眾所周知，老齡化社會是世界性的現象之一。 2022年2月，低出生率的台北市已正式進入「超高齡社會」，這比許多相關社會學研究的預想還早。老年人的養老模式與生活舒適更是重中之重。青銀共居計劃早已在許多西方國家實施，並被稱為「多代」共居。通過青年提供社會服務與跨世代間的社交互動，該計劃體現了各世代間的互惠互利。然而，從眾多實行過的計畫來看，普遍常見的同居模式是在特定的建築體量中邀請不同世代的外來者，這造成了某一群體必須改變原有的生活方式來配合對方。其中例如，邀請年輕人住進養老院。由於台北及西方國家間長者對在地養老和共居生活持有價值觀、習慣與相法上不同，適合的共居方式進而有所差異。
本研究旨在探索適合台北地區青銀兩代生活習慣和環境紋理的共居模式。此外，還考慮了計畫位於在飽和發展都市紋理中與環境可持續性的面向。循環利用閒置的公共空間，比如閒置的校園，作為計畫將來的潛在基地。針對台北地區青年和老年人採用了幾種定性和定量的研究方法，包括街頭訪談和問卷調查。從訪談中得知老年人對在地老化的偏好與需求。427位青年的問卷受訪者們被要求對影響參與青銀共居意願的因素進行排名，並使用李克特量 (Likert Scale) 表評估人們對於的共居生活空間的偏好。 SPSS交列製表和Kendall檢驗用於分析所有問卷收集的數據。綜合結果表明，人們認為保有個人生活隱私是最重要的。此外，比起舉辦特定目的的社交活動，人們更偏好於日常生活中自然與他人產生社交互動。總之，本研究提供了人們對於共居類型和社交便利設施的偏好與觀點，這可作為台北地區青銀共同居住社區計劃未來的初步指導方針。

As all know, the aging society is one of the world-wide phenomenon. With a low birth rate, Taipei officially entered the "super-aged society" in February 2022 and is earlier than expected. The living and comfort quality for the elderly are top priorities. The intergenerational co-living scheme has been implemented in many Western countries and is known as "multi-generational" co-living. By providing social service from youth and social interaction through generations, the scheme allows mutual benefit across each generation. However, the common cohabitation model is to add outsiders of different generations in the particular building volume, which changes a certain group of people’s lifestyles. For example, invite the youth to live in elderly nursing homes. Due to varying perceptions in social culture, values, and habits of the local elderly in Taipei and Western countries for aging in place and co-living, the appropriate co-living methods will then be different.
This research aims to explore the co-living model suitable for both generations' living habits and environment texture in Taipei Area. In addition, the positioning of the city in terms of saturated development and environmental sustainability were also taken into consideration. The reutilization of vacant public utilities, such as vacant campuses, could be potential sites. Several qualitative and quantitative methods were used for youth and elderly living in Taipei, including street interview and questionnaire. The preference and needs of aging in place were realized from the street interview with the elderly. The young respondents (n=427) were asked to rank factors of participants' willingness and evaluate their living preferences with a 5-point Likert Scale. SPSS cross-tabulation and the Kendall test were used to analyze the aggregated data. Results showed that people regarded preserving life privacy as the most important. Furthermore, people preferred social interaction in daily life over hosting specific events. In conclusion, this study provides a view of people's preferences on the co-living type and social amenities, which could be the initial guideline for the future of the Intergenerational co-living community scheme in Taipei.

Ataman, C., & Dino, I. G. (2019). Collective Residential Spaces in Sustainability Development: Turkish Housing Units within Co-Living Understanding. Earth and Environmental Science, 296, Article 012049
Bross, S. (2018). Senior Living and Health: Designing for a Multigenerational Community [Master's thesis, University of Cincinnati]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ucin1522420176287392.
Carrere, J., Reyes, A., Oliveras, L., Fernández, A., Peralta, A., Novoa, A. M., Pérez K., & Borrell, C. (2020) The effects of cohousing model on people’s health and wellbeing: a scoping review. Public Health Reviews, 41, Article 22.
Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118-163.
Chippendale, T., & Boltz, M., (2015). Living Legends: Effectiveness of a Program to Enhance Sense of Purpose and Meaning in Life Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(4), 1-11
Choa, G.H., Woob, A., & Kim, J., (2019). Shared housing as a potential resource for community building. Cities, 87, 30-38.
Dahlan, A., & SultanIbrahim, S. A. (2017). An Activity Program for Older People. Asian Journal of Quality of Life, 2(6), 1-10.
Davey, J., Joux, V., Nana, G., & Arcus, M. (2004). Accommodation options for older people in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Christchurch New Zealand: Centre for Housing Research
Diwan, S., Lee, S. E., & Sen, S. (2011). Expectations of Filial Obligation and Their Impact on Preferences for Future Living Arrangements of Middle-Aged and Older Asian Indian Immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 26(1), 55-69.
Dokter, G., Thuvander, L., & Rahe, U. (2021). How circular is current design practice? Investigating perspectives across industrial design and architecture in the transition towards a circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 692-708.
Esther, L. (2014). Aging in place: From theory to practice. Anthropological Notebooks, 20, 21-32.
EU Commission. (2014). Towards a Circular Economy: a Zero Waste Programme for Europe. Brussels.
Gadakari, T., Wang, J., Hadjri, J., & Huang, J. (2017). Promoting Ageing-in-Place: Design of residential buildings for older people in China. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2(6), 113-121.
Glass, A. P. (2016). Resident-managed elder intentional neighborhoods: do they promote social resources for older adults? Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(7), 554-571
Greenstein, T.N. (2004). Economic Dependence, Gender, and the Division of Labor in the Home: A Replication and Extension. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 322-335.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 227-237.
Hussein, H., Abidin, N.N., & Omar, Z. (2016). Sensory Gardens A multidisciplinary effort. Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 1(1), 31-40.
Kamei, T., Itoi, W., Kajii, F., Kawakami, C., Hasegawa, M., & Sugimoto T. (2011). Six-month outcomes of an innovative weekly intergenerational day program with older adults and school-aged children in a Japanese urban community. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 8(1), 96-107
Kaźmierczak, A. (2012). The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 31-44.
Kolk, M. (2019). Weak support for a U-shaped pattern between societal gender equality and fertility when comparing societies across time. Demographic Research, 40, 27-48.
Krings, H., & Marie, T. (2018). New forms of living for the elderly. Living for the Elderly, 22-25.
Krzeczkowska, A., Spalding, D. M., McGeown, W. J., Gow, A. J., Carlson, M. C., & Nicholls, L. A. B. (2021). A systematic review of the impacts of intergenerational engagement on older adults’ cognitive, social, and health outcomes. Ageing Research Reviews, 71, Article 101400.
Leary, M. R., Herbst, K. C., & McCrary, F. (2003). Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 59–68.
Lin Y.Y., & Huang C.S. (2016). Aging in Taiwan: Building a Society for Active Aging and Aging in Place. The Gerontologist, 56, 176–183.
Marchesi, M., & Tweed, C. (2021). Social innovation for a circular economy in social housing. Sustainable Cities and Society, 71, Article 102925.
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.
Matter Architecture (2019). Rethinking Intergenerational Housing. Retrieved from https://www.matterarchitecture.uk/research/intergenerational-housing/
Milman, D. (1994). Where it all Began: Cohousing in Denmark, The Co-Housing Company
Murayama, Y., Ohba, H., Yasunaga, M., Nonaka, K., Takeuchi, R., Nishi, M., Sakuma, N., Uchida, H., Shinkai, S., & Fujiwara, Y. (2015). The effect of intergenerational programs on the mental health of elderly adults. Aging & Mental Health, 19(4), 306-314.
Ossokina, I. V., Arentze, T. A., van Gameren, D., & van den Heuvel, D. (2020). Best living concepts for elderly homeowners: combining a stated choice experiment with architectural design. Journal of housing and the built environment, 35(3), 847-865.
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117452
Parkar, S.R. (2015). Elderly Mental Health: Needs. Mens Sana Monogr, 13(1), 91–99.
Tummers, L. (2015). Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: Why and how? Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 64-78
Tummers, L. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Towards a long-term perspective of self-managed collaborative housing initiatives. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 1-4.
Van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70(8), 1203-1210.
Vestbro, D.U., & Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality-the history of cohousing ideas and realities. Built Environment, 38(3), 315-335.
Wang, J., & Hadjri K. (2017). The Role of Co-housing in Building Sustainable Communities; Case studies from the UK. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 2(6), 255-265.
Wijayanti, Setioko, B., & Pandelaki E.E. (2015). Spaces of elderly based on the living arrangement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227, 568-573.
World Health Organization. (2009). Urban planning, environment and health. Retrieved from https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/114448/E93987.pdf/
World Health Organization. (2018). Healthy ageing. Retrieved from https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/healthy-ageing/
Yousefi, Z., Hosseini, S.B., Yazdanfar, S.A., & Norouzian-Maleki, S. (2017). Promoting the Residents’ Sense of Belonging in Housing Design. Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies, 2(5), 33-43.
Zhang, Y., Tang, T., & Tang, K. (2019). Cooking frequency and hypertension with gender as a modifier. Nutrition Journal, 18, 79-87.
內政部營建署 (2019)。臺北市協助老舊建築物更新增設電梯補助作業規範。
台灣長期照顧關懷協會 TLTCA (2015)。世代共融—長者青年共住「跨代屋」一舉兩得 。
呂敏勳 (2019)。從青年參與意願調查；探討青銀共居概念於台灣推動之可行性。中國科技大學建築研究所，台北市。
洪國龍 (2017)。少子化衝擊下對於我國社會之影響—以學校教育政策與措施為中心。中原大學企業管理研究所，桃園市。
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。臺灣土地研究15(2)：127-158。
張昕楠、郭岱、曾亮 (2019)。青銀共居模式的共享住宅設計探討—以三峽區北大青年社會住宅為例。
新北市政府城鄉發展局 (2016)。三峽北大青銀共居實驗計畫。
廖庭輝 (2021)。從無殼蝸牛到巢運：台灣住宅運動的倡議模式形構與轉化。東海大學社會學系，台中市。
臺北市政府主計處 (2019)。臺北市租屋市場概況。
臺北市政府戶政所 (2021) 。臺北市大同區人口。
劉正、齊力 (2019)。臺灣高齡者的居住狀況與機構照顧的需求趨勢。國土及公安治理季刊 7(1)：70-81 。
劉立凡 (2016)。高齡者異質化之健康屬性、照護結果與效益之研究。人文與社會科學簡訊17(3)：13-23。
劉宜君 (2018)。高齡社會的代際共融議題之研究。元智大學社會暨政策科學學系，桃園市。
衛生福利部 (2016)。長期照護十年計畫2.0。
謝君柔 (2006)。少子化浪潮下大台北地區不願生育女性觀念之研究。國立台灣大學國家發展研究所，台北市。