User and Expert Perspectives on Designs for Converting Existing New Zealand
Houses to Make Them Suitable for Ageing in Place
Fatemeh Yavari, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Brenda Vale, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
The Asian Conference on Aging & Gerontology 2017
Official Conference Proceedings
Abstract
Personal factors and the limited housing choices for older people have produced a
demand for ageing in place. Given the slow rate of adding new houses to the existing
stock in New Zealand (Statistics New Zealand, 2013), it is essential to find effective
design solutions for redeveloping the latter to achieve quality of life, wellbeing and
independence for the elderly. This paper reports on the preferences of older New
Zealanders for a number of such designs as well as comments from experts in the
field. Two New Zealand housing types were investigated (early 20th century villas
with a central corridor and 1940-60s single storey state houses). Two houses of each
type were redesigned with different degrees of shared space. To meet the needs of the
ageing population, New Zealand Lifemark standards were incorporated. The designs
were presented to a group of design professionals and researchers into ageing for
comments on their suitability. The same floor plans were examined by older New
Zealanders through an online questionnaire survey. Findings from this study show
people were least interested in schemes with shared living room, dining area and
kitchen. The key design aspects identified by experts were having a good sized
dwelling, good sized deck with easy access, (sunny) outdoor deck or verandah, sunny
rooms, multi-purpose spaces, storage, spare room for short term guest, and
accessible/lifetime design features.
Keywords: Housing alternatives, ageing in place, design solutions, typical New
Zealand houses, existing housing stock.
iafor
The International Academic Forum
www.iafor.org
Introduction
Provision of appropriate housing that meets the needs of seniors can make ageing in
place viable. The decision of whether to modify or move house is dependent on a
variety of factors including older people’s health and physical situation, and their
preferences and needs. However, they should be well informed before entering this
stage.
While in 2013, 49.8% of New Zealanders owned or partly owned their dwelling, the
average for the 65+ age group was 74% (Statistics New Zealand, 2015b). In addition,
Statistics New Zealand (2017) suggest that in 2013, more than 70% (70.1%) of New
Zealanders aged 65+ lived in dwellings with six or more rooms. Based on the
Statistics New Zealand room standard (2014) a kitchen, living room and dining room
are counted separately even if combined, so a six room dwelling is the standard three
bedroom house. Additionally, in 2013 Statistics New Zealand (2015a) found
approximately 30% of people aged 65+ in private dwellings were one-person
households, and 50% of this age group were couple-only householders, meaning 80%
of people aged 65+ either lived with their partner or alone. This implies that an ageing
population could mean fewer people in each dwelling, a phenomenon that could be
unsustainable in the future in terms of housing resources. Given the relationship
between these two factors, the likelihood rises of having under-used dwellings in the
future. This suggests more attention might be given to achieving more efficient
dwellings in terms of housing resources.
The ageing population of New Zealand and the slow rate (around 1% per annum) of
adding new dwellings to the New Zealand housing stock (Statistics New Zealand
1998, 2006, 2008, 2013a) coupled with the data above, reveals a mismatch between
small older person households and existing housing. Even if people wish to move
from a house that is too large to something more suitable, the latter is generally not
available in their communities (Davey et al., 2004). Given this lack of appropriate
housing more older people are likely to remain in their family home in the future,
leading to the need to ensure these houses are properly insulated and heated, have
easy access, are safe, and are affordable in terms of heating and maintenance (Davey,
2006). McChesney and Amitrano (2006) identified a number of benefits associated
with retrofitting New Zealand houses including financial benefits through reducing
energy costs and public and private health benefits through improved health and
comfort.
Case study selection
Two New Zealand housing types were investigated for this paper (early 20th century
villas and 1940-60s single storey state houses). Villas (1880-1920) are generally
planned with a central corridor with rooms to each side (Shaw, 1991).
“Typical villa features include bay windows and verandas facing the street, sloping
hip roof and timber weatherboard cladding” (BRANZ, 2016). BRANZ (2016) also
state “villas were the most popular new home design in New Zealand from the 1880s
through to World War 1”. According to Page and Fung (2008b), villas formed 5.3%
of the New Zealand housing stock in 2006. The most significant point about villas is
that they were built almost entirely of timber (BRANZ, 2016). One storey villas are
more common, although a significant proportion in more wealthy suburbs have two
storeys (BRANZ, 2016). State housing (1940s-1960s) has served many types of
families, including seniors (Firth, 1949). The layout of state houses varies. Typically
they were oriented so as many rooms as possible received some sun. They also had
recessed porches and were efficiently planned so there was minimal circulation space
and service areas were grouped (BRANZ, 2016). Living rooms as the centre of family
life tended to be larger and used most (Firth, 1949). Most state houses were “fairly
small, with a roof pitch of about 30˚, and small casement windows” (BRANZ, 2016).
Design considerations
According to De Jonge et al. (2006) home modification for the 65+ age group means
“conversions and adaptations to the permanent physical features of the home
environment in order to reduce the demands from the physical environment and as a
result, make tasks easier, reduce accidents and support independence”. Statistics New
Zealand (2013b) suggest there is an increasing demand for communal dwellings
driven by the ageing population. Communal residential buildings such as co-housing
have the capacity of attracting older people as they can provide assistance and
companionship. Evidence from the UK DWELL project indicates that outdoor spaces
can be shared particularly where they provide shared activities such as a barbecue
(Park et al., 2016). In Australia, Judd et al. (2014) found that unlike other movers,
older people who downsized are more likely to move into a form of multi-unit
housing than a separate house.
Since the present study is conducted in New Zealand, the redesigned case studies
dwellings must comply with NZ standards. The only available standard for housing
for the 65+ is the private Lifemark Design standards (LM). This provides a star rating
and points system within which every ‘lifemark‘ home has to meet the requirements
specified in one of three categories, including a 3-star lifemark home being fully
adaptable in the future at minimal cost and a 5-star lifemark being fully accessible
(Lifetime Design Limited, 2012). Many countries have similar standards, including
the UK Lifetime Homes (LTH) and USA Universal Design (UD). In an investigation
of infill development for older Australians using a collaborative design process,
Baldwin et al. (2012) found universal and accessible design was important for the
elderly. Specifics include “well-maintained safe walkways, outdoor environments
including outdoor private space (patios and balconies), passive and active
environmental features in the home, diverse housing options, places to meet, and
access to services” (Baldwin et al., 2012, p.4). Additionally, Sutherland and Tarbatt
(2016) investigated the design attributes of mainstream housing which had attracted
downsizers. Although this housing development was not advertised for older people
the application of lifetime home standards was one of the main reasons for their
interest in it.
Given the aim of this research is to see whether converting existing houses to make
them more suitable for an ageing population is both possible and desirable, it was
decided to aim for compliance with 3-star LM. However, to ensure 3-star LM covers
everything required it was first compared with two widely known international
standards, the UK Life Time Homes (LTH) and the USA Universal Design (UD).
Both aim to make houses usable for a wide range of occupants. Although LTH does
not provide a fully accessible guide for dwellings, meeting this standard ensures
houses are usable and adaptable. This is similar to LM 3-star.
Using the LM 3-star standard a villa and smaller state house were redesigned with
different degrees of shared space. Three designs were produced for each house,
ranging from subdivision (conversion to two smaller units), to having some shared
spaces such as a guest bedroom, to private en-suite bedsitting rooms and all living
spaces shared. Based on these scenarios schemes B and C provided separate units
with a shared entrance for both villa and state house respectively (Figure 1), scheme
D converted the villa into separate units with shared entrance, guest suite and
study/sitting room (Figure 2), and schemes E and F provided private bedsitting rooms,
with shared living spaces, guestroom/study for both villa and state house respectively
(Figure 3). A detailed plan of each scheme was prepared for the pilot survey. This
involved people aged 55+ and experts in the field of housing older people. Following
feedback a simplified version of the floor plans was prepared for the main survey. The
pilot survey process and changes made to the floor plans is beyond the scope of this
paper. This paper only presents the final, simplified plans.
Figure 1: Top: Scheme B; Bottom: scheme C: separate units with shared hall/entrance
Figure 2: Scheme D: separate units with some shared spaces
Figure 3: Top: Scheme E; Bottom: scheme F: private bedsitting room, with shared
living spaces
Scheme A investigates sharing outdoor areas, regardless of interior design. It has three
options for converting a section (house plot) (Figure 4). The lettering of the schemes
is based on the order they appear in the survey.
Figure 4: Scheme A - Subdivision of outdoor space and section (house plot)
The Survey
There has been considerable research into integrating older users into the design
process. Baldwin et al. (2012, p.4) used participatory methods in an investigation of
the preferences of older Australians in South East Queensland. They first identified
“supportive mechanisms and challenges” for older users in both the neighbourhood
and dwelling using the photovoice method and then used charrettes to involve seniors
in the design process. In the UK University of Sheffield DWELL project, the research
team worked with a range of stakeholders and local residents on what made a good
downsizer home (Park et al., 2016). In an investigation of downsizing in Australia,
Judd et al. (2014) collected data from a national questionnaire based survey, in-depth
interviews, and through policy forums. The questionnaire, which was distributed
through a magazine for seniors was answered by 2767 older people who had moved
since turning 50. The survey was followed by in-depth interviews with 60 survey
respondents from three Australian states (Judd et al., 2014).
Since a survey has worked in other research on housing and older people, as part of a
PhD study on a resource assessment of housing alternatives for the ageing population
in New Zealand, an online survey using Qualtrics (2017) was conducted from 12th of
May 2017 and is still underway. The aim is to obtain comments on a number of the
proposed conversion options, particularly what people think about sharing rooms and
other spaces. To limit the scope, the questionnaire targets people aged 55-85, as
research suggests this is the age when people consider moving from their family home
(Park et al., 2016). In another study on downsizing in Australia, Judd et al. (2014)
included people of 50 in a pre-retirement course on making decisions about their
future housing. The survey is anonymous and a snowballing recruitment method is
being used involving a number of national and local authorities and organizations.
These include the University of the Third Age, Age Concern New Zealand, Grey
Power Federation, Wellington City Council (Neighbourhood Development Centre),
Senior Net, and Friendship New Zealand Inc. The survey was designed to address the
following questions:
•
•
•
•
Do people like the idea of shared living spaces?
Which type of shared living arrangement is most preferred?
Which outdoor arrangements are most preferred?
What features of their house would people like to share and with what age
group?
Do the schemes specified in the study meet their requirements?
What features might influence their perception of sharing their houses?
•
•
The first pilot survey was conducted from 7th of April 2017 to 20th of April 2017. The
participants were people aged 55+ and experts either in the field of ageing from New
Zealand and overseas or construction/design professionals. Three people aged 55+,
five researchers into ageing, five design experts and two people expert in both areas
took part (Table 1). The researcher sat with four researchers and two people aged 55+
whilst they filled out the survey to witness any problems they had and where the
questionnaire had to be explained more fully. The experts in this case only went
through the fourth part of the questionnaire where they provided comments on the
survey. Revisions were made as a result of the first pilot survey and a second pilot
conducted. Only the results from the first pilot and main survey to date are reported in
this paper. The characteristics of the experts are given in table 2.
Experts
55+
Pilot1
Invitations sent
Online survey
participation
(full)
13
8
8
1
Survey filled
out with
researcher
(partial)
4
2
Age group (excluding partial
responses)
65-74
75-84
85+
Under
65
3
2
0
7
1
0
0
2
Table 1: First pilot study participants
Gender
Age group
Household type
Ethnicity
Female
Male
65-74
75-84
85+
Other
One person household
Couple only household
Other
European/Pakeha
Other
Pilot survey 1 sample
Frequency
Percentage
4
50
4
50
3
37.5
2
25
0
0
3
37.5
2
25
6
75
0
0
8
100
0
0
Table 2: Characteristics of expert respondents who completed pilot survey 1
Following revisions, the main survey commenced and still is ongoing. The analysis
presented here was based on the 110 completed surveys up to 26th of May 2017. Table
3 gives the characteristics of successful respondents in the main survey to date.
Gender
Age group
Current
type
household
Ethnicity
Female
Male
55-64
65-74
75-85
One person household
Couple only household
Other
European/Pakeha
Other
Samples in this study
Frequency
Percentage
83
78.3
23
21.7
23
21.7
54
50.9
29
27.4
40
37.7
48
45.3
18
17
101
95.3
5
4.7
Table 3: Characteristics of 55+ respondents in the main survey to date
Participants were asked to comment on the proposed schemes A-F, even if they had
not yet thought about moving or downsizing. The first part of the questionnaire asked
for background information and the second part about the current housing situation of
each participant. Part three presented the schemes and asked for participants’
preferences regarding the degree of sharing of spaces. They were required to assume
that they would only be sharing a house with people they wanted to live near or with.
To evaluate the preferences of experts and people aged 55+ aged data from pilot
survey 1 and the main survey to date were collated. To conduct further analysis, the
following were taken into account:
• Only comments from the 8 experts who successfully completed the first online
pilot survey were analysed for this paper.
• The analysis included the data provided by the 55+ participants in the main
survey (n=110)
• Results from the second pilot survey were excluded.
Results
Approximately half of those aged 55+ who successfully completed the online survey
(48.1%) stated they had thought about moving when they get older whereas 11.3%
plan never to move. Only 18.9% have already moved with 21.7% intending to move.
Excluding those who have already moved and who plan never to relocate,
approximately 70% of respondents in the main survey could be considered potential
users of the types of converted houses proposed in this study.
The results were compared for differences in age group and gender. For each data set,
several independent sample t tests were performed in SPSS to see if differences in
various rating scales are statistically significant by gender. In addition, several
ANOVA one-way tests were performed to see if differences in rankings are
statistically significant by age group. Where a significant difference emerged in the
ANOVA one-way tests, a further post-hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey’s HSD
test was performed to look at possible significances between subcategories of each
group. Other potentially influential parameters such as current housing situation,
household type, and ethnicity were not investigated here. As this work is on-going the
results are indicative and not finalised.
Scheme A – subdivision of outdoor space and section (house plot)
Respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1-5 (1- Not at all, 3- Neutral and 5- Very
much) two ideas about shared outdoor areas (Figure 4). Scheme A-1 shared outdoor
areas including parking spaces, garden, and BBQ. Scheme A-3 subdivided the lot
with separate outdoor spaces (including parking) and shared driveway. Table 4
presents mean scores of participants based on age group and gender. From the
ANOVA one-way tests, no statistical difference was seen by age group for schemes
A-1 and A-3 (F(2,98) = 0.318, p = 0.728 and F(2,98) = 0.354, p = 0.703). The results of
the independent samples t test show that means in schemes A-1 and A-3 are not
statistically different by gender (t(99) = -0.734, p = 0.465 and t(99) = 0.397, p = 0.692).
Overall respondents liked the idea of subdivision (Figure 4: scheme A-3) more than
shared outdoor spaces (Figure 4: scheme A-1) with means of 3.36 and 2.34
respectively.
Age
group
Gender
55-64
65-74
75-85
Female
Male
Total
Mean
2.35
2.24
2.5
2.28
2.52
2.34
Scheme A-1
N
Std. Deviation
23
1.301
50
1.393
28
1.427
78
1.385
23
1.344
101
1.373
Mean
3.43
3.42
3.18
3.38
3.26
3.36
Scheme A-3
N
Std. Deviation
23
1.273
50
1.311
28
1.362
78
1.341
23
1.214
101
1.308
Table 4: Mean and Standard Deviation of ratings by participants on sharing outdoor
areas by age group and gender
Schemes B and C – separate units with shared hall/entrance for large and small
houses
Table 5 presents means for conversions of the original house into two separate units
with shared hall/entrance for different size dwellings (Figure 1). The results of the
ANOVA one-way tests show that regardless of the size of the dwellings, means for
both schemes are not statistically different by age group (F(2,94) = 1.471, p = 0.235 and
F(2,92) = 0.874, p = 0.421). Similarly, the independent samples t test did not show a
significant difference by gender for both schemes (t(95) = 0.834, p = 0.406 and t(93) = 0.350, p = 0.727).
Age group
Gender
Total
55-64
65-74
75-85
Female
Male
Mean
2.36
2.67
2.26
2.53
2.32
2.48
N
22
48
27
75
22
97
Scheme B
Std. Deviation
1.093
1.078
0.984
1.082
0.995
1.062
Mean
2.45
2.51
2.15
2.38
2.48
2.40
N
22
47
26
74
21
95
Scheme C
Std. Deviation
1.184
1.196
0.925
1.107
1.209
1.124
Table 5: Mean and Standard Deviation of ratings by participants on sharing an
entrance to a separate unit by age group and gender
The mean ratings for the smaller house are only slightly less than for the larger house
(difference 0.08) suggesting that size is not the only thing people find important.
Scheme D – separate units with some shared spaces
In scheme D, the original house is converted into two separate units with shared guest
room, extra sitting area and corridor (Figure 2). To see if means are statistically
significant by age group an ANOVA one‐way test was performed in SPSS and
showed a significant difference by age group for both the idea of sharing an entrance
and guest suite and the idea of having a live-in carer occupying the shared guest suite
at 0.05 level (F(2,92) = 3.239, p = 0.044 and F(2,92) = 3.448, p = 0.036). To look at
significance between age groups a post‐hoc multiple comparisons using Tukey’s
HSD test was performed for these two ideas. The results show the mean of age group
65-74 is considerably higher than age group 75-85 (M=0.723, SD=0.287) but not
different from age group 55-64. This suggests that participants aged 65-74 had a
stronger preference for sharing an entrance and guest suite than the older cohort, who
might be expected to be attracted by the idea of having a live-in carer. The post‐hoc
test for having a live-in carer did not show a significant difference by age group
(Table 6).
Scheme D-1: sharing an
entrance and a guest suite
Age
group
Gender
Total
55-64
Mean
2.55
N
22
Std.
Deviation
1.143
Scheme D-2: having a livein carer occupy the shared
guest suite
Std.
Mean
N
Deviation
2.59
22 1.182
Scheme D-3: having a
lodger occupy the shared
guest suite for extra income
Std.
Mean
N
Deviation
2.5
22
1.263
65-74
2.91
47
1.231
3.19
47
1.135
2.68
47
1.416
75-85
2.19
26
1.096
2.5
26
1.364
2.08
26
1.412
Female
2.69
74
1.238
2.96
74
1.276
2.65
74
1.418
Male
2.43
21
1.076
2.52
21
1.078
1.86
21
1.108
2.63
95
1.203
2.86
95
1.243
2.47
95
1.39
Table 6: Mean and Standard Deviation of ratings by participants on the idea of shared
spaces by age group and gender
In addition, an independent sample t test was performed to see if the means differed
significantly by gender. The results show that the mean for having a lodger for extra
income is just statistically significant by gender at 0.05 level (t(93) = 2.358, p = 0.020),
with females being more attracted to this idea than males (Table 6).
Schemes E and F – private bedsitting rooms, with shared living spaces for large
and small houses
The results of the independent samples t test showed that means for features of both
schemes E and F are not statistically different by gender. The ANOVA one-way tests
in SPSS also showed no statistical difference by age group for features of schemes E
and F.
55-64
65-74
75-85
Female
Male
Total
Scheme E-1: sharing
kitchen and living areas/
private bed-sitting room
and en-suite bathroom
for large house
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
Scheme E-2: shared
deck for a large house
Mean
N
1.86
1.83
1.27
1.74
1.48
1.68
2.14
2.11
1.85
2.05
2
2.04
21
47
26
73
21
94
21
47
26
73
21
94
1.062
1.148
0.533
1.068
0.814
1.018
Std.
Deviation
1.014
0.961
1.084
1.039
0.894
1.004
Scheme F-1: sharing
kitchen and living areas/
private bed-sitting room
and en-suite bathroom
for a small house
Mean
N
Std.
Deviation
1.86
21
1.014
1.91
47
1.176
1.52
25
0.714
1.87
72
1.1
1.52
21
0.75
1.8
93
1.038
Scheme F-2: shared
deck for a small house
Mean
N
2.29
2.19
2.12
2.17
2.29
2.19
21
47
25
72
21
93
Std.
Deviation
1.146
0.97
1.201
1.113
0.902
1.066
Table 7: Mean and Standard Deviation of ratings by participants on shared spaces by
age group and gender
As can be seen in Table 7, regardless of the size of the original dwellings, the low
average ratings given to the idea of shared living areas of less than 2, suggest that this
idea was not appealing to many participants. Sharing a deck in either house was rated
marginally better, but still well below the 3.0 neutral position.
Discussion
Figure 5 summarises how participants felt about sharing features in the proposed
schemes (the scheme lettering relates to Tables 4-7).
Figure 5: Mean scores for conversion options based on Tables 4-7
Given a mean of 3 is neutral, only sharing a driveway in scheme A-3 is viewed
positively. All other mean figures are less than 3 suggesting the participants aged 55+
are not willing to share spaces and features within their dwellings. The only other
scenario that is attractive to some (mean 2.86) is the idea of having a live-in carer
occupying the shared guest suite, and perhaps sharing an entrance and guest suite
(mean 2.63). The lowest mean scores were for both schemes with private bed-sitting
rooms and shared living space.
Design preferences from pilot surveys
As well as the quantitative analysis above the comments on both pilot surveys were
also useful in knowing what people did and did not like about the schemes. Table 8
summarises the comments from experts. Features that are both liked and disliked are
in bold.
Dwelling type
Most commonly liked features
Most commonly disliked features
Schemes B and C: separate units with shared entrance/corridor
Villa
•Adequate distance between living rooms
•No sun for kitchen/dining room
and bedrooms between two separate units so
•Access to deck through bedroom
noise is not an issue
•Lack of storage space
•Different sized units to suit different
•Having only one bedroom
needs/budgets
•Separate living and kitchen/dining
•Outdoor deck or verandah
•Laundry cupboard in the kitchen
•Getting sun into both units and outdoor
spaces
•Multi-purpose spaces
•Small bays/nooks within living rooms
•Good size of rooms in original villa
•Privacy but the chance to meet your
neighbour at the entrance.
•Study/work space in dining room
•Independent units
•Separate living and kitchen/dining
State house
•Sunny decks
•Bathroom and toilet next to the front door
•Good sized deck off both living areas
•Lack of storage.
•Separate decks
•Potential acoustic problem
•Getting sun into both units
•Small units/bedsits/bedrooms
•Study area
•High degree of integration of
•Open plan living, kitchen and dining
living/dining/kitchen
•Sunny living areas
•Laundry cupboard in the kitchen
•Spare bedroom
•Ability to use 2nd unit for boarder or carer
•Accessible/lifetime design features
Scheme D: separate units with shared entrance, guest suite and study/sitting room
Villa
•Additional shared space
•Small deck area
•Potential accommodation for carer if •Dark shared corridor
required
•Shared sitting area
•Separate laundry
•Sharing spaces
•Good solar access
•Good amount of outdoor space provision
•The idea of a mixture of independent and
communal living
•Separate independent entrance
Schemes E and F: shared living spaces/guest room and private bed-sitting rooms
Villa
•Not being open plan
•The bed-sitting rooms are really only
•Separate storage areas
bedrooms, not suitable for other functions
•Being spacious
such sitting
•Private bathrooms and also one shared
•Access to the storage for unit 2 from guest
room
•Two living rooms
•No private outdoor space for one bedsit
•Storage shed
•Too much communal space
•Not a lot of private space for occupants.
State house
•Lifetime design
•The laundry in the kitchen
•Sunny shared living area and deck
•Bedsitters too small for a sitting function
•Lots of storage
•Very small unit is not adequate
•Having three bathrooms is too much
•Needs more outdoor space and storage
•Communal storage
•Outside access to storage shed
•Bedsit 1 does not get much sun
Scheme A: Subdivision of lot
•Private outdoor area but reduced in size
•The third unit could be rented or sold for
additional income or to cover the cost of the
upgrade of the existing building
•Good way to generate income from unused
land
Table 8: Summary of comments from experts in pilot survey
Below are preliminary lessons learnt for converting existing houses for an ageing
population:
•
•
•
•
When it comes to the smaller units, getting enough sun inside and having a
good sized sunny deck is important.
Open plan living, kitchen and dining areas are both liked and disliked.
Conversions should provide both so people have the choice.
Participants have varying preferences when it comes to sharing
accommodation and providing a variety of degrees of sharing would be ideal.
Given the concerns about the size of units and bedsits in the state house there
may be a minimum house size for successful conversion to smaller units.
Conclusion
The results of the surveys and comments from the pilot study could be useful for
designers when altering existing houses to make them more suitable for ageing in
place. Converting houses into smaller units that are easier to heat and meet Lifemark
Home standards seems like a good idea but is not be worth doing unless people want
to live in them. However, people are more positive about sharing outdoor space and
subdividing large plots.
The experts were more positive about the designs and liked specific features such as
sunny rooms and decks, multi-purpose spaces, a spare room for guests,
accessible/lifetime design features.
This work is still in progress and one intention is to hold focus groups with those aged
55+ to talk through the designs and gain greater understanding of what housing they
want and can afford and that will allow them to age in place with a good quality of
life.
References
Baldwin, C., Osborne, C., & Smith, P. (2012). Infill Development for Older
Australians in South East Queensland: An Analysis of the Preferences of Older
Australians in an Urban Environment: University of the Sunshine Coast: Brisbane,
Australia.
BRANZ (2016), Renovate – the technical resource for industry. Retrieved 5/7/2016
from http://www.renovate.org.nz
Davey, J. A. (2006). Housing. In J. Boston & J. A. Davey (Eds.), Implications of
population ageing: opportunities and risks. Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies,
Victoria University of Wellington.
Davey, J. A., de Joux, V., Nana, G., & Arcus, M. (2004). Accommodation options for
older people in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Report prepared for the Centre for Housing
Research, Aotearoa/New Zealand (CHRANZ). Wellington, New Zealand.
De Jonge, D., Ainsworth, E., & Tanner, B. (2006). Home Modifications Down Under.
In W. C. Mann & A. Helal. (Eds.), Promoting Independence for Older Persons with
Disabilities (pp. 155-168): IOS Press.
Firth, C. (1949). State Housing in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry
of Works.
Judd, B., Liu, E., Easthope, H., Davy, L., & Bridge, C. (2014). Downsizing amongst
older Australians AHURI Final Report No.214. Melbourne, Australia: Australian
housing and urban research institute.
Lifetime Design Limited. (2012). Lifemark Design Standards Handbook, Version 2.
Auckland, New Zealand: Lifetime Design Limited.
Mcchesney, I., & Amitrano, L. (2006). Sustainability Options for Retrofitting New
Zealand Houses–Energy. Report TE106/4 for Beacon Pathway Limited.
Page, I. C., & Fung, J. (2008b). Housing typologies–Current Stock Prevalence. Report
number EN6570/8 for Beacon Pathway Limited.
Park, A., Ziegler, F., & Wigglerworth, S. (2016). Designing with downsizers: The
next generation of ‘downsizer homes’ for an active third age. The University of
Sheffield, UK.
Qualtrics. (2017) The online service for questionnaire surveys (used under Victoria
University of Wellington account), Retrieved from http://www.qualtrics.com
Shaw, P. (1991). New Zealand architecture from Polynesian beginnings to 1990.
Hodder & Stoughton.
Statistics New Zealand (1998) Housing. New Zealand now. Wellington, New
Zealand.
Statistics New Zealand (2006). 2006 Census QuickStats about Housing, Revised 4
May 2007, 27 July 2007, and 31 March 2011, Table 27. Retrieved 3 June 2016, from
Statistics New Zealand. Available from www.stats.govt.nz.
Statistics New Zealand (2008). Housing indicators 2008. Updated 18 December 2012,
Table 19 & 19.1. Retrieved 3 June 2016, from Statistics New Zealand. Available from
www.stats.govt.nz.
Statistics New Zealand (2013a). 2013 Census totals by topic. Table 45. Retrieved 3
June 2016, from Statistics New Zealand. Available from http://www.stats.govt.nz.
Statistics New Zealand (2013b). How will New Zealand’s ageing population affect
the property market. Retrieved 15 May 2017, from
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_
projections/ageing-population-property-market.aspx.
Statistics New Zealand (2014). Statistical standard for number of rooms/bedrooms.
Retrieved 16 May 2017, from http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods/classifications-andstandards/classification-related-stats-standards/number-of-rooms-bedrooms.aspx
Statistics New Zealand (2015a). 2013 Census Quickstats about people aged 65 and
over. Retrieved 10 November 2015, from Statistics New Zealand
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summaryreports/
quickstats-65-plus.aspx.
Statistics New Zealand (2015b). 2013 Census Quickstats about people aged 65 and
over: Table 9, Retrieved 21 March 2017, from Statistics New Zealand
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summaryreports/quickstats-65-plus.aspx
Statistics New Zealand (2017). 2013 census of Population and Dwellings: Customised
data commissioned for Victoria University of Wellington. Wellington, New Zealand:
Statistics New Zealand.
Sutherland, J., & Tarbatt, J. (2016). The Design of Mainstream Housing for
Downsizers. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 30(2), 214-235.
Contact email: faeze.yavari@vuw.ac.nz