IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i14p11264-d1197751.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Elderly Residents’ Uses of and Preferences for Community Outdoor Spaces during Heat Periods

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaolin Yang

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yini Fan

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Dawei Xia

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yukai Zou

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

  • Yuwen Deng

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China)

Abstract

The downtown cores of many cities are characterized by aged communities that tend to host a relatively high population of elderly retirement residents. The availability and usage of outdoor spaces within these communities play a crucial role in promoting active aging, providing essential locations for rest, activities, and social interaction among the elderly. However, in the planning and design of these spaces, attention is often focused on the safety and mobility requirements of the elderly population, while a lack of research is apparent in the area of elderly-specific preferences for spaces designed for relaxation and communication. In this study, we selected an aging community as the research target and conducted a detailed investigation of the outdoor spaces where the elderly residents gather and build up spontaneously in summer. Our objective was to evaluate the environmental factors influencing the selection of these outdoor spaces by the elderly for relaxation and communication. We analyzed the correlations between these factors and the number of occupants in these spaces and developed predictive models accordingly. The findings indicate that the environmental factors impacting the utilization of outdoor spaces by the elderly during heat periods within the community are, in order of importance: temperature, relative humidity, human traffic flow, and noise levels. These factors include physical and social aspects; temperature is a negative correlation factor affecting the use of outdoor space by the elderly, and the rest are positive correlation factors. This shows that the elderly like to gather and chat in a cool, crowded, and lively environment. Through the data analysis, it was determined that the random forest regression model was the most effective in predicting the number of residents remaining in these spaces. With a coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) of 0.7958, the model can assist in community update planning and design, help in selecting outdoor spaces, and improve the quality of the outdoor environment. This study discusses the factors influencing the elderly’s use of community outdoor space from the physical and social levels, and the prediction model is significant for the optimization of spatial elements and spatial location.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaolin Yang & Yini Fan & Dawei Xia & Yukai Zou & Yuwen Deng, 2023. "Elderly Residents’ Uses of and Preferences for Community Outdoor Spaces during Heat Periods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:11264-:d:1197751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/11264/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/14/11264/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Finlay, Jessica M., 2018. "‘Walk like a penguin’: Older Minnesotans' experiences of (non)therapeutic white space," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 77-84.
    2. Atuoye, Kilian Nasung & Luginaah, Isaac & Hambati, Herbert & Campbell, Gwyn, 2019. "Politics, economics, how about our health? Impacts of large-scale land acquisitions on therapeutic spaces and wellbeing in coastal Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 283-291.
    3. Sugiyama, T. & Gunn, L.D. & Christian, H. & Francis, J. & Foster, S. & Hooper, P. & Owen, N. & Giles-Corti, B., 2015. "Quality of public open spaces and recreational walking," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(12), pages 2490-2495.
    4. Shiwang Yu & Na Guo & Caimiao Zheng & Yu Song & Jianli Hao, 2021. "Investigating the Association between Outdoor Environment and Outdoor Activities for Seniors Living in Old Residential Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Wei-Yin Loh, 2014. "Fifty Years of Classification and Regression Trees," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 82(3), pages 329-348, December.
    6. Sungduck Lee & Emily Talen, 2014. "Measuring Walkability: A Note on Auditing Methods," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 368-388, May.
    7. Karmele Herranz-Pascual & Ioseba Iraurgi & Itziar Aspuru & Igone Garcia-Pérez & Alvaro Santander & José Luis Eguiguren, 2022. "Integrating Soundscape Criteria in Urban Sustainable Regeneration Processes: An Example of Comfort and Health Improvement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    2. Ariana Chang & Tian‐Shyug Lee & Hsiu‐Mei Lee, 2024. "Applying sustainable development goals in financial forecasting using machine learning techniques," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2277-2289, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Bartzokas-Tsiompras, Alexandros & Bakogiannis, Efthimios & Nikitas, Alexandros, 2023. "Global microscale walkability ratings and rankings: A novel composite indicator for 59 European city centres," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Javier Velázquez & Javier Infante & Inmaculada Gómez & Ana Hernando & Derya Gülçin & Fernando Herráez & Víctor Rincón & Rui Alexandre Castanho, 2023. "Walkability under Climate Pressure: Application to Three UNESCO World Heritage Cities in Central Spain," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Farkas, Sébastien & Lopez, Olivier & Thomas, Maud, 2021. "Cyber claim analysis using Generalized Pareto regression trees with applications to insurance," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 92-105.
    7. Emilio Aguirre & Federico García-Suárez & Gabriela Sicilia, 2021. "Eficiencia técnica en la ganadería de carne bovina pastoril. Medición y exploración de sus determinantes en Uruguay," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 1321, Department of Economics - dECON.
    8. Ling Zhang & Kebin Shao & Wenfeng Tang & Stephen Siu Yu Lau & Hongzhan Lai & Yiqi Tao, 2023. "Outdoor Space Elements in Urban Residential Areas in Shenzhen, China: Optimization Based on Health-Promoting Behaviours of Older People," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-23, May.
    9. Kim Dovey & Elek Pafka, 2020. "What is walkability? The urban DMA," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(1), pages 93-108, January.
    10. Lotfi Boudabsa & Damir Filipovi'c, 2022. "Ensemble learning for portfolio valuation and risk management," Papers 2204.05926, arXiv.org.
    11. Yan, Ran & Wang, Shuaian & Du, Yuquan, 2020. "Development of a two-stage ship fuel consumption prediction and reduction model for a dry bulk ship," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    12. Francesca Abastante & Isabella M. Lami & Luigi La Riccia & Marika Gaballo, 2020. "Supporting Resilient Urban Planning through Walkability Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    13. Feng Li & Jiali Xiang & Tao Li & Danni Shen & Tian Li, 2022. "Active Indoor Soundscape Design: A Case Study of Ceramic Passive Amplifiers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-22, September.
    14. Faisal AlShareef & Mohammed Aljoufie, 2020. "Identification of the Proper Criteria Set for Neighborhood Walkability Using the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Model: A Case Study in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Stefania Bandini & Francesca Gasparini, 2021. "Social and Active Inclusion of the Elderly in the City Through Affective Walkability," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 557-573, November.
    16. Mona Jabbari & Fernando Fonseca & Rui Ramos, 2018. "Combining multi-criteria and space syntax analysis to assess a pedestrian network: the case of Oporto," Journal of Urban Design, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 23-41, January.
    17. Ayse Ozbil & Tugce Gurleyen & Demet Yesiltepe & Ezgi Zunbuloglu, 2019. "Comparative Associations of Street Network Design, Streetscape Attributes and Land-Use Characteristics on Pedestrian Flows in Peripheral Neighbourhoods," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-23, May.
    18. A. Poterie & J.-F. Dupuy & V. Monbet & L. Rouvière, 2019. "Classification tree algorithm for grouped variables," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 1613-1648, December.
    19. Greg D. Simpson & Jackie Parker, 2018. "Data on Peer-Reviewed Papers about Green Infrastructure, Urban Nature, and City Liveability," Data, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, November.
    20. Zhehao Zhang & Thomas Fisher & Haiming Wang, 2023. "Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.

    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:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:14:p:11264-:d:1197751. 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.