Top

Published in:

Open Access 19-05-2022

The Role of Urban Environments in Promoting Active and Healthy Aging: A Systematic Scoping Review of Citizen Science Approaches

Authors: G. E. R. Wood, J. Pykett, P. Daw, S. Agyapong-Badu, A. Banchoff, A. C. King, A. Stathi

Published in: Journal of Urban Health | Issue 3/2022

Abstract

Promoting active and healthy aging in urban spaces requires environments with diverse, age-friendly characteristics. This scoping review investigated the associations between urban characteristics and active and healthy aging as identified by citizen science (CS) and other participatory approaches. Using a systematic scoping review procedure, 23 articles employing a CS or participatory approach (participant age range: 54–98 years) were reviewed. An inductive and deductive thematic analysis was completed to (a) identify local urban barriers and facilitators and (b) map them against the World Health Organization (WHO) Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities. A new Citizen Science Appraisal Tool (CSAT) was developed to evaluate the quality of CS and other participatory approaches included in the reviewed articles. A range of interconnected urban barriers and facilitators was generated by residents across the personal (e.g. perceived safety), environmental (e.g. unmaintained infrastructure), socio-cultural (e.g. cross-cultural activities), economic (e.g. affordable housing) and political (e.g. governmental support to migrant communities) domains. Mapping the barriers and facilitators to the WHO age-friendly checklist underscored the checklist’s relevance and elucidated the need to explore barriers for migrant and cross-cultural communities and neighborhood development and alterations. The CSAT demonstrated strengths related to active engagement of residents and study outcomes leading to real-world implications. To advance the potential of CS to enrich our understanding of age-friendly environments, employing co-production to enhance relevance and sustainability of outcomes is an important strategy. Overall, employing CS highlighted the value of systematically capturing the experiences of older adults within studies aimed at promoting active and healthy aging.

Available only for authorised users

Michel JP. Urbanization and ageing health outcomes. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(5):463–5.PubMedCrossRef

United Nations. World Population Ageing 2020 Highlights. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2020. (ST/ESA/SET.A/451)

Cleland C, Reis RS, Hino AAF, Hunter R, Fermino RC, de Paiva HK, Czestschuk B, Ellis G. Built environment correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior in older adults: a comparative review between high and low-middle income countries. Health Place. 2019;57:277–304.PubMedCrossRef

Frank B, Delano D, Caniglia BS. Urban systems: a socio-ecological system perspective. Sociol Int J. 2017;1(1):1–8.CrossRef

World Health Organization. Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2007. https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf

Scharlach AE. Age-friendly cities: for whom? By whom? For what purpose? In: Moulaert T, Garon S, editors. Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison: political lessons, scientific avenues, and democratic issues. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 305–29.CrossRef

Phillipson C. Developing age-friendly urban communities: critical issues for public policy. Public Policy ; Aging Rep. 2014;25(1):4–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/pru052.CrossRef

Murtagh B, Cleland C, Ferguson S, et al. Age-friendly cities, knowledge and urban restructuring. Int Plan Stud. 2021;1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2021.1920374

Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES. The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. Gerontologist. 2011;52(3):357–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Lak A, Rashidghalam P, Myint PK, Baradaran HR. Comprehensive 5P framework for active aging using the ecological approach: an iterative systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-8136-8

11.

Kim S. Intra-regional residential movement of the elderly: testing a suburban-to-urban migration hypothesis. Ann Reg Sci. 2011;46(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-009-0325-4

12.

Jakubec SL, Olfert M, Choi LLS, Dawe N, Sheehan D. Understanding belonging and community connection for seniors living in the suburbs. Urban Plan. 2019;4(2):43–52.CrossRef

13.

Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. Experiences of neighborhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Aging Soc. 2013;33(1):89–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12000542.CrossRef

14.

Hand C, Rudman DL, Huot S, Pack R, Gilliland J. Enacting agency: exploring how older adults shape their neighborhoods. Empirical study; interview; qualitative study. Aging Soc. 2020;40(3):565–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X18001150.

15.

Marston HR, van Hoof J. “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban environments for older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO’s age-friendly cities model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(19):3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193525.PubMedCentralCrossRef

16.

van Hoof J, Marston HR, Kazak JK, Buffel T. Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Build Environ. 2021;199:107922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922.

17.

King AC, King D K, Banchoff A, Solomonov S, Ben Natan O, Hua J, Gardiner P, Rosas L G, Espinosa P R, Winter S J, Sheats J, Salvo D, Aguilar-Farias N, Stathi A, Akira Hino A, Porter M M, and Our Voice Global Citizen Science Research Network. Employing participatory citizen science methods to promote age-friendly environments worldwide. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051541

18.

World Health Organization. Global Strategy and Action Plan on Aging and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2017.

19.

Hidalgo ES, Perelló J, Becker F, Bonhoure I, Legris M, and CIgarini A. Participation and co-creation in citizen science. In: Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, Lemmens R, Perelló J, Ponti M, Samson R, and Wagenknecht K., ed. The science of citizen science. Springer; 2021.

20.

Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 2019;85(1):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388

21.

King AC, Winter SJ, Chrisinger BW, Hua J, Banchoff AW. Maximizing the promise of citizen science to advance health and prevent disease. Prev Med. 2019;119:44–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.016.PubMedCrossRef

22.

European Citizen Science Association. Ten principles of citizen science. London: European Citizen Science Association 2015. https://osf.io/ugy4t/. Accessed March 31, 2022

23.

Rosas LG, Salvo D, Winter SJ, et al. Harnessing technology and citizen science to support neighborhoods that promote active living in Mexico. J Urban Health. 2016;93(6):953–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0081-6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

24.

Woolley JP, McGowan ML, Teare HJA, et al. Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Medical Ethics. 2016;17(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1

25.

Walker DW, Smigaj M, Tani M. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. WIREs Water. 2021;8(1):e1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1488

26.

Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Froehlich HE, et al. The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol Conserv. 2017;208:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014

27.

Freitag A, Meyer R, and Whiteman L. Strategies employed by citizen science programs to increase the credibility of their data. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2016;1(1)

28.

Kieslinger B, Schäfer T, Heigl F, Dörler D, Richter A, Bonn A. Evaluating citizen science - towards an open framework. In: HeklerSaH M, Bowser A, Vogel J, Bonn A, editors. Citizen science - innovation in open science, society and policy. UCL Press. 2018;81–95.CrossRef

29.

Wiggins A, Bonney R, LeBuhn G, Parrish JK, Weltzin JF. A science products inventory for citizen-science planning and evaluation. Bioscience. 2018;68(6):436–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy028.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

30.

Haywood BK, Besley JC. Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513494560.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Phillips T FM, Minarchek M, Porticella N, and Bonney R. User’s guide for evaluating learning outcomes from citizen science. 2014. https://www.citizenscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/USERS-GUIDE_linked.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2022

32.

Rowbotham S, McKinnon M, Leach J, Lamberts R, Hawe P. Does citizen science have the capacity to transform population health science. J Urban Health: bull N Y Acad of Med. 2017;93(6):953–73.

33.

Albert A, Balázs B, Butkevičiene E, Mayer K, and Perelló J. Citizen social science: new and established approaches to participation in social research. In: Vohland K L-ZA, Ceccaroni L, Lemmens R, Perelló J, Ponti M, Samson R, and Wagenknecht K., ed. The Science of Citizen Science. Springer; 2021.

34.

Crain R, Cooper C, Dickinson JL. Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2014;39(1):641–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609.CrossRef

35.

Stathi A, Withall J, Agyapong-Badu S, et al. Mobilising people as assets for active aging promotion: a multi-stakeholder perspective on peer volunteering initiatives. BMC Publ Health. 2021;21(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10136-2

36.

Stathi A, Withall J, Thompson JL, et al. Feasibility trial evaluation of a peer volunteering active aging intervention: aCE (Active, Connected, Engaged). Gerontologist. 2019;60(3):571–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz003.PubMedCentralCrossRef

37.

World Health Organization. Checklist of Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2007.

38.

Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

39.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Eitzel MV, Cappadonna J L, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West S E, Kyba C C M, Bowser A, Cooper C B, Sforzi A, Metcalfe A N, Harris E S, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano L, Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling F M, Dörler D, Heigl F, Kiessling T, Davis B Y, and Jiang Q. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2017;2(1)

42.

Heigl F, Kieslinger B, Paul KT, Uhlik J, Dörler D. Opinion: toward an international definition of citizen science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(17):8089. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903393116.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

43.

Kelty C, Panofsky A. Disentangling public participation in science and biomedicine. Genome Med. 2014;6(8):1–14.

44.

Pateman R, Dyke A, West SE. The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2021;6(1):1–16.

45.

World Health Organization. Active Aging: A Policy Framework. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2002.

46.

Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1254.PubMedCrossRef

47.

Haklay M, Motion A, Balázs B, Kieslinger B, Greshake B T, Nold C, Dörler D, Fraisl D, Riemenschneider D, Florian H, Brounéus F, Hager G, Heuer K, Wagenknecht K, Vohland K, Shanley L, Deveaux L, Ceccaroni L, Weißpflug M, Gold M, Mazzonetto M, Mačiulienė M, Woods S, Luna S, Hecker S, Schaefer T, Woods T, and When T. ECSA’s characteristics of citizen science. European Citizen Science Association. Zenodo. 2020.

48.

Downs RR, Ramapriyan HK, Peng G, Wei Y. Perspectives on citizen science data quality. Perspective. Frontiers in Climate. 2021;3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.615032

49.

Heigl F, Bieslinger, B., Paul, K. T., Uhlik, J., Frigerio, D. and Dörler, D. Co-creating and implementing quality criteria for citizen science. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2020;5(1)

50.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP qualitative checklist. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2020

51.

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP cohort study checklist. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Cohort-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2020

52.

Parrish JK, Burgess H, Weltzin JF, Fortson L, Wiggins A, Simmons B. Exposing the science in citizen science: fitness to purpose and intentional design. Integr Comp Biol. 2018;58(1):150–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy032.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(10):551–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436.CrossRef

54.

Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care Jul-Sep. 2015;4(3):324–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306.CrossRef

55.

Williams J, Chapman, C., Leibovici, D. G., Loïs, G., Matheus, A., Oggioni, A., Schade, S., See, L. and van Genuchten, P. P. L. Maximising the impact and reuse of citizen science data. In: Hecker S, Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J. and Bonn, A., ed. Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy. UCL Press; 2018:321–336.

56.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

57.

Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publication Ltd; 2016.

58.

Buffel T. Social research and co-production with older people: developing age-friendly communities. J Aging Stud. 2018;01(44):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2018.01.012.CrossRef

59.

Chui CH, Chan OF, Tang JYM, Lum TYS. Fostering civic awareness and participation among older adults in Hong Kong: an empowerment-based participatory photo-voice training model. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;733464819838448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464819838448

60.

Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

61.

Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Pettirew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, and Duffy S. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme. 2006. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2020

62.

Brookfield K, Scott I, Tinker A, Thompson CW. Perspectives on “novel” techniques for designing age-friendly homes and neighborhoods with older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5)1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051800

63.

Gustafsson S, Falk C, Tillman S, Holtz L, Lindahl L. Life filming as a means of participatory approach together with older community-dwelling persons regarding their local environment. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;25(5):347–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1502345.PubMedCrossRef

64.

von Faber M, Tavy Z, van der Pas S. Engaging older people in age-friendly cities through participatory video design. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238977

65.

Tuckett AG, Freeman, A., Hetherington, S., Gardiner, P. A., King, A. C. and On behalf of Burnie Brae Citizen Scientists. Older adults using our voice citizen science to create change in their neighborhood environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2685.

66.

Ronzi S, Pope D, Orton L, Bruce N. Using photovoice methods to explore older people’s perceptions of respect and social inclusion in cities: opportunities, challenges and solutions. SSM - Population Health. 2016;01(2):732–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.09.004.CrossRef

67.

Buffel T, Phillipson C. Aging in a gentrifying neighborhood: experiences of community change in later life. Article Sociol. 2019;53(6):987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519836848.CrossRef

68.

Ronzi S, Orton L, Buckner S, Bruce N, Pope D. How is respect and social inclusion conceptualised by older adults in an aspiring age-friendly city? A photovoice study in the North-West of England. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9246.PubMedCentralCrossRef

69.

Black K, Dobbs D, Young TL. Aging in community: mobilizing a new paradigm of older adults as a core social resource. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(2):219–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812463984.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Annear M, Keeling S, Wilkinson T. Participatory and evidence-based recommendations for urban redevelopment following natural disasters: older adults as policy advisers. Australas J Aging. 2014;33(1):43–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12053.CrossRef

71.

Mahmood A, Chaudhury H, Michael YL, Campo M, Hay K, Sarte A. A photovoice documentation of the role of neighborhood physical and social environments in older adults’ physical activity in two metropolitan areas in North America. Empirical study; qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1180–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.039

72.

Glover L, Dyson J, Cowdell F, Kinsey D. Healthy aging in a deprived northern UK city: a co-creation study. Health Soc Care Community. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13036

73.

Fang ML, Woolrych R, Sixsmith J, Canham S, Battersby L, Sixsmith A. Place-making with older persons: establishing sense-of-place through participatory community mapping workshops. Soc Sci Med. 2016;168:223–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.007.PubMedCrossRef

74.

Aw S, Koh G, Oh YJ, et al. Explaining the continuum of social participation among older adults in Singapore: from ‘closed doors’ to active aging in multi-ethnic community settings. Empirical study; interview; focus group; qualitative study. J Aging Stud. 2017;42:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2017.07.002

75.

Salma J, Salami B. “We are like any other people, but we don’t cry much because nobody listens”: the need to strengthen aging policies and service provision for minorities in Canada. Gerontologist. 2020;60(2):279–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz184.PubMedCrossRef

76.

Novek S, Menec VH. Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: a photovoice study. Aging Soc. 2014;34(6):1052–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1200150X.CrossRef

77.

Adorno G, Fields N, Cronley C, Parekh R, Magruder K. Aging in a low-density urban city: transportation mobility as a social equity issue. Aging Soc. 2018;38(2):296–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16000994.CrossRef

78.

Garvin T, Nykiforuk CIJ, Johnson S. Can we get old here? Seniors’ perceptions of seasonal constraints of neighborhood built environments in a northern, winter city. Article. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography. 2012;94(4):369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12004

79.

Parekh R, Maleku A, Fields N, Adorno G, Schuman D, Felderhoff B. Pathways to age-friendly communities in diverse urban neighborhoods: do social capital and social cohesion matter? J Gerontol Soc Work. 2018;61(5):492–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2018.1454564

80.

Hand CL, Rudman DL, Huot S, Gilliland JA, Pack RL. Toward understanding person–place transactions in neighborhoods: a qualitative-participatory geospatial approach. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx064.PubMedCrossRef

81.

Verma I, Huttunen H. Elderly-friendly neighborhoods. J Hous Elder. 2015;29:1–2.CrossRef

82.

Barrie H, Soebarto V, Lange J, Mc Corry-Breen F, Walker L. Using citizen science to explore neighborhood influences on aging well: pilot project. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7(4) https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040126

83.

Wijewardhana UA, Meyer D, and Jayawardana M. Statistical models for the persistence of threatened birds using citizen science data: a systematic review. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020;21

84.

Hinckson E, Schneider M, Winter SJ, et al. Citizen science applied to building healthier community environments: advancing the field through shared construct and measurement development. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0588-6

85.

Best A, Stokols D, Green LW, Leischow S, Holmes B, Buchholz K. An integrative framework for community partnering to translate theory into effective health promotion strategy. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(2):168–176. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-18.2.168

86.

Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. In: Vasta R, ed. Annals of child development: vol 6. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1989.

87.

Robinson T. Applying the socio-ecological model to improving fruit and vegetable intake among low-income African Americans. J Community Health. 2008;33:395–406.PubMedCrossRef

88.

Mcleroy K, Bibeau DL, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Quarterley. 1988;15(4):351–77.CrossRef

89.

Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(4):282–98. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282.CrossRef

90.

Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297–322.PubMedCrossRef

91.

Andersson E, Haase D, Anderson P, et al. What are the traits of a social-ecological system: towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. npj Urban Sustainability. 2021;1(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-020-00008-4

92.

Crabtree-Hayes L. Housing as a social-ecological system: resilience, adaptive capacity and governance considerations. Presented at the 4th Australasian Housing Researchers Conference. 5th-7th August, Sydney. 2009.

93.

Durie R, Wyatt K. Connecting communities and complexity: a case study in creating the conditions for transformational change. Crit Public Health. 2013;23(2):174–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2013.781266

94.

Menec VH, Means R, Keating N, Parkhurst G, Eales J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can J Aging / La Rev can du vieillissement. 2011;30(3):479–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000237.CrossRef

95.

Kloos B, Shah S. A social ecological approach to investigating relationships between housing and adaptive functioning for persons with serious mental illness. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;44(3–4):316–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9277-1.PubMedCrossRef

96.

Ornelas J, Martins P, Zilhão MT, Duarte T. Housing first: an ecological approach to promoting community integration. Eur J Homelessness. 2014;8(1):29–56.

97.

Shaw M. Housing and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25(1):397–418. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123036

98.

Libman K, Fields D, Saegert S. Housing and health: a social ecological perspective on the US foreclosure crisis. Hous Theory Soc. 2012;29(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.624881

99.

Yeom HA, Fleury J, Keller C. Risk factors for mobility limitation in community-dwelling older adults: a social ecological perspective. Geriatr Nurs. 2008;29(2):133–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2007.07.002.CrossRef

100.

Dunn J, Chambers SK, Hyde MK. Systematic review of motives for episodic volunteering. VOLUNTAS: Int J Volunt Nonprofit Org. 2016;27(1):425–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9548-4

101.

Naud D, Généreux M, Bruneau J-F, Alauzet A, Levasseur M. Social participation in older women and men: differences in community activities and barriers according to region and population size in Canada. BMC Publ Health. 2019;19(1):1124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7462-1

102.

Smith M, Hosking J, Woodward A, Witten K, MacMillan A, Field A, Baas P, and Mackie H. Systematic literature review of built environment effects of physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14

103.

Vogelsang EM. Older adult social participation and its relationship with health: rural-urban differences. Health Place. 2016;42:111–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.09.010.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

104.

Liu Z, Kemperman A, Timmermans H. Social-ecological correlates of older adults’ outdoor activity patterns. J Transp Health. 2020;16:100840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100840

105.

Lu P, Xu C, Shelley M. A state-of-the-art review of the socio-ecological correlates of volunteerism among older adults. Aging Soc. 2020;1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000082

106.

Buffel T, Phillipson C. A Manifesto for the age-friendly movement: developing a new urban agenda. J Aging Soc Policy. 2018;30(2):173–92.PubMedCrossRef

107.

Buffel T, Rémillard-Boilard S, Walsh K, McDonald B, Smetcoren A, De Donder L. Age-friendly approaches and old-age exclusion: a cross-city analysis. Int J Aging Later Life. 2020;14(2):89–117.

108.

Lager D, Van Hoven B, Huigen PPP. Dealing with change in old age: negotiating working-class belonging in a neighborhood in the process of urban renewal in the Netherlands. Geoforum. 2013;50:54–61.CrossRef

109.

Smith RJ, Lehning AJ, Kim K. Aging in place in gentrifying neighborhoods: implications for physical and mental health. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):26–35.PubMedCrossRef

110.

Burns FV, Lavoie J-P, Rose D. Revisiting the role of neighborhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. J Aging Res. 2012;148287:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/148287

111.

Buffel T, Phillipson C. Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and aging populations. Cities. 2016;55:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.016

112.

Thomése F, Buffel T, Phillipson C. Neighborhood change, social inequalities and age-friendly communities. In (eds) Buffel T, Handler S, Phillipson, C. Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. 2018;3:33–49.

113.

Lehning AJ, Smith RJ, Dunkle RE. Do age-friendly characteristics influence the expectation to age in place? A comparison of low-income and higher income Detroit elders. J Appl Gerontol. 2013;32(2):158–80.CrossRef

114.

Park H-J, Morgan T, Wiles J, Gott M. Lonely aging in a foreign land: social isolation and loneliness among older Asian migrants in New Zealand. Health Soc Care Community. 2018;27 https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12690

115.

Rémillard-Boilard S, Buffel T, Phillipson C. Involving older residents in age-friendly developments: from information to coproduction mechanisms. Journal of Housing For the Elderly. 2017;31(2):146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2017.1309932

116.

Burholt V, Dobbs C, Victor C. Transnational relationships and cultural identify of older migrants. J Gerontopsychology Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;29(2):57–69.

117.

Syed MA, McDonald L, Smirle C, Lau K, Mirza RM, Hitzig SL. Social isolationg in Chinese older adults: scoping review for age-friendly community planning. Can J Aging / La Rev can du vieillissement. 2017;36(2):223–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980817000101.

118.

Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. Aging in urban environments: developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Crit Soc Policy. 2012;32(4):597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311430457

119.

Gonyea JG, Hudson R B. Emerging models of age-friendly communities: a framework for understanding inclusion. Public Policy & Aging Report. 2015;25(1)

120.

Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Lewenstein BV, Bonney R. Engagement in science through citizen science: moving beyond data collection. Sci Educ. 2019;103(3):665–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21501.CrossRef

121.

Bonney R, Ballard, H, Jordan, R, McCallie, E, Phillips, T, Shirk, J. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Washington, D.C. 2009.

122.

Withall J, Thompson JL, Fox KR, et al. Participant and public involvement in refining a peer-volunteering active aging intervention: project ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged). Gerontologist. 2016;58(2):362–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw148.PubMedCentralCrossRef

123.

Davis LF, Ramírez-Andreotta M D, and Buxner S.R. Engaging diverse citizen scientists for environmental health: recommendations from participants and promotoras. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2020;5(1):7.

124.

Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst Sci. 2015;25(1):2–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406

125.

The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Learning through citizen science: enhancing opportunities by design. The National Academies Press; 2018.

126.

West S, Dyke A, and Pateman, R. Variations in the motivations of environmental citizen scientists. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2021;6(1)

127.

Ward Thompson C, Bell S, Satsangi M, Netto G, Morris N, Travlou P, Chapman M, Raemaekers J, and Griffiths A. Diversity review: options for implementation - final report. OPENspace. 2003.

128.

Wright DR, Underhill LG, Keene M, Knight AT. Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Soc Nat Resour. 2015;28(9):1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976

129.

Pandya RE. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Front Ecol Environ. 2012;10(6):314–7.CrossRef

130.

King AC, Odunitan-Wayas FA, Chaudhury M, et al. Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):892.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

131.

Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Publ Health. 2015;15(1):725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1

132.

Winter SJ, Goldman Rosas L, Padilla Romero P, et al. Using citizen scientists to gather, analyze, and disseminate information about neighborhood features that affect active living. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016;18(5):1126–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0241-x

133.

Welborn R, Downey L, Dyk PH, Monroe PA, Tayler-Mackey C, Worthy SL. Turning the tide on poverty: documenting impacts through ripple effect mapping. Community Dev. 2016;47(3):385–402.CrossRef

134.

King AC, Campero M I, Garcia D, Blanco-Velazquez I, Banchoff A, Fierros F, Escobar M, Cortes A L, Sheats J L, Hua J, Chazaro A, Done M, Rodriguez Espinosa P, Vuong D, Ahn D K. Testing the effectiveness of community-engaged citizen science to promote physical activity, foster healthier neighborhood environments, and advance health equity in vulnerable communities: the steps for change randomized controlled trial design and methods. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2021;Online Ahead of Print https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106526

135.

Paleco C, García Peter S, Salas Seoane N, Kaufmann J, Argyri P, et al. Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. In: Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, et al., editors. The science of citizen science. Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 261–81.CrossRef

136.

Haklay M, Dörler D, Heigl F, Manzoni M, Hecker S, Vohland K, et al. What is citizen science? The challenges of definition. In: Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, et al., editors. The science of citizen science. Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 13–33.CrossRef

137.

Buman MP, Winter SJ, Baker C, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, King AC. Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Teams (NEAAT): engaging older adults in policy activities to improve food and physical environments. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2(2):249–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-011-0100-9.PubMedCrossRef

138.

Winter SJ, Buman MP, Sheats JL, et al. Harnessing the potential of older adults to measure and modify their environments: long-term successes of the Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Team (NEAAT) Study. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(2):226–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0264-1.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

139.

Tuckett. Older adults using our voice citizen science to create change in their neighborhood environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2685.

140.

ECSA. What is citizen science? https://ecsa.citizen-science.net. Accessed October 9, 2020

141.

King AC, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, et al. Leveraging citizen science and information technology for population physical activity promotion. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2016;1(4):30–44. https://doi.org/10.1249/tjx.0000000000000003.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

142.

Moran M, Werner P, Doron I, HaGani N, Benvenisti Y, King A C, Winter S J, Sheats J L, Garber R, Motro H, et al. Detecting inequalities in healthy and age-friendly environments: examining the Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool in Israel. International Research Workshop on Inequalities in Health Promoting Environments: Physical Activity and Diet. Israel: University of Haifa; 2015.

Title: The Role of Urban Environments in Promoting Active and Healthy Aging: A Systematic Scoping Review of Citizen Science Approaches
Authors: G. E. R. Wood
J. Pykett
P. Daw
S. Agyapong-Badu
A. Banchoff
A. C. King
A. Stathi
Publication date: 19-05-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Urban Health / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 1099-3460
Electronic ISSN: 1468-2869
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00622-w

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

The Role of Urban Environments in Promoting Active and Healthy Aging: A Systematic Scoping Review of Citizen Science Approaches

Abstract

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Infrastructural Inequality and Household COVID-19 Vulnerability in a South African Urban Settlement

Urban Scaling of Health Outcomes: a Scoping Review

A Systematic Review of the Effects of Urban Living on Suicidality and Self-Harm in the UK and Ireland

Does Living near Trees and Other Vegetation Affect the Contemporaneous Odds of Asthma Exacerbation among Pediatric Asthma Patients?

The Impact of US County-Level Factors on COVID-19 Morbidity and Mortality

Protective Places: the Relationship between Neighborhood Quality and Preterm Births to Black Women in Oakland, California (2007–2011)