sense of being protected. A
feeling of security fosters trust, reduces anxiety, and improves overall well-being. It
creates a supportive atmosphere where residents can freely interact, collaborate, and
participate in communal activities without fear or hesitation. By prioritizing security
measures and creating a secure environment, intergenerational housing guarantees the
safety and comfort of all residents. This sense of security contributes to a harmonious and
thriving intergenerational living setting, enabling individuals from different age groups
to thrive and flourish with confidence.
Furthermore, there were few related findings from the review which are
summarized below. These findings show some further opportunities and certain
limitations of bringing the co-living concept into practice for designers.
a. The support given to older homeowners by younger people renting a room in their
home: Older persons having spare rooms can rent or sublet the space for a low or no
rent in exchange for companionship and/or some assistance. matching systems that
take both parties' needs and preferences into account.
Benefits: Mutual and direct benefits to both parties - The tenant receives
reasonable accommodation, the homeowner receives some support they need, and
both sides gain from a new friendship that lessens feelings of loneliness and
isolation.
Limitations: Instead of directly benefiting the larger community or fostering a
sense of extended community family, these benefits are only available to specific
individuals. It may be difficult to discover matches for these because they may
not be suitable for many people's needs. It is challenging to carry out on a wider
scale. Early identification of an elderly person's need for assistance has been noted
as one of the major obstacles. (Rethinking Intergenerational Housing, n.d.).
b. Students given accommodation within specialist homes in exchange for supporting
older residents: In order to offer students some, help, existing care facilities offer low-
rent or free housing. Students engage with one another more often than is necessary.
Benefits: Students obtain accommodation that is affordable, and seniors gain
companionship and support. Students are assisted by trained care staff, allowing
them to get assistance if problems develop. While students can gain life
experience and skills, elderly individuals face less isolation and loneliness.
Limitations: Small numbers of young people mean the balance is heavily in favor
of support for older people, rather than providing significant assistance to
students. These tackle only specific groups of people and have limited wider
benefits for the community. Limited to students.
c. A community of private homes clustered around a shared space and community
facilities that is managed by the community: A number of recent housing
developments are constructed as communities within the individual, independent
residences, yet they are organized around certain shared space and services. They
promote more interpersonal connection and are independent. They frequently contain
a mixture of people from various generations. Can behave like extended families in
more prosperous places.
Benefits: Utilizing shared resources helps lower living expenses. Increased social
possibilities and informal assistance from neighbors lessen emotions of loneliness

548
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

and isolation. Residents' input on community decisions enhances the sense of

belonging, boosts self-worth, and strengthens connections.
Limitations: Despite the fact that living expenses have decreased, some low-
income individuals may still find them to be unaffordable. The availability of
support is constrained and voluntary; hence, some persons might not be able to
acquire it.

5. Recommendations

The analysis of intergenerational housing reveals four key aspects. Firstly, social
support, encompassing emotional and recreational support, plays a crucial role in
enhancing residents' well-being and quality of life. It fosters a sense of belonging,
connection, and mutual aid, addressing feelings of isolation and loneliness. Secondly,
social isolation poses challenges within intergenerational housing, emphasizing the
necessity of social support to cultivate a supportive environment. Thirdly, establishing a
strong sense of community is vital as it fosters social connections, cooperation, and
understanding among residents, enhancing overall well-being. Lastly, ensuring a sense of
security through improved physical and social environments contributes to residents'
peace of mind and trust, creating a harmonious and thriving intergenerational living
environment.
From the review it is also found that the future design recommendations for
inclusive co-living spaces that cater to both young and elderly individuals should
prioritize the unique needs and preferences of both age groups because it ensures a holistic
and accommodating living environment for all residents. By considering the distinct
requirements of each age group, designers can create spaces that promote well-being,
independence, and intergenerational harmony. From the review it is also found that
intergenerational and co-housing arrangements create opportunities for mutual support
and learning between older and younger residents. Younger individuals often value social
interaction, connectivity, and spaces that facilitate collaborative activities. They may
benefit from amenities such as communal areas for socializing, fitness facilities, and
recreational spaces. Designing spaces that cater to their preferences encourages
engagement and a sense of community. On the other hand, older individuals may have
specific needs related to accessibility, safety, and support. Considerations like mobility
aids, universal design principles, and easy access to healthcare services are essential to
ensure their comfort and well-being. Providing private spaces for relaxation and quiet
reflection can also be beneficial. The second aspect addressed in the past research
focusses on social isolation aspect which can be addressed by prioritizing the unique
needs and preferences of both age groups allows for a balanced and inclusive
environment. It acknowledges the importance of intergenerational interaction, where
residents can learn from one another, share experiences, and foster meaningful
relationships. By considering the diverse needs of both young and elderly individuals,
designers can create co-living spaces that promote social connection, autonomy, and a
sense of belonging for all residents, contributing to a thriving and harmonious
intergenerational community. In summary, intergenerational and co-housing
arrangements provide numerous benefits for both elderly and youth, including social
connection, mutual support, learning opportunities, health benefits, cost-sharing, and
enhanced community engagement. These models of living promote intergenerational
understanding, well-being, and a sense of belonging for residents of all ages. The

549
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

following design recommendations for co-living and intergenerational spaces are derived
from the literature review which could further be taken forward towards empirical
research:
a. Site selection: Site selection is crucial for intergenerational co-living because it
directly impacts the success and functionality of the community which is derived from
literature. The choice of location for an intergenerational co-living development
should consider several factors to ensure a supportive and inclusive environment for
residents of different age groups. Based on the above-analyzed research papers,
essential criteria for selecting a site for a multigenerational community were identified
(Figure 6):
i. Link to current infrastructure
ii. Walkability
iii. Connection to public transportation
iv. Mixed-use
v. Connection to nature
vi. Located in areas with local facilities, public transport, and amenities, to connect
with providing good social connectivity with society.

Figure 6. Designing intergenerational co-living: Site level Considerations (Source: Authors)

b. Spatial considerations:
i. Shared spaces: To accommodate activities and interactions, various sizes and
types of shared spaces should be used. To interact and also to participate in
different social activities, people whole live independently need shared spaces.
The way these places are designed will determine how they are utilized. Shared
gardens, public rooms, and breakout areas are the few. In order to promote ties
between residents and the community, a project must have necessary types of
shared space. Depending on the scale, the public room and common garden spaces
will function best when connected to, or able to accommodate, services and
facilities, whilst the breakout spaces must be casual, compact, and low
maintenance (Figure 7).

550
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

Figure 7. Shared Spaces (Source: Authors)

ii. Informal spaces: (For elderly) There should be access to healthcare services, daily
necessities (pharmacy, grocery stores, etc.), episodic services, public transit,
caregiving, and housekeeping. The list of available spaces should be made up of
areas for working at home, locations for socializing, places for hobbies and
physical activity, and areas for family get-togethers. For youth- spaces for leisure
like pool, relaxing spaces and exercising areas like gym, playground etc. can be
provided.
iii. Formal spaces: Spaces required for daily living like living room, bedroom,
washroom, kitchen, interactive spaces etc. has to be considered while designing.
iv. Universal spaces: In the built environment, spaces and paths should have a
universal character and be physically accessible to every user with various
physical, cognitive, and age-related abilities. The goals of universal design are to
ensure that everyone can use the environment and other design products. (Figure
9).
v. Flow of spaces: Designing spaces considering its uses and various activities
performed. Residents can better understand the areas of their influence on spaces
when there is a clear hierarchy of spaces with different levels of spatial definition
and access. (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Flow of Spaces (Source: Authors)

Figure 9. Connection between the spaces (Source: Authors)

551
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

c. Design Considerations:
i. Efficiency: It "involves compressing or compromise between functions" to
employ the least amount of space to meet inhabitant demands without wasting
or unusable space, or to produce single areas that can be used for multiple of
various purposes simultaneously or at different times (Domer et al., 2014, p.
162). Reduced circulation space, larger living rooms, and enhanced linkages
between them could produce modestly sized but well-designed homes at an
affordable price. (Epimakhova, 2016b).
The ability to use a space for many functions, such as a room that can be used
as both an office and a guest bedroom or a hallway that also doubles as a
closet, is another example.
Additionally, minimizing encourages future growth that is energy-efficient
because it lessens the resources required for construction, the energy
contained in those materials, the energy required to maintain and cool them,
and the setting's overall environmental impact. These reasons served as the
movement's impetus "The United States' Small House Society promotes the
building of small, energy-efficient homes to encourage sustainable living. A
project is a fascinating use of this principle "My Micro NY, which offered
flats with just 285 square feet of floor space. Everyone in the flats is set up
for daily use, including working, sleeping, eating, and other activities.
Moreover, it is suggested that the apartments are transformed during night
and during day in different layouts. The project is an innovative solution for
life in an urban, high-density environment. (Epimakhova, 2016).
ii. Adaptable:
This involves the space's capacity to accommodate a range of user
preferences and evolving habitation needs. In addition to being a response to
changing requirements over time, the built environment's ability to
accommodate a diverse population's needs is essential for fostering a sense of
ownership and control among residents as well as evoking a sense of
identification with a place. Creating a polyvalent space and designing an
open-neutral plan are the two strategies to make a place adaptable. According
to B. Leupen (2006, p.23), the nature of polyvalent space involves a
possibility to change functions and activities between rooms. That’s why the
spatial relationship of rooms between each other is very important.
(Epimakhova, 2016). Designing an open neutral plan, in which an architect
creates a generic empty space and offers future tenants the option to fill it out
anyway they choose, is another technique to make a space flexible to
changing demands. (Epimakhova, 2016).
iii. Externalization: Means the relocation of some functions from an individual
apartment to a shared community area or space. The concept of
externalization is expressed as communal living or home-sharing, when
residents share some common amenities including guest accommodations, a
laundry room, kitchen, and fitness center and have less personal or private
space. Because the size of a living unit is lower in this situation and the
expense of common spaces is shared by all residents of a community, the cost
of an apartment or renting is decreased. (Epimakhova, 2016).
The careful evaluation of these design criteria and potential solutions plays a crucial
role in identifying optimal sites for the intergenerational co-living community.

552
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

Additionally, this process aids in establishing comprehensive design guidelines and

enhancing the effectiveness of the design solutions employed.

6. Conclusion

This research looked at three different types of co-living: cohousing, home-sharing,

and housing association-supported intergenerational living, and identified a number of
common themes and outcomes. It sheds light on the wide range of benefits associated
with co-living, through both group-based structures, such as cohousing communities, and
individual intergenerational support. The benefits were often mutual and interrelated,
addressing issues such as loneliness and vulnerability among older people, and high
accommodation costs related to the scarcity of housing. Whether it allows them to stay in
their own home, share communal facilities or live in a cohousing community, co-living
models enable older people to receive support and companionship, make active choices
in their later life, be surrounded by younger generation with whom they can share
activities, or get some help on light tasks in daily life. From the review of literature, four
major attributes have been identified that contribute to making the concept of co-living
and intergenerational living feasible in today's context. Social support plays a crucial role
in intergenerational housing, fostering a sense of belonging, connection, and mutual aid.
It also facilitates the exchange of skills and knowledge, promoting personal growth and
enrichment. Addressing social isolation is essential in intergenerational housing to
mitigate feelings of loneliness and create a supportive environment. Establishing a sense
of community nurtures a supportive and united atmosphere, fostering social connections,
cooperation, and understanding among residents of different age groups. Ensuring a sense
of security within intergenerational housing establishes an environment that is safe and
protected, providing peace of mind and trust among residents. Based on the research,
future design recommendations for co-living spaces should prioritize the unique needs
and preferences of both young and elderly individuals to create a holistic and
accommodating living environment. Design considerations should include site selection,
spatial considerations (shared spaces, informal spaces, formal spaces, universal spaces),
and design principles like efficiency, adaptability, and externalization. By considering
these factors, co-living spaces can promote well-being, independence, and
intergenerational harmony, fostering a thriving and harmonious intergenerational
community.

References

Akbar, S., Tiwari, S.C., Tripathi, R.K., Kumar, A., & Pandey, N.M. (2014). Reasons for living
of elderly to in old age homes: An exploratory study. The International Journal of Indian
Psychology, 2(1), 56-61. doi: 10.25215/0201.029.
Andersson, E. K., Malmberg, B., & Clark, W. A. (2021). Neighbourhood context and young adult
mobility: A life course approach. Population, Space and Place, 27(3), e2405. doi:
10.1002/psp.2405.
Andrews, M. (2018). Imagining the'baffling geography'of age. Journal of Aging Studies, 47, 90-
95. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2018.03.003.
Anon (2019). https://www.matterarchitecture.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/442_Matter-
intergen-Nov19.pdf.
Ayalon, L. (2016). Profiles of loneliness in the caregiving unit. The Gerontologist, 56(2), 201-
214. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu046.

553
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

Bamford, G. (2005). Cohousing for older people: Housing innovation in the Netherlands and
Denmark. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 24(1), 44-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-
6612.2005.00065.x.
Bragstad, L. K., Kirkevold, M., Hofoss, D., & Foss, C. (2014). Informal caregivers' participation
when older adults in N orway are discharged from the hospital. Health & Social Care in
the Community, 22(2), 155-168. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12071.
Carney, G. M., Gray, M. (2015). Unmasking the ‘elderly mystique’: Why it is time to make the
personal political in ageing research. Journal of Aging Studies, 35, 123-134. doi:
10.1016/j.jaging.2015.08.007.
Carrere Balcells, J., Reyes, A., Oliveras, L., Fernández, A., Peralta Chiriboga, A. A., Novoa
Pardo, A. M., ... & Borrell i Thió, C. (2020). The effects of cohousing model on people's
health and wellbeing: a scoping review. Public Health Rev., 41(1), 22. doi:
10.1186/s40985-020-00138-1.
Chitgopkar, S., Dash, S.P., & Walimbe, S. (2020). Gated Community Living: A study of
contemporary residential development approach in Indian Cities. PalArch's Journal of
Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 17(9), 7437-7451.
Choi, J.-S., & Paulsson, J. (2011, December 30). Evaluation of Common Activity and Life in
Swedish Cohousing Units. International Journal of Human Ecology, 12(2), 133-146,
https://doi.org/10.6115/ljhe.2011.12.2.133
Copeman, I., Beech, L., Fox, S., Hastings, R., Porteus, J. (2019). Town Centre Living: A Caring
Place - Intergenerational Housing Case Studies. Retrieved September 6, 2022
https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/type/Town-Centre-Living-A-Caring-Place-
Intergenerational-housing-case-studies/
Cotterell, N., Buffel, T., & Phillipson, C. (2018). Preventing social isolation in older people.
Maturitas, 113, 80-84. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.04.014.
Cui, J., Cui, C., Ronald, R., Yu, S., & Mu, X. (2021). The dynamics of gender in the
intergenerational transmission of homeownership: A case study of young couples in
Shanghai. Population, Space and Place, 27(6), e2428. doi: 10.1002/psp.2428.
Dash, S.P., Thilagam, N.L. (2022). A Systematic Review on Inter-Relationship of Residential
Neighborhood Characteristics on Quality of Life of Elderly. Pertanika Journal of Social
Sciences & Humanities, 30(4).
Davey, J.A., de Joux, V., Nana, G., & Arcus, M. (2004). Accommodation options for older people
in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Christchurch: Centre for Housing Research.
Devani, P.D. (2012). The situation of oldaged people in the family: A sociological study. PhD
thesis.
Epimakhova, T. (2016). Designing for multigenerational community: Creating a supportive
environment for young and old in the USA (Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University).
Fromm, D. (2000). American cohousing: The first five years. Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 94-109.
Gillespie, B. J., Lei, L. (2021). Intergenerational solidarity, proximity to parents when moving to
independence, and returns to the parental home. Population, Space and Place, 27(2),
e2395. doi: 10.1002/psp.2395.
Glass, A. P. (2013). Lessons learned from a new elder cohousing community. Journal of Housing
for the Elderly, 27(4), 348-368. doi: 10.1080/02763893.2013.813426.
Glass, A.P. (2016). Resident-managed elder intentional neighborhoods: Do they promote social
resources for older adults?. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(7-8), 554-571. doi:
10.1080/01634372.2016.1246501.
Glass, A.P., & Vander Plaats, R. S. (2013). A conceptual model for aging better together
intentionally. Journal of Aging Studies, 27(4), 428-442. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2013.10.001.
Gupta, S. (2007). Policy and administration of oldage homes a study of select oldage homes in
India. PhD thesis.
Ho, K. H. M., Cheung, D. S. K., Lee, P. H., Lam, S. C., & Kwan, R. Y. C. (2022). Co‐living with
migrant domestic workers is associated with a lower level of loneliness among community‐

554
 S.R. NAYAK et al.: A REVIEW ON INTERGENERATIONAL COHOUSING…

dwelling older adults: A cross‐sectional study. Health & Social Care in the Community,
30(4), e1123-e1133. doi: 10.1111/hsc.13520.
Hwang, E., Parrott, K., & Brossoie, N. (2019). Research on housing for older adults: 2001 to
2018. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 47(3), 200-219. doi:
10.1111/fcsr.12295.
Jolanki, O., Vilkko, A. (2015). The meaning of a “sense of community” in a Finnish senior co-
housing community. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 29(1-2), 111-125.
Kalmijn, M. (2021). Long‐term trends in intergenerational proximity: Evidence from a grandchild
design. Population, Space and Place, 27(8), e2473. doi: 10.1002/psp.2473.
Kapur, R. (2018). Living of Elderly in Old Age Homes. In Quality of Life and the Associated
Factors of the Elderly Individuals, 92-105.
Kumari, L., Murthy, S. (2017). Elderly living in old age home and within family set-up. GJRA-
Global Journal for Research Analysis, 6(9), 39-41.
Labit, A. (2015). Self-managed co-housing in the context of an ageing population in Europe.
Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 32–45. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2015.1011425.
Lassen, A. J., Moreira, T. (2014). Unmaking old age: Political and cognitive formats of active
ageing. Journal of Aging Studies, 30, 33-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging.2014.03.004.
Le, Zhao. n.d. Oldage Home in the Community Service Role of Government and Market
Positioning Analysis. Journal of Social Work.
Livingstone, A. G., Fernández Rodríguez, L., & Rothers, A. (2020). “They just don't understand
us”: The role of felt understanding in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 119(3), 633. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000221.
Manjari, A.K. (1997). Housing Conditions of Old Age Homes in Hyderabad City (Doctoral
dissertation, ANGRAU HSCH: Family Resource Management).
Markle, E. A., Rodgers, R., Sanchez, W., & Ballou, M. (2015). Social support in the cohousing
model of community: a mixed-methods analysis. Community Development, 46(5), 616-
631.
Mole, L., Kent, B., Abbott, R., Wood, C., & Hickson, M. (2018). The nutritional care of people
living with dementia at home: A scoping review. Health & Social Care in the Community,
26(4), e485-e496. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12540.
Pedersen, M. (2015). Senior co-housing communities in Denmark. Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 29(1-2), 126-145. doi: 10.1080/02763893.2015.989770.
Philippsen, C. (2014). Soziale Netzwerke in gemeinschaftlichen Wohnprojekten: eine empirische
Analyse von Freundschaften und sozialer Unterstützung (p. 313). Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Quinio, V., Burgess, G. (2019). Is co-living a housing solution for vulnerable older people.
Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research: Cambridge, UK.
Rajan, S. I. (2002). Home away from home: A survey of old age homes and inmates in Kerala,
India. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 16(1-2), 125-150. Retrieved:
https://lens.org/101-080-332-017-12X.
Rajkumari, G. (2021). A Study of Elderly Living in Old Age Homes in Manipur, India. J.
Gerontol. Geriatr. Res., 10(4), 546.
Ramakrishna, N., Goel, A., Swarup, M., & Pandey, R. (2020). Co-living spaces as an affordable
rental housing option: A study of pune. Shelter, 21(1), 77-87.
Rishbeth, C., Birch, J. (2021). Urban nature and transnational lives. Population, Space and Place,
27(4), e2416. doi: 10.1002/psp.2416.
Rittirong, J., Prasartkul, P., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2014). From whom do older persons prefer
support? The case of rural Thailand. Journal of Aging Studies, 31, 171-181. doi:
10.1016/j.jaging.2014.10.002.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ... & Stewart, L. A.
(2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349.
Tchoukaleyska, R. (2011). Co-housing childhoods: parents’ mediation of urban risk through
participation in intentional communities. Children's Geographies, 9(2), 235-246.

555
 NEW DESIGN IDEAS, V.7, N.3, 2023

Tiwari, S. C., Pandey, N. M., & Singh, I. (2012). Mental health problems among inhabitants of
old age homes: A preliminary study. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(2), 144. doi:
10.4103/0019-5545.99533.
Tyvimaa, T. (2011). Social and physical environments in senior communities: The Finnish
experience. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 4(3), 197-209. doi:
10.1108/17538271111152997.
Van Winkle, Z. (2018). Family trajectories across time and space: Increasing complexity in family
life courses in Europe?. Demography, 55(1), 135-164.
Wang, J., & Pan, Y. (2021). Can Intergenerational Cohousing Be a Possible Living Option for
Aging-in-Place: Cohousing Case Studies in the UK (No. 6626), Easy Chair Preprint.
Wei, W., Munteanu, C., & Halvey, M. (2022, March). Partners in life and online search:
Investigating older couples’ collaborative information seeking. In Proceedings of the 2022
Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (pp. 47-55).
Williams, J. (2005). Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: The case of cohousing.
Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), 195-227. doi: 10.1080/13574800500086998.

556