Approaching Social Participation of Older Adults in Urban Neighborhoods
An Analysis of Advantaged and Less Advantaged Neighborhoods in Portland and Amsterdam
Supervisor: prof.dr. Sako Musterd 2nd Reader: dr. Joos Droogleever Fortuijn
Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS) Master’s Thesis Research Master Urban Studies
Susanne Dobner #10255311 June, 2013
1 Photo left corner: Senior resident reading city map.
Photo right corner: Senior residents sitting on bench, watching the street.
Photo bottom: Collage of flyers, newspapers, maps and brochures from Portland and Amsterdam.
3 Foreword
My concern and passion for aging in cities, has led me work on related topics over the past years. The Urban Studies Research masters program at the University of Amsterdam, has allowed me to conduct fieldwork in Portland and Amsterdam, and more importantly has encouraged me to critically reflect upon aging trajectories in urban environments in a conducive and stimulating learning environment. This would not have been possible without the support, guidance, and enthusiasm of many people, near and far.
I would like to thank all respondents in Portland and Amsterdam, for taking the time, sharing your interest and inviting me to your homes. I have learned so much from every interview, more than I could ever put into a thesis. I would further like to express my appreciation to Dorine and Hein, for their efforts in finding me enough 'victims' in the Jordaan.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Sako Musterd, for his guidance and support over this past year, and helping me to combine both of my interests in Urban Studies and Gerontology. Interesting discussions, and the opportunity to have worked as a student assistant has helped me to grow intellectually and has exposed me to and given me insights regarding the rigor of the academic working environment.
The fieldwork in Portland would not have been as enjoyable and smooth, without the help and guidance of Alan DeLaTorre. Thank you for your support and help in establishing contacts for the fieldwork, and earlier comments on the Portland case study. I’d further like to thank Margaret Neal, following your class during my exchange semester at Portland State University, has opened my eyes to the multifacetedness of aging even more.
I’m grateful for all the amazing friends and classmates I have met in Portland and Amsterdam, and found in Vienna a long time ago. I’d especially like to thank Anna-Lisa and Donya. You have become my extended family. I'm so grateful for your invaluable support, and bearing with me during the past months, listening to all my stories and worries patiently. Anna-Lisa, thank you for being a wonderful roommate and amazing friend. Our shared passion for food and wine made these past months ever more enjoyable.
Last, but foremost, I cannot thank my parents enough. I hope you know how grateful I am for your endless support, belief in me, and encouraging me to travel, and pursue my interests. I'd also like to thank my sister for encouraging me to apply to this program and move to Amsterdam two years ago.
4 Abstract
The rising number of people growing old(er) in urban environments raises new demands and pressing challenges on urban development. A great number of scientific research, policy attentions, and public debates strives to gather more knowledge, create or enhance (more) age-friendly, and suitable living environments for older citizens. One of the prevalent assets mentioned to ensure and foster independence, and well-being, within older age is social participation, and an active engagement of older adults within their communities. This research looks at the role of neighborhoods, and more specifically, the impact of the built, community, personal and policy environments on social participation of older adults. The comparative case study further explores social participation of older adults in advantaged and less advantaged urban neighborhoods, situated in Portland and Amsterdam. In-depth qualitative interviews with older adults and key informants held in Portland, and Amsterdam, aspired to gain insights into the perceptions of older adults, making space for their experiences, as opposed to an imposition of predefined concepts, and guidelines. The key questions addressed within this research are: How do older adults define social participation, and what features in the built, community, personal and policy environments can be identified as hindering or fostering social participation?
5 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 8
2. Research Positioning ... 10
3. Growing Old(er) in Cities ... 11
4. Theoretical Framework - Combining Geography of Aging and Critical Social Gerontology ... 12
4.1 A Critical Human Ecology Perspective: Towards Person-Environment-Fits ... 13
4.2 Growing Older in Disadvantaged Urban Neighborhoods ... 14
4.3 Social Participation of Older Adults in Urban Neighborhoods ... 15
5. Social Participation of Older Adults in Two Different National and Local Contexts – What Matters? ... 19
6. Conceptual Schemes ... 21
6.1 Research Questions ... 23
7. Research Design and Methodology ... 24
8. Analysis and Findings from Research in Portland and Amsterdam ... 34
9. Case I Portland, Oregon, US ... 34
9.1 Situating the Case Study Neighborhoods: Hosford-Abernethy and Cully ... 36
9.2 Analysis and Findings from Case I in Portland ... 41
9.3 Considering the National Context ... 41
9.4 Considering the Local Context ... 43
9.5 Understandings and Meanings of Social Participation ... 46
9.6 Facing Obstacles in the Build Environment: Linkages between physical environments and personal characteristics ... 48
9.7 Approaching the ‘community environment’: Older Adults Perspectives on Neighborhood-Based Social Cohesion and Informal Support ... 51
9.8 Informal venues and meeting places for older adults ... 53
9.9 ‘What is going on in the neighborhood?’ Notions of Staying Informed and Connected ... 55
9.10 Synthesis ... 56
10. Case II Amsterdam, The Netherlands ... 58
10.1 Situating the Case Study Neighborhoods: Jordaan and Vogelbuurt/IJplein ... 59
10.2 Analysis and Findings from Case II in Amsterdam ... 62
10.3 Considering the National Context ... 62
10.4 Considering the Local Context ... 66
10.5 Understandings and Meanings of Social Participation ... 68
10.6 Assessing the social and built environments in the Jordaan and the Vogelbuurt/IJplein ... 69
10.7 Facing Hurdles in the Built environment: Accessing Neighborhood-Based Amenities ... 72
10.8 Approaching the ‘community environment’: Older Adults Perspectives on Neighborhood-Based Social Cohesion and Informal Support ... 75
10.9 Synthesis ... 77
11. Comparing Portland and Amsterdam ... 79
12. Conclusions ... 81
6
Abbreviations
AIS Ainsworth Street Collective
BOJ Belangengroep Ouderenhuisvesting Jordaan
CAN Cully Association of Neighbors
CNN Central Northeast Neighbors
EU European Union
HAND Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Development
ONI Office of Neighborhood Involvement (Portland)
SOOJ Stichting Ontmoetingsruimte Ouderen Jordaan
7
List of Figures, Tables and Maps
Figure 1. Operationalizing the levels of scale
Figure 2. Environments Influencing Social Participation of Older Adults Figure 3. Conceptual Scheme
Table 1. Sample of Older Residents in Hosford-Abernethy Table 2. Sample of Older Residents in Cully
Table 3. Sample of Key Informants in Portland Table 4. Sample of Older Residents in the Jordaan
Table 5. Sample of Older Residents in the Vogelbuurt/IJplein Table 6. Sample of Key Informants in Amsterdam
Map 1. Locating Portland, OR, US
Map 2. Locating the selected neighborhoods Map 3. Street Map of Hosford-Abernethy Map 4. Street Map of Cully
Map 5. Geographic Boundaries of the Ainsworth Street Collective Map 6. Locating Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Map 7. Locating the selected neighborhoods Map 8. ‘Non-residential’ functions in the Jordaan
8
1. Introduction
Urbanization and Aging, identified as two major cohesive global trends in the 21st century, are enjoying increasing public as well as academic attention. It has been acknowledged that “the urban sprawl, the demographic shift and the quest for enhancement of quality of life are linked together” (Martinoni & Sartoris 2009: 14). From a global perspective, there will be twice as many people aged 60 and older living in cities in 2050 compared to 2006 (WHO 2007b). As predicted for the Netherlands, about one third (31.9%) of the population will be aged 60 and older in the year 2050, compared to 22.8% today, and similar trends can be found for the United States of America1. A great number of scientific research, policy attention, and public debates strive to gather knowledge in order to create, design or enhance (more) age-friendly and suitable living environments for older adults. In consideration of current and future demographic trends discussions about creating urban environments suitable for the needs and aspirations of an aging population are of great relevance. The majority of older adults lives and remains in their homes as opposed to care facilities, and this trend is most likely going to continue. Keeping in mind that “the characteristics of the dwelling place and area lived in are important prerequisites for autonomous living and well-being” (Peace, Wahl, Mollenkopf & Oswald 2007: 219) for older adults, it is of great importance to gain more knowledge about how people experience living and growing older in their communities.
One of the prevalent assets mentioned to ensure and foster independence and general well-being within older age is social participation and an active engagement of older adults within their communities and cities. However definitions and meanings attached to the various concepts of social participation are manifold and, as many scholars argue, ill-defined (Levasseur, Richard, Gauvin & Raymond 2010). Setting the discussion about a lack of concrete definitions or uniform understandings of social participation aside, active engagements in one’s community not only depend on individual abilities and preferences but also on opportunity structures in the available social and built environment. The focus and emphasis on neighborhoods or communities when discussing ‘aging in place’ have to be seen as part of bigger societal, political, and institutional processes. ‘Aging in place’ is not neither a new phenomena nor a “one-size-fits-all concept” (Vasunilashorn, Steinman, Liebig &
1 http://www.helpage.org/global-agewatch/population-ageing-data/country-ageing data/?country=Netherlands
9 Pynoos 2012: 3). However some factors, including the decreasing role of the welfare state, a growing redirection of care into the private sector, alongside a personal desire for staying in one’s home, are becoming increasingly relevant for an unprecedented number of (older) adults. These processes shift “care of older adults away from nursing homes and into the home and community setting” (Clarke & Nieuwenhuijsen 2009: 17). Additionally, previous research point towards the importance of the immediate environment as a person’s mobility radius is more likely to decrease within older age and “people tend to spend a greater proportion of their lives closer to home” (Day 2008: 300; see also Phillips, Siu, Yeh & Cheng 2005; Rowles 1978; Kellaher, Peace & Holland 2004). So far little qualitative research has been conducted to better understand how urban neighborhoods impact upon older adults living quality and well-being (Richard et al. 2008). Most attention has been paid to issues closely related to housing and home (Wiles, Leibing, Guberman, Reeve & Allen 2011). As argued by many scholars, the context and quality of neighborhoods, especially crucial for older people, can have a great impact on people’s abilities to engage independently in daily life (Lawton 1980). Especially older people in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods are amongst the most vulnerable groups, yet display a relatively “under- researched segment of the older population” (Brooklyndhurst 2004: 1).
The driving forces behind this research are situated amidst recent policy attentions towards creating and exploring age-friendly cities, neighborhoods, and communities. This begs the question which social and physical features are identified as supportive elements, fostering social participation, and enabling older adults to remain in their communities. The present comparative case study focuses upon older people in advantaged and less advantaged urban neighborhoods, and more specifically their opportunities and demands to participate in community life, comparing Portland, US and Amsterdam, NL. It explores how older adults living independently in advantaged and disadvantaged urban neighborhoods understand social participation, engage with and use their neighborhoods. Given the above the main research questions are:
How do older adults understand social participation?
What factors impacting upon social participation of older adults in urban neighborhoods can be identified? And how do these differ in more and less advantaged areas?
10
2. Research Positioning
The present research strives to add new knowledge and insight into discussions about social participation of older adults in more and less advantaged urban neighborhoods. Despite a large body of literature and research on deprived urban neighborhoods and its effects on the young and working population, so far little attention has been paid to the experiences of older adults. Valuable insights have been gained through largely quantitative research, whereas, it is argued here, also qualitative methodologies serve as a meaningful approach to unravel the complex realities of social participation and older adults. This research stands in line with a common “call for more research with older people rather than on them“ (Wiles et al. 2011: 3 cited after Scheidt & Windley 2006). In line with Jacobs (1961) this research project responds to her call: “cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody” (Jacobs 1961: 238). The international project ‘Global Age-friendly Cities’ 2 initiated by the World Health Organization in the years 2006/7, the Belgian Ageing Studies (BAS)3 and ‘Community Action in Later Life – Manchester Engagement’4 (CALL-ME) in the UK, are all examples of projects actively involving older adults in research processes.
2 The project ‘Global Age-friendly Cities’ initially took place in 33 cities worldwide in 2006/07, after its first conceptualization at the World Congress of Gerontology and Geriatrics held in Brazil in 2005. The project engaged cities worldwide to become more livable and sustainable places for older adults and ultimately “for people of all ages and abilities” (Neal & DeLaTorre 2007: 15). The applied methodology comprises the active involvement of older people identifying them as “community advocates and overseers of action to make their cities more age-friendly” (WHO 2007b: iv). Within the project eight main topics provided a common frame through which ‘age-friendliness’ was assessed in the participating cities. The project adopted a framework of active aging defining it as “the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age” (WHO 2002: 12). ‘Active Aging’ is understood as being influenced by six determinants including economic, social, personal and behavioral factors alongside the physical environment as well as health and social services. All of these factors are again influenced by ones culture and gender (WHO 2007a).
3 Belgian Ageing Studies (BAS), a research consortium, developed by researchers at two universities in Belgium (Vrije Universiteit Brussels and Hogeschool Gent) conducts research since 2002. Belgian Ageing Studies “refers to a project which seeks to monitor local challenges and opportunities, as well as issues of quality of life, among home-dwelling older people in order to provide tools for evidenced-based ageing policies at local level.” (http://www.belgianageingstudies.be/) Active participation and involvement of older adults, among other stakeholders, is of great concern during the whole research process.
4
The ‘CALL-ME’ project carried out by the University of Keele, focuses on four disadvantaged neighborhoods in Manchester. The project“seeks to move away from an assessment of the problems associated with ageing in socially deprived communities towards a new focus on the ways in which community action by older people can contribute to active ageing in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods.” (http://www.keele.ac.uk/callme/) The applied methodology, a participatory action design, highlights the active involvement of older adults in the project.
11 It is of concern to point towards risks of homogenizing older adults, or fall intro traps of ageism. It is especially important to consider and embrace the diversity and heterogeneity of older adults when looking at social participation and community engagements. Looking at aging from a critical gerontology perspective emphasizes an appreciation of the heterogeneity within aging, acknowledging various social, cultural, and financial resources, lifestyles and ways to interact with the environment (Keating & Phillips 2008; Hooyman & Kiyak 2011). Thus when referred to older adults in this document, it is not because a generalization about this age group is being made.
3. Growing Old(er) in Cities
The increasing number of people aging in their homes and communities leaves us with the question whether cities provide (enough) suitable living environments for the various needs of their aging citizens? Certainly not all people want to grow old in their home due to different reasons, yet the number of people who want to and will experience processes of 'aging in place' in cities is and will be constantly growing, now and in the future. Gitlin (2003) emphasizes that an unprecedented number of people growing older in urban areas, calls for an urgency to take action with “new challenges to societal planning and housing development” (Iwarsson et al. 2007: 78 cited after Girtlin 2003) emerging. Although the number of people acknowledging the inevitable trend and choice of people aging in cities is growing, a lot more still needs to be done. General trends in social and public policy work emphasizing “concerns for proactive older people who wish to stay healthy and at home” (Kendig 2003: 614) can be observed. Certainly, there is not one but rather multiple visions of a suitable living environment for older adults– comparable to the different visions and demands within other age groups. Learning more about these visions and demands from the perspectives of older adults enables a wider understanding of how these environments can look like and what features already work well. An argument raised by Buffel, Phillipson and Scharf (2012), regarding a shift in approaching ‘age-friendliness’ in cities proves to be important. The question ‘What does an age-friendly environment look like’ should be reformulated to ‘How age-friendly are urban environments found today’ (Buffel, Phillipson & Scharf 2012).
12
4. Theoretical Framework - Combining Geography of Aging and
Critical Social Gerontology
This section is dedicated to introduce and critically reflect upon the main theoretical pillars within this research. It will be argued that a combination of geographies of aging and critical social gerontology serves as a beneficial approach to better understand the complexity and multidimensionality of social participation of older adults in urban neighborhoods. Furthermore, it allows to explore various spatial dimensions of aging, without losing sight of both macro- societal and micro- individual dynamics.
Aging does not happen in a vacuum, thus geographic and spatial dimensions are an inherent part of aging experiences, patterns and trajectories. The geographic dimension –where- a person grows old entails manifold and interrelated dimensions on both, micro-, and macro scales. Differences of and similarities between spatial contexts might be found within countries, cities, and neighborhoods. Hodge (2008) refers to two perspectives of geographies of aging “where one might begin to understand” (Hodge 2008: 4) macro as well as micro dynamics of aging. A more macro- oriented perspective tends to start out by looking at national statistical census data, and then zooms into smaller geographic entities, like cities. Looking at geographies of aging from a micro-oriented perspective portends a stronger emphasis on neighborhoods or communities. This research is in line with a micro-oriented perspective focusing on older adults in urban neighborhoods and their aging experiences. However merits in a combination of both perspectives and acknowledgments of their interrelated character potentially lead to a more holistic picture of various aging experiences. Looking at aging experiences in neighborhoods, both social and built environments are important elements to consider. As Bubolz and Sontag (1993) emphasize “people do not exist in isolation but in interaction with the physical and social contexts in which they live in” (Bubolz & Sontag 1993 cited after Keating et al. 2008: 3). Moreover “older adults are not passive recipients of the environments” (Keating & Phillips 2008: 4) but bear capabilities to actively shape and influence their environments. Owing to a recent “'turn' towards an urban focus” (Phillipson 2004: 964) in gerontology a growing emphasis on the interconnectedness of older adults and their communities, home environments, health conditions and general well-being can be found. Alongside current “social and political moves towards an “age-friendly” (Kendig 2003: 614) society the importance of research on aging in urban
13 environments for policy implementation has been acknowledged within environmental gerontology. Following Phillipson (2004), “a new environmental gerontology [has] the scope to explore both the risks and the gains of urban living.” (Phillipson 2004: 971)
4.1 A Critical Human Ecology Perspective: Towards Person-Environment-Fits
An intersection of geography of aging and critical social gerontology can be found in the critical human ecology framework. This framework emphasizes the porous boundaries between the built and social environments. Extensive research has shown manifold that not only the home and dwelling contexts influence quality of life and general well-being of older adults, but also the wider social, built and community environments (Robert & Li 2001; Glass & Balfour 2003; Smith 2009). In respect to the built environment, one may think about how the availability of public transportation can affect older adults’ opportunities to reach and access venues fostering social participation. An inclusive community environment, including contacts with neighbors and interpersonal relationships, may enhance information flow and exchange about available events, and activities. Additionally, individual abilities and resources co-determine daily activities and neighborhood uses. An intersection of “personal and environmental resources” (Keating & Phillips 2008: 4) is captured within the ‘Person-Environment-Fit’, a paradigm introduced in the 1970s and 1980s by Powell Lawton (see Lawton 1980). The Person-Environment-Fit “recognizes the dynamic interaction between individual action (not passivity) and environmental influences, and it has concern for higher outcomes such as well-being” (Kendig 2003: 612). Within the P-E Fit paradigm four distinct environments are identified: the physical, the interpersonal, the community and the policy environment. The physical environment refers to the built environment (e.g. home, infrastructural elements, and facilities) as well as “the meaning or evaluation” (Keating & Phillips 2008: 4) people attach to them. Social contacts and networks within a community (e.g. friends, family, relatives) are covered by the interpersonal environment. Definitions of a community environment are a lot more uncertain and can include a person's immediate physical environment, the neighborhood, and place attachments, as well as social and emotional connections with other residents. The policy environment illustrates a macro perspective which “represents the values, programs and services that affect” (Keating & Phillips 2008: 5) older adults. These can range from local and neighborhood-based projects to national programs, all of which have (in-) direct bearings on the lives of older adults.
14 Despite a widely shared agreement among scholars that manifold environments impact upon aging, a more interdisciplinary consideration and in-depth look into the interaction between different features including “the home, public, and community environments, as well as technology remain largely overlooked” (Wahl, Iwarsson & Oswald 2012: 306). Further criticism addresses the up until recent large negligence and tendency to overlook older adults living in deprived inner-city neighborhoods (Scharf, Phillipson & Smith. 2003). While a broad body of literature investigates effects of living in a less advantaged urban area on Youth and working age residents, and within those groups often focusing upon ethnic minorities, not much emphasis has been put on older adults. The growing interest to better understand their experiences might be associated with an attested refocus in social gerontology research, on older adults residing independently in urban environments.
4.2 Growing Older in Disadvantaged Urban Neighborhoods
As this research focuses on the experiences of older adults in advantaged and less advantaged neighborhoods, this subsection will discuss how less advantaged neighborhood may be characterized, and which neighborhood-specific aspects are found to aggravate well-being of older adults, and aging experiences more generally.
Living in a less advantaged urban neighborhood can set limits and constraints to daily-living and general well-being for people of all ages. As discussed in previous chapters, it is important to keep in mind that spatial contexts, with all the built, social and cultural dimensions influence people’s experiences, identities and attachment to their surroundings. An area characterized by a lack of public transit, sidewalks, less-close by grocery stores or medical facilities can exacerbate life for people with constrained physical abilities, and/or financial means. People growing up and old in less advantaged neighborhoods might experience difficulties and restrictions throughout their life, some of which may intensify as they grow older and chances of physical and/or psychological constraints increase. There is not one straightforward definition or typology of what features constitute a disadvantaged urban neighborhood. It is very likely that people have different ideas in mind, when the question ‘How does a disadvantaged or a deprived urban neighborhood look like?’ is raised. However, throughout academic literature some indicators are frequently mentioned and point towards some similarities within multidimensional concepts of deprivation.
Generally a deprived neighborhood is characterized by an aggregation of both physical and socio-economic problems (Van der Meer 2006). This can imply a high proportion of
low-15 income households, alongside a high share of non-participation in the labor market, high rates of population turn over as well as bad housing conditions, and infrastructure. These characteristics vary to large extents when considering different geographical locations and different national and local contexts. Van der Meer (2006) argues that “an environment can be labeled ‘poor’ if the neighbourhood not only lacks opportunities to develop or maintain high levels of participation, but also has a low variety of activity involvement and social interactions” (Van der Meer 2006: 29).
Beside the importance of individual characteristics, also the neighborhood context illustrates vital elements impacting upon processes of identification and place attachment, social cohesion, and physical mobility patterns. It is believed that residing in a deprived urban neighborhood does influence experiences of older adults in regards to actively engaging in community life. Discussions about actual impacts of ‘area or neighborhood effects’ for people living in a more disadvantaged urban area have found supporters and opponents, and would amount an article in itself (for further discussion see Sampson et al. 2002; Ellen & Turner 1997). However, previous research suggests that the context and quality of neighborhoods, especially crucial for older adults can greatly impact upon people’s abilities to engage in daily life independently (Annear, Cushman & Gidlow 2009; Beard & Petitot 2010; Lang et al. 2008; Lawton 1980; Van der Meer, Drooglever Fortuijn & Thissen 2008). Especially for older adults in less advantaged neighborhoods, a limited access to close-by services, inadequate housing and care facilities as well as decreased social cohesion may play a crucial role in determining their opportunities to engage in community life independently. Literature focusing on social deprivation, older adults, and area based disadvantages suggests that older adults living in more socially deprived urban areas are more likely to perceive their environment negatively (Scharf, Phillipson & Smith 2005). A less advantaged neighborhood may also be characterized by less facilities, and a lack of of local services (e.g. neighborhood organizations, community centers, clubs) restricting the availability of mutual meeting places and opportunities for older adults to engage with other residents.
4.3 Social Participation of Older Adults in Urban Neighborhoods
The following sections are dedicated to a more in-depth discussion about what aspects social participation of older adults entail. Moreover, a brief summary of definitions and understandings of social participation given by the World Health Organization and the European Union are discussed. In a further step, previous research findings, situated in the nexus of social participation, older adults, and urban environments, will be discussed. The
16 focus is set on research efforts within the disciplines of Urban Studies, Sociology, and Gerontology, where frequent overlaps are found.
A lot of concepts and guidelines that list age-friendly features in a city or a neighborhood, introduce social participation and inclusion of older people as a main pillar. Social participation is often discussed “as a key strategy of fostering empowerment, one of the central tenets of the health promotion movement” (Richard, Gauvin, Gosselin & Laforest 2008: 46). However, there is no clear-cut definition of what social participation in fact entails. Manifold reasons for the frequently missing conceptual clarity may be related to differing political, cultural and social perspectives on aging and older adults in society. There is a wide range of possible forms of social participation ranging from engagement in a neighborhood center, volunteering or advocacy work, to regular social contacts with family, relatives, or neighbors. In addition, the term social participation often seems interchangeable with phrases like social engagement, involvement, and civic engagement.
Understandings of Social Participation by the World Health Organization and the European Union
Understandings and definitions of social participation within the WHO and the EU, are partly influenced by academic research, while simultaneously impacting upon international, national and local policies affecting multiple facets of aging.
The World Health Organization, stating that “social participation and social support are
strongly connected to good health and well-being throughout life” (WHO 2007a: 38), awards
social participation of older adults a significant role. Following their understandings, social participation entails accessibility to events and activities, facilities and settings, fostering community integration and more broadly addressing isolation (Smith 2009). Within the ‘Global Age-friendly Cities’ project social participation was an important topic within the conceptual framework. It is described as “participating in leisure, social, cultural and
spiritual activities in the community, as well as with the family” (WHO 2007a: 38).
Within official documents and policy recommendations of the European Union a widely shared connection among health, well-being and social participation of older adults can be found. From the 1990s and 2000s the concept of healthy and active aging has been gaining increasing attention. With the proclamation of the year 2012 as the ‘European Year of Active
17 Ageing and Solidarity between Generations’ 5 (following ‘The European Year of Volunteering’ in 2011) the European Union made another important step in tackling and promoting a debate about aging in and age-friendliness of European Countries. In contrast to the operationalization found within the WHO ‘Global Age-friendly Cities’ project, volunteer work as well as participation in the labor market are closely related to social participation6. Walker and Maltby (2012) criticize the strong emphasis on productive activities as a too “productivist straightjacket” (Walker & Maltby 2012: 128) within the prevailing active aging paradigm in the European Union, which remains to be assessed critically7.
Building on Previous Research Findings
There appears to be wide agreement that social participation is closely related to the general well-being of older adults. It is often introduced as “a key component of many conceptual models of human functioning or successful aging” (Levasseur et al. 2010: 2141). Manifold definitions and understandings of social participation when looking at recent research efforts in Urban Studies, Sociology, and Gerontology, appear to be related to different disciplinary outlooks on the phenomenon. However, this is not to say that there are strict lines between disciplines, but rather different foci of research within as well as between disciplines.
Social participation appears in various forms and facets, and as Levasseur et al. (2010) point out different dimensions might be looked at, separately or combined. Some research efforts specifically look at the built environment, the use, and perceptions of neighborhoods in regard to its connection to forms and frequencies of social participation. Meanwhile, others address roles of social cohesion and social networks within a person’s neighborhood. Additionally, manifold research methods are applied, ranging from quantitative questionnaires, analysis of surveys, to ethnographic approaches, including in-depth
5
For more information, please see http://europa.eu/ey2012/ and http://www.age-platform.eu/en/2012-european-year-on-active-ageing-and-intergenerational-solidarity
6 Anne-Sophie Parent, secretary-general of the AGE Platform Europe, stated that “Our rapidly ageing population means that decision-makers must take urgent action to encourage all generations to be more active in their communities and also in society more generally. As life expectancy goes up, active ageing should be encouraged through volunteering and is an opportunity to engage all citizens regardless of their age.” (http://www.age-platform.eu/en/age-a-the-media/age-communication-to-the-media-press-releases/1368-older-volunteering-everyone-has-something-to-gain)
7
The authors consider the ‘active ageing’ paradigm praised by the European Union as running risks of expressing normative ideas about preferable and healthy participation by older adults without explicitly addressing issues of other issues, e.g. age discrimination within the labor force. Walker and Maltby (2012) further state that “despite the presence in the EU, for nearly a decade, of the conceptualization of active ageing based on participation and well-being across the life course, the actual policy instruments still focus primarily on employment” (Walker & Maltby 2012: 125).
18 interviews, and analyses of individual diary entries. Generally within current research efforts, some of the dimensions of social participation repeatedly addressed, are: Where? Who? When? How? and What?8 (Levasseur et al. 2010).
Within their study ‘Staying connected: neighborhood correlates of social participation among older adults living in an urban environment in Montreal Quebec’ Richard et al. (2008) aimed to identify determinants of social participation in high- and low-income neighborhoods in Montreal, Canada. A 10-item scale, included different activities (e.g. involvement in cultural events, and taking lessons or volunteering), while also asking for individual evaluations of the home and the neighborhood environment. The authors concluded that there is a strong connection between levels of participation and satisfaction with a person’s dwelling and their neighborhood. In addition, besides environmental features, also individual resources, such as age, health status, and income are important factors to be considered (Richard et al. 2008: 54f.). Similarly, Andonian and MacRae9 (2011) argue that both, individual strategies to stay actively involved (e.g. willingness to try new things, expression of personal values through volunteering, advocacy work), alongside features in the built environment (e.g. accessibility to safe public transportation or availability of activities in the community) are important and need to be considered interdependently (Andonian & MacRae 2011: 7ff.).
These and other studies show a variety of individual characteristics (e.g. age, gender, income, level of educational attainment) which influence activity patterns of older adults, regardless of informal or formal, paid or unpaid activities. Whether one factor weighs more than the other may further depend on the type of activity and/or the available support in a person's social and built environment. Additionally it is important to note that not every activity or form of engagement is possible due to health limitations, financial constraints, and discriminatory attitudes towards age, gender and/or ethnicity (Van Groenou & Van Tilburg
8
Levasseur et al. (2010) searched through four databases (Medline, CINAHL, AgeLine and PsycInfo) in order to create an inventory of definitions of social participation which are used in papers published in different disciplines (e.g. public health, gerontology, rehabilitation literature or sociology). Altogether 43 articles published between 1981 – 2009 (in English or French) were included in their final analysis. The authors acknowledge limitations of their inventory in regards to the selected languages, the chosen databases and keywords, time of publication, and the focus on Western countries connected to the language restrictions within their search (Levasseur et al. 2010).
9 Within their study, participants were asked to document their strategies in order to remain socially active, by taking and commenting on photographs within their communities. It is important to keep in mind that all participants were in (self-described) relative good health and active. Findings might be generalizable to a larger population, though this study specifically focused on a group of older adults living alone, presenting good health status.
19 2010; Cramm, Van Dijk & Nieboer 2012; Martinez, Kim, Tanner, Fried & Seeman 2009; Van der Meer 2006; Minkler & Holstein 2008; Martinson & Minkler 2006).
Cramm et al. (2012) focused on possible indicators influencing well-being of older adults, living in the city of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The authors found that social cohesion and social capital, alongside individual characteristics (e.g. homeownership, marital status, income, and ethnicity) play crucial roles and are all related to the well-being of older adults. This study adds social cohesion and capital among residents, as important features to the present discussion. The authors conclude that “in addition to social capital of individuals, neighborhood services, social capital, and social cohesion are beneficial to the wellbeing of older adults […] seemingly small favors among neighbors may prevent worries about the future – neighbors take care of each other and watch over each other” (Cramm et al. 2012: 147f.).
Scharf and Gierveld (2008) compared dimensions and reasons of loneliness experienced by older adults, living in deprived urban neighborhoods in the UK and the Netherlands. Here individual characteristics, alongside area-based disadvantages are emphasized, all of which may lead to a higher risk of increased loneliness (Scharf & Gierveld 2008: 108ff). Qualities of the selected neighborhoods, personal perceptions and evaluations of the neighborhoods, alongside demographic characteristics (e.g. health status, marital status, social networks, and community involvement) were all found to be associated with experiences of loneliness in deprived urban neighborhoods (Scharf & Gierveld 2008).
5. Social Participation of Older Adults in Two Different National and
Local Contexts – What Matters?
This section is dedicated to clarify and discuss the levels of scale that have been identified as important within this research. Since the focus is set on advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods situated in two different countries and continents, two cities and four neighborhoods, various levels of comparison and possible lenses of analyses emerge.
Learning from current theoretical strands, and research efforts in the realms of geography of aging, and social gerontology, it becomes clear that in order to move towards an in-depth and holistically oriented qualitative approach, aiming to understand people’s experiences in their
20 neighborhoods better, the consideration and inclusion of manifold, often inter-related, factors that play a role –at different levels of scale- are crucial.
This research identifies three levels: a macro/national-, a meso/city-, and, a micro/neighborhood scale. The national and city levels are understood as providing crucial contexts, rather than serving as main lenses through which social participation of older adults may be explored. However, despite the emphasis on the micro-level, living in a neighborhood is not understood as exclusively influencing opportunities of and demands for social participation of older adults. Neighborhoods and its features in the built and social environment (e.g. availability of sidewalks, public transportation, housing types (single houses vs. apartment complexes/row houses), as well as forms of neighborhood-based services and amenities (e.g. grocery stores, coffee shops, or medical services) vary between advantaged and disadvantaged, as well as between cities in the US and Western Europe. The diagram below (Figure 1.) captures, the different levels, contexts, and their interdependent character and should add provide clarifications.
21
6. Conceptual Schemes
The present research rests and builds upon previous theoretical knowledge and empirical findings. The conceptual schemes (Figure 2. and 3.), include four environments: the built, community, personal and policy environment. Within the present research, their interdependencies and manifold manifestations are acknowledged. Social participation will be approached from the perspective of older adults and key informants (e.g. public officials, heads and members of neighborhood-based organizations) striving to include multiple perspectives. Wiles et al. (2011) illustrate that “settings operate at both a personal and a structural level, with national policy decisions on health or social services directly affecting what happens at home, in terms of whether disability or frailty can be well supported (Wiles, 2005b) and in terms of how “age-friendly” community infrastructure is (Wahl & Oswald, 2010; WHO, 2007)” (Wiles et al. 2011: 358). Building upon previous findings from international research efforts, a variety of individual characteristics (.e.g age, gender, income and/or level of education) are believed to influence activity patterns of older adults. Additionally, as captures within the community environment, individual social networks, and place attachment, influence shapes and opportunities for social participation. Furthermore, relationships between all environments, are believed to interdependently impact upon older adults opportunities and choices of social participation. As Van der Meer (2006) points out “the way in which older people integrate is interwoven with the way they make use of spaces
and places within society, the neighbourhood, and even their own home” (Van der Meer
2006: 23).
Figure 2. Environments Influencing Social Participation of Older Adults
Built Environment
Social Participation of Older Adults in Urban Neighborhoods
Personal Environment Policy Environment
22
23 6.1 Research Questions
The following research questions are derived from the conceptual scheme presented above. Some of the questions address older adults or key informants alone, others will be answered with knowledge from both sides. Most set of questions include an elaboration about the addressees and its relevance.
How do older adults define social participation?
Do definitions and forms of social participation vary between residents of advantaged and less advantaged neighborhoods?
Do definitions of social participation by older adults vary according to individual characteristics (age, health status, and financial means)?
How do key informants define social participation of older adults?
Do their definitions of social participation of older adults vary according to their position in the ‘institutional web’, their field of expertise, or the amount of contact with older adults in the city or neighborhood?
In order to gain more in-depth knowledge about meanings and understandings attached to social participation by older adults and key informants, it proves important to step away from academically and societal predefined and conceptualized notions of social participation. What features in the built environment of the neighborhood impact upon the quality and possibilities to actively engage in community life?
What features in the built environment are mentioned as positive or negative by older adults and key informants?
It is assumed that not only personal resources of older adults affect their opportunities to socially participate, but also features in their physical environment play a major role. Especially living in a less advantaged urban neighborhood can aggravate social participation of older adults.
What features in the community environment are perceived as hindering or enabling social participation?
What venues and strategies enabling social participation in the community are adopted by older adults?
What projects, initiatives and services are regarded as positive opportunities by older adults?
What projects, initiatives and services are regarded as hindering opportunities by older adults?
24 What formal and informal venues aiming at social participation and
engagement of older people in each neighborhood can be identified?
What services and activities are offered by neighborhood organizations, NGO’s and governmental institutions?
What suggestions to improve the availability and accessibility of informal, and formal venues are mentioned by older adults and by key informants?
How do services and facilities vary in advantaged and less advantaged neighborhoods?
It proves to be interesting to investigate which formal and informal venues can be identified and how these are used by older adults. Especially formal venues fostering social participation are assumed to be based on top-down decisions, which might not always reflect the ideas, and demands of older adults themselves. These questions are situated amidst the nexus of the policy, community, and personal environment.
How do the four case study neighborhoods vary in terms of identified demands and problems?
How are differences in advantaged and less advantaged neighborhoods related to each political and institutional nexus?
What future perspectives on social participation of older people can be formulated after analyzing and comparing the four neighborhoods?
7. Research Design and Methodology
The following section will introduce and discuss the applied methodological approach, including a brief summary of field entries in both cities, an overview of the sample profile, as well as a demonstration of sample limitations and bias.
This research followed a qualitative research methodology, motivated to complement more quantitatively oriented research, by interviewing older adults and key informants in the neighborhoods in both cities. An active involvement of older adults in the research and the pursuit to conduct research “within its real-life context” (Yin 1984: 23) provide the grounds for further methodological argumentations. Former knowledge and previous research findings on similar topics guided the research questions, and the overall research design.
25
Case Study Approach
This research followed a small-N comparative case study approach, including two in-depth case studies in Portland and Amsterdam. Each case comprised of two-within cases, translating into an advantaged and a disadvantaged neighborhood in each city. Opting for this approach allows for the holistic and exploratory nature of the proposed research. Thus the in-depth analysis of the case study in each city, included “multiple (within-case) observations” (Gerring 2007: 19), obtained by interviewing older adults and key informants.
Case Selection
The case study neighborhoods are situated in the city Portland, OR and Amsterdam, NL. In each city, two neighborhoods, an advantaged and a more disadvantaged neighborhood were selected. A great number of previous research efforts on deprived urban neighborhoods have resulted in the “development of different measures of area-based ‘deprivation’” (Smith 2009: 51). In order to select broadly comparable areas in both cities, the following indicators have been chosen.
Census Data on:
Unemployment and social welfare benefits
Median household income (compared to the city’s average) Ethnic composition
‘Sufficient’ number of people aged 65 and older (compared to the city’s average) Composition of housing tenure (owner-Occupancy, rented, social Housing) ‘Stadspas’ (only for Amsterdam case study)
Analysis through assessments of: Proximity to the city center Availability of public transit
Quality of parks, benches, and sidewalks
Availability of neighborhood-based services, and amenities (e.g. grocery stores, medical facilities, coffee shops, leisure facilities)
In Portland, and Amsterdam, four neighborhoods, more advantaged and less advantaged areas were selected. Recent census data on the concentration of ‘social assistance’ (‘welfare benefits’), the number of unemployment, median household income, ethnic composition and
26 prevailing housing tenures were used. An additional criterion for the case study in Amsterdam, the share of residents receiving a ‘stadspas’10 (‘city pass’). The neighborhoods also needed to display a ‘sufficient’ number of older adults aged 65 and above, compared to the city’s average. Additionally, targeted neighborhoods in each city were visited beforehand, in order to better comprehend qualities, and availabilities of features in the built environment. Shapes, and characteristics of a disadvantaged urban neighborhood, in regard to physical structures, and social characteristic were found to vary greatly between Portland and Amsterdam. Despite these differences, a relative degree of physical, and social (dis-) advantages in each city, attained by comparing data and observations to the rest of the city, allowed for a national and a cross-country comparison of the selected case study neighborhoods.
Methodology
The applied methods within this research comprised of semi-structured interviews (1), group discussions (2) and participatory observations (3).
1) Conducting semi-structured interviews with older adults enabled an in-depth analysis and understanding of intangible aspects of their social realities. Generally, qualitative interviews allow the interviewee to go in-depth, anytime, if desired. Therefore, it is not as restrictive as other interviewing techniques, especially compared to a quantitative questionnaire. Most interview questions were pre-formulated and derived from the main research questions, presented in the previous section (Chapter 6.). Semi-structured interviews have been chosen in order to compare and complement different views and experiences by older adults and key informants. The interviews aimed at discussing topics related to (daily) activities in the area, interpersonal contact and relationships to neighbors, involvement in formal neighborhood-based organizations, use of informal venues, as well as social, and physical challenges and opportunities in the neighborhood. The interviews usually lasted between 45 – 80 minutes, and most interviews were held at people’s homes, in coffee shops, or offices (when talked with key informants). In general, only one person was interviewed at a time, however sometimes a spouse or partner did partake as well. The interviews were
10 The ‘stadspas’ (‘city pass’) is an initiative by the municipality of Amsterdam. Free cards are aimed to improve access to sport, recreation and culture in the city by allowing for discounts. This is specifically addressing people which tend to be excluded from cultural and social events. The initiative targets people aged 65 years and above or who receive social benefit payments. In total 160.000 people (living in Amsterdam and four surrounding areas) are holders of the ‘stadspas’. (http://www.stadspas.nl/over_stadspas/wat_is_stadspas/)
27 mostly held in English, some in German or Dutch in Amsterdam, recorded and afterwards personally transcribed verbatim.
2) In addition to semi-structured interviews, group discussions were held in Cully, one of the case study neighborhoods in Portland. The two discussion groups consisted of five residents from an intergenerational co-housing community, and three elderly church members.
3) Participatory observations took place during meetings of neighborhood associations in each case study neighborhood in Portland, and during activities in neighborhood centers in Amsterdam. On the one hand it allowed introducing the research, and recruiting respondents, and on the other hand it was helpful to gain a better understanding of the rhythm of these associations, centers and current issues faced in the neighborhoods.
Analysis
After the transcription of all interviews, the analysis was guided, and informed by previous theoretical propositions, concepts, and additional themes that emerged through the inductive analysis of the transcripts. The interviews were coded by using the scientific software tool RQDA (Huang 2012). The analysis followed a qualitative content analysis approach, allowing for the synthesis of openness, and a theory guided investigation (Gläser & Laudel 1999). Qualitative content analysis steps away from solely counting numbers of events, but taking a more theory- guided approach while taking context specifics, as well as ‘unspoken’ aspects into consideration (Kohlbacher 2006). During the analysis, emerging themes were further identified, and structured while rereading and coding the interview transcripts. The emerging themes and issues in turn guided the structure of the findings chapters.
The Sample and Unit of Analysis
The sample of respondents comprised of people aged 65 and older, living independently in the selected neighborhoods. Additionally, key informants have been identified, as official
28 senior representatives, members, and heads of neighborhood organizations and centers11. A brief description of respondents in each city is provided in the tables below.
Field Entry and Sampling in Portland
The research in Portland was part of an exchange semester at the Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies & Planning at Portland State University (September 2012 – December 2013). Additionally, being part of a four-week volunteer and service-learning project titled ‘Transforming Portland to an Age-friendly City’ organized by Hands On Greater Portland, AARP Oregon, Elders in Action, and the Institute on Aging at Portland State University provided great topical insights, and helped to familiarize with services and organizations available for older adults in the city12. The main entry to the field occurred through a researcher at Portland State University, who introduced me to governmental and local organizations in both targeted neighborhoods. After this initial contact, further sampling worked mainly through the snowball technique. In addition, meetings or events of neighborhood associations were attended to introduce the research and recruit more respondents. In order to also reach out through other venues, different local organizations and churches in both areas as well as one intergenerational co-housing community in Cully were contacted via email requests. In both neighborhoods introductions to the area’s history and current developments occurred through long-time residents. A member of the Portland Commission on Disability and long-time resident of Cully and a former news reporter and historian in Hosford-Abernethy, enabled me to get more accustomed with both neighborhoods. Altogether the data collected included seventeen interviews (5 residents in each neighborhood and 7 key informants) and 2 group discussions with 8 residents in Cully.
Field Entry and Sampling in Amsterdam
A similar snowball technique, as applied in Portland was also used in Amsterdam which proved to be useful, given the limited amount of time (most interviews were held between March – May 2013). An initial meeting with a former contact from the municipality of Amsterdam helped me to get accustomed with some services and organizations, and provided some useful contacts in both neighborhoods. Additionally, neighborhood centers, some local
11 The anonymity of all participants was assured. All respondents’ names have been changed to synonyms; however some demographic and individual characteristics are revealed as they are believed to display crucial constituents for the (comparative) analysis.
12 For more information about the project and ‘Hands on Greater Portland’, please see:
29 projects and churches were contacted via email requests. After some initial difficulties to reach out and access respondents, neighborhood centers were visited personally and, if possible, their activities were joined. Observations made during these visits provided great additional insights. Altogether, the data collected in Amsterdam included fifteen interviews (9 residents and 6 key informants) in both neighborhoods. The small sample of respondents, the sample bias and research limitations are discussed more in-depth in the coming chapters (please see p. 33).
Profile of Sample in Portland
Hosford Abernethy Residents
Name Age Length Residency Housing Tenure Info
Claire 65 1 year; intentional
move; connected with neighborhood association – task of ‘block connector’
Home- Owner Retired. Married; lives with spouse.
Margaret 66 1 year; looking to work part-time
Home- Owner Married; lives with spouse.
Robert 72 33 years; great
knowledge of neighborhood history; participant of monthly meetings of neighborhood association
Home- Owner Retired. Married; lives with spouse
Susan 73 63 years; great
knowledge of other residents; active in and affiliated with Japanese-American Organizations in Portland
Home- Owner Retired. Widow; lives alone
Anna 79 30 years; most
engagement and contacts outside neighborhood
Home- Owner Retired. Divorced; lives with roommates
30 Cully Residents
Name Age Length Residency Housing Tenure Info
John Theresa
66 65
5 years; intentional move to build own house; have lived in a close neighborhood before;
Home- Owner Work part-time. Married; lives with spouse. Affiliated with Ainsworth Street Collective
Sandra 66 7 years; intentional
move to be closer to children and grandchildren; appreciate sustainable ‘ethic’ in the area.
Home- Owner Works part-time. Married; lives with spouse. Member of the Ainsworth Street Collective Peter Barbara 75 66 42 years; involved in the neighborhood association and Ainsworth Street Collective;
Home- Owner Retired. Married; live together. Group Discussion Rose Lindsay Suzy John Martin 85 66 67 66 67 3 to 4 years Condominiums Owner Retired. All residents of Columbia Ecovillage, a sustainable cohousing community in Cully; altogether 37 private condominiums Group Discussion Peg Betsy Sarah 92 87 94
About 60 years (Betsy with some years of breaks in-between)
Home- Owner Retired. All widowed and living alone; know each other from a local church. Long-term members and active in church groups Table 2. Sample of Older Residents in Cully
Key Informants
Organization Position/Task Info
HAND – Hosford Abernethy Neighborhood Development (Association)
Chair Lives in Hosford-Abernethy
HAND – Hosford Abernethy Neighborhood Development (Association)
31
Colonial Heights Presbyterian Church in Hosford-Abernethy
Minister Lives in Portland; In total about 60 people in congregation; around 3 older adults live in Hosford-Abernethy are constant members; offers monthly lunch-meetings for older adults; the church also rents facilities to other groups;
Office of Neighborhood Involvement (ONI), City of Portland
Neighborhood Program Coordinator - Grant administration; policy; technical support; information
Lives in Portland
Verde Living Cully Coordinator – Cully
Ecodistrict
Projects in coordination with Hacienda CDC and NAYA in Cully
CAN (Cully Association of Neighbors)
Treasurer Lives in Cully
CNN (Central Northeast Neighbors) Grant Program Manager Lives in Portland
Table 3. Sample of Key Informants in Portland
Profile of Sample in Amsterdam
Jordaan Residents
Name Age Length
Residency
Housing Tenure Info
Frank 73 33 years Owner-occupancy Lives alone, active
member of the ‘BOJ’, volunteers at various organizations in the city
Martin 66 4 years Privately Rented Lives with partner;
affiliated with ‘BOJ’, joins local bridge club 1x/week
Roos 75 20 years Social Housing Lives alone; active in
the ‘wijkraad’, has been living in an apartment offered and designed for older adults for 7 years;
Dorine 76 44 years Owner-occupancy Lives alone;
organizes dinner events at her home 2x/month; formerly involved in neighborhood-based organizations & volunteering
32 Vogelbuurt/IJplein Residents
Key Informants
Jan 88 x Social Housing Lives in communal
living setting (‘woongroep’); very active in the ‘BOJ’ for the past 22 years;
Table 4. Sample of Older Residents in the Jordaan
Name Age Length Residency Housing Tenure Info
Koen 76 76 years (in Amsterdam
Noord); in Vogelbuurt
Social Housing Lives alone; joins Resto van Harte dinners 2x/week at neighborhood center‘de Meeuw’
Inneke 65 40 years Social Housing Lives alone;
Peter 66 6 years x Works at the
neighborhood center 4x/week
Annemarie 81 14 years Social Housing Lives alone;
Paralyzed on one side and in wheelchair for the past 7 years;
Table 5. Sample of Older Residents in the Vogelbuurt/IJplein
Organization Position/Tasks Info
Gemeente Amsterdam (Municipality) Dienst Wonen, Zorg en Samenleven x
Stadsdeel Centrum Consultant for Social Housing and Care
of Older Adults
In close contact with the community center and ‘BOJ’ Stadsdeel Noord ‘Buurtmeester’, focal point for residents,
communicator between residents & municipality
Since 2009, Project is financed until 2014
Neighborhood Center Jordaan,
‘Wijkcentrum Jordaan & Gouden Reael’ Social Cohesion and Public Space (‘Medewerker Openbare Ruimte en Sociale Cohesie’)
x
Neighborhood Center
Vogelbuurt/IJplein, ‘De Meeuw’
Employee within ‘welsaen’ organization Position since January 2013; Employee of Community Garden
Vogelbuurt/IJplein (‘Voedseltuin’)
Organizational tasks, organizing volunteer groups, and maintaining the garden
A three-year funded project, started in 2012 in cooperation of stadsdeel, neighborhood-based organizations Table 6. Sample of Key Informants in Amsterdam
33
Sample Bias and Limitations
Some limitations of the sample in both neighborhoods, especially in regards to older adults, need to be addressed. Difficulties to include ethnic minority groups, physically immobile and low-income older residents were encountered. Similar difficulties have been faced in other research efforts (Richard et al. 2008; Andonian & MacRae 2011). Additionally, as many older adults in Portland and Amsterdam were contacted through neighborhood-based organizations or associations it is more likely that they are already more engaged and active in their communities, and in relatively good health. This clearly set limits on the ability to generalize findings to older adults who may be engaged in other organizations or in informal structures, which are not captured within this research, or are more socially isolated. In regards to housing tenure, the sample in Portland predominantly consists of home-owners. Whereas the number and history of home-ownership varies greatly between the US and Europe, homeownership has been found to be related to increased civic engagement and investment in the neighborhood (Manturuk, Lindblad & Quercia 2012). Additionally, Portland’s neighborhood system and associations have historically tended to attract predominantly White homeowners, who are overrepresented within the sample. In respect to Amsterdam, the housing tenure was found to be more varied, not surprising given the different welfare and housing trajectories in the US and Europe. Yet, some studies on individual characteristics and volunteering or other forms of civic engagement in the Netherlands, found that a higher level of education, younger age, and financial means contribute to forms and extents of volunteer engagements (Van Groenau & Van Tilburg 2012).
Despite these limitations the sample is diverse in respect to respondents’ age (65 to 94 years), lengths of residence, and marital status. Additionally, some respondents in Portland, especially those affiliated with faith-based communities were neither engaged in neighborhood associations nor in other formal organizations in the area thus provide important additional perspectives. Some of the challenges and positive features in the built and community environment (e.g. availability of public transit, contact to neighbors, or shopping facilities) were found to be influenced by other characteristics as opposed to solely depend upon cultural background, housing tenure, or financial security.
