This study aims to empirically examine how the determinants of residential mobility among older households differ by household type—specifically older single-person households, elderly couple households, and households living with adult children. By...
This study aims to empirically examine how the determinants of residential mobility among older households differ by household type—specifically older single-person households, elderly couple households, and households living with adult children. By comparing the residential mobility behavior of older single-person households lacking informal care resources with that of other household types, the study seeks to highlight the need for and direction of policy interventions that account for heterogeneity among older households.
Using inter-dong (neighborhood-level) origin–destination (OD) migration records of households aged 65 and over in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province in 2024, this study constructs an OD dataset and applies household-type-specific binary logistic regression models. The analysis is based on a probabilistic spatial choice framework derived from the Huff model, incorporating destination size factors, spatial friction factors, and socioeconomic variables influencing residential inflow probabilities.
The key findings are as follows. First, healthcare environments play a critical role in residential destination choice among older households, but their effects differ structurally depending on the availability of household-level care resources. Older single-person households exhibit a strong preference for areas with greater healthcare facility availability; however, excessive concentration of medical facilities is associated with reduced residential utility, indicating a nonlinear relationship driven by diminished residential amenity. In contrast, elderly couple households tend to prefer areas with a certain level of medical agglomeration, while households living with adult children show relatively low sensitivity to the quantitative distribution of healthcare facilities.
Second, the effects of living environment factors reflect differences in care resources and daily lifestyles across household types. In particular, public transportation accessibility emerges as a critical locational factor for older single-person households with limited mobility resources. These households also demonstrate a “neighborhood-oriented use pattern,” responding more strongly to easily accessible green spaces such as local parks and park area than to formalized sports facilities.
Third, analyses of spatial friction and socioeconomic factors reveal a strong tendency to avoid crossing municipal boundaries across all household types. This finding suggests that place attachment and existing social networks anchored in established living areas function as powerful structural constraints on residential mobility in later life. Housing price differentials significantly deter residential moves among older single-person households, whereas their effects are mitigated among multi-person households through intra-household resource sharing. Meanwhile, a preference for areas with higher population density is observed consistently across all household types.
This study interprets the residential mobility of older single-person households as an adaptive response aimed at compensating for the absence of informal care resources through spatial choice. From a policy perspective, the findings suggest the need for housing subsidies and incentive schemes that promote intergenerational proximity, thereby enabling informal family-based care to function in everyday life. Such measures may serve as effective policy tools for buffering demand for formal medical and long-term care services and for managing the social costs associated with population aging.