Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Aging Studies

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate / jag ing

Natural neighborhood networks — Important social networks in the lives ofolder adults aging in place

Paula J. Gardner⁎University of Toronto, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, 6th Floor, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M7

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ CUNY School of Public Health, Hunter College, 425Floor West Building, New York, NY 10010, United Sta4319.

E-mail address: pgardner@hunter.cuny.edu.

0890-4065/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.007

a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 11 March 2011Accepted 14 March 2011

Neighborhoods are important places of aging and meaningful contexts of life for many olderpeople. The overall aim of this study was to explore the public life of older people aging in placein order to understand neighborhoods as the material places where public life occurs, networksas the social places of public life, and to examine how these neighborhoods and networksinfluence the experience of aging andwellbeing. Adopting a friendly visitingmethodology, datawas collected over an 8-month period using participant observation, visual methods and aninnovative interview technique called the “go along method”. Data were analyzed usinggrounded theory and a coding strategy that integrated textual, visual, and auditory data.Results provide insights into the micro-territorial functioning of neighborhoods and highlightthird places and transitory zones as significant sites for older residents. Embedded within theseplaces is a natural neighborhood network— a web of informal relationships and interactions thatenhance well being and shape the everyday social world of older adults aging in place.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Neighborhoods — as physically and subjectively borderedspaces— are geographies of materiality as well as meaning, ofpeople as well as places. Neighborhoods are also geographiesof well being (or poor-being) for their inhabitants and as suchrepresent key sites for examining the interrelationshipsbetween aging, place and health. Guided by the notion that“place matters” (Massey, 1984), the purpose of this study wasto explore the public life of older people aging in place tounderstand how neighborhoods, as important physical andsocial places of aging, contribute to the well-being of olderpeople.

Reviewing the aging and place literature reveals anextensive amount of aging in place research, but much lessplaces of aging research. Whereas the former is mostly

East 25th Street, 10thtes. Tel.: +1 917 587

All rights reserved.

concerned with why older adults want to remain in theirhomes and how best to support them to do so, the latterfocuses on identifying and understanding the importantcontexts of aging. Explorations of places of aging haveincluded the body (Kontos, 2000), the home (Dyck & Dossa,2007; Martin-Matthews, 2007), institutions (Andrews et al.,2005; Milligan, Gatrell, & Bingley, 2004), and retirementcommunities (Katz, 2005; Masotti, Fick, Johnson-Masotti, &MacLeod, 2006). The experience,meaning and construction ofthe home in particular — as either private dwellings or semi-private residential care facilities — have consumed much ofthe research attention in this area (Kearns & Andrews, 2005).Public places of aging — and in particular neighborhoods —

have received less attention yet represent key locales in thelives (and well-being) of older people aging in place.

Research to examine the relationship between neighbor-hoods and health has identifiedmany important characteristicsof healthy places including green space (Maas, Verheij,Groenewegen, de Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006), mixed-usedesign (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004), accessible transpor-tation and safe streets (Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz, Schlossberg, &Stockard, 2006) and opportunities to interact with others

1 The “Friendly Visiting”methodology was developed by the researcher inconsultation with staff from several seniors' organizations. Articles toexplain this methodology in more detail are forthcoming.

264 P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

(Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004). Research has also highlightedmany health benefits of attending these places, such asimproved levels of physical activity (Cohen et al., 2007),reduced stress and depression (Berke, Gottlieb, Moudon, &Larson, 2007), increased social networks (Milligan et al., 2004),and enhanced feelings of a sense of community (Lund, 2002).Much of this exploration however, has been conducted usinglarge-scale, epidemiological studies inwhichmultilevelmodel-ing strategies are used to assess ‘area effects’ on health (DiezRoux, 2003). While such approaches advance our understand-ing of the impact of places on health, they do not address thecomplexities which underlie individual relationships withneighborhood environments and their impact on well-being(Walker &Hiller, 2007). Investigations of individual accounts ofneighborhoods where, for example, the social and physicalelements of the neighborhood that promote or protect wellbeing are understood, are much less common (Michael, Green,& Farquhar, 2006).

Research using qualitative approaches to explore neigh-borhoods and health from the perceptions and experiences ofolder residents, illustrates there is much to be learned fromthis kind of scholarship. For example, using in-depth in-terviews Walker and Hiller (2007) explored the social andphysical dimensions of neighborhoods from the experienceof older women in Adelaide, Australia. Their findings — theways in which the women's sense of satisfaction with, andsecurity in, their neighborhoods is underpinned by trustingand reciprocal relationships with their neighbors — provideimportant insight into how very old women (N82 years)living alone experience where they live, the kinds ofrelationships that are most important to them, and howthese influence their health.

Peace, Holland, and Kellaher (2005, 2006) used focusgroups and individual interviews to illustrate that neighbor-hoods are extremely important places of aging where goingoutside to interact with the material and social neighbor-hoods is essential to well-being and self-identity among olderadults:

No longer being able to go out independently is a criticalstage in identity construction because, without the widercontexts that lie beyond the dwelling, the home itselfbecomes diminished as a source of identity construction.Continued capacity to engage with ‘the other’ is repre-sented by neighborhood in a way that immediate domicilecannot demonstrate or prove (p. 203).

Research into older people's perceptions and experiencesof their neighborhoods provide insight into theways in whichthe social and physical elements of the neighborhoodinterconnect to contribute to the mental, social and physicalhealth of older residents. One of most significant ways inwhich actual engagement promotes well being is throughproviding opportunities to develop strong and supportivesocial relationships.

Social support operates as a protective health factor forolder adults and an important predictor of healthy aging(Depp & Jeste, 2009; Uchino, 2009). There is extensiveresearch into the identification, measurement and analysisof older people's social support networks as well as thedevelopment of social network typologies. The most recog-

nized typology in the gerontological literature is proposed byWenger (1991) and consists of five types: the familydependent support network, the locally integrated supportnetwork, the local self-contained support network, the widercommunity-focused support network and the private orrestricted support network (p. 152).

Although family has been identified as themost importantinformal support among older people (Nocon & Pearson,2000), there is increasing awareness of the important role ofnon-family support and in particular friends and neighbors tothe well being of older adults (Cheng, Lee, Chan, Leung, & Lee,2009; Phillipson, Bernard, Phillips, & Ogg, 1999; Walker &Hiller, 2007). Other less recognized interpersonal contact —such as service personnel — have also been suggested asimportant to the social life of older people (Litwin, 1996).

Neighborhoods are an important and meaningful contextof life for older people aging in place. With fewer responsi-bilities requiring them to go beyond their proximal spaces,and with functional limitations that can make it difficult to doso, many older adults spend increasing amounts of timeimmersed in neighborhoods where they have often lived foran extensive period of time. Contextualizing aging within theneighborhood as an important place of aging, the overall aimof this study was to explore the public life of older peopleaging in place. The study objectives were, a) to understandneighborhoods as the material places where public lifeoccurs, b) to understand networks as the social places ofpublic life, and c) to examine how these neighborhoods andnetworks influence the experience of aging and wellbeing.

Methods

The research employed a hybrid methodology calledFriendly Visiting1 that integrates qualitative methodologies(ethnography, case study, and narrative research) withprinciples from community-based visiting programs (e.g.,regularly scheduled ‘visits’, in the home, where conversationis the main activity). Founded on the notion that visiting is anestablished social custom with which older people haveextensive experience (and therefore understand and feelcomfortable with), approaching community-based agingresearch from this perspective was both useful and appropri-ate to the research process.

Study site and recruitment

Using a purposeful sampling strategy, participants wererecruited from neighborhoods in the High Park region indowntown Toronto. High Park is an established residentialarea of the city that was selected because of the significantnumber of older residents (many of whom have grown old inthe same neighborhoods where they have spent much oftheir adult life) and the many neighborhood features that caninfluence health and well-being (access to public transpor-tation, ample green space, and proximity to services).

265P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

Participantswere recruited through a not-for-profit seniors'organization in the area.2 Flyers and client newsletters as wellas recommendations from staff and caseworkers at theorganization were used to locate participants who met thestudy criteria: over 75, lived alone in their own home or rentedapartment (minimum of three years), journeyed into theirneighborhood at least once a week, and agreed to bephotographed. Beyond these criteria, maximum variation wassought according to factors identified as important in theliterature — gender, level of income and education, dwellingtype, ethnicity, functional ability and proximity to services.

Participants

Six adults participated in the study, 3 men and 3 womenwith an average age of 82.5 years. They varied in their levelsof education (‘some high school’ to ‘graduate degree’) andincome ($10–20,000/year to $30–40,000/year), lived indifferent kinds of housing (high rise apartment, condo,seniors housing and single family dwelling), reflected arange of functional abilities (‘excellent’ to ‘severely limited’),and used various forms of mobility within their neighbor-hoods (walk, walk with aid, public transportation, scooter,and taxi). Four livedwithinwalking distance of an establishedshopping/service area. Reflecting this age group in Canada(Statistics Canada, 2007) all were white, 4 were born inCanada and two emigrated fromWestern European countriesin early adulthood.

Data collection — the go along method

Data were collected through regular (once every twoweeks) ‘visits’ with each participant over an 8-month period.The focus of each visit was leaving the (private) home toengage in the (public) neighborhood to examine neighbor-hood perceptions, experiences and interactions. Participantsmade all of the decisions related to location, activity andmode of travel. Based on the study research questions' datacollection focused on: physical places, means of travel, socialinteractions, and supports and barriers to engagement.

Visual, textual and auditory data were collected using the‘go-along’ interview method. The go-along method is aninnovative research technique that combines interviewingwith participant observation (Kusenbach, 2003). Researchersaccompany participants on their natural outings and activelyexplore their physical and social practices by asking ques-tions, listening, and observing. This method addresses someof the limitations associated with interviewing which usuallytake place out of context, and traditional forms of participantobservation where participants do not always share ‘what isgoing on’ (Kusenbach, 2003). In recent research it has beenshown to be particularly useful for studying the relationshipbetween neighborhoods and health (Carpiano, 2009).

2 Prior to the study, the researcher had been a volunteer delivering ‘Mealson Wheels’ for several years at this organization. Recruiting people in theirmuch later years (N75) can be challenging and the relationship with thisorganization eased the recruitment process considerably. Arms-lengthrecruitment procedures were used to manage the potential conflict ofinterest that may occur due to previous relationships with the organizationand some of the clients.

The interviews were audio recorded; participants carrieda small recorder in their pockets and a tiny microphoneclipped to their clothing. Due to the size and ease of use, bothresearcher and participant often forgot that the conversationswere being recorded and this aided the data collectionprocess. The hidden recorder also prevented questions andattention from others. The audio files were later transcribed.

Visual data is valuable to explorations of place (Pink,2004; 2007) and was collected using a simple ‘point andshoot’ digital camera. Acknowledging the role of theresearcher in this process — as the one holding the cameraand therefore making decisions about what to photograph —

a reflexive stance was maintained throughout data collectionand close attention paid to where and how photographicdirection (i.e., what to photograph) was derived:

a) Participants: The researcher listened carefully to theparticipants in order to learn what was important tothem, identify the objects and places that were relevant totheir stories, and, to hear specific instructions as to whatto photograph.

b) Observation: Measures of both ‘erosion’ (degree of wear)and ‘accretion’ (deposit of some material/build up) wereused to help identify important places (Webb, Campbell,Schwartz, Sechrest, & Belew Grove, 1981). For example, afavorite chair could be located by the way the fabric wasworn and paths beat into the grass or snow suggested theimportance of outdoor places such as a hammock or birdfeeder. These clues prompted questions and once identi-fied, these ‘favorite’ places were photographed.

c) Literature: Previous aging and place research also guidedthe research gaze. For example, previous research hasindentified “control centers” as significant places in thehome (Lawton, 1990; Swenson, 1998). Photographs ofthese places were included.

Together the images and audio recordings served as a kindof photo diary and provided important documentation of thecontexts and actions of the everyday life of participants.Extensive field notes were also taken to provide additional(textual) data aswell as a place to document emerging themesand ideas.

Data analysis

Data were organized using a qualitative software package(NVivo) and analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A coding strategywas developed that integrated the textual, visual, andauditory data to highlight themes that characterized partic-ipants' neighborhood perceptions and experiences. Thecoding process involved an immersion into the data andmultiple close ‘readings’ (listening, reading the transcriptsand field notes, examining the photographs) in order togenerate descriptive codes. Once the data had been codedthey were transformed into meaningful data by looking forpatterns, themes, contrasts, contradictions, paradoxes, simi-larities and differences across as well as within the varioustypes of data. It is important to note here the significant rolethat the photographs played in the analysis process. Theimages were used as prompts and reminders, to clarify ideas,

266 P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

provide new insights, and as a way to organize and stimulatethinking. For example, understanding that the way in whichphotographs are categorized influences what we ‘see’ (Pink,2007), the images were continuously reorganized (e.g.,chronologically, according to place, or participant). Thistechnique proved to be particularly fruitful. For example,when the photographs were grouped according to placerather than according to participant, previously unnoticedpatterns and themes emerged.

The studyupheld the standards of rigor and trustworthinessfor qualitative research and addressed issues of credibility,transferability, dependability and confirmability as describedby Lincoln and Guba (2000), Miles and Huberman (1984), andPatton (1990).

Ethical considerations

Visual methodologies raise important ethical issues,particularly in terms of anonymity, privacy, power andownership. To address these issues, visual researchers(Harper, 2000; Heath & Cleaver, 2004) make the followingrecommendations, all of which were adopted for this study:

a) Ensure written consent that includes permission to repro-duce images for dissemination purposes (publications,conferences, etc.)

b) Use pseudonymsc) Triangulate the visual datad) Generate trust with participantse) Prior to research, have a genuine involvement in and

interest in participantsf) Collaborate with research participantsg) Ensure the research process is transparent and maintain a

detailed audit trail.

Additionally, measures were taken during data collection toavoid including ‘others’ in the photographs.

Findings

While accompanying participants over the 8 months ofstudy, several key places within the neighborhood wereshown to be significant. These places stood out because of thevarious ways that engaging in them generated positivechanges among participants including enhanced mood,increased enthusiasm for conversation and a “spring in theirstep”. These experiences were sometimes explicitly reported(e.g., “I always feel so good after going there”), however, therewere many subtler changes too that only became apparentafter spending considerable time with an individual. Forexample, the way Allan straightened his back and stood alittle taller in these spaces, how they brought out Ray's senseof humor, and sparked new topics of conversation fromPauline. These places are identified as neighborhood ‘sites ofsignificance’ and analyzing them revealed two central types—third places and transitory zones.

Third places and transitory zones

Third place is a term used to describe key sites for informalpublic life including cafes, post offices and main streets

(Oldenburg, 1989). Third places are located outside of thehome (first place) and work (second place) and share severalessential features: they are on neutral ground, they act as‘levelers’, conversation is the main activity, they are accessi-ble, ‘regulars’ spend time in them, they are physically plainand unassuming, the mood is playful, and people feel likethey are a ‘home away from home’ (p. 22–41). Although thespecific locales varied for each person, analysis revealedseveral categories of third places common among the studygroup. Public parks, for example, were an important thirdplace for all of the participants: Regardless of the weather,every morning Pauline walked to the off-leash dog run in thepark near her home. On ‘Dog Hill’ she talked to the dogs and(sometimes) their owners, delighted in watching the animalsplay, and laughed with the others when the dogs performedfunny antics. In Allan's case, the sports park near him servedas his third place:

Down at the sports park you can have a coffee and just sitaround and always someone will come up and talk to youand pass the time of day and the little kids, the wild onesare letting loose — like they have electricity in them —

they don't stop!

Certain local businesses including a diner, bakery, barber-shop and a small grocery store were notable third places.Small single-purpose shops, such as Allan's bakery and Ray'sfruit stand, are much more accessible (physically andsocially) to older people (than for example “big-box” stores),and therefore more likely to be their third places. In thesesmaller intimate places participants feel comfortable andwelcomed— they knew the staff and other regular customersand were able to easily negotiate the space to find what theyneed. The baker came out to greet Allan personally when heheard his voice; the wait staff at Jane's diner dropped by hertable several times during breakfast to chat; and, even thoughRay's fruit stand was inaccessible with his scooter, themerchandise spilled out into the street and the staff happily(it seemed) came out to serve their “favorite customer”.

Community organizations and institutions also operatedas third places: Jane attended a monthly Doll Club meetingand Mary went to her local church every Sunday. Paulinebelonged to a senior's activity center nearby where shedemonstrated strong feelings of comfort and a sense ofbelonging; she was well-known by the staff who welcomedher warmly when she arrived to play ping pong or bridgewith other members several of whom had become closefriends.

As well as destinations — specific locales within theneighborhood — third places included spaces much closer tohome, called “thresholds”. Thresholds are the hybrid, semi-public spaces that straddle the private dwelling and publicneighborhood such as porches, patios, backyards and balco-nies (Peace et al., 2005). These in-between third placesprovided easy and readily available opportunities for socialinteraction, most commonly with neighbors. Ed for example,puttered around his yard often, as did his neighbors andexplains,

Oh if I want to talk to anybody all I need to do is go outinto the yard and stare at a tree or look like I'm about to

267P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

do something back there, and Sam or one of the otherneighbors will be over in a heartbeat to see what I'm upto.

Even the most simple of exchanges within hybrid spacesoffered pleasure and joy for all parties involved. As Allan stoodon his driveway greeting the neighborhood children on theirway to school, for example, it was observed how they smiledjust as widely and waved just as enthusiastically as he. Heexplains how he benefits from these kinds of interactions —

“You can standon the edgeof your homeand say goodmorningto peoplewith the little kids going to school and they give you asmile back and that's a reward you get.”

Balconies, lobbies and elevators replaced backyards andoperated as thresholds for those living in high-rise dwellings.Both Ray and Mary used their balconies frequently to engagewith their neighborhoods either directly calling “hello” orindirectly through observation. Mary for example receivedgreat pleasure from watching the garden and its inhabitantsin the building adjacent to her balcony. She laughed heartilywhen she reported, “I noticed from their blue bin they enjoy alot of wine!” Importantly, interactions in thresholds provideda fun, casual and convenient way for participants to stayconnected to their neighbors and neighborhood.

Analysis also revealed other, less obvious neighborhoodplaces that play an important role in the lives of older peopleaging in place — ‘transitory zones’. Transitory zones are notdestinations, but the places we pass through during thecourse of daily public life — the sidewalks close to home, thelobbies of buildings, the subway platform and seats on busses,and the line up at the grocery store or bank. Whereas forothers (particularly those in younger age cohorts) thesespaces are often inconsequential, for older people thesetransitory zones assume are important social places of aging.Observing older participants negotiate these zones showedhow they purposefully and intentionally occupied theseplaces; rather than simply moving through them, transitoryzones were used as places to connect with people, even for ajust a moment. For example, zipping along on his scooter, Raysmiled to everyone, said “hello” to the dogs beingwalked, andhad brief conversations with other people when he stoppedat traffic lights or storefronts. The lines in banks and grocerystores and the seats on subways and buses also providedopportunities for engagement. Mary, for example alwaystalked to the people in front or behind herwhile shewaited inline at her local grocery store. She reported on the news,relayed the weather forecast, commented on the increasingprice of food items, or explained what she was planning to dowith her purchases.

Third places and transitory zones are inclusive publicspaces where older residents feel a sense of ownership andbelonging. These places operate as gateways to the outsideworld providing opportunities for direct as well as indirectcontact with the neighborhood and its residents. Benefits ofengaging in these spaces included a nourished sense of self,companionship, a sense of purpose, and a more positiveoutlook on life. Most importantly, third places and transitoryzones enhanced the lives of participants by facilitating socialinteractions and providing a space to build, aswell asmaintain,relationships.

Natural neighborhood networks

Third places and transitory zones encourage naturalrelationships and interactions. Natural in this context meansthey are not ‘forced’ or ‘formal’ (i.e., they were not paidservice staff, volunteers from support agencies, or healthcareprofessionals), nor are they ‘familial’. Instead, these interac-tions are more universally shared (e.g., across age groups),often spontaneous, informal, everyday, encounters and re-lationships with non-family members. Analysis highlightedthree central types of these relationships — relationships ofproximity (neighbors), relationships of service (businesspersonnel including cab drivers, sales clerks and wait staff),and relationships of chance (strangers). Together theserelationships shape participants informal, neighborhoodsocial network, or their “natural neighborhood network”(NNN).

Relationships of proximity — neighborsNeighbors play an important role in natural neighborhood

networks. Except for Pauline who had little interaction withher neighbors, all of the participants engaged regularly withthe people living in close proximity to them. These exchangeswere almost always described (and observed) as positive andconsisted of both social and supportive types of exchanges.Allan's neighbor for example, called him every morning “Tomake sure I'm still alive ha ha. Oh ya and to ask if I needanything at the store”. When Ed's eyesight began to fail andhe had to give up he had to give up his car, his neighbor Samoffered to drive him to the grocery store. In exchange for asmall item or two that Sam slips onto the conveyor belt andEd purchases for him, every Saturday Sam drives Ed shoppingand carries his bags. They enjoy the outings, and each other'scompany, and after Sam carries in the groceries Ed poursthem each a ‘short nip’ so they can celebrate the completionof their weekly chore together.

Relationships with neighbors were understood as (andobserved to be) reciprocal and mutually supportive. As Janeexplains:

I looked out for their children for years, now they look outfor me, they bring in my garbage and recycling bins,shovel my driveway, and even invite me over for a mealoccasionally. That's what neighbors do for each other.

Although not the norm, participants did report occasionalnegative experiences with their neighbors. Ed for examplesometimes felt that his neighbors didn't allow him enoughprivacy and Jane did not get along with the neighbors on oneside of her.

Relationships of service — business/retail personnelCab drivers, transit employees, waiters, bank tellers, mall

staff and checkout clerks at grocery stores are the everyday,‘regulars’ in the public life of older people aging in place. Theimportant, and often unconsidered, role that business andservice people play in the social networks of older people wasillustrated many times during the study. Mary for exampletalked to all of the sales staff at her localmall andAllan, a retiredtransit worker, always carried on a conversation with the busdrivers whenever he traveled around his neighborhood. The

268 P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

significance and benefit of these interactions were first notedduring a trip to the eye doctorwith Ed (excerpt fromresearcherfield notes):

Ed has to take cabs a lot more often now with his failingeyesight. He has developed a close relationship with oneparticular cab driver (Yahim) and now calls him when-ever he needs a cab. I watch their easy rapport with eachother as they joke and banter back and forth. On the wayhome from the doctors' appointment Yahim looked in therearview mirror and with a twinkle in his eye asked “Doyou need to stop at the medicine shop on the way homefrom the doctors today?” Ed chuckled and answered, “No,thank you, Yahim”. I assumed they were talking about thepharmacy and wondered what was so humorous. Ed letme in on their joke — “He's asking if I want to stop at theliquor store on the way home”. They laughed together attheir inside joke and I see that despite the unpleasantordeal that Ed has just endured at the eye doctors, he gothome in good spirits after sharing time and a good laughwith Yahim.

One of the most important outcomes of these micro-business-interactions is that they contribute to a universalneed to feel noticed and visible in the world, something thatcan be particularly challenging for older people: “I like goingto the Sears, the sales girls are good there, they never ignoreyou even though you may not buy anything” (Mary); “Thestaff at the diner always talk to me, it makes me feelimportant!” (Jane).

Relationships of chance — strangersStrangers represent another group of people rarely

considered in social networks. Eight months of participantobservation however, revealed these relationships of chancewere not only the most common type of public interactions,they were also beneficial to the well being of studyparticipants. Interactions with strangers occurred throughoutthe neighborhood and were most often initiated by theparticipants. Noticing a construction worker repairing a roofin his neighborhood for example, Allan stopped and initiateda conversation— “Whatcha doing over there young fella?” Hestayed for several minutes and gave the roofer somesuggestions based on what he had learned building his ownhouse. Allan was clearly pleased to have an opportunity toshare some of his wisdom and expertise with the roofer andwalked away smiling. Pauline routinely welcomed new-comers to Dog Hill and Jane always leaned over to thoseseated next to her in “her” Diner to make menu suggestionsor play with the children. Ray both engaged with, and reliedon, strangers whenever he went out on his scooter. Travelingthrough his transitory zones it was often unclear how hewould be able to negotiate certain spaces on his scooter. Hewould simply stop andwait however, and never for very long,until someone offered to “get the door?” He always thankedthem and often initiated a longer conversation — “Hey,where'd you buy that?”

Analyzing these experiences illustrated that even themostsimple of interactions were social ‘exchanges’ of reciprocitythat supported the ‘natural’ element of these neighborhoodnetworks. Neighbors do things for each other; they support

each other through a system of trades and exchanges thattake place over the life course of their relationship asneighbors. With business and service people there was anunderstood ‘business transaction’ — it was their job to servecustomers which included talking to them and answeringtheir questions (even if they do not purchase anything), andas the consumer, they agreed to pay for the services orproducts they required. Even with strangers when therelationship was one of chance, a simple exchange occurredsuch as a wave, a comment, or help with a door, which wasthen reciprocated with a nod or a thank-you.

Third places, thresholds and transitory zones are impor-tant neighborhood sites of significance for older residents.Embedded within these places is a natural neighborhoodnetwork — a web of informal relationships and interactionsthat help to shape the everyday social world of older adultsaging in place. Table 1 illustrates the connections between theplaces and people that constitute these networks.

Several limitations of the study are noted. The micro-territorial level of analysis limits structural-level findings andalthough appropriate for the design of this study, the samplesize and specific characteristics of the study site limit thegeneralizability of findings. Additionally, it is acknowledgedthat participants may have ‘performed’ during the study, i.e.,that parts of their lives may not have been revealed in anattempt to ‘put a best foot forward’. This is not an issue uniqueto this study however; participation is always a political actand as such, researchers (regardless of design or approach)have access only to what is given and, indeed, what isintended to be given (Croft & Beresford, 1992).

Discussion

The “neighborhood” in this research, was approached notas a simple backdrop to life, but instead as a kind of ‘process’in which social relations and identity are constructed(Duncan, 2000). From this perspective, places are understoodas simultaneously material/physical, cultural, social, andshaped by the power relations expressed through them(adapted from Wiles, 2005). A dynamic and spatiallyinclusive viewpoint such as this provided the theoreticallink between the social and the physical environments andwas helpful when conceptualizing the relationship betweenaging, place and well-being.

This study contributes to our understanding of the ways inwhich neighborhoods are important places of aging thatinfluence the well-being and quality of life of older residents.Findings support other research on the positive impact ofsocial networks (e.g., Fiori, Antonucci, & Cortina, 2006; Litwin,2001; Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2006; Seeman, Lusignolo,Albert, & Berkman, 2001; Wenger, 1984) and reinforcestudies that demonstrate the importance of non-kin relation-ships to the well-being of older people (e.g., Phillipson, 2001;Victor, Scambler, & Bond, 2009). The work also provideshowever, new insights and advances new thinking about thesocial networks of older people in several ways.

First, whereas much of the research in this area hasfocused on family-based networks, in this study kin were notpart of the everyday neighborhood interactions of studyparticipants. Shifting the research gaze away from familyallowed for a more in-depth examination of the “others”who

Table 1Connecting the people and places in natural neighborhood networks.

The places The people

Relationships of proximity Relationships of service Relationships of chance

Third placesSpecific neighborhood destinationE.g., Parks, cafés, barber shops,community centers, churches

“Regulars” — others who are usuallythere and are known/familiarE.g., Other customers, other dogwalkers, and other church goers

Personnel who work in third placesE.g., Wait staff; sales clerks, banktellers, and clergy

Strangers — unknown partakersE.g., New or one-time customers,passersby,

Thresholds: hybrid third placesFixed ‘outside’ places withinthe borders of the homeE.g., Driveways, back yards,balconies, elevators, lobbiesin residential buildings

Neighbors — mostly immediate(closest) but also those whoregularly pass byE.g., Next-door or across the streetneighbors, children and parentswalking to school

Personnel who work in close proximityto the older persons home on a regularbasisE.g., Trash collectors; letter carriers;meter-readers

Strangers — Unknown passersbyE.g., People walking by or visitingthe neighborhood short term

Transitory zonesPlaces between places —on the way to someplaceE.g., Streets and sidewalks,lines in grocery store,seats on busses

Familiar others who are also outtransversing the neighborhood.E.g., Neighbors; friends

Personnel whose work involvesmoving people from place to placeE.g., Bus drivers; cab drivers;crossing guards

Strangers — Unknown individualsoccupying or transversing the spaceE.g., Other transit users, passersby,other customers waiting in line

269P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

are often referred to, yet rarely explained, in social networkand social support research. Survey research for example, hastypically focused on family members, friends, and (some-times) neighbors and anyone else is either left out completelyor collapsed into a category called “others”. That these“others” exist, who they are, what role they play, and howimportant they are to the social lives of older people, has beenunclear, yet important. Indeed, as is evidenced in this study,these “others” are key players in the social networks of olderresidents where interactions and relationships with themcontribute substantially to older residents' well-being. As thestructure and proximity of families shift, life expectancycontinues to expand, and trends toward housing designs andtechnologies that facilitate independently living even amongthe “oldest old” are embraced, we can anticipate a futurewhere these ‘others’ will play an increasingly important rolein the lives of older neighborhood residents.

Secondly, this research expands our understanding of theways in which informal social networks are structured andhow they may function within the everyday lives ofcommunity-dwelling older adults. The majority of what weknow about informal social networks is focused on support,and in particular the role of social networks in providingsupport for the continued independence of older (most often)family members. A natural neighborhood network however,is a type of informal, community-based social structurefounded on principles of interdependence, rather than(functional) independence, and sociality, rather than support.

Interdependence is “shared dependence” predicated onthe notion that no one, regardless of age or ability, leads acompletely independent life — “None of us is totallyindependent of our context — social, political and economic;rather, we live within complex webs of mutual dependenceor interdependence” (Robertson, 1997, p. 436). Interdepen-dence is focused on relationships rather than functionalability (Beeber, 2008, p. 22) and on mutual respect andreciprocity rather than one-sided transfers of support fromthe ‘haves’ to the ‘have-nots’. Relationships, social connect-edness, respect and reciprocity are the cornerstones of

interdependence and, as illustrated through this research,are key elements of natural neighborhood networks.

NNN's are additionally founded on the principles ofsociality versus support. Sociality is the social ‘playfulness’that can occur in social interactions (Simmel & Wolff, 1950,p. 45). The interactions in third places and transitory zonesweremost often spirited, light, and involved humor. This typeof interactionwas not only anticipated, it was expected by thestudy participants regardless of who the other may be —

neighbor, service personnel, or stranger. There is somesupport in the literature for the notion that sociality extendsbeyond family and friends to include service people and evenstrangers. In his work on geographies of the city, for example,Latham (2003) reports— “It [sociality] consists of interactionswith friends, neighbors, work mates, and — at least to somedegree — those everyday strangers met at the supermarketcheckout, shopping mall, café or pub” (p. 118).

Most significantly, this research introduces a new informalsocial network type found to be important to the well beingand quality of life of older adults aging in place. Naturalneighborhood networks make explicit some of the mostimportant, yet often unconsidered people and places in theeveryday lives of older residents that promote engagement inlife, facilitate social relationships and enhance their overallwell being. Natural neighborhood networks do not replace ornegate the importance of informal systems of family andfriends, or formal support systems provided by public andprivate agencies and services. They complement them. Futureresearch to determine how to recognize and promote thesekinds of relationships, where they fit within existing socialnetwork typologies, and how they differ across differentkinds of neighborhoods, regions, and sub-populations, iswarranted.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Denise Gastaldo, PeriBallantyne, Stephen Katz and Ted Myers for their ongoinginterest and support, contribution to the overall study design,

270 P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

and suggestions that helped to clarify the ideas reported inthis manuscript. Additional thanks go to Gavin Andrews andAllisonWilliams for their feedback and suggestions on earlierconceptualizations of study findings and Firth MacMillan forthe editing assistance. Finally the insightful and comprehen-sive feedback received by the reviewers on the originalsubmission as well as the support and individual attentionprovided by the editors of this special issue of JAS — DavidEkerdt and Keith Diaz Moore — has been generous and ismuch appreciated.

References

Andrews, G. J., Holmes, D., Poland, B., Lehoux, P., Miller, K. L., Pringle, D., et al.(2005). ‘Airplanes are flying nursing homes’: Geographies in theconcepts and locales of gerontological nursing practice. Journal of ClinicalNursing, 14, 109−120.

Beeber, A. S. (2008). Interdependence — Building partnerships to continueolder adult's residence in the community. Journal of GerontologicalNursing, 34(1), 19−25.

Berke, E. M., Gottlieb, L. M., Moudon, A. V., & Larson, E. B. (2007). Protectiveassociation between neighborhood walkability and depression in oldermen. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(4), 526−533.

Carpiano, R. M. (2009). Come take a walk with me: The “go-along” interviewas a novel method for studying the implications of place for health andwell-being. Health & Place, 15(1), 263−272.

Cheng, S. T., Lee, C. K. L., Chan, A., Leung, E. M. F., & Lee, J. J. (2009). Socialnetwork types and subjective well-being in Chinese older adults. TheJournals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,64(6), 713.

Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie, N.(2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 97(3), 509−514.

Croft, S., & Beresford, P. (1992). The politics of participation. Critical SocialPolicy, 12(35), 20−44.

Depp, C. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2009). Definitions and predictors of successfulaging: A comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. TheAmerican Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 6−20.

Diez Roux, A. (2003). The examination of neighbourhood effects on health:Conceptual and methodological issues related to the presence ofmultiple levels of organization. In I. Kawachi, & L. Berkman (Eds.),Neighbourhoods and health (pp. 45−64). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., & Stockard, J. (2006). Activecommunity environments and health: The relationship of walkable andsafe communities to individual health. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 72(1), 19−31.

Duncan, J. (2000). Place. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, D. Smith, & M.Watts (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (4th ed.). Oxford:Blackwell.

Dyck, I., & Dossa, P. (2007). Place, health and home: Gender and migration inthe constitution of healthy space. Health & Place, 13(3), 691−701.

Fiori, K. L., Antonucci, T. C., & Cortina, K. S. (2006). Social network typologiesand mental health among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. SeriesB: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(1), P25.

Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. (2004). Obesity relationshipswith community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87−96.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Harper, D. (2000). Reimagining visual methods. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 717−732). (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, S., & Cleaver, E. (2004). Mapping the spatial in shared household life:A missed opportunity? In C. Knowles, & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing thesocial landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination(pp. 65−78). London, UK: Routledge.

Katz, S. (2005). Cultural aging: Life course, lifestyle, and senior worlds. OrchardPark, NY: Broadview Press.

Kearns, R., & Andrews, G. (2005). Placing ageing: Positionings in the study ofolder people. In G. Andrews, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Ageing and place:Perspectives, policy, practice (pp. 13−23). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kontos, P. (2000). Resisting institutionalization: Constructing old age andnegotiating home. In J. Gubrium, & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Aging andeveryday life (pp. 255−272). Oxford: Blackwell.

Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographicresearch tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455−485.

Latham, A. (2003). Researching andwriting everyday accounts of the city: Anintroduction to the diary-photo diary-interview method. In C. Knowles,& P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the visual landscape: Visual methods andthe sociological imagination (pp. 1699−1724). London, UK: Routledge.

Lawton, M. P. (1990). Residential environment and self-directedness amongolder-people. The American Psychologist, 45(5), 638−640.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook ofqualitative research (pp. 163−188). (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Litwin, H. (1996). The social networks of older people: A cross-national analysis.Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Litwin, H. (2001). Social network type and morale in old age. TheGerontologist, 41(4), 516−524.

Litwin, H., & Shiovitz-Ezra, S. (2006). Network type andmortality risk in laterlife. The Gerontologist, 46(6), 735.

Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 21(3), 301.

Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P.(2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation?Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 587−592.

Martin-Matthews, A. (2007). Situating ‘home’ at the nexus of the public andprivate spheres: Ageing, gender and home support work in Canada.Current Sociology, 55(2), 229.

Masotti, P. J., Fick, R., Johnson-Masotti,A.,&MacLeod, S. (2006).Healthynaturallyoccurring retirement communities: A low-cost approach to facilitatinghealthy aging. American Journal of Public Health, 96(7), 1164−1170.

Massey, D. (1984). Introduction: Geography matters. In D. Massey, & J. Allen(Eds.), Geography matters (pp. 1−11). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Michael, Y. L., Green, M. K., & Farquhar, S. A. (2006). Neighborhood designand active aging. Health & Place, 12(4), 734−740.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: Asourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milligan, C., Gatrell, A., & Bingley, A. (2004). ‘Cultivating health’: Therapeuticlandscapes and older people in northern England. Social Science &Medicine, 58(9), 1781−1793.

Nocon, A., & Pearson, M. (2000). The roles of friends and neighbours inproviding support for older people. Ageing and Society, 20, 341−367.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafe's, coffee shops, bookstores,bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community.NewYork,NY: Marlowe & Company.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Peace, S. M., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2005). Making space for identity,

policy, practice. In G. J. Andrews, & D. R. Phillips (Eds.), Ageing and place:Perspectives, policy, practice (pp. 188−204). New York, NY: Routledge.

Peace, S. M., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2006). Environment and identity inlater life. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Phillipson, C. (2001). The family and community life of older people: Socialnetworks and social support in three urban areas. UK: Routledge.

Phillipson, C., Bernard, M., Phillips, J., & Ogg, J. (1999). Older people'sexperiences of community life: Patterns of neighbouring in three urbanareas. The Sociological Review, 47(4), 715−743.

Pink, S. (2004). Visual methods. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D.Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 391−406). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation inresearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robertson, A. (1997). Beyond apocalyptic demography: Towards a moraleconomy of interdependence. Ageing and Society, 17, 425−446.

Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environmentsacross the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 24(4), 423−437.

Seeman, T. E., Lusignolo, T. M., Albert, M., & Berkman, L. (2001). Socialrelationships, social support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy,high-functioning older adults: MacArthur studies of successful aging.Health Psychology, 20(4), 243−255.

Simmel, G., & Wolff, K. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.:Free Press.

Statistics Canada (2007). A portrait of seniors in Canada No. 89-519-XIE.Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry, Social and Aboriginal StatisticsDivision.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques andprocedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Swenson, M. (1998). The meaning of home to five elderly women. HealthCare for Women International, 19, 381−393.

Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support andphysical health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the

271P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on Psycho-logical Science, 4(3), 236.

Victor, C. R., Scambler, S., & Bond, J. (2009). The social world of older people.New York, NY: Open University Press.

Walker, R. B., &Hiller, J. E. (2007). Placesandhealth:Aqualitative study toexplorehow older women living alone perceive the social and physical dimensionsof their neighbourhoods. Social Science & Medicine, 65(6), 1154−1165.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Belew Grove, J.(1981). Nonreactive measures in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Wenger, G. C. (1984). The supportive network: Coping with old age. Victoria,Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Wenger, G. C. (1991). A network typology: From theory to practice. Journal ofAging Studies, 5(2), 147−162.

Wiles, J. (2005). Conceptualizing place in the care of older people: Thecontributions of geographical gerontology. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14,100−108.