Situating Place and Wellbeing Within Heritage Interactions for Older Adults

Abstract

As the global population ages, more older adults are engaging with the historic environment than ever before. However, the needs of this population may not always be met by local and national heritage sites and organizations. Here, eight professionals working in the UK heritage, health and well-being and aging sectors were interviewed to gather their views on how older adults interact with the historic environment. Three key themes emerged from these interviews: barriers to accessing the historic environment; positive well-being implications of engaging with the historic environment; and the need to develop a wider knowledge base. Barriers to accessing the historic environment include physiological barriers, such as mobility issues, psychological barriers, and financial barriers. Positive well-being derived from engaging with the historic environment are explored in two key themes: communal well-being, and personal well-being. Attention is drawn to activities developed by heritage organizations to engage with older adults, and how these can be better coordinated and implemented to maximize the benefits the historic environment can offer, and minimize the barriers.

1. Introduction

‘Aging-in-place’ has been a key policy driver in recent years and refers to the ability of an older person—defined by the United Nations as a person aged 60 or older—to remain living in their own home and community with some level of independence, rather than being placed in residential care [1,2]. In order for people to successfully age-in-place, they must be able to meet their key needs, including access to health and social care, financial security, safety, and the ability to keep mentally and physically active [2,3]. Importantly, aging-in-place encapsulates the sense of attachment that older adults experience towards their homes, local neighborhoods and communities [4,5]. Therefore, an older persons’ ability to age-in-place will have a strong impact on their levels of contentment, satisfaction with local places, and overall sense of well-being.

‘The historic environment’ refers to physical traces of the past environment, and makes up a considerable portion of local landscapes. It includes buildings, monuments, places and archaeological artefacts, as well as natural sites, trees and woodland [6,7]. Heritage sites are places within the historic environment where people go to engage with heritage. Smith [8] argues that heritage sites represent theatres of memory and places of heritage-making; they are tied up with practices of remembrance and reflect parts of the past that are deemed important enough to preserve for the future. Conversations around engagement with the historic environment typically focus on traditional, designated heritage sites including listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments, and on the value of engaging with museums, galleries and historical collections [9]. The local historic environment concerns places more intimately involved in daily life, homes and social networks, including the ‘everyday’ sites of high streets, libraries and town halls [10,11,12]. Gentry [10] identifies local heritage as something intimately connected to local places, as well as the values, practices and lives of the community. A study commissioned by Historic England explored the value of heritage to local places and concluded that people receive enjoyment from the aesthetic and historic qualities of local historic buildings, including high streets, libraries and town halls [11]. Local historic places play an important role in reinforcing local character and distinctiveness within the environment and represent a diverse range of voices and social and cultural histories [13]. As such, the historic environment forms a critical part of the local landscape and is concerned with everyday aspects of individual and community life.

Research on age-friendly communities underscores the importance of creating accessible physical, social and cultural environments, where people can maintain meaningful roles into older age and participate in active aging [14,15,16,17].

The local historic environment can play a valuable role in supporting social and cultural engagement, and has been linked with various well-being dimensions, including improved social capital and civic engagement, reduced stress levels, and education [18,19,20]. Heritage sites can be cultural, natural, or mixed; older adults may interact with, and value, individual sites depending on their specific characteristics. Cultural heritage—which encompasses a broad range of built historic places, activities and events—can support the health and well-being of older people through stimulating reminiscence, promoting life-long learning, strengthening social cohesion, and increasing quality of life [21]. Historic England [22] conclude that engagement with the historic environment can improve well-being whilst aging through enabling older adults to participate in social environments, through providing meaningful activities for those with dementia, and through supporting cognitive and mental health.

Traditional heritage sites are shown to support physical, mental and community well-being and can act as spaces for development, exploration and multicultural exchanges [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. They enable people to come together in a safe, rich environment, to share memories and experiences, and embark on journeys of knowledge and confidence [24,29]. Furthermore, through spending time in historic places and/or participating in heritage-based activities, people may experience pride, passion, accomplishment and growth, and may strengthen their local identity and sense of belonging [36]. Participation in intangible heritage and community-based practices enables likeminded people to connect, promotes peacebuilding, and ignites a passion for history and place [36]. People also value historic places for a range of additional reasons, including for their aesthetic value, their practical value (for current uses and future potential uses) and their emotional value, including the stories and memories that are associated with them [11,37]. Through eliciting stories and memories, historic places are imbued with personal and collective meanings and allow people to reflect on past lived experiences, in additional to cultural narratives and values. For instance, Avellino-Steward [38] considers how museums can act as spaces for intergenerational bonding and family history, and how older adults who take their grandchildren may share their own life experiences and memories.

Museums also provide older adults with the opportunity to explore late-life creativity and share their passions with others [39,40]. Museums are recognized as places that can encourage interaction, cooperation and strengthen bonds between people within an increasingly fragmented society [41]. They achieve this through encouraging socio-educational activities and nurturing relationships between members of the community [42]. Indeed, there has been a rise in the number of interventions and programs offered by museums to older adults over the last decade [42]. Wollentz et al. [41], when considering museums as social spaces, found there were seven elements that stimulate social interaction amongst older adults; these were activities, e.g., solo activities, collaborative activities, games and competitions; physical elements, e.g., objects and staff interaction, and reflections, including surprise and reminiscence. The study argued that museums can construct spaces where ‘reflection, physical elements and activities are allowed to play important roles in facilitating learning’. They also found that social interaction makes visitors more inclined to reflect upon their own perspectives, behaviors, proactivity and creativity [41]. All of this contributes to a positive emotional experience, improving self-esteem in addition to reducing loneliness and creating a sense of community [29]. This, in turn, creates an environment where older adults are supported to live and can experience a sense of belonging in, improving the ability to age-in-place.

Several studies have explored historic town centers as improving older adults’ quality of life. For example, Rosso et al. [43] observed higher levels of mobility in historic areas. Mak et al. [44] concluded that residing in an area of dense historic assets contributes positively to well-being through supporting processes of civic engagement and social network support. Historic England’s recent report ‘Heritage Capital and Well-being: Examining the Relationship Between Heritage Density and Life Satisfaction’ [45] suggests that living in close proximity to a wealth of local historic places drives high life satisfaction.

The built environment plays a significant role in an individual’s perception of the place they live, and historic towns and buildings are perceived as more aesthetically pleasing [27]. This is linked with increased satisfaction and stronger sense of place [46].

Our recent study [47] utilized a photovoice approach to explore place-based attachments and the influence of heritage and memory on older adults in Nottinghamshire. This study examined three key themes: interconnected culture and community; place identity and lived experiences; and intergenerational bonding and preserving heritage for the future. Significantly, having gathered views of older adults, the study concluded that historic environment managers should engage with heritage and memory whilst working to understand the needs and values of older adults, and that heritage practices should integrate local historic sites into broader place-based community engagement strategies and activities.

Here, we explore the views and opinions of professionals working in the heritage sector and the aging-in-place community to identify how historic places can strengthen and support well-being whilst aging, and to understand current practices undertaken by heritage organizations to engage more fully with the older adult population. We also seek to discern key challenges facing the heritage sector and explore how a knowledge of aging-in-place can inform management of the local historic environment to deliver effective community engagement and well-being for older adults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection of Methodology

Semi-structured interviews have proved to be an effective and flexible method for understanding complex behaviors and exploring how people interpret social phenomena. They employ a combination of open-ended and follow-up questions, meaning that researchers can probe interviewees for further information [48]. Further, they enable researchers to gain additional information through probing into non-verbal cues including body language, laughter and silence, which would not be possible using other methods such as surveys or discourse analysis [49]. The method is consistent with a phenomenological worldview and is used extensively by qualitative researchers to understand human lived experiences [50]. Semi-structured interviews have previously been used to understand the values, beliefs and decision making processes of stakeholders, as well as in the study of complex health and social issues, including migrant community healthcare [51], mental health in hospital patients [52], women with PCOS [53] and domestic violence [54,55]. This is particularly important as demonstrates the ability of semi-structured interviews to capture complex and personal data relating to lived experiences and well-being.

Semi-structured interviews were therefore selected as an appropriate method for this study, and for engaging with professionals whose work related to heritage and/or aging sectors. This decision was made to further understand notions of well-being within the historic environment, to explore the perspectives of those in positions of power, and to address gaps relating to how engagement with historic places can support older adults. The semi-structured interviews aimed to assess the levels of understanding of well-being, aging and the historic environment held by professionals, to investigate their experiences of running programs for older adults, and to understand how professionals’ perspectives differ from those of the older adult photovoice participants from our previous study [47].

2.2. Sampling

The semi-structured interviews initially employed expert sampling, a form of purposive sampling whereby experts in the field of research are recruited. Expert sampling is particularly useful when investigating new areas of research, to assess whether further study is necessary [56]. Here, experts were selected due to their professional experience in either heritage, aging or public health sectors, and their ability to contribute to conversations on older adults’ well-being in the historic environment.

A number of inclusion criteria were devised, as this study sought to incorporate the voices of a diverse range of professionals. These criteria included recruiting individuals from across the UK, both from public and private bodies, those with a significant level of experience in their field (minimum 2 years), and individuals employed in different roles (e.g., heritage, lifelong education, aging charities).

The recruitment process began by conducting online research, identifying potential interviewees and reaching out via email to request their participation in this research. This process proved to be more challenging than anticipated, however after the first two professionals had been recruited and interviewed, they recommended colleagues or acquaintances who they believed could offer valuable insight, and the sampling strategy transformed into snowball sampling [57].

In this case, it proved useful in allowing connections to be made with professionals who would otherwise have been difficult to identify and connect with. Snowball sampling is a positive tool for establishing trust between the researcher and interviewee, as recommendations have been made by trusted social networks [58]. Much like purposive sampling, this technique was time and cost-effective. However, one issue raised by this technique is that the participants are not randomly selected from the whole community of heritage experts available, and as such are not representative of that community.

Eight professionals were recruited in total. This was largely due to difficulties in recruitment, particularly when attempting to recruit individuals employed in aging charities, in town and city planning, and those involved in delivering town and city heritage strategies.

2.3. Participants

Each of the interviewees were experienced in their sector, with multiple years of relevant experience. The table below (

Table 1. Summary of participants.

Role	Experience in Sector	Expertise in
Senior heritage professional, Historic England	20+ years	Heritage and Well-being
Heritage professional, Historic England	15 years	Heritage and Well-being
Social prescribing professional	2 years	Ageing and Well-being
Learning officer 1, Historic Environment Scotland	30 years	Heritage and Well-being
Learning officer 2, Historic Environment Scotland	23 years	Heritage and Well-being
Freelance learning officer	17 years	Heritage and Well-being
Photovoice facilitator	8 years	Heritage and Well-being
Public health manager	8 years	Ageing, Public Health and Well-being

) depicts the interviewees’ roles, years of experience, and area of expertise. To protect anonymity, interviewees were consulted on how wished to be referred to in the text, and role titles have been kept deliberately vague, for example ‘senior heritage professional’ and ‘learning officer’. The interviewees were based in different locations across England and Scotland.

The sample predominantly comprises those working in the heritage sector. Whilst these individuals all had experience of working with older adults, had delivered a number of successful programs for older people, and had completed various age-specific training courses, such as dementia awareness training, they cannot be considered aging specialists. Recruiting experts from the aging sector proved difficult, something that was primarily hindered by non-responsiveness to participation requests.

2.4. Interview Approach

The eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams and lasted a mean time of 39.5 min. Interviewees were asked to suggest an appropriate time to conduct the meeting, and seven of the eight were conducted whilst they were working from home. This may have been beneficial to creating a comfortable atmosphere where interviewees felt free to share their opinions without being overheard.

Prior to the interview, participants were provided with information about the aims and objectives of the research, including details on how their personal data would be collected and stored. They were also given the opportunity to ask any questions about the study and their involvement before confirming their participation. At the time of the interview, participants were asked to reconfirm their consent to be recorded and to allow automatic transcription via Teams. Seven of the interviewees provided this consent, while the individual who declined agreed to have notes taken throughout the interview.

Interviewees were then asked a number of semi-structured and open-ended questions. These questions differed in each interview, as related to individual roles, experience of working with older adults, and experiences of engaging with well-being projects. However, all interviewees were asked a number of general questions relating to their experiences and opinions on well-being in the historic environment. These general questions included:

• What is your experience of working with older adults?
• How do the needs of older adults differ to the needs of younger people?
• How do you believe heritage and historic places can support well-being?

Interviewees were asked follow-up questions and encouraged to speak at length, particularly on the challenges they had experienced working with older people, and the specific needs associated with this age group.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed thematically, following the six steps laid out by Braun and Clarke [59,60,61,62]. These steps are: (1) data familiarization; (2) data coding; (3) generating initial themes; (4) developing and reviewing key themes; (5) refining, defining and naming themes; (6) writing up. Data coding involves reviewing the data set to identify interesting and relevant elements, before grouping these elements together into broader themes. Three themes were identified in total.

2.6. Ethical Approval

Full ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society Ethics Committee, Heriot-Watt University (4395).

3. Results

Following the semi-structured interviews, the results can be discussed in three overall themes:

• Barriers to engagement with the historic environment;
• Positive well-being implications of engaging with the historic environment;
• Need for a wider knowledge base on aging, well-being and the local historic environment.

These themes reflect the current level of understanding held by professionals relating to older adults’ interactions with the historic environment and the ways it can support well-being. Furthering access and interaction with cultural heritage for the population as a whole has been explored [63,64,65]; here we look specifically at older adults and how they engage with heritage sites.

3.1. Barriers to Engagement

One of the main themes that recurred across the eight semi-structured interviews, was the difficulty for older adults to engage meaningfully with aspects of the historic environment. The interviewees acknowledged that older adults are not a homogenous group, and will undoubtedly have differing levels of ability; however, are generally faced with greater challenges than those of younger generations. Within this, older adults are more likely to experience age-related disabilities and mobility impairments. The interviewees also acknowledged how interactions with the historic environment are influenced by personal characteristics and geographic factors such as positive or negative lived experiences, and perceived strength of community spirit.

On this matter, the interviewees suggested that working with older adults requires a consideration of how to make historic places and heritage programs more age-friendly by ensuring they are physiologically navigable, intellectually stimulating, and conform to older adults’ key need of socialization. This latter realization echoes the findings of our previous study [47], where older adults asserted the importance of having community meeting places.

Hence, access barriers were identified, including physiological barriers, relating to the physical ability to access historic places; psychological barriers, relating to a lack of belonging experienced in historic places; and financial barriers, relating to the expense of visiting and running activities in historic places.

3.1.1. Physiological Barriers

The physiological barriers facing older adults in the historic environment were explored. Professionals emphasized that older people are more likely to require additional support to access historic places, often for long-term health conditions, as argued here:

‘[Older people]…appear to have more needs around managing long term conditions and particularly sort of the complexity of multiple long term conditions…’.

(Social prescribing professional)

‘One big thing is access… challenging on so many levels. So first of all physical because for heritage sites obviously so many of them [are] not only not wheelchair friendly, but it could be in the middle of nowhere. And so then you have transport issues…’

(Heritage professional, Historic England)

These comments underscore the need for tailored approaches that address the needs of older adults. They emphasize the increased likelihood of illness and disability in older age and explain that this creates challenges for people as they attempt to interact with historic places.

‘There is an increasing chance that things like hearing and eyesight will deteriorate’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Two of the main physiological access barriers highlighted were the ability to get to, and get around, historic places.

Several of the interviewees engaged in discussions on how these physiological access barriers can be overcome. The public health manager shared several initiatives that have been implemented in Nottingham city center to encourage older people to ‘get out and about’ and support them to interact with the local community. They shared how the ‘take a seat’ initiative—where local businesses allow older people to visit their establishment to sit down and rest, with no obligation to spend money—has resulted in over three hundred businesses joining the scheme and supporting older adults to spend time in the city center. This is important as it ensures older people have safe and welcoming spaces to rest in and are supported to spend time outside of the home. The public health manager also shared the successes of Nottingham’s annual ‘Aging Well’ events, hosted in the historic market square. The last aging well event was dementia-friendly and included a vaccine bus and audiology unit as part of its wider offer of support to Nottingham’s older residents. This is a key example of how historic places can continue to be used to support the health and well-being of local populations.

Technology was highlighted as a means of overcoming physiological access barriers and enabling older people to interact with the historic environment virtually. The interviewees discussed their experiences of running online sessions, particularly during lockdown, and creating interactive programs centered around reminiscence and the senses such as touch, taste and smell:

‘So I give people a shopping list based on what would be in a working class low income home, of basics like milk and biscuits and tea. And you know, possibly some chocolate or some bread and stuff like that…The heritage attraction around what is in their home, so that they can touch and smell and taste along’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

Here, the learning officer described the delivery of a program aimed at older adults who were isolated in the home or residing in care homes, and explained that they were able to engage with heritage activities despite not physically being in the historic place. This use of technology proved to be particularly successful in enabling older adults to draw connections between themselves and the historic site, to ‘touch and smell and taste along’ and participate in an intellectually stimulating exercise.

Other interviewees shared their experiences of creating online programs for older adults, particularly during the global lockdown:

‘…five sessions that we would deliver online, each of which would look at a different room at the castle’.

(Learning Officer 1, Historic Environment Scotland)

‘…we had activities [where we sent out activity packs, so they had fidget blankets, things they could make, and a bit of baking and things like that’.

(Learning Officer 2, Historic Environment Scotland)

These comments reflect different approaches to working online with older adults. Learning officer 1 described allowing participants to virtually ‘spend time’ in a historic castle, to learn the history and engage in discussions surrounding local heritage. Learning officer 2 described the delivery of a more immersive program, allowing older adults to participate in heritage activities from the comfort of their own home or care home. These programs were both considered to be successful in engaging with older people; however, the learning officers maintained the belief that in-person groups, held in local historic buildings or community centers, provide greater benefits to older adults. For that reason, they generally resumed these in-person programs after the end of lockdown. Being ‘on-site’ was regarded as having larger transformative effects for social connection:

‘…it was just really lovely being on site where we were in the visitor center. But we could look out at the Abbey and you’re effectively using heritage again as not so much the vehicle but as the context [with dementia sufferers]’.

(Learning Officer 1, Historic Environment Scotland)

The learning officer viewed heritage as the context for bringing together members of the community. This includes offering programs to support dementia-sufferers, creating heritage-based intellectually stimulating activities that can be completed by older adults and their carers with a range of diverse needs and abilities.

Overall, the interviewees acknowledged various ways in which older adults’ engagement with the historic environment can be inhibited due to physiological access barriers. Older adults were viewed as having an increased likelihood of suffering age-related disability including mobility issues, and as being more reliant on public transportation. Several strategies could be used to mitigate these issues. Generally, increased funding would be required in order to install physiological supports including handrails, chairs, lifts and wheelchairs. However, it is not always possible to implement these supports due to strict rules governing the aesthetic fabric of historic places.

Another way of mitigating these age-related challenges may be through using technology. Technology was highlighted as a way of engaging older adults with historic places and heritage-based activities, when it would otherwise be difficult to engage those participants in person (for example dementia sufferers or those with mobility issues). However, it should be noted that technological advances may be a barrier for this specific demographic as some older adults are less comfortable with utilizing digital technologies than other age groups.

3.1.2. Psychological Barriers

Existing social attitudes were highlighted as something which may prevent older adults from engaging with the historic environment. This includes the belief that heritage is not representative of ordinary local people, and does not have anything particular to offer. These barriers may be particularly strong for working class people. This was explained by the photovoice facilitator as:

‘Strangely enough, the social attitude side is one of the major barriers… because it’s been ingrained in [older adults]… I’ll go back to that statement. “It’s not for the likes of us”. You know what I mean? It’s been ingrained in them over generations… you go through school, elementary education and straight into a factory or whatever. And that’s your life. You might be able to go to the pub now and again or a social club…’.

(Photovoice Facilitator)

This comment reflects a major psychological barrier that exists between working class older adults and the historic environment. It recognizes that people may feel unwelcome in historic places due to a perceived lack of belonging and ‘ingrained’ societal norms. This comment also recognizes the challenges associated with making heritage relevant for older adults, and in creating spaces which reflect the needs and values of the whole community. Interviewees considered how the types of older people who visit historic places are ‘White. Well to do middle class retirees often’ and recognized that:

‘We are told that heritage is the pinnacle of culture. We are told that it’s something that we should like and it’s for me…I think the biggest challenge for me, particularly with a palace, is finding relevancy if I live in a council house… So I think that’s the biggest challenge for me, making these spaces real’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

The challenge of ‘finding relevancy’ in the historic environment reinforces the importance of engaging with lived heritage and memory. If historic places were to actively encourage contributions from the community, they may create positive spaces of shared dialogue, which reflect shared histories, collective heritage and memories, and the values of local people.

The photovoice facilitator explained how Scottish history had not been taught in the schools in many industrial areas, and how children were instead encouraged to learn practical skills and seek employment. A lack of knowledge about Scottish history also results in a lack of shared heritage, memories and cultural narratives. This, again, contributes to ingrained social roles whereby older people do not feel welcomed or like they belong in the historic environment. The photovoice facilitator regarded this lack of education as a ‘systematic cultural and social failing’ that has left many older adults today feeling disconnected from local history and heritage, and unsure of how to engage with their local historic places:

‘And when I said, yeah we’re gonna have an exhibition at the end, one of them said “what’s an exhibition?” Which breaks my heart. You know what I mean’?

(Photovoice Facilitator)

This comment reflects a gap in cultural awareness and education experienced by working-class older people in certain regions of Scotland. The lack of interaction between groups of older people and the historic environment was considered by the freelance learning officer, who questioned:

‘…If you are unable, if you are unwilling, if you lack trust, if you can’t see yourself represented in these collections, why would you go in the first place’?

(Freelance Learning Officer)

This question echoes previous comments. It emphasizes how a failure to align heritage sites with the lived experiences and values of local communities can result in a lack of engagement from those groups. This comment also underscores the need for heritage professionals to challenge authorized discourse and engage in collaboration with local people. The freelance learning officer continued to explain that:

‘They [historic places] are presumed to be friendly and or a primary target audience for elders, which I think is condescending and misleading. Deeply condescending and misleading…’

(Freelance Learning Officer)

Additionally, they drew attention to the ‘heavily curated’ and expert-driven management of the historic environment, which attempts to elicit certain emotions yet also heavily dictates the types of behaviors that are acceptable to reproduce within heritage space:

‘One of the huge ironies I would suggest of heritage, though, is that these spaces are intensely manipulative in terms of our emotion, our time. They’re heavily curated, they contain artworks and collections which are purposefully designed by intent to make us elicit emotion. Yet going to these spaces, we are expected to be quiet and well behaved and rational in terms of how we express our emotion. I find that extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary, and one of the questions I ask elders, for example, is would you come to cry? Would you come to a museum to cry? Because it’s trying to make you cry’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

This highlights the inherent irony of particular historic places, including museums and galleries, as they evoke emotional responses yet do not create environments in which people feel comfortable displaying those emotions.

The interviewees also discussed the challenges they faced when attempting to reach traditionally marginalized and excluded groups, and explained how heritage can be ‘useful’. This included conversations surrounding older adults’ hesitance to place their trust in heritage providers:

‘People don’t always understand how heritage can support their well-being… green spaces, nature, exercise, even the arts, is more accepted, but heritage is not yet recognized by all as being able to provide support’.

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

‘I think there are challenges because if you present a piece of heritage, whether it’s a cultural asset from a museum or a building or a place, you’re always presenting it with a view to why that’s useful. And there are risks with that’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

These comments reflect two key issues. Firstly, the lack of awareness and general acceptance as to how heritage can be beneficial for well-being. The heritage professional contrasted this with greenspaces, nature and exercise, where the benefits of engagement are more widely understood. And secondly, the ‘risk’ associated with presenting heritage to people and attempting to dictate certain perspectives. This comment touches on the challenges of expert-driven engagement with the historic environment, that does not fully integrate the views or address the needs of local communities.

Despite a lack of broader understanding, the historic environment is increasingly being incorporated into forms of social care, including social prescribing. The use of heritage in social prescribing may go some way to improving awareness of its well-being benefits. However, there are issues associated with heritage social prescribing, such as a difficulty for older adults to place trust in programs, and the fear of being denied other necessary medical care:

‘Social prescribing is a sort of sensational headline, but I think that that can also plant a bit of mistrust amongst people. And then I think there’s a bit of myth busting that potentially needs to be done, which is, you know, no one is saying instead of receiving a clinical treatment that you medically require and are legally entitled to go to a singing club instead. Like, you know, it’s like, we’re not saying that… There’s a really understandable sort of concern amongst some people that what does this mean? I won’t be able to see my GP. Or does this mean that I won’t have access to other services or what? You know, what does that mean from my care? So I think again, the public narratives potentially in that myth busting can be a bit of a challenge also’.

(Social Prescribing Professional)

In overcoming these access barriers, the interviewees shared details of projects designed to encourage older adult participation in the historic environment. They demonstrated that these projects can be hugely successful and transformative, resulting in people feeling welcomed in their local community.

The photovoice facilitator explained how they transformed local peoples’ perspectives through encouraging them to spend time in the local historic environment, learning about their local history and taking photographs of important places. In this way, they supported participants to build confidence, appreciate local historical narratives and culture, and develop new skills.

The senior heritage professional also considered the transformative role of engagement with the historic environment, but emphasized the necessity of co-producing approaches in partnership with local people. They described a recent project where they had worked alongside older adults. Here, they explained:

‘So … we’re funding a project at the moment… which is working with older people and heritage as a route to enhancing their well-being. And that’s been designed to be very co-produced, bottom up, where the characteristics of the heritage are defined by the group. The group was not predetermined before the project started…’

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Co-production and design were viewed as vital for creating programs that support the needs and values of older adults. These needs were considered by the freelance learning officer, who shared their experience of avoiding heavily restrictive programs. They suggested that older audiences differ to younger audiences, and that older adults often prefer working to their own timescales rather than ‘going with the flow’. The learning officer also explained how older participants appreciate being asked if they’ve ‘had enough’.

Interestingly, the interviewees considered the challenges that historic places may face when attempting to engage with older adults. This includes the difficulties of locating target audiences to participate in programs and activities, of knowing how to engage with well-being, and of explaining these benefits to communities. For example, the senior heritage professional explained:

‘I think with old people, unless it’s through an existing institution, it’s sometimes harder for people to find them. So you could go to a care home because it’s a place where people are collected together in the same way that school is and do an activity for that care home. In the same way that you might for a school. But outreach is not the same thing as addressing well-being inequality’.

(Senior Heritage Professional Historic England)

The difficulty in widening participation rates was also raised by the heritage professional, who argued that people who willingly engage in the historic environment are the ‘usual suspects’ and that historic sites struggle to reach more socially isolated audiences:

‘So it’s about widening participation. It’s about addressing in inequalities. It’s about inclusion and diversity. All these issues are massive for our sector’.

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

They continued to explain the difficulties they had experienced when attempting to widen participation and form relationships with people:

‘…it took longer than planned to develop these relationships, to develop these messages to get the right… content and format of this kind of a very light touch training because we don’t want to overwhelm people with a learning and information about history and heritage, because otherwise it starts to be off putting you know, but just enough for them to be able to see why it could work… and what are the benefits’.

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Here, showcasing the benefits of engagement with the historic environment was perceived as a challenge that went hand-in-hand with reaching more isolated members of the community. This comment reflects the challenges faced by managers of the historic environment when attempting to reach the people who would most benefit from engagement. Moreover, it implies that managers of historic places (and in fact, all those involved in the maintenance and running of the historic environment) should have an enhanced understanding of these well-being benefits themselves, in order to share these benefits with others.

On a similar note, the interviewees considered the reluctance of many heritage institutions to engage with well-being projects. This reluctance can arise from a lack of knowledge of how to manage older people with additional needs, or fears of taking on the responsibility and engaging with mental well-being without professional training. This was explained as:

‘[Groups will] carry on just running and being, which is great, but not actually being part of the social prescribing offer because they don’t want to accommodate specific health and well-being needs that they don’t know how to handle. So I guess that then does become a barrier, which is if I, if I offer this up as a social prescribing thing to my sculptor class instead of getting some lovely middle class people that are quite happy to spend a Saturday morning messing about with clay or whatever, I’m going to end up with a variety of people that may have Parkinson’s or dementia or struggle to interact socially, or have other difficulties and challenges that I don’t know how to manage, and I think that’s a barrier to people connecting with social prescribing for older people. Is that kind of fear about managing’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

The heritage professionals also explained how organizations may be willing to engage with well-being through social prescribing, but are unsure of how to approach developing a suitable program:

‘The barriers are much more about heritage organizations not knowing how to engage with social prescribing. So there’s a desire, there’s a kind of understanding of need. There’s a recognition of value. There’s a desire to do something. And I think the barriers tend to be, how do I make it work? What does this look like for us? How do I engage with the health system’?

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

‘When challenged to pinpoint what are the well-being benefits of people actually going to their sites, and to their organizations, and what is it that they’re going to get out of this in terms of supporting their health’?

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

3.1.3. Financial Barriers

Several of the interviewees highlighted financial challenges that may create access barriers between older people and their local historic environment. This was particularly the case for traditional heritage sites including museums and galleries. It was acknowledged that many local historic places, including greenspaces, libraries and other public landmarks, are generally free to access. The interviewees discussed the financial impact of visiting historic places, which include paying for transport, parking, entrance fees and cafés. Furthermore, once inside historic places people are often faced with additional fees including for guidebooks, temporary exhibitions and giftshops. This was viewed as a particular challenge for older adults relying on limited pensions, who may not have money to spare:

‘…Sometimes they just see them as expensive, which is a financial barrier because there’s always tickets and charging and the heritage sites themselves struggle because it’s expensive to maintain them to offer free tickets or a kind of reduced cost of visit, etcetera’.

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

This comment considers the financial struggles of older adults, as well as those of heritage sites that may struggle to offer reduced cost visits. This can make meaningful interactions with the local historic environment feel inaccessible, or even stressful, for those struggling with limited funds:

‘…because [if] you’re struggling on a pension, your priority is not going to be going to be paying to get into a castle, you know’.

(Photovoice Facilitator)

This inaccessibility of the local historic environment serves to widen and reinforce class traditions, whereby heritage is seen as a thing of the middle classes, and working class older adults are excluded from large portions of the environment.

3.2. Positive Well-Being Implications of Engaging with the Historic Environment

Within this theme, two sub-themes were identified: communal well-being benefits and individual well-being benefits. The interviewees recognized numerous ways in which historic places can strengthen individual and collective experiences of aging and well-being, and they shared their experiences of working within the historic environment. This included:

• Using visits to historic places as a form of social prescribing;
• Developing memory and reminiscence-based activities for older adults with dementia;
• Running object handling sessions;
• Running heritage-based activity sessions (i.e., tapestry making, sewing);
• Utilizing online technology (i.e., Zoom) to engage with older adults who were not able to physically access sites, sharing historic knowledge and ‘finding connections’ between older adults and the historic places;
• Encouraging older adults to take photographs around their local historic environment;
• Encouraging older adults to visit, feel comfortable in, and feel a sense of belonging and ownership over their local area.

The historic environment was considered the ‘vehicle’ to social engagement and enhanced well-being. It was viewed as a way of bringing together a group of people and engaging them in meaningful, interesting, and intellectually stimulating activities. This may support key dimensions of aging-in-place through supporting older adults to maintain mental and physical activeness, continue lifelong learning and remain in environments with social supports. One of the most powerful benefits of engaging with the historic environment was seen as its ability to enrich people’s lives.

The photovoice facilitator explained their belief that historic places can provide transformative effects for older adults:

‘If your life is just a daily struggle every day… but if you can actually add a wee bit more enrichment and increase in confidence, you know, when I talk about the history and the culture … you’re telling people for the first time and you can see the pride well and open them’.

(Photovoice Facilitator)

3.2.1. Communal Well-Being Benefits

The interviewees identified a number of ways in which the local historic environment can support communities and communal well-being.

The interviewees also discussed how historic places reinforce local pride and identity, strengthen a sense of local belonging, and challenge antiquated class traditions, including those which lead working class people to feel excluded from the historic environment.

Historic places were viewed as important third spaces, enabling community members to come together in welcoming and inclusive places, which facilitate a broad range of interests and ways to spend free time. The freelance learning officer explained that:

‘You can still bring in a sandwich. You can still have a cup of tea. You can still occupy that space without being forced into commercialization, which I think is incredibly rare in our culture now. I think that’s there’s something quite beautiful about that as well. It’s also one of the few spaces I would suggest where it it’s considered ‘socially permissible’ to start conversations with strangers’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

This quote reflects the role of the historic environment in enabling people to ‘be’ and spend time without being forced to make purchases. It also touches on the importance of social interaction and being able to ‘start conversations with strangers’, which may be a valuable form of connection for isolated older people. In this way, historic places were recognized as facilitating:

‘…social engagement and connection… they are a crucial element’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

This is arguably the most significant strength of the local historic environment. It serves as both the context and the vehicle for meaningful community engagement and social connection:

‘Oh, it was just a really nice atmosphere with folk chatting and sharing stuff…. Although the making [a tapestry] was the primary purpose, it kind of has the secondary benefit of being a really social activity and bringing folk together…’.

(Learning Officer 1, Historic Environment Scotland)

This comment describes the successful running a tapestry-making activity with older adults. This activity involved a group of older people meeting on numerous occasions to sew a tapestry in an historic building. And whilst the tapestry making was considered the ‘primary purpose’ of the group meetings, the social element was viewed as equally valuable. The learning officer described heritage as the:

‘…vehicle…for folk to get together or have a meaningful experience…you know I think folk value that more than anything else’.

(Learning Officer 1, Historic Environment Scotland)

Learning officer 2 also highlighted the positive, relaxed atmosphere created during activity sessions with older people. They reinforced the importance of this social connection through sharing that:

‘…it was always a nice environment in the learning space because we’d sit in there with cups of tea. That was always the thing. It’s got tea and biscuits, but then you can sit and chat. It’s very relaxed’.

(Learning Officer 2, Historic Environment Scotland)

Social connection was viewed as one of the strongest benefits of engaging with the historic environment:

‘…In terms of loved ones, in terms of community memory, in terms of heritage, I don’t always think it’s about the site. I think it’s about community with people that are no longer with us…’

(Freelance Learning Officer)

‘… Gathering together and social connection… was also a key element in the visiting [historic places]: that you go there with somebody… it’s a destination at which you meet’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Importantly, the freelance learning officer touched on the notions of heritage and memory, recognizing the link between heritage, memory and community. Here, historic places were perceived as something to be carried out with others: ‘a destination at which you meet’ and a place to be with ‘people that are no longer with us’. This latter comment is particularly interesting as it reflects historical figures of local and community importance. Through learning about local historical figures and places, people may develop stronger place attachments and feel a sense of pride over their environment. This reinforces the notion that the value of heritage is not inherent, but rests on the value and interpretation of others.

The interviewees also highlighted a second unique benefit of engagement with the local historic environment. This benefit involves the role of the historic environment in connecting people with their past, strengthening local identities, and challenging antiquated class traditions by empowering locals to spend more time in the community. This is particularly the case for working class people, who may be encouraged to visit places they previously have not been to. In this regard, conducting outreach programs may be particularly useful for targeting older adults who would not ordinarily visit historic sites:

‘I think more outreach, getting into the communities and telling them, you know, this is as much for you as for someone that stays in Morningside. That’s a rich part of Edinburgh, you know’.

(Photovoice Facilitator)

Thus, historic places must actively seek to ‘bring people in’, and engage with a broad range of lived experiences to create environments that are welcoming to the whole of the community. This can be carried out in several ways, including reaching people in their own homes digitally or reaching out to care homes. In this way, they may strengthen the relationships between people and place and encourage locals to feel a sense of ownership and belonging in their historic environment. The interviewees shared the ways in which they attempt to bridge this gap and engage people with the historic environment:

‘…I think reimagining these spaces as spaces of social care, with huge narratives of nature and togetherness and warmth, and reminding people that these elaborate stages of global history and constitutional action are people’s homes, where they slept and went to the toilet, and I think finding the domestic, finding the human. … I’m able to bring myself and find myself in these spaces’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

‘So the way I’ll connect is make connections with their own lives, such as you know, going to the garden. So do you have a garden at home or a park you like going to? As we have herb gardens and we talk about cooking, you know the herbs you might use in cooking and that we used in the past… It’s basically a home…’

(Learning Officer 2, Historic Environment Scotland)

These connections center on helping people to ‘find the human’ in their local historic environment, and make connections between themselves and the people who once lived or spent time there. Encouraging people to see connections, and understand why they too can enjoy visiting historic sites, can improve their confidence to visit more historic places in the future, and also strengthens a sense of belonging in the local area:

‘…she said “this has been the most amazing experience because I live locally and just meeting other people and feeling that the [local] castle is for me as well”. I think that’s the key thing is they feel they not only belong but they feel they can say it’s for them as well because some people… are kind of put off when they think of going into an art gallery or a museum or a heritage site. It’s kind of like well I don’t know much about history so how can I engage with it’.

(Learning Officer 1, Historic Environment Scotland)

In addition to strengthening communal connection and belonging, the historic environment can be used to promote shared identities and conceptions of heritage, memory and sense of place. The interviewees considered how heritage can be used for:

‘Sharing common identities, and it can be that those identities are contested and complicated, and I think it’s really important that we’re honest and recognize that’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

When considering the importance of heritage to communities, the freelance learning officer argued that:

‘…heritage needs communities more than communities need heritage’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

Here, they recognized the role of heritage in ongoing processes of identity and meaning-making, and that heritage becomes relevant through community interactions. In essence, heritage would not exist without the engagement of local people.

The historic environment gains importance for people through representing their lived experiences and relationships with others. These concepts of identity and belonging were also associated with passing down a legacy. This has positive implications for intergenerational bonding, and serves to promote the maintenance of community cultural narratives and place identities:

‘[When volunteering and working on at-risk heritage] people feel that they’re leaving something for future generations. You also get this kind of enhanced sense of purpose and meaning and belonging and identity’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Interviewees also discussed the ways in which the historic environment currently attempts to connect people with local places. The learning officers from Historic Environment Scotland highlighted the creation of community ambassadors within the organization, designed to connect community members with historic places. A similar initiative is being brought out by English Heritage, who have begun to hire community engagement officers at several sites across the country. These posts were created in recognition of the importance of heritage to communal well-being.

3.2.2. Personal Well-Being Benefits

The interviewees identified personal therapeutic and well-being benefits associated with the historic environment. They considered how engagement can improve confidence, enhance individual purpose and enable people to see themselves inside a bigger picture. For example:

‘… one of the key things is about meaning making and belonging and seeing yourself in a broader perspective. There’s been some work on prehistoric landscapes and well-being and the kind of therapeutic benefits of engaging with those parts of the historic environment and seeing yourself in deep time…. The evidence suggests that you’re part of something that’s bigger than you, and actually that gives you more sense of purpose… as you can you see your role within a broader perspective’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

This comment emphasizes the unique nature of the historic environment in enabling people to see themselves within a ‘broader perspective’ and within ‘deep time’, acknowledging historical narratives and rooting personal identity within collective notions of heritage and memory. This may support greater levels of purpose and resilience through enabling people to view their personal struggles within the larger human story.

The senior heritage professional also viewed pride as an outcome of engagement with the historic environment:

‘I do think the historic environment and archaeology are particularly good at that, giving you a sense of perspective, understanding what your place is in the world… Which leads to things like pride, I think are really crucial because there’s lots of the activities that whether it be volunteering or visiting or living in a place and engaging with something locally where the fact that you have a purpose’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

When considering the therapeutic effects of engaging with historic places, the interviewees explored the role of heritage in social care and/or prescribing:

‘Heritage is part of the umbrella of social care. It’s not a place of social services, it’s not a place that you would necessarily go to in crisis, although some people do, I think for me it comes under notions of social care and social togetherness. So I think that’s truly special’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

This quote, once again, emphasizes the importance of social connectedness and ‘togetherness’ in promoting and supporting well-being amongst older adults. Similar ideas were reflected upon by other interviewees, considering the role of the historic environment in easing the pressure on the National Health Service (NHS):

‘There is a role that still could be played there…in just sharing information and trying to make accessible those activities…that information, that support you can give them, some sort of advice and you can offer a lot through volunteering there as well. So, it’s just linking up all this and creating that, you know, belt of support around. Then the health system will ideally take the most complex and serious needs…’

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Whilst heritage is not a treatment for complex mental illness, the professionals argued for its role as part of the ‘umbrella of social care’, and its potential to add to the availability of help for those struggling with their mental health. Through offering social supports, and enabling individuals to spend time with others, the historic environment can improve overall well-being and reduce levels of isolation and loneliness. Further, the historic environment can increase confidence levels, and add to the beauty people experience in their day-to-day lives:

‘Bit more beauty in our life, you know…. Because life can be pretty good. And just now in the struggling with the cost of living crisis and stuff, you know? So I’m a great advocate of more culture, the more knowledge of a person’s background, the more confidence…’

(Photovoice Facilitator)

It was also argued, that when designing and implementing projects for older adults, it is important to consider the quality of social and emotional connection experienced, rather than the quantity of events or activities on offer. The freelance learning officer explained how they allow people to ‘find themselves’ through taking a neurodivergent approach:

‘I approach all my work from the perspective of neurodivergence, that I don’t expect neurotypicality in anyone, and I think constructing sessions around emotion, connecting with emotion, finding themselves. … I would suggest you provide the tools, the space, the warmth and the kindness for them to be themselves and to come alive in those spaces’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

This quote represents an inclusive and compassionate approach towards interaction with the historic environment, enabling older adults to engage in exploration and self-expression without rigid expectations. This may create a sense of emotional safety and security.

The freelance learning officer continued to explain the freedom and security that can be offered by the historic environment:

‘I think one of the main things for me … is the ability to dwell. And I think there are very few spaces. Parks, possibly, but I think there’s very few spaces that you can dwell and just sit and think. And be potentially warm, or at least not exposed to the elements and not be questioned for doing so. And I think that’s incredibly precious’.

(Freelance Learning Officer)

Here, the historic environment is perceived as somewhere that older adults can spend time in, in an environment that is friendly and welcoming, and where certain assurances can be relied upon—for instance: being able to sit for an extended period of time without being asked to leave, clean facilities, a café to purchase food or drink, and the possibility of striking up a conversation with likeminded others (or not, if preferred):

‘It obviously gets people in a social environment… For the most part older folk, it can be isolated within their communities… From my experience, I’ve seen them growing in confidence and saying “We can go here, we can go there”’.

(Photovoice Facilitator)

This reliability offered by historic places serves to reassure older audiences that they can safely navigate the historic environment at their own pace, access the facilities as needed, and engage in elements of lifelong learning and social interaction. Thus, historic places support the ability to age-in-place by providing local spaces that older adults can spend time in and meet their needs.

The local historic environment can support people to engage in lifelong learning through acquiring new knowledge and skills, and improving social skills, such as confidence. The interviewees engaged in discussions surrounding their experience supporting older adults to learn new skills such as tapestry making, prayer mat sewing, touring and/or photographing local historic places, and through loaning handling collections to care homes and people with dementia. Teaching people about their local history and communal heritage thus has strong personal benefits of: empowerment to spend more time out and about, increased knowledge and skills (and thus, mental activeness), increased physical activity, and access to informal bands of social support that complement overall well-being. Within this, interviewees considered the intellectual and emotional needs of older adults, and discussed reminiscence and storytelling.

Reminiscence and storytelling enable people to connect with the historic environment using their own memories, and can have particularly strong benefits for older adults with dementia:

‘…You know, thinking with dementia groups, it’s memories of cooking… the Great Hall, you know, which is basically a dining room…. So I find with a lot of the groups with dementia it’s recalling memory they’ll connect to. I’ll never forget there’s one brilliant guy in one of the groups we’re talking about artefacts and things from the from the Great Hall and we had a candlestick holder, really quite a neat one…. And he told us, actually, how you used to clean that out…He said my parents used to have one like that’

(Learning Officer 2, Historic Environment Scotland)

Overall, the interviewees discussed numerous communal and individual well-being benefits associated with interaction with the historic environment. They generally discussed programs inside traditional heritage sites (at their places of employment); however, touched upon the relationship between local historic places and identity, meaning and belonging.

3.3. Need for a Wider Knowledge Base on Aging, Well-Being and the Local Historic Environment

The third theme identified from findings of the semi-structured interviews relates to existing gaps in knowledge surrounding the use of the historic environment for aging and well-being. The interviewees described some of the pilot work they had undertaken, as well as their future plans. They considered how the historic environment can continue to be used to support well-being, including through contributing to wider place-based strategies, through working in partnership, and through evaluating projects and sharing resources with others.

When emphasizing the importance of place and well-being, the senior heritage professional described a number of topics which feed into that relationship, including how:

‘…the gaps are really under that place based bit… is more complicated I think because it feeds into all sorts of topics about… intrinsic qualities of place that contribute towards well-being… social determinants of health and well-being… also how do people utilize place’?

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

This quote recognizes the need to understand how and why people form connections to place, and how they use and value the local historic environment. Its arguments are consistent with existing literature, particularly Historic England [18] who emphasize the importance of conducting place-based research to understand well-being. This necessitates conducting place-based research with local communities, to understand where place attachments are located, and how historic places can address local needs. On this note, the senior heritage professional questioned:

‘How can we step in and create a better environment for them? A better life experience for them and boost some of those characteristics that could actually make their life feel a lot more positive, like we should be trying to fill that gap’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

This underscores the vital role that the historic environment can play in supporting well-being and addressing disparities. It may involve seeing the historic environment from a broader perspective and attempting to understand how historic places can align with wider place-based initiatives to combat health and well-being. Whilst the potential for the historic environment to support well-being is acknowledged in the literature, there is evidently a need to ensure these benefits reach the whole of the community, including marginalized groups and groups (such as older adults) with additional needs. The senior heritage professional argued to explore how historic places can develop and enhance community identity and belonging:

‘And then the question for us I guess as a sector is that [identity and belonging] may exist to a certain extent without anybody doing anything because it’s just “I have an attachment to a place”. But are there things that we could do knowing that whether that be through a local museum or whatever, that would actually enable us to, to build and develop that further’?

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Importantly, they question whether managers of the historic environment could be doing more to support place-based identity and belonging. In order to nurture these bonds, a more intentional approach towards management of the historic environment must be taken: an approach that goes beyond preserving buildings and objects, but encourages active community engagement and enables people to cultivate a stronger sense of belonging.

Interviewees also shared the importance of working in partnership with other organizations, in order to realize the full potential of the historic environment for well-being. This includes working alongside local councils to support adult education, and working with art-based charities to widen participation in cultural activities:

‘We’re going to tour it to other sites… So this kind of keeps going like this. I think the key thing is making good connections with people—partnerships that is. You know, if it works it’s great. And then it just tends to keep running and we find the budget…’

(Learning Officer 2, Historic Environment Scotland)

Working in partnership was considered critical for widening access, enhancing understanding and filling in gaps in the existing knowledge base, through sharing resources with other institutions, highlighting social issues and determinants of well-being, and learning how to approach and work with isolated groups of older people. Working with others was also considered key to securing funding, demonstrating positive impact, and being able to continue heritage-based programs. The importance of working with community organizations including link workers and community connectors was emphasized, to reach more diverse audiences and older adults who are in need of social support. It is important that aging and heritage professionals can connect with people who are in need of their services, and are:

‘…better equipped to know how to reach individual older people, what kind, what is the local community, infrastructure … that a museum should be connecting with because those are the community anchor organizations that do know where people are and what challenges they face. And if there was a sort of more default that cultural institutions worked with those anchor institutions’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

Through widening access and participation, the historic environment may contribute to enhanced well-being across the community and create a band of social support.

Social prescribing was considered as particularly valuable for improving health and well-being in the historic environment. However, the interviewees highlighted crucial knowledge gaps surrounding heritage managers’, and the general publics, understanding of the process:

‘But you know, people hadn’t really heard of social prescribing. It’s really a phrase [that] makes sense within medical circles in terms of it’s kind of medical language to appeal to clinicians to get them to consider sort of broader social interventions…’

(Social Prescribing Professional)

It was realized that many people are not aware of what social prescribing entails, or how it may support them. This was viewed as a major knowledge gap within management of the historic environment, as well as a huge opportunity for future research and pilot studies.

The interviewees also commented on the need for more pilot work, to fully explore these issues and create a more wide-spread understanding of the historic environment and its potential for well-being. Pilot studies were viewed as crucial for making ‘the case’ and highlighting important areas of research; even small low-cost pilot studies were viewed as making valuable contributions:

‘… what we try to do is almost like piggyback, you know, on a lot of these things. And we’re not trying to steal their ideas. We’re just trying to use existing opportunities to try out something, to see how it looks for here. Because even from a small, cheap pilot, the little information there can help us then to make the case and ask for not only more money but more serious investment strategically to place this somewhere. And because we managed … to launch the strategy and that helped us to kind of embed well-being as an outcome and as an aim into our corporate strategy and that that was the big kind of milestone for us. You know that changed things because now everybody understands this is something we have to be working towards’.

(Heritage Professional, Historic England)

This comment strongly advocates for the importance of pilot studies, sharing how they helped inform Historic England’s wider corporate strategy and prove that well-being is something ‘we have to be working towards’. Through conducting small-scale research, the benefits of engagement with the local historic environment may be fully realized, and a greater level of support may be created for older adults. Given the lack of wide-spread integration of projects geared towards older people in the historic environment, further pilot studies on this topic are essential, and benefit from collaboration between national heritage organizations and grassroots organizations.

It was argued that smaller organizations are as equally capable of conducting pilot work as large institutions. And in fact, that smaller organizations may have a stronger ability to embed themselves in the local community and encourage communal engagement. Despite this, it was acknowledged that funding may pose an issue; that managers of the historic environment should apply for funding bids to develop pilot studies and boost community engagement, and that large organizations should support smaller organizations:

‘There is an onus on the larger organizations to support the smaller organizations to do that… I absolutely think that smaller cultural institutions or heritage organizations or local societies and clubs could be, could be doing what these larger organizations are doing’.

(Senior Heritage Professional, Historic England)

After pilot work, the interviewees shared that evaluation is a key step for understanding and filling gaps in knowledge. It is essential to assess the successes and challenges of programs dedicated to boosting older adults’ engagement with the historic environment, to inform future practices and understand how to better approach such projects.

Evaluation was seen as being able to ‘give us a steer as to what we can do’, and to enable heritage professionals to assess the limitations of their programs, as well as the well-being outcomes and future longevity. Evaluation also allows for the creation and sharing of resources that enable other institutions to carry out their own projects to support older adults. Training fellow professionals to deliver the same or similar programs for older people is considered optimal for ensuring the sustainability of such programs, and ensuring a ‘legacy’.

Overall, the results of the semi-structured interviews emphasize the importance of continued research, of conducting pilot studies and adding to the knowledge base, and of continuously exploring how to engage wider audiences and improve well-being. The interviewees considered how the historic environment should conduct place-based work to understand how people use, value and form attachments to historic places as well as developing social prescribing programs to improve social supports and community cohesion. The key role of pilot studies was considered, as well as the ability to evaluate the successes and challenges and share these results with other organizations to support the development of future programs. The interviewees also highlighted the importance of working in partnership with others, and of utilizing link workers, social connectors, and other charities to reach wider audiences and enhance participation. Conducting pilot studies was considered something that both small and large organizations can contribute to, although it was argued that larger organizations have a responsibility to support smaller organizations. It is also essential that historic places apply for funding bids to enable them to continue to develop programs, boost community engagement, and contribute meaningfully to local older adults’ well-being.

4. Discussion

Despite the recognition that historic places can support well-being, there is limited consideration within the literature of older adults’ mobility needs. Kasemsarn et al. [66] argue that museums have historically overlooked the needs of older people, and that despite museums embracing inclusive design principles, these issues still persist. These issues were recognized by the professionals, who discussed how physical supports including wheelchairs, handrails, lifts, ramps, chairs, benches and even ‘courtesy vehicles’ to drive visitors around large, steep or uneven sites, would be beneficial for older adults, and would make historic places more accessible. However, these interventions are generally costly and require special permissions to be implemented: permissions which are often denied to protect the physical fabric of historic places. This sparks the debate of whether the past is worth more than the present. Pretto [67] suggests the refusal to adapt the physical fabric of historic places comes from aesthetic concerns and reflects a lack of concern for people with disabilities.

4.1. Use of Technology

Technology is increasingly being explored as a means of supporting health and well-being in older age. Within management of the historic environment, virtual reality (VR) has been highlighted as an effective solution for mitigating some of the mobility issues experienced by older adults, and to provide more inclusive access to historic sites and collections [66,68,69,70]. This has been particularly relevant since the outbreak of the pandemic, when social distancing forced many older people to isolate in their homes. Lafontaine and Sawchuk [71] conducted a study on virtual museum visits occurring during the pandemic, and explored how virtual tours provide the opportunity to engage with art and with other people. The authors considered several challenges of using technologies, including difficulty in distinguishing different colors and textures in the art displays, the need for digital support, distractions, and lack of ‘Zoom etiquette’ [72]. However, there were also several strengths of conducting virtual museum tours, including: being able to enlarge parts of the screen and appreciate museum works in new ways and being able to access museum displays without physically navigating the site (including locating parking, etc.) [71].

4.2. Widening Participation

There are several prominent themes in the literature regarding the relationship between working class people and their heritage. For example, Smith et al. [72] consider the distinction between working class perceptions of heritage and those of the authorized heritage discourse. The authors view authorized heritage discourse as something which ignores the people, places and traditions that are not associated with the economic and cultural elite [72]. They highlight how a major struggle faced by cultural institutions is how to integrate traditionally excluded forms of tangible and intangible heritage in genuine, non-tokenistic ways. Furthermore, when considering how working class people value their local heritage, Watson [73] argues that:

‘…working class people value heritage highly, but at the same time do not appear to prioritize knowledge gathering as a reason for participating in cultural activities such as museum visits…’ Instead, they ‘…were more inclined to cite the desire to spend time with family and friends as a motivating factor’.

This is important, as reflects the role of the community in motivating engagement with the historic environment. This notion aligns with the findings of the photovoice research, where participants highlighted the role of historic places in supporting communal relations [47]. This quote also suggests that whilst working class people do not value ‘knowledge gathering’ as highly, they do prioritize their own personal myths, memories and associations with historic places [74]. Hence, a focus on lived heritage, memory and sense of place is key.

Merriman [75] puts forth the importance of lived experiences, family relations, heritage and memory on influencing the relationship between people and their historic environment. This is critical for understanding how to overcome barriers to accessing historic places, and how to create welcoming environments in which the whole community may enjoy a sense of belonging and ownership

Other studies have explored the level of engagement between working class people and heritage. Ateca-Amestoy et al. [76] concluded that levels of education, economic status and civic engagement were all key variables in patterns of participation in the historic environment. The authors recognized that low educational attainment and low parental educational attainment was a barrier to engaging with tangible heritage such as museums, historical places and artistic places [76]. Mak et al. [44] also demonstrate that higher levels of neighborhood deprivation correlate to lower levels of participation in the historic environment. Importantly, the researchers posit that this low participation may be due to poor characteristics of the built environment, including lack of accessibility, attractiveness, community design features and public resources [44]. Alternatively, it may be due to the personal characteristics of people residing in low-income communities, including their social networks, cultural capital, habits, tastes, and childhood experiences of engagement with the arts [44].

Therefore, the role of the community may play a critical role in encouraging interactions with the local historic environment. Through a knowledge and understanding of the ways in which local people value their environment, policymakers, managers and developers may tailor historic places to support these needs and overcome psychological barriers to access.

4.3. Social Engagement with Heritage

The emphasis on social engagement within the historic environment is commensurate with current aging-in-place literature, where it is understood that social networks support and enable older adults to overcome daily stressors [77] and improve experiences of aging [78,79,80]. It also aligns closely with the arguments of Smith [81] who posits that heritage is the process of meaning making that occurs as people interact with physical sites and intangible events. In this sense, local community members can come together and bond over their shared group identity and sense of heritage [81]. This heritage and group identity is hugely influential to formation of a strong place-related identity and sense of place. Therefore, historic places, where communities can come together to engage in heritage and cultural activities, to share memories and experience group identity, can be a tool for strengthening sense of place, belonging, and overall well-being among the community [20] particularly in forging stronger intergenerational supports.

In terms of engaging with older adults, co-creation or co-production was discussed in positive terms in relation to heritage. Co-creation involves bringing together multiple stakeholders to co-create/value an experience [82]. Such an approach can transform heritage into a creative tourism resource that can be used to enhance the appeal of local products and resources [83]. For instance Leong et al. [84] demonstrated that storytelling can enhance the tour guide experience, improving educational, entertainment, experiential, and emotional values.

Historic places offer people the ability to ‘locate the self as part of a historical narrative reaching from the past into the future’ and see themselves in the ‘bigger picture’ [9]. This has strong ties to ‘awe’, the notion of which has also been explored as a pathway to well-being [85,86,87]. Awe, and the transcending of the individual experience, can provide ‘captivating and immersive’ experiences and enhance peoples’ well-being and resilience [88]. These experiences can be effective in reducing symptoms of mental illness such as PTSD [89]. As awe is experienced in response to ‘stimuli that are vast, or beyond one’s current perceptual frame of reference’ [86], it can be induced within historic places that highlight the vast continuum of time and human nature.

More importantly, the above comments are relevant in highlighting the link between the historic environment and pride. Pride is identified as a key component of sense of place that can contribute to local identity and belonging [30]. Emotions such as pride, and also accomplishment, passion, growth, belonging and social well-being, can be experienced by local people who participate in community-based heritage activities [36] but pride can also be experienced as a result of simply living near historic assets. Evidence shows that historic places contribute towards a sense of ‘urban happiness’ and positive emotion experienced when spending time in a place, thus ensuring people continue to visit [90]. Pride therefore links strongly with heritage, memory, sense of place and overall well-being.

5. Conclusions

Three key themes emerged from this research: (1) barriers to accessing the historic environment, (2) positive well-being implications of engaging with the historic environment, and (3) the need for a wider knowledge base concerning aging and heritage. The presentation of these themes allowed us to explore how professionals understood the relationship between older people and the historic environment, what they perceived the access barriers to be, how they believed historic places can enhance well-being, and what their plans and suggestions for future research were.

The professionals advocated the importance of collaborating with community members, of co-designing heritage-based programs to address community needs, and of acknowledging the unique requirements of older adults. This highlights the importance of integrating community voices with professional insights and expertise, to foster inclusive approaches to managing the historic environment and supporting well-being whilst aging.

Within the first theme, the interviewees recognized a broad range of factors which inhibit engagement with the historic environment, including physical mobility and accessibility, psychological factors and social attitudes, and financial struggles. Whilst these engagement barriers may impact people of any age, they were perceived as more likely to affect older adults and to amplify existing age-related challenges. It was recognized that access barriers must be overcome to encourage widened participation in the historic environment and more widespread well-being benefits.

Within the second theme, the interviewees articulated communal and personal well-being benefits that can be experienced through engaging with the historic environment. These include enhanced community cohesion, overcoming antiquated class traditions, and improving confidence, purpose, identity and belonging. The interviewees also outlined the successes of projects they had been involved in and the positive impacts on participants that they had witnessed.

Within the third theme, the interviewees shared the need for a wider knowledge base and considered how we can build upon knowledge of well-being in the historic environment. The importance of conducting place-based research and understanding local place attachments was emphasized, as was the salience of conducting pilot studies to illustrate the practical benefits of interventions in the historic environment, and to assess their impacts on community well-being. Furthermore, through conducting, evaluating, and sharing the findings of pilot studies, other organizations may be inspired and empowered to develop their own well-being interventions for older adults in the community. In this sense, working in partnership with others was viewed as critical for sharing resources, widening participation to working class older adults, and reaching isolated audiences who may otherwise be difficult to engage with.

As the population continues to age, heritage professionals and managers will need to more fully consider how to engage with older adults in their local communities, to maximize the benefits that the historic environment can offer and to minimize the barriers.