Download - 4 kavkova-ifa
AGEING AND
PERCEPTION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
Marcela Petrová Kafková
Office for Population Studies, FSS MU, Brno
Environmental quality by ageing
• Low mobility of older people
– 24% live in the same house/flat all their life, average age of
moving into their current home 33 years
• Long-term users of local environment
• Higher preference of older people for ageing in place
(Lanspery 2002)
• Increased use of home and immediate neighbourhood
with ageing (Sýkorová 2008)
• Poor environmental quality tends to decrease outdoor
mobility of older people and their independence
Theoretical background – quality of life
• Environment as a key constituent and dynamic context of quality of life by ageing (Walker 2010)
• Structural characteristics of buildings and neighbourhoods affect the residents´ QoL (Disch et al 2007)
• Relationship between residential satisfaction and psychological well-being is an artifact of their mutual relationship with personal resources. (Swirian, Swirian 1993)
• Some people indicate high well-being in spite of environmental stressors (Smith 2009)
Neighbourhood satisfaction
Neighbourhood satisfaction by age
• Higher age → lower
neighbourhood
satisfaction
• Poorer health → lower
neighbourhood
satisfaction
• No influence of gender
and education
Age group Mean
60-69 6,7 (±0,9)
70-79 6,2 (± 1,4)
80+ 5,6 (± 2,0)
IADL by age
(IADL - score range 0-7,
a lower score indicates a higher
level of dependence) :
Neighbourhood perception "the neighbourhood is mostly… " (range 1-5) (%)
11
3
16
14
5
6
9
1
7
2
3
28
13
27
24
15
22
21
7
18
8
7
47
59
32
36
51
41
37
51
31
43
34
10
19
18
20
21
22
21
30
29
31
33
4
6
7
7
8
9
13
11
17
16
23
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
interesting
poor
noisy
clean
young
safe
changing
deserted
grey
cheap
bad address good ad.
expensive
green
overcrowded
the same
dangerous
old
dirty
quiet
wealthy
boring
50%
A good neighbourhood (agreement )
"in the neighbourhood there are…" total Age
60-69/80+
Education
well-lit streets at night 78%
a few places to relax 68% elementary
61%
enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights
to cross safely
66% 69/62% elementary
56%
enough green belts 58%
new houses being built and the old ones
under reconstruction
57% tertiary 66%
I have a beautiful view from my home. 46%
It is often possible to see police patrols. 45%
My home is in a quiet zone. 42%
enough pleasant benches 41%
Enough pedestrian crossings and traffic
lights to cross safely
• The assessment doesn´t seem to be affected by
poorer locality of people with elementary
education but by education itself
• No influence of subjective health and IADL
• Less agreement by people with more health
limitations (worse sight, worse hearing, pain of
locomotor system)
A good neighbourhood (agreement )
"in the neighbourhood there are…" total Age
60-69/80+
Education
well-lit streets at night 78%
a few places to relax 68% elementary
61%
enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights
to cross safely
66% 69/62% elementary
56%
enough green belts 58%
new houses being built and the old ones
under reconstruction
57% tertiary 66%
I have a beautiful view from my home. 46%
It is often possible to see police patrols. 45%
My home is in a quiet zone. 42%
enough pleasant benches 41%
A poor neighbourhood "in the neighbourhood there is/are…"
total Age 60-
69/80+
Gender
M/W
Education
Elem/ter
very heavy traffic 63%
casinos and night bars 48% 50/40%
many unknown people and homeless ones
roving around
47% 56/40
a lot of houses painted with graffiti and
vandalised
46% 50/43
badly kept pavements in winter 42% 38/55% 38/45
a lot of of rubbish 34% 41/37
more and more tourists 32% 29/38
I don´t like newly built houses, they don´t fit
here
28%
a lot of very old houses and deserted houses
without occupants
19% 18/13% 24/10
A safe neighbourhood
• It is quite dangerous to go out in the evening
– 54% agree
– 60-69 years old 51 %, 70-79 years old 54 %., 80+ 64%
– Education: elementary 63%, vocational 53%, secondary 54%,
tertiary 46%
• It is quite dangerous to go out during the day
– 22% agree
– Education: elementary 31%, vocational 24%, secondary 20%,
tertiary 12%
Neighbourhood satisfaction
It is quite dangerous to
go out in the evening
It is quite dangerous
to go out during the
day
agree disagree agree disagree
neighbourhood
satisfaction 57% 80% 50% 72%
happiness (mean)
(1- very happy) 5,0 (±2,1) 4,4 (±1,8)
5,3
(±1,9) 4,5 (±2,2)
• Poor vs. good neighbourhood
– r =-0,34, p < 0,001
– More positive aspects = less negative aspects
• Good neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood
satisfaction
– R = 0,47, p < 0,001
– better neighb. = higher satisfaction with neighb.
• Poor neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood
satisfaction
– R = -0,39, p < 0,001
– Poorer neighb. = less satisfaction with neighb.
A good neighbourhood • Index score range 1-4 (1 = max good
neighbourhood)
• No influence of age, gender and education
• No influence of subjective health but slightly affected by IADL and sense limitations
– IADL r = -0,15, p <0,001 (more independent = better neighbourhood)
– Sense limitations r = 0,11 , p <0,001 (less limitations = better neighbourhood)
A poor neighbourhood • Index score range 1-4 (1 = max poor neighbourhood)
• No influence of age, gender and education
• Some influence of health
– Subjective heath r = -0,16, p <0,001 (poorer health = poorer neighbourhood)
IADL r = 0,17, p <0,001 (less independent = poorer neighbourhood)
– Sense limitations r = -0,20 , p <0,001 (more limitations = poorer neighbourhood)
neighbourhood and quality of life (r)
good poor
satisfaction
with n.
PGC Morale
Scale -0,16 0,13 -0,23
loneliness 0,13 -0,16 0,15
agency -0,2 0,2 -0,18
happiness 0,19 -0,23 0,28
All correlations sig. p < 0,001
Conclusions • Neighbourhood quality
– Older people judge their neighbourhood mostly positive
– Only some specific aspects of environmental quality
affected by socio-demographic characteristics
– Perceived as worse with increasing health limitations
• Influence of neighbourhood quality on quality of life
– Some indications that quality of life tends to increase with
better neighbourhood quality
Thank you for your
attention.