Living with strangers: exploring motivations and stated preferences for considering co-housing and shared living in Bergen, Norway

Figures & data

Figure 1. Housing behavior – macro and micro context.

Source: authors.

Table 1. Sample characteristics

Respondents	Sex	Age	Cultural background	Household size	Household composition	Co-housing experience	Living arrangements today	Location	Tenure	Profession related to sustainable living
1	Female	25–35	Norwegian	3	3 adults	student shared apartments	student shared apartment	Central	Renting	yes
2	Male	35–50	Norwegian	5	2 adults 3 children	student shared apartments	Detached house	15–20 min driving to the city center	Owning	yes
3	Female	50–70	Norwegian	2	1 adult 1 child	none	Apartment	Central	Renting	yes
4	Female	35–50	Norwegian	2	2 adults	student shared apartments	Detached house	15–20 min driving to the city center	Owning	yes
5	Female	35–50	non-Norwegian	4	2 adults 2 children	student shared apartments	Semi-detached house	15–20 min driving to the city center	Owning	yes
6	Female	25–35	Norwegian	1	1 adult	student shared apartments	Apartment	15–20 min driving to the city center	Renting	yes
7	Female	25–35	Norwegian	2	2 adults	student shared apartments	Apartment	15–20 min driving to the city center	Owning	yes
8	Female	35–50	Norwegian	4	2 adults 2 children	student shared apartments	Detached house	15–20 min driving to the city center	Owning	yes
9	Female	50–70	Norwegian	1	1 adult	none	subsidized apartment	15–20 min driving to the city center	Renting	No
10	Female	50–70	Norwegian	1	1 adult	Shared holiday apartments	Detached house	15–20 min driving to the city center	Owning	No

Source: authors.

Figure 2. Thematic categories.

Source: authors.

Figure 3. Subthemes for social motivation.

Source: authors.

Table 2. Themes and subthemes for motivations

Motivation
Pragmatic Theme	Social Theme				Environmental Theme
	Emotional subtheme	Professional subtheme	Self-realization subtheme	Social inclusion subtheme
code categories:	code categories:	code categories:	code categories:	code categories:	code categories:
downsizing	nostalgia	image and identity	personal growth	balanced social diversity	reduced consumption
life situation	belonging	status	civic engagement	homogenic neighborhood	vegetarian
mutual assistance	sense of community	vocation		multigeneration	composting
value for money	sharing meals			no mental disability	pro-diversity
benefits for children				segregation	sustainable interior
					reduced transportation
					sustainable building

Source: authors.

Figure 4. Co-housing preferences.

Source: authors.

Table 3. Themes and subthemes for preferences

Preferences
Theme: structure			Theme: functioning
Subtheme: Esthetics	Subtheme: Function	Subtheme: Location	Subtheme: Governance	Subtheme: Project initiative
Code categories:	Code categories:	Code categories:	Code categories:	Code categories:
wow factor	universal design	city center	house rules	developer-initiated
interior design	sound isolation	close to transport nodes	cleaning	residents-initiated
glass	multifunctional spaces	not rural	maintenance	facilitated my municipalities
innovative materials	multifunctional buildings	close to the water	concierge	real estate regulations
sustainable materials	own kitchen	close to the mountains	outsourcing	subsidies for buyers
natural materials	own bathroom	close to the park	noise	information dissemination
vertical garden	spare room	no car	entrance barriers	success stories
inside court	pool	car sharing	fines for misconduct
plants inside	gym/yoga room		ownership
natural light	boat storage		renting
cool	kayak storage		Airbnb
recreational area	washing room
	storage facilities
	hobby room
	sauna
	hot tub

Source: authors.