都市更新計畫為政府部門視為積極推動之政策,並以民眾「自主更新」方式為重點推行之實施方式,相關機關不但訂定法令規範更設置都市更新基金以協助民眾參與自主更新。 目前自主更新方式之推動仍遭遇相當多阻力與問題,諸如住戶間之相互質疑、對更新會與專業協助團隊存在不信任感等,以致衍生嚴重認知落差及難以釐清之問題,造成更新案延宕甚至無法繼續之局面,增加政策推動困難度。 本研究以自主更新法定程序中涉及相關對象為範圍,從都市更新會設立籌組完成至申請都市更新事業計畫及權利變換計畫案核定為止之程序中,探討自主更新過程涉及更新團體本身、政府部門及協助之專業機構相互間所面對及產生的問題。經由文獻回顧、案例分析及透過執行業務經驗發現,當前自主更新所遭遇之問題在於資訊不易公開透明、住戶對法令認知差異、住戶信任度不佳造成整合度低、更新協助團隊專業深度與橫向整合度不足、政府對自主更新宣導不足及住戶對自身權利價值高估等。研究目的除希望能釐清上述問題外,仍希藉由分析提出相關建議以提供未來後續研究者及相關執行單位之參考。
Urban renewal program is a policy actively promoted by the government sector, and its main implementation measure is the “community autonomous urban renewal”. Related governmental agencies not only establish regulations but also set up the urban renewal fund to assist the public to participate in the community autonomous urban renewal. In the promotion of community autonomous urban renewal measure, it is still currently facing various obstacles and problems, such as the mutual suspicion among the householders as well as their distrust toward the renewal committee and professional assistance agencies. These obstacles result serious perception gap and unsolvable problems and cause renewal projects postponed or even discontinued circumstances, which increased the difficulty of policy promotion. In this study, the research objects are the stakeholders involved in the community autonomous urban renewal legal procedure, which covers from the formation of urban renewal committee, the application of the urban renewal business plan to the ratification of rights transformation plan. The study approaches the issues faced and/or occurred by the renewal communities, the government sector and the professional assistance agencies. Through literature review, case study and practical experiences, it is found that the occurrences of current community autonomous urban renewal problems result from information being non-disclosure and lack of transparency, cognitive difference of householders on regulations, low integration due to low trust among householders, profession of renewal assistance agencies being lack of depth and width, insufficient government promotion and the householders’ overestimation on their rights value, etc. The research purpose is to clarify the aforementioned issues and to provide related suggestions through analysis for future research and practices.