Environmental Gerontology

What Now?

Rick Scheidt, Benyamin Schwarz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415626163
• eBook ISBN: 9781317981343
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

Environmental gerontology – the research on aging and environment – evolved during the late 1960s, when the domain became a relevant topic due to societal concerns with the problems of housing for elderly people. The field proliferated during the 1970s and 1980s, and remains viable and active today on an international scale. However, in recent times, the viability of the field and its future has been brought into question.

In this volume, international experts across diverse areas reflect on the current progress of their respective disciplines, illustrating research-grounded benefits emerging from their work, and suggesting new agenda that can guide progress in the future. The contributors address a wide range of issues, including: evaluation of existing paradigms and new theories that might advance both research and training; issues and applications in methods, measures, and empirically-generated research agenda; innovative approaches to environmental transformations in home, community, and long-term care settings; and understudied populations and issues in environmental gerontology.

This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of Housing for the Elderly.

First Words

BENYAMIN SCHWARZ and RICK J. SCHEIDT

 

Place makes a difference. This statement is highlighted in the Handbook of Theories of Aging (Gans, Putney, Bengtson, & Silverstein, 2009), whose editors write in the concluding article: “There appears to be a consensus across disciplines in gerontology that understanding the environment and the individual's place within it is crucial for understanding the aging process” (p. 732). The authors go on to state that “despite recognition of the importance of integrating personal and environmental factors in aging research … prior to today there have been few attempts to develop aging theory by integrating comparable concepts of individual and environment across disciplines” (p. 732). This is a surprising statement for anyone who is immersed in the field of environmental gerontology because research on aging and environment has existed as a significant line of inquiry within the wide array of gerontological research since the late 1960s.

Gerontologists have recognized that although the inherent genetic and biological program drives the aging process of each organism, aging is equally dependent on the soicophysical environment in which the individual resides. Researchers have acknowledged the role of place in the aging process and the manner in which it affects aging as it unfolds and manifests itself in different contexts. Contrary to the above statement, various theories have been suggested since the inception of the field to address the complex interaction of elderly people with the environment on a range of scales from private homes to neighborhoods and complete cities (Scheidt & Windley, 1998; Wahl, 2001). However, “the in-depth understanding of Person-environment processes and outcomes has so far not been achieved by one major theory; rather, a multitude of conceptual approaches that augment and build on each other in a pluralistic manner infuse the field” (Wahl & Gitlin, 2007, p. 497).

Environmental gerontology strives to understand the continually changing interrelations between aging people and their sociophysical environment and how these relationships shape the human aging progression. The underlying assumption of the field is that as people age and their competencies decline, they become particularly vulnerable to features of their environments. As a result, place makes a difference in connection with individuals' sociocultural background, somatic and psychic health, and cognitive and physical, functional abilities. Studies of aging and the environment stress ordinary contexts of aging individuals, highlighting the notion that these everyday milieus deserve attention and rigorous research. Given the focus of the field on modification and optimization, researchers in environmental gerontology endeavor to contribute to the improvement of quality of life of elderly people.

Through involvement in modification and the design of housing and public places, practitioners in the field strive for enhancing the wellbeing of older adults as they age. The field focuses on attributes of person-environment relationships, such as accessibility, privacy, independence, autonomy, and personal control, among elders within various contexts across a continuum of conditions, from high competence to chronic frailty. Environmental gerontology was founded and continues to be nurtured by a diversity of scholarly inputs and interdisciplinary approaches. Many disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, social work, nursing, architecture, interior design, urban planning, social geography, occupational therapy, health and social policy, contribute to the field. Consequently, the disciplines coincide with other research and practice fields in gerontology, such as housing, institutional care, and technology. Although the grounding in a specific disciplinary orientation is generally considered a necessity for scientific research, studying complex phenomena such as the environment and aging calls for an interdisciplinary approach and cross-fertilization of different theoretical perspectives and knowledge bases.

The title “Environmental Gerontology: What Now?” reflects the intention of this special issue. It seeks to explore the current state of the field and to discuss alternative prescriptions for sustaining the vibrant future of studies in aging and the environment. This special issue consists of 16 articles written by 35 nationally and internationally recognized experts who responded to a “Call for Papers” to discuss current and future agendas from their diverse perspectives. Although they do not represent the entire field, their work and leadership have brought the field, to a significant extent, to its present point. We accommodated the wishes of the authors to respond in their own fashion. Some offer thoughtful overviews, some offer new conceptual and methodological approaches, and others illustrate how their specific current work contributes to the needs within the field of environmental gerontology. Their efforts create a rather natural taxonomy, reflecting the current status of studies in the field and future directions these disciplines may take.

1. Paradigms, theories, and context: Stock-taking and new ground

2. Methods and measures: Issues and applications

3. Transforming environments: Home and community contexts

4. Transforming environments: Care-based settings

5. Into the light: Populations and topics deserving more attention

Although each of the contributions has a “stand alone” quality, at the conclusion of the special issue we extract both specific and broader agendas for future research and practice. This diverse triangulation offers points of light, so to speak, that may aid our navigation toward true North—the goal of improving the quality of life of older individuals by conducting, translating, and applying good science within the ecology of aging.

REFERENCES

Gans, D., Putney, N. M., Bengtson, V. L., & Silverstein, M. (2009). The future of theories of aging. In V. L. Bengtson, M. Silverstein, N. M. Putney, & D. Gans (Eds.), Handbook of theories of aging (2nd ed., pp. 723–737). New York, NY: Springer.

Scheidt, R. J., & Windley, P. G. (Eds.). (1998). Environment and aging theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Wahl, H.-W. (2001). Environmental influences on aging and behavior. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (5th ed., pp. 215–237). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wahl, H.-W., & Gitlin, L. N. (2007). Environmental gerontology. In J. E. Birren (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gerontology (2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 494–502). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

PART I: PARADIGMS, THEORIES, AND CONTEXT: STOCK-TAKING AND NEW GROUND

Environmental Gerontology: What Now?

BENYAMIN SCHWARZ

Department of Architectural Studies, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

During the past two decades, environmental gerontology has not flourished as scholars in the field once anticipated. This article considers reasons for this claim, focusing specifically on the place of theory and, more broadly, on the undergirding functions of paradigms for the field. It is argued that progress in this diverse field has slowed in recent years due the decline of useful theoretical research on practice, the limited applicability of current research in the field, and a positivist approach that focuses on predictive, context-independent processes while ignoring the physical environment is an essential contextual element in the aging process. Moreover, it is argued that claims that adoption of a natural or “hard” science paradigm will reinvigorate research in environmental gerontology are misguided. Rather, the case is made that environmental gerontology is not a “normal” science (judged against Kuhnian criteria) but appears currently to be in a pre-paradigmatic stage. Debates within the social-behavioral sciences about their “real science” status directly affect environmental gerontology, particularly with regard to context-dependent and independent findings. Consistent with an interpretive perspective, it is argued that because environmental gerontology ultimately solution-driven, it must focus on practical activity and practical knowledge generated from context-bound, every-day practices. This requires holistic methodologies such case studies, precedents, and exemplars necessarily and directly tied to their actual local contexts.

Since its inception approximately half a century ago, environmental gerontology has aspired to understand, explain, and optimize the interaction between older adults and their environment. Environmental gerontology is concerned with varieties of housing arrangements for the elderly; the nature and effect of home modifications; the range of facilities for institutional care; the role of neighborhoods and community settings; and rural and urban socio-physical contexts (Wahl, 2001; Wahl & Weisman, 2003). Currently, the field consists of a loose confederation of disciplines (e.g., psychologists, sociologists, social workers, allied health professionals, architects, interior designers, community planners, and social policy makers). Investigators in these fields are interested in understanding the ongoing changes in the encounters between older individuals and their social and physical environment (Scheidt & Windley, 2006). As a result of this pluralism within environmental gerontology, the theoretical approaches and the varied research agenda “address very different levels of analysis regarding both place type and scale of social aggregation (from home to neighborhood, to city, and to rural region as well as individual, to group, to organization) and very different processes (such as perceptual, cognitive, and affective” (Wahl & Weisman, 2003, p. 617). Multiplicity of perspectives also confronts empirical research in the field and its application, which extends from information for social policy decisions to planning and to guidelines for the continuum of accommodations for older adults.

In the early 1960s, environmental gerontology was propelled by the mission to improve the lives of the increasing elderly populations, as well as the increasing demand for applied research (Lawton, 1980; Lawton, 1990). At that time, new federal programs for purposely designed housing for older people, and age-segregated public housing was being developed in the United States. Prior to this era, most elderly people and their families were ignored and largely existed as a neglected part of American society. Medicare and Medicaid were still being deliberated in Congress at the time, and when this Social Security Act Amendment finally passed in 1965, it radically transformed the delivery of medical care for American older adults. When the new law was implemented, there were virtually no specialized housing for the elderly and no long-term care services. The majority of the nation's nursing homes were unable to meet Medicare standards for extended-care facilities, and some homes were even having difficulties meeting Medicaid's loose, interim skilled nursing home regulations (Schwarz, 2003). Thus, both the socio-political conditions and the needs of elderly people were in alignment for the development of the new field of environmental gerontology.

The need for the type of research that the newly launched environmental gerontology endeavored was going to undertake was fueled by the incentives created and by the needs in housing and services of an escalating population of older people and the timeliness of the Social Security Act Amendment. The results of this research would provide new knowledge for planners, architects, and administrators, who were eager to know more about environmental attributes and features associated with better outcomes for aging populations. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, Congressional committees, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Administration on Aging, the Farmers Home Administration, and the White House were genuinely interested in studies about environment and aging. These agencies and many other organizations funded research, facilitated the dissemination of research findings, and influenced the national policy in congregate housing, design standards for housing, and the design of institutions such as nursing homes (Lawton, 1990). This awareness and attention generated the theory-driven research for creating and improving the settings for older adults. In the initial stages of the field's evolution, the core was driven by applied research, which paved the way to theory development. However, over the years, the orientation of the field has shifted toward more theoretical research with an emphasis on the positivist approach. The field began to focus on predictive, context-independent theories despite its own recognition that the physical environment is an essential contextual element in the aging process.

However, environmental gerontology has not flourished as scholars in this field anticipated. In their effort to explain the widespread dissatisfaction about the state of empirical research in the field, Parmelee and Lawton (1990) noted:

Several factors may be responsible for the lull in empirical research during the past decades. One possible explanation is the relative standstill in federally assisted housing program development since 1980. Similar factors are the relatively small trickle of new nursing home construction and the slowing of community development funds, both of which spurred the research in the 1970s. Another trend that resulted at least partly from diminished federal funds was the somewhat belated interest of the policy and housing services professions in older persons living in ordinary communities. (p. 464)

Concerns over the sluggish state of the field center on the place of theory in environmental gerontology and its relevance for the applied fields, research funding and its influence on knowledge development, and the shift in public construction priorities for programs and services pertaining to elderly people and their environment (Kendig...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• 1. First Words
• Part I: Paradigms, Theories, and Context: Stock-Taking and New Ground
• Part II: Methods and Measures: Issues and Applications
• Part III: TRansforming Environments: Home and Community Contexts
• Part IV: Transforming Environments: Care-Based Settings
• Part V: Into the Light: Populations and Topics Deserving More Attention
• Index