International Association for Person-Environment Studies (IAPS) Vienna July 7th 2004 bastien Lord, B.Sc.URB, M.Sc.ARCH orate student (Ph.D. ATDR) le supérieure d’aménagement du territoire de l’Universit le d’architecture de l’Université Laval [email protected]Aging at Home in Suburbs A comparison of three age groups with regards to territorial mobility and residential aspirations
22
Embed
International Association for Person-Environment Studies (IAPS) Vienna July 7th 2004 Sébastien Lord, B.Sc.URB, M.Sc.ARCH Doctorate student (Ph.D. ATDR)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
International Association for Person-Environment Studies (IAPS)Vienna July 7th 2004
École supérieure d’aménagement du territoire de l’Université LavalÉcole d’architecture de l’Université [email protected]
Aging at Home in SuburbsA comparison of three age groups with regards to territorial mobility and residential aspirations
1. Research’ object and contextAging in place – Mobility – Coping strategies
2. BackgroundLongitudinal approach for aging studiesAspirations and residential preferences of elders in suburbQuality of life, life course and mobility
3. Research’ designObjectives and theoretical approachesMethodology and dataHypothesis
4. Preliminary results and next stepsResidential aspirationsHousing preferencesMobility
1. Emergence of gerontology as a “multi-disciplinary” discipline. Environmental Gerontology focus on 3 themes:(Bengston et al., 1997; Kendig, 2003; Shoots, 1996; Wahl, 2003; Wahl & Weisman, 2003)
Private home environment Planned environments Residential decisions
2. Limited place of environmental dimensions in social and psychological theories on aging.(Kendig, 2003; Wahl & Weisman, 2003)
“Lawton paradigm” in environmental gerontology
3. Recent interest for inclusion of spatial and temporal dimensions in theoretical approaches.(Lawton, 1998; Golant, 1998; Wahl & Weisman, 2003)
Toward dynamic frameworks
2. Knowledge about agingFrom aged to age and aging studies
1. Research unanimity about desire to age in place for today’s elderly; interest in baby-boomers behaviour.(AARP, 1996, 2000; Davison, 1993; Lord, 2004; Roy, 1996)
2. In this context, in regards about aspirations and residential preferences, quality of life issues are relevant:(Lord, 2004; Schaie, 2003; Wahl, 2003)
“Older olds” Specific contexts (suburbs, rural, etc.) Capacity to access mobility
3. Many researches on aging in place are now focusing on mobility questions, at intersection of “indoor” / “outdoor”.(Alsnih and Hensher, 2003; Schaie, 2003; Waldorf, 2002; Wahl, 2003)
Keep elderly mobile Find alternatives options to car dependency Increase the security of all drivers Ecological dimensions
2. Aging in place issuesConsequences of residential aspirations
2. Research questionsEvolution of mobility with aging
1. What are the functional and experiential transformations of the elder’ mobility territory when aging in suburb?
How the mobility territory is transforming in a aging process and what are the interrelations between mobility and residential trajectories of the elder?
2. What are the consequences of mobility diminution/lost on the residential experience?
3. At the same time, what are the mobility territory characteristics following a relocalisation?
1. Recent researches underline the misunderstanding of the elderly mobility. Elders move, but differently.(Hilderbrand, 2003; Rosenblom, 2003, Schaie, 2003)
2. Heterogeneous patterns observed in literature. However diminution tendencies in area and frequencies with aging.(Alsnih & Hensher, 2003; Hilderbrand, 2003; Rosenblom, 2003; Smith & Sylvestre, 2001; Waldorf, 2002)
3. In old age, access to mobility must be considered beyond frequencies or O/D, but also as social insertion.(Daris, 2002; Schaie, 2003)
4. Some researches propose to study mobility in the elderly by experiential approaches.(Baker et al., 2003; Daris, 2002; Hilderbrand, 2003; Pinson, 2001)
Places system (Pinson, 2001) Home territory (Morley, 2002) Life-Space (Baker et al., 2003) Activity approach (Hiderbrand, 2003)
2. Quality of life and mobilityKnowledge about elderly mobility
2. HypothesisMobility and residential trajectories
Transformations in elders’ mobility territory can be seen in a aging process.
Mobility is transforming by the adaptation of elder to his physical and environmental context in relation with his needs / limitations.
1. Diminution area / frequencies / etc.2. Modifications in schedules / places visited / modes / etc.3. Seeking for help to maintain mobility
From a threshold, adaptation elder-environment is not possible, there is choice / obligation to move or modify living arrangement.
3. Research’ design
1. Interrelation between person and environment. Construction of elder’ reality by this interaction.(Piaget, 1995; Moser, 2002)
2. Life-course approaches limits, as a “normative” way to account the complexity of aging process.(Bengston et al., 1997)
3. Psychological, physiological and societal aging steps where the aging person is in a continuous individual adaptation.
3. Theoretical approaches“Home” and mobility contexts
PhysicalEnvironment
SocialEnvironment
SocietalEnvironment
AttachmentSatisfaction
Etc.NormsIdeologies
Etc..
PoliticsPlanning
Etc. Meanings
Temporal dimension
3. MethodologyTriangulation principles
Qualitativemethods
« Experience »
Quantitativemethods
« Generalization »
Spatialanalysis
« Localisation »
Comparisons Temporal aspects Social aspects Spatial aspects
Tend
encie
s co
mpa
rison
s Individual mobility territory
Tendencies localisation
Individual mobility
territories
Individual mobility
territories
3. Longitudinal approachMonitoring evolution of mobility
Qualitative
Spatial
Quantitative
1999 data
In-depthinterviews
Individual mobility
territories
O / Ddata
2005 data
In-depthinterviews
3. Merging two masters researchesQualitative analysis
Aged from 55 to 82All suburbs
(n=102)
173 in-depth interviews5 suburbs
Homeowners aged from 20 to 82
Aged from 65 to 82All suburbs
(n=56)
Aged from 25 to 822 suburbs
(n=95)
Attitudes, aspirations and residential
preferences
Social-mobility typology of
suburbanites
(Lord, 2004) (Daris, 2002)
3. Sample description102 suburbanites homeowners
Âge des répondants
2622
12
4
16
10 11
1
55-64 ans 65-74 ans 75 ans et plus nd
Hommes Femmes
Structure de ménage des répondants de 55 ans et plus
39
183 4
13 7 135
Couple Couple aveccohabitation
Personne seule Personne seuleavec
cohabitation
Homme Femme
Revenus des répondants
18
35
11
26
12
Moins de 30 000$
30 000$ à 50 000$
50 000$ à 70 000$
Plus de 70 000$
nd
3 age groups with majority of men Limited income per household
Majority of couples, many in cohabitation In place for more than 30 yearsNombre d'années passées dans la maison et dans
le quartier pour les aînés de banlieue
22%16%
44%
19%22%
18%
44%
17%
20 ans et moins 21-30 ans 31-40 ans Plus de 40 ans
Dans la maison Dans le quartier
4. Preliminary results -A first look at merged data