抄録
Introduction
Japanese government is aiming to establish the community care system for it that the elderly can continue to live in their own community where they have lived long. The elderly housing with supportive services (below is called the housing) institutionalized in 2011 is regarded as the one of central pillar of this system. The number of the housings has been build more than six thousand from five years ago, and it has been increasing rapidly, meanwhile it is indicated problems of quality of the dwelling units. The purpose of this study is to obtain knowledge about an improvement in quality of the living environment in the housing by clarify mismatches in the housing between the health condition of residents and the quality level of the dwelling units.
Method
At first, we gathered data of 3,414 about the building from the information providing system on WEB site. At next, we conducted questionnaire survey about the resident image and the health condition of residents etc. targeting the management bodies of 3,414 housing, and 617 questionnaires were returned. (Table1)
Result
Many the housings have been built in the city where more than 10,000 people lives, there are only 5.1% of overall in the countryside. (Table2) The dwelling unit equipped with only toilet account for 56.2%. Especially in the countryside, there are as many as 82.2% this type. (Fig. 3) There are three types to the floor plan of the housing, Shared-type account for 69.0%. (Fig. 6) The support services divide into four types; major service types are MO and PC. (Fig. 7) We classified into six classes by combination of the floor types and the support service types, analyzed the result of the questionnaire. (Fig. 8) R-S and R-A tended to expect only single-person move into the housing in comparison with F-S and F-A. (Fig. 9) F-S and F-A has expected residents who are self-support or need to mild care move into the housing, but others, R-S and R-A has expected residents who are moderate or severe care too. (Table9) We conducted a cluster analysis about the care degree for residents. We could get four characteristics clusters. (Fig. 11) While CLU1 or CLU2 are account for about 75% of F-S and F-A, CLU3 or CLU4 are account for about 60% of R-S and R-A. However, about 40% of residents who live in R-S and R-A are self-support or mild care. (Fig. 13)
Conclusion
Most of the housing have poor facilities and small floor areas in the dwelling unit. Therefore, the living environment is lower quality. Especially the countryside tends to its. We consider that the primary reasons for the lower quality are what the management bodies has expected residents of need to care and the single-person move into the housing. They may be imaging that shared type is adequate areas and facilities for such residents. Actually, about 50% of residents are self-support or need to mild care level. Therefore, there are mismatch the floor plan and resident life in the housing of the shared type. There are little the number of the housing in the countryside. Furthermore, there are problems of quality of living environment. We conclude that standards of the housing should be considered about the quality of living environment. The housing will need to be improved that are able to match for the lifestyles from self-support to sever care level.
