| Project/Area Number |
16K12821
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Research Field |
Geography
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Osaka City University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
Mizuuchi Toshio 大阪市立大学, 都市研究プラザ, 教授 (60181880)
|
|---|
| Research Collaborator |
Kornatowski Geerhardt
Goishi Norimichi
Lu Lijun
Kiener Johannes
Kakita Yusuke
Okada Shintaro
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2016-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2018)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,640,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,800,000、Indirect Cost: ¥840,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥1,170,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥270,000)
Fiscal Year 2017: ¥1,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,000,000、Indirect Cost: ¥300,000)
Fiscal Year 2016: ¥1,170,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥270,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | セーフティネット / 居住支援 / インナーシティ / 地域再成 / 生活保護 / 社会ビジネス / 不動産業 / 居住福祉 / セーフティーネット / 都市論 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
These days the creation of a housing safety net and housing welfare support systems is heatedly debated in the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. With the aim to contribute to this discussion, this study investigates established collaborations between local governments and NPOs. Through a typology their actual conditions and pressing issues were revealed, and concrete policy proposals formulated. We also shed light on the supply of non-welfare dependent housing, which is not realized solely by public investments, its impact on inner city regeneration and its role as an activator for local business. Further, in order to increase the social recognition of the importance of these enterprises, we introduced the notion of “temporary residence”, “temporary living” and “short term stay”, focused also on company dormitories, and pointed out the role they play in the housing safety net and in its restructuring process.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
二つの意義を指摘しておきたい。まず自治体とNPOが協働するという側面に対して、多様なそれぞれの地域の居住支援に実態を明らかにし、類型化したことにある。一時生活支援事業、無料低額宿泊所、ホームレス自立支援センター、そしてケア付き支援住宅のありかたに関する、EBPMの最適例を実践したことにある。二つめに、とかく福祉依存にありがちなハウジングのセーフティネットに対して、福祉アパートだけでない就労付き社員寮などの仕事支援の拠点として、中間ハウジングを位置づけ直したこと、それを暫居、暫住という新たな概念で説明したことにある。民泊に関しては滞在という見方を導入し、定住だけではない地域施策の見方を提案した。
|
