| Literature DB >> 32605012 |
Chongxian Chen1, Weijing Luo1, Ning Kang2, Haiwei Li1, Xiaohao Yang3, Yu Xia1.
Abstract
Urban streets are important public spaces for daily activities that play a crucial role in promoting health in the elderly. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between perceived street walkability and mood in the elderly, and specifically, the mediating effect of environmental preference and place attachment. We surveyed a total of 269 elderly residents from six streets in Guangzhou, China. We collected assessments of the street environments, environmental preferences, place attachment, and mood status from the elderly. A serial multiple mediator model was constructed using the structural equation modeling method. The results showed that the perceived street walkability was sequentially associated first with an increased level of place attachment (β = 0.798, SE = 0.358, p < 0.000) and then environmental preference (β = 0.191, SE = 0.033, p = 0.038), which was in turn related to improvement of positive mood in the elderly (β = 0.595 SE = 0.341, p < 0.000). Environmental preference alone was found to be significantly associated with positive mood (β = 0.595, SE = 0.341, p < 0.000), while no significant effect of place attachment was found when considered individually (β = -0.075, SE = 0.089, p = 0.395). These findings provide a greater understanding of the possible mechanism through which street environment impacts mood in the elderly. Therefore, when promoting the emotional experience of the elderly, we might consider not only physical environment factors but also psychological conditions in street environments.Entities:
Keywords: elderly; environmental preference; mood; place attachment; street environment
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32605012 PMCID: PMC7370144 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17134620
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical framework of the relationship between perceived street walkability and the mood of the elderly, with place attachment and environmental preference as mediators.
Figure 2Location of six streets in Guangzhou.
Figure 3Photographs of six different street environments.
Demographic characteristics of the participants (N = 269).
| Characteristic | Category | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 125 (46.5%) |
| Female | 144 (53.5%) | |
| Age (years) | 60–64 | 38 (14.1%) |
| 65–69 | 55 (20.4%) | |
| 70–79 | 108 (40.1%) | |
| ≥80 | 68 (25.3%) | |
| Occupation | Public institution personnel | 121(45.0%) |
| Scientific research personnel | 6 (2.2%) | |
| Business and service personnel | 32 (11.9%) | |
| Agricultural production personnel | 45 (16.7%) | |
| Others | 65 (24.2%) | |
| Education | High school or below | 224 (83.3%) |
| Bachelor’s degree | 41 (15.2%) | |
| Master’s degree | 2 (0.7%) | |
| Doctorate | 2 (0.7%) |
Reliability and validity analysis.
| Variable | Items | Standardized Path Coefficients | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived street walkability | L1 Easy to walk to public transport | 0.802 | 0.879 | 0.937 | 0.504 |
| L2 Easy to walk to public facilities | 0.829 | ||||
| L3 Easy to walk to recreational facilities | 0.607 | ||||
| S1: walkways connecting to street | 0.945 | ||||
| S2: short distance between intersections | 0.616 | ||||
| I1: pavement in good quality | 0.736 | ||||
| I2: footpath greening isolation from the traffic | 0.714 | ||||
| I3: footpath is easily accessible | 0.744 | ||||
| A1: greening in good quality along footpath | 0.702 | ||||
| A2: pavement cleanliness and free from litter | 0.685 | ||||
| A3: human scale street space | 0.637 | ||||
| A4: pleasant environment features along footpath | 0.596 | ||||
| A5: building in good quality along footpath | 0.740 | ||||
| F1: appropriate well-lit at night | 0.686 | ||||
| F2: slow traffic nearby street | 0.489 | ||||
| Positive mood | PA1 Active | 0.909 | 0.969 | 0.970 | 0.786 |
| PA2 Enthusiastic | 0.925 | ||||
| PA3 Cheerful | 0.896 | ||||
| PA4 Joyful | 0.957 | ||||
| PA5 Excited | 0.943 | ||||
| PA6 Proud | 0.861 | ||||
| PA7 Inspired | 0.914 | ||||
| PA8 Strong | 0.808 | ||||
| PA9 Grateful | 0.743 | ||||
| Negative mood | NA1 Guilty | 0.357 | 0.845 | 0.835 | 0.396 |
| NA2 Upset | 0.410 | ||||
| NA3 Scared | 0.849 | ||||
| NA4 Nervous | 0.868 | ||||
| NA5 Afraid | 0.847 | ||||
| NA6 Ashamed | 0.189 | ||||
| NA7 Irritable | 0.478 | ||||
| NA8 Jittery | 0.773 | ||||
| NA9 Angry | 0.465 | ||||
| Environmental preference | C1Each component of the street environment seems to hang together | 1.012 | 0.866 | 0.940 | 0.540 |
| C2 The street environment has repeated elements | 0.632 | ||||
| C3 Each component of the street environment helps each other to organize a well-arranged scene | 0.413 | ||||
| LL1 It is clear to figure out the scene of the street environment | 0.786 | ||||
| LL2 It does not easy to get lost in the street environment | 0.866 | ||||
| LL3 The street environment has distinct markers | 0.781 | ||||
| CC1 The street environment has too many intricate elements | 0.592 | ||||
| CC2 The street environment contains abundant elements and features | 0.540 | ||||
| CC3 The street environment lacks of rule and order | 0.607 | ||||
| CC4 The scene of the street environment is changeful | 0.909 | ||||
| M1 The scene of the street environment make me wonder to navigate more | 0.650 | ||||
| M2 The scene of the street environment is circuitous | 0.849 | ||||
| M3 The scene of the street environment is far-reaching and mysterious | 0.711 | ||||
| M4 The street environment makes me feel there is an interesting scene to explore | 0.712 | ||||
| Place attachment | PD1 The street is the best place for what I like to do | 0.767 | 0.943 | 0.958 | 0.696 |
| PD2 No other place can compare to this street | 0.887 | ||||
| PD3 I get more satisfaction out of visiting this street than any other | 0.889 | ||||
| PD4 I wouldn’t substitute any other street for doing the type of things I do here | 0.818 | ||||
| PD5 Doing what I do here is more is more important to me than doing it in any other place | 0.849 | ||||
| PI1 I feel this street is a part of me | 0.864 | ||||
| PI2 This street is very special to me | 0.842 | ||||
| PI3 I identify strongly with this street | 0.693 | ||||
| PI4 I am very attached to this street | 0.881 | ||||
| PI5 Visiting this street says a lot about who I am | 0.835 |
Note: CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance extracted.
Descriptive statistics, correlations, and discriminant validity among the variables.
| Variable | Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Perceived street walkabilit | 3.33 | 0.65 | 0.684 | ||||
| 2. Environmental preference | 2.34 | 0.61 | 0.56 ** | 0.735 | |||
| 3. Place attachment | 1.90 | 0.73 | 0.65 ** | 0.57 ** | 0.834 | ||
| 4. Positive mood | 3.00 | 1.12 | 0.63 ** | 0.62 ** | 0.48 ** | 0.887 | |
| 5. Negative mood | 1.34 | 0.47 | –0.19 ** | –0.06 | –0.07 | –0.26 ** | 0.629 |
Note: **—Coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). AVE square roots are bolded on the diagonal. SD—standard deviation.
Model fit indexes.
| Model Fit Index | Ideal Critical Criterion | Acceptable Value | Model Fit Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-square/df | 1–2 | 1–3 | 1.767 |
| GFI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.836 |
| AGFI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.750 |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | <0.09 | 0.053 |
| CFI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.945 |
| TLI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.920 |
Note: GFI—goodnes-of-fit index; AGFI—adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSEA—root mean square error of approximation; CFI—comparative fit index; TLI—Tucker–Lewis index.
Path analysis.
| Path | Standardized Coefficient | SE |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Street Walkability→Positive Mood | 0.245 | 0.326 | 0.039 |
| Perceived Street Walkability→Place Attachment | 0.798 | 0.358 | 0.000 |
| Perceived Street Walkability→Environmental Preference | 0.644 | 0.156 | 0.000 |
| Place Attachment→Environmental Preference | 0.191 | 0.033 | 0.038 |
| Place Attachment→Positive Mood | −0.075 | 0.089 | 0.395 |
| Environmental Preference→Positive Mood | 0.595 | 0.341 | 0.000 |
Note: SE—standard error.
Figure 4Standardized coefficients in the structural equation model. Note: * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
Model effect indexes.
| Variable | Effect | Point Estimate | Bootstrapping 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Street Walkability→Positive Mood | Total effect | 0.659 | (0.583, 0.731) |
| Direct effect | 0.245 | (0.175, 0.496) | |
| Indirect effect | 0.414 | (0.200, 0.725) |
Note: 95% CI—confidence intervals.