Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:11:27.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How ‘age-friendly’ are rural communities and what community characteristics are related to age-friendliness? The case of rural Manitoba, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2013

VERENA H. MENEC ,
LOUISE HUTTON ,
NANCY NEWALL ,
SCOTT NOWICKI ,
JOHN SPINA  and
DAWN VESELYUK
VERENA H. MENEC*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Centre on Aging, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
LOUISE HUTTON
Affiliation:
Centre on Aging, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
NANCY NEWALL
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health Sciences, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Centre on Aging, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
SCOTT NOWICKI
Affiliation:
Centre on Aging, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
JOHN SPINA
Affiliation:
Centre on Aging, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
DAWN VESELYUK
Affiliation:
Centre on Aging, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.
*
Address for correspondence: Verena Menec, Department of Community Health Sciences, The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3E 0W3, Canada. E-mail: verena.menec@med.umanitoba.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Since the World Health Organization introduced the concept of ‘age-friendly’ communities in 2006, there has been rapidly growing interest in making communities more age-friendly on the part of policy makers world-wide. There is a paucity of research to date, however, that has examined age-friendliness in diverse communities, particularly in rural communities. The main objective of the study reported in this paper was to examine whether age-friendliness varies across community characteristics, such as a population size. The study was based on surveys administered in 56 communities throughout Manitoba, a mid-Western Canadian province, in the context of a needs assessment process for communities that are part of the Age-Friendly Manitoba Initiative. A total of 1,373 individuals completed a survey developed to measure age-friendliness. Domains included the physical environment; housing options; the social environment; opportunities for participation; community supports and health-care services; transportation options; and communication and information. Community characteristics were derived from census data. Multi-level regression analysis indicated that the higher the percentage of residents aged 65 or older, the higher the ratings of age-friendliness overall and, specifically, ratings of the social environment, opportunities for participation, and communication and information. Moreover, small communities located within a census metropolitan area and remote communities in the far north of the province emerged as having the lowest age-friendliness ratings. These findings suggest that communities are generally responsive to the needs of their older residents. That different results were obtained for the various age-friendly domains underscores the importance of considering age-friendliness in a holistic way and measuring it in terms of a range of community features. Our study further highlights the importance of differentiating between degrees of rurality, as different patterns emerged for communities of different sizes and proximity to a larger urban centre.

Keywords

rural agingage-friendly communitiescommunity characteristics
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 203 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alley, D., Liebig, P., Pynoos, J., Banerjee, T. and Choi, I. H. 2007. Creating elder-friendly communities: preparing for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49, 1/2, 1–18.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. 1994. Ecological models of human development. In Husen, T. and Postlethwaite, T. (eds), International Encyclopedia of Education. Volume 3, second edition, Elsevier Science, New York, 1643–7.Google Scholar
Butler-Jones, D. 2010. The Chief Public Health Officer's Report on the State of Public Health in Canada, 2010: Growing Older – Adding Life to Years. Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Dandy, K. and Bollman, R. D. 2008. Seniors in rural Canada. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, 7, 8, 1–56.Google Scholar
Dannenberg, A. L., Jackson, R. J., Frumkin, H., Schieber, R. A., Pratt, M., Kochtitzky, C. and Tilson, H. H. 2003. The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: a scientific research agenda. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 9, 1500–8.Google Scholar
Denton, M., Ploeg, J., Tindale, J., Hutchison, B., Brazil, K., Akhtar-Danesh, N., Quinlan, M., Lillie, J., Millen Plenderleith, L. and Boos, L. 2008. Where would you turn for help? Older adults’ awareness of community support services. Canadian Journal on Aging, 27, 4, 359–70.Google Scholar
Ding, D. and Gebel, K. 2012. Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: what have we learned from reviewing the literature? Health and Place, 18, 1, 100–5.Google Scholar
duPlessis, V., Beshiri, R. and Bollman, R. D. 2001. Definitions of rural. Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin, 3, 3, 1–17.Google Scholar
Estabrooks, P. A., Lee, R. E. and Gyurcsik, N. C. 2003. Resources for physical activity participation: does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 2, 100–4.Google Scholar
Evans, R. G. and Stoddart, G. L. 1990. Producing health, consuming health care. Social Science & Medicine, 31, 12, 1347–63.Google Scholar
Federal, Provincial, Territorial Ministers Responsible for Seniors 2007. Age-Friendly Rural and Remote Communities: A Guide. Minister of Industry, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Feldman, P. H. and Oberlink, M. R. 2003. The AdvantAge Initiative: developing community indicators to promote the health and well-being of older people. Family and Community Health, 26, 4, 268–74.Google Scholar
Ford, G. 2008. Life after placement: experiences of older rural caregivers after placing a family member into residential care. Rural and Remote Health, 8, 3, 1030 (online).Google Scholar
Giles-Corti, B. and Donovan, R. J. 2002. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Preventive Medicine, 35, 6, 601–11.Google Scholar
Hanlon, N. and Halseth, G. 2005. The greying of resource communities in northern British Columbia: implications for health care delivery in already-underserviced communities. The Canadian Geographer, 49, 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
Hanlon, N., Halseth, G., Clasby, R. and Pow, V. 2007. The place embeddedness of social care: restructuring work and welfare in Mackenzie, BC. Health and Place, 13, 2, 466–81.Google Scholar
Hanson, D. and Emlet, C. A. 2006. Assessing a community's elder friendliness: a case example of the AdvantAge Initiative. Family and Community Health, 29, 4, 266–78.Google Scholar
Harris, G. 2004. Suburbia is no place to grow old. Ontario Planning Journal, 19, 3, 1–2.Google Scholar
Hillsdon, M., Panter, J., Foster, C. and Jones, A. 2007. Equitable access to exercise facilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 6, 506–8.Google Scholar
Kalton, G. and Kasprzyk, D. 1982. Imputing for missing survey responses. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section. American Statistical Association, Washington DC, 22–31.Google Scholar
Kawachi, I. and Berkman, L. F. 2003. Neighborhoods and Health. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lavergne, M. R. and Kephart, G. 2012. Examining variations in health within rural Canada. Rural and Remote Health, 12, 1848 (online).Google Scholar
Lawton, M. P. and Nahemow, L. 1973. Ecology and the aging process. In Eisdorfer, C. and Lawton, M. P. (eds), The Psychology of Aging and Adult Development. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, 619–74.Google Scholar
Lehning, A., Chun, Y. and Scharlach, A. 2007. Structural barriers to developing ‘aging-friendly’ communities. Public Policy and Aging Report, 17, 3, 15–20.Google Scholar
Liddle, J., Scharf, T., Bartlam, B., Bernard, M. and Sim, J. 2013. Exploring the age-friendliness of purpose-built retirement communities: evidence from England. Ageing & Society. Published online 17 June, doi:10.1017/S0144686X13000366.Google Scholar
Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M. and Bartlett, H. 2009. What makes a community age-friendly: a review of the international literature. Australasian Journal on Aging, 28, 3, 116–21.Google Scholar
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A. and Glanz, K. 1988. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Behavior, 15, 4, 351–77.Google Scholar
McNiven, C., Puderer, H. and Janes, D. 2000. Census Metropolitan Area and Census Agglomeration Influenced Zones (MIZ): A Description of the Methodology. Catalogue number 92F0138MIE2000002, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G. and Eales, J. 2011. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30, 3, 479–93.Google Scholar
Menec, V. H., Veselyuk, D., Blandford, A. A. and Nowicki, S. 2009. Availability of activity-related resources in senior apartments: does it differ by neighbourhood socio-economic status? Ageing & Society, 29, 3, 397–411.Google Scholar
Miller, G., Harris, G. and Ferguson, I. 2006 a. Mobility under attack – are older Canadians ready to live without their cars? Ontario Planning Journal, 21, 4, 3–7.Google Scholar
Miller, G., Harris, G. and Ferguson, I. 2006 b. Bracing for the demographic tsunami – can Canada's seniors escape un-pleasantville? Ontario Planning Journal, 21, 6, 1–3.Google Scholar
Novek, S. and Menec, V. H. 2013. Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: a photovoice study. Ageing & Society. Published online 21 February, doi:10.1017/S0144686X1200150X.Google Scholar
Plouffe, L. A. and Kalache, A. 2010. Towards global age-friendly cities: determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health, 87, 5, 733–9.Google Scholar
Plouffe, L. A. and Kalache, A. 2011. Making communities age friendly: state and municipal initiatives in Canada and other countries. Gaceta Sanitaria, 25, supplement 2, 131–7.Google Scholar
Powell, L. M., Slater, S., Chaloupka, F. J. and Harper, D. 2006. Availability of physical activity-related facilities and neighbourhood demographic and socioeconomic characteristics: a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 9, 1676–80.Google Scholar
Propper, C., Jones, K., Bolster, A., Burgess, S., Johnston, R. and Sarker, R. 2005. Local neighborhood and mental health: evidence from the UK. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 10, 2065–83.Google Scholar
Public Health Agency of Canada 2010. Healthy Living E-Bulletin May 2010: Theme Age-friendly Communities. Available online at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hl-vs-strat/subscribe-eng.php [Accessed 31 May 2010].Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W. and Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Second edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar
Roeger, L. S., Reed, R. L. and Smith, B. P. 2010. Equity of access in the spatial distribution of GPs within an Australian metropolitan city. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 16, 4, 284–90.Google Scholar
Ross, N. A., Tremblay, S. and Graham, K. 2004. Neighbourhood influences on health in Montreal, Canada. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 7, 1485–94.Google Scholar
Rosso, A. L., Auchincloss, A. H. and Michael, Y. L. 2011. The urban built environment and mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review. Journal of Aging Research, 2011: 816106. doi:10.4061/2011/816106.Google Scholar
Ryser, L. and Halseth, G. 2012. Resolving mobility constraints impeding rural seniors’ access to regionalized services. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 24, 3, 328–44.Google Scholar
Saelens, B. E. and Handy, S. L. 2008. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40, 7, S550–66.Google Scholar
Sallis, J. E., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K. and Kerr, J. 2006. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297–322.Google Scholar
Silver, D., Blustein, J. and Weitzman, B. C. 2012. Transportation to clinic: findings from a pilot clinic-based survey of low-income suburbanites. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 14, 2, 350–5.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J., Lehning, A. J. and Dunkle, R. E. 2013. Conceptualizing age-friendly community characteristics in a sample of urban elders: an exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 56, 2, 90–111.Google Scholar
Southworth, M. 1997. Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional communities at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 1, 28–44.Google Scholar
Spina, J. and Menec, V. H.What community characteristics help or hinder rural communities in becoming age-friendly? Perspectives from a Canadian prairie province. Journal of Applied Gerontology (in press).Google Scholar
Statistics Canada 2007. 2006 Census of Population. Catalogue number 97-551-XCB2006005, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Wilson, N. W., Couper, I. D., De Vries, E., Reid, S., Fish, T. and Marais, B. J. 2009. A critical review of interventions to redress the inequitable distribution of healthcare professionals to rural and remote areas. Rural and Remote Health, 9, 2, 1060 (online).Google Scholar
Winterton, R. and Warburton, J. 2011. Models of care for socially isolated older rural carers: barriers and implications. Rural and Remote Health, 11, 3, 1678 (online).Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 2002. Active Aging: A Policy Framework. Second United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 2007. Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. WHO, Geneva.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) 2010. Other Participating Cities Announced. Available online at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2010/participating_cities_28_06_2010.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2011].Google Scholar