Spatial age segregation means that people of different ages do not occupy the same space, which again leads to little mutual interaction. Despite evidence suggesting that an inclusive approach to age leads to societal benefits, among them the reduction of ageism and the isolation in later life connected to it, age segregation is still a problem to be faced.
Usually, the concentration and distribution of various age groups living within a neighbourhood is "the" indicator used in literature. Age segregation outside the residential place is taken into account by only a limited number of studies despite its implications for everyday life (parks, supermarkets, restaurants, workplaces, etc.).
Generally speaking, there are two categories of accessibility: a) place-based (number, density and diversity of activity locations in a neighbourhood) and b) people-centred measures (degree to which people have access to a the destinations). Both approaches rarely consider the demographic characteristics of the people having access to the destinations.
In their study, Milias and Psylldis (2022) define accessibility "according to which activity location is accessible to different people within walking distance". The study of spatial age segregation is carried out in the five most populous Dutch cities characterised by differences concerning density, age structures and distribution of activity locations. Residents are grouped into the following three age categories: 0-15 years, 16-64 years, equal or above 65 years of age.
We start by exploring how accessible the different activity locations in each city are to the three population age groups under study. To do so, we calculate an estimate of the total number of each age group that has access to any given destination within five, ten, and fifteen-minute walking radii from people's residences. We then assign percentages to each destination that reflect the potential age structure of people who might perform activities at that location. These percentages are used as proxies of potential exposure of an individual to a specific age group (e.g. children).
In Amsterdam Center about 14% of the people who have access to the activity locations within a 15-minute walk from their residence are elderly, only approximately 5% are children. An example of the opposite case is the Amsterdam child-rich neighbourhood Ijburg where 20 to 30% of the people who have access to various destinations are children while only 2 to 6% are older adults.
An emerging pattern, visible across all the cities under study, is that activity locations with higher age diversity scores tend to be located in the city outskirts. (...) In contrast, across all cities, activity locations with low age diversity scores (i.e., EI < 25%) tend to be located in the Inner City (IC) neighborhoods. This, is mostly visible when considering activities accessible within a five-minute walk distance from people's residencies. Overall, activities within a 10 or 15-min walk from people's residencies yield higher age diversity scores.
Discussion:
(...) across all cities under study a similar pattern emerges; that is, the activities located in the outskirts of each city tend to have higher age diversity values. These values are strongly affected by the population distribution in the Netherlands, where children and elderly populations reside primarily in the outskirts of the cities, contrary to adolescent and adult populations that are more dispersed across the urban fabric. Thereby, local age structure should be considered in tandem with the distribution of activities when assessing spatial age segregation from the lens of accessibility.
(...) Lastly, our results suggest that the time required to reach a destination also influences the co-accessibility and age diversity scores. In particular, destinations that lie within a 10 or 15-min walk yield higher age diversity scores, relative to destinations within a 5-min walk from people's residences (accessible to a lower number of people). This further indicates that promoting people to perform activities only within a 5-min walking radius potentially decreases the likelihood of encountering people from different age groups.
A very interesting thought is the need not to overestimate the degree to which different age croups encounter each other:
Conventionally, judging only on the basis of age structure in the residential space, these neighborhoods would not be considered age segregated. However, the scarcity of accessible activity locations within these neighborhoods could have a substantial effect on the likelihood of people from different age groups to encounter each other. This, for instance, might occur either when the portion of residents who have access to the same activity location are not as age-diverse as the overall neighborhood population, or when a portion of the residents have no access to any activity location and it is, therefore, unlikely to encounter other people. In other words, the sole consideration of a neighborhood's overall age structure could often result in an overestimation of the degree to which different age groups are exposed to each other.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- Milias, V. & Psyllidis, A. (2022). Measuring spatial age segregation through the lens of co-accessibility to urban activities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 95, link
- photograph by David Godlis via
Thanks!
ReplyDelete... and thank you for dropping by!
Delete