H. Mollenkopf, R. Kaspar The German Centre for Research on Ageing at the University of Heidelberg

The MOBILATE Project - Enhancing Outdoor Mobility in Later Life

Diverging Outdoor Environments for Ageing in Europe: The Impact of Objective Conditions and Subjective Evaluations

on Life Satisfaction

H. Mollenkopf, R. KasparThe German Centre for Research on Ageing at the University of Heidelberg

F. Marcellini, I. Ruoppila, Z. Széman, & M. Tacken

Paper presented at the 18th Conference of the International Association for People-Environment Studies (IAPS 2004)

July 7-10, 2004, Vienna, Austria


Overview

Remaining differences between urban and rural settlements despite trends towards levelling out

What components contribute to older citizens‘ subjective quality of life in different European regions?

Findings based on a European survey: the MOBILATE project “Enhancing Mobility in Later Life“


The MOBILATE Project: Enhancing Outdoor Mobility in Later Life

The MOBILATE Project is an international study of how men and women in later adulthood manage their daily commutes, and which conditions they feel promote or hinder their ability to get around.

The project aims to better understand the complex interplay between

personal competencies and coping efforts of older people and aspects of the physical and social environment.


NetherlandsNetherlands

FinlandFinland

HungaryHungary

The European regions under study

Germany East/WestGermany East/West

ItalyItaly


The European regions under study

What is urban – what is rural?Middle-sized cities in each participating countryCharacteristic “rural“ or “non-urban“ areas in each country

Aim is not to compare the regions, but to find out what different personal, social or environmental conditions contribute to subjective quality of life

QoL: Satisfaction with life in general (cognitive dimension) Positive affect (emotional dimension)

Are there common patterns and predictors -or are there different predictors dependent on regional conditions?


The Sample

The MOBILATE Survey is based on representative samples of altogether 3,950 persons aged 55 years old and older, living in private households in urban and non-urban regions,disproportionately stratified by gender and age

(55-74 years / 75 years and older – 50% men, 50% women).


Sample Description

Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. a Total amount of full-time education including school attendance, occupational training, and university affords.

Finland Germany West

Germany East

Hungary Italy

urban rural urban rural urban rural urban rural urban rural

Number of participants

309 301 368 383 389 379 305 300 300 300

Male (%) 39.5 44.6 43.7 44.9 41.2 42.2 40.8 39.6 41.9 44.9

Female (%) 60.5 55.4 56.3 55.1 58.8 57.8 59.2 60.4 58.1 55.1

55-74 years (%) 74.1 73.3 74.8 73.8 76.3 79.1 78.5 71.8 70.1 69.5

75 + years (%) 25.9 26.7 25.2 26.2 23.7 20.9 21.5 28.2 29.9 30.5

Education a (in years; M; SD)

10.4 (4.7)

7.4 (3.2)

11.8 (2.8)

10.0 (2.6)

12.5 (2.9)

10.8 (2.7)

11.9 (10.7)

8.0 (3.3)

8.2 (4.8)

5.3 (3.4)


Indicators Subjective Quality of Life

Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; urban-rural-differences were tested using t-statistics. a Self-evaluation rating on an 11-point scale (range 0-10), higher scores indicating higher satisfaction. b Relative frequency of 15 positive emotions (e.g., excitement, pride, inspiration) experienced over the last 12 months (1=not at all; 5=very often; range 1-5).


Germany East

Hungary Italy


Satisfaction with life a (0-10; M; SD)

8.5 (1.2)

8.4 (1.5)

7.4 (2.1)

7.7 (1.9)

7.3 (1.8)

7.0 (2.3)

6.5 (2.4)

6.0 (2.5)

7.7 (2.1)

7.4 (1.9)

n.s. n.s. * * n.s.

Positive Affect b (1-5; M; SD)

3.1 (0.7)

2.9 (0.7)

3.3 (0.7)

3.0 (0.9)

3.4 (0.6)

3.2 (0.7)

3.3 (0.7)

3.2 (0.6)

3.5 (0.6)

3.2 (0.7)

*** *** *** n.s. ***


Subjective Quality of Life in Urban and Rural European Regions

Satisfaction with life in general is (significantly) . . . ... higher in the urban than rural areas of East Germany and

Hungary (and Italy, but not significantly) ... higher in the rural area of West Germany (although not

significantly). ... particularly low in the Hungarian areas studied.

Emotional well-being is (significantly) . . . ... higher in cities than in the countryside in all countries

(in Hungary not significantly).


Environmental Indicators of Quality of Life: Housing Aspects


Germany East

Hungary Italy


Housing

(Semi-) Detached or row house (%)

39 93 32 92 27 90 44 99 30 83

Block of flats (%) 61 7 68 8 72 11 56 1 70 17 *** *** *** *** ***

Apartment/house ownership (%)

81 91 27 83 25 81 95 99 85 93

*** *** *** *** ***

Basic housing comfortsa (0-3; M; SD)

2.9 (0.2)

2.7 (0.6)

2.9 (0.4)

2.7 (0.5)

2.9 (0.4)

2.6 (0.6)

2.6 (0.5)

1.5 (1.0)

2.1 (0.4)

1.9 (0.4)

*** *** *** *** ***

Satisfaction with housing b (0-10; M; SD)

8.8 (1.3)

8.7 (1.5)

8.1 (2.0)

8.8 (1.6)

8.1 (1.7)

8.1 (2.2)

8.3 (2.1)

7.6 (2.4)

8.8 (1.8)

8.5 (1.4)

n.s. *** n.s. *** *

Satisfaction with living area b (0-10; M; SD)

8.7 (1.3)

8.6 (1.4)

7.7 (2.3)

9.0 (1.4)

8.0 (1.8)

8.1 (2.2)

7.9 (2.5)

7.0 (2.6)

8.3 (2.0)

8.0 (2.1)

n.s. *** n.s. *** *


Environmental Indicators of Quality of Life: Mobility Aspects

Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; urban-rural-differences were tested using t- and c²-statistics. a Sum score of basic housing amenities including bathroom or shower, inside toilet, and central heating (range 0-3). b Self-evaluation rating on an 11-point scale (range 0-10), higher scores indicating higher satisfaction.

Mobility

Car in household (%) 60 71 58 70 58 65 37 17 82 83 ** *** * *** n.s.

Good transport options (%)

87 44 94 56 88 69 93 72 72 51

*** *** *** *** ***

Satisfaction with public transport b (0-10; M; SD)

8.2 (1.6)

6.2 (2.8)

7.7 (2.1)

5.3 (2.8)

7.1 (2.1)

6.6 (2.8)

7.5 (2.3)

6.6 (2.4)

6.4 (2.6)

4.9 (2.7)

*** *** ** *** ***

Satisfaction with mobility b (0-10; M; SD)

8.5 (1.7)

8.1 (2.0)

7.8 (2.3)

7.6 (2.5)

7.6 (2.4)

7.7 (2.3)

7.9 (2.3)

6.0 (2.9)

8.1 (2.4)

7.0 (2.4)

** n.s. n.s. *** ***


Indicator Services, Culture (cultural and natural amenities), and Security in the Living Area (1)


Germany East

Hungary Italy


Services

Medical amenities available (%)

72 50 96 84 87 62 93 84 61 48

*** *** *** *** **

Services and shops available (%)

70 50 90 77 81 55 93 86 63 51

*** *** *** ** **

Number of available services a (0-4; M; SD)

3.0 (1.1)

2.7 (1.8)

3.8 (0.6)

3.6 (1.0)

3.5 (0.8)

2.5 (1.6)

3.3 (1.0)

2.9 (1.4)

3.5 (0.9)

3.5 (1.1)

* *** *** *** n.s.

Satisfaction with services b (0-10; M; SD)

7.4 (2.2)

7.1 (2.7)

7.7 (2.1)

7.2 (2.4)

7.3 (2.1)

5.7 (2.7)

7.9 (2.4)

7.3 (2.3)

6.7 (2.7)

6.2 (2.8)

n.s. *** *** ** *



Culture

Cultural amenities available (%)

49 37 72 54 30 19 38 40 18 7

** *** *** n.s. ***

Natural environ-mental conditions c (0-3; M; SD)

2.8 (0.5)

2.9 (0.3)

2.2 (0.9)

2.5 (0.7)

2.3 (0.8)

2.3 (0.9)

2.5 (0.8)

2.0 (0.9)

2.1 (1.0)

2.5 (0.7)

*** *** n.s. *** ***

Performed cultural activities d (0-3; M; SD)

1.2 (1.0)

0.6 (0.9)

0.5 (0.8)

0.2 (0.5)

0.3 (0.6)

0.2 (0.4)

0.2 (0.5)

0.1 (0.3)

0.3 (0.6)

0.0 (0.2)

*** *** *** *** ***

Performed nature-related activities e (0-1; M; SD)

0.4 (0.3)

0.4 (0.3)

0.1 (0.2)

0.2 (0.2)

0.2 (0.2)

0.3 (0.2)

0.2 (0.2)

0.2 (0.1)

0.1 (0.1)

0.2 (0.2)

n.s. *** *** n.s. ***

Satisfaction with leisure possibilities b (0-10; M; SD)

8.4 (1.8)

7.8 (2.3)

7.3 (2.6)

7.5 (2.4)

7.0 (2.5)

6.1 (2.8)

7.8 (2.5)

5.9 (2.8)

7.8 (2.0)

6.8 (2.2)

*** n.s. *** *** ***

Security

Feeling secure at night f (%) 91 96 68 94 61 78 82 60 62 62 * *** *** *** n.s.



Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; urban-rural-differences were tested using t- and c²-statistics.

a Sum score of service amenities including food store, bank, post office, and hairdresser/barber (range 0-4).b Self-evaluation rating on an 11-point scale (range 0-10), higher scores indicating higher satisfaction.c Sum score of recreational/natural features of the living area including park/green areas, living in an area with greenery/at the edge of town, and clean environmental conditions (range 0-3).d Sum score of cultural activities including going to the movies/theatre/opera/concerts, going to the library, and taking courses/further education (range 0-3).e Relative sum score of performed outdoor activities including gardening, hiking/riding a bicycle, fishing, hunting, and picking berries/mushrooms (range 0-1).f Respondents were asked to indicate whether they felt very/rather insecure or rather/very secure in their neighborhood at night.


Indicator Social Environment


Germany East

Hungary Italy


Single households (%) 40 22 38 31 30 22 27 36 17 15 *** n.s. * * n.s.

Number of children a (M; SD) 2.0 (1.4)

2.8 (2.0)

1.6 (1.4)

1.9 (1.2)

1.7 (1.2)

2.0 (1.3)

1.6 (1.0)

2.0 (1.2)

1.8 (1.0)

2.2 (1.4)

*** * ** *** ***

Diversity of social network b (M; SD)

6.0 (2.6)

6.4 (2.8)

2.8 (2.6)

3.4 (2.9)

3.3 (2.9)

3.5 (2.6)

7.2 (3.0)

7.7 (3.6)

5.8 (2.1)

3.5 (1.9)

* ** n.s. n.s. ***

Most important confidant less than 15 min away c (%)

34 40 30 66 39 58 33 45 50 63

n.s. *** *** ** **

Proximity of friends/kinship (%) 63 68 72 95 74 87 73 73 64 85 n.s. *** *** n.s. ***

Performed social activities d (0-5; M; SD)

1.8 (1.2)

1.7 (1.2)

1.3 (1.0)

1.9 (1.2)

1.0 (0.8)

1.0 (0.9)

1.3 (1.1)

1.0 (1.0)

1.3 (1.1)

1.0 (0.9)

n.s. *** n.s. ** ***


Indicator Social Environment.

Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; urban-rural-differences were tested using t- and c²-statistics.

a Given number relates to all respondents, i.e. also childless persons were included in computations.b We asked for various categories of possibly important persons (e.g., relatives, friends, colleagues, professional helper), who were not living in the same household with the respondents. Nevertheless, the figures given are an underestimation, because they were obtained by adding up the ‘important persons’ subcategories mentioned above and do not represent the absolute number of persons in the individual categories. c Living inside a range of 15 minutes means that the important person is either living in the same house as the respondent (but not in the same household) or in the same neighborhood/community and can be reached within 15 minutes, regardless of the means of transportation used.d Sum score of performed social activities including meeting friends/acquaintances, dancing/bowling, attending church/religious events, engage in club/association activities, and activities for retired people (range 0-5).


Indicator Economic Situation

Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; urban-rural-differences were tested using t- and c²-statistics. a Official age of retirement differs between countries, but is 65 years at most. Thus, to give a rough estimate, the figures relate only to those respondents 64 years of age or younger. b Pseudo-metric net income per person in the household, derived from a list of 14 categories for overall net household income. c Self-evaluation rating on an 11-point scale (range 0-10), higher scores indicating higher satisfaction.


Germany East

Hungary Italy


Employment a

(<65 years; %) 50 36 28 36 24 21 20 10 30 10

*** n.s. n.s. * ***

Income per person b (in Euro; M; SD)

907 (358)

651 (310)

1003 (448)

784 (316)

929 (261)

719 (221)

133 (59)

110 (34)

599 (321)

478 (199)

*** *** *** *** ***

Satisfaction with financial situation c (0-10; M; SD)

7.9 (1.7)

7.9 (2.0)

7.0 (2.3)

7.6 (1.9)

6.9 (1.8)

6.5 (2.3)

4.8 (2.5)

4.2 (2.4)

6.9 (1.9)

5.5 (2.6)

n.s. *** *** n.s. ***


Indicator Health

Note. Weighted data are given to correct for disproportional sampling with respect to age and gender. * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001; urban-rural-differences were tested using t-statistics. a Sum score of subjective difficulties with 10 selected activities like bending down, climbing stairs, doing light/heavy housework (1=cannot perform activity, 2=with difficulties, 3=without difficulty; range 10-30), higher scores indicate higher competence in performing activities of daily living . b Self-evaluation rating on an 11-point scale (range 0-10), higher scores indicating higher satisfaction.


Germany East

Hungary Italy


Activities of Daily Living a

(ADL; 10-30; M; SD) 26.9 (4.0)

26.0 (4.7)

25.3 (5.4)

25.1 (5.1)

25.1 (5.4)

25.8 (5.1)

24.1 (5.4)

22.0 (6.0)

25.5 (4.9)

23.8 (5.4)

** n.s. n.s. *** ***

Satisfaction with health b (0-10; M; SD)

7.1 (1.9)

7.2 (2.2)

6.5 (2.7)

6.3 (2.7)

6.1 (2.4)

6.1 (2.5)

5.8 (2.7)

4.8 (2.7)

6.9 (2.4)

6.8 (2.4)

n.s. n.s. n.s. *** n.s.


Differing conditions in European neighbourhoods

Income and satisfaction with financial situation of the household is highest in the Finnish areas and lowest in the Hungarian areas.

Self-assessed ADL and subjective health are best in Finland and lowest in Hungary.

The car is most widespread in Italy and least available in Hungary.

Good transport options are available in the cities but much less in rural areas.

More than 90% of the Finnish respondents (and also the elders in rural West Germany) feel secure in their neighbourhood – in the East German city, both Italian areas and the Hungarian rural area only about 60%.



The proportion of persons living alone is higher in urban than in rural areas, in particular in the Finnish, Dutch, and West German cities (exception: Hungary)

In Italy, older persons most frequently live in multi-member households.

The social network is largest among older Hungarians and the least diverse in West Germany.

In rural areas, important confidants live closer than in the cities.

People are more satisfied with their leisure time possibilities in urban than in rural areas.(Exception: West Germany: higher satisfaction in the rural area).



Housing conditions are good in all regions except in Italy and rural Hungary.

Conditions are better in the cities than in the rural areas.

Provision with basic services is particularly low in the rural areas of Finland, Italy (less than 50% available) and East Germany (55% available).

Satisfaction with services is lowest in rural East Germany and highest in the Hungarian city.

What impact do these differing conditions have on older adults‘ subjective quality of life?


Predictors of Life Satisfaction – Objective and Subjective Indicators (1)


Germany East

Hungary Italy Predictors (stb; semi-partial r²)


Age .15 (1.2)

.17 (1.7)

Gender (0=male) .13 (1.2)

.11 (1.0)

Environment: Housing

Housing amenities -.11 (1.0)

Home ownership

Sat. with housing .20 (2.8)

.15 (1.5)

.16 (1.3)

.13 (1.1)

Sat. with living area .13

(1.1) .22

(3.2)

Mobility

Car in household .17

(2.2)

Sat. public transport .11

(0.7)

Sat. with mobility .14

(1.1) .23

(3.5) .17

(1.2) continued



continued ...

Services

Medical services .20

(3.0)

Services and shops -.15

(1.7)

Sat. with services .16

(1.3) .24

(3.5)

Culture

Cultural amenities .11

(0.9) .14

(1.5)

Natural environment -.14

(1.3)

Sat. with leisure .16

(1.6) .20

(1.3) .29

(3.7) .25

(3.1) .30

(4.3) .15

(1.5)

Security

Security -.11

(0.9)



Social Environment

Living together

Div. social network .21

(3.6) .13

(1.4)

Friends / kin nearby .14

(1.5) .11

(1.1)

Economic Situation

Income per person

Sat. with finances .35

(8.6) .40

(10.9) .32

(4.0) .39

(8.8) .22

(2.6) .21

(3.1) .38

(11.6) .15

(1.5) .31

(6.5)

Health

ADL .12

(0.5)

Sat. with health .20

(2.8) .16

(1.1) .22

(2.2) .38

(6.6) .32

(4.7) .23

(3.1) .29

(4.9) .33

(6.7)

Adjusted R² .39 .61 .68 .36 .57 .41 .35 .33 .37 .46


Predictors of QoL: Satisfaction with Life in General

Subjective evaluations and feelings contribute more to explaining variance in life satisfaction than objective personal and environmental conditions.

Satisfaction with health and financial situation is most important in almost all areas, independent from type of settlement and objective conditions.

Socio-demographic aspects play a limited role(age affects life satisfaction in East Germany only /women are more satisfied than men in Finland only)

The impact of further predictors varies depending on the country and area concerned.



Housing conditions (satisfaction with house and/or with living area) play a positive role in particular in Finland, but have no impact in Hungary; rural areas of Italy and West Germany; the East German city.

Housing amenities afflict life satisfaction negatively in the Italian city (why?).

Among mobility and leisure aspects, satisfaction with leisure time possibilities has most impact.



Subjective and objective mobility related aspects showed

- no impact in Finland, rural areas of West Germany, and the East German and Italian cities

- positive impact of satisfaction with general mobility possibilities in the rural areas of Italy and East Germany and the Hungarian city

- public transport contributes to satisfaction in the West German city and both Hungarian regions

- a car is most important in the Hungarian countryside.



The importance of shops, services, cultural amenities and natural environments is limited to a few regions.

Security is a crucial concern in rural Italy.

The Social environment (great diversity of network; friends / kin living nearby) is important for life satisfaction in areas where distances are large (Finland) and with traditionally high importance of social relationships /Hungary, Italy).


Predictors of Positive Affect –Objective and Subjective Indicators (1)


Germany East

Hungary Italy Predictors (stb; semi-partial r²)


Age -.34 (5.9)

-.30 (5.0)

-.19 (2.2)

-.16 (1.5)

-.18 (2.1)

-.16 (1.4)

-.20 (2.3)

Gender (0=male)

Environment: Housing

Housing amenities -.13

(1.5)

Home ownership -.13

(1.5) .14

(1.6)

Sat. with housing .17

(1.7) .18

(2.3) .13

(1.2)

Sat. with living area

Mobility

Car in household .19

(2.9)

Sat. public transport -.19

(2.2)

Sat. with mobility .15

(1.1) .19

(2.3) .34

(5.1) continued ...


Predictors of Positive Affect –Objective and Subjective Indicators (2)

Services

Medical services -.12

(0.8) .21

(3.4)

Services and shops

Sat. with services .15

(1.1)

Culture

Cultural amenities .12

(1.2) .14

(1.6) .10

(0.9)

Natural environment .17

(2.2) -.22

(3.4) .11

(0.9)

Sat. with leisure .18

(2.1) .18

(1.4) .25

(3.1) .31

(5.4) .34

(5.7) .14

(1.4)

Security

Security

continued ...


Predictors of Positive Affect –Objective and Subjective Indicators(3)

Social Environment

Living together .20

(2.2)

Div. social network .20 (3.4) .29

(6.8) .29

(6.6) .21

(3.9)

Friends / kin nearby

Economic Situation

Income per person .11

(0.9) .16

(1.7) .12 (1.0) .16

(1.9) .10 (0.7)

Sat. with finances -.13 (1.2)

.13 (0.9)

-.17 (1.6)

Health

ADL .19

(1.5) .20 (1.5) .33

(4.5) .25

(2.7)

Sat. with health .19

(2.0) .16 (1.1) .22 (2.7) .14 (1.2)

Adjusted R² .39 .28 .36 .42 .36 .33 .27 .20 .41 .54


Predictors of QoL: Emotional Well-Being (Positive Affect)

Both, subjective evaluations and objective personal and environmental conditions contribute to explaining variance in well-being.

Again, (satisfaction with) health and financial situation are most important in almost all areas, independent from type of settlement and objective conditions(exceptions: rural Finnish and Hungarian regions).

Age affects well-being negatively (exceptions: West Germany and rural Hungary)

Gender does not play a role in any region The impact of further predictors varies depending on the country and area

concerned.



Similar impact of housing conditions (housing amenities, satisfaction with house and/or with living area) but have no impact in Finland; in rural area of East Germany; in the West German, Hungarian and Italian cities.

House ownership afflicts well-being negatively in the Finnish rural area (a burden?).

Satisfaction with leisure time possibilities has most impact in regions with low opportunities.

Subjective and objective mobility related aspects showed similar impact as for life satisfaction



Subjective and objective mobility related aspects showed similar impact as for life satisfaction

The importance of medical services, cultural amenities and natural environments is more important for emotional than for cognitive aspects of quality of life.

The impact of security decreases.

Among aspects of the social environment, living together is important in the East German city

A great diversity of network affects well-being positively in both West German areas and in the East German and Hungarian cities.


Predictors of Subjective Quality of Life in Diverging Outdoor Environments: Conclusions

Findings are on the one hand in line with previous studies:

- Subjective predictor variables are generally more important in explaining satisfaction than objective conditions;

- basic human needs (health, financial needs) must be fulfilled.

On the other hand, specific aspects are important under specific conditions.

Some needs seem to be universal – others are specific and depending on the context

More aspects play a role for older persons‘quality of life

Additional in-depth studies are needed, considering diverging conditions.

Documents

H. Mollenkopf, R. Kaspar The German Centre for Research on Ageing at the University of Heidelberg