International Association for Person-Environment Studies (IAPS)Vienna July 7th 2004

Sébastien Lord, B.Sc.URB, M.Sc.ARCHDoctorate student (Ph.D. ATDR)

École supérieure d’aménagement du territoire de l’Université LavalÉcole d’architecture de l’Université Lavalsebastien.lord@crad.ulaval.ca

Aging at Home in SuburbsA comparison of three age groups with regards to territorial mobility and residential aspirations

1. Research’ object and contextAging in place – Mobility – Coping strategies

2. BackgroundLongitudinal approach for aging studiesAspirations and residential preferences of elders in suburbQuality of life, life course and mobility

3. Research’ designObjectives and theoretical approachesMethodology and dataHypothesis

4. Preliminary results and next stepsResidential aspirationsHousing preferencesMobility

Interdisciplinary doctorate researchPlanning - Geography - Gerontology

1.Research’s objectand context

1. Object and research contextHousing - Mobility - Coping strategies

Questioning quality of life offered in suburbs for aging in place?

(Greenwald, 2002; Hare, 1993; Lord, 2004; Patterson, 1997; Weisman, 2002)

A

B

Form (ARCH / URB)

Functional configuration

Automobile dependency

2. Background

1. Emergence of gerontology as a “multi-disciplinary” discipline. Environmental Gerontology focus on 3 themes:(Bengston et al., 1997; Kendig, 2003; Shoots, 1996; Wahl, 2003; Wahl & Weisman, 2003)

Private home environment Planned environments Residential decisions

2. Limited place of environmental dimensions in social and psychological theories on aging.(Kendig, 2003; Wahl & Weisman, 2003)

“Lawton paradigm” in environmental gerontology

3. Recent interest for inclusion of spatial and temporal dimensions in theoretical approaches.(Lawton, 1998; Golant, 1998; Wahl & Weisman, 2003)

Toward dynamic frameworks

2. Knowledge about agingFrom aged to age and aging studies

1. Research unanimity about desire to age in place for today’s elderly; interest in baby-boomers behaviour.(AARP, 1996, 2000; Davison, 1993; Lord, 2004; Roy, 1996)

2. In this context, in regards about aspirations and residential preferences, quality of life issues are relevant:(Lord, 2004; Schaie, 2003; Wahl, 2003)

“Older olds” Specific contexts (suburbs, rural, etc.) Capacity to access mobility

3. Many researches on aging in place are now focusing on mobility questions, at intersection of “indoor” / “outdoor”.(Alsnih and Hensher, 2003; Schaie, 2003; Waldorf, 2002; Wahl, 2003)

Keep elderly mobile Find alternatives options to car dependency Increase the security of all drivers Ecological dimensions

2. Aging in place issuesConsequences of residential aspirations

2. Research questionsEvolution of mobility with aging

1. What are the functional and experiential transformations of the elder’ mobility territory when aging in suburb?

How the mobility territory is transforming in a aging process and what are the interrelations between mobility and residential trajectories of the elder?

2. What are the consequences of mobility diminution/lost on the residential experience?

3. At the same time, what are the mobility territory characteristics following a relocalisation?

1. Recent researches underline the misunderstanding of the elderly mobility. Elders move, but differently.(Hilderbrand, 2003; Rosenblom, 2003, Schaie, 2003)

2. Heterogeneous patterns observed in literature. However diminution tendencies in area and frequencies with aging.(Alsnih & Hensher, 2003; Hilderbrand, 2003; Rosenblom, 2003; Smith & Sylvestre, 2001; Waldorf, 2002)

3. In old age, access to mobility must be considered beyond frequencies or O/D, but also as social insertion.(Daris, 2002; Schaie, 2003)

4. Some researches propose to study mobility in the elderly by experiential approaches.(Baker et al., 2003; Daris, 2002; Hilderbrand, 2003; Pinson, 2001)

Places system (Pinson, 2001) Home territory (Morley, 2002) Life-Space (Baker et al., 2003) Activity approach (Hiderbrand, 2003)

2. Quality of life and mobilityKnowledge about elderly mobility

2. HypothesisMobility and residential trajectories

Transformations in elders’ mobility territory can be seen in a aging process.

Mobility is transforming by the adaptation of elder to his physical and environmental context in relation with his needs / limitations.

1. Diminution area / frequencies / etc.2. Modifications in schedules / places visited / modes / etc.3. Seeking for help to maintain mobility

From a threshold, adaptation elder-environment is not possible, there is choice / obligation to move or modify living arrangement.

3. Research’ design

1. Interrelation between person and environment. Construction of elder’ reality by this interaction.(Piaget, 1995; Moser, 2002)

2. Life-course approaches limits, as a “normative” way to account the complexity of aging process.(Bengston et al., 1997)

3. Psychological, physiological and societal aging steps where the aging person is in a continuous individual adaptation.

3. Theoretical approaches“Home” and mobility contexts

PhysicalEnvironment

SocialEnvironment

SocietalEnvironment

AttachmentSatisfaction

Etc.NormsIdeologies

Etc..

PoliticsPlanning

Etc. Meanings

Temporal dimension

3. MethodologyTriangulation principles

Qualitativemethods

« Experience »

Quantitativemethods

« Generalization »

Spatialanalysis

« Localisation »

Comparisons Temporal aspects Social aspects Spatial aspects

Tend

encie

s co

mpa

rison

s Individual mobility territory

Tendencies localisation

Individual mobility

territories

Individual mobility

territories

3. Longitudinal approachMonitoring evolution of mobility

Qualitative

Spatial

Quantitative

1999 data

In-depthinterviews

Individual mobility

territories

O / Ddata

2005 data

In-depthinterviews

3. Merging two masters researchesQualitative analysis

Aged from 55 to 82All suburbs

(n=102)

173 in-depth interviews5 suburbs

Homeowners aged from 20 to 82

Aged from 65 to 82All suburbs

(n=56)

Aged from 25 to 822 suburbs

(n=95)

Attitudes, aspirations and residential

preferences

Social-mobility typology of

suburbanites

(Lord, 2004) (Daris, 2002)

3. Sample description102 suburbanites homeowners

Âge des répondants

2622

12

4

16

10 11

1

55-64 ans 65-74 ans 75 ans et plus nd

Hommes Femmes

Structure de ménage des répondants de 55 ans et plus

39

183 4

13 7 135

Couple Couple aveccohabitation

Personne seule Personne seuleavec

cohabitation

Homme Femme

Revenus des répondants

18

35

11

26

12

Moins de 30 000$

30 000$ à 50 000$

50 000$ à 70 000$

Plus de 70 000$

nd

3 age groups with majority of men Limited income per household

Majority of couples, many in cohabitation In place for more than 30 yearsNombre d'années passées dans la maison et dans

le quartier pour les aînés de banlieue

22%16%

44%

19%22%

18%

44%

17%

20 ans et moins 21-30 ans 31-40 ans Plus de 40 ans

Dans la maison Dans le quartier

4. Preliminary results -A first look at merged data

-1) Residential aspirations2) Residential preferences

3) Mobility patterns

4. Residential aspirationsBeyond desire to age in place

Lieu de résidence des répondants1999-2004

83% 81%

61%

17% 19%

39%

55-64 ans 65-74 ans 75 ans ou +

Même logis Déménagé

1.More than 8 out 10 told us in 1999 they do not want to move

2.Almost 8 out 10 are still in place in 2004

4 out 10 over 75 have movedFrom those, 2 out 3 are women living alone

1 out 3 movers had minor or serious health problems in 1999

Only 2 of all 102 movers who want to relocate in 1999 have moved

4. Residential preferencesYou can not stay in your home

Choix d'options résidentielles des aînés de banlieue face à une perte d'autonomie hypothétique selon l'âge

5% 6%

0%

10% 9%

4%

10%

3%

9%10%

19%

13%

40%

34%

57%

33%

50%

22%

10%

22%17%

55-64 ans 65-74 ans 75 ans et plus

*Catégories non-exclusives

Cohabitation dans la maison actuelle avec un enfant et sa famille

Construction d'un logement supplémentaire pour un enfant

Appartement dans le quartier

Appartement dans un quartier plus central

Résidence avec services dans le quartier

Résidence avec services dans un secteur plus central

Autre

1. Combination taxi / bus for the younger, moving is not a popular option.

2. Taxi and bus are also preferred options for the older, but moving too.

4. Mobility preferencesYou can not drive anymore

Vous êtes devant le fait accompli, vous ne pouvez plus conduire votre voiture. Que faites-vous et pourquoi?

40%

47%

39%43%

31%

17%

10%

31%26%

14% 13%

4%10%

13%

4%

14%

3% 4%2%0%

4%2%0% 0%

55-64 ans 65-74 ans 75 ans ou +

*Catégories non-exclusives

Taxi Autobus Déménage Quelqu'un me reconduit Marche Autres Covoiturage Chauffeur

1. Every types are represented in all age groups, but the types less mobile are concentrated in old age.

2. It seem to have a global mobility diminution with aging, but a threshold at 75 years.

4. Elders’ reality: Social-mobility types7 mobility types for older suburbanites

Typoligie de mobilité des répondants selon l'âge

10% 9%

17%14%

34%

43%

17%19%

9%

31%

19%

13%10%

13%9%

12%

3%

9%7%3%

0%

55-64 ans 65-74 ans 75 ans ou +

Casanier Voisineur Motorisé 1 Motorisé 2 H Mobile Navetteur G Navetteur

1. Work with elders social-mobility types both quantitative and qualitative.

2. Account interrelations between mobility territory and residential trajectories.

3. Study the aging affects (process) on residential experience :

Mobility territory Residential asp./pref. Meanings of “home” Coping strategies

4. Analyse the physical aspects for adapt urban form to elders needs and preferences.

4. Next, going from 2005 to 1999Reconstruction of individual life-course

House House House