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

References

• Boumeester, H. J. F. M. (2011). Traditional housing demand research. In S. J. T. Jansen, H. C. C. H. Coolen, & R. W. Goetgeluk (Eds.), The measurement and analysis of housing preference and choice (pp. 27–55). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Byarkitekten_i_Bergen. (2019). Bopilot - kommunen som pådriver for alternative boligløsninger. //www.bergen.kommune.no/hvaskjer/tema/arkitektur-i-bergen/bopilot/digital-medvirkning.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human nature and the need for social connection. WW Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterton, P. (2014). Low impact living: A field guide to ecological, affordable community building. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chatterton, P. (2016). Building transitions to post‐capitalist urban commons. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(4), 403–415. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, J. S. (2013). Why do people move to cohousing communities in Sweden? Are there any significant differences between the +40 cohousing and the mixed-age cohousing? Architectural Research, 15(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5659/AIKAR.2013.15.2.77
   Google Scholar
• Clapham, D., Kintrea, K., & Kay, H. (1996). Direct democracy in practice the case of ‘Community Ownership’ housing associations. Policy and Politics, 24(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1332/030557396782148408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clapham, D. F., Clark, W. A. V., & Gibb, K. (2012). The SAGE handbook of housing studies. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Collen, H., & Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(3–4), 285–306. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012587323814
   Google Scholar
• Corfe, S. (2019). Co-living: A solution to the housing crisis. //www.smf.co.uk/publications/co-living-solution-housing-crisis.
   Google Scholar
• Crabtree, L. (2006). Disintegrated houses: Exploring ecofeminist housing and urban design options. Antipode, 38(4), 711–734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00473.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham, P. A., & Wearing, S. L. (2013). Does consensus work? A case study of the Cloughjordan ecovillage, Ireland. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v5i2.3283
   Google Scholar
• Daly, M. (2017). Quantifying the environmental impact of ecovillages and co-housing communities: A systematic literature review. Local Environment, 22(11), 1358–1377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1348342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidova, M., & Zímová, K. (2018). COLridor: Co-design and co-living urban adaptation. FORMakademisk, 11(4), 1–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.2647
   Google Scholar
• Delgado, G. (2012). Towards dialectic utopias: Links and disjunctions between collaborative housing and squatting in the Netherlands. Built Environment, 38(3), 430–442. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.3.430
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289–300. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Den norske sykepleierindeksen. (2019). eiendomnorge.no. https://eiendomnorge.no/blogg/den-norske-sykepleierindeksen-2019-article360-923.html
   Google Scholar
• Fois, F., & Forino, G. (2014). The self-built ecovillage in L’Aquila, Italy: Community resilience as a grassroots response to environmental shock. Disasters, 38(4), 719–739. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, E. (2008). Emotion science: Cognitive and neuroscientific approaches to understanding human emotions. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fromm, D. (2000). American cohousing: The first five years. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 17(2), 94–109.: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43030530
   Google Scholar
• Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Optimal Books.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgi, E. (2020). The co-housing phenomenon: Environmental Aliance in times of changes. Springer International Publishing AG.
   Google Scholar
• Green, S., & McCarthy, L. (2015). Is sharing the solution? Exploring the opportunities and challenges of privately rented shared accommodation for single people in housing need. People, Place and Policy, 9(3), 159–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3351/ppp.0009.0003.0001
   Google Scholar
• Gurran, N., & Bramley, G. (2017). Urban planning and the housing market: International perspectives for policy and practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Guttu, J. 2003, ”Eneboligen – som ideal for folket og utfordring for fagfolket” i Tidsskrift for kulturforskning, nr. 3, volum 2, Novus Forlag, s. 23–40. http://ojs.novus.no/index.php/TFK/article/view/403
   Google Scholar
• Hasu, E. (2018). Housing decision-making process explained by third agers, Finland: ‘we didn’t want this, but we chose it’. Housing Studies, 33(6), 837–854. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2017.1408785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 431–438. http://3.0.CO;2-Thttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199610)24:4<431::AID-JCOP10>3.0.CO;2-T
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopwood, H., & Mann, F. (2018). A novel cohousing project for older women and implications for loneliness (Part 2). Geriatric Medicine Journal, 48(6).2 https://www.gmjournal.co.uk/a-novel-cohousing-project-for-older-women-andimplications-for-loneliness-part–
   Google Scholar
• Huber, A. (2017). Theorising the dynamics of collaborative consumption practices: A comparison of peer-to-peer accommodation and cohousing. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 53–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, H., Scanlon, K., Fernández Arrigoitia, M., Chatterton, P., Kear, A., O’Reilly, D., Sargisson, L., & Stevenson, F. (2016). Co-housing: Shared futures. University of Newcastle. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/132499/
   Google Scholar
• Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, R., Carriou, C., & Czischke, D. (2018). Collaborative housing research (1990–2017): A systematic review and thematic analysis of the field. Housing, Theory, and Society, 37(1), 10–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2018.1536077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, R., & Novy, A. (2013). Cooperative housing and social cohesion: The role of linking social capital. European Planning Studies, 22(8), 1744–1764. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.800025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, 49(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maalsen, S. (2019). “I cannot afford to live alone in this city and I enjoy the company of others”: Why people are share housing in Sydney. Australian Geographer, 50(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2019.1613026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, C., & Dovey, K. (1991). Cohousing: An option for the 1990s. Progressive Architecture, 72(6), 112–113.
   Google Scholar
• Meltzer, G. (2000). Cohousing: Towards social and environmental sustainability [unpublished PhD Thesis]. The University of Queensland.
   Google Scholar
• Meltzer, G. (2005). Sustainable community, learning from the cohousing model. Trafford Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• NOU. (2015). Produktivitet-grunnlag for vekst og velferd. Finansdepartamentet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ef2418d9076e4423ab5908689da67700/no/pdfs/nou201520150001000dddpdfs.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2018). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
   Google Scholar
• Plan_og_bygningsetaten_i_Oslo. (2021). Sosiale boformer – Boliger med deling ognabofellesskap . https://www.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/13402179-1618323006/Tjenester%20og%20tilbud/Politikk%20og%20administrasjon/Slik%20bygger%20vi%20Oslo/Plan-%20og%20bygningsetaten/Nye%20boligkvaliteter/Sosiale%20boformer%20web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pruvost, G. (2013). l alternative écologique. Vivre et travailler autrement. Terrain 60, 36–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4000/terrain.15068
   Google Scholar
• Rose, S., & Serafica, F. C. (1986). Keeping and ending casual, close and best friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407586033002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux, N. (2014). Habiter autrement, un autre rapport au temps [Inhabiting differently, another relation to time]. Écologie & politique, 48(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/ecopo.048.0037
   Google Scholar
• Ruud, M.E., 2009. Unges boligpreferanser (NIBR-notat). By- og regionforskningsinstituttet NIBR,Oslo. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7577/nibr/notat/2009/106
   Google Scholar
• SSB. (2020). Boforhold, registerbasert.
   Google Scholar
• Steg, L., de Groot, J. I. M., & Van Den Berg, A. E. (2019). Environmental psychology: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, M. (2015). Between boundaries: From commoning and guerrilla gardening to community land trust development in liverpool. Antipode, 47(4), 1021–1042. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12154
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timmermans, H., Molin, E., & van Noortwijk, L. (1994). 1994/09/01). Housing choice processes: Stated versus revealed modelling approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 9(3), 215–227. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496997
   Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. (2016). The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research. Urban Studies, 53(10), 2023–2040. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UN. (2016). Leaving No One Behind: The Imperative of Inclusive Development. Report on the World Social Situation 2016. U. N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Vanolo, A. (2013). Alternative capitalism and creative economy: The case of Christiania. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1785–1798. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01167.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestbro, D. U. 2012. “Saving by Sharing – Collective Housing for Sustainable Lifestyles in the Swedish Context.” Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity, Venice, September 19–23
   Google Scholar
• Vestbro, D. U., & Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality: The history of co-housing ideas and realities. Built Environment, 38(3), 315–335. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.38.3.315
   Google Scholar
• von Zumbusch, J. S. H., & Lalicic, L. (2020). The role of co-living spaces in digital nomads’ well-being. Information Technology & Tourism, 22(3), 439–453. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-00182-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, J., Pan, Y., & Hadjri, K. (2021). 2021/01/02). Social sustainability and supportive living: Exploring motivations of British cohousing groups. Housing and Society, 48(1), 60–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2020.1788344
   Google Scholar
• Wechuli, Y. (2017). Neighborly assistance: High expectations of multi-generation cohousing projects. Working With Older People, 21(3), 133–139. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/WWOP-02-2017-0006
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (2005). Sun, surf and sustainable housing: Cohousing, the Californian experience. International Planning Studies, 10(2), 145–177. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470500258824
   Google Scholar