Ageing in place processes in the neighbourhood environment: a proposed conceptual framework from a capability approach

Abstract

The concept of “ageing in place” has become increasingly significant in the environmental gerontology literature. Despite its predominance, there have been limited efforts to offer a more comprehensive and nuanced conceptualization of this topic. Definitions found in the literature are often too simplistic and only partially capture the various aspects of older adults’ experience while ageing in place. This paper presents a conceptual framework on ageing in place in the context of neighbourhood environment which aims to address this gap by proposing a multi-faceted understanding of ageing in place processes through the lenses of a capability approach, a more comprehensive definition of the concept, and related overarching principles. Building on predominant theories in environmental gerontology, this conceptual framework offers new insights into the interactions between “place” and the “ageing individual”. It is meant to offer opportunities for discussion, to suggest new paths of inquiry, and to explore implications for policy and practice.

Introduction

Since its inception in the 1960s, environmental gerontology has now contributed to almost 60 years of theoretical and empirical advancements to better understand person–environment interaction in later life (Wahl and Oswald 2016; Chaudhury and Oswald 2019). In parallel to the growth of this discipline, population ageing has accelerated in many Western nations. For policymakers, “ageing in place” emerged as a cost-saving solution for health care, and for older adults, as a symbol of independence and autonomy (Scharlach and Diaz Moore 2016; Lewis and Buffel 2020). Socio-physical environmental contexts and “places” of ageing also became the focus of the World Health Organization (WHO) initiatives on age-friendly cities and communities, as well as in its recent work on healthy ageing (World Health Organization 2007, 2015).

Given its disciplinary identity and the broader socio-political factors, the concept of ageing in place (AIP) has become increasingly dominant in the environmental gerontology literature to the point of, some would say, “verging on an obsession” (Rowles and Bernard, 2013, p. 8). Despite this fixation of environmental gerontologists about older adults “staying put” in their home as long as possible, there have been limited efforts to propose a more comprehensive and nuanced conceptualization of this topic. Definitions found in the literature are often too simplistic and only partially capture the various aspects of older adults’ experience while AIP (Bigonnesse 2017; Bigonnesse and Chaudhury 2019).

This paper presents a conceptual framework which aims to address this gap by proposing a multifaceted understanding of AIP processes in the context of neighbourhood environment through the lenses of a capability approach, related overarching principles, and a more comprehensive definition. Building on predominant theories in environmental gerontology including the Ecological Theory of Aging (Lawton and Nahemow 1973), Meaning of Home and Place Attachment in Later Life (Rowles 1978, 1983; Rubinstein 1989; Rubinstein and Parmelee 1992; Rowles and Chaudhury 2005; Rowles and Bernard 2013), Residential Normalcy (Golant 2011, 2012, 2015a), and Person-Environment Processes Frameworks (Wahl and Lang 2004, 2006; Wahl and Oswald 2010; Wahl et al. 2012; Wahl and Gerstorf 2018; Chaudhury and Oswald 2019), this proposed framework offers new insights into the interactions between “place” and the “ageing individual” and is meant to offer opportunities for discussion, explore implications for policy and practice, and to suggest new paths of inquiry.

Ageing in place in the neighbourhood environment from a capability approach: theoretical assumptions

Overview

In this conceptual framework (Fig. 1), AIP is influenced by five central components: (1) place integration, (2) place attachment, (3) independence, (4) mobility, and (5) social participation. These five components are, in turn, influenced by four factors: individual characteristics, accessibility of the built environment, proximity of services and amenities, and development and maintenance of meaningful social connections. The concept of “ageing in place” is located at the centre of the framework, to which all the other concepts are connected, either directly or indirectly. For instance, place integration, place attachment, independence, mobility, and social participation are directly related to AIP. Meaningful social connections, individual factors, accessible built environment, and proximity of services and amenities are indirectly connected to AIP through the four processes of place integration: familiarity, routines, habits and embodiment, safety, and everyday life activities. These relations are illustrated by double arrows connecting the various components of the framework together. Although each component of the framework has a direct or indirect influence on AIP, they also are mutually influencing. For example, independence is a prerequisite for grocery shopping, an aspect of social participation. At the same time, visiting friends, another aspect of social participation, fosters independence in providing a source of social support. Mobility is an important contributor to place integration, which in turn leads to place attachment.

Fig. 1.

Conceptual framework on ageing in place in the neighbourhood environment from a capability approach

The location of the framework components is equally significant. For instance, place integration processes are located the closest to ageing in place because of their role in the experience of place, or how a space becomes a place. Each of the place integration processes can be impacted by changes in any components of the framework and, in turn, disrupt place integration. A change in functional abilities will modify routines, habits, and embodiment and potentially impact safety and everyday life activities. The closure of the nearby grocer on which an individual relied for weekly shopping (i.e. proximity of services and amenities) will force a change in everyday life activities and reduce a sense of familiarity. The four other central components (place attachment, independence, mobility, and social participation) are located between factors that have direct influence on them. For example, mobility is located between the factors related to the accessibility of the built environment and factors related to the proximity of services and amenities direct, which are both key contributors to mobility among older adults. To better understand these components and the multiple connections between them, the concept of AIP and its overarching principles are defined below.

Ageing in place definition

AIP can be defined as an ongoing dynamic process of balance enabling an individual to develop and maintain place integration, place attachment, independence, mobility, and social participation. This process is fostered by: (1) agency and resilience, (2) an accessible, functional, adaptable, and affordable home, (3) a pedestrian-friendly environment with services and amenities in close proximity to home, and (4) opportunities and spaces to create and maintain meaningful social connections. Consistent with environmental gerontology, the concept of “environment” is used to reflect both social and physical contexts in which an individual age (Wahl and Lang 2006). It would evolve and change over time, based on the culture, socioeconomic status, and cohorts. The notion of home and neighbourhood are equally variable and subjective as they are shaped and circumscribed by older adults experience, mobility capacity, and familiarity with their environment (Peace et al. 2005; Yen et al. 2009; Vine et al. 2012; Cerin et al. 2017).

Overarching principles

The definition of AIP can be understood in the context of five overarching principles. They consist of theoretical assumptions and underlining constructs that need to be explicitly stated to better understand the processes at play for AIP in the neighbourhood.

Principle 1: Ageing in place Concept Represents a Complex Interactional Phenomenon AIP needs to be understood as a series of complex processes, interactions, and ongoing adjustments and adaptations between the older person and his or her social and physical environments. AIP is not a result or an outcome but a state of equilibrium between: (a) the individual needs and contributions and (b) the resources and demands of the environment. This notion is in alignment with the person-environment interchange theory, built on well recognized theoretical work in environmental gerontology (Lawton and Nahemow 1973; Wahl et al. 2012; Chaudhury and Oswald 2019).

Principle 2: Older Adults are Active Protagonists The older individual ageing in place is an active protagonist in the person-environment interactions. Older adults should be regarded as active agents actively shaping their lives rather than passive victims of their environments. At the same time, it is important to recognize that not all older adults are in position to take overt active roles. Social exclusion, inequality, and marginalization are also part of the experience of AIP. To properly understand those structural dynamics and their impact on AIP, empowerment approaches and the role of agency have to be incorporated to AIP theorization process. This work has already been undertaken and must be pursued (Wahl and Lang 2004; Bandura 2006; Phillipson 2007, 2010; Marshall and Clarke 2010; Burns et al. 2012; Wahl et al. 2012; Moulaert et al. 2016; Dannefer and Huang 2017).

Principle 3: Ageing in Place Should Foster Well-Being AIP should be promoted only if it positively contributes to older adults’ quality of life. If AIP is detrimental to well-being, is disempowering, or contributes to the exclusion of older adults from the life of society, alternatives should be considered. AIP is desirable and possible when an individual has found a place to age where he or she can thrive and pursue his or her journey on the path human development. Undifferentiated discourse around “AIP is the best” is a concerning assumption commonly found in the AIP literature. There are many ways AIP can “go wrong”, particularly for older adults ageing in deprived, unsafe or gentrifying neighbourhoods, which could cause them not to age in place voluntarily but to be “stuck in place” which, ultimately, could negatively impact their physical and mental health status (Aurand et al. 2014; Golant 2015b; Aneshensel et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2018). Researchers, policymakers, and service providers need to remain conscious of the possible negative outcomes of AIP.

Principle 4: Ageing in Place is Not a One-Size-Fits-All Concept The characteristic meaning of “ageing in place” and how it is realized, the meaning of “home”, and the strategies enabling AIP vary across individuals, times, cultures, locations, and socioeconomic contexts (Sixsmith and Sixsmith 2008; Wiles et al. 2012; Vasara 2015). Therefore, initiatives fostering AIP should be flexible and allow innovative ideas to fit individual needs and communities each reality.

Principle 5: Ageing in Place involves Multiple Environmental Scales, Disciplines, and Sectors Understanding ageing through an ecological perspective is an integrated part of environmental gerontology (Wahl et al. 2012). Similarly, AIP is a complex process influenced by factors and dynamics interacting at multiple levels. To appreciate AIP, individual, social, and physical factors need to be understood at multiple geographic scales (i.e. home, neighbourhood, city). Due to its complexity, adopting an ecological framework is necessary to develop appropriate initiatives, programs, and policies. In addition, collaboration and coordination between different sectors and disciplines, as well as adopting multi-methods approach for research are a prerequisite to develop environments conducive to AIP. This has been argued previously in AIP literature and it is re-emphasized here (Knapp 2009; Greenfield 2012).

Understanding ageing in place through the capability approach

To anchor ethical considerations and define levels of interaction between its components, our framework is discussed through the lens of the capability approach. This theoretical approach finds its origin in the moral and political philosophy and was originally developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum (Alexander 2016; Robeyns 2016). Rooted in social justice theory, the capability approach aimed at providing individuals with opportunities, conditions, and freedom to develop their full potential and life aspirations (De Munck 2008; Alexander 2016). A noteworthy parallel can be drawn between the capability approach and AIP. Many older adults want to age in place (their life aspiration), but not all of them have the suitable conditions and opportunities to do so. This approach also frames the concept of AIP in an individual and collective empowerment perspective, which positions older adults as active protagonists and recognizes structural opportunities, allowing older adults to not only age in place in a meaningful way, but also continue their personal journeys on the path of human development.

The capability approach provides two central concepts related to the AIP process. The first is the concept of “capabilities”, which refers to two interrelated elements: (1) capacities or powers of people required to fulfil basic human needs (e.g. health, safety) to more complex ones (e.g. self-respect, social inclusion), and (2) opportunities that people have to achieve and exercise their capacities (Alexander 2016). To account for the various possibilities and life aspirations among human beings, there is no exhaustive list of capabilities. Nevertheless, there are “basic capabilities” necessary for survival such as “bodily integrity” that is often used in poverty analysis and capabilities related to well-being analysis such as “play” and “affiliation” (Alkire and Deneulin 2009; Robeyns 2016). In our conceptual framework, there are five concepts that can be identified as capabilities necessary for AIP: (1) place integration, (2) place attachment, (3) independence, (4) mobility, and (5) social participation. These concepts interact and influence each other in the process of AIP. They are capabilities because, even if taken individually, they are key contributors to older adults’ well-being in general. Nonetheless, they are also central to the AIP process.

The second central concept of the capability approach is referred to as “conversion factors”. Conversion factors are factors influencing how an individual can (or be free to) convert the resources available to them into capabilities in order to achieve their life aspiration (here, AIP). There are three types of conversion factors: personal conversion factors that are internal to the person, social conversion factors that are related to the society in which one lives, and environmental conversion factors that are related to the physical and built environments (Dang 2014; Robeyns 2016). In the context of AIP, there are four conversion factors: (1) individual characteristics, (2) accessible built environment, (3) proximity of services and amenities, and (4) meaningful social connections. They are necessary to support and reinforce place integration, place attachment, independence, mobility, and social participation over time. Since they act as a foundation to enable and sustain capabilities, leading to the equilibrium of AIP, they are presented first below.

Ageing in place in the neighbourhood environment from a capability approach: components and processes

Conversion factors for ageing in place

Individual Factors Two types of individual factors are related to AIP: (1) physical health including health status, functional abilities and mobility capacities, and (2) psychological characteristics related to agency and resilience. The influence of physical health factors in the ageing process is well documented in the literature and certainly impact all components of AIP processes (Portegijs et al. 2014; Vorst et al. 2016). Many older adults see themselves AIP despite changes in health and functional status, especially when they live in walkable neighbourhoods with an abundance of services and amenities, and in which many older adults are visibly active in the life of the community (Bigonnesse 2017).

In this framework, psychological characteristics are equally important to maintain AIP. Agency refers to “the sense of having the capacity for meaningful and successful actions” (Hitlin and Elder 2006, p. 40). Agency is an individual-level construct, but it is embedded in the individual social networks and influenced by the social and physical environments (Hitlin and Elder 2006; Marshall and Clarke 2010; Wahl and Oswald 2010; Wahl et al. 2012; Dannefer and Huang 2017). Agency is related to older adults making choices that impact AIP. It allows them to put in place individual strategies to maintain their current functional abilities and social support network. Agency becomes particularly important when older adults decide to move to a new environment and have to re-establish place integration processes and meaningful social connections (Bigonnesse 2017). In later life, resilience can be defined as flourishing despite “adversity”, which can correspond to increased chances of personal loss, exacerbated inequalities, physical disability, and general physical health challenges (Stephens et al. 2015). Resilience allows older adults to make the ongoing adjustments necessary to maintain the equilibrium of AIP and to bounce back when faced with challenges. Both agency and resilience are necessary for a positive AIP experience.

There are also additional individual factors that need to be taken into consideration when looking at AIP. Gender and cultural background may influence every aspect of this framework. However, samples of qualitative studies focusing on AIP have been predominantly female and/or having Caucasian background (Knapp 2009; Bigonnesse 2017). There might be key differences on how AIP capabilities are achieved by men or older adults from visible minority groups that could shift the dynamics between older adults and their environment. Research on the experience of place among homeless and marginalized older adults show contrasting results about place integration (or the lack thereof), place attachment, mobility, and social participation (Burns 2016). Results suggest that the components of this framework are still valid but are experienced differently among marginalized older adults. Thus, more research is needed to better understand the influence of gender, culture, and socioeconomic background on AIP processes.

Accessible Built Environment As shown from its location in the framework, the accessibility of the built environment of older adults’ home and neighbourhood is central to support their mobility and independence, an association already well documented in the literature and central to the development of age-friendly communities (World Health Organization 2007; Annear et al. 2014; Smith et al. 2016; Granbom et al. 2016). For older adults, an accessible home is: (1) affordable, allowing them to age in place over time despite living on fixed income, (2) adaptable, allowing them to modify it to fit their changing needs, and 3) functional, allowing them to welcome guests and entertain and thus to maintain meaningful social connections with friends and family (Bigonnesse 2017). Accessible home features such as accessible bathrooms, elevators, stair-free entrances, and accessible common spaces also help older adults to remain independent and safe while performing activities of daily living, which are part of place integration.

When older adults live in neighbourhoods with built environment that accommodate people with different mobility capacities, they are able to project themselves in the future and see AIP as a viable option (Bigonnesse 2017). Increased outdoor mobility contributes to their independence and social participation particularly in enabling them to reach key destinations to support daily needs and activities in their neighbourhood such as groceries, pharmacies, and spaces for social interactions. The importance of overall accessibility of the neighbourhood environment with pedestrian-friendly features and accessible public spaces, buildings and amenities to support independence, mobility, and social participation in later life has also been emphasized in recent literature (Chaudhury et al. 2012; Villanueva et al. 2014; Yen et al. 2014; Gell et al. 2015; Brookfield et al. 2017).

Proximity of Services and Amenities Variety of destinations and proximity of services and amenities in the neighbourhood are essential for AIP. Based on older adults’ perceptions, they must include services and amenities that: (1) support daily needs such as groceries, corner stores, banks, thrift stores, post offices, and pharmacies, (2) foster health and well-being such as health clinics, green spaces and water features, and amenities for fitness and physical activities, (3) provide opportunities for social connections and learning such as café, libraries, restaurants, senior and community centres, and (4) support independent mobility, mainly a reliable and efficient transit system (Bigonnesse 2017). There is an emerging consensus about the impact of services, amenities, and destinations in general on older adults’ mobility, social participation, well-being and AIP, but a scarcity of research about their type, mix, and density (Hanson et al. 2012; Annear et al. 2014; Van Dijk et al. 2015; Cerin et al. 2017). This is another avenue for future research.

Meaningful Social Connections Meaningful social connections are another salient aspect older adults’ experience of AIP. The social fabric of the neighbourhood includes informal social interactions at the neighbourhood level like regular contact with neighbours and shop keepers or accidental encounter with acquaintances. They are shaped by the planning and design of public spaces. These spontaneous social interactions are a source of social support, reduce social isolation, and have a strong influence on older adults’ sense of familiarity and place attachment (Gardner 2011; Yen et al. 2012; Bigonnesse 2017). The “natural neighbourhood network” formed with local business staff and owners and spontaneous social encounters while carrying daily activities contribute to place integration and place attachment (Gardner 2011). These “place-based social interactions” are not often considered in the gerontological literature but contribute to a sense of belonging and connection with the neighbourhood and are shaping older adults “everyday social world” (Gardner, 2011; Lager et al., 2015; Peace et al., 2005).

Social connections with family, friends and neighbours foster older adults’ capacity to cope with age-related changes. These types of relationship could help prevent social isolation, allow contact between generations, provide emotional and instrumental support, and encourage their participation in the life of the community. Social support literature has extensively explored the benefit of support from family, friends, and neighbours (De Donder et al. 2012; Wrzus et al. 2013; Lager et al. 2015; Hudon and Milan 2016). However, the meaningful friendships that older adults sometimes develop with their neighbours and the mutual support resulting from these relations is poorly documented. “Neighbours as friends” contributes to older adults’ familiarity, place attachment, and community engagement (Bigonnesse 2017). Recent work suggests that “neighbours-helping-neighbours approach” could foster AIP (Greenfield 2016). Nevertheless, it would be important to better document this phenomenon and assess its impact on AIP.

Ageing in place capabilities

Place integration At the heart of AIP, there is the notion of “place” that needs to be acknowledged. Making a “space into a place” (Rowles and Bernard 2013) is central to the process of AIP. This can be labelled as “place integration” which refers to the “active process that connects person and place and continually transforms them and their relationship” (Cutchin, 2013, p. 111). Place integration sits at the centre of the framework because this is through place integration that an individual maintains the balance of AIP. Environmental gerontology provides a rich body of literature to understand how place becomes an integrated part of older adults’ identity and biography (Rowles 1978, 1983; Rubinstein and Parmelee 1992). Literature on the influence of place in later life mainly focuses on the home environment. However, parallels can be drawn from that body of knowledge to understand the influence of the neighbourhood environment in later life. In this conceptual framework, there are four interrelated processes leading to place integration at the neighbourhood level: (1) routines, habits, and embodiment; (2) familiarity; (3) everyday life activities; and (4) safety.

Through routines, habits, and everyday life activities, older adults develop an intimate knowledge of their environment, which becomes part of their individual biography and identity. Both early and recent work describes how older adults develop cognitive maps of their environment facilitating the management of independence, helping them to feel safe, and having control over changes in the environment (Rowles 1978, 1983; Després and Lord 2005; Wiles et al. 2012; Van Dijk et al. 2015). When AIP, older adults’ neighbourhood becomes an extension of their home where everyday life activities and routines take place. Through daily routine, they become familiar with and develop an intimate knowledge of the built environment, the people, and the places that support their physical and social daily needs. In turn, this familiarity helps to compensate for ageing-related changes and become a resource for AIP.

Place attachment Simply defined, place attachment is the “person-place bounding” or “the love for place” (Scannell and Gifford 2010). The association between place integration and place attachment in later life has been well documented (Rowles 1983; Rubinstein and Parmelee 1992; Rowles and Chaudhury 2005; Rowles and Bernard 2013). It is a central aspect of AIP because it is often the main motivation for older adults to stay put: the emotional bonding with their home and neighbourhood. The location of the concept of place attachment in the conceptual framework is representative of which factors affect this aspect of AIP. Place attachment originated from the place integration capability but is greatly influenced by individual factors, such as agencies, and by the development of meaningful social connections.

Majority of place attachment literature indicate that place attachment is the result of long-term residency in an area (Smith 2009; Lewicka 2011; Aneshensel et al. 2016). However, in an age of mobility and rapid neighbourhood transformations, it is also important to consider how place attachment can change over time or be restored because older adults might choose to relocate or downsize within their neighbourhood or in another city. Some are starting to explore how place attachment evolves across the life course and changing socio-physical environments (Golant 2020; Lewis and Buffel 2020) or how it is rebuilt after moving to a new location or assisted living facilities (Dupuis-Blanchard et al. 2009; Golant 2011, 2015a; Cutchin 2013; Löfqvist et al. 2013; Gustafson 2014).

A few factors can contribute to rapid development of place attachment. Older adults who carefully plan their relocation become rapidly emotionally attached to their new home and neighbourhood, which suggests that the notion of choice, agency, and sense of control foster place attachment. Living in an accessible neighbourhood environment with many services and amenities that support older adults’ mobility and everyday needs increases the emotional bonding to their surroundings. Finally, a rapid integration into the new neighbourhood social fabric is key for older adults to feel that they belong (Bigonnesse 2017). These additional factors provide an interesting insight about a potential association between place attachment and the other component of this framework that need to be further explored.

Social participation Social participation consists of opportunities for older adults AIP to participate and contribute to the life of the community (Anaby et al. 2011). It includes everyday life activities and takes the form of volunteering or paid work, citizen engagement in the local government, participation in grass-roots organizations, and intergenerational activities (Levasseur et al. 2010). Older adults’ social inclusion and participation are important contributors to the development of society. In this conceptual framework, the location of social participation suggests a connection with place integration through everyday activities but also the influence of the development of all kinds of meaningful social connections.

In addition, for those facing health declines or mobility limitations, social support from family, friends, and neighbours can help them stay socially connected and engaged in various ways. As shown in the framework, the proximity of services and amenities that support daily needs, well-being, and social connections also contribute to social participation, particularly instrumental activities of daily life (Levasseur et al. 2015). Moreover, as mentioned above, social participation could foster place attachment and mobility, increase familiarity with the neighbourhood environment, and reinforce the positive emotional bonding between older adults and their neighbourhood.

Mobility Mobility, particularly walking, is central to the AIP process. Mobility is defined as physical movement from one point to another through different means: walking with or without mobility assistive technology, automobile, or public transportation to answer daily needs and activities (Lord and Luxembourg 2007; Latham et al. 2009; Vine et al. 2012). In line with the concept of capability, mobility is also a form of capital. Kaufmann, using the concept of “motility”, stresses that mobility is a form of capital “fundamentally linked to social, cultural, economic, and political processes and structures” (Kaufmann et al. 2004, p. 750; Flamm and Kaufmann 2006). Mobility is an embodied practice central to how we experience the world symbolically, materially, and affectively (Latham et al. 2009; Cresswell and Merriman 2011).

The location of the mobility capability in the framework is also important. Mobility, particularly walking, is how many older adults experienced place and become a central contributor to place integration (Bigonnesse 2017). In addition to being a means to access resources and services, walking is central to develop and maintain social connections. There are interesting associations that have been found between walking, identity, social interactions, and place attachment (Hanson et al. 2012; Gardner 2014; Buffel et al. 2014). The potential association between place integration at the neighbourhood level and walking needs to be further explored.

Access to an efficient transit system and the proximity of services and amenities play a predominant role in maintaining older adults’ independence, particularly when driving in no longer an option (Bigonnesse 2017). It is important to acknowledge that for a majority of older adults, driving is an important part of their mobility experience and a symbol of independence (Lord et al. 2011; Caragata 2017). Nevertheless, if the aim is to support AIP as long as possible, driving alternatives must be available and easy to use in order to facilitate older adults’ transition after the loss of their drivers’ licence.

Recent literature suggests that mobility in later life has multiple ramifications with key aspects this framework. Mobility has been linked to independence (Schwanen et al. 2012) and characteristics of the built environment (Rosso et al. 2011; Hanson et al. 2012; Yen et al. 2014; Cerin et al. 2017). Mobility as a means of social interactions in later life has recently caught the interests of researchers but needs to be further explored (Gardner 2011, 2014; Hanson et al. 2012; Rosso et al. 2013, 2014; Van Holle et al. 2016; Cerin et al. 2017). Work in geographical gerontology and the “new mobilities paradigm” also point toward conceptualizing the neighbourhood as a relation space, supporting social participation and inclusion in later life (Burnett and Lucas 2010; Ziegler 2012; Peace 2013). Close collaboration between gerontologists and human geographers could advance this area of knowledge.

Independence Independence is defined as the capacity to exert control on one’s environment, to make decisions and choices, and to meet daily needs. When AIP, older adults’ independence is influenced by meaningful social connections, social support from friends and family, and their social participation in organizations or local governments (Wiles et al. 2012; Annear et al. 2014; Hudon and Milan 2016). The location of the independence as a concept in the conceptual framework shows the close influence of individual factors such as agency and health status. As discussed earlier, independence is strongly influenced by older adults’ mobility, and consequently by the proximity of services and amenities as well as the accessibility of the built environment. Similarly, social participation through everyday life activities and social support certainly contributes to older adults’ independence. As discussed in the place integration capability, familiarity and safety are both determinant of independence, which can foster the emotional connection between older adults and their neighbourhood, leading to place attachment.

Concluding remarks

Although the literature on AIP is growing exponentially, it lacks an integrated framework to provide a comprehensive understanding of the multitude of factors and interrelated dynamics at play in the process of older adults age in place in the community. This conceptual framework aims to articulate the complexity of the person-environment exchange in later life. It builds on foundational work and recent literature in environmental gerontology and offers future research avenues. It also highlights important implications for future theory development, policy, and practise that are discussed here briefly.

Theory development

The presented framework calls attention to important implications for future theory development. The concept of AIP should not be understood as an outcome but as a dynamic state of balance between the demands and resources of the environment and the individual capacities. In this context, older adults are not passive victims of their environment nor are they in complete control of the socio-physical environment in which they are situated. Future research on agency, capability approach, and life course perspective could provide useful insights in this matter.

A concerning assumption rarely disputed in the literature is that AIP is the most desirable option in later life. There are many circumstances where AIP can be detrimental to the well-being and should not be viewed as a one size-fits-all approach to health and well-being in older adults. Hence, AIP should be considered only if older adults can thrive in an environment supporting their quality of life. In this regard, a few components of this conceptual framework are related to research on healthy ageing and active ageing. The link between these predominant concepts in gerontology and AIP should be further explored.

This conceptual framework also underlines a holistic definition of “place” in ageing. It should be understood as a continuum of various geographical scales rather than a series of distinctive spaces isolated from each other. For example, transition spaces such as building lobbies and street corners are an integrated part of the experience of place of older adults providing valued opportunities for social interactions. Similarly, the physical and social environment should be analysed concurrently as they both shape the experience of place.

Policy and practice

This conceptual framework on AIP suggests important implications for policy and practice. One major area of development in the field of gerontology is the age-friendly community movement. The process of AIP is far more complex than providing accessible housing, implementing services, or fixing sidewalks. AIP in the neighbourhood is highly dependent on contextual factors that are beyond the individual’s control and which are the responsibility of other stakeholders: city planners, local, regional, and national governments, business owners, housing market, health and support services providers, transportation department, etc.

Governments can support the development of affordable housing programs, modify building codes to ensure that new constructions meet minimal accessibility requirements. Visitability legislation, universal design principles and home adaptation programs are few examples of how the future housing stock and neighbourhood built environment can support AIP (Nishita et al. 2007; Imrie 2012; Carr et al. 2013; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 2016).

Local governments, city and town administrations play a central role in urban planning, zoning, and land use, which ultimately dictate the location and accessibility of services, parks, and housing stocks or how roads, sidewalks, outdoor lighting are built, maintained, and replaced. The quality and availability of public transit systems are also part of the cities’ portfolios, which can notably impact older adults’ mobility levels. Depending on regional administrative structures, they can also be responsible for community services such as recreational and leisure centres, public libraries, and community centres which are services salient of older adults AIP experience. Health care structure and service delivery systems vary across regions and countries. Still, the health care system is the main provider of health and community-based support services, which are key to support older adults’ health and independence.

The third sector or social economy (i.e. non-profits, community and charitable organizations, and social enterprises) is another major stakeholder at play regarding AIP (Defourny and Nyssens 2010; Phillips and Hebb 2010). This sector is widely involved in offering services and information to older adults through seniors’ centres and societies, housing services, support services, and educational programs. The private sector has embraced the “silver market” with mixed and sometimes controversial results, particularly when prioritizing profit over people. The lucrative market of seniors’ homes and private assisted living, which are sometimes described as “golden ghettos” by older adults themselves, is one example of how market-driven services can create unaffordable, inaccessible, and potentially harmful living environments (Bigonnesse et al. 2014; Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 2016). Nevertheless, there is a plethora of local businesses and big companies that understand that providing good services for older adults is good for business and the community. Recently, ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft both launched programs to cater services to older adults (Grove 2016; Lien 2016). The age-friendly business movement is another example of how the private sector is trying to make a positive contribution to AIP (Age-Friendly Business Academy 2014).

This overview about the role of various levels of government, the third sector, and the private sector provides a glimpse of the complexity of creating environments favourable for AIP. The only way to create an environment suitable for AIP is working in partnership with multiple stakeholders from various sectors and government levels. Although this framework on AIP in the neighbourhood provides depth and richness to the understanding of how older adults can stay in their home and community as long as possible, it should be situated and articulated within an ecological model. Creating neighbourhood and environments that enable AIP will not be possible if the various stakeholders work in silos and without a clear vision of the dynamics and complexity of such an endeavour.

Finally, the incoming cohort of baby boomers has different characteristics, lifestyle, and life goals compared to the previous generation. This cohort has transformed Western society and will likely revolutionize how ageing is perceived and experienced. Many of the boomers are already taking actions to achieve their goal of AIP and working with others to think about solutions to help them age in place (Bigonnesse 2017). The lack of participation of older adults in gerontology research has already been stressed in the literature (Blair and Minkler 2009; Annear et al. 2014). This might signal a need for a shift toward more participatory research to accompany baby boomers in the implementation of solutions for AIP rather than developing solutions based on research conducted with the previous cohort of older adults.

Funding

This research was supported in part by the Joseph-Armand Bombardier Doctoral Scholarship of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Ref: 767–2012-1672).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.