老後居住安排的另一種可能性：「共生住宅社區」意向初探

Abstract

選擇「共生住宅社區」可說是戰後嬰兒潮世代面對高齡生活的一種自我充權行動。這種非被動限於現有高齡居住模式選項，是依據自我老後生活需求所發展出的創新性居住安排模式。這不僅是對高齡居住福祉所做的一種表意性社會行動，同時也為所謂的「在地」注入了新意涵，以自我重新選擇何處為其想要終老的「地方」(place)，將所謂的「在地」注入了「自主性」(autonomy)，拿回了他們對「在地老化」(ageing in place) 的詮釋權。畢竟，所謂「在地性」不只是在地理區域上的空間概念，也還有個人在主觀的心理層次上對於特定地理空間的認同感，即所謂的「社區感」 (sense of community) 及身分認同 (identity)，而這個詮釋正是「適地老化」(ageing in the right place)。 這個重新選擇「在地」的行動，讓這個最初以「長期照顧」為架構、卻有困在「原地」(stay put) 之批評的「在地老化」政策概念，更能符合高齡者實際「居住與生活需求」的連續性。這不但使得「在地老化」有了更深化的主體性意涵，跨出「長期照顧」政策的範疇，也使得長年在「社會福利政策」中缺席的「高齡居住政策」有了可能接軌的架構。 「共生住宅社區」所發展出的「類家人」及「共同照顧」機制，做為長期照顧資源的補充，除了可以解決養護機構床位不足的問題，對於現今社會不婚、晚婚、少子女及不生育子女的人口趨勢下，不但可以減少公部門在「獨居老人」、「老老照顧」上所要花費的社會成本，也可避免「孤獨老死」的社會成本。此外「共同照顧」在「共生住宅社區」中成為一種建置性的機制，不會因為住民的來去而使「共同照顧」中斷，而是以一種「類家人」的永續性照顧機制不斷延續下去，而創造了一種社會永續性。 這樣以共同創造生活內容，及以公共空間增加社會互動的生活設計，在社區中增加了大量社會參與的機會。而這樣的生活方式可說是在生活的各面向上都在進行「健康促進」，當平均餘命不斷延長的同時，可以延緩老化且縮減「不健康生存年數」，並達到「活躍老化」的效果。

Choosing a ‘cohousing community’ can be regarded as a self-empowering action for the generation of postwar baby boomers while they confront their old age. This non-passive option is not restricted to the existing living mode for the elderly, but an innovative living arrangement developed on the living needs of the elderly. This is not only an expressive social action for the housing wellbeing of the elderly, but also brings a new meaning into the so-called ‘locality’, opting for the ‘place’ anew where they want to stay in the final stage of their life journey. This action regains their right to interpret ‘ageing in place’, and brings the ‘autonomy’ back in to the alleged ‘place’. After all, the so-called ‘locality’ is not only a spatial concept in a geographical area, but also an individual's identification with a specific geographical space on a subjective psychological level, that is, the so-called ‘sense of community’ and ‘identity’. And this interpretation is ‘ageing in the right place’. This action of opting for the ‘locality’ anew makes the policy concept of ‘ageing in place’, which was originally based on the framework of ‘long-term care’ but was criticized for the confinement of ‘staying put’, more in line with the reality of the continuity in ‘housing and living needs’ for the elderly. This not only makes ‘ageing in place’ have a deeper subjective meaning, and goes beyond the scope of ‘long-term care’ policy, but also makes it a possible framework to integrate the ‘elderly housing policy’ that has been absent from ‘social welfare policy’ for many years. The ‘family-alike’ and ‘co-care’ mechanisms developed by the ‘cohousing community’ serve as a supplement to public long-term care resources. In addition to solving the problem of insufficient beds in nursing institutions, it is also necessary for unmarried, late married, few children and no children in today's society. Under the demographic trend of having less children, it is possible to reduce the social costs that the public sector has to spend on ‘elderly living alone’ and ‘care for the elderly’, and also avoid the social costs of ‘lonely death’. In addition, ‘co-care’ has become a constructive mechanism in the ‘cohousing community’. The kind of ‘co-care’ will not be stopped due to the coming and going of residents, but a kind of sustainable care by the ‘family alike’. The mechanism goes on and on, creating a kind of social sustainability. In this way, the life design of co-creating life content and increasing social interaction with public space has increased numerous opportunities for social participation in the community. And this kind of lifestyle can be said to be ‘health promotion’ in all encompassing aspects of life. While the average life expectancy continues to prolong, it can slow down the process of ageing, compress ‘disability-adjusted life years’, and achieve the effect of ‘active ageing’.