Is the place the thing?: The role of place in later life

Person-environment fit models highlight the role of place as a critical component throughout one’s lifecourse and in the experience of aging. Early models assessed fit using the match of an older adult’s personal capabilities (e.g., physical and cognitive health, activities of daily living, instrumental activities of daily living, and social connections) to his or her environmental demands (e.g., care of one’s home, finances, and services in one’s neighborhood; Lawton & Nahemow, 1973).

The discussion of place has moved beyond one-size-fits all aging-in-place models and the idea that “successful” aging in place occurs only in an older adult’s home. There is less attachment to the idea of one “right” place to age, and new residential decision-making frameworks are developing (Golant, 2015, 2019). The evolution and expansion of aging in place and age-friendly concepts across the continuum of care, increasingly diverse older populations, and the changing meaning of place have created a need to reassess and redesign these models of “fit” (Weil 2017; Weil & Smith, 2016). To advance the understanding of place, it is increasingly important to capture key place domains and measure the impact of place in later life across new areas (Weil, 2019). Research is forwarding the ideas of “being in place” and how older adults’ identity may be attached to a place in their daily lives (Rowles, 2019). As the meaning and type of place are redefined, several guiding questions arise: How is this new broadly defined landscape of place changing? How is the place-and-person match assessed? What are the new place concerns?

This issue of the Journal of Women & Aging features a curated selection of articles related to reframing the role of place in later life. They focus on the relationship of older persons and their environments in many contexts, such as innovative home or place-based programs, organizations’ role in age-friendly partnerships, caregivers’ role in establishing place, intergenerational community models, geographic-based place research, and place becoming virtual.

The articles in this issue were selected because they suggest new interpretations of place. Anne Glass’s work about older adults’ co-housing challenges the idea of restricting aging in place to one’s same, long-term, individual home. Glass explores the idea of place in intentional communities of older adults who choose to live together. The older women living in co-housing chose it because they were seeking a sense of community and, as Glass calls it, “neighborliness.” Seungjong Cho and Aloen Townsend use data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to examine the role neighborhoods and friends play in relationships and wellbeing for older unmarried women. They find neighborhood characteristics are, indeed, related to older non-married women’s wellbeing; yet friendships, though protective, do not buffer this relationship between neighborhood and wellbeing.

A pair of articles by Erica Husser and Karen Roberto and Sojung Park and Hyunjoo Lee apply differing methodological approaches to examine the way two distinct rural settings function as a place marker for older women. Husser and Roberto’s grounded-theory-based study applies Place Attachment and Attention Restoration theories to examine how nature and natural settings act as a resource for rural older women in the United States. Park and Lee’s research utilizes propensity score analysis (PSA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the applicability of village communal model living for older women in rural South Korea. They suggest communal home living can be a viable option for older women in rural areas.

Stephanie Teixeira-Poit’s article reframes the power dynamics of place. Instead of putting emphasis on assessing if older adults can navigate their place; the author examines how well the infrastructure of a place supports older adults. Her work shows how miscommunication between organizations can result in missed opportunities to provide services and resources to older adults.

This special issue also makes use of important alternate formats – including two shorter commentaries or research briefs. Tannistha Samantha’s work explores the digital place for older adults in India and how this new space may impose another version of an aging-in-place-based community. She suggests these virtual communities can create a restricted sense of place with its own social norms and roles ascribed to older adults. Sandra Butler’s work adds a new analysis of the role of caregivers to the place debate. Caregivers, most of them women, are often close to the same age as the older adults for whom they care. Her work shows the pivotal, yet the underrated and under-recognized, role that these caregivers play. For example, many older adults could not age in the place of their choosing without the care of these older women.

The articles presented in this issue further new ways to conceptualize place for older adults. Looking ahead, research must explore additional complexities of place and contested places – such as older adults whose views do not match the ideological place of their communities. Research should address ideas of non-placehood, older persons who may not have access to their desired place choice, and transnational and iterative places, to name only a few. The place can also be drawn inward to focus on older adults’ experience of embodiment – the body being a primary place one inhabits. Regardless of scope, work to understand the ever-changing meaning and application of place in older adults’ lifespan and lifecourse must continue.