Comprehensive Study of Residential Environment Preferences and Characteristics among Older Adults: Empirical Evidence from China

Abstract

Aging in a suitable residential environment is essential for the health and well-being of older adults. This study aims to analyze the residential environment preferences (REPs) of older people in China to create a residential environment suitable for their physical and mental health, enhancing their life satisfaction. This study used a sample questionnaire to identify relevant characteristics and analyze preferences, which were validated using non-parametric tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficient tests. The questionnaire consisted of 33 questions on characteristics of the residential environment on a 7-point Likert scale and was administered to 433 older adults aged 60 and over in 28 provinces in China. The results showed that “community safety” was the most important environmental characteristic, with an average importance rating of 5.77 out of 6. Accessible building design (average rating of 4.91), emergency response systems (average rating of 4.49), and indoor thermal comfort (average rating of 4.45) were also key factors in promoting aging in place. There was a positive correlation between the community environment and the indoor environment (e.g., community safety and indoor sound insulation, r = 0.209, p < 0.01), and both were, to some extent, negatively correlated with building features (e.g., public toilets and private courtyards, r = −0.278, p < 0.01; indoor thermal comfort and green building design, r = −0.165, p < 0.01). Age and physical health had a strong influence on preferences, but gender had little influence. This study paves the way for future research and policy development on age-friendly housing to ensure sustainable and supportive residential environments for the aging population.

1. Introduction

Countries worldwide face the challenge of a rapidly aging population. The number of people over 65 is expected to more than double from 761 million in 2021 to 1.6 billion in 2050. The number of people aged 80 and over is growing even faster [1]. According to a report by the Ministry of Civil Affairs of China, there were 297 million people aged 60 and over in China at the end of 2023, accounting for 21.1% of the total population. The population aged 65 and above is about 217 million, accounting for 15.4% [2]. The aging population has triggered demographic changes, and providing suitable housing environments for the elderly will be a significant challenge [3]. Older people have diverse housing environment demands due to declining physical strength, changing activity focus, narrowing socialization, slower pace of life, and obsolete knowledge and skills. The demand for age-friendly residential environments is expanding from material needs to spiritual levels, and providing a conducive environment for the elderly has become a societal focus [4]. Actively addressing the aging issue is essential for transforming the pressure of population aging into a sustainable socio-economic growth engine.

In July 2022, the National Health Commission reported that China’s life expectancy per capita increased to 77.93 years [5]. However, increased life expectancy does not mean increased healthy life expectancy. On average, Chinese people live about 8 years with illness after reaching 65, with only 5 years of healthy time [6]. Concerns about aging relate to the unmet need for suitable housing and benefits for older people. The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that poor housing conditions contribute to health inequalities, affecting quality of life and well-being [7]. The residential environment significantly impacts older people’s independence, mental health, and sense of well-being. Providing an environment that meets their needs, aspirations, and habits is essential for ensuring an excellent quality of life, as older people spend more than 65% of their time at home [8]. Suitable residential environments are, therefore, fundamental to the challenge of population aging.

Among the various methods of aging, most older individuals opt to age in their residences, a phenomenon commonly referred to as ‘aging in place’ [7,9,10]. ‘Aging in place’ refers to older adults continuing to live in their familiar and comfortable home or community environment rather than moving to nursing homes or other institutions. This concept emphasizes allowing older adults to maintain an independent and self-managed lifestyle in their familiar surroundings, with appropriate home and community support. This preference is largely attributable to the exorbitant costs associated with other forms of long-term care, such as assisted living facilities. The financial savings associated with remaining at home are not the only benefits. Evidence suggests that aging in place can lead to more positive outcomes in terms of maintaining health, controlling disease, and improving the quality of life [8,11]. Living independently in familiar surroundings affords older individuals a sense of freedom, security, and comfort. However, residential environments that are not adapted to the needs and lifestyles of older individuals can have significant physical and psychological impacts. For instance, homes lacking accessibility features like ramps, handrails, or emergency response systems increase the risk of falls and injuries [12]. Consequently, the most crucial aspect of ‘aging in place’ is the creation of residential environments that align with the preferences of older individuals, ensuring that these environments are safe and supportive to foster independence and increase the likelihood that they will continue to live at home [13].

The phenomenon of aging in place necessitates that the design of new homes and the retrofitting of existing homes must not only prioritize safety and functionality but also support health and longevity [14,15,16]. For example, installing features such as non-slip flooring, grab bars, and stair lifts can significantly reduce the risk of falls, which are a leading cause of injury among older adults [17]. In addition, homes equipped with smart technology, such as automated lighting and temperature controls, can increase comfort and convenience for older adults [18]. Each interior environment designed for older individuals requires a distinctive and considerate approach to create spaces that are secure, adaptable, and conducive to the overall health and well-being of the occupants [19,20,21,22]. Consequently, the objective of this study is to (1) identify the main residential environment characteristics that are linked to the health and well-being of older people and (2) examine the preferences of older adults for these residential environment characteristics in China. The aim is to facilitate the enhancement of these environments to optimize the well-being of older individuals in terms of health, safety, comfort, and convenience. By understanding the specific needs and preferences of the elderly, this research can inform the design and development of age-friendly housing policies and practices, ultimately contributing to the creation of supportive and sustainable living environments for older adults.

2. Factors Related to the Residential Environment of Elderly

Recent research underscores the significant impact of residential environments on older adults’ health and well-being, highlighting a growing focus on this demographic [23,24,25]. The residential environment is increasingly recognized as critical for healthy aging [26], with key areas including housing needs, housing choices, housing satisfaction, housing preferences, and mobility. This study categorizes the diverse living conditions experienced by the elderly into three categories, namely community environment, building features, and indoor environment, clarifying the scope of current research and setting the stage for targeted exploration of how these environments impact older adults’ well-being.

2.1. Community Environment

Relevant research demonstrates how diverse community environments influence older adults’ ability to maintain activities, social interactions, and personal identity [27,28]. Older adults, often with reduced mobility, are significantly influenced by their community environments. Well-designed outdoor spaces enhance independence and encourage activity [29,30,31,32]. Accessible public spaces near housing are vital, as seen in Madrid, where 94% of seniors are satisfied with community accessibility [33]. Studies by Brown SC and Friederike highlight the importance of social interactions facilitated by community features and frequent park usage linked to social networks and marital status [34,35]. These findings underscore the need for urban planners and policymakers to prioritize community design that fosters social inclusion and physical activity among older adults.

2.2. Building Features

Evidence from various countries, including Spain [9], Hong Kong [10], and Ireland [36], indicates a strong preference among older adults for aging in place, which intensifies with age. Enhanced residential environments significantly improve psychological well-being and life satisfaction, with spatial organization, safety features, and green building design playing critical roles [37,38,39]. The fundamental principles of green building design encompass energy efficiency, resource utilization, indoor environmental quality, and sustainable development. In recent years, a growing body of evidence has demonstrated that green building design has a significant impact on the quality of the living environment and the health of residents. For example, Smith et al. found that communities utilizing green building design significantly outperformed conventional buildings in terms of air quality, temperature control, and noise control. Additionally, accessibility and health assistive technologies in green building design positively impact the quality of life and health status of older adults. Exterior building features such as quality, safety, energy efficiency, and accessibility directly impact older adults’ mental and physical health [40,41,42]. Research by Frost SS and Fornara demonstrates that safety features and accessibility designs enhance feelings of safety, autonomy, and life satisfaction [43,44]. Energy-efficient designs also contribute positively to mental health [45]. These studies highlight the importance of designing residential buildings that are not only safe and accessible but also energy efficient and comfortable.

2.3. Indoor Environment

Indoor residential environment quality: studies highlight the importance of optimizing living conditions to enhance subjective well-being, identifying essential comfort parameters such as thermal conditions, visual, acoustic, and air quality [46]. Adjustments to room temperature [47,48,49], lighting [50,51], color schemes [52], ventilation [29,46], and noise control [53] significantly influence well-being. Smart Home Technologies: The integration of information technology with disciplines like ergonomics and architecture is leading to innovations in smart aging, increasingly incorporated into age-friendly housing design and planning. Safe and comfortable aging is crucial [14,18], involving features like wider doorways, handrails, and emergency response systems [21,54,55]. Comprehensive evaluations of senior housing quality and specific studies on elements such as acoustics, air quality, and thermal comfort by scholars like Mendes et al. and Li et al. provide insights into optimizing elderly living spaces for health and emotional well-being [53,56,57].

2.4. Caps in the Literature

Research on housing preferences indicates that as individuals age, they tend to favor homes that are either equipped with lifts or single levels without stairs [37,58,59]. The importance of well-designed homes that support independent living and accommodate disabilities is highlighted, with particular emphasis on modifications in bathrooms being critical [36,37,60]. In contrast, the desire for gardens and additional space for activities like family gatherings, social events, and hobbies diminishes with age. Furthermore, older adults increasingly prefer essential services such as shops, care facilities, and public transportation to be easily accessible or located close to their residences [3,10]. However, in Sweden, a trend has emerged indicating a decline in the preference for nearby public transport and proximity to natural landscapes, such as forests, with advancing age [60]. Furthermore, studies have indicated that older adults have specific preferences regarding the built environment, including well-kept pathways, ample seating, accessible public restrooms, safe pedestrian crossings, and sufficient green spaces [61].

While significant progress has been made around environmental factors and mental health in the homes of older adults, some gaps remain. A major gap is the need for more comprehensive studies that consider the diverse and evolving needs of older adults. While a general preference for aging in place is clear, there is comparatively less academic research on older people’s preferences for more specific housing and environmental attributes and characteristics. Existing research often lacks a holistic approach, focusing on isolated aspects of the residential environment rather than an integrated view that includes community, building, and indoor environmental factors.

This study aims to address some of these gaps by providing empirical evidence on the residential environment preferences of older adults in China. By identifying key factors and examining their interrelationships, this research contributes to the broader discourse on age-friendly housing and provides actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners. This study integrates the three dimensions of community environment, building features, and indoor environment through a systematic approach to comprehensively analyze the preferences of older people’s living environments and their influencing factors. This categorization clarifies the scope of current research and sets the stage for targeted exploration of how these environments impact older adults’ well-being. In conclusion, the results of the questionnaire survey and various statistical analyses (including non-parametric tests, factor analyses, correlation analyses, and logistic regression analyses) not only enrich the existing research findings but also reveal new patterns and relationships. These findings provide a scientific basis for policymakers to improve the residential environments of older adults.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Questionnaire Design

The survey was designed to collect primary data on the preferences and characteristics of the residential environments of older people. The target population of this survey was the elderly population aged 60 and above in China. In this study, the characteristics of the residential environment were categorized into three main categories: community environment (12 parameters), building features (8 parameters), and indoor environment (13 parameters), and an indicator system for the elderly’s housing environment preferences was established. A comprehensive review of the literature on age-friendly housing and the specific needs of older adults inspired this categorization. To ensure a systematic approach, the parameters were selected based on their relevance to health, safety, comfort, and general well-being. Each parameter was chosen to reflect essential aspects of the living environment that significantly impact the quality of life of older people. The selection process involved reviewing a wide range of the literature on age-friendly housing, consulting guidelines such as the World Health Organization’s Global Age-Friendly Cities Guide, and drawing on expert opinion from the fields of architecture, gerontology, and public health. The focus group discussions with older adults helped validate these indicators and ensure they align with the actual preferences and needs of the target population. This mixed-method approach ensured that the selected indicators were both scientifically valid and practically relevant.

Table 1. Characteristics of the community environment.

Community Environment	Literature Source	Linked Impact
Q1. Community safety (e.g., fire safety, traffic safety, adequate street lighting)	[7,16,27,28]	Physical health; mental health
Q2. Accessibility to public transportation around the community	[7,25,30,33]	Physical health; mental health
Q3. Accessibility of healthcare facilities in the vicinity of the community	[7,15,16,62]	Physical health; mental health
Q4. Community and surrounding social infrastructure (e.g., accessible sidewalks, accessible bike paths)	[25,61,62,63]	Physical health; mental health
Q5. Amenities around the community (e.g., drugstores, retail stores, supermarkets, post offices, cash machines)	[7,13,64]	Physical health; mental health
Q6. Accessibility to parks, green space, recreational facilities	[31,35,53,54]	Physical health; mental health
Q7. Cleanliness and aesthetics of the community and surrounding areas	[16,61,64]	Physical health; mental health
Q8. Environmental quality of the community and its surroundings	[62,64]	Physical health; mental health
Q9. Provision of public toilets and rest areas in the community	[7,15,32,63]	Physical health
Q10. Social interaction and participation in social venues in the community	[13,16,31,38]	Mental health
Q11. Indoor recreation areas around the community (e.g., recreation centers, gym)	[63,65]	Physical health; Mental health
Q12. Communities are close to familiar social networks such as family and friends	[15,16,31,38]	Mental health

,

Table 2. Characteristics of the building.

Building Features	Literature Source	Linked Impact
Q13. Reasonable housing density and spatial layout (e.g., appropriate building density; mix of residential, commercial, recreational)	[41,52]	Physical health; mental health
Q14. Energy efficiency of housing (e.g., housing is well insulated and warm)	[19,20,40,45]	Physical health
Q15. Quality condition of the house (no structural defects, no danger)	[7,40,43]	Physical health; mental health
Q16. Accessible adaptive design of buildings (e.g., wider corridors, doors, elevators for wheelchair access)	[7,16,44]	Physical fitness
Q17. House alarm and security systems (intercoms, peepholes, intrusion alarms)	[19,20,54]	Physical health
Q18. Private parking space	[40,42,44]	Physical health; mental health
Q19. The house has a balcony	[7,16,44]	Physical health; mental health
Q20. Have a private courtyard	[7,16,42]	Physical health; mental health

and

Table 3. Characteristics of the indoor environment.

Indoor Environment	Literature Source	Linked Impact
Q21. Temperature and thermal comfort of the house	[23,46,47,48]	Physical health; mental health
Q22. Natural ventilation and air quality of the house	[19,46,56]	Physical health
Q23. Soundproofing of the house	[47,53,56]	Physical health; mental health
Q24. Light quality of the house (including the intensity of natural and artificial lighting)	[21,46,50,52]	Physical health; mental health
Q25. Aging of houses (retrofitting of non-slip flooring, bathroom handrails, aging mattresses, kitchen worktops)	[7,8,54]	Physical health
Q26. Home health assistive technology (e.g., remote health testing)	[8,23,24,25]	Physical health mental health
Q27. Privacy of personal space	[7,23,54,55]	mental health
Q28. Natural landscape outside the window	[36,52]	mental health
Q29. Configuration of indoor greenery	[7,8,14,57]	Physical health; mental health
Q30. Interior visual comfort (e.g., decorative style, cleanliness, warmth and interesting furniture and furnishings)	[8,36,46,52]	mental health
Q31. Intelligent home control system (voice control system for temperature, lighting, ventilation)	[54,55,57]	Physical health; mental health
Q32. Emergency response systems (e.g., emergency call buttons or distress alarms)	[7,14,54]	Physical health
Q33. The color and contrast of the walls, floors, and doors of the indoor	[36,52,57]	Physical health; mental health

provide a detailed list of the indicators categorized under community environment, building features, and indoor environment characteristics. Each indicator is defined and measured to capture the specific aspects of the residential environment that influence the well-being of older adults.

Numerous housing features have been recognized for their potential to either enhance or hinder health and well-being, especially among older adults. These characteristics can influence physical health, mental well-being, satisfaction with the living environment, social interactions, and levels of (independent) physical activity. On the other hand, various home modifications (such as bathroom adjustments, improved accessibility, handrails, and assistive technologies) have proven effective in reducing fall risks and maintaining independence and well-being in the elderly. Besides the home itself, the surrounding environment and community are vital for promoting healthy aging, as older individuals tend to spend more time in their immediate surroundings due to physical decline, retirement, limited transport options, and shrinking social networks [66]. Various environmental factors have been identified as potentially affecting the physical activity and mental health of older adults, both positively and negatively. High-density urban areas are believed to offer older individuals greater opportunities for social engagement, stimulation, and community involvement.

A questionnaire was designed based on this indicator system. The questionnaire was designed to include 33 questions on the residential environment, and respondents rated their level of preference for each characteristic on a 7-point scale ranging from 0 = ‘not at all important’ to 6 = ‘highest importance’. The respondents’ demographic characteristics, including gender, age, marital status, residential status, occupation, education level, health status, and income, were also collected to analyze how these factors influence residential environment preferences.

To ensure the representativeness and scientific validity of the survey results, the questionnaire design was based on proportional sampling of China’s seven major regions, considering their geographical division and population distribution. The sample size and proportions are closely aligned with the actual demographic distribution, aiding in more accurately reflecting the residential preferences of the elderly population in China.

The questionnaire was distributed online between 10 March and 10 April 2024 via Questionnaire Star, and the survey link was also shared on social media platforms such as WeChat, QQ, and Weibo. The final data were collected from 21 provinces, 3 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities directly under the central government. The survey achieved a coverage rate of 82.35%, and 433 valid questionnaires were recovered.

3.2. Methods of Analysis

Statistical analyses of the survey data were conducted using IBM SPSS 25. The empirical analysis of this study consists of three parts (Figure 1):

(1) Pearson correlation coefficient tests. These coefficients measure the strength and direction of the linear relationship between two variables (e.g., community environment versus indoor environment), and the test determines the relationship between respondents’ residential environment preference variables. (2) To explore the underlying structure of older adults’ residential environment preferences, this study conducted a factor analysis. First, data suitability was determined using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling suitability measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Factors were extracted using principal component analysis and rotated using Varimax. The research methodology will support the system and categorization of residential environments for the elderly. (3) Descriptive analyses (focused trend measures) and non-parametric tests. The Shapiro–Wilk test found that the data did not conform to a normal distribution pattern; therefore, a non-parametric test was used. The non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis H test were used to determine whether the residential preferences of the respondents differed according to variables such as age, physical health, and gender. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to determine the difference in housing preferences between two independent groups (e.g., males and females); the Kruskal–Wallis H test was used to determine whether there are significant differences between three or more independent groups (e.g., age group, physical health status group). Post hoc testing of important Kruskal–Wallis results was then required, which was carried out using the Mann–Whitney U test.

4. Results

4.1. Residential Preferences of Older People

A total of 433 Chinese older adults over 60 participated in the survey. The background characteristics of the survey participants are shown in

Table 4. Individual characteristics.

Categories	Question	Proportion
Gender	male	48.5%
	female	51.5%
Age	60–65	64.2%
	66–70	15.5%
	71–75	8.1%
	76–80	7.9%
	Above 80	4.3%
Education	junior high school and below	83.8%
	high school	6.0%
	college	3.5%
	undergraduate	4.4%
	postgraduate	2.3%
Residential status	cohabitation with a partner	36.3%
	living with children	21.5%
	living with grandchildren	21.9%
	living alone	20.3%
Occupation before retirement	enterprises and institutions	37.0%
	freelancers	49.0%
	farmers	14.0%
Income status	below 1000 CNY	38.3%
	1000–4000 CNY	47.1%
	4000–7000 CNY	10.2%
	above 7000 CNY	4.4%
Health status	excellent	22.9%
	good	42.2%
	average	23.8%
	bad	9.0%
	very bad	2.1%
Region of CHINA	Northeast China	10.6%
	North China	22.4%
	Southwestern China	12.0%
	East China	33.1%
	Northwestern China	8.5%
	South China	5.8%
	Central China	7.6%

. Among the participants, 51.5% were female, and 48.5% were male. Regarding age distribution, 64.2% were 60–65 years old, 35.8% were 70 years old and above. The proportion of those with junior high school education or below was 83.8%, while the rest accounted for 16.2%, indicating that the respondents were concentrated at a lower level of education. Residential status showed that 79.7% of respondents were living with a partner or children, while 20.3% of the elderly were living alone. Statistics on pre-retirement occupations show that 49% of respondents were freelancers, 37% belonged to enterprises and institutions, and 14% were farmers, with nearly half of the respondents’ pre-retirement occupations being freelancers. Pension income shows that about 85.4% of the elderly have a monthly pension income of 1000–4000 CNY, and 14.6% have a pension income of more than 4000 CNY. In terms of self-assessment of health, 65.1% of the respondents rated their health as excellent or good, 23.8% rated themselves as fair, and only 11.1% of the elderly rated their health as poor or very poor. In terms of China’s regions, 10.6% of the respondents were from Northeast China, 22.4% from North China, 12% from Southwest China, 33.1% from East China, 8.5% from Northwest China, 5.8% from South China, and 7.6% from Central China, and the number and proportion of our samples are basically in line with the actual situation, ensuring the representativeness and scientific validity of the results.

4.2. Aging in Place and Preferences

Information about current and future homes was collected to understand respondents’ general perceptions of aging in place. In terms of the type of housing, most respondents live in multi-unit dwellings and high-rises, with 37.4 percent and 21.7 percent, respectively. This is followed by terraced houses (18.2 percent) and apartments (14.5 percent), while bungalows account for 5.5 percent and detached houses only account for 2.5 percent. The results suggest that respondents’ current living situation does not match their expectations for future life. In terms of preferences for future life, there was a significant increase in the number of respondents choosing detached (24.7 percent), bungalow (16.4 percent), and apartments (17.8 percent). In contrast, the number of respondents choosing flats (13.9 percent) and high-rises (13.6 percent) decreased significantly (Figure 2). This suggests that the most popular choice for later in life is detached houses, followed by flats and bungalows. Studies in other countries have found a greater preference for bungalows and flats as people age [67,68,69].

Figure 3 shows a comparison of where respondents currently live and where they expect to live in the future. Most respondents currently live in towns/villages (59.8 percent) or urban areas (24.2 percent, with a small proportion in city centers and urban suburbs (16 percent). In terms of desired future residential location, most of the elderly still wished to live in small towns and rural areas (59.6 percent), with almost 30 percent in rural areas, a significant increase from their current living situation but with a slight decrease in the preference for living in city centers (9.7 percent) and urban suburbs (2.3 percent) and a slight increase in the percentage of those living in urban areas. The results show that the preferred locations for older people in later life are towns/villages, followed by urban areas, with the least preferred locations being the city center and the outskirts of the city. This is somewhat at odds with findings from other European countries [5,58].

In terms of the size of the house (Figure 4), most visitors are currently living in houses with a size of between 41 and 80 m², accounting for 45.8 percent, followed by 81–120 m² with 34.9 percent, and less than 40 m² and more than 120 m², accounting for 6.7 percent and 12.7 percent, respectively. The results show that nearly half of the elderly currently live in houses of less than 80 m². In terms of future housing area expectations, 46 percent of the elderly expect to live in a house of 80–120 m², which is a significant increase over the current demand for living areas. Moreover, 22.9 percent of the preference is for a house of more than 120 m², which is also an increase, while 29.1 percent is for 40–80 m², which is a significant decrease, and only 2.1 percent is for less than 40 m². The results show that the demand for housing living areas of the elderly in China is increasing; 3/2 of the respondents have a demand for housing areas higher than 80 m², and 3/1 of the respondents have a demand for housing areas of 80–120 m². This is the opposite of the preference found in the European countries. Studies in the Netherlands and Sweden found with increasing age, a greater preference for smaller and easy-to-maintain homes [58,70].

4.3. Residential Environment Preferences

Survey respondents rated the importance of 33 residential environment features on a 7-point scale (0 equals ‘very unimportant’ and 6 equals ‘highest important’).

Table 5. Mean ratings of importance for residential environment characteristics.

Characteristic	Category	Mean Rating	Rank Order
Community safety (e.g., fire safety, traffic safety, adequate street lighting)	community	5.77	1
Accessible adaptive design of buildings (e.g., wider corridors, doors, elevators for wheelchair access)	building	4.91	2
Provision of public toilets and rest areas in the community	community	4.58	3
Cleanliness and aesthetics of the community and surrounding areas	community	4.51	4
Emergency response systems (e.g., emergency call buttons or distress alarms)	indoor	4.49	5
Amenities around the community (e.g., drugstores, retail stores, supermarkets, post offices, cash machines)	community	4.47	6
Temperature and thermal comfort of the indoor	indoor	4.45	7
Social interaction and participation in social venues in the community (e.g., community plazas, community centers, volunteer centers)	community	4.44	8
Environmental quality of the community and its surroundings (e.g., community air quality, traffic congestion, street noise conditions)	community	4.43	9
Configuration of indoor greenery	indoor	4.41	10
Light quality of the house (including the intensity of natural and artificial lighting)	indoor	4.40	11
Color and contrast of the walls, floors, and doors of the indoor	indoor	4.40	12
Accessibility to parks, green space, recreational facilities	community	4.39	13
Private parking space	building	4.39	14
Elderly-oriented houses (retrofitting of non-slip flooring, bathroom handrails, aging mattresses, kitchen worktops)	indoor	4.39	15
Accessibility to public transportation around the community (e.g., walking distance to bus, subway)	community	4.38	16
Indoor recreation areas around the community (e.g., gym, recreation centers, cultural centers, art museums)	community	4.38	17
Privacy of personal space	indoor	4.37	18
Community and surrounding social infrastructure (e.g., accessible sidewalks, accessible bike paths)	community	4.36	19
Private courtyard	building	4.35	20
Intelligent home control system (voice control system for temperature, lighting, ventilation, etc.)	indoor	4.33	21
Natural ventilation and air quality of the house	indoor	4.32	22
Interior visual comfort (e.g., decorative style, cleanliness, warmth and interesting furniture and furnishings)	indoor	4.28	23
Quality condition of the building (no structural defects and no danger)	building	4.27	24
Home health assistive technology (e.g., remote health testing)	indoor	4.25	25
Accessibility of health care facilities near the community (e.g., the community is close to clinics, hospitals, nursing facilities)	community	4.23	26
Communities are close to familiar social networks such as family and friends	community	4.22	27
Soundproofing of the house	indoor	4.21	28
Reasonable housing density and spatial layout (e.g., appropriate building density; mix of residential, commercial, recreational)	building	4.20	29
Energy efficiency of housing (e.g., housing is well insulated and warm)	building	4.16	30
The house has a balcony	building	4.15	31
House alarm and security systems (intercoms, peepholes and intrusion alarms)	building	4.13	32
The natural landscape outside the window	indoor	4.03	33

0 = very unimportant; 1 = unimportant, 2 = general, 3 = low importance, 4 = important, 5 = high importance, 6 = highest importance.

shows the average importance ratings based on the respondents’ ratings; the residential environmental features are listed in order of overall importance.

The survey results show that the most important feature for respondents was living in a safe community, with an average score of 5.77 out of 6, suggesting that community safety is prioritized over home safety (ranked 24th). This finding is consistent with a UK study that highlights the wider impact of community safety on residents’ well-being [69].

Key features valued by respondents include ‘building accessibility’, ‘community public toilets and rest areas’, ‘cleanliness and aesthetics of the community environment’, and ‘indoor emergency response systems’, in line with the World Health Organization’s Global Age-Friendly Cities guidelines, which advocate age-friendly outdoor spaces and housing design [7].

Ranked 6–10, mainly features such as ‘Accessibility of Local Amenities’ and ‘Social places for community interaction, community participation’ highlight the importance of community facilities and social spaces. Furthermore, indoor thermal comfort was also a significant factor. It is noteworthy that the preference for indoor greenery was found to be greater than that for external parks and private gardens. This suggests a preference for direct, accessible natural elements in living spaces.

The characteristics ranked 11th to 15th and 16th to 20th, including “quality of indoor lighting”, “accessibility to public transport”, and “private parking”, provide further evidence that the quality of indoor environments and accessibility to community environments are prioritized as conducive to older people’s ease of living and independence.

Notably, ‘smart home control systems’ and ‘natural indoor ventilation and air quality’, ranked 21–25, were considered more critical than traditional security features, such as alarms, indicating a shift towards technology-enabled residential environments that also prioritize indoor comfort and air quality.

Finally, features ranked 26–33, such as ‘accessibility to healthcare facilities’ and ‘energy efficiency of the building’, were less prioritized, likely influenced by the younger age group of respondents (60–65 years) who may not yet require extensive healthcare services. This suggests a nuanced understanding of needs and preferences that change with life stages.

Overall, the community environment was identified as the most significant residential factor, followed by the indoor environment and, finally, the architectural features.

The study highlights a strong preference for a safe, clean, and well-maintained community environment, highlighting the importance of accessibility and community interaction in shaping residential preferences. Meanwhile, the comfort of indoor spaces and the quality of the indoor environment are also highly valued, as are aging-friendly retrofitting, smart home control systems, and indoor visual comfort. However, they do not pay much attention to the natural landscape outside the windows. Lastly, in terms of the building’s features, respondents attached great importance to the barrier-free design of the house, private parking spaces, and private courtyards, and then to the building’s safety but placed relatively little importance on features such as energy efficiency, compact building layouts, and the availability of balconies and home alarm systems.

4.4. Differences in Residential Environment Preferences

4.4.1. Associations between Residential Environment Preferences

The Pearson correlation coefficient test was used in this study to determine the association between the characteristics of respondents’ REPs. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables (e.g., community environment versus indoor environment). Pearson correlation coefficients range from −1 to +1, with proximity to +1 or −1 indicating a strong positive or negative correlation and proximity to 0 indicating no significant correlation. Significance (usually measured by a p-value) then indicates whether these results are statistically significant, with a commonly used significance level of 0.05 (5% error rate).

The Pearson correlation coefficient is calculated as follows:

r = Σ [(X − X⁻) (Y − Ȳ)]/[sqrt(Σ (X − X⁻) ²) × sqrt(Σ (Y − Ȳ) ²)]

where X and Y denote the observed values of the two variables, and X⁻ and Ȳ denote their means, respectively. The results show (Figure 5) that there is a significant positive correlation between the same category of environmental features with p < 0.01. A general negative correlation is observed between community environmental features and architectural features. For example, there is a strong negative correlation between public toilets and rest areas and private courtyards (r = −0.278, p < 0.01), indicating that the more importance respondents attach to public toilets and rest areas, the more they neglect private courtyards, which may be because community environmental features and architectural features have certain functional complementarities to a certain extent. There is a general positive correlation between community environmental features and indoor environmental features, indicating that respondents have similar preferred attitudes towards community environmental features and indoor environmental features. For example, community safety showed a strong positive correlation with the sound insulation of houses (r = 0.209, p < 0.01), indicating that respondents who valued community safety also valued the sound insulation of the indoor environment more. Between indoor environmental characteristics and building characteristics, in general, weaker negative correlations were shown between individual characteristics. For example, there was a strong negative correlation between indoor thermal comfort and the quality of the house (r = −0.165, p < 0.01), indicating that the more respondents valued the indoor environment’s thermal comfort, the more they neglected the quality condition of the house.

4.4.2. Factor Analysis Results

To better understand the underlying structure of residential environment preferences (REPs) among the elderly, a factor analysis was conducted. This method helps identify the key factors that influence the housing preferences of older adults. The factor analysis was performed using principal component analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation. This approach allowed us to reduce the 33 variables into a smaller set of meaningful factors that explain the maximum variance in the data. The KMO sampling suitability measure was 0.931, indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at the 0.000 level (p < 0.05), further supporting the suitability of the data for factor analysis.

The results of the factor analysis indicated that the underlying structure of older adults’ residential environment preferences could be summarized into four main factors, which collectively explained 64.588% of the total variance (

Table 6. Total variance explained.

Component	Initial Eigenvalues	Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings (%)	Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings (%)
1	9.371	28.396	28.396
2	6.485	19.651	48.048
3	4.447	13.475	61.523
4	1.011	3.065	64.588

). The four factors explained 28.396%, 19.651%, 13.475%, and 3.065% of the total variance, respectively. The component matrix (

Table 7. Component matrix analysis.

Component	Description	High Load Item	Loading Factor
Component 1	Indoor characteristics	Q21, Q22, Q23, Q24, Q25, Q26, Q27, Q28, Q29, Q30, Q31, Q32, Q33	0.655, 0.683, 0.654, 0.707, 0.663, 0.677, 0.665, 0.685, 0.640, 0.647, 0.651, 0.636, 0.466
Component 2	Building characteristics1	Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20	0.428, 0.496, 0.331, 0.152, 0.356, 0.453, 0.439, 0.453
Component 3	Building characteristics2	Q13, Q14, Q15, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20	0.658, 0.590, 0.712, 0.687, 0.637, 0.667, 0.660
Component 4	Community characteristics	Q1, Q2, Q3, Q5, Q6, Q9, Q11, Q12	0.764, 0.062, 0.067, −0.012, −0.155, 0.095, −0.131, −0.043

) demonstrates that each factor is comprised of distinct variables, reflecting the diverse categories of residential environment preferences exhibited by older adults.

In this study, factor analysis was used to identify the underlying factors that explain the structure of the observed variables. The authors made a preliminary categorization of the elements of the residential environments based on a review of the literature as follows: Q1–Q12 belonged to the community environment, Q13–Q20 to the building features, and Q21–Q33 to the indoor environment. The factor analysis initially identified four main components (Figure 6). Component 1: indoor environment characteristics, which is very close to the indoor environment category (Q21–Q33) in the original classification; components 2 and 3: building characteristics. Components 2 and 3 are very similar, with the main difference being the inclusion of Q16, which merges components 2 and 3. The new, merged component 2 belongs to the category of building characteristics, and this component is very similar to the building features in the original classification (Q13–Q20). Component 4: Community Environment characteristics; this component corresponds to the category Community Environment (Q1–Q12) in the original classification. The results of the factor analysis validated the authors’ original classification based on the literature review. Each factor identified corresponded closely to the pre-defined categories of community environment, building characteristics, and indoor environment. This consistency suggests that the original categorization was both reasonable and reflective of the underlying data structure. The detailed loading factors provided further insight into the specific contribution of each issue to each factor, deepening our understanding of the environmental factors that influence residential quality.

4.4.3. Effect of Age

This study used the Kruskal–Wallis H-test to assess the significance of age-related differences in the importance ratings of 33 residential environment characteristics across five age groups (60–65, 66–70, 71–75, 76–80, 80+). The results showed statistically significant differences in several categories, 10 indoor and 3 community environment characteristics, while building characteristics showed no significant age-related differences (

Table 8. Kruskal–Wallis H test for age.

Analysis Term	Mean	Standard Deviation	Shapiro– Wilk Test	Statistical Volume	p	Cohen’s f-Values
Q22	4.312	2.033	0.904 (0.000 ***)	22.689	0.000 ***	0.045
Q24	4.404	1.923	0.919 (0.000 ***)	15.92	0.003 ***	0.033
Q25	4.372	1.963	0.914 (0.000 ***)	22.578	0.000 ***	0.037
Q26	4.386	1.985	0.911 (0.000 ***)	27.476	0.000 ***	0.044
Q27	4.226	2.075	0.902 (0.000 ***)	14.586	0.006 ***	0.031
Q28	4.397	1.858	0.925 (0.000 ***)	25.546	0.000 ***	0.043
Q30	4.279	2.045	0.904 (0.000 ***)	26.035	0.000 ***	0.037
Q31	4.404	1.984	0.91 (0.000 ***)	17.466	0.002 ***	0.028
Q32	4.314	1.905	0.923 (0.000 ***)	21.649	0.000 ***	0.04
Q33	4.492	1.842	0.918 (0.000 ***)	15.892	0.003 ***	0.029
Q2	4.383	1.8	0.932 (0.000 ***)	19.358	0.001 ***	0.04
Q3	4.212	1.804	0.932 (0.000 ***)	14.384	0.006 ***	0.029
Q4	4.363	1.932	0.917 (0.000 ***)	30.172	0.000 ***	0.056

Note: *** represent 1% significance level.

).

Within the indoor environment category, there were significant age-related differences. For example, characteristics such as natural ventilation and indoor air quality (H = 22.689, p < 0.01), indoor lighting intensity (H = 15.920, p < 0.01), and smart home control systems (H = 21.649, p < 0.01) increased in importance with age, particularly for those aged 80 and over. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that as older people spend more time indoors, their focus on indoor quality and home automation increases [9,58,60,68]. In addition, the importance of personal space (H = 22.578, p < 0.01) and age-friendly home modifications, such as non-slip flooring and bathroom grab bars (H = 27.476, p < 0.01), peaked in the 71–75 age group, reflecting the increasing need for safety and autonomy as mobility declines with age.

The preference for increased visual comfort in indoor environments also showed a significant age-related increase (H = 26.035, p < 0.01), particularly in the 76–80 age group. However, this trend decreased in the 80+ age group, possibly due to the deterioration of visual perceptual abilities commonly associated with advanced age, which affects their interaction with their environment [59].

There was a notable shift in priorities for community environmental features with increasing age. Features such as walkability (H = 30.172, p < 0.01) and access to public transport (H = 19.358, p < 0.01) became increasingly important, particularly for those over 80, reflecting concerns about mobility and accessibility [61,62,63,64]. In addition, access to healthcare facilities was prioritized significantly more by the 70+ age group than by younger cohorts (H = 14.384, p < 0.01), highlighting the increasing healthcare needs with advancing age.

The study, thus, highlights a clear trend: as individuals age, there is a marked shift in preference toward features that enhance indoor comfort, safety, and community accessibility, supporting the notion that the residential environment needs to adapt to the evolving needs of the aging population.

4.4.4. Effect of Health Status

A Kruskal–Wallis H-test was used to compare the importance ratings of 33 residential environmental features across five health status groups (healthy, good, fair, poor, and very poor). The analysis revealed statistically significant differences in preferences for 20 environmental characteristics (

Table 9. Kruskal–Wallis H test for health status.

Analysis Term	Mean	Standard Deviation	Shapiro–Wilk Test	Statistical Volume	p	Cohen’s f-Values
Q2	4.383	1.8	0.932 (0.000 ***)	19.016	0.001 ***	0.027
Q3	4.212	1.804	0.932 (0.000 ***)	25.605	0.000 ***	0.035
Q5	4.469	1.817	0.923 (0.000 ***)	13.96	0.007 ***	0.022
Q7	4.51	1.887	0.917 (0.000 ***)	31.966	0.000 ***	0.036
Q8	4.432	1.876	0.917 (0.000 ***)	19.622	0.001 ***	0.027
Q10	4.436	2.037	0.897 (0.000 ***)	30.085	0.000 ***	0.034
Q11	4.376	1.98	0.909 (0.000 ***)	28.122	0.000 ***	0.043
Q12	4.21	1.911	0.926 (0.000 ***)	14.805	0.005 ***	0.019
Q13	4.203	2.008	0.915 (0.000 ***)	24.484	0.000 ***	0.025
Q14	4.164	1.918	0.921 (0.000 ***)	15.04	0.005 ***	0.033
Q15	4.256	1.988	0.916 (0.000 ***)	25.041	0.000 ***	0.023
Q17	4.134	2.092	0.903 (0.000 ***)	36.261	0.000 ***	0.035
Q18	4.321	1.85	0.928 (0.000 ***)	21.203	0.000 ***	0.043
Q19	4.388	2.023	0.904 (0.000 ***)	20.024	0.000 ***	0.029
Q20	4.15	2.002	0.916 (0.000 ***)	27.874	0.000 ***	0.035
Q25	4.372	1.963	0.914 (0.000 ***)	22.395	0.000 ***	0.043
Q28	4.397	1.858	0.925 (0.000 ***)	13.616	0.009 ***	0.027
Q30	4.279	2.045	0.904 (0.000 ***)	21.578	0.000 ***	0.037
Q32	4.314	1.905	0.923 (0.000 ***)	22.376	0.000 ***	0.033

Note: *** represent 1% significance level.

).

Among the indoor environmental features, respondents in fair and very poor health rated intelligent home control systems (H = 22.376, p < 0.01) and indoor visual comfort (H = 21.578, p < 0.01) significantly higher than those in the healthier groups. These preferences likely reflect the increased reliance on technology for mobility and health monitoring and the need for a visually comfortable indoor environment due to limited mobility.

In addition, the importance of wall, floor, and door color contrast was significantly higher in the very poor health group (H = 13.616, p < 0.01), highlighting the need for visual clarity to aid navigation and reduce accidents. Privacy of personal space was also a critical factor for this group, indicating a significant concern for dignity and quality of life in severe health conditions (H = 22.395, p < 0.01).

Architectural features showed significant variation, with the very poor health group placing greater importance on the presence of balconies (H = 27.874, p < 0.01) and terraces (H = 21.203, p < 0.01), probably because of their value in providing safe access to the outdoors. Accessibility to car parking was crucial for those with mobility problems (H = 20.024, p < 0.01). Housing quality was significantly valued by respondents with average health, reflecting their reliance on a supportive residential environment (H = 25.041, p < 0.01).

In terms of community environmental characteristics, safety (H = 18.970, p < 0.01) and access to public transport (H = 19.016, p < 0.01) were highly rated by the average and poorer health groups, highlighting the importance of safety and transport in maintaining independence. Proximity to health services was most important for those in poor health, highlighting their need for accessible medical care (H = 25.605, p < 0.01).

Overall, health status has a significant influence on the evaluation of housing and community features, with deteriorating health increasing the reliance on environmental modifications and accessibility improvements to support daily living and well-being.

4.4.5. Effect of Gender

Respondents of different genders (male and female) were compared in their assessment of REPs by Mann–Whitney U-tests, and the relevant characteristics were analyzed by visualizing error line plots. Only one indoor environment characteristic showed statistically significant gender differences. This suggests that males and females have largely similar preferences for indoor environmental features. Differences in preferences between genders are not as significant as those between age groups [59,70,71]. In this study, females placed significantly higher importance on ‘having a natural landscape outside the window’ than males (U = 19323, p < 0.01). Females were more likely than males to view the aesthetics and comfort of the residential environment as an important factor in improving quality of life (Figure 7).

Statistically significant differences between genders were found for two of the community environment characteristics rated by respondents. Specifically, men valued ‘indoor recreational spaces’ more than women (U = 19,916, p < 0.01), possibly reflecting men’s greater reliance on indoor facilities (e.g., gyms and sports halls) for leisure and socializing [65] (Figure 8). In addition, females placed more importance on living in a ‘good safe community’ than males (U = 20154.5, p < 0.01) (Figure 9).

5. Discussion

Given that most countries around the world are facing the challenges of increasing population aging and diversifying needs for aging planning, this study aimed to investigate the preferences of older Chinese people for residential environment features. This study helped to enrich the research on older Chinese people’s preferences for specific residential environment features.

Nearly 80% of the elderly in this study (those aged 60 years or older) live with a partner or children. This is a significant difference from Europe and the United States. For example, in Sweden, more than 50% of the elderly aged over 65 live alone [72]. This reflects the cultural values of Western societies that emphasize individual self-reliance and private space. In contrast, in Asia, especially China, it is more common for older people to live with family members. This is closely related to the concept of family and cultural traditions in Asia. In China, the family is regarded as a fundamental unit for providing financial and emotional support. It is, therefore, considered a natural duty and obligation for older people to live with their adult children [73].

5.1. Overview of Residential Environment Preferences

In this study, of the three categories of residential environmental systems, the community environment was the most important, followed by the indoor environment, and finally, by building features.

The safety, cleanliness, and environmental quality of the community environment were the most valued community features for older adults. In addition, older adults valued public restrooms and rest areas in the community. Amenities around the community, walking infrastructure, social spaces, public transport, and parks and green spaces were also considered generally important. However, proximity to social networks such as family and friends and the density of housing were not valued.

In terms of the indoor environment, emergency response systems were the most important factor, followed by indoor greenery, indoor thermal comfort, lighting quality, and age-friendly design. In contrast, natural views from windows were considered the least important factor.

In terms of building features, accessibility was considered the most important. This was followed by private car parking and private gardens. Green building design and energy efficiency were considered generally important. The configuration of balconies was considered the least important factor compared to the others.

5.2. Demographic Characteristics of REPs

Consistent with findings from other countries [9,37,58], age has a significant effect on the housing preferences of the elderly in China. This study found that as people age, the elderly become more dependent on the safety and comfort of the indoor residential environment. Various home modifications and home-smart technologies are effective in reducing the risk of slips/falls, maintaining independent living for older people, and reducing the need for social care [71,74,75]. Among the community environment characteristics, older age groups place a higher value on community environments, which may be because, as they age, older adults place a higher value on the social environment and resources in their community.

Similarly, the physical health status of older Chinese adults has a significant impact on their preferences regarding the residential environment. The study found that older adults with average and poor health placed a high degree of importance on indoor environmental features. Concerning the building itself, the group with very poor health places greater importance on balconies, private courtyards, private parking spaces, and building energy efficiency. This is likely to be related to the fact that these groups have limited mobility and rely more on their community amenities and environment. Concerning the characteristics of the local environment, as health status declines, older people tend to place a higher value on residential in safe communities, proximity to healthcare facilities, and accessibility to public transport. This reflects their need for safety and convenience.

Gender had a significantly smaller effect on older adults’ housing preferences than age and health status. In contrast, other studies [9,76] have found a more significant effect of gender on preferences, although they also did not find the effect of gender to be as significant as age. In this study, the differences between males and females generally expressed similar preferences for residential environment characteristics. Specifically, males relatively valued indoor recreational spaces around the community. This may indicate that males rely more on indoor facilities (e.g., gyms and sports halls) for their leisure and socializing activities. However, females valued certain aspects related to community safety and the natural environment of the community, among others, more than males.

5.3. Limitations

There are some limitations to this study. The data and results of this study, which is a cross-sectional study in a single country, cannot be directly used to assess and improve the residential environments of all older people, and in-depth studies should be continued in other countries to explore how the characteristics and extent of REPs of older people differ in different countries. As demographic patterns and user characteristics change, so do user behaviors and preferences over time. Even within a given period, the characteristics of the residential environment may change because of environmental interventions, and user preferences may also change [31]. Future research may extend this empirical case sample to a variety of environmental conditions, allowing cross-fertilization and analyses across multiple case studies. Nonetheless, this study can inform policymakers in improving the residential environment for older adults. It can provide valuable advice and guidance for the design and planning of housing for older people and provide a scientific basis for creating more comfortable, healthy, and adaptable residential environments for older people.

6. Conclusions

This paper focuses on the preferences of older people in China for the characteristics of the overall residential environment. The literature review shows that the characteristics of the residential environment, as well as the housing itself, play an important role in the health and well-being of older people. Through this study, a holistic framework of residential environments affecting older adults, with a focus on health and well-being, is developed. Through an extensive review of the literature related to the residential environment, 13 indoor environment, 8 building environment, and 12 community environment characteristics were developed as indicators for evaluating the REPs of older adults. The main findings of this study are as follows:

Older adults show significant preferences for residential environment characteristics. The results showed that “community safety” was the most important environmental characteristic, with an average importance rating of 5.77 out of 6. Accessible building design (average rating of 4.91), emergency response systems (average rating of 4.49), and indoor thermal comfort (average rating of 4.45) were also key factors in promoting aging in place. There is a positive correlation between the community environment and the indoor environment (e.g., community safety and indoor sound insulation, r = 0.209, p < 0.01), and both were, to some extent, negatively correlated with building features (e.g., public toilets and private courtyards, r = −0.278, p < 0.01; indoor thermal comfort and green building, r = −0.165, p < 0.01). In community environments, with increasing age and declining health, older people’s reliance on the safety and environmental quality of community environments and various infrastructures increases. In indoor environment characteristics, older people place more emphasis on safety and comfort in indoor environment, and in building characteristics, older people place more emphasis on adaptive design, energy efficiency, and safety in buildings. Age and physical health status have a significant effect on the housing environment preferences of Chinese older adults. Gender had little effect on older adults’ housing preferences, and similar preferences were expressed for almost all residential environment characteristics.

What this study reveals about the REPs of older adults in China has important implications for stakeholders in related fields such as government, local agencies, housing providers, and healthcare. By understanding these preferences, housing market participants can integrate the needs of older persons with housing design, enabling developers to provide highly flexible, cost-effective, and socially oriented older persons’ housing that more effectively meets the needs of the market and builds a housing system that meets the needs of older persons.