Natural neighborhood networks — Important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place

Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Aging Studies j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j a g i n g

Natural neighborhood networks — Important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place Paula J. Gardner ⁎ University of Toronto, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, 6th Floor, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M7

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 March 2011 Accepted 14 March 2011

a b s t r a c t Neighborhoods are important places of aging and meaningful contexts of life for many older people. The overall aim of this study was to explore the public life of older people aging in place in order to understand neighborhoods as the material places where public life occurs, networks as the social places of public life, and to examine how these neighborhoods and networks influence the experience of aging and wellbeing. Adopting a friendly visiting methodology, data was collected over an 8-month period using participant observation, visual methods and an innovative interview technique called the “go along method”. Data were analyzed using grounded theory and a coding strategy that integrated textual, visual, and auditory data. Results provide insights into the micro-territorial functioning of neighborhoods and highlight third places and transitory zones as significant sites for older residents. Embedded within these places is a natural neighborhood network — a web of informal relationships and interactions that enhance well being and shape the everyday social world of older adults aging in place. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Neighborhoods — as physically and subjectively bordered spaces — are geographies of materiality as well as meaning, of people as well as places. Neighborhoods are also geographies of well being (or poor-being) for their inhabitants and as such represent key sites for examining the interrelationships between aging, place and health. Guided by the notion that “place matters” (Massey, 1984), the purpose of this study was to explore the public life of older people aging in place to understand how neighborhoods, as important physical and social places of aging, contribute to the well-being of older people. Reviewing the aging and place literature reveals an extensive amount of aging in place research, but much less places of aging research. Whereas the former is mostly

⁎ CUNY School of Public Health, Hunter College, 425 East 25th Street, 10th Floor West Building, New York, NY 10010, United States. Tel.: + 1 917 587 4319. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0890-4065/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.007

concerned with why older adults want to remain in their homes and how best to support them to do so, the latter focuses on identifying and understanding the important contexts of aging. Explorations of places of aging have included the body (Kontos, 2000), the home (Dyck & Dossa, 2007; Martin-Matthews, 2007), institutions (Andrews et al., 2005; Milligan, Gatrell, & Bingley, 2004), and retirement communities (Katz, 2005; Masotti, Fick, Johnson-Masotti, & MacLeod, 2006). The experience, meaning and construction of the home in particular — as either private dwellings or semiprivate residential care facilities — have consumed much of the research attention in this area (Kearns & Andrews, 2005). Public places of aging — and in particular neighborhoods — have received less attention yet represent key locales in the lives (and well-being) of older people aging in place. Research to examine the relationship between neighborhoods and health has identified many important characteristics of healthy places including green space (Maas, Verheij, Groenewegen, de Vries, & Spreeuwenberg, 2006), mixed-use design (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004), accessible transportation and safe streets (Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz, Schlossberg, & Stockard, 2006) and opportunities to interact with others

264

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

(Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004). Research has also highlighted many health benefits of attending these places, such as improved levels of physical activity (Cohen et al., 2007), reduced stress and depression (Berke, Gottlieb, Moudon, & Larson, 2007), increased social networks (Milligan et al., 2004), and enhanced feelings of a sense of community (Lund, 2002). Much of this exploration however, has been conducted using large-scale, epidemiological studies in which multilevel modeling strategies are used to assess ‘area effects’ on health (Diez Roux, 2003). While such approaches advance our understanding of the impact of places on health, they do not address the complexities which underlie individual relationships with neighborhood environments and their impact on well-being (Walker & Hiller, 2007). Investigations of individual accounts of neighborhoods where, for example, the social and physical elements of the neighborhood that promote or protect well being are understood, are much less common (Michael, Green, & Farquhar, 2006). Research using qualitative approaches to explore neighborhoods and health from the perceptions and experiences of older residents, illustrates there is much to be learned from this kind of scholarship. For example, using in-depth interviews Walker and Hiller (2007) explored the social and physical dimensions of neighborhoods from the experience of older women in Adelaide, Australia. Their findings — the ways in which the women's sense of satisfaction with, and security in, their neighborhoods is underpinned by trusting and reciprocal relationships with their neighbors — provide important insight into how very old women (N82 years) living alone experience where they live, the kinds of relationships that are most important to them, and how these influence their health. Peace, Holland, and Kellaher (2005, 2006) used focus groups and individual interviews to illustrate that neighborhoods are extremely important places of aging where going outside to interact with the material and social neighborhoods is essential to well-being and self-identity among older adults: No longer being able to go out independently is a critical stage in identity construction because, without the wider contexts that lie beyond the dwelling, the home itself becomes diminished as a source of identity construction. Continued capacity to engage with ‘the other’ is represented by neighborhood in a way that immediate domicile cannot demonstrate or prove (p. 203).

nized typology in the gerontological literature is proposed by Wenger (1991) and consists of five types: the family dependent support network, the locally integrated support network, the local self-contained support network, the wider community-focused support network and the private or restricted support network (p. 152). Although family has been identified as the most important informal support among older people (Nocon & Pearson, 2000), there is increasing awareness of the important role of non-family support and in particular friends and neighbors to the well being of older adults (Cheng, Lee, Chan, Leung, & Lee, 2009; Phillipson, Bernard, Phillips, & Ogg, 1999; Walker & Hiller, 2007). Other less recognized interpersonal contact — such as service personnel — have also been suggested as important to the social life of older people (Litwin, 1996). Neighborhoods are an important and meaningful context of life for older people aging in place. With fewer responsibilities requiring them to go beyond their proximal spaces, and with functional limitations that can make it difficult to do so, many older adults spend increasing amounts of time immersed in neighborhoods where they have often lived for an extensive period of time. Contextualizing aging within the neighborhood as an important place of aging, the overall aim of this study was to explore the public life of older people aging in place. The study objectives were, a) to understand neighborhoods as the material places where public life occurs, b) to understand networks as the social places of public life, and c) to examine how these neighborhoods and networks influence the experience of aging and wellbeing.

Methods The research employed a hybrid methodology called Friendly Visiting1 that integrates qualitative methodologies (ethnography, case study, and narrative research) with principles from community-based visiting programs (e.g., regularly scheduled ‘visits’, in the home, where conversation is the main activity). Founded on the notion that visiting is an established social custom with which older people have extensive experience (and therefore understand and feel comfortable with), approaching community-based aging research from this perspective was both useful and appropriate to the research process.

Study site and recruitment Research into older people's perceptions and experiences of their neighborhoods provide insight into the ways in which the social and physical elements of the neighborhood interconnect to contribute to the mental, social and physical health of older residents. One of most significant ways in which actual engagement promotes well being is through providing opportunities to develop strong and supportive social relationships. Social support operates as a protective health factor for older adults and an important predictor of healthy aging (Depp & Jeste, 2009; Uchino, 2009). There is extensive research into the identification, measurement and analysis of older people's social support networks as well as the development of social network typologies. The most recog-

Using a purposeful sampling strategy, participants were recruited from neighborhoods in the High Park region in downtown Toronto. High Park is an established residential area of the city that was selected because of the significant number of older residents (many of whom have grown old in the same neighborhoods where they have spent much of their adult life) and the many neighborhood features that can influence health and well-being (access to public transportation, ample green space, and proximity to services). 1 The “Friendly Visiting” methodology was developed by the researcher in consultation with staff from several seniors' organizations. Articles to explain this methodology in more detail are forthcoming.

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

Participants were recruited through a not-for-profit seniors' organization in the area.2 Flyers and client newsletters as well as recommendations from staff and caseworkers at the organization were used to locate participants who met the study criteria: over 75, lived alone in their own home or rented apartment (minimum of three years), journeyed into their neighborhood at least once a week, and agreed to be photographed. Beyond these criteria, maximum variation was sought according to factors identified as important in the literature — gender, level of income and education, dwelling type, ethnicity, functional ability and proximity to services. Participants Six adults participated in the study, 3 men and 3 women with an average age of 82.5 years. They varied in their levels of education (‘some high school’ to ‘graduate degree’) and income ($10–20,000/year to $30–40,000/year), lived in different kinds of housing (high rise apartment, condo, seniors housing and single family dwelling), reflected a range of functional abilities (‘excellent’ to ‘severely limited’), and used various forms of mobility within their neighborhoods (walk, walk with aid, public transportation, scooter, and taxi). Four lived within walking distance of an established shopping/service area. Reflecting this age group in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007) all were white, 4 were born in Canada and two emigrated from Western European countries in early adulthood. Data collection — the go along method Data were collected through regular (once every two weeks) ‘visits’ with each participant over an 8-month period. The focus of each visit was leaving the (private) home to engage in the (public) neighborhood to examine neighborhood perceptions, experiences and interactions. Participants made all of the decisions related to location, activity and mode of travel. Based on the study research questions' data collection focused on: physical places, means of travel, social interactions, and supports and barriers to engagement. Visual, textual and auditory data were collected using the ‘go-along’ interview method. The go-along method is an innovative research technique that combines interviewing with participant observation (Kusenbach, 2003). Researchers accompany participants on their natural outings and actively explore their physical and social practices by asking questions, listening, and observing. This method addresses some of the limitations associated with interviewing which usually take place out of context, and traditional forms of participant observation where participants do not always share ‘what is going on’ (Kusenbach, 2003). In recent research it has been shown to be particularly useful for studying the relationship between neighborhoods and health (Carpiano, 2009). 2 Prior to the study, the researcher had been a volunteer delivering ‘Meals on Wheels’ for several years at this organization. Recruiting people in their much later years (N 75) can be challenging and the relationship with this organization eased the recruitment process considerably. Arms-length recruitment procedures were used to manage the potential conflict of interest that may occur due to previous relationships with the organization and some of the clients.

265

The interviews were audio recorded; participants carried a small recorder in their pockets and a tiny microphone clipped to their clothing. Due to the size and ease of use, both researcher and participant often forgot that the conversations were being recorded and this aided the data collection process. The hidden recorder also prevented questions and attention from others. The audio files were later transcribed. Visual data is valuable to explorations of place (Pink, 2004; 2007) and was collected using a simple ‘point and shoot’ digital camera. Acknowledging the role of the researcher in this process — as the one holding the camera and therefore making decisions about what to photograph — a reflexive stance was maintained throughout data collection and close attention paid to where and how photographic direction (i.e., what to photograph) was derived: a) Participants: The researcher listened carefully to the participants in order to learn what was important to them, identify the objects and places that were relevant to their stories, and, to hear specific instructions as to what to photograph. b) Observation: Measures of both ‘erosion’ (degree of wear) and ‘accretion’ (deposit of some material/build up) were used to help identify important places (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, Sechrest, & Belew Grove, 1981). For example, a favorite chair could be located by the way the fabric was worn and paths beat into the grass or snow suggested the importance of outdoor places such as a hammock or bird feeder. These clues prompted questions and once identified, these ‘favorite’ places were photographed. c) Literature: Previous aging and place research also guided the research gaze. For example, previous research has indentified “control centers” as significant places in the home (Lawton, 1990; Swenson, 1998). Photographs of these places were included. Together the images and audio recordings served as a kind of photo diary and provided important documentation of the contexts and actions of the everyday life of participants. Extensive field notes were also taken to provide additional (textual) data as well as a place to document emerging themes and ideas. Data analysis Data were organized using a qualitative software package (NVivo) and analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). A coding strategy was developed that integrated the textual, visual, and auditory data to highlight themes that characterized participants' neighborhood perceptions and experiences. The coding process involved an immersion into the data and multiple close ‘readings’ (listening, reading the transcripts and field notes, examining the photographs) in order to generate descriptive codes. Once the data had been coded they were transformed into meaningful data by looking for patterns, themes, contrasts, contradictions, paradoxes, similarities and differences across as well as within the various types of data. It is important to note here the significant role that the photographs played in the analysis process. The images were used as prompts and reminders, to clarify ideas,

266

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

provide new insights, and as a way to organize and stimulate thinking. For example, understanding that the way in which photographs are categorized influences what we ‘see’ (Pink, 2007), the images were continuously reorganized (e.g., chronologically, according to place, or participant). This technique proved to be particularly fruitful. For example, when the photographs were grouped according to place rather than according to participant, previously unnoticed patterns and themes emerged. The study upheld the standards of rigor and trustworthiness for qualitative research and addressed issues of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability as described by Lincoln and Guba (2000), Miles and Huberman (1984), and Patton (1990). Ethical considerations Visual methodologies raise important ethical issues, particularly in terms of anonymity, privacy, power and ownership. To address these issues, visual researchers (Harper, 2000; Heath & Cleaver, 2004) make the following recommendations, all of which were adopted for this study: a) Ensure written consent that includes permission to reproduce images for dissemination purposes (publications, conferences, etc.) b) Use pseudonyms c) Triangulate the visual data d) Generate trust with participants e) Prior to research, have a genuine involvement in and interest in participants f) Collaborate with research participants g) Ensure the research process is transparent and maintain a detailed audit trail. Additionally, measures were taken during data collection to avoid including ‘others’ in the photographs. Findings While accompanying participants over the 8 months of study, several key places within the neighborhood were shown to be significant. These places stood out because of the various ways that engaging in them generated positive changes among participants including enhanced mood, increased enthusiasm for conversation and a “spring in their step”. These experiences were sometimes explicitly reported (e.g., “I always feel so good after going there”), however, there were many subtler changes too that only became apparent after spending considerable time with an individual. For example, the way Allan straightened his back and stood a little taller in these spaces, how they brought out Ray's sense of humor, and sparked new topics of conversation from Pauline. These places are identified as neighborhood ‘sites of significance’ and analyzing them revealed two central types — third places and transitory zones. Third places and transitory zones Third place is a term used to describe key sites for informal public life including cafes, post offices and main streets

(Oldenburg, 1989). Third places are located outside of the home (first place) and work (second place) and share several essential features: they are on neutral ground, they act as ‘levelers’, conversation is the main activity, they are accessible, ‘regulars’ spend time in them, they are physically plain and unassuming, the mood is playful, and people feel like they are a ‘home away from home’ (p. 22–41). Although the specific locales varied for each person, analysis revealed several categories of third places common among the study group. Public parks, for example, were an important third place for all of the participants: Regardless of the weather, every morning Pauline walked to the off-leash dog run in the park near her home. On ‘Dog Hill’ she talked to the dogs and (sometimes) their owners, delighted in watching the animals play, and laughed with the others when the dogs performed funny antics. In Allan's case, the sports park near him served as his third place: Down at the sports park you can have a coffee and just sit around and always someone will come up and talk to you and pass the time of day and the little kids, the wild ones are letting loose — like they have electricity in them — they don't stop! Certain local businesses including a diner, bakery, barbershop and a small grocery store were notable third places. Small single-purpose shops, such as Allan's bakery and Ray's fruit stand, are much more accessible (physically and socially) to older people (than for example “big-box” stores), and therefore more likely to be their third places. In these smaller intimate places participants feel comfortable and welcomed — they knew the staff and other regular customers and were able to easily negotiate the space to find what they need. The baker came out to greet Allan personally when he heard his voice; the wait staff at Jane's diner dropped by her table several times during breakfast to chat; and, even though Ray's fruit stand was inaccessible with his scooter, the merchandise spilled out into the street and the staff happily (it seemed) came out to serve their “favorite customer”. Community organizations and institutions also operated as third places: Jane attended a monthly Doll Club meeting and Mary went to her local church every Sunday. Pauline belonged to a senior's activity center nearby where she demonstrated strong feelings of comfort and a sense of belonging; she was well-known by the staff who welcomed her warmly when she arrived to play ping pong or bridge with other members several of whom had become close friends. As well as destinations — specific locales within the neighborhood — third places included spaces much closer to home, called “thresholds”. Thresholds are the hybrid, semipublic spaces that straddle the private dwelling and public neighborhood such as porches, patios, backyards and balconies (Peace et al., 2005). These in-between third places provided easy and readily available opportunities for social interaction, most commonly with neighbors. Ed for example, puttered around his yard often, as did his neighbors and explains, Oh if I want to talk to anybody all I need to do is go out into the yard and stare at a tree or look like I'm about to

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

do something back there, and Sam or one of the other neighbors will be over in a heartbeat to see what I'm up to.

Even the most simple of exchanges within hybrid spaces offered pleasure and joy for all parties involved. As Allan stood on his driveway greeting the neighborhood children on their way to school, for example, it was observed how they smiled just as widely and waved just as enthusiastically as he. He explains how he benefits from these kinds of interactions — “You can stand on the edge of your home and say good morning to people with the little kids going to school and they give you a smile back and that's a reward you get.” Balconies, lobbies and elevators replaced backyards and operated as thresholds for those living in high-rise dwellings. Both Ray and Mary used their balconies frequently to engage with their neighborhoods either directly calling “hello” or indirectly through observation. Mary for example received great pleasure from watching the garden and its inhabitants in the building adjacent to her balcony. She laughed heartily when she reported, “I noticed from their blue bin they enjoy a lot of wine!” Importantly, interactions in thresholds provided a fun, casual and convenient way for participants to stay connected to their neighbors and neighborhood. Analysis also revealed other, less obvious neighborhood places that play an important role in the lives of older people aging in place — ‘transitory zones’. Transitory zones are not destinations, but the places we pass through during the course of daily public life — the sidewalks close to home, the lobbies of buildings, the subway platform and seats on busses, and the line up at the grocery store or bank. Whereas for others (particularly those in younger age cohorts) these spaces are often inconsequential, for older people these transitory zones assume are important social places of aging. Observing older participants negotiate these zones showed how they purposefully and intentionally occupied these places; rather than simply moving through them, transitory zones were used as places to connect with people, even for a just a moment. For example, zipping along on his scooter, Ray smiled to everyone, said “hello” to the dogs being walked, and had brief conversations with other people when he stopped at traffic lights or storefronts. The lines in banks and grocery stores and the seats on subways and buses also provided opportunities for engagement. Mary, for example always talked to the people in front or behind her while she waited in line at her local grocery store. She reported on the news, relayed the weather forecast, commented on the increasing price of food items, or explained what she was planning to do with her purchases. Third places and transitory zones are inclusive public spaces where older residents feel a sense of ownership and belonging. These places operate as gateways to the outside world providing opportunities for direct as well as indirect contact with the neighborhood and its residents. Benefits of engaging in these spaces included a nourished sense of self, companionship, a sense of purpose, and a more positive outlook on life. Most importantly, third places and transitory zones enhanced the lives of participants by facilitating social interactions and providing a space to build, as well as maintain, relationships.

267

Natural neighborhood networks Third places and transitory zones encourage natural relationships and interactions. Natural in this context means they are not ‘forced’ or ‘formal’ (i.e., they were not paid service staff, volunteers from support agencies, or healthcare professionals), nor are they ‘familial’. Instead, these interactions are more universally shared (e.g., across age groups), often spontaneous, informal, everyday, encounters and relationships with non-family members. Analysis highlighted three central types of these relationships — relationships of proximity (neighbors), relationships of service (business personnel including cab drivers, sales clerks and wait staff), and relationships of chance (strangers). Together these relationships shape participants informal, neighborhood social network, or their “natural neighborhood network” (NNN). Relationships of proximity — neighbors Neighbors play an important role in natural neighborhood networks. Except for Pauline who had little interaction with her neighbors, all of the participants engaged regularly with the people living in close proximity to them. These exchanges were almost always described (and observed) as positive and consisted of both social and supportive types of exchanges. Allan's neighbor for example, called him every morning “To make sure I'm still alive ha ha. Oh ya and to ask if I need anything at the store”. When Ed's eyesight began to fail and he had to give up he had to give up his car, his neighbor Sam offered to drive him to the grocery store. In exchange for a small item or two that Sam slips onto the conveyor belt and Ed purchases for him, every Saturday Sam drives Ed shopping and carries his bags. They enjoy the outings, and each other's company, and after Sam carries in the groceries Ed pours them each a ‘short nip’ so they can celebrate the completion of their weekly chore together. Relationships with neighbors were understood as (and observed to be) reciprocal and mutually supportive. As Jane explains: I looked out for their children for years, now they look out for me, they bring in my garbage and recycling bins, shovel my driveway, and even invite me over for a meal occasionally. That's what neighbors do for each other. Although not the norm, participants did report occasional negative experiences with their neighbors. Ed for example sometimes felt that his neighbors didn't allow him enough privacy and Jane did not get along with the neighbors on one side of her. Relationships of service — business/retail personnel Cab drivers, transit employees, waiters, bank tellers, mall staff and checkout clerks at grocery stores are the everyday, ‘regulars’ in the public life of older people aging in place. The important, and often unconsidered, role that business and service people play in the social networks of older people was illustrated many times during the study. Mary for example talked to all of the sales staff at her local mall and Allan, a retired transit worker, always carried on a conversation with the bus drivers whenever he traveled around his neighborhood. The

268

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

significance and benefit of these interactions were first noted during a trip to the eye doctor with Ed (excerpt from researcher field notes): Ed has to take cabs a lot more often now with his failing eyesight. He has developed a close relationship with one particular cab driver (Yahim) and now calls him whenever he needs a cab. I watch their easy rapport with each other as they joke and banter back and forth. On the way home from the doctors' appointment Yahim looked in the rearview mirror and with a twinkle in his eye asked “Do you need to stop at the medicine shop on the way home from the doctors today?” Ed chuckled and answered, “No, thank you, Yahim”. I assumed they were talking about the pharmacy and wondered what was so humorous. Ed let me in on their joke — “He's asking if I want to stop at the liquor store on the way home”. They laughed together at their inside joke and I see that despite the unpleasant ordeal that Ed has just endured at the eye doctors, he got home in good spirits after sharing time and a good laugh with Yahim. One of the most important outcomes of these microbusiness-interactions is that they contribute to a universal need to feel noticed and visible in the world, something that can be particularly challenging for older people: “I like going to the Sears, the sales girls are good there, they never ignore you even though you may not buy anything” (Mary); “The staff at the diner always talk to me, it makes me feel important!” (Jane). Relationships of chance — strangers Strangers represent another group of people rarely considered in social networks. Eight months of participant observation however, revealed these relationships of chance were not only the most common type of public interactions, they were also beneficial to the well being of study participants. Interactions with strangers occurred throughout the neighborhood and were most often initiated by the participants. Noticing a construction worker repairing a roof in his neighborhood for example, Allan stopped and initiated a conversation — “Whatcha doing over there young fella?” He stayed for several minutes and gave the roofer some suggestions based on what he had learned building his own house. Allan was clearly pleased to have an opportunity to share some of his wisdom and expertise with the roofer and walked away smiling. Pauline routinely welcomed newcomers to Dog Hill and Jane always leaned over to those seated next to her in “her” Diner to make menu suggestions or play with the children. Ray both engaged with, and relied on, strangers whenever he went out on his scooter. Traveling through his transitory zones it was often unclear how he would be able to negotiate certain spaces on his scooter. He would simply stop and wait however, and never for very long, until someone offered to “get the door?” He always thanked them and often initiated a longer conversation — “Hey, where'd you buy that?” Analyzing these experiences illustrated that even the most simple of interactions were social ‘exchanges’ of reciprocity that supported the ‘natural’ element of these neighborhood networks. Neighbors do things for each other; they support

each other through a system of trades and exchanges that take place over the life course of their relationship as neighbors. With business and service people there was an understood ‘business transaction’ — it was their job to serve customers which included talking to them and answering their questions (even if they do not purchase anything), and as the consumer, they agreed to pay for the services or products they required. Even with strangers when the relationship was one of chance, a simple exchange occurred such as a wave, a comment, or help with a door, which was then reciprocated with a nod or a thank-you. Third places, thresholds and transitory zones are important neighborhood sites of significance for older residents. Embedded within these places is a natural neighborhood network — a web of informal relationships and interactions that help to shape the everyday social world of older adults aging in place. Table 1 illustrates the connections between the places and people that constitute these networks. Several limitations of the study are noted. The microterritorial level of analysis limits structural-level findings and although appropriate for the design of this study, the sample size and specific characteristics of the study site limit the generalizability of findings. Additionally, it is acknowledged that participants may have ‘performed’ during the study, i.e., that parts of their lives may not have been revealed in an attempt to ‘put a best foot forward’. This is not an issue unique to this study however; participation is always a political act and as such, researchers (regardless of design or approach) have access only to what is given and, indeed, what is intended to be given (Croft & Beresford, 1992). Discussion The “neighborhood” in this research, was approached not as a simple backdrop to life, but instead as a kind of ‘process’ in which social relations and identity are constructed (Duncan, 2000). From this perspective, places are understood as simultaneously material/physical, cultural, social, and shaped by the power relations expressed through them (adapted from Wiles, 2005). A dynamic and spatially inclusive viewpoint such as this provided the theoretical link between the social and the physical environments and was helpful when conceptualizing the relationship between aging, place and well-being. This study contributes to our understanding of the ways in which neighborhoods are important places of aging that influence the well-being and quality of life of older residents. Findings support other research on the positive impact of social networks (e.g., Fiori, Antonucci, & Cortina, 2006; Litwin, 2001; Litwin & Shiovitz-Ezra, 2006; Seeman, Lusignolo, Albert, & Berkman, 2001; Wenger, 1984) and reinforce studies that demonstrate the importance of non-kin relationships to the well-being of older people (e.g., Phillipson, 2001; Victor, Scambler, & Bond, 2009). The work also provides however, new insights and advances new thinking about the social networks of older people in several ways. First, whereas much of the research in this area has focused on family-based networks, in this study kin were not part of the everyday neighborhood interactions of study participants. Shifting the research gaze away from family allowed for a more in-depth examination of the “others” who

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

269

Table 1 Connecting the people and places in natural neighborhood networks. The places

The people Relationships of proximity

Relationships of service

Relationships of chance

Third places Specific neighborhood destination E.g., Parks, cafés, barber shops, community centers, churches

“Regulars” — others who are usually there and are known/familiar E.g., Other customers, other dog walkers, and other church goers

Personnel who work in third places E.g., Wait staff; sales clerks, bank tellers, and clergy

Strangers — unknown partakers E.g., New or one-time customers, passersby,

Thresholds: hybrid third places Fixed ‘outside’ places within the borders of the home E.g., Driveways, back yards, balconies, elevators, lobbies in residential buildings

Neighbors — mostly immediate (closest) but also those who regularly pass by E.g., Next-door or across the street neighbors, children and parents walking to school

Personnel who work in close proximity to the older persons home on a regular basis E.g., Trash collectors; letter carriers; meter-readers

Strangers — Unknown passersby E.g., People walking by or visiting the neighborhood short term

Transitory zones Places between places — on the way to someplace E.g., Streets and sidewalks, lines in grocery store, seats on busses

Familiar others who are also out transversing the neighborhood. E.g., Neighbors; friends

Personnel whose work involves moving people from place to place E.g., Bus drivers; cab drivers; crossing guards

Strangers — Unknown individuals occupying or transversing the space E.g., Other transit users, passersby, other customers waiting in line

are often referred to, yet rarely explained, in social network and social support research. Survey research for example, has typically focused on family members, friends, and (sometimes) neighbors and anyone else is either left out completely or collapsed into a category called “others”. That these “others” exist, who they are, what role they play, and how important they are to the social lives of older people, has been unclear, yet important. Indeed, as is evidenced in this study, these “others” are key players in the social networks of older residents where interactions and relationships with them contribute substantially to older residents' well-being. As the structure and proximity of families shift, life expectancy continues to expand, and trends toward housing designs and technologies that facilitate independently living even among the “oldest old” are embraced, we can anticipate a future where these ‘others’ will play an increasingly important role in the lives of older neighborhood residents. Secondly, this research expands our understanding of the ways in which informal social networks are structured and how they may function within the everyday lives of community-dwelling older adults. The majority of what we know about informal social networks is focused on support, and in particular the role of social networks in providing support for the continued independence of older (most often) family members. A natural neighborhood network however, is a type of informal, community-based social structure founded on principles of interdependence, rather than (functional) independence, and sociality, rather than support. Interdependence is “shared dependence” predicated on the notion that no one, regardless of age or ability, leads a completely independent life — “None of us is totally independent of our context — social, political and economic; rather, we live within complex webs of mutual dependence or interdependence” (Robertson, 1997, p. 436). Interdependence is focused on relationships rather than functional ability (Beeber, 2008, p. 22) and on mutual respect and reciprocity rather than one-sided transfers of support from the ‘haves’ to the ‘have-nots’. Relationships, social connectedness, respect and reciprocity are the cornerstones of

interdependence and, as illustrated through this research, are key elements of natural neighborhood networks. NNN's are additionally founded on the principles of sociality versus support. Sociality is the social ‘playfulness’ that can occur in social interactions (Simmel & Wolff, 1950, p. 45). The interactions in third places and transitory zones were most often spirited, light, and involved humor. This type of interaction was not only anticipated, it was expected by the study participants regardless of who the other may be — neighbor, service personnel, or stranger. There is some support in the literature for the notion that sociality extends beyond family and friends to include service people and even strangers. In his work on geographies of the city, for example, Latham (2003) reports — “It [sociality] consists of interactions with friends, neighbors, work mates, and — at least to some degree — those everyday strangers met at the supermarket checkout, shopping mall, café or pub” (p. 118). Most significantly, this research introduces a new informal social network type found to be important to the well being and quality of life of older adults aging in place. Natural neighborhood networks make explicit some of the most important, yet often unconsidered people and places in the everyday lives of older residents that promote engagement in life, facilitate social relationships and enhance their overall well being. Natural neighborhood networks do not replace or negate the importance of informal systems of family and friends, or formal support systems provided by public and private agencies and services. They complement them. Future research to determine how to recognize and promote these kinds of relationships, where they fit within existing social network typologies, and how they differ across different kinds of neighborhoods, regions, and sub-populations, is warranted. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Denise Gastaldo, Peri Ballantyne, Stephen Katz and Ted Myers for their ongoing interest and support, contribution to the overall study design,

270

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271

and suggestions that helped to clarify the ideas reported in this manuscript. Additional thanks go to Gavin Andrews and Allison Williams for their feedback and suggestions on earlier conceptualizations of study findings and Firth MacMillan for the editing assistance. Finally the insightful and comprehensive feedback received by the reviewers on the original submission as well as the support and individual attention provided by the editors of this special issue of JAS — David Ekerdt and Keith Diaz Moore — has been generous and is much appreciated.

References Andrews, G. J., Holmes, D., Poland, B., Lehoux, P., Miller, K. L., Pringle, D., et al. (2005). ‘Airplanes are flying nursing homes’: Geographies in the concepts and locales of gerontological nursing practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14, 109−120. Beeber, A. S. (2008). Interdependence — Building partnerships to continue older adult's residence in the community. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 34(1), 19−25. Berke, E. M., Gottlieb, L. M., Moudon, A. V., & Larson, E. B. (2007). Protective association between neighborhood walkability and depression in older men. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(4), 526−533. Carpiano, R. M. (2009). Come take a walk with me: The “go-along” interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health & Place, 15(1), 263−272. Cheng, S. T., Lee, C. K. L., Chan, A., Leung, E. M. F., & Lee, J. J. (2009). Social network types and subjective well-being in Chinese older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(6), 713. Cohen, D. A., McKenzie, T. L., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., Golinelli, D., & Lurie, N. (2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509−514. Croft, S., & Beresford, P. (1992). The politics of participation. Critical Social Policy, 12(35), 20−44. Depp, C. A., & Jeste, D. V. (2009). Definitions and predictors of successful aging: A comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14(1), 6−20. Diez Roux, A. (2003). The examination of neighbourhood effects on health: Conceptual and methodological issues related to the presence of multiple levels of organization. In I. Kawachi, & L. Berkman (Eds.), Neighbourhoods and health (pp. 45−64). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., & Stockard, J. (2006). Active community environments and health: The relationship of walkable and safe communities to individual health. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 19−31. Duncan, J. (2000). Place. In R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt, D. Smith, & M. Watts (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (4th ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Dyck, I., & Dossa, P. (2007). Place, health and home: Gender and migration in the constitution of healthy space. Health & Place, 13(3), 691−701. Fiori, K. L., Antonucci, T. C., & Cortina, K. S. (2006). Social network typologies and mental health among older adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(1), P25. Frank, L. D., Andresen, M. A., & Schmid, T. L. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87−96. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Harper, D. (2000). Reimagining visual methods. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 717−732). (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heath, S., & Cleaver, E. (2004). Mapping the spatial in shared household life: A missed opportunity? In C. Knowles, & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the social landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination (pp. 65−78). London, UK: Routledge. Katz, S. (2005). Cultural aging: Life course, lifestyle, and senior worlds. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press. Kearns, R., & Andrews, G. (2005). Placing ageing: Positionings in the study of older people. In G. Andrews, & D. Phillips (Eds.), Ageing and place: Perspectives, policy, practice (pp. 13−23). New York, NY: Routledge. Kontos, P. (2000). Resisting institutionalization: Constructing old age and negotiating home. In J. Gubrium, & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Aging and everyday life (pp. 255−272). Oxford: Blackwell.

Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455−485. Latham, A. (2003). Researching and writing everyday accounts of the city: An introduction to the diary-photo diary-interview method. In C. Knowles, & P. Sweetman (Eds.), Picturing the visual landscape: Visual methods and the sociological imagination (pp. 1699−1724). London, UK: Routledge. Lawton, M. P. (1990). Residential environment and self-directedness among older-people. The American Psychologist, 45(5), 638−640. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163−188). (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Litwin, H. (1996). The social networks of older people: A cross-national analysis. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Litwin, H. (2001). Social network type and morale in old age. The Gerontologist, 41(4), 516−524. Litwin, H., & Shiovitz-Ezra, S. (2006). Network type and mortality risk in later life. The Gerontologist, 46(6), 735. Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3), 301. Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., de Vries, S., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(7), 587−592. Martin-Matthews, A. (2007). Situating ‘home’ at the nexus of the public and private spheres: Ageing, gender and home support work in Canada. Current Sociology, 55(2), 229. Masotti, P. J., Fick, R., Johnson-Masotti, A., & MacLeod, S. (2006). Healthy naturally occurring retirement communities: A low-cost approach to facilitating healthy aging. American Journal of Public Health, 96(7), 1164−1170. Massey, D. (1984). Introduction: Geography matters. In D. Massey, & J. Allen (Eds.), Geography matters (pp. 1−11). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Michael, Y. L., Green, M. K., & Farquhar, S. A. (2006). Neighborhood design and active aging. Health & Place, 12(4), 734−740. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milligan, C., Gatrell, A., & Bingley, A. (2004). ‘Cultivating health’: Therapeutic landscapes and older people in northern England. Social Science & Medicine, 58(9), 1781−1793. Nocon, A., & Pearson, M. (2000). The roles of friends and neighbours in providing support for older people. Ageing and Society, 20, 341−367. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafe's, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community. New York, NY: Marlowe & Company. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peace, S. M., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2005). Making space for identity, policy, practice. In G. J. Andrews, & D. R. Phillips (Eds.), Ageing and place: Perspectives, policy, practice (pp. 188−204). New York, NY: Routledge. Peace, S. M., Holland, C., & Kellaher, L. (2006). Environment and identity in later life. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Phillipson, C. (2001). The family and community life of older people: Social networks and social support in three urban areas. UK: Routledge. Phillipson, C., Bernard, M., Phillips, J., & Ogg, J. (1999). Older people's experiences of community life: Patterns of neighbouring in three urban areas. The Sociological Review, 47(4), 715−743. Pink, S. (2004). Visual methods. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 391−406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography: Images, media and representation in research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Robertson, A. (1997). Beyond apocalyptic demography: Towards a moral economy of interdependence. Ageing and Society, 17, 425−446. Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 423−437. Seeman, T. E., Lusignolo, T. M., Albert, M., & Berkman, L. (2001). Social relationships, social support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning older adults: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Health Psychology, 20(4), 243−255. Simmel, G., & Wolff, K. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Statistics Canada (2007). A portrait of seniors in Canada No. 89-519-XIE. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swenson, M. (1998). The meaning of home to five elderly women. Health Care for Women International, 19, 381−393. Uchino, B. N. (2009). Understanding the links between social support and physical health: A life-span perspective with emphasis on the

P.J. Gardner / Journal of Aging Studies 25 (2011) 263–271 separability of perceived and received support. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 236. Victor, C. R., Scambler, S., & Bond, J. (2009). The social world of older people. New York, NY: Open University Press. Walker, R. B., & Hiller, J. E. (2007). Places and health: A qualitative study to explore how older women living alone perceive the social and physical dimensions of their neighbourhoods. Social Science & Medicine, 65(6), 1154−1165. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Belew Grove, J. (1981). Nonreactive measures in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

271

Wenger, G. C. (1984). The supportive network: Coping with old age. Victoria, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Wenger, G. C. (1991). A network typology: From theory to practice. Journal of Aging Studies, 5(2), 147−162. Wiles, J. (2005). Conceptualizing place in the care of older people: The contributions of geographical gerontology. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14, 100−108.