Cohousing Design Strategies for Active Aging Marisela Thompson Marisela.Thmpsn@Gmail.Com

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

May 2018 Cohousing Design Strategies for Active Aging Marisela Thompson [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Architecture Commons

Repository Citation Thompson, Marisela, "Cohousing Design Strategies for Active Aging" (2018). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 3333. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/3333

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Scholarship@UNLV. It has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COHOUSING DESIGN STRATEGIES FOR

ACTIVE AGING

Marisela A. Thompson

Bachelor of Science - Interior Architecture and Design University of Nevada Las Vegas 2016

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Healthcare Interior Design

School of Architecture College of Fine Arts The Graduate College

The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas

April 25, 2018

This thesis prepared by

Marisela A. Thompson entitled

Cohousing Design Strategies for Active Aging is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Healthcare Interior Design School of Architecture

Dak Kopec, Ph.D. Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D. Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Interim Dean

Attila Lawrence, M.A. Examination Committee Member

Glenn Nowak, M.Arch. Examination Committee Member

David James, Ph.D. Graduate College Faculty Representative

ii Abstract

Objective:

Evaluate and identify approaches to the physical design, with emphasis on the interior design, of a cohousing model can be adapted to support the physical, cognitive and social health aspects of active aging.

Background:

Housing models evolve with the needs of society. Today, the societal practice of living in traditional nuclear-family based housing is challenged by the lack of financial resources(Blanchard 2017) and the need to care for an aging population. This project attempts to identify a housing model that promotes multigenerational co-housing as a means to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the elder population.

One factor that contributes to an individual’s standard living is the capability to sustain one’s health (Zaidi et al., 2017), and remain independent (Amesberger et al., 2011). A study conducted on human activity patterns estimates state that humans spend approximately ninety percent of their time interacting within the built environment (Klepeis et al., 2001). Therefore, the physical design of a housing model has the ability to address the health, safety and welfare needs of an aging population.

Older Americans strive to remain active and maintain a sense of purpose as they age, however many lack the appropriate physical and social support systems. A Cohousing model which is an intentional community of private homes which share access to common amenities has the ability to be a model where physical and social supports can be met while concurrently offering a venue for reciprocal and symbiotic relationships between multigenerational occupants.

iii Methods:

This project will be based on a qualitative analysis of secondary sources obtained from a literature review using grounded theory to identify common elements. Common elements identified were then distilled into charts and examined through design thinking methods via prototyping. Three prototypes were defined for each of the common elements. The results identified the most appropriate solution which could be applied to a cohousing model to accommodate health needs of Elder Americans.

Conclusion:

The conceptual model demonstrates the viability of implementing physical design strategies that support active aging of Elder Americans in a cohousing model. Results remain inconclusive on whether the design strategies will appeal to the target market and survive market scrutiny.

iv Dedication

I would like to dedicate my work to my family for being the reason I strive to do my work each and every day and to my friends whose support I cherish and undeniably would be lost without.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... iii

Dedication ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

List of Tables ...... vii

List of Figures ...... ix

List of Definitions ...... xiii

Introduction ...... 1

Statement of Problem ...... 1

Background Information ...... 1

Purpose of Study ...... 2

Review of Literature ...... 3

Introduction ...... 3

Active Aging ...... 3

Elderly and a Sense of Purpose ...... 5

Environmental Supports...... 6

Cohousing ...... 9

Relationships ...... 11

vi Conclusion ...... 13

Methods...... 14

Objective of Study ...... 14

Data Collection ...... 14

Data Analysis ...... 15

Results ...... 16

Design Implication Charts ...... 16

Ideations ...... 18

Cohousing Conceptual Model ...... 55

Conclusion ...... 80

Discussion ...... 80

Implications...... 80

Recommendations ...... 81

Appendices ...... 82

References ...... 145

Curriculum Vitae ...... 153

vii

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparison and Contrast of Housing Types ...... 10

Table 2 Physical Health Implication Chart ...... 16

Table 3 Mental Health Implication Chart ...... 17

Table 4 Social Health Implication Chart ...... 18

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Site Organization ...... 19

Figure 2 Private Residence Cluster ...... 20

Figure 3 Porch Orientation...... 21

Figure 4 Circulation ...... 22

Figure 5 Contrast...... 23

Figure 6 Flooring ...... 24

Figure 7 Entry Door Window ...... 25

Figure 8 Storage Hardware ...... 26

Figure 9 Seat Arms ...... 27

Figure 10 Kitchen Shape ...... 28

Figure 11 Kitchen Counter...... 29

Figure 12 Dining Table ...... 30

Figure 13 Window Placement ...... 31

Figure 14 Desk ...... 32

Figure 15 Storage ...... 33

Figure 16 Shower Bench ...... 34

Figure 17 Nighttime Lighting Location ...... 35

Figure 18 Laundry Machine Arrangement ...... 36 ix

List of Figures

Figure 19 Window Height ...... 37

Figure 20 Closet ...... 38

Figure 21 Bed Frame ...... 39

Figure 22 Centralized Organization ...... 40

Figure 23 Linear Cluster ...... 41

Figure 24 Community Oriented Porch Orientation ...... 42

Figure 25 Central Circulation ...... 43

Figure 26 Medium Contrast ...... 44

Figure 27 Wood/Composite Flooring ...... 45

Figure 28 Vertical Slot Window ...... 46

Figure 29 Touch Latch Hardware ...... 47

Figure 30 Two Arms ...... 48

Figure 31 Linear Kitchen ...... 49

Figure 32 Moving Kitchen Counter ...... 50

Figure 33 Round Dining Table ...... 51

Figure 34 Adjacent Window Placement ...... 52

Figure 35 Transforming Desk ...... 53

Figure 36 Open Storage ...... 54 x List of Figures

Figure 37 Adjacent Shower Bench ...... 55

Figure 38 Wall Nighttime Lighting ...... 56

Figure 39 Lifted Front Load Laundry Machines ...... 57

Figure 40 In Line of Sight Window ...... 58

Figure 41 Wall Closet ...... 59

Figure 42 Winged Bed Frame ...... 60

Figure 43 Site Requirements ...... 61

Figure 44 Site Programming ...... 62

Figure 45 Site Plan ...... 63

Figure 46 Common House Programming ...... 64

Figure 47 Common House Plan ...... 65

Figure 48 Common House Front Porch ...... 66

Figure 49 Common House Living Area...... 67

Figure 50 Common House Food Preparation/Dining Area ...... 68

Figure 51 Common House Library ...... 69

Figure 52 Private Residence Programming ...... 70

Figure 53 Private Residence Plan ...... 71

Figure 54 Private Residence Front Porch ...... 72 xi

List of Figures

Figure 55 Private Residence Living Area ...... 73

Figure 56 Private Residence Food Preparation/Dining Area ...... 74

Figure 57 Private Residence Work/Multipurpose Area ...... 75

Figure 58 Private Residence Personal Hygiene View A ...... 76

Figure 59 Private Residence Personal Hygiene View B ...... 77

Figure 60 Private Residence Laundry Area ...... 78

Figure 61 Private Residence Sleep Area ...... 79

xii

List of Definitions

Activities of Daily living

Tasks related to bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, continence, and feeding

Active Aging the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation, and security to enhance the quality of life as people age (WHO 2012)

Cohousing a designed community that combines elements from private and collective ownership to provide the benefits of both individual home ownership and community living that shares resources

Communal Coping a state in which individuals see and address problems with an “our problem—our responsibility” mindset as opposed to a “my problem—my responsibility” mindset

Communal Living housing type composed of independent private spaces mixed with common areas that are shared with multiple residents that live together under one roof

Communitarian emphasis on the support of friends and neighbors who can provide social support and a sense of safety and security

Elder Americans

Individuals of age 65 and older

External Conditions

Housing, primary living spaces, and a person's social relationships

xiii

List of Definitions

Gated Communities a residential area with controlled access and an emphasis on security and privacy

Health

Physical, Cognitive and Social wellbeing of an individual

Instrumental Activities of Daily Living

Tasks related with the ability to use the telephone, shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking responsibility for one's own medications and the ability to handle finances

Interdependence

Mutual reliance on an interpersonal social relationship

Isolation a state of physical separation

Social Connectedness quality and number of connections one has with other people

xiv

Introduction Statement of Problem

Background Information

The U.S. Census Bureau (2014) estimates a growth in the number of Elder Americans to be from

43,145,000 as surveyed in the year 2012 to 83,793,000 Elder Americans in the year 2050. The growth of the aging population paired with the desire of eighty-five percent of them to stay in their own home as they age (AARP 2014) highlights a growing demand on the built environment’s role in meeting the demands of this growing demographic.

Housing models evolve with the needs of society. Today, the societal practice of living in traditional nuclear-family based housing is challenged by the lack of financial resources

(Blanchard 2017) and the need to care for an aging population. This project attempts to identify a housing model that promotes multigenerational co-housing as a means to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the elder population.

Older Americans strive to remain active and maintain a sense of purpose as they age, however many lack the appropriate physical and social support systems. A Cohousing model

1 which is an intentional community of private homes which share access to common amenities has the ability to be a model where physical and social supports can be met while concurrently offering a venue for reciprocal and symbiotic relationships between multigenerational occupants.

Purpose of Study

Review of Literature

Introduction

There are growing questions, and critical solutions are rising amid middle-class Americans who feel “squeezed in the middle” by higher costs of living and depreciating incomes (Blanchard

2017). According to a recent study, approximately eighty-five percent of middle-class Americans believe it is more difficult to maintain their standard of living than it was for the generation before (Blanchard 2017). A critical aspect that contributes to one’s standard of living is having the capability to sustain one’s health. When focusing on the conceptualization of a housing model that can contribute to an expected standard of living for those who seek active-aging.

Environmental design of a cohousing community may be able to provide a targeted solution that addresses the health needs of aging individuals.

An analysis of relevant literature as to what it means to have an active lifestyle for Elder-

Americans includes the connections between elderly individuals and their sense of purpose, support from the physical environment, and how those supports are considered within the design process. The nature of cohousing from a multigenerational perspective and the relationships fostered among Elder-Americans and their built environments, are additional factors that can be considered.

Active Aging

With aging comes physiological changes. These changes, consequently, result in dependency from family-related costs, social structures, and the availability of personal finances (Gemito et al., 2014). Further implying that the importance for the promotion of active aging is directly related to the quality of primary care afforded by independent health-related conditions, and the

3 degree of autonomous participation in activities of daily living. Active, or healthy aging, is an intricate process which entails adapting to one’s physical and socio-psychological changes over a lifetime (Lai, Chan & Chin 2014), and takes into consideration independent and autonomous living combined with enhancements to one’s health capacity (Zaidi et al., 2017).

As defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) “active aging is the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation, and security to enhance the quality of life as people age” Within WHO’s definition, health is the physical, cognitive and social well-being of an individual. Participation thus refers to the ability of aging individuals to partake in activities related to social situations, cultural traditions, spiritual practices, civic affairs, professional activities, and activities for personal care. Furthermore, security can be understood as the proximity and access that Elder-Americans have to a safe and secure social and physical environment (Zaidi et al., 2017).

As we improve health care for Elder-Americans, we contribute directly to successful aging through the design of the built environment. Since health is essential to successful aging, and people on average spend 90 percent of their time inside the built environment (Hoffman and

Henn 2008), the built environment should, therefore, introduce and utilize designs that support physical, cognitive, and social health (Lai, Chan & Chin 2014). These are reasons why the active utilization of spatial programming (Zaidi et al., 2017), improved housing quality (Sarvimaki and

Stenbock-Hult 2000), and facilitation of the availability of services can directly impact the level of health care provided in a housing model for active aging.

Active aging for an individual is also directly correlated to the successful engagement and completion of activities of daily living which include developing and nurturing social networks and interpersonal relationships (Lai, Chan & Chin 2014). Therefore, the design of the

4 built environment should support, facilitate, and optimize an individual’s capability to complete instrumental (iADL) activities of daily living. The Katz Index of Independence in Activities in

Daily Living (Shelkey and Wallace 2012) highlights the importance of an individual to be capable of completing tasks related to bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, continence, and feeding. Additionally, Lawton-Brody and Graf (2008) identified Instrumental Activities of Daily

Living as including: the ability to use the telephone, shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking responsibility for one’s medications, and the ability to handle finances. These definitions are supported by Moraes and Souza, (2005) who have demonstrated that successful aging among elderly men and women related to the performance of activities and the ability to remain autonomous while concurrently maintaining satisfaction with one’s social relationships. However, it is worth noting that satisfaction along with physical capability, perceived health, and ideal housing conditions needs to be paired with an elder’s active lifestyle and desired social relationships (Sarvimaki and Stenbock-Hult 2000).

Elderly and A Sense of Purpose

An individual’s life satisfaction and perceived quality of life can be summarized as an individual’s sense of purpose. Lai, Chan, and Chin (2014) expressed the idea that successful aging is achieved when physical health is not the only concern, but that Elder Americans have a desire to pursue and fulfill their own goals, and strive for a sense of purpose. This perspective is further supported by the findings from interviews with older adults which demonstrated a correlation between higher levels of life satisfaction and active, engaged, and healthy lifestyles

(Huijg et al., 2016). A sense of purpose has also been found to be a factor in life satisfaction

(Lai, Chan & Chin 2014). This sense of purpose can be described as a state composed of three distinct aspects (Sarvimaki and Stenbock-Hult 2000):

1. The quality of life of an elderly individual, which includes personal

satisfaction, the feeling of purpose, as well as the promotion of self- esteem

within their daily activities;

2. Personal factors of an elderly individual include personal conditions such

as health—objective (the absence of disease) and subjective (psychosomatic

symptoms)—as well as an individual’s ability (optimal functioning of the

sensory-motor system) and the capability to perform the activities of daily living;

and

3. External conditions related to the built environment (housing and primary

living spaces), and the sociocultural environment (a person’s social relationships).

Included within external conditions are the concepts of isolation or loneliness. Social isolation describes physical separation (living alone or in a rural area) (Tomaka et al., 2006) and loneliness is subjective mentality (feelings of being alone or separated from others) (Medvene et al., 2015). Loneliness and social isolation are growing concerns for Elder Americans. Their existence correlates with poorer health conditions and are therefore factors in the elders’ sense of purpose (Glass and Van der Plaats 2013). Social isolation and loneliness are also social conditions which greatly affect an individual’s psychological and physical well-being (Tomaka et al., 2006). Encouraging social interaction can provide a natural remedy for isolation and loneliness. It can, therefore, be concluded that by facilitating the formation of social relationships, the built environment can offer the opportunity to promote social wellbeing.

Environmental Supports

A growing elderly population results in increased social concerns about elder care and homes that function as supportive environments and facilitate the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle

(Lee et al., 2007). As individuals age, aspects of one’s self-esteem and confidence are challenged. These aspects include physical ability, personal autonomy, and sense of independence and control (Mcauley et al., 2005). There are many Elder Americans who are integral to the family network. These individuals often enjoy access to the necessary support for the challenges that accompany increasing age while engaging in meaningful activities

(Portacolone 2013). Unfortunately, other Elder Americans have little or no access to family, live in situations that could lead to hospitalization from something as common as a fall, and find themselves confined to long-term care facilities (Portacolone 2013). The growing divide between the social classes (Moya & Fiske 2017) means fewer government resources are available to support social and physical environmental challenges (Portacolone 2013). Fewer resources result in the middle class assuming the financial, physical, and social responsibilities for the care of the older individuals (Bookman & Kimbrel 2011). Likewise, family members can provide a source of emotional support (Glass and Van der Plaats 2013); however, most lack the knowledge and resources to facilitate and deliver supportive built environments that help the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle for Elder Americans (Lee et al., 2007). It should, therefore, be recognized that designers have a responsibility to identify ways for the built environment to enable and support active aging whenever and wherever possible.

One’s home environment has the ability to facilitate and encourage autonomous living, promote a sense of safety, provide physical activity, stimulate one’s senses, and establish social belonging (Lee et al., 2007). One of the most significant risks in the home environment is the

7 potential for falls. Falls are one of the leading causes of accidents among the elderly, and they often result from changes within one’s sensory detection and conceptualization including visual, auditory, and tactile functions that relate to balance (Gemito et al., 2014). A fall, whether resulting in an injury or not, can affect an individual’s confidence, thus resulting in self- limitation. Fear of falling often leads to a post-fall syndrome, which results in insecurity. These insecurities lead to self-imposed limitations, which cause a change in physical ability. Once an

Elder’s physical self- concept is challenged, its impact influences an Elder's participation and physical fitness (Amesberger et al., 2011). Physical activity supports an individuals muscle function, endurance and balance which are vital to preventing falls(LeBlanc et al.,) and to an

Elder’s ability to manage daily living activities and independence (Amesberger et al., 2011).

Overcoming these fears through the prevention of falls and increased accessibility with a low amount of effort is an important design consideration for active aging.

A second design consideration for active aging is facilitating an individual’s ability to cope with stressors by supporting cognitive tasks. Elderly often express a decline in working memory and executive cognitive functioning (Murman 2015) which manifest in specific expressed behaviors. These expressed behaviors include confusion, disorientation and frequent wandering (Monsour & Robb 1982). These expressed behaviors are all aspects that affect walking paths in the built environment (Zeisel et al., 2003). Paired with spatial abilities (visual object perception, comprehension of dimensional relationships between objects and the environment) critical to functional independence (Bruin et al., 2016), these behaviors bring attention to the visual access, contrast and lighting in the environment as essential considerations.

8 Cohousing

The built environment, through the use of architectural and social design, has the potential to support healthy active living for Elder Americans (Sargisson 2012). It’s clear that this population has diverse needs, and appropriately addressing Elder Americans’ physical, cognitive, and social well-being while reducing the potential effects of isolation or loneliness are key potential benefits of a cohousing model (Glass and Van Der Plaats 2013). Cohousing is a designed community that combines elements from private and collective ownership in order to provide the benefits of both individual home ownership and community living that shares resources

(Sargisson 2012). However, many elder people prefer to live in their own homes, which can promote a sense of isolation (Liu et. al, 2014). A comprehensive cohousing design has the ability to afford more opportunities that encourage the development of supportive social networks

(Glass 2013).

While seeming similar, communal living and co-housing are distinctly different housing models. Communal living is a housing type composed of independent private spaces mixed with common areas that are shared with multiple residents that live together under one roof (Kim et al., 2016). Co-housing is a residential community model, which places individual dwellings in clusters that are closer together than typical urban single-family neighborhoods; these communities share public spaces and amenities (Glass and Van Der Plaats 2013). This cohousing model allows residents to choose privacy or companionship and keeps the level of companionship at a preferred level. Cohousing is associated with the idea of positive social life

(relationships with neighbors), shared access to communal spaces (clubhouses and recreational areas), and self-governance (assuming a leadership role within the community) (Sargisson 2012).

With these factors in mind, cohousing design is defined as a structural organization of physical

9 spaces, which supports residents’ to actively age (Sargisson 2012). With features such as shared meals, diverse activities, and other types of amenities that bring people together for a common purpose, social connectivity can be stimulated among the residents (Glass and Van der Plaats

2013).

On the surface, cohousing might resemble gated communities, but a fundamental difference is that cohousing is designed with the specific purpose of encouraging social support and fostering a connected social life (Sargisson 2010). One of the more significant differences between a gated community and co-housing is the level of expected privacy. Gated communities have a high degree of expected personal privacy whereas cohousing models promote social interaction and an elevated balance between community and privacy (Ruiu 2014). Cohousing is about the development of a community lifestyle with collaboration, social safety, and mutual support, and thus should not be thought of like a housing model that is interchangeable with communal living or with gated communities (Ruiu 2014). Please see Table 1 for a comparison and contrast of cohousing neighborhoods, gated communities, and communal residences.

Table 1: Comparison and Contrast of Housing Types

Relationships

The number of elderly individuals who live with their children is decreasing at a significant rate suggesting that social support may need to be found apart from blood relatives (Glass 2013).

Among the factors that result in the Elder Americans living alone are the changes in family patterns (families are now defined beyond blood ties), changes in relocation patterns (many children move to different locations for work), and the homogenization of cultural factors (ideas of caring for family members has eroded). More Elder Americans in the United States live alone than those of earlier generations (Blanchard 2017). Following the industrial revolution, familial structures were impacted by the nuclearization of the family form (Benston 2001); meaning that family was considered to be composed of two biological parents and their children. The idea of the family began to decline in the United States approximately in the 1960’s when significant social changes to the family structures and cultural values challenged the social support systems for Elder Americans (Benston 2001). This cultural shift caused the elderly population to lose a source of much-needed support both economically and as a source of assistance when challenged with health conditions (Ruggles 2007).

Due to cultural shifts such as the nuclearization of families, changes in employment structures, women seeking opportunities to work outside of the home, reduced family sizes, children moving further away from parents and smaller spaces in modern housing, the elderly population has entered an era where aging occurs without support (Ruggles 2007). These shifts paired with the desire of elders to remain independent along with their peers leads to the aspiration for a more enriched life. Many Elder Americans seek to live in proximity to their adult children as a means to provide a sense of security should an emergency occur, but do not want to cohabitate with their children (Wister 1990).

Furthermore, it should be noted that according to Seeman et al (2001), elders who have a greater number of social ties with others have demonstrated lower mortality risks and better physical and cognitive well-being. When analyzing the social benefits of a cohousing model it is clear that if designed to address active aging, cohousing can be a platform for occurrence of communal coping. Communal coping is defined as a state in which individuals see and address problems with an “our problem—our responsibility” mindset as opposed to a “my problem—my responsibility” mindset (Glass and Plaats 2013). The social nature of cohousing lends itself to communitarian approaches that place emphasis on the support of friends and neighbors who can provide social support and a sense of safety and security. Collectively, cohousing can provide and facilitate a pathway for the aging elder in a community paradigm in which like-mind individuals of all ages can foster systems of mutual support to enhance well-being, improve quality of life and increase an elder’s ability to remain in their own homes and their communities

(Blanchard 2017).

A well-developed cohousing model can foster mutualism or interdependence. Cohousing is an intentional community where the architecture promotes both socialization and the concepts that residents of the community will help neighbors, ask for help when needed, and be willing to accept help from others (Glass 2013). Aging in a cohousing community encourages social capital

(social connectedness and interdependence), but only as a result of continuous interactions and constant collaborations with shared interests and pursuits (Thomas and Blanchard, 2009). These relationships between cohousing residents, if sustained over time, are purely informal, voluntary and reciprocal (Blanchard 2017). Reciprocity among community members offers sources of support and assistance to prepare meals and shop for groceries, provide companionship for appointments and activities, and help with pets or chores (Glass and Van Der Plaats 2013).

Finally, it is noteworthy to mention that parasitism can occur. Cohousing, while a shared vision among residents, is not an obligation. While residents may ask others to contribute in specific ways to the community, individuals still have the ability to choose to live privately and isolated within the community (Glass & Van Der Plaats 2013), which can hinder how effectively these models contribute to social connectedness and social support. This situation is parasitism because the isolated individual reaps the benefits of the collective whole without contributing to the interests of the collective.

Conclusion

Cohousing has the potential to be a model where needs for physical and social support can be met while concurrently offering a venue for reciprocal and symbiotic relationships between multigenerational occupants and the environment. Through the joint development of physical and environmental design through the implementation of relevant evidence-based design strategies, cohousing has the capacity to promote and maintain the physical, cognitive and social health for Elder Americans who seek to age actively.

Methods

Objective of the Study

Data Collection

The study uses a qualitative analysis of secondary sources from a literature review using grounded theory to gain an understanding of the physical environmental aspects that can affect the health of an Elderly person striving to age actively. A collection of relevant narrative data from peer-reviewed secondary sources was focused in the areas of elderly physical, mental and social health as they pertain to common issues in the built environment.

Qualitative research methods were ideal to use for their ability to generate a response to a why or how inquiry to a social problem (Alasuutari 2010). However, qualitative methods may not be able to produce explanations past particular case studies. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, using qualitative approaches based on grounded theory allows for the development of a theoretical account of the situation to outline essential features (Martin &

Turner 1986). Therefore to identify common elements, charts were distilled and examined utilizing design thinking methods through prototyping process.

According to Institute of Design at Stanford (2017), design thinking in the process of empathizing with a demographic population, defining a problem, developing prototypes

(ideations) as possible solutions, and testing the efficacy of the prototypes. The prototyping process serves as the foundation of a design thinking method which will allow for the flexibility to determine the appropriate solutions for the identified common elements.

The literature yielded specific concerns which required a design prototype to be developed. Each concern was analyzed from multiple perspectives thus producing three different design prototypes for each concern. These prototypes were then further explored by integrating each into the total design of the cohousing model. Ultimately, one prototype was selected based on its ability to satisfy a concern, integrate seamlessly into the overall design, and adapt should a future need arise in relation to the grounded theory concepts. Each ideation went through the process of understanding issues and concerns, ideating potential solutions, testing the ideations in the outcome design, evaluating the efficacy of the ideation in terms problem solving, design integration, adaptation.

Data Analysis

Three ideations were developed for a total 21 concerns; thus, brings the total count of ideations to be 63. Each ideation will then be implemented into a design vignette and critically reviewed for effectiveness, integration, and adaptation. The most suitable ideations will be included in the final cohousing model.

Results

Design Implication Charts

Several charts were developed to understand the relationship between data obtained from the literature review and the development of a cohousing model. The results from these charts was then use to develop prototypes. Following the three primary categories of Physical, Mental and

Social Health, Table 2-4 reveals the most salient points to be considered for the prototypes.

Table 2 Physical Health

Table 3 Mental health

Table 4 Social health

Ideations

From the three charts, the primary concerns related to the elder person and the built environment were facilitating function within six categories: Overall Building, Living Area Food Preparation and Dining Area, Work/ Multipurpose Area, Personal Hygiene/Laundry Area, and Sleeping Area

Based on the six categories, 54 ideations were developed. Below are the 18 ideations per category.

After comparison of possible ideations one was selected from each subset in the categories as the most appropriate based on which ideation addressed universal design principles most effectively and analyzed for their capacity to solve an issue of concern, blend seemingly into the design, and ability to adapt to future needs. Each of these areas appear below each ideation.

60 Cohousing Conceptual Model

Figure 43 Site Requirements

The primary objectives for the design of the cohousing community are to foster a safe and supportive environment that encourages a sense of community through the utilization of private homes which are supplemented by convenient access to common facilities while addressing active aging through the design development of the physical environment.

Therefore the site requirement diagram demonstrates a central and radial relationship between design elements with an emphasis on equal access and multifaceted experience that promotes a common core for all residents of this community-oriented neighborhood. The first step to developing the design of a cohousing model is to outline the site requirements for the model.

Common site requirements include a common house, outdoor living areas, recreational areas, walking paths, private residences and parking. Due to the collective and private ownership aspects of the cohousing model, it was key to identify private and common spaces and the order in which they are introduced. Common requirements include the accommodation of 20-40 private residences on the site, outdoor living (dining and gathering spaces), recreational areas(playground and park areas) and parking. See Figure 43

Figure 44 Site Programming

After site requirements are established, the relationship of how the elements come together is the next step. Keeping in mind the goal of cohousing to support different levels of socialization a layered approach is taken. Defining the Common house as the social epicenter the design layers outwards to terminate at the most private spaces which are the private residences.

With auxiliary social areas and amenities located in between the two defined points. See Figure

44.

Figure 45 Site Plan

One of the ideations explored in the study was circulation. The site plan utilizes a closed loop circulation which allows residences to reduce 180 degree turns and provides a safe environment for wandering as parking and vehicle traffic are directed to the outskirts of the cohousing model.

As a community, private residences are oriented to increase social exposure to neighbors by providing a front porch. Front porches are oriented to have visual access to neighboring porches as well as other residences traveling along the community walking path. See Figure 45

Figure 46 Common House Programming

Approaching the design of the Common house began with outlining what shared amenities would be provided. As part of the collective ownership of the Cohousing model, the common

64 house needed to function as an extension of a home with additional amenities such as guest rooms, workshop area and a library space. See Figure 46

Figure 47 Common House Plan

The main objectives for the common house are to foster a safe and supportive environment that encourages a sense of community through the utilization of a sequence of shared spaces that facilitate large groups of individuals to interact and socialize while participating and achieving a common goal within the space. The common house similar to the

65 site utilizing closed loop circulation to reduce chances of falls by reducing 180-degree turns and allowing an individual to always move forward to reach desired destination which reduces anxiety and stress, facilitates physical activity and supports physical fitness. See Figure 47.

Figure 48 Common House Front Porch

The common house design introduces a spacious front porch targeted towards promoting socialization and increasing an individual’s exposure to daytime lighting to support an individual’s natural circadian rhythm. The common porch provides varied seating configurations

(standing areas, solitary seating, paired seating and group seating) to provide a choice of socialization level and task accommodation (talking, relaxing, working) for all individual residences. See Figure 48

Figure 49 Common House Living Area

The living area in the common house accommodates for changes in seating configurations through its utilization of modular furniture. Through the selection of modular pieces with back and arm supports, configurations can be easily adapted for differences in purpose and use while remaining a physically supportive element for Elder Americans. Throughout all the indoor areas of the common house, the design utilizes low impact composite flooring for increased comfort and facilitating physical activity. Similar to the front porch the design provides options in social configurations of seating. See figure 49.

Figure 50 Common House Food Preparation/Dining Area

The primary objective of the food preparation and dining space was to support communal coping and facilitating social participation. Communal coping is supported by providing an environment where a shared goal or problem can be addressed. In this case, cooperative meals can reduce stress on residences’ time by providing a common location for sharing meals prepared by a select number of residences, reducing the need for all residences individually needing to prepare and cook all meals. In order to support social participation, the circle table ideation was used as inspiration for hexagonal tables that can be reconfigured together for a variety in dining scales while maintaining all the advantages of reducing physical strain on residences when socializing.

Similar to the front porch and living areas, the design provides options in social configurations of seating and providing dining and temporary workspaces. See Figure 50.

Figure 51 Common House Library

One of the shared amenities of the Common house design includes a shared library space. This space is key in supporting small group gathering (conversations, games) and solitary tasks(reading, writing). Open storage at multiple levels along the perimeter wall facilitate accessibility and visual access for all occupants. The utilization of sociopetal configurations supports socialization and window seat increases residences’ exposure to daytime lighting to support a natural circadian rhythm. See Figure 45.

The next building which the cohousing model addresses is the physical design of a private residence. Key areas to consider are the living area, food preparation and dining area, the work/multipurpose area, personal hygiene/laundry area, and sleep area. See Figure 51.

Figure 52 Private Residence Programming

The main objectives for the private residence are to provide a safe and supportive environment that accommodates social and private living. Similar to the common house, the private residence plan is developed utilizing closed loop circulation to reduce chances of falls by reducing 180- degree turns and allowing an individual always to move forward to reach the desired destination and incorporates low impact wood flooring which reduces stress, facilitates physical activity and supports physical fitness. See Figure 52

Figure 53 Private Residence Plan

Figure 54 Private Residence Front Porch

The front porch of all private residences is oriented toward sand provide visual access to the community walking path as well as to a neighboring porch to facilitate socialization. The front porch is shaded to provide comfort while outdoors, increasing an individual’s exposure to daytime lighting and supporting a natural circadian rhythm when utilized. The front door of the private residences features a vertical slot window which provides an opportunity for a variety of individuals of varying heights to universally use the slot as a means to view outside for the safety of all individuals. See Figure 54

Figure 55 Private Residence Living Area

The living area of the private home features open and close storage solutions, one arm and two arm supports and clear circulation paths to support health and safety. Clear circulation within the space facilitates movement as well as reduces the risk of safety hazards such as falls, or bruising caused by bumping into surfaces. Open storage is utilized dominantly in this space as the ideation process highlighted its use as the most universally accessible. However, to reduce visual access to seasonal and long-term storage, closed storage with touch latch mechanisms are utilized. It is important to note that the ideation process also highlighted that the use of two-arm support in seating was vital, however in the living space, the choice was provided to accommodate lounging as well as to accommodate larger groups of people gathering in the living area. See Figure 55.

Figure 56 Private Residence Food Preparation/Dining Area

The food preparation area is designed to reduce the risk of falls, support cognitive tasks, and facilitate physical activity. The first ideation implementation to note is the use of a linear kitchen configuration. The configuration supports safety by reducing falls, supports cognitive tasks by introducing food preparation elements in a procedural order, and reduces travel distances to facilitate physical activity. As a component of the linear kitchen, an open moving kitchen counter is integrated to increase accessibility and comfort for all occupants to work in this task-oriented space. In the food preparation area, touch latch storage is incorporated to facilitate access to items such as pots and pans and introduces an open storage cove for the placement of commonly used items for every meal, such as plates, silverware, and cups. The dining area features the use of a round table configuration to promote socialization and decrease physical discomfort to the residents. See Figure 56.

Figure 57 Private Residence Work/Multipurpose Area

All residences can benefit from an additional area in the home. Whether to be used for everyday tasks like paying the bills or functioning as a home office, the model emphasizes adaptability as a key design goal for the space. The most influential contributor to this area in regards to versatility is the use of a transforming furniture piece. This selected transforming desk functions as a work surface can convert to a spare bed or can be compactly rearranged to optimize open floor space. The three possible configurations have the capability to accommodate a residence temporary or permanent need without the need for residents to decide on one permanent use or seek a home with three additional rooms which would increase the cost of the home. The transforming desk, therefore, provides the opportunity for the additional space to serve as an office, guest bedroom, child’s playroom or a personal exercise area among other options.

The placement of windows was also key in this potential workspace. Reduction of glare through window placement reduces the chances of residences blocking essential daylight into the space. By placing windows adjacent to the main workspace, glare is less likely to cause visual

75 masking and personal discomfort, supporting cognitive tasks as well as increasing an individual’s exposure to daytime lighting. Lastly, the space features open storage solutions for consistently used items and closed storage with touch latch mechanisms for long-term storage in the space. See Figure 57.

Figure 58 Private Residence Personal Hygiene View A

One of the key concerns with the personal hygiene area, apart from the accessibility of the space, was safety within the space. While visibility is addressed during wake hours, nighttime lighting can pose problems by causing visual masking from a dark bedroom to a brightly lit bathroom.

The issue is resolved by providing a light cove which can indirectly illuminate the space with a focus on lighting the floor and counter surfaces for accessibility and safety.

See Figure 58

76 Figure 59 Private Residence Personal Hygiene View B

Lighting provides one layer of protection for safety, and a shower bench offers a second level.

The shower is understandably a wet area; this wet area is a potential slip and fall hazard. An adjacent shower bench with shower controls and access to a hand shower, allow individuals to remain seated while bathing rather than risking falls by standing and shifting on the wet floor.

Introducing in-shower storage near the shower bench reduces necessary reach for common items needed while bathing and shelving along the opposing wall of the shower provides a place to grab towels as one exits the shower area reducing necessary travel distances. See Figure 59.

77 Figure 60 Private Residence Laundry Area

The laundry area showcases the machine configuration ideation. The machines are lifted mitigate the degree of bending and extended reach required of an individual to complete tasks in the laundry area. The machines are also framed with a solid surface to provide some open storage or a work surface for folding or stacking clothes. The adjacent storage unit stores an ironing board and iron, houses baskets for discretionary uses and provides a closed temporary hanging space for clothes. See Figure 60.

78 Figure 61 Private Residence Sleep Area

The final area of consideration in the private residence model is the sleep area. It is key that the sleep area accommodates passive activities and facilitate the tasks of laying and getting up from the bed, dressing, and sleeping. The winged bed frame offers one arm support to enable individual’s change in position in relation to the bed, whether laying, sitting or standing. To reduce stress and anxiety, an open closet solution was introduced. The open closet reduces the chances of needing to bend to the floor to retrieve fallen items, provides visual access to key items of clothing and remains accessible for various users. The closet system, similar to the rest of the storage of the home, provides open storage for everyday items and closed storage for occasional and long-term storage items. Lastly, sleep is supported by placing windows adjacent to the bed to reduce glare while providing a source of natural light that can support an individual’s sleep-wake cycle by increasing their exposure to daytime lighting and nighttime darkness. See Figure 61.

79 Conclusion

Discussion

A growing elderly population results in increased concerns about elder care and how their homes have the capability to be supportive environments and facilitate the maintenance of their desired lifestyles. It was key to this study to conduct an extensive review of the literature to identify common needs in regards to physical, mental and social well-being to develop design premises before developing possible ideations.

The study demonstrates that specific ideations addressed human health concerns as well as universal design concerns in different manners. Rather than developing one solution for each identified concern, to ensure that more than one method to address a concern was considered before its implementation in the conceptual model, three ideations were developed for each category. Critical analysis of each ideation highlighted strengths and weaknesses which was key to demonstrate that not one universal solution existed instead each ideation addressed its own set of needs or demands. Utilizing the principles of universal design as a guideline for each selection served to reduce bias in final selection.

The illustrated conceptual model implements the highest-ranking ideations dominantly for each category but in some instances provided choice for the safety, support, and comfort of an individual.

Implications

The results of the study indicate that many design strategies for health, participation and security are most effective and/or possible at the early stages of the design process and less effective if introduced as a design modification instead of a primary design intent.

Limitations

The study is speculative in nature and further research has the potential to introduce additional variables not considered in this study. Additional variables identified would require an expanded analysis that could change the results identified by this study.

Furthermore, specific computer software could identify common concerns and themes more efficiently and with greater accuracy but was not utilized in this study due to lack of access and were identified manually.

While the literature review supports a need for the design strategies, lack of current developments utilizing all the ideations specified challenge its potential viability. The implementation of the design strategies would need to be further analyzed for their ability to withstand market scrutiny and how well they address the niche market of active aging individuals.

Recommendations

While the study proposes design strategies theoretically, further research to be conducted would be to build a prototypical model for study or take an existing cohousing model and adapt it for further observation and analysis. Further research will need to be conducted at a larger scale to identify and address active aging through all aspects of the built environment. Data would need to be collected from a large sample size of Elder Americans regarding how, implemented efficiently, design ideations are addressing their needs and feedback received on possible modifications to the proposed design implementations.

81 Appendix A

82 83 84 85 86 87

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Appendix B

101 102 103

104

105

106

107

108

109 110 111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121 122 123 124 125

126

127

128 129

130

131

132

133

134

135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 References

Amesberger, G., Finkenzeller, T., Würth, S., & Müller, E. (2011). Physical self-concept and

physical fitness in elderly individuals. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in

Sports, 21, 83-90. Retrieved March, 2018, from

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2011.01346.x.

Aslaksen, Finn; Bergh, Steinar; Bringa, Olav Rand; and Heggem, Edel Kristin, "Universal

Design: Planning and Design for All"(1997). GLADNET Collection. Paper 327.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/gladnetcollect/327

Blanchard, J. (2017). Aging in Community: The Communitarian Alternative to Aging in Place

Alone. Generations Journal of the American Society on Aging, [online] 37(4), pp.6-13.

Available at: http://www.asaging.org/blog/aging-community-communitarian-alternative-

aging-place-alone.

Bookman, A., & Kimbrel, D. (2011). Families and Elder Care in the Twenty-First Century. The

Future of Children, 21(2), 117-140. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22013631.

Bright, K., & Egger, V. (2008). Using visual contrast for effective, inclusive environments.

Information Design Journal Highlights of Vision Plus 12, 16(3), 178-189. Retrieved

March, 2018, from www.researchgate.net/publication/233511790.

145 Bruin, Natalie De, Devon C. Bryant, Jessica N. Maclean, and Claudia L. R. Gonzalez.

"Assessing Visuospatial Abilities in Healthy Aging: A Novel Visuomotor Task."

Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience 8 (February 2016): 1-9. Accessed March 2018.

http://www.frontiersin.org/.

Cheng, F., Yang, Y., Wang, C., Wu, Y., Cheng, S., Wang, H., & Wang, R. (2014). Factors

Influencing Turning and Its Relationship with Falls in Individuals with Parkinson’s

Disease. PLoS ONE, 9(4). Retrieved March, 2018, from

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093572.

Cole, C., & Richards, K. (2007). Sleep Disruption in Older Adults. American Journal of

Nursing, 107, 5th ser., 40-49. Retrieved March, 2018, from www.nursingcenter.com.

Gariepy, Genevieve, Brett D. Thombs, Yan Kestens, Jay S. Kaufman, Alexandra Blair, and

Norbert Schmitz. "The Neighbourhood Built Environment and Trajectories of Depression

Symptom Episodes in Adults: A Latent Class Growth Analysis." Plos One 10, no. 7 (July

24, 2015). Accessed March 2018.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133603.

Gemito, M., Batinas, M., Mendes, F., Santos, S. and Lopes, M. (2014). Prevention of falls in the

elderly in the home: promoting active ageing. Revista de Pesquisa: Cuidado é

Fundamental Online, [online] 6(5), p.131. Available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276473521_Prevention_of_falls_in_the_elderly

in_the_home_promoting_active_ageing.

146 Glass, A. (2013). Lessons Learned From a New Elder Cohousing Community. Journal of

Housing For the Elderly, [online] 27(4), pp.348-368. Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02763893.2013.813426?journalCode=wjhe

Glass, A. and Van Der Plaats, R. (2013). A conceptual model for aging better together

intentionally. Journal of Aging Studies, [online] 27(4), pp.428-442. Available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890406513000558.

Graf, C. (2008). The Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale. AJN, American

Journal of Nursing, [online] 108(4), pp.52-62. Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18367931

Guarnaccia, G. (2010). Light and The Aging Eye. Doubledge Design LLC. Available at:

www.aiacc.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Light-and-The-Aging-Eye-Paper.pdf

Hoffman, A. J., & Henn, R. (2008). Overcoming the Social and Psychological Barriers to Green

Building. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1086026608326129

Huijg, J., van Delden, A., van der Ouderaa, F., Westendorp, R., Slaets, J. and Lindenberg, J.

(2016). Being Active, Engaged, and Healthy: Elder Persons’ Plans and Wishes to Age

Successfully. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social

Sciences, [online] 72(2), pp.228-236. Available at:

147 https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article-abstract/72/2/228/2631956/Being-

Active-Engaged-and-Healthy-Elder-Persons [Accessed 10 Oct. 2017].

Institute of Design at Stanford. (2017). Introduction to Design Thinking. Retrieved March, 2018,

from https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/getting-started-with-design-thinking

Klepeis, N. E., Nelson, W. C., OTT, W. R., Robinson, J. P., Tsang, A. M., Switzer, P., . . .

Englemann, W. H. (2001). The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS): A

resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure

Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, (11), 231-252. Retrieved March 15, 2018,

from www.nature.com/jea.

Kim, H., Lee, Y., & An, S. (2016). A Study on Receptivity to Sharing Living Space in

Communal Shared Housing of the Elderly Living in Rural Areas depending on Personal

Traits. KIEAE Journal, 16(4), 5-20. Retrieved from

http://kieae.kr/_PR/view/?aidx=7212&bidx=583

Lai, C. K., Chan, E. A., & Chin, K. C. (2014). Who are the healthy active seniors? A cluster

analysis. BMC Geriatrics,14(1). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-

2318/14/127

Leblanc, Allie, Beth A. Taylor, Paul D. Thompson, Jeffrey A. Capizzi, Priscilla M. Clarkson, C.

Michael White, and Linda S. Pescatello. "Relationships between Physical Activity and

Muscular Strength among Healthy Adults across the Lifespan." SpringerPlus 4, no. 1

148 (2015). Accessed March 2018.

https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40064-015-1357-0.

Lee, S., Dilani, A., Morelli, A., & Byun, H. (2007). Health Supportive Design in Elderly Care

Homes: Swedish Examples and their Implication to Korean

Counterparts. Architectural Research,9(1), 9-18. Retrieved September 14, 2017, from

www.designandhealth.com.

Liu, L., Gou, Z., & Zuo, J. (2014). Social support mediates loneliness and depression in

elderly people. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(5), 750-758. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24925547.

Markovski, Karon, et al. “Does Eating Environment Have an Impact on the Protein and Energy

Intake in the Hospitalised Elderly?” Nutrition & Dietetics, vol. 74, no. 3, 19 Sept. 2016,

pp. 224–228., onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1747-0080.12314.

Mcauley, E., Elavsky, S., Motl, R. W., Konopack, J. F., Hu, L., & Marquez, D. X. (2005).

Physical Activity, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Esteem: Longitudinal Relationships in Older

Adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social

Sciences, 60(5). Retrieved from

https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/60/5/P268/585472.

Medvene, L. J., Nilsen, K. M., Smith, R., Ofei-Dodoo, S., Dilollo, A., Webster, N., . . . Nance,

A. (2015). Social networks and links to isolation and loneliness among elderly HCBS

clients. Aging & Mental Health,20(5), 485-493. Retrieved from

149 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274091832_Social_networks_and_links_to_isol

ation_and_loneliness_among_elderly_HCBS_clients.

Moraes, J. and Souza, V. (2005). Factors associated with the successful aging of the socially-

active elderly in the metropolitan region of Porto Alegre. Revista Brasileira de

Psiquiatria, [online] 27(4), pp.302-308. Available at:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-444620050004000

Murman, Daniel. "The Impact of Age on Cognition." Seminars in Hearing, 3rd ser., no. 36

(August 2015): 111-21. Accessed March 2018.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281728205_The_Impact_of_Age_on_Cognitio

Ruiu, M. (2014). Differences between Cohousing and Gated Communities. A Literature Review.

Sociological Inquiry, [online] 84(2), pp.316-335. Available at:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soin.12031/pdf.

Sargisson, L. (2012). Second-Wave Cohousing:. Utopian Studies,23(1), 28. Retrieved September

23, 2017, from

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/stable/10.5325/utopianstudies.23.1.0028?p

qorigsite=summon

Sarvimaki, A. and Stenbock-Hult, B. (2000). Quality of life in old age described as a sense of

well-being, meaning and value. Journal of Advanced Nursing, [online] 32(4), pp.1025-

1033. Available at:

150 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227686977_Quality_of_life_in_old_age_descri

bed_as_a_sense_of_well-being_meaning_and_value

Schlotterer, G., M. Moscovitch, and D. Crapper-Mclachlan. "Visual Processing Deficits As

Assessed By Spatial Frequency Contrast Sensitivity And Backward Masking In Normal

Ageing And Alzheimer's Disease." Brain 107, no. 1 (1983): 309-24. Accessed March

2018. https : //academic . oup . com/brain/article-abstract/107/1/309/358572.

Scully, D., Kremer, J., Meade, M., Graham, R., & Dudgeon, K. (n.d.). Physical Exercise and

Psychological Well Being: A Critical Review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 32,

111-120. Retrieved from http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/32/2/111

Seeman, T., Lusignolo, T., Albert, M. and Berkman, L. (2001). Social relationships, social

support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning elder adults:

MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. Health Psychology, [online] 20(4), pp.243-255.

Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11515736.

Shelkey, M. and Wallace, M. (2012). Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living.

The Gerontological Society of America. [online] Available at: https://consultgeri.org/try-

this/general-assessment/issue-2.pdf

Tiedemann, A., Shimada, H., Sherrington, C., Murray, S., & Lord, S. (2008). The comparative

ability of eight functional mobility tests for predicting falls in community-dwelling older

people. Age and Ageing, 37(4), 430-435. Retrieved March, 2018, from

https://academic.oup.com/ageing/article-abstract/37/4/430/40928.

151 Tomaka, J., Thompson, S., & Palacios, R. (2006). The Relation of Social Isolation, Loneliness,

and Social Support to Disease Outcomes Among the Elderly. Journal of Aging and

Health,18(3), 359-384. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0898264305280993

Willis, S. L., Allen-Burge, R., Dolan, M. M., Bertrand, R. M., Yesavage, J., & Taylor, J. L.

(1998). Everyday Problem Solving Among Individuals With Alzheimer's Disease. The

Gerontologist, 38(5), 569-577. Retrieved March, 2018, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13482170_Everyday_Problem_Solving_Amon

g_Individuals_With_Alzheimer's_Disease.

Wister, A. (1990). Living Arrangements and Informal Social Support Among the Elderly.

Journal of Housing For the Elderly, [online] 6(1-2), pp.33-44. Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J194v02n02_03.

Zaidi, A., Gasior, K., Zolyomi, E., Schmidt, A., Rodrigues, R. and Marin, B. (2017). Measuring

active and healthy Agingin Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, [online] 27(2),

pp.138-157. Available at:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958928716676550?journalCode=espa.

Zeisel, J., N. M. Silverstein, J. Hyde, S. Levkoff, M. P. Lawton, and W. Holmes. "Environmental

Correlates to Behavioral Health Outcomes in Alzheimers Special Care Units." The

Gerontologist 43, no. 5 (2003): 697-711. http://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article-

abstract/43/5/697/633882.

152 Curriculum Vitae

153 154