Ageing-in-place is considered important for the health of older adults. In this paper, inspired by a constructivist approach to ageing-in-place, we unravel professionals' and older adults' constructions of ageing-in-place. Their perspectives are studied in relation to a policy that aims to develop so-called 'lifecycle-robust neighbourhoods' in the southern part of the Netherlands. We conducted a photovoice study in which 18 older adults (70-85 years) living independently and 14 professionals (social workers, housing consultants, neighbourhood managers and community workers) were asked to photograph and discuss the places they consider important for ageing-in-place. Based on a theoretically informed analysis of the data, we found that professionals primarily consider objective characteristics of neighbourhoods such as access to amenities, mobility and meeting places as important enablers for older adults to remain living independently. Analysis of older adults' photographs and stories show that they associate ageing-in-place with specific lived experiences and attachments to specific, intangible and memory-laden public places. We conclude that exploring these experiences helps to increase current knowledge about place attachment in old age.

No abstract

In Western welfare states, notions of age-friendly communities and ageing-in-place are increasingly important in new health policies. In the Netherlands, care reforms are modifying the former welfare state to be more participatory; local governments are seeking collaborative solutions. Municipalities and housing, care and welfare organisations in the southern part of the country developed the concept of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’, envisioned as places where older people can age-in-place. Although many scholars have used the concept ageing-in-place in their studies of neighbourhoods, we aim to unravel this concept further by exploring how this particular ageing policy plays out in practice. This paper explores what the development of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’ means in relation to notions of ageing-in-place and age-friendly communities. We used ethnography (interviews, observations and focus groups) to reveal how, on the one hand, the policy makers, housing, care and welfare directors and representatives of older people, as developers of ‘lifecycle robust neighbourhoods’ and, on the other hand, older people, give meaning to places to age-in-place. It becomes clear that ageing-in-place has a different meaning in policy discourses than in practice. While developers mainly considered place as something construable, older people emotionally attached to place through lived experiences.