Components of Urban Green Space Related to The Older Adults Well-Being: Findings of A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Components of Urban Green Space Related to The Older Adults Well-Being: Findings of A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The relationship between urban green space and well-being in certain age groups such as the older adults is an important interdisciplinary topic. This qualitative content analysis aimed to investigate the views of the elderly regarding the components of urban green space related to the well-being. Methods: This qualitative content analysis study was conducted from March to June 2022 with participation of 18 older adults who used the urban green space of Kermanshah, Iran. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analyzed based on the Graneheim and Lundman method. Results: In this study, 18 older people (9 women and 9 men) participated with a mean age of 67.78 ± 3.69 years. Three categories and seven subcategories emerged from the content analysis of the interviews. The category of physical components consisted of four subcategories including access to facilities, safety, comfort, and legibility. The category of social components had a sub-category titled vitality. The category of psychological components also had two subcategories: sense of place and sense of security. Conclusion: Physical, social and psychological aspects of the urban green space were related to the well-being of the elderly. Paying attention to these components can improve well-being of the elderly.

Keywords

• elderly
• green space
• qualitative research
• well-being

References

1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2020). World Population Ageing 2020 Highlights: Living arrangements of older persons (ST/ESA/SER.A/451).
2. Mehri N, Messkoub M, Kunkel S. Trends, determinants and the implications of population aging in Iran. Ageing Int. 2020;45(4):327-43.
3. Hambleton IR, Caixeta R, Jeyaseelan SM, Luciani S, Hennis AJ. The rising burden of non-communicable diseases in the Americas and the impact of population aging: a secondary analysis of available data. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2023; 31:21:100483
4. Yen IH, Fandel Flood J, Thompson H, Anderson LA, Wong G. How design of places promotes or inhibits mobility of older adults: realist synthesis of 20 years of research. J Aging Health. 2014;26(8):1340-72.
5. Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, Brown P, St Leger L. Healthy nature healthy people:‘contact with nature’as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promot Int. 2006;21(1):45-54.
6. Huppert FA. Psychological well-being: evidence regarding its causes and consequences†. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2009;1(2):137–64.
7. Coldwell DF, Evans KL. Visits to urban green-space and the countryside associate with different components of mental well-being and are better predictors than perceived or actual local urbanisation intensity. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018; 175:114-22.
8. World Health Organization. Urban Green Space and Health: Intervention Impacts and Effectiveness Meeting Report. Bonn, Germany. 2017.

9. Razavizadeh AS, Majedi H, Habib F. Criteria and indicators of presence quality improvement in urban spaces (Case study: Historical texture of Kashan City). Int J Archit Urban Devel. 2015;5(3):53-62.
10. Van den Berg M, Wendel-Vos W, van Poppel M, Kemper H, van Mechelen W, Maas J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14(4):806-16.
11. Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;12:1-5.
12. Whyte WH. The social life of small urban spaces. Tuxedo, Maryland: Printers II Inc; 1980.
13. Vaeztavakoli A, Lak A, Yigitcanlar T. Blue and green spaces as therapeutic landscapes: health effects of urban water canal areas of Isfahan. Sustainability. 2018;10(11):4010.
14. Hennink M, Kaiser BN. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social science & medicine. 2022;292:114523.
15. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004; 24(2):105-12.
16. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. 1985; Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17. Gobbens RJ, van Assen MA. Associations of environmental factors with quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):101-10.
18. Antipanova OA, Barysheva GA, editors. Quality of life of an elderly person in the conditions of urban space. SHS Web of Conferences; 2020: EDP Sciences.
19. Mouratidis K. Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities. 2021;115:103229.
20. Lak A, Aghamolaei R, Baradaran HR, Myint PK. Development and validation of elder-friendly urban spaces questionnaire (EFUSQ). BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):1-14.
21. Nasution AD, Zahrah W. Quality of Life: Public open space effects. Asian J Environ Behav Stud. Studies. 2018;3(10):124-32.
22. Karacor EK, Akcam E. Comparative Analysis of the Quality Perception in Public Spaces of Duzce City. Curr Urban Stud. 2016;4(03):257.
23. Gehl J. Life between buildings: New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1987.
24. Masihi VM, Modiri A, Rashidpour N, Zoghi A. Explanation of functional factors affecting the success of public spaces and providing a model for assessing success through its functional dimension (Case study: Imam Khomeini Street, Tabriz, Iran). Int J Archit Eng Urban Plan. 2015;25(2):120-33.
25. Lynch K. The image of the city: MIT press; 1964.
26. Zhu B-W, Zhang J-R, Tzeng G-H, Huang S-L, Xiong L. Public open space development for elderly people by using the DANP-V model to establish continuous improvement strategies towards a sustainable and healthy aging society. Sustainability. 2017;9(3):420.
27. Rico CL, Curcio CL. Fear of falling and environmental factors: A Scoping Review. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2022;26(2):83.
28. Cf OD. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations: New York, NY, USA. 2015.
29. Lloyd K, Auld C. Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban policy Res. 2003;21(4):339-56.
30. World Health Organization. Global age-friendly cities: a guide: World Health Organization, 2007.
31. Carmona M, Heath T, Oc T, Tiesdell S. Urban spaces-public places: The dimensions of urban design: Oxford: Architectural Press; 2003.
32. Pasaogullari N, Doratli N. Measuring accessibility and utilization of public spaces in Famagusta. Cities. 2004;21(3):225-32.
33. Jabbar M, Yusoff MM, Shafie A. Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: A systematic review. GeoJournal. 2021; 20:1-9.
34. Jakubec SL, Carruthers Den Hoed D, Ray H, Krishnamurthy A. Mental well-being and quality-of-life benefits of inclusion in nature for adults with disabilities and their caregivers. Landsc Res. 2016;41(6):616-27.
35. Romice O, Thwaites K, Porta S, Greaves M, Barbour G, Pasino P. Urban design and quality of life. Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research: Springer; 2017. p. 241-73.
36. Sun Y, Phillips DR, Wong M. A study of housing typology and perceived age-friendliness in an established Hong Kong new town: A person-environment perspective. Geoforum. 2018;88:17-27.