Neighborly assistance: high expectations

of multi-generation cohousing projects

Yvonne Wechuli

Abstract Yvonne Wechuli is based

Purpose – Multi-generation cohousing projects are loaded with the expectations of inhabitants and at the Faculty of Rehabilitation
planners, as well as political representatives. They are expected to foster a form of neighborly assistance, Sciences, TU Dortmund
which is supposed to ultimately unburden social security. But evidence is scarce when it comes to central University, Dortmund,
aspects like long-term development, the influence of context factors, the quality of community living, and the Germany.
neighborly assistance actually provided. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Hence, this explorative study sought to specify the support activities
that neighbors in one cohousing project carried out. A survey was conducted in three survey intervals, with
questionnaires structured according to the ”Activities” chapter of the International Classification of
Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO, 2002).
Findings – Respondents reported receiving or providing assistance in all suggested areas of life, but some
activities were more common than others. Respondents with long-term support requirements were not
assisted by neighbors but by other caregivers. The results indicate that neighborliness depends on the
individual activity radius since the scope of assistance varied along with socio-demographic characteristics.
Respondents deemed reciprocity important to guarantee the voluntary nature of neighborly support and also
to allow care recipients to specify how support should be given.
Research limitations/implications – The author therefore suggests considering multi-generation
cohousing projects as a means to foster Quality of Life rather than to cut costs.
Originality/value – Findings from this study with a focus on multi-generation cohousing with the legal status
of cooperatives and implications for spatial planning were previously published in: Kuhnke, Y. (2015),
“Nachbarschaftliche Hilfen. Hohe Erwartungen an Mehrgenerationenwohnprojekte in der Rechtsform der
Genossenschaften” (Neighborly Assistance. High Expectations of Multi-generation Cohousing Projects
under the Legal Form of Registered Cooperatives), RaumPlanung, Vol. 179 No. 3, pp. 20-6.
Keywords Social networks, Quality of life, Intergenerational, Community building, Multi-generation cohousing,
Neighborly assistance
Paper type Research paper

Multi-generation cohousing in Germany

One can observe a significant growth of cohousing projects in Germany, especially a boom in
multi-generation cohousing since 2000. The federal republic as well as the federal states have
provided funding (Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen,
2007; Ministerium für Bauen und Verkehr des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2005;
Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2012). Multi-generation cohousing
projects are loaded with the expectations of inhabitants and planners, as well as the expectations of
political representatives. They are expected to foster a form of neighborly assistance in response to
The author would like to thank his
demographic challenges, which is in turn supposed to financially unburden social security (Andritzky supervisors Professor Elisabeth
and Grünewald, 2004; Gierse and Wagner, 2012; Kehl and Then, 2013). Wacker and Simone Schüller, as
well as Professor Renate Walthes
Multi-generation cohousing projects are one subtype of cohousing projects where residents of for giving the author the freedom
to investigate a very interesting
different ages live together. There is no generally accepted definition of cohousing. idea and for their continued
Widely accepted characteristics include the residents’ decision for community life in a shared support after finalizing her Master’s
thesis. This support resulted in the
place of residence as well as a self-organized daily routine (Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und author’s winning the ConSozial
Raumforschung (BBSR), 2014). price for young scientists.

DOI 10.1108/WWOP-02-2017-0006 VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017, pp. 133-139, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1366-3666 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j PAGE 133
 State of the art
The following paragraphs present the available knowledge based on neighborly assistance and
cohousing projects.

Neighborly assistance
Multi-generation cohousing can be further characterized by specific expectations from (future)
residents as well as stakeholders in the housing market and other policy fields. The mutual
support of the residents is often prominently mentioned in mission statements and journalistic
reports. Thus the public image, as well as the residents’ ideas about their projects and housing in
general, circle around neighborly assistance (Behrens and Brümmer, 1997; Hieber et al., 2005;
Narten and Tischer, 2001). The prevention of nursing home admissions is an often stated
argument in this context (Kehl and Then, 2013) and also a self-chosen objective of cohousing
projects (Narten and Tischer, 2001).
Residents of cohousing projects want to support each other and actually do so. Because of an
independence from family bonds there is potential for manifold mutual support (Rohr-Zänker
and Müller, 1998; Hieber et al., 2005; Gierse and Wagner, 2012). Although neighborly
assistance has potential to enrich, it also may cause conflicts as it demands social
competencies (Behrens and Brümmer, 1997; Hieber et al., 2005; Gierse and Wagner, 2012;
BBSR, 2014).
Outside of cohousing projects, neighborly relationships have been called “fine weather
relationships” (Rohr-Zänker and Müller, 1998, p. 16). The term is supposed to indicate that a
certain degree of distance is normal amongst neighbors in the given cultural and historical
context. Accordingly, mutual support commonly has a limited extent and comes along with a low
degree of obligation or commitment (Rohr-Zänker and Müller, 1998, p. 16). Most publications
agree that neighbors generally cannot provide nursing care (Behrens and Brümmer, 1997;
BBSR, 2014; Gierse and Wagner, 2012; Hieber et al., 2005; Kehl and Then, 2013; Narten and
Tischer, 2001). Neigborliness in the sense of an orientation towards the neighborhood is
functional and varies according to life phase, time spent at or around home and access to other
support systems (Gierse and Wagner, 2012; Rohr-Zänker and Müller, 1998).

Cohousing projects
What is known about cohousing projects? A certain degree of information on the distribution of
such projects is available. The project landscape of cohousing in Germany has not been entirely
recorded, but first steps have been taken. For instance, Figure 1 shows the number of cohousing
projects in the legal form of cooperatives realized in Germany between 2000 and 2011
(BBSR, 2014, p. 32).
Further, such projects can be distinguished according to several characteristics, such as their
legal status (e.g. cooperative), funding (e.g. residents-owned or social housing), initiative
(top-down or bottom-up), construction characteristics (e.g. new construction) and characteristics
of the residents (e.g. age structure) (Fedrowitz, 2010, 2011).

Knowledge gaps
The relationship between demand and political support, on the one side, and the evaluation of
expectations of multi-generation cohousing broadcast by media, on the other side, is lopsided
(Gierse and Wagner, 2012; Kehl and Then, 2013).
Evidence is scarce when it comes to central aspects like long-term development, the influence
of context factors, the quality of living together and the neighborly assistance actually provided.
Context factors include community tasks or challenges that can foster solidarity (like grieving
together when someone has passed on), characteristics and expectations of the residents,
equality among the residents and architectural characteristics such as accessibility. Obviously,
these research gaps concern central expectations of cohousing projects (Fedrowitz, 2010;
Kremer-Preiß and Stolarz, 2003).

PAGE 134 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017

Figure 1 Realized cohousing projects in the legal form of cooperatives in Germany
between 2000 and 2011

Mehrgenerationen-
wohnprojekte in der
Rechtsform der
eingetragenen
Genossenschaft
Anzahl realisierter
Wohnprojekte
2000 bis 2011
1 Wohnprojekt
2-4 Wohnprojekte
5-10 Wohnprojekte
mehr als 10
Wohnprojekte

Datenbasis:
Forschungsprojekt “Mehr-
generationewohnprojekte
in der Rechtsform der
eingetragenen Genossen-
schaft”, Bestandserhebung
gemeinschaftlicher Wohn-
projekte in der Rechtsform
100 km der eG (April 2012)
Source: BBSR (2014, p. 32)

Case study
The specific cohousing project studied here is located in a residential area in a larger town in the
urban region of the Ruhr valley in Germany. A former church ground was remodeled into a
housing community, thus self-contained apartments, and established in 2008. In total,
130 residents live in rental apartments, which were funded by an investor and not, like most
cohousing projects in Germany, by the residents themselves. To be entitled to rent some of the
apartments, the residents’ salaries must not exceed a certain amount.
The municipal housing office and a cohousing information center cooperated on the process
through workshops with the tenants’ association, e.g. about expectations of cohousing.
The tenants’ association organizes joint activities and events (e.g. Christmas or summer parties,
a weekly breakfast café for seniors) and distributes small tasks in the context of community living
(e.g. gardening).
The residents are younger and older elderly people as well as families with young children.
Many of the elderly residents are members of the parish that used to own the premises.
The building also integrates five barrier-free apartments rented by five elderly people with
mobility restrictions.

Methods
This explorative study sought to specify the support activities that neighbors in one
specific cohousing project carried out for each other. Further, conditions which facilitate or
hinder the establishment of mutual support were investigated. Subjective reports of the
residents were analyzed since it was not possible to observe the process of establishing
neighborly support.
A qualitative survey influenced by the Delphi method (Häder, 2009) was carried out in three survey
intervals from December 2013 through February 2014. Respondents were asked to comment on
the summarized results of the preceding interval. This method is supposed to generate a wider
range of ideas than individual interviews or questionnaires. Further, it is supposed to prevent
respondents from simply following one opinion leader.

VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j PAGE 135

 Questions were asked about neighborly assistance actually provided and environmental
factors. Questions were structured according to the “Activities” chapter of the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). The ICF was utilized as a guide to
describe all activities that people can carry out (see Table I).

Results
In the following section survey results with a focus on neighborly assistance are described.

Sample
The survey was conducted in three intervals. Seven respondents took part in each of
the three survey intervals; seven respondents took part in two of the intervals; an additional
seven took part in only one interval. Thus, 21 of the 92 adult residents of the cohousing
project took part in the study. The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents are
very diverse.
Respondents were 23-91 years old and with varying marital status (eight married, eight widowed,
four divorced and one single). Educational status ranged from primary education to completed
university degrees. Both established residents of the district and new residents were part of the
sample. Most respondents moved in at the start of the cohousing project in 2008 and are
members of the tenants’ association.

Neighborly assistance
Respondents describe receiving or providing manifold forms of neighborly assistance – in all
suggested domains of the “Activities” chapter of the ICF (World Health Organization, 2002).
Thus, neighborly assistance occurs in all areas of life in which it is possible to help one other.
The mutual support that the respondents describe can be characterized as typical for support
amongst neighbors in general, as those activities have a low degree of obligation and a
manageable extent. Activities that are more common than others comprise support in domestic
life (e.g. shopping for an elderly neighbor) and in community, social and civic life; the residents
mention the organized social events as the biggest strength of this project. In these events, the
residents and the wider neighborhood find opportunities to get in touch and chat and partake in a
lively social life.
In the case of long-term support requirements, the respondents were not assisted by neighbors
but by other caregivers, e.g. family members or professional care providers, and they describe
the need “to give something back”. The expectation of reciprocal support runs both ways.
Respondents are afraid that support which is not mutual may develop into dependencies as they
challenge the voluntary character of neighborly assistance for the caregiver as well as the
self-determination of the care recipient.

Table I Domains of the “activities and participation” chapter in the ICF

Number Domain

1 Learning and applying knowledge

2 General tasks and demands
3 Communication
4 Mobility
5 Self-care
6 Domestic life
7 Interpersonal interactions and relationships
8 Major life areas
9 Community, social and civic life
Source: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (WHO, 2002, p. 16)

PAGE 136 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017

Respondents help or receive help differently and to a different extent, depending on their age,
mobility and living situation. The following types were extracted:
■ primary caregivers;
■ helpers on occasion;
■ helpers by habit;
■ primary care recipients;
■ satisfied non-partakers; and
■ dissatisfied non-partakers.
Some respondents primarily take either the role as caregiver or as care recipient. The described
activities of “helpers on occasion” are consistent with the description of “fine weather
relationships” (Rohr-Zänker and Müller, 1998, p. 16). “Helpers by habit” describe those who
exclusively support friends and relations from a similar social background. Some respondents
who do not take part in neighborly assistance are satisfied with this exclusion. They probably
exclude themselves by their own choice because they have access to other support networks.
Others are dissatisfied with their exclusion and express frustration. It can be assumed that their
high expectations of cohousing were not met.

These prototypes show certain patterns that vary with the living situation and socio-economic
resources. Thus, these results can support the idea that neighborliness is functional and depends
on the activity radius and resources of the individual. They further show that it is neither possible
nor useful to draw general conclusions about neighborly assistance.
The evaluations of environmental conditions vary with the personal situation of the individual and by
whether the individual is affected or not. For instance, new and established tenants divergently
classify the openness of the established group to new tenants. Established residents describe the
group as open, whereas new tenants describe it as rather closed. Equal participation and group
composition are thus confirmed as fields of conflict. Some respondents explain their
non-participation in neighborly support by lack of resources such as time, competencies or health.

Conclusion
Cohousing projects can provide: new living arrangements independent of family bonds;
a “good neighborhood” similar to living arrangements outside of cohousing projects; and
opportunities for residents of a local community to get in touch with one another. But cohousing
projects cannot offer completely new living arrangements where residents provide nursing care for
each other. In the great majority of cases, neighbors cannot provide long-time care as both
caregivers and care recipients may fear that dependencies would develop. As a rule, the long-term
care should thus be accomplished differently, for instance, by professional nursing care.
Neighborly assistance is provided in personal relationships between individuals, building on
sympathy and joint interests, among other factors. Communities may assist in establishing
neighborly assistance, but they do not “create” mutual support. As relationships of support do
not evolve out of nothing but are part of interactions amongst individuals, it is important to note
that they cannot be established by decree. Participation in relationships that facilitate neighborly
support seems to be bound to individual resources such as health, time and competencies.

Cohousing projects should be discussed not with the intention to save costs but to foster quality
of life. The present public interest in Germany aims at preventing nursing home entrance and at
cost cutting. Thus, the well-being of the residents has not (yet) taken center stage. The residents
of the specific cohousing project in this case study shared how important living together was for
them; especially the very old residents appreciated the opportunity to have contact with
neighbors to prevent loneliness. Further, the specific project brought together residents with
many different cultural backgrounds due to the demographic situation in the region. The residents
were able to learn how to live together in a very diverse community. Thus, these experiences
might aid in overcoming the challenges that immigrant societies are facing.

VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j PAGE 137

 In a nutshell, elderly people who wish to join or initiate a multi-generation cohousing project
should ask themselves how closely they would like to share their everyday lives with their
neighbors. This question is a critical one against the current norm in Western societies
characterized by distanced relationships amongst neighbors.
Service providers should know that multi-generation cohousing is not a solution to every
problem. Solutions to a nursing care crisis have to be found elsewhere. Further, it is important to
note that planners and practitioners cannot “create” mutual support amongst elderly people or
between the generations. Also, the degree that people are interested in and actually carry out
neighborly support will vary with the living situation, age and other socio-economic factors.
Some people might not even be able to build new networks in which neighborly assistance is
carried out due to poor health, lack of competencies or lack of time resources. Hence,
professional support should start by developing those individual resources wherever possible to
enable cohousing residents (and others) to establish and maintain relationships that facilitate
neighborly assistance.
Further research questions worth investigating include a network analysis to find out who provides
which type of neighborly support for whom. For certain activities of neighborly support, it would be
interesting to analyze intensity and frequency, e.g. driving someone to the hospital, sharing food or
comforting someone during a crisis. To determine the influence of environmental factors,
a comparative analysis of individual and contextual factors could be conducted. Of course,
a longitudinal design would be able to shed more light on the process of establishing neighborly
support. Lastly, living together and providing mutual support in heterogeneous groups remains a
future challenge. To answer the question of how residents with diverse backgrounds can not only
get along but complement each other, further efforts are needed. In any case, a theoretical
definition of informal support rather than its treatment as only a marginal category is fundamental.

References
Andritzky, M. and Grünewald, A. (2004), “Vorwort”, in BauWohnberatung Karlsruhe (Ed.), Neues Wohnen fürs
Alter. Was geht und wie es geht, Frankfurt am Main, Anabas, pp. 9-12.

Behrens, M. and Brümmer, A. (1997), Selbstinitiierte Hausgemeinschaften – eine Antwort auf gesellschaftliche
Veränderungen? Kuratorium Deutsche Altershilfe, Köln.

Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR) (2014), “Neues Wohnen. Gemeinschaftliche
Wohnformen bei Genossenschaften”, available at: www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlic
hungen/Sonderveroeffentlichungen/2014/DL_NeuesWohnen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed
September 16, 2016).

Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2012), “Wohnen für (Mehr)
Generationen. Gemeinschaft stärken – Quartier beleben. Praxisbeispiele zum gemeinschaftlichen und
generationenübergreifenden Wohnen”, available at: www.bmfsfj.de/RedaktionBMFSFJ/
Broschuerenstelle/Pdf-Anlagen/wohnen-fuer-generationen,property=pdf,bereich=bmfsfj,sprache=de,
rwb=true.pdf (accessed September 16, 2016).

Fedrowitz, M. (2010), “Gemeinschaft in der Stadt. Das Modell des Mehrgenerationenwohnens”,

RaumPlanung, Vol. 149 No. 2, pp. 75-80.

Fedrowitz, M. (2011), “Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen in Deutschland”, available at: aktuell.nationalatlas.de/wp-

content/uploads/11_09_Wohnprojekte.pdf (accessed September 16, 2016).

Gierse, C. and Wagner, M. (2012), “Gemeinschaftliche Wohnprojekte: Eine Wohnform für alle sozialen Lagen
und Lebensalter?”, Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 59-82.

Häder, M. (2009), Delphi-Befragungen: Ein Arbeitsbuch, 2nd ed., VS, Wiesbaden.

Hieber, A., Mollenkopf, G., Wahl, H.-W. and Oswald, F. (2005), “Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen im Alter:
Von der Idee bis zum Einzug”, available at: www.psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de/mediendaten/ae/apa/fb20_
gemwohnen.pdf (accessed September 16, 2016).

Kehl, K. and Then, V. (2013), “Community and civil society returns of multi-generation cohousing in Germany”,
Journal of Civil Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 41-57.

PAGE 138 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017

Kremer-Preiß, U. and Stolarz, H. (2003), Neue Wohnkonzepte für das Alter und praktische Erfahrungen bei
der Umsetzung: Eine Bestandsanalyse, Kuratorium Deutsche Altershilfe, Köln.
Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2007),
“Neue Wohnprojekte für ältere Menschen: Gemeinschaftliches Wohnen in Nordrhein-Westfalen – Beispiele
und Wege zur Umsetzung,” Ministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales des Landes Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Düsseldorf.
Ministerium für Bauen und Verkehr des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2005), “Wohnen im Alter.
Neue Wohnmodelle in Nordrhein-Westfalen,” Ministerium für Bauen und Verkehr des Landes Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Düsseldorf.
Narten, R. and Tischer, S. (2001), Räume für gemeinschaftliche Wohnprojekte älterer Menschen –
Erfahrungen aus den Niederlanden, Kuratorium Deutsche Altershilfe, Köln.
Rohr-Zänker, R. and Müller, W. (1998), “Die Rolle von Nachbarschaften für die zukünftige Entwicklung
von Stadtquartieren. Expertise im Auftrag der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landeskunde und Raumordnung,
Oldenburg”, available at: www.stadtregion.net/fileadmin/downloads/Rolle_von_Nachbarschaften.pdf
(accessed September 16, 2016).
World Health Organization (2002), “Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health.
ICF – the international classification of functioning, disability and health”, available at: www.who.int/entity/
classifications/icf/icfbeginnersguide.pdf?ua=1 (accessed September 16, 2016).

Further reading
Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (2012), “Mehrgenerationen-Wohnprojekte in der
Rechtsform der eingetragenen Genossenschaft”, available at: www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/FP/ReFo/
Wohnungswesen/2011/MehrgenerationenWohnen/01_Start.html?nn=439538&notFirst=true&docId=
439332 (accessed September 16, 2016).

About the author

Yvonne Wechuli is a Research Associate at the Sociology of Diversity Chair, Faculty of Sport and
Health Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Germany. She studied Rehabilitation and Health
Sciences at TU Dortmund University, Germany, and Linköping University, Sweden. She holds
an MA in Rehabilitation Sciences and a BA in Rehabilitation Pedagogy from the TU
Dortmund University, Germany. Her current research interests are informal support, the design of
service provision for people with disabilities and heterophobia. Yvonne Wechuli can be contacted
at: yvonne.wechuli@tum.de

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 21 NO. 3 2017 j WORKING WITH OLDER PEOPLE j PAGE 139