Advertisement

Extending the importance–performance analysis (IPA) approach to Turkish elderly people’s self-rated home accessibility

  • Yasemin AfacanEmail author
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Designers are still struggling to make good and fair home designs for elderly people. Although there are a lot of studies on accessibility in homes, there are few methodologies to rate the importance of accessible home attributes, or address the relationships between the most important and most satisfactory attributes (in terms of creating a good fit between the elderly and their homes). This study suggests using the importance–performance analysis (IPA) approach to set accessibility priorities and identify the critical performance factors that determine the elderly’s satisfaction with accessible homes. A self-assessment questionnaire instrument was developed based on housing accessibility literature and conducted with 342 Turkish elderly people chosen through stratified sampling among neighborhood clusters in Ankara, Turkey. The descriptive results and factor analysis of the study are significant in that they indicate significant differences among dwelling types. There were differences in importance and performance priority levels of home accessibility factors associated with each dwelling type. Moreover, the study found that safety and ease of use are the key indicators of home accessibility. According to the results, the IPA could be an effective tool to overcome the messy character of evaluating home accessibility for the elderly. By extending the accessibility attributes with the IPA analysis, it is possible to identify specific accessibility attributes, establish highest and lower priorities for intervention and decide which attributes should be maintained and/or ignored. Thus, this study contributes to the literature on aging by being the first study to explore the applicability of the IPA technique while eliciting elderly people’s accessibility requirements for healthy aging.

Keywords

Accessibility Home Priority Importance and performance analysis Safety Ease of use 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this article was supported by the grant of Science Academy’s Young Scientist Awards Program 2017 (BAGEP), Turkey.

References

  1. Abalo, J., Varela, J., & Manzano, V. (2007). Importance values for importance–performance analysis: A formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings. Journal of Business Research, 60, 115–121.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the Oracle. Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Afacan, Y. (2008). Designing for an aging population: Residential preferences of the Turkish older people to age in place. In P. Langdon, P. J. Clarkson, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Designing inclusive futures (pp. 237–248). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Afacan, Y. (2013). Elderly–friendly inclusive urban environments: Learning from Ankara. Open House International, 38(1), 52–62.Google Scholar
  5. Afacan, Y., & Demirkan, H. (2010). A priority-based approach for satisfying the diverse users’ needs, capabilities and expectations: A universal kitchen design case. Journal of Engineering Design, 21(2–3), 315–343.Google Scholar
  6. Ahrentzen, S., & Tural, E. (2015). The role of building design and interiors in ageing actively at home. Build Research and Information, 43, 582–601.Google Scholar
  7. Alberty, S., & Mihalik, B. (1989). The use of importance–performance analysis as an evaluative technique in adult education. Evaluation Review, 13(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
  8. Altman, I., Lawton, M. P., & Wohlwill, J. F. (1984). Elderly people and the environment. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Aminzadeh, F., Dalziel, W. B., Molnar, F. J., & Garcia, L. J. (2009). Symbolic meaning of relocation to a residential care facility for persons with dementia. Aging and Mental Health, 13, 487–496.Google Scholar
  10. Annear, M., Keeling, S., Wilkinson, T., Cushman, G., Gidlow, B., & Hopkins, H. (2014). Environmental influences on healthy and active ageing: A systematic review. Ageing & Society, 34, 590–622.Google Scholar
  11. Argyrous, G. (2005). Statistics for research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Bianchin, M., & Heylinghen, A. (2018). Just design. Design Studies, 54, 1–22.Google Scholar
  13. Burby, R. J., & Rohe, W. M. (1990). Providing for the housing needs of the elderly. Joumal of the American Planning Association, 56, 324–340.Google Scholar
  14. Burton, E., & Mitchell, L. (2006). Inclusive urban design: streets for life. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  15. Carlsson, G., Schilling, O., Slaug, B., Fange, A., Stahl, A., Nygren, C., et al. (2009). Towards a screening tool for housing accessibility problems: A reduced version of the housing enabler. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 28(1), 59–80.Google Scholar
  16. Cervero, R. (1996). Paradigm shift: From automobility to accessibility planning (Working Paper No. 677, Institute of Urban and Regional Development). Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
  17. Chen, M., Murphy, H. C., & Knecht, S. (2016). An importance performance analysis of smartphone applications for hotel chains. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 29, 69–79.Google Scholar
  18. Close, J., Ellis, M., Hooper, R., Glucksman, E., Jackson, S., & Swift, C. (1999). Prevention of falls in the elderly trial (PROFET): A randomized controlled trial. The Lancet, 353, 93–97.Google Scholar
  19. Connell, B. R., McConnell, E. S., & Francis, T. G. (2002). Tailoring the environment of oral health care to the needs and abilities of nursing home residents with dementia. Alzheimer’s Care Quarterly, 3(1), 19–25.Google Scholar
  20. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.Google Scholar
  21. Engel, L., Chudyk, A. M., Ashe, M. C., McKay, H. A., Whitehurst, D. G., & Bryan, S. (2016). Older adults’ quality of life—Exploring the role of the built environment and social cohesion in community-dwelling seniors on low income. Social Science and Medicine, 164, 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, M. R., & Chon, K. S. (1989). Formulating and evaluating tourism policy using importance–performance analysis. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 13, 203–213.Google Scholar
  23. Froyen, H. (2012). Universal design: a methodological approach. Boston: IHCD Books.Google Scholar
  24. Fuhrer, U., & Kaiser, F. G. (1992). Bindung an das Zuhause: Die emotionalen Ursachen [Attachment to the home place: The emotional bases]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 23(2), 105–118.Google Scholar
  25. Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Ageing & Society, 24(5), 675–691.Google Scholar
  26. Go, F., & Zhang, W. (1997). Applying importance–performance analysis to Beijing as an international meeting destination. Journal of Travel Research, 35, 42–49.Google Scholar
  27. Granbom, M., Himmelsbach, I., Haak, M., Löfqvist, C., Oswald, F., & Iwarsson, S. (2014). Residential normalcy and environmental experience in very old age. Changes in residential reasoning over time. Journal of Aging Studies, 29, 9–19.Google Scholar
  28. Guadagnolo, F. (1985). The importance–performance analysis: An evaluation and marketing tool. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 3(2), 13–22.Google Scholar
  29. Handy, S. L., Boarnet, M. G., Ewing, R., & Killingsworth, R. E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical activity views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(1), 64–73.Google Scholar
  30. Hansen, W. G. (1959). How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76.Google Scholar
  31. Hansen, E., & Bush, R. J. (1999). Understanding customer quality requirements: Model and application. Industrial Marketing Management, 28, 119–130.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, J. (1997). Housing for the ageing population of Singapore. Ageing International, 23(3/4), 32–48.Google Scholar
  33. Herssens, J., Nijs, M., & Froyen H. (2014). Inclusive Housing (Lab) for all: A home for research, demonstration and information on Universal Design (UD). Assistive technology research series, Vol. 35: Universal design 2014: Three days of creativity and diversity (pp. 185–194).Google Scholar
  34. Heylighen, A., Linden, V. V., & Steenwinkel, I. V. (2017). Ten questions concerning inclusive design of the built environment. Building and Environment, 114, 507–517.Google Scholar
  35. Heywood, F. (2005). Adaptation: Altering the house to restore the home. Housing Studies, 20, 531–547.Google Scholar
  36. Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.Google Scholar
  37. New Fair Multi-Family Housing. (1996). A design primer to assist in understanding the accessibility guidelines of the fair housing act. North Carolina: North Carolina State University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Imamoğlu, O. E., & Imamoğlu, V. (1992). Housing and living environments of the Turkish elderly. Journal of Environmental Pscychology, 12, 35–43.Google Scholar
  39. Imrie, R. (2012). Universalism, universal design and equitable access to the built environment. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(10), 873–882.Google Scholar
  40. Insch, A. (2010). Managing residents’ satisfaction with city life: Application of importance–satisfaction analysis. Journal of Town and City Management, 1(2), 164–174.Google Scholar
  41. Iwarsson, S. (2005). A long-term perspective on person–environment fit and ADL dependence among older Swedish adults. The Gerontologist, 45, 327–336.Google Scholar
  42. Iwarsson, S., Nygren, C., & Slaug, B. (2005). Cross-national and multi-professional inter–rater reliability of the housing enabler. Scandinavian Journal Occupational Therapy, 12, 29–39.Google Scholar
  43. Iwarsson, S., & Slaug, B. (2001). Housing enabler: an instrument for assessing and analysing accessibility problems in housing. Nävlinge and Staffanstorp, Sweden: Veten & Skapen HB and Slaug Data Management.Google Scholar
  44. Iwarsson, S., Slaug, B., & Malmgren Fänge, A. (2012). The housing enabler screening tool: Feasibility and interrater agreement in a real estate company practice context. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 31(5), 641–660.Google Scholar
  45. Iwarsson, S., & Stahl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability, and universal design. Positioning and definition of concepts describing person–environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 57–66.Google Scholar
  46. Iwarsson, S., Wahl, H.-W., Nygren, C., Oswald, F., Sixsmith, A., Sixsmith, J., et al. (2007). Importance of the home environment for healthy aging: Conceptual and methodological background of the European ENABLE-AGE Project. The Gerontologist, 47, 85–95.Google Scholar
  47. Keates, S. (2015). Design for the value of inclusiveness. In J. Van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, & I. van der Poel (Eds.), Handbook of ethics, values and technological design (pp. 383–402). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Kylberg, M., Lofqvist, C., & Horstmann, V. (2013). The use of assistive devices and change in use during the ageing process among very old Swedish people. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8, 58–66.Google Scholar
  49. Maisel, J. (2011). The evolution of universal design in housing in the United States: Toward visitability and pattern books. In W. F. E. Preiser & K. H. Smith (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 25.1–25.8). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Maisel, J. L., Smith, E. A., & Steinfeld, E. (2008). Increasing home access: Designing for visitability, Research Report 2008–2014. Washington DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  51. Martilla, J., & James, J. (1977). Importance–performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41, 77–79.Google Scholar
  52. Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between attribute level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance–performance analyses. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 271–277.Google Scholar
  53. Michael, Y. L., Green, M. K., & Farquhar, S. A. (2006). Neighborhood design and active aging. Health and Place, 12, 734–740.Google Scholar
  54. National Research Council (US) Committee. (2010). The physical environment and home health care. The role of human factors in home health care (pp. 211–245). Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  55. Niemeier, D. (1997). Accessibility: An evaluation using consumer welfare. Transportation, 24(4), 377–396.Google Scholar
  56. Nygren, C., Oswald, F., Iwarsson, S., Fange, A., Sixsmith, J., & Schilling, O. (2007). Relationships between objective and percieved housing in very old age. The Gerontologist, 47(1), 85–95.Google Scholar
  57. Oguz, D., Cakci, I., Sevimli, G., & Ozgur, S. (2010). Outdoor space design in elderly nursing homes. Elderly Issues Research Journal, 1(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  58. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
  59. Orimo, H., Ito, H., Suzuki, T., Araki, A., Hosoi, T., & Sawabe, M. (2006). Reviewing the definition of “elderly”. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 6, 149–158.Google Scholar
  60. Pettersson, C., Slaug, B., Granbom, M., Kylberg, M., & Iwarsson, S. (2017). Housing accessibility for senior citizens in Sweden: Estimation of the effects of targeted elimination of environmental barriers. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2017.1280078.Google Scholar
  61. Potter, R., Sheehan, B., Cain, R., Griffin, J., & Jennings, P. A. (2018). The impact of the physical environment on depressive symptoms of older residents living in care homes: A mixed methods study. The Gerontologist, 58(3), 438–447.Google Scholar
  62. Rantanen, T. (2013). Promoting mobility in older people. Journal Preventine Medicine and Public Health, 46, 50–54.Google Scholar
  63. Raviselvam, S., Wood, L. K., Holtta-Otto, K., Tam, V., & Nagarajan, K. (2016). A lead user approach to universal design-involving older adults in the design process. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 229, 5–6.  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-684-2-131.Google Scholar
  64. Rooney, C., Hadjri, K., Mcallister, K., Rooney, M., Faith, V., & Craig, C. (2017). Experiencing visual impairment in a lifetime home: An interpretative phenomenological inquiry. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 33(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  65. Sampson, S. E., & Showalter, M. J. (1999). The performance–importance response function: Observations and implications. The Service Industries Journal, 19, 1–26.Google Scholar
  66. Oswald, F., Wahl, H. W., Schilling, O., & Iwarsson, S. (2007). Housing-related control beliefs and independence in activities of daily living in very old age. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14, 33–43.Google Scholar
  67. Skok, W., Kophamel, A., & Richardson, I. (2001). Diagnosing information systems success: Importance–performance maps in the health club industry. Information & Management, 38, 409–419.Google Scholar
  68. Slaughter, S. E., & Morgan, D. G. (2012). Functional outcomes of nursing home residents in relation to features of the environment: Validity of the professional environmental assessment protocol. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 13(5), 487.e1–487.e7.Google Scholar
  69. Smith, S. K., Rayer, S., & Smith, E. A. (2008). Aging and disability: Implications for the housing industry and housing policy in the United States. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(3), 289–306.Google Scholar
  70. Steenwinkel, I. V., Casterle, B. D., & Heylighen, A. (2017). How architectural design affords experiences of freedom in residential care for older people. Journal of Aging Studies, 41, 84–92.Google Scholar
  71. Türel, H. S., Yiğit, M. E., & Altuğ, I. (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.Google Scholar
  72. Turkish Statistical Institute. (2017). Statistical reports. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/UstMenu.do?metod=kategorist.
  73. Verbeek, H., Zwakhalen, S. M. G., van Rossum, E., Kempen, G. I. J. M., & Hamers, J. P. H. (2012). Small-scale, homelike facilities in dementia care: A process evaluation into the experiences of family caregivers and nursing staff. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
  74. Wahl, H.-W., Fänge, A., Oswald, F., Gitlin, L. N., & Iwarsson, S. (2009). The home environment and disability-related outcomes in aging individuals: What is the empirical evidence? The Gerontologist, 49(3), 355–367.Google Scholar
  75. Yeo, A. Y. C. (2003). Examining a Singapore bank’s competitive superiority using importance–performance analysis. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3(1/2), 155–161.Google Scholar
  76. Young, L. C. (2011). Universal housing: A critical component of a sustainable community. In W. F. E. Preiser & K. H. Smith (Eds.), Universal design handbook (pp. 241–2413). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  77. Yung, E., Conejos, S., & Chan, E. (2016). Social needs of the elderly and active aging in public open spaces in urban renewal. Cities, 52, 114–122.Google Scholar
  78. Yung, E. H. K., Winky, K. O. H., & Chan, H. E. W. (2017). Elderly satisfaction with planning and design of public parks in high density old districts: An ordered logit model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 39–53.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Faculty of Art, Design and ArchitectureBilkent UniversityBilkentTurkey

Personalised recommendations