Randomized trial examines mobility patterns in older adults, highlighting the role of neighborhood accessibility in movement efficiency.
Despite growing demand for age-friendly cities, it remains unclear how different neighborhood accessibility translates into older adults’ everyday mobility. To address the issue, this study examined neighborhood accessibility and mobility patterns across three neighborhood types. Residents aged 60 and above were randomly selected from three neighborhood types for a questionnaire survey ( N = 268) and GPS trajectories ( N = 51). Mobility patterns were quantified using six mobility indicators and compared via ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Indicator heatmaps and logarithmic regression further analyzed mobility patterns, while OpenStreetMap-based POI data were overlaid with trajectories to visualize proportion of out-of-home stay time by facility. Subjective environmental assessments were linked to outdoor activities using ANOVA and multiple linear regression. According to GPS- and Survey-based results, older adults in unrenovated old neighborhood (UON) exhibited the most active mobility, the lowest path tortuosity, and the highest satisfaction with perceived number and distance of facilities. Those living in newly constructed neighborhood (NCN) displayed high home-stay rates and localized leisure activity, recording the highest scores for street design and ambience but the lowest satisfaction with number and distance of facilities. Residents in renovated old neighborhood (RON) similarly showed high home-stay rates and constrained activity spaces, yet had the highest path tortuosity. These findings suggest that facility quantity, distance, and path efficiency underpin older adults’ independent travel, while high navigational resistance may negate the advantages of facility distribution. Through delineating the impact of varying accessibility on older adults’ mobility, this equips urban designers with targeted spatial configuration strategies for localized, age-friendly interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: