Co-housing as a Sustainable Architecture to Support the City’s Particular Community

This paper discusses co-housing and its role as sustainable architecture to support various aspects of the life of communities and the environment. This research is important because the potential of co-housing settlements to improve the social and mental well-being of their residents has not been widely discussed. In addition, housing that uses sustainable technology tends to be very expensive, which, in the end, makes it more difficult for cultural communities to access settlements. For this reason, this study aims to demonstrate how the co-housing concept can address the issues mentioned earlier. To achieve this, a qualitative approach is employed, with the Miss Tjitjih (MT) community selected as the case study. The MT community was chosen because it has been living in co-housing concept housing for more than four decades. Open-ended questions were given to reveal opinions from the participant's side. The answers from the participants are then analyzed with the help of Nvivo. The results of the analysis are then grouped to obtain a code that explains the role of co-housing for this community. The resulting diagram reveals the role of co-housing as a settlement model that can answer various problems of cultural communities in the city.

Co-housing; Cultural community; Sustainable architecture

    The challenges that cultural communities have while trying to find accommodation in big cities are complex and intricately linked to political, socioeconomic, and cultural elements (Hunter et al., 2022). These difficulties are made worse by the dynamics of immigration, housing market circumstances, and urban planning regulations (Ahrens and Lyons, 2021). The growing cost of housing in urban regions, which disproportionately impacts minority groups, is one of the main obstacles (Lichter, Parisi, and Taquino, 2015). Furthermore, the issue of job-housing separation makes cultural communities' housing problems worse (Lu and Peng, 2020). Their study highlights how the spatial dynamics of cities can create a disconnect between affordable housing availability and job opportunities (Lu and Peng, 2020). Moreover, urban planning regulations in many cities often fail to address the specific needs of cultural communities, such as their subjectivity and values (Alfian, Setyabudi, and Santoso, 2022). According to Stepanova and Romanov (2021), social inclusion and a decrease in housing segregation are crucial elements of successful urban development (Stepanova and Romanov, 2021). Furthermore, social networks and community relationships frequently influence how cultural communities navigate the property market (Painter and Yu, 2010).

    This study employs a qualitative paradigm and a case study methodology (Figure 1) (Creswell, 2007). The Miss Tjitjih (MT) cultural group has been selected as the case study. Miss Tjitjih is the name of a community and, at the same time, a cultural group that has been living in Jakarta for four decades. The qualitative strategy was adopted to highlight the thoughts and feelings of MT members on the settlements that the government had made available to them (Agustini et al., 2023). Nothing at the research location is changed or interfered with by this method (Ndwandwe, 2024). This attempts to obtain the actual information at the site free from outside influence or encroachment (Ndwandwe, 2024). There is no inter-variable testing done because this is qualitative research (Creswell, 2007). According to Grundstrom's research, participants in this study were questioned about their life histories, issues, and challenges, as well as the advantages they enjoyed every day at the site (Grundström, 2022).

Figure 1 Research Framework 

The MT cultural groups that live in cities tend to have difficulty maintaining their lives. Especially because they have to be connected to various life support systems, which are unfortunately difficult to reach without government assistance. The government itself is aware of this, so it provides a co-housing settlement to answer the needs of the community (Figure 2). Unfortunately, the Co-housing settlement model provided does not automatically support the sustainability of the community or the environment. For this reason, this study aims to investigate a kind of sustainable architecture that can support both cultural communities and the environment. The problem is that the right form of sustainable architecture for the community is not yet known. The question is what and how to provide the right sustainable architecture to support the existence of communities and the environment. 

According to Wang, Berggren, Tummers, and Choi, the Co-housing model can provide better civic engagement, support system, and environment awareness  (Wang and Hadjri, 2017; Berggren, 2017; Tummers, 2016; Choi, 2013). Through this model, they show that patrons have a role in opening MT's access to the support system. Unfortunately, it is not yet known how this model is manifested architecturally, especially for the MT community.

Figure 2 Co-housing Settlement Model Provided by Government Referring to Wang et al. (2017)

This particular cultural group was selected as a case study because its members have lived there for a long period. In the meantime, a year of observation and data collecting took place at the site. An initial interview with the gatekeeper was done earlier to gain an overview of the site and the participants. Even though each interviewee had previously given their informed consent, all interviews were carried out anonymously to protect their privacy.

Open-ended questions were employed during the interview procedure to collect the data for this investigation (Charmaz, 2006). The question asked was, what and how do you think the housing you live in supports your life? Fifteen participants were chosen to respond to these inquiries. Residents of the MT complex who have lived there for 40 years make up the selected participants. This was done to enable participants to respond in-depth to the questions posed (Charmaz, 2006). To supplement the responses provided by the participants, field conditions were also observed and recorded (Creswell, 2007). Before beginning the interview procedure, each participant in this study gave their informed permission (Creswell, 2007). Additionally, permission to do research was acquired from administrators of the MT community and the government. Nvivo was then used to examine the data that had been gathered. This software provides different codes (particular answers), which are compared to field condition records. The code itself is a word or phrase that represents the opinion or view of each participant (Charmaz, 2006). Each participant's view of their residence is assigned a code that describes the situation, views, habits, actions, and use of space in the residence they occupy  (Charmaz, 2006). All the codes produced are then sorted and grouped into several main codes that truly represent the views of the participants and describe the situation in the MT group settlement (Charmaz, 2006). After that, the dataset is sorted to respond to the queries posed (Charmaz, 2006).

    Before beginning the discussion, it is important to first understand the parameters of sustainability, the environment, and the community. Sustainability encompasses several key aspects, including the environmental, social, and economic dimensions (Goyal anad Dangwal, 2022; Sulewski and K?oczko-Gajewska, 2018). Meanwhile, environmental parameters can be categorized into several fields, such as ecological integrity, Resource management, Pollution control, and social dimensions (Junita et al., 2023; Mourad et al., 2023; Wu, Font, and Liu, 2020). Next are the parameters related to the community which include: Social Cohesion and Community Engagement, Access to Basic Services, Economic Sustainability, Cultural Competence and Diversity, Health and Well-being (Nesterova, Portera, and Milani, 2022; Voznyak, ????????, and ??????, 2022; Simangolwa, 2019). By understanding and addressing these parameters, stakeholders can work towards fostering sustainable communities that promote sustainable development across various contexts.

Table 1 Parameters of Sustainable, Environment, and Community Refering to (Junita et al, 2023; Goyal and Dangwal, 2022; Nesterova et al., 2022)

3.1.  Co-housing Settlement Model: The value of togetherness

A few of the codes the participants disclosed talked about how much they enjoyed living in government care. These selected codes are: Glad to be a part of the community, Content to be a member of the community, Thankful for my home, I feel valued, and Life is simple (Figure 3). Figure 3 is a cohousing diagram as a settlement model that can support various aspects of community life and, at the same time, the environment. The model is equipped with various architectural features as an embodiment of the various codes expressed by the participants. Government support in the form of a support system for the community translates into various architectural features that support community life in the location. This model is expected to be an example for various other communities that also live in the city.

Figure 3 Codes and Architectural Features of Co-housing Settlement Model 

All of these selected codes are then compared with various mapping diagrams of activities at the site. It was found that the various codes that the participants expressed manifested into various architectural features. However, it can be seen that these various features are in accordance with the various co-housing settlement supports that the government originally intended. Through this Co-housing concept settlement, the participants demonstrated their ability to maintain their community. Not only the continuity of their existence but also the continuity of the environment. 

In general, co-housing concept housing—which proves to be able to offer welfare for the community as a whole—is provided by the government, acting as the community's defender. In addition to offering a place to live, this housing design also helps inhabitants' mental health in several ways. This concept prioritizes social proximity, healthy mental conditions, economic stability, and clean water resources (a fundamental right that every person has) (Whulanza et al., 2024). This is in accordance with the community parameter as mentioned earlier. In certain respects, the MT community's access to different municipal facilities has been facilitated by government care. Because of this residential idea, the MT community is now one that not only endures as a community but also makes a larger contribution to a sustainable environment. It is evident that sustainable practices need to be considered at both the individual and institutional levels (Hossain et al., 2022).

3.2.   Discussion

Living in co-housing has several benefits, one of which is the upkeep of inhabitants' mental health. According to some of the participant codes or explanations, there is a strong sense of camaraderie among the residents. Any problem an individual encounters is often resolved collectively. While not all challenges can be solved, members' camaraderie and support can help those who are struggling to feel less alone. The common room in the center of the house is where the problems are frequently discussed. Many people congregate here each night to share ideas or discuss issues. Here are the conversations and ideas that can lead to solutions for the issues raised. In this instance, the co-housing model has provided a community area that may strengthen bonds among all residents (Figure 4). The common space positioned in the middle of the residential unit has open parts at both ends. This causes the space to remain cool and bright so that it does not require any additions or modifications. Architecturally, the available features can support the mental well-being of these community members. The open space design provides an opportunity for its users to feel free and think freely. This openness feature provides an opportunity for residents to share with each other, get closer, and support each other.

"I am happy to live in this complex because there is closeness between the members. I don't feel alone when I have a problem because other members can give advice or help."

"I just told the neighbor about my problem, and then he immediately helped."

"I'm happy to stay here because it's like a big family."

"We've been together for a long time, so it's like family. We help each other if anyone is in trouble."

"I love living in this community because I feel cared for by the government."

Figure 4 Communal Area in Co-housing Settlement 

Not only does the community still exist today, but the closeness among its members dates back to the 1960s when it first settled in Kramat. Due to their strong connection, the group’s members consistently share a variety of personal interests and challenges. Every member typically has knowledge of and empathy for the struggles faced by other members. Every member typically has a willingness to assist and resolve other members' issues. Because they know they will receive assistance from other members, the feeling of togetherness has allowed community members to live in better mental health. Because co-housing has been practiced for decades, the description above demonstrates how much it helps the sustainability of communities and groups.

Residing in a co-housing concept has several benefits, one of which is that all issues are shared. The issue at hand affects not just each member personally but also the community as a whole. Using electricity or meeting the demand for clean water are two examples. This community has its own house of worship (musholla) since it is in a compound that is often walled off from the outside world. Of course, this house of worship needs power and clean water, and those things must be provided simultaneously. Thus, the community makes monthly payments for power collectively. This makes it easy for someone struggling to access clean water in their apartment building to use the clean water provided by the shared musholla. One instance is when members of the organization bathe or do another activity using the clean water provided in this musholla. Furthermore, because it sits next to the communal home, everyone in the neighborhood can readily watch over this musholla (Figure 5).

Placing shared facilities in an area that is easily accessible and supervised by all residential units, is an important architectural feature of Co-housing. Togetherness is something that the MT community always emphasizes in every aspect of their lives. In addition, the maintenance and use of resources can be controlled. In the end, savings are the result of this. The MT group, which in their daily lives often use shared facilities, in many ways also contributes to spending funds and energy to maintain these facilities. With this togetherness, community life becomes easier and cheaper.

"I always take clean water from the Musholla when the clean water in my unit is in trouble."

"I use the bathroom in the Musholla if the one in my house is broken."

"We are happy that there is a Musholla in our complex. If there is anything with the bathroom, we just take clean water there."

"We bear the electricity needs for the musholla together. There is a contribution that we deposit to the Community Head."

Figure 5 Supervision and maintenance of shared facilities 

The aforementioned illustrates how co-housing homes may strengthen ties between residents by encouraging them to collaborate to satisfy one another's needs. It also describes how, by solving the issues together, this residential design stresses environmental sustainability and the community. It is not necessary to fix each issue separately, as this may contribute to environmental degradation. Naturally, the community's shared amenities may be used to restrain and regulate energy use. To ensure the continuity of the shared facility, each member is responsible for maintaining its excellent shape.

The shared common area is one of the key features of co-housing architecture. Anyone is welcome to utilize this multipurpose common area. The fact that locals commonly gather and socialize here is a benefit. Being a local traditional theater community, the MT Community is required to practice presenting shows daily. Group members may readily get together because they are living together in this co-housing dwelling. Every member uses the common space for practice sessions and rehearsals. Since this common area is visible from every residential unit door, no member may avoid this duty. There is no excuse for members to neglect their duties.

Additionally, this common area is used by the community members as a workspace for their individual projects. This represents yet another benefit of co-housing. The fact that the inhabitants interact with one another frequently fosters kinship and closeness. As a result, neighbors' personal space borders grow hazier, making it simple for neighbors to visit one another's homes without reluctance (Figure 6). However, this appears to run a little counter to the findings of Octavia et al. (2024), who claimed that the surroundings and the inhabitant's everyday routines promote personal space (Octavia et al., 2024).

"If I need something, I just go to my colleague's house in front or on the side."

"We trust each other because we already consider ourselves as a big family living in one house."

"If any colleague asks for something, we immediately welcome him/her to take it by him/herself."

Figure 6 Room occupancy diagram based on the close relationship between neighbors 

Kinship and closeness among residents are benefits of co-housing. This sense of community also positively impacts the financial situation of its members. As previously said, homeowners who are having problems may readily receive assistance from their neighbors and coworkers. Financial hardships are not unique. Because of their closeness, members share duties and tasks. For instance, many people are involved in the work when a community member is hired to work on a project. Naturally, the revenue received will be allocated evenly based on each employee's contribution to the project. This indicates that the dwelling is financially sustainable. The residents are like a large family that supports one another because of their proximity to one another. Not only a little help, but also help finding employment and a source of income.

"I'm happy to stay here because it's more secure."

"I am happy to be under the auspices of the government because it is easier for us to get jobs."

"By living here, I get a lot of opportunities to develop myself and my business."

In a co-housing settlement, there are usually not many units provided. The most typical number of units in co-housing concept housing is twenty. This indicates that inhabitants or other members are close to one another. When it comes to keeping an eye on the surroundings and providing for younger family members, there is no exception. Encouraging one another toward the common area with rows of houses makes oversight simpler. Typically, parents would watch the kids play while doing everyday activities in this common area. Since an older generation is already living in this community, monitoring is given equal attention to both the elderly and the younger generation. It will also be simpler for other members to keep an eye on their kids as well as the kids of their neighbors when the area is set up in the previously mentioned manner. This particular layout of the residential units will also make it easier to supervise the communal area. Every incident will be overseen by other residents who use the common area during shifts, particularly if this apartment building is planned as a multi-story structure, with each level facing the central common area (Figure 7).

"I love living here because I feel cared for by my friends and the environment."

"I feel safe living in this complex because I can easily leave my children to the neighbors, especially if I have needs outside the complex."

"I was born here, grew up here, so I also want to die here. Everything is fun here. I'm proud to be a part of this community."

"It's like people living with the government; everything is guaranteed."

"There is indeed a big limitation of space inside the residential unit, but we can modify it according to needs."

"The point is that we are happy to live here. We don't want to leave this community."

The aforementioned explanation demonstrates how co-housing concept housing may preserve the sustainability of both the environment and the people who live there. Residents have become even closer as a result of this residential design's forced and enabled connection. Though in a very basic sense, resident cooperation has aided in both the sustainability of the environment in which they live and the sustainability of the people themselves.

The government provides for the needs of the MT group. This implies that this group can establish a connection with the government's network of facilities. Although the residential units for this category are relatively tiny, they have easier access to government-owned social and health amenities. Furthermore, this group has easy access to cultural networks that are under government jurisdiction. This implies that this organization has many chances to exhibit their work outside of their local area. As a result, this community has access to a greater variety of networks without having to create them from scratch. This demonstrates that since the group has joined the government-owned network, sustainability is more assured.

Figure 7 Joint supervision of junior and senior members in the communal area

Because they are connected to government-run facilities for building maintenance, they are also able to readily resolve any issues with residential structures. The government also periodically regulates the complex's maintenance, allowing the community to focus its energies on the duties for which it has assumed responsibility.

"Living in this complex is comfortable because we are being noticed by the government. The government will control the complex and buildings periodically and then arrange a repair schedule if there is any damage."

"We only need to think about the cost of our respective electricity and clean water contributions."

"Living with the government, we feel protected and honored."

The government-provided housing offers certain flexibility, as previously mentioned. Every community member has a unique set of skills. This creates unique demands for each individual or household, particularly if a family has grown and requires additional space. Interestingly, each home in the MT community adapts effectively to these needs despite the limited available space and the challenges of expansion. Vertical space is added and adapted to their demands for work. Although the number of slots can be expanded, the area of the space remains constant. Every residential unit makes different changes based on what it requires (Figure 8). This demonstrates how the co-housing units that this group resides in can adapt to changing requirements without endangering the environment.

Figure 8 Adaptability (modification) of the unit according to the occupants’s expertise

    The co-housing concept of residential design regulated by the local government has multiple roles that can answer a variety of problems faced by the communities. The multiple roles are (1) providing an opportunity for members of this community to live side by side with their co-members, or in other words, providing a support system. At the same time, (2) it also provides an opportunity to contribute to saving resources through the design of the housing they live in, or in other words, promote environmental awareness. The arrangement of units that are compact and oriented towards a shared space (3) allows each member to supervise one another and stand by to assist each other. This not only (4) strengthens the kinship and bonds between members but also helps each member save on the use of resources in residential complexes. All of these ultimately support the sustainability of life and the carrying capacity of the environment itself. In general, the role of co-housing helps the community in solving various problems, such as (a) the difficulty of getting affordable and qualified housing for the community. (b) The difficulty of saving household expenses. (c) The difficulty of meeting the need for resources, and of course (d) the difficulty of reaching social support systems. That is why this study states that the concept of co-housing is very appropriate for helping low-income people in cities obtain affordable housing while participating in environmental sustainability efforts. One of the key features of co-housing is the common room. In this arrangement, each unit typically requires only a private bedroom, as most activities take place in the shared common room. The common room serves as the heart of the co-housing community. It facilitates resource management by allowing the community to oversee usage collectively. Moreover, it promotes mutual supervision and support among members, fostering a sense of accountability and solidarity. The common room also serves as a gathering place, enhancing social interaction and contributing to the mental well-being of its members. The openness and unifying nature of the common room is the central architectural feature of co-housing. This design is both simple and cost-effective, making it adaptable to a variety of urban communities. Shared spaces not only reduce costs but also optimize available resources, helping diverse communities sustain themselves in urban environments. In that case, this study states two valuable findings from the concept of co-housing applied to a community. The first is the value of togetherness. The second is the openness of space. This openness is not only in a horizontal scope but also vertically. The main advantage of this feature is the ease with which all residents can interact, communicate, connect, and support each other without having to be in the same space. This rapid communication allows residents to maximize not only the use of space, but also the sustainability aspect. In the end, this study also wants to propose the importance of the concept of cohousing as an answer for various communities living in cities. Not only does it provide access to basic needs as well as mental and physical health, but also the opportunity to participate in environmental sustainability efforts.  This research contributes to the development of co-housing concept housing that has been present for a long time. This research wants to open a broader discourse on the potential of co-housing in the social aspects and mental well-being of its residents, which has been under-discussed so far. This research also wants to open a discourse on the potential of co-housing concept housing to answer the needs of marginalized communities present in the city. This research also initiates a more comprehensive discussion on co-housing's potential as a settlement model that may prioritize sustainability initiatives cost-effectively and straightforwardly.

    The Authors are grateful to the Jakarta government for their permission to conduct research in the Miss Tjitjih Theater Group. The authors also thanked the Miss Tjitjih Theater Group for the opportunity to conduct research, interviews, and data collection for one year in the location.

Agustini, I.G.A.A.D.M., Lestari, N.Pt.R.A., Ginting, E.D.B., Ardanareswari, N.Pt.G., Tarigan, E.L.B., Syahrin, A.A., 2023. Meaning And Preservation of Osing Tribe Traditional House: A Study of Tourism Sociology. In: ICLSSE 2022: Proceedings of the 4^th International Conference on Law, Social Sciences, and Education (ICLSSE), p. 186. doi: 10.4108/eai.28-10-2022.2326347

Ahrens, A., Lyons, S., 2021. Do Rising Rents Lead to Longer Commutes? A Gravity Model of Commuting Flows in Ireland. Urban Studies, Volume 58(2), pp. 264–279. doi: 10.1177/0042098020910698

Alfian, R., Setyabudi, I., Santoso, D.K., 2022. Identification of Samin Community Culture in Bojonegoro Towards Environmental Sustainability in Rural Area. Journal of Civil Engineering, Planning and Design, Volume 1(1), pp. 30–36, doi: 10.19907/jcepd.x.x.xxx-xxx

Arifin, R., Masyhar, A., Sumardiana, B., Ramada, D.P., Kamal, U., Fikri, S., 2024. Indonesian Sustainable Development Policy: How the Government Ensures the Environment for Future Generations. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Volume 1355(1), p. 012005. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1355/1/012005

Beck, A.F., 2020. What Is Co-Housing? Developing a Conceptual Framework from the Studies of Danish Intergenerational Co-Housing. Housing, Theory and Society, Volume 37(1), pp. 40–64. doi: 10.1080/14036096.2019.1633398

Berggren, H.M., 2017. Co-housing as Civic Society: Co-housing Involvement and Political Participation in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, Volume 98(1), pp. 57–72. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12305

Bigonnesse, C., Weeks, L., Puplampu, V., Paris, M., Dupuis-Blanchard, S., McInnis-Perry, G.J., Haché-Chiasson, A., 2023. Co-Housing Communities and Social Determinants of Health in Later Life: A Scoping Review Protocol. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Evidence Synthesis, Volume 21(6), pp. 1337–1343. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00068

Boonstra, B., 2016. Mapping Trajectories of Becoming: Four Forms of Behaviour in Co-Housing Initiatives. Town Planning Review, Volume 87(3), pp. 275–296, doi: 10.3828/tpr.2016.20.

Bozkurt, E., 2016. Integration of Theory Courses and Design Studio in Architectural Education using Sustainable Development. In: Social and Human Sciences (SHS) Web of Conferences, Volume 26, p. 01102. doi: 10.1051/201

Ceylan, S., Soygeni?, M.D., 2019. A Design Studio Experience: Impacts of Social Sustainability. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, Volume 13(2), pp. 368–385. doi: 10.1108/ARCH-02-2019-0034

Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory (1^st ed.). In: London: SAGE Publications Ltd

Choi, J.S., 2013. Why Do People Move to Co-Housing Communities in Sweden? - Are There any Significant Differences Between the +40 Co-Housing and the Mixed-Age Co-Housing?. Architectural Research, Volume 15(2), pp. 77–86. doi: 10.5659/aikar.2013.15.2.77

Creswell, J. W., 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design, Choosing Among Five Approaches (2^nd ed.). In: Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication

Czischke, D., Carriou, C., Lang, R., 2020. Collaborative Housing in Europe: Conceptualizing the Field. Housing, Theory and Society, Volume 37(1), pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1080/14036096.2020.1703611

Gündo?du, E., Birer, E., 2021. Evaluation of Ecological Design Principles in Traditional Houses in Mersin. CONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, Volume 9(1), pp. 25–52. doi: 10.15320/iconarp.2021.149

Gkartzios, M., Scott, M., 2014. Placing Housing in Rural Development: Exogenous, Endogenous and Neo-Endogenous Approaches. Sociologia Ruralis, Volume 54(3), pp. 241–265, doi: 10.1111/soru.12030

Goyal, R., Dangwal, R. C., 2022. Assessment of Social Accountability Through Sdgs of Corporate Sector During Covid-19 in India. Global Business Review, Volume 23(6), pp. 1492–1519. doi: 10.1177/09721509221123126.

Grundström, K., 2022. Shared Housing as Public Space? The Ambiguous Borders of Social Infrastructure. Urban Planning, Volume 7(4), pp. 499–509. doi: 10.17645/up.v7i4.5692

Guy, S., Farmer, G., 2001. Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: the place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, Volume 54(3), pp. 140–148. doi: 10.1162/10464880152632451

Hammond, M., 2018. Spatial Agency: Creating New Opportunities for Sharing and Collaboration in Older People’s Cohousing. Urban Science, Volume 2(3), pp. 1–13. doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030064

Hossain, M.I., Heng, T.B., Lee, C.L., Ong, T.S., Islam, M.T., 2022. Green Human Resource Management, Top Management Commitment, Green Culture, and Green Performance of Malaysian Palm Oil Companies. International Journal of Technology, Volume 13(5), pp. 1106–1114. doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v13i5.5818

Hubeladze, I., 2023. Community Identity in The Conditions of Interstate Military-Political Confrontation: Conceptualisation of The Concept. Scientific Journals Publishing House, Volume 29(1), pp. 10–16. doi: 10.61727/sssppj/1.2023.10

Hunter, C.M., Salandy, S.W., Smith, J.C., Edens, C., Hubbard, B., 2022. Racial Disparities in Incidence of Legionnaires’ Disease and Social Determinants of Health: A Narrative Review. Public Health Reports, Volume 137(4), pp. 660–671. doi: 10.1177/00333549211026781

Jarvis, H., 2011. Saving Space, Sharing Time: Integrated Infrastructures of Daily Life in Co-Housing. Environment and Planning A, Volume 43(3), pp. 560–577. doi: 10.1068/a43296

Junita, I., Kristine, F., Sherlywati, Parayow, B.A.D., 2023. Factors Affecting Students’ Pro-Environmental Behavior for Sustainable Development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of Economics, Business, and Entrepreneur (ICEBE 2022), pp. 315–326. doi: 10.2991/978-2-38476-064-0_34

Lichter, D.T., Parisi, D., Taquino, M.C., 2015. Toward A New Macro-Segregation? Decomposing Segregation within and Between Metropolitan Cities and Suburbs. American Sociological Review, Volume 80(4), pp. 843–873. doi: 10.1177/0003122415588558

Lu, M., Peng, C., 2020. Centripetal Cities: Using Big Data to Measure Job-Housing Separation Based on Employment-Residence-Commuting Trade-off. Research Square (pre-publication). doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-37632/v1

Marques, B., Loureiro, C.R., 2013. Sustainable Architecture: Practices and Methods to Achieve Sustainability in Construction. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 5(2), pp. 223–226. doi: 10.7763/ijet.2013.v5.547

Masoyi, J.E., Babayo, A.M. Jalam, U.A., 2023. Assessment of the Architectural Sustainability Components of Selected Primary Health Care Centers in Bauchi State. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation, Volume 4(4), pp. 394–401. doi: 10.54660/.ijmrge.2023.4.4.394-401

Miller, W., Buys, L., 2013. Factors Influencing Sustainability Outcomes of Housing in Subtropical Australia. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Volume 2(1), pp. 60–83. doi: 10.1108/20466091311325854

Mourad, R., Wahid, J., Alkubise, O.A.A., Najar, I.A., 2023. Investigation of the Sustainability Potentials in the Ten-House Project Bangkok-Thailand. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Volume 18(3), pp. 729–735. doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.180308

Ndwandwe, N.D., 2024. Stepping into the shoes of absent parents to provide educational support. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), Volume 13(2), pp. 294–304. doi: 10.20525/ijrbs.v13i2.3179

Nesterova, M., Portera, A., Milani, M., 2022. Diversity and Intercultural Competence for Sustainable Community Development. Baltic Journal of Economic, Volume 8(5), pp. 127–138. doi: 10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-5-127-138

Octavia, S., Madeali, H., Junus, N., Sir, M.M., 2024. Architectural Analysis of Rumah Kancingan in Merauke. International Journal of Technology, Volume 15(2), pp. 289–298. doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v15i2.6687

Omole, F.P., Olajiga, O.K., Olatunde, T.M., 2024. Sustainable Urban Design: A Review of Eco-Friendly Building Practices and Community Impact. Engineering Science and Technology Journal, Volume 5(3), pp. 1020–1030. doi: 10.51594/estj/v5i3.955

Painter, G., Yu, Z., 2010. Immigrants and Housing Markets in Mid-Size Metropolitan Areas. International Migration Review, Volume 44(2), pp. 442–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00787.x

Riccò, I., Anleu-Hernández, C.M., de-Stefani, A., 2024. Implementing a Senior Community Care Model: An Italian Top-Down Co-housing Project and Nursing Home. Social Inclusion, Volume 12. doi: 10.17645/si.7404

Ruiu, M.L., 2016. The Social Capital of Co-housing Communities. Sociology, Volume 50(2), pp. 400–415. doi: 10.1177/0038038515573473

Ruíz, M.A., Mack-Vergara, Y.L., 2023. Resilient and Sustainable Housing Models against Climate Change: A Review. Sustainability, Volume 15(8), p. 13544. doi: 10.3390/su151813544

Rusinovic, K., van-Bochove, M., van-de-Sande, J., 2019. Senior Co-housing in the netherlands: Benefits and Drawbacks for its Residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Volume 16(19), p. 3776. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193776

Sanguinetti, A., 2014. Transformational Practices in Co-Housing: Enhancing Residents’ Connection to Community and Nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 40, pp. 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.003

Simangolwa, W.M., 2019. Development and External Validation of a Logistic Regression Derived Algorithm to Estimate a 12-Month Post Open Defecation Free Slippage Risk. Journal of Humanitarian Engineering, Volume 7(1). doi: 10.36479/jhe.v7i1.139

Stepanova, O., Romanov, M., 2021. Urban Planning as a Strategy to Implement Social Sustainability Policy Goals? the Case of Temporary Housing for Immigrants in Gothenburg, Sweden. Sustainability, Volume 13(4), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.3390/su13041720

Sulewski, P., K?oczko-Gajewska, A., 2022. Development of the Sustainability Index of Farms Based on Surveys and Fadn Sample. Problems of Agricultural Economics, Volume 356(3), pp. 32–56. doi: 10.30858/zer/94474

Tummers, L., 2016. The Re-Emergence of Self-Managed Co-Housing in Europe: A Critical Review of Co-Housing Research. Urban Studies, Volume 53(10), pp. 2023–2040. doi: 10.1177/0042098015586696

Umar, M.Z., Arsyad, M., Santi, S., Faslih, A., 2020. Principles of Sustainable Architecture in the Production of Bamboo Woven Wall Materials (Dendrocalamus Asper). Sinergi, Volume 24(1), pp. 57. doi: 10.22441/sinergi.2020.1.008

Voznyak, H., ????????, ?., ??????, ?., 2022. Evaluation of Self-Sufficiency of Territorial Communities as the Basis for Ensuring their Sustainable Development. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Volume 8(4), pp. 151–169. doi: 10.51599/are.2022.08.04.07

Wang, J., Hadjri, K., 2017. The Role of Co-housing in Building Sustainable Communities: Case studies from the United Kingdom (UK). Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, Volume 2(6), pp. 255–265. doi: 10.21834/e-bpj.v2i6.946

Whulanza, Y., Kusrini, E., Suwartha, N., Maknun, I.J., 2024. Addressing Water Sustainability in the 21st Century: The Role of Engineering and Technology. International Journal of Technology, Volume 15(3), pp. 472–480. doi: 10.14716/ijtech.v15i3.7088

Wu, J., Font, X., Liu, J., 2020. Tourists’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Moral Obligation or Disengagement?. Journal of Travel Research, Volume 60(4), pp. 735–748. doi: 10.1177/0047287520910787

Yahia, M.W., Mushtaha, E., Yassin, S.A., AlFoudari, K.A., Atoum, Y.A., Opoku, A., Dirar, S., Maksoud, A.M., 2023. Co-Housing Design Guidelines For Better Social Integration In The United Arab Emirates. Frontiers in Built Environment, Volume 9, p. 1155179. doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2023.1155179