1. Pull factors to Finnish senior houses Authors: Tanja Tyvimaa Tampere University of Technology Karen M. Gibler Georgia State University The paper has been accepted to publish in International Real Estate Review. ERES, Milan, June 2010

2. Question What are the pull factors to the senior houses in Finland?

3. Method Case study : 3 cases in three cities in Finland, together 461 units Mailed questionnaires to residents in 2009 Total response rate 34.5% We calculated the mean importance of each attribute (pull factors) and compared the means among the cases using an ANOVA F-test We used factor analysis to determine whether the 13 pull factors could be combined

4. Ranking of property attributes 4

5. Loppukiri

6. Kotosalla 6

7. Hakatornit 7

8. Comparison between the cases No remarkable differences in the pulls to senior houses among demographic groups The oldest residents value more on-site services, neighbourhood shops and access to medical services Hospital or health center nearby Kotosalla and Hakatornit: 2nd important Loppukiri: 8th important Swimming pool or fitness center nearby Hakatornit: 3rd important Kotosalla and Loppukiri: 12th and 10th important 8

9. Comparison between the cases Residents organized activities Loppukiri: 2nd important Kotosalla: 12th important Meal service on-site Loppukiri and Kotosalla: 6th important Hakatornit: 13th important Activity clubs on-site Loppukiri: 5th important Hakatornit: 10th important Staff on-site Kotosalla: 4th important Loppukiri: 13th important 9

10. Factor analysis 10

11. Comparison No significant socioeconomic factors were related to the importance of Factor 1 (lifestyle) Factor 2 (daily service and care) was more important to residents 70 years of age and older, as these residents are likely to be less mobile and more dependent on the neighbourhood Physical activities in Factor 3 (activities) were more important for females than males Household income level or whether seniors live alone or not does not appear to be related to importance of the pull attributes 11

12. Comparison Factor 1 (lifestyle) was more important for residents in Kotosalla and Loppukiri than in Hakatornit Factor 2 (daily service and care) was more important for residents in Kotosalla than in Loppukiri and in Hakatornit Factor 3 (activities) was important for all residents 12

13. Significant differences in the pulls between the cases The communities can be differentiated based on the on-site services and the type of neighbourhood Results support earlier findings Seniors choose a retirement home that can support their existing lifestyle Seniors prefer communities that can provide new activities Seniors want activities and some luxury services more than health care services Investors should focus to activate residents and offer some extra for everyday life! 13 Conclusion

14. Thank you!