Tokyo Survey Book 1: An Overview Of Towns Where Seniors Can Lead Active Lifestyles ~ 23 Ward Comparison ~ Published November, 2008 / A4 Size 103 Pages There are approximately 1.34 million healthy, able-bodied seniors (65 and above) living in Tokyo’s 23 wards. Utilizing fixed quantity data that evaluates each ward from seven different angles, this report provides a relative assessment of living environments in which seniors can comfortably live. Though the results show differences in substance and degree, the report was able to ascertain that all wards offer attractive and pleasant living environments Aging in the 23 wards - In 2005 the population of seniors stood at 1.59 million, this is expected to increase by a factor of 1.4 over the next twenty years. - The percentage of the total population comprised by seniors in 2005 was 18.8%, a 5 percentage-point increase from 10 years ago. - Compared to 10 years ago, blocks and neighborhoods with seniors comprising 20% or more of their populations are widely spread across the entire 23 ward district (see Figure 1., Figure 2.). 35%~ 35%~ 30%~34.99% 30%~34.99% 99 99 Average of all 25%~29. % Average of all 25%~29. % 20%~24.99% 20%~24.99% 23 wards: 13.8% 15%~19.99% 23 wards : 18.8% 15%~19.99% 10%~14.99% 10%~14.99% ~10% ~10% Total population density: Total population density: Source: Population Census of Japan less than 1person / ha Source: Population Census of Japan less than 1person / ha Figure 1. Population ratios for seniors Figure 2. Population ratios for seniors by area in the 23 ward district (1995) by area in the 23 ward district (2005) Towns where seniors can lead active lifestyles G axis - 35 indicators across seven categories; safety and security; a feeling of A axis openness safety and convnience; cost of living; physically stimulating; mentally F axis local con- security 10.5% stimulating; local consciousness; and a feeling of openness were sciousness Circum- 10.5% 21.1% Principal used to evalate living conditions. ference E axis axis mentally axis 10.5% 21.1% - Each ward’s total score is the sum of each evaluating indicator’s stimulating 10.5% B axis 15.8% convenience standard deviation multiplied by the weighting assigned to its D axis physically impotance, usage rate etc (see Figure 3.). stimulating C axis cost of living - The three wards deemed the most comfortable to live in for active seniors were Taito, Shibuya, and Bunkyo. A common characteristic Intermediate axis shared by all three was a high level of convenience (see Figure 4.). Figure3. Evaluation axis weight - The three wards with the lowest total scores were Nerima, Edogawa, and Setagaya (see Figure 4.). When looking at individual indicators, these wards also displayed areas of attractiveness; in Nerima “rent is cheap and golf driving ranges are not lacking”; in Edogawa “it is a safe place for walking, and one can experience a sense of openess when walking”; and in Setagaya “food prices are low, there is an abundance of greenry, and the area is very earthquake resistant”. Togenuki-jizoson in Sugamo -1- Taito A axis Shibuya Bunkyo Outer areas safety and security A axis A axis Outer areas G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis a feeling of convenience openness 55.6 53.3 53.0 Areas to the F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis north and east local cost of living of the city center consciousness Areas to the south and City center west of the city center E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis 23 ward district area classification map mentally stimulating physically stimulating Kita Chuo Toshima Sumida A axis A axis A axis A axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis 52.7 51.8 51.7 51.1 F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis Arakawa Shinagawa Shinjyuku Ota A axis A axis A axis A axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis 50.6 50.6 50.5 50.4 F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis Meguro Chiyoda Nakano Adachi A axis A axis A axis A axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis 49.9 49.8 49.6 48.9 F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis Suginami Minato Koto Itabashi A axis A axis A axis A axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis 48.7 48.4 47.9 47.6 F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis Katsushika Setagaya Edogawa Nerima A axis A axis A axis A axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis G axis B axis 47.4 47.4 47.2 45.9 F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis F axis C axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis E axis D axis Notes: The number in the middle of each chart is the total score, the red line represents each ward’s radar chart, and the black line represents the average radar chart of all 23 wards. The red shaded areas in the radar chart represent where each individual ward’s score exceeds the average of all 23 wards. Figure4. Evaluation results for senior-friendly living environments (according to evaluation axis) -2-.