TABLE OF CONTENTS - The Professional Green Building Council

Theme B: Creating a livable, healthy and environmentally viable citiesTable 6. T-test of residents’ satisfaction with the use of their leisure in connection with commonspacesOverallDwellers’occupancy time andthe control of floorarea(after 2002/20-40pyeong in floorarea))Item Building type N Mean Sig.LeisureSuper high-risemixed-use housing120 3.583Ordinary multifamilyhousing118 2.381**0.000Super high-riseSelfdevelopmentOrdinary multi-mixed-use housing120 3.075family housing117 2.102**0.000Super high-riseShopping and mixed-use housing119 3.495culture Ordinary multifamilyhousing117 2.333**0.000LeisureSuper high-risemixed-use housing44 3.227Ordinary multifamilyhousing60 2.483**0.000Super high-riseSelfdevelopmentOrdinary multi-mixed-use housing44 2.886family housing60 2.233**0.001Super high-riseShopping and mixed-use housing43 3.651culture Ordinary multifamilyhousing60 2.367**0.000Safety/SecurityWith regard to their satisfaction with safety and security in semi-public spaces,residents in super high-rise mixed-use housing showed higher levels than those inordinary multi-family housing did. The survey question of “Do you think thatsemi-public spaces are helpful to safety” showed the biggest difference betweenthe two groups, indicating that semi-public spaces of substructures in super highrisemixed-use housing complexes sufficiently play a role of defensible spaces andbuffer zones against external spaces. With regard to their satisfaction with theirchildren’s safety and security against crimes, residents both in super high-risemixed-use housing and ordinary multi-family housing showed higher levels thanan average, but the finding indicates that the security of ordinary multi-familyhousing are inferior to that of super high-rise mixed-use housing.563