1. AGEING AND PERCEPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Marcela Petrová Kafková Office for Population Studies, FSS MU, Brno kfkv@seznam.cz

2. Environmental quality by ageing Low mobility of older peopleLow 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 environmentLong-term users of local environment Higher preference of older people for ageing in place (Lanspery 2002)Higher preference of older people for ageing in place (Lanspery 2002) Increased use of home and immediate neighbourhood with ageing (Sýkorová 2008)Increased use of home and immediate neighbourhood with ageing (Sýkorová 2008) Poor environmental quality tends to decrease outdoor mobility of older people and their independencePoor 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)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)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)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)Some people indicate high well-being in spite of environmental stressors (Smith 2009)

4. Neighbourhood satisfaction

5. Neighbourhood satisfaction by age

6. Higher age → lower neighbourhood satisfactionHigher age → lower neighbourhood satisfaction Poorer health → lower neighbourhood satisfactionPoorer health → lower neighbourhood satisfaction No influence of gender and educationNo influence of gender and education Age groupMean 60-696,7(±0,9) 70-796,2(± 1,4) 80+5,6(± 2,0) IADL by age (IADL - score range 0-7, a (IADL - score range 0-7, a lower score indicates a higher level of dependence) :

7. Neighbourhood perception "the neighbourhood is mostly… " (range 1-5) (%) good ad. expensive green overcrowded the same dangerous old dirty quiet wealthy boring 50%

8. A good neighbourhood (agreement ) "in the neighbourhood there are…" totalAge60-69/80+Education well-lit streets at night well-lit streets at night78% a few places to relax 68% elementary 61% enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights to cross safely 66%69/62% elementary 56% enough green belts 58% new houses being built and the old ones under reconstruction 57% tertiary 66% I 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 itselfThe 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 IADLNo influence of subjective health and IADL Less agreement by people with more health limitations (worse sight, worse hearing, pain of locomotor system)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…" totalAge60-69/80+Education well-lit streets at night well-lit streets at night78% a few places to relax 68% elementary 61% enough pedestrian crossings and traffic lights to cross safely 66%69/62% elementary 56% enough green belts 58% new houses being built and the old ones under reconstruction 57% tertiary 66% I 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- 69/80+ GenderM/WEducationElem/ter very heavy traffic 63% casinos and night bars 48%50/40% many unknown people and homeless ones roving around 47%56/40 a lot of houses painted with graffiti and vandalised 46%50/43 badly kept pavements in winter 42%38/55%38/45 a lot of of rubbish 34%41/37 more and more tourists 32%29/38 I don´t like newly built houses, they don´t fit here 28% a lot of very old houses and deserted houses without occupants 19%18/13%24/10

12. A safe neighbourhood It is quite dangerous to go out in the eveningIt 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 dayIt 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 to go out in the evening It is quite dangerous to go out during the day agreedisagreeagreedisagree neighbourhood satisfaction57%80%50%72% happiness (mean) (1- very happy)5,0 (±2,1)4,4 (±1,8) 5,3 (±1,9)4,5 (±2,2)

14. Poor vs. good neighbourhoodPoor vs. good neighbourhood –r =-0,34, p < 0,001 –More positive aspects = less negative aspects Good neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood satisfactionGood neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood satisfaction –R = 0,47, p < 0,001 –better neighb. = higher satisfaction with neighb. Poor neighbourhood vs. Neighbourhood satisfactionPoor 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)Index score range 1-4 (1 = max good neighbourhood) No influence of age, gender and educationNo influence of age, gender and education No influence of subjective health but slightly affected by IADL and sense limitationsNo 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)Index score range 1-4 (1 = max poor neighbourhood) No influence of age, gender and educationNo influence of age, gender and education Some influence of healthSome 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) goodpoor satisfaction with n. PGC Morale Scale-0,160,13-0,23 loneliness0,13-0,160,15 agency-0,20,2-0,18 happiness0,19-0,230,28 All correlations sig. p < 0,001

18. Conclusions Neighbourhood qualityNeighbourhood 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 lifeInfluence 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.