Functional and Aesthetic Factors for Well-Being in Age-Friendly Residential Areas (AFRA) in Poland: An International Comparative Perspective

Abstract

(1) Background: A precise and comprehensive diagnosis of the needs of older adults is the basis for developing concepts of aesthetic functional and spatial arrangements of public open spaces in residential areas that meet their expectations, termed “age-friendly residential areas” (AFRAs). The primary objective of the research was to determine the needs of older people concerning their preferences for the development of AFRAs. (2) Methods: This research was conducted on the basis of a survey conducted from October 2021 to April 2022, involving 1815 older citizens from Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, and Slovakia. The research aimed to determine the needs of older people regarding their preferences for the development of AFRA public open spaces. The developed research approach made it possible to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the needs of different generations of older adults, differentiated by gender and lifestyle, in terms of spatio-functional and landscape aspects with regard to the open spaces of residential estates? (2) Do older citizens from different countries living in various estates (single-family, multi-family) have the same expectations towards AFRAs? (3) Results: The research results showed a high convergence of preferences among older people regardless of gender, age group, or type of residential estate they live in (multi-family/single-family). Slight differences in AFRA preferences were noticed between Polish and non-Polish older adults, most often due to cultural habits. A correlation between the landscape attractiveness and aesthetics of the estate and the comfort of life for the older population, as well as their impact on the final assessment of the estate, was confirmed. As a result of the research, 33 spatio-functional and 16 landscape factors of AFRAs were identified and ranked.

1. Introduction

Urbanisation and population ageing are intertwined factors in the development of adapted urban spaces. Understanding the relationship between the environment and well-being is fundamental to the development of age-friendly urban planning, for instance, in the context of ageing [1]. A proper and comprehensive diagnosis of the needs of older adults is the basis for the development of aesthetic spatio-functional layouts of residential open spaces that meet their expectations, namely “age-friendly estates”. Ageing is a natural process associated with physiological changes. A reduction in the metabolic rate by about 7% occurs every decade after the age of 30. The specifics of the older population require solutions that influence the ability to function more efficiently, enhance activity among older adults, the improvement of well-being, and integration with the immediate environment, which is emphasised by the WHO [2,3,4]. The intense process of societal ageing, not only in Europe, is a catalyst for actions towards orienting urban public spaces to the needs of older adults [5]. This process is multifaceted and complex. The evolution of spatio-functional arrangements entails landscape changes (transformations) and must take into account aspects of safe use of urban spaces [6].

The landscape of urban public spaces should also be an essential element of the multi-criteria assessment of the quality of life for all age and social groups and should be especially taken into account in planning the aesthetic forms of residential estates in the context of the older population. Above all, it gains particular importance for older citizens, who have more free time. A more stabilised and peaceful lifestyle promotes the contemplation of the landscape in spatial, architectural, functional, aesthetic, historical, or recreational terms. The complexity and multifaceted nature of the concept raise questions about the impact of landscape values on the quality of life of older adults.

The landscape is often perceived as a positive element that supports the ageing process in a given place [7]. Moreover, it significantly influences physical activity, intellectual engagement, and the overall willingness to act and take on new challenges [8]. Despite growing interest in this topic, there remains a need for more integrated research that considers both functional and landscape aspects in the context of older adults.

Modern, age-friendly functional and spatial arrangements with aesthetic landscapes should be integral parts of cities and contribute to improving the quality of life for older adults. Their proper structure should also support the process of extending active lifestyles in this age group. Central and Eastern European cities are characterised by significant diversity in their building technologies and functional–spatial solutions [9] and, thus, landscape diversity [10,11]. This presents a significant challenge for urban planners designing spaces for older adults and people with disabilities. Some outdated architectural solutions do not provide comfort for older adults, even after remedial measures [12]. Therefore, new comprehensive solutions and changes in functional–spatial structures are increasingly preferred [13]. The aim of this research was to determine the needs of older people regarding their preferences for the development of AFRA public open spaces. The research focuses on functional–spatial and landscape (aesthetic) elements of public open spaces.

The research approach allowed the authors to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the needs of older people, differentiated by age, gender, and lifestyle, in terms of functional–spatial and landscape aspects of open spaces in residential areas? (2) Do older adults from different countries, living in different types of housing (single-family, multi-family), have the same expectations regarding AFRAs? The answers to these research questions were obtained through a survey conducted from October 2021 to April 2022, involving 1815 older citizens from Poland, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, and Slovakia. The random sample was sufficiently large to ensure that the results were representative, with a maximum margin of error of 3% and a confidence level of 95%. The conducted research confirmed the research hypothesis that the landscape is as important to older adults as the functionality of public open spaces in residential areas.

Innovation

When assessing the age-friendliness of residential areas, it is essential to consider functional–spatial and landscape elements as an inseparable whole of the public open spaces in residential areas, as they mutually influence well-being. To date, these two categories have been assessed separately, especially in the context of older adults [14]. Previous studies focused on specific aspects of age-friendly spatial arrangements in terms of functional–spatial aspects, such as the accessibility of services and infrastructure like shops, clinics, pharmacies, and public transport stops [15,16]; the safety of well-lit and monitored spaces with organised pedestrian traffic [17]; or the architectural adaptation of homes and buildings to meet the needs of older adults by eliminating barriers [18,19,20]. In the landscape aspect, research focused on the accessibility and quality of green spaces, such as parks, squares, or gardens [14,21]; the availability of recreational areas like walking paths [22]; social integration features like gazebos, benches, and meeting places [23,24,25]; and the aesthetics of the surroundings, including analyses of the quality and diversity of plantings, the presence of water, and small architectural elements [26].

One attempt to distinguish aesthetic and planning criteria affecting the quality of life based solely on literature review [27] was identified, where the scope of the identified factors was limited mainly to greenery and the density of development. Hence, the proposed approach, which is based on a comprehensive list of elements that consider landscape values to assess the age-friendliness of residential areas, is innovative and fills a gap in the literature. The list of existing indicators in the approach to AFRA assessment was supplemented and expanded to include eight functional–spatial categories: transportation and communication functionality, recreational, commercial and service, cultural and educational, informational, protective, neighbourhood, and planning. Additionally, four categories of landscape aesthetics were included: green–blue infrastructure, urban layouts, the appearance of spatial objects, and the orderliness and cleanliness of the surroundings.

The limitations of previous studies confirm that the planned comprehensive approach to AFRA assessment is necessary to better understand and effectively meet the needs of the growing social group of older adults in a complementary manner. Determining the importance of specific elements of residential area development will guide revitalisation efforts that consider the priorities of older adults.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Lifestyle and Social Activity of Older Adults

The older population is very diverse [13], and so the forms of activity among older adults are varied. In gerontological research and related sciences, various forms of activity by older people are distinguished and associated with lifestyles and individual predispositions [28]. The basic division includes active and passive styles, but [28] indicated another classification (as presented in

Table 1. Lifestyles of older people resulting from preferred activities. Source: own elaboration on the basis of [28].

Type of Lifestyle	Description
Family-oriented	Significant involvement in the lives of close relatives and family matters, closely tied to fulfilling the role of grandparents, with extended care for grandchildren and assistance in running the households of children and grandchildren.
Social	Substantial involvement in a variety of societies and organisations (such as veterans and war disabled, pensioners, allotment holders, hobbyists) or political parties, community government groups, charities, etc., where older individuals devote their free time to working for others and for the social milieu through active participation in various unions.
Related to piety	Originating from the ideologies and convictions of older persons, from faith in God and guiding one’s life by religious beliefs. This form of activity helps to preserve certain forms of action and involvement in community life, to cultivate spiritual life, and to forge social connections (participation in religious services, parish life, outings and pilgrimages, volunteering, and supportive and integrative actions).
Allotment holder/gardener	Resulting from owning a garden or plot, which becomes a pastime upon retirement and the predominant form of activity during the summer months. It is characterised by more vigorous physical effort, consistent supervisory tasks, education in horticulture, social interactions, and relaxation in the natural environment.
Home-centred	Predominantly focusing on one’s own household matters, thus linked with the need to draft a daily schedule. Here, leisure time organisation largely involves activities related to oneself (personal hygiene, reading, watching television, listening to the radio) and to the home (caring for plants, caring for pets, tidying up). Due to the limited range of activities and their execution area, which is almost exclusively one’s own surroundings, this style straddles the border between active and passive.
Professionally active	Predicated on initiating or continuing pursuits related to one’s former professional life, chiefly yielding satisfaction and income.
Passive	Deemed negative by society and exhibited by people who have retreated from social life, including those who are isolated, unwell, or incapacitated, who have adopted an attitude in keeping with their life/health circumstances. Such older individuals rarely venture out of their homes, show no interest in external matters or the concerns of others, and, regardless of their extent of disability, often choose their own isolation and social status.
Recreational	Involving the use of free time on chosen, favoured forms of activity (such as gardening, engagement in religious life, or various other hobbyist pursuits), which allow for the enhancement of spiritual life as well as education and personal development.

). Therefore, when a survey is being developed for older adults, questions about their lifestyle should be posed.

The lifestyles of older adults also vary from country to country depending on different traditions, established cultural patterns, and even levels of public awareness [29,30,31]. In Poland, the lifestyle of the older population significantly differs from that of their peers in EU countries, particularly in Western and Nordic countries. This is influenced by an insufficient awareness of the health benefits of sport, by cultural patterns and historical backgrounds, and by the health and social care system in the country, which does not always provide older citizens with quick access to appropriate medical care. The difference in the lifestyles of older people also stems from the division of age among the older population. In societies undergoing globalisation, leisure time activities—just like all cultural phenomena—are undergoing significant transformations. There have been changes in the preferred lifestyle that promote a healthy, eco-friendly, and active approach, as well as an increasing awareness of the importance of tourism and recreation for improving the quality of life [32].

For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that among the lifestyles distinguished by [28], two, i.e., the passive and home-centred styles, can be considered inactive or low-activity lifestyles, and the rest fall into an active way of life. Hence, the level of preference was examined with a division into these two types of activities.

2.2. Factors Influencing the Longevity of Older People

Differences in health status and mortality have been a research field of social epidemiology and public health. Most of the studies in this field focused on differences between social groups at various administrative–geographical levels, especially at the regional level [33,34,35]. A long and healthy life is one of the most universally valued goals of humanity [36]; hence, average life expectancy is a useful indicator for comparing social, economic, and cultural inequalities. Material resources, inequalities in income, and differences in education are also key life expectancy factors [35,37,38].

In the year 2000, the average global life expectancy was 63.8 years for men and 68 years for women [37]. For comparison, in research conducted by [39] for 35 selected countries worldwide, it was 71.6 years for the whole population in 2010. In the first half of 2020, the average life expectancy in the USA was 77.8; in Spain, it was 79.9. Over the years, there has been a continuous increase in life expectancy, particularly in highly developed countries [40], leading to the emergence of multi-generational cities [41]. For the first time in history, five generations live at once. Houses and cities have to be reinvented [42]. This rapid trend was disrupted by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic [43]. According to research [44,45], this increased life expectancy resulted from a higher quality of life, which, in turn, stemmed from better economic conditions and social care by the state. Therefore, it is crucial that the control group in research includes ageing people from highly developed countries, where the material status of older adults is at a medium or higher level, so that economic factors do not limit their needs.

Based on a literature review regarding older adults, it can be summarised that many factors influence life expectancy. One of the key factors is the quality of life. Most older people rate this quality positively. Life satisfaction is often described using the shape of the letter U. In the first part of life, it is at its best, then deteriorates due to the accumulation of professional duties. It then improves in connection with retirement and an increase in free time for personal development and pursuits. Humanity is becoming accustomed to longevity despite the many inconveniences of old age (e.g., dementia, depression, loss of physical agility, chronic diseases). However, this model was more visible in the population of the 1950s. Recent studies confirmed that this model holds for other primates, and the human population is slowly moving away from these assumptions. The reason for this is the apparent deterioration of health with age despite medical advancements [46,47].

Mental health status, which can be defined as well-being, is also a very important issue and is one of the fundamental goals of the WHO. Well-being can have an impact on improving health, increasing the joy of life, and improving overall physical condition [46,48,49]. Some studies indicate that mental well-being is an important health protective factor, reducing the risk of chronic diseases and promoting longevity [50,51]. Chronic diseases are particularly dangerous for older citizens [52]. An antidote to chronic diseases is increased physical activity. It is associated with lower mortality rates among those affected by serious chronic diseases and can also prevent depressive states [53,54].

In light of the above considerations, it is essential that elements of age-friendly recreational areas (AFRAs) encourage older adults to engage in physical activity. This should be established during the survey study.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Survey Coverage

A survey in form of a questionnaire was conducted from October 2021 to April 2022 in a paper format (Poland 54%) and electronically (Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, and Slovakia—in total, 46%) among a group of 1815 older adults. It was conducted among older people according to an age structure based on [2]: pre-old age 55–59 (pre-senior), early old age 60/65–74 (young old), old age proper 75–89 (old old), and oldest old 90+ (oldest old lifelong). The survey was primarily conducted among citizens of cities with more than 150,000 inhabitants. Large cities have a more varied landscape and functionality, which can be classified according to the proposed AFRA methodology.

The selection of the random research sample took into account the wealth level of the countries (

Table 2. Basic economic data from the countries covered in the study. Source: own elaboration on the basis of * [55], ** [56], and *** [57].

Position in the World Wealth Ranking Out of 192 Calculated Countries *	Country	Well-Being Index **	Average Monthly Net Pension (EUR) ***	Continent
9	USA	6.72	1482	North America
24	Germany	6.72	989	Central Europe
28	Canada	6.90	794	North America
31	United Kingdom	6.75	1114	Northern Europe
33	Italy	6.32	1097	Southern Europe
41	Lithuania	6.82	413	Central Europe
43	Poland	6.44	499	Central Europe
46	Croatia	5.94	377	Southern Europe
50	Slovakia	6.26	513	Central Europe

* As of May 2024. ** As of February 2024. *** Net values were converted to EUR at the average exchange rate for the first quarter of 2022.

).

The selected countries vary in terms of their well-being indices and wealth levels. However, they can be classified as developed or wealthy countries according to statistical data. Depending on the age of older citizens in these countries, situations are observed where the number of women exceeds the number of men in certain age groups (Figure 1).

The research sample, consisting of over 70% women, aligns with statistics regarding the proportion of women in the older population in the studied countries. Additionally, women showed greater participation in filling out the surveys.

3.2. Study Framework

During this 3-year (2020–2023) scientific project funded by the National Science Centre in Poland, empirical qualitative and quantitative research was conducted.

The research began with defining the research problem and conducting a literature review on urbanisation and ageing, with a particular focus on the needs of older people. Criteria for older adults in AFRAs were then identified and grouped into functional–spatial and landscape factors (

Table A1. Categories of functionality factors. Source: own elaboration.

Code	Category of Factors	Factors
F1A	General parking places	Availability of parking spaces. Proportion of parking area to the total building area.
F1B	Parking places designated for disabled persons	Availability of parking spaces for disabled persons.
F1C	Pavements, stairs, and ramps without barriers adapted to various levels of older adults’ abilities	Widths of pedestrian pathways. Barrier-free communication routes (no thresholds, curbs, uneven ground). Surfaces with anti-slip systems.
F1D	Readability of communication layouts	Separation of communication routes (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle).
F1E	Accessibility of public transport and taxi stands	Bus stops adapted to various levels of abilities. Taxi stands located in easily accessible places for persons with varying levels of abilities.
F1F	Readability of spatial layouts	Easy orientation in space. Clear communication systems. Readable architecture.
F1G	Lighting of communication routes	Lighting systems ensuring good visibility after dark. Lighting of pedestrian crossings.
F2A	Passive rest areas	Dedicated small architectural elements and facilities (benches, gazebos, etc.). Walking areas (squares, parks, green spaces).
F2B	Active rest areas	Dedicated sports and recreational infrastructure (sports fields, outdoor gyms, walking areas, cycle paths, etc.).
F3A	Primary healthcare locations	Clinics (outpatient care, primary healthcare, rehabilitation).
F3B	Places to purchase basic necessities	Grocery stores. Department stores. Pharmacies.
F3C	Restaurants/bars	Eateries with varying price ranges and menus.
F3D	Security and public services (response speed and ability for personal and telephone contact)	Police, Municipal Guard. Fire Service. Emergency Services.
F3E	Public toilets and cleanliness of the estate	Access to toilets outside the residence.
F4A	Cultural–educational facilities	Community clubs and cultural centres. Libraries. Museums, galleries, art and craft studios. Cinemas and theatres.
F4B	Sacred facilities	Temples. Chapels and other elements of small sacred architecture. Cemeteries.
F5A	Clear signage adapted to the abilities of older adults	A uniform system of address markings (street names, building numbers) and building functions (bakery, post office, shop, restaurant, public toilet, library, etc.) and direction signs/indicators. Auditory signals (communication, public utility buildings, residential buildings—intercoms, etc.) and devices for the hearing impaired. Clear messages regarding public transport movement.
F6A	Places of safe shelter and infrastructure elements providing safety in emergency situations (e.g., shelters, flood protection, evacuation points)	Accessibility of places of safe shelter and infrastructure elements providing safety in emergency situations.
F7A	Building intensity	Density of development. Height of buildings.
F7B	Biologically active area	The percentage of biologically active area in the total area of the estate.
F8A	Neighbourhood function (function of land adjacent to the estate)	The type of function of lands neighbouring the estate.

and

Table A3. Categories of aesthetic factors. Source: own elaboration.

Code	Category of Factors	Factors
K1A	Low greenery	Dominant low greenery (lawns, flower beds, borders, gardens, shrubs).
K1B	Tall greenery	Well-maintained and correctly selected species of trees, shrubs, and climbers.
K1C	Recreation and relaxation areas	Benches and resting places. Walking paths, avenues. Park layouts, green spaces, squares. Sports facilities (sports fields, cycle paths, outdoor gyms, ice rinks) and playgrounds.
K1D	Water bodies	Ponds, lakes, rivers, and other watercourses and water bodies.
K2A	Modern spatial layouts	Clear spatial layouts.
K2B	View openings	Open layouts providing observations of the near and far surroundings.
K2C	Spatial layouts of historical heritage	Architecture of historical heritage with natural surroundings.
K3A	Façades of buildings and other construction objects	Subdued colour scheme of buildings. Traditional architectural forms. Harmony of building compositions. Spacious building entrances. Well-maintained façades and architectural details.
K3B	Harmonious architecture	Uniform stylistics.
K3C	Harmonious accompanying infrastructure	Small accompanying architecture—benches, shelters, canopies, street lamps, etc. Squares, playgrounds, exercise facilities, etc. Communication alleys.
K3D	Landscape dominant elements	Anthropogenic dominant elements. Natural dominant elements. Anthropogenic and natural dominant sub-elements. Landscape accents.
K3E	Objects and elements reducing the aesthetic values of the landscape	Damage (acts of vandalism)—graffiti, physical damage. Worn and unrepaired development elements. Objects inconsistent with surrounding anthropogenic and natural elements.
K4A	Well-maintained and clean estate elements	Maintaining individual elements of the estate in proper condition.

). The next step involved developing a survey to collect data from older people about their needs. The collected data were then statistically analysed, and based on this analysis, a list of indicators was created, and a ranking of AFRAs was conducted. The final stage involved verifying the results and formulating conclusions (Figure 2).

3.3. Classification of Spatio-Functional Arrangements of Residential Public Open Spaces

In the research process, one critical step was the classification of spatio-functional arrangements in residential public open spaces, focusing on factors that influence the quality of life of the older population within urban environments (

Table 3. Classification of spatio-functional arrangements of residential public open spaces. Source: own elaboration.

Function	Description
Transportation–communication (F1)	Focuses on the accessibility and quality of transportation infrastructure, such as pavements, roads, disabled parking spaces, and bus stops. It emphasises the importance of clear communication layouts (F1D), public transport accessibility (F1E), and pedestrian safety. Properly designed parking spaces for older people with varying levels of mobility enhance their overall activity, comfort, and safety [59]. Clear spatial and communication layouts improve older adults’ orientation and can reduce the number of accidents [60]. Additionally, removing communication barriers and using anti-slip systems on surfaces increases safety and motivates independent movement [61]. Support for wheelchair users and safe cycling paths are also crucial [62,63]. Older citizens are encouraged to use public transport, although sometimes specialised solutions are necessary [64,65]. Adequate lighting in public spaces significantly enhances their functionality and safety, especially after dark [66].
Recreational–rest (F2)	Covers the availability of places for rest and physical activity, such as parks, squares, and outdoor gyms. The importance of diverse forms of recreation, both active (F2B) and passive (F2A), is highlighted. Inadequate recreational structures could be a barrier to active leisure and reduce physical activity levels among older people [67]. Regular exercise in attractive and safe environments is essential for delaying the ageing process. Therefore, public spaces near residential areas should encourage older adults to stay active [68,69]. Even the simple act of leaving the house and using small architectural features could positively impact less mobile or ill older adults [70].
Commercial–service (F3)	Addresses the accessibility of shops (F3B1 and F3B2), pharmacies (F3B3), restaurants (F3C), and medical services (F3A). The proximity of these services is particularly important for older citizens, especially those with limited mobility. Due to the increased medical needs of older adults, the development of medical services is crucial in urban planning [71]. Prior research identified issues with limited access to essential goods and dining options, which worsened with age due to loss of mobility and independence [72]. Negative factors included the location, density of services, distance, consumer behaviour, and prices [73,74].
Cultural–educational (F4)	Includes the accessibility of cultural facilities (F4A), such as libraries, museums, and community centres. These places are considered vital for the intellectual and social development of older people [75,76]. Facilities in subgroup F4B provide older adults with opportunities for religious and social engagement, positively affecting the interaction between religious practices and ageing adaptation. With age, older citizens visit places of worship more frequently, but their activity decreases due to the loss of psychophysical abilities [77].
Information (F5)	Covers the readability of urban signage (F5A), which aids in orientation, particularly for older adults. Elements from this subgroup are crucial for safety, especially for those with perception or orientation impairments [78]. Signs must be designed considering concentration deficits and visual impairments, ensuring clarity, consistent appearance and location, standardised symbols, and simple messaging [79]. Light, sound signals, and directional arrows improve mobility for older adults and compensate for perception deficits [80]. Clear signage enhances safety, and access to shelters during emergencies, such as storms or fires, is essential [81].
Protective (F6)	Addresses the safety of residents, including the availability of shelters and safe spaces in case of emergencies (F6A). Numerous scientific studies have analysed different types of shelters and their effectiveness [82,83]. This indicates the need to improve the multifunctionality of such facilities in residential areas and to plan them according to urban planning parameters.
Urban planning (F7)	Examines the density of development (F7A) and biologically active areas (F7B), highlighting their impact on residents’ quality of life. High-density urban models, with closely spaced and tall buildings, may lead to mental health problems and illnesses in the older population, such as Alzheimer’s disease [84]. However, urban models with high-density and mixed-use developments create more opportunities for activity among older people [85]. Biologically active areas contribute to temperature and humidity regulation, air purification, and rainwater retention and create attractive surroundings that promote resident activity [86].
Neighbourhood (F8)	Addresses the influence of the function of neighbouring land on the attractiveness of and quality of life in residential areas (F8A). Research shows [87,88,89] that the function of these areas is crucial to the attractiveness of a neighbourhood. Items with positive functions include residential areas, non-disruptive services and commerce, forests and wooded areas, recreation (rivers and lakes), and green spaces, including allotments. Items with neutral functions include agriculture, while those with negative functions include industry, high-traffic services and commerce (e.g., railway stations, rail traffic, hypermarkets), quarries, and wastelands (e.g., swamps, heaths, dunes, landfills), which can impact the attractiveness of the neighbourhood.

). This classification involved identifying key functions and organising them into spatio-functional and landscape categories, as detailed in Table A1 and Table A3.

3.4. Classification of Landscape Arrangement Factors of Residential Public Open Spaces

The next step involved classifying the factors influencing the evaluation of landscapes in public spaces within older people’s residential areas (

Table 4. Classification of landscape arrangement factors of residential public open spaces. Source: own elaboration.

Feature	Description
Green–blue infrastructure (K1)	Includes areas with various forms of greenery (isolation, recreational, function-defining), and water bodies. Low greenery (K1A) defines functional boundaries and impacts climate and aesthetics, improving well-being [90,91]. High greenery (K1B) creates park-like structures, reduces noise, and enhances aesthetics [92,93]. Recreational areas (K1C) provide comfort and encourage activity, which is important for older citizens [94,95]. Water bodies (K1D) enhance aesthetic and recreational values and provide ecosystem benefits [96,97,98].
Urban layouts (K2)	Modern spatial layouts (K2A) dominate many cities, especially in new residential developments, where they create functional wholes. Their proper architectural composition provides aesthetic experiences and good orientation, despite the complex forms of buildings [99]. View openings (K2B) allow for observation of the surroundings and panoramas, affecting the subjective aesthetics of the landscape and its cultural attractiveness [100]. Spatial layouts of historical heritage (K2C) document civilisational development and local identity, with cultural monuments, art, and natural landmarks as key elements, while narrow streets and tenements are characteristic and attractive components of urban landscapes [101].
Appearance of spatial objects (K3)	The analysed spatial structures mainly include buildings and their complexes, along with infrastructure enriched by natural elements. Building façades are attractive when they have a subdued colour scheme and well-maintained exteriors. All older age groups prefer traditional architecture, harmoniously combining individual elements. Spacious entrances improve aesthetics, comfort, and safety, particularly for older adults. Harmonious architecture with a uniform style in urban spaces is also aesthetically pleasing, and its presence fosters better interpersonal relationships and residents’ identification with the place [102,103]. Harmonious accompanying infrastructure is key in urbanised spaces, and well-integrated elements such as small architecture and walking paths improve well-being [104]. Landscape dominant elements have a strong visual impact, standing out in terms of form, size, colour, and detail, integrating the composition and affecting the aesthetics of the surroundings [105]. Problematic elements lowering aesthetic value often result from neglect and vandalism, such as damage and graffiti. Worn-out elements and inconsistency in the surroundings can significantly reduce the attractiveness of urban spaces, especially for older people, who are more likely to contemplate the landscape [106].
Orderliness and cleanliness of the surroundings (K4)	All anthropogenic and natural elements should be well maintained. This applies to both private and public objects, in line with the Council of Europe Landscape Convention [107]. Limiting the perception of elements that negatively affect the aesthetic perception of the landscape is essential for well-being in spaces inhabited by older citizens [106].

). This classification identified specific landscape features, which are detailed in Table A3.

3.5. Survey

The next stage involved developing a survey with open-ended questions based on the previously identified key functional–spatial and landscape factors. The aim of the survey was to gather data on older people’s preferences regarding AFRAs. Pilot studies were conducted among 31 older adults participating in the University of the Third Age in Olsztyn.

To study preferences in the context of different age groups of older adults and their activity levels, the survey included demographic questions regarding gender, age, professional or educational activity, type of residence, country of residence, city, and neighbourhood.

In the subsequent questions, respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which functionality and aesthetics contribute to the quality of their lives in residential estates (on a 5-point scale, from unimportant to very important). Some questions included more detailed explanations, as follows:

–

F1D Readability of communication layouts—“Signposts, signs, information boards, banners, and other markings”;

–

F1F Readability of spatial layouts—“Easy orientation in space”;

–

F2B Active rest areas—“Outdoor gyms, swimming pools, sports clubs”;

–

F8A Neighbourhood function—“Presence of noise-generating or problematic areas”;

–

K2B View openings—“Open layouts providing views of the surroundings”;

–

K3C Harmonious accompanying infrastructure—“Benches, playgrounds, fountains, monuments”;

–

K3D Landscape dominant elements—“Presence of landscape elements aiding orientation (e.g., church tower, tall building, old tree)”.

As a result of the conducted surveys, 1852 responses were collected, of which 37 were rejected as incomplete. Following this verification, 1815 surveys qualified for further analysis.

3.6. Respondents

According to the methodological random sample requirements, it was established that participants from Poland should constitute approximately 50% of the respondents, with an even distribution of responses from five geographical regions of Poland (Gdańsk, Kraków, Poznań, Olsztyn, and Warsaw). Additionally, at least 100 responses were required from each of the other countries of comparison, which together were to make up the remaining 50% of responses from outside Poland. The requirement of at least 100 participants from each comparison country was achieved despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the insufficient number of responses from the wealthiest countries in Asia, South America, Africa, and Australia, these regions were not included, representing an area for further research. The difficulties in conducting research in other parts of the world were due to the pandemic, the English-language survey, and the exclusively electronic format of the research. In Poland, the survey was distributed with the assistance of deputy mayors responsible for pro-ageing policy, while abroad, it was conducted online with the help of older adults’ associations and through the “snowball sampling” method, where participants recruited others. The comparison group consisted of older citizens from countries with high economic development indices, under the assumption that better financial conditions and older adult care might lead to more demanding AFRA criteria. The snowball sampling method can have several significant issues. Participants recruit people from their social circles, which may result in limited diversity of the sample and reduced representativeness. Additionally, respondents from countries other than Poland filled out the survey in English, which could have been challenging if it was not their native language.

3.7. Processing Statistical Data and Developing Rankings and Indicator List

As part of the analysis of the indicators collected through the survey, a method based on weighted calculations on a 5-point scale was adopted. The aim of this stage was to determine the relative importance of each indicator in assessing AFRAs according to the needs of older adults. The analysis process involved several key steps. Each indicator was evaluated on a 5-point scale, where responses were assigned weights corresponding to their values (from 1 to 5). For indicator i, the weighted average score was calculated using the following formula:

$${Average Score}_i={\displaystyle \frac{\sum _{k=1}^5{O}_{ik}\ast W_k}{\sum _{k=1}^5{W}_k}}$$

where

• $O_{ik}$—number of responses for score $k$ (ranging from 1 to 5) for indicator $i$;
• $W_k$—weight assigned to scale value $k$ (on a 5-point scale $W_k=k$).

This formula allows for calculating an average score that takes into account both the number of responses and the value assigned to each response on the scale.

After the average scores were calculated for each indicator, a ranking of the indicators was conducted based on the obtained values. The indicators were ordered according to their average scores, with a higher average score indicating a higher rank in the ranking.

$$R_i={Ranking}_{AverageScore}$$

Here,

• $R_i$—ranking of the $i$-th indicator,
• $Rankin{g}_{AverageScore}$—position of indicator $i$ in the ranking based on its average rating.

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of the Respondents’ Demography

The questionnaire survey was conducted on a population sample of 1815 respondents, 76% of which were women. The age structure of the population sample was as follows: 55–59—15%, 60–75—67%, 76+—18%. Most of the female (75%) and male (43%) respondents belonged to the young old group (60–75) (Figure 3).

In all, 67% of the surveyed older adults inhabited apartments, while 32% lived in single-family homes, semi-detached houses, or terraced houses (Figure 4).

When asked about their daily activities, most older adults declared that they belonged to older peoples’ organisations (such as the University of the Third Age) (28%), followed by those who were not professionally active and were not enrolled in educational programs (21%). In the surveyed group, 15% of the respondents were professionally active, and 13% were taking care of their grandchildren. Only 7% of the older adults worked as volunteers, and 5% attended courses to improve their professional qualifications, were part-time employees, or were business owners (Figure 5). These responses do not total 100% because the respondents were allowed to select more than one answer.

The majority of female respondents were members of organisations for older people (35%) and were not engaged in any professional or educational activities (28%). Very few of the retired women owned businesses or were employed part-time (4% and 5%, respectively). Conversely, most male respondents were professionally active (29%) or belonged to organisations for older people (28%), while the smallest proportions of retired men were improving their professional qualifications (6%) or were involved in volunteer work (6%).

Similarly, older residents living in flats and houses also varied in the types of daily activities they undertook. The most popular answer for both groups was membership in older peoples’ organisations (33% and 36%, respectively). The second most common response among apartment dwellers was not being engaged in any type of professional or educational activity (27%); among house dwellers, it was taking care of their grandchildren (23%).

When it comes to the country of origin, Polish older adults were mostly involved in older peoples’ organisations (35%) or not involved in any type of professional or educational activity (26%), whereas most of the non-Polish respondents declared being business owners (29%). Contrarily, being employed full-time or part-time (21% among non-Polish respondents) was the least frequently chosen answer by Polish older adults (5%).

Generally speaking, the studied group of older adults consisted of 74% leading an active lifestyle and 26% preferring a home-centred (passive) style. Therefore, this study was primarily dedicated to older adults actively participating in social life, as it is difficult to reach home-centred older adults with surveys. Consequently, there is no possibility of adapting the elements of spatial development to their needs, as this social group very rarely makes use of them.

4.2. Hierarchy of Factors Contributing to Age-Friendliness of Residential Public Open Spaces

In subsequent questions, respondents were asked to assess how much functionality and aesthetics enhance their quality of life in residential estates. For each factor, the arithmetic mean of the relevance identified by the respondents in the survey was calculated. Then, a hierarchy of factors influencing age-friendliness was determined. The older people’s perceptions of the elements described in the previous section are presented in

Table 5. Hierarchy of selected functionality factors that contribute to age-friendliness of residential public open spaces. Source: own elaboration.

Code	Factor	Code of Factor	Rank
1	Places to purchase basic necessities: grocery stores	3B1	4.72
2	Places to purchase basic necessities: department stores	3B2	4.51
3	Places to purchase basic necessities: pharmacies	3B3	4.51
4	Primary healthcare facilities	3A	4.32
5	Lighting of communication routes	1G	4.27
6	Sacred facilities: cemeteries	4B3	4.22
7	Accessibility of public transport and taxi stands: bus stops adapted to various levels of ability	1E1	4.20
8	Pavements, stairs, and ramps without barriers adapted to various levels of older adults’ abilities	1C	4.14
9	Neighbourhood function (function of land adjacent to the estate)	8A	4.13
10	Building intensity: density of development	7A1	4.06
11	Restaurants/bars	3C	4.05
12	Biologically active areas	7B	4.05
13	Passive rest areas: walking areas (squares, parks, green spaces)	2A2	4.03
14	Clear signage adapted to the abilities of older adults: clear messages regarding public transport movement	5A3	3.99
15	General parking places	1A	3.83
16	Readability of spatial layouts	1F	3.82
17	Passive rest areas: dedicated small architectural elements and facilities (benches, gazebos, etc.)	2A1	3.82
18	Cultural–educational facilities: cinemas and theatres	4A4	3.61
19	Readability of communication layouts	1D	3.55
20	Clear signage adapted to the abilities of older adults: uniform system of address markings (street names, building numbers) and building functions (bakery, post office, shop, restaurant, public toilet, library, etc.) and direction signs/indicators	5A1	3.55
21	Building intensity: height of buildings	7A2	3.51
22	Sacred facilities: temples	4B1	3.51
23	Cultural–educational facilities: museums, galleries, art and craft studios	4A3	3.42
24	Cultural–educational facilities: libraries	4A2	3.38
25	Active rest areas	2B	3.33
26	Public toilets and cleanliness of the estate	3E	3.32
27	Security and public services (response speed and the ability for personal and telephone contact)	3D	3.23
28	Accessibility of public transport and taxi stands: taxi stands located in easily accessible places for persons with varying levels of ability	1E2	3.22
29	Clear signage adapted to the abilities of older adults: auditory signalling (communication, public utility buildings, residential buildings—intercoms, etc.) and devices for the hearing impaired	5A2	3.14
30	Cultural–educational facilities: community clubs and cultural centres	4A1	3.09
31	Parking places designated for disabled persons	1B	2.99
32	Sacred facilities: chapels and other elements of small sacred architecture	4B2	2.80
33	Places of safe shelter and infrastructure elements providing safety in emergency situations (e.g., shelters, flood protection, evacuation points)	6A	2.79

and

Table 6. Hierarchy of selected aesthetic factors that contribute to age-friendliness of residential public open spaces. Source: own elaboration.

Code	Factor	Code of Factor	Rank
1	Recreation and relaxation areas: walking paths, avenues	1C2	4.69
2	Objects and elements that harm the aesthetic values of the landscape	3E	4.07
3	Low greenery	1A	4.05
4	Recreation and relaxation areas: park layouts, green spaces, squares	1C3	4.03
5	Spatial layouts of historical heritage	2C	4.02
6	Tall greenery	1B	4.00
7	Well-maintained and clean elements of the estate	4A	3.98
8	Building façades and other construction objects: well-maintained façades and architectural details	3A	3.90
9	Water bodies	1D	3.82
10	Harmonious accompanying infrastructure	3C	3.82
11	Recreation and relaxation areas: benches and resting places	1C1	3.82
12	Harmonious architecture	3B	3.78
13	Modern spatial layouts	2A	3.45
14	Recreation and relaxation areas: sports facilities (sports fields, cycle paths, outdoor gyms, ice rinks) and playgrounds	1C4	3.29
15	View openings	2B	3.25
16	Landscape dominant elements	3D	2.81

.

In the group of functionality factors, the highest ranks were assigned to locations where basic necessities can be purchased (such as grocery stores, department stores, and pharmacies) and primary healthcare facilities. Elements such as the lighting of communication routes; pavements, stairs, and ramps without barriers adapted to various levels of older adults’ abilities; and the accessibility of public transport adapted to various levels of ability are also important. A level of at least 4 on a 5-point scale was also assigned to cemeteries, restaurants, and walking areas (parks, squares, green spaces). The lowest in the ranking were components such as parking places designated for disabled persons, chapels and other elements of small sacred architecture, or protective infrastructure.

According to the respondents, the most important aesthetic components are walking paths, avenues, park layouts, green spaces, squares, low and tall greenery, and spatial layouts of historical heritage. These older adults also pay great attention to objects and elements that harm the aesthetic values of the landscape. The least important components are sports facilities and playgrounds, view openings, and landscape dominant elements.

4.3. Ranking of Factors Contributing to Age-Friendliness of Residential Public Open Spaces

Afterwards, each factor in each category of components was ranked based on its perceived importance in the conducted survey. Cumulative frequency series and median values were used for the entire population sample. A similar comparison was then conducted regarding age, gender, accommodations, and country of origin of the surveyed older citizens, and their lifestyles in terms of activity (

Table A2. Ranks calculated for the analysed functionality factors. Source: own elaboration.

Category	Rank	55–59	60–75	76+	Women	Men	Flat	House	Polish	Non-Polish	Active Lifestyle	Passive Lifestyle
F1A	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	3	4	4	4	4
F1B	2	3	3	2	3	2	3	2	2	3	2	3
F1C	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F1D	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
F1E1	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F1E2	3	3	3	3	3	2	3	3	3	2	3	3
F1F	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F1G	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F2A1	3	3	3	3	3	3	4	3	3	4	3	4
F2A2	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4
F2B	3	3	3	2	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
F3A	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F3B1	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F3B2	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	5	4	4
F3B3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4
F3C	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F3D	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	2
F3E	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
F4A1	3	2	3	3	3	3	3	2	3	3	3	3
F4A2	4	1	4	3	4	3	4	3	4	3	4	4
F4A3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	3	3
F4A4	3	3	4	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
F4B1	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F4B2	3	1	3	3	3	1	3	3	3	1	3	1
F4B3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F5A2	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	2	3	1	3	2
F5A3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4
F6A	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	3
F7A1	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
F7A2	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
F7B	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4
F8A	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4

green—rank higher than the average one; red—rank lower than the average one.

and

Table A4. Ranks calculated for the analysed aesthetic factors. Source: own elaboration.

Category	Rank	55–59	60–75	76+	Women	Men	Flat	House	Polish	Non-Polish	Active Lifestyle	Passive Lifestyle
K1A	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4
K1B	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	3
K1C1	3	3	3	3	3	3	4	3	3	4	3	4
K1C2	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
K1C3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	4
K1C4	3	3	3	2	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
K1D	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	4	3	3
K2A	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
K2B	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
K2C	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	4	4	4	3
K3A	3	4	3	4	4	3	4	3	3	4	3	4
K3B	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	1	3	3	3	3
K3C	3	4	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	4	3	3
K3D	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
K3E	3	1	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
K4A	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3

green—rank higher than the average one; red—rank lower than the average one.

, Figure 6 and Figure 7).

For example, in different age groups, swimming pools were considered moderately important (3) for those aged 55–59, not very important for those aged 60–75 (2), and not important at all for those aged 76+ (1). Similar trends are noticeable in the context of other active recreation places; older age groups attach less importance to them than younger ones, probably due to their deteriorating health with age. For the older groups, cultural and educational facilities such as community clubs, cultural houses, and libraries are also more important, providing them with opportunities to meet other people, especially their peers.

In terms of gender differences, it was observed that women placed less importance on the presence of parking places but more on public transport. This could be because, in the analysed generational groups of older adults, women less frequently had a driving license compared to men. Furthermore, for women, cinemas, theatres, and libraries, as well as chapels and other elements of small sacred architecture, were more important.

Walking areas (squares, parks, green spaces) and biologically active areas are less important to those living in houses than to those residing in apartments, probably because the former take care of their own green areas within their properties. A similar situation applied to parking places, both in general and for disabled persons, for similar reasons. Additionally, for house residents, community clubs and libraries were less significant.

Moreover, non-Polish older adults rated swimming pools as important, while Polish ones rated them not important at all. Non-Polish older adults also considered gyms, department stores, and passive recreation places to be more important. On the other hand, libraries and pharmacies were less important to them. A more significant difference was seen in the case of museums and galleries: while Polish older adults rated them as moderately important, for their peers from other countries, they were not important at all. The same difference in ranking occurred in the case of chapels and the presence of auditory signals on the street.

The biggest differences between active and passive older adults were noticed in the case of chapels and other elements of small sacred architecture (important for active, unimportant for passive). Furthermore, the condition of pavements and stairs and the presence of benches and safe shelter places proved to be more important for the second group of respondents. In contrast, auditory signalling and the activities of security and public services were less important for inactive older adults.

Regarding aesthetic components, there were decidedly fewer differences. Water bodies turned out to be slightly more important for the youngest group of older adults. This group, along with the oldest group (76+), also placed greater importance on well-maintained building façades. On the other hand, those aged 55–59 did not consider objects that harm the aesthetic value of the landscape as being important, unlike the assessments of the other age groups.

In terms of gender differences, differences were only obtained in terms of well-maintained façades, being important for women but moderately important for men. Apartment dwellers rated low and tall greenery and parks as being more important in aesthetic matters. Well-maintained building façades and spatial layouts of historical heritage also had greater significance for them. Conversely, harmonious architecture, which was moderately important for older citizens living in apartments, was not important at all for house dwellers. Differences between Polish and non-Polish older adults were visible for benches and resting places, water bodies, and well-maintained building façades—they were rated higher by the non-Polish respondents. Older adults leading a passive lifestyle rated tall greenery and spatial layouts of historical heritage lower than the rest (as important), while benches and resting places and well-maintained building façades were rated higher than most of the studied group (important).

Generally speaking, in the group of functionality factors, the highest ranks were assigned to group 8 (Neighbourhood function) and group 3 (Commercial–service function), and the lowest were assigned to group 7 (Protective function) and group 2 (Recreational–rest function). Aesthetic factors received the highest ranks in group 2 (Urban layouts) and the lowest in group 3 (Appearance of spatial objects). Differences in preferences can arise from various factors, primarily including health status, technological developments and the ability to use them, wealth, and cultural heritage.

5. Discussion

The research results show that older citizens particularly value the proximity of commercial and service facilities (among functional–spatial factors), which aligns with previous studies [15,16], and walking areas (among landscape factors), which confirms the findings of [14,21]. Additionally, in this study, proximity to sacred sites and neighbourhood functions, which had not been prioritised in previous scientific research, were ranked highly.

No significant differences were observed in AFRA preferences related to gender or the type of housing (multi-family/single-family). In individual cases, there were differences of just one rank point. Similarly, only minor differences were found concerning age groups, with pre-seniors and younger seniors generally rating active recreational spaces higher and passive spaces lower, which aligns with the theory of reminiscence [108,109]. Slightly larger differences in AFRA preferences appeared between Polish and non-Polish respondents, most often due to cultural habits. This leads to the general conclusion that the study of needs and preferences should be conducted at the national level. Slightly greater differences also emerged between individuals who preferred an active lifestyle and those with lower activity levels. Considering the results of numerous scientific studies, it is important to stimulate the activity of older adults to maintain or improve their physical and mental health. Therefore, AFRA preferences should be carefully considered, with an emphasis on functional solutions that encourage activity. Such research is planned to be conducted in the near future.

Most of the participants were individuals leading an active lifestyle, due to the difficulty in accessing those with lower activity levels (only 26% of respondents). Therefore, future studies should expand the random sample to include more people with lower activity levels to ensure that the results are fully representative of the older population, taking into account different lifestyles.

Due to the nature of the survey and the method of distribution (snowball sampling), it was mainly filled out by older, educated individuals who spoke English (which may be relatively rare in this age group in many countries). This can be considered an advantage of the results, as such individuals often act as “role models” in their local communities.

Another limitation would be the size of the analysed cities. Older people in smaller towns may not have access to or are not aware of the facilities presented in the proposed methodology, which would affect how they perceive their residential estates. That is why the recommendations stemming from research results should reflect not only the existing tastes of older people but also the possible better alternatives. Even without the presence of such objects in a city, designers and policy-makers should not exclude such facilities from their urban planning.

The conducted study made it possible to identify AFRA development elements divided into five levels of importance, based on responses from 1815 respondents from nine countries. The developed list of AFRA elements includes five groups in the functional–spatial category, with a total of 33 elements, and four groups in the landscape values category, with 16 elements. All of the established development elements can be identified using publicly available spatial data.

This comprehensive approach to AFRA assessment allows for the establishment of priorities in both sustainable spatial development policy for residential areas and pro-ageing policies.

It is recommended that similar studies be conducted in countries with lower levels of development to compare the results, although it should be noted that access to data may be more challenging. The results obtained could help avoid the repetition of spatial planning mistakes in developing countries.

6. Conclusions

In summary, the minor differences in the prioritisation of functional–spatial and landscape indicators allowed for the standardisation of the results. The developed AFRA element list represents a complete set of preferences for countries with high economic development. By adopting the developed methodology, it is possible to determine the ranks of individual AFRA elements for any country, regardless of its level of wealth.

An important issue remains the comparative analysis of AFRA preferences in different countries, which could help identify similarities and differences between various cultures and geographical areas and highlight similar clusters. This is another planned task in the project.

The overall results from this study confirmed global observations that an individual’s lifestyle is largely determined by their economic wealth, which, in turn, influences their life needs. The research also revealed that specific AFRA landscape features affecting the aesthetics of residential areas are important. Older adults want to live in green, harmonious spaces and enjoy contemplating the landscape.