‘Enabling places’: Rethinking ‘community’ in ageing‐in‐community in Beijing, China

Abstract

Objective(s) To understand how community as ‘enabling places’ is experienced by older people and brings about enabling resources for supporting ageing in community (AIC). Methods From a health geographical perspective, we conceptualize community as enabling places that are produced by the interaction of material, social, and symbolic resources. Focusing on a community‐based care centre (CBCC) in Beijing, China, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 17 older persons to examine how a CBCC enabled AIC. Results The CBCC site created three interdependent spaces and material/social/affective resources for enabling AIC: (1)living space (residential care beds) to create a sense of connection and safety; (2) a CBCC‐supported care space at home to create an atmosphere of trust and safety; and (3) a social space to create feelings of belonging and contribution. Variations in how the three resources interacted produced not only different spaces at the same site for various users but also different AIC experiences for the same user. Conclusions Community is not simply a static research context or spatial container. Rather, community as an enabling place involves a dynamic process in which spatial/social/affective resources are encountered and interact. Older people's AIC experiences change as their encounters change in the three types of resources we described and thus their capacities for ageing well change correspondingly. Furthermore, the binary idea of community versus institution needs to be expanded to explore how home, community, and institution are related, in order to create enabling spaces for AIC.

Value co‐creation to improve ageing‐in‐place programs in China

“…1 While municipal administrations in China have introduced innovative initiatives known as 'Butler services' (管家式服務) and 'Nearby and accurate elder care grid' (就近精准養老服務網格) in urban settings to provide attentive and responsive elderly home and community care services, 2 there is a growing recognition of conflicting values and varied expectations regarding AIP care among different stakeholders. 1,[3][4][5][6] AIP is viewed differently by various stakeholders. Policymakers, public administrators and government economists may see AIP as a means to reduce public expenditures, while city planners, housing designers and geriatricians may consider it a tool for promoting healthier lifestyles among older adults.…”

“…Despite the anticipated advantages of AIP, older adults participating in such programs who reside independently or lack support often experience additional health issues such as anxiety, depression or loneliness 1 . While municipal administrations in China have introduced innovative initiatives known as ‘Butler services’ (管家式服務) and ‘Nearby and accurate elder care grid’ (就近精准養老服務網格) in urban settings to provide attentive and responsive elderly home and community care services, 2 there is a growing recognition of conflicting values and varied expectations regarding AIP care among different stakeholders 1,3–6 …”

Beyond the logic of promoting independent living of older adults

“…Li et al's 10 findings in their paper entitled ‘'Enabling places': Rethinking 'community' in ageing‐in‐community in Beijing, China’ challenge the literature's binary ideas of ‘community versus institution’, ‘care inside home versus care outside home’ or ‘caregiver versus caretaker’. Rather than choosing to age in place or in institution, older adults can also opt to stay in between the two living environments.…”

Ageing in Place in China: Small Facilities, Community-family Care Integration, and Governmental Coordination

“…This logic assumes that the prevention of concurrent comorbidities of AIP programs is more effective than the promotion of independent living in alleviating public spending on aged care. Case studies across China have illustrated that the underlying rationale behind China's revised AIP programs is primarily centred around boosting government expenditure on the establishment of a substantial number of small community centres or care teams designed with the involvement of relatives, friends, and volunteers in order to resolve conflicts among different stakeholders (Li, Yu, and Rosenberg 2023;Wang, Zhang, and Zhan 2023;Wong 2023;Yang et al 2023;Zhang and Chan 2023). In light of these findings, further investigation is warranted to examine more of these combined efforts in both the public and nonpublic sectors.…”