Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, vol. 18, no. 5

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 5 (2024): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Date Log

Submitted
Jul 19, 2024
Accepted
Sep 23, 2024
Published
Oct 22, 2024
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A Roadmap for the Design of a Public-participation Geographic-Information System to Support Urban Ageing

https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2024.18.5.113
Rengin Aslanoğlu
Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Department of Systems Research, Wrocław, Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8002-5069
Grzegorz Chrobak
Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Department of Systems Research, Wrocław, Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1313-947X
Joost van Hoof
The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Research Group of Urban Ageing, The Hague, The Netherlands
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9704-7128
Jolanta M. Perek-Białas
Jagiellonian University, Institute of Sociology, Krakow, Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4215-9565
Loredana Ivan
National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Communication Department, Bucharest, Romania
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7153-5198
Zsuzsu K.C.T. Tavy
The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Research Group of Urban Ageing, The Hague, The Netherlands
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5073-0592
Milena Maj
Jagiellonian University, Institute of Sociology, Krakow, Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6713-380X
Jan K. Kazak
Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Department of Systems Research, Wrocław, Poland
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1864-9954

Corresponding Author(s) : Rengin Aslanoğlu

rengin.aslanoglu@upwr.edu.pl

Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 5 (2024): Geomatics and Environmental Engineering

Abstract

Geospatial technologies have the potential to transform the lives of older adults by providing them with necessary tools to navigate their local communities, access services, connect with others, and access valuable information. However, the usability and accessibility of such technologies often fall short of the needs of older adults. Many existing geospatial tools are not designed with the needs and preferences of older adults in mind; this can lead to usability challenges and limit their usage. This paper explores a participatory approach in developing an inclusive geodata-collection tool that is specifically tailored to older users’ needs. The paper also highlights the importance of incorporating user-centered design principles, participatory design methods, and accessibility guidelines throughout the entire geodata-tool-development process. It also emphasizes the need for ongoing user engagement and feedback in order to ensure that the tool remains relevant and usable in the evolving digital landscape. This participatory approach has resulted in a tool that is easy to use and accessible for older adults; it is available in various languages, thus ensuring that the elderly can actively participate in the prototype’s creation and contribute to the collection of the geospatial information that reflects their lived experiences and needs.

Keywords

public participation geographic information system urban aging older adults age-friendly environments age-friendly city
Aslanoğlu, R., Chrobak, G. ., van Hoof, J. ., M. Perek-Białas, J. ., Ivan, L. ., K.C.T. Tavy, Z. ., Maj, M., & K. Kazak, J. (2024). A Roadmap for the Design of a Public-participation Geographic-Information System to Support Urban Ageing. Geomatics and Environmental Engineering, 18(5), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.7494/geom.2024.18.5.113
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Population Ageing 2019: Highlights. ST/ESA/SER.A/430, UN, New York 2019. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3846855?v=pdf [access: 20.01.2024].
  2. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Social Report 2023: Leaving No One Behind in an Ageing World. UN, New York 2023. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210019682.
  3. Plouffe L., Kalache A.: Towards global age-friendly cities: Determining urban features that promote active aging. Journal of Urban Health, vol. 87(5), 2010, pp. 733–739. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-010-9466-0.
  4. Salmistu S., Kotval Z.: Spatial interventions and built environment features in developing age-friendly communities from the perspective of urban planning and design. Cities, vol. 141, 2023, 104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104417.
  5. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Government policies to address population ageing. Populations Fact, No. 2020/1, October 2020.
  6. UNFPA Asia-Pacific Regional Office (APRO): Addressing Population Ageing in Asia and the Pacific Region: A Life-Cycle Approach. January 2021. https://asiapacific.unfpa.org/en/publications/addressing-population-ageing-asia-and-pacific-region-life-cycle-approach [access: 20.01.2024].
  7. van Hoof J., Kazak J.K.: Urban ageing. Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 27(5), 2018, pp. 583–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X18768160.
  8. World Health Organization: Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland 2007. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000155536 [access: 20.01.2024].
  9. van Hoof J., Marston H.R., Kazak J.K., Buffel T.: Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities & communities and the built environment. Building and Environment, vol. 199, 2021, 107922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922.
  10. Kihl M., Brennan D., Gabhawala N., List J., Mittal P: Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide. AARP Public Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2005.
  11. Lui C.W., Everingham J.A., Warburton J., Cuthill M., Bartlett H.: What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing, vol. 28(3), 2009, pp. 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00355.x.
  12. Cunningham G.O., Michael Y.L.: Concepts guiding the study of the impact of the built environment on physical activity for older adults: A review of the literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, vol. 18(6), 2004, pp. 435–443. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-18.6.435.
  13. Phillipson C.: Urbanisation and ageing: Towards a new environmental gerontology. Ageing & Society, vol. 24(6), 2004, pp. 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X04002405.
  14. Kazak J., van Hoof J., Świąder M., Szewrański S.: Real estate for the ageing society – the perspective of a new market. Real Estate Management and Valuation, vol. 25(4), 2017, pp. 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/remav-2017-0026.
  15. van Hoof J.: Older people going green out of financial necessity: Environmental sustainability and age-friendly cities. Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 33(1), 2024, pp. 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X231156672.
  16. Ma M., Joshi G.: Age-friendly future cities. [in:] Brears R.C. (ed.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Futures, Springer, Cham 2023, pp. 22–27.
  17. Pynoos J., Nishita C.M.: Aging in place. [in:] Carmel S., Morse C.A., Torres-Gil F.M. (eds.), Lessons on Aging from Three Nations. Vol. 1, The Art of Aging Well, Baywood, New York 2007, pp. 185–198.
  18. Torku A., Chan A.P.C., Yung E.H.K.: Age-friendly cities and communities: A review and future directions. Ageing & Society, vol. 41(10), 2021, pp. 2242–2279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000239.
  19. Tang K.F., Teh P.L., Lim W.M., Lee S.W.H.: Perspectives on mobility among older adults living with different frailty and cognitive statuses. Journal of Transport & Health, vol. 24, 2022, 101305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101305.
  20. Kent A.J., Specht D. (eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Geospatial Technologies and Society. Taylor & Francis, New York 2023.
  21. Tupasela A., Devis Clavijo J., Salokannel M., Fink C.: Older people and the smart city: Developing inclusive practices to protect and serve a vulnerable population. Internet Policy Review, vol. 12(1), 2023, pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.1.1700.
  22. Angelidou M.: Four European smart city strategies. International Journal of Social Science Studies, vol. 4(4), 2016, pp. 18–30. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v4i4.1364.
  23. Gottwald S., Laatikainen T.E., Kyttä M.: Exploring the usability of PPGIS among older adults: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, vol. 30(12), 2016, pp. 2321–2338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2016.1170837.
  24. Tsui T., Wuyts W., Van den Berghe K.: Geographic information systems for circular cities and regions. [in:] De Wolf C., Çetin S., Bocken N.M.P. (eds.), A Circular Built Environment in the Digital Age, Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, Cham 2024, pp. 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39675-5_2
  25. World Health Organization: The WHO Age-friendly Cities Framework. https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/age-friendly-cities-framework/ [access: 20.01.2024].
  26. van Hoof J., Dikken J., van Staalduinen W.H., van der Pas S., van den Hoven R.F.M., Hulsebosch-Janssen L.M.T.: Towards a better understanding of the sense of safety and security of community-dwelling older adults. The case of the age-friendly city of The Hague. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19(7), 2022, 3960. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073960.
  27. World Health Organization: Healthy ageing and functional ability. 26 October 2020. https://www.who.int/philippines/news/q-a-detail/healthy-ageing-and-functional-ability [access: 20.01.2024].
  28. De Longueville B.: Community-based geoportals: The next generation? Concepts and methods for the geospatial Web 2.0. Computers. Environment and Urban Systems, vol. 34(4), 2010, pp. 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.04.004.
  29. Goodchild M.F.: Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, vol. 69, 2007, pp. 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y.
  30. Tappert S., Mehan A., Tuominen P., Varga Z.: Citizen participation, digital agency, and urban development. Urban Planning, vol. 9, 2024, 7810. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7810.
  31. Harsia E., Nummi P.: Beyond the blind spot: Enhancing polyphony through city planning activism using public participation GIS. Urban Planning, vol. 9, 2024, 7096. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.7096.
  32. Marston H.R., Shore L., Stoops L., Turner R.S.: Transgenerational Technology and Interactions for the 21st Century: Perspectives and Narratives. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, UK, 2022.
  33. Marston H.R., van Hoof J.: “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban environments for older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO’s age-friendly cities model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16(19), 2019, 3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193525.
  34. Loos E., Ivan L.: Not only people are getting old, the new media are too: Technology generations and the changes in new media use. New Media & Society, vol. 26(6), 2022, pp. 3588–3613. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221101783.
  35. Peek S.T.M., Luijkx K.G., Rijnaard M.D., Nieboer M.E., van der Voort C.S., Aarts S., van Hoof J., Vrijhoef H.J., Wouters E.J.M.: Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology, vol. 62(2), 2016, pp. 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1159/000430949.
  36. Pruchno R.: Technology and aging: An evolving partnership. The Gerontologist, vol. 59(1), 2019, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny153.
  37. Ivan L., Cutler S.J.: Ageism and technology: the role of internalized stereotypes. University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 90(2), 2021, pp. 127–139. https://doi.org/10.3138/utq.90.2.05.
  38. Davern M., Winterton R., Brasher K., Woolcock G.: How can the lived environment support healthy ageing? A spatial indicators framework for the assessment of age-friendly communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17(20), 2020, 7685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207685.
  39. Dikken J., van den Hoven R.F.M., van Staalduinen W.H., Hulsebosch-Janssen L.M.T., van Hoof J.: How older people experience the age-friendliness of their city: Development of the age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17(18), 2020, 6867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186867.
  40. Ronzi S., Orton L., Buckner S., Bruce N., Pope D.: How is respect and social inclusion conceptualised by older adults in an aspiring age-friendly city? A photovoice study in the North-West of England. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17(24), 2020, 9246. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249246.
  41. Buffel T.: Older coresearchers exploring age-friendly communities: An “insider” perspective on the benefits and challenges of peer-research. The Gerontologist, 59(3), 2019, pp. 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx216.
  42. King A.C., King D.K., Banchoff A., Solomonov S., Ben Natan O., Hua J., Gardiner P., Goldman Rosas L., Rodriguez Espinosa P., Winter S.J.. Sheats J., Salvo D., Aguilar-Farias N., Stathi A., Akira Hino A., Porter M.M., On behalf of the Our Voice Global Citizen Science Research Network: Employing participatory citizen science methods to promote age-friendly environments worldwide. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 17(5), 2020, 1541. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051541.
  43. Barrie H., Soebarto V., Lange J., Mc Corry-Breen F., Walker L.: Using citizen science to explore neighbourhood influences on ageing well: Pilot project. Healthcare, vol. 7(4), 2019, 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040126.
  44. Chan A.W., Chan H.Y., Chan I.K., Cheung B.Y., Lee D.T.: An age-friendly living environment as seen by Chinese older adults: A “photovoice” study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 13(9), 2016, 913. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090913.
  45. Mysyuk Y., Huisman M.: Older people’s emotional connections with their physical urban environment. Cities & Health, vol. 4(1), 2020, pp. 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2019.1693190.
  46. Levac L., Ronis S., Cowper-Smith Y., Vaccarino O.: A scoping review: The utility of participatory research approaches in psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 47(8), 2019, pp. 1865–1892. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22231.
  47. Urbaniak A., Wanka A.: Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Approaches in Ageing Research. Taylor & Francis, New York 2024.
  48. KoboToolbox: Powerful and intuitive data collection tools to make an impact. https://www.kobotoolbox.org/ [access: 20.01.2024].
  49. Oude Weernink C.E., van Zaalen Y.: A multi-stakeholder co-creation platform for better access to Long-Term Care Services. Co-creation manual. 2018. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/769975/reporting [access: 20.01.2024].
  50. Sharma V., Tiwari A.K.: A study on user interface and user experience designs and its tools. World Journal of Research and Review (WJRR), vol. 12(6), 2021, pp. 41–45.
  51. Bertram L., Dahm M.: Conceptual design and implementation of automated metrics and model-based usability evaluation of UI prototypes in Figma. [in:] Mensch und Computer 2022-Workshopband, 04.-07. September 2022, Darmstadt, Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., 2022. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2022-mci-ws06-264.
  52. Sarodnik F., Brau H.: Methoden der Usability Evaluation: Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und praktische Anwendung. Hogrefe Verlag, Bern 2016.
  53. Dart: https://dart.dev// [access: 20.01.2024].
  54. KoboToolbox: Adding Another Language in the Project Dashboard. 1 November 2022. https://support.kobotoolbox.org/language_dashboard.html [access: 20.01.2024].
  55. Szewrański S., Świąder M., Kazak J., Tokarczyk-Dorociak K., van Hoof J.: Socio-environmental vulnerability mapping for environmental and flood resilience assessment: The case of ageing and poverty in the city of Wrocław, Poland. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol. 14(5), 2018, pp. 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4077.
  56. van Hoof J., Dikken J., Buttiġieġ S.C., van den Hoven R.F.M., Kroon E., Marston H.R.: Age-friendly cities in the Netherlands: An explorative study of facilitators and hindrances in the built environment and ageism in design. Indoor and Built Environment, vol. 29(3), 2020, pp. 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X19857216.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 222 Download : 108

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.