IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i20p7497-d428353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Social Utility and Health Benefits for Older Adults of Amenity Buildings in China’s Urban Parks: A Nanjing Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Binyu Liu

    (Digital Landscape Architecture Lab of Southeast University, Landscape Architecture Department, School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Ye Chen

    (Digital Landscape Architecture Lab of Southeast University, Landscape Architecture Department, School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China)

  • Meng Xiao

    (China Construction Science & Technology Group Co., LTD., Shenzhen 518000, China)

Abstract

As China’s population rapidly ages, research and discussion on how to better optimize public spaces for the elderly’s health and benefit continue to deepen. This study uses observational surveys and questionnaires to investigate the elderly visitors of Nanjing’s urban parks and explore the impact the parks’ amenity buildings (structures built to provide visitors with conveniences, e.g., shelters and pavilions) has on their health and associated socialization tendencies. Data were collected from ten amenity buildings in ten separate parks to compose a total dataset of 728 activity statistics and 270 valid questionnaires. The study’s results indicate that amenity buildings significantly increase opportunities for older adults to socialize and thereby can increase this demographic’s associated health benefits. The social activities formed around amenity buildings are found to improve social interactions and connectedness among older adults more compared to other age groups. Elderly participation in social activities is also found to positively correlate with environmental characteristics. High-quality landscapes ensure healthy development of social activities within amenity buildings and promote the occurrence and continuation of social interactions. In order of highest to lowest impact on elderly activities, the following factors were identified and scored: amenity building scale, lighting, comprehensive surrounding environment, surrounding amenities, water features, and vegetation. This research also reveals that among existing amenity buildings, there is insufficient support for certain activities and therefore, parks need to be improved to address this deficiency. Overall, this study indicates that under China’s current aging trends, amenity buildings have become an especially important infrastructure within urban public space, and their design trend is to incorporate the dual characteristics of “recreation + society”.

Suggested Citation

  • Binyu Liu & Ye Chen & Meng Xiao, 2020. "The Social Utility and Health Benefits for Older Adults of Amenity Buildings in China’s Urban Parks: A Nanjing Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-26, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7497-:d:428353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7497/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/20/7497/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frieder R. Lang, 2001. "Regulation of Social Relationships in Later Adulthood," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 56(6), pages 321-326.
    2. Sugiyama, T. & Francis, J. & Middleton, N.J. & Owen, N. & Giles-CortI, B., 2010. "Associations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of neighborhood open spaces," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(9), pages 1752-1757.
    3. Catharine Ward Thompson & Peter Aspinall & Jenny Roe & Lynette Robertson & David Miller, 2016. "Mitigating Stress and Supporting Health in Deprived Urban Communities: The Importance of Green Space and the Social Environment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Milad Karimi & John Brazier, 2016. "Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(7), pages 645-649, July.
    5. Kington, R. & Reuben, D. & Rogowski, J. & Lillard, L., 1994. "Sociodemographic and health factors in driving patterns after 50 years of age," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(8), pages 1327-1329.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Binghui Yang & Ye Chen, 2021. "PM2.5 Pollutant Concentrations in Greenspaces of Nanjing Are High but Can Be Lowered with Environmental Planning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-20, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hyun Jin Lee & Dong Kun Lee, 2019. "Do Sociodemographic Factors and Urban Green Space Affect Mental Health Outcomes Among the Urban Elderly Population?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Melinda Heinz & Nicholas Cone & Grace Da Rosa & Alex J. Bishop & Tanya Finchum, 2017. "Examining Supportive Evidence for Psychosocial Theories of Aging within the Oral History Narratives of Centenarians," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Octavio Pano & Carmen Sayón-Orea & Alfredo Gea & Maira Bes-Rastrollo & Miguel Ángel Martínez-González & J. Alfredo Martínez, 2020. "Nutritional Determinants of Quality of Life in a Mediterranean Cohort: The SUN Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, May.
    4. William C. Sullivan & Chun-Yen Chang, 2017. "Landscapes and Human Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-2, October.
    5. Xiaohu Zhang & Scott Melbourne & Chinmoy Sarkar & Alain Chiaradia & Chris Webster, 2020. "Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3402-3420, December.
    6. Suparb Aree‐Ue & Usa Kongsombun & Inthira Roopsawang & Phichpraorn Youngcharoen, 2019. "Path model of factors influencing health‐related quality of life among older people with knee osteoarthritis," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 345-351, September.
    7. Abdullah Addas & Ahmad Maghrabi, 2021. "Social Evaluation of Public Open Space Services and Their Impact on Well-Being: A Micro-Scale Assessment from a Coastal University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Eun Jung Kim & Hyunjung Kim, 2020. "Neighborhood Walkability and Housing Prices: A Correlation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Marc Audi & Amjad Ali, 2023. "The Role of Environmental Conditions and Purchasing Power Parity in Determining Quality of Life among Big Asian Cities," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(3), pages 292-305, May.
    10. María Dolores Ruiz-Fernández & Ángela María Ortega-Galán & Cayetano Fernández-Sola & José Manuel Hernández-Padilla & José Granero-Molina & Juan Diego Ramos-Pichardo, 2020. "Occupational Factors Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life in Nursing Professionals: A Multi-Centre Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-12, February.
    11. Razieh Zandieh & Javier Martinez & Johannes Flacke, 2019. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking and Inequalities in Neighbourhood Green Spaces Characteristics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Tessa Peasgood & Jill Carlton & John Brazier, 2019. "A Qualitative Study of the Views of Health and Social Care Decision-Makers on the Role of Wellbeing in Resource Allocation Decisions in the UK," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, February.
    13. Irene Fernández & Noemí Sansó & José M. Tomás, 2024. "A Longitudinal Study of the Effect of Memory on the Quality of life of European Adults and Older Adults," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 19(4), pages 1859-1876, August.
    14. Tahar Ledraa & Abdulaziz Aldegheishem, 2022. "What Matters Most for Neighborhood Greenspace Usability and Satisfaction in Riyadh: Size or Distance to Home?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, May.
    15. Andrés A. Agudelo-Suárez & Annie M. Vivares-Builes & Natalia Muñoz-Pino & José Miguel Martínez-Martínez & Alison Reid & Elena Ronda-Pérez, 2019. "Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Native and Immigrant Populations in the PELFI Study in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Billingsley Kaambwa & Hailay Abrha Gesesew & Matthew Horsfall & Derek Chew, 2020. "Quality of Life Changes in Acute Coronary Syndromes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-28, September.
    17. Hanna Weimann & Jonas Björk & Carita Håkansson, 2019. "Experiences of the Urban Green Local Environment as a Factor for Well-Being among Adults: An Exploratory Qualitative Study in Southern Sweden," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Sollis, Kate & Yap, Mandy & Campbell, Paul & Biddle, Nicholas, 2022. "Conceptualisations of wellbeing and quality of life: A systematic review of participatory studies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    19. Peter Barlow & Sean Lyons & Anne Nolan, 2021. "How Perceived Adequacy of Open Public Space Is Related to Objective Green Space and Individuals’ Opinions of Area-Level Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-15, July.
    20. Daniel T. C. Cox & Danielle F. Shanahan & Hannah L. Hudson & Richard A. Fuller & Karen Anderson & Steven Hancock & Kevin J. Gaston, 2017. "Doses of Nearby Nature Simultaneously Associated with Multiple Health Benefits," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:20:p:7497-:d:428353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.