Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Practice Mining for the Development of Sustainable
Retirement Villages in Australia
XIN HU BEng, MMgt
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy
Civil Engineering and Built Environment
Science and Engineering Faculty
Queensland University of Technology
2017
I
Abstract
Sustainable development, which means meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, has been
widely accepted as a way of understanding the relationship of humanity with
nature and between people. Since the community is the basic unit of sustainable
living, sustainable practices need to be incorporated into their developments.
In Australia, a retirement village is a type of community that is specially designed
for older people. It is a residential, multi-dwelling complex, providing diverse
facilities and services to benefit residents’ independence, social interaction and
health. Sustainability is suggested to be incorporated into the development of
retirement villages to provide residents with a way of life that meets their needs in
balance with the environment, or equivalently “sustainable retirement villages”.
The Australian retirement village industry is paying increased attention to the
development of sustainable retirement villages. However, there is not a
comprehensive understanding of what sustainability means in retirement villages,
since it is a new phenomenon in Australia. In addition, it is not easy to develop
sustainable retirement villages as their developments are complicated and need the
involvement of a variety of stakeholders from different sectors.
The study aims to explore what a sustainable living environment in retirement
villages means, and proposes a strategy to support village developers’ decision-
making process of developing sustainable retirement villages in Australia. The study
adopts inductive reasoning to propose a sustainable retirement village framework,
and content analysis to explore village developers’ perceptions of sustainability.
II
Additionally, to support developers’ decision-making process of developing
sustainable retirement villages, the study proposes a practice mining system to
retain, retrieve, revise and reuse historical sustainable practices using interviews,
case studies and case-based reasoning (CBR).
A sustainable retirement village framework is proposed, which contains four
domains: senior-oriented basic settings, financial affordability, an age-friendly social
environment, and environmental sustainability. These four domains are
interrelated, and a sustainable village environment needs to maintain a dynamic
balance between them. The study also found that developers, the most important
stakeholder in the development of sustainable retirement villages, value the
sustainability features of “care and services provision and accessibility”, “social
interaction”, “secure/safe living” and “independent living”. Although the social
sustainability of a retirement village environment is highly valued by developers,
environmental sustainability is largely ignored.
Case studies were conducted to examine prior sustainable practices of village
development in eight established projects. As demonstrated in the case study of a
not-for-profit retirement village, sustainable practices cover a variety of aspects,
including the selection of village location, site planning, provision of facilities and
services, social life and living costs. On the basis of identifying sustainable practices,
a CBR-based practice mining system (CBR-PMS) was developed. CBR-PMS can
support the retention, capture and reuse of historical sustainable practices of
village developments. Its major components include a Data Transforming and
Location System, a data warehouse and a Data Mining and Reusing Engine.
III
Demonstrated case studies were also conducted by using CBR-PMS, and accepted
outcomes were obtained.
The research findings expand the current knowledge about sustainable
development at the community level. They also contribute to a comprehensive
understanding of the meaning of a sustainable living environment in retirement
villages. In addition, they provide effective ways of retaining, retrieving and reusing
historical sustainable practices so as to promote the development of sustainable
retirement villages. All these will eventually facilitate the development of an age-
friendly environment for residents in retirement villages in Australia.
IV
Keywords
Sustainable development
Retirement villages
Sustainable living environment
Case-based reasoning
Practice mining
Australia
V
Table of content
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... I
Keywords .................................................................................................................... IV
Table of content ...........................................................................................................V
List of publications ...................................................................................................... IX
List of figures .............................................................................................................. XII
List of tables .............................................................................................................. XIII
List of abbreviations .................................................................................................. XV
Statement of original authorship ............................................................................. XVI
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. XVII
Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research background ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research problems ............................................................................................. 4
1.3 Strategies of addressing the research problems ................................................ 5
1.4 Research aim and specific objectives ................................................................. 7
1.5 Thesis outline ...................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 Literature review ....................................................................................... 11
2.1 Retirement villages in Australia: a literature review ........................................ 11
Abstract and keywords ....................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Research method ....................................................................................... 15
2.1.3 What we know about retirement villages in Australia from the literature ............................................................................................................................ 17
2.1.4 Current development of the Australian retirement village industry ........ 25
2.1.5 Issues and challenges: future development of the Australian retirement village industry .................................................................................................... 37
2.1.6 Summary .................................................................................................... 43
2.2 Sustainable development and sustainable communities ................................ 46
2.2.1 Sustainable development .......................................................................... 46
2.2.2 Sustainable communities ........................................................................... 51
2.2.3 Age-friendly communities ......................................................................... 52
2.2.4 Sustainable retirement villages ................................................................. 55
2.3 The application of case-based reasoning in construction management research: an overview ............................................................................................ 58
Abstract and keywords ....................................................................................... 60
VI
2.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 61
2.3.2 Case-based reasoning ................................................................................ 62
2.3.3 Research method ....................................................................................... 66
2.3.4 Overview of CM-CBR research .................................................................. 69
2.3.5 Issues with CM-CBR applications ............................................................... 88
2.3.6 Future research suggestions and directions ............................................. 89
2.3.7 Summary .................................................................................................... 92
Chapter 3 Research methodology ............................................................................. 94
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 94
3.2 Implications for the design of the research methodology ............................... 96
3.3 Research methods ............................................................................................ 98
3.4 Data collection issues ..................................................................................... 102
Chapter 4 Conceptualizing sustainable retirement village in Australia ................... 104
Abstract and keywords ......................................................................................... 106
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 107
4.2 The ecological theory of ageing and its implications on the retirement village development ........................................................................................................ 108
4.3 Research method ........................................................................................... 110
4.4 The competences of Australian baby boomers ............................................. 110
4.5 A Response to the competences of Australian baby boomers: the perspective from providing sustainable retirement villages ................................................... 113
4.5.1 Why offering the retirement village with sustainable features is a promising solution? .......................................................................................... 113
4.5.2 The proposed conceptual framework of sustainable retirement villages .......................................................................................................................... 114
4.6 Discussion: features of the proposed sustainable retirement village framework ............................................................................................................ 121
4.7 Summary ........................................................................................................ 122
Chapter 5 What is a sustainable retirement village? Perceptions of Australian developers ................................................................................................................ 124
Abstract and keywords ......................................................................................... 126
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 127
5.2 Sustainable communities and sustainable retirement villages ..................... 129
5.3 Research method ........................................................................................... 134
5.4 Research results ............................................................................................. 139
5.5 Discussions ..................................................................................................... 144
5.6 Summary ........................................................................................................ 150
VII
Chapter 6 Providing a sustainable living environment in not-for-profit retirement villages: A case study in Australia ............................................................................ 152
Abstract and keywords ......................................................................................... 154
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 155
6.2 Retirement villages and sustainability in Australia ........................................ 157
6.3 Research method ............................................................................................ 161
6.4 Case Study ...................................................................................................... 163
6.4.1 Background and context .......................................................................... 163
6.4.2 Site location ............................................................................................. 164
6.4.3 Site planning ............................................................................................ 165
6.4.4 Facilities and services............................................................................... 172
6.4.5 Social life .................................................................................................. 174
6.4.6. Living cost ............................................................................................... 175
6.5 Discussions...................................................................................................... 177
6.6 Summary ......................................................................................................... 190
6.7 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................ 192
Chapter 7 Practice mining system for the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia ................................................................................................... 193
Abstract and keywords ......................................................................................... 195
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 196
7.2 Development of the CBR-PMS ........................................................................ 199
7.2.1 Identifying sustainable practices of village developments ...................... 199
7.2.2 The framework of CBR-PMS .................................................................... 201
7.3 CBR-PMS ......................................................................................................... 202
7.3.1 DTLS ......................................................................................................... 203
7.3.2 Data warehouse ....................................................................................... 211
7.3.3 DMRE ....................................................................................................... 212
7.4 Demonstrations .............................................................................................. 218
7.4.1 Demonstration of retirement village cases ............................................. 219
7.4.2 Demonstration of sustainable practice cases .......................................... 221
7.4.3 Validation of the retrieved practices ....................................................... 224
7.5 Summary ......................................................................................................... 227
Chapter 8 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 229
8.1 Research findings ............................................................................................ 229
8.2 Contributions of the research ........................................................................ 232
8.3 Implications for industry development .......................................................... 235
VIII
8.4 Future research directions ............................................................................. 238
References ............................................................................................................... 241
Appendixes ............................................................................................................... 276
IX
List of publications
Journal Publications
1. Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., Buys, L., and Hu, Y. (2017). What is a sustainable
retirement villages? Perceptions from Australian developers, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 164, 179-186.
2. Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., and Buys, L. (2017). Providing a sustainable living
environment in not-for-profit retirement villages: A case study in Australia, Facilities
retirement villages in australia: a literat(In Press).
3. Hu, X., Xia, B., Buys, L., and Skitmore, M. (2017). Availability of services in
registered retirement villages in Queensland, Australia: A content analysis,
Australasian Journal on Ageing (In Press).
4. Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., Buys, L., and Zuo, J. (2017). The retirement villages in
Australia: A literature review, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 23(1), 101-122.
5. Xiao, X., Skitmore, M., and Hu, X. (2017). Case-based reasoning and text mining
for green building decision making, Energy Procedia, 111, 417-425.
6. Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., and Chen, Q. (2016). The application of case-based
reasoning in construction management research: An overview, Automation in
Construction, 72(2), 65-74.
7. Hu, X., Xia, B., Ye, K.H. and Skitmore, M. (2015). Underlying knowledge of
construction management consultants in China, Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, 142(2), 04015015.
8. Hu, X., Xia, B., Buys, L., Skitmore, M., Kennedy, R., and Drogemuller, R. (2015).
Stakeholder analysis of a retirement village development in Australia: Insights from
an inter-disciplinary workshop, International Journal of Construction Management,
15(4), 299-309.
X
9. Jiang, W.Y., Hu, X., Ye, K.H., and Wong, J. (2015). Market structure of
international construction professional services: Evidences from top design firms,
Journal of Management in Engineering, 32(1), 04015033.
10. Shi, L., Ye, K., Lu, W., and Hu, X. (2014). Improving the competence of
construction management consultants to underpin sustainable construction in
China, Habitat International, 41, 236-242.
11. Xia, B., Zuo, J., Skitmore, M., Buys, L., and Hu, X. (2014). Sustainability literacy of
older people in retirement villages, Journal of Aging Research,
doi:10.1155/2014/919054.
Journal Publications - Accepted with Revision or Under Review
1. Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., and Buys, L. (2017). Practice mining system for the
development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia, Building and
Environment (To be submitted).
2. Hu, X., Xia, B., Hu, Y., Skitmore, M., and Buys, L. (2017). What hinders the
development of continuing care retirement communities in China? International
Journal of Strategic Property Management (Under Review).
3. Xiao, X., Skitmore, M., Bridge, A., Xia, B., Wong, J. and Hu, X. (2016). Case-based
reasoning and construction cost estimation: A review of the literature 2004 to 2015,
Automation in Construction (Accepted with Revision)
Conference Papers
1. Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., and Buys, L. (2015). Conceptualizing sustainable
retirement villages in Australia. In: Raidén, AB and Aboagye-Nimo, E (Eds) Procs
31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, the University of Lincoln,
Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 357-366.
2. Xia, B., Hu, X., and Buys, L. (2016). Perceptions of retirement village developers
on sustainability in Australia. In proceedings of the 40th Australasian Universities
Building Education Association Conference, 6-8 July 2016, Central Queensland
XI
University, Cairns, Australia, Australasian Universities Building Education
Association, 218-228.
3. Xiao, X., Skitmore, M., and Hu, X. (2016). Case-based reasoning and text mining
for green building decision making. The 8th international conference on
sustainability in energy and buildings, SEB-16, 11-13 September 2016, Turin, Italy.
4. Sarhan, J.G., Hu, X., and Xia, B. (2016). An overview of the application of
interpretive structural modelling (ISM) in construction management research. The
16th international conference on sustainable built environment, 11-14 December,
2016, Seoul, South Korea.
XII
List of figures
Figure 1 Number of residents living in Australian retirement villages ...................... 29
Figure 2 Number of the retirement village residents in each region ........................ 30
Figure 3 Percentage of 65+ people living in retirement villages in capital cities in
2013 ........................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 4 Number of retirement villages ..................................................................... 32
Figure 5 Number of retirement villages in each region in 2013 ................................ 32
Figure 6 The number of the independent living units in each region in 2013 .......... 33
Figure 7 Sustainable development ............................................................................ 49
Figure 8 Case-based reasoning process ..................................................................... 64
Figure 9 Content analysis procedure ......................................................................... 67
Figure 10 Publication trend in years .......................................................................... 72
Figure 11 Triple bottom line as a response to the competences of Australian baby
boomers ................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 12 The proposed sustainable retirement village framework ....................... 115
Figure 13 Location of the retirement community ................................................... 165
Figure 14 Site planning map .................................................................................... 166
Figure 15 Layout of the community centre ............................................................. 167
Figure 16 Architecture of CBR-PMS ......................................................................... 202
Figure 17 Case-based reasoning .............................................................................. 203
Figure 18 Taxonomy tree for the “The accommodation type (F4)” index ............... 214
Figure 19 Taxonomy tree for the “The level of residents’ health conditions (F11)”
index ......................................................................................................................... 214
Figure 20 Semantic network of the demonstrated case ......................................... 222
XIII
List of tables Table 1 Publications used in this research ................................................................... 9
Table 2 Retirement village legislations of each state ................................................. 28
Table 3 Proportion of village residents to the senior population (65+) in each region
in 2013 ........................................................................................................................ 30
Table 4 Average size of a retirement village in each region in 2013 .......................... 34
Table 5 Distribution of the articles ............................................................................. 70
Table 6 Distribution by countries or regions .............................................................. 72
Table 7 Activities described in the development of CM-CBR models ....................... 73
Table 8 CM-CBR Applications fields ........................................................................... 74
Table 9 Overview of the specific research methods utilized in this research ........... 99
Table 10 Calculation of the test statistics .............................................................. 138
Table 11 2 x 2 contingency table .............................................................................. 138
Table 12 Identified sustainability features and their frequency .............................. 140
Table 13 Three most frequently mentioned sustainability features of the private and
not-for-profit village developers .............................................................................. 142
Table 14 Independent-Samples T test results .......................................................... 143
Table 15 Average number of sustainability features in the three specific
sustainability aspects ............................................................................................... 143
Table 16 Relationship between the financial type of village developers and social
sustainability ............................................................................................................ 144
Table 17 The on-site facilities and available services in the retirement village ...... 172
Table 18 The four entry options ............................................................................... 175
Table 19 The sustainable practices used in the retirement village ......................... 178
Table 20 Resident satisfaction survey results (2015) of this retirement village ...... 184
Table 21 Distribution of identified sustainable practices in eight retirement villages
.................................................................................................................................. 201
Table 22 Knowledge contained in the sample sustainable practice case ................ 205
Table 23 Knowledge contained in retirement village cases .................................... 206
Table 24 The description of the input retirement village case ................................ 219
Table 25 The similarity calculation of historical retirement village cases ............... 220
XIV
Table 26 Description of the input sustainable practice case ................................... 222
Table 27 Retrieved sustainable practices ................................................................ 223
Table 28 Investigation results of the usefulness of the retrieved sustainable
practices in promoting residents’ social interaction ............................................... 225
XV
List of abbreviations
QLD: Queensland
NSW: New South Wales
SA: South Australia
VIC: Victoria
WA: Western Australia
TAS: Tasmania
NT: Northern Territory
CM: Construction management
CBR: Case-based reasoning
CBR-PMS: CBR based practice mining system
DTLS: Data Transforming and Location System
DMRE: Data Mining and Reusing Engine
XVI
Statement of original authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Date: October 2017
XVII
Acknowledgements
There are many people I wish to thank for their support during my PhD journal.
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Associate
Professor Bo Xia, Professor Martin Skitmore and Professor Laurie Buys, for their
support, patience, guidance and encouragement. They deserve more thanks than
words allowed me to express. Special thanks go to my principal supervisor, Dr. Bo
Xia, for his advices on career development and life.
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the industry colleagues who shared their
valuable experience with me and helped in my data collection. They are Marcus
Riley and Carrisa Lynch from BallyCara, Frances Paterson-Fleider, Judene Creedy,
Kathryn Rains, Mary J. Clarkson and Russell Elms from Churches of Christ Care in
Queensland, Kevin Mercer and Genevieve Green from Holy Spirit Care Services,
Jason Eldering, Richard Fahy and James Hamilton from Aveo Group. I would also like
to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Kirralie Houghton and Dr. Geraldine Donoghue
for their assistance in introducing me to the industry colleagues.
I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Queensland
University of Technology through the Faculty of Science and Engineering
Scholarship and QUT HDR Tuition Fee Scholarship. Professional Editor, Christina
Houen, provided copyediting and proofreading services.
Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my parents, Anjun Hu and
Ling Li, for their on-going love, support and encouragement.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research background
Sustainable development has been widely accepted as a way of understanding the
relationship of humanity with nature and between people (Hopwood, Mellor, &
O'Brien, 2005; Parkin, 2000). This is a result of the growing awareness of the global
links between environmental issues, socio-economic problems (such as poverty and
inequality) and concerns about a healthy future for humanity (Hopwood, et al.,
2005). As sustainable development is a contested concept, various definitions of
sustainable development have been proposed based on different people’s and
organizations’ different worldviews (Giddings, Hopwood, & O'brien, 2002; Parkin,
2000). The most widely quoted definition is retrieved from the report Our Common
Future in 1987 (Parkin, 2000), in which sustainable development was defined as
meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987).
Sustainable development needs to be incorporated into the development of
communities, given that the community is the basic unit of sustainable
development (Roseland, 2000; Xia, Chen, Skitmore, Zuo, & Li, 2015). Instead of a
fixed term adopted to describe one type of neighbourhood, town, city or region, a
sustainable community is continually adjusting to meet the social and economic
needs of its residents while preserving the environment’s ability to support it
(Roseland, 2000). There are a variety of proposed definitions of sustainable
communities based on the different interests, needs and cultures of the different
2
communities. For instance, according to the Geographical Association in the United
Kingdom (UK), sustainable communities are “places where people want to live and
work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future
residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life.
They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run and offer equality of
opportunity and good services for all” (Geographical Association, 2005). This
definition indicates that the development of a sustainable community meets the
economic requirements of residents, enhances and protects the environment, and
promotes more human local societies (Bridger & Luloff, 1999).
There is increasing interest in the development of sustainable communities around
the world (for instance, in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and
China) (Gahin, Veleva, & Hart, 2003; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003;
Rogers & Ryan, 2001; Yuan, James, Hodgson, Hutchinson, & Shi, 2003).
Nevertheless, implementation of sustainable development at the community level
is challenging. Sustainable community development needs the close collaboration
of stakeholders from different sectors, because it requires integrated initiatives and
solutions for ecological, social and economic sustainability (Xia et al., 2016). In
addition, the development of sustainable communities is complicated, and requires
the coordination of a variety of interrelated components of communities such as
the local economy, the natural environment and social services (Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).
In Australia, a retirement village is a community specially designed for older people.
It is a residential, multi-dwelling complex, providing diverse facilities and services to
3
benefit residents’ independence, social interaction and health (Gardner, Browning,
& Kendig, 2005). Around 5.7% people aged 65 years and over lived in retirement
villages in 2014, and this penetration rate is predicted to increase to 7.5% in 2025
(Property Council of Australia, 2014). The factors that contribute older people’s
relocation to retirement villages are diverse, such as the provision of outdoor living
areas, support in maintaining independence, assisted living facilities and
accessibility to medical facilities (Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, & Anstey, 2013). The
majority of residents are satisfied with their village living experiences in an
environment that is affordable and supportive in both arrangements (Kennedy &
Coates, 2008).
Nevertheless, a retirement village living is not a perfect solution for the ageing
society. Negative issues have been reported, such as social isolation, unaffordability,
and loss of privacy and autonomy (Gardner, et al., 2005). Sustainable development
is suggested to be incorporated into the development of retirement villages to offer
residents a sustainable living environment so as to respond effectively to the social,
economic and environmental needs of older people (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, & Buys,
2015; Xia, Zuo, Skitmore, Chen, & Rarasati, 2015). As older people need to be
socially connected to their community in their retirement (Findlay, 2003),
retirement villages should provide their residents with opportunities to establish
friendships and for social participation and connection (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al.,
2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). In addition, since older people usually have reduced
financial resources after retirement, retirement villages need to be affordable (Hu,
Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, Xia, Barker, & Skitmore, 2014).
4
For environmental sustainability, retirement villages should be constructed with
green features such as energy efficiency and high-quality indoor environments
ensure residents’ health as well as the health of the environment (Zuo, et al., 2014).
Currently, the Australian retirement village industry is paying increased attention to
the development of sustainable retirement villages. For instance, both private and
not-for-profit developers have taken actions to make their retirement villages
sustainable by employing diverse sustainable practices (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo,
et al., 2014). Developers are working closely with the Green Building Council of
Australia to introduce a customized Green Star rating tool into the sector (Green
Building Council of Australia, 2016). Residents are becoming more concerned about
the use of unsustainable resources, and expect to live in an environmentally
friendly environment (Barker, Xia, Zuo, & Zillante, 2012; Xia, Zuo, Skitmore, Buys, &
Hu, 2014). With the increasing number of older people moving into retirement
villages, along with the wide acceptance of sustainable development, the
retirement village industry needs to provide sustainable retirement villages for their
residents.
1.2 Research problems
In spite of both academics’ and industry practitioners’ increased attention to
developing sustainable retirement villages, sustainable development has been
largely ignored in this sector. A comprehensive understanding of the meaning of
sustainable retirement villages is lacking, since the development of sustainable
retirement villages is a new phenomenon in Australia. Previous related studies,
5
such as Zuo, et al. (2014) and Xia, Zuo, et al. (2015), are case-study based only, and
propose an initial concept without comprehensive exploration of the challenge.
Moreover, developing a sustainable living environment in retirement villages is not
easy. It is a complicated issue, which needs the involvement of a variety of
stakeholders from different sectors. In addition, it requires stakeholders to deal
with the three interrelated sustainability components of social, economic and
environmental in a retirement village environment at the same time (Hu et al., 2015;
Zuo, et al., 2014). Developers of sustainable retirement villages should carefully
take residents’ requirements into account; that is challenging, given that baby
boomers have different expectations on entering into retirement (Rogers, 2014; Xia,
Zuo, et al., 2015).
1.3 Strategies of addressing the research problems
The above two research problems should be considered and strategically addressed
in order to promote the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia.
A conceptual framework is needed to arrive at a comprehensive understanding of a
concept. A framework explains the mechanism of a concept and indicates the
interrelated relationships between components of it. This strategy has been widely
confirmed and adopted in previous studies (Chourabi et al., 2012; Gerring, 1999). A
sustainable retirement village framework will contribute to stakeholders’
understandings of the issues involved. In addition, stakeholders have profound
impacts on the development of sustainable retirement villages (Hu, Xia, Buys, et al.,
2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014). Particularly, village developers are the investors and
decision-makers of retirement village projects, and are viewed as the most
6
influential stakeholders (Hu, Xia, Buys, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). Therefore,
understanding their perceptions of a sustainable living environment contributes to
the knowledge of practitioners in this field.
To promote the development of a sustainable living environment in retirement
villages, the studies of Gardner, et al. (2005) and Zuo, et al. (2014) suggest that
drawing on the sustainable practices of established retirement villages is a
promising strategy. Decision-makers usually address a problem by recalling and
reusing their historical experience and knowledge (Kolodneer, 1991), and more
than fifty years development of the Australian retirement village industry has made
a number of sustainable practices available (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
However, drawing on the sustainable practices of historical retirement village cases
is challenging. Records of practices are stored separately in time and space, which
makes for difficulties in gathering and reusing them. In addition, reuse of prior
practices by developers is abstract, uncertain, complicated and hard to control
because of their limited professional knowledge. Moreover, it is difficult for village
developers with limited experience of village development to draw on previously
used activities because of their in-accessibility. There is also a lack of tools and
systems to facilitate the collection and reuse of previous sustainable practices.
Case-based reasoning (CBR) is a promising technique that is used in this study to
address this problem. CBR solves a new problem by retrieving previous similar cases
and reusing solutions achieved in these cases (Kolodner, 1993); this is consistent
with the suggested strategy of reusing historical sustainable practices. The strategy
of mining and reusing successful practice solutions has been widely and successfully
7
adopted historically (Huang, Chen, & Lee, 2007; Shen, Ochoa, Zhang, & Yi, 2013;
Zhuang, Churilov, Burstein, & Sikaris, 2009). By establishing a CBR-based practice
mining system, historical sustainable practices of village development can be
retrieved and reused effectively to facilitate the development of sustainable
retirement villages.
In summary, the research will contribute to stakeholders’ comprehensive
understanding of the meaning of a sustainable living environment in retirement
villages, and establish a CBR-based practice mining system to facilitate the
development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia. It will also be of
interest for future studies of practices of retrieving and reusing information in the
winder community.
1.4 Research aim and specific objectives
This research aims to facilitate the development of sustainable retirement villages
in Australia through promoting a better understanding of what constitutes
sustainable retirement villages, and developing a best practice mining system for
developers. The research objectives are:
• Objective 1: To propose a conceptual framework of sustainable retirement
villages;
• Objective 2: To understand developers’ perceptions of a sustainable living
environment in retirement villages;
• Objective 3: To identify sustainable practices used in existing retirement
villages;
8
• Objective 4: To develop a CBR-based sustainable practice mining system for
the development of sustainable retirement villages.
Research objectives 1 and 2 will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of
the meaning of a sustainable living environment in retirement villages. Objectives 3
and 4 will address the aim of developing a sustainable practice mining system for
the Australian retirement village industry.
1.5 Thesis outline
The thesis is presented in the format of published papers (Table 1). Chapter 2
provides a literature review of prior studies closely associated with the research
topic, including retirement villages in Australia, sustainability, and the application of
CBR in construction management (CM) research. In this chapter, two journal papers,
titled “Retirement villages in Australia: A literature review” and “The application of
case-based reasoning in construction management research: An overview”, provide
comprehensive reviews of the development of the Australian retirement village
industry and the application of CBR to address CM problems respectively.
Chapter 3 introduces the research methodology of the study, summarising the
important features of the research design, research methods and data collection.
Chapters 4 and 5 offer a comprehensive understanding the meaning of sustainable
retirement villages in Australia. Chapter 4 (Conceptualizing sustainable retirement
villages in Australia) proposes a sustainable retirement village framework by using a
two-step inductive reasoning method grounded in the ecological theory of ageing
and the triple bottom line of sustainability (Objective 1). Chapter 5 (What is a
sustainable retirement village? Perceptions of Australian developers) explores
9
developers’ perceptions of sustainability features through a content analysis of
their descriptions of their retirement living business practices (Objective 2).
Chapters 6 and 7 respond to the aim of developing a sustainable practice mining
system for the Australian retirement village industry. In Chapter 6 (Providing a
sustainable living environment in not-for-profit retirement villages: A case study in
Australia), a case study of a not-for-profit retirement village on the Sunshine Coast,
Queensland (QLD), Australia is used to illustrate sustainable practices used in
retirement villages (Objective 3). In Chapter 7 (Practice mining system for the
development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia), a CBR-based practice
mining system that is specially designed to retrieve and reuse prior sustainable
practices is proposed, and its mechanism is described in detail. Case studies of
retrieving and reusing previous village site planning practices are adopted to
validate the developed system (Objective 4).
Chapter 8 summarises the research findings of this study, the contribution of this
research, and its implications for the industry. Finally, future research directions are
suggested.
Table 1 Publications used in this research
Code Publication title
1 Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore, Laurie Buys and Jian Zuo (2017).
Retirement villages in Australia: A literature review. Pacific Rim Property
Research Journal, 23(1), 101-122.
2 Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Qing Chen (2016). The application of
case-based reasoning in construction management research: An overview.
Automation in Construction, 72, 65-74.
10
3 Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Laurie Buys (2015). Conceptualizing
sustainable retirement villages in Australia. In: Raidén, A B and Aboagye-
Nimo, E (Eds) Procs 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015,
Lincoln, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 357-
366.
4 Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore, Laurie Buys and Yi Hu (2017). What is a
sustainable retirement village? Perceptions of Australian developers, Journal
of Cleaner Production, 164, 179-186.
5 Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Laurie Buys (2016). Providing a
sustainable living environment in not-for-profit retirement villages: A case
study in Australia, Facilities (In Press).
6 Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Laurie Buys (2017). Practice mining
system for the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia,
Automation in Construction (Under Review).
11
Chapter 2 Literature review
2.1 Retirement villages in Australia: a literature review
Statement of joint authorship and authors contributions
The authors listed below have certified that:
1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the
conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in
their field of expertise;
2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, expect for the
responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;
3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the
editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the
responsible academic unit, and
5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication
on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher
requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore, Laurie Buys and Jian Zuo (2017) Retirement villages
in Australia: A literature review. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 23(1), 101-
122.
Contributor Statement of contribution
12
Xin Hu Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of this
study, wrote the manuscript, research design, data collection
and analysis;
QUT Verified Signature
24/01/2017
Bo Xia Aided with the research design, data collection and analysis, and
evaluation of the manuscript;
Martin Skitmore Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Laurie Buys Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Jian Zuo Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript;
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Bo Xia QUT Verified Signature 2/06/2017 ______________ _________________ ________________ Name Signature Date
13
Abstract and keywords
Abstract: With the increasing growth in the ageing population of Australia,
providing older adults with suitable housing has become a significant focus of policy
and practice. Retirement villages are a type of housing that delivers specialized
accommodation for older people. Although previous research focused on a variety
of topics concerning Australian retirement villages, a systemic overview of the
development of the industry is still lacking. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to
deliver an overview of its development. Considering the scarcity of data regarding
the industry, secondary data collected from various sources are analysed to present
the whole picture. It is found that, although the industry has grown gradually in
past decades, it is currently still in a formative stage. Its development is confronted
with various issues and challenges including affordability, inadequacy of social and
physical environment settings, low penetration level, and challenges from the
unique requirements of aging baby boomers, technological applications and
sustainability, and the lack of policy support. This paper provides a platform for
researchers and industry stakeholders to plan for the future development and
growth of this sector.
Keywords: Retirement village industry; Overview; Ageing population; Australia
14
2.1.1 Introduction
People aged 65 and older comprise the fastest growing age group in Australia
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013b). During 1993~2013, the proportion of this
65+ group increased from 11.6 per cent to 14.4 per cent due to declining fertility
and mortality rates (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013a). With the first “baby
boomers” having turned 65 years old in 2011, this proportion is projected to
increase even more rapidly in the future.
This fast-growing population has a widespread and profound impact on the housing
services in Australia (Faulkner, 2007; Kendig & Gardner, 1997). Currently, there are
multiple housing options for older Australians, ranging from private dwellings to
residential aged care facilities (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007).
For some older adults, a retirement village is a viable living arrangement in old age
(Buys, Miller, & Barnett, 2006; Gardner, et al., 2005). Living in retirement villages
can benefit residents in several ways, such as enhancing life quality, promoting
independence and encouraging social interaction (Gardner, et al., 2005).
Retirement villages also reduce the cost of publicly funded health care services
(Grant Thornton, 2014). In 2008, there were 1,756 retirement villages distributed
across Australia containing 145,000~150,000 residents (Jones Lang Lasalle, 2008). In
2013, the number of retirement villages increased to 2,106, accommodating more
than 177,000 older people (Retirement Living Council, 2013a, 2013b).
The Australian retirement village industry has achieved gradual growth over the
past decades, with previous research focusing on resident relocation, living
experience and the village living environment (Buys, et al., 2006; Buys, 2000; Xia,
15
Zuo, et al., 2015). However, the majority of these studies are limited to a specific
focus and a systematic overview of the development of the Australian retirement
village industry is still lacking. In response, this paper presents an overview with the
aim of not only providing both academic and industry stakeholders with an
understanding of the sector but, more importantly, guiding its future development
and paving the way for future studies. To achieve this, the paper analyses available
the retirement village literature and collected secondary data from various
recourses to explore what is known of Australian retirement villages, the current
development of the Australian retirement village industry, and the issues and
challenges of the sector’s future development in Australia.
2.1.2 Research method
This study focuses on retirement villages, a specific living arrangement operated
and managed under the Retirement Village Acts and Regulations of each
state/territory in Australia, which can be owned and operated by both private and
not-for-profit organizations. Retirement villages encompass different tenure types
such as leasehold, freehold, loan and/or license, and rental, and can be co-located
with hostels and/or nursing homes; however, this study does not distinguish
between such differences due to the lack of data at this stage.
The scarcity of data relating to the Australian retirement village industry has
hindered the understanding of the whole picture of its development. Secondary
data provides an acceptable and useful way of deducing conclusions where there
are missing data (Wang, Sedransk, & Jinn, 1992). This involves a research method
for the analysis of data that has previously been collected and tabulated by other
16
sources, such as data collected from government agencies and publicly available
third parties (Bhattacherjee, 2012). In view of this, the data scarcity issue is
addressed here through the collection and analysis of extant secondary data related
to the Australian retirement village industry.
Secondary data analysis involves data finding and data analysis. In doing this,
secondary data regarding retirement villages were firstly collected from a wide
range of sources including Australian government websites (such as Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and Australian
Productivity Commission), websites of various national organizations and
institutions (such as Retirement Living Council, Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute, Jones Lang LaSalle and McCrindle), websites of leading
Australian retirement village developers (such as AVEO Live Well and Lend Lease),
professional services firms (such as Gadens, Grant Thornton and PwC Australia),
influential research databases (such as Scopus and Web of Science), conference
proceedings and reference textbooks. The keywords adopted in the search not only
include “retirement village(s)” but also some other terms used to describe
“retirement village(s)” in Australia in some situations, including “independent living
unit(s)/villas”, “serviced unit(s)/apartment(s)”, “lifestyle village(s)”, “residential
park”, “self-care unit(s)”, “independent living village(s)” and “retirement
community/communities” (Howe, Jones, & Tilse, 2013; Miskovski, Chenoweth, &
Moore, 2015). This was followed by both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
collected data. Specifically, it involved reviewing and summarizing previous
literature findings, identifying and calculating representative indicators to describe
the development of the industry, comparing and explaining different phenomena
17
and findings, and specifying their implications for the sector’s future development.
In this way, a whole picture of the development of the Australian retirement village
industry eventually emerged.
2.1.3 What we know about retirement villages in Australia from the literature
2.1.3.1 Definition and characteristics of a retirement village
Terms utilized to describe “retirement village” vary around the world, which may
result in confusion (Howe, et al., 2013). For instance, the term adopted in Australia
and New Zealand is usually linked to a “continuing care retirement community” or
“independent living facilities” in America and “sheltered housing” in the United
Kingdom (UK). Given the usage of different terms as well as their different
utilization background, it is hard to provide a generally applicable definition. This
difficulty is further aggravated by the wide variation of services and facilities
provided in different villages (Cheek, Ballantyne, Byers, & Quan, 2007).
Despite this, a retirement village can generally be depicted as an older people-
based community that provides a variety of accommodation, services and facilities
to meet their unique requirements. Retirement villages are considered a
component of residential real estate rather than an aged care facility (U'Ren, 2013).
Their characteristics comprise
• Independent living. The importance of independent living is highlighted by
residents because of its close association with their well-being.
• Institutionalization. A retirement village is an institution and needs rules,
regulations, programs and staff to govern its residents’ daily life (McDonald,
1996; Stein & Morse, 1994). In addition, the physical environment of
18
retirement villages should be designed to match the unique competencies
of its residents (Nathan, Wood, & Giles-Corti, 2014b).
• An age-built environment. Communal facilities, services and activities need
to be provided to match the unique competencies of older adults.
Different kinds of retirement villages are available to potential residents with
different socio-economic characteristics, such as resort style, modest and
affordable villages (Jones, Howe, Tilse, Barlett, & Stimson, 2010). Resort style
villages usually provide a more extensive range of facilities and service. Retirement
villages can also be divided into those private and those not-for-profit. Both private
and not-for-profit villages can be resident funded, with residents paying for village
living costs such as the entry contribution and on-going cost (Bridge et al., 2011).
Not-for-profit villages are owned and operated by not-for-profit organizations such
as churches and charitable organizations. Compared with residents living in private
villages, the average age of residents living in not-for-profit villages is older (Towart,
2013).
2.1.3.2 Relocation
Living in a retirement village is becoming increasingly popular with young-old adults
(55 to 64 years) having sufficient financial resources, poor physical health and poor
neighbourhood cohesion (Crisp, Windsor, Anstey, & Butterworth, 2013). Former
home owners occupy a higher proportion than non-home owners (Gardner, 1994).
This may be because moving into a retirement village usually requires older adults
to sell their former residence to pay for the village living cost such as the entry
contribution (McCullagh, 2014). In addition, young retirees are more open to village
19
living and attracted by the leisure lifestyle of the villages while older retirees expect
to obtain health care services from the retirement village environment (Crisp,
Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013).
The residents’ relocation decision-process is complicated. Though the decision to
move is most likely made independently by potential residents, their adult children
also play a significant role in helping to choose a facility (Knight & Buys, 2003). It is
suggested that having control over the relocation decision process contributes
positively to the post-location adjustment of the residents (Knight & Buys, 2003).
A number of factors influence the decision to move to a retirement village.
According to Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al. (2013), factors that encourage
relocation concern the provision of outdoor living areas, support for independent
living and access to living and medical facilities. By adopting a push-pull framework,
Stimson and McCrea (2004) argue that the push factors that prompt older people
to move from their own home primarily relate to lifestyle changes, home
maintenance, social isolation, and health and mobility. Pull factors, on the other
hand, relate to the built environment and affordability, the locational attributes of
the village and the desire to maintain an existing lifestyle. The investigation
conducted by Kupke (2001) suggests that important push factors are composed of
the desire to plan ahead, dwelling size and health issues; while important pull
factors include safety, companionship and the desire to be near family. Of these,
health-related factors are mentioned frequently. One reason for this is that the
likelihood of suffering from physical, psychological and mental disabilities increases
with age, and residents believe the supportive living environment of a retirement
20
village provides effective support (Buys, 2000; Jones, et al., 2010). To attract
potential residents, around 32% of retirement villages co-locate with residential
aged care facilities to provide health care services to residents based on the
concept of the “continuum of care” (Jones, et al., 2010; Jones, Tilse, Bartlett, &
Stimson, 2008; Towart, 2013). When the village environment does not meet the
needs of the residents, they choose to move to acute care systems such as aged
care facilities (Cheek, Ballantyne, & Roder-Allen, 2005). The reasons contributing to
this process include a health-related crisis, the residents’ doubting their ability to
cope in retirement villages, more and different service requirements, and the desire
to retain independence (Cheek, et al., 2007).
2.1.3.3 Retirement village living experience
Life quality of residents
The majority of older people living in retirement villages have a high quality of life
(Gardner, et al., 2005; Kennedy & Coates, 2008). The research findings of Ferris and
Bramston (1994) indicate that village residents are more satisfied than older adults
living in nursing homes, hostels and family homes. The main reason for this appears
to be the supportive living environment, which refers to aspects such as access to
facilities and services, social connections and participation and a senior-oriented
physical environment. More specifically, first, a range of facilities and services are
available for residents to benefit their daily life, such as community centres,
libraries, hairdressers, care services, transport and maintenance services (Xia,
Skitmore, Zuo, & Buys, 2015). Second, residents prefer having a socially connected
environment where they can make contact with friends (within and outside the
21
village), neighbours and family members (Buys, et al., 2006; Buys, 2001). This kind
of socially connected environment is helpful in reducing the residents’ sense of
isolation and loneliness. Moreover, the physical environment of retirement villages
is constructed with consideration given to supporting mobility (e.g., the proximity
to local service providers), ease of maintenance, senior-friendly design and a high
quality indoor environment (Zuo, et al., 2014). This is a key aspect to meet residents’
requirements in terms of security, privacy, independence and social interaction
(Nathan, Wood, & Giles-Corti, 2013).
However, it should be noted that not all village residents are satisfied with the
village life. According to Gardner, et al. (2005), in some villages, the dissatisfaction
of village residents refers to “the locality with respect to familiar facilities and social
networks, personal autonomy in the decision to move, the nature of the village
environment, and the financial and contract conditions of the village”. In addition,
some residents are dissatisfied with the daily operation and management of
retirement villages (Retirement Living Council, 2013b).
Social connection and participation
Social connection and participation are important components of the village social
life and include such aspects as the establishment of friendships and
neighbourhood relationships, contact with family members and participation in
activities. Friendship is the organic component of the social network in retirement
villages, and the majority of village residents are satisfied with their contacts with
friends (Buys, 2001). Maintaining contacts with both village and community friends
can benefit residents in obtaining acceptance, companionship and emotional
22
support (Buys, 2001; Legge, 1984). In addition, neighbourhood relationships in
villages means that goods and services are exchanged across gender and marital
status (McDonald, 1996). This relationship can help develop an informal alarm
system that can be used for social support between neighbourhoods (McDonald,
1996). Nevertheless, a close neighbourhood relationship may lead to unexpected
problems, such as a heavy dependence on some neighbours (McDonald, 1996).
Furthermore, family visits to residents provide important informal caregiving.
Nevertheless, family contact with residents is relatively less than that of older
adults residing in the community, and village residents tend to receive less help
from their family members (Buys, et al., 2006).
Village developers/operators also provide a variety of activities for residents to
enrich their daily lives, and it is known that participation in activities can improve
physical functioning and reduce the residents’ rate of falling (Lord et al., 2003).
Although some villages have reported a high rate of participation in activities,
particularly females and widows needing more social involvement, not all residents
are active (Grant Thornton, 2014; McDonald, 1996; Nathan, et al., 2014b).
Nevertheless, compared with their community-dwelling peers, village residents still
report a greater amount of participation in leisure activities (Buys & Miller, 2004,
2007). The environmental factors of retirement villages and their surroundings
profoundly affect resident participation in village activities (Nathan, et al., 2013).
Some strategies have been suggested to promote participation in activities, such as
the provision of a positive social environment, the provision of services and
facilities and a wider neighbourhood, the provision of a secure village environment
23
and the provision of an appropriate built environment (Nathan, et al., 2014b;
Nathan, Wood, & Giles-Corti, 2014c).
Services and facilities
The provision of services and facilities in retirement villages is important in
promoting active ageing and what is provided is an important difference between
villages (McCullagh, 2014; Nathan, et al., 2013). For the residents, the price of using
village services and facilities is cheaper than outside due to the density of
customers in one site (McCullagh, 2014).
A variety of services and facilities are available to residents to facilitate their daily
life. First, services can be provided directly by village developers/operators, or
contracted out to a third party (Productivity Commission, 2015). The services
provided include food, room, maintenance, security guard and transport services,
and visiting medical practitioners. The quality of these services has a crucial
influence on the satisfaction of residents (Kennedy & Coates, 2008). Compared with
the services delivered in the community, the services in retirement villages are
provided in a more flexible and cost effective way (Productivity Commission, 2015).
In addition, the most provided on-site amenities are community centres, libraries,
barbeque facilities, hairdressers and poolrooms (Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Usually,
large private retirement villages provide more facilities than small not-for-profit
ones (Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it should be noted that although a
variety of services and facilities are available to residents, they are not equally
desired and used (Miller & Buys, 2007; Nathan, et al., 2013). According to Stimson,
24
McCrea, Star, and Stimson (2002), residents use more services and facilities that are
associated with their social interactions.
Village built environment
The built environment of retirement villages is a crucial component of the village
environment. The village building environment, such as the individual residence,
internal and external common space, overall village design, security in design, the
product mix and the location, profoundly impacts on the residents’ life satisfaction
(Kennedy & Coates, 2008). For instance, it is suggested that the village location
should be integrated into the surrounding communities to ensure residents’ life
satisfaction by encouraging a healthy lifecycle and active ageing (Kendig, Crisp,
Gong, Conway, & Squires, 2014). In addition, the village built environment also
impacts on the residents’ participation in activities, such as in having a suitable
pedestrian infrastructure or a village location that is positively based on family
members and friends, and the aesthetic design of a village with few physical
barriers (Nathan, et al., 2013, 2014b, 2014c). In recent years, due to the positive
impact of sustainable development, a number of green practices have also been
used in the development and operation of retirement villages to provide a
sustainable village environment while still aiming to provide an affordable housing
option (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
2.1.3.4 Debates on retirement village living
Despite the high quality of life of residents, there are debates regarding the impact
of retirement village living. First, the village environment may become quite
restrictive due to its social norms and regulations, as conforming to may create
25
stress for residents, restrict their freedom and choice, and negatively impact on
their privacy and autonomy (Faulkner, 2001; Stein & Morse, 1994). Additionally,
village residents are older adults with similar backgrounds. As a result, village living
may promote social isolation, aged ghettoism, social class homogeneity and age-
conscious identities (Bohle, Rawlings-Way, Finn, Ang, & Kennedy, 2014; Faulkner,
2001; Gracia, Moyle, Oxlade, & Radford, 2010; McDonald, 1986). Furthermore, the
affordability of village living has been criticized, particularly when residents are not
affluent and have a lower capacity to pay (Walker & McNamara, 2013). This makes
the retirement village sector focus more on older adults with assets (McNelis &
Herbert, 2003). In short, retirement village living may be a positive accommodation
choice for some older people, but it may not suit everyone as it is not an antidote
for an ageing society.
2.1.4 Current development of the Australian retirement village industry
2.1.4.1 A brief history of the retirement village industry in Australia
The retirement village industry is becoming increasingly marketized in many parts
of the industrialized world such as the UK, America, New Zealand and Australia. As
a viable accommodation option for older adults, retirement villages have been
evolving for a long time in Australia. They can be traced back to the organized
retirement living by churches and charitable organizations around the 1800s in
providing housing and care to older Australians (Towart, 2005). Before the 1970s,
self-care/independent living units were mainly provided by churches and charities
through Commonwealth government capital funding subsidies under the Aged
Persons Homes Act 1954. The intention of the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954 was
26
to provide affordable, independent housing for lower-income older adults (Jones,
et al., 2008). However, the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954 was amended by the
Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1974, and the Commonwealth government
capital funding subsidies were phased out. The gap resulting from the withdrawal of
the Commonwealth government capital funding subsidies was filled by increasingly
residential-funded self-care/independent units operated by both not-for-profit and
private organizations (McGovern & Baltins, 2002). After the 1970s, the fast growing
number of retirement villages became the genesis of the Australian retirement
village industry. Retirement villages, especially those owned by the private sector,
expanded their range and quality of accommodation, facilities and services to meet
the requirements of older people. In addition, retirement village
developers/operators also gradually highlighted the living philosophy of retirement
villages such as security, social connection and independence instead of simply a
form of residential property.
The development of the Australian retirement village sector has been promoted by
related legislation. The early development of the sector was promoted by the Aged
Persons Homes Act 1954 due to subsidies allocated to the voluntary organizations
to provide independent living units to residents. In the 1970s, the financial/legal
aspects of retirement villages were operated within the National Companies and
Security Legislation to protect the residents’ investment (McNelis & Herbert, 2003).
Nevertheless, this arrangement was unable to deal with many aspects of retirement
villages as residents not only invested but also moved in and out of villages. From
the early 1980s, due to the popularity of consumerism in the 1970s, local
27
governments started to introduce state1-based legislation to protect the rights and
interests of village residents. Commencing with VIC in 1986, each state enacted
specific retirement village related legislations to guide the development of the
sector (McNelis & Herbert, 2003). The legislation currently being used in different
states are summarized in Table 2. For instance, in QLD, the Retirement Villages Act
1999 and Retirement Villages Regulations 2010 were enacted to regulate its
development. That there are different legal structures is due to the slow historical
commercialization of the Australian retirement village sector and developments in
tax and stamp duty. In general, the legislation covers the diverse aspects of village
development and operation, such as pre-entry requirements, information
disclosure and the resolution of complaints and disputes (McNelis & Herbert, 2003).
Retirement village legislation is reviewed regularly (Gadens, 2014). For instance, the
Retirement Village Regulations 1987 and 2002 in SA have ceased and the
Retirement Village Regulations 2006 are currently being used (the latest version
being 1.7.2015). In the ACT, the Retirement Village Act 2012 replaced the Fair
Trading (Retirement Villages Industry) Code of Practice 1999 in 2013. Differences
can be found between these state-based legislative frameworks (Towart, 2005). For
example, most states stress the independent living of village residents, while hostel
units, which offer personal care to residents, are regarded as a component of
retirement villages in WA and NT. These differences cause several difficulties for
village developers and operators as it requires more work in familiarizing different
1 Australia is made up of six States - New South Wales (NSW), South Australia (SA), Victoria (VIC),
Queensland (QLD), Western Australia (WA) and Tasmania (TAS) - and two main Territories -
Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). For brevity, all are referred to as
States here.
28
acts and regulations and understanding different the legal mechanisms affecting
the running of retirement villages, which ultimately hinders trans-state businesses
(Towart, 2005).
Table 2 Retirement village legislations of each state
State Legislations
SA Retirement Village Act 1987; Retirement Village Regulations 2006;
ACT Retirement Village Act 2012; Retirement Village Regulations 2013;
NT Retirement Village Act; Retirement Village Regulations; Retirement
Villages Code of Practice;
NSW Retirement Village Act 1999; Retirement Village Regulations 2009;
VIC Retirement Village Act 1986; Retirement Villages (Records and Notices)
Regulations 2005; Retirement Villages (Contractual Arrangements)
Regulations 2006;
QLD Retirement Villages Act 1999; Retirement Villages Regulations 2010;
WA Retirement Villages Act 1992; Retirement Villages Regulations 1992; Fair
Trading (Retirement Villages Code) Regulations 2014;
TAS Retirement Villages Act 2004; Retirement Villages Regulations 2005;
2.1.4.2 Profile of retirement village residents
Figure 1 shows the trend in Australian retirement village resident numbers since the
early 1990s and the forecast numbers for 2023, when village residents are expected
to reach 320,000~350,000 nationwide, mainly due to the quickly growing number
of older people and the wider acceptance of the retirement village lifestyle (Jones
Lang Lasalle, 2008).
29
Figure 1 Number of residents living in Australian retirement villages
Sources: Manicaros and Stimson (1999); Howe (1992); Australian Bureau of
Statistics (1999); Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000); Australian Bureau of
Statistics (2003); Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013d); Jones Lang Lasalle (2008);
Retirement Living Council (2013b); Productivity Commission (2011); Grant Thornton
(2014)
However, the distribution is uneven, which is partly due to the unequal distribution
of older people in Australia. As Figure 2 indicates, the number of retirement village
residents in NSW, QLD and VIC is much larger than in other states. Combining this
with the estimated population data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014),
the estimated proportion of older people living in retirement villages can be
obtained (see Table 3), where it can be seen that WA and QLD have a higher
proportion, reaching more than 7 per cent, followed by SA (6.5%). Only
approximately 3.1 per cent of older people reside in retirement villages in TAS.
Furthermore, Perth has the highest proportion of the people 65+ years living in
30
retirement villages (7.2%) of the main cities of Australia, followed by Brisbane (6.6%)
and Adelaide (6.1%). In Melbourne and Sydney, the figure is only around 4 per cent
(see Figure 3).
Figure 2 Number of the retirement village residents in each region
Source: Retirement Living Council (2013b)
Table 3 Proportion of village residents to the senior population (65+) in each region
in 2013
NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS ACT Australia
4.3% 4.1% 7.5% 6.5% 7.5% 3.1% 5.2% 5.32%
Figure 3 Percentage of 65+ people living in retirement villages in capital cities in
2013
31
Source: Retirement Living Council (2013b)
Interestingly, the results shown in Table 3 and Figure 3 indicate that the penetration
levels of all the capital cities are less than their corresponding states. One possible
explanation is that young people born outside capital cities are more likely to be
attracted by urban life in capital cities. This leaves their older parents alone and in
need of more age-related services and support than those residing in capital cities.
Given that their services and support requirements may be difficult to satisfy only
through their living community, as areas outside the capital cities are usually of
infrastructure erosion and services inaccessibility (Davis & Bartlett, 2008), a more
supportive living environment such as a retirement village is needed to compensate
for the lack of support from either family members or the community. Similarly, as
older adults living in capital cities usually have more chances for accessing a variety
of living arrangements, age-related support and services, their demands on the
supportive living environment of retirement villages are relatively less.
2.1.4.3 Profile of retirement villages
Figure 4 shows the increasing number of retirement villages in Australia over the
years. It can be seen that the growth of retirement village has been less dramatic
than in the past decades. The predicted number of retirement villages will reach
around 3,000 in 2023.
32
Figure 4 Number of retirement villages
Sources: Jones Lang Lasalle (2008); Retirement Living Council (2013a); Productivity
Commission (2011)
The distribution of retirement villages is shown in Figure 5. NSW has far more
retirement villages (680 in the year 2013) than other states. A possible reason for
this is that the number of older adults living in NSW is more than other states
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). In addition, older people living in the
southeast of Australia, including NSW, are relatively wealthier. Moreover, the
temperate climate in the north of NSW is more suitable for retirement living
(Roberts, 1997).
Figure 5 Number of retirement villages in each region in 2013
33
Adapted from: Retirement Living Council (2013a)
Independent living units are the most common form of retirement village dwellings
(Productivity Commission, 2015). NSW has the largest number (34,538) of
independent living units, followed by QLD and VIC (see Figure 6). On the whole,
private organizations provide 57% of independent living units, slightly more than
not-for-profit organizations (Retirement Living Council, 2013a). At the state level,
the private units dominate the retirement village market in VIC, QLD and SA, with
the number of private units being 17,109 (74.8%), 16,386 (71.5%) and 8,103 (53.9%)
respectively. The not-for-profit units are more prevalent in NSW, ACT, TAS and WA.
Figure 6 The number of the independent living units in each region in 2013
Adapted from: Retirement Living Council (2013a)
Based on the information provided in Figures 2, 5 and 6, the average size of
retirement village in each state can be determined (see Table 4). It can be seen that
the average size of a retirement village in QLD is the largest (70 independent living
units and 146 residents). QLD’s huge potential market of retirement villages is one
of the main factors that determine its larger village size (Towart, 2005). This is
because, first, QLD has a relatively high percentage of the 65+ group (around 13.6
34
per cent in 2013) and a higher penetration rate of the village living (7.5%). In
addition, considerable public investment is available in QLD to construct both
private and public infrastructures to support the growth of the population,
particularly in the Sunshine Coast area (Jones Lang Lasalle, 2008). This huge
demand can also be evidenced from Jones Lang Lasalle (2008)’s prediction that QLD
has the largest number (10) of potential major retirement village places in Australia.
In SA, a typical retirement village accommodates around 41 residents and has 34
independent living units - a reflection of SA’s decreased potential market for
retirement villages. SA also has less older adults than QLD and NSW. The reduced
demand for retirement villages in SA is reflected in Jones Lang Lasalle (2008)’s
prediction that SA has the smallest number (3) of potential major retirement village
places in Australia. In addition, unlike retirement villages in other states, retirement
villages in SA do not have to be contiguous, which also allows for the development
of the relatively small size of retirement villages there.
Table 4 Average size of a retirement village in each region in 2013
Region NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS ACT
Average number of
residents 71 85 146 41 105 60 73
Average number of
independent living unit 51 56 70 34 62 32 50
2.1.4.4 Financial cost and tenure arrangement
The retirement village fee structure is complex and living costs vary significantly
between different villages, which may create uncertainty and confusion for
35
residents (Productivity Commission, 2015). Village developers/operators determine
their fee arrangements mainly based on the village characteristics (e.g. local
property value, tenure, provided services and amenities, unit size and design)
(McGovern & Baltins, 2002; Towart, 2005). Usually, retirement villages have a
three-tiered payment structure, involving
• Entry contribution. This is a lump-sum contribution paid at the time of entry to
the village, in forms of a payment, loan, donation or some combination of these
(Finn et al., 2011). This kind of cost differs considerably across regions. A recent
investigation shows that the average price of a two-bedroom independent living
unit was $375,000 in Australia with NSW having the highest price ($411,000)
and SA the lowest price ($308,000) (Retirement Living Council, 2014). Typically,
the entry contribution of a private village is higher than that for a not-for-profit
village, being around 80 per cent of the median price for comparable dwellings
in the locality (Eardley, 2000; McCullagh, 2014). The majority of residents
finance their entry contribution from the sale of their previous home
(McCullagh, 2014; Stimson, et al., 2002).
• Ongoing costs. This refers to day-to-day retirement village running costs (Finn,
et al., 2011). The Retirement Living Council (2014) indicated that the nationwide
average monthly service fee is $393, with NSW being the highest ($433) and
QLD being the lowest ($363). The village operators do not make profits from the
on-going payment, which is limited to cost recovery (McCullagh, 2014).
• Deferred management fee. This usually takes the form of a deduction from the
resale price or withheld percentage of the entry contribution plus a percentage
36
of the capital gain when residents move out or pass away (Finn, et al., 2011). It
is considered as an exchange for a discount of entry contribution (Cradduck &
Blake, 2012b). The deferred management fee is of significance for residents as
the common calculation formula is up to 30 per cent of the resale value (Finn, et
al., 2011). The deferred management fee is one of the main sources of the
village operators’ profit (McCullagh, 2014). This fee arrangement is complex and
varies between different villages and residents are often unsure of the details
involved (Eardley, 2000).
The cost of living in retirement villages located in the southeast coastal areas is
relatively higher than other regions, which is mainly due to the higher land
acquisition and daily consumption costs of these areas.
Village developers can choose from several different tenure types, such as
leasehold, freehold, loan/license and rental (Cradduck & Blake, 2012b; McGovern &
Baltins, 2002). Of these, leasehold (used by around 30 per cent of villages) and
loan/license (used by 50 to 60 per cent of villages) are the most two popular tenure
types as village developers/operators can retain the ownership of the land,
providing various benefits such as the flexibility of site re-development (Cradduck &
Blake, 2012b; Productivity Commission, 2015). Different tenure types affect
residents in different ways. For instance, although freehold provides the highest
level of security, as the owner of the freehold title cannot be evicted, residents are
responsible for the payment of statutory and utility charges, and the state stamp
duties and transfer fees resulting from the purchase transaction (Cradduck & Blake,
2012a). In addition, loan/license and freehold ensure residents can share capital
gains, which may improve the residents’ financial security in old age (McGovern &
37
Baltins, 2002). This gives residents more financial resources when choosing their
future living arrangements after moving out of their villages (e.g., moving to aged
care facilities). Loan/licensing and lease holding ask residents to pay the deferred
management fee when they leave their villages, which may negatively impact on
their financial capability (McGovern & Baltins, 2002). It should be noted that some
residents fail to appreciate these influences, which can result in confusion or even
litigation (Cradduck & Blake, 2012b). This issue is further exacerbated by factors
such as difficulties in accessing tenure information, understating state-based
legislative framework and the lack of a consistent and preferred type of interstate
tenure (Cradduck & Blake, 2012a; Cradduck & Blake, 2012b).
2.1.5 Issues and challenges: future development of the Australian retirement
village industry
In spite of the increasing popularity of retirement village living in recent decades,
the Australian retirement village industry is still in its infancy and its development is
confronted with several issues and challenges in terms of affordability, social
environment settings, physical environment settings, penetration levels and the
likely effects of aging baby boomers, technology applications, sustainability and lack
of policy support.
• Affordability. Although the majority of residents feel financially secure and
believe they have made a good financial decision, village living costs are still a
concern for some residents especially for non-homeowners and pensioners
living in private villages (Davy, Bridge, Judd, Morris, & Phibbs, 2010; Gardner, et
al., 2005; McCrindle, 2013). The affordability issue is a concern for many
38
potential residents given that moving into a retirement village involves a
significant financial investment such as the high entry contribution and the
possibility of rising ongoing costs (Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013;
Gardner, et al., 2005; Walker & McNamara, 2013). This is viewed as one of the
main hindrances to potential resident relocation (Judd, Liu, Easthope, Davy, &
Bridge, 2014; Judd, Olsberg, Quinn, Groenhart, & Demirbilek, 2010). A recent
investigation found that 41 percent of residents regard the entry contribution
and ongoing costs to be “very expensive” (McCrindle, 2011). Although some
charitable organisations provide subsidised rental units for low-income older
people, the waiting list is extensive (Judd, Kavanagh, Morris, & Naidoo, 2004). In
addition, although baby boomers generally have more disposable income than
their predecessors, the affordability issue may also be a problem given their
limited financial management abilities and limited financial resources in
retirement (Faulkner, 2007; Humpel, O'Loughlin, Wells, & Kendig, 2010; Kendig,
Wells, O'Loughlin, & Heese, 2013; O'loughlin, Humpel, & Kendig, 2010; Ozanne,
2009; Quine & Carter, 2006; Snoke, Kendig Prof, & O'Loughlin Dr, 2011). Thus,
there is an increasing tendency to offer a range of financial packages (e.g., a
smaller entry contribution but with a larger deferred management fee) to suit
the different financial situations of potential residents (McGovern & Earl, 2002).
• Social environment settings. Despite most residents having a positive life
experience, more than 10 per cent of residents report that their quality of social
life has declined since their relocation (McCrindle, 2011). One possible reason is
that the facilities in some villages are insufficiently tailored to meet the
residents’ requirements. This results in the utilization of on-site facilities by only
39
20% of residents (Miller & Buys, 2007). Nathan, et al. (2013) reveal that “access
to village recreational facilities did not equate to residents using such facilities”.
Another reason is that the variety of services provided in retirement villages
may create an over-dependency for residents and this service-rich environment
harms their autonomy (Gardner, et al., 2005). Moreover, some residents are
classified as low participators and non-participators of the social benefits
available (McDonald, 1996). Some residents are even confronted with social
connection issues. For instance, they may have a very small number of contacts
with friends (both outside and inside of their villages), and that it is difficult for
residents to establish close friendships in retirement villages (Buys, 2000;
McDonald, 1996). Other issues, such as dissatisfaction with village operators,
incomplete knowledge of contract conditions, and the possibility of reduced
independence, privacy and security are also mentioned by village residents
(Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013; Retirement Living Council, 2013b).
• Physical environment settings. Although the majority of village residents feel
satisfied with the village physical environment, some adverse characteristics of
the village physical environment can lead to resident dissatisfaction. For
instance, the space designs of retirement villages may reinforce “the historical
legacies of separation from the community”, which results in residents’ social
isolation (Petersen & Warburton, 2012). In addition, some villages may be too
small or too big for residents. For villages with limited space, potential residents
are hesitant when considering their relocation, as limited space means the
proximity of individual dwellings, which negatively affects the residents’ privacy
(Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013). Similarly, a too-big village living
40
space can also trouble residents due to the higher maintenance costs involved
and difficulties in maintaining their family home (Kennedy & Coates, 2008).
Other issues regarding the village’s physical environment include quality
problems of individual residences (such as the cracks in the structure), lack of
access, and inadequate healthy and safety design, etc. (Kennedy & Coates,
2008). This situation may be more serious in independent living units that were
developed years ago. A national survey showed that thirty-four per cent of
independent living units in Australia require upgrading due to their level
deterioration failing to meet the residents’ expectations (McNelis, 2004, 2007).
• Penetration level. Compared with other industrialized countries, especially the
U.S., the penetration level of the Australian retirement village industry is low.
Around 7 per cent of older adults live in retirement villages in the US in 2006
(Omoto & Aldrich, 2006), while, in 2008, only 5.25 per cent of 65+ people lived
in retirement villages in Australia - increasing to only 5.32 per cent in 2013
(Jones Lang Lasalle, 2008; Retirement Living Council, 2013b). Apparently,
retirement village living has not attracted enough potential residents in
Australia. Most older Australians prefer living in their own home (ageing-in-
place) which means more independence and autonomy, less expense and easier
access to family members, friends and communities. For most older adults,
residing in retirement villages is a result of external environmental pressures,
particularly health issues, as evidenced by the average entry age of residents
being very old (Crisp, Windsor, Anstey, et al., 2013; Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth,
et al., 2013; Retirement Living Council, 2013b). According to the PwC Australia
(2014), the average age of residents entering retirement villages is 74 years. To
41
increase the penetration level, it is essential to address potential residents’
concerns about the village life and meet their diverse daily life needs (Hu, Xia,
Buys, et al., 2015).
• Ageing baby boomers. Australian baby boomers have unique housing
preferences, and it is suggested that the future development of retirement
villages should take particular account of this cohort (Kendig, et al., 2014;
Pinnegar, 2012). For instance, they prefer ageing-in-place to maintaining their
current lifestyle as they age (Quine & Carter, 2006). In addition, they expect to
live independently, still be active members of an intergenerational community
and retain their social connections (Quine & Carter, 2006). Moreover, they have
expectations of high quality housing and neighbourhoods, and prefer having
access to facilities and services (Faulkner, 2007). These preferences pose
challenges to village developers/operators in forming a suitable village
environment. For instance, village developers/operators should provide suitable
on-site services to facilitate baby boomers’ independent living. This means that
the baby boomer generation is changing the development model of Australian
retirement villages (Rogers, 2014).
• Technological application. The applications of new technologies (e.g. touch
screens, remote and smart phones, robotics, etc.) in facilitating the daily life of
older adults are increasing (Demiris et al., 2004). It is suggested that these
technologies can also be used in retirement villages to benefit village residents.
For instance, the widely used assistance technology of emergency call systems
in Australian retirement villages enhances resident safety. Nevertheless,
technology applications in villages have also been attracted attention. For
42
example, investigations into a New Zealand retirement village indicate that the
application of robotics may harm residents, result in privacy invasions and
deprive professionals’ of the right to work (Broadbent et al., 2012). For future
village development, village developers/operators are confronted with a set of
issues regarding technology applications, such as whether technologies will be
applied or not, what kinds of technologies will be used, and how to anticipate
the negative effects of technology applications.
• Sustainability. The majority of residents living in both private and not-for-profit
villages are very conscious of their unsustainable resource consumption and
expect their village physical environment to be sustainable (Barker, et al., 2012;
Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014). In practice, some green practices have been incorporated
into the development of retirement villages to provide residents with the
sustainable living environment such as the innovative design of site and floor
plans, adoption of efficient materials, optimization of window orientation,
installation of water harvesting and recycling systems, application of water
conservation fittings and appliances, and construction waste management (Zuo,
et al., 2014). The residents from private villages agree to pay more to make
their village more environmentally sustainable, while the village
developers/operators and not-for-profit village residents are concerned with
the additional costs of environmental sustainability (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia,
Zuo, et al., 2014; Zuo, et al., 2014). The development of future retirement
villages should not only make the village environment green but also be
affordable for the residents of both private and not-for-profit villages. This can
be achieved through the development of sustainable retirement villages where
43
the residents’ social, economic and environmental needs can be well satisfied
(Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015).
• The lack of policy support. The Australian retirement village sector is not a
national industry priority or receiving direct and clear policy support (Davy, et
al., 2010; Property Council of Australia, 2015). One typical example is that the
retirement village industry faces barriers in respect of land use planning policies
(Productivity Commission, 2015). Village developers have to compete with
residential developers on the open market. Compared with residential
developers, village developers need to invest more, as the village environment
needs to be in balance with the needs of older people. This may lead to the high
cost of living in retirement villages. Nevertheless, the majority of residents are
either full pensioners (54%) or part pensioners (34%) who have limited financial
resources (Towart, 2013). It is suggested that polices supporting the
development of the Australian retirement village sector should be enacted by
the Australian government to support its development.
2.1.6 Summary
The Australian retirement village industry has experienced gradual growth in past
decades, and is predicted to continue to grow in the future. In spite of the
projected growth of the sector, it is still questionable whether it will continue to
expand due to such matters as the uncertainty of baby boomers’ attitudes towards
village life (Beer & Faulkner, 2009). Currently, the sector is still very much in its
infancy with a range of issues and acute challenges.
44
This paper presents an overview of the Australian retirement village industry. It is
found that the number of village residents and retirement villages are increasing
steadily. NSW has the largest number of residents and villages, and QLD and Perth
have the largest resident proportions at the state and city levels respectively.
Nationally, private organizations provide slightly more independent living units than
not-for-profit organizations. Private units dominate the retirement village market in
VIC, QLD and SA. Interestingly, the village size in QLD is larger than in other states,
and SA is the smallest. Village living costs are relatively higher in southeast coastal
areas, and two most popular tenure and contract arrangement are leasehold and
loan/license. Additionally, the barriers hindering the development of the retirement
village industry are the high resident costs involved, inadequacy of the village social
and physical environment settings, low penetration level, difficulties of meeting the
unique requirements of aging baby boomers, difficulties and issues in technology
applications, sustainability challenges and lack of policy support.
The findings of this study provide both researchers and stakeholders with a useful
reference to better understand this growing industry. The paper also paves the way
for further studies, such as how to deal with the issues and challenges involved in
the sustainable development of this sector. The study also has a number of
limitations. First, only secondary industry data were collected and analysed because
of the scarcity of primary data. In addition, the study mainly focuses on village
residents, with minimal information regarding the operators. Differences at the
state level are also not taken into consideration (e.g., the influence of different
tenure types in different states). All these prevent a comprehensive overview of the
development of this sector. However, the study mainly uses reports that are
45
available to the public and thus those that may likely provide additional information
but are unavailable to the pubic were not covered. The retirement village data are
collected from credible sources, however, and can therefore depict a relatively
clear picture of the retirement industry in Australia.
46
2.2 Sustainable development and sustainable communities
2.2.1 Sustainable development
Because of the close interrelations between human activities and the environment,
there is a consensus across the world that sustainable development is necessary
(Hopwood, et al., 2005). Development in a sustainable way is considered to be an
effective way to eliminate poverty, satisfy human requirements and guarantee
justice (Hopwood, et al., 2005).
The concept of sustainable development has long-standing roots in the physical,
biological and engineering sciences (Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993). Its development
has been driven by different theories and debates, such as economic theory,
ecological theory and systems theory. The traditional view of economists places
importance on the economics growth element of sustainable development, and
believes that the indefinite and continuing rise of income and consumption is the
sign of sustainable development (Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993). Nevertheless, the
continuous progress was less fascination and environmental concern became part
of the mainstream debates during 1960s and 1970s (Hopwood, et al., 2005). The
Limits to Growth published in the early 1970s by the Club of Rome warned that
there is a limited supply of resources on the earth and exceeding the limits of
exploration could end in catastrophe (Du Pisani, 2006). It challenges the idea that
the growth of capitalist economics is the way of improving environmental quality
(Hopwood, et al., 2005). From the perspective of ecological theory, ecological
modernization stimulates economic growth without increasing pollution by ways
such as using new and cleaner technologies (Redclift, 2005). Ecological
47
sustainability emphasizes “meeting human needs without compromising the health
of ecosystems” (Callicott & Mumford, 1997). It should be noted that deep
ecologists place more importance on the environment and the needs of humans
come very much second, which is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable
development (Giddings, et al., 2002). Moreover, systems theory stresses the shift in
attention from the part to the whole and the interaction and relationships between
different parts are of great importance for the purpose of understanding a
phenomenon (Mele, et al., 2010). Sustainable development has the different
systems of social, economic and environmental. The systemic perspective argues
that to be able to fully comprehend and implement sustainable development,
different systems of sustainable development should be connected and integrated
instead of isolated and separated. In spite of these theories, Trisoglio (1996) stated
that the theoretical status of sustainable development was problematics and the
theoretical underpinning for sustainable development remains in disarray.
Sustainable development has been subject to varied interpretations, which are
normally context-based (Parkin, 2000; Redclift, 1992). There are as many as 70
different kinds of definitions about sustainable development (Steer & Wade-Gery,
1993). However, the consistency in its interpretation remains lacking (Lélé, 1991).
Undoubtedly, the wide range of interpretations promotes its spreading, improving
its understading of individuals and organizaitons, and offering possible
modificaitons to meet different requirements. Neverthelesss, it also results in the
issues of making it meaningless and lacking rigourous analysis (Giddings, et al.,
2002). The widely cited definition of sustainable development is from Bruntland’s
48
“Our Common Future” report, in which sustainable development is defined thus:
“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development,
1987). The release of this definition makes sustainable development achieved great
prominence (Steer & Wade-Gery, 1993). There are also some other definitions. For
example, the UK government states that sustainable development means the
satisfaction of four aims: people’s social progress; effective environment protection;
prudent natural resources utilization; and high and stable levels of economic
growth and employment (Transport & Regional Affairs Committee Environment,
1999). However, it should be noted that defining sustainable development is
complex and difficult because of the great variety of scopes and characteristics of
different protection programs, and different types of communities and institutions
(Ciegis et al., 2015; Parkin, 2000).
The essence of sustainable development is the fair distribution of natural resources,
and finding a positive consensus which stresses a balance of the environment,
society and the economy (Ciegis, Ramanauskiene, & Martinkus, 2015; Hopwood, et
al., 2005). Key social sustainability features include poverty alleviation, equity,
empowerment, participation/sharing, cultural identity and institutional stability
(Khan, 1995). In addition, economic sustainability stresses that the production
process should meet present needs without harming future requirements (such as
the needs of human-made capital, natural resources, social capital and human
capital), and environmental sustainability emphasises maintaining natural capital
49
(e.g., nature’s abilities to provide resources and absorb waste) (Khan, 1995). These
three sectors are represented as three interconnected rings (Figure 7) (Giddings, et
al., 2002; Khan, 1995). For instance, it is argued that growth (economic
sustainability) and poverty alleviation (social sustainability) are keys to
environmental sustainability, although the alleviation of poverty can be a
temporary cause of growth-induced environmental damage in some developing
counties (Khan, 1995).
Figure 7 Sustainable development
The community is one of the basic units of sustainable development. To deliver an
appropriate living environment with attractive features (e.g., safety and
accessibility), it has been suggested that the development of communities should
take sustainable development into account (Xia, et al., 2016). This has contributed
to the current popularity of delivering sustainable communities around the world
(Maliene & Malys, 2009).
50
The retirement village is a specially designed community for older adults.
Sustainable development is impacting the traditional design philosophy of village
development, and offers a feasible way of housing older people in a sustainable
way. Specifically, the traditional development of retirement villages focuses on the
development of a social-friendly environment to ensure the independent living of
residents through ways such as providing needed care services to residents
(McNelis, 2004; McNelis & Herbert, 2003). Nevertheless, the aged requirements of
residents are diverse, and cover social, economic and environmental aspects such
as social interaction, financial affordability and energy conservation (Xia, Zuo, et al.,
2015). The merely provision of a social-friendly environment is losing its attractive.
In other words, the social, economic and environmental aged requirements of older
people should all be well considered and satisfied when the village living
environment is designed. Sustainable development means comfortable living (social
sustainability), minimum environmental impacts (environmental sustainability) and
affordability (economic sustainability) when it is utilized in the living environment
field (Maliene & Malys, 2009; Plaut et al., 2011). Therefore, it has the potential of
responding well to older adults’ aged needs by offering them the sustainable living
environment with features of social-friendliness, environmental sustainability and
financial affordability. As the three dimensions of sustainable development are
interrelated and interactional, the design of the retirement village environment
should also take the inter-relationships of social-friendliness, environmental
sustainability and financial affordability into account.
51
2.2.2 Sustainable communities
The wide acceptance of sustainable development is reflected in moves to develop
communities in sustainable ways for residents (Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Hamstead &
Quinn, 2005). A variety of definitions of sustainable communities have been
proposed, depending on the interests, needs and cultures of the different
communities involved (Xia, et al., 2016). For instance, Bridger and Luloff (1999)
define a sustainable community as meeting the economic needs of residents,
enhancing and protecting the environment, and promoting more humane local
societies. Roseland (2000) define sustainable communities as meeting the social
and economic needs of residents while preserving the environment’s ability to
support them. Key features that are central to the theory and practice of
sustainable communities include economic diversification, social justice, ecological
sustainability and integration (Hamstead & Quinn, 2005). Core aims of sustainable
communities are a healthy environment, a prosperous economy and social well-
being (Power, 2004). A healthy environment aims at achieving the aims of
environmental sustainability such as minimal population and maximum recycling
(Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Power, 2004). A prosperous economy generates wealth and
long-term investment helps residents develop new skills so as to meet their
economic needs (Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Power, 2004). Social well-being brings
residents a sense of security, belonging, familiarity, support, neighbourliness,
cohesion and integration of different social groups (Power, 2004).
Living in sustainable communities can benefit residents in many aspects, such as a
secure and inclusive social environment and a well-designed physical environment
52
(Maliene & Malys, 2009). In addition, sustainable communities can increase local
economic diversity, promote social justice, reduce energy and natural resources
consumption, and protect and enhance biological diversity (Bridger & Luloff, 1999).
Since 1990, many initiatives regarding sustainable communities have been
proposed in cities, counties and regions to promote their development (Gahin, et
al., 2003). For instance, in Australia, the Queensland Government (2016) proposed
the plan “Working together for better housing and sustainable communities”,
aiming to build housing and communities to maximise people’s economic and social
well-being and be sustainable for future generations. In the UK, the proposed plan
for “Sustainable communities: Building for the future” aims at tackling pressing
problems in communities, such as the lack of decent affordable housing in decent
surroundings, the poor condition of housing, and the waste of precious greenfield
land (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2003). However, the development of
sustainable communities is not an easy task and challenges stakeholders, as it
requires integrated initiatives and solutions for ecological, social and economic
sustainability, which is difficult for any single organization or community to achieve
(Xia, et al., 2016).
2.2.3 Age-friendly communities
Though “age-friendly communities” initiatives do not adopt the term “sustainable”
directly, they focus on the creation of a sustainable living environment for older
people, especially in the social and economic aspects of their living environment
(Lui, Everingham, Warburton, Cuthill, & Bartlett, 2009). The current discussion and
application of environmental gerontology has contributed to a focus on delivering
53
age-friendly communities to older adults (Lui, et al., 2009; Menec, Means, Keating,
Parkhurst, & Eales, 2011). Many definitions of “age-friendly communities” have
been proposed (Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014). For instance, Alley, Liebig, Pynoos,
Banerjee, and Choi (2007) define it as “a place where older people are actively
involved, valued, and supported with infrastructure and services that effectively
accommodate their needs”. Fitzgerald and Caro (2014) state that an age-friendly
community “combines features (both environmental and social) to create living
spaces that offer people rich opportunities for successful living”. In Scharlach
(2009)’s definition, a community is viewed as age-friendly when its “major systems
are responsive to the changing needs and capabilities of its members as they age,
providing opportunities of continuity, compensation, connection, contribution and
challenge”.
In age-friendly communities, older people are viewed as significant contributors to
society’s development, instead of recipients of social resources (Austin, McClelland,
Perrault, & Sieppert, 2009). Older people not only are active in the life of the
community through interaction with other people and using community resources,
but also participate in political and related organisations within the community
(Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014). Age-friendly features of communities are mainly explored
from the perspectives of the physical and social environment (Lui, et al., 2009). In
other words, an age-friendly community aims at delivering an integrated
environment where both the physical and social environment needs of older people
can be satisfied. For the physical environment, components such as senior oriented
land use planning and community design, accessible and affordable housing,
54
multiple forms of transportation and mobility supports are stressed (Lehning,
Scharlach, & Dal Santo, 2009; Lui, et al., 2009; Menec, et al., 2011; Smith, Lehning,
& Dunkle, 2013). In terms of the social environment, shaping a community
environment that is equipped with features such as civil and community integration
and participation, health and care services accessibility, independent living, being
valued and respected, lifelong learning, and security, is the core (Lehning, et al.,
2009; Lui, et al., 2009; Menec, et al., 2011; Smith, et al., 2013).
The increasing popularity of housing older adults in an age-friendly way is apparent
in developed countries (Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014; Lui, et al., 2009). For instance, in
the United States, the concept of liveable communities has been suggested as a
way of meeting older people’s needs for affordable and appropriate housing,
equipping communities with supportive community features and services, and
supporting and respecting their freedom of mobility (Kochera & Bright, 2006). In
the United Kingdom, “lifetime neighbourhoods” have been proposed, offering older
persons an age-friendly residential environment through resident empowerment,
access, services and amenities, built and natural environments, social
networks/well-being and housing (Bevan & Croucher, 2011). In Australia,
government-based initiatives have been proposed, such as “Queensland: an age-
friendly community, Action Plan”, to provide a clear way forward to directing the
implementation and delivery of age-friendly communities (Department of
Communities Child Safety and Disability Services, 2016). All these efforts are
contributing to the provision of age-friendly residential environments for older
adults.
55
2.2.4 Sustainable retirement villages
Sustainability principles need to be incorporated into the development of
retirement villages that provide residents with a sustainable residential
environment (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). The sustainable retirement village
initiative aims at addressing current issues in Australia’s retirement living sector.
Affordability is a crucial concern for residents, given the increasing costs of village
living and their reducing income on retirement (Finn, et al., 2011; Hu, Xia, Buys, et
al., 2015). As stressed in Walker and McNamara (2013), “moving to a retirement
village often includes a noteworthy financial investment”. Moreover, some
retirement villages fail to provide residents with a socially-connected environment,
and consequently, residents suffer from social isolation, loneliness and depression
(Gracia, et al., 2010; Rickwood & Rylands, 2000). Few village developers have
considered environmental sustainability during design and construction; this means
that residents live in poorly-designed retirement villages that are bad for their
health and the health of the environment (Green Building Council of Australia,
2016).
Thus, a sustainable retirement village “needs to respond to the environmental,
economical and social sustainability requirements of senior citizens” (Xia, Zuo, et al.,
2015). Socially, sustainable retirement villages create opportunities for friendship
development and participation in activities in both the village and the wider
community (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). In terms of economic sustainability, retirement
villages should be affordable in order to provide residents with a financially
comfortable environment (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015).
56
Regarding environmental sustainability, retirement villages should go “green” to
ensure qualified indoor environment, and efficiency of energy use, resources and
material (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
The development of sustainable retirement villages has attracted the attention of a
variety of stakeholders, including developers, residents and industry related
organizations. Developers are the main contributors to sustainable retirement
villages. Developers from both the private and not-for-profit sectors have acted to
make their villages sustainable (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). For instance,
a case study of a private retirement village in QLD found that the developers used
sustainable practices in various aspects of landscaping and design, facilities and
services, internal communication and social activities, and financial arrangements
(Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). However, for not-for-profit village developers, one of the
major obstacles to the provision of sustainable retirement villages is the high
investment involved (Zuo, et al., 2014). Nevertheless, residents are conscious of the
consumption of un-sustainable resources and would like their villages to be
sustainable (Barker, et al., 2012). Residents have used a variety of strategies to
make their villages sustainable, such as turning off lights and electronic devices
when not in use (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014). However, the high cost involved in living in
sustainable retirement villages is an important concern for residents, especially for
those from not-for-profit villages (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014).
Industry related organizations have also taken action to promote the development
of sustainable retirement villages in Australia. For instance, the Green Building
Council of Australia works closely with developers (such as Stockland Retirement
57
Living) to introduce a Green Star rating tool specially for the retirement living sector
(Green Building Council of Australia, 2016).
58
2.3 The application of case-based reasoning in construction management research:
an overview
Statement of joint authorship and authors contributions
The authors listed below have certified that:
1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the
conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in
their field of expertise;
2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, expect for the
responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;
3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the
editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the
responsible academic unit, and
5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication
on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher
requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Hu Xin, Xia Bo, Skitmore Martin and Chen Qing. (2016). The application of case-
based reasoning in construction management research: An overview, Automation in
Construction, 72(2), 65-74.
59
Contributor Statement of contribution
Xin Hu Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of this
study, wrote the manuscript, research design, data collection and
analysis;
QUT Verified Signature
24/01/2017
Bo Xia Aided with the research design, data collection and analysis, and
evaluation of the manuscript;
Martin Skitmore Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Qing Chen Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript;
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Bo Xia QUT Verified Signature 2/06/2017 __ ____________ _________________ __________________ Name Signature Date
60
Abstract and keywords
Abstract: Case-based reasoning (CBR) has been widely adopted in construction
management (CM) research due to the similar mind-sets of CBR and CM problem
solving. However, to date, there has been no systematic review of CBR applications
in previous CM studies, raising the question of what is the current status quo of CBR
applications in CM research? By using the method of content analysis, this study
provides a comprehensive literature review of CM CBR articles published between
1996 and January 2015. It is found that the popularity of CBR applications in CM
research is increasing, especially after 2006, with a majority emanating from South
Korea. In addition, 17 CBR application fields are identified, with the primary
research interests focusing on construction cost estimation, construction tendering,
bidding and procurement, and environment and sustainability management. Issues
in previous CBR model developments are also identified, mainly related to model
hypothesis-testing, reuse of case outcomes, selection of model development
methods, use of derivational analogy and automated implementation, together
with future research suggestions and directions. This study helps provide CM
academics and practitioners with a more comprehensive understanding of the
development of CBR applications and implications for future studies.
Keywords: Case-based reasoning, overview, construction management
61
2.3.1 Introduction
Soft computing techniques have been widely adopted to solve engineering issues,
mainly because they can address problems intelligently through mimicking the
human mind (Chau, 2006; Taormina & Chau, 2015; Wang, Chau, Xu, & Chen, 2015;
Wu, Chau, & Li, 2009; Zhang & Chau, 2009a; Zhang & Chau, 2009b). In the specific
construction management (CM) domain, frequently used techniques comprise the
genetic algorithm (GA), fuzzy techniques, artificial neural networks (ANN), case-
based reasoning (CBR) and their various combinations (Boussabaine, 1996; Chan,
Chan, & Yeung, 2009; Yau & Yang, 1998; Zheng, Ng, & Kumaraswamy, 2004). Of
these, CBR provides decision-makers with a framework for solving current problems
through recalling and reusing knowledge and experience stored in prior occurring
similar situations (Watson & Marir, 1994). CBR has various advantages over other
techniques. In particular, it is easier for to employ CBR to address unstructured
issues (e.g., CM) by using historical cases instead of pre-defined rules, as defining
such rules are hard and time-consuming (Leake, 1996). Another advantage is that
CBR can be used even if certain fields are not completely understood by users
(Kolodner, 1993). This makes CBR particularly suitable for CM novices.
CBR is a suitable technique for dealing with CM issues given the similar mind-sets of
CBR and CM problem-solving. CM problem-solving is experience-oriented, and
practitioners address CM issues by using their accumulated professional experience
and knowledge (Carrillo & Chinowsky, 2006). Similarly, CBR mines established
experience and knowledge to provide solutions to new situations (Watson & Marir,
1994). Moreover, despite the unique features of each construction project, their
used methods and procedures are similar (Yau & Yang, 1998), which suggests that
62
successful CM practices adopted in prior projects can be applied in new projects,
providing important opportunities for the application of CBR. As a result, CBR has
attracted various research interests in CM applications such as construction cost
estimation (An, Kim, & Kang, 2007).
Despite the suitability of CBR in solving CM issues, its applications in the CM domain
are still not clear. For example, its application trends, model development activities,
application fields and problems are still largely unknown. Understanding these
issues provides useful insights into the implications for future CM-CBR applications.
However, no work to date has attempted to address this research gap. Therefore,
this paper aims to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive review of CM-CBR
applications based on a robust content analysis of prior published studies. It should
be noted that these studies were retrieved from peer-reviewed journals, and
unpublished studies conducted in laboratory conditions are not included. First, the
CBR mechanism is introduced followed by the content analysis research method.
Based on the identified articles, CBR application trends and activities in model
development are next described, and the identification and use of CM-CBR
application fields expounded in detail. Finally, application issues are identified,
together with suggestions for future research directions. This review provides CM
stakeholders with valuable information on the CBR approach and its applications in
the CM domain.
2.3.2 Case-based reasoning
The study of CBR has been profoundly motivated by cognitive science and artificial
intelligence (Leake, 1996). Cognitive science develops theories of human perception,
thinking and learning. The philosophy of CBR that reasoning is based on historical
63
experience and knowledge is closely associated with experience, memory and
analogy in cognitive science (Richter & Aamodt, 2005). CBR provides a scientific
cognitive model of how people solves problems (Slade, 1991). This is supported by
human reasoning studies which demonstrate that reasoning based on reminding
cases (memory) is implemented in a wide range of contexts such as mathematical
problem solving and decision-making under time pressure (Leake, 1996). In addition,
CBR is fundamentally related to analogical reasoning in cognitive science, which
refers to basic mechanisms (e.g., matching and retrieval) and the use of
mechanisms (e.g., reasoning and learning) (Richter & Aamodt, 2005). Moreover, the
use of CBR has also been motivated as CBR is an artificial intelligence technology. It
can work as a real-world AI system used for problem-addressing even if only limited
experience is available. To ensure that a designed CBR model is an advanced
artificial intelligence technology, issues of acquiring, representing, indexing and
adapting exiting knowledge and experience should be well considered and designed
(Leake, 1996).
CBR solves a new problem by remembering a prior similar situation and by reusing
information and knowledge of that situation (Aamodt & Plaza, 1994). The term
‘case’ means a prior concrete situation, and accumulated cases combining with an
appropriate organization structure constitute a case-base (Watson & Marir, 1994).
As shown in Figure 8, the use of CBR refers to a set of activities, mainly including
case representation, indexing, case storage and a CBR cycle. Case representation
refers to the information to be included about cases and identifying an appropriate
structure to describe cases. Indexing assigns indices to cases to facilitate case
64
retrieval. Case storage refers to organizing an appropriate case-base structure for
the collected cases to enable their effective retrieval.
Figure 8 Case-based reasoning process
Source: Adapted from Aamodt and Plaza (1994) and Watson and Marir (1994)
The CBR cycle comprises four sub-phases of retrieval, reuse, revision and retention
(Aamodt & Plaza, 1994). It begins with the emergence of a new case/problem
followed by case retrieval which involves measuring similarities between the new
case and historical cases. This is the core stage of the CBR cycle, and its accuracy is
heavily impacted by predetermined similarity assessment criteria (Liao, Zhang, &
Mount, 1998). Case retrieval results in the identification of similar cases. If the
current case and retrieved cases are sufficiently similar, solutions of retrieved cases
can be reused directly without any modification. Otherwise, the solutions should be
revised by taking differences between the new case and retrieved cases into
consideration. Finally, the new case and its solutions can be retained in the case-
base for future reuse. In this sense, CBR is a self-learning system.
It should be noted that the use of different similarity assessment criteria may result
in varying degrees of bias. It is nearly impossible to eliminate these bias as the CBR
reasoning process can be hardly designed as a completely structured reasoning
65
issue with sufficient domain knowledge and clearly reasoning rules. Instead, it is
routinely implemented as an un-structured problem based on limited influencing
factors and insufficient domain knowledge (Kolodneer, 1993). Thus, the bias
resulted from using similarity assessment criteria cannot be avoided fundamentally.
However, the bias can be minimized through improving both the number and
quality of historical cases and also choosing the most appropriate similarity
assessment criteria based on the unique research context and experienced experts’
knowledge and judgements.
Though the usefulness of CBR in problem-addressing, it also has some
disadvantages. First, the assumption that similar problems have similar solutions is
questionable on some domains. Evaluating the assumption is difficult especially on
semi-structured and un-structured domains. In addition, it is hard to have access to
sufficient high-quality historical cases for the purpose of case-base establishment.
The increase of historical cases also needs large storage space. Moreover, the
development of CBR model is not easy given that a variety of activities are involved
and some of them are hard. Especially, the indexing and case retrieval, which can
impact the accuracy of similarity calculation, are difficult for reasoners with less
professional domain knowledge. It may also take large processing time to find the
similar cases. The determination of case adaption algorithm is also not easy as it is
highly domain dependent. As last, CBR works not well when reasoners use it to
retrieve the best or optimum solutions. It is more suitable to seek the good or
reasonable solutions.
The first CBR system, CYRUS, was developed by Janet Kolodner, a question-
answering system with rich knowledge of travelling and meetings (Kolodner, 1983a,
66
1983b). Since the introduction of this system, various CBR-based systems have
emerged, including those aimed at addressing CM issues such as EQUAL for
contractor prequalification (Ng, 2001) and CONPLA-CBR for construction planning
and scheduling (Ryu, Lee, & Park, 2007).
2.3.3 Research method
Although different methods/techniques are available for reviewing literature,
content analysis is used because of its fit for the research purpose. Content analysis
can be used to systematically and objectively to make valid inferences based on
collected data so as to describe and quantify specific phenomena (Krippendorff,
2012), which helps disclose central and natural aspects of prior CM-CBR papers to
depict the whole picture of CM-CBR applications. Its robustness in CM literature
review has already been confirmed (Chan, et al., 2009). Compared with other
methods, one of its advantages is that it allows for both qualitative and quantitative
operations (Chan, et al., 2009). When content analysis is used qualitatively, it can
be used to record and categorize specific phenomena in a systematic way to reflect
the main features of the prior literature (Krippendorff, 2012). In addition, it can also
be used to provide a quantitative analysis of qualitative data. This involves
transforming features identified by qualitative content analysis into a quantitative
format that helps disclose the latent contents of prior literature by presenting an
objective account of events that are not immediately apparent (Krippendorff, 2012).
Thus, content analysis can provide the comprehensive disclosure of CM-CBR
applications and ensure results of this study are reliable and valid. Collection of
samples and determination of content analysis forms are important tasks in
67
undertaking content analysis. Figure 9 shows the content analysis procedure of
present study.
Figure 9 Content analysis procedure
The collection of samples is to identify materials that will be analyzed. In this study,
it refers to the search and selection of peer-review journal articles. An appropriate
way of doing this is by collecting articles based on popular academic databases
(Yang, Shen, Ho, Drew, & Xue, 2011). The article search and selection process of the
current study comprised the following four steps,
• Step 1: Determining the academic databases used for article search and
selection. The main academic databases, including the Web of Science,
Scopus, Engineering Village, Science Direct, ASCE Library, Emerald, Wiley
Online Library and Taylor & Francis Online, were used. These databases not
only cover mainstream CM journals but also mainstream artificial
intelligence (AI) journals such as Expert Systems in Application.
68
• Step 2: Determining the academic journals used for article search. The
identified academic databases were searched by adopting the searching
strategy: “case-based reasoning” AND (“construction industry” OR
“construction management” OR “construction project” OR “construction
project management” OR “project management” OR “civil engineering
management” OR “civil engineering project management” OR “construction
and project management”). This led to the identification of 319 academic
journals with the potential of publishing CM-CBR application articles.
• Step 3: Obtaining preliminary search results. The individual websites of the
319 journals were searched using “case-based reasoning” during Dec 2014
to Jan 2015. A total of 5,963 candidate academic articles were identified.
• Step 4: Formulating article selection criteria and identifying used articles.
The criteria include (1) CBR is the main research method AND (2) the
application is CM related. In accordance with these criteria, a two-round
article selection strategy was used following Yang, et al. (2011). The first
round selection checked the articles’ Title, Abstract and Keywords
information to determine if they met the criteria. This was followed by a
second round selection conducted by reading and analysing the whole
article to double check articles. The first round of selection helps in the
speedy exclusion of un-related articles. In addition, based on the second
round assessment, it can ensure all selected papers are closely related to
the research objective. Moreover, it also helps in understanding the
research topics and findings of prior studies, which facilitates the following
69
analysis such as the identification of CM-CBR application fields. Finally, 91
articles from 33 journals were selected and used in this study.
Both qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted. The qualitative content
analysis was used to identify publications in journals, years and geographical areas,
identify CM-CBR application fields, and deeply analyse these fields. The quantitative
content analysis was employed to determine the number of publications in journals,
years and geographical areas, the percentage of activities described in model
development, and the frequency of CM-CBR application fields. These allow CBR
application issues to be identified, and future research suggestions and directions
to be proposed.
2.3.4 Overview of CM-CBR research
Trends
Distribution of Articles
Table 5 shows the distribution of the 91 articles on journals, with the majority of
these journals being from the engineering domain. Nearly half of identified articles
are contained in four journals, namely Automation in Construction (AIC, 12), Journal
of Computing in Civil Engineering (JCCE, 11), Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management (JCEM, 11) and Expert Systems with Applications (ESA, 8). Of
these four top targeted journals, AIC, JCCE and JCEM are viewed as prominent and
influential within the area of construction engineering and information technology
by the research community (Li, Chan, Wong, & Skitmore, 2016). In addition, articles
were also popularly published in ESA, partly as ESA is one of the most influential AI
journals.
70
Table 5 Distribution of the articles
Code Journal title Number of
articles
1 Automation in Construction 12
2 Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 11
3 Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 11
4 Expert Systems with Applications 8
5 Construction Management and Economics 3
6 Advanced Engineering Informatics 3
7 Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 3
8 KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 3
9 Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 3
10 Building and Environment 3
11 Advances in Engineering Software 2
12 Journal of Management in Engineering 2
13 Journal of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering
2
14 Applied Energy 2
15 Energy Policy 2
16 Journal of Environmental Management 2
17 Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and
Building
2
18 International Journal of Construction Information
Technology
2
19 Tsinghua Science and Technology 1
20 Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management
1
21 Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems 1
22 Iranian Journal of Science and Technology
Transactions of Civil Engineering
1
71
23 International Journal of Strategic Property
Management
1
24 Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 1
25 Information and Management 1
26 Safety Science 1
27 Energy and Buildings 1
28 Journal of Infrastructure Systems 1
29 Journal of Advanced Research 1
30 Journal of Cleaner Production 1
31 Logistics Information Management 1
32 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 1
33 Facilities 1
Total 91
Publications in Years
Figure 10 depicts the trend in CM-CBR publications over time. The average number
of publication during 1996-2014 is around 4.74, and the largest publication number
reached 11 in 2014.
It is clearly shown that the average annual number before 2006 was less than 4 and
has increased since 2006. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to further
examine whether there has been a significant increase in the number of CM-CRB
publications each year since 2006. As only the January data could be obtained in
2015, the analysis interval of the t-test is 1996-2014. The result of is highly
significant (t = -5.963, Sig. = 0.000), indicating that the number of CM-CBR
publications during 1996-2014 has increased significantly since 2006. This is taken
to imply an increasing interest in using CBR to address CM issues since 2006.
72
Figure 10 Publication trend in years
Applications in Geographical Areas
Table 6 shows the distribution of CM-CBR publications by countries/regions. The
classification is based on the geographical locations of the research data for each
study. As many studies involve co-authors from different countries/regions, this
classification can better reflect the distribution of CM-CBR applications in
geographical areas than simply analysing the locations of the authors themselves.
The research findings show that 34 articles are conducted in the South Korean
context, accounting for 37.4% of all articles, followed by Taiwan (7), Australia (6),
Canada (6), and United Kingdom (6). In addition, 3.3% of articles are multi-country
based, and 9 publications do not clearly indicate their research context.
Table 6 Distribution by countries or regions
Code Country Or Region Number of publications Percentage of
publications (%)
1 South Korea 34 37.4
2 Taiwan 7 7.7
3 Australia 6 6.6
73
4 Canada 6 6.6
5 United Kingdom 6 6.6
6 United States 4 4.4
7 Singapore 4 4.4
8 Turkey 4 4.4
9 Hong Kong 2 2.2
10 China 1 1.1
11 Egypt 1 1.1
12 Greek 1 1.1
13 Iran 1 1.1
14 Portugal 1 1.1
15 Switzerland 1 1.1
16 Multi-country 3 3.3
17 Unspecified 9 9.9
Total 91 100
Development activities
CBR model development involves different activities. These are summarized in
Table 7 in order of their frequencies of occurrence in the articles. As is indicated,
most research clearly describes the case retrieval method used, the information
included in historical cases and indexing method, while relatively less attention is
paid to the methods used in case retention (4.4%), case storage (20.9%), and case
representation (37.4%). The ranking of these activities clearly reflects their
importance, with case retrieval methods, information included in historical cases,
indexing methods and case reuse and revision methods being indispensable in CBR.
Table 7 Activities described in the development of CM-CBR models
Code Activities Percentage
74
1 Case retrieval 90.1
2 Case representation (determination of case
information)
82.4
3 Indexing 76.9
4 Case reuse and revision 62.6
5 Case representation (method determination) 37.4
6 Case storage 20.9
7 Case retention 4.4
Applications
17 CM application fields are identified (Table 8), showing CBR to be most popularly
used in Construction Cost Estimation (28), followed by Construction Tendering,
Bidding and Procurement (12), and Environment and Sustainability Management
(11). These are described in detail in the following subsections.
Table 8 CM-CBR Applications fields
Code Application Fields No. of
Publications
References
1 Construction Cost
Estimation
28 Yau and Yang (1998); Kim, An, and
Kang (2004); Kim, Choi, Kim, and Kang
(2005); Doğan, Arditi, and Günaydın
(2006); An, et al. (2007); Raphael,
Domer, Saitta, and Smith (2007);
Doğan, Arditi, and Murat Günaydin
(2008); Koo, Hong, Hyun, and Koo
(2010); Koo, Hong, Hyun, Park, and
Seo (2010); Kim and Kim (2010); Ji,
Hong, and Hyun (2010); Ji, Park, and
Lee (2011); Hong, Hyun, and Moon
(2011); Koo, Hong, and Hyun (2011); Ji
75
et al. (2011); Kim (2011); Marzouk and
Ahmed (2011); Jin, Cho, Hyun, and Son
(2012); Kim, Seo, and Hyun (2012);
Kim, Lee, and Woo (2012); Kim and
Hong (2012); Kim (2012); Ji, Park, and
Lee (2012); Lee, Jin, and Woo (2013);
Kim (2013); Jin, Han, Hyun, and Kim
(2014); Choi, Kim, Han, and Kwak
(2014); Kim and Shim (2014);
2 Construction
Tendering, Bidding
and Procurement
12 Ng, Smith, and Skitmore (1998); Ng
and Smith (1998); Chua, Li, and Chan
(2001); Ng (2001); Luu, Ng, and Chen
(2003); Luu, Ng, and Chen (2005); Ng,
Luu, and Skitmore (2005); Luu, Ng,
Chen, and Jefferies (2006); Luu and
Sher (2006); Dikmen, Birgonul, and
Gur (2007); Ng and Luu (2008); Juan
(2009);
3 Environment and
Sustainability
Management
11 Hong, Koo, and Jeong (2012); Hong,
Koo, and Kim (2012); Hong, Koo, and
Park (2012); Shen, et al. (2013); Moon,
Hyun, and Hong (2014); Hong, Koo,
Kim, and Park (2014); Hong, Koo, and
Lee (2014); Koo, Hong, Lee, and Park
(2014); Ji, Hong, Jeong, and Leigh
(2014); Jeong, Ji, Koo, Hong, and Park
(2014); Monfet, Corsi, Choinière, and
Arkhipova (2014);
4 Construction
Planning and
Scheduling
9 Dzeng and Tommelein (1997); Tah,
Carr, and Howes (1998); Tah, Carr, and
Howes (1999); Yang and Yau (2000);
76
Management Ng, Deng, Lam, and Skitmore (2000);
Rankin and Froese (2002); Dzeng and
Tommelein (2004); Ryu, et al. (2007);
Chao and Chien (2010);
5 Construction
Contract
Management
7 Li (1996); Arditi and Tokdemir (1999a);
Arditi and Tokdemir (1999b); Chua and
Loh (2006); Chen and Hsu (2007);
Cheng, Tsai, and Chiu (2009); Chen,
Chang, Chou, and Mortis (2010);
6 Construction
Infrastructure
Maintenance
6 Morcous, Rivard, and Hanna (2002a);
Morcous, Rivard, and Hanna (2002b);
Morcous and Rivard (2003); Chou
(2008); Chou (2009); Motawa and
Almarshad (2013);
7 Construction Risk
Management
6 Forbes, Smith, and Horner (2008); Goh
and Chua (2009); Goh and Chua
(2010); Forbes, Smith, and Horner
(2010); Lu, Li, and Xiao (2013); Fan, Li,
and Zhang (2015a);
8 Value Engineering 2 Naderpajouh and Afshar (2008); Lee,
Hyun, and Hong (2009);
9 Facilities
management
2 Shohet and Lavy (2004); Lavy and
Shohet (2007);
10 Briefing of
Construction
Projects
1 Luo, Shen, and Fan (2010);
11 Construction
Information
Management
1 Yu and Liu (2006);
12 Onsite Supervisory
Manpower
1 Chen, Yang, Chen, and Chang (2008);
77
Management
13 Construction
Quantity Estimating
1 Du and Bormann (2014);
14 International
Construction
Market Selection
1 (2006);
15 Construction
Delivery System
Selection
1 Loforte Ribeiro (2001);
16 Productivity
Estimation of Cyclic
Construction
Operations
1 Graham and Smith (2004);
17 Project Portfolio
Selection
1 Abbasianjahromi and Rajaie (2013);
Construction Cost Estimation
CBR is a representative method for early construction cost estimation through
retrieving and reusing either historical cost values (e.g., Doğan, et al. (2006)) or
historical data used for cost estimation such as quantities of representative items
(e.g., Hong, et al. (2011)). Yau and Yang (1998) investigated the suitability of CBR for
cost prediction, finding it to be particularly beneficial at the preliminary design
stage, where the lack of detailed information forces estimators to use cost models
based on previous similar projects. CBR cost estimation model has been developed
for various types of projects, such as high-rise buildings, apartment buildings, river
facilities, multi-family housing, pump stations and railroad bridges (Hong, et al.,
78
2011; Ji, Park, & Lee, 2011; Kim & Hong, 2012; Kim, Lee, et al., 2012; Kim & Shim,
2014; Lee, et al., 2013; Marzouk & Ahmed, 2011).
As diverse methods are available for cost estimators such as ANN and multiple
regression analysis (MRA), comparing the performance of a CBR model with other
methods is meaningful (Kim, et al., 2004). Nevertheless, inconsistent results have
been obtained to date. Kim, et al. (2004), for example, indicated that CBR does not
perform as good as ANN, but outperforms MRA; while Kim, et al. (2005) found that
CBR can produce a slightly more accurate result than ANN. The different CBR model
design may be a reason to the inconsistent, such as different methods used in
indexing and weight determination, and used different data sets.
To improve the performance of a CBR cost estimation model, optimization
strategies used in both case retrieval and revision stages were suggested.
Nevertheless, no studies explored the optimization of which stage is more effective.
Strategies of retrieval optimization focus on the selection of a suitable method to
determine indices and their weight. First, both subjective and objective methods
are used to select indices, such as interview (An, et al., 2007), statistical analysis (Jin,
et al., 2012), and their combinations (Kim & Kim, 2010). However, no comparisons
of their performance can be found, with the method used often being simply stated
without any explanations. Despite this, AI experts believe that people tend to be
better than algorithms in choosing indices and therefore a manual approach is
preferred (Watson & Marir, 1994). In terms of optimization the index weights,
automated algorithms such as GA, the gradient descent method (GDM), feature
counting (FC), regression analysis, ANN and decision trees have been suggested
(Doğan, et al., 2006; Doğan, et al., 2008; Ji, et al., 2010; Kim & Kim, 2010; Koo, Hong,
79
Hyun, & Koo, 2010). Comparisons of their performance have been made, with both
Koo, Hong, Hyun, Park, et al. (2010) and Kim and Shim (2014), for instance,
indicating that a GA-based CBR model performs better than a FC-based model; and
Ji, Park, and Lee (2011) suggesting that GA also outperforms regression analysis
which, in turn, performs better than FC. The regression analysis based model
developed by Kim, et al. (2005) was also found to perform better than a GDM based
model; while Koo, Hong, Hyun, and Koo (2010) indicate that an ANN-based model
can produce a more accurate result than both MRA and FC based models. However,
it should be noted their performance is sensitive to the model design. For instance,
Ji, et al. (2010) indicate that the performance of different algorithms can vary
greatly when using different combinations of indices. One obvious issue of
automated algorithms is their poor explanatory capability (An, et al., 2007).
Therefore, methods that can elicit domain knowledge from experts, such as the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), were also recommended (An, et al., 2007; Kim,
2013). An, et al. (2007) indicated that the AHP-based CBR model outperforms
automated algorithms based models of GDM and FC. Nevertheless, there is no
general preference for weight determination by either expert knowledge or
automated algorithms.
Strategies were also proposed for the optimization of case revision, such as the
two-step CBR adaption model to decrease the need of adaption and increase the
capability of adaption (Ji, et al., 2012), and using MRA to compensate the derivation
of nominal features (Ji, et al., 2010; Jin, et al., 2012) or both nominal and categorical
features (Jin, et al., 2014; Kim & Hong, 2012). Marzouk and Ahmed (2011)
compared four case revision methods (null adaptation, weighted adaptation,
80
neuro-adaptation and fuzzy adaptation), and found that the fuzzy adaption method
outperforms others. However, optimization at the revision stage is generally not as
well-focused as that at the case retrieval stage (Kim & Hong, 2012). One possible
reason is that the hypothesis of CBR that “similar cases have similar solutions”
makes researchers focus more on the performance of case retrieval algorithms.
Construction Tendering, Bidding and Procurement
CBR applications in construction tendering, bidding and procurement include
markup estimation, contractor assessment and construction procurement selection
(CPS). Given that the markup decision is too complicated and un-structured to
model by a rigid rule-based process, the markup value can be derived based on the
analogy with historical cases (Hegazy & Moselhi, 1994). Instead of estimating a
markup value directly, CBR is used to identify a new project’s competition, risk and
opportunity levels to help in the markup decision by using either the probability
distribution of the low bid or linear utility functions (Chua, et al., 2001; Dikmen, et
al., 2007).
CBR is also used to assess contractors for purposes of contractor prequalification,
establishment of a construction subcontractor registration scheme and selection of
contractor/subcontractors. The contractor prequalification relies on expert
judgements and CBR is suggested in this process as it can solve un-structured issues
by mimicking experts’ problem solving process (Ng, 2001). Prior studies showed
that CBR can generate practicable and robust prequalification recommendations to
users (Ng, 2001; Ng & Smith, 1998; Ng, et al., 1998). In terms of the establishment
of a construction subcontractor registration scheme, CBR is adopted to formulate
contractor assessment criteria and assess applicants by comparing applicants with
81
previous similar registers (Ng & Luu, 2008). Researchers also developed CBR
prototypes to formulate generalized selection rules utilized in
contractor/subcontractor selection (e.g. Luu and Sher (2006) and Juan (2009)).
In terms of adopting CBR to address construction procurement issues, Luu, et al.
(2003) developed a Case-based Procurement Advisory System (CPAS) to help
decision-makers in procurement selection. Luu, et al. (2005) adopted CBR to
develop a procurement selection criteria formulation model, named CaPS, so as to
reduce the subjectivity of CPS criteria formulation and support CPAS
implementation by considering clients’ needs, project requirements and
characteristics of the external environment. Similarly, Ng, et al. (2005) used CBR in a
two stage of CPS strategy formulation in which CBR is used to formulate
procurement selection parameters and select a suitable construction procurement
system.
Environment and Sustainability Management
CBR applications in environment and sustainability management include the mining
and reusing of sustainable practices and environmental evaluation. With the wide
acceptance of sustainable urbanization, prior sustainable practices can be reused to
support a current decision-making. Shen, et al. (2013) developed a CBR-based
Experience Mining System, ExMS, to capture and reuse previous sustainable
urbanization practices to promote the implementation of sustainable urbanization.
In terms of environmental evaluation, CBR is used to estimate energy demands
(Monfet, et al., 2014), predict material quantities to estimate greenhouse gas
emissions (Moon, et al., 2014) and establish benchmarks for the free allocation of
carbon credits (Hong, Koo, & Lee, 2014). In addition, CBR has also been adopted to
82
estimate and compare energy consumption so as to select projects with the
potential for improved energy saving (Hong, Koo, & Jeong, 2012; Hong, Koo, & Kim,
2012; Hong, Koo, & Park, 2012), establish incentive and penalty programs for
energy saving (Koo, et al., 2014), establish the optimal energy retrofit strategies
(Hong, Koo, Kim, et al., 2014), and predict both material quantities and energy
consumption to assess the environmental impact and benefits of existing buildings
(Jeong, et al., 2014; Ji, et al., 2014).
Construction Planning and Scheduling Management
Construction planners and schedulers normally re-use knowledge and experience
gained from historical plans to make decisions in practice (Tah, et al., 1998). As
conventional models, such as rule-based expert systems, fail to meet CM managers’
requirements in dealing with the complexity of construction information (Tah, et al.,
1998), CBR has emerged as an alternative method. For instance, a CBR based
planning model, CBRidge, was developed to enable clients to capture and reuse
prior planning experience and knowledge for highway bridge projects (Tah, et al.,
1998, 1999). Another CBR model, CasePlan, was also constructed to automate the
planning and scheduling process of the erection of power plant boilers (Dzeng &
Tommelein, 1997, 2004). Nevertheless, these two models are restricted to either
highway bridge or boiler manufacture projects. Ryu, et al. (2007) therefore
developed a general CBR-based planning tool, CONPLA-CBR, which can be utilized
for different project types through integrating the dynamic case approach and
construction schedule data. In addition, Rankin and Froese (2002) proposed an
advanced construction planning tool, CACP, which uses CBR to provide the planning
information in support of integrated systems.
83
CBR has also been used to estimate construction duration, model construction
delay mitigation and update construction S-curves. Yang and Yau (2000) suggested
an integrated CBR and Expert System model for the duration estimation of a slurry
wall project at the project planning stage, which outperforms the performance of
CBR and Expert System individually. Ng, et al. (2000) suggested a conceptual CBR
based framework for construction delay mitigation, in which CBR was employed to
scrutinize crashing activities and provide actual time-cost information to support
the delay mitigation process. Chao and Chien (2010) proposed a project S-curve
updating model by integrating ANN and CBR. In this model, based on prior similar
cases retrieved by using an innovative progress-matching method, CBR is used to
update S-curves during construction.
Construction Contract Management
CBR has been used in construction contract management field to formulate
contract strategies, solve disputes and predict litigation results. Traditional methods
used to formulate contract strategies are ill-structured, overlook significant factors
and rely excessively on practitioners’ experience (Chua & Loh, 2006). To rectify this,
Chua and Loh (2006) designed a CBR-based CB-Contract prototype which provides a
human-machine decision-making system to suggest contact sub-strategies of work
packaging, functional grouping, contract type, and award method.
Construction disputes are normally settled by expensive and bias-prone expert-
based negotiation and litigation (Harmon, 2003), and Li (1996) suggested a CBR
based MEDIATOR intelligent support model to provide negotiators with neutral
suggestions based on prior similar situations. Chen and Hsu (2007) proposed an
ANN-CBR based early warning system HACM to warn and solve lawsuit issues
84
resulting from change orders. In the HACM model, ANN is utilized to predict the
likelihood of litigation, and CBR is employed to yield warnings and suggest
procedures for settling disputes when litigation likelihood is relatively high.
When a litigation occurs, it is difficult to predict its outcome due to reasons such as
different contract interpretation between parties (Chau, 2006). CBR provides a
potential method to address this issue, and its suitability has been validated by
Arditi and Tokdemir (1999b) who developed a CBR based construction litigation
prediction model with a high prediction rate (83%). This is compared with ANN
which can only obtain a rate of prediction of 67% (Arditi, Oksay, & Tokdemir, 1998).
In light of these two studies, Arditi and Tokdemir (1999a) compared the application
of CBR and ANN in the prediction of litigation outcomes, and found that CBR has
more advantages than ANN in model flexibility, model explanation ability, missing
values and a large number of features handling.
In addition to the above applications, Chen, et al. (2010) used CBR to develop an
adjudication system to effectively reuse historical experience in adjudicating
occupational construction accidents. In addition, it should be noted that the
effective use of CBR dispute-addressing models relies heavily on a well-developed
case retrieval strategy. Cheng, et al. (2009), therefore, proposed an improved case
retrieval algorithm by fusing the Euclidean distance and cosine angle distance to
help CM managers to obtain information quickly and efficiently.
Construction Infrastructure Maintenance
CBR applications in construction infrastructure maintenance include modelling
infrastructure deterioration, capturing and sharing infrastructure maintenance
knowledge, and estimating infrastructure maintenance cost. Given the importance
85
of infrastructure maintenance and limitations of existing deterioration models (such
as failing to consider the effects of previous conditions and maintenance
treatments), Morcous, et al. (2002a) proposed a CBR-based system, CBRMID, to
predict the future condition of infrastructure facilities and optimize maintenance
decisions. Morcous, et al. (2002b) used the CBRMID to model the deterioration of
concrete bridge decks in order to predict future conditions, with acceptable results.
In addition to CBRMID, Morcous and Rivard (2003) proposed a new low-slope roof
maintenance management system, CBROOF, by utilizing a combined object-
oriented model of roof data representation and a CBR model of service life
estimation to overcome limitations of existing models such as non-decomposition
in roof data representation and the neglect of uncertainty in the prediction of
future conditions. Results indicated that, compared with CBRMID, CBROOF can
outperform the conventional Markov-chain model, support the use of a
computerized maintenance management system, and provide a simpler and more
efficient means of case retrieval.
Motawa and Almarshad (2013) adopted CBR to capture and share maintenance
knowledge to solve problems of existing models on the ignorance of capture and
sharing of maintenance knowledge. In this study, a building maintenance system
which combines Building Information Model and CBR was integrated via a web-
based application to understand the building deterioration process and help
proactive maintenance decision-making for public organizations. Moreover,
researchers also used CBR to estimate the cost of infrastructure maintenance in
order to solve difficulties in effectively managing numerous projects within a
86
limited budget, and more importantly, help decision-makers in project screening
and budget allocation during the preliminary project stages (Chou, 2008, 2009).
Construction Risk Management
CBR has been adopted in the main construction risk management tasks, including
risk identification, formulation of risk management strategies, risk analysis and
selection of risk management techniques. The lack of structured feedback has
hindered the effective use of prior safety experience in the construction sector
(Goh & Chua, 2009). Therefore, Goh and Chua (2009) and Goh and Chua (2010)
developed a CBR based safety knowledge management system to identify risks by
retrieving and reusing safety knowledge retained in hazard identification trees and
prior construction incidents. The conventional methods used for the formulation of
risk management strategies have limitations, such as difficulties in describing
quantity features and determining a work breakdown structure (Fan, Li, & Zhang,
2015b). To solve these issues, CBR was used by Fan, et al. (2015b) to develop a risk
response strategies generation system for subway projects. Although these two
CBR-based risk management models are successful, they can only be adopted for
the single purpose of either risk identification or the formulation of risk response
strategies. Lu, et al. (2013) proposed a CBR based subway operation risk analysis
model that can be utilized for both risk identification and risk response strategies
formulation based on pre-defined concepts of “precursors”, “safety risk” and
“safety measures” and their semantic relationships.
Selecting appropriate construction risk management techniques is a crucial task.
Although a variety of construction risk management techniques are available, only a
few are adopted in practice (Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997). One reason is that
87
practitioners do not have sufficient knowledge of the circumstances in which risk
management techniques can be used. Forbes, et al. (2008) and Forbes, et al. (2010)
suggested CBR as a promising approach to recommend risk management
techniques that can be used in a given situation. A detailed CBR risk management
technique selection model was depicted in Forbes, et al. (2010), in which a standard
problem characterization framework combining the problem nature and the nature
of the data is devised to facilitate the CBR application.
Others
As a promising approach for capturing and reusing an organization’s memory, CBR
had also been used in other CM fields, including value engineering (reusing previous
value engineering ideas and developing practically suitable value engineering
expert models) (Lee, et al., 2009; Naderpajouh & Afshar, 2008), life-cycle healthcare
facility management (e.g., the prediction of facility maintenance costs) (Lavy &
Shohet, 2007; Shohet & Lavy, 2004), building project briefing (suggesting
recommendations for Functional Performance Specifications) (Luo, et al., 2010),
construction information management (sparse construction databases mining) (Yu
& Liu, 2006), selection of international construction markets (predicting the
potential profitability of an international project and company competitiveness
levels) (Ozorhon, et al., 2006), construction quantity estimation (Du & Bormann,
2014), construction onsite supervisory manpower management (Chen, et al., 2008),
selection of construction project delivery system (Loforte Ribeiro, 2001), estimation
of the productivity of cyclic construction operations (Graham & Smith, 2004) and
project portfolio selection (Abbasianjahromi & Rajaie, 2013). These have enriched
the CM-CBR applications.
88
2.3.5 Issues with CM-CBR applications
The increasing popularity of CM-CBR applications is, however, accompanied by
several issues. These comprise:
• Ignoring hypothesis testing. The majority of studies use CBR based on the
hypothesis that similar problems have similar solutions (Leake, 1996). CM
researchers usually take this hypothesis for granted, and transform this into
looking for similar cases in the problem space. Unfortunately, the hypothesis is
not always correct (Leake & Wilson, 1999). It is reliable when the relationship
between the problem space and the solution space is simple and
straightforward (Du & Bormann, 2014). However, this is difficult for the majority
of CM issues as they are usually un-structured and influenced by various
interrelated factors (Walker, 2015). Empirical work by Koo, et al. (2011), for
instance, indicates that linear relationships between case similarity and case
solution do not exist all the time in cost estimation models. Instead, as stressed
by Du and Bormann (2014), nonlinear relationships are actually present in most
CM situations.
• Ignoring the re-use of case outcome. The case outcome provides implications of
the performance and/or feedback of a solution or situation, which serves as an
important references for decision-making (Kolodner, 1993). However, most
prior studies focus on re-using case solutions, with only 14.3% including the
case outcome. This ignorance hinders the understanding of the retrieved
solutions or situations, and can result in inaccurate suggestions for a new
situation. In addition, it also hinders the expansion of CBR-CM applications in
potential fields such as the assessment of a new CM situation.
89
• Lacking guidance on the selection of model development methods. CBR users
are advised to choose appropriate methods for model development activities
such as case retrieval and revision. However, there are no guides available to
date. The methods of most studies are determined based on subjective
judgements although some, such as An, et al. (2007), do consider the
performance of methods available. Nevertheless, these comparisons mainly
focus on the weight determination methods for case retrieval.
• Ignoring the application of derivational analogy. There are two ways of reusing
a prior situation: the transformation analogy and the derivational analogy
(Carbonell, 1985). Rather than reusing a solution itself (the transformation
analogy), the derivational analogy suggests reusing the trace of how a solution
was generated. However, the majority of CM studies adopt the transformation
analogy, with only few studies, such as Li (1996), using the derivational analogy.
This hinders the expansion of CBR-CM applications such as the re-use of CM
techniques/procedures.
• Lacking automated implementations. CBR has the advantage of mimicking the
human problem-solving process in automated ways (Kolodner, 1993).
Nevertheless, around only half (52.7%) of CBR-CM models develop Graphical
User Interfaces (GUIs) to automate and visualize their implementation. The lack
of GUIs leads to difficulties in using the models in practice because CM
managers seldom have sufficient knowledge of the CBR approach.
2.3.6 Future research suggestions and directions
The following future research directions are suggested to address the application
issues identified above:
90
• Conducting the alignment measure before model development. The alignment
measure is used to test the reliability of the CBR hypothesis by exploring the
extent to which similar problems have similar solutions in certain fields (Zhou,
Shi, & Zhao, 2010). Both qualitative description and quantitative formulation
are available, such as those used in textual CBR (Zhou, et al., 2010). Future CM-
CBR studies would benefit from using either developed methods (e.g.,
Raghunandan, Wiratunga, Chakraborti, Massie, and Khemani (2008)) or new
proposed methods by themselves to conduct the hypothesis test to ensure the
quality of developed models.
• Re-using case outcomes. Case outcomes can be combined with other case
components to carry out different tasks (Kolodner, 1993). Historical CM cases
containing case descriptions and outcomes can be used to assess new CM
situations. For instance, based on the performance of construction quality
management techniques, CBR-based quality management technique
assessment tools can be developed to assess the performance of some
techniques in a new situation. In addition, when the case description, solutions
and outcomes are contained in historical CM cases, they can be used to assess
CM solutions and predict potential problems. With quality management, for
example, CBR can be used to suggest quality management strategies, assesse
their performance and predict the potential problems of using these strategies
to avoid loss in a new situation.
• Using failure-driven learning to developing CM early-warning systems. This can
be viewed as a special situation of reusing case outcomes when all case
outcomes are labelled as “failed”. A number of failed historical CM cases are
91
available (such as delays and quality deviations (Burati Jr, Farrington, &
Ledbetter, 1992; Sambasivan & Soon, 2007)) and reusing these cases provides a
warning of the likely occurrence of potential problems to avoid similar mistakes.
For instance, based on historical construction rework cases, CBR can be
modeled as a rework early-warning system to warn of the possibility of rework
at an early stage.
• Developing guides for method selection. Guides for the selection of methods for
different activities in CBR model development need to be developed. This can
be viewed as a model optimization issue by choosing and combining different
methods for different activities. Nevertheless, this is difficult as each CM
situation is unique and the performance of one method varies significantly if
some parameters change during the model development (Koo, et al., 2011). It is
suggested that a critical review of the methods used in prior studies be
undertaken to develop guides on method selection.
• Re-using CM tools, methods, techniques and procedures (CM-TMTPs). CBR can
be modelled to suggest CM-TMTPs by using the derivational analogy. This is
facilitated by the availability of various CM-TMTPs during the project life cycle.
For instance, as a number of planning and controlling TMTPs are available
(Ahuja, Dozzi, & Abourizk, 1994), CBR can be used to model the selection of an
appropriate construction planning and controlling TMTP for a new project.
• Developing automated and visual programs. The development of automated
and visual programs would facilitate the adoption of CBR models by CM
managers. This can be achieved by cooperating with AI experts for example,
92
which is an effective way of transforming CBR-CM theoretical models into
practice and connecting industry with research.
In addition, a CM data repository needs to be established to collect data throughout
project life cycles in order to facilitate CBR model development. As CBR relies
heavily on historical cases, storing completed case information and providing timely
access can be a difficult task in the CM domain due to the inherent nature of
construction projects (Yu & Liu, 2006). One possible way of achieving this is through
the use of information management systems, which helps in the storage,
organization and dissemination of project information (Craig & Sommerville, 2006).
2.3.7 Summary
CBR offers a suitable approach of addressing CM problems due to its capabilities of
recalling and reusing accumulated historical experience and knowledge. This paper
provides a comprehensive overview of CBR applications in the CM domain, focusing
on application trends, activities involved in model development, application fields,
application issues and future research suggestions and directions.
The findings indicate the popularity of CM-CBR applications is increasing, especially
after 2006, with most studies in the South Korean context. Most prior studies
clearly describe their case retrieval methods, the information included in historical
cases, indexing methods, and case reuse and revision methods. Methods of case
retention, storage and representation are less mentioned. In addition, 17 CM
application fields are identified, with Construction Cost Estimation, Construction
Tendering, Bidding and Procurement, and Environment and Sustainability
Management being the most popular ones. How the CBR was used in these 17
fields is analysed in detail. Moreover, issues emerged in previous applications are
93
also identified, including ignoring hypothesis testing, ignoring the re-use of case
outcome, lacking guides on method selection, ignoring the application of the
derivational analogy and lacking automated implementations. To address these
issues, future research suggestions and directions are suggested including
conducting the alignment measure, re-using case outcome, developing CM early-
warning systems, developing guides on method selection, re-using CM-TMTPs, and
developing automated and visual programs.
Despite the comprehensive overview of CM-CBR applications, the study still has
some limitations. First, it focuses only on previous studies published in mainstream
academic journals, and unpublished creative work conducted in laboratory
conditions is not included. In addition, the study does not cover the analysis of
other important issues in CM-CBR model design such as the methods used in
different activities and their performance. These need to be addressed in future.
Meanwhile, the present study will help CM stakeholders to better understand prior
CM-CBR applications and assist future work in applying CBR to address CM
problems.
94
Chapter 3 Research methodology
The chapter introduces the research design and development of the present study.
It begins with the introduction of research methodology, in which the fundamental
thinking of initiating the research and potential contribution to theory are
elaborated. This is followed by the description of the adopted research methods to
address the proposed research aim. At last, the data collection issue is also well
described.
3.1 Introduction
To ensure the achievement of the proposed research aim, a research methodology
should be well considered and developed. Research methodology is the way of
systematically addressing research problems, meaning how the research is done
scientifically (Kothari, 2004). First, it determines the needed data as well as
methods and techniques used in data analysis. In addition, the logical relationships
between research data, methods and objectives should also be demonstrated. Thus,
selected research methods, used data, and the logical inter-relationships between
methods, data and objectives are three key components of a research methodology.
Research methods refer to a standardized set of specific techniques for building
scientific knowledge (Bhattacherjee, 2012). Various research methods are available
(e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) and used for different purposes.
Qualitative research methods (e.g., case study, interview and observation) rely
heavily on the researchers’ analytic and integrative skills and personal knowledge,
and stress sense making or understanding a phenomenon (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
Quantitative research methods (e.g., statistical analysis techniques) apply
95
mathematics-based techniques to achieve the research aim (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
The mixed research method advances the systematic integration of qualitative and
quantitative methods, permitting a more complete and synergistic utilization of
data (Wisdom & Creswell, 2013). The selection of which research methods are
adopted depends on the nature of the research problem (Noor, 2008).
Data are one of the most important inputs for a research system. There are
different kinds of data with different formats (e.g., official statistical data and the
public’s concerns of developing a project). The collection of data is a
communication process and it may encounter potential issues such as un-
availability. Data collection aims at maximising the amount and accuracy of transfer
of meaning from the provider to the researcher (Fellows & Liu, 2009). One-way and
two-way communication methods are two kinds of data collection methods. One-
way methods require the participants to accept or reject the provided data based
on ways such as questionnaires and completely structured interviews (Fellows & Liu,
2009). Two-way methods permit the participants’ feedback and gathering of further
data based on ways such as semi-structured interviews (Fellows & Liu, 2009).
To ensure that the most appropriate research methodology is proposed, the logical
relationships between research methods, data and research objectives should be
well considered. This is because that research methodology is not only about the
determination of the research method but also includes the consideration of the
logic behind the methods, data and the research objectives so that research results
are capable of being evaluated (Kothari, 2004). Consequently, the potential issue
that certain methods and data do not work effectively to address some specific
96
objectives though they are capable of addressing other research objectives can be
avoided.
Theories are explanations of a natural or social behaviour, event, or phenomenon
(Bhattacherjee, 2012). They are indispensable components of scientific research
due to their significant roles such as prediction, description and explanation. The
design of the research methodology should be based on associated theories, which
provides assistances in research methods determination and data collection by
facilitating a better understanding the nature of the conducted research on the
basis of associated theories. In addition, the design of the research methodology
should also lead to theoretical contributions (e.g., extending a theory to explain a
phenomenon where it has not previously been applied and applying a theory to
explain a complex relationship) (Bhattacherjee, 2012).
3.2 Implications for the design of the research methodology
For the present study, as it is investigated in the context of Australian retirement
villages, the design of the research methodology should well consider the unique
features of retirement villages. For instance, the data collection should respect and
protect residents’ privacy and ensure the minimized negative impacts on residents’
life.
The design of the research methodology starts from the analysis of the proposed
research aim. This study aims to facilitate the development of sustainable
retirement villages in Australia through promoting a better understanding of what
constitutes sustainable retirement villages and developing a best practice mining
system for developers. This aim has been divided into four objectives, including
exploring the industry development, understanding the developers’ perceptions of
97
a sustainable living environment in retirement villages, identifying sustainable
practices and developing a practice mining system. A closely examination of the
nature of the study and the proposed research objectives indicates that it is
extremely difficult to achieve the research aim merely based on either qualitative
or quantitative methods. For instance, exploring the industry development and
identifying sustainable practice are more qualitative research based. In contrast,
both qualitative and quantitative methods are required for the purposes of
understanding the developers’ perceptions of sustainable retirement villages and
developing a practice mining system. Thus, the mixed research method of
combining both qualitative and quantitative analysis is more appropriate and is
adopted in this study. To address each objective, the used research methods are
well described in the following section.
Data collection of the present study should not only match the research context
and methods but also should carefully consider issues such as data availability, cost,
time and confidentiality. For instance, some retirement village developers are
reluctant to recruit their residents to participant in this study given their aged
requirements such as quiet and peaceful environment. Therefore, the involvement
of residents in the data collection should be carefully considered. Given the nature
of the study, both one-way and two-way communication methods were adopted to
collect data. For instance, scrutiny of archives/documents is suitable for depicting
the development of Australian retirement village industry, which is a one-way
communication method. In addition, the two-way communication method of semi-
structured interviews with retirement village managers is appropriate for
identifying sustainable practices. The data collection is introduced in detail in the
98
following section. Logical relationships between research data, methods and
research objectives are also described.
At last, the design of the research methodology in this study is guided by related
theories, such as sustainable development, sustainable communities and case-
based reasoning (CBR). These theories have been clearly depicted in the related
chapters. In addition, by using the designed research methodology, it is expected
the study will also lead to theoretical contributions. Especially, the research
methodology leads to the introduction of a new construct of sustainable retirement
villages in Australia. In addition, the utilization of these related theories clarifies and
explains the complex relationships between sustainability and the living
environment in the Australian retirement villages. Moreover, the research
methodology also leads to extending the associated theories to explain the newly
emerged phenomenon of sustainable retirement villages in Australia, which has not
previously been explored. All these will benefit the development of sustainable
retirement villages in the future.
3.3 Research methods
This section provides a detailed account of the specific research methods used to
address the proposed four research objectives. Overall, the research methods used
in this study comprise a literature review, inductive reasoning, content analysis, the
independent-samples T test, the chi-square ( ) contingency table analysis, case
studies, CBR and interviews. The research methods used to address the relevant
research objectives are summarised in Table 9.
99
Table 9 Overview of the specific research methods utilized in this research
Research objectives Chapters Research Methods
Objective 1: To propose
a conceptual framework
of sustainable
retirement villages
Chapter 4: Conceptualizing
sustainable retirement
villages in Australia;
Literature review,
Inductive reasoning;
Objective 2: To
understand developers’
perceptions of a
sustainable living
environment in
retirement villages
Chapter 5: what is a
sustainable retirement
village? Perceptions of
Australian developers
Literature review,
Content analysis, The
independent-samples T
test, The chi-square
( ) contingency table
analysis;
Objective 3: To identify
sustainable practices
used in existing
retirement villages;
Chapter 6: Providing a
sustainable living
environment in not-for-
profit retirement villages: A
case study in Australia;
Literature review, Case
studies, Interviews,
Content analysis;
Objective 4: To develop a
CBR-based sustainable
practice mining system
for the development of
sustainable retirement
villages;
Chapter 7: Practice mining
for the development of
sustainable retirement
villages in Australia;
Literature review, CBR,
Case studies,
Interviews;
Objective 1: To propose a conceptual framework of sustainable retirement villages
Chapter 4 (Conceptualizing sustainable retirement villages in Australia) is used to
address research objective 1. In the chapter, the research methods utilized are a
literature review and inductive reasoning. A literature review describes a particular
100
field of a topic to understand the related key concepts/ideas/studies. It is used in
the research to gain a comprehensive understanding of prior studies regarding
Australian baby boomers’ competences. In addition, inductive reasoning adopts the
observed data to infer theoretical concepts and patterns (Bhattacherjee, 2012). It is
used in the chapter to propose a sustainable retirement village conceptual
framework.
Objective 2: To understand developers’ perceptions of a sustainable living
environment in retirement villages
Research objective 2 is addressed in Chapter 5 (What is a sustainable retirement
village? Perceptions of Australian developers). In this chapter, content analysis is
mainly used to explore developers’ perceptions of sustainability by analysing on-
line information about their retirement living business practices. Content analysis is
a method used to make valid inferences from collected data to describe and
quantify specific phenomena in a systemic and objective way (Downe-Wamboldt,
1992). Given the differences between private and not-for-profit developers, the
Independent-Samples T test and the chi-square ( ) contingency table analysis
were employed to compare their perceptions of sustainability. The Independent-
Samples T test determines whether there is a statistically significant difference
between the means in two unrelated groups, and the chi-square ( ) contingency
table analysis is used to determine the extent to which a statistical relationship
exists between two variables.
Objective 3: To identify sustainable practices used in existing retirement villages
Chapter 6 (Providing a sustainable living environment in not-for-profit retirement
villages: A case study in Australia) is used to address research objective 3. The main
101
research method used in Chapter 6 is case studies. A case study is an empirical
enquiry used to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,
and it relies on multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2003). It has been proved to be a
feasible research method for identifying village development lessons (Xia, Zuo, et
al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). Eight case studies were conducted to identify
sustainable practices by using interviews and content analysis. To demonstrate the
process of identifying sustainable practices, a not-for-profit retirement village
located on the Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia, is studied. The case study identifies
practices and experiences that address its residents’ multi-dimensional aged-
related requirements.
Objective 4: To develop a CBR-based sustainable practice mining system for the
development of sustainable retirement villages
Research objective 4 is addressed in Chapter 7 (Practice mining for the development
of sustainable retirement villages in Australia). In this chapter, CBR is used to
develop a practice mining system. CBR is a method used “to solve a new problem by
remembering a previous similar situation and by reusing information and
knowledge of that situation” (Aamodt & Plaza, 1994). The process of practice
mining (capturing, storing, disseminating and reusing) has commonalities with the
problem-addressing technique of CBR, which stresses data retrieving, reusing,
revising and retaining (Aamodt & Plaza, 1994; Weber & Aha, 2003). It has been
confirmed to be an effective technique used for experience mining in CM research
(Hu, Xia, Skitmore, & Chen, 2016). In the development of the practice mining
system, interviews with experienced retirement village managers were conducted
to collect their abundant domain knowledge and experience. Demonstrations based
102
on case studies were conducted to validate the developed CBR-based practice
mining system.
3.4 Data collection issues
To achieve the research objectives, different kinds of data were collected and used.
The collected data mainly includes historical literature, on-line retirement living
business information of developers and retirement village cases.
Historical literature provides the research background, a theoretical base and
supplementary information and knowledge for the research. Various kinds of data
sources were searched by using related keywords, and historical literature were
retrieved accordingly. The data sources include the websites of governments
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Housing and Public Works of QLD
government), websites of national organizations and institutions (Property Council
of Australia, Green Building Council of Australia, Australian Housing and Urban
Research Institute), leading Australian retirement village developers (AVEO Group,
Holy Spirit Care Services, Churches of Christ of Care), influential research databases
(Web of Science, ScienceDirect, ASCE library, Wiley Online Library), conference
proceedings, and reference textbooks. The collected data provide rich knowledge
and information associated with the research topic, and are used in all the chapters.
For instance, many of findings of the historical literature were adopted in the
literature review chapter to provide a theoretical base for this study.
The business information of developers regarding on-line retirement living was
employed to explore developers’ perceptions of a sustainable living environment in
retirement villages. These data were collected from the official web-sites of
103
selected village developers who own registered retirement villages in the
Department of Housing and Public Works of QLD.
Retirement village case data were collected from eight retirement village projects in
QLD: the BallyCara Retirement Village, Brig-O-Doon Retirement Village, Clayfield
Retirement Village, Durack Retirement Village, Holy Spirit Home, Viridian
Retirement Village, Moonah Park Retirement Village, and Sanctuary Park
Retirement Community. Five of these villages are not-for-profit ones and three are
from the private sector. These villages were developed and operated by four
leading developers: Hibernian Friendly Society, Holy Spirit Care Service, Churches of
Christ in Queensland, and AVEO Group. Three kinds of data were collected from
these retirement villages: retirement village managers’ interview data regarding
sustainable practices used in their village development; village documents; and
village photo data regarding site planning. First, interviews with Chief Executive
Officers or retirement living managers were conducted to identify sustainable
practices used in each retirement village. Each interview lasted for around 1-1.5
hours. All these managers have rich knowledge and experience in village
development and operation. In addition, village documents were collected, such as
village brochures, residents’ satisfaction survey results, site planning map, and
online official information. Further, direct observations of all these retirement
villages were conducted to record sustainable practices employed in their site
planning. Photos of site planning were taken and collected as part of the initial data
used for further analysis.
104
Chapter 4 Conceptualizing sustainable retirement village in Australia
Statement of joint authorship and authors contributions
The authors listed below have certified that:
1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the
conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in
their field of expertise;
2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, expect for the
responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;
3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the
editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the
responsible academic unit, and
5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication
on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher
requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Laurie Buys (2015). Conceptualizing sustainable
retirement villages in Australia. In: Raidén, A B and Aboagye-Nimo, E (Eds) Procs
105
31st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2015, Lincoln, UK, Association of
Researchers in Construction Management, 357-366.
Contributor Statement of contribution
Xin Hu Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of
this study, wrote the manuscript, research design, data
collection and analysis;
24/01/2017
Bo Xia Aided with the research design, data collection and analysis,
and evaluation of the manuscript;
Martin Skitmore Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Laurie Buys Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Bo Xia 2/06/2017 _______________ _________________ __________________ Name Signature Date
106
Abstract and keywords
Abstract: The Australian ageing society with baby boomers reaching retirement age
has placed a lot of pressures on housing services. The retirement village is
increasingly accepted as a suitable living arrangement for older people. Ecological
theory of ageing emphasizes a match between environment and older peoples’
competences. As one response to this, creating village environment in a sustainable
way is on the agenda. However, it is not very clear what kinds of sustainable
features should be incorporated within the village environment to fit residents’
competences, in particular given that baby boomers who have unique requirements
have become the main potential customers. In present paper, a sustainable
retirement village framework is proposed by building on ecological theory of ageing
and triple bottom line. A two-step inductive reasoning research method is adopted
in this conceptualization process. The proposed sustainable retirement village
framework contains four domains, including senior-oriented basic settings, financial
affordability, age-friendly social environment and environmental sustainability.
These four domains are interrelated, and a sustainable retirement village stresses a
dynamic balance between different domains. This proposed framework not only
gives implications for village developers on creating a suitable village environment
to better accommodate residents, but also paves the way for future studies on
housing older people in an age-friendly manner.
Keywords: sustainable retirement villages, ecological theory of ageing, triple
bottom line, Australian baby boomers.
107
4.1 Introduction
The ageing population has become an established tread in Australia, and this tread
will accelerate over next a few decades with the predicted proportion of the aged
65+ being 18.3-19.4% in 2031 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013c). This
demographic ageing has posed a lot of pressures on housing services. These
pressures are becoming heavier, given that baby boomers with unique
requirements and more expectations than other generations are entering into
retirement (Ozanne, 2009).
The retirement village is one of the living arrangements of older Australians. It is an
institutional environment where accommodations, services, and facilities are
tailored to satisfy residents’ requirements (Gardner, et al., 2005). It has been
accepted as a viable living option for older adults, accommodating around 5
percent of older Australians (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Given the fast-growing ageing
population as well as the increasingly accepted village lifestyle, it is becoming more
popular with the estimated penetration rate reaching 7.5-8 percent in next few
decades (Jones Lang Lasalle, 2008).
To better accommodate residents, the village environment should be fit with
residents’ competences. Nevertheless, some villages have failed to meet residents’
needs in terms of affordability, life-style and ergonomic needs (Gardner, et al.,
2005). This situation may exacerbate given that baby boomers’ unique features are
redefining Australian retirement village development models (Wright et al., 2014).
To address this issue, delivering “sustainable retirement villages” is a promising
approach (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). A sustainable retirement village offers residents a
108
suitable living environment where residents’ social, economic and environmental
needs are well satisfied (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Older people expect to live in a
sustainable environment such as sustainable social and physical living environment
and housing affordability (Pillemer, Wells, Wagenet, Meador, & Parise, 2010), and
they can make contributions to making their living community sustainable (Ritchie,
2000). For village residents, they also expect village developers to provide a
sustainable village environment, and they have played positive roles in sustainable
village development such as renewable energy utilization (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014).
However, “sustainable retirement villages” is novel concept which has not been
widely explored. Previous explorations, such as Xia, Zuo, et al. (2015) and Zuo, et al.
(2014), are case studies and merely suggest a concept. They do not clearly point out
what kinds of sustainable features should be contained within a retirement village
environment to fit residents’ competences, especially competences of baby
boomers. Thus, this study aims to propose a sustainable retirement village
framework to well response to Australian baby boomers’ competences on the basis
of ecological theory of ageing and triple bottom line.
4.2 The ecological theory of ageing and its implications on the retirement village
development
Effects of environment on individuals’ wellbeing are well recognized. In the specific
field of Gerontology, ecological theory of ageing is adopted to explore the issue of
person-environment interaction in old age. It indicates older adults’ behaviours are
the function of their competences and the environment (Lawton, 1977).
Importantly, older adults’ competences and the environment should be in balance
109
with each other, and too much or low environment press (environmental stimuli
that are behaviour-activating to individuals) imposed on older people can result in
maladaptive behaviours (Iwarsson, 2005; Lawton, 1977).
The competence represents the nature of a person such as the physical and mental
health conditions and cognitive states. It is the abilities of an individual to function
(Iwarsson, 2005). Competence varies from low to high. Lower competence results
from declining physical and psychological conditions of older people. The
environment means the social-spatial surroundings where older adults live (Lawton,
1977). It is classified based on its strength, ranging from weak to strong. Different
combinations of competence and environment mean different behavioural
outcomes (Iwarsson, 2005; Schwarz, 2012). An older adult with low competences
exposing to a strong environment can result in negative impacts on his/her well-
being. In this sense, his/her living environment should be adjusted to be in balance
with his competences.
The implications of this theory on the development of retirement villages are
various. In particular, the two variables, residents’ competences and the village
environment, should be in equilibrium with each other to ensure person-
environment congruence. To achieve this, understanding residents’ competences is
the foundation. Given that baby boomers are entering retirement and have become
the main potential customers, it is meaningful for village developers to create a
village environment that can be in balance with their competences.
110
4.3 Research method
The research method of inductive reasoning is adopted to conceptualize
“sustainable retirement villages”. Inductive reasoning is utilizing observed data to
infer theoretical concepts and patterns (Bhattacherjee, 2012). The
conceptualization process is on the basis of ecological theory of ageing and triple
bottom line. Two steps are contained in the inductive reasoning, including
identifying Australian baby boomers’ competences and sustainable features
inferring.
First, literature review is adopted to identify Australian baby boomers’
competences. Exploring baby boomers’ competences is a hot research topic in
Australia, such as Quine and Carter (2006) and Taylor, Pilkington, Feist, Dal Grande,
and Hugo (2014), given that this cohort is entering retirement and has had
profound effects on the Australian society. Literatures are searched and collected
from previous academic studies and government reports. Second, sustainable
features inferring depends on the identified Australian baby boomers’ competences.
Corresponding responses to the identified competences are well suggested from
the perspective of triple bottom line. These responses constitute the main
characteristics of sustainable retirement villages. Through this process, a
conceptualized sustainable retirement village framework is proposed.
4.4 The competences of Australian baby boomers
Baby boomers have the general features of older people. In addition, baby boomers
differ from prior generations significantly. For instance, they are healthier, more
active, better educated and living with higher expectations than their parents
111
(Quine & Carter, 2006). Based on literature review, the main competences of
Australian baby boomers are measured from four aspects, including basic features
as older people, financial, social and environmental competences.
In general, baby boomers experience natural changes as older people in terms of
physical and psychological aspects such as declining mobility abilities. The village
environment should well response to these changes, such as easy access design and
basic services provision. In addition, baby boomers' adaptability to a new
environment is declining. The retirement village is an institutional environment
which means baby boomers live with village rules and regulations and staff
behaviours (Stein & Morse, 1994). Their declining adaptability to the village
institutional environment should be well considered in village daily management
and operation.
In financial aspect, financial security and the accessibility of affordable services are
core concerns of baby boomers in later life (KPMG, 2009). Usually, boomers are
wealthier than their parents with more disposable capitals entering into retirement
(Andrews, 2001). Nevertheless, some boomers do not have sufficient money for
their retirement, and therefore have lower levels of financial security (Humpel,
O'Loughlin, Wells, & Kendig, 2009; Snoke, et al., 2011). Reasons can be diverse,
such as financial irresponsibility, less inheriting from parents, and in needs of
financially supporting family members (Quine & Carter, 2006). Their main
retirement income sources are government pensions and allowances, which may be
insufficient (Jefferson & Preston, 2005).
112
In terms of social aspect, keeping current lifestyle is a common expectation of baby
boomers. First, baby boomers expect the social environment of independency,
security and privacy (KPMG, 2009). Second, baby boomers expect the accessibility
of support and services, especially health related. This is because that some of them
suffer from various health issues due to unhealthy lifestyles (Humpel, et al., 2010).
This results in the broadened range and intensity of support and services (KPMG,
2009). In addition, baby boomers expect to retain their social networks, such as
keeping close connections with family members and friends (Quine & Carter, 2006).
Moreover, boomers value social participation. The majority of them prefer
participating in activities and continuing to be active members of their community
(Quine & Carter, 2006; Taylor, et al., 2014). Furthermore, baby boomers have high
expectations on their development after retirement, and they also expect to access
valuable information in later life (KPMG, 2009).
In environmental aspects, older people usually consume more energy owing to
their lifestyles (Yamasaki & Tominaga, 1997). Baby boomers are concerned about
energy consumption and expect their community to be environmentally friendly
(Barker, et al., 2012; Quine & Carter, 2006). Thus, the development of retirement
villages for baby boomers should take environmental sustainability principles into
account to satisfy their accommodation preferences (Wright, et al., 2014).
113
4.5 A Response to the competences of Australian baby boomers: the perspective
from providing sustainable retirement villages
4.5.1 Why offering the retirement village with sustainable features is a promising
solution?
According to ecological theory of ageing, retirement villages designed for baby
boomers should well response to their competences. Besides the basic features of
baby boomers as older people, other three competences in social, economic and
environmental aspects can be responded well by this kind of retirement village
environment which is designed based on principles of triple bottom line (Xia, Zuo,
et al., 2015). This is because that triple bottom line, in the living environment field,
means offering a comfortable standard of living, reducing environmental impacts
and achieving affordability (Maliene & Malys, 2009; Plaut, Dunbar, Wackerman, &
Hodgin, 2012). Figure 11 depicts how triple bottom line can well response to baby
boomers’ competences.
114
Figure 11 Triple bottom line as a response to the competences of Australian baby
boomers
4.5.2 The proposed conceptual framework of sustainable retirement villages
In general, a sustainable retirement village enables to meet its residents’ social,
financial and environmental requirements besides their basic needs as older people.
Figure 12 shows the four domains of the proposed sustainable retirement village
framework, including senior-oriented basic settings, financial affordability, age-
friendly social environment and environmental sustainability.
115
Figure 12 The proposed sustainable retirement village framework
Senior-oriented basic settings
To satisfy residents’ basic needs as older people, senior-oriented basic
environmental settings are essential, including village physical environment design
following the code of design for older people, basic health services provision, and
resident-centred village operation and management.
First, the design of the village physical environment should be senior-oriented
through following the code of design for older people. This can refer to various
aspects, such as village location selection (e.g., near the public transport service),
on-site facilities range and their accessibility, village outdoor spaces design (e.g.,
barrier free design), village buildings and dwellings design (e.g., accessibility), and
116
village natural environment (e.g., beautiful scenery around and qualified air
conditions).
Second, it is necessary to make basic health related services affordable and
accessible for residents. This is given that the need for health services increases
with age owing to the declining health conditions of people in later life.
Third, the operation and management of villages should be resident-centred. Given
the institutional feature of retirement villages, village developers should tailor
village rules and regulations carefully to avoid creating pressures for residents
(Grant, 2007), and village managers should be helpful and their behaviours should
be age-friendly.
Financial affordability
Financial affordability is an important expectation of baby boomers. For sustainable
retirement villages, it refers to village living affordability and capital gains sharing.
First, village living affordability means residents with different socio-economic
backgrounds can afford their village life (including the entry contribution, ongoing
costs and departure fees) without compromising their future financial needs.
Though sustainable retirement village living usually means high costs for residents,
affordability is possible through various ways, such as using practices which do not
significantly increase additional costs but bring benefits to residents (Zuo, et al.,
2014).
In addition, capital gains sharing is another important aspect of financial
affordability. Capital gains are the added value of resale their village units when
117
residents leave their village. Capital gains sharing ensures more financial resources
available for residents for the next accommodation transition.
Age-friendly social environment
The age-friendly social environment is an important part of sustainable retirement
villages. It refers to independent, security and privacy lifestyles, support and
services provision and accessibility, social connection, social participation,
communication and information sharing, and residents’ development in later life.
First, a sustainable retirement village should meet residents’ needs on
independence, security and privacy. Independence means residents can deal with
their village affairs by themselves. In this sense, it is the residents who play
dominate roles in their village life, and the choice is theirs. To keep independence,
measures, such as suitable services delivery patterns and environment settings, are
suggested (Haak, Fänge, Iwarsson, & Dahlin Ivanoff, 2007). It also should be noted
that to prompt a long-term independence, a short-term compromise on
independence is essential at some times. Security refers to both individual security
and the environmental security. The individual security focuses on residents’ health
conditions and financial safety, and the environmental security means providing a
safe social and physical environment (Nathan, et al., 2014c). Moreover, it is an
unwritten law to respect resident’s privacy. Privacy respecting can be achieved by
ways such as appropriate village design.
Second, a sustainable retirement village offers residents an appropriate range of
support and services to maximize their benefits without exceeding their financial
capabilities. The range of support and services should be tailored based on
118
residents’ preferences and needs to avoid paying additional costs for support and
services that they do not use and do not want to afford (Nathan, et al., 2013). In
addition, the support and services should be provided within residents’ walking
instances and easy to reach, as residents are sensitive to distance and use support
and services that are convenient to them most frequently (Krout, Oggins, & Holmes,
2000; Nathan, et al., 2013).
In addition, a sustainable retirement village promotes residents’ social connection
by offering them opportunities of contacting with friends, neighbours and family
members. To achieve this, diverse measures can be adopted, such as organizing
village activities, presence of facilities and communal spaces within villages and
making them easy access, encouraging visiting of family members and friends,
encouraging services and products exchanges among residents, and techniques
assistances (Buys, 2001; Nathan, et al., 2013).
Moreover, social participation in sustainable retirement villages refers to the
provision of social participation opportunities, residents’ active involvement in
activities and village community affairs. First, it is necessary for village developers
to provide residents with the chances of social participation. This is usually achieved
by organizing village activities. Social Ecological Model suggests that old adults’
activities participation is impacted by personal factors, social/organizational factors
and physical environment factors (Zimring, Joseph, Nicoll, & Tsepas, 2005). For
personal factors, health related assistances should be offered to improve residents’
healthy conditions so as to enhance activities participation levels. For
social/organizational factors, village operators should tailor their organized village
119
activities based on residents’ interests and keep activities information informed. In
terms of the physical environment, factors, such as village aesthetics, fewer
physical barriers within the neighbourhood, and facilities provision, positively affect
residents’ activity participation (Joseph, Zimring, Harris-Kojetin, & Kiefer, 2006;
Nathan, et al., 2013, 2014c). In addition, a sustainable retirement village should
offer residents opportunities of playing active roles in the village affairs instead of
just passive recipients, such as helping organize activities, being an active member
of village resident committees and joining in the decision-making that closely
relates to their interests.
Furthermore, informing residents with what is happening and what will happen
within villages is also important (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). A sustainable retirement
village should have an unimpeded and two-way communication and information
sharing channel. The principles of information provision to older people include
relevance and access (Everingham, Petriwskyj, Warburton, Cuthill, & Bartlett, 2009).
Thus, village staffs should identify what kinds of information are valuable for
residents (relevance), and then transmit them to residents in effective ways
(access). In addition, residents should be encouraged to give feedbacks on their
village life and give suggestions to village mangers to help villages’ sustainable
improvement.
At last, life-span developmental psychology indicates that the need for
development is still an important theme in later life and growth can occur
throughout life span. A sustainable retirement village should offer its residents
ample opportunities to grow and develop. For instance, activities and facilities
120
provision can help residents develop new interests, obtain skills and knowledge
that they do not have previously. In addition, offering classes/courses is also a
useful way of promoting residents’ development in later life.
Environmental sustainability
The retirement village industry should take responsibilities of environmental
sustainability given that older people consume more energy (Kronenberg, 2009).
For sustainable retirement villages, environmental sustainability refers to energy
and resource efficiency, materials efficiency, and indoor environment quality
enhancement. Its aim is to reduce the negative impacts of the village development
and the village built environment on the natural environment and residents.
Energy efficiency means energy consumption reduction. This not only decreases
greenhouse gas emissions, but also helps enhance residents’ capability of financial
affordability (Zuo, et al., 2014). A sustainable retirement village should develop
strategies to reduce energy consumption, such as taking full use of sunlight through
suitable unit position and window orientation, energy-efficient construction
materials selection, and the application of renewable energy consumption
techniques (Zuo, et al., 2014). In addition, paying for the daily consumption of
resources (e.g., water and electricity) is a main part of residents’ ongoing costs. To
reduce resources consumption so as to make village life more affordable, resources
saving approaches, such as water-saving fixtures installing, are encouraged to be
adopted.
Materials efficiency means green materials selection in village design and
construction stages. The selected construction materials should be recyclable to
121
protect environment (Barker, et al., 2012). In addition, the selected materials
should be not harmful to residents. Moreover, the materials selection should also
take the features of residents as older people into account (Zuo, et al., 2014). For
instance, the selected window materials should ensure heat loss minimum in cold
days to offer residents warm environment.
It is also of great importance to provide a high quality indoor environment for
residents to ensure their health and comfort as they spend most of their time
indoor (Lee, Yoon, Lim, An, & Hwang, 2011). The high quality of indoor environment
mainly contains three aspects, including high indoor air quality, suitable thermal
quality and appropriate lighting quality.
4.6 Discussion: features of the proposed sustainable retirement village framework
This proposed sustainable retirement village framework has three features,
including interrelated domains, a balance between different domains and a
dynamic system.
Interrelated Domains. The four domains contained in this framework are
interrelated. First, senior-oriented basic settings is the foundation of this
framework, and other three domains are developed on the basis of it. Second,
changes in certain domain will result in corresponding chain reactions in other
domains. For instance, inappropriate village physical environment design can
negatively impact residents’ social participation. This further increases energy and
resources consumption as residents will spend more time in their own home
instead of outside, which can add additional costs. Third, different aspects in each
domain are also interrelated. For instance, in the age-friendly social environment
122
domain, more village activities information accessibility results in higher levels of
social participation.
A Balance Between Different Domains. It is impossible to make all the four domains
optimal at the same time due to some potential conflicts between them. For
instance, adopting environmental sustainability measures can result in relatively
high costs of village living for residents in the short-term run. Sustainable
retirement villages pursue a balance between different domains to make an overall
optimization for residents.
A Dynamic System. Both residents’ competences and the village environment
change over time. A sustainable retirement villages reflects the two dynamic
processes, and stresses a dynamic fit between residents’ competence and the
village environment.
4.7 Summary
The sustainable retirement village is becoming increasingly popular in Australia. In
this study, a sustainable retirement village framework is proposed to well response
to the unique competences of Australian baby boomers. The proposed sustainable
retirement village framework relies on ecological theory of ageing and triple
bottom line, and it contains four domains, including senior-oriented basic settings,
financial affordability, age-friendly social environment and environmental
sustainability. These four domains are interrelated, and a sustainable retirement
village emphasizes a dynamic balance between different domains. The proposed
sustainable retirement village framework will give implications on the future
123
retirement village industry development as well as paving the way for future
studies on housing older people in an age-friendly manner.
124
Chapter 5 What is a sustainable retirement village? Perceptions of Australian developers
Statement of joint authorship and authors contributions
The authors listed below have certified that:
1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the
conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in
their field of expertise;
2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, expect for the
responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;
3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the
editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the
responsible academic unit, and
5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication
on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher
requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore, Laurie Buys and Yi Hu (2016). What is a sustainable
retirement village? Perceptions of Australian developers, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 164, 179-186.
125
Contributor Statement of contribution
Xin Hu Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of this
study, wrote the manuscript, research design, data collection
and analysis;
QUT Verified Signature
24/01/2017
Bo Xia Aided with the research design, data collection and analysis, and
evaluation of the manuscript;
Martin Skitmore Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Laurie Buys Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Yi Hu Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Bo Xia QUT Verified Signature 2/06/2017 _________________ _________________ _________________ Name Signature Date
126
Abstract and keywords
Abstract: Developers are key stakeholders in delivering sustainable retirement
villages. Understanding the way they perceive sustainability is of great significance
in shaping the provision of sustainable living environments in this industry. This
study explores village developers’ perceptions of a sustainable living environment
through a comprehensive content analysis of their online descriptions of
sustainability features of their villages. Thirty-nine sustainability features were
identified, with the most mentioned being “care and services provision and
accessibility”, “social interaction”, “secure/safe living” and “independent living”.
The social sustainability of the retirement village environment was highly valued by
developers, with the majority of the sustainability features relating to this feature,
while environmental sustainability was largely ignored. Although there is no
significant difference between the private and not-for-profit village developers
regarding the numbers of sustainability features mentioned, the private village
developers value “social interaction” more while the not-for-profit village
developers prioritize “independent living” and “care and services provision and
accessibility” the most. The research leads to a better understanding of retirement
village developers’ perceptions on a sustainable living environment, which further
reveals the meaning of sustainable retirement villages in Australia. All these will
ultimate benefit the development of the Australian retirement village industry in
general.
Keywords: Retirement villages; sustainability; developers; perceptions; Australia
127
5.1 Introduction
It has long been argued that sustainable development should be incorporated into
community development in order to deliver liveable environments (Roseland, 2000).
Sustainability is a holistic concept that incorporates social, economic and
environmental aspects (Hopwood, et al., 2005). As specially designed communities
for older people, incorporating sustainability principles into retirement village
developments is one way of providing residents with quality living environments
(Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Affordability is a major economic sustainability
consideration for older people, particularly as they desire an active life-style (social
sustainability) in which opportunities for participation in activities and establishing
friendship are offered (Finn, et al., 2011; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Environmental
sustainability, such as in using environment-friendly materials, energy and
techniques in their construction and operation, is a consideration for construction
and on-going operation and maintenance (Zuo, et al., 2014).
Village developers are key decision makers in delivering sustainable retirement
villages, as they are both the investors and final decision-makers of the project (Hu,
Xia, Buys, et al., 2015). An increasing number of both private and not-for-profit
village developers in Australia are providing sustainable retirement villages (Xia, Zuo,
et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). Consequently, various sustainable practices are being
incorporated into the site planning, unit design, provision of facilities and services,
selection of construction materials and management of construction waste during
village development and operation (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
Additionally, the retirement village industry is working closely with the Green
128
Building Council of Australia to introduce a customized Green Star rating tool into
the industry (Green Building Council of Australia, 2016).
Given the important role village developers play in the provision of sustainable
retirement villages, their perceptions and understanding of the meaning a concept
such as sustainable development has been shown to affect behaviours in practice
(Vithessonthi, 2009). Thus village developers’ perceptions of a sustainable living
environment shapes the future of their retirement village, which further affects the
life quality of the residents (Kennedy & Coates, 2008). Given the increasing
development of village living and Australia’s rapidly ageing population, this
represents a large amount of investment (Property Council of Australia, 2014).
Those that truly understand the unique requirements of older people and embrace
the idea of sustainable development will be most able to provide a suitably
sustainable living environment to residents in future.
However, no effort has been made to date to fully understand retirement village
developers’ perceptions of the meaning of sustainable living environments. The
present study addresses this research gap based on a content analysis of village
developers’ retirement village business information. The way village developers
describe and implement the sustainable features of their retirement villages (i.e.
behaviour in practice) reveals their underlying perceptions toward sustainable
development. The research reveals the meaning of a sustainable living environment
in retirement villages from the perspective of village developers and will promote
the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia.
129
5.2 Sustainable communities and sustainable retirement villages
The study focuses on the sustainability issue of retirement villages in Australia. This
literature review leads to a better understanding of the closely related topics,
including sustainable communities, retirement villages, sustainable communities for
older people and sustainable retirement villages. By depicting a clear picture of
related topics, the theoretical background of this study is provided.
Local communities play a crucial role in shaping regional sustainable development
strategies (Yuan, et al., 2003) and the development of a sustainable living
environment, “sustainable community”, at the community level is increasingly
popular (Roseland, 2000; Yuan, et al., 2003). Sustainable community development
integrates economic, environmental and social objectives to meet the economic
needs of residents, enhance and protect the environment, and promote more
humane local societies (Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Roseland, 2000). Its core aims
include the design of a healthy environment for residents, promotion of a
prosperous economy and enhancement of residents’ social well-being (Power,
2004). A healthy environment involves minimal environmental impact, such as the
protection of ecosystems, conservation of resources and prevention of pollution
(Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Power, 2004). Sustainable communities coordinate
economic factors (e.g., investment, employment and consumption) and other
elements of communities (e.g., the natural environment and humanity issues) to
promote economic prosperity (Power, 2004; Xia, et al., 2016; Yuan, et al., 2003).
Regarding social well-being, sustainable communities create a social atmosphere of
respecting different cultures, traditions and background to ensure the residents’
130
sense of community, security, social inclusion, etc. (Bridger & Luloff, 1999; Power,
2004; Yuan, et al., 2003).
Policy is an important driver of the development of sustainable communities (Xia, et
al., 2016). In Australia, for instance, the implementation of the Sustainable
Communities package provided $120 million to improve liveability in cities (Major
Cities Unit, 2011). In addition, local governments, such as in Queensland (QLD) and
New South Wales, have also proposed sustainable community related strategies to
ensure people live in a suitable residential environment (Department of Housing
and Public Works, 2016; Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2011). The
development of sustainable communities suggests the need for suitable rating tools
to evaluate sustainability and facilitate decision-making relating to community
development. Three sustainable community rating tools have been suggested in
Australia, (Green Star-Communities PILOT, EnviroDevelopment, and VicUrban
Sustainability Charter), from which customers can choose based on their own
requirements as they focus on different aspects of sustainability measurement (Xia,
Chen, et al., 2015).
Retirement villages are a specific community specially designed for older people.
The major characteristics of a retirement village include independent living,
institutionalization and an age-friendly environment (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, Buys, & Zuo,
2017). In Australia, around 5.7% of the over 65 population lived in retirement
villages in 2014, a penetration rate predicted to rise to 7.5% by 2025 (Property
Council of Australia, 2014). The reasons that contribute to older people’s relocation
in this way include the provision of outdoor living areas, support in maintaining
131
independence, assisted living facilities and access to medical facilities (Crisp,
Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013). Social participation is an important
components of the village social life and impacts residents’ life quality profoundly
(McDonald, 1996). Nevertheless, although some residents show great interests in
social participation (e.g., females and widows needing more social involvement),
not all residents are sufficiently active (McDonald, 1996; Nathan, Wood, & Giles-
Corti, 2014a). Some residents report a satisficed life experience, such as improved
independence, due to the benefits of living in retirement villages (Gardner, et al.,
2005; Kennedy & Coates, 2008). Nevertheless, retirement living is not an antidote
to an ageing society and the majority of older Australians do not consider relocating
to a retirement village (Crisp, Windsor, Anstey, et al., 2013). Issues such as
affordability, for example, can affect potential residents, especially full-pensioners,
due to their declined financial position in older age (Finn, et al., 2011). The
Australian retirement village sector is also confronting with various challenges, such
as the difficulty in meeting the unique needs of baby boomers and responding to
the sustainability initiative (Hu, et al., 2017).
The unique requirements of older people need to be specially considered in
community development (e.g., the natural and built environment, social systems,
participation, health and safety) (Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014). Although sustainable
communities involve people of all ages, older people are usually not specifically
emphasized. Nevertheless, community development initiatives specifically designed
to provide older people with a suitable living environment have been proposed,
such as the age-friendly community, liveable community and lifetime
neighbourhood (Bevan & Croucher, 2011; Kochera & Bright, 2006; Lui, et al., 2009;
132
Menec, et al., 2011). Although these initiatives do not adopt the term “sustainable”
directly and vary in their specific features or themes covered, they focus on the
creation of a sustainable living environment for older people especially in their
social and economic aspects (Lui, et al., 2009). For instance, a liveable community
has affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and
services and adequate mobility options to facilitate the independence of older
people and their engagement in civic and social life (Kochera & Bright, 2006). There
is also the appeal of connecting the older population to environmental
sustainability to offer older adults an environmentally friendly living environment
due to the impact of the environment on their health and their potential
contribution to solving environmental problems (MaloneBeach & Zuo, 2013;
Pillemer, et al., 2010; Sykes & Pillemer, 2009; Wright & Lund, 2000). An
environmentally friendly living environment should have features such as energy
and resource efficiency, and a high quality indoor and outdoor environment
(MaloneBeach & Zuo, 2013; Sykes & Pillemer, 2009). It is believed that an
environmentally friendly living environment can benefit older people in several
ways such as improving their health (Sugiyama & Ward Thompson, 2007; Sykes &
Pillemer, 2009; van Hoof, Kort, Duijnstee, Rutten, & Hensen, 2010).
All in all, the development of a sustainable living environment in retirement villages,
or equivalently “sustainable retirement villages”, is urgently needed, where the
residents’ social, economic and environmental requirements are adequately
satisfied (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Both the private and
not-for-profit developers are paying an increasing attention to the provision of a
sustainable living environment to residents (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
133
For instance, Stockland, one of the largest private developers in Australia, states
that “… we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to create the right
balance of social, environmental and economic conditions for our communities, …”
(Stockland, 2016). Village developers also value the incorporation of sustainable
features in the development and operation of retirement villages. For instance, the
case study of a private village in Brisbane, QLD found that it used various
sustainable features covering areas of the design of landscaping, provision of
facilities and services, design of internal communication and social activities and
arrangement of living fee (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Residents are also an important
stakeholder who is promoting the development of sustainable retirement villages.
A case study of a not-for-profit retirement village found its residents to be
concerned with the amount of unsustainable resource consumption involved and
preferred an environmental-friendly lifestyle (Barker, et al., 2012). A similar
situation was also found in a private retirement village, in which residents
undertook various daily activities to make their village sustainable (Xia, Zuo, et al.,
2014). Meanwhile, the majority of not-for-profit village residents are concerned
with the extra cost of sustainable practices; and the higher initial investment
involved in the construction of a sustainable living environment is one of the major
concerns of not-for-profit village developers (Barker, et al., 2012; Zuo, et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, this does not seem to be a serious problem for the residents and
developers of private villages (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). However,
only a limited amount of work has been done in this area and more studies are
needed to investigate the interaction between ageing and sustainability.
134
The development of sustainable retirement villages is a relatively new phenomenon
in Australia, which has not been widely explored in other parts of the world. Only
few explorations were found in the United Kingdom (UK), where the term “age-
friendly retirement villages” is more commonly used (Bernard, Bartlam, Sim, &
Biggs, 2007; Liddle, Scharf, Bartlam, Bernard, & Sim, 2014). A comparison between
the sustainable retirement villages in Australia and age-friendly retirement villages
in UK found that the age-friendly retirement villages in UK focus more on the social
and economic sustainability of a village environment and ignore the environmental
sustainability (Liddle, et al., 2014). In contrast, in Australian context, besides the
social and economic sustainability of a village environment, the importance of the
green features of environmental sustainability have also been heavily stressed
given its profound impacts on residents’ daily life (e.g., health, independence,
safety and social interaction) (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014; Zuo, et al., 2014). Another
significant diffidence is that the development of age-friendly retirement villages in
UK is heavily driven by the initiative of developing age-friendly cities and
communities that was proposed by the World Health Organization (2007), while the
delivery of sustainable retirement villages in Australia is mainly contributed by
sustainable development (Barker, et al., 2012).
5.3 Research method
To achieve the research aim, the content analysis of retirement village information
retrieved from the official websites of a sample of village developers was conducted.
Content analysis is a method used to make valid inferences from collected data (e.g.,
documents) to describe and quantify specific phenomena in a systemic and
objective way (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992), and has been successfully employed in
135
similar recent research topics (Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Several reasons
contribute to the use of this method. First, developers provide detailed information
of their retirement villages (e.g., village life style, living cost arrangement and village
built environment) to the public in order to attract potential residents. This
information normally includes a description of the villages’ sustainability features,
which are of great use in revealing how the developers perceive sustainable living
environment. Therefore, retrieving and analysing the retirement living business
information provide an alternative and acceptable way of achieving research
purpose. Second, the traditional methods such as interview and questionnaire
survey have some limitations, especially given the time and resources constraints of
this study. The nature of this study needs to recruit and investigate as many
developers as possible to obtain robust research results. Content analysis of
developers’ retirement living business description provides a relatively fast and
convenient way to achieve the proposed research aim compared with other
methods such as interview and questionnaire survey as it will be extremely hard to
recruit a large number of participants in one study. Therefore, compared with
traditional methods (e.g., interview and questionnaire survey), content analysis
provides more objective and reliable results (based on real and “mute” evidence),
and consumes less time and resources. Furthermore, given the lack of previous
efforts in exploring this issue, the content analysis in this primal exploratory
research can provide valuable implications for the further investigation of village
developers’ sustainability perceptions by using other methods such as interview
and questionnaire survey.
136
The content analysis started with the identification of the sample of village
developers. There are more than 2,000 retirement village developers in Australia
(Hu, et al., 2017). As it is difficult to include all Australian village developers in one
study given the time and resource constraints, the retirement village developers
targeted were those who registered their villages in the Department of Housing and
Public Works in QLD. These village developers are representative, and the reasons
to choose them are diverse. First, QLD was selected as it not only has a relatively
larger number of village residents but also has a higher proportion of people over
65 (Property Council of Australia, 2014). Second, village developers who own
registered retirement villages are the main players of the retirement village sector
in QLD, and the government highly recommends registered village developers to
prospective residents when they choose their villages. By the date of data collection
(30 April 2016), there were 376 registered retirement villages by 89 village
developers. 87 of these developers were selected as two did not provide their
retirement village information online. Of these 87, 58 are private and the remaining
29 are not-for-profit developers. The official website of each village developer was
searched and accessed using Google during May-August 2016 and the detailed
information regarding each developer’s retirement village business information was
recorded to establish the database.
The collected data were then reviewed and the sustainability features of the
retirement villages identified and coded manually. To be more specific, the village
developers’ retirement living business contains different kinds of keywords/phrases
to describe what kinds of sustainable retirement living environment will be
provided to their residents (e.g., safety/safe/secure/security, independent
137
living/independence, care and services provision/accessibility). The
keywords/phrases employed to describe their villages were identified firstly. Based
on the meanings of keywords/phrases, those with the same meanings were
grouped together and renamed where necessary into various themes of
sustainability features. In addition, developers can also use descriptions instead of
keywords/phrases to in-directly express what kinds of sustainable village
environment will be offered. In this situation, based on the expressed meaning of a
description, it will either be grouped into an existing sustainability feature or create
a new sustainability feature by using a terse phase. These identified sustainable
features were then classified into the three categories of social, environmental and
economic sustainability based on Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al. (2015)’s proposed
sustainable retirement village framework.
Additionally, as not-for-profit villages differ from private ones in various aspects
(McNelis, 2004), both a qualitative comparison of their most important
sustainability features and quantitative comparison of the numbers involved were
conducted based on the Independent-Samples T test and chi-square (χ2)
contingency table analysis. The IBM SPSS Statistics 21 was used to conduct
statistical analysis in this study.
The Independent-Samples T test determines whether there is a statistically
significant difference between the means in two unrelated groups. The calculation
of the test statistics is shown in Table 10. The calculated value is compared with
the critical value from the distribution table with degrees of freedom and
138
confidence level (0.05). If the calculated value is larger than the critical value,
the null hypotheses (the two population means are equal) should be rejected.
Table 10 Calculation of the test statistics
Test
statistics = −( − ) + ( − )+ − += −
+
Application
condition
Equal variances assumed Unequal variances assumed
Degrees of
freedom
= + − 2
= ( + )1− 1 ( ) + 1− 1 ( )
Where, is the mean of the th sample, is the sample size of the th sample, is
the standard deviation of the th sample;
The chi-square ( ) contingency table analysis is used to determine the extent to
which a statistical relationship exists between two variables (Xia, Chen, Xu, Li, & Jin,
2014). A 2 x 2 contingency table was used in this study and is shown in Table 11.
Table 11 2 x 2 contingency table
Category A1 Category A2 Total
Category B1 a b a + b
Category B2 c d c + d
Total a + c b + d a + b + c + d = N
The test statistics is computed as:
139
= ( − )( + )( + )( + )( + ) The degrees of freedom is computed as: = ( − 1)( − 1) , where the
represents the number of rows and represents the number of columns. In a 2 x 2
contingency table, the = ( − 1)( − 1) = (2 − 1)(2 − 1) = 1
The calculated value is compared with the critical value from the Chi-Square
distribution table with degrees of freedom and confidence level (0.05). There will
be a statistical relationship between two variables if the calculated value is
larger than the critical value.
5.4 Research results
Table 12 shows the results of the content analysis. In total, 39 sustainability
features were identified. Of these, “care and services provision and accessibility” is
the most frequently mentioned (90.80%). This is followed by “social interaction”,
“secure/safe living” and “independent living”, with over 80% frequency of
occurrence.
The 39 features were classified into the three categories of social, environmental
and economic sustainability. As can be seen, 30 features are associated with social
sustainability, covering a wide range of the village life mainly referring to an age-
friendly atmosphere and lifestyle, daily care and support, and village operation and
management. Environmental sustainability covers six features with relatively small
frequencies, focusing on the use and consumption of energy, materials and
resources, environmental protection and waste management. Another three
features are contained within economic sustainability, including affordable living,
140
capital gains sharing and transparent financial arrangement. Each village developer
mentioned 9.51 items of social sustainability features on average in contrast with
0.72 and 0.21 items of economic and environmental sustainability features
respectively.
Table 12 Identified sustainability features and their frequency
Sustainability Code Sustainability feature Frequency (%)
Social
sustainability
1 Care and services provision and
accessibility
90.80
2 Social interaction 88.51
3 Secure/Safe living 87.36
4 Independent living 85.06
5 Worry free/Stress free/Peace of
mind/Relaxation
62.07
6 Residents’ privacy protection 57.47
7 Availability of qualified professionals
on-site
56.32
8 Active and healthy lifestyle 43.68
9 Residents being respected 40.23
10 A sense of family/home, community
and belonging
37.93
11 Comfortable living 37.93
12 Freedom of residents 34.48
13 Convenient living 32.18
14 Friendly, supportive, and like-minded
residents
21.84
15 Personalized/Customized care and
support
21.84
16 Ensuring residents’ dignity 19.54
17 Lifetime learning and improvement 19.54
141
of residents
18 Ensuring residents’ fulfilment and
satisfaction
19.54
19 Religious, spiritual and emotional
support
17.24
20 Sustained improvement of villages’
operation and management
10.34
21 Maintaining, sharing, and pursuing
interests
10.34
22 Listening and understanding
residents' needs
10.34
23 Quiet environment 10.34
24 Justice and fairness towards
residents
9.20
25 Residents being kept informed 6.90
26 Community diversity 5.75
27 Balance between care,
independence and socialization
4.60
28 Empowerment to residents 4.60
29 Residents being valued 3.45
30 Maintaining residents' confidence 2.30
Environmental
sustainability
31 Use of renewable and recyclable
energy, materials and resources
8.05
32 Energy generation and efficiency 5.75
33 Habitat and wildlife protection of
village surrounding areas
2.30
34 Waste management 2.30
35 Smoking-free 1.15
36 Reducing the consumption of
energy, materials and resources
1.15
Economic 37 Affordable living 52.87
142
sustainability 38 Capital gains sharing 12.64
39 Transparent financial arrangement 6.90
Table 13 compares the three most frequently mentioned sustainability features of
the private and not-for-profit village developers. Both emphasize “social
interaction”, “secure/safe living” and “care and services provision and accessibility”,
but ranked differently for each type of developer. The private developers
emphasize “social interaction” most, while the not-for-profit developers place most
importance on “independent living” and “care and services provision and
accessibility”.
Table 13 Three most frequently mentioned sustainability features of the private and
not-for-profit village developers
Private Not-for-profit
1. Social interaction (94.8%);
2. Secure/Safe living (91.4%);
3. Care and services provision and
accessibility (89.7%);
1. Independent living (96.6%); Care and
services provision and accessibility
(96.6%);
2. Secure/Safe living (79.3%);
3. Social interaction (75.9%);
Table 14 gives the results of the Independent-Samples T test, indicating that there
is no statistically significant difference between the number of sustainability
features mentioned by the private and not-for-profit developers (t=0.925,
p=0.358>0.05). However, the average number of sustainability features mentioned
by the private developers is larger than that of the not-for-profit developers
143
(10.47>9.86). Private developers also mention more sustainability features on
average in all the three specific sustainability aspects (Table 15).
Table 14 Independent-Samples T test results
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Equal variances
assumed 0.053 0.819 0.925 85 0.358
Equal variances not assumed
0.919 55.224 0.362
Table 15 Average number of sustainability features in the three specific
sustainability aspects
Sustainability Private village
developers
Not-for-profit village
developers
Social sustainability 9.62 9.18
Economic sustainability 0.88 0.41
Environmental
sustainability
0.24 0.14
Given that social sustainability is mentioned most (Table 12 and 15), a chi-square (χ2)
contingency table analysis was additionally used to examine whether the financial
type of village developers (i.e. not-for-profit vs private) affects the provision of
social sustainability features (Table 16). It indicates that the village developers’
finance type is independent of the number of social sustainability features
(χ2=0.489< . =3.841, p=0.485>0.05). Nevertheless, the not-for-profit developers
are more likely to provide the social sustainability features compared with private
144
developers, with 85.29% of the features mentioned by the not-for-profit developers
are related to the social sustainability.
Table 16 Relationship between the financial type of village developers and social
sustainability
Social sustainability
features
Total
Yes No
Village
developer
type
Private Count
Expected count
30
31.1
8
6.9
38
38.0
Not-for-
profit
Count
Expected count
29
27.9
5
6.1
34
34.0
Total Count
Expected count
59
59.0
13
13.0
72
72.0
Pearson Chi-Square: =0.489< . =3.841, (df=1, Sig.=0.485>0.05)
5.5 Discussions
The most mentioned sustainability features are “care and services provision and
accessibility”, “social interaction”, “secure/safe living” and “independent living”.
These have already been identified and confirmed in previous studies as the main
features of sustainable retirement villages (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014)
and contributing most to the residents’ relocation decision (Buys, 2000; Crisp,
Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013). They have also been widely emphasized in
community development initiatives specifically designed for older people (Bevan &
Croucher, 2011; Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014; Kochera & Bright, 2006; Lui, et al., 2009).
Thus, it is not surprising that they are the most emphasized by village developers.
Due to the likelihood of an increased requirement for care and services as people
age, the village residents place more importance on the accessibility to care and
145
services (e.g., health care and services, activity services and room services) in order
to support their active ageing (Kennedy & Coates, 2008; Nathan, et al., 2013). As
village residents may experience loneliness and social isolation after relocation
from their previous familiar residential environment (Gracia, et al., 2010),
retirement villages aim to provide residents with a socially-interactive environment
(e.g., for participation in activities and civil affairs) (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015;
Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Residents also expect to live in a secure environment where
both the security of the physical environment and their individual safety (e.g., the
physical health and financial security) is ensured (Finn, et al., 2011; Hu, Xia,
Skitmore, et al., 2015; Kennedy & Coates, 2008). Moreover, independent living has
also been widely cited as one of the benefits of village-living in this industry, and is
valued by residents to maintain autonomy as long as possible (Hu, Xia, Buys, et al.,
2015; Property Council of Australia, 2014; Towart, 2005).
The social sustainability features identified mainly relate to the creation of an age-
friendly atmosphere and lifestyle (e.g., social interaction, security, independent
living and respect), provision of daily care and support, and operation and
management of villages. These social sustainability features match the suggested
features of sustainable retirement villages in previous studies (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et
al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). For instance, the prior study of Xia, Zuo, et al. (2015)
places greater stress on an active and healthy lifestyle for social interaction. Hu, Xia,
Skitmore, et al. (2015) suggests that social sustainability features include
independent and safe living, privacy protection, support and accessibility of services,
social interaction, residents being informed and their lifetime learning and
improvement. Importantly, comparing the research findings of this study with
146
earlier studies indicates that the social sustainability features identified in this study
additionally extend current understanding of the social sustainability of retirement
villages. Based on the relatively large-scale of village developers’ practices that take
place, the research findings here indicate that additional social sustainability
features such as “friendly, supportive and like-minded residents” and
“personalized/customized care and support” have also been noticed by village
developers and practiced in the retirement village industry. These newly identified
features have been confirmed to greatly benefit village residents in previous studies.
For instance, McDonald (1996) found that friendly and supportive neighbouring in
villages creates a strong obligation for reciprocity, such as the exchange of goods
and services between residents and the establishment of an informal emergency
payment system.
The major reasons why village developers value social sustainability more may be
due firstly to village residents preferring a socially-sustainable residential
environment as it can benefit them in many ways (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). For
instance, the residents expect to establish friendships to obtain acceptance,
companionship and emotional support, and reduce loneliness and depression (Buys,
2001), and also actively participate in activities, programs and civil affairs connected
with their community (Buys & Miller, 2007; Gardner, et al., 2005). Second,
retirement villages, as an important social housing option in Australia, have a long
history of providing residents with a supportive environment by offering older
people care, services and opportunities for social interaction (McNelis, 2004;
McNelis & Herbert, 2003).
147
The economic sustainability of retirement villages mainly refers to affordable living,
sharing capital gains and transparent financial arrangement. The affordable living
and sharing capital gains have been recognized as important economic features of
sustainable retirement villages in prior studies (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia,
Zuo, et al., 2015). Historically, the Australian retirement village sector has targeted
households with relatively low incomes and low value assets (McNelis, 2004;
McNelis & Herbert, 2003). There is also the appeal of affordable living for residents
in the current retirement living sector, as relocating to retirement villages includes
a significant financial investment, which is not easy for village residents given their
generally reduced financial circumstances after retirement (Hu, Xia, Buys, et al.,
2015; Walker & McNamara, 2013). Some current studies also indicate that,
although residents expect to live in a sustainable village environment, the high cost
of sustainable practices is an important concern (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia, Zuo, et al.,
2014). Ignorance of the affordability issue can negatively affect the development of
the industry, as a financially comfortable environment is an important
consideration for both residents’ pre- and post-relocation phases, with expensive
village living negatively influencing life satisfaction, a problem reported in several
previous studies (Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013; Finn, et al., 2011;
Kennedy & Coates, 2008). The research findings here also suggest that transparent
financial arrangement is an additional important economic sustainability feature
that has not been identified and stressed in prior studies. It is important, as
retirement village fee structures are often complex and vary a great deal between
developers, which can create uncertainty and confusion for residents (Eardley, 2000;
Finn, et al., 2011; Productivity Commission, 2015).
148
Environmental sustainability is largely ignored by the investigated village
developers. This ignorance is inconsistent with village residents’ concern about the
consumption of unsustainable resources and expectation of living in a green village
environment (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014). It also conflicts with the
ongoing trend of making retirement villages green in the Australian retirement
living sector (Green Building Council of Australia, 2016; Zuo, et al., 2014). Compared
with the environmental sustainability features suggested in prior studies (Hu, Xia,
Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014), the village developers
investigated in this study generally appear to ignore the need for a suitable level of
indoor environmental quality. A high quality indoor environment is necessary to
support heathy ageing as older people are vulnerable to indoor neurotoxins and air
pollution (Lee, et al., 2011; van Hoof, et al., 2010). A smoking-free environment is a
newly identified environmental sustainability feature in this study. Smoking is a
strong risk factor in premature mortality of older people (Gellert, Schöttker, &
Brenner, 2012) that negatively affects indoor air quality, which further negatively
influences the health of other residents.
The finance type of the developers is independent of the social sustainability
features. This result is consistent with the current industry practice of both private
and not-for-profit village developers being increasingly interested in the
development of sustainable retirement villages and taking various actions in
practice (Barker, et al., 2012; Green Building Council of Australia, 2016; Xia, Zuo, et
al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). It is also seen that private village developers emphasize
“social interaction” most, while not-for-profit village developers value
“independent living” and “care and services provision and accessibility” most.
149
Private village developers usually have more financial resources to enrich their
residents’ village life by increasing the range of accommodation, facilities and
services provided (McGovern & Baltins, 2002; Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015), which
may be a possible reason for their greater emphasis on lifestyle related
sustainability features, such as social interaction, to attract prospective residents. In
contrast, not-for-profit village developers initially provide residents with
independent living units (now better known as the retirement village industry),
which has placed more importance on the provision of care and services to older
people in order to ensure their independent living through old age (McNelis, 2004;
McNelis & Herbert, 2003).
The statistical results indicate that there is no statistically significant differences
between the number of sustainability features mentioned by the private and not-
for-profit developers. This result is consistent with the current industry situation
where both private and not-for-profit developers are increasingly interested in
developing a sustainable living environment in retirement villages and taking
various actions to meet the green requirement of the market (Barker, et al., 2012;
Green Building Council of Australia, 2016; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
One explanation for this is that both the private and not-for-profit developers
acknowledge the importance of meeting the sustainability requirements of
residents due to the market competition. It is believed that the competition
determines the extent to which residents’ aged requirements can be satisfied (Hu,
et al., 2017). Moreover, there are an increasing number of older people preferring
to living in a sustainable environment (Barker, et al., 2012; Pillemer, et al., 2010;
Wright & Wadsworth, 2014). This promotes both the private and not-for-profit
150
developers to incorporate sustainability features into the development and
operation of their retirement village projects in order to attract more potential
residents and retain the current ones as long as possible. In addition, the statistical
results indicate that the finance type of village developers does not affect the
provision of social sustainability features. This result is not surprising as
practitioners of both private and not-for-profit sectors in the Australian retirement
village market have the tradition of providing social sustainability features to
residents such as social interaction, independent living, privacy and safety (McNelis,
2004; McNelis & Herbert, 2003).
5.6 Summary
The popularity of sustainable development is increasing in the Australian
retirement village industry and developers are crucial contributors. It is therefore
important to understand their perceptions of sustainable living environments. This
study examines the sustainability features of village developments to reflect these
perceptions based on a content analysis of selected developers’ retirement village
business information retrieved from their official websites. In total, 39 sustainability
features were identified, with the most mentioned being “care and services
provision and accessibility”, “social interaction”, “secure/safe living” and
“independent living”. In addition, the developers place most importance on social
sustainability, with environmental sustainability being largely ignored. Furthermore,
although private and not-for-profit village developers value different aspects of the
sustainable living environment in retirement villages, there is no significant
difference between the numbers of sustainability features provided by them.
151
The limitation of this study is that only 87 village developers who developed
registered retirement villages in the Department of Housing and Public Works in
QLD were involved, which restricts the external generalizability of the research
findings to the whole industry. In addition, it is possible that some of the selected
village developers may not fully disclose their retirement village business
information online and some of the information may be out of date. This can affect
the accuracy of the research findings. Further research is needed to clarify.
This study provides important implications for the development of sustainable
retirement villages. First, the sustainability features identified and their frequencies
can be used as a benchmark. Village developers with little knowledge/experience of
developing sustainable retirement villages can reference this benchmark to
understand the kind of sustainability features that should be incorporated into their
villages. Other village developers who have already developed sustainable
retirement villages can also benefit from the research findings by contrasting the
benchmark with their villages to determine the aspects they need to change or
where to make more effort. In addition, village developers investigating their
residents’ perceptions of the sustainable living environment in comparison with the
research findings of this study will better understand the different perceptions
involved in progressing towards a customer-centric sustainable living environment
in the retirement village industry in Australia.
152
Chapter 6 Providing a sustainable living environment in not-for-profit retirement villages: A case study in Australia
Statement of joint authorship and authors contributions
The authors listed below have certified that:
1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the
conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in
their field of expertise;
2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, expect for the
responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;
3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the
editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the
responsible academic unit, and
5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication
on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher
requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Laurie Buys (2017) Providing a sustainable
living environment in not-for-profit retirement villages: A case study in Australia,
Facilities (In press).
153
Contributor Statement of contribution
Xin Hu Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of this
study, wrote the manuscript, research design, data collection
and analysis;
QUT Verified Signature
24/01/2017
Bo Xia Aided with the research design, data collection and analysis, and
evaluation of the manuscript;
Martin Skitmore Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Laurie Buys Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript and proof-reading;
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Bo Xia QUT Verified Signature 2/06/2017 ______________ ________________ ________________ Name Signature Date
154
Abstract and keywords
Abstract: As a viable housing option for older people, retirement villages need to
provide a sustainable living environment that satisfies their residents’ needs in
terms of affordability, life-style and environmental friendliness. This is, however, a
significant challenge for not-for-profit developers owing to the high upfront costs
involved in using sustainable practices. To address this issue, this paper describes a
comprehensive case study aimed at identifying the sustainable features and
practices adopted in a not-for-profit retirement village in Sunshine Coast,
Queensland, Australia. The research findings indicate that, similar to private
developers, not-for-profit developers also have the capability to make their village
environment sustainable. In this case, the sustainable practices cover various
aspects including the selection of village location, site planning, provision of
facilities and services, social life and living costs. Although the associated costs of
adopting sustainable features is a concern for both developers and residents, some
of the identified sustainable practices in this case do not result in significant cost
increase but can improve the residents’ quality of life substantially. The research
findings of this study provide a number of practical implications on how to deliver
sustainable retirement villages in a not-for-profit village setting.
Keywords: Not-for-profit developer; sustainable retirement villages; case study;
Australia
155
6.1 Introduction
Sustainable development aims to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It has been widely accepted
as an approach for dealing with the complicated links between environmental
problems, socio-economic issues (e.g., poverty and inequality) and a healthy future
for humanity (Hopwood, et al., 2005). Communities are an integral component of
sustainable development, and the adoption of sustainable development at the
community level has been suggested to provide people with a liveable, resilient,
diverse and adaptable residential environment (Roseland, 2000). Consequently,
sustainable community initiatives have been popularly proposed around the world,
such as the Sustainable Australia – Sustainable Communities in Australia and the
Sustainable communities: building for the future in the United Kingdom (UK).
Though the sustainable community is a context-based concept that has been
differently defined in government documents and academic research (Xia, Chen, et
al., 2015), it covers the issues involved in the environmental, economic and social
sustainability of a community. For instance, according to the Green Building Council
of Australia (2015), a sustainable community “embodies the principles of
sustainable development, respecting ecological limits and natural resource
constraints, encouraging prosperity and well-being while optimising conditions for
human development”.
As a viable residential community for older adults, retirement villages in Australia
support their independent living by providing various facilities and services
(Gardner, et al., 2005). As with communities in general, it has also been suggested
156
that retirement villages should embody the sustainability principle in their
development and operation, to meet the residents’ requirements in terms of
affordability, life-style and environmental friendliness (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al.,
2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). However, few developers currently consider
environmental sustainability during the design and construction of retirement
villages, resulting in the problem that many residents live in poorly-designed
retirement villages that are harmful to their health and the health of the
environment (Green Building Council of Australia, 2016). In addition, many
retirement villages fail to respond to the residents’ life-style changes, in terms of
social interaction for example, and therefore problems such as social isolation and
loneliness are often prevalent (Gardner, et al., 2005; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). The
affordability of village living is also a common theme among potential residents and
many are concerned that they do not have enough money to secure their financially
comfortable retirement after paying the entry contribution and on-going costs
(Finn, et al., 2011).
In Australia, 40.1 percent of retirement villages are not-for-profit, and in some
states/territories the proportions are higher than 50 percent, such as South
Australia (SA) (69.1 percent) and Tasmania (TAS) (67.9 percent) (Property Council of
Australia, 2014). The provision of not-for-profit retirement villages can be traced
back to the developed independent living units by churches, charities and
community groups based on received subsidies under the Aged Persons Homes Act
1954 (McNelis & Herbert, 2003). Nevertheless, subsidies have ceased since 1984,
which has promoted the development of resident-funded retirement villages by
both not-for-profit and private developers (McNelis & Herbert, 2003). Unlike
157
private developers who focus more on stakeholder profits, not-for-profit
developers recycle profits back to residents by improving the quality of their
provided services.
Currently, both private and not-for-profit retirement village developers have taken
actions to develop and operate sustainable retirement villages (Xia, Zuo, et al.,
2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). Nevertheless, not-for-profit developers face more
challenges. In particular, sustainable retirement villages need more financial
resources (Zuo, et al., 2014), which is challenging for not-for-profit developers given
their limited financial means. In addition, in comparison with residents living in
private retirement villages, not-for-profit village residents are more concerned with
the extra costs relating to the use of the sustainable practices and features in their
villages (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014).
It is therefore meaningful to explore strategies and approaches for providing a
sustainable living environment, especially in not-for-profit retirement villages.
However, few studies have been devoted to this issue to date. Therefore, this study
aims to address this research gap by presenting a comprehensive case study of a
not-for-profit retirement village in Queensland (QLD), Australia. It is expected that
the study will benefit retirement the village stakeholders’ understanding of the
sustainability of a village project. It is also expected that the sustainable practices
and features identified and employed in this case will identify the implications for
future retirement village developments.
6.2 Retirement villages and sustainability in Australia
In Australia, retirement villages refer to an age-segregated community that
provides diverse services and facilities to meet the residents’ unique needs in later
158
life. They are an age-built environment that has features of age-homogeneity,
institutionalization and independent living for the residents. There are several
reasons that contribute to decision by prospective residents to relocate to a
retirement village, such as health care and support, low maintenance needs,
personal security and security of tenure, low costs and proximity to family (Buys,
2000). In 2014, 5.7 percent of Australians at least 65 years old lived in retirement
villages, and it is predicted that this will increase to 7.5 percent by 2025 due to the
increasing aged population and rising popularity of village living (Retirement Living
Council, 2014).
The majority of residents experience a satisfied village life due to the benefits of
village living, such as improved social interaction, enhanced independence and
improved health conditions (Gardner, et al., 2005; Kennedy & Coates, 2008).
However, retirement villages are not an antidote to an ageing society. They are also
criticized as a place where social isolation is a necessary feature owing to the age-
homogeneity of the village environment, where freedom and choice are denied due
to the pressures on residents to conform with village rules and regulations, and
privacy and autonomy are lost due to the village design (Gardner, et al., 2005).
The development of sustainable retirement villages has been observed recently due
to the increasing acceptance of village living and a rising public awareness of
sustainable development (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). A sustainable
retirement village stresses the integration of financial affordability, social-
friendliness and environmental sustainability in one setting (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et
al., 2015). First, financial affordability is crucial, as older people generally
experience reduced financial circumstances after retirement (Finn, et al., 2011;
159
Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014; Zuo, et al., 2014). This is especially true for non-home
owners and pensioners, given their relatively low economic wealth (Finn, et al.,
2011; Gardner, 1994). Second, as older adults still expect to be socially connected in
their community after retirement to alleviate and prevent social isolation and
loneliness (Cattan, White, Bond, & Learmouth, 2005), the socio-physical
environment of retirement villages, therefore, needs to be well tailored to facilitate
an active and healthy life style by offering opportunities such as the establishment
of friendship and participation in activities and civil affairs (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015).
Finally, residents are conscious of the consumption of unsustainable resources and
prefer the environmental-friendliness of retirement villages (Barker, et al., 2012).
Given the increasing number of older people as well as their unique lifestyle (e.g.
spending more time in-door) (Kronenberg, 2009), the environmental sustainability
of retirement villages needs to be centred on such issues as increasing energy and
resource efficiency, minimising waste and the enhancement of indoor air quality
(Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015).
Currently, retirement village stakeholders are paying increasing attention to the
development of a sustainable living environment. The national leadership group of
the retirement village sector, the Retirement Living Council, is working together
with developers to provide a sustainable living environment for residents to
promote their health and wellbeing (Property Council of Australia, 2014). The Green
Building Council of Australia is also working together with developers to develop a
Green Star rating tool specifically for retirement villages as a means of ‘making
villages green’ (Green Building Council of Australia, 2016). In addition, both private
and not-for-profit developers value the incorporation of sustainable features in the
160
development and operation of retirement villages to provide an appropriate
environment for their residents (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). For
instance, Stockland, one of the largest and most influential private developers in
Australia, states that “we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to create
the right balance of social, environmental and economic conditions for our
communities” (Stockland, 2016). Furthermore, residents are also taking part in a
variety of daily activities to make their villages sustainable, such as the use of a
rainwater tank for gardening and laundering (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2014). All these efforts
have contributed to the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia.
Nevertheless, the developers of sustainable retirement villages are facing various
challenges in terms of housing design, affordability and housing design models
(Zuo, et al., 2014). More challenges will be posed for them as the baby boomer
generation commence their retirement phase. Baby boomers differ from their
parents significantly, with unique financial, social and environmental
characteristics. Although baby boomers are wealthier than their parents when they
enter into retirement, their sometimes financial irresponsibility makes it difficult for
them to afford the lifestyle they expect (Quine & Carter, 2006). In addition, baby
boomers expect more from retirement than their parents in retaining their
independence, privacy and social networks (Barker, et al., 2012; Quine & Carter,
2006). The baby boomer cohort also a considerable diversity of needs and
aspirations (Ozanne, 2009), which further challenges their provision of a sustainable
village environment.
161
6.3 Research method
Due to the lack of quantitative historical data, a case study approach was adopted
to identify the sustainable features and practices used in a not-for-profit retirement
village. The case study approach is often employed to intensively study a
phenomenon over time within its natural setting on one or more sites and is
particularly suited to explanatory research where the experiences of participants
and the context of actions are critical (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Zuo, et al., 2014). The
case study in this research placed special emphasis on the sustainable features and
practices used in the management and operation stage of the village site.
Two criteria to select the retirement village case were developed. First, the selected
retirement village should be a not-for-profit one. In addition, the selected
retirement village should have adopted mature sustainability features and practices
in its management and operation stages. In the case study, a retirement village,
developed and operated by an influential not-for-profit retirement village
organization in Australia, was selected and used. The selected not-for-profit
retirement village offers supportive services to develop a sustainable living
environment that enables its residents to remain independent and keep active in
the wider community for as long as possible.
The data obtained for case studies can be diverse such as documentation, archival
resources, interviews, direct observation, participant observation and physical
artefacts (Yin, 2003). In this study, data were collected based on the interview with
the village manager, direct observation and documentation. First, data were
collected from a semi-structured interview with the manager of the retirement
community. The manager, who has worked in the retirement living sector for 20
162
years, has rich knowledge and experience associated with the development and
operation of not-for-profit retirement villages. All the interview questions were
open-ended (e.g., What aspects of the site planning elements do you think have
been really good in supporting the daily lives of older people?) and the interview
lasted for around one hour. The interview focused on the identification of
sustainable features and practices used in the village site. In addition, direct
observation of the retirement village site was also conducted to record sustainable
practices. As a result, 153 village photos were taken to help record initial data used
for further analysis. Moreover, documents concerning the retirement village, such
as its site planning map, official website and brochure, were also collected for
analysis. Following Bhattacherjee (2012) warning that researchers may not validate
case study data and this may lead to biased interpretations, the resident
satisfaction survey results (2015) of the village covering different aspects of its
residents’ daily life (e.g., communication, management/staff, activity program, and
maintenance and home environment) were additionally collected to evaluate the
performance of its sustainable features and practices indirectly. The resident
satisfactions survey was conducted by the village developer in 2015 and covered
different aspects of its residents’ daily life (e.g., communication, management/staff,
activity program, and maintenance and home environment). The response rate of
the survey is 65.5%, which means that around 73 residents participated in the
survey as 112 residents live in the retirement village. As one of the prerequisites of
living in an Australian retirement village is that older people can live independently
(Hu et al., 2017), all the participants of the questionnaire survey have the cognitive
ability to answer the survey questions. The collected data therefore provides a
163
relatively comprehensive picture of the development and operation of a
sustainable not-for-profit retirement village.
In this case study, content analysis was adopted as a means of making valid
inferences from the data in a systematic and objective way (Downe-Wamboldt,
1992). As three different kinds of data were collected in this study (interview record,
site photos and documentations), the determination of the unit of analysis is based
on the data category. These three kinds of data were reviewed orderly. In addition,
a brief review of the collected data found that these data are mainly related to five
aspects including site location, site planning, facilities and services, social life and
living cost. These five aspects are therefore determined as the themes of analysis,
and they cover the main used sustainable practices in village developments. The
collected data were carefully reviewed manually, and the sustainable practices
under the five scheme were identified. These identified sustainable practices were
stored in an Excel document and each sustainable practice was summarized and
expressed by using a concise phrase. The description of the sustainable practices
under each theme can be found in the following section. After all the sustainable
practices were identified, a further analysis of the identified sustainable practices
was conducted to indicate their satisfied aged needs and determine if additional
cost required when they are used.
6.4 Case Study
6.4.1 Background and context
The retirement village aims to provide a lifestyle that enables residents to remain
independent and keep active in the wider community for as long as possible, while
living in a secure, supportive and social environment. It provides community-based
164
aged care options available on-site to support the residents’ ageing in place. The
village site has 71 two- to three-bedroom independent living units, accommodating
112 residents. The mean age of the residents is 60 years old and the majority live
independently with low or moderate assistance needs. Around 40 percent are
female.
6.4.2 Site location
The retirement village is located in the northwest of Sunshine Coast, QLD, and is not
far from the Sunshine Coast city and airport. QLD has a subtropical climate with hot
and humid summers and dry and moderately warm winters, with an overall
temperature variability less than most other Australian areas, especially in winter.
As older people prefer living in a thermally comfortable environment (Hoof &
Hensen, 2006), the humid subtropical climate makes this village site a favoured
place for retirement.
The village location is ideal for the residents’ independent living by maximizing
access to neighbourhood services and facilities (Figure 13). It is adjacent to various
off-site facilities and services, such as a hospital, medical specialists, allied health
services, library, pool, clubs, shopping district, public transportation, park and
cinema, easing the residents’ daily life. The residents can make good use of nearby
infrastructure and enhance opportunities for age-integrated activities. In
particularly, the Nambour railway station is around 5-minute drive from the village
site, conveniently connecting this village site with the Brisbane and Gold Coast
areas. It has been stressed that access to services and facilities from the wider
neighbourhood of a retirement village supports the residents’ active lifestyles
(Nathan, et al., 2013), a feature that has been confirmed as attractive for the
165
relocation of potential residents (Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013). A
further attraction is that the location is also convenient for visiting family members,
as family members play an influential role in helping in village selection when
deciding to relocate and older people prefer retirement villages that are near to
their family members (Buys, 2000; Knight & Buys, 2003).
Figure 13 Location of the retirement community
6.4.3 Site planning
Site planning pattern
Age-friendly site planning practices have been incorporated into the site to provide
the residents with a viable living environment (Figure 14). The site-planning pattern
of this retirement village follows centralized principles. This centralized site
planning pattern, as stressed by Carstens (1993), is particularly suitable for a large
site with low-density development, not only helping promote the residents’ sense
166
of community and ownership but also helping in finding their way around. The
community centre (Clubhouse) is located in the heart of the village site, providing
ease of access for the residents by inter-linked drives and walking paths. Various
facilities, services and common spaces for service provision are provided there,
such as a library, table tennis table, function room, outdoor entertaining area,
store, board games and bowls kit, computer hub, kitchen, barbeque area, covered
terrace area and meeting room (see Figure 15). A small lake is additionally located
in the middle of the site, with easy access for the residents and providing them with
opportunities for social interaction. Independent living units are distributed on two
sides of the community centre and the back, facilitating the residents’ access to on-
site social spaces. In this way, zones for different functions are well-defined on-site,
including the residential zone and social life zone.
Figure 14 Site planning map
167
Figure 15 Layout of the community centre
Site entry/exit
As a retirement village is a complex separated from its neighbourhood, its site
entry/exit should be safe and easily identified by residents (Carstens, 1993). Best
practices have been employed at the site entry/exit to provide the residents with a
secure environment. For instance, the site entry/exit of this village site is located at
a minor road to avoid the heavy traffic of a major road in order to ensure the
residents’ safety. Lights are also provided at this site entry/exit to illuminate this
area at night. A “private property” warning sign is provided to warn external
persons to not trespass the village site in order to ensure the safety of the village
environment. Low ground cover at the site entry/exit provides an adequate sight
distance and avoids obscuring the residents’ vision to ensure their driving safety.
Traffic-related design detailing has also been adopted to ensure the residents’
safety, including the provision of a reflecting mirror, traffic signs (a 15 KMH speed
limit sign, a give way sign, and a speed hump-ahead sign), a speed hump and yellow
reflecting road studs. In addition, to make the village site be easily identified by the
residents and visitors, the retirement village sign with contrasted font and
168
background is placed at the site entry/exit. A site map is also provided at the site
entry/exit to help the residents and visitors easily find their way inside.
Site drive
The ring site connection and transportation makes it easy for the residents to find
their way around and helps their access to on-site facilities and service provision
areas, such as the community centre, lake and parking lots. In addition, lights are
provided along the site drive to illuminate the village site at night so as to provide a
safe driving and walking environment. There are also various traffic-related signs
(e.g., the speed hump sign, 15 KMH speed limit sign, “Watch out for pedestrians”
sign and a fingerpost sign) on-site, ensuring the residents’ security. To help
residents’ easy way-finding, fingerposts with road names and unit numbers are well
designed at the crossroads.
Main arrival court
The arrival court of the community centre is an important area for the residents,
providing them with spaces for social interaction and service accessibility. Seating
chairs are offered there to provide the residents with opportunities for
communication and viewing activities and as a way of promoting their social
interaction. Mailboxes are also provided, creating occasional communication
opportunities for social connection. This also promotes the use of facilities and
services that are offered in the community centre. Community information (e.g.,
social activities and events) is posted on the community bulletin board, facilitating
community information-sharing to ensure the residents are well informed and
connected. In addition, a variety of practices have been adopted to make the
community centre court safe. For instance, a small garden buffer is designed to
169
separate the drop-off area of the community centre from the site drive so as to
ensure safety. Traffic-related signs are also offered there for traffic control, such as
the speed limit sign, no parking sign and no entry sign. The porch is covered and
extended over the drop-off area to protect the residents from inclement weather
and ensure their easy pick-up. Benefiting from the layout of the community centre,
staff can view the court indoors. This ensures the continued monitoring of the court
and response to accidents (e.g., falls) in a timely manner. Other design detailing,
such as the provision of lights and bollards, also helps the delivery of a security
environment to the residents. Given the important role the community centre court
plays, the developer also tries to make it easy to be accessed by the residents. For
example, its design follows the barrier-free design principle, and the arrival court is
at the same grade with the site drive. Parking lots adjacent to the community
centre are also available, which is convenient for the residents, staff and visitors.
Unit entry
A villa entry provides residents with an interactive space that they can personalize
to make a “welcome” area. The majority of villa entries at the village site face north
to take full advantages of natural sunlight in the southern hemisphere. This practice
maximises exposure to winter sun to keep the unit warm, provides a means of
achieving energy efficiency and reducing the residents’ living expenses. However,
fences and a covered porch are also used as this practice can also result in a villa
entries being hot, especially in summer, with both avoiding direct sunlight to the
villa entry, providing a shadowy place for communication and participation in
activities. In addition, the fences separating villa entries from garages and grass
areas help ensure the residents’ safety and protect their privacy. The covered porch
170
can also protect the residents from bad weather to provide them with a safe
residential environment and provide a place where they can sit and watch outdoor
activities, communicate with people and receive deliveries. All these facilitate social
interaction. Other practices meet the residents’ aged needs. For instance, the
grassed area, located between the villa entry and site drive, ensures the safety and
privacy of the villa entry. A small garden near the villa entry provides the residents
with opportunities for enjoying a recreational life-style and participating in garden
activities. The design of villa entry follows the barrier-free principle, reducing the
possibility of the residents’ falling and facilitating their mobility while using walkers
or wheelchairs. The barrier-free walkway also connects the villa entry with its
garage and the neighbouring villa entry. This practice not only helps the mobility of
the residents in a convenient and safe way, but also helps protect their privacy and
establish close relationships to ensure a sense of community.
Parking and building access
Given that the majority of older people are still actively driving, having access to a
car is crucial for their life quality (Banister & Bowling, 2004). In this retirement
village, each villa is designed with a garage. In addition, small parking lots next to
the residents’ villas and the community centre are also available, which provides
easy access and use for the residents. This has been supported by designers who
state that proximity to parking lots is a greater priority for greater security,
surveillance and convenience (Carstens, 1993). The on-site parking lots have many
features to facilitate the residents’ daily life. For instance, the use of red colour
paint has increased their visibility. In addition, angled parking makes it easier to
turn into the stalls than a perpendicular parking type and reduces the chance of
171
collisions with adjacent parked cars, while visual surveillance of several parking lots
near the community centre also provides a secure residential environment. The
parking lot type, layout and required direction for travel are also consistent with
the overall layout of the on-site roads and drives, making the parking lots easier to
use.
Shared outdoor social space
Shared outdoor social spaces, aimed at promoting social interaction, are well
defined. For instance, a lake is located at the middle of the community, and various
amenities such as seats, tables, a covered pavilion, a walking path, BBQ facilities
and lights are provided there. It is therefore easy for the residents to use and offers
a safe place where they communicate, share interests, and organize and participate
in activities and events. As confirmed in previous research, this promotes older
people’s social well-being (Cattan, et al., 2005). In addition, the location of the lake
makes it possible for the residents living nearby to sit and watch outdoor activities
at the lake area from their units, making the residents feel a part of their
community and promoting social interaction (Carstens, 1993). There is also a
covered seating area located at an intersection of this site, which is a popular safe
space for the resident to socialize, meet neighbours, and sit and watch activities.
Walking path
Prior studies have confirmed that walking is one of the most popular physical
activities among older adults, and the presence of a walking path makes a major
contribution to as well as a way of promoting social participation (Carstens, 1993;
Nathan, et al., 2013). This is also provided on this site and, in response to
recommendations for safety interventions to combat age-related changes such as
172
in reduced physical abilities (Tournier, Dommes, & Cavallo, 2016), it has a barrier-
free design to eliminate walking obstructions and handrails are provided to help the
residents’ way-finding and ensure them secure. Other design detailing along the
walking path, such as seats and lights, is additionally provided to ensure the
residents’ safety.
6.4.4 Facilities and services
Facilities are an important component in the provision of sustainable retirement
villages, and the presence of on-site facilities can facilitate residents’ active living
(Nathan, et al., 2013; Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Older people, no matter what
their health and financial condition, still prefer a socially-connected life style in later
life and therefore the facilities provided need to help create a supportive
environment that can facilitate social interaction (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Diverse on-
site facilities are provided in this retirement village to enrich its residents’ retired
life. For instance, the community centre (Clubhouse) provides a place for the
residents to gain of social support in the community. The recreational facilities
provided there, such as the table tennis table, are popular with the residents, family
members and visitors. In addition, outdoor facilities, such as covered barbeque and
gazebo areas, are also available to provide socially connected spaces to enjoy time
with friends and family. Table 17 summarises the facilities and services provided on-
site.
Table 17 The on-site facilities and available services in the retirement village
Items
Facilities Ferntree Haven Community Centre (Clubhouse), village bus, 24-hour
emergency response system, undercover barbeque area and gazebo,
173
lake, undercover deck area, craft room, library, residents’ lounge and TV
area, residents’ kitchen room, dining room, computer hub with
broadband, printer and skype access, table tennis table, board games,
bowls kit, natural billabong, parking lot, function room, meeting room,
store.
Services Home care packages, personal care (e.g., bathing and getting dressed),
meals, social support and activities, goods and equipment, nursing care,
domestic help, transport, respite care, allied health support, home
maintenance and modification, after-hospital care, fortnightly general
services (e.g., all common areas maintained, external pest control,
access to village bus);
A range of quality home care and community services (such as personal care, meals,
social support and activities) are available to extend the residents’ independent
living as long as possible (Table 15). Through its community care programs, the
village tries to providing the best support for its residents and their peace of mind
and is an important way of ensuring “on-going continued care”. For instance, home
care packages are individually tailored to the residents’ choices and preferences,
and planned with the residents to meet their specific care needs. They can be
delivered on a consumer-directed basis, offering the residents more choice in when
and by whom the care is delivered. Of the services provided, access to health care
and support is crucial, as health-related issues are usually combined with people’s
ageing process. Having access to health care and support has been confirmed as an
attractive factor that contributes to prospective residents’ decision to relocate to a
retirement village (Buys, 2000). Services that can promote the quality of the
residents’ social life (e.g., the social support and activities, transport) are also of
great importance in delivering a social-friendly environment, positively connecting
174
the residents with their communities (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Other services (e.g.,
home maintenance support) are valued by the residents in supporting their daily
responsibilities and meeting their need for low maintenance, which is also an
important factor encouraging prospective residents’ to relocate to retirement
villages (Buys, 2000; Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013). It is reportedly the
intension of the developer to provide services designed to enable the residents to
live the life they choose in their own home for as long as possible.
6.4.5 Social life
Social interaction is a crucial feature of a retirement village sustainable living
environment (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Older adults expect to be socially-
engaged after retirement, though factors such as life cycle transitions and declining
capacities can change their social participation patterns (Bukov, Maas, & Lampert,
2002). Taking part in physical and social activities is an effective way of keeping
socially-connected (Bukov, et al., 2002). The developer encourages the residents to
organize and participate in activities, such as those organized in the community
centre. The developer also provides information relating to social activities (e.g.,
forthcoming films) on the bulletin board located in the community centre to keep
the residents informed. Additionally, the residents can join in village affairs; for
instance, in taking part in the resident satisfaction survey to express their opinions
on the quality of services provided, to enable further improvement of the village.
Contact with family members and friends is an effective way of helping the quality
of older adults’ social life (Nocon & Pearson, 2000; Shanas, 1979). As confirmed in
prior retirement village studies, family members and friends provide residents with
social support to reduce loneliness and isolation (Buys, et al., 2006; Buys, 2001). In
175
this retirement village, family members and friends are welcomed to visit the site to
provide the residents with social support. The residents can meet their
family/friends in their own unit or on-site facilities (e.g., the Clubhouse), and can
stay with them in their village homes up to 30 days over a continuous period.
Additionally, as the physical environment is consistently associated with social life
(Humpel, Owen, & Leslie, 2002), the developer tries to provide a physical-friendly
environment to facilitate social interaction. For instance, various on-site facilities
offer places and opportunities for social connection and participation (Nathan, et
al., 2013). The presence of an on-site walkway provides opportunities for
communication while walking, another way of helping the residents’ social-
connectedness (Nathan, et al., 2013).
6.4.6. Living cost
Residents of retirement villages expect a financially comfortable environment (Finn,
et al., 2011). In this retirement village, there are four different entry options
comprising a Standard in-going contribution, no exit fees, lifestyle choices and
capital gain. This ensures the flexibility to meet different needs, in contrast with
other retirement villages that use only a three-tiered payment program of in-going
contribution, general service cost and exit fee. Table 18 compares of these four
entry options. For instance, it is suggested that if the residents expect to have more
cash and a lower entry option, they can choose the entry option of Lifestyle
choices.
Table 18 The four entry options
Code Entry option Description
1 Standard in-going Paying the standard in-going contribution amount for
176
contribution the unit;
an exit fee of up to 35 percent of the in-going
contribution when leaving (starting at 5 percent and
increasing with each year of occupancy up to 6 years)
2 No exit fees Avoiding paying exit fees; a higher in-going contribution
(150 percent of the standard in-going contribution)
3 Lifestyle choices Retaining 5 or 10 percent of the standard in-going
contribution amount and offsetting the equivalent
amount by paying a higher exit fee when leaving
4 Capital gain Paying the original standard in-going contribution; a
maximum exit fee of 35 percent of the greatest amount
of the new standard in-going contribution and the
original standard in-going contribution
The in-going contribution is the amount payable by a resident for the right to reside
in a retirement village, which is similar to the purchase price of a home. In this
retirement village, based on the size of the unit (from two-bedroom homes to
three-bedroom homes), the amount of in-going contribution is up to AUD 385,000,
with a mean value of AUD 315,000. The general service cost refers to the recurring
charges involved in the day-to-day running of the village site, which is payable for
each unit. This covers the costs of the administration, management and staff, all
rates (land and water), the maintenance reserve fund contribution, building repairs
and maintenance, 24-hour emergency response system, insurance (buildings and
public liability), community electricity, maintenance of all common areas, lawn
mowing and gardening, rubbish removal and recycling, external pest control, village
facilities and activities, and access to the village bus. The general service cost of the
retirement village is AUD 121 per week. The exit fee is used to help cover the initial
177
investment of the village development and is paid when the residents leave the
village. This fee is considered to be an exchange for a discount on the entry
contribution, which is a way of making the village living affordable. In this
retirement village, as shown in Table 7.2, its amount is calculated based on
different entry options. For instance, under the Standard In-going Contribution and
Capital Gain contract, its amount is calculated based on the in-going contribution
and the period of village living - up to 35 percent of the in-going contribution if a
resident lives there for six years or more. Regarding other options, the residents
either do not need to pay or need to pay a higher exit fee. In addition, it is only
under the Capital Gain contract that the residents can share in the capital gains
arising from the sale of their village unit to take the full advantage of market
growth.
6.5 Discussions
The study identified various sustainable practices in retirement village development
and operation in terms of both physical and social environment. The results depict a
comprehensive picture of specific strategies to support the development of a
sustainable living environment in a not-for-profit retirement village setting. Other
village developers can learn from these practices to address issues encountered
during the delivery of sustainable living environment to residents.
The performance of these sustainable practices can be evidenced to some extent
from the results of the 2015 resident satisfaction survey (see Table 19 and 20).
There are high scores for the overall satisfaction of the residents with the assistance
provided by the developer (4.1 of 5.0) and the residents’ feeling that their life
quality has been improved by moving into the village (4.0 of 5.0). The majority of
178
the residents (86 percent) would like to recommend the developer to others. In
addition, the residents’ satisfaction with the specific aspects of the village were also
investigated, covering areas of entry, communication, management/staff,
privacy/dignity, activity programs, maintenance and home environment, and
additional support. For instance, the residents are satisfied with the financial
information from staff upon entry (4.1 of 5.0). They also have satisfactory
communications as, for example, they are kept informed of things that might affect
them as a resident of the village (4.2 of 5.0). The residents also agreed that their
family members and friends are always made welcome when visiting (4.4 of 5.0),
and staff are knowledgeable and helpful in delivering quality services (4.3 of 5.0).
The residents are socially-interactive due to the support of the retirement village in
maintaining social networks and friendships (3.9 of 5.0), amount and variety of
activities (3.9 of 5.0) and support to attend activities (3.9 of 5.0). The residents also
agree that the community facilities are comfortable, suitable for their needs (4.1 of
5.0) and well maintained (4.3 of 5.0). The full results of the satisfaction survey are
shown in Table 20. Overall, these adopted sustainable practices can enhance the
residents’ quality of life by improving both the social and physical environment of
the retirement village, which is an important aim in developing sustainable
retirement villages (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015).
Table 19 The sustainable practices used in the retirement village
Sustainability
categories
Additional
cost
needed
Sustainable practices Aged requirements
Social Yes 1. Village location for Convenience;
179
sustainability convenient access to off-site
facilities and service
providers;
Social interaction;
2. Convenient village
location for visiting family
members and friends;
Convenience;
Social interaction;
3. Centralized site planning
pattern;
A sense of
community;
Easy way-finding;
4. Traffic-related design
detailing (e.g., the provision
of a reflecting mirror, traffic
sings, a speed hump, and
yellow reflecting road studs)
at the site entry/exit;
Safety/Security;
5. The ring site connection
and transportation;
Easy way-finding;
Easy access;
6. Well-marked traffic signs
along the site drive (e.g., the
speed hum sign, speed limit
sign, and watch pedestrians
sign);
Safety/Security;
7. Clearly-marked
fingerposts at the site
crossroads showing road
name and unit number
information;
Easy way-finding;
8. A small garden buffer
separating the drop-off
areas of the community
centre from the site drive;
Safety/Security;
180
9. Traffic-related signs at the
arrival court of the
community centre (e.g., the
speed limit sign, no parking
sign and no entry sign);
Safety/Security;
10. Covered porch extended
over the drop-off area at the
community centre;
Safety/Security;
Easy pick-up;
Social interaction;
11. Barrier-free design at the
community centre court,
with the arrive court being
at grade with the site drive;
Easy access;
Safety/Security;
Convenient
mobility;
12. Fences and covered
porch at the villa entry area;
Safety/Security;
Privacy;
Comfort;
Social interaction;
13. Barrier-free walkway
connecting with
neighbourhoods;
Social interaction;
Privacy;
Safety/Security;
Convenient
mobility;
14. The special treatment of
painting lots with red colour;
Visibility;
15. Diverse amenities
provided at a covered
pavilion next to the lake
(e.g., BBQ facilities, seats
and lights);
Social interaction;
Safety/Security;
16. A covered seating area
located at the intersection of
the site;
Social interaction;
Safety/Security
181
17. Presence of barrier-free
walking paths;
Social interaction;
18. Design detailing along
the walking path (e.g.,
seating areas, handrails and
lights);
Safety/Security;
Convenient
mobility;
Social interaction;
Easy way-finding;
19. Provision of diverse on-
site facilities and their
accessibility;
Social interaction;
20. Provision of diverse
home care and community
services and their
accessibility;
Social interaction;
Safety/Security;
Peace of mind;
21. Organization and
provision of social
activities/events;
Social interaction;
22. Programs for the
sustainable improvement of
this site (e.g., resident
satisfaction survey);
Social interaction;
No 23. Well-defined on-site
zones (including the
residential zone and social
life zone);
A sense of
community;
Easy way-finding;
Social interaction;
24. Orientation of the site
entry/exit toward a minor
street;
Safety/Security;
25. Lights provision at the
site entry/exit;
Safety/Security;
26. A private property Safety/Security;
182
warning sign at the site
entry/exit;
27. Low ground covers at the
site entry/exit
Safety/Security;
28. A well-designed village
sign with contrasted font
and background at the site
entry/exit;
Easy recognition;
29. The provision of a site
planning map at the site
entry/exit;
Easy way-finding;
30. Provided lights along the
site drive
Safety/Security;
31. Seats provision at the
arrival court of the
community centre;
Social interaction;
32. Located mailboxes at the
arrival court of the
community centre;
Social interaction;
33. Community information
posted in the bulletin board
at the community centre
court;
Being informed;
Social interaction;
34. Visual surveillance of the
community centre arrival
court from in-door;
Safety/Security;
35. The provision of lights
and bollards at the
community centre court;
Safety/Security;
36. Parking lots adjacent to
the community centre;
Convenience;
Safety/Security;
183
37. Designed grass area
located between the villa
entry and site drive;
Safety/Security;
Privacy;
38. Designed small garden
areas next to the villa entry;
Social interaction;
Comfort;
39. Design detailing at the
villa entry area (e.g., the
light, villa number);
Easy way-finding;
Safety/Security;
40. Parking lots next to the
residents’ villa;
Convenience;
41. The angled parking lot
type;
Easy to use;
Convenience;
42. Located lake located at
the middle of the site
supporting its nearby
residents’ sit and watch
outdoor activities occurred
at the lack area;
Social interaction;
A sense of
community;
43. Encouragement of
community activities/evens
and participation;
Social interaction;
Companionship;
44. Encouragement of visits
from family members and
friends;
Social interaction;
Companionship;
45. Transparent fee
arrangements;
Keeping informed;
Economic
sustainability
No 46. No exit fee under the
contract of “No exit fees”;
Affordable living;
47. Retaining five or 10
percent of the in-going
Affordable living;
184
contribution under the
contract of “Lifestyle
choices”;
48. Capital gains sharing
under the contract of
“Capital gain”;
Affordable living;
Social-
Environmental
sustainability
No 49. Village located in a
subtropical climate;
Comfort;
Energy efficiency;
Environmental
-Economic
sustainability
Yes 50. Unit orientation to make
full use of natural sunlight;
Energy efficiency;
Affordable living;
Social-
Economic
sustainability
No 51. Different entry options; Affordable living;
Respect;
Note: “Additional cost needed” means the increase of initial investment or the
operation and maintenance costs for the corresponding sustainable practices.
Table 20 Resident satisfaction survey results (2015) of this retirement village
Statements Score
Entry 1. My initial enquiry was answered appropriately and
in a timely manner
4.2
2. The information provided upon entry was useful 4.2
3. The village tour was informative 4.2
4. I was satisfied with the explanation of financial
information from staff upon entry
4.1
5. How to provide feedback and complaints has been
explained to me
4.0
185
Communication 6. I know how to make a maintenance request 4.4
7. I know how to contact the service when I need to 4.3
8. I am satisfied with information provided through
meetings
4.3
9. I am kept informed of things that might affect me
as a resident of the village
4.2
10. Staff are accessible when needed 4.2
11. My feedback and complaints are actioned in a
timely manner
4.0
12. I feel comfortable providing feedback or making a
complaint
4.0
Management/
Staff
13. Management are knowledgeable and helpful in
delivering quality services
4.4
14. Family and friends are always made welcome
when visiting
4.4
15. Staff are knowledgeable and helpful in delivering
quality services
4.3
16. Staff are both sensitive and responsible to the
customs and traditions of my culture, beliefs and
background
4.3
17. Management take my concerns seriously 4.2
18. I feel valued and understood by the staff and
management
4.1
186
Privacy/Dignity 19. My privacy and dignity are respected 4.3
20. My personal information are treated
confidentially
4.3
Activity
programs
21. My choice to not attend an activity is respected 4.2
22. The community facilities are comfortable and
suitable for my use
4.1
23. I am satisfied with the amount and variety of
activities
3.9
24. I am supported to attend activities offered 3.9
25. I am support to maintain social networks and
friendships
3.9
26. I am encouraged to contribute ideas for activities 3.7
Maintenance
and Home
environment
27. I can move safely around the village 4.4
28. I feel secure in the village environment 4.4
29. I feel satisfied with the level of privacy offered in
my unit/apartment
4.3
30. The community facilities in this village are kept
clean and tidy
4.3
31. The emergency response system is easy to use 4.3
32. The village offers peaceful/private areas 4.2
33. I am confident the emergency response system
will be answered promptly in an emergency
4.2
34. My concerns about the safety of my living 4.2
187
environment are addressed promptly
35. I am satisfied with the quality of the maintenance
services
4.1
36. The village has a good community feel 4.1
37. The grounds and gardens are always well-
maintained
3.6
Additional
support
38. Level of satisfaction with the Chaplaincy
Service/Pastoral Care Program
3.8
Overall
satisfaction
39. Overall satisfaction with the assistance provided
by Churches of Christ Care
4.1
40. I feel that my quality of life improved by moving
into the village
4.0
These sustainable practices offer a sustainable living environment where the
requirements of older people such as safety/security, social interaction,
convenience, a sense of community, energy efficiency and affordability can be
satisfied. These requirements have been strongly emphasized in delivering
sustainable retirement villages in prior studies (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Xia,
Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014) owing to their positive influences on resident life
quality (Gardner, et al., 2005; Kennedy & Coates, 2008). Prior studies also suggest
that older adults prefer living in an age-friendly environment where they “are
actively involved, valued, and supported with infrastructure and services that
effectively accommodate their needs” (Alley, et al., 2007). To achieve this, it is
important that the older adults’ residential environment, in terms of both social
188
and physical aspects, should be well designed and planned (Alley, et al., 2007; Lui,
et al., 2009). The findings of this case study are consistent with this. In this
retirement village, sustainable practices in terms of both the social environment
(e.g., the services provision and activities organization) and physical environment
(e.g., the site planning) have been adopted to shape a liveable environment.
The sustainable practices adopted in the village help to develop a socially
connected and supportive, environmentally friendly and financially comfortable
environment. First, prior findings confirm that older people expect to live in a
residential environment where they are socially-connected within their
communities and supported when needed (Cornwell & Waite, 2009; Golden,
Conroy, & Lawlor, 2009). In this case, sustainable practices aiming to develop a
socially connected and supportive environment are adopted, such as the provision
of care and services, organization of activities and the presence of suitable on-site
infrastructures. These sustainable practices need to be incorporated into the
retirement village development to improve the residents’ life quality and their
positive influence daily life has been widely confirmed in previous studies (Miller &
Buys, 2007; Nathan, et al., 2013, 2014c). In addition, increasing attention has been
paid to the inter-relationships between an ageing society and environmental
sustainability (Pillemer, et al., 2010). This retirement village also demonstrates a
high level of environmentally sustainability, which is mainly based on the use of
some sustainable design practices, such as making full use of natural sunlight
through suitable unit orientation. This is similar to some currently newly developed
not-for-profit retirement villages aimed at ‘being green’ (Zuo, et al., 2014).
Regarding the development of a financially comfortable environment, various
189
practices are identified in this case to achieve this aim, such as the provision of
different entry options to meet different financial situations, and a transparent fee
arrangement for the residents. Compared with a previously investigated private
retirement village project in QLD (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015), the cost of living in this
retirement village is relatively low. As explained in Xia, Zuo, et al. (2015), not-for-
profit retirement villages target older people with middle to low incomes and living
mainly on pensions, which is different from private villages, in which affordability
does not appear to be a concern to their residents.
Importantly, as stressed in previous studies, the cost involved in the development
and operation of sustainable retirement villages is an important concern for both
not-for-profit developers and their residents (Barker, et al., 2012; Zuo, et al., 2014).
For not-for-profit developers, one of the major obstacles to providing sustainable
retirement villages is the high initial investment involved (Zuo, et al., 2014). Not-for-
profit village residents, although expecting a sustainable living environment, are
also sensitive to the cost of adopting sustainable practices due to their generally
declined financial capability after retirement (Barker, et al., 2012). Despite this, the
results in Table 19 indicate that some of the adopted sustainable practices will not
result in significant additional costs for not-for-profit developer and residents. This
is consistent with the research findings of Zuo, et al. (2014), which found that some
environmentally sustainable features and practices used during the construction
stage of a not-for-profit retirement village in SA did not result in significant
escalated costs for the developer or residents. Thus, using these sustainable
practices, especially those that do not result in additional costs for stakeholders,
190
should be an attractive proposition for developers in providing a sustainable living
environment.
6.6 Summary
A sustainable living environment in retirement villages needs to satisfy their
residents’ needs in terms of the affordability, social and environmental friendliness.
The research findings of this study indicate that, similar to private developers, not-
for-profit developers also have the capability to make their retirement villages
sustainable. The sustainable features incorporated into the case study village cover
diverse aspects such as the selection of village location, site planning, provision of
facilities and services, social life and living cost arrangement. These identified
sustainable practices provide an age-friendly environment to meet aged needs,
such as safety/security, social interaction, convenience, a sense of community,
energy efficiency, and affordability. Some of the identified sustainable practices
were obtained without any significant additional costs to the developer or
residents. This provides great encouragement for the future development of
sustainable retirement villages, as developers are naturally concerned about the
high initial investment involved and residents expect a financially comfortable
environment.
The findings of the study also have several implications for the development of
sustainable retirement villages in future. First, sustainable practices need to be
incorporated into all stages of project development and cover both a village’s
physical and social environment. In particular, the physical environment should be
well designed based on older adults’ aged needs in the early stages of development
given its profound impact on residents’ daily life. Once the physical village
191
environment is constructed, it is hard to change and will involve additional
resources if it does not meet the residents’ needs. Second, the identified
sustainable practices could be adopted in future village developments. However,
given the difficulties involved in their direct reuse, it is suggested that village
development assistance tools, such as an experience mining system, should be
proposed to help developers learn from existing development experience and
practices.
The major limitation of this study is the lack of precise data to quantify the benefits
and performance of the identified sustainable practices. In addition, the residents’
direct perceptions of the influences of the identified practices on their daily life
have yet to be taken into account. Future studies will need to respond to these
issues.
Although the case selected has its own uniqueness, the findings of the study
provide valuable implications for the development of sustainable retirement
villages in the future. First, all the sustainable practices identified can be retrieved
and reused in the future development of sustainable retirement villages.
Nevertheless, given the difficulties involved in their direct reuse, assistance tools,
such as experience mining system, should be developed to help developers learn
from existing development experience and practices. Developers who have the
financial concern of developing sustainable living environment can also make their
village environment green by reusing some sustainable practices that do not
require additional cost. In addition, the research findings imply that sustainable
features should be included into both the physical and social environment of a
retirement village. In particular, the physical environment should be designed
192
based on older adults’ aged needs in the early stages of development given its
profound impact on residents’ daily life. Once the physical village environment is
constructed, it is hard to change and will involve additional resources if it fails to
meet residents’ needs. Furthermore, incorporating sustainable practices in the
development of retirement villages can be used as a market strategy to attract
perspective residents given that an increasing number of older people prefer to
living in a sustainable living environment after retirement. This is a feasible way of
obtaining competitive advantages in the Australian retirement village industry.
6.7 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Churches of Christ in Queensland for offering
kind support and useful information about the Sanctuary Park retirement
community for the completion of this study.
193
Chapter 7 Practice mining system for the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia
Statement of joint authorship and authors contributions
The authors listed below have certified that:
1. they meet the criteria for authorship in that they have participated in the
conception, execution, or interpretation, of at least that part of the publication in
their field of expertise;
2. they take public responsibility for their part of the publication, expect for the
responsible author who accepts overall responsibility for the publication;
3. there are no other authors of the publication according to these criteria;
4. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed to (a) granting bodies, (b) the
editor or publisher of journals or other publications, and (c) the head of the
responsible academic unit, and
5. they agree to the use of the publication in the student’s thesis and its publication
on the QUT’s ePrints site consistent with any limitations set by publisher
requirements.
In the case of this chapter:
Xin Hu, Bo Xia, Martin Skitmore and Laurie Buys (2017) Practice mining system for
the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia, Building and
Environment (To be submitted).
194
Contributor Statement of contribution
Xin Hu Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of
this study, wrote the manuscript, research design, data
collection and analysis;
24/01/2017
Bo Xia Aided with the research design, data collection and analysis,
and evaluation of the manuscript;
Martin Skitmore Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript;
Laurie Buys Aided with the evaluation of the manuscript;
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Bo Xia 2/06/2017 ______________ ________________ ____________________ Name Signature Date
195
Abstract and keywords
Abstract: The popularity of developing sustainable retirement villages in Australia
has made a lot of sustainable practices available to developers. These practices
contain valuable knowledge which can be re-used to address issues encountered in
the development of a sustainable village living environment. It is imperative to
propose strategies of retaining, capturing and reusing these practices. However, no
existing efforts have been done to address this issue. Therefore, the aim of this
study is to develop a practice mining system, which can be employed to retain,
capture and reuse prior sustainable practices of village development. The
developed practice mining system, named CBR-PMS, is built on the theory of case-
based reasoning. Its major components include a Data Transforming and Location
System, a Data Warehouse and a Data Mining and Reusing Engine. CBR-PMS can be
adopted to support the decision-making of developers in their development of
sustainable retirement villages. It also gives implications on re-using sustainable
practices created in other sustainability initiatives such as green building and
sustainable urbanization.
Keywords: Practices mining, Case-based reasoning, Sustainable retirement villages,
Australia
196
7.1 Introduction
Sustainable development, which aims at meeting the needs of present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, has been
widely accepted both in theory and practice since the reported Brundtland
Commission in 1987 (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).
As community is the basic unit of sustainability measure, sustainable development
is suggested to be incorporated into the community development so as to provide a
livable environment to the public (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Consequently, there is an
increased interest in developing sustainable communities around the world, aiming
at achieving a balance between environmental concerns and economic
development while enhancing local social relationships (Bridger & Luloff, 1999).
Government initiatives regarding the development of sustainable communities
were proposed, such as the Sustainable Communities Plan in the United Kingdom
(UK) and the Working Together for Better Sustainable Communities in Queensland
(QLD), Australia (Department of Housing and Public Works, 2016; Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, 2003).
Retirement villages are viewed as a viable living option for older Australians
(Gardner, et al., 2005). 5.7% of 65+ resided in retirement villages in 2014, and this
penetration rate is projected to increase to 7.5% in 2025 due to the population
ageing and benefits of village living (Property Council of Australia, 2014). Similar to
general communities, retirement villages have also been suggested to incorporate
sustainable development into their delivery to provide residents with a sustainable
living environment (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015). Consequently, there is a trend
197
of developing sustainable retirement villages where residents’ social, economic and
environmental needs are satisfied in Australia (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al.,
2014). As residents expect to be socially-connected within their community after
retirement to prevent social isolation, loneliness and depression, sustainable
retirement villages should provide them with opportunities for friendship
establishment and activity participation (Gracia, et al., 2010; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015).
In addition, sustainable retirement villages should be affordable for residents to be
in balance with their generally declined financial capabilities after retirement (Finn,
et al., 2011; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). Moreover, the built environment of sustainable
retirement villages should be constructed with green features, such as energy
efficiency and qualified indoor environment, to ensure residents’ health and the
health of the environment (Hu, Xia, Skitmore, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
The popularity of developing sustainable retirement villages has resulted in various
sustainable practices available. For instance, a case study of a not-for-profit
retirement village project in South Australia identified sustainable practices
covering aspects of design, site planning, unit design, construction materials and
methods, hot water system, water-saving approaches and construction waste
management (Zuo, et al., 2014). It is expected that more sustainable practices will
be available due to the increasing number of developing sustainable retirement
villages.
Developers are the most influential contributor of developing sustainable
retirement villages and both private and not-for-profit developers have
demonstrated their commitment to providing residents with a sustainable living
198
environment (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014). Re-using sustainable practices
of the past provides developers with useful implications on the future
developments of sustainable retirement villages (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al.,
2014). For instance, developers can solve encountered problems emerged in their
developments quickly by re-using historical experience and avoid the unnecessary
time of deriving solutions. Developers can also predict the possible performances as
well as potential problems of using a certain practice by examining its outcomes in
historical similar situations.
However, re-using historical sustainable practices is not easy in the Australian
retirement living sector. First, it is hard to assemble prior practices owing to the
space limitation as practices are retained in different retirement village sites. In
addition, re-using previous sustainable practices is an unstructured problem that is
usually addressed by intuition, which is difficult to define rules for analysing and
formulating in a rigid process. Moreover, developers often do not have enough
knowledge on data mining, which also hinders their reuse. As a result, this industry
calls for effective approaches of re-using historical practices for the development of
sustainable retirement villages. Nevertheless, no research has explored this
important issue to date. Thus, this study aimed to propose strategies of effectively
re-using historical sustainable practices of village developments to benefit the
development of this sector. A prior exploration regarding the reuse of historical
sustainable urbanization practices implied that case-based reasoning (CBR) can be a
feasible and promising approach (Shen, et al., 2013). This study present a CBR-
based data mining system for re-using prior sustainable practices of village
199
developments. It is expected that the proposed practice mining system will benefit
village developers’ knowledge management and organizational learning, and also
promote the development of sustainable retirement villages in Australia.
7.2 Development of the CBR-PMS
The two main steps involved in the development of a practice mining system
include: (1) identifying previous sustainable practices, and (2) developing a suitable
model architecture used to retrieve, reuse and revise these practices (Shen, et al.,
2013). Therefore, to develop a practice mining system (PMS) for the development
of sustainable retirement villages, previous sustainable practices used in village
developments should be identified firstly, and a suitable experience mining model
architecture should then be proposed to retrieve and reuse them.
7.2.1 Identifying sustainable practices of village developments
Currently, there are no existing databases retaining sustainable practices of village
developments in Australia. As sustainable practices cover various aspects of village
development such as site planning, unit design and daily operation (Xia, Zuo, et al.,
2015; Zuo, et al., 2014), it is difficult to cover all practices in one single study. In this
study, for a demonstration purpose, only practices that are used in the design of
major site planning elements of retirement villages were identified and employed
given their profound impacts on residents’ aged needs such as social interaction
(Carstens, 1993; Nathan, et al., 2013). The major elements of site planning include
site entry, site drive, main arrival court, unit and building entries, parking and
building access, shared social space, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and
amenities and design detailing (Carstens, 1993).
200
Multiple case studies were employed to collect sustainable practices in this study. A
case study is a research strategy adopted to investigate a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context (Yin, 2003). Data used in case studies can
be collected from different sources (Yin, 2003). The sources of evidence used in this
study include interviews, direct observations and documentation. Interviews focus
directly on research and provide perceived casual inferences, and direct
observations help cover events in real time and context of event (Yin, 2003). Eight
retirement villages located in QLD were visited, including three private retirement
villages and five not-for-profit ones. These villages were developed and operated by
leading developers in the industry. In each retirement village, interviews with its
Chief Executive Officer and/or on-site manager were conducted to identify
sustainable practices used on-site. Participants have worked in the Australian
retirement living sector for nearly nine years on average, and have accumulated
rich knowledge and experience in the development of retirement villages. All these
interviews were open-ended and radio-recorded, and each lasted for around 1-1.5
hours. In addition, a direct observation was also conducted while visiting each
retirement village site. Through this way, various site planning photos were taken
to record initial data. Moreover, the documents concerning each retirement village,
such as site map, village brochure and residents’ satisfaction survey results, were
also collected. By using content analysis, the recorded radios, village site photos
and documents were analyzed and sustainable practices were identified.
Consequently, 600 pieces of sustainable practices cross eight retirement villages in
QLD were identified (Table 21). It should be noted that as the aim of this study is to
201
propose a practice mining system to reuse historical sustainable practices and the
data collection is an on-going process, the collected data in this study are merely
employed to manifest the mechanism of the proposed model architecture.
Table 21 Distribution of identified sustainable practices in eight retirement villages
Retirement village case Number of identified sustainable practices
Case_1 77 (P1-1 ~ P1-77)
Case_2 51 (P2-1 ~ P2-51)
Case_3 71 (P3-1 ~ P3-71)
Case_4 74 (P4-1 ~ P4-74)
Case_5 94 (P5-1 ~ P5-94)
Case_6 63 (P6-1 ~ P6-63)
Case_7 99 (P7-1 ~ P7-99)
Case_8 71 (P8-1 ~ P8-71)
In Total 600
7.2.2 The framework of CBR-PMS
Unlike a direct experience and knowledge sharing and reporting system, CBR-PMS is
a Decision Support System with the sophisticated architecture. Its implementation
is conducted by the designed Data Mining and Reusing Engine (DMRE) which is
based on the mechanism of CBR. In addition, as the collected data are mainly
retrieved from retirement village managers’ experience and knowledge, they are
extremely hard to be used directly by DMRE. Thus, it is necessary to transform the
primary collected data into a standard format and stored in database before they
can be captured and re-used. The transformation of primary data is implemented
by using a data transforming and loading system (DTLS) which transforms the
202
collected data into a pre-defined format. These transformed data are stored in a
data warehouse. Given the possibility of expansion of the database, the data
warehouse should be flexible enough to meet the need of expanding data. Figure
16 shows the architecture of the proposed CBR-PMS.
Figure 16 Architecture of CBR-PMS
7.3 CBR-PMS
CBR-PMS has the capability of retrieving and re-using historical sustainable
practices to assist the development of sustainable retirement villages. It contains
three interrelated proportions, including DTLS, data warehouse and DMRE (Figure
17). It follows the mechanism of CBR, a widely used data mining technique in the
Artificial Intelligence field (Kolodner, 1992).
The application of CBR to solve a new problem is through remembering prior similar
situations and re-using information and knowledge of that situations (Aamodt &
Plaza, 1994). Its implement involves different activities, including case retrieve,
reuse, revise and retain (Figure 17). When a new case (problem) comes, reasoners
should retrieve similar case(s) from case-base based on pre-defined similarity
measurement criteria. If retrieved cases are similar enough to the new one,
reasoners can re-use the solutions of retrieved case(s) directly without any
203
modifications. Otherwise, solutions should be revised based on the differences
between the new case and retrieved case(s). The determination of “similar enough”
is based on various factors such as research context, data availability and similarity
calculation algorithm (Kolodner, 1992). After the new problem is addressed, its
solutions can be retained in the case-base for future re-use. Through this way,
organizations can achieve knowledge management and self-learning. CBR has been
confirmed as an appropriate methodology used in the construction management
(CM) area, such as construction cost estimation, construction tendering, bidding
and procurement, and environment and sustainability management (Hu, et al.,
2016).
Figure 17 Case-based reasoning
Adapted from: Aamodt and Plaza (1994)
7.3.1 DTLS
DTLS transforms the primary collected data into a pre-defined format to make the
data usable in DMRE. It includes the two tasks of case representation and indexing.
204
Case representation
Historical cases contain prior contextualized piece of knowledge representing
experience, and should be represented in an appropriate way for the purpose of
effective retrieval (Kolodner, 1993). Case representation determines knowledge
contained in historical cases, and the format in which knowledge can be
represented.
Knowledge contained in cases
A historical case can contain three component parts, including problem, solution
and outcome (Watson & Marir, 1994). Problem describes the background when a
case occurred. Solution shows how a prior problem was addressed, and outcome
indicates the performance of solution. These three component parts might not be
all filled in for any particular case (Kolodneer, 1991). Based on the different
situations, reasoners can determine what kinds of component parts can be
contained in historical cases. In CBR-PMS, two types of historical cases have been
defined, including retirement village cases and sustainable practice cases. For each
sustainable practice case, the two broad types of knowledge are contained,
including its occurrence background and the lessons learned. Problem and solution
information are also included in retirement village cases.
A sustainable practice case describes a specific practice employed to address a
problem in the development of retirement villages. Sustainable practices are used
to meet older adults’ specific aged requirements (e.g., safety, affordability, energy
efficiency), and can be categorized into one of the three sustainability dimensions
(social, economic and environmental sustainability). In addition, a sustainable
205
practice is implemented in a specific location of a retirement village (e.g., site
entry/exit, bathroom, community centre) which belongs to different sub-systems
(e.g., site planning, unit design, on-site facilities provision). Moreover, a sustainable
practice can be either a physical measure or a soft strategy. A linguistic structure
containing all the above knowledge is proposed to describe sustainable practices as
follows,
To satisfy the “Aged requirement” of residents in order to facilitate the
development of “Sustainability dimension” of retirement villages, a developer took
the “Practice category” measure/strategy of the “Specific sustainable practice” at
the “Practice location” by improving the quality of “Retirement village sub-system”.
The “Specific sustainable practice” is the solution. A sample of the sustainable
practice, “site entry/exit towards a minor street to ensure residents’ safety”, is
shown in Table 22.
Table 22 Knowledge contained in the sample sustainable practice case
Practice Description:
Aged requirement: Safety
Sustainability dimension: Social sustainability;
Practice category: Physical measurement;
Practice location: Site entry/exit;
Sub-system of a village: Site planning;
Sustainable practice: Site entry/exit towards a minor street;
A retirement village case contains all sustainable practices of it, providing
developers with a comprehensive picture of used practices. Problem component
206
part of a retirement village case outlines the main characteristics of a retirement
village. Research team members suggested primary indicators to outline the main
features of a retirement village based on their knowledge and experience and
developers’ descriptions about retirement villages in their official websites. Three
experienced retirement village managers gave suggestions on the proposed
indicators in order to determine if the primarily suggested indicators can well
outline the main characteristics of a retirement village project. The experts can
delete the indicators or add additional indicators based on their own knowledge
and experience. Consequently, 18 indicators were identified and adopted in this
study (Table 23). A more detailed description of these indicators including their
types and values are shown in Appendix A. These indicators depict a comprehensive
picture of a retirement village covering areas such as its financial arrangement,
resident feature, village physical feature and value proposition of developer. The
solution component part is all used sustainable practices of a retirement village
project, which has been demonstrated above. Table 23 shows knowledge contained
in retirement village cases.
Table 23 Knowledge contained in retirement village cases
Description of a retirement village:
(1) The type of developer;
(2) The site location;
(3) The accommodation type;
(4) The number of units;
(5) The number of residents;
(6) The retirement village size;
(7) The mean entry contribution;
207
(8) The range of the entry contribution;
(9) The mean on-going costs;
(10) The range of on-going costs;
(11) The level of residents’ health condition;
(12) The tenure and contract arrangement;
(13) The mean age of residents;
(14) The age range of residents;
(15) The percentage of female residents;
(16) The approximate development budget;
(17) The target customer (years old);
(18) The value proposition of the project;
Solution:
Practice case 1 Practice case i Practice case n
Description:
Aged requirement;
Sustainability
dimension;
Practice category;
Practice location;
Sub-system of a
village;
Description:
Aged requirement;
Sustainability dimension;
Practice category;
Practice location;
Sub-system of a village;
Description:
Aged requirement;
Sustainability dimension;
Practice category;
Practice location;
Sub-system of a village;
Sustainable practice:
Sustainable practice 1
Sustainable practice:
Sustainable practice i
Sustainable practice:
Sustainable practice N
Modelling approach for case representation structure
To facilitate retrieve and reuse, historical cases should be represented in
appropriate formats based on their situations, such as feature vector
representation, structured representations and textual representations (Bergmann,
208
Kolodner, & Plaza, 2005). For a retirement village case, the knowledge
representation approach of feature-vector is adopted to represent knowledge
contained in the component part of “Description of a retirement village” (Table 21).
The feature-vector representation approach represents knowledge as a vector of
attribute-value pairs, and is the simplest and most frequently used knowledge
representation method (Bergmann, et al., 2005; López, 2013). A feature is a
property/characteristic of an objective, and a value is the number(s) or symbol(s)
assigned to a feature. The combination of n features is represented as an n-
dimensional column vector called a feature vector. By using this method, it is
possible to describe all these 18 features of a retirement village case in a direct and
clear way, which can be easily employed and understood by developers. This
knowledge representation format will also facilitate the case retrieval process.
The knowledge representation of the solution component part of a retirement
village case is equal to the representation of sustainable practices. In CBR-PMS, the
case representation approach of semantic network is used to present sustainable
practice cases. A semantic network is a graph structure for representing knowledge
in patterns of interconnected nodes and links (arcs or arrows) (Sowa, 2006). The
nodes represent objects or concepts and the links represent relations between
nodes. Links in such networks may assert category membership or a part-to-whole
property, which can be described as is-(a), has-(a), part-of, a-member-of, and a-
kind-of relationships. Other kinds of relationships can also be represented by
labelled links such as made-of and located-at. Several reasons contribute to its use.
First, semantic networks support the natural language understanding task (Allen &
209
Frisch, 1982), which facilitates the knowledge representation of sustainable
practices as practices are natural language based. In addition, a semantic network
facilitates the retrieval of relevant facts due to the stored facts about an object
being in one node and inheritance of properties (Allen & Frisch, 1982). This is an
important concern as the aim of CBR-PMS is to capture and re-use historical
experience and knowledge. Moreover, the suggested linguistic structure of
sustainable practices shows an interrelated connection between different
objectives (including sustainability dimension, aged requirement, practice category,
practice location, and sub-system of a retirement village). Semantic networks can
represent these relationships easily based on defined nodes and their links.
Appendix B illustrates the knowledge representation format of sustainable
practices by using semantic networks. As shown, the nodes are determined based
on the description of practices, including sustainability dimension, aged
requirement, practice category, practice location and sub-system of a retirement
village (Table 22). Links clearly show their interrelated relationships, including
Made-of, Member-of, Located-at, and Has-a. Therefore, the linguistic structure
adopted to describe sustainable practices can be represented in a graph way.
Indexing
Indexing means assigning appropriate labels, called indexes, to historical cases
when they enter into the case memory so that they can be recalled under
appropriate circumstances (Kolodner, 1992). There are two sets of indexes in DTLS
and they are adopted for different purposes. The first set of indexes, Retirement
Village Project Description Indexes, outlines the main characteristics of a retirement
210
village project in Australia and is adopted to retrieve retirement village cases, which
is helpful for developers who are at the early stages of development and have little
experience in village development. The second set of indexes, Sustainable Practice
Description Indexes, is adopted to retrieve specific practices, which is suitable for
developers who encounter specific village development problems in practice.
Retirement village project description indexes
Though both manual and automated methods have been proposed and used to
assign indexes to historical cases, experts in the artificial intelligence field believe
that people tend to do a better choice than algorithms (Watson & Marir, 1994).
Consistent with this, in the study, to assign appropriate indexes to a retirement
village case, retrieving knowledge from village development experts was used. This
method has been commonly adopted, and is particularly suitable for unstructured
situations like in this study (Ng & Luu, 2008). In CBR-PMS, the first 17 descriptions
of a retirement village in Table 23 are employed as indexes, which has been
confirmed by four experienced retirement village managers. The “the value
proposition of the project” is not used as it shows developers’ care philosophy
which is not contributory to their selection of practices but only provides contextual
information and a richer picture of the case.
Sustainable practice description indexes
The developed semantic network has facilitated the indexes identification of
practices. In CBR-PMS, the nodes adopted in the semantic network are used as the
indexes. These nodes are the situational variables that are employed to describe
211
the context in which a specific sustainable practice was implemented. This is a
feasible method employed in indexing, especially for text-based cases (Goh & Chua,
2009). Five indexes were finally identified and adopted to describe sustainable
practices, including aged requirement, sustainability group, practice category,
location, and village sub-system.
7.3.2 Data warehouse
Data warehouse refers to the case-base organization issue, which means the
determination of the way of storing historical cases. Different methods can be
selected and employed to organize historical cases in case-base (e.g., flat memory,
hierarchical organizations, discrimination networks and redundant discrimination
networks), which mainly depends on the research context (Kolodner, 1993).
In CBR-PMS, the flat memory is adopted. In a flat memory, cases are stored
sequentially in a simple list. A case is matched against each case in memory, and
the best matches are returned (Kolodner, 1993). Several reasons contribute to the
use of this flat method. First, the entire case library can be searched. As the result,
the accuracy of the case retrieval is a function only of the match functions. In
addition, it is cheap to add new cases in a flat memory. As an increasing number of
practices are available due to the popularity of developing retirement villages, it is
important to find a cheap way to add them. Moreover, a flat memory can be easily
understood, employed and maintained by developers who often lack of abundant
knowledge of artificial intelligence.
212
7.3.3 DMRE
Matching and ranking cases
Choosing similar cases is the most important task of DMRE, which is based on the
pre-defined partial-matching process. It begins with the determination of the
matching function. The matching function is adopted to compute the similarity
which indicates the extent of similarities between the input case and historical
cases. Based on the matches, search functions can rank historical cases and collect
cases that partially match the new situation. These collected cases can best address
the reasoner’s purpose.
Similarity of retirement village cases
To capture the similar retirement village cases, the case retrieval algorithm of
nearest neighbour is used. It is the most straightforward method used to identify
the nearest neighbours to a query example and use those neighbours to determine
the class of the query (Cunningham & Delany, 2007). This approach determines the
global similarity based on a weighted sum of index local similarity (Watson & Marir,
1994). Equation (1) is a typical algorithm for calculating nearest neighbour matching
(Cunningham & Delany, 2007), and has been used in this study.
( , ) = ∑ × ( , )
(1)
Where is the input case and is a historical case, is the number of
index ( = 17 in this study), is the importance weighting of the index , is the
213
local similarity function for the index , and and are the values for the index
in the input and historical cases, respectively.
The important issue in the application of nearest neighbour is to determine the
weight and local similarity function of each index. In DMRE, the feature counting is
employed to determine the weight of each index. It defines the weight of each
index as one, implying that indexes have equal importance. This is mainly based on
the logic that in the absence of specific information on an index, it is assumed that
there is no reason for an index to be more important than another (Doğan, et al.,
2006). This is also owing to the understanding that there is no need to apply to
indexes a weight higher than one (Koo, et al., 2011). This method has been widely
adopted in the development of CBR-based CM systems especially in unstructured
issues, and has been confirmed as an appropriate weight allocation method (Hu, et
al., 2016).
Regarding the local similarity function of each index, it is determined based on the
index characteristic. In DMRE, four different local similarity functions have been
proposed. First, the exact match function is adopted to calculate the local similarity
of the indexes of F1, F2, and F12. The local similarity ( , ) is 1 if the is equal
to the . Otherwise, the similarity ( , ) is 0. In addition, it is difficult for the
values of indexes F3 and F11 to reach an accurate and precise similarity assessment
as these values have logical relationships. A taxonomy tree has been adopted to
determine the local similarity function of indexes of F3 and F11 in order to show the
logical relationship of their values based on their value locations in the taxonomy
tree. This is to avoid the ignorance of the interrelationships between different
214
values and treating them as isolated points. It is suggested that a higher similarity
will be given if the locations of the two values in the taxonomy tree are near (Chua
& Loh, 2006). Figures 18 and 19 show the developed taxonomy trees used to
calculate the local similarity of F3 and F11 respectively. The similarity values between
different nodes have also been defined in them. Also, for the index F11, it is defined
that a similarity will be 0.5 if one of the values of input and historical cases is
“Mixed”.
Figure 18 Taxonomy tree for the “The accommodation type (F4)” index
Figure 19 Taxonomy tree for the “The level of residents’ health conditions (F11)”
index
215
To calculate the similarity of quantitative indexes of F4-F7, F9, and F13-F17, the
following similarity function of Equation (2) is adopted.
( , ) = 1, ≤ 5%;0.9, 5% < ≤ 10%;0.8, 10% < ≤ 15%;0.7, 15% < ≤ 20%;0, 20% < ;
(2)
Where = × 100%, and are the values for the index in
the input and historical cases, respectively.
Regarding the indexes of F8 and F10, assuming that the value interval of two cases
are A=[a, b] and B=[c, d] respectively, the local similarity is calculated based on the
following Equation (3),
( , ) = ( ∩ )( ) ( ) ( ∩ )
(3)
Where L means the length of a corresponding interval, ∩ means the
intersection of the two intervals of A and B.
Similarity of sustainable practice cases
The semantic network is employed to represent historical sustainable practices in
CBR-PMS. Sustainable practices are represented in the semantic network (Appendix
B). According to the guiding principle to assign weights for nodes of a semantic
network, the weight distribution ranges from 0.1 to 0.5 based on their locations in a
semantic network (Goh & Chua, 2009; Lu, et al., 2013). More specifically, the nodes
216
that are near the root of a semantic network are given higher weights as they are
more influential on the categorization of values (Goh & Chua, 2009). Thus, these
weights are regarded as the incremental similarity owing to a match on the node
(Goh & Chua, 2009). The global similarity between sustainable practices P1 and P2
can be determined based on the following Equation (4),
( , ) = ∑∑ ∑
(4)
Where is the code of common nodes to and , is the code of different nodes
to and , is the weights of common nodes to and , and is the
weights of different nodes to and . The ( , ) measures
the proportion of weights represented by the common nodes to the weights of the
all nodes. Its value ranges from zero to one. Zero means that the two sustainable
practices are clearly distinct, and one indicates that the two practices are identical.
Using cases
Using historical retirement village cases
Based on the calculated similarity values of retirement village cases, reasoners can
determine the most similar cases. The retrieved most similar cases will be re-used
directly based on the null adaptation strategy. Only the most similar historical case
with the largest global similarity score will be re-used given that the most similar
case has the highest possibility of offering the most useful solutions. In contrast, if
more than one similar cases are re-used, it may lead to complexity especially given
that a number of sustainable practices covering various village development
217
aspects are stored in retrieved cases. The null adaptation strategy is a direct simple
technique which applies whatever solution is retrieved to the current problem
without adapting it (Watson & Marir, 1994). Several reasons contribute to the use
of this method. First, the aim of retrieving historical sustainable retirement village
cases is to provide developers with the whole picture of sustainable practices to
guide their village developments. Though there is likely to have some differences
between the input case and retrieved case, it is not necessary to take these
differences into account just in order to provide an overall picture. In addition, the
retrieving historical retirement village case often takes place at the early stages of
developments, when there are many uncertainties and limited information about
the new project. It is not meaningful and will be costly to make the retrieved
retirement village solution exactly match the current situation as uncertainties
exists and changes will happen in the following stages of development.
Using historical sustainable practice cases
Historical sustainable practices with a similarity value of one will be retrieved for
the re-use purpose mainly because these sustainable practices can provide the
most valuable references to cope with the problem that a developer is confronting.
The structural adaptation strategy will be used to revise retrieved solutions if
necessary in order to make retrieved solutions suitable to a current situation. The
structural adaptation applies adaptation rules directly to the solutions stored in
historical cases to make them match with an input situation (Watson & Marir, 1994),
and has been widely used to address the unstructured CM problems (Hu, et al.,
2016).
218
A two steps based structural adaptation strategy is proposed in CBR-PMS,
comprising deletion and modification. The first step of deletion means that if
developers are not willing to pay any additional costs of using sustainable practices,
the retrieved practices that need additional costs should be deleted. Otherwise, the
retrieved practices can be retained for further considerations. This is given that the
re-use of sustainable practices may result in additional cost and both residents and
developers are concerned about the cost (Barker, et al., 2012; Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015;
Zuo, et al., 2014). Regarding the modification, if the retrieved practices are not
enough to cope with the issue of current case, the retrieved solutions should be
modified to match with the current problem. It should be noted that the
modification is heavily based on the input problem situation, current project
situation, domain knowledge of professionals, and objective requirements of
developers. This is because that the modification is an unstructured process which
needs the input of domain knowledge and experience of experts. This strategy has
been confirmed as a feasible way of solving unstructured problems (e.g., the
suggestion of construction safety strategies) (Fan, et al., 2015b). After the new
problem is solved, the new problem as well as its solutions can be retained in case-
base for future reuse.
7.4 Demonstrations
This section presents two demonstrations for exemplifying the mechanism of the
mining process of CBR-PMS. In addition, the demonstrations will also validate the
usefulness of the developed CBR-PMS in application. The first demonstration shows
how a similar retirement village case can be retrieved based on the pre-defined
219
global similarity calculation rule of historical retirement village cases. The second
demonstration illustrates the application of CBR-PMS to suggest specific sustainable
practices for an input problem.
7.4.1 Demonstration of retirement village cases
The demonstrated input retirement village case is a not-for-profit one which is
located at the urban area of QLD, Australia, with the mixed accommodation type of
villas and apartments. The detailed description of this demonstrated case is shown
in Table 24.
Table 24 The description of the input retirement village case
F1 The type of developer; Not-for-profit
F2 The site location; Urban
F3 The accommodation type; Mixed
F4 The number of units; 120
F5 The number of residents; 165
F6 The retirement village size (M2); 50000
F7 The mean entry contribution (AUD); 360000
F8 The range of the entry contribution (AUD); 320000 - 400000
F9 The mean on-going costs (AUD/WEEK); 100
F10 The range of on-going costs (AUD/WEEK); 90 - 110
F11 The level of residents’ health condition; Live Independently
F12 The tenure and contract arrangement; Licenses
F13 The mean age of residents; 75
F14 The age range of residents; 65 - 85
F15 The percentage of female residents (%); 37%
F16 The approximate development budget; 30000000
F17 The target customer (years old); 60 - 100
220
After CBR-PMS receives the description of the input case, the global similarity of
each historical case will be calculated based on the pre-defined similarity
calculation rules of retirement villages. For instance, as the F1 value of the input
Case is not-for-profit and that of the Case_1 is private, the local similarity of the
index F1 between the input case and Case_1 is 0. As the F4 value of the input Case is
120 and that of the Case_5 is 127, the local similarity of the index F4 between the
input case and Case_5 is 0.9 based on the calculated deviation of 6.06%. Other local
similarity values can also be determined (see Table 23). As shown in Table 25, a
local similarity value has been allocated to each index of each retirement village,
and their global similarity can be determined based on the nearest neighbour
algorithm of Equation (1). It was found that the historical Case_5 is the most similar
one, with the global similarity being 13.07. Thus, the sustainable practices retained
in Case_5 will be adopted to give suggestions on the input project development. A
further comparing the input case and the retrieved Case_5 qualitatively found that
the input case and Case_5 have many similarities. For instance, both of them are
urban not-for-profit projects, with a mixed accommodation type. In addition, they
are similar in the unit and resident number, village size, living cost arrangement,
tenure and contract arrangement, resident-related features and development
budget. The retrieving mechanism of CBR-PMS is therefore feasible to retrieve
similar historical retirement village cases.
Table 25 The similarity calculation of historical retirement village cases
Index Case_
1
Case_
2
Case_
3
Case_
4
Case_
5
Case_
6
Case_
7
Case_
8
F1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
221
F2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F3 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5
F4 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0
F5 0 0 0 0 0.9 1 0 0
F6 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.7 0 0.8
F7 1 0 0 0.8 0.8 0 0.9 0.8
F8 0.14 0 0 0 0.33 0.02 0 0
F9 0 0.9 0 1 1 1 0 0
F10 0.33 0 0 0 0.77 0.65 0 0
F11 1 1 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1
F12 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
F13 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 1 0.8 0.7
F14 0.65 0 0.59 0.54 0.59 0.8 0.56 0
F15 0.9 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.9 0.9
F16 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0
F17 0.35 0 0 0 0.88 0.88 1 1
Global
Similarity
7.17 5.3 4.14 6.44 13.1 11 8.66 8.7
7.4.2 Demonstration of sustainable practice cases
As diverse sustainable practices are used in the development of sustainable
retirement villages, it is difficult to include all of them in one case study only for the
demonstration purpose. The demonstrated case study focuses on the village site
planning practices to promote residents’ social friendliness. A well designed site
planning of retirement villages can meet residents’ aged requirements in terms of
such as easy way-finding, social interaction and safety (Carstens, 1993). The
demonstrated input sustainable practice case is to promote residents’ social
interaction at the site entry/exit by adopting physical strategies. As the site
222
entry/exit area is a place where residents’ social activities usually happen (Carstens,
1993), the developer expects to use more strategies to promote residents’ social
interaction at this area. The description of this demonstrated case is shown in Table
26. It has also been shown in the developed semantic network of site planning,
which has been marked as P-i in Figure 20. Another two examples of P1-2 and P1-37
are also shown in it.
Table 26 Description of the input sustainable practice case
Practice Description:
• Aged requirement: Social interaction;
• Sustainability dimension: Social sustainability;
• Practice category: Physical measurement;
• Practice location: Site entry/exit;
• Sub-system of a village: Site planning;
Figure 20 Semantic network of the demonstrated case
After CBR-PMS receives the description of the input case, the global similarity of
each historical sustainable practice case will be calculated based on the pre-defined
223
similarity calculation rules of Equation (4). As shown in Figure 20, three common
nodes and four different ones can be found between P-i and P1-37. Referring to the
global similarity calculation Equation (4), the similarity between the P-i and P1-37 is:
( − , 1 − 37) = ∑∑ ∑ = . . .. . . ( . . . . ) =0.667
Similarly, referring to the similarity calculation Equation (4), the global similarity
between the P-i and all historical sustainable practices can be determined. Based on
the calculated percentage similarity values, the ranking of previous sustainable
practices can be determined. Among these 600 sustainable practices, nine
sustainable practices with a percentage similarity value of one were retrieved and
shown in Table 27.
Table 27 Retrieved sustainable practices
Retirement
village case
Sustainable practice
Case_1 P1-6: The location of retirement village site entry/exit is near
public transportation (e.g., bus and train stations);
P1-7: At the retirement village entry/exit, the on-site walkway is
closely connected with the walkway of surrounding
neighbourhood/community;
Case_2 P2-7: At the retirement village entry/exit, the on-site walkway is
closely connected with the walkway of surrounding
neighbourhood/community;
Case_4 P4-10: The location of retirement village site entry/exit is near
224
public transportation (e.g., bus and train stations);
P4-13: A covered drop-off area with seats is designed/provided at
the retirement village entry/exit;
Case_5 P5-10: The location of retirement village site entry/exit is near
shopping centres;
Csse_7 P7-9: A covered drop-off area with seats is designed/provided at
the retirement village entry/exit;
P7-13: At the retirement village entry/exit, the on-site walkway is
closely connected with the walkway of surrounding
neighbourhood/community;
P7-14: The provision of amenities at the retirement village
entry/exit. For instance, residents’ Mailboxes are
designed/provided at the site entry/exit;
7.4.3 Validation of the retrieved practices
After deleting the repetitive practices, five sustainable practices are finally
identified (Table 28). To evaluate the usefulness of the retrieved practices in the
promotion of residents’ social interaction, four retirement village managers are
invited to express their perceptions. All of them have worked in the retirement
living sector for many years and have rich knowledge and experience in village
development. The results are shown in Table 28. The results indicate that these
practices are useful in the promotion of residents’ social interaction. For instance,
three out of the four investigated retirement village managers strongly agree that
Practice 1 can promote residents’ social interaction and another one manager
agree that residents’ social interaction can be promoted by using Practice 1. In
225
addition, these retrieved sustainable practices have also been confirmed in prior
studies as feasible strategies that are usually employed to promote residents’ social
interaction at the site entry/exit area (Carstens, 1993).
Table 28 Investigation results of the usefulness of the retrieved sustainable
practices in promoting residents’ social interaction
Practices Strongly
Agree
Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Practice 1: The location
of retirement village
entry/exit is near public
transportation (e.g.,
bus and train stations);
3 1
Practice 2: At the
retirement village
entry/exit, the on-site
walkway is closely
connected with the
walkway of
surrounding
neighbourhood/comm
unity;
1 3
Practice 3: A covered
drop-off area with
seats is
designed/provided at
the retirement village
entry/exit;
3 1
Practice 4: The location
of retirement village
2 2
226
entry/exit is near
shopping centres;
Practice 5: The
provision of amenities
at the retirement
village entry/exit. For
instance, residents’
Mailboxes are
designed/provided at
the site entry/exit;
2 1 1
The retrieved sustainable practices should be further examined and selected based
on the suggested two-step revision strategies of deletion and modification. As
stressed above that the re-use process is context-based, which needs consider
restricted conditions of the current project and objective requirements of
developers. It may also need the input of domain experts. The following is an
assumed situation to show how the re-use process works. First, it is assumed that
the developer is not concerned about the additional cost resulted from the use of
sustainable practices. Thus, all the retrieved sustainable practices can be retained
for further modification. In addition, as this project is an established one, the
location of the site entry/exit cannot be changed easily. Therefore, the sustainable
Practices 1 and 4 (P1-6, P4-10, and P5-10) can be hardly re-used. Also, as the
retirement village has connected its walkway with its surrounding neighbourhood
walkways, Practice 2 (P1-7, P2-7 and P7-13) will also not be used. Consequently,
only Practices 3 and 5 will be further considered. Given that the developer have
established their mail delivery system on-site, the amenities can be changed into
227
others based on the current situation of the site and the developer’s needs such as
lawn, small garden, covered tables and BBQ facilities. In addition, the developer can
also consider to design a covered drop-off area with seats at the site entry/exit to
promote residents’ social interaction.
7.5 Summary
The increasing popularity of developing retirement villages has contributed to a
growing number of successful sustainable practices available in Australia. These
practices contain useful knowledge on the development of sustainable retirement
villages, and it is argued that mining and sharing these practices can support
developers’ decision making process. However, no efforts had been conducted to
suggest ways/systems/tools for the purpose of mining and reusing sustainable
practices effectively. To make better use of historical sustainable practices, the
practice mining system of CBR-PMS is developed based on CBR in this study. The
CBR-PMS is a data mining system that can contain, capture and reuse historical
sustainable practices to deal with encountered issues of developers in the
development of sustainable living environment of retirement villages. It promotes
the transfer of the current good industry practices, and represents an innovative
and standard research tool to retain and share knowledge in the Australian
retirement village sector.
The main limitation of the developed CBR-PMS is its relatively conceptual nature,
which means certain parts of the developed system should be further tailored to
make the data mining process more effective. For instance, the store of historical in
a flat way needs more storing space, which should be optimized. The weights
228
distribution in the feature-vector and semantic network should also be a further
study. In addition, the developed system also lacks validation from extensive
empirical evidence. More future work need be done to rectify these limitations.
Nevertheless, it is also believed that the CBR-PMS forms the basis of knowledge
management and organization learning for the purpose of developing sustainable
living environment for residents of retirement villages through effectively mining
historical practices.
229
Chapter 8 Conclusions
The aim of this research is to facilitate the development of sustainable retirement
villages in Australia through promoting a better understanding of what constitutes
sustainable retirement villages, and developing a best practice mining system for
developers. This chapter outlines the research findings of this study. In addition, the
contributions of this study and practical implications for industry development are
presented. Future research directions are also suggested.
8.1 Research findings
Objective 1: To propose a conceptual framework of sustainable retirement villages
In Chapter 5, a framework for sustainable retirement villages, built on the
ecological theory of ageing and the triple bottom line, is proposed using a two-step
inductive reasoning method. The suggested sustainable retirement village
framework contains four domains, including senior-oriented basic settings, financial
affordability, an age-friendly social environment, and environmental sustainability.
These four domains are interrelated, and a sustainable retirement village maintains
a dynamic balance between them.
Objective 2: To understand developers’ perceptions of a sustainable living
environment in retirement villages
In Chapter 6, an investigation of the perceptions of village developers about
sustainability was conducted. In total, 39 sustainability features were identified,
with the most mentioned ones being “care and services provision and accessibility”,
“social interaction”, “secure/safe living” and “independent living”. In addition, the
230
research findings indicate that the social sustainability of the retirement village
environment was highly valued by developers, while the environmental
sustainability was largely ignored. Further, no significant difference was identified
between the private and not-for-profit developers regarding the numbers of
sustainability features mentioned. This is consistent with the current industry
situation, where both private and not-for-profit developers are increasingly
interested in developing sustainable retirement villages and taking various actions
to meet the green requirements of the market. Nevertheless, the private
developers value “social interaction” more while the not-for-profit developers
prioritize “independent living” and “care and services provision and accessibility”
the most.
Objective 3: To identify sustainable practices used in existing retirement villages
Eight case studies were conducted to identify sustainable practices by using the
research methods of interview and content analysis. Chapter 7 presents a case
study to demonstrate the data collection process. Specifically, the comprehensive
case study identifies sustainable practices employed in a not-for-profit retirement
village on Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia. The analysis indicates that, similar to
private developers, not-for-profit developers also have the capacity to make their
village environment sustainable. Both value the provision of suitable social and
physical environments as well as affordable living for residents. In this case study,
the identified sustainable practices include the selection of retirement village
location, site planning, provision of facilities and services, social life, and living costs.
These practices offer a sustainable living environment where the needs of older
231
people, such as safety/security, social interaction, convenience, a sense of
community, energy efficiency, and affordability, can be satisfied. In addition,
although the associated costs of using sustainable features is a concern for
stakeholders, some of the identified sustainable practices in this case study do not
result in a significant cost increase, but can improve the residents’ quality of life.
The identified sustainable practices supported the development of a practice
mining system, as outlined below.
Objective 4: To develop a CBR-based sustainable practice mining system for the
development of sustainable retirement villages
In Chapter 8, a CBR-based practice mining system, named CBR-PMS, has been
developed to retain, capture and reuse historical sustainable practices in order to
support the development of a sustainable living environment in retirement villages.
Its major components include a Data Transforming and Location System (DTLS), a
Data Warehouse and a Data Mining and Reusing Engine (DMRE). The DTLS
transforms the primary collected data into a pre-defined format, and the Data
Warehouse stores the transformed data by adopting the flat memory method.
DMRE retrieves similar historical cases based on the pre-defined partial-matching
process. In addition, it revises retrieved solutions through the strategies of deletion
and modification, and reuses the revised solutions. Two demonstrations which
exemplify the mechanism of CBR-PMS are described in this chapter, and acceptable
performances are obtained. CBR-PMS provides the basis of knowledge
management and organization learning for the purpose of developing sustainable
living environment.
232
Overall, this research proposes a sustainable retirement village framework. In
addition, understanding of the meaning of a sustainable living environment in
retirement villages from the perspective of developers is provided. The research
also identifies sustainable practices used in some established retirement villages.
Based on the proposed sustainable retirement village framework and identified
sustainable practices, a CBR-based practice mining system, CBR-PMS, has been
developed to facilitate the reuse of historical experience and knowledge of village
developments. All the research findings promote the development of sustainable
retirement villages, which eventually will facilitate the development of an age-
friendly environment for residents in Australia.
8.2 Contributions of the research
This research contributes to a comprehensive understanding of existing knowledge
relating to the Australian retirement village industry, and the application of CBR in
CM research systemically. First, the research provides a significant, useful and
comprehensive picture of the development of the Australian retirement village
sector (Chapter 2), which contributes to village stakeholders’ understandings of the
growing sector. The sector’s development issues have been largely ignored in
previous literature, though much work has been conducted to explore the nature of
retirement villages, such as decision-making around relocation and residents’ living
experiences (Crisp, Windsor, Butterworth, et al., 2013; Gardner, et al., 2005). It is
imperative to provide stakeholders with an overview of industry development, as
more and more investors show interest in this sector, and increasingly, older adults
choose this living arrangement in retirement. Moreover, as the data relating to the
development of this sector are scattered, it is necessary to collect them together in
233
order to facilitate future studies. Second, this research provides a comprehensive
review of the application of CBR in CM research (Chapter 2). This provides CM
academics and practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of the
development of CBR applications, and the implications for future studies.
The research provides new knowledge about developing an age-friendly living
environment in retirement villages, based on the proposed framework for
sustainable retirement villages (Chapter 4). This proposed framework represents an
advancement in the literature of both sustainable communities and environmental
gerontology. Although the concept of sustainable retirement villages has been
proposed, prior explorations are case-study based only (Xia, Zuo, et al., 2015). The
sustainable retirement village framework suggested in this study uses the ecological
theory of ageing and the triple bottom line. It incorporates environmental
sustainability into development, which differs from the traditional pattern of
placing more stress on an affordable and socially-friendly environment. It is also the
first theoretical framework designed to accommodate retirement village residents
sustainably in Australia.
This research contributes to a better understanding of the meaning of a sustainable
living environment in retirement villages from the perspective of the key village
stakeholders, the developers (Chapter 5). Understanding developers’ perceptions of
a sustainable living environment is of great importance, given their essential roles in
the development of retirement villages. The research findings in Chapter 5 suggest
useful implications for the future development of the sector, such as establishing a
benchmark for developing a sustainable living environment in retirement villages. In
234
addition, the research findings contribute to revealing the potential issues resulted
from developers in the development of sustainable retirement villages, such as the
unbalanced sustainability dimensions of a developed sustainable living environment.
This assists stakeholders in deliberating the reasons behind and proposing
strategies to avoid and address.
The research contributes to the stakeholders’ understanding of the categories of
sustainable practices used to meet residents’ aged requirements and of collections
methods to build a future database of sustainable practices in individual retirement
villages (Chapter 6). Further, the identification of sustainable practices in a not-for-
profit retirement village addresses the lack of identified sustainable practices in
both development and operation of a not-for-profit setting. For instance, the prior
study of Xia, Zuo, et al. (2015) investigated the sustainable practices used in a
private retirement village, and Zuo, et al. (2014) explored the adopted sustainable
practices, but only in the design and construction stages of a not-for-profit
retirement village.
The developed practice mining system (CBR-PMS) is the first model that can be
used to assist developers in leading organizational learning in the retirement living
industry (Chapter 7). It provides a feasible way of retaining, capturing and reusing
historical sustainable practices, contributing to developers’ knowledge
management and organizational learning. In addition, the system contributes new
knowledge to the current trend of achieving sustainable development around the
world. It provides useful implications for the development of experience mining
system used in other sustainability initiatives such as green building.
235
8.3 Implications for industry development
The research findings of this study offer useful insights for the development of the
industry,
• Addressing issues and challenges in the retirement village sector. Healthy
development of the Australian retirement village industry should solve its
current issues and challenges. This study identifies some crucial issues and
challenges (such as affordability issues and lack of policy support) which
needs to be effectively addressed in the future development of this sector.
It is suggested that the developers and governments should work together
to propose useful strategies for addressing these issues and challenges in
order to promote the development of this industry.
• Delivering sustainable retirement villages. A sustainable living environment
has the capability of being in balance with residents’ competencies, a crucial
consideration that has been heavily emphasized by gerontologists in the
housing development for older people (Schwarz, 2012; Wahl & Weisman,
2003). To promote the development of sustainable retirement villages, the
retirement living sector can include the sustainability features proposed in
the sustainable retirement village framework into village developments. This
is a promising trend in the future development of this sector. In fact, many
developers have already taken actions to make their villages sustainable (Xia,
Zuo, et al., 2015; Zuo, et al., 2014).
• Balancing the different dimensions of sustainability in the development of
sustainable retirement villages. The social sustainability of retirement
236
villages is highly valued by developers while environmental sustainability is
largely ignored. This issue is mainly because that the social sustainability can
benefit residents in various ways (e.g., social connection, independent
living), and the Australian retirement village industry has a tradition of
providing residents with a supportive environment by offering care, services
and opportunities for social interaction (Buys, 2001; McNelis, 2004).
However, the ignorance of environmental sustainability is inconsistent with
residents’ concern about the consumption of unsustainable resources and
expectation of living in a sustainable environment. It results in the issue of
un-balanced sustainability development in retirement villages. It is thus that
the future development of retirement villages should well consider this
issue to deliver a suitable living environment to residents.
• Selecting the appropriate retirement villages and suggesting suitable market
strategies. The private and not-for-profit developers stress different
features in the development of sustainable retirement villages. The private
developers have more financial resources to enrich residents’ life,
emphasizing lifestyle related sustainability features. In contrast, the not-for-
profit developers place more importance on the provision of care and
services to ensure residents’ independent living. This provides useful
implications while making relocation decisions to the potential residents.
For instance, if a resident prefers an active lifestyle, relocating to a private
village may be a better choice. This also gives the implication that
developers, regardless of the financial type, should propose suitable market
strategies through considering the needs of targeted residents and including
237
corresponding sustainability features in their projects to attract residents’
relocation.
• Collecting and storing sustainable practices of village developments.
Historical experience is a valuable asset of organizations, and their effective
reuse improves organizational competition (Carneiro, 2000; Sarvary, 1999).
As indicated in the study that identified sustainable practices contribute to a
socially connected and supportive, environmentally friendly and financially
comfortable environment. However, current industry practices have been
largely overlooked, and are usually not collected and retained in appropriate
ways. It is suggested that developers should collect and retain prior
sustainable practices throughout the lifecycle of the project development.
This will benefit developers, enabling them to learn lessons from their past
experiences, which is an effective way of managing knowledge.
• Learning from historical practices. Developers have accumulated various
useful experiences and practices in their development of retirement villages.
Using some of the sustainable practices will not result in additional cost,
which offers great encouragement for the future development of
sustainable retirement villages. It is stressed in theories of organizational
learning and knowledge management that learning from the past can
benefit organizations in various ways, such as improved competition
(Sarvary, 1999). To facilitate village developers’ learning, it is suggested that
organizational learning and knowledge management tools (such as the CBR-
PMS developed in this study) specially designed for the retirement village
industry should be developed.
238
8.4 Future research directions
Based on the research findings of this study, the following future research
directions are suggested:
• Strategies to address issues and challenges in the industry. As stressed,
various issues and challenges have been identified in the Australian
retirement village market such as affordability issues, unsuitable social and
physical environment settings, low penetration levels, and the challenges of
the unique needs of ageing baby boomers, technology applications and
sustainability, and lack of policy support. To promote the healthy
development of this sector, it is necessary to address these issues and
challenges. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies should focus on
exploring effective strategies to respond to these issues and challenges. For
instance, ways of solving the high price of village living in order to make a
retirement village environment affordable need to be explored.
• Investigating stakeholders’ perceptions of a sustainable living environment.
Developers and residents are two important stakeholders of village
developments (Hu, Xia, Buys, et al., 2015). Developers are the investors and
decision-makers in the delivery of sustainable retirement villages. Though
this study has investigated village developers’ perceptions of a sustainable
living environment, findings are mainly based on their on-line descriptions
of retirement living business. Future studies can invite practitioners to
express their opinions through interviews. In addition, it is necessary to
explore residents’ perceptions of a sustainable living environment since
residents are the users of the village environment (Kennedy & Coates, 2008).
239
To balance a village environment with its residents’ competencies, residents’
expectations and concerns should be well considered (Hu, Xia, Buys, et al.,
2015).
• Developing tools to capture and retain sustainable practices throughout the
lifecycle of a village development. Owing to the value of historical
sustainable practices, tools need to be developed to capture and retain
sustainable practices throughout the lifecycle of a village development. For
example, future studies can focus on the development of an automatic and
standard sustainable practices collection tool which will facilitate the reuse
of sustainable practices.
• Improving the efficiency of CBR-PMS. Though CBR-PMS promotes the
transfer of current good industry practices and represents an innovative and
standard research tool to retain and share knowledge, it is currently still a
conceptual system and some components need to be further tailored to
improve its data mining capabilities. Future studies, for instance, can
optimize the developed data warehouse to retain historical practices more
effectively. In addition, the weight allocation methods need to be further
designed to improve their efficiency.
• Exploring ways of housing older Australians in an age-friendly way in the
general communities. The sustainable retirement village framework
provides the first look of housing older people in the specifically designed
retirement village context. As the majority of older Australians live in the
general communities and current sustainable community initiatives have
not specially considered older adults’ requirements, there is a need of
240
exploring ways of housing older Australians in an age-friendly way in the
general communities. The future exploration of this issue can be benefited
from referring to the proposed sustainable retirement village framework in
the study.
241
References
Aamodt, A., & Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI communications, 7(1), 39-59.
Abbasianjahromi, H., & Rajaie, H. (2013). Application of fuzzy CBR and MODM
approaches in the project portfolio selection in construction companies. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology. Transactions of Civil Engineering, 37(C1), 143.
Ahuja, H. N., Dozzi, S., & Abourizk, S. (1994). Project management: Techniques in
planning and controlling construction projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Akintoye, A. S., & MacLeod, M. J. (1997). Risk analysis and management in
construction. International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.
Allen, J. F., & Frisch, A. M. (1982). What's in a semantic network? Paper presented
at 20th annual meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, Toronto.
Alley, D., Liebig, P., Pynoos, J., Banerjee, T., & Choi, I. H. (2007). Creating elder-
friendly communities. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49(1-2), 1-18.
An, S. H., Kim, G. H., & Kang, K. I. (2007). A case-based reasoning cost estimating
model using experience by analytic hierarchy process. Building and Environment, 42(7), 2573-2579.
Andrews, K. J. (2001). National strategy for an ageing Australia: An older Australia,
challenges and opportunities for all. Retrieved from https://www.ifa-fiv.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/062_Australia-2001-National-Strategy-for-an-Ageing-Australia.pdf
Arditi, D., Oksay, F. E., & Tokdemir, O. B. (1998). Predicting the outcome of
construction litigation using neural networks. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 13(2), 75-81.
Arditi, D., & Tokdemir, O. B. (1999a). Comparison of case-based reasoning and
artificial neural networks. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 13(3), 162-169.
242
Arditi, D., & Tokdemir, O. B. (1999b). Using case-based reasoning to predict the
outcome of construction litigation. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 14(6), 385-393.
Austin, C., McClelland, R., Perrault, E., & Sieppert, J. (2009). The elder-friendly
communities program. Generations, 33(2), 87-90.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1999). Older people, Australia: A social report.
Chapter one: Population and cultural diversity. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4109.0
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2000). Year book Australia. There’s no place like
home. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/featurearticlesbyCatalogue/A4D933C2065DF740CA2569DE00221C87?OpenDocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2003). Australian social trends. Population
characteristics: People in institutional settings. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/9c1dc93dd9a137daca2570eb0082e463!OpenDocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013a). Feature article 1: Population by age and sex,
Australia, states and territories. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Products/3101.0~Jun+2013~Feature+Article~Population+by+Age+and+Sex,+Australia,+States+and+Territories+%28Feature+Article%29?OpenDocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013b). Over 65s growing fastest. Retrieved
December 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Previousproducts/3101.0Media%20Release1Jun%202013?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3101.0&issue=Jun%202013&num=&view=
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013c). Projection results - Australia. Retrieved
March 2015, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/3222.0main+features52012%20%28base%29%20to%202101
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013d). Reflecting a nation: Stories from the 2011
census, where and how do Australia’s older people live. Retrieved December
243
2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+features602012-2013
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). 3101.0 - Australian demographic statistics,
Sep 2013. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/3101.0Sep%202013?OpenDocument
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). Older Australia at a glance (4th
edition). Retrieved June 2016, from http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442454209
Banister, D., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: The transport
dimension. Transport Policy, 11(2), 105-115.
Barker, J., Xia, B., Zuo, J., & Zillante, G. (2012). Sustainable retirement living: What
matters? Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Conference Series, 1(1), 1-8.
Beer, A., & Faulkner, D. (2009). 21st century housing careers and Australia's housing
future. Retrieved June 2017, from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/6460/AHURI_Final_Report_No128_21st_century_housing_careers_and_Australia_s_housing_future.pdf
Bergmann, R., Kolodner, J., & Plaza, E. (2005). Representation in case-based
reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(03), 209-213.
Bernard, M., Bartlam, B., Sim, J., & Biggs, S. (2007). Housing and care for older
people: Life in an English purpose-built retirement village. Ageing and Society, 27(4), 555-578.
Bevan, M., & Croucher, K. (2011). Lifetime neighbourhoods. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6248/2044122.pdf
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices.
Retrieved March 2015, from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=oa_textbooks
244
Bohle, P., Rawlings-Way, O., Finn, J., Ang, J., & Kennedy, D. J. (2014). Housing choice
in retirement: Community versus separation. Housing Studies, 29(1), 108-127.
Boussabaine, A. H. (1996). The use of artificial neural networks in construction
management: A review. Construction Management and Economics, 14(5), 427-436.
Bridge, C., Davy, L., Judd, B., Flatau, P., Morris, A., & Phibbs, P. (2011). Age-specific
housing and care for low to moderate income older people. Retrieved November 2015, from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_70589_fr
Bridger, J. C., & Luloff, A. E. (1999). Toward an interactional approach to sustainable
community development. Journal of Rural Studies, 15(4), 377-387.
Broadbent, E., Tamagawa, R., Patience, A., Knock, B., Kerse, N., Day, K., &
MacDonald, B. A. (2012). Attitudes towards health-care robots in a retirement village. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 31(2), 115-120.
Bukov, A., Maas, I., & Lampert, T. (2002). Social participation in very old age cross-
sectional and longitudinal findings from BASE. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(6), P510-P517.
Burati Jr, J. L., Farrington, J. J., & Ledbetter, W. B. (1992). Causes of quality
deviations in design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118(1), 34-49.
Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2004). Very old, widowed and single men living alone: The
effect of residence, retirement village vs. the community, on social interactions, friendships and loneliness. Paper presented at Social Change in the 21th Century Conference, Brisbane, Queensland.
Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2007). The physical, leisure and social activities of very old
Australian men living in a retirement village and the community. Geriaction, 25(2), 15-19.
Buys, L., Miller, E., & Barnett, K. (2006). The personal, practical and policy
implications of older Australians' residential choice. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 20(1-2), 31-46.
245
Buys, L. R. (2000). Care and support assistance provided in retirement villages:
Expectations vs reality. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 19(3), 149-151.
Buys, L. R. (2001). Life in a retirement village: Implications for contact with
community and village friends. Gerontology, 47(1), 55-59.
Callicott, J. B., & Mumford, K. (1997). Ecological sustainability as a conservation
concept. Conservation Biology, 11(1), 32-40.
Carbonell, J. G. J. G. (1985). Derivational analogy: A theory of reconstructive
problem solving and expertise acquisition. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2533&context=compsci
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and
competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87-98.
Carrillo, P., & Chinowsky, P. (2006). Exploiting knowledge management: The
engineering and construction perspective. Journal of Management in Engineering, 22(1), 2-10.
Carstens, D. Y. (1993). Site planning and design for the elderly: Issues, guidelines,
and alternatives. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cattan, M., White, M., Bond, J., & Learmouth, A. (2005). Preventing social isolation
and loneliness among older people: A systematic review of health promotion interventions. Ageing and Society, 25(1), 41-67.
Chan, A. P., Chan, D. W., & Yeung, J. F. (2009). Overview of the application of “fuzzy
techniques” in construction management research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(11), 1241-1252.
Chao, L. C., & Chien, C. F. (2010). A model for updating project S-curve by using
neural networks and matching progress. Automation in Construction, 19(1), 84-91.
Chau, K. W. (2006). Prediction of construction litigation outcome–a case-based
reasoning approach. Paper presented at Advances in Applied Artificial
246
Intelligence: 19th International Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cheek, J., Ballantyne, A., Byers, L., & Quan, J. (2007). From retirement village to
residential aged care: What older people and their families say. Health & Social Care in the Community, 15(1), 8-17.
Cheek, J., Ballantyne, A., & Roder-Allen, G. (2005). Factors influencing the decision
of older people living in independent units to enter the acute care system. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(s1), 24-33.
Chen, J. H., & Hsu, S. (2007). Hybrid ANN-CBR model for disputed change orders in
construction projects. Automation in Construction, 17(1), 56-64.
Chen, J. H., Yang, L. R., Chen, W., & Chang, C. (2008). Case-based allocation of onsite
supervisory manpower for construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 26(8), 805-814.
Chen, W. T., Chang, P.-Y., Chou, K., & Mortis, L. E. (2010). Developing a CBR-based
adjudication system for fatal construction industry occupational accidents. Part I: Building the system framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(7), 4867-4880.
Cheng, M. Y., Tsai, H. C., & Chiu, Y. H. (2009). Fuzzy case-based reasoning for coping
with construction disputes. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 4106-4113.
Choi, S., Kim, D. Y., Han, S. H., & Kwak, Y. H. (2014). Conceptual cost-prediction
model for public road planning via rough set theory and case-based reasoning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(1), 04013026.
Chou, J. S. (2008). Applying AHP-based CBR to estimate pavement maintenance cost.
Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(Supplement 1), 114-120.
Chou, J. S. (2009). Web-based CBR system applied to early cost budgeting for
pavement maintenance project. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 2947-2960.
247
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., . . . Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Paper presented at 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii.
Chua, D., Li, D., & Chan, W. (2001). Case-based reasoning approach in bid decision
making. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1), 35-45.
Chua, D., & Loh, P. (2006). CB-contract: Case-based reasoning approach to
construction contract strategy formulation. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 20(5), 339-350.
Ciegis, R., Ramanauskiene, J., & Martinkus, B. (2015). The concept of sustainable
development and its use for sustainability scenarios. Engineering Economics, 62(2), 28-37.
Cornwell, E. Y., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation,
and health among older adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 50(1), 31-48.
Cradduck, L., & Blake, A. (2012a). The impact of tenure type on the desire for
retirement village living. Paper presented at 18th Annual Conference of the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society, Adelaide, Australia.
Cradduck, L. M., & Blake, A. (2012b). Retirement villages: Time for a change?
Australia and New Zealand Property Journal, 3(8), 645-654.
Craig, N., & Sommerville, J. (2006). Information management systems on
construction projects: Case reviews. Records Management Journal, 16(3), 131-148.
Crisp, D. A., Windsor, T. D., Anstey, K. J., & Butterworth, P. (2013). Considering
relocation to a retirement village: Predictors from a community sample. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 32(2), 97-102.
Crisp, D. A., Windsor, T. D., Butterworth, P., & Anstey, K. J. (2013). What are older
adults seeking? Factors encouraging or discouraging retirement village living. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 32(3), 163-170.
248
Cunningham, P., & Delany, S. J. (2007). k-Nearest neighbour classifiers. Multiple Classifier Systems, 34, 1-17.
Davis, S., & Bartlett, H. (2008). Healthy ageing in rural Australia: Issues and
challenges. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 27(2), 56-60.
Davy, L., Bridge, C., Judd, B., Morris, A., & Phibbs, P. (2010). Age-specific housing for
low to moderate-income older people. Retrieved from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/2216/AHURI_Final_Report_No174_Age-specific_housing_and_care_for_low_to_moderate_income_older_people.pdf
Demiris, G., Rantz, M. J., Aud, M. A., Marek, K. D., Tyrer, H. W., Skubic, M., &
Hussam, A. A. (2004). Older adults' attitudes towards and perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: A pilot study. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 29(2), 87-94.
Department of Communities Child Safety and Disability Services. (2016).
Queensland: An age-friendly community, action plan. Retrieved October 2016, from https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/communityservices/seniors/qafc-action-plan.pdf
Department of Housing and Public Works. (2016). Working together for better
housing and sustainable communities. Retrieved from http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/HousingDiscussionPaper.pdf
Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2011). Building sustainable communities.
Retrieved from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/communities/110563-Building-Sustainable-Communities.pdf
Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M. T., & Gur, A. K. (2007). A case-based decision support tool
for bid mark-up estimation of international construction projects. Automation in Construction, 17(1), 30-44.
Doğan, S. Z., Arditi, D., & Günaydın, H. M. (2006). Determining attribute weights in a
CBR model for early cost prediction of structural systems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10), 1092-1098.
249
Doğan, S. Z., Arditi, D., & Murat Günaydin, H. (2008). Using decision trees for
determining attribute weights in a case-based model of early cost prediction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(2), 146-152.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues.
Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313-321.
Du, J., & Bormann, J. (2014). Improved similarity measure in case-based reasoning
with global sensitivity analysis: An example of construction quantity estimating. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 28(6), 04014020.
Du Pisani, J. A. (2006). Sustainable development–historical roots of the concept.
Environmental Sciences, 3(2), 83-96.
Dzeng, R. J., & Tommelein, I. D. (1997). Boiler erection scheduling using product
models and case-based reasoning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(3), 338-347.
Dzeng, R. J., & Tommelein, I. D. (2004). Product modeling to support case-based
construction planning and scheduling. Automation in Construction, 13(3), 341-360.
Eardley, T. (2000). Rent assistance policy for residents of retirement villages.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 19(3), 130-135.
Everingham, J. A., Petriwskyj, A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009).
Information provision for an age-friendly community. Ageing International, 34(1), 79-98.
Fan, Z.-P., Li, Y.-H., & Zhang, Y. (2015a). Generating project risk response strategies
based on CBR: A case study. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 2870-2883.
Fan, Z. P., Li, Y. H., & Zhang, Y. (2015b). Generating project risk response strategies
based on CBR: A case study. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 2870-2883.
Faulkner, D. (2001). Linkages among housing assistance, residential (re) location
and use of community health and social care among old-old adults: Shelter
250
and non-shelter implications for housing policy development. Retrieved from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/2217/AHURI_Final_Report_No13_Linkages_between_housing_assistance_residential_relocation_and_use_of_community_care.pdf
Faulkner, D. (2007). The older population and changing housing careers:
Implications for housing provision. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 26(4), 152-156.
Ferris, C., & Bramston, P. (1994). Quality of life in the elderly: A contribution to its
understanding. Australian Journal on Ageing, 13(3), 120-123.
Fellows, R. F., & Liu, A. M. (2009). Research methods for construction. John Wiley &
Sons.
Findlay, R. A. (2003). Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people:
Where is the evidence? Ageing and Society, 23(5), 647-658.
Finn, J., Mukhtar, V. Y., Kennedy, D. J., Kendig, H., Bohle, P., & Rawlings-Way, O.
(2011). Financial planning for retirement village living: A qualitative exploration. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 25(2), 217-242.
Fitzgerald, K. G., & Caro, F. G. (2014). An overview of age-friendly cities and
communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1-2), 1-18.
Forbes, D., Smith, S., & Horner, M. (2008). Tools for selecting appropriate risk
management techniques in the built environment. Construction Management and Economics, 26(11), 1241-1250.
Forbes, D. R., Smith, S. D., & Horner, R. M. W. (2010). The selection of risk
management techniques using case-based reasoning. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 27(2), 107-121.
Gadens. (2014). A guide to aged care and retirement villages in Australia. Retrieved
November 2015, from http://www.gadens.com/publications/Documents/A%20guide%20to%20Aged%20Care%20and%20Retirement%20Villages%20in%20Australia.pdf
251
Gahin, R., Veleva, V., & Hart, M. (2003). Do indicators help create sustainable communities? Local Environment, 8(6), 661-666.
Gardner, I. (1994). Why People Move to Retirement Villages: Home owners and
non-home owners. Australian Journal on Ageing, 13(1), 36-40.
Gardner, I. L., Browning, C., & Kendig, H. (2005). Accommodation options in later
life: Retirement village or community living? Australasian Journal on Ageing, 24(4), 188-195.
Gellert, C., Schöttker, B., & Brenner, H. (2012). Smoking and all-cause mortality in
older people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(11), 837-844.
Geographical Association. (2005). What is a sustainable community? Retrieved June
2017, from https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtu8fajJzUAhUFupQKHTy7Dr0QFgghMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geography.org.uk%2Fdownload%2FGA_PRBSCWhatIsASustainableCommunity.doc&usg=AFQjCNGhr_uQI-QxiTwRm_VWilid-mrZ8A
Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for
understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357-393.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O'brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society:
Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187-196.
Goh, Y. M., & Chua, D. (2009). Case-based reasoning for construction hazard
identification: Case representation and retrieval. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(11), 1181-1189.
Goh, Y. M., & Chua, D. (2010). Case-based reasoning approach to construction
safety hazard identification: Adaptation and utilization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(2), 170-178.
Golden, J., Conroy, R. M., & Lawlor, B. A. (2009). Social support network structure in
older people: Underlying dimensions and association with psychological and physical health. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14(3), 280-290.
252
Gracia, N., Moyle, W., Oxlade, D., & Radford, K. (2010). Addressing loneliness in a
retirement village community: A pilot test of a print-delivered intervention. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 29(4), 179-182.
Graham, D., & Smith, S. D. (2004). Estimating the productivity of cyclic construction
operations using case-based reasoning. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 18(1), 17-28.
Grant, B. C. (2007). Retirement villages: More than enclaves for the aged. Activities,
Adaptation & Aging, 31(2), 37-55.
Grant Thornton. (2014). National overview of the retirement village sector.
Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.grantthornton.com.au/globalassets/1.-member-firms/australian-website/industry/hac/pdfs/gtal_2014_hac_national-overview-of-the-retirement-village-sector.pdf
Green Building Council of Australia. (2015). Green star communities national
framework. Retrieved from https://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/152/2712/Green_Star_-_CommunitiesFramework_Final.pdf
Green Building Council of Australia. (2016). Green star for retirement living.
Retrieved October 2016, from https://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/20/3092/Retirement_Living_Fact_sheet.pdf
Haak, M., Fänge, A., Iwarsson, S., & Dahlin Ivanoff, S. (2007). Home as a signification
of independence and autonomy: Experiences among very old Swedish people. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14(1), 16-24.
Hamstead, M. P., & Quinn, M. S. (2005). Sustainable community development and
ecological economics: Theoretical convergence and practical implications. Local Environment, 10(2), 141-158.
Harmon, K. M. (2003). Resolution of construction disputes: A review of current
methodologies. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 3(4), 187-201.
Hegazy, T., & Moselhi, O. (1994). Analogy-based solution to markup estimation
problem. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 8(1), 72-87.
253
Hong, T., Hyun, C., & Moon, H. (2011). CBR-based cost prediction model-II of the
design phase for multi-family housing projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2797-2808.
Hong, T., Koo, C., & Jeong, K. (2012). A decision support model for reducing electric
energy consumption in elementary school facilities. Applied Energy, 95, 253-266.
Hong, T., Koo, C., & Kim, H. (2012). A decision support model for improving a multi-
family housing complex based on CO2 emission from electricity consumption. Journal of Environmental Management, 112, 67-78.
Hong, T., Koo, C., Kim, H., & Park, H. S. (2014). Decision support model for
establishing the optimal energy retrofit strategy for existing multi-family housing complexes. Energy Policy, 66, 157-169.
Hong, T., Koo, C., & Lee, S. (2014). Benchmarks as a tool for free allocation through
comparison with similar projects: Focused on multi-family housing complex. Applied Energy, 114, 663-675.
Hong, T., Koo, C., & Park, S. (2012). A decision support model for improving a multi-
family housing complex based on CO2 emission from gas energy consumption. Building and Environment, 52, 142-151.
Hoof, J. v., & Hensen, J. (2006). Thermal comfort and older adults. Gerontechnology,
4(4), 223-228.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O'Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping
different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38-52.
Howe, A. L. (1992). Housing adjustments and preferences. In A. L. Howe (Ed.),
Housing for older Australians: Affordability, adjustments and care (pp. 60-86). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Howe, A. L., Jones, A. E., & Tilse, C. (2013). What's in a name? Similarities and
differences in international terms and meanings for older peoples' housing with services. Ageing and Society, 33(4), 547-578.
254
Hu, X., Xia, B., Buys, L., Skitmore, M., Kennedy, R., & Drogemuller, R. (2015). Stakeholder analysis of a retirement village development in Australia: Insights from an interdisciplinary workshop. International Journal of Construction Management, 15(4), 299-309.
Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., & Buys, L. (2015). Conceptualizing sustainable
retirement villages in Australia. Paper presented at 31st Annual ARCOM Conference, Lincoln, UK.
Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., Buys, L., & Zuo, J. (2017). Retirement villages in
Australia: A literature review. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 23(1), 101-122.
Hu, X., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., & Chen, Q. (2016). The application of case-based
reasoning in construction management research: An overview. Automation in Construction, 72(Part 2), 65-74.
Huang, M. J., Chen, M. Y., & Lee, S. C. (2007). Integrating data mining with case-
based reasoning for chronic diseases prognosis and diagnosis. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(3), 856-867.
Humpel, N., O'Loughlin, K., Wells, Y., & Kendig, H. (2009). Ageing baby boomers in
Australia: Evidence informing actions for better retirement. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44(4), 399.
Humpel, N., O'Loughlin, K., Wells, Y., & Kendig, H. (2010). The health of Australian
baby boomers. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 29(1), 8-13.
Humpel, N., Owen, N., & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with
adults’ participation in physical activity: A review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(3), 188-199.
Iwarsson, S. (2005). A long-term perspective on person–environment fit and ADL
dependence among older swedish adults. The Gerontologist, 45(3), 327-336.
Jefferson, T., & Preston, A. (2005). Australia's “other” gender wage gap: Baby
boomers and compulsory superannuation accounts. Feminist Economics, 11(2), 79-101.
255
Jeong, K., Ji, C., Koo, C., Hong, T., & Park, H. S. (2014). A model for predicting the environmental impacts of educational facilities in the project planning phase. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 538-549.
Ji, C., Hong, T., & Hyun, C. (2010). CBR revision model for improving cost prediction
accuracy in multifamily housing projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(4), 229-236.
Ji, C., Hong, T., Jeong, K., & Leigh, S. B. (2014). A model for evaluating the
environmental benefits of elementary school facilities. Journal of environmental management, 132, 220-229.
Ji, S. H., Park, M., & Lee, H. S. (2011). Cost estimation model for building projects
using case-based reasoning. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38(5), 570-581.
Ji, S. H., Park, M., & Lee, H. S. (2012). Case adaptation method of case-based
reasoning for construction cost estimation in Korea. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(1), 43-52.
Ji, S. H., Park, M., Lee, H. S., Ahn, J., Kim, N., & Son, B. (2011). Military facility cost
estimation system using case-based reasoning in Korea. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 25(3), 218-231.
Jin, R., Cho, K., Hyun, C., & Son, M. (2012). MRA-based revised CBR model for cost
prediction in the early stage of construction projects. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5214-5222.
Jin, R., Han, S., Hyun, C., & Kim, J. (2014). Improving accuracy of early stage cost
estimation by revising categorical variables in a case-based reasoning model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(7), 04014025.
Jones, A., Howe, A., Tilse, C., Barlett, H., & Stimson, R. (2010). Service integrated
housing for Australians in later life. Retrieved November 2015, from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_20287_fr
Jones, A., Tilse, C., Bartlett, H., & Stimson, R. (2008). Integrated housing, support
and care for people in later life. Retrieved September 2016, from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/2731/AHURI_Positioning_Paper_No108-Integrated-housing,-support-and-care-for-people-in-later-life.pdf
256
Jones Lang Lasalle. (2008). Development in the retirement living sector: Is supply
meeting demand or missing the mark? Retrieved March 2015, from http://www.communityliving.net.au/home/DigitalAssets/research/joneslanglasalle/693921031/DigitalAssetsFile
Joseph, A., Zimring, C., Harris-Kojetin, L., & Kiefer, K. (2006). Presence and visibility
of outdoor and indoor physical activity features and participation in physical activity among older adults in retirement communities. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 19(3-4), 141-165.
Juan, Y. K. (2009). A hybrid approach using data envelopment analysis and case-
based reasoning for housing refurbishment contractors selection and performance improvement. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5702-5710.
Judd, B., Kavanagh, K., Morris, A., & Naidoo, Y. (2004). Housing options and
independent living: Sustainable outcomes for older people who are homeless. Retrieved from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/2119/AHURI_Final_Report_No62_Housing_options_and_independent_living.pdf
Judd, B., Liu, E., Easthope, H., Davy, L., & Bridge, C. (2014). Downsizing among older
Australians. Retrieved November 2015, from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_70687_fr
Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L., & Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling,
land and neighbourhood use by older home owners. Retrieved from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/2168/AHURI_Final_Report_No144_Dwelling,-land-and-neighbourhood-use-by-older-home-owners.pdf
Kendig, H., Crisp, D., Gong, C., Conway, E., & Squires, B. (2014). An investigation of
the IRT retirement community landscape: A pilot study. Retrieved September 2016, from http://www.irt.org.au/images/IRT_Foundation/Foundation_PDFs/Investigation_of_the_IRT_landscape_-_Pilot_research_report_Oct.2014.pdf
Kendig, H., & Gardner, I. (1997). Unravelling housing policy for older people. In S. E.
Borowski & E. Ozanne (Eds.), Ageing and social policy in Australia (pp. 175-188). Melbourne, Australia: Campridge University Press.
257
Kendig, H., Wells, Y., O'Loughlin, K., & Heese, K. (2013). Australian baby boomers face retirement during the global financial crisis. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 25(3), 264-280.
Kennedy, D. J., & Coates, D. (2008). Retirement village resident satisfaction in
Australia: A qualitative enquiry. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 22(4), 311-334.
Khan, M. A. (1995). Sustainable development: The key concepts, issues and
implications. Sustainable Development, 3(2), 63-69.
Kim, B. S. (2011). The approximate cost estimating model for railway bridge project
in the planning phase using CBR method. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 15(7), 1149-1159.
Kim, B. S., & Hong, T. (2012). Revised case-based reasoning model development
based on multiple regression analysis for railroad bridge construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(1), 154-162.
Kim, G. H., An, S. H., & Kang, K. I. (2004). Comparison of construction cost
estimating models based on regression analysis, neural networks, and case-based reasoning. Building and Environment, 39(10), 1235-1242.
Kim, H. J., Seo, Y. C., & Hyun, C. T. (2012). A hybrid conceptual cost estimating
model for large building projects. Automation in Construction, 25, 72-81.
Kim, K. J., & Kim, K. (2010). Preliminary cost estimation model using case-based
reasoning and genetic algorithms. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 24(6), 499-505.
Kim, M., Lee, S., & Woo, S. (2012). Approximate cost estimating model for river
facility construction based on case-based reasoning with genetic algorithms. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(3), 283-292.
Kim, S. (2012). Interval estimation of construction cost using case-based reasoning
and genetic algorithms. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 11(2), 327-334.
258
Kim, S. (2013). Hybrid forecasting system based on case-based reasoning and analytic hierarchy process for cost estimation. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(1), 86-96.
Kim, S., & Shim, J. H. (2014). Combining case-based reasoning with genetic
algorithm optimization for preliminary cost estimation in construction industry. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 41(1), 65-73.
Kim, S. Y., Choi, J. W., Kim, G. H., & Kang, K. I. (2005). Comparing cost prediction
methods for apartment housing projects: CBR versus ANN. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 4(1), 113-120.
Knight, S., & Buys, L. (2003). The involvement and influence of adult children in
their parents’ decision to move to a retirement village. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 22(2), 91-93.
Kochera, A., & Bright, K. (2006). Livable communities for older people. Generations,
29(4), 32-36.
Kolodneer, J. L. (1991). Improving human decision making through case-based
decision aiding. AI Magazine, 12(2), 52.
Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kolodner, J. L. (1983a). Maintaining organization in a dynamic long-term memory.
Cognitive Science, 7(4), 243-280.
Kolodner, J. L. (1983b). Reconstructive memory: A computer model. Cognitive
Science, 7(4), 281-328.
Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial
Intelligence Review, 6(1), 3-34.
Koo, C., Hong, T., & Hyun, C. (2011). The development of a construction cost
prediction model with improved prediction capacity using the advanced CBR approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(7), 8597-8606.
Koo, C., Hong, T., Hyun, C., & Koo, K. (2010). A CBR-based hybrid model for
predicting a construction duration and cost based on project characteristics
259
in multi-family housing projects. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 37(5), 739-752.
Koo, C., Hong, T., Lee, M., & Park, H. S. (2014). Development of a new energy
efficiency rating system for existing residential buildings. Energy Policy, 68, 218-231.
Koo, C. W., Hong, T., Hyun, C. T., Park, S. H., & Seo, J. O. (2010). A study on the
development of a cost model based on the owner's decision making at the early stages of a construction project. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 14(2), 121-137.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. India: New
Age International.
KPMG. (2009). Monash baby boomer study. Retrieved March 2015, from
http://bernardsalt.com.au/uploads/09Monash-BabyBoomerStudy-BS0312-MAR.pdf
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Pulications Inc.
Kronenberg, T. (2009). The impact of demographic change on energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2637-2645.
Krout, J. A., Oggins, J., & Holmes, H. H. (2000). Patterns of service use in a
continuing care retirement community. The Gerontologist, 40(6), 698-705.
Kupke, V. (2001). Relocating for retirement in South Australia. Pacific Rim Property
Research Journal, 7(3), 168-181.
Lavy, S., & Shohet, I. M. (2007). Computer-aided healthcare facility management.
Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 21(5), 363-372.
Lawton, M. P. (1977). An ecological theory of aging applied to elderly housing.
Journal of Architectural Education, 31(1), 8-10.
260
Leake, D. B. (1996). CBR in context: The present and future. In D. B. Leake (Ed.), Case-Based Reasoning, Experiences, Lessons & Future Directions (pp. 1-30). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Leake, D. B., & Wilson, D. C. (1999). When experience is wrong: examining CBR for
changing tasks and environments. Paper presented at International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning 1999, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lee, S., Hyun, C., & Hong, T. (2009). Retrieve: Remembering tool for reusing the
ideas evolved in value engineering. Automation in Construction, 18(8), 1123-1134.
Lee, S., Jin, Y., & Woo, S. (2013). Approximate cost estimating model of eco-type
trade for river facility construction using case-based reasoning and genetic algorithms. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 17(2), 292-300.
Lee, Y., Yoon, H., Lim, S., An, S., & Hwang, J. (2011). Housing alternatives to
promote holistic health of the fragile aged. Indoor and Built Environment, 21(1), 191-204.
Legge, V. (1984). Attitude to living in a retirement village. Australian Journal on
Ageing, 3(1), 3-7.
Lehning, A. J., Scharlach, A. E., & Dal Santo, T. S. (2009). A web-based approach for
helping communities become more "aging friendly". Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29(4), 415-433.
Lélé, S. M. (1991). Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development,
19(6), 607-621.
Li, H. (1996). Case-based reasoning for intelligent support of construction
negotiation. Information & Management, 30(5), 231-238.
Li, H., Chan, G., Wong, J. K. W., & Skitmore, M. (2016). Real-time locating systems
applications in construction. Automation in Construction, 63, 37-47.
Liao, T. W., Zhang, Z., & Mount, C. R. (1998). Similarity measures for retrieval in
case-based reasoning systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 12(4), 267-288.
261
Liddle, J., Scharf, T., Bartlam, B., Bernard, M., & Sim, J. (2014). Exploring the age-friendliness of purpose-built retirement communities: Evidence from England. Ageing and Society, 34(9), 1601-1629.
Loforte Ribeiro, F. (2001). Project delivery system selection: A case-based reasoning
framework. Logistics Information Management, 14(5/6), 367-376.
López, B. (2013). Case-based reasoning: A concise introduction. Synthesis Lectures
on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 7(1), 1-103.
Lord, S. R., Castell, S., Corcoran, J., Dayhew, J., Matters, B., Shan, A., & Williams, P.
(2003). The effect of group exercise on physical functioning and falls in frail older people living in retirement villages: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51(12), 1685-1692.
Lu, Y., Li, Q., & Xiao, W. (2013). Case-based reasoning for automated safety risk
analysis on subway operation: Case representation and retrieval. Safety science, 57, 75-81.
Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What
makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116-121.
Luo, X., Shen, G. Q., & Fan, S. (2010). A case-based reasoning system for using
functional performance specification in the briefing of building projects. Automation in Construction, 19(6), 725-733.
Luu, D., & Sher, W. (2006). Construction tender subcontract selection using case-
based reasoning. Construction Economics and Building, 6(2), 32-43.
Luu, D. T., Ng, S. T., & Chen, S. E. (2003). A case-based procurement advisory system
for construction. Advances in Engineering Software, 34(7), 429-438.
Luu, D. T., Ng, S. T., & Chen, S. E. (2005). Formulating procurement selection criteria
through case-based reasoning approach. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 19(3), 269-276.
Luu, D. T., Ng, S. T., Chen, S. E., & Jefferies, M. (2006). A strategy for evaluating a
fuzzy case-based construction procurement selection system. Advances in Engineering Software, 37(3), 159-171.
262
Major Cities Unit. (2011). Our cities, our future: A national urban policy for a
productive, sustainable and liveable future. Retrieved from https://infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/files/Our_Cities_National_Urban_Policy_Paper_2011.pdf
Maliene, V., & Malys, N. (2009). High-quality housing - A key issue in delivering
sustainable communities. Building and Environment, 44(2), 426-430.
MaloneBeach, E. E., & Zuo, Q. (2013). Environmental sustainability in U.S. assisted
living facilities. Journal of Housing For the Elderly, 27(3), 255-275.
Manicaros, M. A., & Stimson, R. J. (1999). Living in a retirement village attitudes,
choices and outcomes. Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Marzouk, M. M., & Ahmed, R. M. (2011). A case-based reasoning approach for
estimating the costs of pump station projects. Journal of Advanced Research, 2(4), 289-295.
McCrindle. (2011). The McCrindle Baynes village census report 2011. Retrieved
December 2014, from http://www.australiancommunities.com.au/resources/whitepapers/McCrindle-Research-Baynes-Villages-Census-Report-Summary_McCrindle-Research.pdf
McCrindle. (2013). McCrindle Baynes village census report. Retrieved December
2014, from http://www.agedcarevic.org.au/resources/reports/McCrindle-Baynes-Villages-Census-Report-2013-Executive-Summary.pdf
McCullagh, R. (2014). Care in Australian retirement villages. Elder Law Review, 8, 1-
19.
McDonald, J. (1986). Retirement villages: Segregated communities? Australasian
Journal on Ageing, 5(2), 40-46.
McDonald, J. (1996). Community participation in an Australian retirement village.
Australian Journal on Ageing, 15(4), 167-171.
McGovern, S., & Baltins, E. (2002). The retirement village industry in Australia:
Evolution and structure. In R. J. Stimson (Ed.), The retirement village industry
263
in Australia: evolution, prospects, challenges (pp. 23-46). Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
McGovern, S., & Earl, G. (2002). Affordability issues and retirement villages. In R. J.
Stimson (Ed.), The retirement village in Australia: evolution, prospects, challenges (pp. 89-106). Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
McNelis, S. (2004). Independent living units: The forgotten social housing sector.
Retrieved from https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/2086/AHURI_Final_Report_No53_Independent_living_units_the_forgotten_social_housing_sector.pdf
McNelis, S. (2007). Independent living units: Managing and renewing an ageing
stock. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 26(3), 109-114.
McNelis, S., & Herbert, T. (2003). Independent living units: clarifying their current
and future role as an affordable housing option for older people with low assets and low incomes. Retrieved November 2015, from http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/download/ahuri_50138_pp
Mele, C., Pels, J., & Polese, F. (2010). A brief review of systems theories and their
managerial applications. Service Science, 2(1-2), 126-135.
Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011).
Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30(3), 479-493.
Miller, E., & Buys, L. (2007). Predicting older Australians' leisure time physical
activity. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 31(3), 13-30.
Miskovski, k., Chenoweth, L., & Moore, B. (2015). Living with dementia in
retirement villages. Alzheimer’s Australia NSW Discussion Paper 13. Retrieved March 2016, from https://nsw.fightdementia.org.au/sites/default/files/NSW/documents/Discussion_Paper-Dementia_in_Retirement_Villages.pdf
Monfet, D., Corsi, M., Choinière, D., & Arkhipova, E. (2014). Development of an
energy prediction tool for commercial buildings using case-based reasoning. Energy and Buildings, 81, 152-160.
264
Moon, H., Hyun, C., & Hong, T. (2014). Prediction model of CO2 emission for
residential buildings in South Korea. Journal of Management in Engineering, 30(3), 04014001.
Morcous, G., & Rivard, H. (2003). Computer assistance in managing the
maintenance of low-slope roofs. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 17(4), 230-242.
Morcous, G., Rivard, H., & Hanna, A. (2002a). Case-based reasoning system for
modeling infrastructure deterioration. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 16(2), 104-114.
Morcous, G., Rivard, H., & Hanna, A. (2002b). Modeling bridge deterioration using
case-based reasoning. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 8(3), 86-95.
Motawa, I., & Almarshad, A. (2013). A knowledge-based BIM system for building
maintenance. Automation in Construction, 29, 173-182.
Naderpajouh, N., & Afshar, A. (2008). A case-based reasoning approach to
application of value engineering methodology in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 26(4), 363-372.
Nathan, A., Wood, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2013). Environmental factors associated
with active living in retirement village residents: Findings from an exploratory qualitative enquiry. Research on Aging, 35(4), 459-480.
Nathan, A., Wood, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014a). Examining correlates of self-
reported and objectively measured physical activity among retirement village residents. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 33(4), 250-256.
Nathan, A., Wood, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014b). Exploring socioecological correlates
of active living in retirement village residents. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 22(1), 1-15.
Nathan, A., Wood, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2014c). Perceptions of the built environment
and associations with walking among retirement village residents. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 46-69.
265
Ng, S. T. (2001). EQUAL: A case-based contractor prequalifier. Automation in Construction, 10(4), 443-457.
Ng, S. T., Deng, M. Z., Lam, K. C., & Skitmore, M. (2000). A conceptual case-based
decision model for mitigating construction delays. International Journal of Construction Information Technology, 8(2), 1-20.
Ng, S. T., & Smith, N. J. (1998). Verification and validation of case-based
prequalification system. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 12(4), 215-226.
Ng, S. T., Smith, N. J., & Skitmore, M. (1998). A case based reasoning model for
contractor prequalification. International Journal of Construction Information Technology, 6(1), 47-61.
Ng, S. T. T., & Luu, C. D. T. (2008). Modeling subcontractor registration decisions
through case-based reasoning approach. Automation in Construction, 17(7), 873-881.
Ng, T., Luu, C., & Skitmore, M. (2005). Capitalising experiential knowledge for
guiding construction procurement selection. Construction Economics and Building, 5(1), 32-40.
Nocon, A., & Pearson, M. (2000). The roles of friends and neighbours in providing
support for older people. Ageing and Society, 20(03), 341-367.
Noor, K. B. M. (2008). Case study: A strategic research methodology. American
Journal of Applied Sciences, 5(11), 1602-1604.
O'loughlin, K., Humpel, N., & Kendig, H. (2010). Impact of the global financial crisis
on employed Australian baby boomers: A national survey. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 29(2), 88-91.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Sustainable communities: Building for
the future. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/146289.pdf
Omoto, A. M., & Aldrich, C. D. (2006). Retirement community life: Issues, challenges,
and opportunities. Annual Review of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 26, 283.
266
Ozanne, E. (2009). Negotiating identity in late life: Diversity among Australian baby
boomers. Australian Social Work, 62(2), 132-154.
Ozorhon, B., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2006). Case-based reasoning model for
international market selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(9), 940-948.
Parkin, S. (2000). Sustainable development: the concept and the practical challenge.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 138(6), 3-8.
Petersen, M., & Warburton, J. (2012). Residential complexes in Queensland,
Australia: A space of segregation and ageism? Ageing and Society, 32(01), 60-84.
Pillemer, K., Wells, N. M., Wagenet, L. P., Meador, R. H., & Parise, J. T. (2010).
Environmental sustainability in an aging society: A research agenda. Journal of Aging and Health, 23(13), 433-453.
Pinnegar, S. (2012). Understanding housing and location choices of retiring
Australians in the'baby boom'generation. Retrieved from http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/housing%20in%20the%20baby%20boom%20generation/Documents/PDF/housing_in_the_baby_boom_generation.ashx
Plaut, J. M., Dunbar, B., Wackerman, A., & Hodgin, S. (2012). Regenerative design:
The LENSES framework for buildings and communities. Building Research & Information, 40(1), 112-122.
Power, A. (2004). Sustainable communities and sustainable development: A review
of the sustainable communities plan. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28313/1/CASEreport23.pdf
Productivity Commission. (2011). Caring for older Australians. Retrieved from
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/aged-care/report/aged-care-overview-booklet.pdf
Productivity Commission. (2015). Housing decisions of older Australians. Retrieved
from http://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/housing-decisions-older-australians/housing-decisions-older-australians.pdf
267
Property Council of Australia. (2014). National overview of the retirement village
sector. Retrieved 2016/10/17, from http://www.retirementliving.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/National-overview-of-the-retirement-village-sector-Grant-Thornton.pdf
Property Council of Australia. (2015). The 5 A’s of retirement living – Towards
proactive planning policy. Retrieved March 2016, from http://www.retirementliving.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/5As-of-Retirement-Living-towards-proactive-planning-policy-web.pdf
PwC Australia. (2014). Supporting the nation’s ageing population. Retrieved March
2016, from http://www.pwc.com.au/press-room/2014/supporting-ageing-population-nov14.html
Queensland Government. (2016). Working together for better housing and
sustainable communities. Retrieved November 2016, from http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/HousingDiscussionPaper.pdf
Quine, S., & Carter, S. (2006). Australian baby boomers’ expectations and plans for
their old age. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 25(1), 3-8.
Raghunandan, M., Wiratunga, N., Chakraborti, S., Massie, S., & Khemani, D. (2008).
Evaluation measures for TCBR systems. Paper presented at European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning 2008, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Rankin, J. H., & Froese, T. M. (2002). Information population of an integrated
construction management system. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 17(4), 256-268.
Raphael, B., Domer, B., Saitta, S., & Smith, I. F. (2007). Incremental development of
CBR strategies for computing project cost probabilities. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 21(3), 311-321.
Redclift, M. (1992). The meaning of sustainable development. Geoforum, 23(3),
395-403.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of
age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), 212-227.
268
Retirement Living Council. (2013a). Profile: Retirement village operators. Retrieved
December 2014, from http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/Retirement%20Village%20Operators%20Profile.pdf
Retirement Living Council. (2013b). Profile: Retirement village residents. Retrieved
December 2014, from http://www.retirementliving.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Retirement-Village-Residents-Profile.pdf
Retirement Living Council. (2014). Advancing the quality of retirement living data:
Introducing the PwC/Property Council Retirement Database. Retrieved December 2014, from http://www.retirementliving.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/127021469_Retirement-Living-Infographic_v10.pdf
Rickwood, D., & Rylands, K. J. (2000). Predicting depression in a sample of older
women living in a retirement village. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 19(1), 40-42.
Ritchie, M. A. (2000). Social capacity, sustainable development, and older people:
Lessons from community-based care in Southeast Asia. Development in Practice, 10(5), 638-649.
Richter, M. M., & Aamodt, A. (2005). Case-based reasoning foundations. The
Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 203-207.
Roberts, M. (1997). Housing with care: Housing policies for an ageing Australia.
Ageing International, 23(3), 90-106.
Rogers, M., & Ryan, R. (2001). The triple bottom line for sustainable community
development. Local Environment, 6(3), 279-289.
Rogers, M. F. (2014). Will baby boomers create new models of retirement
community in rural Australia? Australasian Journal on Ageing, 33(4), E46-E50.
Roseland, M. (2000). Sustainable community development: Integrating
environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in Planning, 54(2), 73-132.
269
Ryu, H. G., Lee, H. S., & Park, M. (2007). Construction planning method using case-
based reasoning (CONPLA-CBR). Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 21(6), 410-422.
Sambasivan, M., & Soon, Y. W. (2007). Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 517-526.
Sarvary, M. (1999). Knowledge management and competition in the consulting
industry. California Management Review, 41(2), 95-107.
Scharlach, A. (2009). Creating aging-friendly communities. Generations, 33(2), 5-11.
Schwarz, B. (2012). Environmental gerontology: What now? Journal of Housing For
the Elderly, 26(1-3), 4-19.
Shanas, E. (1979). The family as a social support system in old age. The
Gerontologist, 19(2), 169-174.
Shen, L. Y., Ochoa, J. J., Zhang, X. L., & Yi, P. (2013). Experience mining for decision
making on implementing sustainable urbanization—An innovative approach. Automation in Construction, 29, 40-49.
Shohet, I. M., & Lavy, S. (2004). Development of an integrated healthcare facilities
management model. Facilities, 22(5/6), 129-140.
Slade, S. (1991). Case-based reasoning: A research paradigm. AI magazine, 12(1),
42-55.
Smith, R. J., Lehning, A. J., & Dunkle, R. E. (2013). Conceptualizing age-friendly
community characteristics in a sample of urban elders: An exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 56(2), 90-111.
Snoke, M., Kendig Prof, H., & O'Loughlin Dr, K. (2011). Australian evidence of baby
boomers financial security: A review. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 14(1), Article 8.
Sowa, J. F. (2006). Semantic networks. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive
Science. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
270
Steer, A., & Wade-Gery, W. (1993). Sustainable development: Theory and practice
for a sustainable future. Sustainable Development, 1(3), 23-35.
Stein, I., & Morse, C. (1994). Relocation of the aged-A literature review. Australian Journal on Ageing, 13(1), 41-43.
Stimson, R., McCrea, R., Star, L., & Stimson, R. (2002). What retirees look for in a
retirement village. In R. J. Stimson (Ed.), The Retirement Village Industry in Australia: Evolution, Prospects, Challenges, (pp. 73-88). Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Stimson, R. J., & McCrea, R. (2004). A push – pull framework for modelling the
relocation of retirees to a retirement village: The Australian experience. Environment and Planning A, 36(8), 1451-1470.
Stockland. (2016). Sustainability at Stockland. Retrieved from
https://www.stockland.com.au/about-stockland/sustainability
Sugiyama, T., & Ward Thompson, C. (2007). Older people's health, outdoor activity
and supportiveness of neighbourhood environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2–3), 168-175.
Sykes, K., & Pillemer, K. (2009). The intersection of aging and the environment:
Introduction. Generations, 33(4), 6-9.
Tah, J., Carr, V., & Howes, R. (1998). An application of case-based reasoning to the
planning of highway bridge construction. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 5(4), 327-338.
Tah, J., Carr, V., & Howes, R. (1999). Information modelling for case-based
construction planning of highway bridge projects. Advances in Engineering Software, 30(7), 495-509.
Taormina, R., & Chau, K. W. (2015). Data-driven input variable selection for rainfall–
runoff modeling using binary-coded particle swarm optimization and extreme learning machines. Journal of hydrology, 529, 1617-1632.
271
Taylor, A. W., Pilkington, R., Feist, H., Dal Grande, E., & Hugo, G. (2014). A survey of retirement intentions of baby boomers: An overview of health, social and economic determinants. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 355-364.
Tournier, I., Dommes, A., & Cavallo, V. (2016). Review of safety and mobility issues
among older pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 91, 24-35.
Towart, L. (2005). Retirement villages: A sunset industry in a sunrise situation.
Australian Property Journal, 38(5), 350.
Towart, L. (2013). Who Lives in retirement villages; are they wealthy enclaves,
ghettos or connected communities? Paper presented at State of Australian Cities Conference Sydney, Australia.
Transport & Regional Affairs Committee Environment. (1999). Better quality of life:
A strategy for sustainable development for the UK. Retrieved from http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080530153425/http:/www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/uk-strategy99/index.htm
Trisoglio, A. R. (1996). Sustainable development in a complex world. Doctoral
dissertation, University of London.
U'Ren, B. (2013). Retirement housing and medical facilities: Preference, proximity
and price Doctor of Philosophy. Bond University, Gold Coast. Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=theses
van Hoof, J., Kort, H. S. M., Duijnstee, M. S. H., Rutten, P. G. S., & Hensen, J. L. M.
(2010). The indoor environment and the integrated design of homes for older people with dementia. Building and Environment, 45(5), 1244-1261.
Vithessonthi, C. (2009). Corporate ecological sustainability strategy decisions: The
role of attitude towards sustainable development. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 6(1), 49-64.
Wahl, H. W., & Weisman, G. D. (2003). Environmental gerontology at the beginning
of the new millennium: Reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical development. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 616-627.
Walker, A. (2015). Project management in construction. London: John Wiley & Sons.
272
Walker, E., & McNamara, B. (2013). Relocating to retirement living: An occupational
perspective on successful transitions. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 60(6), 445-453.
Wang, R., Sedransk, J., & Jinn, J. (1992). Secondary data analysis when there are
missing observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(420), 952-961.
Wang, W. C., Chau, K. W., Xu, D. M., & Chen, X. Y. (2015). Improving forecasting
accuracy of annual runoff time series using ARIMA based on EEMD decomposition. Water Resources Management, 29(8), 2655-2675.
Watson, I., & Marir, F. (1994). Case-based reasoning: A review. Knowledge
Engineering Review, 9(4), 327-354.
Weber, R. O., & Aha, D. W. (2003). Intelligent delivery of military lessons learned.
Decision Support Systems, 34(3), 287-304.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future.
Retrieved October 2016, from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Retrieved
from http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf
Wisdom, J., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and
qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Retrieved from https://pcmh.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/MixedMethods_032513comp.pdf
Wright, D. L., Buys, L., Vine, D., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., Drogemuller, R., . . . Lei, M.
(2014). EUTOPIA 75+: Exploratory futures scenarios for baby boomers’ preferred living spaces. Journal of Futures Studies, 19(2), 41-60.
Wright, S. D., & Lund, D. A. (2000). Gray and green?: Stewardship and sustainability
in an aging society. Journal of Aging Studies, 14(3), 229-249.
273
Wright, S. D., & Wadsworth, A. M. (2014). Gray and green revisited: A
multidisciplinary perspective of gardens, gardening, and the aging process. Journal of Aging Research, 2014.
Wu, C., Chau, K., & Li, Y. (2009). Methods to improve neural network performance
in daily flows prediction. Journal of Hydrology, 372(1), 80-93.
Xia, B., Chen, Q., Skitmore, M., Zuo, J., & Li, M. (2015). Comparison of sustainable
community rating tools in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 84-91.
Xia, B., Chen, Q., Xu, Y., Li, M., & Jin, X. (2014). Design-build contractor selection for
public sustainable buildings. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(5), 04014070.
Xia, B., Skitmore, M., Zuo, J., & Buys, L. (2015). Review of community facilities in
Australian retirement villages: A content analysis. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 34(3), 144-148.
Xia, B., Wu, T., Skitmore, M., Chen, Q., Li, M., & Zuo, J. (2016). Delivering
sustainable communities: A case study in China. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 6(3), 253-267.
Xia, B., Zuo, J., Skitmore, M., Buys, L., & Hu, X. (2014). Sustainability literacy of older
people in retirement villages. Journal of Aging Research, 2014, Article ID 919054.
Xia, B., Zuo, J., Skitmore, M., Chen, Q., & Rarasati, A. (2015). Sustainable retirement
village for older people: A case study in Brisbane, Australia. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 19(2), 149-158.
Yamasaki, E., & Tominaga, N. (1997). Evolution of an aging society and effect on
residential energy demand. Energy Policy, 25(11), 903-912.
Yang, J., Shen, G. Q., Ho, M., Drew, D. S., & Xue, X. (2011). Stakeholder
management in construction: An empirical study to address research gaps in previous studies. International Journal of Project Management, 29(7), 900-910.
274
Yang, J. B., & Yau, N. J. (2000). Integrating case-based reasoning and expert system techniques for solving experience-oriented problems. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, 23(1), 83-95.
Yau, N. J., & Yang, J. B. (1998). Case-based reasoning in construction management.
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 13(2), 143-150.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE publications
Inc.
Yu, W. D., & Liu, Y. C. (2006). Hybridization of CBR and numeric soft computing
techniques for mining of scarce construction databases. Automation in Construction, 15(1), 33-46.
Yuan, W., James, P., Hodgson, K., Hutchinson, S., & Shi, C. (2003). Development of
sustainability indicators by communities in China: A case study of Chongming County, Shanghai. Journal of Environmental Management, 68(3), 253-261.
Zhang, J., & Chau, K. W. (2009a). Multilayer ensemble pruning via novel multi-sub-
swarm particle swarm optimization. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 15(4), 840-858.
Zhang, S., & Chau, K. W. (2009b). Dimension reduction using semi-supervised locally
linear embedding for plant leaf classification. Paper presented at International Conference on Intelligent Computing 2009, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Zheng, D. X., Ng, S. T., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). Applying a genetic algorithm-
based multiobjective approach for time-cost optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and management, 130(2), 168-176.
Zhou, X. F., Shi, Z. L., & Zhao, H. C. (2010). Reexamination of CBR hypothesis. Paper
presented at International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning 2010, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Zhuang, Z. Y., Churilov, L., Burstein, F., & Sikaris, K. (2009). Combining data mining
and case-based reasoning for intelligent decision support for pathology ordering by general practitioners. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(3), 662-675.
275
Zimring, C., Joseph, A., Nicoll, G. L., & Tsepas, S. (2005). Influences of building design and site design on physical activity: Research and intervention opportunities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2, Supplement 2), 186-193.
Zuo, J., Xia, B., Barker, J., & Skitmore, M. (2014). Green buildings for greying people:
A case study of a retirement village in Australia. Facilities, 32(7/8), 365-381.
276
Appendixes
Appendix A Indicator description of a retirement village case
Code Indicator Type Value
F1 The type of developer Categorical Not-for-profit; Private
F2 The site location Categorical Rural area; Suburb area
F3 The accommodation
type
Categorical Villa; Apartment; Mixed (villa and
apartment)
F4 The number of unit Quantitative Any positive numerical value
F5 The number of
residents
Quantitative Any positive numerical value
F6 The village size Quantitative Any positive numerical value (acres
OR m2)
F7 The mean entry
contribution
Quantitative Any positive numerical value (AUD)
F8 The range of entry
contribution
Quantitative Any positive numerical value range
(AUD)
F9 The mean on-going
costs
Quantitative Any positive numerical value (AUD
each week)
F10 The range of on-going
costs
Quantitative Any positive numerical value range
(AUD each week)
F11 The level of residents’ Categorical Live independently; Need low levels
of care assistances; Need moderate
277
health conditions levels of care assistances; Need high
levels of care assistances; Mixed;
F12 The tenure and
contract arrangement
Categorical Leasehold; Freehold; Loan/Licenses;
Rental; Mixed; Others
F13 The mean age of
residents
Quantitative Any positive numerical value (years
old)
F14 The age range of
residents
Quantitative Any positive numerical value range
(years old)
F15 The percentage of
female residents
Quantitative 0~100%
F16 The approximate
development budget
Quantitative Any positive numerical value (AUD)
F17 The target customer Quantitative Any positive numerical value range
(years old)
F18 The value proposition
of the retirement
village
Linguistic A description of the value
proposition of the retirement village
Note: AUD = Australian Dollars
278
Appendix B Semantic network representation of sustainable practice cases
