Key Characteristics of an Age Friendly Neighbouhood
Abstract
European Union’s inhabitants are quickly ageing. Therefore, ageing is an emerging issue, causing different kinds of problems. Among them, mobility is a remarkably complicated challenge, as it encompasses much more inter-related problems that have profound physical, mental and social consequences on well-being. Urban planning researchers indicate that a low level of mobility is generally linked to a low quality of life especially amongst elderly.
Mobility has an important positive effect on old people’s independence and involvement in socio-economic life resulting in profits for themselves as well as the whole of society. Besides, mobility facilitates senior access to medical and health, educational, cultural, recreational services and other local welfare services; particularly to establish and foster social relations, and help them to combat social exclusion. Overall, everyday mobility is necessary for their social well-being, and physical and mental health.
This paper aimed to review and critically analyze the literature on the contribution between key characteristics of the neighbourhood that improve the outdoor mobility of old adults, quality of life and well-being in a number of countries all around the worlds. It also aimed to identify gaps in the level of scientific knowledge about this subject.
Downloads
References
Alidoust, S., & Bosman, C. (2015). Planning for an ageing population: links between social health, neighbourhood environment and the elderly. Australian planner, 52(3), 177-186. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2015.1034145
Annear, M., Keeling, S., Wilkinson, T. I. M., Cushman, G., Gidlow, B. O. B., & Hopkins, H. (2014). Environmental influences on healthy and active ageing: a systematic review. Ageing & Society, 34(4), 590-622. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1200116X
Banister, D., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension. Transport policy, 11(2), 105-115. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00052-0
Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2012). Ageing in urban environments: Developing ‘age-friendly’cities. Critical Social Policy, 32(4), 597-617. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311430457
Davies, A., & James, A. (2011). Geographies of Ageing (1st edition). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Engel, L., Chudyk, A. M., Ashe, M. C., McKay, H. A., Whitehurst, D. G. T., & Bryan, S. (2016). Older adults' quality of life – Exploring the role of the built environment and social cohesion in community-dwelling seniors on low income. Social Science & Medicine, 164, 1-11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.008
Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing & Society, 24(5), 675-691. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001582
Gardner, P. J. (2011). Natural neighborhood networks—Important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place. Journal of Aging Studies, 25(3), 263-271. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.007
Golant, S. M. (2014). Age-friendly communities: Are we expecting too much? Montreal, CA: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Retrieved from http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/insight-no5.pdf
Guralnik, J. M., LaCroix, A. Z., Abbott, R. D., Berkman, L. F., Satterfield, S., Evans, D. A., & Wallace, R. B. (1993). Maintaining mobility in late life. I. Demographic characteristics and chronic conditions. American Journal of Epidemiology, 137(8), 845-857. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116746
Haustein, S. (2012). Mobility behavior of the elderly: an attitude-based segmentation approach for a heterogeneous target group. Transportation, 39(6), 1079-1103. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-011-9380-7
Hawkesworth, S., Silverwood, R. J., Armstrong, B., Pliakas, T., Nanchalal, K., Jefferis, B. J., ... & Casas, J. P. (2017). Investigating associations between the built environment and physical activity among older people in 20 UK towns. J Epidemiol Community Health, 0, 1-11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209440
Howden-Chapman, P., Signal, L., & Crane, J. (1999). Housing and health in older people: ageing in place. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 13, 14-30. Retrieved from https://www.healthyhousing.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Housing-and-health-in-older-people-aging-in-place.pdf
Iwarsson, S., Wahl, H. W., Nygren, C., Oswald, F., Sixsmith, A., Sixsmith, J., ... & Tomsone, S. (2007). Importance of the home environment for healthy aging: conceptual and methodological background of the European ENABLE-AGE Project. The Gerontologist, 47, 78–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/47.1.78
Jackisch, J., Zamaro, G., Green, G., & Huber, M. (2015). Is a healthy city also an age-friendly city?. Health promotion international, 30(suppl_1), i108-i117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dav039
Kerr, J., Rosenberg, D., & Frank, L. (2012). The role of the built environment in healthy aging: community design, physical activity, and health among older adults. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 43-60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211415283
Lai, M. M., Lein, S. Y., Lau, S. H., & Lai, M. L. (2016). Modeling age-friendly environment, active aging, and social connectedness in an emerging Asian economy. Journal of aging research, 2016, 2052380. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/2052380
Levasseur, M., Desrosiers, J., & Noreau, L. (2004). Is social participation associated with quality of life of older adults with physical disabilities? Disability and rehabilitation, 26(20), 1206-1213. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638280412331270371
Levasseur, M., Généreux, M., Bruneau, J. F., Vanasse, A., Chabot, É., Beaulac, C., & Bédard, M. M. (2015). Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study. BMC public health, 15(1), 1-19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1824-0
Means, R. (2007). Safe as houses? Ageing in place and vulnerable older people in the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 41(1), 65-85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2007.00539.x
Nieboer, A. P., & Cramm, J. M. (2017). Age-Friendly Communities Matter for Older People’s Well-Being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1-16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9923-5
Nordbakke, S., & Schwanen, T. (2015). Transport, unmet activity needs and wellbeing in later life: exploring the links. Transportation, 42(6), 1129-1151. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9558-x
Pinto, F. (2014). Urban Planning and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. TeMA. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, Special Issue INPUT 2014, 829-840. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/2547
Puts, M. T. E., Shekary, N., Widdershoven, G., Heldens, J., Lips, P., & Deeg, D. J. H. (2007). What does quality of life mean to older frail and non-frail community-dwelling adults in the Netherlands?. Quality of life Research, 16(2), 263-277. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9121-0
Rosso, A. L., Auchincloss, A. H., & Michael, Y. L. (2011). The urban built environment and mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review. Journal of aging research, 2011, 1-10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/816106
Scheiner, J. (2006). Does the car make elderly people happy and mobile? Settlement structures, car availability and leisure mobility of the elderly. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 6(2), 151-172. Retrieved from http://www.ejtir.tbm.tudelft.nl/ISSUES/2006_02/pdf/2006_02_03.pdf
Spinney, J. E., Scott, D. M., & Newbold, K. B. (2009). Transport mobility benefits and quality of life: A time-use perspective of elderly Canadians. Transport policy, 16(1), 1-11. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.01.002
Tiraphat, S., Peltzer, K., Thamma-Aphiphol, K., & Suthisukon, K. (2017). The role of age-friendly environments on quality of life among Thai older adults. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(3), 282. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030282
van den Berg, P., Kemperman, A., de Kleijn, B., & Borgers, A. (2016). Ageing and loneliness: the role of mobility and the built environment. Travel Behaviour and Society, 5, 48-55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2015.03.001
Wong, M., Yu, R., & Woo, J. (2017). Effects of perceived neighbourhood environments on self-rated health among community-dwelling older Chinese. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(6), 614. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060614
World Health Organization (WHO). (2007). Global Age-friendly Cities: a Guide. Geneva, CH: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/kobe_centre/publications/age_friendly_cities_guide/en/
Yen, I. H., & Anderson, L. A. (2012). Built environment and mobility of older adults: important policy and practice efforts. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60(5), 951-956. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.03949.x
Yen, I. H., Michael, Y. L., & Perdue, L. (2009). Neighborhood environment in studies of health of older adults: a systematic review. American journal of preventive medicine, 37(5), 455-463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.022
Copyright (c) 2018 Tema. Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following:
1. Authors retain the rights to their work and give in to the journal the right of first publication of the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution that allows others to share the work indicating the authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors can adhere to other agreements of non-exclusive license for the distribution of the published version of the work (ex. To deposit it in an institutional repository or to publish it in a monography), provided to indicate that the document was first published in this journal.
3. Authors can distribute their work online (ex. In institutional repositories or in their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and it can increase the quotations of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access)