Heterogeneous Age-Friendly Environments among Age-Cohort Groups

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the underlying structures of age-friendly environmental characteristics and examine how they may vary across age-cohort groups based on life satisfaction. We used regionally representative data in South Korea. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted for age-friendly environmental indicators in three age-cohort groups. Regression models examined the association between the environmental factors and life satisfaction in the three age-cohort groups. Across all age groups, three factors converged: neighborhood problems, access to public services and programs, and community engagement. Regression analyses showed the three convergent environmental factors were all significantly associated with life satisfaction across all age-groups, but the association varies across the age-groups. The age-cohort based factor structures and differential patterns of association with well-being provide important background information on designing age-friendly communities.

Evaluation of an Age-Friendly City and Its Effect on Life Satisfaction: A Two-Stage Study

“…With respect to the relationship between life satisfaction and the specific domains of an age-friendly city ( Table 5), taking into account the different age cohorts (second aim), the data show clear dissimilarities in the influence of the different settings of the environment on life satisfaction, like other studies that have taken this same variable into account [59,60]. These differences may be due to aspects linked to the theory of selectivity [61], which establishes that the perception of future time (open-limited) influences the establishment of the type of goals that people set themselves.…”

“…Taking into account these results, as well as those obtained in similar studies consulted [49,[56][57][58][59][60], and after reviewing various strategy plans [63,64] based on international gerontological strategies and plans, some recommendations for developing policies that foster age-friendly environments, would be: to facilitate the involvement of older people in city decision-making; promote the empowerment of older people through the promotion of autonomy; to disseminate a realistic picture of ageing people to all generations and to combat discrimination; ensuring the security and social inclusion of older people; encourage a positive transition from working life to retirement; value the transfer of care and support provided by older people; preparing homes and environments that can be enjoyed throughout life, promoting permanence in their surroundings; promote healthy ageing; incorporate lifelong learning into society; promote volunteering and social participation; and foster intergenerational solidarity.…”

“…Due to this, it is important that the studies conducted on contextual factors and their effects on elderly persons' well-being are approached from a life cycle perspective, which proposes that ageing processes and experiences may be different depending on the place and time in history in which they are living. Age-friendly environments may, therefore, be universally beneficial, but their specific effects may vary from one culture or society to another [60,67,68]. Similarly, among elderly persons living in the same city or community, it is essential to take into account their sociodemographic differences (such as the age cohort, or whether they live alone or with someone else).…”

Emerging evolution trends of studies on age-friendly cities and communities: a scientometric review

“…Figure 8 demonstrates that measuring the age-friendliness of cities and communities has evolved particularly after 2015, when the WHO released a guide of core indicators to measure the age-friendliness of cities and communities. Although site-specific methods have been developed to evaluate programmatic activities, partnership processes and local effects, most studies that examined AFCCs are still based on descriptive studies (Beard and Montawi, 2015; Giunta and Thomas, 2015; Jackisch et al , 2015; Ruza et al , 2015; Park and Lee, 2018). The absence of environmental measures from existing data-sets, adoption of defining indicators, data collection and calculation are the three main issues that researchers encounter; a relatively little empirical knowledge on how to assess the essential characteristics of an age-friendly environment accurately and appropriately is evident (Kano et al , 2018).…”

“…Under such circumstances, private solutions (such as housing modifications, age-friendly fitness facilities, mixed-use community planning) are apparently merging (Scharlach, 2012). (Beard and Montawi, 2015;Giunta and Thomas, 2015;Jackisch et al, 2015;Park and Lee, 2018;Ruza et al, 2015). The absence of environmental measures from existing datasets, adoption of defining indicators, data collection and calculation are the three 1 main issues that researchers encounter; A relatively little empirical knowledge on how 2 to accurately and appropriately assess the essential characteristics of an age-friendly environment is evident (Kano et al, 2018).…”