鄉村地區舊社區實現「在地老化」之住宅改造及參與式設計操作之可行性探討

Possibility of Housing Refurnishing and the Operation of Participatory Design for Implementing Aging in Place in the Countryside Existing Community

10.6128/CP.39.4.431

黃耀榮(Yao-Rong Hwang)

鄉村地區 ； 參與式設計 ； 舊社區 ； 在地老化 ； 住宅改造 ； Countryside ； Participatory design ； Existing community ； Aging in place ； Housing refurnishing

都市與計劃

39卷4期（2012 / 12 / 01）

431 - 459

繁體中文

住宅性能符合「在地老化」已是發展趨勢，考量照護設施與照顧人員操作空間需求，並改善居家環境能達到高齡者之行動安全與便利將是住宅必要需求，然而舊社區在無法更新的情況下，面對高齡者由獨立生活、協助式照顧到完全照護等階段，「在地老化」將面臨困境。因此，本研究針對舊社區之住宅進行促進「在地老化」功能之實驗性改造設計，並探討以社區為基礎之改造行動運用參與式設計操作之可行性。研究發現：（一）舊有住宅之支架體雖然受到無法改變之限制，但仍然可透過區帶分析找尋適用之模矩及發展適合之空間填充體，而達到「在地老化」之各階段生活空間之變遷需求。（二）有關開放建築設計之應用，在傳統式平房或是連棟式透天厝均以拆合性、調適性之設計居多，延展性設計則較為困難。（三）對於參與式設計之操作，社區長期參與事務之核心人物協助、社區居民具有共同之社區意識、和住戶溝通技術之運用、住戶之心態與認知等是影響操作可行性之主要因素。

Aging in place has been the developmental trend of housing performance. To consider the needs of caring facilities and the space for caregivers' operations and to improve home environment reaching mobility safety and accessibility for the aged are requirements of housing. Nevertheless, communities have the problem of aging in place when the aged face independent living, assisted living and skilled-nursing phase because of the limitation of housing renew. Therefore, this research focused on housing in the existing community, and produced experimental housing refurnishing designs to improve the function of housing for aging in place. On the other hand, this research studied the possibility of using participatory designs in refurnishing on a community basis. The results show that although change in the structure of existing housing was limited, it was still possible to find adaptable modules and develop suitable infill through zoning analysis to match the changing requirements regarding living spaces during the different phases of aging in place. Regarding the application of open building design, assembly and adaption designs were easier than elasticity design, in both traditional court housing and row housing. Regarding the operation of participatory design, the assistance of key persons with long-term participation in community affairs, community residents have common notions, and communication with residents via multi-technique, as well as resident cognition and attitude were major influences on the operating possibilities.

1. 靳燕玲、華昌宜(2004)。住宅改善之居住調整行為初探。建築與規劃學報，5(1)，69-88。
   連結：
2. 內政部營建署（2006），「住宅狀況調查報告」，台北：內政部
3. Arnstein, S. R.(1969).A ladder of citizen participation.Journal of the American Institute of Planners,38(2),103-112.
4. Denzin, N. K.,Lincoln, Y. S.(1994).Handbook of Qualitative Research.California:Sage Publications Inc.
5. Eguchi, T.,Schmidt, R.,Dainty, A.,Austin, S.,Gibb, A.(2011).The cultivation of adaptability in Japan.Open House International,36(1),73-85.
6. Forester, J.(1989).Planning in the Face of Power.Berkeley:University of California Press.
7. Geraedts, R. B.(1998).Open building and flexibility: An assessment method matching demand and supply for flexibility.Proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Open Building,Taipei:
8. Hamdi, N.,Goethert, R.(1999).Action Planning for Cities: A Guide to Community Practice.New York:Plenum Press.
9. Herlitz, C.(1997).Distribution of informal and formal home help for elderly people in Sweden.The Gerontologist,37(1),117-124.
10. Hester, R. T.(1990).Community Design Primer.Caspar:Ridge Times Press.
11. Johnson, W. C.(1984).Citizen participation in local planning in the UK and USA: A comparative study.Progress in Planning,21(3),149-221.
12. Katan, Y.,Werczberger, E.(1997).Housing for elderly people in Israel.International Ageing,23(3),49-64.
13. Kendall, S.(1998).Beyond programmatic functionalism: The prospects for open building.Proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Open Building,Taipei:
14. Kose, S.(1997).Housing elderly people in Japan.International Ageing,23(3),148-164.
15. Lindstrom, B.(1997).Housing and service for the elderly in Denmark.International Ageing,23(3),115-132.
16. Mahmood, A.,Steggell, C.,Yamamoto, T.,Lee, M.(2007).Gerotechnology and aging in place: A conceptual model and preliminary finding from pilot projects.Proceedings of the 38th International Conference for EDRA,Sacramento:
17. Oswald, F.,Wahl, H.W.(2007).Aging in place research update: The role of perceived and objective housing in later life.Proceedings of the 39th International Conference for EDRA,Sacramento:
18. Stringer, E.(1999).Action Research.Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications Inc.
19. Wates, N.,Knevitt, C.(1987).Community Architecture: How People Are Creating Their Own Environment.New York:Plenum Press.
20. 丁育群、楊逸詠(2005)。,台北:內政部建築研究所。
21. 張聖琳譯(1999)。造坊有理社區設計的夢想與實驗。台北:遠流出版社。
22. 陳政雄、王武烈(2007)。,台北:內政部建築研究所。
23. 曾旭正、劉欣蓉、黃衍明(2002)。參與式社區設計技術手冊。台北:行政院文化建設委員會。
24. 曾思瑜(1997)。,台北:內政部社會司。
25. 黃源協(2004)。社區工作何去何從：社區發展？社區營造？。社區發展季刊，107，78-88。
26. 黃瑞茂、羅文貞(2001)。社區參與公共空間營造—後竹圍公園的經驗研究。環境與藝術學刊，2，133-150。
27. 黃耀榮(2004)。,台北:行政院農業委員會。
28. 黃耀榮(2006)。實現在地老化之終生住宅發展形式探討。台灣老年醫學雜誌，1(3)，138-150。
29. 黃耀榮(2008)。,台北:行政院國家科學委員會。
30. 劉欣蓉(1997)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究所。
31. 鄭晃二(2002)。友善空間─創造對話的參與式營造。台北:田園城市出版社。
32. 蘇景輝(1999)。社區照顧實務探討。社區發展季刊，87，225-236。

1. 蔡博方,林宏陽(2018)。長期照顧服務使用者之需求分析：以屏東縣為例。人文社會科學研究，12(4)，24-49。
2. 黃秀梅,黃世輝(2020)。大學設計專業浸潤原住民部落的路徑分析：以阿里山來吉部落的社會實踐為例。設計學報，25(4)，65-88。