Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:38:05.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meanings of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’: constructing versus attaching to places

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2017

SUSAN VAN HEES ,
KLASIEN HORSTMAN ,
MARIA JANSEN  and
DIRK RUWAARD
SUSAN VAN HEES*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Academic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands.
KLASIEN HORSTMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Health Ethics and Society, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
MARIA JANSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. Academic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands.
DIRK RUWAARD
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
*
Address for correspondence: Susan van Hees, Department of Health Services Research, Postbus 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands E-mail: s.vanhees@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Western welfare states, notions of age-friendly communities and ageing-in-place are increasingly important in new health policies. In the Netherlands, care reforms are modifying the former welfare state to be more participatory; local governments are seeking collaborative solutions. Municipalities and housing, care and welfare organisations in the southern part of the country developed the concept of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’, envisioned as places where older people can age-in-place. Although many scholars have used the concept ageing-in-place in their studies of neighbourhoods, we aim to unravel this concept further by exploring how this particular ageing policy plays out in practice. This paper explores what the development of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’ means in relation to notions of ageing-in-place and age-friendly communities. We used ethnography (interviews, observations and focus groups) to reveal how, on the one hand, the policy makers, housing, care and welfare directors and representatives of older people, as developers of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’ and, on the other hand, older people, give meaning to places to age-in-place. It becomes clear that ageing-in-place has a different meaning in policy discourses than in practice. While developers mainly considered place as something construable, older people emotionally attached to place through lived experiences.

Keywords

ageing-in-placeage-friendly neighbourhoodsplace attachmentolder peopleparticipation
Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 1148 - 1173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. 2009. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Bond, J., Peace, S., Dittmann-Kohli, F. and Westerhof, G. J. (eds) 2007. Ageing in Society: European Perspectives on Gerontology. Sage, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudiny, K. 2013. ‘Active ageing’: from empty rhetoric to effective policy tool. Ageing & Society, 33, 6, 1077–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buffel, T., de Donder, L., Phillipson, C., Dury, S., de Witte, N. and Verté, D. 2014. Social participation among older adults living in medium-sized cities in Belgium: the role of neighbourhood perceptions. Health Promotion International, 29, 4, 655–68.Google Scholar
Buffel, T., Phillipson, C. and Scharf, T. 2013. Experiences of neighbourhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Ageing & Society, 33, 1, 89–109.Google Scholar
Bülow, M. H. and Söderqvist, T. 2014. Successful ageing: a historical overview and critical analysis of a successful concept. Journal of Aging Studies, 31, 139–49.Google Scholar
Coleman, T. and Kearns, R. 2015. The role of bluespaces in experiencing place, aging and wellbeing: insights from Waiheke Island, New Zealand. Health & Place, 35, 206–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cresswell, T. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dahlin-Ivanoff, S., Haak, M., Fänge, A. and Iwarsson, S. 2007. The multiple meaning of home as experienced by very old Swedish people. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14, 1, 25–32.Google Scholar
Depp, C. A. and Jeste, D. V. 2006. Definitions and predictors of successful aging: a comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 1, 6–20.Google Scholar
Despres, C. 1991. The meaning of home: literature review and directions for future research and theoretical development. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 8, 2, 96–115.Google Scholar
Eriksson, M. and Emmelin, M. 2013. What constitutes a health-enabling neighborhood? A grounded theory situational analysis addressing the significance of social capital and gender. Social Science & Medicine, 97, 112–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, P. J. 2011. Natural neighborhood networks – important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place. Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 3, 263–71.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. 2000. A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1, 463–96.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. 2002. What buildings do. Theory and Society, 31, 1, 35–74.Google Scholar
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. 2000. Cultures of Ageing: Self, Citizen and the Body. Prentice-Hall, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Hacker, B. 2009. Hybridization instead of clustering: transformation processes of welfare policies in Central and Eastern Europe. Social Policy & Administration, 43, 2, 152–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heathcote, E. 2007. Old age and the city. British Medical Journal, 343, 1–3.Google Scholar
Hesdahl, B. and Sollet, O. 2011. Transitieplan Voor Elkaar in Parkstad + deeltransities [Transition Plan Voor Elkaar in Parkstad + Sub transitions]. Available online at http://docplayer.nl/10671232-Transitieplan-voor-elkaar-in-parkstad-deeltransities.html [December 20 2016].Google Scholar
Hillcoat-Nallétamby, S. and Ogg, J. 2014. Moving beyond ‘ageing in place’: older people's dislikes about their home and neighbourhood environments as a motive for wishing to move. Ageing & Society, 34, 10, 1771–96.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. [1961] 1992. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
Joseph, A. and Chalmers, A. I. 1995. Growing old in place: a view from rural New Zealand. Health & Place, 1, 2, 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, L. 2008. Finding space beyond variables: an analytical review of urban space and social inequalities. Spaces for Difference: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 2, 29–50.Google Scholar
Keyes, L., Phillips, D. R., Sterling, E., Manegdeg, T., Kelly, M., Trimble, G. and Mayerik, C. 2014. Transforming the way we live together: a model to move communities from policy to implementation. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 1/2, 117–30.Google Scholar
Kohon, J. and Carder, P. 2014. Exploring identity and aging: auto-photography and narratives of low income older adults. Journal of Aging Studies, 30, 47–55.Google Scholar
Kroneman, M., Cardol, M. and Friele, R. 2012. (De)centralization of social support in six Western European countries. Health Policy, 106, 1, 76–87.Google Scholar
Lager, D. 2015. Perspectives on Ageing in Place: Older Adults’ Experiences of Everyday Life in Urban Neighbourhoods. University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lamont, M. and Molnár, V. 2002. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassen, A. J. and Moreira, T. 2014. Unmaking old age: political and cognitive formats of active ageing. Journal of Aging Studies, 30, 33–46.Google Scholar
Lawton, M. P. and Nahemow, L. 1973. Ecology and the aging process. In Eisdorfer, C. and Lawton, M. P. (eds), The Psychology of Adult Development and Ageing. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 619–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M. and Bartlett, H. 2009. What makes a community age-friendly: a review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28, 3, 116–21.Google Scholar
Means, R. and Evans, S. 2012. Communities of place and communities of interest? An exploration of their changing role in later life. Ageing & Society, 32, 8, 1300–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menec, V. H., Hutton, L., Newall, N., Nowicki, S., Spina, J. and Veselyuk, D. 2015. How ‘age-friendly’ are rural communities and what community characteristics are related to age-friendliness? The case of rural Manitoba, Canada. Ageing & Society, 35, 1, 203–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G. and Eales, J. 2011. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 30, 3, 479–93.Google Scholar
Milligan, C. 2009. There's No Place Like Home: Place and Care in an Ageing Society. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, UK.Google Scholar
Morenoff, J. D. and Lynch, J. W. 2004. What makes a place healthy? Neighborhood influences on racial/ethnic disparities in health over the life course. In National Research Council (US) Panel on Race, Ethnicity, and Health in Later Life, Anderson, N. B., Bulatao, R. A. and Cohen, B. (eds), Critical Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Differences in Health in Late Life. National Academies Press, Washington DC, 406–49.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Tonkens, E. 2011. Participation, Responsibility and Choice: Summoning the Active Citizen in Western European Welfare States. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Nosraty, L., Jylhä, M., Raittila, T. and Lumme-Sandt, K. 2015. Perceptions by the oldest old of successful aging, Vitality 90+ Study. Journal of Aging Studies, 32, 50–8.Google Scholar
Nowak, S. J. M., Molema, C., Baan, C. A., Oosting, S. J., Vaandrager, L., Hop, P. and de Bruin, S. R. 2015. Decentralisation of long-term care in the Netherlands: the case of day care at green care farms for people with dementia. Ageing & Society, 35, 4, 704–24.Google Scholar
Olsberg, D. and Winters, M. 2005. Ageing in Place: Intergenerational and Intrafamilial Housing Transfers and Shifts in Later Life. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Oudshoorn, N. and Pinch, T. 2003. How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology (Inside Technology). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Peace, S., Holland, C. and Kellaher, L. 2011. ‘Option recognition’ in later life: variations in ageing in place. Ageing & Society, 31, 5, 734–57.Google Scholar
Phillipson, C. 2007. The ‘elected’ and the ‘excluded’: sociological perspectives on the experience of place and community in old age. Ageing & Society, 27, 3, 321–42.Google Scholar
Plouffe, L. and Kalache, A. 2010. Towards global age-friendly cities: determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health, 87, 5, 733–9.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. and Mort, M. 2009. Reshaping what counts as care: older people, work and new technologies. ALTER – European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 3, 2, 138–58.Google Scholar
Rowles, G. D. 1983. Place and personal identity in old age: observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 4, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowles, G. D. 1993. Evolving images of place in aging and ‘aging in place’. Generations, 17, 2, 65–70.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, R. L. and Parmelee, P. 1992. Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In Altman, I. and Low, S. M. (eds), Place Attachment. Plenum Press, New York, 139–63.Google Scholar
Satariano, W. A., Scharlach, A. E. and Lindeman, D. 2014. Aging, place, and technology toward improving access and wellness in older populations. Journal of Aging and Health, 26, 8, 1373–89.Google Scholar
Singh, N. 2008. Decentralization and public delivery of health care services in India. Health Affairs, 27, 4, 991–1001.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, A. and Sixsmith, J. 2008. Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing International, 32, 3, 219–35.Google Scholar
Sixsmith, J., Sixsmith, A., Malmgren Fänged, A., Naumanne, D., Kucseraf, C., Tomsone, S., Haak, M., Dahlin-Ivanoff, S. and Woolrych, R. 2014. Healthy ageing and home: the perspectives of very old people in five European countries. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 1–9.Google Scholar
Thrift, N. 2008. Space: the fundamental stuff of geography. In Clifford, N., Holloway, S. L., Rice, S. P. and Valentine, G. (eds), Key Concepts in Geography. Sage, London, 95–107.Google Scholar
Trell, E.-M. and van Hoven, B. 2010. Making sense of place: exploring creative and (inter)active research methods with young people. Fennia – International Journal of Geography, 188, 1, 91–104.Google Scholar
Walker, A. 2008. Commentary: The emergence and application of active aging in Europe. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 21, 1, 75–93.Google Scholar
Walton, E. 2014. Vital places: facilitators of behavioral and social health mechanisms in low-income neighborhoods. Social Science & Medicine, 122, 1–12.Google Scholar
Wang, C. and Burris, M. A. 1997. Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24, 3, 369–87.Google Scholar
Wiles, J. L., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J. and Allen, R. E. S. 2011. The meaning of ‘ageing in place’ to older people. The Gerontologist, 52, 3, 357–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winterton, R. and Warburton, J. 2011. Models of care for socially isolated older rural carers: barriers and implications. Rural and Remote Health, 11, 3, 1678.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 2002. Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. World Health Organization, Geneva. Available online at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/67215/1/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf [Accessed 29 October 2015].Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 2007. Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. World Health Organization, Geneva. Available online at http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf [Accessed 29 October 2015].Google Scholar
Zeitler, E. and Buys, L. 2015. Mobility and out-of-home activities of older people living in suburban environments: ‘Because I'm a driver, I don't have a problem’. Ageing & Society, 35, 4, 785–808.Google Scholar