Speaker
Description
In contemporary society, the growing demographic of older adults and rapid urbanization make rethinking the relationship between health and the urban environment crucial (WHO, 2017). Housing quality and organization of urban spaces significantly impact older adults’ physical and mental health, shaping their aging trajectories (Oswald et al., 2011). This underscores the need for innovative, inclusive housing and urban models, challenging ageist stereotypes that equate aging with assisted living (Phillipson, 2013).
Aging in Place (AIP), which aims to support older adults in maintaining social connections and fostering meaningful relationships within supportive environments (WHO, 2007), could represent a paradigm shift. It offers a framework for understanding how aging trajectories lead to varying quality of life outcomes depending on residential and urban contexts by integrating perspectives on healthy aging and urban health (Lewis & Buffel, 2020; Yarker, Doran & Buffel, 2024). Psychologically, AIP focuses not only on modifying physical spaces to accommodate aging but also on the connection between urban environments and health development (WHO, 2017). Contemporary psychological research, such as the lifespan development approach (Morganti, 2024) and Stanford University’s "New Map of Life" (longevity.stanford.edu), supports this perspective. Moreover, research highlights the role of residential living, as well as cultural, economic, and social structures, in promoting healthy longevity (Rosenwohl-Mack et al., 2018). Addressing the complexity of AIP requires a multidisciplinary approach in urban analysis and public policy-making. The Italian national research project “CASA” exemplifies this methodology by integrating demography, statistics, psychology, and urban planning to examine housing and urban vulnerability. Focusing on Bergamo, a medium-sized city in Italy, CASA aims to develop strategies applicable to similar urban contexts. The project investigates how urban characteristics influence aging trajectories, offering insights for creating inclusive, age-friendly environments.
The psychological perspective within the CASA project, as presented here, provides a situated understanding of place, emphasizing the dynamic individual-environment relationship (Butti & Morganti, 2024). This redefinition of AIP proposes a novel conceptualization in which contexts are defined as sets of affordances—opportunities for action (Gibson, 1977)—that shape and are shaped by individuals who are in interaction and by interacting within the contexts. This theoretical framework raises research questions concerning the influence of urban environments on healthy aging and the potential creation of barriers that increase individual’s vulnerability. The analysis is underpinned by a bio-psycho-social-ecological lifespan approach, as initially conceptualized by Bronfenbrenner (1979), encompassing both individual experiences and broader systemic factors. It explores how older adults perceive and manage their housing and aging processes in relation to healthy longevity.
A comprehensive investigation into the dynamics of neighborhoods in Bergamo is being conducted, encompassing five distinct spatial regions within the city. Using a mixed-method approach, the research combines quantitative and qualitative data collection, including in-depth interviews, surveys, and focus groups, ensuring a nuanced exploration of individual-environment interactions.
Preliminary findings underscore salient themes, namely autonomy, independence, sociality, and physical health. The housing choices of participants reflect a strong desire for independence, indicating a sense of empowerment. However, it is important to note that a strong sense of place attachment can also lead to vulnerability if individuals lack awareness and responsibility for their aging processes. These findings emphasize the imperative for incorporating residents' voices into urban and housing planning. Understanding the constraints and possibilities of different environments is essential, considering the physical and mental conditions of inhabitants and the affordances available to them.
Understanding how urban spaces function as either constraints or enablers of daily life requires observing them through this lens. This analysis will facilitate a deeper understanding of how cities, along with their structural and relational elements, can become environments conducive to healthy aging.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Butti, S., & Morganti, F. (under review). The Thin Space between Individuals and Contexts as Affordance for Healthy Longevity: A Psychological Perspective for Aging in Place Studies.
Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. Hilldale, USA, 1(2), 67–82.
Lewis, C., & Buffel, T. (2020). Aging in place and the places of aging: A longitudinal study. Journal of aging studies, 54, 100870.
Morganti, F. (2024). Longevity as a responsibility: Constructing healthy aging by enacting within contexts over the entire lifespan. Geriatrics, 9(4), 93.
Oswald, F., Jopp, D., Rott, C., & Wahl, H. W. (2011). Is aging in place a resource for or risk to life satisfaction? The Gerontologist, 51(2), 238–250.
Phillipson, C. (2013). Ageing. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Rosenwohl-Mack, A., Schumacher, K., Fang, M. L., & Fukuoka, Y. (2018). Experiences of aging in place in the United States. Systematic reviews, 7(1), 1-7.
WHO (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide.
WHO (2017). Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health.
Yarker, S., Doran, P., & Buffel, T. (2024). Theorizing “place” in aging in place: The need for territorial and relational perspectives. The Gerontologist, 64(2), gnad002.
| Keywords | Aging in place; age-friendly city; healthy longevity; empowerment; social inclusion |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
