Age-friendly cities - residents’ assessment of a traditional neighborhood in Chennai

Kavya Palaniappan; Karteek Guturu

doi:10.57655/EXLIBRIS_1_2024_2

Published : 2024-09-30

Vol. 26 No. 1 (2024)

Age-friendly cities - residents’ assessment of a traditional neighborhood in Chennai

Kavya Palaniappan

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4613-048X

Karteek Guturu

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6402-3266

DOI: https://doi.org/10.57655/EXLIBRIS_1_2024_2

Abstract

The population of urban older adults is rising rapidly, and it is challenging for older adults to age actively in place, especially in the Indian context. Most older adults are expected to stay indoors, but their needs differ. They crave social interaction, and public spaces are spatial manifestations. Older adults can be independent when neighborhoods support them to age in place actively. Analysis of the spatial dimension of neighborhoods using mapping and assessing the neighborhood’s quality would help determine the factors that influence aging in the place for urban older adults. An analysis of the perceived neighborhood by older adults in the Indian context to actively age in place is different, and it is essential to understand how the community facilities are present and how they can enhance the well-being of older adults. The article presents the results of a survey with 62 people (55 women and 7 men) over 55 years of age, aimed at assessing their neighborhood environment. The study was conducted with residents of Mylapore, a district in the central part of Chennai, India. It is one of the oldest residential districts in the city. Understanding the parameters that influence aging in place would help create cities that are friendly for older adults rather than forcing them to stay in care institutions that would take away their independence and cause them to lose their identity in their neighborhood. Although neighborhood environments may support active aging, the research presented in the article indicates that neighborhoods do not facilitate this process in Mylapore as they grow older.

Keywords:

active aging, aging in place, neighborhood environment, older adults, well-being

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

PDF-pełny tekst artykułu

Citation rules

Palaniappan, K., & Guturu, K. (2024). Age-friendly cities - residents’ assessment of a traditional neighborhood in Chennai. Exlibris Social Gerontology Journal, 26(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.57655/EXLIBRIS_1_2024_2

Altmetric indicators

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Adlakha, D. K. (2020). Neighbourhood supports for active ageing in urban India. Psychology & Developing Societies, 32(2), 254–277.

Alexander, C. (2018). A pattern language. Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press.

Alidoust, S. B. (2017). The spatial dimensions of neighbourhood. How older people define it? Journal of Urban Design, 22(5), 547-567.

Aroogh, M. D. (2020). Social participation of older adults. A concept analysis. PubMed, 8(1), 55–72.

Bedimo-Rung, A. L. (2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 159–168.

Bowling, A. S.-T. (2007). Quality of life among older people with poor functioning. The influence of perceived control over life. Age And Ageing, 36(3), 310–315.

Buffel, T. &. (2016). Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations. Cities, 55, 94–100.

Callahan, J. J. (1993). Aging in place. Routledge.

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (1967). A guide to special housing for aged people, Research Report 245, National Building Research.

Carr, K. W. (2013). Universal design. A step toward successful aging. Journal of Aging Research, 1–8.

Chao, T. Y. (2017). Planning for greying cities. Age-friendly city planning and design research and practice. Routledge.

Forsyth, A. M. (2019). Improving housing and neighborhoods for the vulnerable. Older people, small households, urban design, and planning. Urban Design International, 24(3), 171–186.

Frye, A. (2014). Growing old in the city. Journal of Urban Design, 19(3), 269–274.

Keeling. (1999). Ageing in (a New Zealand) place. Ethnography, policy and practice. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 95–114.

Kiyota, E. (2009). People-nature interactions. The therapeutic role of nature in elderly residents’ everyday experience in a long-term care facility. University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

Lee, Y. J. (2019). Socially integrative planning characteristics of elderly housing in “Share Kanazawa” community village of Japan. KIEAE Journal, 19(2) , 5–15.

Levasseur, M. G. (2015). Importance of proximity to reSources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults. BMC Public Health, 15(1).

Lewis, C. &. (2020, September). Aging in place and the places of aging. A longitudinal study. Journal of Aging Studies, 54, 100870.

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city, MIT Press.

Marquet, O. &.-G. (2015). Neighbourhood vitality and physical activity among the elderly. The role of walkable environments on active ageing in Barcelona, Spain. Social Science & Medicine, 135, 24–30.

Martinez, L. E. (2020). More than just a room. A scoping review of the impact of homesharing for older adults. . Innovation in Ageing, 4(2).

Matter. (2020, December 14). Houses of Mylapore. thinkMATTER. https://thinkmatter.in/2017/06/02/housesofmylapore/

NSO. (2021). Elderly in India. New Delhi. National Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Government of India.

Ratnayake, M. L. (2022). Aging in place. Are we prepared? Public Health, 8(3), 28–31.

Sommerlad, A. K. (2023). Social participation and risk of developing dementia. Nat Aging 3, 532–545.

UN. (2015). World Population Ageing. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.

Van Dijk, H. M. (2014). The ideal neighbourhood for ageing in place as perceived by frail and non-frail community-dwelling older people. Ageing & Society, 35(8), 1771–1795.

Van Melik, R. &. (2017). Older people’s self–selected spaces of encounter in urban aging environments in the Netherlands. City & Community, 16(3) , 284–303.

Wahl, H. W., & Weisman, G. D. (2003). Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the new millennium. Reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical development. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 616-627.

Wang, S. Y. (2022). Older people’s usage pattern, satisfaction with community facility and well-being in urban old districts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10297.

WHO. (2015). Measuring the Age-friendly cities. A guide to using core indicators. WHO.

Wiles, J. A. (2009). Older people and their social spaces. A study of well-being and attachment to place in Aotearoa New Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 68(4), 664–671.

Wiles, J. L. (2011). The meaning of “Aging in place” to older people. Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366.

Woolrych, R. D. (2020). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods. Exploring place insideness amongst older aduts in India, Brazil and the United Kingdom. Psychology & Developing Societies, 32(2), 201-223.

Yi, H. N. (2022). Effects of neighbourhood features on healthy aging in place. The composition and context of urban parks and traditional local coffee shops in Singapore. BMC Geriatrics, 22(1).