"Living Environment More Important Than the House... Being Able to Spend Old Age Where You Lived" [Issue Interview]

Professor Emeritus Lee Kyung-rak, Department of Architectural Engineering, U1 University

"In our country, it is difficult to supply senior housing in Seoul or other large cities. There are many existing buildings, so there is very little vacant land, and demolishing and rebuilding other buildings costs a lot. So, construction is really challenging. Ultimately, the housing method for the elderly that our country should aim for is 'aging in place,' meaning growing old where one has lived."

On the 26th of last month, Professor Emeritus Lee Kyung-rak of the Department of Architectural Engineering at U1 University emphasized, "It is important to have infrastructure that allows people to age where they have lived." He said, "Ultimately, we need to become a society that can practice 'aging-in-place,' spending old age in the home where one has lived. To achieve this, housing renovation and expansion of home care service hours are necessary."

Professor Lee earned his Ph.D. in 1994 from the University of Tokyo, Japan, with research on the residential environment for the elderly. At a time when there was little concern about the increasing elderly population in Korea, he went to Japan to foresee Korea’s distant future and decided to study elderly residential environments. After returning to Korea and working as a professor, he currently serves as a director of the Korean Society of Long-term Care and vice president of the Dementia Care Society. His major publications include "Theory of Housing Welfare," "Architectural Design Manual for the Elderly and Disabled," and "Reading Spaces in Elderly Facilities."

On the 26th of last month, Lee Kyung-rak, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Architectural Engineering at U1 University, is being interviewed by Asia Economy.

- You studied elderly residential environments in Japan in the 1980s. At that time, Korea was far from an aging society, even implementing birth control policies. Why did you study elderly residential systems?

▲ I earned my master's degree on collective housing. I went to Japan in 1989 to pursue my Ph.D. At that time, Japan had long entered an aging society and was on the verge of becoming a super-aged society. Elderly issues were serious and attracted national attention. There was a widespread atmosphere that "all sectors of society will be related to aging." Looking back now, it resembles present-day Korea. Observing Japan’s situation, I felt I should specialize in that area. Fortunately, my lab was involved in aging-related projects, so I compared the living behaviors of elderly people living in various types of housing, including nursing facilities, elderly living in general housing, and those in collective housing.

- This was before the introduction of long-term care insurance. Were there really many types of elderly housing facilities?

▲ Even before the full implementation of long-term care insurance, Japan had substantial elderly protection policies at the local government level. Various measures for economically and physically vulnerable elderly people were well developed. The same applied to housing. There were diverse types of housing facilities, from nursing homes to "Silverpia," a complex housing for elderly single-person households to live together. When I visited, I remember thinking, "It would be livable even when getting old."

- It’s interesting that policies vary by local government.

▲ Japan has a well-developed integrated care system at the local government level. Even long-term care insurance is managed by local governments as insurers, unlike Korea where it is managed by the central government. This allows meticulous care for elderly people living in the community. While Korea has developed elderly protection policies in terms of overall medical and care levels, more specific and detailed considerations are needed.

- Korea has a severe shortage of elderly housing units.

▲ The price environment for supplying elderly housing itself is inappropriate. Building where there is demand means high land prices and construction costs. For small construction companies rather than large corporations, it is still a burdensome level. For widespread supply, government-provided benefits such as tax support for developers or housing cost support for residents must accompany it.

However, there may be some limits to such supply. Also, some people really want to continue living in their existing homes. As people age, frequently changing living spaces can be a kind of "shock." Choice must be guaranteed for elderly people who want aging-in-place because they dislike environmental changes.

- Has aging-in-place taken root quickly in Japan? If so, why?

▲ Japan is a country with many detached houses. Especially many buildings were built during the bubble economy era and are now aging. Because there are many safety accidents, aging-in-place developed faster. Many elderly people want to continue living in their own homes even if it is difficult to live alone as they age, and they cannot be forced to move into elderly housing. Ultimately, a two-track system had to develop. Thanks to this, policies are now being made to support aging-in-place rather than building new facilities.

- What is most needed to enable aging in place?

▲ First, the living environment itself must be elderly-friendly. Houses must be renovated to prevent falls and ensure thresholds do not obstruct movement. Currently, there are individual projects by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, such as home renovation or residential environment improvement projects, but they are one-off and limited in scope. In Japan, long-term care insurance supports housing repair costs, which has greatly developed the elderly-customized housing renovation market.

Also, long-term care insurance beneficiaries should be able to flexibly receive home care services whenever they want. Generally, home care services allow a maximum of three hours per visit by a care worker. However, this three-hour standard is ambiguous. Within those three hours, there may be moments when the elderly need the care worker and moments when they do not. From the care worker’s perspective, it is easier to stay with the elderly the entire time and then leave. There needs to be a plan to increase usable time or allow flexible division of usage time. If this is resolved, society can more easily settle into aging-in-place.