고령자의 세대교류를 촉진하는 커뮤니티 공동환경디자인 요소 비교 - 도시 지역을 중점으로
A Comparative Study of Community Co-Environmental Design Elements that Promote Intergenerational Exchange among Older Adults - Focused on Urban Area
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To identify co-environmental design elements that most effectively promote intergenerational exchange in super-aged societies by comparing four communities: Share Kanazawa, Kinmokusei Urayasu, Kozenji (Japan), and the Hwacheon Community Center (South Korea). Methods: A multiple-case study collected spatial plans, operational documents, and field-observation records. Data were qualitatively coded using a three-layer typology—hardware (physical environment), humanware (people and operations), and contentware (programs)—and examined through dual lenses of physical and social integration, followed by cross-case comparison. Results: Three common antecedents emerged: (1) barrier-free circulation with open, flexible shared spaces grounded in universal design; (2) multifunctional programs supported by community facilitators that encourage voluntary, cross-generational interaction; and (3) hybrid governance in which residents, private actors, and public entities share roles and responsibilities. Differences appeared in governance models—welfare-foundation-led in Japan versus public–resident governance in South Korea—and in program orientation, with care-focused content (Share Kanazawa, Kinmokusei Urayasu) versus experiential/cultural content (Kozenji, Hwacheon). Implications: Findings yield actionable guidelines for planning intergenerational communities and building sustainable operating models across urban and rural contexts, underscoring the importance of inclusive spatial design, multifunctional programming, and collaborative governance.
Abstract
Purpose: To identify co-environmental design elements that most effectively promote intergenerational exchange in super-aged societies by comparing four communities: Share Kanazawa, Kinmokusei Urayasu, Kozenji (Japan), and the Hwacheon Community Center (South Korea). Methods: A multiple-case study collected spatial plans, operational documents, and field-observation records. Data were qualitatively coded using a three-layer typology—hardware (physical environment), humanware (people and operations), and contentware (programs)—and examined through dual lenses of physical and social integration, followed by cross-case comparison. Results: Three common antecedents emerged: (1) barrier-free circulation with open, flexible shared spaces grounded in universal design; (2) multifunctional programs supported by community facilitators that encourage voluntary, cross-generational interaction; and (3) hybrid governance in which residents, private actors, and public entities share roles and responsibilities. Differences appeared in governance models—welfare-foundation-led in Japan versus public–resident governance in South Korea—and in program orientation, with care-focused content (Share Kanazawa, Kinmokusei Urayasu) versus experiential/cultural content (Kozenji, Hwacheon). Implications: Findings yield actionable guidelines for planning intergenerational communities and building sustainable operating models across urban and rural contexts, underscoring the importance of inclusive spatial design, multifunctional programming, and collaborative governance.