Moving House and Housing Preferences in Older Age in Slovenia

ABSTRACT

Various studies indicate that the elderly are unwilling to move, while health issues are one of the important factors influencing decisions to move. In our study, we tested the willingness of the elderly to accept various housing options based on a large quantitative survey of persons aged 50 and above conducted in 2015 in Slovenia. Our focus was on the respondents’ attitudes to different housing options, especially less-well-known options such as senior cohousing, household groups, family caregiving for elderly people and multigenerational residential buildings. This is relevant for the future development of housing and care policies because in a majority of countries housing markets will need to adapt to the growing elderly populations and their diversified needs. We employ cluster analysis to analyze which housing options are acceptable, how people can be grouped regarding the acceptability of moving house, and the characteristics of these groups.

KEYWORDS:

• Elderly
• housing preferences
• care
• move
• Central and Eastern Europe

Introduction

The western population is ageing and, compared to other regions, the elderly population is growing especially fast in Europe where people aged > 65 years currently account for nearly 20% of the entire population. According to the Eurostat projections, the proportion of the elderly population will rise from 18.5% in 2014 to 28.7% in 2080, translating into an additional 55.2 million elderly persons in the European Union (EU) by 2080 (Eurostat 2015).

Population ageing has become an important political topic because countries affected by it face greater financial pressure due to the requirement to provide appropriate housing and services for their elderly citizens. A suitable living environment that is adapted to the needs, wishes and habits of older people is essential to ensure a good quality of life in older age since older people spend more time at home than those in other age groups and are thus more affected by unsuitable housing (Hansen and Gottschalk 2006). This, in turn, reduces the rate of physical accidents and injury, helps deal with a weaker immune system, helps with emotional isolation and depression, and aids the management of acute and chronic illness (Weisstub et al. 2001). The development of suitable housing that would correspond to the increased health and care needs of the elderly population is therefore vital. In previous decades, we witnessed substantial changes in older people’s living arrangements (Michael, Fuchs, and Scott 1980; Murphy and Grundy 1994; Ruggles 2001). Further changes should be anticipated because the coming generations will be different from today’s owing to changes in individual characteristics of old people, lifestyles, family dynamics, and health status (Kramer and Pfaffenbach 2009; Gaymu et al. 2006). One should note that older people’s individual housing preferences vary widely (Robinson and Moen 2000), and so housing options for older people should allow for this heterogeneity. “To improve our knowledge base and to support societal planning for very old people, we need to develop a deeper understanding of the complexity of the topics regarding where to grow old and of the dynamics of the concerned individuals’ decision to relocate” (Löfqvist et al. 2013, 920).

Our study aims to address this issue. The present results contribute to our understanding of moving house under conditions of diminished health and also address the various housing options available currently, considering the attitudes of elderly people towards these options. The findings of the study are also highly relevant in the context of poorly developed housing and care systems for older people and in the setting of high homeownership rates, and thus lower mobility rates, characteristic of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and others (see Turner, Hegedus, and Tosics 1992, Tosics and Hegedus 2003). These specific conditions require a more in-depth investigation of housing preferences and the circumstances to change residence when care is needed, and there are substantial implications for policies necessary for the development of a combined housing and care system that provides a high quality of life during old age.

The specific aims of this study were to research the attitudes of older people in Slovenia to various housing options. The study also sought to group the study populations by their housing preferences. An additional aim was to identify the characteristics of these groups, including identification of groups more likely to move. This would allow us to understand the potential for developing different housing options and their key target groups. We assumed these groups have varying socio-demographic characteristics, current dwellings, and living environment characteristics as well as level of attachment to their current residence.

The study aims to add to the current literature on relocation in very old age and address the elderly’s attitudes to particular housing options. As Löfqvist et al. (2013) stated, few studies have included personal and environmental factors while considering the decision-making process of very old people regarding relocation versus ageing in place. There is a need to develop in-between housing (i.e. housing between nursing homes and independent housing) and various housing options for older people that provide different levels of care that would make their decision to move easier . This study adds to the existing literature on the attitudes held by the elderly to alternative housing options.

Housing Preferences and Housing Moves in Old Age

Many housing and ageing population studies focus on different issues, including housing satisfaction among old people (Moen and Erickson 2001), housing choice and housing demand (Chi 1995; Yip, Lee, and Law 2003; Chiu and Ho 2006), the housing needs of older people (Lewis 1997; Wong 1998; Cheng 2003), considerations for moving house (Hansen and Gottschalk 2006; Abramsson and Andersson 2012) as well as housing preferences and expectations (Abramsson and Andersson 2016; Hui et al. 2014).

Research shows that the majority of seniors prefer not to move, with this tendency growing stronger with age (Robinson and Moen 2000; Clough et al. 2004; Costa-Font, Elvira, and Mascarilla-Miro 2009; Andersson and Abramsson 2011). Most older people prefer to continue living in their own homes and live independently for as long as possible (Clark and Davies 1990; Kramer and Pfaffenbach 2016). Research shows this is linked to the higher attachment of the elderly to their homes, their memories, identity-building, and existing social networks in the current living environments (Sixsmith 1990; Dupuis and Thorns 1996; Oswald and Wahl 2005; Clough et al. 2004; Dahlin-Ivanoff et al. 2007; Vasara 2015). Therefore, attachment to a place is an important factor underpinning older adults’ low mobility (De Jong et al. 2012).

Moreover, the decision to change residence during old age is linked to the person-environment fit (Lawton 1982), relative satisfaction with one’s current dwelling and location, and the utility of the dwelling (Hansen and Gottschalk 2006; Sarma and Simpson 2007). Therefore, shifting residence in old age is uncommon and often linked to increasing health needs, which is a relevant factor that aids the decision to relocate (Longino 1990; Longino and Serow 1992; Longino and Smith 1991; Longino et al. 1991; Reshovsky and Newman 1990; Rogers 1990; Speare, Avery, and Lawton 1991). Other push factors include significant life changes (e.g. loss of one’s partner, loss/absence of care support, etc.). Consequently, childless and single people, for instance, are more likely to move and more commonly live in institutionalised settings (Gaymu et al. 2006; Abramsson and Andersson 2016). The most relevant pull factors stated in the literature include social benefits (e.g. living closer to services and social contacts), security and familiarity with the new facility, and the desire for a more convenient dwelling (Hansen and Gottschalk 2006; Löfqvist et al. 2013). These factors stem from Wiseman’s theoretical model that links relocation decisions with satisfaction with the current residence and triggering events (as described above) (Wiseman 1980; Perry, Andersen, and Kaplan 2014). In contemporary studies of relocation, the factors influencing changing one’s residence are further developed and researched with regard to relocation trajectories and decisions in the context of the quality of parent-child relationships, the location of kin, and knowledge of the available services (for an overview, see Perry, Andersen, and Kaplan 2014).

It is important to understand the motives for changing residence and the types of people who move in order to better support such moves that help improve the quality of life of older people. The different housing options for older people are usually distributed along a continuum ranging from complete independence to complete dependence (Van Vliet 1998; Robinson and Moen 2000). Encompassing this range of living arrangements, various types of elderly housing have been introduced around the world, such as assisted living facilities in the category of dependent living, continuing care retirement communities and shared housing in the category of semi-dependent living, and rented or owner-occupied housing architecturally adapted for elderly people for independent living. However, not all of these options are available in many Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, including Slovenia. In terms of developing future care and housing for older people, it is important to understand their priorities and potential choices with respect to various housing options; namely, this was the objective of the present study. The article adds to the wider literature on older people’s housing preferences and moving patterns, especially for the elderly with declining health and increasing care needs while also looking into various alternative housing options.

Furthermore, a specific advantage of the study is that it addresses these issues in the setting of high homeownership and limited housing options, such as in Slovenia. This assists understanding of specific aspects of the context and allows for the more targeted development of housing and care services for older people. This housing context is characteristic not only of Slovenia but also of other CEE countries and many southern European countries (Tosics and Hegedus 2003; Saraceno and Keck 2010; Dobrotič 2016). Thus far, Slovenia has primarily developed institutional housing for older people (old people homes), one of the most expensive forms of housing for the older population. Old people’s homes are a form of institutional care for people aged > 65 years and other people who experience problems that make it difficult for them to live independently, whether due to old age, disability, disease, personal issues, or other reasons. The offered services include housing, organized meals, technical support, and healthcare (Cijan and Cijan 2003; Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs 2005; Kerbler 2014). The option of sheltered housing is also available. Its architectural design is adapted to the needs of older people who live in their own houses that are located in an apartment building or any other type of building and come equipped with 24-h-a-day institutional assistance available nearby. It is intended for older people who can no longer fully provide or care for themselves but can still live relatively independently (Kerbler 2014). In addition to sheltered housing, regular private as well as non-profit rental housing is available in Slovenia, including a small number of rental dwellings offered by the Housing Fund of the pension and disability insurance scheme. However, all of the above types of living arrangements for older people exist in very limited proportions. For example, only 1% of older people live in rented housing. Few other housing forms exist. Slovenia is characterized by a high level of owner-occupied housing. According to Mandič (2011), the 2007 European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) showed that 96% of Slovenians aged > 65 years own their apartments or houses. With older age, especially > 80 years, the percentage of homeownership increases; this is linked to the lower use of rental housing and lack of diversity of housing for older people. Older people in Slovenia are very attached to their homes, and so changing residence is often a traumatic experience for them (Kerbler 2012). Institutionalisation (moving into an old people’s home) is generally seen as the last option (Robinson and Moen 2000), even though some studies indicate that the quality of life is higher in such environments. For the elderly who stay at home, public social home services are available, yet the use of such facilities is limited to 4 h a day (20 h a week), and only available to 1.7% (6,466) of people older than 65 years (data for 2016), while 35% of municipalities do not provide these services on Sundays or holidays, and 40% do not provide afternoon services (Lebar et al. 2017). This limits the possibilities for the elderly who require extensive care to stay at home.

Methods

The survey used for the analysis was a survey of 930 people ≥ 50 years old and was conducted in November 2015. The sample frame, containing eligible units (aged 50+ in the household), was 4,100, after the elimination of 30% of the initial, general population. The response rate was 22.6%, resulting in 930 completed questionnaires.¹ We used a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) surveying technique.

For our analysis, we focused on questions that assessed the respondents’ attitudes to living arrangements for older people already established in Slovenia (i.e. old people’s home and sheltered housing, as described in the previous section) as well as their attitudes to less-well-known living arrangements for older people we believed could be adapted to the social and cultural environment of Slovenia. They were then asked to score the offered living arrangements on a scale from 1 to 5 (1: totally unacceptable; 2: unacceptable; 3: neutral, 4: acceptable; 5: perfectly acceptable). Before initiating the evaluation, the respondents were provided with short and easily understandable descriptions of each of the lesser-known living arrangements for older people:

• Senior co-housing: A group of older people who decide to live together, share their monthly costs and maintenance costs, and socialize and help each other.

• Living in a multigenerational residential building: Individuals of different generations coexist and socialize in such buildings and can help each other (e.g. seniors can help families with childcare, younger residents can take the seniors to the doctor, etc.).

• Household groups: This involves a group of older people who need care. Throughout the day, a house helper takes care of the household and cares for the older people. Household groups are usually located near the residences of relatives.

• Living with another family or individual: In this arrangement, an individual or family moves in with an older person, takes care of him/her, and helps maintain the home in exchange for free accommodation.

• Living with a caregiving family for older people: Here, an older person chooses a family that is trained to care for the elderly, based on where he/she would like to live.

To determine whether there are important differences or common features among older people in Slovenia based on their attitudes to well-known and less-well-known forms of living arrangements, we ranked the respondents’ answers using a hierarchical classification method (pooling method).² Using this method, new groups were formed from two or more groups based on their similarities (Ferligoj 1989). The process of hierarchical grouping was performed according to Ward’s method (Ferligoj 1989). The algorithm follows the principle that the variability within a group is less than that between two or more groups. To determine the degree of similarity, we used squared Euclidean distance that emphasizes greater distances to facilitate grouping. Four groups emerged (also called clusters), comprising a total of 689 respondents. We checked the characteristics of the realized sample before the analysis, and the final sample included in the cluster analysis is presented in Table 2. Given that only minor discrepancies were found between the samples (the largest being 2% in educational distribution for the least and most educated), we are confident the samples are comparable and that the missing values were not linked to particular population groups.

Table 2. Socio-demographic and living characteristics of cluster groups (%).

	Group 1: Traditionalists	Group 2: Independents	Group 3: Sceptics	Group 4: Open-minded	Total/Average
Have you considered moving in the future?**
Yes	9.3	18.9	6.5	18.5	15.4
No	90.7	81.1	93.5	81.5	84.6
Education***
Primary school	21.9	15.1	41.0	13.4	18.6
Vocational school	17.5	16.2	24.6	19.0	18.0
High school	41.9	37.0	27.9	41.9	38.6
College or university	18.8	31.7	6.6	25.7	24.9
Single household	37.3	24.3	30.6	16.9	26.0
Revenue***
With current income, one can easily cope	37.4	38.0	20.0	46.0	38.3
Current health status**
Very Bad	2.5	1.8		1.1	1.6
Bad	10.5	9.8	16.4	6.7	9.8
Satisfactory	43.8	43.2	62.3	36.0	43.1
Good	34.6	35.1	14.8	39.9	34.4
Very good	8.6	10.2	6.6	16.3	11.1
Where do you live?	/
Owner-occupied house	76.5	74.7	78.7	71.1	74.6
Owner-occupied apartment	21.6	23.2	16.4	27.2	23.3
Rented housing	1.9	1.4	4.9	1.1	1.7
Other		0.7		0.6	0.4
Average age (in years)***
	72.66	68.13	71.9	66.44	69.13
Average age in residence (in years)***
	40.03	35.39	40.75	33.33	36.43
Type of settlement	/
Dispersed rural settlement or solitary place	19.1	22.4	32.3	22.3	22.5
Continuous rural settlement or near a village	24.1	23.1	21.0	22.9	23.1
Small town	30.2	31.5	27.4	27.4	29.8
Major city	26.5	23.1	19.4	27.4	24.7

Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1

Results

Older People’s Attitudes to Various Living Arrangements

As expected, the survey results showed that the known living arrangements were considerably more acceptable to older people than those that are unknown or less well known. However, it should be noted that a significant share of respondents also characterized the former as not acceptable; only 55% of the respondents rated sheltered housing acceptable, namely answers 4 and 5 (Table 1).

Table 1. Cluster groups according to living preferences.

	Group 1: Traditionalists	Group 2: Independents	Group 3: Sceptics	Group 4: Open-minded	Total/Average
	n = 161	n = 286	n = 62	n = 179	n = 689	Total/% of acceptable
Old people’s home	4.58	3.81	1.27	4.24	3.87	71.7
Sheltered housing	2.62	3.76	1.32	4.22	3.39	55.6
Co-housing	1.42	2.27	1.37	3.95	2.42	25.8
Multigenerational residential building	1.35	2.85	1.24	4.04	2.66	32.0
Household groups	1.43	2.63	1.24	4.00	2.58	30.6
Living with family or individual	1.34	1.82	1.32	2.90	1.94	11.3
Caretaking family	1.35	1.70	1.20	2.71	1.84	7.5

Note: Bold – above average; italic – below average. The last column shows the proportion of respondents who found the option acceptable (answers 4 and 5)

Although the researchers reported that older people often have a negative attitude to institutional living (Robinson and Moen 2000; Kerbler 2012; Lopes et al. 2012), it is interesting to note that the old people’s home, the best-known living arrangement for older people in Slovenia, was reportedly acceptable or perfectly acceptable for 71.7% of the respondents and unacceptable or totally unacceptable for just 16.6%. This indicates the high level of acceptance of institutional settings, yet this result only applies to situations where the elderly require extensive care.

In contrast, approximately one-quarter of the respondents (24.8%) expressed a negative attitude regarding sheltered housing for older people, even though this type provides more advantages than the current form of institutional care and allows older people to maintain their autonomy and independence with occasional help. There are several possible reasons for this negative response of older people towards sheltered housing or a combination of reasons for the unacceptability of this form of housing to a large proportion of older people. For example, they might be unfamiliar with it, despite it being present in Slovenia for the last 15 years. This might be a financially unacceptable option for a large share of the elderly. They also might see it as a form of institutional care because most sheltered housing in Slovenia is located near old people’s homes, enabling access to round-the-clock care.

Among the lesser-known living arrangements for older people, living in a multigenerational residential building and living in a household group were the most acceptable. The former living arrangement was either acceptable or perfectly acceptable for 32.0% of the respondents, while and the latter was acceptable or perfectly acceptable for 30.6%. Older people could imagine both living arrangements because they hold several characteristics the elderly are familiar with. Household groups represent a form of institutional living that is considerably similar to old people’s homes, with the difference that they provide familiarity and family life. The fact that such household groups are usually located near the residences of relatives was also an important factor and was conveyed to the respondents. We concluded that a significant proportion of older people considered this option acceptable due to the emphasis on the social support in a multigenerational residential building (socializing, exchanging favours, etc.). Another important aspect of this living arrangement is the presence of a community made up of different generations. Intergenerational integration can also help in “outgrowing indifference, distrust, and rejection of joint cooperation. With this, older people can re-establish and actively contribute to the society by sharing their own experiences” (Milavec Kapun 2011, 75). Co-housing is still relatively unknown in Slovenia and was rated as acceptable or perfectly acceptable by 25.8% of the respondents.

Typology and Groups of Elderly People Based on Their Attitudes to Different Housing Options

We further evaluated the elderly’s acceptability of various new housing options. As described in the methodology section, the cluster method indicated the existence of four distinct groups of the elderly according to their evaluations of the offered options. Tables 1 and 2 show the results for the clusters (groups) based on the living preferences as well as their socio-demographic and living characteristics.

Subjects in the first group may be called the traditionalists because their most acceptable housing option was an old people’s home. Respondents in this group found this option highly acceptable (with an average score of 4.58), while all other options were considered unacceptable with below-average scores for acceptability (on a scale from 1 to 5). It is important to note that the share of respondents who had considered changing residence was lowest in this group (9%). The traditionalists were slightly older (average age 72.7 years), and the proportion of those who were living alone in this group was bigger than the average for the sample. Their financial situation was not significantly different from the average for the sample because approximately one-third of the respondents faced no difficulty surviving on their existing income. They appeared to be in relatively good health with only 12% describing their health as poor or very poor. Therefore, poor current health did not seem to increase their preference for institutional living.

We called respondents falling into the second group independents. They had an above-average preference for living in sheltered housing, indicating a strong preference for independent living. Their highest preference for an old people’s home is similar to the previous group’s, although the acceptability of this option was significantly lower than in groups 1 and 4. It is important to note this was the largest of all four groups. The average age of the independents was slightly below the study population’s average age (68.1 years), and they were more educated than those in the other three groups (31.7% had completed higher education). Their health and financial status were near the average for the study sample. Therefore, the financial accessibility of these dwellings did not seem to be a relevant issue given that not all respondents were wealthy. Sheltered housing offers the highest degree of independence, privacy, leisure time, and a way of life that may be very similar to family life.

Subjects in the third group were labelled sceptics. This was the smallest of all groups, with the sceptics finding all of the listed options extremely unacceptable. As expected, the share of respondents who had considered changing residence was the lowest (6.5%) in this group. On average, the sceptics were slightly older (71.9 years) and less educated (41% had completed primary school or less). Their financial situation appeared weaker than those of the other three groups as 80% indicated they have (some) difficulty surviving on their existing income. The percentage of those in poor health was also higher than for the other three groups. The proportion of those living in the countryside was the biggest in this group. Therefore, it appeared that the group with the greatest need for moving house to achieve a higher quality of life, by virtue of their poorer health, was also the most reluctant to move and did not consider any of the given options acceptable.

Respondents in the fourth group were named open-minded. They rated all of the listed options acceptable (i.e. above-average scores) and therefore seemed more open to various housing options during old age. The open-minded were the youngest group (average age: 66.44 years). They were less likely to be living alone (17%). They seemed to have the best financial status among all groups because almost half of the respondents in this group reported having no difficulty surviving on their existing income. They were also the healthiest, although this can be partly attributed to their lower average age.

We also analyzed whether the four groups differed with respect to their attachment to their current dwelling and living environment as well as their satisfaction with their present living conditions; the results are shown in Table 3. The attachment to the current dwelling and living environment was generally very high among all respondents, while satisfaction with the quality of their dwelling and living environment was also high. However, there were some differences among the groups.

Table 3. Attachment to and satisfaction with current dwelling based on cluster groups.

	Group 1: Traditionalists	Group 2: Independents	Group 3: Sceptics	Group 4: Open-minded	Total/Average
Attachment to dwelling**	4.60	4.42	4.43	4.22	4.41
Attachment to living environment***	4.45	4.15	4.44	4.04	4.22
Satisfaction with:
Arrangement in home	4.30	4.14	4.22	4.10	4.17
Size of dwelling	4.25	4.12	4.14	4.03	4.13
Construction quality*	4.13	3.87	3.98	3.96	3.96
General neatness of the environment***	4.46	4.09	4.11	4.08	4.17
Peace in the environment	4.40	4.24	4.29	4.30	4.30
Air quality	4.22	4.11	4.23	4.20	4.17
Safety	4.40	4.36	4.39	4.32	4.36
Access to dwelling	4.43	4.34	4.20	4.27	4.33
Attitudes towards the dwelling:
Dwelling as a bequest for my children^1	4.14	4.04	4.19	3.93	4.05
Dwelling represents what I achieved in life^1***	4.37	3.95	4.14	4.03	4.08
Dwelling is a memory of my life^1**	4.19	3.91	4.29	3.98	4.03

Note: 1 = very unsatisfied, 5 = very satisfied; ¹1 = disagree completely; 5 = agree completely

***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.1

Traditionalists were very attached to their current dwelling and living environment. They were also extremely satisfied with their housing characteristics and the quality of their living environments, such as peacefulness, air quality, and safety. They placed a high value on their dwellings, which represents what they have achieved in life (to a higher degree than the other three groups). By contrast, the open-minded were least attached to their current dwelling and living environment and were least satisfied with some characteristics of their dwelling, like size, and some features of their living environment, including cleanliness. This might explain their more positive attitudes to the housing options on offer. These findings are consistent with past research studies that show attachment to one’s current dwelling limited the willingness to move house (Golant 1972; Birch 1973; Butler 1975; Newman 1976; Lawton 1978; Ferraro 1981). The open-minded respondents had lived in their current homes for the least time: almost three-quarters (72.5%) of them had lived in their present homes for less than 41 years; this can also be linked to their lower average age. In contrast, 51.6% of the sceptics had lived in their current home for over 41 years, while 41.6% of the traditionalists had lived in their present homes for over 41 years (Table 3).

Discussion and Conclusions

Several different housing options are emerging, and this may be viewed as a response to the new and different needs and preferences of the new cohorts of elderly populations (Kramer and Pfaffenbach 2009). This can also be linked to the changing characteristics and corresponding needs of older people, such as the changing proportion of persons living without a partner, the rising proportion of childless people, and improvements in health status that will affect the demand for formal services in the future, especially specific living arrangements (Gaymu et al. 2006). In this study, we assessed the elderly’s preferences with regard to alternative housing options in Slovenia, a CEE country in which institutionalization remains the most common living arrangement (in addition to living in one’s current dwelling with care support) and all other housing options are less developed. The analysis illustrates the attitudes of the elderly to various housing options in the circumstances of extremely high homeownership rates and low mobility that characterize Slovenia (Kerbler 2014; Mandič 2016). An important limitation of the study is that the stated attitudes to various housing options do not directly translate into decisions that will really be made during old age. The results only provide an indication of the possible choices people would make and do not represent actual decisions. This aspect thus calls for more research because several studies show that the move itself is often influenced by unexpected life events as well as important influences of relatives as facilitators (Levin and Kane 2006; Yamasaki and Sharf 2011; Granbom et al. 2014). The decision to change residence is therefore a complex and ambivalent process wherein the reasons to move or stay in one’s current dwelling are intertwined (Granbom et al. 2014) and the making of autonomous decisions is important (Leith 2006).

As expected, based on previous research on the generally low expectations of living in highly supportive environments, the acceptability of the different living options was quite low. We performed a cluster analysis of housing preferences, and the four groups emerging from the analysis showed certain distinct differences in the types of housing preferred during old age, potentially in conditions of diminishing health and increasing care needs (e.g. for old people’s home or sheltered housing). The open-minded subjects, who were also the youngest, seemed more positively inclined towards the various housing options. This might indicate some changes in such attitudes between different generations (Kramer and Pfaffenbach 2009; Gaymu et al. 2006; Gilleard and Higgs 2002); however, this warrants further investigation to determine whether this is a time or a cohort effect because research already shows the tendency to continue living in one’s current dwelling increases with age (Robinson and Moen 2000; Costa-Font, Elvira, and Mascarilla-Miro 2009; Andersson and Abramsson 2011; De Jong et al. 2012). Consequently, we also need to consider that because the open-minded subjects were younger and healthier, they believed the time they would become dependent was further away and this may be a reason for the greater acceptability of the various options. Further, this group had the lowest attachment to their present dwelling, confirming previous reports suggesting attachment is an obstacle to moving house (see Robinson and Moen 2000; De Jong et al. 2012). This was therefore the group of people who would most likely be targeted as consumers of future alternative housing options. The preferences for moving to alternative housing in old age are linked to the person-environment fit (Lawton 1982) and relative satisfaction with one’s current dwelling and location as well as their utility (Hansen and Gottschalk 2006; Sarma and Simpson 2007). It was thus no surprise that the open-minded were less satisfied with some characteristics of their dwellings. Such a poor person-environment fit could, in the future, make them decide to change their residence to ensure higher well-being (Sergeant and Ekerdt 2008). In this case, relocation may be considered a coping strategy, particularly when the individual considers a future move as feasible and not too overwhelming (Sarma and Simpson 2007).

We also identified a distinct but small group of sceptics who preferred not to move and did not find any of the options acceptable. Members of this group were most attached to their current dwelling and were most likely to continue living in there. However, this was also the oldest group with lower health and income than the sample averages. This seems to indicate that the quality of the person-environment fit is a less strong decision making factor for some groups and there is a risk that those in this group may become trapped in poorer and unsuitable housing (and care) conditions. Further studies exploring the expressed choices and underlying motives (either constraints or preferences) are needed to add to the current explanations, as stressed by De Jong et al. (2012).

The other two groups, the traditionalists and the independents, had a strong preference for the already established and known housing options, particularly old people’s homes and sheltered housing. However, the likelihood of moving was much lower for the traditionalists than for the independents.

Although a small proportion of the elderly in Slovenia is interested in various living arrangements, the acceptability of the housing options on offer might further increase as the coming generations will be demographically different, have varying preferences and different lifestyles (Gilleard and Higgs 2002; Gaymu et al. 2006; Kramer and Pfaffenbach 2009; Andersson, Abramsson, and Malmberg 2018). The acceptability of moving and the meaning of home is dynamic during old age (Granbom et al. 2014), and the “one size fits all” practices in housing for the elderly are losing their relevance (Vasara 2015), indicating the need to diversify the available options despite the persistence of the main preference to stay at home (Kramer and Pfaffenbach 2016). This holds important policy implications because it demonstrates there is an interest in the development of a range of living arrangements for older people, and these arrangements might need to support the individualist approach, thereby catering to a large group of independents. When pull factors for moving house are searched, a high level of individualization is, therefore, required as these pull factors can vary and are not generalizable among the different groups. A limitation of this study is that we tested the preferences of the elderly in a single country; therefore, a comparative analysis of the attitudes of older people from other countries to the various housing options in old age is necessary to address the issue of cultural differences.

Another important issue is that of costs and the generally lower income of older people that may limit their housing choices. For example, the respondents estimated that one-third of their total household revenue went on expenses, with one-fifth being used for housing maintenance. The financial issue might also have been an important constraint while the sceptics were deciding on the housing preferences, yet the issue of financial constraints is unclear because no specific questions in the survey referred to this and hence this aspect calls for further research. One way of coping with the high costs of living identified by some groups of older people is to live with another family or individual; however, only 11.3% of the respondents saw this living arrangement as acceptable or perfectly acceptable. Older people were also unwilling to share their homes with others. The option of renting part of their dwelling was acceptable or perfectly acceptable for only 5% of the respondents. This might be linked to the fact that the rental market in Slovenia is still very unorganised and chaotic, with tenants holding comparably more rights than the landlords, (Sendi 2013; Mežnar and Petrovič 2013); this may discourage people from renting out part of their dwelling, as found in our survey. The identification of financially viable options that are acceptable to people is an important challenge that needs to be further investigated. Such research could support policymakers in establishing systemic and regulatory frameworks that would allow people to use their housing more efficiently as a potential source of income so as to improve their quality of life during old age.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Maja Mrzel and Karina Sirk for their technical assistance and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback. The research was financially supported by ARRS (Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS), grant numbers J5-6824, J5-8243, P5-0200.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS) [Grant number J5-6824, J5-8243, P5-0200].

Notes

1. Data were collected via a telephone survey (CATI) between 23 November and 27 November 2015. The unit of analysis is individuals aged 50+, residents of institutional care facilities excluded. The sampling frame was the telephone directory of Slovenia (TIS). With a systematic random sampling technique, 7,413 private fixed-line telephone numbers were included in the set. Respondents were selected using the “last birthday” method and were aged 50 + . The sample frame containing eligible units (aged 50+ in the household) was 4,100. The data were cleaned for outlying values before being analysed. The data were weighted by region.

2. We excluded from the analysis the options that indicated almost no change in the place of residence for the respondent, for example, living at home with care support.