Socio-Spatial Integration of Older Adults in Four Types of Residential Environments in Israel

Abstract

The socio-spatial integration of older people in different types of residential environments is a key factor affecting the well-being of older people. This study, which included a convenience sample of 565 participants, examined the socio-spatial integration of older people living in two different regional areas (central and peripheral) and four different residential environments (metropolitan hub, city, and town and rural settlements) in Israel. Willing participants were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Socio-spatial integration was assessed by recognition of their neighbors and sense of belonging to the residential environment. The findings show that older adults who resided in the town and in rural settlements were more socio-spatially integrated in their living environments compared with their counterparts who resided in cities. The best predictors of socio-spatial integration were a combination of personal characteristics and characteristics of the environment (perceived accessibility) except for rural settlements, where none of the variables predicted socio-spatial integration.

Keywords

types of residential environment older adults socio-spatial integration

Introduction

The socio-spatial integration of people from various racial, ethnic, migrant, minority, and religious groups and poor people into their neighborhoods has been extensively discussed by geographers (Keene, Bader, & Ailshire, 2013; Peach, 1996; Quillian, 1995; Roman, 1989; Skafidi & Ihlanfelt, 2002; Timberlake, 2000). In contrast, the socio-spatial integration of older people in their residential environments has been a neglected issue and has been barely examined. Older people comprise a growing segment of the total population in most developed countries (e.g., 18%-25% in countries such as Japan, Finland, Italy, Austria, Belgium, and Germany) and are expected to increase in the forthcoming years (World Bank, 2015). In Israel, the older population comprises 10.6% of the general population and is expected to increase to 14.6% over the next 20 years (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014). This expected increase in the percentage of the older population requires greater attention from geographers and gerontologists regarding their socio-spatial integration into their residential environments (Hockey, Phillips, & Walford, 2013; O’Brien, 2014; Warnes, 1990), because socio-spatial integration can affect the well-being of older people, their sense of loneliness, and their quality of life (Costa-Font, 2013; Van der Meer, 2006). Therefore, the main goal of this study was to examine factors, in particular the types of residential environments that predict the socio-spatial integration of older adults in their communities.

Background

The term “integration” is commonly related to concepts such as “inclusion.” “incorporation,” and “combining” (Farlex, 2010). Durkheim (1997) conceived integration as interdependence or solidarity, where all parts of society work for a common goal. The term “social integration” implies reciprocities between individuals and refers to “the extent to which an individual participates in a broad range of social relationships” (Brissette, Cohen, & Seeman, 2000, p. 54) with others in his or her community (Hooyman & Kiyak, 2008), and has a sense of belonging to it (Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, & Early, 1996). However, terms such as “social integration” and “sense of belonging” are often used interchangeably (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000).

Anant (1966) defined sense of belonging as a “sense of personal involvement in a social system so that persons feel an indispensable and integral part of the system” (p. 21). Positive interpersonal relationships can increase individual members’ sense of belonging to a particular group (Hurtado, Meader, Ziskin, Kamimura, & Greene, 2002), which in turn contributes to people’s feelings of being loved, valued, and part of a reciprocal network (Steinkamp & Kelly, 1987). The term “sense of belonging,” used by sociologists and gerontologists, is close to the geographical terms “sense of place” (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1977) and “attachment to place,” which relates to the emotional bond between people and places (Burholt, 2006). In geography, “sense of place” encapsulates both spatial and social entities. It refers to close acquaintance with the physical environment, strong feelings of belonging to a place, and being part of its social and cultural life (Shamai, 1991).

A sense of place or a sense of belonging is also reflected in social relationships with friends and family, participation in cultural and leisure activities, civic engagement, and utilization of services (Barnes, Blom, Cox, Lessof, & Walker, 2006; Cavalli, Bickel, & Lalive d’Epinay, 2007; Toepoel, 2011). Social relations exist as they have spatial existence and become materialized through the production of space that is mediated by distances (Lefebvre, 1991). For retired people, coincidental meetings with neighbors and friends in the living area play a crucial role and have a positive impact on their social life (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998). Such meetings are influenced by spatial characteristics of the environment such as the walkability of an area (Sugiyama & Thompson, 2007), the number of services and commercial hubs within walking distance from residential areas (Leyden, 2003), and the “greenness” of the built urbanized environment (e.g., trees and open spaces; Shendell et al., 2011; World Health Organization [WHO], 2007).

Ruiz-Tagle (2013) proposed a multi-dimensional perspective to examine socio-spatial integration: physical, which relates to physical proximity between different social groups; functional, which relates to effective access to opportunities and services in the territory; relational, which relates to interactions between different social groups; and symbolic, which relates to “identification with a common ground and can involve external and internal symbols, partial and common identity and differentiation” (p. 402). He asserts that there is an interplay of social and spatial proximity that generates opportunities for social contacts and that there are also regional factors that affect socio-spatial integration. The central region is characterized by intensive built-up land use, with a high degree of urbanization and traffic density, whereas peripheral regions more typically are characterized by villages and small towns with a limited number of regional centers and qualities such as open space and scenery. These in turn increase contact among different groups and create positive attitudes among them, and as a result, physical integration will be transformed into social integration.

Based on her study of older adults living in rural places, Burholt (2006) proposed a four-domain conceptual scheme of attachment to place that takes into account the interrelationship between physical, social, temporal, and psychological factors. Thus, socio-spatial integration relates to spaces that provide security, stability, identity, sense of belonging, psychological sense of community, and affective connection with the territory. She found that in rural environments, social integration and social support were strong and asserted that smaller communities in rural areas facilitated a greater degree of interaction with friends and neighbors and promoted a stronger sense of belonging. In other words, the term “social integration” implies a multi-dimensional concept that includes objective (e.g., social relationships), subjective (e.g., sense of belonging), passive (social contacts and the feelings they display with respect to the local environment), and active (e.g., participation in all kinds of activities) integration.

Rowles (1978, 1980, 1986), one of the earliest inaugurators of geographic gerontology, found that the characteristics of the geographic environment, duration of living in that environment, and self-image of older people had profound effects on their socio-spatial integration. He asserted that the person–environment relationships incorporate social, psychological, and physical dimensions. Therefore, improvement of their residential environment can improve their quality of life and well-being (Costa-Font, 2013; Domanski, Ostrowska, Przybysz, & Romaniuk, 2006; O’Brien, 2014).

Researchers (Chiu, Chen, Huangm, & Mau, 2005; Evans, 2009) found differences between the quantity and quality of coincidental meetings in the countryside (rural settlements and little towns) compared with large urban areas; older adults in the countryside usually enjoy more social support and social interactions because of the intense relationship between its inhabitants than their counterparts who live in urban areas. In contrast, the urban environment is characterized by numerous impersonal interactions, transitory contacts, and anonymity. The neighborhood is the everyday life space where people interact and establish neighborhood relations. Sharing everyday life spaces enables contact, interaction, and living in a community among people of different age groups. Thus, older adults in the countryside maintain more social relations than those who live in urban areas; they feel they can trust people and feel closer to their social support networks compared with their peers living in urban environments. This aspect of integration has been barely examined in regard to older people living in various residential environments.

Socio-spatial integration helps older adults to overcome both physical and social difficulties and limitations, and mitigates feelings of insecurity in the urban environment (Avlund, Lund, Holstein, & Due, 2004; Avlund, Lund, Holstein, Due, et al., 2004; Cavallero, Morino-Abbele, & Bertocci, 2007; Rasulo, Christensen, & Tomassini, 2005). Fokkema, de Jong, and Nijkamp (1996) found that older adults in the Netherlands tended to migrate from big cities to rural settlements and little towns mainly because of a discrepancy between the characteristics of their neighborhoods and their needs, in terms of walkability, safety, and social bonds. This suggests that specific types of environments can better suit and enable socio-spatial integration of their older inhabitants.

The idea of socio-spatial integration is well reflected in WHO’s (2007) concept that in “age-friendly cities,” older adults have more opportunities to participate “in leisure, social, cultural and spiritual activities in the community, as well as with the family . . . It fosters social integration and is the key to staying informed” (p. 38). An age-friendly city is one in which policies, services, and structures in the physical and social environment support and enable active aging (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2015). Thus, age-friendly communities (Gitlin, 2003; Kendig, 2003; WHO, 2007) are based on the concept of enabling older people to live independently in safe environments, offering them extensive opportunities for active participation and involvement, and facilitating their social integration in their communities (Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014; Lehning, Scharlach, & Dal Santo, 2010). This requires an appropriate infrastructure, including accessible services and transportation (Alley, Liebig, Pynoos, Banerjee, & Choi, 2007).

Manifold determinants, including a combination of individual and environmental factors, can affect socio-spatial integration. These factors include age, which was found to be related to social participation and network size (Cornwell, Laumann, & Schumm, 2008), health and functional status (House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988), outdoor activities (Kweon et al., 1998), and length of residence (Brown, Geertsen, & Krannich, 1989), because it takes time to become familiar with neighbors and build social ties (Keene et al., 2013) and type of settlement (Panagiotakos et al., 2011). One study (Mollenkopf et al., 2004), for example, focused on older people’s day-to-day mobility and the complex interplay of personal resources and the physical and social environment. It was found that older people who lived in rural as opposed to urban environments significantly differed in terms of health, housing, the environment (rural vs. urban), social network resources, out-of-home mobility, and the use of transportation options. While walking is common in most rural environments, public transportation is little used in rural compared with urban environments. This in turn increases familiarity with the area and positively influences out-of-home mobility.

However, the socio-spatial integration of older people by type of residential environment (i.e., rural vs. urban environments) has been barely examined (Herrero & Gracia, 2004). Specifically, the degree to which metropolitan cities, small cities, towns, and small rural communities provide older people with “enabling and supportive physical-social environments” (O’Brien, 2014, p. 221) suitable for proper socio-spatial integration is questionable.

The goals of this study are twofold: first, to examine the perceived accessibility and the level of socio-spatial integration of older inhabitants in four different types of environments (metropolitan hub, city, and town and rural settlements). It is hypothesized that in the rural and in small towns in peripheral regions, older inhabitants will report better socio-spatial integration compared with their peers who live in urban environments and in central regions. Second, it is hypothesized that a combination of personal characteristics, including health and outdoor mobility, and better accessibility of the residential environment will be associated with higher levels of socio-spatial integration of older inhabitants.

Method

Population and Sample

Types of settlements in Israel are identified by the number of inhabitants and locality status. Urban localities include settlements with more than 2,000 inhabitants and they include cities and towns, while those with fewer inhabitants are considered rural localities, including kibbutzim.¹ Cities are local municipalities that are composed of 20,000 or more inhabitants, towns are local councils that include 2,000 to 20,000 inhabitants, while rural settlements, such as kibbutzim, are organized into district councils and include fewer than 2,000 inhabitants. Thus, the majority of the older population in Israel lives in urban localities (93.3%) and only a minority (6.7%) lives in rural settlements (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014).

This study was conducted in one metropolitan hub—Tel-Aviv located in the central region of Israel—six rural settlements, one city (Tiberius), and one town (Katzrin) in the northern region of Israel (see Figure 1). The different settlements reflect a variety of residential environments in terms of lifestyles, population density and size, percentage of older inhabitants, geographical location, number of services in each place, and distances from services.

Figure 1.

Map of Israel and locations of the environments.

Settlement Characteristics

Rural settlements

Six kibbutzim were included in the sample: Kinneret, Afikim, Ein Gev, Ginosar, Tel Kazir, and Hukuk. All of these kibbutzim are located in Israel’s Northern District in close proximity to the Sea of Galilee and were established between 1909 and 1950. Population in these settlements range from 280 in Tel Kazir to 1,400 in Afikim; the number of older inhabitants aged 65+ ranges from 7.5% to 11.2% (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014). The socioeconomic level of these kibbutzim is moderate, the population density is low, and residents live in private homes or two-story houses. They generally work as farmers, industrial workers, in the tourism industry, or liberal professions. Some services, such as general hospitals, specialist clinics, entertainment centers (e.g., theaters), and big shopping centers, are located outside the settlements at distances ranging from 3.6 to 20 km. Yet, in each settlement, there are some local basic services such as a grocery, a library, a dining room, a workshop for older adults, a laundry, a swimming pool, beauty parlor, cultural activities, a health clinic, a fitness center, and a small nursing home for disabled older members.

Town

One town was included in the sample, “Katzrin,” which consists of 8,000 inhabitants and was established in 1977. About 10.5% of Katzrin’s inhabitants are aged 65 and above, and the town’s socioeconomic level is moderate (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014). The population density is low; housing consists of private homes and three- to four-story houses. Most Katzrin residents are industrial and service workers. The town offers a variety of local services (e.g., leisure activities, services for older adults, health care services) and shopping centers.

City

One city was included in the sample, “Tiberius,” an ancient city established in the first century, located on the Western shore of the Sea of Galilee and is an important tourist site. Currently, the city has about 45,000 residents, of whom 11.6% are above the age of 65; its socioeconomic level is low to moderate. The population density is moderate; housing includes mostly apartment buildings. The population is employed as blue-collar workers or in commerce, health professions, education, or liberal professions. All services and a big shopping center are located within the city, including a range of services for older people, a general hospital, leisure services, and many hotels.

Metropolitan city

Tel-Aviv is a metropolitan center located on the Mediterranean seashore in the central region of Israel with about three million inhabitants. The city itself has about 400,000 inhabitants living in 64 neighborhoods/quarters and is the economic center of Israel; its average socioeconomic level is moderate and there are poor and rich neighborhoods. The population density is high; housing includes mostly apartment buildings. Employment in Tel-Aviv is diverse and encompasses a variety of personal, commercial, and business services. As a global city, Tel-Aviv is facing the rapid intensification of commercial and cultural activities on one hand and a growing socioeconomic gap between the affluent north and the relatively poor south on the other (Golan, 2015; Ram, 2013). The city offers a variety of public spaces for shopping, leisure, and social encountering, representing local as well as Western-oriented cultures. In addition, the globalization of Tel-Aviv is affecting the socio-demographic characteristics of residents, as young families tend to leave to nearby towns, while the share of adults, including older people, is growing. Currently, more than a quarter of the city’s inhabitants are aged 25 to 34 years old, which is high above their share in the general population. Many shopping centers are located in the city’s neighborhoods, including a wide range of services for older persons, a general hospital, leisure services, hotels, colleges, and one university. Older persons aged 65 and above comprise 14.7% of the total population in Tel-Aviv (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2014).

A convenience sample that included 565 participants aged 65 and above was selected for this study. The sample consisted of 97 participants from the six rural settlements (25 from Kinneret, 10 from Hukuk, 8 from Ginosar, 29 from Afikim, 15 from Ein Gev, and 10 from Tel Kazir), 80 from Katzrin, and 88 from Tiberius; and 300 participants living in three different neighborhoods in northern and southern Tel-Aviv city.

Data Collection

Inclusion criteria were as follows: age 65 and above, not having a disability that precluded walking, proficiency in Hebrew, and living in the place for at least 3 months. The study underwent an institutional board review (IBR) and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the university.

The recruitment of participants for this study was made by two methods. First, in the rural settlements, lists of all kibbutzim members aged 65 and above were provided to the researchers by the settlements’ secretaries. A research assistant phoned each person on the lists, explaining to them the goals of the study and asking their consent to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Appointments were made only with those who consented to participate in the study. They were given the questionnaire and were asked to complete it on spot. Second, in the urban sites, an experienced research assistant approached older people on the streets and in public spaces (shopping centers, public gardens, etc.). They were told about the study goals and were asked two questions: their age and their place of residence. If they said that they were 65 or above and inhabitants of that place, they were asked to participate in the study. If they consented, they were asked to complete the questionnaire on spot. It should be noted that the selection methods used in this study do not guarantee representativeness of the sample.

Prior to data collection, a pretest was conducted with 10 older adults who were asked to complete the questionnaire. Based on their responses and a discussion with each of them about difficulties they had with specific questions, the questionnaire was modified accordingly. The final version of the questionnaire included three parts: scales that probed socio-spatial integration, environmental characteristics (perceived accessibility), and personal details (socio-demographics, self-rated health, and mobility). Data collection was performed on different days of the week and at different hours of the day to capture as many diverse respondents as possible, such as those who go out in the morning or in the afternoon. Data collection lasted from December 2012 to April 2013.

Measures

Socio-spatial integration was examined by using two measures, sense of belonging and neighbors’ recognition, that reflect different aspects of socio-spatial integration.

Sense of belonging

The measure used to examine sense of belonging was based on Young, Russell, and Powers’s (2004) 7-item scale (the “Healthy Communities Survey”). The scale, which relates to emotional attachment to the community, interaction with other individuals in the community, and sense of togetherness and cohesion, was aimed to examine sense of belonging among older women living in major cities, rural townships, and remote areas of Australia. Example statements used in our survey were as follows: “I have a lot in common with people in my neighborhood” and “I like living where I live.” Two items were removed (“I generally trust my neighbors to look out for my property” and “I would be really sorry if I had to move away from the people in my neighborhood”) because in the pretest, respondents found these questions difficult to answer. Likert-type scores for each item ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Total scores ranged from 5 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater sense of belonging. Young et al. reported that the scale had good face validity. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) in this study was .90.

Neighbors’ recognition

Townshend’s (1996) scale, which examined the urban geography of older people in Canada and examined individual recognition of neighbors as a dimension of community integration, was another measure used to reflect socio-spatial integration. The Townsend scale includes six items and relates to urban areas. In this study, four questions were used. Examples of questions used in this study were as follows: How many neighbors do you know by first name? How many neighbors do you visit at least once a month? Two questions were excluded because they were irrelevant for rural settlements (e.g., “Imagine those of your neighbors living in the 20 houses nearest to your own” and “How many people from these 20 nearest houses would you say you personally sometime talk to in the street/recognize on the street?”). Scores for each item ranged from 1 (nobody) to 6 (more than 15) on a Likert-type scale. Scores were summed and ranged from 4 to 24, with higher scores indicating higher neighbors’ recognition. Internal consistency (Cronbach’sα) in this study was .76. A composite score for total socio-spatial integration was calculated that included the sum of scores for the two measures; scores ranged from 9 to 49. Internal consistency for the whole measure (Cronbach’sα) was .86.

Independent Variables

Environment characteristics

The environmental characteristics included three variables and included type of environment, geographic region, and perceived area accessibility:

Type of environment: rural = 1, town = 2, city = 3, and metropolitan city = 4.

Geographic region: northern periphery = 1 and central region = 2.

Perceived area accessibility.

Based on the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) developed by Saelens, Sallis, Black, and Chen (2003), we examine proximity and accessibility to public services and commercial areas. The measure was developed to examine the physical activity of older adults in low versus high walkable environments and ease of access to non-residential land uses, such as restaurants, retail stores, street connectivity, and walking/cycling facilities such as sidewalks and pedestrian trails. Examples of questions used are as follows: “About how much time would it take to get from your home to the nearest businesses or facilities listed below if you walked to them?” Several optional responses were offered for each question: less than 10 min, 11 to 30 min, and so on. Scores ranged from 1 (inaccessible) to 4 (less than 10 min). The original scale consists of a list of 23 types of services of which only four (grocery/supermarket, health clinic, post office, and bank) were used in this study because most of the other services, such as schools, were irrelevant for older inhabitants. A composite score was calculated for the four items with total scores ranging from 4 to 16, with higher scores indicating greater perceived accessibility. Internal consistency (Cronbach’sα) was .87.

Personal characteristics

To measure self-rated health respondents were asked “How is your health?” with scores ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). To measure outdoor mobility, respondents were asked one question: “Do you have difficulties going out of your home?” Scores ranged from 1 = “I go out very seldom because of mobility difficulties” to 5 = “I have no problems with outdoor mobility” (recoded 1 = “no difficulties” and all the other scores were recoded 0 = “have difficulties”). The socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents utilized in this study included gender, age, marital status (recoded 1 = “married” and 2 = “unmarried”), education (in number of years), living arrangements (recoded 1 = “alone” and 2 = “lives with somebody”), and length of time living in the current place (in years).

Statistical Analysis

Data were processed using the SPSS software package, Version 20. In the first stage, univariate analyses were performed to describe the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and to examine the distribution of the study variables. Internal consistencies (Cronbach’sα) of the measures were calculated. In the second stage, bivariate analyses were performed to examine differences between different types of environments (one-way ANOVA) and associations between the independent and dependent variables (Pearson correlation coefficient). Bonferroni post hoc tests were performed to examine whether the perceived accessibility, socio-spatial integration, and several socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, length of residence) in the four types of environments significantly differed from each other. Finally, multi-group linear regression analyses were performed to identify the factors that best explain socio-spatial integration by type of environment. The variables that entered the equations included personal characteristics (e.g., socio-demographics, self-rated health, mobility, length of residence) and environmental characteristics (perceived accessibility).

Results

Participants’ Characteristics

Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents by their residential environment. No significant differences were found between the four groups of respondents with regard to their living arrangements, with the majority of respondents living with somebody. Yet, there were significant differences in all the other variables: gender and age distribution, years of education, marital status, length of residence, self-rated health, and mobility. Bonferroni post hoc tests showed (data not shown here) that those who lived in the metropolitan city were significantly older and had lower levels of education compared with those who lived in a city or town. In addition, the various types of environments significantly differed in gender distribution and marital status of respondents. There were significantly more women who were interviewed in the town and in the metropolitan city compared with the city and the rural settlements, and more than half who lived in the metropolitan city were widowed compared with a minority in the other places. The self-rated health of those who lived in the metropolitan city was significantly poorer than that of those who lived in other places, and those who lived in the city encountered the least mobility difficulties compared with those who lived in the other places.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Characteristics by Type of Residential Environment.

Variable	Rural			Town			City			Metropolitan city			χ/²F
	n = 97			n = 80			n = 88			n = 300
	%	M	SD	%	M	SD	%	M	SD	%	M	SD
Gender													22.79***
Women	61.9			70.0			52.3			66.0
Age		75.85	6.74		73.26	6.75		73.31	6.27		77.97	7.84	14.46***
Education (years)		12.00	5.85		14.64	4.17		13.18	3.91		11.16	3.99	15.01***
Marital status													45.52***
Married	61.3			68.0			64.7			39.1
Widowed	30.1			20.0			8.2			52.2
Single/divorced	8.6			12.0			27.1			8.7
Living arrangement													10.58
Alone	30.9			30.0				42.0		41.7
Length of residence in neighborhood		40.96	20.30		28.26	19.12		58.17	12.35		30.23	19.36	58.26***
Self-rated health													111.23***
Excellent	9.7			9.0			12.9			3.7
Very good	31.2			39.7			40.0			11.0
Moderate	35.5			33.3			40.0			36.3
Poor	15.1			9.0			4.7			42.0
Very poor	8.5			9.0			2.4			7.0
Outdoor mobility													19.45***
No problems	75.3			76.2			84.1			62.3

***

p < .001.

Socio-Spatial Integration by Type of Environment

Table 2 presents the mean scores of the independent and dependent variables and differences by type of environment. Levels of sense of belonging, neighbors’ recognition, and socio-spatial integration significantly varied by type of environment; the lowest level of socio-spatial integration was found in the metropolitan city and the highest in the town. Perceived accessibility was found to be very similar in rural settlements, town, and city, and they were significantly higher compared with that in the metropolitan city.

Table 2.

One-Way ANOVAs of Independent and Dependent Variables, by Type of Residential Environment.

Variable	Rural		Town		City		Metropolitan city		Total		F
	n = 97		n = 80		n = 88		n = 300		N = 565
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Perceived accessibility	17.64	2.02	17.17	1.88	16.66	1.74	12.43	2.39	14.44	3.18	135.27***
Sense of belonging	17.12	5.72	19.70	6.45	18.32	4.95	12.13	3.25	15.09	5.57	87.16***
Neighbors’ recognition	11.91	4.10	11.40	4.71	14.41	3.50	10.02	3.18	11.23	3.96	34.41***
Total socio-spatial integration	29.03	7.96	31.10	9.48	32.73	7.55	22.12	5.24	26.35	8.23	78.18***

***

p < .001.

Table 3 presents the Bonferroni post hoc tests of the dependent variables and perceived accessibility. Sense of belonging was the lowest in the metropolitan city compared with the other types of residential environments. In rural settlements, it was significantly lower than in the town. Neighbors’ recognition was highest in the city compared with other residential environments, and in the metropolitan city, it was significantly lower than in all the other types of environments. Socio-spatial integration was significantly lower in the metropolitan city compared with the other residential environments, and in rural settlements, it was lower than in the city. Perceived accessibility was significantly lower in the metropolitan city compared with the other types of environments, but there were no significant differences between rural settlements, the town, and the city.

Table 3.

Bonferroni Post Hoc Test for Perceived Accessibility and Socio-Spatial Integration.

Dependent variable	Types of settlements		M difference	SE
Perceived accessibility	Rural	Town	0.47	0.46
		City	0.98	0.45
		Metro city	5.21***	0.38
	Town	City	0.51	0.41
		Metro city	4.74***	0.33
	City	Metro city	4.23***	.32
Neighbors’ recognition	Rural	Town	0.51	0.55
		City	0.50***	0.54
		Metro city	1.89***	0.43
	Town	City	−3.01***	0.56
		Metro city	1.38*	0.46
	City	Metro city	4.39***	0.44
Sense of belonging	Rural	Town	−2.58***	0.70
		City	−1.19	0.68
		Metro city	4.99***	0.54
	Town	City	1.38	0.71
		Metro city	7.57***	0.58
	City	Metro city	6.19***	0.56
Socio-spatial integration	Rural	Town	−2.10	1.04
		City	−3.70**	1.02
		Metro city	6.91***	0.81
	Town	City	−1.63	1.07
		Metro city	8.98***	0.87
	City	Metro city	10.60***	0.84

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Factors Explaining Socio-Spatial Integration

Table 4 presents the multi-group regression analyses of factors explaining socio-spatial integration by type of environment. The findings show that in the rural settlements, none of the variables that entered the equation were significant in explaining socio-spatial integration. The variables included in the equation explained only 16% of the variance in the outcome variable. For the town, only better perceived accessibility was found to explain better socio-spatial integration. The variables that entered the equation explained 20% of the socio-spatial integration of the respondents. For the city, a combination of personal characteristics (marital status and living arrangements) and environmental factors (perceived accessibility) was significant in explaining the outcome variable. The variables that entered the equation explained 34% of the socio-spatial integration of the respondents. This suggests that those unmarried, living with somebody, and perceiving their environment as more accessible were more socio-spatially integrated. For the metropolitan city, the findings indicate that younger age, better self-rated health, and better perceived accessibility were associated with better socio-spatial integration. The variables that entered the equation explained 16% of the variance in the outcome variable.

Table 4.

Multi-Group Regression Analyses of Factors Explaining Socio-Spatial Integration by Type of Environment.

Variables	Rural			Town			City			Metro city
Variables	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Age	0.12	0.11	.11	−0.01	0.16	−.01	−0.19	0.11	−.16	−0.09	0.04	−.14*
Education	−0.05	0.16	−.03	0.41	0.26	.18	−0.02	0.19	−.01	−0.02	0.07	−.01
Marital status	1.88	2.07	.12	−1.42	3.61	−.07	12.09	2.68	.78***	0.44	0.74	.04
Living arrangements	−1.26	2.07	−.08	0.44	3.92	.02	11.87	2.45	.82***	0.45	0.72	.04
Self-rated health	1.28	0.96	.17	1.18	1.10	.13	0.84	0.90	.10	0.91	0.35	.16**
Mobility^a	0.44	0.52	.10	0.87	0.64	.16	0.01	0.53	.00	0.10	0.17	.04
Length of residence	0.00	0.05	.00	0.08	0.06	.17	−0.03	0.06	−.05	0.02	0.02	.09
Perceived accessibility	0.17	0.10	.21	0.36	0.14	.30*	0.38	0.11	.37***	0.16	0.04	.22***
R ²	.16			.20			.34			.16
Adjusted R²	.08			.11			.27			.13
F	2.07*			2.25*			5.08***			6.67***

Mobility: 1 = no mobility difficulties, 0 = mobility difficulties.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The first aim of this study was to examine differences in the socio-spatial integration of older people in four different types of residential environments (rural settlements, a town, a city, and a metropolitan city) located in two different regions of Israel: center and periphery. Specifically, the aim of the study was to examine whether older people living in rural settlements and in a peripheral region were more socio-spatially integrated in their residential environments compared with those living in urban environments and in a central region.

The bivariate analyses showed that in the peripheral region, regardless of type of settlement, older people perceived their environment as more accessible compared with those who lived in the metropolitan city in the central region. This is despite fewer and less frequent public transportation lines in the peripheral region compared with the metropolitan city. Several explanations can be provided to understand these significant differences. First, in remote, low-density, and suburban environments, distances from basic services that people use on a daily basis, such as grocery stores, the post office, or primary health clinics, are shorter so that older people can access them more easily. Fewer people using the same services may create more opportunities to meet with neighbors and become acquainted with them compared with those who live in the metropolitan city and use services that serve a larger number of clients, thus creating fewer opportunities to develop relationships with them. This explanation is consistent with findings from previous studies (Chiu et al., 2005; Evans, 2009; Fokkema et al., 1996), which found a greater quantity of coincidental meetings in the countryside compared with large urban areas, whereas the urban environment is characterized by numerous impersonal interactions, transitory contacts, and anonymity. Thus, older adults in rural and small urban settlements in a peripheral region maintain more social relations than those who live in central big urban environments. This in turn can increase their sense of belonging to the place, recognition of neighbors, and their overall socio-spatial integration. Indeed, the findings show that levels of socio-spatial integration were higher in peripheral communities, regardless of type of environment (rural or urban), than in the metropolitan city located in a central region. This is consistent with a previous study (Van der Meer, 2006) that found that older adults living in a peripheral region are more socio-spatially integrated.

The second explanation is that the walkability of low-density and small places is easier, because there is much less traffic, safer streets, and green and open spaces that foster interaction with others and positively influence the walking activity of older people (Li, Fisher, Brownson, & Bosworth, 2005; Michael, Green, & Farquhar, 2006). The use of public transport options is generally difficult for older people because of service design and provision, vehicle accessibility, provision of information, and personal mobility difficulties (Broome, Worrall, McKenna, & Boldy, 2010). That is, in highly urbanized areas, the crowdedness and continuous busy traffic may become a burden and restrict older people to independent travel by car (Van der Meer, 2006). On the contrary, public transport in the central region offers better opportunities to travel than in peripheral regions. However, those living in rural settlements and in towns in Israel use both mobility motor scooters and private cars more than those living in big cities because there is much less traffic and it is safer to drive private cars. Special mobility motor scooters were developed in Israel (by Kibbutz Afikim) to meet the mobility needs of older adults, and this means of transportation is widely used in low traffic density areas such as rural places and small towns. This in turn can increase the physical accessibility of those who live in rural and small urban places compared with big urban environments. This highlights the pivotal role that appropriate transportation plays in making residential environments more accessible and more age-friendly for older people, in particular those who have some mobility limitations. However, transportation was not examined in this study and therefore more research is needed to examine its effect on accessibility.

With regard to socio-spatial integration, taking into account the specific collective and communal life that characterizes kibbutzim, it would have been expected that older adults who live in such environments would experience higher levels of socio-spatial integration compared with those living in urban environments, regardless of geographic region. Surprisingly, the findings indicate that those who lived in the town and in the city in the peripheral region were more socio-spatially integrated compared with those who lived in the rural settlements. It might be that the lower level of socio-spatial integration of those living in kibbutzim was a result of the reforms and transformations that many kibbutzim have undergone during the past two decades in the direction of privatization and changing ideologies and practices (Russell, Hanneman, & Getz, 2011; Snir, 2006). For example, in the traditional kibbutz ideology, the needs of all its members were supplied equally and collectively (e.g., laundry, meals, children rearing). The privatization of the kibbutzim entailed significant changes in the direction of putting more emphasis on individual consumption (e.g., providing monthly salaries to its members, fee for service). The collective dining rooms that characterized the traditional kibbutzim and were used as a common place for dining 3 times a day, social activities, and meetings were transformed into restaurants where people have to pay for their meals. Consequently, many members gave up eating in these restaurants, which significantly decreased the frequency of social meetings and involvement of older people. In addition, many kibbutzim allocated lands to sell to non-member people who built their private villas in these places, thus changing the socioeconomic profile of the kibbutz. These might have caused the older generation of members to feel frustrated, alienated, neglected, and consequently less integrated in their changing communities. However, this issue merits further examination.

The second aim of the study, based on the multi-dimensional conceptual models of socio-spatial integration (Burholt, 2006; Rowles, 1980; Ruiz-Tagle, 2013), was to examine the extent to which personal and environmental characteristics predict socio-spatial integration. In general, the multi-group regression analyses show that perceived accessibility was a significant determinant of socio-spatial integration in all types of environments, except for respondents who lived in the kibbutzim. In addition, several different personal characteristics were significant in explaining socio-spatial integration in the city (marital status and living arrangements) and in the metropolitan city (age and self-rated health), while unexpectedly none of the personal characteristics were significant in explaining socio-spatial integration in the town and in rural settlements. In other words, the findings relating to cities are consistent with previous studies (Iwarsson, 2005; Krause, 2006; Kuo et al., 1998; Kweon et al., 1998; Lawton & Nahemow, 1973; Sugiyama & Thompson, 2007; Valdemarsson, Jernryd, & Iwarsson, 2005) showing that socio-spatial integration of older people is contingent on a combination of personal, psychosocial, and environmental features.

Yet, with regard to small places like towns and rural settlements, the personal characteristics were insignificant in explaining socio-spatial integration. These findings are apparently in contrast to the model proposed by Burholt (2006), asserting that social integration and social support are stronger in small communities and in rural areas because there is a greater degree of interaction with friends and neighbors and a stronger sense of belonging. However, in this study, the relationships with neighbors and friends that might be crucial for the socio-spatial integration of their older inhabitants were not examined. In line with previous studies (Chiu et al., 2005; Evans, 2009), it might be that in the countryside (rural settlements and little towns), the quantity and quality of coincidental meetings are more influential on the well-being of older residents (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003) than in urban cities. It appears as though the atmosphere in such environments enables older adults to become more socio-spatially integrated, while the city is perceived to be less favorable for older adults because outdoor public spaces are less inviting and comfortable. Not only do these spaces have fewer natural elements, they are also typified by a high degree of complex stimuli (Rowles, 1983).

Furthermore, the fact that even perceived accessibility in rural settlements was found insignificant in explaining socio-spatial integration might be explained by two reasons. First, the territory of each settlement is smaller compared with other environments; thus, distances are shorter. Second, as stated earlier, older inhabitants can safely use mobility motor scooters in rural settlements than in more populated environments; therefore, accessibility is not a real barrier for them. However, more research is necessary to examine more variables that are important for the understanding of socio-spatial integration in diverse types of residential environments.

The troubling fact, however, is the relatively low levels of socio-spatial integration found in older adults living in the metropolitan city. As most of Israel’s older adults live in big cities in metropolitan areas, the challenge of their socio-spatial integration is evident. Their emotional links to the environment are much lower, in comparison with those living in the periphery and so are their relations with their neighbors. Socio-spatial integration of older adults should therefore focus on creating a small town atmosphere in the big city, possibly by developing appropriate physical infrastructure and social activity at the neighborhood level. When examining different neighborhoods in the same cities, it is evident that in wealthier neighborhoods, with better services and better accessibility to services, including more frequent bus lines and taxis, it is easier for older people to be socio-spatially integrated (Leyden, 2003; Perez, Mayoralas, Rivera, & Abuin, 2001; Rowles, 1978; Simon, Walsh, Regnier, & Krause, 1992; Turel, Yigit, & Altug, 2007). More frequent participation in activities can in turn facilitate socio-spatial integration (Sugiyama, Thompson, & Alves, 2009; Valdemarsson et al., 2005).

In addition to the geographical variables, an important finding of this study is the combination of better personal resources (age, health condition, marital status, and living arrangements) and the environmental characteristics of the different environments (especially rural settlements and towns vs. cities) and their association with greater socio-spatial integration.

To conclude, the study stresses the need for multi-disciplinary and comprehensive perspectives to understand socio-spatial integration and suggests that a combination of factors and the interaction between them, including characteristics of the individual and space, and economic and social factors, plays a role in socio-spatial integration. Understanding environments for aging must be seen as an interdisciplinary issue requiring understanding of the impact of developments, such as the changing dynamics of urban poverty on older people, the consequences of urban renewal and regeneration, the influence of transnational networks, and changing relations between different age-based groups (Phillipson, 2015). Therefore, greater collaboration and communication within and between disciplines are necessary for the understanding of this multi-dimensional and multifaceted phenomenon (Andrews, Cutchin, McCracken, Phillips, & Wiles, 2007; Burholt, 2006). For example, more collaboration should be developed between geographers, architects, city planners, health professionals, social workers, sociologists, and gerontologists to highlight the various physical, social, and psychological determinants that can promote the socio-spatial integration of older people in their communities.

This study opens new avenues for social geographic research on the impact of small communities and the effects of lifestyles on the socio-spatial integration of older individuals. It calls also for an investigation of other factors that play a role in this regard, such as migration, intergenerational relationships, housing, culture, availability and accessibility of health and social care services, transportation behavioral patterns, and the socioeconomic status of individuals.

As concerns policies and practices, the study throws some light on factors that may increase or decrease socio-spatial integration at the community level. To enable active aging and aging in place, and to make communities more age-friendly in urban communities, there is a need to address facilitation of accessibility and to create supportive environments (Plouffe & Kalache, 2010). Older inhabitants should take an active role in the planning and decision-making processes that are aimed to make their environment more accessible and age-friendly.

The research shows that apart from the accessibility issue, small communities, like the Israeli peripheral environments, have their own cultural lives and unique lifestyles. In such communities, people are more involved in decision making and feel that they belong to the place, have a stronger sense of place (Barnes et al., 2006), and are more socio-spatially integrated.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study: First, the study is cross-sectional, so that a causal relationship between personal and environmental characteristics and socio-spatial integration cannot be established. Further investigation and evaluation studies should be longitudinal and follow respondents, as well as use quasi-experimental designs, to examine differences in levels of socio-spatial integration. Studies should also examine additional factors that can promote socio-spatial integration of older adults in their residential environments. Second, generalization of the findings is limited because the sample and the sampling procedure do not guarantee representativeness of all the older inhabitants in each type of environment. This is because the sample included people who were present in specific places outside their homes when data were collected. Those who were homebound due to severe mobility difficulties are not represented in this study, and the percentages of women were significantly higher or lower than those of men (depending on the settlement). All these limitations may have biased the results of the study.

Third, concerning the socio-spatial integration measure, although internal consistency was reasonable, there is still a need to further develop valid and reliable measures to encompass the multi-dimensional concept of socio-spatial integration of older people in their living area. In this study, we examined only two aspects that can reflect socio-spatial integration, but there might be manifold other dimensions that may better cover the content of socio-spatial integration of older inhabitants. Further studies should therefore include more dimensions, such as participation in formal and informal neighborhood activities that were identified in the age-friendly literature that is of increasing importance to geographers, gerontologists, planners, and government. Future studies would benefit from the incorporation of insights from the age-friendly literature. Finally, further studies should include additional personal and environmental variables such as transportation, pavements, and lighting to provide better insights into environmental characteristics that are crucial for the socio-spatial integration of older people in their neighborhoods, and to learn how they impact their quality of life and well-being.

Despite these limitations, the study provides new insights into the interaction between environmental characteristics and socio-spatial integration of older people in their communities. These can enrich our knowledge on the socio-spatial integration of older people in different types of residential environments.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Adi Vitman Schorr is a research associate at the Department of social science in the Golan Research Institute, University of Haifa. Her research interests include social and geography of the aged, aging in the periphery, and public health in the periphery.

Esther Iecovich is a gerontological social worker. She was the head of the master’s program in gerontology at the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel, where she is an associate professor and researcher. Her fields of interest include policy on aging, long-term care, and home-care services to older adults. She occupied various senior management positions in the field of eldercare in both community-based and institutional long-term care services in Israel. She is currently a member of various national committees on aging.

Nurit Alfasi is a senior lecturer at the Department of Geography and Environmental Development in Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and since 2011 the head of the planning graduate program. Her research interests include planning theory, planning law, and urban dynamics.

Shmuel Shamai received his PhD from the Department of Sociology of Education, University of Toronto. He is the head of the MA in education at Tel-Hai College and a senior research fellow at the Golan Research Institute (University of Haifa). His research interests center mainly on ethnicity, education, and behavioral geography.

References

Alley

Liebig

Pynoos

Banerjee

Choi

I. H.

(2007). Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparations for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49, 1-18.

Anant

S. S.

(1966). The need to belong. Canada’s Mental Health, 14, 21-27.

Andrews

G. J.

Cutchin

McCracken

Phillips

D. R.

Wiles

(2007). Geographical gerontology: The constitution of a discipline. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 151-168. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.047

Avlund

Lund

Holstein

B. E.

Due

(2004). Social relations as determinant of onset of disability in aging. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 38, 85-99. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2003.08.003

Avlund

Lund

Holstein

B. E.

Due

Sakari-Rantala

Heikkinen

R. L.

(2004). The impact of structural and functional characteristics of social relations as determinants of functional decline. The Journal of Gerontology, 59B, S44-S51. doi:10.1093/geronb/59.1.S44

Barnes

Blom

Cox

Lessof

Walker

(2006). The social exclusion of older people: Evidence form the first wave of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/odpm_social_exclusion.pdf

Berkman

L. F.

Glass

Brissette

Seeman

T. E.

(2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 843-857.

Brissette

Cohen

Seeman

(2000). Measuring social integration and social networks. In Cohen

Underwood

L. G.

Gottlieb

B. H.

(Eds.), Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists (pp. 53-85). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Broome

Worrall

McKenna

Boldy

(2010). Priorities for an age-friendly bus system. Canadian Journal on Aging, 29, 435-444. doi:10.1017/S0714980810000425

10.

Brown

R. B.

Geertsen

K. R.

Krannich

R. S.

(1989). Community satisfaction and social integration in a boomtown: A longitudinal analysis. Rural Sociology, 54, 568-586.

11.

Burholt

(2006). “Adref”: Theoretical contexts of attachment to place for mature and older people in rural North Wales. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1095-1114. doi:10.1068/a3767

12.

Cavallero

Morino-Abbele

Bertocci

(2007). The social relations of the elderly. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 44, 97-100. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2007.01.014

13.

Cavalli

Bickel

J. F.

Lalive d’Epinay

C. J.

(2007). Exclusion in very old age: The impact of three critical life events. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 2, 9-31. doi:10.3384/ijal.1652-8670.07219

14.

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Population census. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/census/census/main_mifkad08_e.html

15.

Chiu

H. C.

Chen

C. M.

Huangm

C. J.

Mau

L. W.

(2005). Depressive symptoms, chronic medical conditions and functional status: A comparison of urban and rural elders in Taiwan. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 635-644. doi:10.1002/gps.1292

16.

Cornwell

Laumann

E. O.

Schumm

L. P.

(2008). The social connectedness of older adults: A national profile. American Sociological Review, 73, 185-203. doi:10.1177/000312240807300201

17.

Costa-Font

(2013). Housing-related well-being in older people: The impact of environmental and financial influences. Urban Studies, 50, 657-673. doi:10.1177/0042098012456247

18.

Domanski

Ostrowska

Przybysz

Romaniuk

(2006). Social dimensions of housing. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

19.

Durkheim

(1997). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York, NY: Free Press.

20.

Evans

R. J.

(2009). A comparison of rural and urban older adults in Iowa on specific markers of successful aging. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52, 423-438. doi:10.1080/01634370802609197

21.

Farlex. (2010). The free dictionary. Available from http://www.thefreedictionary.com

22.

Fitzgerald

K. G.

Caro

(2014). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 1-18. doi:10.1080/08959420.2014.860786

23.

Fokkema

de Jong

Nijkamp

(1996). Big cities, big problems: Reason for the elderly to move? Urban Studies, 33, 353-377. doi:10.1080/00420989650012059

24.

Gitlin

L. N.

(2003). Conducting research on home environments: Lessons learned and new directions. The Gerontologist, 43, 628-638.

25.

Golan

(2015). The street as urban icon? Tel Aviv’s Rothschild Boulevard. Urban Geography, 36(5), 721-734. doi:10.1080/02723638.2015.1016308

26.

Hagerty

B. M.

Williams

R. A.

Coyne

J. C.

Early

M. R.

(1996). Sense of belonging and indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10, 235-244.

27.

Herrero

Gracia

(2004). Predicting social integration in the community among college students. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 707-720. doi:10.1002/jcop.20028

28.

Hockey

Phillips

Walford

(2013). Planning for an ageing society: Voices from the planning profession. Planning Practice & Research, 28, 527-543. doi:10.1080/02697459.2013.820039

29.

Hooyman

N. R.

Kiyak

H. A.

(2008). Social gerontology. New York, NY: Pearson Education.

30.

House

J. S.

Umberson

Landis

K. R.

(1988). Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 293-318. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453

31.

Hurtado

Meader

E. W.

Ziskin

Kamimura

Greene

(2002, June). Intergroup relations: Views from different racial/ethnic groups. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Forum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

32.

Iwarsson

(2005). A long-term perspective on person-environment fit and ADL dependence among older Swedish adults. The Gerontologist, 45, 327-336. doi:10.1093/geront/45.3.327

33.

Keene

Bader

Ailshire

(2013). Length of residence and social integration: The contingent effects of neighborhood poverty. Health & Place, 21, 171-178. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.02.002

34.

Kendig

(2003). Directions in environmental gerontology: A multidisciplinary field. The Gerontologist, 43, 611-615.

35.

Krause

(2006). Neighborhood deterioration, social skills, and social relationship in later life. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 62, 185-207. doi:10.2190/7PVL-3YA2-A3QC-9M0B

36.

Kuo

F. E.

Sullivan

W. C.

Coley

R. L.

Brunson

(1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 823-851. doi:10.1023/A:1022294028903

37.

Kweon

B. S.

Sullivan

W. C.

Wiley

A. R.

(1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city adults. Environment and Behavior, 30, 832-854. doi:10.1177/001391659803000605

38.

Lawton

M. P.

Nahemow

(1973). Ecology and the aging process. In Eisdorfer

Lawton

M. P.

(Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 619-674). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

39.

Lefebvre

(1991). The production of space. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

40.

Lehning

A. J.

Scharlach

A. E.

Dal Santo

T. S.

(2010). A web-based approach for helping communities becomes more “aging friendly.” Journal of Applied Gerontology, 29, 415-433.

41.

Leyden

K. M.

(2003). Social capital and the build environment: The importance of walkable neighborhood. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546-1551. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1546

42.

Fisher

K. J.

Brownson

R. C.

Bosworth

(2005). Multilevel modeling of built environment characteristics related to neighborhood walking activity in older adults. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59, 558-564. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028399

43.

Michael

Y. L.

Green

M. K.

Farquhar

S. A.

(2006). Neighborhood design and active aging. Health & Place, 12, 734-740. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.08.002

44.

Mollenkopf

Marcellini

Ruoppila

Széman

Tacken

Wahl

H. W.

(2004). Social and behavioral science perspectives on out-of-home mobility in later life: Findings from the European project MOBILATE. European Journal of Ageing, 1, 45-53. doi:10.1007/s10433-004-0004-3

45.

O’Brien

(2014). Planning for population ageing: Ensuring enabling and supportive physical-social environments—Local infrastructure challenges. Planning Theory & Practice, 15, 220-234. doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.902986

46.

Panagiotakos

D. B.

Chrysohoou

Siasos

Zisimos

Skoumas

Pitsavos

Stefanadis

(2011). Sociodemographic and lifestyle statistics of oldest old people (>80 years) living in Ikaria Island: The Ikaria study. Cardiology Research and Practice, 2011, 1-7. doi:10.4061/2011/679187

47.

Peach

(1996). The meaning of segregation. Planning Practice & Research, 11, 137-150. doi:10.1080/02697459650036297

48.

Perez

F. P.

Mayoralas

G. F.

Rivera

F. E. P.

Abuin

J. M. R.

(2001). Ageing in place: Predictors of the residential satisfaction of elderly. Social Indicators Research, 54, 173-208. doi:10.1023/A:1010852607362

49.

Phillipson

(2015). Developing age-friendly urban communities: Critical issues for public policy. Public Policy & Aging Report, 25, 4-8. doi:10.1093/ppar/pru052

50.

Plouffe

Kalache

(2010). Towards global age-friendly cities: Determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health, 87, 733-739. doi:10.1007/s11524-010-9466-0

51.

Pretty

G. H.

Chipuer

H. M.

Bramston

(2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273-287. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00079-8

52.

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2015). Age-friendly communities. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniors-aines/afc-caa-eng.php#sec1

53.

Quillian

(1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60, 586-611. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096296

54.

Ram

(2013). The globalization of Israel: McWorld in Tel Aviv, Jihad in Jerusalem. New York, NY: Routledge.

55.

Rasulo

Christensen

Tomassini

(2005). The influence of social relations on mortality in later life: A study on elderly Danish twins. The Gerontologist, 45, 601-608. doi:10.1093/geront/45.5.601

56.

Relph

(1976). Place and placelessness. London, England: Pion.

57.

Roman

(1989). Integration and segregation in the relationship of the Arab sector and the Jewish sector in Jerusalem: A methodological examination. City and Region: A Local Authority, Planning, Urban and Area Journal, 19-21, 52-74. [In Hebrew]

58.

Rowles

G. D.

(1978). Prisoners of space? Exploring the geographical experience of older people. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

59.

Rowles

G. D.

(1980). Growing old inside: Aging and attachment to place in an Appalachian community. In Datan

Lohmann

(Eds.), Transitions of aging (pp. 153-170). New York, NY: Academic Press.

60.

Rowles

G. D.

(1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 299-313.

61.

Rowles

G. D.

(1986). The geography of ageing and the aged: Toward an integrated perspective. Progress in Human Geography, 10, 511-539. doi:10.1177/030913258601000403

62.

Ruiz-Tagle

(2013). A theory of socio-spatial integration: Problems, policies and concepts from a US perspective. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37, 388-408. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01180.x

63.

Russell

Hanneman

Getz

(2011). The transformation of the Kibbutzim. Israel Studies, 16, 109-126. doi:10.1353/is.2011.0016

64.

Saelens

B. E.

Sallis

J. F.

Black

J. B.

Chen

(2003). Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1552-1558. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1552

65.

Shamai

(1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22, 347-358. doi:10.1016/0016-7185(91)90017-K

66.

Shendell

D. G.

Johnson

M. L.

Sanders

D. L.

Nowakowski

A. C.

Yang

Jeffries

C. D.

. . . Moulding

(2011). Community built environment factors and mobility around senior wellness centers: The concept of “safe senior zones.” Journal of Environment Health, 73, 9-18.

67.

Simon

S. L.

Walsh

D. A.

Regnier

V. A.

Krause

I. K.

(1992). Spatial cognition and neighborhood use: The relationship in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 7, 389-394. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.3.389

68.

Skafidi

Ihlanfelt

(2002). Black self-segregation as a cause of housing segregation: Evidence from the multi-city study of urban inequality. Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 366-390. doi:10.1006/juec.2001.2249

69.

Snir

(2006). Shifting paradigms: >From fostering equality to building safety nets. Analyzing some consequences of ‘‘privatization’’ in the Israeli kibbutz. Economic Change, 39, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10644-007-9007-3

70.

Steinkamp

M. W.

Kelly

J. R.

(1987). Social integration, leisure activity and life satisfaction in older adults: Activity theory revisited. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 25, 293-307. doi:10.2190/V813-QA3G-6AQC-MWYM

71.

Sugiyama

Thompson

C. W.

(2007). Older people’s health, outdoor activity and supportiveness of neighborhood environment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 168-175. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.002

72.

Sugiyama

Thompson

C. W.

Alves

(2009). Associations between neighborhood open spaces attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behavior, 41, 3-21. doi:10.1177/0013916507311688

73.

Timberlake

J. M.

(2000). Still life in black and white: Effects of racial and class attitudes on prospects for residential integration in Atlanta. Sociological Inquiry, 70, 420-445. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2000.tb00918.x

74.

Toepoel

(2011). Cultural participation of older adults: Investigating the contribution of lowbrow and highbrow activities to social integration and satisfaction with life. International Journal of Disability and Human Development, 10, 123-129. doi:10.1515/ijdhd.2011.027

75.

Townshend

I. J.

(1996). An urban geography of the third age: Canadian metropolitan segregation and community cohesion in Calgary (Doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

76.

Tuan

Y. F.

(1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

77.

Turel

H. S.

Yigit

E. M.

Altug

(2007). Evaluation of elderly people’s requirements in public open spaces: A case study in Bornova district (Izmir, Turkey). Building and Environment, 42, 2035-2045. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.03.004

78.

Valdemarsson

Jernryd

Iwarsson

(2005). Preferences and frequencies of visits to public facilities in old age: A pilot study in a Swedish town center. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 40, 15-28. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2004.05.010

79.

Van der Meer

M. J.

(2006). Older adults and their sociospatial integration in the Netherlands (Doctoral thesis). Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/41971

80.

Warnes

A. M.

(1990). Geographical questions in gerontology: Needed directions for research. Progress in Human Geography, 14, 24-56. doi:10.1177/030913259001400103

81.

World Bank. (2015). Population ages 65 and above (% of total). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS

82.

World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf

83.

Young

F. A.

Russell

Powers

J. R.

(2004). The sense of belonging to a neighborhood: Can it be measured and is it related to health and well-being in older women? Social Science & Medicine, 59, 2627-2637. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.05.001