請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89144
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 楊培珊 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Pei-Shan Yang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 陳慧安 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Hui-An Chen | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-16T17:18:50Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2023-08-16 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2023-08-11 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所. (1994). 台灣地區社會意向 82 年 2 月定期調查報告. 臺北市: 中央研究
內政部 (1997)。中華民國 85 年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市: 行政院內政部 內政部 (2000)。中華民國 89 年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市: 行政院內政部 內政部 (2005)。中華民國 91 年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市: 行政院內政部 內政部 (2006)。中華民國 94 年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市: 行政院內政部 內政部 (2010)。中華民國 98 年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市: 行政院內政部 衛生福利部 (2014)。102年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市:行政院衛生福利部 衛生福利部 (2018)。106年老人狀況調查報告。臺北市:行政院衛生福利部。 王仕圖. (2000). 個人社會支持的網絡結構: 以快速成長的郊區社區爲例. 臺灣社會學刊(23), 141-178. 王金永等譯. (2000). 質化硏究與社會工作 (王金永等, Trans. 一版 ed.). 臺北市: 洪葉文化. 王秋華. (1990). 一種創新的居住方式:合作住宅群. 住宅情報, 5, 95-101. 朱允武. (1991). 都市居民對合作互助之集居生活模式喜好之研究. (碩士). 逢甲大學, 台中市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/grva7g 朱美珍. (1983). 都市中社區發展與鄰里關係之研究. (碩士). 東吳大學, 台北市. 行政院主計總處. (2009). 97 年中老年狀況調查. 行政院主計總處. (2012). 100 年中老年就業狀況調查 [Press release] 呂寶靜. (1999). 老人非正式照顧體系中朋友和鄰居功能之初探:兼論社區照顧中居民互助網絡之建構 (NSC 88-2412-H004-010). 呂寶靜. (2000). 老人朋友網絡支持功能之初探. [Friend Networks of Older People-An Analysis on Support Function]. 社會政策與社會工作學刊, 4(2), 43-90. 宋東. (2008). 嬰兒潮世代成新金主. 天下雜誌數位閱讀網. 線上檢索日期: 2020 年, 1. Retrieved from https://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5010621 李瑞金, & 洪國程. (2009). 嬰兒潮世代經濟安全保障財產信託實證研究. 社區發展季刊 (125), 128-155. 卓輝華. (2018). 房市風暴 : 從人口緊縮看未來房市的危機與商機: 經濟日報. 拉馮德 (LaFond, M. (2019). 合作住宅指南 (CoHousing Cultures: Handbook for Self-Organized, Community-Oriented and Sustainable Housing). 台北市: 行人出版社. 林倩如. (2022). 合作住宅在台灣,道阻且長—以合作住宅推動聯盟為例. (碩士). 世新大學, 臺北市. 林靜湄. (2001). 老人居住安排決定過程之探討. (碩士). 國立臺灣大學, 臺北市. 邱彩薇. (2012). 獨居還是與子女同住?居住安排的期望落差對台灣老人生活滿意度的影響. (碩士). 國立臺北大學, 新北市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/w277q5 胡幼慧、姚美華. (2008). 一些質性方法上的思考:信度與效度?如何抽樣?. In 胡幼慧 (Ed.), 質性研究 : 理論、方法及本土女性研究實例 (二版 ed., pp. 117-132). 臺北市: 巨流出版. 徐義平. (2019, 2019.10.8). 第2季逾30年老屋數創新高,相當於每2戶便有1戶. 自由時報. Retrieved from https://ec.ltn.com.tw/article/breakingnews/2939937 徐慧娟. (2015). 活躍老化指標初探. 長期照護雜誌, 19(2), 109-115. 徐慧娟, et al. (2018). 建構本土性活躍老化指標架構 (104-107年) 107年度後續擴充. 107年度衛生福利部國民健康署委託科技研究計畫. 臺北市, 衛生福利部國民健康署. 高美英譯. (2010). 社會硏究法 : 歷程與實務 (高美英, Trans. 初版 ed.). 臺北市: 洪葉文化. 高淑清. (2008). 質性研究的18堂課 : 首航初探之旅 (初版 ed.). 高雄市: 麗文文化. 國家發展委員會. (2018). 中華民國人口推估 (2018至2065年). 臺北市: 行政院國家發展委員會 張宏哲. 長期照護正式和非正式體系之間關係的模式—研究和實務議題的探討. 梁玲菁. (2018). 找尋「第一個家」–住宅合作的人生大戲. 合作事業報導(102), 25-30. 畢恆達. (2008). 詮釋學與質性研究. In 胡幼慧 (Ed.), 質性研究 : 理論、方法及本土女性研究實例 (二版 ed., pp. 21-36). 臺北市: 巨流出版社. 章英華. (1994a). 台灣的家庭研究:從家戶組成到家人關係. 社區發展季刊, 68, 35-43. 章英華. (1994b). 變遷社會中的家戶組成與奉養態度-台灣的例子. 台大社會學刊》, 第廿三期, 1-34. 郭俊沛. (1991). 台灣地區以合作方式興建住宅社區之實例探討. (碩士). 國立臺灣大學, 臺北市. 陳彥仲, & 陳靜怡. (2012). 從高齡者自評健康條件、家庭資源及社會參與探討高齡者期望之居住安排. [An Investigation of Preferences for Living Arrangements of the Elderly-From the Perspective of Self-Reported Health Conditions, Family Resources and Social Participation]. 臺灣土地研究, 15(2), 127-158. 陳淑美, & 林佩萱. (2014). 台灣老人居住安排與生活滿意度關係之區域差異分析. [The Relationship between the Living Arrangement and Life Satisfaction of the Elderly-A Discussion of Four Regions in Taiwan]. 建築與規劃學報, 15(1), 61-82. 陳紹馨. (1979). 台灣的人口變遷與社會變遷. 台北市: 聯經出版社. 陳肇男. (1999). 老年三寶–老本,老伴與老友:台灣老人生活狀況探討. 臺北市: 中央研究院經濟研究所. 陳寬政, & 賴澤涵. (1979). 我國家庭制度的變遷:家庭形式的歷史與人口探討. 中央研究院三民主義研究所專題選刊, 26, 1–24. 黃于玲. (2008). 老人居住安排與社會支持對生活滿意度之影響. (碩士). 亞洲大學, 台中市. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/enp833 黃國光譯. (2014). 研究方法 : 入門與實務 (黃國光, Trans. 初版 ed.). 臺北市: 雙葉書廊. 楊培珊. (1999). 台北市獨居老人生活暨需求概況調查-以文山區為例. 楊培珊, & 梅陳玉嬋. (2016). 台灣老人社會工作 : 理論與實務 (三版 ed.). 臺北市: 雙葉書廊. 詹竣傑、翁家德. (2019). 想組合作住宅嗎?讓我們先從「產權」談起. Retrieved from https://ours.org.tw/2020/01/03/cohousing0103/ 熊紹任. (1989). 台灣地區當前國民居住問題與住宅合作社之研究. Paper presented at the 合作事業學術研討會論文集, 台北市. 齊力. (1990). 臺灣地區近二十年來家戶核心化趨勢的研究. 國立臺灣大學社會學刊(20), 41-83. 劉又嘉. (2013). 影響未來高齡者生活品質的社會支持網絡. 淡江大學, Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2013) 劉仲冬. (2008). 量與質社會研究的爭議及社會研究未來的走向及出路. In 胡幼慧 (Ed.), 質性研究 : 理論、方法及本土女性研究實例 (二版 ed., pp. 101-116). 臺北市: 巨流出版. 劉曉午. (2017). 他們相約一起住,一起結伴老去,死後一起葬. Retrieved from https://read01.com/60ANxn.html 潘信榮. (2017). 網絡崩世代居住空間的重構- 以玖樓共生公寓為例. 臺灣大學, Available from Airiti AiritiLibrary database. (2017年) 潘信榮. (2019). 〔同居共住〕台北玖樓共生公寓 (9 Floor co-living Apartment, Taipei). In 侯志仁 (Ed.), 反造再起 : 城市共生ING (初版 ed., pp. 172-189). 新北市: 左岸文化出版社. 潘淑滿. (2003). 質性硏究 : 理論與應用 (初版 ed.). 台北市: 心理出版社. 蔡正海. (2006). 台灣地區單人家戶貧窮問題之研究. (碩士). 國立中正大學, 嘉義. 衛生福利部. (2014). 102 年老人狀況調查報告. 臺北市: 行政院衛生福利部 衛生福利部. (2018). 106 年老人狀況調查報告. 臺北市: 行政院衛生福利部 衛生福利部國民健康署. (2015). 高齡社會白皮書(核定本)Retrieved from 臺北市: 衛生福利部 鄭清霞. (2009). 台灣經濟家戶組成與特性的變遷-1976年至2004年. [Portfolio Composition and Characteristics of the Economic Household Transformation in Taiwan, 1976 to 2004]. 臺灣社會福利學刊, 7(2), 47-100. doi:10.6265/tjsw.2009.7(2)3 篠原聪子. (2016). 共享住宅–擺脱孤立的居住方式. [Share house: A living way out of the isolation]. 城市建筑(2016年 04), 20-23. 薛立敏, & 張日青. (2013). 老人是否持有不動產與獨居之聯合決策分析-並由居住滿意度分析老人獨居之性質. [The Joint Decision Making of Holding Real Assets and Living Alone among Elderly People in Taiwan-And Understanding the Nature of Living Alone through the Satisfaction Level of Elderly People]. 住宅學報, 22(2), 87-117. 薛承泰. (2001). 台灣地區單人戶之特性、趨勢與貧窮 (行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告). 薛承泰. (2002). 一九九○ 年代台灣地區單人戶的特性-兼論老人單人戶之貧窮. 人口學刊(25), 57-89. 薛承泰. (2003). 台灣地區人口特質與趨勢:對社會福利政策的幾個啟示. 國家政策季刊, 2, 1-22. 薛承泰. (2008). 臺灣家庭變遷與老人居住型態: 現況與未來. 社區發展季刊(121), 47-56. 薛承泰. (2016). 台灣人口大震盪 (第一版 ed.). 臺北市: 遠見天下文化. 簡春安, & 鄒平儀. (2010). 社會工作研究法 (二版 ed.). 臺北市: 巨流出版社. Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, K. R. (1991). Parent-child relations and parent's satisfaction with living arrangements when adult children live at home. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 13-27. Arrigoitia, M. F., & West, K. (2021). Interdependence, commitment, learning and love: the case of the United Kingdom's first older women's co-housing community. Ageing and Society, 41(7), 1673-1696. doi:10.1017/S0144686X19001673 Brenton, M. (1998). "We're in charge" co-housing communities of older people in the Netherlands: lessons for Britain? Bristol: Policy Press. Brenton, M. (2008). The cohousing approach to ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’. Retrieved from London: https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Topics/type/The-Cohousing-Approach-to-Lifetime-Neighbourhoods/ Brenton, M. (2017). Community Building for Old Age: Breaking New Ground: The UK’s first senior cohousing community, High Barnet. Retrieved from London: https://www.housinglin.org.uk/_assets/Resources/Housing/Practice_examples/Housing_LIN_case_studies/HLIN_CaseStudy-139_OWCH.pdf Brown, J. W., Liang, J., Krause, N., Akiyama, H., Sugisawa, H., & Fukaya, T. (2002). Transitions in living arrangements among elders in Japan: does health make a difference? The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57(4), S209-S220. Bulmer, M. (1987). The Social Basis of Community Care. In. London: Allen& Unwin. Choi, J. S. (2004). Evaluation of community planning and life of senior cohousing projects in northern European countries1. European Planning Studies, 12(8), 1189-1216. doi:10.1080/0965431042000289296 Crimmins, E. M., & Ingegneri, D. G. (1990). Interaction and living arrangements of older parents and their children: Past trends, present determinants, future implications. Research on ageing, 12(1), 3-35. Cummings, S., & Kropf, N. P. (2019). Senior Cohousing: A New Way Forward for Active Older Adults: Springer International Publishing. De Vos, S., & Lee, Y.-J. (1993). Change in extended family living among elderly people in South Korea, 1970-1980. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 41(2), 377-393. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, P. D., UN. (2005). Living arrangements of older persons around the world. New York: United Nations. Durrett, C. (2009). The senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. Eggebeen, D. J., & Sturgeon, S. (2006). Demography of the Baby Boomers. In Susan Krauss Whitbourne & S. L. Willis (Eds.), The Baby Boomers Grow Up: Contemporary Perspectives on Midlife (pp. 3-21). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Falkingham, J. (1995). Who are the Baby Bommers? A demographic profile. Population Trends(100, Summer), 15-40. Felix, E. (2019). ‘Cohousing’: An Overview and Residential Preferences of the Elderly. (Msc in Department of the Built Environment). Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, Retrieved from https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/127435047/Felix_0807634.pdf Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative Communities: Cohousing, Central Living, and Other New Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Glass, A. P. (2009). Ageing in a Community of Mutual Support: The Emergence of an Elder Intentional Cohousing Community in the United States. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23, 283-303. Retrieved from http://www.elderspirit.net/media/GLASS_Community_of_Mutual_Support_2009.pdf Glass, A. P. (2013). Lessons Learned From a New Elder Cohousing Community. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 27(4), 348-368. doi:10.1080/02763893.2013.813426 Glass, A. P., & Vander Plaats, R. S. (2013). A conceptual model for ageing better together intentionally. Journal of Ageing Studies, 27(4), 428-442. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jageing.2013.10.001 Hall, R., Ogden, P. E., & Hill, C. (1997). The pattern and structure of one‐person households in England and Wales and France. International Journal of Population Geography, 3(2), 161-181. Hermalin, A. I., & Yang, L.-S. (2004). Levels of Support from Children in Taiwan: Expectations versus Reality, 1965-99. Population and Development Review, 417-448. Hudson, J. (2017). Senior co-housing: restoring sociable community in later life. In M. Benson & I. Hamiduddin (Eds.), Self-Build Homes: Social Discourse, Experiences and Directions (pp. 157-173): UCL Press. Jolanki, O. H. (2021). Senior Housing as a Living Environment That Supports Well-Being in Old Age. Frontiers in Public Health, 8. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.589371 Killock, J. (2014). Is cohousing a suitable housing typology for an ageing population within the UK. King, P. (2003). A social philosophy of housing. In: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Kobrin, F. E., & Goldscheider, C. (1982). Family Extension or Non family Living: Life Cycle, Economic, and Ethnic Factors. Western Sociological Review Logan, Utah, 13(1), 103-118. Kähler, M. (2010). Collective housing and well-being. Paper presented at the Living Together – Cohousing Ideas and Realities Around the World. . Proceedings from the international collaborative housing conference in Stockholm 5–9 May 2010, Stockholm. Korpela, S. (2012). Casa Malta: A case study of a contemporary co-housing project in Helsinki. Built Environment, 38(3), 336-344. Kramarow, E. A. (1995). The elderly who live alone in the United States: Historical perspectives on household change. Demography, 32(3), 335-352. Krivo, L. J., & Mutchler, J. E. (1989). Elderly persons living alone: The effect of community context on living arrangements. Journal of Gerontology, 44(2), S54-S62. Kropf, N. P., & Cummings, S. (2019, 5 Sept 2019). From cohabitation to cohousing: Older baby boomers create living arrangements to suit new needs. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/from-cohabitation-to-cohousing-older-baby-boomers-create-living-arrangements-to-suit-new-needs-121592 Larsen, H. G. (2019). Three phases of Danish cohousing: tenure and the development of an alternative housing form. Housing Studies, 1-23. Leach, R., Phillipson, C., Biggs, S., & Money, A. (2013). Baby boomers, consumption and social change: the bridging generation? International Review of Sociology, 23(1), 104-122. doi:10.1080/03906701.2013.771053 Light, P. C. (1988). Baby Boomers: A Political and Social Reappraisal: WW Norton. Litwak, E., & Longino Jr, C. F. (1987). Migration patterns among the elderly: A developmental perspective. The Gerontologist, 27(3), 266-272. Markle, E. A., Rodgers, R., Sanchez, W., & Ballou, M. (2015). Social support in the cohousing model of community: a mixed-methods analysis. Community Development, 46(5), 616-631. McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (2011). Creating cohousing: Building sustainable communities: New Society Publishers. McCammant, K., & Durret, C. (1994). Cohousing: a contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. Nations, U. (2017). Living arrangements of older persons: a report on an expanded international dataset. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjomYeqkJTmAhXSNKYKHcSRAkMQFjAAegQIBRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fen%2Fdevelopment%2Fdesa%2Fpopulation%2Fpublications%2Fpdf%2Fageing%2FLivingArrangements.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ZuA5SD37Cv_PwbPYVrFtB Ofstedal, M. B. (1995). Coresidence Choices of Elderly Parents and Their Adult Children in Taiwan. Ph. D. Dissertation. Department of Sociology and Population Studies Center …, Pedersen, M. (2015). Senior co-housing communities in Denmark. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 29(1-2), 126-145. Phillipson, C. (2007). Understanding the baby boom generation: Comparative perspectives. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 2(2), 7-11. Pruchno, R. (2012). Not Your Mother’s Old Age: Baby Boomers at Age 65. The Gerontologist, 52(2), 149-152. doi:10.1093/geront/gns038 Quintano, C., & D'Agostino, A. (2006). Studying Inequality In Income Distribution Of Single‐Person Households In Four Developed Countries. Review of Income and Wealth, 52(4), 525-546. Rusinovic, K., Bochove, M. v., & Sande, J. v. d. (2019). Senior Co-Housing in the Netherlands: Benefits and Drawbacks for Its Residents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3776. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/19/3776 Schwartz, S., Smolensky, E., & Danziger, S. (1984). The choice of living arrangements by the elderly. In H. A. G. Burtless (Ed.), Retirment and Economic Behavior. Washington DC: The Brookings Ins. Silverstein, M., & Angelelli, J. J. (1998). Older parents' expectations of moving closer to their children. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53(3), S153-S163. Smith, W. L. (2002). Intentional communities 1990-2000: A portrait. Michigan Sociological Review, 107-131. Soldo, B. J., Wolf, D. A., & Agree, E. M. (1990). Family, Households, and Care Arrangements of Frail Older Women: A Structural Analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 45(6), S238-S249. doi:10.1093/geronj/45.6.S238 Spitze, G., & Logan, J. (1990). Sons, daughters, and intergenerational social support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 420-430. Spitze, G., Logan, J. R., & Robinson, J. (1992). Family structure and changes in living arrangements among elderly nonmarried parents. Journal of Gerontology, 47(6), S289-S296. Vestbro, D. U. (2000). From collective housing to cohousing—a summary of research. Journal of architectural and planning research, 164-178. Vestbro, D. U. (2010). Concepts and terminology. Paper presented at the Living Together – Cohousing Ideas and Realities Around the World. . Proceedings from the international collaborative housing conference in Stockholm 5–9 May 2010, Stockholm. Ward, R. A., & Spitze, G. (1992). Consequences of parent-adult child coresidence: A review and research agenda. Journal of Family Issues, 13(4), 553-572. Wardrip, K. (2010). Cohousing for Older Adults. In f. A. P. P. I. Center for Housing Policy (Ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy, for AARP Public Policy Institute. Wilmoth, J. M. (2001). Living arrangements among older immigrants in the United States. The Gerontologist, 41(2), 228-238. Wolf, D. A. (1995). Changes in the Living Arrangements of Older Women: An International Study1. The Gerontologist, 35(6), 724-731. doi:10.1093/geront/35.6.724 Wolf, D. A., & Soldo, B. J. (1988). Household composition choices of older unmarried women. Demography, 25(3), 387-403. doi:10.2307/2061539 Zsembik, B. A. (1996). Preference for coresidence among older Latinos. Journal of Ageing Studies, 10(1), 69-81. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/89144 | - |
dc.description.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。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | 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’. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-08-16T17:18:50Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-08-16T17:18:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書………………………………………………………………………i
謝辭…………………………………………………………………………………… ii 中文摘要………………………………………………………………………………iv 英文摘要……………………………………………………………………………… vi 目錄……………………………………………………………………………………viii 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與研究緣起 3 第二節 研究概述:問題意識、研究目的與主要研究問題 22 第二章 相關理論及文獻探討 29 第一節 共生住宅社區概述 29 第二節「老人居住安排」研究新方向 43 第三節 活躍老化 47 第四節 非正式支持系統 53 第五節 名詞表 57 第三章 研究方法與設計 63 第一節 研究方法 63 第二節 研究設計 64 第三節 研究倫理 73 第四章 研究發現 75 第一節 需求浮現 75 第二節 需求解決方案 87 第三節 對需求解決方案的期待 94 第四節 核心價值 99 第五章 結論 111 第一節 討論 111 第二節 研究限制與建議 116 參考文獻 121 附錄:訪談大綱 133 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 老後居住安排的另一種可能性:「共生住宅社區」意向初探 | zh_TW |
dc.title | An Alternative Living Arrangement of Seniors: Preliminary Study on the Intentions of Cohousing Community | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王潔媛;傅從喜 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chieh-Yuan Wang;Tsung-hsi Fu | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 共生住宅社區(合作住宅),住宅合作社,共老,適地老化,活躍老化,類家人,自主性, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | cohousing community,housing co-operative,ageing together,ageing in right place,active ageing,family-alike,autonomy, | en |
dc.relation.page | 134 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202304069 | - |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(限校園內公開) | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2023-08-11 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 社會工作學系 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 社會工作學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.92 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。