Assessment of Environmental Demands of Age-Friendly Communities from Perspectives of Different Residential Groups: A Case of Wuhan, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework
2.1. The Age-Friendly Community Environment
2.2. Age-Friendly Community Environmental Demands Indicators
2.3. Different Demands of an Age-Friendly Community Environment
2.4. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses Development
3. Data Collection and Analysis Method
3.1. Questionnaire Design
First-Level Indicators | Second-Level Indicators | Sources |
---|---|---|
Outdoor environment | Community safety | Kim et al., 2021 [67] |
Community public facilities | Hu et al., 2021 [5] | |
Community sanitation | Yu et al., 2021 [15] | |
Public transportation station accessibility | Xie et al., 2018 [14] | |
Accessibility to frequently visited places | Xie et al., 2018 [14] | |
housing | House decoration | Kim et al., 2021 [67] |
Convenient facilities inside the room | Kim et al., 2021 [67] | |
Inspection and repair of household equipment | Yu et al., 2021 [15] | |
Barrier-free construction and renovation | Del et al., 2021 [68] | |
Community services | Home care | Iglesias et al., 2021 [40] |
Medical and health care institutions | Xiang et al., 2020 [69] | |
Health courses | Steels et al., 2015 [70] | |
Information acquisition and regular visits | Yu et al., 2021 [15] | |
Education and legal aid | Del et al., 2021 [68] | |
Social participation | Social activities | Yu et al., 2021 [15] |
Occupation opportunities | Steels et al., 2015 [70] | |
Decision-making participation | Plouffe & Kalache, 2010 [71] | |
Senior university study sites | Yu et al., 2021 [15] | |
Technology to help older adults | Aging information platform | van Hoof & Marston, 2021 [72] |
Smart product learning | Chen et al., 2021 [16] | |
Intelligent aging products | Chen et al., 2021 [16] |
3.2. Data Collection
3.3. Analysis Method
3.3.1. Non-Parametric Statistics
3.3.2. OPA or Ordinal Priority Approach
4. Results
4.1. Reliability and Validity Tests
4.2. Descriptive Statistics
4.2.1. Description of Socio-Demographic Characteristics
4.2.2. Expert Ranking
4.3. Age-Friendly Community Environment Demands
4.3.1. Residents’ Demand for the Age-Friendly Community Environment
4.3.2. Expert Ranking of Environmental Indicators for AFCs
4.4. Differential Impact of Residents’ Background Characteristics on Demands
4.4.1. Consistency Test among Respondents
4.4.2. Mann–Whitney U Test
4.4.3. Kruskal–Wallis Test
5. Discussions
5.1. Age-Friendly Community Environment Demands
5.2. Different Demands of Residents of an Age-Friendly Community Environment
5.2.1. Difference in Demand by Gender
5.2.2. Differences in Demands by Age
5.2.3. Difference in Demands of Other Backgrounds
6. Conclusions
6.1. A Summary of Research Findings
6.2. Practical Implications
6.3. Research Limitations and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43755 (accessed on 26 March 2022).
- World Health Organization (WHO). About the Global Network for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. Available online: https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/ (accessed on 26 March 2022).
- National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistical Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2021.
- Lei, P.; Feng, Z. Age-friendly neighborhoods and depression among older people in China: Evidence from China Family Panel Studies. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 286, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Hu, Y.; Wang, J.; Nicholas, S. The Sharing Economy in China’s Aging Industry: Applications, Challenges, and Recommendations. J. Med. Internet Res. 2021, 23, e27758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, X.; Yan, W.; Zhou, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Huang, S.; Li, L. Internet use and need for digital health technology among the elderly: A cross-sectional survey in China. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hong, Y.A.; Zhou, Z.; Fang, Y.; Shi, L. The digital divide and health disparities in China: Evidence from a national survey and policy implications. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e7786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L.; Wu, F.; Tong, H.; Hao, C.; Xie, T. The Digital Divide and Active Aging in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12675. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, C.X. Current situation, challenges and Countermeasures of digital divide among the elderly. People’s Forum 2020, 684, 128–130. [Google Scholar]
- Garner, I.W.; Holland, C.A. Age-friendliness of living environments from the older person’s viewpoint: Development of the Age-Friendly Environment Assessment Tool. Age Ageing 2020, 49, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, H.; Oswald, F. An Intergenerational Approach to Perceived Housing. J. Aging Environ. 2020, 34, 270–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiraphat, S.; Kasemsup, V.; Buntup, D. Active aging in ASEAN countries: Influences from age-friendly environments, lifestyles, and socio-demographic factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, T.; Li, D.; Li, L. The elderly’s demand for community-based care services and its determinants: A comparison of the elderly in the affordable housing community and commercial housing community of China. J. Healthc. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1840543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, L. Age-friendly communities and life satisfaction among the elderly in urban China. Res. Aging 2018, 40, 883–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, J.; Ma, G.; Ding, W.; Mao, J.; Wang, J. Structural model for the relationships between age-friendly communities and quality of life of older adults in Hefei, China. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2021, 29, 1376–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Hartt, M. Planning for an Older and Digital Future: Opportunities and Challenges of Age-Friendly E-Participation in China. Plan. Theory Pract. 2021, 22, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzgerald, K.G.; Caro, F.G. An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2014, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scharlach, A.E. Age-Friendly Cities: For Whom? By Whom? For What Purpose? Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 305–329. [Google Scholar]
- Handy, S.L.; Boarnet, M.G.; Ewing, R. How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, M.S.; Dabelko-Schoeny, H.; White, K. Access to employment, volunteer activities, and community events and perceptions of age-friendliness: The role of social connectedness. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2020, 39, 1016–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novek, S.; Menec, V.H. Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: A photovoice study. Ageing Soc. 2014, 34, 1052–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaudhury, H.; Oswald, F. Advancing understanding of person-environment interaction in later life: One step further. J. Aging Stud. 2019, 51, 100821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alley, D.; Liebig, P.; Pynoos, J. Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparations for an aging society. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2007, 49, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquardt, G.; Bueter, K.; Motzek, T. Impact of the design of the built environment on people with dementia: An evidence-based review. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2014, 8, 127–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chau, H.W.; Jamei, E. Age-Friendly Built Environment. Encyclopedia 2021, 1, 781–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekstam, L.; Fänge, A.M.; Carlsson, G. Negotiating control: From recognizing a need to making a decision to apply for a housing adaptation. J. Hous. Elder. 2016, 30, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lui, C.W.; Everingham, J.A.; Warburton, J.; Cuthill, M.; Bartlett, H. What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australas. J. Ageing 2009, 28, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scharlach, A.E.; Lehning, A.J. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2013, 33, 110–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suen, I.S.; Gendron, T.L.; Gough, M. Social isolation and the built environment: A call for research and advocacy. Public Policy Aging Rep. 2017, 27, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weeks, L.E.; Bigonnesse, C.; McInnis-Perry, G.; Dupuis-Blanchard, S. Barriers faced in the establishment of cohousing communities for older adults in Eastern Canada. J. Aging Environ. 2020, 34, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croezen, S.; Avendano, M.; Burdorf, A.; Van Lenthe, F.J. Social participation and depression in old age: A fixed-effects analysis in 10 European countries. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 182, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holt-Lunstad, J.; Smith, T.B.; Layton, J.B. Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010, 7, e1000316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aung, M.N.; Koyanagi, Y.; Ueno, S.; Tiraphat, S.; Yuasa, M. Age-friendly environment and community-based social innovation in Japan: A mixed-method study. Gerontologist 2022, 62, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Decorme, R.; Urra, S.; Nicolas, O.; Dantas, C.; Hermann, A.; Peñaloza, G.H.; García, F.; Ollevier, A.; Vassiliou, M.C.; van Staalduinen, W. Sustainable Housing Supporting Health and Well-Being. Proceedings 2020, 65, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Wanka, A.; Moulaert, T.; Drilling, M. From environmental stress to spatial expulsion-rethinking concepts of socio-spatial exclusion in later life. Int. J. Ageing Later Life 2018, 12, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsuchiya-Ito, R.; Slaug, B.; Ishibashi, T. The physical housing environment and subjective well-being among older people using long-term care services in Japan. J. Hous. Elder. 2019, 33, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zandieh, R.; Acheampong, R.A. Mobility and healthy ageing in the city: Exploring opportunities and challenges of autonomous vehicles for older adults’ outdoor mobility. Cities 2021, 112, 103135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rémillard-Boilard, S.; Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. Developing age-friendly cities and communities: Eleven case studies from around the world. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menec, V.H.; Means, R.; Keating, N.; Parkhurst, G.; Eales, J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can. J. Aging 2011, 30, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iglesias Souto, P.M.; Real Deus, J.E.; Dosil Maceira, A.; Pais, M.E.M.; Ares, E.M.T. Suitability of Social Services for the Older Persons: Analysis of Degree of Fit between Needs and Services. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2021, 33, 285–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aung, M.N.; Koyanagi, Y.; Ueno, S.; Tiraphat, S.; Yuasa, M. A Contemporary Insight into an Age-Friendly Environment Contributing to the Social Network, Active Ageing and Quality of Life of Community Resident Seniors in Japan. J. Aging Environ. 2021, 35, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsumoto, H.; Kageyama, M.; Yamamoto-Mitani, N.; Nagata, S. The Use of a Public Space in a Public Housing Complex by Senior Citizens: A Qualitative Study. J. Aging Environ. 2021, 35, 107–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, Q.; Dabelko-Schoeny, H.I.; White, K.M.; Choi, M.-S. Age-friendly communities and perceived disconnectedness: The role of built environment and social engagement. J. Aging Health 2020, 32, 937–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lianxin, J.; Li, Z. Research on influencing factors of elderly care institutions’ choice intention based on artificial intelligence and embedded system. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luoma-Halkola, H.; Jolanki, O. Aging well in the community: Understanding the complexities of older people’s dial-a-ride bus journeys. J. Aging Stud. 2021, 59, 100957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, C.A.; Gulbrandsen, C.; Hewson, J.; Paul, K. “Fallen Between the Cracks”: Exploring Subsidized Housing from the Perspectives of Low-Income Preseniors. J. Aging Environ. 2020, 34, 5–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menec, V.H.; Hutton, L.; Newall, N.; Nowicki, S.; Spina, J.; Veselyuk, D. How ‘age-friendly’ are rural communities and what community characteristics are related to age-friendliness? The case of rural Manitoba, Canada. Ageing Soc. 2015, 35, 203–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caciula, I.; Boscaiu, V.; Cooper, C. Prevalence and correlates of well-being in a cross-sectional survey of older people in Romania attending community day facilities. Eur. J. Psychiatry 2019, 33, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ronzi, S.; Orton, L.; Pope, D.; Valtorta, N.K.; Bruce, N.G. What is the impact on health and wellbeing of interventions that foster respect and social inclusion in community-residing older adults? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Syst. Rev. 2018, 7, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Zamri, A. Effect of IEQ on Occupant Satisfaction and Study/Work Performance in a Green Educational Building: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Karlsruhe, Germany, 10–11 October 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naah, F.L.; Njong, A.M.; Kimengsi, J.N. Determinants of active and healthy ageing in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Cameroon. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abisuga, A.O.; Wang, C.C.; Sunindijo, R.Y. Facility managers’ responses to user post-occupancy feedback: A conceptual framework. Facilities 2020, 38, 481–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Dai, Z.; Liu, X.; Sun, W. Evaluation system: Evaluation of smart city shareable framework and its applications in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Altman, I.; Low, S.M. Place attachment. Hum. Behav. Environ. 1992, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wahl, H.W.; Weisman, G.D. Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the new millennium: Reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical development. Gerontologist 2003, 43, 616–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geboy, L.; Moore, K.D.; Smith, E.K. Environmental gerontology for the future: Community-based living for the third age. J. Hous. Elder. 2012, 26, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results. In Proceedings of the NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, TX, USA, 20–22 October 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gieryn, T.F. A space for place in sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000, 26, 463–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, D.H.; Fulton, D.C. Experience preferences as mediators of the wildlife related recreation participation: Place attachment relationship. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2008, 13, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.; Perkins, D.D.; Brown, G. Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Brown, G.; Weber, D. The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitley, E.; Ball, J. Statistics review 6: Nonparametric methods. Crit. Care 2002, 6, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orimo, H.; Ito, H.; Suzuki, T.; Araki, A.; Hosoi, T.; Sawabe, M. Reviewing the definition of “elderly”. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2006, 6, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denton, F.T.; Spencer, B.G. How old is old? Revising the definition based on life table criteria. Math. Popul. Stud. 1999, 7, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolberg, P.; Ayalon, L. Subjective meanings and identification with middle age. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2018, 87, 52–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; de Dear, R. Is mixed-mode ventilation a comfortable low-energy solution? A literature review. Build. Environ. 2021, 205, 108215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Barrio, E.; Pinzón, S.; Marsillas, S.; Garrido, F. Physical Environment vs. Social Environment: What Factors of Age-Friendliness Predict Subjective Well-Being in Men and Women? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xiang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Zhao, N.; Cheung, T.; Ng, C. The COVID-19 outbreak and psychiatric hospitals in China: Managing challenges through mental health service reform. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 16, 1741–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Steels, S. Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities 2015, 47, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Plouffe, L.; Kalache, A. Towards global age-friendly cities: Determining urban features that promote active aging. J. Urban Health 2010, 87, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Hoof, J.; Marston, H.R. Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ataei, Y.; Mahmoudi, A.; Feylizadeh, M.R.; Li, D.-F. Ordinal priority approach (OPA) in multiple attribute decision-making. Appl. Soft Comput. 2020, 86, 105893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoudi, A.; Deng, X.; Javed, S.A.; Zhang, N. Sustainable supplier selection in megaprojects: Grey ordinal priority approach. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 30, 318–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, M.M.; Shi-Ying, L.; Siok-Hwa, L. Modeling Age-Friendly Environment, Active Aging, and Social Connectedness in an Emerging Asian Economy. J. Aging Res. 2016, 2016, 2052380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yu, R.; Wong, M.; Woo, J. Perceptions of neighborhood environment, sense of community, and self-rated health: An age-friendly city project in Hong Kong. J. Urban Health 2019, 96, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szanton, S.L.; Leff, B.; Wolff, J.L.; Roberts, L.; Gitlin, L.N. Home-Based Care Program Reduces Disability and Promotes Aging In Place. Health Aff. 2016, 35, 1558–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Q.; Bai, X.; Feng, N. Social participation and depressive symptoms among Chinese older adults: A study on rural–urban differences. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 239, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.; Leung, D.Y.P.; Lai, C.K.Y.; Chong, A.M.L.; Chi, I. Mediating effect of decline in social activities on urinary incontinence and negative mood: Do sex and marital differences exist? Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2017, 17, 1829–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sundström, G.; Fransson, E.; Malmberg, B.; Davey, A. Loneliness among older Europeans. Eur. J. Ageing 2009, 6, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, C.C.; Sun, J. Empirical analysis of tenants’ intention to exit public rental housing units based on the Theory of Planned Behavior–The case of Wuhan, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 69, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Characteristics | Attributes | Number | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Men | 204 | 49.9 |
Women | 205 | 50.1 | |
Age | 45–55 years old | 143 | 35.0 |
56–65 years old | 121 | 29.6 | |
66–75 years old | 105 | 25.7 | |
76 years old and above | 40 | 9.8 | |
Education | Elementary school and below | 71 | 17.4 |
Junior high school | 146 | 35.7 | |
High school/junior high school | 109 | 26.7 | |
College/undergraduate | 83 | 20.3 | |
Occupation | Government or career employees | 59 | 14.4 |
State-owned enterprise workers | 45 | 11 | |
Private company employees | 55 | 13.4 | |
Individual operators | 84 | 20.5 | |
Unemployed | 104 | 25.4 | |
Other | 62 | 15.2 | |
Average monthly family income | Less than 1000 RMB | 40 | 9.8 |
Less than 1000 RMB | 60 | 14.7 | |
2001–3000 RMB | 63 | 15.4 | |
3001–4000 RMB | 83 | 20.3 | |
4001 RMB or more | 163 | 39.9 | |
Living arrangements | Living alone | 72 | 17.6 |
Living with spouse | 154 | 37.7 | |
Living with children | 65 | 15.9 | |
Living with spouse and children | 118 | 28.9 | |
Self-care ability | Fully self-care | 264 | 64.5 |
Mostly self-care | 91 | 22.2 | |
Basic self-care | 32 | 7.8 | |
Mostly unable to self-care | 13 | 3.2 | |
Fully unable to self-care | 9 | 2.2 | |
Year of community establishment | Before 2000 | 139 | 34 |
2001–2010 | 181 | 44.3 | |
After 2010 | 89 | 21.8 |
Experts’ Ranking | |||
---|---|---|---|
First-Level Indicators | Expert 1 | Expert 2 | Expert 3 |
Outdoor environment | 4 | 1 | 1 |
Housing | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Community services | 2 | 4 | 4 |
Social participation | 5 | 4 | 5 |
Technology to help older adults | 3 | 3 | 2 |
First-Level Indicators | Second-Level Indicators | Experts’ Ranking | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Expert 1 | Expert 2 | Expert 3 | ||
Outdoor environment | Community safety | 1 | 3 | 4 |
Community public facilities | 4 | 1 | 2 | |
Community sanitation | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
Public transportation station accessibility | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
Accessibility of frequently visited places | 3 | 5 | 5 | |
Housing | House decoration | 4 | 4 | 4 |
Convenient facilities inside the room | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
Domestic equipment maintenance and repair | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
Barrier-free construction and renovation | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
Community services | Home care | 1 | 3 | 3 |
Medical and health care institutions | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
Health courses | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
Information acquisition and regular visits | 4 | 5 | 5 | |
Education and legal aid | 5 | 4 | 2 | |
Social participation | Social activities | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Occupation opportunities | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
Decision-making participation | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Senior university study sites | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
Technology to help older adults | Aging information platform | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Smart product learning | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
Intelligent aging products | 3 | 3 | 3 |
First-Level Indicators | Mean | Ranking | Second-Level Indicators | Mean | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outdoor environment | 3.34 | 1 | |||
Community safety | 3.27 | 3 | |||
Community public facilities | 3.53 | 1 | |||
Community sanitation | 3.43 | 2 | |||
Public transportation station accessibility | 3.26 | 4 | |||
Accessibility of frequently visited places | 3.24 | 5 | |||
Housing | 3.33 | 2 | |||
House decoration | 3.17 | 4 | |||
Convenient facilities inside the room | 3.39 | 2 | |||
Domestic equipment maintenance and repair | 3.5 | 1 | |||
Barrier-free construction and renovation | 3.29 | 3 | |||
Community services | 3.27 | 4 | |||
Home care | 2.72 | 5 | |||
Medical and health care institutions | 3.48 | 2 | |||
Health courses | 3.07 | 4 | |||
Information acquisition and regular visits | 3.47 | 3 | |||
Education and legal aid | 3.62 | 1 | |||
Social participation | 3.3 | 3 | |||
Social activities | 3.52 | 1 | |||
Job opportunities | 3.47 | 2 | |||
Decision-making participation | 2.99 | 4 | |||
Senior university study sites | 3.21 | 3 | |||
Technology to help older adults | 2.98 | 5 | |||
Ageing information platform | 3.21 | 2 | |||
Smart product learning | 3.33 | 1 | |||
Intelligent aging products | 2.4 | 3 |
First-Level Indicators (Weightage) | Ranking | Second-Level Indicators | Weightage | Ranking |
---|---|---|---|---|
Outdoor environment (0.274) | 2 | Community safety | 0.274 | 2 |
Community public facilities | 0.334 | 1 | ||
Community sanitation | 0.170 | 4 | ||
Public transportation station accessibility | 0.044 | 5 | ||
Accessibility to frequently visited places | 0.178 | 3 | ||
Housing (0.334) | 1 | House decoration | 0.062 | 4 |
Convenient facilities inside the room | 0.458 | 1 | ||
Domestic equipment maintenance and repair | 0.271 | 2 | ||
Barrier-free construction and renovation | 0.208 | 3 | ||
Community Services (0.170) | 4 | Home care | 0.307 | 1 |
Medical and health care institutions | 0.307 | 1 | ||
Health courses | 0.215 | 2 | ||
Information Acquisition and Regular Visits | 0.065 | 4 | ||
Education and legal aid | 0.107 | 3 | ||
Social prticipation (0.044) | 5 | Social activities | 0.521 | 1 |
Job opportunities | 0.240 | 2 | ||
Decision-making participation | 0.063 | 4 | ||
Senior university study sites | 0.177 | 3 | ||
Technology to help older adults (0.178) | 3 | Aging information platform | 0.480 | 1 |
Smart product learning | 0.400 | 2 | ||
Intelligent aging products | 0.120 | 3 |
Outdoor Environment | Housing | Community Services | Social Participation | Technology to Help the Older Adults | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test statistics | 0.132 | 0.093 | 0.154 | 0.125 | 0.114 |
Asymptotic saliency (two-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Case Number | Kendall’s Consistency Coefficient (W) | Freedoms | Asymptotic Significance | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
First-level indicators | 409 | 0.041 | 4 | 0.000 | |
Second-level indicators | Outdoor environment | 409 | 0.014 | 4 | 0.000 |
Housing | 409 | 0.026 | 3 | 0.000 | |
Community services | 409 | 0.119 | 4 | 0.000 | |
Social participation | 409 | 0.074 | 3 | 0.000 | |
Technology to help older adults | 409 | 0.156 | 2 | 0.000 |
Mean | Z | p-Value | R | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Men | Women | ||||
Community sanitation | 3.25 | 3.60 | −2.723 | 0.006 | 0.605 |
Domestic equipment maintenance and repair | 3.31 | 3.68 | −2.425 | 0.015 | 0.539 |
Barrier-free construction and renovation | 3.48 | 3.10 | −3.661 | 0.000 | 0.814 |
Medical and health care institutions | 3.40 | 2.73 | −5.14 | 0.000 | 1.142 |
Education and legal aid | 3.49 | 3.76 | −2.454 | 0.014 | 0.545 |
Social activities | 3.32 | 3.71 | −2.793 | 0.005 | 0.621 |
Senior university study sites | 3.24 | 3.71 | −3.308 | 0.001 | 0.735 |
Ageing information platform | 3.05 | 3.37 | −2.414 | 0.016 | 0.536 |
Smart product learning | 2.28 | 2.51 | −2.219 | 0.027 | 0.493 |
First-Level Indicators | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outdoor Environment | Housing | Community Services | Social Participation | Technology to Help Older Adults | ||
Age | 45–55 years old | 3.85 | 3.63 | 3.58 | 3.82 | 3.34 |
56–65 years old | 3.61 | 3.41 | 3.51 | 3.30 | 3.30 | |
66–75 years old | 3.60 | 3.05 | 3.46 | 2.83 | 3.00 | |
76 years old and above | 2.62 | 3.04 | 3.27 | 2.67 | 2.52 | |
p-value | 0.001 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.034 | |
Living arrangements | Living alone | 3.44 | 3.58 | 3.68 | 3.63 | 3.27 |
Living with spouse | 3.40 | 3.25 | 3.42 | 3.26 | 3.20 | |
Living with children | 3.06 | 3.09 | 3.19 | 2.75 | 3.05 | |
Living with spouse and children | 3.11 | 3.00 | 3.04 | 2.71 | 3.02 | |
p-value | 0.014 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.036 | |
Year of community establishment | Before 2000 | 3.23 | 3.15 | 3.54 | 3.46 | 3.51 |
2001–2010 | 3.35 | 3.30 | 3.51 | 3.57 | 3.48 | |
After 2010 | 3.53 | 3.47 | 3.52 | 3.62 | 3.53 | |
p value | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.418 | 0.348 | 0.055 |
First-Level Indicators | Second Level Indicators | 45–55 Years Old | 56–65 Years Old | 66–75 Years Old | 76 Years Old and Above | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Outdoor environment | Community public facilities | 4.00 | 3.56 | 3.15 | 2.89 | 0.000 |
Community sanitation | 3.84 | 3.45 | 3.01 | 2.86 | 0.000 | |
Housing | House decoration | 3.29 | 3.34 | 2.64 | 2.24 | 0.000 |
Barrier-free construction and renovation | 3.85 | 3.43 | 3.31 | 3.64 | 0.003 | |
Community services | Home care | 3.45 | 3.42 | 3.47 | 3.52 | 0.000 |
Health courses | 3.73 | 3.61 | 3.10 | 3.05 | 0.003 | |
Medical and health care institutions | 3.61 | 3.35 | 2.89 | 3.38 | 0.001 | |
Social participation | Social activities | 3.87 | 3.74 | 3.56 | 2.78 | 0.000 |
Job opportunities | 3.71 | 3.32 | 2.44 | 2.33 | 0.002 | |
Technology to help older adults | Ageing information platform | 3.64 | 3.21 | 2.76 | 2.43 | 0.000 |
Intelligent aging products | 3.80 | 3.49 | 2.79 | 2.45 | 0.000 |
Living Arrangements | p-Value | Year of Community Construction | p-Value | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Living Alone | Living with Spouse | Living with Children | Before 2000 | 2001–2010 | After 2010 | |||
Community public facilities | 3.68 | 3.43 | 3.32 | 0.000 | 3.94 | 3.60 | 3.16 | 0.022 |
Accessibility of frequently visited places | 3.46 | 3.13 | 2.94 | 0.000 | 3.17 | 3.19 | 3.95 | 0.000 |
House decoration | 3.50 | 2.95 | 2.86 | 0.000 | 3.14 | 3.08 | 2.81 | 0.000 |
Convenient facilities inside the room | 3.79 | 3.14 | 3.08 | 0.000 | 3.69 | 3.33 | 3.02 | 0.000 |
Construction and renovation for better accessibility | 4.11 | 3.49 | 3.25 | 0.000 | 3.68 | 3.43 | 3.15 | 0.000 |
Medical and health care institutions | 3.67 | 3.29 | 3.08 | 0.017 | 3.37 | 3.48 | 3.57 | 0.000 |
Social activities | 3.60 | 3.47 | 3.09 | 0.000 | 3.31 | 3.55 | 3.84 | 0.003 |
Work opportunities | 3.78 | 2.99 | 2.52 | 0.000 | 3.29 | 3.34 | 3.47 | 0.000 |
Smart product learning | 3.19 | 3.12 | 2.98 | 0.000 | 3.32 | 3.10 | 3.47 | 0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, J.; Dai, Y.; Wang, C.C.; Sun, J. Assessment of Environmental Demands of Age-Friendly Communities from Perspectives of Different Residential Groups: A Case of Wuhan, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159120
Li J, Dai Y, Wang CC, Sun J. Assessment of Environmental Demands of Age-Friendly Communities from Perspectives of Different Residential Groups: A Case of Wuhan, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159120
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Jintao, Yan Dai, Cynthia Changxin Wang, and Jun Sun. 2022. "Assessment of Environmental Demands of Age-Friendly Communities from Perspectives of Different Residential Groups: A Case of Wuhan, China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 15: 9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159120