Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
4 kavkova-ifa
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

4 kavkova-ifa

117

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
117
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. AGEING AND PERCEPTION OFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Marcela Petrová KafkováOffice for Population Studies, FSS MU, Brno kfkv@seznam.cz
  • 2. Environmental quality by ageing• Low mobility of older people – 24% live in the same house/flat all their life, average age of moving into their current home 33 years• Long-term users of local environment• Higher preference of older people for ageing in place (Lanspery 2002)• Increased use of home and immediate neighbourhood with ageing (Sýkorová 2008)• Poor environmental quality tends to decrease outdoor mobility of older people and their independence
  • 3. Theoretical background – quality of life• Environment as a key constituent and dynamic context of quality of life by ageing (Walker 2010)• Structural characteristics of buildings and neighbourhoods affect the residents´ QoL (Disch et al 2007)• Relationship between residential satisfaction and psychological well-being is an artifact of their mutual relationship with personal resources. (Swirian, Swirian 1993)• Some people indicate high well-being in spite of environmental stressors (Smith 2009)
  • 4. Neighbourhood satisfaction
  • 5. Neighbourhood satisfaction by age
  • 6. IADL by age• Higher age → lower (IADL - score range 0-7, neighbourhood a lower score indicates a higher satisfaction level of dependence) : Age group Mean• Poorer health → lower neighbourhood 60-69 6,7 (±0,9) satisfaction 70-79 6,2 (± 1,4) 80+ 5,6 (± 2,0)• No influence of gender and education
  • 7. Neighbourhood perception "the neighbourhood is mostly… " (range 1-5) (%)bad address 3 7 34 33 23 good ad. cheap 2 8 43 31 16 expensive grey 7 18 31 29 17 green deserted 1 7 51 30 11 overcrowded changing 9 21 37 21 13 the same safe 6 22 41 22 9 dangerous young 5 15 51 21 8 old clean 14 24 36 20 7 dirty noisy 16 27 32 18 7 quiet poor 3 13 59 19 6 wealthy interesting 11 28 47 10 4 boring 0% 20% 40% 50% 60% 80% 100%
  • 8. A good neighbourhood (agreement ) "in the neighbourhood there are…" total Age Education 60-69/80+well-lit streets at night 78%a few places to relax 68% elementary 61%enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights 66% 69/62% elementaryto cross safely 56%enough green belts 58%new houses being built and the old ones 57% tertiary 66%under reconstructionI have a beautiful view from my home. 46%It is often possible to see police patrols. 45%My home is in a quiet zone. 42%enough pleasant benches 41%
  • 9. Enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights to cross safely• The assessment doesn´t seem to be affected by poorer locality of people with elementary education but by education itself• No influence of subjective health and IADL• Less agreement by people with more health limitations (worse sight, worse hearing, pain of locomotor system)
  • 10. A good neighbourhood (agreement ) "in the neighbourhood there are…" total Age Education 60-69/80+well-lit streets at night 78%a few places to relax 68% elementary 61%enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights 66% 69/62% elementaryto cross safely 56%enough green belts 58%new houses being built and the old ones 57% tertiary 66%under reconstructionI have a beautiful view from my home. 46%It is often possible to see police patrols. 45%My home is in a quiet zone. 42%enough pleasant benches 41%
  • 11. A poor neighbourhood "in the neighbourhood there is/are…" total Age 60- Gender Education 69/80+ M/W Elem/tervery heavy traffic 63%casinos and night bars 48% 50/40%many unknown people and homeless ones 47% 56/40roving arounda lot of houses painted with graffiti and 46% 50/43vandalisedbadly kept pavements in winter 42% 38/55% 38/45a lot of of rubbish 34% 41/37more and more tourists 32% 29/38I don´t like newly built houses, they don´t fit 28%herea lot of very old houses and deserted houses 19% 18/13% 24/10without occupants
  • 12. A safe neighbourhood• It is quite dangerous to go out in the evening – 54% agree – 60-69 years old 51 %, 70-79 years old 54 %., 80+ 64% – Education: elementary 63%, vocational 53%, secondary 54%, tertiary 46%• It is quite dangerous to go out during the day – 22% agree – Education: elementary 31%, vocational 24%, secondary 20%, tertiary 12%
  • 13. Neighbourhood satisfaction It is quite dangerous It is quite dangerous to to go out during the go out in the evening day agree disagree agree disagree neighbourhood satisfaction 57% 80% 50% 72%happiness (mean) 5,3 (1- very happy) 5,0 (±2,1) 4,4 (±1,8) (±1,9) 4,5 (±2,2)
  • 14. • Poor vs. good neighbourhood – r =-0,34, p < 0,001 – More positive aspects = less negative aspects• Good neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood satisfaction – R = 0,47, p < 0,001 – better neighb. = higher satisfaction with neighb.• Poor neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood satisfaction – R = -0,39, p < 0,001 – Poorer neighb. = less satisfaction with neighb.
  • 15. A good neighbourhood• Index score range 1-4 (1 = max good neighbourhood)• No influence of age, gender and education• No influence of subjective health but slightly affected by IADL and sense limitations – IADL r = -0,15, p <0,001 (more independent = better neighbourhood) – Sense limitations r = 0,11 , p <0,001 (less limitations = better neighbourhood)
  • 16. A poor neighbourhood• Index score range 1-4 (1 = max poor neighbourhood)• No influence of age, gender and education• Some influence of health – Subjective heath r = -0,16, p <0,001 (poorer health = poorer neighbourhood) IADL r = 0,17, p <0,001 (less independent = poorer neighbourhood) – Sense limitations r = -0,20 , p <0,001 (more limitations = poorer neighbourhood)
  • 17. neighbourhood and quality of life (r) satisfaction good poor with n.PGC MoraleScale -0,16 0,13 -0,23loneliness 0,13 -0,16 0,15agency -0,2 0,2 -0,18happiness 0,19 -0,23 0,28 All correlations sig. p < 0,001
  • 18. Conclusions• Neighbourhood quality – Older people judge their neighbourhood mostly positive – Only some specific aspects of environmental quality affected by socio-demographic characteristics – Perceived as worse with increasing health limitations• Influence of neighbourhood quality on quality of life – Some indications that quality of life tends to increase with better neighbourhood quality
  • 19. Thank you for your attention.

×