Outdoor Mobility and Promoting Physical Activity Among Older People

  • Neil Thin
  • Katherine Brookfield
  • Iain Scott


Outdoor physical activity (PA) is crucial for the health and wellbeing of older people. Evidence suggests that various environmental factors might be relevant to facilitating or hindering outdoor PA in this age group. To promote a better appreciation of these factors, we propose interactionist (or ‘ecological’) approaches to understanding the dynamic interactions between mind, body, prosthetics, society, and physical environments. We also review the global demographic and technological trends that are changing the nature and importance of those interactions, leading to new opportunities for indoor simulation of some of the beneficial features of outdoor environments.


  1. Aspinall, P., Mavros, R., Coyne, R., & Roe, J. (2015). The urban brain: Analysing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49, 272–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, L. L., et al. (2007). Correlates of life space in a volunteer cohort of older adults. Experimental Aging Research, 33, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning. Washington, DC: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélanger, M., Townsend, N., & Foster, C. (2011). Age-related differences in physical activity profiles of English adults. Preventive Medicine, 52(3–4), 247–249.Google Scholar
  6. Brandstatter, H., & Eliasz, A. (Eds.). (2001). Persons, situations, and emotions: An ecological approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brookfield, K., & Mead, G. (2016). Physical environments and community reintegration post stroke: Qualitative insights from stroke clubs. Disability & Society, 31, 1013–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookfield, K., & Tilley, S. (2016). Using virtual street audits to understand the walkability of older adults route choices by gender and age. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13, 1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brookfield, K., Fitzsimons, C., Scott, I., Mead, G., Starr, J., Thin, N., Tinker, A., & Ward Thompson, C. (2015). The home as enabler of more active lifestyles among older people. Building Research & Information, 43, 616–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brookfield, K., Ward Thompson, K., & Scott, I. (2017). The uncommon impact of common environmental details on walking in older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health., 14(2), 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cama, R. (2009). Evidence-based healthcare design. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place, 14, 544–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper Marcus, C., & Sachs, N. A. (2014). Therapeutic landscapes: An evidence-based approach to designing healing gardens and restorative outdoor spaces. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Craig, C. L., Brownson, R. C., Cragg, S. E., & Dunn, A. L. (2002). Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahlgren, G., & Whitehead, M. (1991). Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies.Google Scholar
  17. Dilnot, A., & Blastland, M. (2008). The tiger that isn’t: Seeing through a world of numbers. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  18. Downward, P., & Dawson, P. (2015). Is it pleasure or health from leisure that we benefit from most? An analysis of well-being alternatives and implications for policy. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 443–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. French, J. R., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, G., & Takeuchi, D. (2004). Traffic stress, vehicular burden and well-being: A multilevel analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  25. Greed, C. (2003). Inclusive urban design: Public toilets. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  26. Guite, H. F., Clark, C., & Ackrill, G. (2006). The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health, 120, 1117–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartig, T., et al. (2010). Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social and cultural processes. In K. Nilsson et al. (Eds.), Forest, trees and human health (pp. 127–168). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Holland, C., Clark, A., Katz, J., & Peace, S. (2007). Social interactions in urban public places. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Holwerda, J. T., et al. (2014). Feelings of loneliness, but not social isolation, predict dementia onset. Journal of Neurology, Neuro-surgery & Psychiatry, 85(2), 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ivory, V. C., et al. (2015). What shape is your neighbourhood? Investigating the micro geographies of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 133, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Joye, Y., & De Block, A. (2011). ‘Nature and I are two’: A critical examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20(2), 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kellert, S. R. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kellert, S. (2012). Birthright: People and nature in the modern world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. L. Eisdorfer (Ed.), Psychology of adult development and aging. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, Y.-S. (2005). Gender differences in physical activity and walking among older adults. Journal of Women & Aging, 17(1–2), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levi, D., & Kocher, S. (1999). Virtual nature: The future effects of information technology on our relationship to nature. Environment and Nature, 31(2), 203–226.Google Scholar
  40. Louv, R. (2011). The nature principle: Human restoration and the end of nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.Google Scholar
  41. Low, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking urban parks: Public space and cultural diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mayer, F. S., Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Dolliver, K. (2008). Why is nature beneficial? the role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 22(28), 13–15.Google Scholar
  43. Mccullough, C. S. (2010). Evidence-based design for healthcare facilities. Indianapolis: Sigma Theta Tau International.Google Scholar
  44. McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melchert, T. P. (2014). Biopsychosocial practice: A science-based framework for behavioral health care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  46. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nyklícek, I., Vingerhoets, A., & Zeelenberg, A. (Eds.). (2010). Emotion regulation and wellbeing. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Ogunseitan, O. A. (2005). Topophilia and the quality of life. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(2), 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pacyna, J. M., & Pacyna, E. G. (2016). Environmental determinants of human health. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pike, E. C. J. (2011). Growing old (dis)gracefully? The gender/aging/ exercise nexus. In E. Kennedy & P. Markula (Eds.), Women and exercise: The body, health and consumerism (pp. 180–196). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Plouffe, L., & Kalache, A. (2011). Towards global age-friendly cities: Determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health, 87(5), 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruso, B., Renninger, L., & Atzwanger, K. (2003). Human habitat preferences: A generative territory for evolutionary aesthetics research. In E. Voland & L. Grammer (Eds.), Evolutionary aesthetics (pp. 279–294). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sallis, J., et al. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaftoe, H. (2008). Convivial urban spaces: Creating effective public spaces. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  55. Shephard, R. J. (2001). Gender, physical activity, and aging. Boca Raton: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224(4647), 420–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Cauwenberg, J., et al. (2011). Relationship between the physical environment and physical activity in older adults: A systematic review. Health & Place, 17, 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Victor, C., Scambler, S., & Bond, J. (2009). The social world of older people: Understanding loneliness and social isolation in later life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Ward Thompson, C., & Travlou, P. (2007). Open space: People space. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  61. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, DC: Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
  62. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, L.-A. M., et al. (2011). The association between objectively measured neighborhood features and walking in middle-aged adults. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(4), e12–e21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. World Health Organisation. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil Thin
    • 1
  • Katherine Brookfield
    • 2
  • Iain Scott
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Social Political SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Environment DepartmentUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  3. 3.Edinburgh College of ArtUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations