Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

BuildingsBuildings
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

19 January 2026

21 Pages

Age Integration and Residential Satisfaction in Urban Regeneration Neighborhoods: A Social Sustainability Perspective

and
Department of Urban Planning, Keimyung University, 1095 Dalgubeol-daero, Dalseo-gu, Daegu 42601, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings2026, 16(2), 415;https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings16020415
This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Promoting the Social Sustainability of Urban Neighbourhoods
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study analyzes the association between age integration and residential satisfaction in urban regeneration areas. A questionnaire survey was conducted with 569 residents who visited ten Urban Regeneration Community Facilities (URCFs) in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea. Age integration was set as the main independent variable, and blockwise (sequential-entry) multiple regression analysis was performed while controlling for life satisfaction, community wellbeing, and socio-demographic characteristics. The results indicate that higher levels of age integration are significantly associated with higher residential satisfaction, demonstrating that intergenerational interactions and inclusive relationships play an important role in enhancing satisfaction with the neighborhood. This positive association was also consistent across age cohorts, with no statistically significant differences in correlation strength between age groups. Several control variables, including life satisfaction, selected components of community wellbeing, and income level, also show significant positive associations with residential satisfaction, confirming that personal, social, and environmental factors jointly influence residential satisfaction in urban regeneration areas. These findings highlight the importance of fostering age-integrated environments in urban regeneration policies to enhance the social sustainability of urban neighborhoods. By showing that age integration is associated with higher residential satisfaction even after controlling for life satisfaction, community wellbeing, and socio-demographic characteristics, this study provides empirical evidence on how age-integrated environments can contribute to the social sustainability and community wellbeing of urban regeneration neighborhoods from a social sustainability perspective.

1. Introduction

Residential satisfaction is a key indicator for assessing residents’ quality of life and the sustainability of local communities [1,2]. Major determinants of residential satisfaction include social trust, neighborly relations, and the level of social participation [3,4], and residents’ perceptions of and attachment to their neighborhood are formed through everyday interactions and community experiences [5]. In particular, urban regeneration areas are settings in which not only the physical environment but also social conditions change as urban regeneration projects are implemented [6]. Therefore, perceived residential satisfaction is particularly important for evaluating the outcomes of urban regeneration and for assessing the stability and sustainability of neighborhoods after project completion. In particular, residential satisfaction is not only an outcome indicator of urban regeneration, but also a key component of the social sustainability of urban neighborhoods, as it reflects residents’ subjective assessments of their quality of life, social relations, and willingness to remain in the community.
Urban regeneration is a process in which the structures and relationships of local communities are reorganized [7,8]; in this process, an age-integrated environment, in which different generations live together and interact, can be an important factor influencing residents’ perceptions and satisfaction. Age integration refers to the extent to which diverse age groups are physically mixed within a neighborhood and form and maintain relationships through everyday contact and interaction [9]. When urban regeneration projects are implemented, the out-migration of existing residents, the in-migration of new populations, and changes in household age composition often occur [10], which can significantly reshape the area’s social structure and social networks [11]. Age integration is closely related to residents’ psychological distance from one another, mutual trust, and community cohesion within such changes [9], and its impact may be particularly pronounced in rapidly changing contexts, such as urban regeneration areas. In some urban regeneration areas, changes in age composition have been reported to exacerbate social separation, leading to lower residential satisfaction [10]. By contrast, in areas with active intergenerational interaction and an inclusive community environment, residents’ sense of belonging and trust is strengthened [12,13]. These conditions, in turn, lead to more positive evaluations of and higher satisfaction with the neighborhood [12]. In this regard, age integration can be considered a key social factor in explaining how residents perceive and evaluate their neighborhoods in urban regeneration areas.
Existing studies on residential satisfaction have largely focused on social factors such as social cohesion, community trust, and resident participation [3,14], and research on urban regeneration has similarly emphasized community recovery and the strengthening of social capital [6,7]. Urban regeneration areas are environments in which the generational composition of the population and intergenerational relationships are changing, and age integration plays an important role in community stability and the formation of mutual trust [9]. However, empirical studies that examine the relationship between age integration and residential satisfaction specifically in urban regeneration areas remain very limited [10].
The outcomes of urban regeneration projects are influenced not only by physical improvements but also by social factors such as social relationships, community perceptions, and residential satisfaction [6]. Therefore, conducting comprehensive analyses that incorporate social factors, including age integration, is crucial from both academic and policy perspectives. Urban regeneration is implemented through tangible built-environment interventions, including the provision and operation of community facilities and everyday infrastructures that shape residents’ activity spaces. In this study, Urban Regeneration Community Facilities (URCFs) are understood as regeneration-related built assets—physical community facilities embedded in the neighborhood fabric—that reorganize shared neighborhood spaces through their spatial layout and accessibility and, in doing so, influence opportunities for intergenerational contact and residents’ evaluations of their residential environment. Urban regeneration may influence age integration differently from ordinary neighborhoods. While ordinary neighborhoods often rely on casual encounters, regeneration projects can redesign shared spaces and add programs that create regular, repeated opportunities for intergenerational contact. In this study, URCFs are described as intentionally designed “contact spaces” that support such contact through flexible spaces and facility activities. Accordingly, this study aims to empirically examine the relationship between age integration and residential satisfaction in urban regeneration areas. Through this analysis, the study seeks to provide basic evidence for fostering age-integrated community environments in urban regeneration areas and to explore the potential use of age integration in future urban regeneration policies and residential environment planning, with a particular focus on promoting the social sustainability of urban neighborhoods.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Conceptual Linkages Between Urban Regeneration and Age Integration

Urban regeneration projects primarily aim to improve the physical environment of deteriorated and declining areas and to restore the socio-economic vitality of local communities [6,15]. As these projects are implemented, the out-migration of existing residents and the in-migration of new populations occur simultaneously, resulting in changes in the area’s demographic composition and age structure [10,16]. Although such changes can be seen as a sign of neighborhood revitalization, they also involve risks, such as intergenerational disconnection, greater psychological and social distance between age groups, and a weakening of social cohesion in the community [11,17]. In other words, when urban regeneration focuses exclusively on physical improvement and economic revitalization, it may intensify intergenerational tensions and undermine community stability. In this context, this study explores how age integration may function as a key social factor that helps ease intergenerational conflicts in the process of urban regeneration.
An age-integrated environment provides conditions in which different age groups can come into regular contact and interact in their everyday lives, thereby fostering residents’ emotional stability and mutual support. This strengthens social ties and cohesion within the community and contributes to the sustainability of the local community [12]. In neighborhoods undergoing urban regeneration, the simultaneous reshaping of the physical environment and local social networks is likely to heighten residents’ anxiety and stress about change. Older adults, in particular, are more likely to experience changes in their familiar residential environments and daily routines as burdensome, thereby exacerbating psychological insecurity and feelings of exclusion. However, when sufficient opportunities for intergenerational interaction and support are available, older residents can maintain and even strengthen their emotional stability, as well as their sense of belonging and attachment to the community, despite the changing environment [18,19]. In this context, age integration functions as an important social foundation that cushions intergenerational tensions and anxieties among local residents and supports the cohesion and stability of the local community during the physical and social transformation driven by urban regeneration.
This perspective is further specified through the conceptual linkage between urban regeneration and age integration. As shown in Figure 1, these two fields, although originating in distinct policy and research domains, are interconnected through concepts such as age relations, intergenerational relations, and aging in place. The left side of the diagram represents urban regeneration, and the right side represents age integration. The urban regeneration side includes concrete activities such as regeneration practices and policies, various programs, and the improvement of the physical environment; through these, local population structures and everyday spaces are reorganized, thereby reshaping age relations and intergenerational relations. By contrast, the age integration side discusses age relations and intergenerational relations primarily from the perspectives of aging and everyday life, especially aging in place. Aging in place emphasizes the conditions that enable older adults to remain in their familiar communities while maintaining and deepening their social relationships and everyday networks. In this context, age integration aims to minimize age-based separation and exclusion and to foster a condition in which diverse age groups can participate together in shared spaces, institutions, and activities.
Figure 1. Conceptual linkages between urban regeneration and age integration.
The overlapping area in Figure 1 presents four values that are jointly pursued by urban regeneration and age integration. First, inclusive communities refer to a condition in which all residents, regardless of age, class, or background, can participate in community activities and have access to local spaces and resources. Urban regeneration expands such inclusiveness by alleviating physical and institutional barriers, while age integration reinforces it by reducing age-based discrimination and exclusion [20]. Second, age-friendly urbanism aims to create an urban environment in which people of diverse ages, including older adults, can live safely and comfortably. Spatial restructuring through urban regeneration can enhance age-friendliness by improving walking environments, public facilities, and everyday infrastructure, whereas age integration builds the social foundations that make healthy aging and aging in place possible on the basis of these physical conditions [12]. Third, social cohesion refers to the degree of a community’s solidarity based on trust, mutual support, and networks. In urban regeneration, it serves as an indicator of community recovery and reconstitution, whereas in age integration research it functions as an indicator of the quality of intergenerational relationships [20]. Fourth, community wellbeing is an encompassing concept that captures both residents’ quality of life and the overall health of the community, including happiness, safety, satisfaction, and sense of belonging as experienced at the community level [21]. Although urban regeneration and age integration intervene through different mechanisms, they ultimately share the goal of enhancing community wellbeing.
From a built-environment perspective, community facilities created through regeneration can be viewed as neighborhood-scale social infrastructure that enables repeated co-presence in accessible shared spaces. Accordingly, age integration in regeneration areas is not treated as a social condition alone, but as a social outcome that can be supported or constrained by the accessibility, spatial layout, and everyday use patterns of built spaces.
Viewed through these four shared values, urban regeneration and age integration are not merely parallel policy domains, but fields that can operate in a mutually complementary way toward common goals of inclusiveness, age-friendliness, social cohesion, and community wellbeing. Taken together, these values constitute core dimensions of the social sustainability of urban neighborhoods, suggesting that age integration can be viewed as an underlying social mechanism that supports socially sustainable urban regeneration. In short, urban regeneration is a set of interventions that restructure the age and generational composition of local communities through policy and spatial reconfiguration, and in this process age integration functions as a core social foundation that mitigates intergenerational tension and anxiety while strengthening inclusive communities, social cohesion, and community wellbeing [20].
Nonetheless, within urban regeneration, age integration has received far less attention than physical and economic outcomes [22]. This study therefore argues that age integration should be understood not as an ancillary effect of urban regeneration, but as an essential condition that underpins the performance and sustainability of such projects [20]. From this perspective, the next section reviews previous studies on how age integration is linked to residents’ satisfaction with living in their neighborhoods, in order to examine more concretely the necessity and implications of age-integrative urban regeneration.

2.2. The Relationship Between Age Integration and Residential Satisfaction

Age integration plays an important role in shaping residents’ perceptions of, and satisfaction with, their neighborhoods by expanding intergenerational interactions and strengthening social networks [23]. When residents of different ages interact in their everyday spaces, emotional security and mutual support are enhanced [9], and these experiences, in turn, lead to more positive evaluations of their sense of belonging to the community. Environments in which intergenerational contact occurs on a routine basis provide a foundation for stronger social ties and community cohesion [12], and these relational structures have been highlighted as core components of residential satisfaction [20].
These relationships are also evident in empirical studies carried out in diverse national and local contexts. Zhang and Wei (2025) show that, in China’s “Moving-Merging” resettlement process, changes in the residential environment are significantly associated with residents’ neighborhood satisfaction and sense of belonging [24]. Forrest and Kearns (2001) also argue that social trust and community ties are key to improving how residents evaluate, and how satisfied they feel with, their residential environments [20]. Similarly, Wiles et al. (2012) find that older adults’ emotional connectedness to place and place attachment are strongly linked to residential satisfaction [18], while Buffel et al. (2013) describe social networks and mutual support in urban areas as a basis for strengthening older adults’ emotional security and their perceptions of the neighborhood [12]. Taken together, these studies suggest that, across a range of spatial contexts, age-integrated environments tend to be positively associated with residential satisfaction.
These discussions make it clear that age integration should be understood not merely in terms of the satisfaction of particular age cohorts, but as an important factor that supports the cohesion and stability of the community as a whole. Urban regeneration districts, in particular, are settings where the age composition of the population is changing rapidly [10]. In such contexts, the quality of intergenerational interaction and the stability of intergenerational networks become especially salient for explaining how satisfied residents feel with their neighborhood [11]. Age integration can also play a role in narrowing the psychological distance between generations and in reinforcing positive perceptions of the local community [12]. For this reason, it is important to empirically examine the relationship between age integration and residential satisfaction. This empirical investigation helps clarify what is distinctive about urban regeneration areas and provides academic and policy insights for building sustainable local communities, especially with regard to enhancing the social sustainability of urban neighborhoods.

2.3. This Study’s Contributions

Although several previous studies have shown that age-integrated environments can enhance older adults’ residential satisfaction, there is still only limited empirical evidence on this effect in urban regeneration areas, where diverse changes are taking place simultaneously. In particular, in urban regeneration areas, existing community structures may be dismantled or reconfigured, substantially altering the balance of age cohorts and the patterns of intergenerational interaction. If age integration is not ensured in this process, intergenerational conflicts may intensify, leading to deeper negative perceptions of the neighborhood. Conversely, when age integration is fostered, it is likely to generate positive effects on residents’ residential satisfaction [25]. Therefore, examining the relationship between age integration and residential satisfaction in urban regeneration areas has considerable scholarly significance. It is therefore essential to treat age integration as one of the key explanatory factors for understanding residential satisfaction. Accordingly, this study aims to demonstrate that an age-integrated approach is necessary to enhance residential satisfaction in urban regeneration areas undergoing physical and social change.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area and Data

This study focuses on URCFs established as part of urban regeneration projects in Daegu Metropolitan City. Daegu, the third-largest city in South Korea, is an appropriate setting for this research because various types of urban regeneration projects are actively being implemented there. Among the 51 URCFs in Daegu, the case study sites were selected through a two-step process: first, URCFs that had been in operation for at least one year since opening were identified, and second, a balanced distribution across districts was considered. As a result, the final sample consisted of ten URCFs, as shown in Figure 2. To reduce potential area-related sampling imbalance, the ten URCFs were selected to ensure coverage across districts, and we set approximately equal target quotas for each facility. Accordingly, the analytic sample should be interpreted as reflecting adult residents with URCF-use experience rather than a citywide probability sample of all residents. Because URCFs are physical facilities embedded in neighborhood fabrics, selecting multiple sites across districts also helps reflect variation in local built-environment contexts surrounding these facilities.
Figure 2. Study Area.
To document the built setting of the study, Table 1 summarizes the URCFs’ facility profiles, including delivery type, gross floor area (GFA), and standardized key shared-space categories. Space descriptions provided in facility documents were coded into comparable noun-phrase categories (e.g., multipurpose room, shared kitchen, workshop/maker space) to support cross-site comparison rather than exhaustive room-by-room inventories.
Table 1. Built-facility characteristics of URCFs.
The survey was conducted after obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the authors’ affiliated institution. Participation was limited to residents aged 18 or older who had actual experience using the selected URCFs. Before the survey, respondents were informed of the purpose and procedures of the study and provided written informed consent. The survey was carried out over approximately five months, from 26 September 2024 to 28 February 2025. To minimize sampling bias, the number of respondents was allocated equally across facilities. A total of 633 questionnaires were collected, and 569 valid responses, excluding those with missing values, were used for the final analysis.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

In this study, residential satisfaction is employed as the dependent variable. Conceptually, it is a multidimensional construct that encompasses not only residents’ overall perceptions of the living environment but also their emotional attachment, social relationships, and intention to remain in the neighborhood [26]. Previous studies have demonstrated that residential satisfaction goes beyond a purely physical evaluation and is closely associated with emotional and social factors, such as residents’ sense of community belonging, emotional stability, and communal ties [1,24]. Collectively, these studies suggest that residential satisfaction should be understood from a perspective that incorporates subjective perceptions and community relationships [27].
Previous studies conceptualize residential satisfaction as comprising four primary components. First, overall evaluations of the neighborhood have been emphasized as a key factor explaining residents’ perceptions of, and identity with, their neighborhood [24]. Second, the intention to continue residing in the area has been presented as an important indicator demonstrating how residential satisfaction translates into behavioral choices [24]. In addition, residents’ reluctance to move away from their current place of residence has been described as a core element of neighborhood attachment and has been used as an important measure in analyses of residential stability [28,29]. Third, a sense of belonging to the community refers to residents’ recognition of a specific area as their own community, accompanied by feelings of emotional bonding and psychological connectedness; it has been described as a key component of place attachment and community identity [26,27,30]. Fourth, the willingness to recommend one’s neighborhood to others has been used as an indicator reflecting residents’ overall satisfaction with, and trust in, the community [1]. Taken together, these studies conceptualize residential satisfaction as a composite construct encompassing emotional, behavioral, and social dimensions, and this shared perspective forms the basis for the selection of components in this study [1,28].
Based on these previous findings, this study measured residential satisfaction using four items: overall evaluation of the neighborhood, intention to continue residing in the area, sense of belonging to the local community, and willingness to recommend the neighborhood to others. Respondents rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

3.2.2. Independent Variable

Age integration is used as the independent variable in this study. Age integration refers to a social structure in which age-based social barriers and discrimination are minimized, and different generations can naturally interact and participate in everyday life [25,31]. Riley et al. (1994) emphasized the conceptual necessity of age integration in aging societies by highlighting the weakening of age boundaries and the expansion of intergenerational exchange [32]. Building on this perspective, subsequent studies have further established age integration as a multidimensional concept that encompasses social relationships, participation, and opportunity structures [32]. In this study, age integration is conceptualized as a relational/structural condition that shapes opportunities for intergenerational contact across age groups [25,32]. Accordingly, it is analytically distinguished from relational resources—such as trust and civic participation, commonly discussed as social capital—that may arise through intergenerational interactions [20,33]. Consequently, age integration is specified as an independent predictor of residential satisfaction rather than a mediating pathway through which urban regeneration affects residential satisfaction.
Chung et al. (2015) developed a standardized instrument to measure age integration in the Korean context [34]. Drawing on a review of previous literature and consultations with experts, the study first identified key life domains in which age integration operates—such as intergenerational exchange, opportunities for social participation, employment and social security, intra-family interaction, and age-friendly infrastructure. Based on these domains, the authors then developed and finalized an original scale consisting of 28 items. This scale provided empirical support for the view that age integration should be approached as a multidimensional construct rather than a single factor. Subsequently, Chung and Lim (2020) developed an abbreviated version of the scale to reduce response burden and address limitations in its applicability [25]. While retaining the theoretical structure of the original scale, they constructed a 13-item short form by selecting only the core items, making it suitable for use across all age groups. The short form demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity, thereby enhancing its utility in a variety of research settings [25]. These measurement tools are particularly suitable for assessing interpersonal relationships and the level of age integration in environments where multiple age groups coexist, such as areas targeted by urban regeneration projects.
Building on these domains, the 13-item short form retains the multidimensional logic of the original instrument by focusing on core items that reflect both relational and structural aspects of age integration [34]. Specifically, the 13-item short form captures age integration across multiple life domains, including intergenerational contact and exchange, perceived openness of participation opportunities regardless of age, and perceived age-related barriers in everyday and institutional settings [25]. Importantly, these dimensions are particularly salient in urban regeneration areas, where shared community facilities and resident programs are often expanded or reorganized, potentially increasing cross-age encounters and reshaping perceived access to participation opportunities. Accordingly, we employ this short-form scale as the key independent variable to empirically capture the level and characteristics of age integration in urban regeneration areas. The full item wording is provided in Appendix A Table A1.
Accordingly, this study adopted the 13-item short form age-integration scale developed in previous research as survey items, drawing on its theoretical and empirical foundations. Respondents answered each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

3.2.3. Control Variables

To control for other factors that may influence residential satisfaction, this study incorporated life satisfaction, community wellbeing, and socio-demographic characteristics as control variables. Drawing on Diener’s (1984) theory of Subjective Well-Being, life satisfaction is associated with residential satisfaction [35]. Accordingly, this study included life satisfaction as a control variable, which was measured using responses to the item “I am satisfied with my life” on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Several studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of life satisfaction tend to perceive their surroundings more positively, which in turn is associated with higher levels of residential satisfaction [3,35,36,37].
Community wellbeing was also used as a control variable in this study. Community wellbeing was assessed using the six-capital framework proposed by Kee et al. (2015)—human, economic, natural, infrastructure, cultural, and social capital [38]. This classification provides a core lens for understanding community resources and structural capacities, with each form of capital capturing a distinct dimension of residents’ living environments. Specifically, human capital reflects residents’ health and competencies; economic capital indicates the foundations of economic security; natural capital refers to ecological and environmental conditions; infrastructure capital captures physical infrastructures such as facilities and transportation; cultural capital represents local identity and cultural characteristics; and social capital encompasses trust, solidarity, and civic participation. Higher levels of these forms of capital are associated with greater stability, activity, and social cohesion among residents, which in turn tends to be linked with higher levels of residential satisfaction [38,39,40].
In addition, respondents’ experience in urban regeneration activities was included as a control variable. Participation experience in urban regeneration and local planning processes may enhance residents’ understanding of project goals and implementation procedures and shape how they interpret neighborhood change [41,42]. Such experience may not only lead residents to perceive physical and social changes during regeneration more positively but may also influence their satisfaction with their residential area [43,44,45].
Additionally, respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics—gender, age, education level, income level, and length of residence—were included as control variables. Some studies have shown that women evaluate their communities more positively than men [3]. In addition, higher age, higher educational attainment, and higher income levels are associated with more positive perceptions of the local environment and, consequently, with higher satisfaction with one’s residential area [3,36,46]. Length of residence reflects familiarity with the community and neighborhood attachment; the longer individuals have lived in a particular area, the higher their residential satisfaction tends to be [30].
Table 2 presents the composition and measurement of all variables used in this study, including the dependent variable, independent variable, and the control variables described in this section.
Table 2. Measurement and coding/scale of the variables.

3.3. Analytical Method

The analytical procedures of this study were as follows. First, descriptive statistics were used to identify the general characteristics of the sample, and the internal consistency of the scales was evaluated using Cronbach’s α coefficient. Subsequently, we estimated blockwise (sequential-entry) multiple regression models to examine the associations between age integration and residential satisfaction. Specifically, predictors were entered sequentially in blocks (Models 1–5), with age integration included in the baseline model and additional covariates added stepwise to assess the stability of the focal association to confounding adjustment. In addition, to examine whether the association between age integration and residential satisfaction varies by age, we conducted age-stratified Pearson correlation analyses for three age groups (18–39, 40–59, and ≥60 years) and compared correlation coefficients across groups using Fisher’s r-to-z tests. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 29.0.2.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of Variables

The descriptive statistics for the variables used in this study are presented in Table 3. The dependent variable, residential satisfaction, was calculated as the mean score of four items: overall evaluation of the neighborhood, intention to continue residing in the area, sense of belonging to the local community, and willingness to recommend the neighborhood to others. The overall mean was 3.5 (Cronbach’s α = 0.873). The independent variable, age integration, was measured using the mean score of the 13 items from the short-form age integration scale, and the overall mean was 2.9 (Cronbach’s α = 0.917).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of variables.
Among the control variables, life satisfaction, community wellbeing, and socio-demographic characteristics were included. The overall mean of life satisfaction was 3.8. Community wellbeing consisted of six domains of capital. Among these, human capital and infrastructure capital showed the highest mean scores, both at 6.5, whereas economic capital had the lowest mean score at 5.2. Regarding experience in urban regeneration activities, 23.0% of respondents reported having participated, whereas 77.0% reported no prior participation.
Socio-demographic characteristics were as follows: women accounted for approximately 65% of the sample. In terms of age distribution, respondents aged 50 years and older comprised 60.1% of the sample. More than half of the respondents had completed a university education or higher. In addition, 66.6% of respondents reported a monthly household income of 3 million KRW or less. With respect to length of residence, approximately 68% of respondents had lived in the area for 10 years or longer.

4.2. Blockwise (Sequential-Entry) Multiple Regression Analysis of the Association Between Age Integration and Residential Satisfaction

Table 4 presents blockwise (sequential-entry) multiple regression models predicting residential satisfaction. To evaluate the association between age integration and residential satisfaction while jointly accounting for other relevant factors (including community-capital indicators such as social capital and infrastructure capital), variables were entered sequentially across five models: Model 1 included age integration only; Model 2 additionally controlled for experience in urban regeneration activities; Model 3 further added socio-demographic characteristics; Model 4 added life satisfaction; and Model 5 incorporated community wellbeing components (human, economic, natural, infrastructure, cultural, and social capital).
Table 4. Blockwise (sequential-entry) multiple regression predicting residential satisfaction.
Across Models 1–5, age integration was consistently and positively associated with residential satisfaction. In Model 1, age integration showed a strong positive association (B = 0.415, SE = 0.047, p < 0.001), and the coefficient remained similar after adding experience in urban regeneration activities and socio-demographic controls (Model 3: B = 0.418, SE = 0.047, p < 0.001). After life satisfaction was included (Model 4), the magnitude of the age-integration coefficient decreased but remained significant (B = 0.382, SE = 0.045, p < 0.001). In the fully adjusted model (Model 5), which simultaneously accounted for experience in urban regeneration, socio-demographics, life satisfaction, and all community wellbeing components, age integration remained statistically significant (B = 0.119, SE = 0.048, p < 0.05), indicating that this association is robust to adjustment for urban regeneration experience, socio-demographic characteristics, life satisfaction, and community wellbeing components.
As a robustness check for the residential satisfaction composite (mean of four items), we additionally examined the bivariate association between age integration and each constituent item. The associations were consistently positive and statistically significant across all items (see Table A2 in Appendix A), suggesting that the main result is not driven by a single component of residential satisfaction.
Model fit improved as covariates were added. The fully adjusted model (Model 5) explained 38.8% of the variance in residential satisfaction (R2 = 0.388; Adjusted R2 = 0.373). Among the controls, experience in urban regeneration activities was not significantly associated with residential satisfaction (Model 5: B = −0.008, SE = 0.065, p = 0.901). Regarding socio-demographic characteristics, income level was positively associated with residential satisfaction (Model 5: B = 0.079, SE = 0.021, p < 0.001), while gender, age, education level, and length of residence were not statistically significant in the fully adjusted model. Life satisfaction showed a strong positive association (Model 5: B = 0.163, SE = 0.035, p < 0.001). Among community wellbeing components, infrastructure capital (B = 0.118, SE = 0.031, p < 0.001) and social capital (B = 0.084, SE = 0.025, p < 0.001) were positively associated with residential satisfaction, whereas human, economic, natural, and cultural capital were not statistically significant.
To further examine whether the observed association between age integration and residential satisfaction varies by age cohort, we conducted an additional supplementary analysis using age-stratified analyses (Section 4.3).

4.3. Age Group Comparison of the Age Integration–Residential Satisfaction Association

Across all three age cohorts (18–39, 40–59, and ≥60 years), age integration was positively correlated with residential satisfaction (r = 0.309–0.400; Table 5). Fisher’s r-to-z tests further indicated that the correlation strength did not differ significantly across cohorts (all p ≥ 0.328; Table 5). Taken together, these findings suggest that the positive association between age integration and residential satisfaction is broadly consistent across age groups, supporting the robustness of the main result.
Table 5. Age-stratified correlations between age integration and residential satisfaction and Fisher’s r-to-z tests for differences across age cohorts.

5. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between age integration and residential satisfaction in urban regeneration project areas in Daegu. Based on the empirical results, three main findings can be drawn.
First, age integration was positively associated with residential satisfaction in URCFs, with a consistent pattern observed across the blockwise (sequential-entry) multiple regression models (Models 1–5). This suggests that, when an environment is created in urban regeneration areas where different age groups can interact naturally, residents’ perceptions and evaluations of their neighborhood are likely to become more positive. Compared with conventional facility-based environments where activities are separated by age, URCFs are designed so that multiple generations can share common spaces and programs, thereby fostering age integration. By enabling a wide age range—from children and youth to middle-aged and older adults—to use shared spaces and participate in common activities, these facilities increase the frequency of intergenerational contact and provide a basis for relationship-building among generations that previously had few opportunities to encounter one another in everyday life. This process strengthens residents’ understanding of and attachment to the neighborhood and helps create an age-integrated environment characterized by mutual support across generations and enhanced emotional security. These findings are consistent with prior research suggesting that intergenerational interaction promotes community cohesion and local stability [9,12], and such dynamics are likely to become even more critical amid environmental changes driven by urban regeneration [10,47]. To examine potential age-group heterogeneity, we additionally conducted age-stratified correlation analyses (18–39, 40–59, and ≥60 years). The association between age integration and residential satisfaction was positive in all age groups, and Fisher’s r-to-z tests indicated no statistically significant differences in correlation strength across groups, suggesting that the observed relationship is broadly consistent across age cohorts in our sample.
To illustrate how URCF design and operation can facilitate such routine intergenerational contact, in the case of the Hyomok URCF, for example, each floor is allocated to a distinct function that encourages use by diverse age groups. The community pub on the first floor serves as an open community space used by young, middle-aged, and older residents alike, while the youth center on the second floor offers education, start-up, and cultural programs for young people. The third floor houses the community cooperative office and care-related spaces that provide support programs for children, adolescents, and older adults, and the cafés on the fourth and fifth floors function as open lounge areas where any resident can stay, relax, and engage in small-scale activities. The Hyomok URCF’s vertical program layout and representative shared spaces are illustrated in Figure 3. This arrangement provides multiple age-linked destinations while maintaining shared lounge-type areas that can generate incidental encounters across cohorts. In addition, the Hyomok URCF hosts a range of programs run by the village management cooperative, including resident-led cultural events and various experiential activities. These programs create opportunities for residents of different ages to participate in shared activities, thereby further promoting intergenerational interaction [12,13,47]. These findings imply that socially sustainable regeneration requires not only physical upgrading but also the deliberate planning and operation of shared facilities that enable routine, low-barrier intergenerational encounters. In practice, URCFs may be more effective when they provide flexible multi-use common areas, inclusive circulation and seating, and program schedules that encourage co-presence rather than age-segregated use, thereby supporting age-integrated interactions that can strengthen community cohesion and are positively associated with higher residential satisfaction in our analysis. More broadly, the URCFs examined here commonly combine at least one low-threshold “everyday attractor” space (e.g., café/lounge) with flexible multipurpose rooms and additional program-support spaces (Table 1). Such shared-space systems are plausibly age-inclusive because they support short, casual visits as well as longer stays and organized activities, increasing the likelihood of routine co-presence across cohorts. In this sense, URCFs function as a built component of urban regeneration that can operationalize social sustainability goals by providing accessible shared interiors where intergenerational contact can occur.
Figure 3. Hyomok URCF shared-space system and observed use. The building section (center) shows key shared and program-support spaces: (1) café (5F), (2) café (4F), (3) courtyard, (4) care room, (5) meeting room, and (6) community pub. Photographs document the interiors of each space (left, 1–6) and representative activities occurring within them (right, 1-1, 1-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5-1), illustrating how low-threshold “everyday attractor” areas and flexible rooms can support routine co-presence across age groups. Identifying information has been removed where necessary. Source: Daegu Donggu Urban Regeneration Center (internal materials); figure compiled and edited by the authors; used with permission.
Second, the finding that higher life satisfaction is associated with higher residential satisfaction is consistent with previous studies showing that individuals’ overall satisfaction with life is closely linked to their evaluation of the residential environment [48]. According to prior research, life satisfaction reflects individuals’ overall appraisal of their lives, and such appraisal can directly influence how they perceive their local environment and residential experiences, thereby shaping residential satisfaction [35,46,49]. This association between life satisfaction and residential satisfaction has been consistently observed across groups with differing socio-economic characteristics [3,48]. Although the absolute levels of life satisfaction and residential satisfaction may vary by socio-economic factors such as age, gender, income, and educational attainment, the within-group pattern—where higher life satisfaction is linked to more positive evaluations of one’s residential area—has been observed consistently [3,48,50,51]. In particular, even in areas undergoing urban regeneration, where socio-economic conditions and changes in the residential environment are highly heterogeneous, life satisfaction has been discussed as an important factor in shaping residents’ residential satisfaction [51].
Third, among the dimensions of community wellbeing, higher satisfaction with infrastructure capital was associated with higher residential satisfaction, indicating that the quality and accessibility of local infrastructure are key factors shaping residents’ everyday experiences and their perceptions of the neighborhood [52]. This suggests that built assets and mobility-related conditions—such as access to facilities and transportation—shape daily routines and access to neighborhood opportunities, thereby influencing residents’ overall neighborhood evaluations. In parallel, satisfaction with social capital likewise emerged as a significant predictor of residential satisfaction, suggesting that local trust, mutual support, and participation in community activities provide residents with positive experiences and, in turn, strengthen their emotional attachment to and satisfaction with the area [14,33].
Fourth, in terms of socio-demographic characteristics, higher income levels were associated with higher residential satisfaction, whereas other attributes—such as gender, education level, and length of residence—were not significantly related to residential satisfaction. Age was likewise not significant; moreover, the age-stratified correlation analyses indicated no significant differences in the strength of the age integration–residential satisfaction association across age groups. This implies that residential satisfaction may be more strongly influenced by factors such as social relationships, individual life satisfaction, infrastructure, and community wellbeing than by demographic characteristics [3]. In other words, in the context of urban regeneration, residents’ satisfaction with their neighborhood appears to be shaped less by who lives in the area and more by what kinds of relationships they form and what kinds of environments they experience.
Overall, this study empirically demonstrates that age integration is an important social factor contributing to higher residential satisfaction, even when residents’ life satisfaction, community wellbeing, and socio-demographic characteristics are taken into account. In particular, the results suggest that residential satisfaction is shaped more by the quality of intergenerational relationships, everyday experiences, and local environments than by basic demographic attributes. Therefore, in urban regeneration areas, it is necessary to actively consider the planning and operation of programs that promote intergenerational exchange, age-mixed community activities, and shared facilities that can be used by diverse age groups. Such efforts can not only enhance residents’ satisfaction with their neighborhood, but also provide a foundation for strengthening community cohesion among residents and the social sustainability of the area. In this sense, age-integrated programs and facilities can be regarded as key instruments for achieving socially sustainable urban regeneration. These implications also relate to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) through inclusive neighborhood-scale social infrastructure such as URCFs, and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by strengthening everyday social connectedness and belonging [53]. Future research can extend this SDG-relevant agenda by linking URCF spatial configurations and program mixes to longitudinal changes in perceived inclusion, social cohesion, and wellbeing, and by testing these relationships across different city and neighborhood contexts.
The study has several limitations. First, the analysis was confined to specific urban regeneration project areas in Daegu, which restricts the generalizability of the findings to other regions or types of urban contexts. Future research should therefore compare a wider range of cities—including large metropolitan areas, small and medium-sized cities, and rural communities—as well as diverse types of urban regeneration projects in order to test the robustness and contextual variation in the relationships between age integration and residential satisfaction. In addition, because participation was restricted to adults with URCF-use experience and respondents were allocated approximately equally across facilities rather than drawn through probability-based neighborhood sampling, the findings may not generalize to non-user residents or the broader citywide population. Moreover, because we did not include residents from non-regeneration neighborhoods or non-users, we cannot directly test selection effects; future studies should incorporate appropriate comparison groups and use longitudinal designs, and—where feasible—apply multilevel modeling to account for facility/neighborhood clustering and area-level heterogeneity. Second, this study could not clearly distinguish between residents and facility users among survey respondents, so potential perceptual differences between these two groups may not have been fully captured in the analysis. Although we partially accounted for this issue by including length of residence as a proxy control variable, this measure cannot fully substitute for an explicit classification of residents versus occasional/non-resident users, nor does it capture detailed URCF use characteristics (e.g., frequency and purpose of use). Subsequent studies should adopt research designs and sampling strategies that explicitly differentiate between residents and non-resident users, and should collect richer measures of facility use (frequency, purpose, and intensity) to enable more precise group-comparative analyses of perceptions and interaction patterns. Third, the study relied on cross-sectional data, which limits the ability to identify changes over time and to assess the long-term impacts of urban regeneration projects. Future research should employ panel surveys or other longitudinal designs to track pre-, mid-, and post-project changes and to more rigorously analyze the long-term effects of urban regeneration on age integration and residential satisfaction. Fourth, although the blockwise (sequential-entry) multiple regression models jointly adjusted for age integration and a broad set of covariates, we did not test interaction effects; thus, potential effect modification of age integration (e.g., by levels of community wellbeing) should be examined in future research. By doing so, urban regeneration initiatives can move beyond physical upgrading towards genuinely socially sustainable urban neighborhoods.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the relationship between age integration and residential satisfaction in urban regeneration areas and identified a clear positive association between them. This finding indicates that the more different age groups interact in their daily lives and build mutual trust, the higher their overall satisfaction with the neighborhood tends to be, suggesting that age integration, as an indicator of the quality of intergenerational relations in urban regeneration areas, plays a crucial role in shaping residential satisfaction. These results imply that improvements in the physical environment alone are not sufficient to substantially enhance residents’ perceived quality of life and that social factors such as age integration must also be taken into account. Accordingly, urban regeneration policies should not only focus on hardware-oriented interventions such as renovating deteriorated buildings and upgrading infrastructure, but also pursue strategies that create spaces where different age groups can naturally encounter one another in everyday life, promote intergenerational exchange programs, and strengthen local social networks. In particular, age integration is a key factor in maintaining the stability and sustainability of local communities and thus should be incorporated as a core element in the design of future urban regeneration policies and community-based programs. In SDG terms, our findings provide empirical support for SDG 11 by highlighting URCFs as designable, inclusive community infrastructure in regeneration neighborhoods, and for SDG 3 by underscoring the role of social connectedness and intergenerational inclusion in residents’ perceived wellbeing and satisfaction.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.J.K.; methodology, E.J.K. and H.S.; software, E.J.K. and H.S.; validation, E.J.K.; formal analysis, E.J.K. and H.S.; investigation, E.J.K.; resources, E.J.K. and H.S.; data curation, E.J.K. and H.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.J.K. and H.S.; writing—review and editing, E.J.K. and H.S.; visualization, E.J.K. and H.S.; supervision, E.J.K.; project administration, E.J.K.; funding acquisition, E.J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2025S1A5A2A01006049).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Keimyung University (IRB No. 40525-202407-HR-030-02, 26 September 2024).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1 presents the items used to measure residential satisfaction, age integration, and community wellbeing in the survey.
Table A1. Measures of residential satisfaction, age integration, and community wellbeing.
Table A2 reports item-level bivariate correlations between age integration and each of the four residential satisfaction items as a robustness check for the composite outcome used in the main analyses.
Table A2. Correlations between age integration and residential satisfaction items (Pearson’s r and Spearman’s ρ).

References

  1. Balestra, C.; Sultan, J. Home Sweet Home: The Determinants of Residential Satisfaction and Its Relation with Well-Being; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Weidemann, S.; Anderson, J.R. A conceptual framework for residential satisfaction. In Home Environments; Altman, I., Werner, C.M., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1985; pp. 153–182. [Google Scholar]
  3. Parkes, A.; Kearns, A.; Atkinson, R. What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods? Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 2413–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Sampson, R.J.; Raudenbush, S.W.; Earls, F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 1997, 277, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Bonaiuto, M.; Aiello, A.; Perugini, M.; Bonnes, M.; Ercolani, A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 331–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Couch, C.; Sykes, O.; Börstinghaus, W. Thirty years of urban regeneration in Britain, Germany and France: The importance of context and path dependency. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 1–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Sýkora, L.; Bouzarovski, S. Multiple transformations: Conceptualising the post-communist urban transition. Urban Stud. 2012, 49, 43–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Granger, R. Social and Community Issues. In Urban Regeneration; Roberts, P., Sykes, H., Granger, R., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2017; pp. 99–112. [Google Scholar]
  9. Phillipson, C. The ‘elected’and the ‘excluded’: Sociological perspectives on the experience of place and community in old age. Ageing Soc. 2007, 27, 321–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Kleinhans, R. Displaced but still moving upwards in the housing career? Implications of forced residential relocation in the Netherlands. Hous. Stud. 2003, 18, 473–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Bolt, G.; Phillips, D.; Van Kempen, R. (De)segregation and social mixing: An international perspective. Hous. Stud. 2010, 25, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C.; Scharf, T. Experiences of neighbourhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Ageing Soc. 2013, 33, 89–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Kaplan, M.; Sanchez, M.; Hoffman, J. Intergenerational Pathways to a Sustainable Society, 1st ed.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dekker, K.; Bolt, G. Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 2447–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Colantonio, A.; Dixon, T. Urban Regeneration and Social Sustainability: Best Practice from European Cities; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  16. Shaw, K.S.; Hagemans, I.W. ‘Gentrification without displacement’ and the consequent loss of place: The effects of class transition on low-income residents of secure housing in gentrifying areas. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2015, 39, 323–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. van der Meer, T.W.; Tolsma, J. Ethnic diversity and its effects on social cohesion. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014, 40, 459–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Wiles, J.L.; Leibing, A.; Guberman, N.; Reeve, J.; Allen, R.E.S. The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. Gerontologist 2012, 52, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Menec, V.H.; Means, R.; Keating, N.; Parkhurst, G.; Eales, J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can. J. Aging 2011, 30, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Forrest, R.; Kearns, A. Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Stud. 2001, 38, 2125–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Berger-Schmitt, R. Social Cohesion as an Aspect of the Quality of Societies: Concept and Measurement; ZUMA: Mannheim, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  22. Buffel, T.; Handler, S.; Phillipson, C. Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective; Policy Press: Bristol, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Arpino, B.; Bordone, V. Does grandparenting pay off? The effect of child care on grandparents’ cognitive functioning. J. Marriage Fam. 2014, 76, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Zhang, Z.; Wei, Q. Residential Satisfaction and Sense of Belonging Under the ‘Moving-Merging’Resettlement Strategy in Shanghai. HERD 2025, 18, 146–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Chung, S.; Lim, J. Validation of Short Form Age Integration Scale and Relationships between Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Age Integration: A Comparison of Age Groups. J. Korean Gerontol. Soc. 2020, 40, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernandez, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Lu, M. Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth Change 1999, 30, 264–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Speare, A. Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography 1974, 11, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  30. Brown, B.; Perkins, D.D.; Brown, G. Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Uhlenberg, P.; Gierveld, J.D.J. Age-segregation in later life: An examination of personal networks. Ageing Soc. 2004, 24, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Riley, M.W.; Kahn, R.L.; Foner, A. (Eds.) Age and Structural Lag: Society’s Failure to Provide Meaningful Opportunities in Work, Family, and Leisure; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  33. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chung, S.; Lee, E.; Ki, J.; Choi, H. Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Age Integration. Health Soc. Welf. Rev. 2015, 35, 380–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psych Bull. 1984, 95, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sirgy, M.J.; Cornwell, T. How neighborhood features affect quality of life. Soc. Indic. Res. 2002, 59, 79–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 110, 433–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Kee, Y.; Kim, Y.; Phillips, R. Learning and Community Approaches for Promoting Well-Being; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Butler-Flora, C. Rural communities: Legacy and change. Sociol. Rural. 1994, 34, 257. [Google Scholar]
  40. Phillips, R.; Wong, C. Handbook of Community Well-Being Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  41. Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Plann. Theory Pract. 2004, 5, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Brownill, S.; Parker, G. Why bother with good works? The relevance of public participation(s) in planning in a post-collaborative era. Plann. Pract. Res. 2010, 25, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Fung, A. Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Adm. Rev. 2015, 75, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Manzo, L.C.; Perkins, D.D. Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. J. Plann. Lit. 2006, 20, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Amérigo, M.; Aragonés, J.I. A theoretical and methodological approach to the study of residential satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Buffel, T.; De Backer, F.; Peeters, J.; Phillipson, C.; Reina, V.R.; Kindekens, A.; De Donder, L.; Lombaerts, K. Promoting sustainable communities through intergenerational practice. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 116, 1785–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Diener, E.; Suh, E.M.; Lucas, R.E.; Smith, H.L. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psych Bull. 1999, 125, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Campbell, A.; Converse, P.E.; Rodgers, W.L. The Quality of American Life: Perceptions, Evaluations, and Satisfactions; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sirgy, M.J.; Rahtz, D.R.; Cicic, M.; Underwood, R. A method for assessing residents’ satisfaction with community-based services: A quality-of-life perspective. Soc. Indic. Res. 2000, 49, 279–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Mouratidis, K. Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities 2021, 115, 103229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Pacione, M. Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—A social geographical perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; A/RES/70/1; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kee, Y.; Kim, Y.; Phillips, R. Community Wellbeing: Learning in Communities; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Multi-Scale Simulation of Urban Underpass Inundation During Extreme Rainfalls: A 2.8 km Long Tunnel in Shanghai
Previous
Analysis of Flexural Performance and Crack Width Prediction Models of UHPC Composite Slabs
Next