All Issue

2026 Vol.33, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

Comparing Perceptions of Service Robot Adoption in Multi-Family Housing Between Residents and Industry Stakeholders: Focusing on Acceptance Attitudes, Concerns, and Technological Needs

공동주택 서비스로봇 도입에 대한 거주자와 산업종사자의 인식 비교: 수용태도, 우려사항, 기술수요를 중심으로

In Tae Hwang1
,
Gil Tae Kim1*
,
Byung Chang Kwag2
황 인태1
,
김 길태1*
,
곽 병창2
1Center for Housing Environment Research and Innovation of the Korea Land Housing Institute, Sejong, Korea
2Department of Architectural Engineering, Korea University of Technology and Education, Cheonan, Korea
1한국토지주택공사 토지주택연구원 주택성능연구개발센터
2한국기술교육대학교 건축공학과
*Corresponding Author
30 June 2026. pp. 309-322
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Service robots have been discussed primarily from the perspective of technological development, yet the spaces in which they actually operate are everyday architectural environments in multi-family housing, including corridors, elevators, and pedestrian paths. This study empirically examines how residents and industry stakeholders perceive service robot adoption, providing a basis for preparing residential environments in which robots and humans coexist. A survey was conducted with 128 respondents (63 residents and 65 employees of robot-related firms and research institutes). First, 95.2% of residents expressed a positive attitude toward adoption, while only 88.9% were willing to actually experience such services; a significant association was confirmed by Fisher’s exact test (p < 0.001). Second, concern patterns differed by age group at the descriptive level — privacy concerns decreased from 72.7% (20s) to 31.0% (40s), while safety concerns increased from 18.2% to 44.8% — but these differences did not reach statistical significance (χ² = 5.68, p = 0.058; χ² = 2.47, p = 0.290), warranting further verification in residential robot contexts. Third, respondents with children assigned higher priority to in-complex delivery services (U = 295.0, p = 0.005). Fourth, residents identified a broader range of technological needs than industry stakeholders (Welch’s t = 2.13, p = 0.036). These findings suggest that architectural planning should reflect differences by family structure and stakeholder perspective.

키워드
Service robot
Multi-family housing
Residential environment
Stakeholder perspective
Architectural planning
References
1

Calo, M. R. (2012). Robots and privacy. In P. Lin, K. Abney, & G. A. Bekey (Eds.), Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics (pp. 187-202). MIT Press.

2

Chuah, S. H.-W., Aw, E. C.-X., Cheng, C.-F., & Yu, J. (2022). Understanding factors influencing consumers’ service robot use acceptance in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 109, 103406.

3

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

10.2307/249008
4

de Graaf, M. M. A., & Ben Allouch, S. (2013). Exploring influencing variables for the acceptance of social robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(12), 1476-1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007

10.1016/j.robot.2013.07.007
5

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.

6

Gallo, D., Gonzalez-Jimenez, S., Grasso, M. A., Boulard, C., & Colombino, T. (2022). Exploring machine-like behaviors for socially acceptable robot navigation in elevators. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 130-138). https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889412

10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889412
7

Ha, H. H., & Kwon, O. J. (2008). The Life Changes of Older Adults according to Uses of Digital Home Services. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 19(6), 45-53.

8

Hargittai, E., & Marwick, A. (2016). “What can I really do?” Explaining the privacy paradox with online apathy. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3737-3757.

9

Hong, Y. K., & Ju, S. R. (2021). A study on the recognition and necessity of smart home service by residents of welfare housing for the elderly. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 32(5), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.6107/JKHA.2021.32.5.075

10.6107/JKHA.2021.32.5.075
10

Jang, W., & Lee, S. B. (2021). Serving robots: Management and applications for restaurant business sustainability. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102647.

11

Jo, A. R., & Park, K. O. (2025) Factors influencing care works’ the intention to use care robots. The Korean Society of Living Environmental System, 32(4), 468-475. https://doi.org/10.21086/ksles.2025.8.32.4.468

10.21086/ksles.2025.8.32.4.468
12

Jung, J. H., Kim, J. H., Seo, H. C., & Kim, J. J. (2013). A study on the maintenance factors of multi-family housing through a comparison of the awareness of managers and resident. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 24(4), 19-27. https://doi.org/10.6107/JKHA.2013.24.4.019

10.6107/JKHA.2013.24.4.019
13

Jung, M. S., Jang, S. H., Han, M. G., Yoon, D. K., & Kim, K. B. (2023) Development of certification model of robot-friendly environment for apartment complexes. Journal of Cadastre & Land Information, 53(1), 83-105. https://doi.org/10.22640/lxsiri.2023.53.1.83

10.22640/lxsiri.2023.53.1.83
14

Kim, S. T, Cho, S. Y., Kim, K. H., & Bak, S. (2026). “Too crowded for a robot?”: Modeling human acceptance criteria for elevator-riding robots. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Article 1220. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790593.

10.1145/3772318.3790593
15

Kwag, B. C., Ji, W. G., Yi, S. J., & Kim, G. T. (2023). Effects of implementing living lab to change users’ perception of smart housing residential service technologies. Land and Housing Review, 14(3), 125-135.

10.5804/LHIJ.2023.14.3.125
16

Lee, K. Y., Han, M. G., Lee, Y. S., Jung, M. S., Yoon, D. K., & Kim, K. S. (2022). Developing an evaluation system for certifying the robot-friendliness of buildings through focus group interviews and the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Cadastre & Land Information, 52(2), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.22640/lxsiri.2022.52.2.17

10.22640/lxsiri.2022.52.2.17
17

Lee, Y. A., Kwng, B. C., Ha, H. M., & Kim, G. T. (2025). Analysis of BEMS applicability in existing multi-family housing based on facility and communication infrastructure. The Korean Society of Living Environmental System, 32(5), 541-552. https://doi.org/10.21086/ksles.2025.10.32.5.541

10.21086/ksles.2025.10.32.5.541
18

Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2021). Do privacy concerns about social robots affect use intentions? Evidence from an experimental vignette study. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 627958. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.627958

10.3389/frobt.2021.62795833981728PMC8110194
19

Lutz, C., Schöttler, M., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2019). The privacy implications of social robots: Scoping review and expert interviews. Mobile Media & Communication, 7(3), 412-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157919843961

10.1177/2050157919843961
20

Mohan, R. E., Tan, N., Tjoelsen, K., & Sosa, R. (2015). Designing the robot inclusive space challenge. Digital Communications and Networks, 1(4), 267-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcan.2015.09.005

10.1016/j.dcan.2015.09.005
21

Park, K. O., & Park, Y. O. (2025). A sociotechnical perspective on the use of care robots in healthcare services: a scoping review. The Korean Society of Living Environmental System, 32(4), 427-435. https://doi.org/10.21086/ksles.2025.8.32.4.427

10.21086/ksles.2025.8.32.4.427
22

Park, S. Y., & Kim, S. I. (2024). How distance between delivery robots and people affects user experience - focusing on the self-driving delivery robot ‘Neubie’. Journal of Cultural Product & Design, 77, 267-276. https://doi.org/10.18555/kicpd.2024.77.023

10.18555/kicpd.2024.77.023
23

Shim, J. W., Hwang, H. S., & Lee, H. K. (2009). An exploratory research on the perception of online privacy by UCC use and age differences. Korean Journal of Broadcasting & Telecommunications Research, 23(2), 192-221 https://doi.org/10.22876/kjbtr.2009.69.007

10.22876/kjbtr.2009.69.007
24

Shiomi, M., Kakio, M., & Miyashita, T. (2025). Designing standing position and voice cues for a robot riding in a social elevator. Advanced Robotics, 39(19-20), 1247-1259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2025.2508782

10.1080/01691864.2025.2508782
25

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

10.2307/30036540
26

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

10.2307/41410412
27

Wirtz, J., Patterson, P. G., Kunz, W. H., Gruber, T., Lu, V. N., Paluch, S., & Martins, A. (2018). Brave new world: Service robots in the frontline. Journal of Service Management, 29(5), 907-931. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119

10.1108/JOSM-04-2018-0119
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Society of Living Environmental System
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국생활환경학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of The Korean Society of Living Environmental System
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국생활환경학회
  • Volume : 33
  • No :3
  • Pages :309-322
  • Received Date : 2026-05-13
  • Revised Date : 2026-05-21
  • Accepted Date : 2026-05-28
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.21086/ksles.2026.4.33.3.309
Journal Informaiton Journal of The Korean Society of Living Environmental System Journal of The Korean Society of Living Environmental System
Online Submission & Review System
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crossref funder-registry
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close