4.2 Article

Critical evaluation of 'ageing in place' in redeveloped public rental housing estates in Hong Kong

Journal

AGEING & SOCIETY
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 2006-2039

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0144686X19000448

Keywords

ageing in place; age-friendly environment; redeveloped public rental housing; Hong Kong; senior tenants' satisfaction

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The tremendous growth in the ageing population over the past two decades has compelled the Hong Kong government to reformulate its housing policy by redeveloping and incorporating certain age-friendly housing design elements and facilities into the public housing schemes built in the post-war period. This research investigates whether these introduced design elements and facilities satisfy the numerous special needs of the seniors in line with the concept of 'ageing in place'. Data were collected from 224 seniors through a comprehensive questionnaire survey in four large-scale redeveloped public rental housing estates. Using three designated built environment dimensions, namely micro, meso and macro, the results revealed that senior tenants were generally satisfied with the present living environments (in all the three scales) in the estates. At the micro-scale, seniors were satisfied with the level of privacy and sense of autonomy derived from the present design features in their homes. For the meso-scale, the study revealed that the seniors were particularly satisfied with the design elements such as convenient transportation and accessibility, including convenient walkways. At the macro-scale, the community care service is deemed important for seniors' wellbeing. However, more attention is needed on safety measures in interior and shower areas, public seating in common areas and provision of sufficient community care services. This study provides insights for policy makers and development authorities on elderly housing provision.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available