Community led housing, health and wellbeing: a comprehensive literature review

Figures & data

Table 1. Example search protocols for academic databases and for grey literature.

Search run in August 2019, and again in June 2022

Source	Search terms	Results
Social Policy and Practice
S1	("community housing" or "communal housing" or "collaborative housing" or "collective housing" or "co-housing" or "community land trust" or "community-land trust" or "community led housing" or "community-led housing" or "community involved housing" or "housing collective*" or "collective housing" or "communal housing" or "eco-communit*" or "eco communit*" or "community-driven housing" or "participatory housing" or "community engaged housing" or "intentional communit*" or "people led housing" or "people-led housing").af.	304
S2	(health or "physical health" or "mental health" or environment* or "quality of life" or QoL or wellbeing or well-being or welfare or "purpose in life" or flourish* or sautogen* or "health equit*" or "socially inclusive").af.	148376
S3	(improv* or chang* or effect or impact or increas* or decreas* or equity or inequality or benefit* or help* or assist* or evidence or value or performance or efficien* or outcome* or performance).af.	211090
S4	1 and 2 and 3	72
S5	limit 4 to yr="2009 -Current"	35
Department of Health and Social Care	Community housing	2
Power to Change	Browse of publications	2
New Economics Foundation	Browse of publications on search community led housing	7
Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities	Community housing	1
Parliament UK	Community housing	2
Royal Town and Country Planning Institute	Community housing	0
Shelter	Community housing	0
World Habitat	Community housing	3
National Housing Federation	Community housing	4
The Health Foundation	Community housing, and search by topics (social determinants)	0
The King’s Fund	Community housing	2
Joseph Rowntree Foundation	Community, Refined by topic: housing	8
Community Land Trust Network	Browse of publications	0
Community Led Homes	Browse of publications	0

Community led housing, health and wellbeing: a Comprehensive literature review, 2023.

Figure 1. Flow diagram showing search results, and literature selection process. Community Led housing, health and wellbeing: a Comprehensive literature review, 2023.

Table 2. Characteristics and findings of included academic literature (n = 34).

Reference	Model of CLH	Location	Funding model	Type of study	Case study no.	Methods
							Bresson & Labit (2019)	Community led housing	France	Various	Qualitative	10	Semi-structured interviews, focus groups, site visits
Clever Elephant (2019)	Community led housing	UK	Unclear	Qualitative	22	Semi-structured interviews and survey
Coele (2014)	Cohousing	UK	Resident funded	Qualitative	1	Autoethnography
CSBA & UWE (2016)	Self-build	UK	Housing association	Qualitative	1	Interviews
Czischke & Huisman (2018)	Community led housing	Netherlands	Government funded	Qualitative	1	Semi-structured interviews, observations, document review (project website, policy documents, newspaper articles, and audio-visual material)
Dang & Seemann (2020)	Community led housing	Germany	Unclear	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional), Qualitative	1	Document review, interviews, and survey
Garciano (2011)	Cohousing	USA	Private cohousing architect firm and private non-profit developer rental units	Qualitative	1	Interviews
Glass (2009)	Cohousing	USA	Various	Mixed method Quantitative (cross-sectional, longitudinal 3 years) Qualitative	1	In-depth interviews, survey
Glass (2012)	Cohousing	USA	Private; Part government funded	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional, longitudinal 2 years,) Qualitative	3	In-depth interviews
Glass (2013)	Cohousing	USA	Privately owned and subsidised rented units	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional, longitudinal 3 years) Qualitative	1	Interviews, survey and participant observation
Glass (2016)	Cohousing	USA	Rented units	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	3	Survey
Reference	Participants	N and target population	Negative impacts	Positive impacts
Bresson & Labit (2019)	Residents, prospective residents, developers, housing associations, local authorities, architects	33	Unclear impacts on most vulnerable residents	Social inclusion
Clever Elephant (2019)	Residents, prospective residents, providers	53 residents or prospective residents, 14 staff from providers	N/A	Improved skills; improved mental well-being; increased confidence; better physical health; affordability; less loneliness; greater community feeling
Coele (2014)	Resident	1 (older person with a disability)	Can be hard to have privacy	Benefits for older people and people with a disability; ability to maintain independence
CSBA & UWE (2016)	Resident self-builders	10 (ex-Service Personnel who have encountered alcohol or drug dependency)	N/A	Improved diet during self-build process; physical activity from labour of process; social integration with other self-builders; sense of learning and achievement; supports vulnerable parts of population (ex-service personnel)
Czischke & Huisman (2018)	Residents and members of housing co-operation	Refugee	N/A	Refugee residents experience social integration and support
Dang & Seemann (2020)	Residents or 'experts' (interviews), general population (survey)	6 interviews, 524 survey responses	N/A	Sense of community; environmental sustainability and energy efficiency; affordability, especially for disadvantaged groups; inclusion and diversity
Garciano (2011)	Prospective residents, developers and architects	Unclear	Limited diversity, including socio- economic background, ethnicity, and language	Improved relationship to food and healthy eating, e.g. organic garden, healthy eating initiatives, common meals; improved connections to wider community, e.g. cultural events
Glass (2009)	Residents	33 (elderly)	N/A	Inclusion of communal facilities, such as a common house where meals can be shared. Neighbours for help with household and care; sense of community
Glass (2012)	Residents	58 survey responses, 25 interviews (elderly)	N/A	Majority had good physical and mental health and it remained the same a year later living in the cohousing
Glass (2013)	Residents	43 (elderly)	Lack of privacy	Improved social connections and support; maintained independence and reduced need for external development and satisfaction of a sense of community; increase in physical activity as a result of residents mutually encouraging each other to exercise
Glass (2016)	Residents	59 (elderly)	N/A	Self-reported high levels of physical and mental health; high reported levels of social cohesion and support
Reference	Model of CLH	Location	Funding model	Type of study	Case study no.	Methods
							Glass and Vander Plaats (2013)	Cohousing	USA	N/A	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional) in 2012, Qualitative in 2009	1	In-depth interviews, survey
Hackett et al. (2018)	Community land trust	USA	Privately and publicly funded	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional), Qualitative	1	Datasets from time of purchase and property stock, and survey (at two time points)
Jarvis (2015)	Cohousing	UK, USA, Australia	Unclear	Qualitative	15	Interviews, oral histories, observations, archival data
Kehl and Then (2013)	Cohousing	Germany	Privately and publicly funded	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional with control), Qualitative	5	Interviews and survey
Labit (2015)	Cohousing	Germany, Sweden and UK	Germany, Sweden: co-operative and municipal England: privately owner or rented	Qualitative	5	Semi-structured interviews, participants observation and photographic record
Labit and Dubost (2016)	Cohousing	France and Germany	Private	Qualitative	2	Semi-structured interviews
Lang and Novy (2014)	Co-operative	Austria	Public, private, co-operatively funded	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional with control), Qualitative	8	Interviews and survey
Markle et al. (2015)	Cohousing	USA	Shared ownership	Mixed methods - Quantitative (cross-sectional with control) Qualitative	1	Semi-structured interview and survey
Martin et al. (2019)	Community land trust	USA	Co-operatively funded	Qualitative	4	Interviews
Izuhara et al. (2021)	Community led housing	UK	Co-operatively funded	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional), Qualitative	18	In-depth interviews and survey
Pedersen (2015)	Cohousing	Denmark	Various	Mixed method Quantitative (cross-sectional) Qualitative	26	In-depth interviews, and survey
Reference	Participants	N and target population	Negative impacts	Positive impacts
Glass and Vander Plaats (2013)	Residents	26 interviews, 31 survey responses (elderly)	N/A	Increased social support; reduced isolation; sense of security
Hackett et al. (2018)	CLT homeowners	Data on 204 individuals, and 91 unique survey responses	N/A	Improved affordability, especially for low- to moderate-income households; secure; social and shared values; sustainable housing
Jarvis (2015)	Residents	38 digitally recorded interviews (with individuals, couples and small groups)	N/A	Empowerment and increased engagement in governance of home; social cohesion and support; sustainability and low carbon lifestyles
Kehl and Then (2013)	Residents	313 program group; 428 control group	N/A	Reduced need for outside care; improved social connections
Labit (2015)	Residents	30	N/A	Strong sense of solidarity; self-reported healthy ageing
Labit and Dubost (2016)	Residents	10 Cologne; 8 Berlin	N/A	Older people received care and felt more secure in their homes; younger residents had access to affordable housing
Lang and Novy (2014)	Residents, housing managers	547 interviews	N/A	Professional co-operative structures give residents a voice and improve social cohesion
Markle et al. (2015)	Residents and people registered as interested in cohousing	60 living in cohousing; 65 not living in cohousing survey responses 10 interviews	N/A	Cohousing residents received more social support than non-residents; better relationships with neighbours; greater sense of security
Martin et al. (2019)	CLT staff, other non-profit and funding agency staff, public officials, and residents of land trusts	124 interviews	N/A	Improved affordability, and reduced financial stress, particularly for low income residents; stability and sense of security
Izuhara et al. (2021)	Residents	18 survey responses, 10 interviews	Negotiated the use of shared spaces; many restricted themselves to individual household use of communal space on a pre-arranged basis, to avoid interaction	Improved relationship to food and healthy eating; improved social interactions and sense of community, emotional support; shared social care for elderly or unwell
Pedersen (2015)	Residents	643 survey responses, 19 interviews (elderly)	N/A	Increased social support; increased sense of security; physical exercise in common areas; common meals
Reference	Model of CLH	Location	Funding model	Type of study	Case study no.	Methods
Rosenberg (2012)	Tenant management organisation	UK	Community owned housing association	Qualitative	1	In-depth interviews
Ruiu (2015)	Cohousing	UK	Private and housing association	Qualitative	1	Semi-structured interviews and cognitive maps
Ruiu (2016)	Cohousing	UK	Various	Qualitative	1	Interviews, observation and cognitive maps
Sanguinetti (2014)	Cohousing	USA	Various	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional), Qualitative	127	Survey
Scanlon and Arrigoitia (2015)	Cohousing	UK	Housing association, shared equity	Qualitative	1	Semi-structured interviews, and observation (3 years)
Scanlon et al. (2021)	Community led housing	UK	Various	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional with control), Qualitative	5 case studies, compared to general population control survey	Survey, interviews, focus group, site visits. Control group from the annual Community Life Survey
Schneider (2022)	Community land trust	USA	Publicly funded, shared equity	Quantitative (cross-sectional with control)	2	Survey and administrative data
Theriaut et al. (2010)	Co-operative	Canada	Part government funded	Mixed methods Quantitative (cross-sectional), Qualitative	2	Semi-structured interviews and survey
Van den Berg et al. (2021)	Self-build	Netherlands	Unclear	Quantitative (retrospective case control)	25	Survey
Wang et al. (2021)	Cohousing	UK	Unclear	Qualitative	8	Semi-structured interviews
Warner et al. (2022)	Cohousing	Australia	Unclear	Qualitative	1	Semi-structured interviews and focus groups
Weeks et al. (2019)	Cohousing	Canada	Various	Qualitative	7	Semi-structured interviews
Reference	Participants	N and target population	Negative impacts	Positive impacts
Rosenberg (2012)	Residents	156	More likely to feel unsafe in the dark and show a lesser degree of trust in their neighbours	Residents reported higher levels of social connectedness than reported in comparative area; resident control improved collective wellbeing
Ruiu (2015)	Residents	18	N/A	High levels of affordable housing; greater social support; greater sense of security; self-build process built strong sense of belonging
Ruiu (2016)	Residents	23 interviews	N/A	Sense of belonging; improved social connections; common dinners; building social capital
Sanguinetti (2014)	Residents	477 survey responses	Did not seem to have much effect on connection to nature	Cohousing residents reported higher levels of social connectedness and connection to community
Scanlon and Arrigoitia (2015)	Residents, housing association staff	Unclear (elderly)	Greater risk and uncertainty in build process; new cohousing not necessarily cheaper than conventional new-build (longer to construct)	Encourages active and preventive ageing
Scanlon et al. (2021)	Residents	221 survey responses, 1 focus group (expert roundtable)	N/A	Reduced loneliness and provided social networks; volunteering and neighbourhood connections
Schneider (2022)	CLT owners, and market homeowners for 3 control groups	494	Limits wealth accumulation for populations most in need: those with low incomes, people of colour, and female-headed households	Improved financial well-being; increased housing stability and security; increased autonomy and quality of life
Theriaut et al. (2010)	Residents	43	N/A	Improved relationship to food and healthy eating; improved financial stability; increased self-confidence; able to live in better neighbourhood
Van den Berg et al. (2021)	Resident self-builders, residents of conventionally built homes (19 control areas)	326 (elderly)	N/A	Directly related to neighbourhood social cohesion and lower feelings of social loneliness; indirect effect on social satisfaction; these positive relationships hold while controlling for personal and household characteristics
Wang et al. (2021)	Cohousing group members, architects	24	N/A	Social contact; reduced loneliness; better mental health and well-being; older people had support from others when physical decline means they are less able to look after their own property; safe environment and sense of security; sustainable living, reduced food purchase, joint travel, sustainable technologies, energy efficiency, design standards, and construction methods and materials; affordability, especially for low income populations
Warner et al. (2022)	Potential residents, community group	2 focus groups (each of 5 participants), 6 interviews (elderly)	N/A	Sense of security; affordability; meets diverse needs; supportive community with shared values and interests; access to amenities in the immediate environment; benefits, particularly for low-income residents
Weeks et al. (2019)	Knowledgeable of completed, or in-development cohousing	7	Not seen as affordable	Older people received care and felt more secure in their homes; improved social connections, reduced loneliness, enhances friendships and mutual support

Community led housing, health and wellbeing: a comprehensive literature review, 2023.

Table 3. Characteristics and findings of included grey literature (n = 11).

Reference	Model of CLH	Location	Funding model	Type of grey literature	Case study no.	Methods
Archer (2009)	Self-help	UK	N/A	Briefing paper	N/A	N/A
Devlin et al. (2015)	Cohousing	UK	Resident funded	Report	1	Architects report and comments from residents
Fernandez et al. (2018)	Cohousing	UK	N/A	Workshop and research reflections	N/A	Learning day with members cohousing communities
Heslop (2017)	Self-build	UK	Charity and local government	Book chapter	1	Interviews and participatory research approach
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2013)	Cohousing	Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands	N/A	Report	N/A	2 events, lessons learned
Lubik and Kosatsky (2019)	Community led housing	Canada	N/A	Commentary	N/A	N/A
Moore and McKee (2012)	Community land trust	UK and USA	Housing association, publicly funded, shared equity	Policy review	N/A	N/A
Mullins (2018)	Self-help	UK	N/A	Policy review	N/A	N/A
New Economics Foundation (2018)	Community led housing	UK	N/A	Blog	3	N/A
Prasad (2019)	Cohousing	Denmark	N/A	Report (fellowship)	1	Case study and site visit
Stevens (2016)	Community led housing	UK	N/A	Report	8	Case studies
Reference	Target population	Negative health links	Positive health links	Quality Appraisal (AACODS)
				A	A	C	O	D	S	Overall
Archer (2009)	N/A	N/A	Increased confidence and skills; healthy food, e.g. food co-operatives; filling gaps in public services e.g. informal care provided by neighbours to older people, or peer support sessions for those suffering a certain health condition; atmosphere of safety and neighbourliness	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	4
Devlin et al. (2015)	Architects, residents, housing association staff	N/A	Beneficial for older people	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	6
Fernandez et al. (2018)	Residents	N/A	Physical and mental wellbeing of older people; increased social connections and mutual support; increased sense of agency	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	5
Heslop (2017)	Self-builders and key support staff, for people who have or are at risk of experiencing homelessness	N/A	Participant empowerment and confidence building; improved social connections	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	4
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2013)	Unclear	N/A	Improved physical and mental health for older people; ability to maintain independence	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	5
Lubik and Kosatsky (2019)	N/A	May not benefit everyone, it takes time to form social bonds and a few studies have demonstrated that some residents opt out of communal living in less than a year, citing either too much or not enough social planning/ interaction	Social inclusion; higher perceived levels of wellbeing; supportive environment for older people to age in place, with neighbours’ help allowing residents to remain in their homes longer; greater affordability	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	6
Moore and McKee (2012)	N/A	Those with the time and affluence to engage in civic action benefit, while marginalised populations remain on the fringes	Scope to empower and build community resilience; affordable housing	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	6
Mullins (2018)	N/A	N/A	Improved skills and work experience which led to better employment opportunities; improved mental health	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	6
New Economics Foundation (2018)	N/A	N/A	Delivers affordable homes	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	5
Prasad (2019)	Residents	N/A	Improved social connections and reduced loneliness for older people	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	3
Stevens (2016)	Older people, Learning Disabilities	N/A	Mutual care and support for many older people; control and retaining their independence and feeling secure; enhanced well-being; combining voluntary help and assistance with care, e.g.. for those with Learning Disabilities	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	4

Community led housing, health and wellbeing: a comprehensive literature review, 2023.

Figure 2. Number of literature items reporting associations between community Led housing and positive and negative impacts on primary health outcomes, secondary housing factor outcomes, and health inequalities. Community Led housing, health and wellbeing: a Comprehensive literature review, 2023.

Bresson, S., & Labit, A. (2019). How does collaborative housing address the issue of social inclusion? A French perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(4), 1–21.

 Google Scholar

Clever Elephant. (2019). Assessing the potential benefits of living in co-operative and/or community led housing. https://wales.coop/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CCLH-Report-Summary-2019.pdf

 Google Scholar

Coele, M. (2014). Cohousing and intergenerational exchange: Exchange of housing equity for personal care assistance in intentional communities. Working with Older People, 18(2), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1108/WWOP-01-2014-0001

 Google Scholar

Community Self Build Agency and University of the West of England (CSBA & UWE). (2016). Impact of self-build projects in supporting ex-Service personnel. https://www.fim-trust.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/UWE-CSBA-self-help.pdf

 Google Scholar

Czischke, D., & Huisman, C. J. (2018). Integration through collaborative housing? Dutch starters and refugees forming self-managing communities in Amsterdam. Urban Planning, 3(4), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i4.1727

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dang, L., & Seemann, A. K. (2020). The role of collaborative housing initiatives in public value co-creation – a case study of Freiburg, Germany. Voluntary Sector Review, 12(1), 1–20.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garciano, J. L. (2011). Affordable cohousing: challenges and opportunities for supportive relational networks in mixed-income housing. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 20, 169–192.

 Google Scholar

Glass, A. P. (2009). Aging in a community of mutual support: The emergence of an elder intentional cohousing community in the United States. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23(4), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763890903326970

 Google Scholar

Glass, A. P. (2012). Elder co-housing in the United States: Three case studies. Built Environment, 38(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.3.345

 Google Scholar

Glass, A. P. (2013). Lessons learned from a new elder cohousing community. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 27(4), 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2013.813426

 Google Scholar

Glass, A. P. (2016). Resident-managed elder intentional neighborhoods. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(7–8), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2016.1246501

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Glass, A. P., & Vander Plaats, R. S. (2013). A conceptual model for aging better together intentionally. Journal of Aging Studies, 27(4), 428–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2013.10.001

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hackett, K. A., Saegert, A., Dozier, D., & Marinova, M. (2018). Community land trusts: Releasing possible selves through stable affordable housing. Housing Studies, 34(1), 24–48).

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jarvis, H. (2015). Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of cohousing: Evidence from the UK, USA and Australia. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011429

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kehl, K., & Then, V. (2013). Community and civil society returns of multigeneration cohousing in Germany. Journal of Civil Society, 9(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2013.771084

 Google Scholar

Labit, A., & Dubost, N. (2016). Housing and ageing in France and Germany: The intergenerational solution. Housing, Care and Support, 19(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/HCS-08-2016-0007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lang, R., & Novy, A. (2014). Cooperative housing and social cohesion: The role of linking social capital. European Planning Studies, 22(8), 1744–1764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.800025

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2015.1086400

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Martin, D. G., Esfahani, A. H., Williams, O. R., Kruger, R., Pierce, J., & DeFilippis, J. (2019). Meanings of limited equity homeownership in community land trusts. Housing Studies, 35(3), 395–414.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Izuhara, M., West, K., Hudson, J., Arrigoitia, M. F., & Scanlon, K. (2021). Collaborative housing communities through the COVID-19 pandemic: Rethinking governance and mutuality. Housing Studies, 39, 65–83.

 Google Scholar

Pedersen, M. (2015). Senior co-housing communities in Denmark. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 29(1–2), 126–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2015.989770

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Labit, A. (2015). Self-managed cohousing in the context of an ageing population in Europe. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011425

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rosenberg, J. (2012). Social housing, community empowerment and well-being: Part two – measuring the benefits of empowerment through community ownership. Housing, Care and Support, 15(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/14608791211238403

 Google Scholar

Ruiu, M. L. (2015). The effects of cohousing on the social housing system: The case of the Threshold Centre. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 30(4), 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9436-7

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ruiu, M. L. (2016). Participatory processes in designing cohousing communities: The case of the community project. Housing and Society, 43(3), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2017.1363934

 Google Scholar

Sanguinetti, A. (2014). Transformational practices in cohousing: Enhancing residents’ connection to community and nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scanlon, K., & Arrigoitia, M. F. (2015). Development of new cohousing: Lessons from a London scheme for the over-50s. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1011430

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scanlon, K., Hudson, J., Arrigoitia, M. F., Ferreri, M., West, K., & Udagawa, C. (2021). ‘Those little connections': Community-led housing and loneliness. Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1035018/Loneliness_research_-__Those_little_connections_.pdf

 Google Scholar

Schneider, J. K. (2022). Interrupting inequality through community land trusts. Housing Policy Debate, 33(4), 1002–1026.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Theriault, L., Leclerc, A., Wisniewski, A. E., Chouinard, O., & Martin, G. (2010). “Not just an apartment building”: Residents’ quality of life in a social housing co-operative. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 1(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2010v1n1a11

 Google Scholar

Van den Berg, P., Sanders, J., Maussen, S., & Kemperman, A. (2021). Collective self-build for senior friendly communities. Studying the effects on social cohesion, social satisfaction and loneliness. Housing Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2021.1941793

 Google Scholar

Wang, J., Pan, Y., & Hadjri, K. (2021). Social sustainability and supportive living: Exploring motivations of British cohousing groups. Housing and Society, 48(1), 60–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2020.1788344

 Google Scholar

Warner, E., Chambers, L., & Andrews, F. J. (2022). Exploring perspectives on health housing among low-income prospective residents of a future co-housing “Microvillage” in Geelong, Australia. Housing and Society, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2022.2079943

 Google Scholar

Weeks, L., Bigonnesse, C., McInnis-Perry, G., & Dupuis-Blanchard, S. (2019). Barriers faced in the establishment of cohousing communities for older adults in Eastern Canada. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 34(1), 1–16.

 Google Scholar

Archer, T. (2009). Help from within: An exploration of community self help. Community Development Foundation. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/help-from-within-an-exploration-of-community-self-help

 Google Scholar

Devlin, P., Douglas, R., & Reynolds, T. (2015). Collaborative design of older women’s CoHousing. Working with Older People, 19(4), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/WWOP-08-2015-0018

 Google Scholar

Fernandez, M., Scanlon, K., & West, K. (2018). Well-being and age in cohousing life: Thinking with and beyond design. Housing Learning and Improvement Network.

 Google Scholar

Heslop, J. (2017). Protohome: Rethinking home through co-production. In M. Benson & I. Hamiduddin (Eds.), Self-build homes: Social discourse, experiences and directions (pp. 96–114). UCL Press.

 Google Scholar

Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2013). Senior Cohousing Communities- an alternative approach for the UK? https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/senior-cohousing-communities-%E2%80%93-alternative-approach-uk

 Google Scholar

Moore, T., & McKee, K. (2012). Empowering local communities? An international review of community land trusts. Housing Studies, 27(2), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.647306

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

New Economics Foundation. (2018). Communities are building the affordable homes that London needs, keeping land in public hands is the key to better housing. https://neweconomics.org/2018/02/communitiesbuilding-affordable-homes-london-needs

 Google Scholar

Prasad, G. (2019). Supported independent living: Communal and intergenerational living in the Netherlands and Denmark. https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/OtherOrganisation/Supported-Independent-Living-Communal-and-intergenerational-living-in-the-Netherlands-and-Denmark.pdf

 Google Scholar

Stevens, J. (2016). Growing older together: An overview of collaborative forms of housing for older people. Housing Learning and Improvement Network.

 Google Scholar

Lubik, A., & Kosatsky, T. (2019). Public health should promote co-operative housing and cohousing. Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique, 110(2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-018-0163-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mullins, D. (2018). Achieving policy recognition for community-based housing solutions: The case of self-help housing in England. International Journal of Housing Policy, 18(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1384692

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar