The target of this research is relief facilities, which provide a place to live for various socially vulnerable people. There are 182 relief facilities across the country, and buildings and residents are aging. On the other hand, the impact of COVID-19 has become a big issue in social welfare facilities. It is necessary to review the facility environment from the perspective of infection prevention as well as a future reconstruction plans.
The purpose of this study was to clarify the overall picture of relief facilities and to identify perspectives leading to the future living environment and the infection prevention in relief facilities based on (1) the architectural characteristics of relief facilities and (2) the changes in the facility environment during the impact period of COVID 19. The survey consisted of a web-based questionnaire survey and field surveys. The results are as follows:
1) Bedrooms generally consist of two or four beds, with floor area per person of 5.1 to 7.1 m2. Case study analysis of 32 facilities showed that the average private room rate was as low as 15%, and many facilities had only one dining room. Therefore, from an architectural point of view, the relief facilities are considered to be old-fashioned facilities based on the concepts of living and providing care in large groups. 2) The number of facilities with single rooms for infection control was 39 facilities and the number of rooms that could be used as isolation rooms for infection control was about two per facility, less than 30% of the facilities had flow areas for infection control. In terms of facilities, infection control cannot be sufficiently implemented. Measures within the facility were taken more in common spaces than in bedrooms, and included changes in the hours of use, seating arrangements, and frequency and duration of bathing. 3) The main measures in daily life were to reduce the amount of interaction with other people, such as increasing the amount of time residents spend in their bedrooms and limiting the flow lines, which changed the way of residents’ daily life. Restricting program time and going out increased free time, and passive activities such as watching TV became noticeable. It is necessary to consider a new facility program that does not restrict the residents’ lives while preventing infection. 4) In the case study analysis, there were 18/30 of the facilities where the retreat rooms and bedrooms were separated, and about 90% of the facilities separated the retreat rooms in plane rather than separating these by floor. In facilities that lack infection areas, retreat rooms or rooms located away from residents’ bedrooms can be substituted as isolation rooms. Retreat rooms near the entrance, even if they are located on the second floor or higher, can provide a route for transport to the outside without passing through the facility.
