Aging-in-Place Attachment Among Older Adults in Macau’s High-Density Community Spaces: A Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

This study explores key factors influencing Aging-in-Place Attachment (AiPA) among older adults in Macau’s high-density community spaces, emphasizing interactions between the built environment, behavior, and psychology. A multidimensional framework evaluates environmental, behavioral, human-factor, and psychological contributions. A mixed-methods, multisource approach was employed. This study measured spatial characteristics of nine public spaces, conducted systematic behavioral observations, and collected questionnaire data on place attachment and aging intentions. Eye-tracking and galvanic skin response (GSR) captured visual attention and emotional arousal. Hierarchical regression analysis tested the explanatory power of each variable group, supplemented by semi-structured interviews for qualitative depth. The results showed that the physical environment had a limited direct impact but served as a critical foundation. Behavioral variables increased explanatory power (~15%), emphasizing community engagement. Human-factor data added ~4%, indicating that sensory and habitual interactions strengthen bonds. Psychological factors contributed most (~59%), confirming AiPA as a multidimensional construct shaped primarily by emotional and social connections, supported by physical and behavioral contexts. In Macau’s dense urban context, older adults’ desire to age in place is mainly driven by emotional connection and social participation, with spatial design serving as an enabler. Effective age-friendly strategies must extend beyond infrastructure upgrades to cultivate belonging and interaction. This study advances environmental gerontology and architecture theory by explaining the mechanisms of attachment in later life. Future work should explore how physical spaces foster psychological well-being and examine emerging factors such as digital and intergenerational engagement.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.