從鄰避到迎毗：以健康社會住宅居民與周遭社區居民對社會住宅之態度為例

From NIMBY to YIMBY: The Changing Attitude to Social Housing Policy of Neighboring Communities – A case Study to Jian-Kang Social Housing

邢淑伶(Thuc-Linh Hinh)

指導教授 ： 黃麗玲

國立臺灣大學/工學院/建築與城鄉研究所/碩士(2021年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU202100110

摘要

本研究從鄰避設施(NIMBY)的角度，探討台北市健康社會住宅的周圍社區居民對於該建案的態度以及前後改變。既有討論NINBY的相關文獻顯示，強化民眾參與、提供經濟誘因以及提升資產價值都是解決問題的有效方法。本研究則發現，若在初期規劃設計階段引入周圍社區的民眾參與，可降低他們對新建築物以及未來入住居民的排斥。社會住宅中新建且維護良好的公共設施，提供民眾共同使用，將提升社區資產的價值，也增進鄰里對社會住宅的好感。此外，公共設施的名稱、外觀設計也會對影響社區居民對它的觀感。
健康社會住宅從空間設計、住宅環境、居住服務等三方面提升品質，改變大眾對社會住宅的印象。它細緻的空間規劃設計及加值型社區服務，有效消除周遭居民對此案的負面態度。台北市政府都發局參考國際案例，導入新型態的硬體和軟體設施。入住人口採用多元混合居住模式，以降低特殊族群被標籤化的問題。同時社會住宅內成立青年創新回饋計劃小組，活絡社區以及協助居民與鄰里互動。
本研究結果發現，在地居民起初反對興建此案，雖然政府在公聽會有邀請居民一同參與，但成效不佳，因為啟動的時間太晚。原來周邊鄰里的社會設施提供不足，而健康社會住宅完工後，新建之公共設施有彌補作用。健康社宅興建後，帶動周遭房價看漲。在上述經濟誘因下，居民也開始接納。另外，台北市府甄選之青年創新回饋計劃，其活動的參與者不限身分，因此有許多周邊社區居民或新北市居民前來參與活動。而且其主題類型依季節性、節慶、區域性變動，有其多樣性，也增進了周圍鄰里居民與社會住宅居民之間的互動。本研究認為青年創新回饋計劃成為台北市目前社會住宅去除汙名化、鄰避效應的主要策略。

關鍵字

寶清段社會住宅 ； 健康社會住宅 ； 青年創新回饋計劃案 ； 婦聯五村 ； 鄰避設施 ； 迎毗設施 ； 公共住宅

並列摘要

This study explores the changing attitudes of residents in the surrounding communities of Jian-Kang Social Housing towards the project from the perspective of the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard). The existing literature of NINBY shows that strengthening public participation, providing economic incentives, and enhancing asset value are all effective ways to solve the problem. This study found that, first, the participation of community residents in the planning and design phase can reduce their rejection of new buildings and future residents. Second, newly-built and well-maintained public facilities in social housing, provided for common use by the public, will enhance the value of community assets and increase neighborhoods’ goodwill towards social housing. In addition, the name and appearance design of public facilities will also affect the perception of community residents.
Jian-Kang social housing improves the quality of three aspects: space design, housing environment, and housing services, and has changed the public’s impression of social housing. Its meticulous space planning and design and value-added community services have effectively eliminated the negative attitudes of surrounding residents on the case. The Taipei City Government has introduced new types of hardware and software facilities with reference to international cases. The resident population adopts a diverse and mixed living mode to reduce the problem of labeling special ethnic groups. At the same time, the Youth Innovation Service Program taskforce group was established in the social housing to activate the community and assist residents to interact with their neighbors.
The results of this study found that the local residents initially opposed the construction of this case. Although the government invited residents to participate in the public hearing, the effect was not good because it was launched too late. It turned out that the social facilities in the surrounding neighborhoods were insufficient, but after the completion of the Jian Kang Social Housing, the newly built public facilities will make up for it. After the construction of the health community house, the surrounding housing prices have increased. Under the above economic incentives, residents have also begun to accept it. In addition, the Youth Innovation Service Program selected by the Taipei City Government is open to the public, so many residents of surrounding communities or residents of New Taipei City come to participate in the activity. Moreover, its theme emphasizes its diversity, and it also enhances the interaction between neighboring residents and social housing residents. This study believes that the Youth Innovation Service Program has become the main strategy for removing stigmatization and neighboring effects of social housing in Taipei City.

並列關鍵字

Bao-Qing cadastral district Social Housing ； Jian-Kang Social Housing ； Public housing ； Youth Innovation Service Program ； NIMBY ； YIMBY

參考文獻

Brown,G Glanz, H 2018 “Identifying potential NIMBY and YIMBY effects in general land use planning and zoning”, Applied Geography 99, 1-11.

Chin, HC Foong, K.W. 2006 “Influence of school accessibility on housing values.” Journal of urban planning and development,132 (3):120-129.

Dear, M 1993 “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 58:3, 288-300.

Frank, S. P 2009 “Yes in My Backyard: Developers, Government and Communities Working Together through Development Agreements and Community Benefit Agreements”, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 42:227.

Groothuis, P. A. G. Miller 1994 “Locating Hazardous Waste Facilities: The Influence of NIMBY Beliefs,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53 (3):335-346.