住宅無障礙與通用化設計之用後評估－以臺北市興隆公共住宅1區為例

Residential Post-Evaluation for Barrier-Free and Universal Design in Hsing-Lung Public Rented Housing in Taipei City

10.3966/101632122018120106011

鄭人豪(Jen-Hao Cheng)；高文婷(Wen-Ting Gao)；陳雅芳(Ya-Fang Chen)

通用設計 ； 無障礙 ； 社會住宅 ； 使用後評估 ； Universal Design ； Accessible Environment ； Social Housing ； Post-Occupancy Evaluation

建築學報

106_S期：通用設計專刊（2018 / 12 / 30）

23 - 47

繁體中文

為保障身心障礙者參與社會之權利及因應人口高齡化的發展趨勢，建構一個友善、可及的生活環境已成為當前迫切需要因應之課題，而友善居住環境的實踐則有賴居家通用化及無障礙設計理念的落實。然而，通用設計和無障礙設計兩者設計的提供對象和關注的面向不盡相同，其產出之設計成果亦有所差別，要藉由完全相同的設計完全適切不同使用者需求，進而達到排除差別感，是非常困難的課題。因此，在空間友善化的推動過程中，空間、設備、設施、輔助器具…等如何因應不同條件使用者進行合理調整，又是否應以法律規章方式強制要求設置，仍尚無定見。本研究針對臺灣首座同時納入「通用」及「無障礙」設計理念的興隆公共住宅1區進行使用後評估，比較通用設計與無障礙設計相關準則的差異與內容，進一步了解不同使用者對於各種準則引導下所產出的空間與設備之實際使用情形。本研究發現「無障礙空間設計」雖然較能滿足行動不便者（下肢體障礙者）之需求，但確實存在對一般使用者產生使用不便及空間使用效率不佳等問題。而依通用設計理念下規劃之居住單元，雖可滿足多數使用者的需求，然而對於行動不便者（下肢體障礙者）而言，仍有其不足與侷限性。其中又以住宅單元中之廚房、浴廁空間由於不同使用者之使用習慣與身體尺度需求的差異較大，以致使用評價存在最大的差異性。因此，如何界定不同使用者的核心需求，並保持空間擴充的靈活性，成為居家環境友善與否的關鍵。

It is a pressing and urgent issue of establishing friendly residential surroundings. Those who disabled are encouraged to involve social affairs, such as the accessibility of public environment and the trend of aging society. Implementing residentially universal design and design of accessibility is the first and crucial step for establishing friendly residential surroundings. However, it is completely different aspects with regard to universal design and disabled accessibility design. Recent years, these are also challenging and endless arguments to fulfill various user requirements without considering diversities in the same design methods. Should the trends of residential design need to be universalized for all users or specified for some specific users? Should the government legalize or just make guide books of interior design standards, facilities setup for disabled group? Therefore, this research focus on post-evaluation of Hsing-Lung public rented housing in Taipei City, which is implemented both ＂universal design＂ and ＂design of disabled accessibility＂. By comparing design guidelines between universal design and disabled accessibility, we further understood the differences between the practical use of facilities and surroundings and residential design guidelines. In Hsing-Lung public rented housing case, our research found that the needs of disabled people (weakness of the lower limbs) were satisfied in units of design of disabled accessibility, but not for general people. It is also not spacious because of some specific facilities setup. On the other side, units of universal design could satisfy most general people, though, they may constrain the disabled users. Kitchens and bathrooms are evaluated extremely diverse by opposing users due to their weakness parts and the customs are different. In conclusion, defining the essential needs from various users and maintaining spatial mobility are the crucial issues to our friendly residential surroundings.

1. 何明錦、吳可久、陳圳卿、毛犖、廖慧燕(2011)。通用設計理念下之都市公園設計指引。建築學報，76，105-128。
   連結：
2. 邱大昕(2009)。無障礙環境建構過程中使用者問題之探討。臺灣社會福利學刊，2，19-46。
   連結：
3. 蔡淑瑩、彭光輝、何明錦、邱玉茹(2014)。研訂通用化住宅之設計概念。建築學報，90，51-66。
   連結：
4. Ab Rahman, S. A.,Samsudin, N.,Osman, M. M.,Bachok, S.,Rabe, N. S.(2018).Design Elements of Houses Among Disabled Community: The Satisfaction and The Preferences.Planning Malaysia Journak,16(6)
5. Amir, S.,Osman, M. M.,Samsudin, N.,Bachok, S.,Rabe, N. S.(2018).Level of satisfaction and preferences on location and design elements of houses among the disabled community in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor.Advanced Science Letters,24(10),7030-7033.
6. Cooper, B. A.,Hasselkus, B. R.(1992).Independent living and the physical environment: A spectsthat matter to residents.Can J OccupTher,59,6-15.
7. Crews, D. E.,Zavotka, S.(2006).Aging, disability, and frailty: implications for universal design.Journal of physiological anthropology,25(1),113-118.
8. DeMerchant, E. A.,Beamish, J. O.(1995).Universal design in residential spaces.Housing and Society,22(1-2),77-91.
9. Hardie, G. J.(2015).Design Intervention (Routledge Revivals): Toward a More Humane Architecture.
10. Hartje, S. C.(2005).Universal design features and product characteristics for kitchens.Housing and Society,32(2),101-118.
11. Hussein, H.,Yaacob, N. M.(2018).Malaysian perspective on the development of accessible design.Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies,3(8),147-156.
12. Iwarsson, S.,Ståhl, A.(2003).Accessibility, usability and universal design-positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships.Disability and rehabilitation,25(2),57-66.
13. Jayantha, W. M.,Qian, Q. K.,Yi, C. O.(2018).Applicability of 'Aging in Place'in redeveloped public rental housing estates in Hong Kong.Cities,83,140-151.
14. Kose, S.(1998).From barrier-free to universal design: an international perspective.Assistive technology,10(1),44-50.
15. Kose, S. A. T. O. S. H. I.(2001).Design guidelines of dwellings for the ageing society: Japanese approach toward universal design.CIB world building congress 2001 proceedings
16. Mace, R.(1997).,The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University.
17. Mace, R. L.(1998).Universal design in housing.Assistive Technology,10(1),21-28.
18. Preiser, W. F.,White, E.,Rabinowitz, H.(2015).Post-Occupancy Evaluation (Routledge Revivals).Routledge.
19. Rieh, S. Y.(2018).Post-occupancy evaluation of urban public housing in Korea: Focus on experience of elderly females in the ageing society.Indoor and Built Environment
20. Story, M. F.(1998).Maximizing usability: the principles of universal design.Assistive technology,10(1),4-12.
21. Story, M. F.,Mueller, J. L.,Mace, R. L.(1998).,未出版
22. Straka, V.,Aleksic, M.(2009).Post-Occupancy Evaluation.PLEA 2009-26th Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture,Quebec City, Canada:
23. White, E. T.(1986).Post-Occupancy Evaluation.CEFP Journal,24(6),19-22.
24. Zimring, C. M.,Reizenstein, J. E.(1980).Post-occupancy evaluation: An overview.Environment and Behavior,12(4),429-450.
25. 王順治、吳可久(2012)。WHO 高齡友善城市指標可及性之研究。新北市:內政部建築研究所。
26. 何明錦、楊逸詠、江哲銘、林慶元、詹肇裕、楊詩弘、毛犖、廖慧燕(2006)。,新北市:內政部建築研究所。
27. 吳可久(2012)。通用設計之意義與發展。臺灣建築學會會刊雜誌，68，14-17。
28. 吳可久(2013)。高齡友善城市空間世界衛生組織指標內容與評估因子分析。健康與建築雜誌，1(1)，81-87。
29. 李婉婉(1983)。建築物用後評估簡介。建築師雜誌，9(11)，33-38。
30. 唐峰正(2016)。因應高齡化社會之全方位住宅趨策─通用設計。國土及公共治理季刊，4(1)，136-142。
31. 陳格理(1993)。大學圖書館建築用後評估硏究：以中原大學為例。臺北:捷太出版社。
32. 陳惠美(1995)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立台灣大學園藝學研究所。
33. 彭光輝(2011)。研訂通用化住宅規劃設計手冊。新北市:內政部建築研究所。
34. 曾思瑜(2009)。從無障礙設計到通用設計─美日兩國無障礙環境理念變遷與發展過程。設計學報，8(2)，57-76。
35. 廖慧燕(2005)。內政部建築研究所自行研究報告內政部建築研究所自行研究報告,新北市:。
36. 张东辉、李珂(2009)。通用设计与无障碍设计辨析。華中建築，27(2)，94-96。