近年來，共同居住空間（Co-living Space）在歐美大城市發展已逾數十年，其興起背景包含居住成本高漲、工作型態轉變、社會疏離與孤獨感加劇，以及結婚年齡延後等因素。作為一種兼具社會性、環保性與永續性的替代住宅模式，共居透過資源共享有效降低居住開銷，逐漸受到各國關注。然而，在台灣，共居仍屬相對陌生且小眾的租屋選項，相關研究相較於傳統住宅議題仍較少受到關注。

當代年輕世代在取得住房方面面臨諸多挑戰，規劃未來住宅發展時，須審慎考量人口結構的變遷。Y與Z世代為目前的主要人口群，其世代特性將直接影響其對住宅的偏好與選擇。本研究旨在探討台灣Y與Z世代對共居住宅的居住屬性偏好，涵蓋經濟、空間、社會與區位等面向，並進一步分析其內在感知（情緒反應與主觀態度）是否會影響共居行為意圖。

本研究採用以量化為主、質性為輔的混合研究法。研究架構係依據Mehrabian & Russell。（1974）所提出之環境心理學理論，運用「刺激–個體–反應」模型（Stimulus Organism-Response model）進行理論建構與變項設計。量化部分透過社群平台發放問卷，共回收223份有效樣本，並採用偏最小平方法結構方程模型（PLS-SEM）與重要性–表現分析（IPMA）進行統計分析。為補充量化研究之不足，亦進行 9位受訪者之深度訪談，以深入了解其對共居模式的認知與觀點。

研究結果顯示，社會支持為影響內在感知的關鍵因素；情緒反應與態度則是共居行為意圖的重要前因構面；空間設計對情緒反應具正向影響，惟對態度影響不顯著；經濟誘因僅顯著影響態度，對情緒反應則無直接影響；地理位置在本研究中對兩者皆無顯著影響。IPMA結果指出，「社會支持」構面下的多數因子為高重要性但低表現之項目，為未來共居空間設計與營運優先改善之方向。

本研究透過實證分析，提供共居產業相關業者具體建議，協助其規劃更符合Y與Z世代需求的居住方案，以提升共居模式在台灣的接受度與普及率。期望透過共居空間的推廣，不僅能舒緩高房價壓力，更可回應網路時代所帶來的社會疏離問題，重建人際連結，實現互助共融的社會願景。

In recent years, co-living spaces have emerged as a notable alternative housing model in major urban centers across Western countries. This housing trend has evolved in response to multiple socio-economic challenges, including skyrocketing housing prices, changing employment patterns, a growing sense of social isolation and loneliness, and the increasing delay in traditional life milestones such as marriage. Co-living responds to these shifts by offering a lifestyle that emphasizes community, affordability, sustainability, and flexibility. Through shared spaces and communal living arrangements, co-living enables residents to reduce housing-related expenses and foster interpersonal connections.
However, in Taiwan, the concept of co-living remains relatively novel and has yet to enter mainstream housing discourse. Most young adults are still unfamiliar with this model, and academic research on co-living is limited compared to traditional housing. This study aims to explore the housing attribute preferences of Taiwan’s Generation Y and Z—focusing on economic incentives, spatial design, social support, and locational factors—and examines how internal perceptions, namely emotional responses and attitudes, influence their behavioral intentions toward co-living. Grounded in the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) model and employing a mixed-methods approach, this research collected 223 valid responses and conducted nine qualitative interviews. Results underscore the significance of social support and emotional precursors to behavior, while highlighting performance gaps in current co-living environments.

Ache, P., & Fedrowitz, M. (2012). The development of co-housing initiatives in Germany. Built Environment, 38(3), 395-412.
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., Lohmann, S., & Albarracín, D. (2018). The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of attitudes, volume 1: Basic principles, 197-255.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Andersson, J. (2022). Coliving-Transition towards sustainability: A comparable case study of coliving and single-living. In.
Avermaete, T., & Storgaard, E. (2010). The Fællesgård: A Danish Saga about Cooperative Living. DASH| Delft Architectural Studies on Housing(03), 48-59.
Azmi, N., & Bujang, A. A. (2021). The gap between housing affordability and affordable house: A challenge for policy makers. Planning Malaysia, 19.
Bakker, P. (2009). Cohousing in the Netherlands. In: First International Cohousing Summit, Seattle.
Beck, A. F. (2020). What is co-housing? Developing a conceptual framework from the studies of Danish intergenerational co-housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 37(1), 40-64.
Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption, 1.
Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Capitanio, J. P., & Cole, S. W. (2015). The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Annual review of psychology, 66(1), 733-767.
Cervero, R. (1989). Jobs-housing balancing and regional mobility. Journal of the american planning association, 55(2), 136-150.
Chen, C.-C., Lai, C.-H., Guo, N.-R., & Wu, S.-M. (2024). Exploring the Consumer Acceptance of Circular Housing from the Perspective of SOR Theory. Sustainability, 16(8), 3268.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. In (pp. vii-xvi): JSTOR.
Chiodelli, F., & Baglione, V. (2014). Living together privately: for a cautious reading of cohousing. Urban research & practice, 7(1), 20-34.
Christy, V., & Tan, T. H. (2022). Understanding tenants’ motivations for co-living arrangements: a case study of Klang Valley, Malaysia. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 15(5), 1225-1241.
Chung, R. Y.-N., Chung, G. K.-K., Gordon, D., Mak, J. K.-L., Zhang, L.-F., Chan, D., Lai, F. T. T., Wong, H., & Wong, S. Y.-S. (2020). Housing affordability effects on physical and mental health: household survey in a population with the world’s greatest housing affordability stress. J Epidemiol Community Health, 74(2), 164-172.
Clapham, D. (2002). Housing pathways: A post modern analytical framework. Housing, Theory and Society, 19(2), 57-68.
Coldwell, W. (2019). Co-living’: The end of urban loneliness–Or cynical corporate dormitories. The Guardian, 3.
Collen, H., & Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the built Environment, 16, 285-306.
Corfe, S. (2019). Co-living: A solution to the housing crisis. The Social Market Foundation.
Cox, K. R. (1982). Housing tenure and neighborhood activism. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18(1), 107-129.
Drew, R. B., & Abioye, F. (2024). Unlocking Housing Choice.
Durrett, C., & McCamant, K. (2011). Creating cohousing: Building sustainable communities. New Society Publishers.
Dwidienawati, D., & Gandasari, D. (2018). Understanding Indonesia’s generation Z. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(3), 245-253.
Ezennia, I. S., & Hoskara, S. O. (2019). Exploring the severity of factors influencing sustainable affordable housing choice: evidence from Abuja, Nigeria. Sustainability, 11(20), 5792.
Fachriza Zuhdi, R., & Saptorini, H. (2020). Millennial and Gen Z Preferences for Their Co-living.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Fromm, D. (2012). Seeding community: Collaborative housing as a strategy for social and neighbourhood repair. Built Environment, 38(3), 364-394.
Giorgi, E. (2020). The Co-Housing Phenomenon. Environmental Alliance in Times of Changes. Cham: Springer.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.
He, S., Liu, Y., Wu, F., & Webster, C. (2010). Social groups and housing differentiation in China's urban villages: An institutional interpretation. Housing Studies, 25(5), 671-691.
Heath, S., Davies, K., Edwards, G., & Scicluna, R. (2017). Shared housing, shared lives: Everyday experiences across the lifecourse. Routledge.
Hopwood, J. (2010). Working collaboratively from opposition (independents, parties and houses) to improve services for social disadvantage. Australasian Parliamentary Review, 25(1), 162-165.
Huber, S. J. (2016). Preference for housing services and rational house price bubbles. Unpublished manuscript, Univ. Amsterdam.
Indah, I., & Wardono, P. (2021). Co-living space: The shared living behavior of the millenial generation in Indonesia. ARTEKS: Jurnal Teknik Arsitektur, 6(2), 199-214.
Ismail, S., Manaf, A. A., Hussain, M. Y., Basrah, N., & Azian, F. U. M. (2021). Housing preferences: An analysis of malaysian youths. Planning Malaysia, 19.
Jarvis, H. (2015). Towards a deeper understanding of the social architecture of co-housing: evidence from the UK, USA and Australia. Urban research & practice, 8(1), 93-105.
Kamalipour, H., & Dovey, K. (2020). Incremental production of urban space: A typology of informal design. Habitat International, 98, 102133.
Kauko, T. (2006). Expressions of housing consumer preferences: Proposition for a research agenda. Housing, Theory and Society, 23(2), 92-108.
Kim, S., Hwang, J., & Lee, M.-H. (2022). Effect of housing support programs on residential satisfaction and the housing cost burden: Analysis of the effect of housing support programs in korea based on household attributes. Land, 11(9), 1392.
Kvietkute, D., & Lappegard Hauge, Å. (2022). Living with strangers: Exploring motivations and stated preferences for considering co-housing and shared living in Bergen, Norway. Housing and Society, 49(2), 128-149.
Lang, R., Chatterton, P., & Mullins, D. (2020). Grassroots innovations in community-led housing in England: the role and evolution of intermediaries. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 12(1), 52-72.
Larsen, H. G. (2019). Three phases of Danish cohousing: tenure and the development of an alternative housing form. Housing Studies, 34(8), 1349-1371.
Levine, J. (1998). Rethinking accessibility and jobs-housing balance. Journal of the american planning association, 64(2), 133-149.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of marketing, 41(1), 77-79.
McCamant, K., Durrett, C., & Milman, D. (2000). Bofaelleskaber to cohousing. Communities(106), 60.
McKenna, N., Chatterton, P., & Wallace, A. (2024). It is ‘more than just about building houses’: collaborating towards a housing commons in Leeds. City, 28(5-6), 611-636.
Mehl, J. Not Another Shelter. Traps of Solutionism in Humanitarian Design. Conferenceorganiserandhost: Moholy-NagyUniversityofArtandDesign, InnovationCenter TheconferencewasdevelopedbyaCommitteewithintheSocialDesignNetwork. HeadoftheCommittee: DrBoriFehér MembersoftheCommittee: DrJankaCsernák, ProfShilpaDas, DrAlviseMattozzi, 35.
Memon, M. A., Ramayah, T., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Chuah, F., & Cham, T. H. (2021). PLS-SEM statistical programs: a review. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 5(1), 1-14.
Mentor, F., Czischke, D., & Vande Putte, H. (2023). To what extent does commercial co-living match user preferences of young adults in The Netherlands?
Miller, N., & Peng, L. (2006). Exploring metropolitan housing price volatility. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 33, 5-18.
Newman, S. J., & Schnare, A. B. (1997). “… And a suitable living environment”: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality. Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 703-741.
Ng, E. S., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of business and psychology, 25, 281-292.
Ong, R., Phelps, C., Rowley, S., & Wood, G. A. (2018). Spatial and temporal patterns in housing supply: a descriptive analysis. Urban Policy and Research, 36(3), 287-303.
Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? In (Vol. 20, pp. 225-231): Taylor & Francis.
Pepper, S., & Manji, A. (2019). Co-living as an emerging market: an assessment of co-living's long-term resiliency Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
Revington, N., & August, M. (2020). Making a market for itself: The emergent financialization of student housing in Canada. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 52(5), 856-877.
Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial management & data systems, 116(9), 1865-1886.
Rogers, E. S., Anthony, W., Kash, M., & Olschewski, A. (2010). Systematic review of supported housing literature 1993–2008.
Ruiu, M. L. (2015). The effects of cohousing on the social housing system: the case of the Threshold Centre. Journal of Housing and the built Environment, 30, 631-644.
Sekardini, M. N., Saragih, J. B., & Sakina, B. (2021). Implementation of Environment–Behaviour Studies in Co-living for Millennial Generation. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science,
Sisson, A., & Ruming, K. (2024). Calculating the system-wide supply impacts of social housing estate renewal: new measures and methods. Housing Studies, 1-25.
Sivadasan, R., Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J., & Basiruddin, R. (2020). Residential properties with green living concept: what drives consumers to buy? International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 36(3), 427-447.
Skaburskis, A., & Ontario, K. (2002). Generational differences and future housing markets. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 25(3), 377-404.
Soon, A., & Tan, C. (2019). An analysis on housing affordability in Malaysian housing markets and the home buyers’ preference. International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 13(3), 375-392.
Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P., & Wardle, J. (2013). Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5797-5801.
Tan, D. (2016). Factors affecting the preferences of social housing: Evidence from Ho Chi Minh city. University of Tampere School of Management Thesis.
Tan, T. H., & Toh, E. B. H. (2025). Millennials' perspectives: motivations for co-living in a developing nation. Open House International.
Thanaraju, P., Khan, P. A. M., Juhari, N. H., Sivanathan, S., & Khair, N. M. (2019). Factors affecting the housing preferences of homebuyers in Kuala Lumpur. Planning Malaysia, 17.
Tiong, S. Y. (2024). Urban co-living: housing option for young generation UTAR].
Tummers, L. (2016). The re-emergence of self-managed co-housing in Europe: A critical review of co-housing research. Urban studies, 53(10), 2023-2040.
Tummers, L. (2017). Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: why and how? In The re-emergence of co-housing in Europe (pp. 74-88). Routledge.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2012). Who are the Millennials? Empirical evidence for generational differences in work values, attitudes and personality. In Managing the new workforce (pp. 1-19). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wang, Z., & Zhang, Q. (2014). Fundamental factors in the housing markets of China. Journal of housing economics, 25, 53-61.
Williams, P. (2013). Housing finance and the housing market; lessons from the UK? Housing Finance International, 28(2).
Wood, G. A., Clark, W. A., ViforJ, R. O., Smith, S. J., & Truong, N. K. (2023). Residential mobility and mental health. SSM-Population Health, 21, 101321.
Wu, J., Deng, Y., & Liu, H. (2014). House price index construction in the nascent housing market: The case of China. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 48, 522-545.
Zheng, S., Fu, Y., & Liu, H. (2006). Housing-choice hindrances and urban spatial structure: Evidence from matched location and location-preference data in Chinese cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(3), 535-557.
尤佳麗, 李育菁, & 竺頔. （2021）. 居民對於住宅環境及室內設計偏好研究. 中華印刷科技年報（2021）, 367-380.
王永樹. （2020）. 「共居」住宅創新模式探索. 逢甲大學. AiritiLibrary.
王祖毅. （2019）. 共居治理性的社群實踐:以玖樓共生公寓為例 國立臺北大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 新北市.
王翔泰. （2020）. 台灣青銀共居平台之創新商業模式研究. 國立臺灣大學. AiritiLibrary.
王資榕. （2020）. 都市閒置空屋轉用於青銀共居住宅之推動可行性研究 國立成功大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台南市.
王維綱. （2018）. 玖樓共生公寓與社會住宅. 新社會政策（55）, 12-15.
周建安, 白仁德, & 劉文驤. （2024）. 共同居住空間使用者需求特性之研究－以臺北都會區為例. 土地問題研究季刊, 23（3）, 42-56.
林胤仲. （2014）. 運用結構方程模式探討民眾行為意圖之相關因素. 臺中科技大學流通管理系碩士班學位論文, 1-97.
洪嘉妤. （2022）. 青年人參與老人住宅之共居研究- 以臺北市陽明老人公寓為例 逢甲大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台中市.
高宜凡. （2020）. 在都市生活可以不孤單—「半伴」共居公寓，幫北漂青年在城市找伴.
張家瑄. （2018）. 國內共同居住空間之現況發展研究 國立臺北大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 新北市.
張淑琳. （2018）. 從共享經濟模式探討共居之行為意圖--以玖樓共居公寓為例 淡江大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 新北市.
曹軒瑜, & 楊康臨. （2020）. 房客與共生幸福感關係之探討輔仁民生學誌, 26（1）, 68-82.
梁禮軒. （2022）. 從共享經濟探討青銀共居住宅規劃 -以南部郊區鄰里型為例 國立高雄大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 高雄市.
許瑞舫. （2022）. 青銀共居社區參與意願調查：以台北都會地區閒置小學再利用為例 國立臺灣科技大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台北市.
都市改革組織, Ours. （2024）. 共居實踐：從單點到網絡交織.
陳佳妤. （2023）. 半伴共居 讓漂泊青年在城市也有家.
陳羿緻. （2019）. 玖樓用科技創新租賃市場 共生公寓讓生活激盪出更多美好火花. 禪天下（172）, 12-17.
曾亮. 青銀共居模式的共享住宅設計探討: 以三峽區北大青年社會住宅為例.
曾惟民. （2020）. 探討青銀共居行為意圖 國立臺北大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 新北市.
菅沼毅. （2023）. 台灣社會住宅的共居實踐：意向性社區的生活領域與空間感知 國立臺灣大學]. AiritiLibrary.
楊佩綺. （2019）. 不只是住在一起：探討共居住宅生活中的社群凝聚 國立臺灣大學]. AiritiLibrary.
廖庭輝. （2021）. 從無殼蝸牛到巢運：台灣住宅運動的倡議模式形構與轉化 東海大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台中市.
潘信榮. （2017）. 網絡崩世代居住空間的重構-以玖樓共生公寓為例. 臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所學位論文, 1-97.
蕭如辰. （2020）. 以共享經濟觀點探討臺北市民眾對共享社區之認知與意願 國立臺北科技大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台北市.
蕭宇良. （2022）. 青銀共居空間型式偏好研究 -以新店央北青年社會住宅跨世代共居種子計畫為例 國立雲林科技大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 雲林縣.
蕭宇良, & 聶志高. （2021）. 探討空間條件對青銀共居形式偏好的影響.
篠原聰子. （2016）. 共用住宅--擺脫孤立的居住方式. 城市建築, p20-23.
鍾雅如. （2019）. 台灣共居產業的實務困境解析 ─ 以「玖樓共生公寓」為例 國立政治大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台北市.
鍾雅如, & 白佩玉. （2020）. 共居如何提升歸屬感？以行動研究實證「玖樓共生公寓」之管理實務. 商略學報, 12（3）, 173-193.
羅雪真. （2018）. 共居經營模式之探討 -「玖樓」的下一步 國立臺灣科技大學]. 臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統. 台北市.