IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0131526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the Age-Friendliness of Different Neighbourhoods Using District Surveys: An Example from Hong Kong

Author

Listed:
  • Moses Wong
  • Pui Hing Chau
  • Francis Cheung
  • David R Phillips
  • Jean Woo

Abstract

Background: To address the age-friendliness of living environment in cities, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the “Age-friendly cities” (AFC) initiative in 2005. To date, however, no universal standard tool for assessing age-friendliness of a community has been agreed. Methodology: Two quantitative studies on AFC conducted in two Hong Kong districts—Sha Tin and Tuen Mun—were compared. A total of 801 residents aged ≥50 years were interviewed using structured questionnaires based on the WHO’s AFC criteria. District-wide differences in age-friendliness were compared on the basis of eight domain scores. Multiple linear regression was used to examine associations with demographic and socio-economic characteristics. The provision of services and amenities was also compared to help explain the difference in domain scores. Results: Variations in mean domain scores were observed in both districts. Sha Tin showed significantly lower scores in outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information, as compared with Tuen Mun. Although a significantly higher score on the housing domain was observed in Sha Tin, differences in community and health services domains were insignificant. Socio-demographic factors, such as age group, gender, area of residence, type of housing, experience of elderly care, employment status, self-rated health and income, were associated with domain scores. However, variations in services and amenities provision appeared not to be strongly associated with district-wide difference in domain scores. Conclusions: District differences in public opinions towards age-friendly characteristics were observed in this study. Except for two of the eight domains, Sha Tin had significantly lower scores than Tuen Mun. Some socio-demographic indicators seemed predictive to the differences. Paradoxically, Sha Tin had better services and infrastructure and higher socio-economic status, but lower age-friendliness. This warrants detailed research on psychosocial factors that may influence residents’ perceptions of local environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Moses Wong & Pui Hing Chau & Francis Cheung & David R Phillips & Jean Woo, 2015. "Comparing the Age-Friendliness of Different Neighbourhoods Using District Surveys: An Example from Hong Kong," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0131526
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131526
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131526&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0131526?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kim, Eric S. & Park, Nansook & Peterson, Christopher, 2013. "Perceived neighborhood social cohesion and stroke," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 49-55.
    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. Paola Monachesi, 2023. "Age Friendly Characteristics and Sense of Community of an Italian City: The Case of Macerata," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Moses Wong & Ruby Yu & Jean Woo, 2017. "Effects of Perceived Neighbourhood Environments on Self-Rated Health among Community-Dwelling Older Chinese," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Nuan-Ching Huang & Shiann-Far Kung & Susan C. Hu, 2018. "The Relationship between Urbanization, the Built Environment, and Physical Activity among Older Adults in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-20, April.

    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. Boqin Xie & Chenjuan Ma & Junqiao Wang, 2020. "Independent and Combined Relationships of Perceived Neighborhood Social Cohesion and Physical Frailty on Functional Disability in Community-Dwelling Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-12, August.
    2. Diego Zavaleta & Kim Samuel & China T. Mills, 2017. "Measures of Social Isolation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 367-391, March.
    3. Rodgers, Justin & Valuev, Anna V. & Hswen, Yulin & Subramanian, S.V., 2019. "Social capital and physical health: An updated review of the literature for 2007–2018," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Viniece Jennings & Omoshalewa Bamkole, 2019. "The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Eileen E. Avery & Joan M. Hermsen & Danielle C. Kuhl, 2021. "Toward a Better Understanding of Perceptions of Neighborhood Social Cohesion in Rural and Urban Places," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 523-541, September.
    6. Hyeah Park & Seulggie Choi & Kyae Hyung Kim & EunKyo Kang & Ahryoung Ko & Sang Min Park, 2020. "Association between Social Trust and Metabolic Syndrome in a Previously Healthy Population—A Longitudinal Cohort Study in South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-12, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0131526. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.