Advertisement

Exploring Age-Friendly Environments in Rural Settings: Case Study from Finnish Lapland

  • Shahnaj BegumEmail author
Chapter
  • 87 Downloads
Part of the International Perspectives on Aging book series (Int. Perspect. Aging, volume 22)

Abstract

The environment plays a vital role in ensuring quality of life for older people in the rural north. In this chapter, I examine how older people identify the characteristics of age-friendly environments in rural settings. “Age-friendly environment” can be understood in different ways: as a natural, human-built or social environment. Analysing interviews conducted in the Enontekiö region of northern Finland, I ascertain older people’s perceptions and understanding of what constitutes an age-friendly environment. In addition, I investigate the changes and challenges which older persons encounter in their daily lives that affect the potential of their environment to be age-friendly. The analysis reveals that the key elements of such an environment are good forest, land, fresh water, good connections with family, neighbours, and the community, and an accommodating built environment.

Keywords

Finnish Lapland Wellbeing Age-friendly environment Rural setting Northern perspective Older people 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I acknowledge and thank the participants from Luppokoti and participants from Peltovuoma village who shared their experiences. I thank Satu Marja, the director of Luppokoti and Sirpa Helena Seppälä from Peltovuoma village for their cooperations.

References

  1. AARP (2005). Livable communities: an evaluation guide. Washington, DC: AARP, Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  2. AARP (2010). Home and community preferences of the 45+ population. Washington, DC: AARP, Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Aarsæther, N. & Jørgen, B. (2001). Reflexive local development. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
  4. Abbott, P., & Sapsford, R. (2005). Living on the margins: Older people, place and social exclusion. Policy Studies, 26, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. AFRRCI. (2006). Age-friendly rural and remote communities: A guide. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniorsaines/altformats/pdf/publications/public/healthy-sante/age_friendly_rural/AFRRC_en.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2017.
  6. AHDR-II. (2014). Arctic Human Development Report: Regional Processes and Global Linkages. Larsen, J.N.& Fondahl, G. (eds.). Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd.Google Scholar
  7. Alley, D., Liebig, P., Pynoos, J., Banerjee, T., & Choi, I. H. (2007). Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparations for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English. Linguistics Research, 3(1).Google Scholar
  9. Austin, C., Flux, D., Ghali, L., Hartley, D., Holinda, D., McClelland, R., Sieppert, J., & Wild, T. (2001). A place to call home: final report of the Elder Friendly Communities Project, 2001. http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/bu/cns/elder_friendly_communities.pdf. Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  10. Bäck, M. A., & Calltorp, J. (2015). The Norrtaelje model: A unique model for integrated health and social care in Sweden. International Journal of Integrated Care, 15(6).Google Scholar
  11. Balestrieri, M. (2016). Exploring the concept of rurality among university students in Sardinia. Rural Society, 25(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Begum, S. (2016). Livelihood transformation in the Nordic Arctic (Finnish Lapland): Effects on older people from a gender-based perspective. Polar Record, 52(2), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods, a contextual approach (pp. 419–448). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, A. W., Chan, H. Y., Chan, I. K., Cheung, B. Y., & Lee, D. T. (2016). An age-friendly living environment as seen by Chinese older adults: A “Photovoice” study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(9), pii: E913.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chapman, S. A., & Peace, S. (2008). Rurality and ageing well: A long time here. In N. Keating (Ed.), Rural ageing: A good place to grow old? Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, K., & Glicksman, A. (2012). Age-friendly Philadelphia: Bringing diverse networks together around aging issues. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 26, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Copus, A., Perjo, L., Berlina, A., Jungsberg, L., Randall, L., & Sigurjónsdóttir, H. (2017). Social innovation in local development: Lessons from the Nordic countries and Scotland (p. 2). Sweden: Nordregio Working Paper.Google Scholar
  18. Cunningham, G. O., & Michael, Y. L. (2004). Concepts guiding the study of the impact of the built environment on physical activity for older adults: A review of the literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eales, J., Keefe, J., & Keating, N. (2008). Age-friendly rural communities. In N. Keating (Ed.), Rural ageing: A good place to grow old? Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2009). EUR 24044- special issue on healthcare. Healthy ageing and the future of public healthcare systems. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  22. Feldman, P. H., & Oberlink, M. R. (2003). The AdvantAge initiative. Developing community indicators to promote the health and wellbeing of older people. Fam Community Health, 26, 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilroy, R. (2008). Places that support human flourishing: Lessons from later life. Planning.Google Scholar
  24. Harju, A. (2006). Finnish civil society. KVS Foundation. http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/national_report_fi_en.pdf. Accesses 2 May 2018.
  25. Hughes, A. (1997). Rurality and culture of womanhood: Domestic identities and moral order in village life. In P. Coke & J. Little (Eds.), Contested countryside cultures: Otherness, marginalization and rurality (pp. 25–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Janine, W., Annette, L., Nancy, G., Jeanne, R., & Ruth, A. (2012). The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Joseph, A. E., & Cloutier-Fisher, D. (2005). In G. A. Andrews & D. R. Philips (Eds.),. Ageing and place: Perspectives, policies, practice Ageing in rural communities: Vulnerable people in vulnerable places (pp. 133–146). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Goenhart, L., & Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling, land and neighbourhood use by older home owners (AHURI Final Report No. 144). Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.Google Scholar
  29. Karsio, O., & Anttonen, A. (2013). Marketisation of eldercare in Finland: Legal frames, outsourcing practices and the rapid growth of for-profit services. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare: A research report in legislation, oversight, extent and consequences (pp. 85–125). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  30. Keating, N., & Phillips, J. (2008). A critical human ecology perspective on rural ageing. In N. Keating (Ed.), Rural ageing: A good place to grow old? Bristol, UK: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keller, I. M., & Kalache, A. (1997). Promoting healthy aging in cities: The healthy cities project in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 12, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keyes, L., Phillips, D. R., Sterling, E., Manegdeg, T., Kelly, M., Trimble, G., & Mayerik, C. (2014). Transforming the way we live together: A model to move communities from policy to implementation. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kumar, R. (1996). Research methodology: A step by step guide for beginners. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Kutsar, D., & Kuronen, M. (2015). Local welfare policy making in European cities. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kyngäs, H. & Vanhanen, L. (1999). Sisällönanalyysi. Hoitotiede, 11(1), s.3–12.Google Scholar
  36. Lai, M-M., Lein, S-Y., Lau, S-H. & Lai, M-L. (2016). Modeling age-friendly environment, active aging, and social connectedness in an emerging Asian economy. Journal of Aging Research, 2016, Article ID 2052380.Google Scholar
  37. Lawton, M. P. (1977). The impact of the environment on aging and behavior. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 276–301). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  38. Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & L. Nahemow (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 464–488). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.Google Scholar
  39. Leis, M., & Gijsbers, G. (2011). Active and healthy Ageing-A long term view up to 2015. Brussels: European Foresight Platform.Google Scholar
  40. Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age friendly: A review of the international literature. Australasian Journal on Aging, 28, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 30(3), 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Menec, V. H., Hutton, L., Newall, N., Nowicki, S., Spina, J., & Eselyuk, D. (2015). How ‘age-friendly’ are rural communities and what community characteristics are related to age-friendliness? The case of rural Manitoba, Canada. Ageing and Society, 35(1), 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moberg, L., Blomqvist, P., & Winblad, U. (2016). User choice in Swedish eldercare - conditions for informed choice and enhanced service quality. Journal of European Social Policy, 26(3), 281–295.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928716645076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naskali, P., Seppänen, M. & Begum, S.(eds.) (2016). Ageing, Wellbeing and Climate Change in the Arctic: An interdisciplinary analysis, Routledge – Earthscan.Google Scholar
  45. O’Hehir, Janet. (2014). Age-friendly cities and communities: A literature review. University of South Australia: the Centre for Work + Life. http://www.unisa.edu.au/Research/Centre-for-Work-Life. Accessed 24 Jan 2018.
  46. OECD. (2014). Health at a glance: Europe 2014. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2017). Seminar on linking rural definitions and policies for coordinated rural development. Warsaw, 7 April 2017. https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/Proceedings-linking-rural-definitions.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.
  48. Phillips, D. R., Siu, O.-L., Yeh, A. G. O., & Cheng, K. H. G. (2005). Ageing and the urban environment. In J. A. Gavin & D. R. Phillips (Eds.), Ageing and place: Perspectives, policy, practice (pp. 147–163). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Phillipson, C. (2004). Urbanisation and ageing: Towards a new environmental gerontology. Ageing and Society, 24, 963–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillipson, C. (2007). The ‘elected’ and the ‘excluded’: Sociological perspectives on the experience of place and community in old age. Ageing and Society, 27, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Plouffe, L. A., & Kalache, A. (2010). Towards global age-friendly cities: Determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health, 87(5), 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Plouffe, L. A., & Kalache, A. (2011). Making communities age friendly: State and municipal initiatives in Canada and other countries. Gaceta Sanitaria, 25(2), 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Plouffe, L. A., Kalache, A., & Voelcker, I. (2016). A critical review of the WHO age-friendly cities methodology and its implementation. In T. Moulaert & S. Garon (Eds.), Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison, international perspectives on aging 14. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Puthenparambil, J. M., & Kröger, T. (2016). Using private social care services in Finland: Free or forced choices for older people? Journal of Social Service Research, 42(2), 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rothwell, N., Bollman, R. D., Tremblay, J., & Marshall, J. (2002). Recent migration patterns in rural and small town Canada (Agriculture and Rural working paper series, (Working paper no 55)). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  56. Scharf, T., Phillipson, C., & Smith, A. (2007). Aging in a difficult place: Assessing the impact of urban deprivation on older people. In H.-W. Wahl, C. Tesch-Romer, & A. Hoff (Eds.), New dynamics in old age: Individual, environmental and societal perspectives (pp. 153–173). New York: Baywood Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Scharlach, A. E., & Lehning, A. J. (2016). Creating aging-friendly communities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Seong, J. K. (2016). Family care-givers’: difficulties and patterns of elderly care policy in Finland and South Korea. Master’s thesis: University of Tampere, School of Social Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
  59. Short, R. (2006). Boosting the immune system. Nursing Older People, 18, 18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sidorenko, A., & Walker, A. (2004). The Madrid international plan of action on ageing: From conception to implementation. Ageing and Society, 24, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sirviö, A. & Illikainen, K. (2015). Sustainable buildings for the high North. Energy performance of current building stock in Scandinavia and Russia. ePooki. Publications of the Oulu University of Applied Sciences research and development 17. http://urn.fi/urn:isbn:978-951-597-128-9. Accessed 28 Jan 2018.
  62. Smith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods: Place attachment and social exclusion. Bristol: University of Bristol: The policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sosiaali- ja Terveysministeriö. (2017). Laatusuositus hyvän ikääntymisen turvaamiseksi ja palvelujen parantamiseksi 2017–2019. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö ja Kuntaliitto.Google Scholar
  64. Statistics Finland. (2016). Population density by area. Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  65. Statistics Finland. (2017). http://www.citypopulation.de/php/finland-admin.php?adm2id=047. Accessed 29 Jan 2018.
  66. Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. (2004). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Jyväskylä: Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.Google Scholar
  67. UN. (2003). International plan of action on ageing. www.un.org/esa/socdev/ageing/ageipaa.htm. Accessed 18 July 2017.
  68. Wahl, H.-W., Scheidt, R., & Windley, P. G. (Eds.). (2003). Annual review of gerontology & geriatrics, Vol. 23, Ageing in context: Socio-physical environments. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. WHO. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. Available online: http://www.Who.Int/ageing/projects/age_friendly_cities/en/. Accessed on 20 Jan 2017.
  70. WHO. (2016). Age friendly environment. 2016. Available online: http://www.Who.Int/ageing/projects/age-friendly-environments/en/. Accessed 20 Jan 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit for Gender Studies, Faculty of EducationUniversity of LaplandRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations