本論文探討包容性設計於校園環境中的應用，並以成功大學北區校園為研究對象。鑑於成大醫院附設之老人醫院即將完工，未來校園內將匯聚更多元族群的使用者，包括高齡者、兒童與身心障礙者等，這些群體具有不同的認知能力、感知能力與行動能力。傳統以學生與教職員為主要對象的校園設計模式，已無法全面回應當前的使用需求，亟需重新檢視校園空間的包容性與友善程度，以實現多元共融之願景。本研究透過以下三個面向，探討包容性設計如何應用於校園規劃與設計之中。
根據文獻回顧，包容性設計的核心理念在於消除因設計所造成的排他性，確保各種族群皆能無障礙地使用空間與設施。包容性設計並非僅提供對特定能力不足者的輔助，更強調促進使用者參與與能力恢復，使環境設計具備高度適應性與包容性。
隨著成大老人醫院之落成，校園使用者結構將更為多元，因此，本研究成大的公共空間作為主要研究場域，將參與式設計作為研究方法，廣納學生、真實使用者與各領域專家的意見，並將此方法納入設計制度與準則，使空間中的權力得以流動，不再僅以多數人之利益為主，亦能照顧少數與弱勢使用者的需求。
本文進一步檢視過去校園設計案例，分析由等不同權力角色所主導的公共空間設計提案，並探討彼此間的合作與對話機制，特別關注如何透過設計中心納入學生等實際使用者之設計思維。結合上述理論與案例分析，本文提出適用於成功大學校園未來持續發展的包容性設計制度與準則建議。
本研究旨在透過包容性設計的視角，探索校園環境如何更有效地回應多元使用者之需求，並提出具體可行的設計準則與策略，積極介入校園規劃設計流程，以實現真正友善且共融之校園空間。

This thesis explores the potential of inclusive design in transforming university campus environments, focusing on the axis connecting the NCKU Hospital and the Geriatric Hospital within National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) as the primary research site. With the establishment of the NCKU Geriatric Hospital, the campus user composition has evolved from a homogeneous group of students and faculty into a diverse population that includes older adults, caregivers, patients, children, people with disabilities, and international users. The traditional campus planning model—based on the assumption of “healthy young students” as the normative user—has become inadequate to address the increasingly complex needs of these diverse groups. This thesis argues that inclusive design should not merely function as a supplementary measure to accessibility, but rather as a core principle of campus governance and spatial planning, facilitating the redistribution of both spatial and procedural justice.
Methodologically, the thesis adopts a multi-faceted qualitative and participatory approach, integrating literature review, field observation, semi-structured interviews, and participatory design workshops. Students, experts, and real users were invited to jointly participate in the design process to identify structural and institutional forms of exclusion embedded within the campus environment. The findings reveal that spatial exclusion arises not only from physical barriers but also from centralized decision-making power and limited communication mechanisms. Both interviews and workshop outcomes emphasize that enabling users to participate in the early stages of planning and decision-making is essential to achieving a truly equitable and inclusive campus environment.
Based on the findings, this thesis proposes a Multi-scalar Intervention Framework.
At the spatial level, it recommends inclusive improvements across various campus spaces, focusing on circulation systems, sensory wayfinding, and intergenerational interaction nodes.
At the institutional level, it advocates for the establishment of a Third-Party Inclusive Design Committee that mediates among administrative authorities, design teams, and user representatives.
At the procedural level, it introduces standardized participatory mechanisms—comprising empathic interviews, user journey mapping, iterative feedback, and post-occupancy evaluation—to institutionalize inclusive design within the planning and governance process.
The thesis concludes that the practice of inclusive design not only enhances spatial accessibility but also redefines power structures—determining who is heard, who participates, and who ultimately influences design outcomes. By embedding inclusive principles into institutional frameworks, the campus evolves from a conventional educational site into a public environment that fosters social inclusion and epistemic equality. This thesis provides both theoretical and strategic references for campus development in Taiwan and establishes a viable model for advancing spatial justice and governance innovation in higher education environments.

Alexander, J. M. (2008). Capabilities and social justice : the political philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum / John M. Alexander. Ashgate Pub. Ltd.
Arnstein, S. R. (2019). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388
Berger, E. (2018). Two Blind Spots in Design Thinking: Portraying Designers’ Singularity with Practical Insights from Cross-disciplinary Innovation Projects. International journal of design management and professional practice, 12(2), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.18848/2325-162X/CGP/v12i02/39-51
Casey, E. S. (1993). Getting back into place : toward a renewed understanding of the place-world / Edward S. Casey. Indiana University Press.
Clarkson, J., & Coleman, R. (2010). Inclusive design. Journal of engineering design, 21(2-3), 127-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544821003693689
Clarkson, P. J., & Coleman, R. (2015). History of Inclusive Design in the UK [Article]. Applied Ergonomics, 46, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002
Dunn, W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants and young children, 9(4), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-199704000-00005
Foucault, M., Miller, P., Gordon, C., & Burchell, G. (1991). The Foucault effect : studies in governmentality : with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault / edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind : the theory of multiple intelligences / Howard Gardner ; [with a new introduction by the author] (2nd , 10th anniversary ed.). BasicBooks.
Heylighen, A., Van der Linden, V., & Van Steenwinkel, I. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114, 507-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.008
Imrie, R., & Hall, P. (2001). Inclusive design : designing and developing accessible environments / Rob Imrie and Peter Hall. Spon Press.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation : lessons in creativity from IDEO, America's leading design firm / Tom Kelley, with Jonathan Littman (1st ed.). Currency/Doubleday.
Krzeptowska-Moszkowicz, I., Moszkowicz, Ł., & Porada, K. (2023). What Affects the Depth of the Human–Garden Relationship in Freely Accessible Urban Sensory Gardens with Therapeutic Features in Various Users? Sustainability, 15(19), 14420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914420
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design : 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design / William Lidwell, Kritina Holden, Jill Butler (Rev. and updat ed.). Rockport Publishers.
McCloskey, S., & Palgrave, C. (2014). Development education in policy and practice / edited by Stephen McCloskey. In. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Microsoft. (2016). Inclusive Microsoft Design.
Nations, U. (2007). CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.
Rogoff, J. (2001). Disability, space and society. In (Vol. 26, pp. 149-149): Geographical Association.
Schultz, B. (2025). What Is 'Illegal DEI?' Trump Admin.'s School Probes Start to Paint a Picture; Some K-12 educators say their schools have been emphasizing DEI less. Education week.
Strube, J. (2021). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the World We Need: by Sasha Costanza-Chock, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020, 360pp. PB 9780262043458. $25.00/£20.00. In (Vol. 13, pp. 246-249): Routledge.
WHO. (2007). Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide.
World Health, O. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health : ICF. World Health Organization.
許家茵. (2022). 成功校園指南 : 以人為主體的當代校園空間思考 / 許家茵[及其他7人]著 (初版 ed.). 成大出版社出版.
蔡侑樺, & 徐明福. (2013). 1930年到1945年間臺灣總督府臺南高等工業學校的校園建築 / 蔡侑樺, 徐明福著 (初版 ed.). 成功大學校友聯絡中心.
Age-Friendly University Global Network. (n.d.). Age-Friendly University Global Network. 取自 https://www.afugn.org/