The use of amenities in high density neighbourhoods by older urban Australian residents

Page 1

Tr

DS

h

�����

a

ARRAA

KAAAAGG

1

niA2f2badSi

r

0h

Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

jou rn al h om epa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

he use of amenities in high density neighbourhoods by older urban Australianesidents

esley Vine ∗, Laurie Buys, Rosemary Airdchool of Design, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Q 4001, Australia

i g h l i g h t s

This study’s high density environments are not homogenous.Everyday activities for older people are often outside their local neighbourhoods.Older people rely on private motor vehicles for everyday activity.Issues with availability and access to local amenities inhibits local participation.Age-friendly urban design is important for older people to successfully age in place.

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 16 October 2011eceived in revised form 15 May 2012ccepted 22 May 2012vailable online 13 June 2012

a b s t r a c t

Like other major cities, Brisbane (Australia) has adopted policies to increase residential densities to meetthe liveability goal of decreasing car dependence. This objective hinges on urban neighbourhoods beingamenity-rich spaces, reducing the need for residents to leave their neighbourhood for everyday liv-ing. While older people are attracted to urban settings, there has been little empirical evidence linkingliveability satisfaction with older people’s use of urban neighbourhoods. Using a case study approach

eywords:geing-in-placemenitiesvailabilityccessibilityIS

employing qualitative (diaries, in-depth interviews) and quantitative (Global Positioning Systems andGeographical Information Systems mapping) methods, this paper explores the effect of the neighbour-hood environment and its influence on liveability for older urban people. Reliance on motor vehicles andissues with availability and access to local amenities inhibit local participation for older people. High-lighting these issues furthers our understanding of the landscape planning and design factors that makeurban neighbourhoods more liveable for older residents.

PS

. Introduction

In recent years there has been increasing recognition of theeed to improve the quality of cities and urban neighbourhoods

n reference to supporting an ever-increasing ageing society (seeustralian Local Government Association, 2006; Burton & Mitchell,006; Department of Health and Ageing, 2006; Inclusive Designor Getting Outdoors, 2007a, 2007b; World Health Organisation,007). There has been growing attention given to the urban neigh-ourhood environment of older people not only in gerontology butlso across a wide range of disciplines including geography, urban

esign, transport studies and public health (Day, 2010; Ziegler &chwanen, 2011). This cross-disciplinary interest is fuelled by thenter-related factors of increasing urbanisation and population

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Vine), [email protected] (L. Buys),

[email protected] (R. Aird).

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.013

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

ageing (Beard & Petitot, 2010; Lui, Everingham, Warburton, Cuthill,& Bartlett, 2009; Smith, 2009) and the significant challenges thesetrends pose for landscape planning and design.

With the losses in functioning associated with the ageing pro-cess, the quality and type of environment becomes a significantfactor in determining well-being and independence of older peo-ple (Smith, 2009; World Health Organisation, 2007). The designof the neighbourhood and provision of neighbourhood amenitiescan enhance or inhibit participation and are especially impor-tant for older people to be able to continue to age in place (Judd,Olsberg, Quinn, Groenhart, & Demirbilek, 2010). While there is lim-ited research evidence related to access to urban neighbourhoodamenity among older people (Quinn et al., 2009), projects under-taken in the United Kingdom and in Australia identify age-friendlybuilt environment design approaches (Burton & Mitchell, 2006;

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors, 2007a, 2007b; Judd et al.,2010). Many western governments are developing strategies forage-friendly cities (see Australian Local Government Association,2006; Department of Health and Ageing, 2006; Inclusive Design

Page 2

1 rban

f2tgctihawm(ped

1

bpTascmwaimpfpif(H2m

oiepbanbipupe

h2&taWnr2(tb

60 D. Vine et al. / Landscape and U

or Getting Outdoors, 2007a, 2007b; World Health Organisation,007) and are pursuing urban planning policy aimed at reducinghe physical separation of daily activities with a more effective inte-ration of land use and transport (Neal, 2003). Policies aimed athanging the physical urban neighbourhood environment in wayshat increase ready access to amenities assumes an improvementn the experience of liveability for residents within that neighbour-ood (McCrea, Shyy, & Stimson, 2006). While there is no universallyccepted definition of liveability, it can be broadly defined as “theell being of a community and represents the characteristics thatake a place where people want to live now and in the future”

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008). The pur-ose of this paper is to explore the effect of the neighbourhoodnvironment and its influence on liveability for older urban resi-ents.

.1. An ecological perspective of ageing

An ecological perspective of ageing “assumes an interplayetween an individual’s functional capacity, adaptation, and theirhysical and social environment” (Beard & Petitot, 2010, p. 430).here are a number of models which could be seen to embody such

theoretical foundation. For example, urban consolidation models,uch as urban village and smart growth, with planning designs thato-locate residential and other uses around transport nodes, pro-ote easy local access to diverse amenities and public transporthich may encourage older people to maintain social networks

nd remain engaged with their local community. Similarly, policynitiatives that seek to enforce the permanent removal of impedi-

ents to walking, including street crossings that do not allow oldereople or people with disability enough time to cross, deterioratingootpaths or other physical barriers are instrumental in older peo-le’s ability to age in place (Frumkin, Frank, & Jackson, 2004). These

ssues relate to liveable neighbourhoods, universal design and alsoeature strongly in the healthy cities and age-friendly cities agendaInclusive Design for Getting Outdoors, 2007a, 2007b; Nationaleart Foundation of Australia, 2009; World Health Organisation,007) for improving the design of cities and neighbourhoods to beore conducive to ageing in place (Beard & Petitot, 2010).It is broadly recognised that ageing in place (growing older in

ne place without the need to move as a result of health impacts)s in the interests of both older people and the government (Juddt al., 2010). The independence, health and wellbeing of older peo-le are advanced by ageing in place and there is a reduced economicurden on government through reduced demand for institution-lised aged care. While a quality environment is a right requiringo empirical justification, social policy and social change needs toe driven by a better understanding of what constitutes a ‘qual-

ty’ environment in which older people are committed to ageing inlace (Lawton in Smith, 2009; Rosso et al., 2011). The need to betternderstand older people’s experiences is in part driven and sup-orted by research that suggests that environment matters (Rossot al., 2011; Smith, 2009).

Environmental gerontology, an ecological perspective of ageing,as been increasing in importance over the past few decades (Day,010; Peace, Holland, & Kellaher, 2011; Peace, Wahl, Mollenkopf,

Oswald, 2007; Smith, 2009). While acknowledged for expandinghe body of knowledge pertaining to older people’s environmentsnd extending the methods used in this topic area (Smith, 2009;ahl & Weisman, 2003), it has also been criticised for having

o standard methodology or theoretical approach (Kendig, 2003),elying too heavily on quantitative methods (Wahl & Weisman,

003) and for predominantly focusing on micro-environmentsKendig, 2003). Kendig (2003, p. 612) has argued for researcho be expanded beyond the micro-environment to urban neigh-ourhoods, cities and regions especially in light of “important

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

macro-dimensions to change, such as ageing of the baby boomcohort”. The term ‘urban’ is used in this study in a specialised senseto refer to inner-city, high density environments/neighbourhoods(a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare).

1.2. The study of the neighbourhood setting

While the term “neighbourhood” is used in everyday conversa-tion it lacks any single or widely agreed definition. Neighbourhoodsare comprised by residence and home-related facilities that arein close proximity and which serve residential needs (Kearns& Parkinson, 2001). Characteristics of proximity of access toeveryday needs, influenced by both distance and transport infras-tructure, could be considered a widely acknowledged definitionalattribute of neighbourhood (Galster, 2001) especially as it relatesto neighbourhood liveability (Jacobs, 1961). Physical approachesto neighbourhoods and neighbourhood liveability are often dis-cussed relative to their walkable proximity to some form of centre(institutional, educational, retail or other public facility) (Galster,2001). Walkable proximity is difficult to define geographically dueto variables such as the age and ability of residents, the state of thestreetscape, and the topography of a given urban area. Notwith-standing these qualifications, for the purposes of this research,walkable proximity is considered to be an area within 10 min walk-ing distance of home.

Rather than conceiving neighbourhood and neighbourhoodliveability on the basis of particular inherent physical qualities inthe environment, a second conceptual approach views them asa behaviour-related function of the interaction of neighbourhoodand person-based characteristics (Anderson, Carter, & Lowe, 1999).Everyday household activities influence the perceived dimensionof the neighbourhood: for example, how far people are willingto walk to public transport, banks, health facilities, shops andrecreational facilities. This suggests that neighbourhoods are iden-tifiable through the link between their residential function andtheir non-residential uses and how this linkage draws and encour-ages activity. Neighbourhood behavioural and use patterns mayextend into other neighbourhoods as people function in differ-ent social networks, at different scales, across different times andspaces, and thus as a result may look for different things than thosethat exist within their home area (defined as an area of 5–10 minwalk) (Kearns & Parkinson, 2001). For some, time-geography oftheir neighbourhood is delimited across a wider region (Kearns &Parkinson, 2001).

1.3. Out-of-home mobility

Out-of-home mobility has been positively correlated to well-being (Ziegler & Schwanen, 2011) and is often a pre-requisite forcommercial, cultural and social activities (Alsnih & Hensher, 2003;Shoval et al., 2011). While, engagement and use of outdoor environ-ments have various benefits for older people through participationin physical activity, exposure to outdoor elements, and social inter-action (Sugiyama & Ward Thompson, 2007), research has shownthat older people spend most of their time at home with esti-mates of around 19.5 h on average per day (Brasche & Bischof, 2005;Moss & Lawton, 1982). Mobility, broadly defined as the ability tomove oneself by, for example, walking or transport (Webber, Porter,& Menec, 2010), allows older people the opportunity to engageand use environments for everyday activities outside the home(Ziegler & Schwanen, 2011). The most common forms of mobilityamong older people are walking and driving (Schwanen & Ziegler,

2011).

Key correlates of the decision to walk include local availabil-ity and design of amenities including an accessible, time efficient,safe and comfortable transport network of public transport nodes,

Page 3

rban

tiJiet(saf2

&opdBfatep

1

tmph(2w(itsd

oForhobrstf2Bere

1

osrfsrD

D. Vine et al. / Landscape and U

ransport corridors and available and interconnected walkingnfrastructure (Berke, Koepsell, Moudon, Hoskins, & Larson, 2007;udd et al., 2010; Leslie, McCrea, Cerin, & Stimson, 2007). Close prox-mity and accessible amenities such as restaurants, cafes, shops,mployment, health care facilities, parks and recreational facili-ies have been linked to residential satisfaction and quality of lifeGlaeser, Kolko, & Saiz, 2001; Lloyd & Auld, 2003) and to deci-ions of whether to walk or take the car (Southworth, 2005). Easyccess to everyday activities significantly adds value to liveabilityor both the individual and the broader community (Glaeser et al.,001).

The preferred mode of transport for older people is the car (Adler Rottunda, 2006). Motor vehicles are widely used among all thosef driving age and above but they are especially important to oldereople for mobility and their overall well-being. The inability torive has been associated with reduced quality of life (Gabriel &owling, 2004) and declining out-of-home mobility and life satis-

action (Harrison & Ragland, 2003). For those with fading sensorybility and physical strength, the use of a car is seen as crucialo maintain everyday activity and social engagement (Mollenkopft al., 2002). Inability to drive or use public transport renders oldereople dependent on others for travel (Judd et al., 2010).

.4. Recent research

There has been criticism of the extensive use of quantita-ive methods in environmental gerontology studies because these

ethods fail to capture the experience of the environment for oldereople (Ewing & Handy, 2009). More recently, however, thereave been a number of studies using either qualitative methodsDay, 2010) or a mixed methods approach (Lord & Luxembourg,007; Shoval et al., 2011) to explore older people’s experiencesithin their neighbourhood environment. Lord and Luxembourg

2007) and Shoval and colleagues (2011) both employed in-depthnterviews and geographic technology to study the mobility ofheir participants with the former using geographic informationystems (GIS) and the latter, Global Positioning System (GPS)evices.

There were three main issues from the findings of this groupf studies regarding older people and their out-of-home mobility.irstly, transport planning has traditionally and incorrectly viewedlder people as a homogeneous group. Secondly, there are variedeasons why older people heavily rely on cars for their out-of-ome mobility and not just because of problems with availabilityf amenities and public transport. Thirdly, problems with neigh-ourhood walkability continue to discourage walking and reinforceeliance on the car. Such findings help to explain why urban con-olidation models, such as smart growth, which serve to shortenrip distances, increase travel options and thereby reduce the needor car ownership (Behan, Maoh, & Kanaroglou, 2008; Judd et al.,010) are debatable (see Alsnih & Hensher, 2003; Therese, Buys,ell, & Miller, 2010). There are established norms around car own-rship and use which act as significant barriers to reducing people’seliance on the private motor vehicle (Lee & Moudon, 2004; Thereset al., 2010).

.5. Context of the current study

There is international interest in the demographic profile oflder people in preparing to meet the needs of an older urbanociety (Smith, 2009). This impending global phenomenon holdselevance for landscape planning and design in creating age-

riendly urban form that facilitates ageing in place. Many advancedocieties are developing strategies for age-friendly urban envi-onments (see Australian Local Government Association, 2006;epartment of Health and Ageing, 2006; Inclusive Design for

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171 161

Getting Outdoors, 2007a, 2007b; World Health Organisation, 2007)and their entrenched default conceptual framework is the urbanneighbourhood. Proximity characteristics of access to everydayactivity are an integral attribute of liveability and the complex com-modity called neighbourhood. The extent that higher density livingactually encourages walkable neighbourhood activity and reducescar use among older people within Australia is unclear. It is impor-tant therefore to investigate the relationship between high densityliving and amenity access when making determinations of neigh-bourhood liveability. Given the possibility that differences existbetween the perceptions and actual behaviour of older people withintheir urban neighbourhoods, both subjective and objective mea-sures are needed to explore the neighbourhood environment asolder people experience this phenomenon through space and time.Thus, this paper reports on findings based on the use of twelve casestudies employing both quantitative and qualitative measures forthe purpose of exploring the effect of the neighbourhood environ-ment and its influence on liveability for older urban residents.

2. Methods

The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related tothe experiences of older Australians residing in inner-urban, highdensity suburbs, which were gathered as part of a larger projectexploring ageing and liveability in rural, regional and urban loca-tions. The research methodology used for the current study involvesthree different data collection methods: time-use diaries, GlobalPositioning Systems (GPS) mapping, and in-depth qualitative inter-views. Two weeks prior to the semi-structured in-depth interviews,participants were given a GPS tracking device and paper diary andwere asked to carry the GPS everywhere they went and to completea daily diary on their activities for that one week period in 2010.Ethical approval for this project was obtained from a universityHuman Research Ethics Committee, with all case study participantsproviding written informed consent prior to their participation inthe current study.

2.1. Participants

A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selectedhigh density areas were used for this research with all but one of thesample drawn from a database of a past project (‘Living in the City’)(see Table 1 for a summary of respondents’ profile). This previousstudy utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a postal sur-vey completed by 636 inner-urban residents (28% response rate)in 2007, involving research that focussed on the social, environ-mental and economic aspects of inner-city life. Using this database,participants who had indicated a willingness to participate in fur-ther research and were now aged 55 years or older were contactedand invited to participate, ensuring that those recruited allowedexploration of differences that might emerge as a function of ageor gender. Since the original sample from which these participantswere drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status (SES),a twelfth participant was recruited through a community group tofacilitate a case study within this particular demographic.

2.2. Case study location

The location for all case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, oneof the fastest growing cities in Australia and in the western world.Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate with undulating topography.The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the start

of autumn, normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weatherconditions. The population of the greater Brisbane area under thejurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council is expected to increase from991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031 (Australian Bureau

Page 4

162 D. Vine et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

gh den

oit(tai

2

2

ppaiooehetamwf

Fig. 1. Map of the inner-urban hi

f Statistics, 2007). In 2006, the inner five kilometres of Brisbanencluded 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings (ABS, 2007). Par-icipants were selected from six inner-urban higher density areasdefined as 30 or more dwellings per hectare) within five kilome-res of the Central Business District (CBD) (see Table 1 for details ofreas covered). Fig. 1 is a map of the inner-urban high density areasncluded in this study.

.3. Apparatus

.3.1. Global Positioning SystemsObjective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day

eriod were obtained via a person-based GPS device (lightweightortable TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A), which was used to trackll of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy of the GPS devices reported to be ±3 m (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this levelf error can increase significantly however, depending on the levelf signal interference caused by buildings, canopy cover, indoornvironments, and so on. Participants placed the GPS device into aandbag or pocket during waking hours and charged the batteryach night. The GPS devices were programmed to record posi-ion, time, date, speed and altitude at a time interval of 1 min. This

llowed for accurate tracking of each participant’s outdoor move-ents, although the GPS would not record points when no signalas available (for instance, if the participant travelled underground

or a period of time).

sity areas included in this study.

2.4. GIS data preparation and analysis

Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using softwarespecific to the GPS device (included in the purchased pack-age). Using this software, the raw data were then exported asspreadsheets using a comma-delineated file format with eachrow representing a logged position (one each minute). Thesespreadsheets were converted to Google Earth files using an onlineconverter and mapped in Google Earth. The different tracks ofeach participant’s travel on the yielded maps were colour-codedby mode of travel used, according to information entered in partic-ipants’ travel diaries (refer to Daily Diaries below). The creation ofeach participant’s time/space activity maps (involving day-by-dayand total weekly travels) took approximately 6 h per diagram andwas accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each jour-ney and destination. These maps were used during the interviews.

2.5. Daily diaries

Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they wereusing the GPS tracking device. The diary had space to record theirdaily travel, destinations, activities and reflections upon issues per-

taining to their environment or any undertaken activity. The diaryalso included a brief survey which captured demographic infor-mation, use of transport, volunteering and aspects of communityliveability and engagement. The diaries offered an efficient and

Page 5

D. Vine et al. / Landscape and Urban

Tab

le

1Su

mm

ary

tabl

e

of

case

stu

dy

(CS)

resp

ond

ents

and

loca

tion

pro

file

.

Pers

on

Age

Gen

der

Mar

ital

stat

us

Inco

me

Wor

kin

g/re

tire

d

Len

gth

of

tim

e

inre

sid

ence

Loca

tion

cPo

pu

lati

ona

Lan

d

mas

s

Dis

tan

ce

from

GPO

,B

risb

ane

CS1

57M

ale

Mar

ried

>70

KW

orks

f>1

1

year

s

New

stea

de

4818

1.3

km2

3

km

NE

CS2

62

Fem

ale

Sin

gle

>70

K

Wor

ksf

>9

year

s

Wes

t

End

d62

06

1.9

km2

3 km

SWC

S364

Fem

ale

Mar

ried

40–5

0

K

Ret

ired

2

year

s

Kel

vin

Gro

ve

Urb

an

Vil

lage

e42

46

for

all o

f KG

Urb

an

vill

age

16

ha

3 km

NW

CS4

65

Fem

ale

Mar

ried

>70

K

Ret

ired

>6

year

s

Kan

garo

o

Poin

te68

68

1.3

km2

0.75

km

SWC

S5

70

Mal

e

Sin

gle

>70

K

Wor

ksf

8

year

s

Hig

hga

te

Hil

ld54

28

1.2

km2

2

km

SEC

S672

Fem

ale

Wid

owed

<20

KR

etir

ed49

year

sW

est

End

d62

061.

9

km2

3

km

SWC

S7

73

Mal

e

Sin

gle

>70

K

Ret

ired

9

year

s

Ham

ilto

nd

4366

1.7

km2

5

km

NE

CS8

75Fe

mal

eW

idow

edN

.A.b

Ret

ired

35

yeas

Hig

hga

te

Hil

ld54

28

1.2

km2

2

km

SEC

S9

78

Mal

e

Mar

ried

N.A

.bR

etir

ed

10

year

s

Kan

garo

o

Poin

te68

68

1.3

km2

0.75

km

SWC

S10

79M

ale

Mar

ried

>70

K

Ret

ired

9

year

s

Kan

garo

o

Poin

te68

68

1.3

km2

0.75

km

SWC

S11

80Fe

mal

eM

arri

ed50

–70

K

Ret

ired

10

year

sK

anga

roo

Poin

te68

681.

3 km

20.

75

km

SWC

S12

80

Mal

e

Mar

ried

>70

K

Ret

ired

>6

year

s

Ham

ilto

nd

4366

1.7

km2

5

km

NE

aPo

pu

lati

on

dat

a

from

2006

Cen

sus,

gath

ered

by

the

Au

stra

lian

Bu

reau

of

Stat

isti

cs

(200

7).

bIn

com

e

not

avai

labl

e

as

it

was

not

dis

clos

ed.

cEa

ch

of

thes

e

area

s

are

targ

eted

for

furt

her

urb

an

ren

ewal

and

bein

g

dev

elop

ed

spec

ifica

lly

for

hig

h

den

sity

livi

ng.

The

dif

fere

nt

inn

er-u

rban

area

s

hav

e

dif

fere

nt

top

ogra

ph

y

and

vary

ing

leve

ls

of

infr

astr

uct

ure

and

avai

labl

ese

rvic

es.

dH

amil

ton

, Hig

hga

te

Hil

l,

Wes

t

End

(wel

l est

abli

shed

resi

den

tial

area

s).

eN

ewst

ead

, Kan

garo

o

Poin

t

and

Kel

vin

Gro

ve

Urb

an

Vil

lage

(are

as

wh

ich

hav

e

un

der

gon

e

mas

sive

tran

sfor

mat

ion

from

sem

i-in

du

stri

al

to

hig

h

resi

den

tial

den

sity

).f

On

e

quar

ter

of

resp

ond

ents

wer

e

in

full

-

or

par

t-ti

me

wor

k,

rep

rese

nti

ng

a

grow

ing

and

new

bree

d

of

wea

lth

y

wor

kers

wh

o

reje

ct

reti

rem

ent,

coin

ed

‘nev

erti

rees

’ (B

arcl

ays

Wea

lth

, 201

0). C

itie

s

hav

e

the

defi

nin

g

feat

ure

ofoc

cup

atio

nal

cad

res

(Ham

net

t,

2005

)

wh

o

hav

e

hig

hly

rem

un

erat

ive

emp

loym

ent

from

econ

omic

acti

viti

es

char

acte

rist

ic

of

maj

or

citi

es

(Web

ber,

2007

).

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171 163

affordable way to assess specific details about activity (i.e., dura-tion, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), therebysupplementing information derived from the GPS devices.

2.6. In-depth interviews

Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through theirresponses to open-ended questions focussed on both the pos-itive and negative experiences and features of their respectiveneighbourhoods. The importance of the ‘ordinary knowledge’ ofresidents for providing insight into local issues and the function-ing of daily life in place is crucial in effective liveability research(Myers, 1987). The interviews were sequenced so that initial dis-cussion centred on participants’ general pattern of movement overthe tracking period, followed by a day-by-day review of each par-ticipant’s trips and activities. This enabled exploration of the natureand level of activity of each participant within their respectiveimmediate urban environments. The diary and map informationacted as basis for generating further discussion to examine partic-ipants’ experience of the built environment and the factors thatfacilitate and hinder their activity. In this way, their potential andrealised out-of-home activity could be examined. All interviewswere recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.

2.7. Procedure

Participants were telephoned prior to them being sent a papertravel diary, a GPS device and recharger, and a typed set ofinstructions about the use and battery charging of the GPS device(previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension). The GPSdevice and diary were posted back to the research team for inter-pretation prior to the interview. The recorded GPS data weremerged, with interactive individual ‘activity maps’ created for eachparticipant. These ‘individual time/space life path maps’ were thenreviewed and compared with the time-use diaries to identify anykey patterns, issues or anomalies to be discussed at interview. Asthe computer used at interview was large and difficult to move,the semi-structured interviews were conducted predominantly ata central location (the university) and, on occasion, in participants’homes. The interviews lasted approximately 90 min on average.The process captured both narration and mapped informationabout destinations, activities, lifestyles, journeys and general expe-riences when moving about their community for the target weekin each case study participant’s life. Through the interviews, diariesand mapping, the study captured the frequency of participants’activity on different days and at different times, identified the sitesused for spending free time and allowed interviewers to explore themanner in which the participants’ respective urban environmentsfacilitated their physical activity (e.g. shopping, walking) and socialinteractions.

2.8. Data analysis

In this study, objective indicators were gathered using GPS totrack the respondents’ movements and to map their movementsusing GIS, and also to gather objective indicators of availableservices and facilities within their respective urban environments.These quantitative measures were then analysed for the secondphase of subjective measurement via interviews. The data fromthe interviews, diaries and maps were subsequently comparedand analysed as individual case studies. The audio recordings werefully transcribed and then analysed using a thematic approach,

identifying key categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong,2009). An iterative process was utilised, with the transcripts beingread and re-read in order to code the data and identify emergingthemes and meaningful categories. To enable understanding and

Page 6

1 rban

imw

3

pitsdrpsihwak

otholHnb

beFihsaTlaFhwraodcaL

3

utaaaps

64 D. Vine et al. / Landscape and U

nterpretation, each participant’s diaries and time/space life pathaps were also qualitatively analysed to identify key patterns inhere and how participants moved during the monitored week.

. Results

Data gathered from the survey items revealed that all partici-ants loved their neighbourhoods and did not report any negative

ssue relating to their neighbourhood. The main two findings arehat older people are not using local amenities in their high den-ity neighbourhoods and that only a small percentage of eachay is being used for outside activity (see Fig. 2 for a graphicalepresentation of time spent in and outside the home for eacharticipant, based on their mapped activities over the trackedeven-day period). As can be seen from this diagram, the major-ty of cases spent most of their time within the confines of theirome. One notable exception to this overall pattern of behaviouras CS5 (male) who cycled extensively throughout his immedi-

te and surrounding neighbourhood (see also Table 2 for detail ofilometres travelled by mode of transport).

The two main themes that emerge from the data explaining whylder people are not using local neighbourhood amenities relateo the availability and accessibility of amenities within these localigh density neighbourhoods. Fig. 3 shows the weekly activity mapsf two residents. One resident, CS1 was from Newstead which hasimited available amenities and the other resident, CS7 was fromamilton with excellent availability of local amenities but with aumber of barriers to easy walking access to these amenities. Thesearriers are discussed below.

Residents were found to be driving outside their local neigh-ourhoods for everyday goods and services, rather than accessingveryday amenities within their own high density neighbourhoods.igs. 4 and 5 below show the weekly services accessed by two res-dents, CS3 and CS10, with the five and ten minute walk zonesighlighted on each map. Fig. 4, CS3’s map, depicts the retail andervice network accessed by this resident. This resident lives in

newly established urban village with new and varied amenities.his resident, however, has issues associated with affordability andandscape topography which form barriers to accessing availablemenities. The retail and service network activity map depicted inig. 5 is from a resident who lives in an amenity poor neighbour-ood referred to by two residents as a “dormitory suburb”. Thereas a great deal of similarity in the appearance of the activity maps

egardless of the availability of amenities in residents’ local walk-ble neighbourhoods. This would indicate that there are factorsther than availability of amenities which affect older residents’ecisions to walk within their local neighbourhood. Residents dis-ussed significant issues pertaining to walkable access to localmenities. These are captured below under Barriers to Accessingocal Amenities.

.1. Local availability of amenities

There appears to be great diversity between the high densityrban areas under study in terms of locally available amenities. Par-icipants experienced two different realities: residents from tworeas in particular (Kangaroo Point and Newstead) have minimalmenity choice and have to travel by motor vehicle in order toccess most services – since they are poorly served by public trans-ort – while others choose to drive or be driven to access their

ervices of choice.

I used to live at Kangaroo Point which doesn’t have a sense of com-munity. It doesn’t have a heart or soul. It’s what I call a dormitorysuburb. People go there to sleep. There are no amenities there. So

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

by comparison, if you look at West End, there’s a centre. . .there’s ahub. (CS2)

Basic developed world infrastructure (e.g., internet, telecommu-nications, consistent electricity supply) can be of poor quality orlacking altogether in some high density areas.

There’s no cabling. . .We get intermittent power – I think all theinfrastructure is really old. . .I feel that we were misrepresented. . .Itnever occurred to us to ask about the (television and internet infras-tructure) that it wasn’t cabled. (CS4)

All of those interviewed reported loving their urban environ-ment and a number of them reported that they loved it because itmet their needs. The mapping (the objective, quantitative measure)showed that they used very few or no local services and utilisedtheir motor vehicle extensively (see Figs. 3–5). While they identi-fied the importance of having facilities and activities within theirurban neighbourhoods, they were still dependent on private motorvehicle transport for the majority of trips outside their homes.

3.2. Amenity accessibility

Each of the individual maps revealed that private motor vehicleswere used for the majority of activities. While this was seeminglydue in part to the freedom motor vehicles provide, participantsidentified their reliance on their motor vehicles as a consequenceof poor provision of and/or problems with access to amenities thatservice everyday needs and activities. Their low use of public trans-port appears to be attributable to some limitation or dissatisfactionwith available public transport services, rather than a lack of theiravailability.

I have heard this place referred to as Kangaroo Island [rather thanthe suburb name of Kangaroo Point] because of how bad publictransport is. (CS11)

Car trips for some residents were necessitated by their wish toaccess specialist items or preferred health service providers outsidetheir neighbourhood precinct.

I have always been travelling there because she’s a good optometristand that’s why I go out there. . .I had been chasing a book that dayand I couldn’t get it anywhere, and then back to [dress shop], oh,yes, I bought something at the dress shop. (CS4)

3.3. Barriers to accessing local amenities

Affordability, aspects of the built environment (including pedes-trian pathways, streetscape and buildings) and public transportwere highlighted by interviewees as being key areas that eitherfacilitate or hinder their participation within their respective neigh-bourhood communities.

3.4. Affordability

Where services and facilities did exist in the local urban environ-ment, there was often a premium that older people were reluctantto pay. Those interviewed often chose to bypass local chain grocerystores and travel across suburbs to shop at a cheaper grocery outlet.

It depends who has got the best specials. (CS2)

Another interviewee was mindful of the need to support localservices even though this might involve greater cost to her than

non-local services.

I have always been a firm believer you have to support your localshopkeepers. If you don’t, you lose them. So I always feel verystrongly about that. Even if sometimes it might be a little bit more

Page 7

D. Vine et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171 165

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of time spent at home/away from home during tracking period.

Table 2Transport mode used in total kilometres over 7 day tracking period.

Case study no. Transport mode in total kmover 7 days of tracking

Identified public transport barriers and facilitators

CS1 Car – 93.7 kmBus – 21.63 kmWalk – 7.04 km

. . .the public transport is so good. Next to our driveway is a bus stop and it comes every tenminutes during the day

CS2 Car – 51.33 kmWalk – 12.75 km

I could catch the bus. But I have got to walk down there to catch the bus

CS3 Car – 150.2 kmWalk – .86 km

Public transport doesn’t always go where you want to go.

CS4 Car – 115.72 kmWalk – 7.4 kmFerry – 1.77 km

that [taking away the Ferry service] would be devastating. . .See, we have got no busservice.

CS5 Car – 53.25 kmBike – 197.65 kmWalk – 18.53 km

. . .this go card stuff means I will avoid public transport unless I can walk in and put mymoney down and get on the bus because I only occasionally use it.

CS6 Car – 65.39 km I can get on a bus but I can’t get off the bus. It depends how – if it’s a good driver and hegoes right to the kerb, I can get off easily, but usually they don’t. . . Most places I wouldhave to go to the city and go and get another bus out

CS7 Car – 66.78 kmTaxi – 6.98 kmBus – 5.72 kmFoot – 26.98 kmFerry – 8.46 km

. . .it was suitable to me because it was close to public transport, close to the airport,

CS8 Car – 36.34 km They don’t all go the right way that you want to go, the busses, but there’s nothing that wecan do about that.

CS9 Car – 159.02 km I don’t want to get too far away from the loo [toilet]. . .Of course you will worry about it;you don’t want to wet yourself. So, yeah, basically things like busses don’t appeal.

CS10 Car – 309.51 kmTaxi – 6.43 kmWalk – 2.33 km

the only bus that comes down, comes off the Story Bridge and stops on the other side of theBradfield Highway and then carries on down there. There’s nothing that actually comesround in the Kangaroo Point area itself.

CS11 Car – 11.33 kmTaxi – 7.75 kmWalk – 8.62 kmFerry – 1.43 km

It’s hazardous just in the crossing [to the ferry]

CS12 Car – 46.67 kmWalk – 1.74 km

The City Cat is good in that. . . it’s available and cheap for seniors but when you come tothe city, where do you finish up? There’s three stops. There’s the Riverside, QUT —-and thisside, North Quay. Riverside is a million miles from the shops. QUT is half a million milesfrom the shops. And north bank, North Quay, you have got a cliff to climb.

Page 8

166 D. Vine et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

Fig. 3. Weekly travel maps for two residents – one from a neighbourhood with few available amenities (CS1) and the other from an amenity rich neighbourhood with accessissues (CS7).

Fig. 4. Services accessed by CS3 resident who lives within a high amenity neighbourhood.

Page 9

D. Vine et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171 167

o lives

3

rp

3

bhwsf

npst

tte

Fig. 5. Services accessed by CS10 resident wh

costly, but when you measure that against convenience, it’s ahead.(CS11)

.5. Built environment

Three key design characteristics of the built environmentestricted participants’ participation in the community: pedestrianathways, streetscape and buildings.

.5.1. Pedestrian pathwaysThe quality of pedestrian footpaths varied between urban neigh-

ourhoods. Some were well maintained with even surfaces andand rails being provided adjacent to any steps along the path,hile others had uneven surfaces with no handrail support for

tairs. Uneven footpath surfaces and steep terrain pose problemsor older people when walking around their neighbourhoods.

I would do a lot more walking if I could walk uphill and down hills.(CS3)

Footpaths in high density areas are often overcrowded andarrow and difficult for older people to negotiate. Some partici-ants noted increasing numbers of runners and bicycle traffic alonghared pedestrian/cycling paths becoming a real and significanthreat to older people.

Yes, cyclists. They are the biggest one. It’s becoming very frighten-ing. A lot of them are very abusive. . .Most of them don’t have abell, so you get frightened for your life, even though you are keep-ing to the left and everything. What I am really concerned about, isthat I feel there’s animosity that’s developing between walkers andcyclists. (CS11)

In some urban neighbourhoods, footpaths are dangerously closeo busy roads where people have fallen and been killed. Also, onhese busy roads, some pedestrian crossings appear not to providenough time for older people to safely cross the road before the

within a neighbourhood with few amenities.

lights change. Fig. 6 below is an overhead view of such an intersec-tion. The land surrounding this intersection has been earmarkedfor significant high rise re-development.

That is the problem, crossing Kingsford Smith Drive. . .There’s lightson the corner with pedestrian crossing. I try to get across as fast asI can and I can’t get across in one change of the lights. People onthe walking sticks haven’t got a hope. . . we have taken it up withthe council. They have increased the time to 2 seconds, but that’sstill not enough. Yes, these lights–we have had one (person), at ourtower, hit by a truck. (CS12)

3.5.2. StreetscapeLack of shade and street seating for those living in Brisbane’s

subtropical climate were evident in some urban neighbourhoods,as was clean and safe public toilets.

It has got no shade. It’s got no seating for older people, strollers I callthem. People who want to stroll rather than – so it’s for, you know,the 15 to 50 age group but they forget about the (ages) beyond that.(CS12)

3.5.3. BuildingsLack of hand rails on steps to be negotiated when entering

and leaving buildings was identified as a problem, as was uncom-fortable and inadequate seating in public shopping areas andbuildings. Difficulty accessing buildings and uncomfortable seatingalso restricts favoured activity.

From the footpath, there’s four/five steps up and then you go into alift or if you are coming through the car park, they is still a step up.

One step up and then there’s two doors to sort of go through. If youwere by yourself in a wheelchair, you probably wouldn’t be able todo it because the doors are very heavy and it’s on a spring and it’sgot a lock and it’s quite narrow. (CS1)

Page 10

168 D. Vine et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

rous i

3

tvaowalavbjatorpd

4

tdsawbdjpat

Fig. 6. An overhead view of a dange

.6. Public transport

Some urban neighbourhoods are poorly serviced by publicransport. Some urban older people: perceive public transport ser-ices to be irregular or unreliable; experience difficulty in physicalccess onto buses, trains or ferries; experience excessive distancer steep topography when travelling to transit nodes or excessiveaiting including transfer times between changes of transport;

nd find timetable and route information confusing. Use of pub-ic transport was also found to be limited to certain destinationsnd locations, such as inner-city travel. The findings from inter-iews illustrated that choice of travel mode was largely affectedy perceptions of convenience related to physical access, seamless

ourneys (perception of inconvenient bus routes or connections)nd journey destination or purpose. Table 2 details the total dis-ance travelled (in km) by each participant, according to the modesf transport used during the monitored week, as well as commentsegarding factors that serve to either enable or constrain partici-ants’ use of public transport (gathered at interview or from traveliary entries).

. Discussion and conclusions

The findings from this study suggest that there is a gap betweenhe rhetoric of neighbourhood amenity that surrounds the highensity living policy agenda and the reality of life within theseettings for older Australian people, particularly in relation to thevailability of and accessibility to neighbourhood amenities withinalking distance. However, availability and access issues to neigh-

ourhood amenities do not appear to lead to older adults beingissatisfied with life within high density contexts. From the sub-

ective data gathered in this study, it is apparent that overall,articipants believe that their neighbourhoods meet their needsnd that they “love” their respective communities. Nevertheless,hese positive perceptions arise within the context of them having

ntersection identified by residents.

access to and extended use of private motor vehicles, as evidencedby the objective map data documenting their driving behaviour.

4.1. Innovative method

The methods used by this study in gathering both subjectiveand objective data that capture participants’ subjective perceptionsof their neighbourhoods and their patterns of movement is a keystrength of this study, with the information each provides havingthe potential to inform policy strategies associated with high den-sity environments. Previous research has provided rich quantitativedata on older people’s trip-making (Mollenkopf, Hieber, & Wahl,2011) or on the physical features of urban environments for olderpeople (Ewing & Handy, 2009) but there has been a lack of researchon the perceptions, preferences and experiences of older peoplewhen venturing out-of-home (Banister & Bowling, 2004; Coughlin,2001; Ziegler & Schwanen, 2011). Rarely are objective and subjec-tive indicators analysed in conjunction with one another (McCreaet al., 2006), thereby precluding simultaneous consideration of thesubjective dimensions of life within neighbourhoods and the actualmovement and participation of residents that occurs within them.The breadth of information gathered from the objective and subjec-tive measures used in this study strengthens the case for using bothand thus acknowledging the importance of the subjective wheninvestigating the objective environment (Pacione, 2003).

4.2. Research highlights

The majority of participants, with the exception of CS5, spentmost of their time at home (see Fig. 2 above). While there can beno generalising of the findings due to the small number of partici-

pants, the average time spent at home by the participant group is inkeeping with previous research (see Brasche & Bischof, 2005; Moss& Lawton, 1982). This is of concern given the benefits derived forolder people from engagement and use of outdoor environments

Page 11

rban

(2

opdnwPtp1toitiat2ptrolhwcipoB2ad

4

fsGlrotdfnriiwthu

aanpwDtsn

D. Vine et al. / Landscape and U

Sugiyama & Ward Thompson, 2007; World Health Organisation,007).

This research demonstrates that the mixed-use neighbourhoodutcomes and better quality public transport systems that best sup-ort an ageing population are not uniform across Brisbane’s highensity neighbourhoods. The research highlights that some urbaneighbourhoods in Brisbane have minimal facilities or services,hile others have the necessary facilities but lack ease of access.

roblems with availability of or access to amenities may explainhe lack of local walking undertaken by the majority of partici-ants. A recent review of empirical literature published between990 and 2010 was undertaken by Rosso and colleagues (2011)hat examined objective measures of the built environment andlder people’s mobility. Rosso et al. (2011) concluded that the directmpact on older people’s mobility by urban design, land use andransportation systems remains unclear due to inconsistent find-ngs across studies. They found more promising evidence in streetnd traffic conditions, intersections and proximity to select loca-ions as the most likely factors to impact mobility (Rosso et al.,011). All of these factors surfaced as having an influence for thearticipants of the current study thereby supporting the quantita-ive studies reviewed by Rosso and colleagues (2011). Key issuesaised by residents included: poor quality or inadequate provisionf walking paths, transport nodes, public open space, street seating,ocal cafes and public toilets; steps to public buildings and lack ofandrails beside steps; competing with cyclists and runners alongalking paths; lack of pedestrian crossings or inadequate time to

ross at traffic lights; ambiguous crossing cues; and close prox-mity to busy roads. These built environment characteristics havereviously been acknowledged as concerns for older people’s out-f-home mobility (Booth, Owen, Bauman, Clavisi, & Leslie, 2000;urton & Mitchell, 2006; Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors,007a, 2007b; Judd et al., 2010). What emerges from this study,s it did for Judd and colleagues (2010), is an uneven standard ofesign, provision of amenities and maintenance of the public realm.

.3. A wider concept of neighbourhood

All residents in this study identified the importance of havingacilities and activities within their urban neighbourhood (con-istent with high density policy agendas), however, the GPS andIS mapping showed these residents to have very low levels of

ocally-based everyday activity within walking distance of theiresidences and that they relied on vehicle transport for the majorityf trips made outside of their homes. Almost all residents undertookheir everyday activities outside of their walkable neighbourhood,espite no obvious barrier of physical incapacity preventing themrom walking in their local areas. When asked to identify theireighbourhood on the Google Earth map during their interviews,esidents indicated a much wider geographic region than theirmmediate walkable neighbourhood (five to fifteen minutes walk-ng distance from their residence). The neighbourhood identified

as in keeping with their everyday activity base – which relied onhe use of a motor vehicle. This suggests an extended neighbour-ood based physically and subjectively on spaces of behaviouralse.

While problems with accessibility and availability of amenitiesre plausible explanations for a lack of local neighbourhood activitynd a preference for the private motor vehicle, there are establishedorms surrounding driving. There is inherent value in cars for oldereople because they represent freedom and ease of movement asell as enjoyment resulting from the act of driving itself (Lord,

esprés, & Ramadier, 2011; Lord & Luxembourg, 2007). This poses

he question as to whether substantial improvements to the acces-ibility and availability of local neighbourhood amenities wouldecessarily result in a substantial reduction in the use and reliance

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171 169

of cars by older people without implementing significant commu-nity engagement strategies aimed at changing norms around caruse and encouraging the value of neighbourhood walking for olderpeople.

4.4. Barriers to public transport

A number of barriers to public transport use were identified forolder people living in Brisbane which included: a lack of servicesin some urban neighbourhoods; terrain or distance to transportnodes; inconvenient bus routes or connections; queues, crowd-ing and lack of seating on buses and at bus stops; problem withnegotiating steps onto public transport and difficulties with walk-ing supports on buses. These findings are consistent with previousresearch on the nature of barriers to the use of public transport byolder people. Broome and colleagues (2009) in their review of theliterature on bus use by older people found that bus design, ser-vice provision and performance, information, attitudes of staff andthe community all affect older people’s use of buses. Only two par-ticipants in this study travelled by bus over the monitored sevenday period and this represented only a small proportion of theirtravel time (see Table 2). The issues raised with the use of bussesin this current study are consistent with those identified in stud-ies reviewed by Broome, McKenna, Fleming, & Worrall (2009). Anissue that was particularly important to one participant in the cur-rent study was level access from the front door of the bus onto theroad-side kerb. Currently, the Brisbane City Council (BCC) has 1006low-floor busses in the Council’s fleet which equates to approxi-mately 85 per cent of the fleet (Brisbane City Council, accessed 22February, 2012). Continuing improvement in public transport ser-vices, access and infrastructure is needed for older people to findpublic transport more attractive and reduce their use of their car.

4.5. Access to everyday amenities

Currently, access to amenities that facilitate participation ineveryday type activities (e.g., retail shopping, hairdressers, medicalservices and the like) appears to be made easy through the availabil-ity and use of the private motor vehicle. With the increased lossesin functioning that occur due to the ageing process, older people’sspatial movement shrinks to the vicinity of their immediate envi-ronment (Weiss, Maantay, & Fahs, 2010). When the older person orhis or her partner can no longer drive, there will be significant prob-lems with access to everyday goods and services unless they livein an accessible, amenity-rich local environment. With availabilityor access issues to amenities including public transport, the loss ofa driving licence would limit older people’s ability to participatein activities outside their local home environment and jeopardisetheir ability to age in place. It becomes imperative that environ-mental factors that negatively impact on older people’s everydayliving are understood and addressed so as to maximise their oppor-tunities to age in place. This area of research and policy is still in itsearly stages however, is gaining increased recognition by Australianand international governments, health and built environment pro-fessionals, and will inevitably continue to grow in importance asthe population ages (Judd et al., 2010).

4.6. Conclusions

The findings of this study highlight the relevance and impor-tance of objectives outlined by the National Heart Foundation (NHF)of Australia if older Australians are to change their behaviour by

driving less and walking more. The NHF (2009) has called for thebuild and retrofit of existing neighbourhoods to increase pedestrianaccess to shops and public transport and to consider the mobilityand access needs of older Australians when planning pedestrian

Page 12

1 rban

iatta

iebtcbsditGtoet

eearnfishouwap

A

(l

R

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

B

70 D. Vine et al. / Landscape and U

nfrastructure, road crossings, public open space, public transportccess and recreational infrastructure. This needs to extend beyondhe planning stage however, to the maintenance of this infrastruc-ure. Their lack of upkeep has repeatedly been shown to negativelyffect older people’s mobility (Judd et al., 2010).

This study used an innovative, mixed-methods approach innvestigating the socio-spatial environment and everyday livedxperiences of twelve older people living in high density neigh-ourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. One limitation of this research ishat it is based on a small sample of older Australians living in oneapital city. Nevertheless, the sample size contributed to the feasi-ility of the innovative approach taken in this study. The use of casetudies has enabled the gathering of comprehensive informationerived from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses link-

ng and relating both subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtainedhrough the interviews) and objective (activity gathered from thePS and GIS and expanded through the individual diaries) indica-

ors. The results therefore provide insight into the lived experiencef a group of older adults living in high density settings and theirxperiences are likely to have relevance to other high density con-exts elsewhere.

This research contributes to a growing body of knowledge thatxplores interactions between residential density and liveabilityspecially as it applies to older people. As they continue to agend become less able to drive a motor vehicle, older people willequire more appropriate service provision within their local urbaneighbourhood in order to remain living in their own homes and

amiliar neighbourhoods for as long as possible. These findings havemplications for landscape planning, design and management ofervices, facilities and infrastructure that serve older people. Byighlighting issues that impact on the liveability and sustainabilityf older people as high density residents, this research furthers ournderstanding of the specific landscape planning and design factorshich make the urban neighbourhood more liveable and sustain-

ble and can thus inform actionable and implementable policies,rogrammes and designs.

cknowledgement

This research was funded by an Australian Research CouncilARC) Linkage Project, “The neglected dimension of communityiveability: Impact on social connectedness and active ageing”.

eferences

dler, G., & Rottunda, S. (2006). Older adults’ perspectives on driving cessation.Journal of Aging Studies, 20(3), 227–235.

lsnih, R., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). The mobility and accessibility expectations ofseniors in an aging population. Transportation Research Part A, 37, 903–916.

nderson, R. E., Carter, I. E., & Lowe, G. (1999). Human behavior in the social environ-ment: A social systems approach. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

ustralian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). General social survey (GSS): Summary resultsAustralia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS].

ustralian Local Government Association. (2006). Age-friendly built environments:Opportunities for local government. Canberra: Australian Local Government Asso-ciation.

anister, D., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: The transport dimen-sion. Transport Policy, 11(2), 105–115.

arclays Wealth (2010) Retirement shunned by ‘Nevertiree’ wealthy, saysnew global report Retrieved 29 March 2011, 2011, from http://www.barclayswealth.com/americas/about-us/news/retirement-shunned-by-nevertiree-wealthy-says-new-global-report.htm.

eard, J. R., & Petitot, C. (2010). Ageing and urbanization: Can cities be designed tofoster active ageing? Public Health Reviews, 32(2), 1–18.

ehan, K., Maoh, H., & Kanaroglou, P. (2008). Smart growth strategies transporta-

tion and urban sprawl: Simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario. The CanadianGeographer, 52(3), 291–308.

erke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., & Larson, E. B. (2007).Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in olderpersons. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 486–492.

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171

Booth, M. L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O., & Leslie, E. (2000). Social–cognitiveand perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in olderAustralians. Preventive Medicine, 31(1), 15–22.

Brasche, S., & Bischof, W. (2005). Daily time spent indoors in German homes –Baseline data for the assessment of indoor exposure of German occupants. Inter-national Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 208(4), 247–253.

Brisbane City Council. Retrieved from: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/buses/bus-accessibility/index.htm

Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J., & Worrall, L. (2009). Bus use and older peo-ple: A literature review applying the Person–Environment–Occupation modelin macro practice. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16(1), 3–12.

Burton, E., & Mitchell, L. (2006). Inclusive urban design: Streets for life. Oxford: Archi-tectural Press.

Coughlin, J. (2001). Transportation and older persons: Perceptions and preferences.Washington, DC: AARP.

Day, R. (2010). Environmental justice and older age: Consideration of a qual-itative neighbourhood-based study. Environment and Planning A, 42(11),2658–2673.

Department of Health and Ageing (2006). A community for all ages: Building thefuture: The report on the findings and recommendations of the national speakersseries. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Ewing, R., & Handy, S. (2009). Measuring the unmeasurable: Urban design qualitiesrelated to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14(1), 65–84.

Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., & Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health: Design-ing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older people.Ageing & Society, 24(5), 675–691.

Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12),2111–2124.

Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., & Saiz, A. (2001). Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geography,1(1), 27–50.

Hamnett, C. (2005). Social polarisation in global cities: Theory and evidence. In N.R. Fyfe, & J. T. Kenny (Eds.), The urban geography reader. London; New York:Routledge.

Harrison, A., & Ragland, D. R. (2003). Consequences of driving reduction or cessationfor older adults. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the TransportationResearch Board, 1843, 96–104.

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (2007a). Older people and the outdoors, fromhttp://www.idgo.ac.uk/older people outdoors/index.htm.

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (2007b). What are the critical issues, fromhttp://www.idgo.ac.uk/older people outdoors/critical issues.htm.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. London: Jonathan Cape.Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., & Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling,

land and neighbourhood use by older home owners. In AHURI final report no. 144.Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWSResearch Centre.

Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of neighbourhood. Urban Studies,38(12), 2103–2110.

Kendig, H. (2003). Directions in environmental gerontology: A multidisciplinaryfield. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 611–614.

Lee, C., & Moudon, A. V. (2004). Physical activity and environment research in thehealth field: Implications for urban and transportation planning practice andresearch. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2), 147–181.

Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., & Stimson, R. (2007). Regional variations in walking fordifferent purposes: The southeast Queensland quality of life study. Environmentand Behavior, 39(4), 557–577.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods. Melbourne, Vic: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Lloyd, K., & Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urbanenvironment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339–356.

Lord, S., Després, C., & Ramadier, T. (2011). When mobility makes sense: A qual-itative and longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 31(1), 52–61.

Lord, S., & Luxembourg, N. (2007). The mobility of elderly residents living in suburbanterritories. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 20(4), 103–121.

Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). Whatmakes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Aus-tralasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116–121.

McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link betweenobjective and subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research inQuality of Life, 1(1), 79–96.

Mollenkopf, H., Hieber, A., & Wahl, H.-W. (2011). Continuity and changein older adults’ perceptions of out-of-home mobility over ten years:A qualitative–quantitative approach. Ageing & Society, 31(05), 782–802.

Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M., & Kaspar, M.(2002). The role of driving in maintaining mobility in later life: A European view.Gerontechnology, 2(1), 231–250.

Moss, M. S., & Lawton, M. P. (1982). Time budgets of older people: A window on fourlifestyles. Journal of Gerontology, 37(1), 115–123.

Myers, D. (1987). Community-relevant measurement of quality of life: A focus on

local trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 108–125.

National Heart Foundation of Australia. (2009). Blueprint for an active Australia. Mel-bourne: NHF.

Neal, P. (2003). Urban villages and the making of communities. London: Spon Pressw/the Prince’s Foundation.

Page 13

rban

P

P

P

Q

R

S

S

S

S

S

Environment, 3(1), 1–17.

D. Vine et al. / Landscape and U

acione, M. (2003). Introduction on urban environmental quality and human well-being. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 1–3.

eace, S., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2011). ‘Option recognition’ in later life: Variationsin ageing in place. Ageing & Society, 31(5), 734–757.

eace, S., Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., & Oswald, F. (2007). Environment and ageing.In J. Bond (Ed.), European perspectives on gerontology. London: Sage PublicationsLtd.

uinn, J., Judd, B., Olsberg, D. a., & Demirbilek, O. (2009). Dwelling, land andneighbourhood use by older home owners. In AHURI positioning paper no. 111.Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWSResearch Centre.

osso, A. L., Auchincloss, A. H., & Michael, Y. L. (2011). The urban built environmentand mobility in older adults: A comprehensive review. Journal of Aging Research,http://dx.doi.org/10.4061/2011/816106, 10 pp.

chwanen, T., & Ziegler, F. (2011). Wellbeing, independence and mobility: An intro-duction. Ageing & Society, 31(5), 719–733.

hoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., et al. (2011).Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home mobilityof older adults with differing cognitive functioning. Ageing & Society, 31(5),849–869.

mith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods: Place attachment and socialexclusion. Bristol, UK/Portland, OR: Policy.

outhworth, M. (2005). Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning andDevelopment, 131(4), 246–257.

ugiyama, T., & Ward Thompson, C. (2007). Outdoor environments, activity and thewell-being of older people: Conceptualising environmental support. Environ-ment and Planning A, 39(8), 1943–1960.

Planning 107 (2012) 159– 171 171

Therese, S. A., Buys, L., Bell, L., & Miller, E. (2010). The role of land use and psycho-social factors in high density residents’ work travel mode choices: Implicationsfor sustainable transport policy. World Review of Intermodal TransportationResearch, 3(1–2), 46–72.

TranSystem Incorporated (2008). 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, user’s manual, fromhttp://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20v1.1.pdf.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (2008). A state of live-ability: An inquiry into enhancing Victoria’s liveability, VictorianCompetition and Efficiency Commission’s final report. Retrieved from:http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/Govtresponse-liveability/$File/Govt%20response%20-%20liveability.pdf

Wahl, H.-W., & Weisman, G. D. (2003). Environmental gerontology at the beginningof the new millennium: Reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoreticaldevelopment,. Gerontologist, 43(5), 616–627.

Webber, R. (2007). The metropolitan habitus: Its manifestations, locations, and con-sumption profiles. Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 182–207.

Webber, S. C., Porter, M. M., & Menec, V. H. (2010). Mobility in older adults: Acomprehensive framework. The Gerontologist, 50(4), 443–450.

Weiss, R., Maantay, J. A., & Fahs, M. (2010). Promoting active urban aging: A mea-surement approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults. Cities and the

World Health Organisation. (2007). Global age friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: WHO.Ziegler, F., & Schwanen, T. (2011). ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’:

An exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing & Society,31(05), 758–781.