MAIN FINDINGS AND THEIR RELATION TO PREVIOUS STUDIES

In Helsinki region there will be twice as much 65 years old or older within 10 years as there are now, and the proportion of the suburban elderly is twice as big as in the central areas, namely more than 20%. As the suburbs suffer from weaker walkability than the central city areas, this creates an accessibility and physical activity problem for the elderly, segregating them also in relation to their purchasing power in compensating lack of local accessibility and in maintaining their physical and social health. Purchasing services can compensate the lack of local accessibility, but it does not compensate the lack of physical activity affecting also the health and wellbeing of also wealthy suburban elderly with passive mobility habits.

Shigematsu et al. (2009) found that walking for transportation was significantly related to multiple

perceived neighborhood attributes in all age groups, although walking for leisure was not. Walking for transportation was significantly related to almost all neighborhood environment variables in the youngest age group, but only proximity to nonresidential uses (like shops) and recreation facilities, were moderately correlated with walking for transportation in the two oldest groups. They

concluded that as communities need to be designed with many environmental attributes that support walking for transportation among younger adults, the most important attributes to support older adults’ physical activity were more limited: having nonresidential destinations and recreation facilities within walking distance were the primary attributes. In the case study it was found that in Länsi-Pakila and also in Yliskylä, the levels of functional diversity, population and employment density and network connectivity were relatively low, indicating low local accessibility and

destination availability, that have been found to be vital for the independent mobility of the elderly inhabitants.

Many studies have found that the urban sprawl decreases the walkability of a city and its

neighborhoods e.g. by increasing the distances between residential, recreational, commercial, public service and other destinations, thus decreasing the local accessibility of these amenities and the mobility of the increasing elderly population (e.g. Sugiyama et al., 2012) Also Laatikainen (2019) found that in urban milieus that offer dense residential settings with multiple walkways, public transit stops, intersections, and destinations, the older adults walk for transport even if they are not particularly interested in PA and active lifestyle. She also says that the domains of active recreation and active transport are particularly important forms of PA among older adults and should be emphasized when the ageing population is of particular interest. This is emphasized while mobility decreases and walkable distances get shorter by the age (Balfour & Kaplan, 2002; Clarke & George, 2005). Also Laatikainen (2019) found that the median distance to the positive places was found to be the shortest for older adults (406 meters) among all studied age groups and suggests that positive places of older adults should be in close proximity to home and strongly characterised by green and blue elements of the physical environment, as she also considered walking for leisure.

Diez Roux (2002) says that disadvantaged people suffer the consequences of bad quality physical environments most severely, as their financial constraints limit their mobility and access to daily activities and services, not being equally free to choose their neighborhood. These disadvantaged people also include numerous elderly inhabitants, often living in the cheaper suburban areas.

Beenackers et al. (2012) say that transport-related PA and walking can be relevant in leveling inequalities in PA, as it seems to be less inhibited by SEP-factors, as it is already popular, and as interventions to change people´s free time mobility habits have been found to be challenging.

Also Turrell et al. (2013) found that residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods

are more likely than others to walk for transport and are less likely to have access to a motor vehicle. They say that increased transport walking may reduce health inequalities between advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods, by protecting residents of the latter against higher levels of chronic disease. They also say that given trends to house lower income households in fringe developments on the outskirts of cities – as is the case in Helsinki, it has to be ensured that these are designed to be walkable.

Turrell et al., (2+13) say that a comprehensive approach that involves designing

neighborhoods with connected street networks, and access to local and regional public transport and employment, and local shops and services is important. Aside of producing better health outcomes, this would also reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse emissions, and increase social capital and sense of community.

As lack of walkability may make it difficult for the elderly people to manage their everyday lives in their neighborhoods, this may lead to lack of critical physical activity, isolation and premature hospitalisation, not being able to manage their shopping and other errands, or to keep in touch with their friends, neighbors and familiar everyday environments, which they mostly hope to be able to maintain, to lead an independent life as long as their health permits (Rosenbloom, 2004).

In this situation, the finding that those with preference for passive transport walk considerably more in walkable neighborhoods, almost equaling with the level of those with preference of active

transport means that walkable neighborhoods protect the health and capabilities of independent living of also the present and future elderly inhabitants and especially passive walkers/people with passive mobility habits, helping them to achieve the critical amount of extra activity to keep them above the degradation level.

Sufficient density supporting walkability, including sufficient diversity and service availability, does not require extreme means. As Moudon et al (2006) found, already around 5360 residential units (such as apartments) per km2 is a treshold value where the amount of sufficient walkers achieving the recommended 150 minutes of moderate intensity walking per week will increase significantly. They also found that having block sides shorter than 150 meters will also support this goal, as large blocks reduce the connectivity of the street network and small ones improve it. This level of housing density and improved connectivity could be easily achieved in loosely built suburbs like Yliskylä, still leaving enough space for proper parks and other public open places. As that level of density can support sufficient diversity and accessibility of proximate local services, it is also enables better public transport availability, making it economically feasible, allowing

inhabitants to achieve significant cost savings by diminishing car dependency with various related indirect costs.

Public open spaces and parks can balance the sufficient density. As Sugiyama et al. (2002) found, those with proximate access to larger attractive public open spaces and parks with multiple attributes were 50% more likely to achieve high levels of walking than others. Kaplan (1995) also found that natural elements and greenery have a strong restorative value for the inhabitants, and especially if the inhabitants can experience “losing themselves” in association with the greenery such as larger parks or forests (see 2.1.3.). Also walking for recreation is vital for the elderly, as it provides both physical activity and social interaction. As Young et al. (2017) say the social

dimension of environments have a significant influence on the health and well-being of the elderly, as they found that social connection was considered the most important criteria among the three selected parks, but none of the studied parks were found to support social participation and inclusion. They say that to satisfy the specific needs of the elderly, future park designs could provide better space and opportunities for incorporating participation in the general planning and design in their local parks and neighborhoods to enhance healthy aging.

BUT: For the elderly with decreasing mobility and increased need of proximity, having a lot of parks and forests around does not help, if there are no local services and other proximate places to go, supporting both walking or transport and social interaction within the neighborhood.

Although sufficient density is one of the essential basic conditions of functional walkability, it does not produce it in itself. It may at its worst mean only dense blocks with the streetscape filled with cars, non-interactive concrete/glass/steel/brick walls or private windows without anything to relate with and to have a part in. For example Munkkiniemi with a density under 5 000 people/km2 has significantly more local accessibility/service availability and social interaction potential that Länsi-Pakila, which rougly the same population density. Therefore, adding density does not necessarily increase walkability, if the actual functional determinants of walkability are missing. The most significant elements producing walkability, especially in the point of view of the elderly, are proximate functional diversity and connectivity of the street network. Mixed structure secures the availability and variety of local destinations (different kinds of amenities) and network connectivity minimising distances and maximising seamless walking trips to these amenities/destinations, include parks, and public open places, which all together enable and support social interaction.

As any moderate intensity mobility adds the odds of staying alive and healthy, improving also social and psychological health, we should consider walking as the primary local transport mode, to

improve walkability for also the physically passive and disadvantaged inhabitants. The perceptions of physically fit and active people and the emphasis of thinking and planning walkability via route-based concepts (analogous with car and bike use) have led to neglecting many relevant features of walking, as most of the walkability consists of a broader functional package with routes only as one of the crucial elements.

Walkable neighborhoods are smaller than generally thought: 1 km is a long way to walk for the average urban dweller, as e.g. the treshold values for sufficient walkers for food related

shopping are only 600-700 meters Moudon et al., 2006; Smith et al, 2010). For the elderly they are even smaller such as 400-600 meters (Laatikainen, 2019) and get smaller by the age. Especially people with passive private car based mobility habits and preferences are totally dropped out of the equation if amenities are placed further than 1 km away.

Self-selection phenomenon enables to increases the benefits of walkability for people with passive mobility habits and also those with active mobility habits if they are able move into a more walkable neighborhood or their present neighborhood can be improved, thus benefitting both the present and future elderly.

Considering the benefits of walkable neighborhoods, they seem to support the physical and social health and independent living of the elderly inhabitants, allowing them to age in place, i.e. in their home neighborhoods, as many of them hope (Rosenbloom, 2004). The importance of health becomes even more evident for the elderly, as their mobility and physical fitness decrease and various health issues arise. For the elderly, social and psychological health is at least as important that physiological health, as both are interrelated.

Home care crisis and gentrification may accelerate the detrimental effect of poor suburban walkability in Helsinki. The often praised principle and desire of the elderly inhabitants to age at place, where one has used to live and to know people and places, is compromised from many sides.

Partly through the insufficient walkability of their neighborhoods to support the everyday needs of the elderly striving to survive at home, and also by the alarming lack of home care support, as found by Kröger et al., 2018. Although national governments and municipalities have intended to save money by instructing the elderly inhabitants to stay at home instead of moving into institutional facilities, they have at the same time weakened the services that would enable the elderly people to do so. Their children, if any, often live far away or are busy enough with their challenging jobs and/or their own children. This situation gets worse after the death of the spouse and after it is no longer possible to drive. As loneliness is a regular guest in the lives of the elderly people, some people hope that Smart Cities will be part of resolving the home care crisis, but even if they may help in physical health issues, virtual social contacts cannot really compensate for the face-to-face

social interaction in a walkable community. All these phenomenons together can transfer important elements of a normal human life outside the remaining domain of the elderly inhabitants.

As Kim et al (2016) found, also gentrification often removes walkable housing options with reasonably good transit from the reach of people with the need of affordable housing. Considering the future elderly that should have the option to age at place, policy makers and planners should ensure that affordable, walkable and transitable housing options are made available in advance for the less advantaged people adjusting to gentrification.

These findings should be motivating more profound analyses of the walkability of our suburbs, combining GIS-based methods with personal interviews of different age groups and people with different mobility preferences. These studies should be used to detect the most problematic and potential neighborhoods to be improved in terms of walkability and cost effectivity and to

determine the most relevant elements of walkability to enhance present areas to be more walkable.

Still open critical questions after this work:

1) Is urban and neighborhood design a health equality problem? Does urban design appear