Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three - 【彩云小译】

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
国际科学技术杂志
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
环境研究
AND PUBLIC HEALTH
和公共卫生
Article
文章
Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three:

东盟自由贸易区:
Case Studies from Japan, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand
来自日本、马来西亚、缅甸、越南和泰国的案
例研究
1, 1 2
Sariyamon Tiraphat *, Doungjai Buntup , Murallitharan Munisamy , Thang Huu Nguyen
3 4 4 5
, Motoyuki Yuasa , Myo Nyein Aung and Aung Hpone Myint
Sariyamon Tiraphat 1，* ，dongjai Buntup 1，Murallitharan Munisamy 2，Thang Huu
Nguyen 3，Motoyuki Yuasa 4，Myo Nyein Aung 4 和 Aung hphone Myint 5
1
ASEAN Institute for Health Development, Mahidol University, Salaya, Phutthamonthon,
Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand; doungjai.bun@mahidol.ac.th
东盟卫生发展研究所，玛希敦大学，Salaya，Phutthamonthon，Nakhon Pathom 73170，泰
国; doungjai.bun@mahidol.ac.th
2
National Cancer Society of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 50300, Malaysia; murallimd@gmail.com
马来西亚国家癌症协会，吉隆坡 50300，马来西亚; murallimd@gmail. com
3
Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam;
nguyenhuuthang@hmu.edu.vn
河内医科大学预防医学和公共卫生研究所，河内 100000，越南; nguyenhuuthang@hmu.edu.vn
4
Faculty of International Liberal Arts, Juntendo University, Tokyo 113-8421, Japan;
顺天堂大学国际文科学院，东京 113-8421，日本;
moyuasa@juntendo.ac.jp (M.Y.); dr.myonyeinaung@gmail.com (M.N.A.)
Moyuasa@juntendo.ac.jp (m.y.) ; dr myonyeinaung@gmail. com (m.n.a.)
5
Community Partners International (CPI), Bahan Township, Yangon 11201, Myanmar;
aunghponemyint88@gmail.com
缅甸仰光巴罕乡社区伙伴国际(CPI)11201; aunghponemyint88@gmail. com
* Correspondence: sariyamon.tir@mahidol.ac.th; Tel.: +66-2-441-9040-3 (ext. 18); Fax: +66-2-441-9044
* 通信: sariyamon.tir@mahidol.ac.th; 电话: + 66-2-441-9040-3(分机 18) ; 传真: + 66-2-441-9044
Received: 21 May 2020; Accepted: 19 June 2020; Published: 23 June 2020

收到: 2020 年 5 月 21 日; 接受: 2020 年 6 月 19 日; 发布: 2020 年 6 月 23 日
Abstract: Promoting age-friendly environment is one of the appropriate approaches to support quality of
life toward ageing populations. However, the information regarding age-friendly environments in the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Plus Three countries is still limited. This study aimed
to survey the perceived age-friendly environments among ASEAN Plus Three older populations. The
study employed cross-sectional quantitative research using multistage cluster sampling to select a
sample of older adults in the capital cities of Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam and Thailand. The
final sample was composed of 2171 older adults aged 55 years and over, including 140 Japanese, 510
Thai, 537 Malaysian, 487 Myanmarese, and 497 Vietnamese older adults. Data collection was
conducted using a quantitative questionnaire with 20 items of perceived age-friendly environments with
the rating scale based on the World Health Organization (WHO) standard. The score from the 20 items
were analyzed and examined high-risk groups of “bad perception level” age-friendly environments using
ordinal logistic regression. The research indicated the five highest inadequacies of age-friendly
environments including: (1) participating in an emergency-response training session or drill which
addressed the needs of older residents; (2) enrolling in any form of education or training, either formal or
non-formal in any subject; (3) having opportunities for paid employment;
摘要: 促进对老年人友好的环境是支持老龄人口生活质量的适当方法之一。然而，东南亚国家联盟(东盟)
加三国关于老年友好环境的信息仍然有限。这项研究旨在调查东盟自由贸易区和三个老年人口之间的年龄
友好环境。本研究采用多阶段整群抽样的横断面定量研究方法，选取了日本、马来西亚、缅甸、越南和泰
国等国首都的老年人样本。最终的样本包括 2171 名 55 岁及以上的老年人，其中包括 140 名日本人、
510 名泰国人、537 名马来西亚人、487 名缅甸人和 497 名越南老年人。数据收集采用定量问卷，包括
20 个项目的感知年龄友好的环境与评级量表基于世界卫生组织(世卫组织)的标准。采用有序 logistic 模型
对 20 个项目的得分进行分析，并对“不良认知水平”年龄友好环境的高危人群进行检验。研究显示，对老
年人友好的环境存在五个最大的不足之处，包括: (1)参加应急培训课程或演习，以满足老年居民的需要;
(2)参加任何形式的教育或培训，无论是正规还是非正规的任何科目; (3)有机会获得有偿就业;
(4) involvement in decision making about important political, economic and social issues in the
community; and (5) having personal care or assistance needs met in the older adult’s home setting
by government/private care services. Information regarding the inadequacy of age-friendliness by
region was evidenced to guide policy makers in providing the right interventions towards older
adults’ needs.
参与社会上重要的政治、经济和社会问题的决策; 以及(5)政府/私人照顾服务满足老年人在家中的个
人照顾或援助需要。有关地区年龄友好性不足的信息被证明可以指导决策者为老年人的需求提供正
确的干预措施。
Keywords: age-friendly environments; emergency response; lifelong learning; political; economic;

health; personal care; village health volunteer; ASEAN plus three; older populations
关键词: 老年友好型环境; 应急响应; 终身学习; 政治; 经济; 卫生; 个人护理; 乡村卫生志愿者; 东盟自
由贸易区 + 3; 老年人口
1. Introduction
1. 简介
Globally older populations are increasing more than other age groups with a faster rate in the
developing countries [1]. Information from the United Nations indicated that in the year 1980 the older
全球老年人口增长率高于其他年龄组，发展中国家老年人口增长率更高[1]。来自联合国的信息表明，
在 1980 年，老年人
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4523; doi:10.3390/ijerph17124523 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
2020 年，17,4523; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124523 www.mdpi. com/journal/ijerph
2 of
16
16
个中
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4523 的2
2020 年，17,4523 个
population was a majority (56% of persons aged 60 years or over) in developed countries. However,
accordingly, in the future (2050) almost 80% of the older population aged 60 and over will be found
in the less-developed countries [1]. Throughout the world, ageing populations have been the fastest
growing in East Asia and Southeastern Asia where the percentage of the population aged 65 years
or over almost doubled from 6% in 1990 to 11% in 2019 [2].
人口在发达国家占多数(60 岁或 60 岁以上人口的 56%)。然而，因此，在未来(2050 年) ，60 岁及以
上的老年人口中几乎 80% 将出现在欠发达国家[1]。在世界各地，老龄化人口增长最快的是东亚和东
南亚，65 岁及以上人口的百分比几乎翻了一番，从 1990 年的 6% 增至 2019 年的 11% [2]。
Recognizing the growing trend of a worldwide ageing society, the World Health Organization (WHO)
introduced the concept of an “age-friendly community” in 2005 and published a guide in 2007 [3]. There
has been rapid growing interest in making communities more age-friendly and a large number of research
studies have been undertaken on age-friendly environments based on the WHO guideline. For example,
recent studies from Europe implemented the concept of age-friendly cities in The Netherlands and Poland.
The studies illustrate the potential of making cities more appropriate to the needs of older people and to
identify important challenges for active ageing in current and future generations. Some challenges involve
the establishment of inclusive neighborhoods, such as making accessible neighborhoods with an
adequate provision of services as well as the implementation of technology, such as using smart home-
monitoring technologies for ageing societies [4–7]. In Canada, some researchers developed age-friendly
indicators. The final list includes 39 indicators across eight domains that can support communities in their
evaluation activities [8]. The domains are: outdoor space and buildings, transportation, housing, social
participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication, and
community support and health services. Another study from Canada recommended the designing of age-
friendliness for all states by promoting strategic engagements such as strengthening collaborative
intersectoral relationships, implementing policy actions such as funding community projects, and
development and exchange of knowledge such as the creation of a research community and policy
network [9]. Several previous researchers in the United States also studied developing age-friendliness
towards the older population such as improving the workforce in the field of aging [10,11], strengthening
social capital such as social connectivity associated with the older population’s health benefits [12,13],
and integrating research into a policy and planning agenda such as o ering a policy to improve the
physical and social environments for seniors [14–16]. In addition to Europe and America, many Australian
researchers conducted studies regarding age-friendliness to promote quality of life towards Australian
adults such as assessing the impact of political, physical, social, and research dimensions to implement
‘ageing in place’ in Australia [17–20].
世界卫生组织(世卫组织)认识到全球老龄化社会日益增长的趋势，于 2005 年提出了”对老年人友好的
社区”的概念，并于 2007 年出版了一份指南[3]。人们对于使社区更加有利于老年人的兴趣迅速增长，并且
根据世卫组织的准则对有利于老年人的环境进行了大量研究。例如，欧洲最近的研究在荷兰和波兰实施了
老年友好城市的概念。这些研究说明了使城市更适合老年人需求的潜力，并确定了当前和未来几代人积极
老龄化的重要挑战。一些挑战涉及建立包容性社区，例如提供足够的服务，建立无障碍社区，以及实施技
术，例如为老龄化社会使用智能家庭监测技术[4-7]。在加拿大，一些研究人员开发了年龄友好的指标。最
终的清单包括 8 个领域的 39 个指标，可以支持社区的评估活动[8]。这些领域包括: 户外空间和建筑、交通、
住房、社会参与、尊重和社会包容、公民参与和就业、通信、社区支持和卫生服务。加拿大的另一项研究
建议通过促进诸如加强部门间合作关系、执行诸如资助社区项目等政策行动以及发展和交流诸如建立一个
研究社区和政策网络等知识来为所有国家设计有利于老年人的方案[9]。美国以前的几位研究人员也研究了
如何发展对老年人的有利条件，例如改善老龄化领域的劳动力[10,11] ，加强社会资本，例如与老年人健康
福利有关的社会联系[12,13] ，以及将研究纳入政策和规划议程，例如制定一项改善老年人物质和社会环境
的政策[14-16]。除了欧洲和美国，许多澳大利亚研究人员进行了关于年龄友好性的研究，以提高澳大利亚
成年人的生活质量，如评估政治、身体、社会和研究方面的影响，以在澳大利亚实施“就地老龄化”[17-20]。
In Asia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Plus Three (APT) cooperation
was founded to strengthen and deepen East Asia cooperation in various areas, particularly in
economic, social, and political fields. Currently, APT includes the 10 members of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines,
Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) plus China, Japan, and South Korea. In 2016, to address and
prepare for ageing societies, the APT presented a “statement on active ageing” in a purposeful
manner to support the quality of life and well-being of the older persons in the regions [21]. To
promote active ageing of older residents, a holistic approach of supportive and “age-friendly
environments” for the older population included not only social and physical environments, but also
economic security, and health care services as a national priority [21,22].
在亚洲，东南亚国家联盟(东盟)加三(APT)合作成立，以加强和深化东亚各领域的合作，特别是
在经济、社会和政治领域。目前，APT 包括东南亚国家联盟(文莱、柬埔寨、印度尼西亚、老挝、马
来西亚、缅甸、菲律宾、新加坡、泰国和越南)的 10 个成员国以及中国、日本和韩国。2016 年，为了
应对和准备老龄化社会，防止老龄化协会有目的地提交了一份”积极老龄化声明”，以支持各区域老年
人的生活质量和福祉[21]。为了促进老年居民积极老龄化，为老年人口提供支持性和”老年友好环境”的
整体办法不仅包括社会和物质环境，而且还包括经济保障和作为国家优先事项的保健服务[21,22]。
Despite the fact that ageing populations have been growing rapidly in the ASEAN Plus Three, a
study to investigate age-friendly environments for older adults in the region is limited. Strengthening
timely and e ective policy cooperation towards active ageing, information and evidence regarding
overview of age-friendly environments would be necessary. Therefore, this study aimed (1) to
examine the availability of provided age-friendly environments; (2) to investigate whether the
distribution of provided age-friendly environments di er by country; and (3) to identify high-risk
groups of having inadequate age-friendly environments. Evidence of perceived age-friendly
environment and risk groups will envision health and social authorities to create appropriate age-
friendly environments based on the older populations’ needs.
尽管东盟自由贸易区人口老龄化迅速增长，但对该地区老年人有利的环境进行调查的研究却很有
限。加强针对积极老龄化的及时有效的政策合作，关于老年友好环境概述的信息和证据将是必要的。
因此，本研究旨在(1)检验所提供的适龄环境的可用性; (2)调查所提供的适龄环境的分布情况是否因国
家而异; (3)确定适龄环境不足的高危人群。人们认为有利于老年人的环境和风险群体的证据将设想卫
生和社会当局根据老年人的需要创造适当的有利于老年人的环境。
3 of
16
16
个中
2020 年，17,4523 个
2. Methodology
2. 方法
2.1. Description of Survey and Study Population

2.1. 统计调查及研究人口简介
This research design was a cross-sectional household interview survey of perceived age-
friendly environments towards the older populations in ASEAN Plus Three. The study used a
multistage, stratified sampling procedure collecting data via face-to-face interviews during
November 2018 to January 2019 in five metropolitan areas of Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam,
Thailand, and Japan. We calculated the sample size using the number of older population aged 55
years and older in each metropolitan area above (100,000 cases/metropolis) [2,23]. Having been
calculated by the Taro Yamane Formula method with 95% confidence, the sample size in each
metropolitan area was about 400 cases. After adding a missing rate of 25%, the expected final
sample size for each metropolitan area was approximately 500 cases. However, we decided to have
smaller numbers of data collection (about 150 cases) in Japan due to our resource limitations. For
all countries, the first step was selection of a metropolitan area. In the second step, we randomly
selected three or four districts from the metropolitan areas. In the third step, each subdistrict per
district was selected. In the fourth step, every person 55 years of age and older living in the
randomly selected households in the study area was eligible for the study. In the final fifth step,
among all the eligible respondents in a household, one was randomly selected for interview. The
response rate in each country was 100%. The study population after excluding the observations with
missing data was a total of 2171 persons aged 55 years and older. The observations remaining in
the sample included 537 from Malaysia, 497 from Vietnam, 487 from Myanmar, 510 from Thailand,
and 140 from Japan. This research project received ethical approval from the “Research Ethics
Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mahidol University” (Certificate of
Approval No. 2018/218.1809). Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.
本研究设计是一个横断面的家庭访谈调查，主要针对东盟自由贸易区的老年人群。本研究采用多
阶段分层抽样方法，于 2018 年 11 月至 2019 年 1 月在马来西亚、缅甸、越南、泰国和日本的五个大
都市地区进行面对面访谈，收集数据。我们使用 55 岁及以上每个城市群(100,000 个病例/大都市)的老
年人数来计算样本量[2,23]。用 Taro Yamane 公式法计算，每个城市群的样本量约为 400 个，置信度
为 95% 。在增加 25% 的缺失率之后，每个城市群的预期最终样本量约为 500 个案例。然而，由于我
们的资源有限，我们决定在日本收集更少的数据(约 150 个案例)。对于所有国家来说，第一步是选择
一个城市群。在第二步中，我们从城市地区中随机选择三到四个地区。在第三步中，每个地区的每个
分区都被选中。在第四步中，在研究区域随机选择的家庭中生活的每个 55 岁以上的人都有资格参加
研究。在最后的第五步中，在一个家庭中所有符合条件的受访者中，随机选择了一人进行面试。每个
国家的回复率为 100% 。排除观察数据缺失后的研究人群共有 2171 名 55 岁及以上的人。样本中剩余
的观察结果包括马来西亚 537 例，越南 497 例，缅甸 487 例，泰国 510 例，日本 140 例。该研究项
目获得了“玛希敦大学社会科学与人文学院研究伦理委员会”的伦理批准(批准证书编号:
2018/218.1809)。所有研究参与者均获得知情同意。
2.2. Measures
2.2 措施
2.2.1. Perceived Age-Friendly Environments
2.2.1 感知年龄友好的环境
All items of perceived age-friendly environments scale were obtained from the World Health
Organization [3,24]. The final questionnaire of this study was adapted from the age-friendly environment
questionnaire’s Thai version, which has been validated with an older adult population in Thailand showing
a good internal consistency validity = 0.89 [25]. The perceived age-friendly environment scale is
composed of 20 items for evaluating 8 domains that cities and communities can address to better adapt
their structures and services to the needs of older people. The domains are the built environment,
transport, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment,
communication, and community support and health services [3]. Each individual item of the age-friendly
environments is scored from 0 to 4 on a response ordinal scale (not at all, a little, moderately, mostly,
extremely), with higher scores indicating a higher perception of age-friendly environments. In this study,
to examine whether distribution of provided age-friendly environments di er by country, we integrated and
classified the perceived age-friendly environments from five levels into three levels as bad (not at all/a
little), fair (moderately), and good (mostly/extremely). Internal consistency for the perceived Age-friendly
environments in this study sample was = 0.87, with 0.80, 0.67, 0.79, 0.88, and 0.84 for Malaysia, Vietnam,
Myanmar, Thailand, and Japan respectively.
所有感知到的年龄友好环境量表的项目都是从世界卫生组织获得的[3,24]。本研究的最终问卷改编自
年龄友好型环境问卷的泰国版，该问卷已在泰国的一个老年人群中得到验证，显示良好的内部一致性效度
= 0.89[25]。认为对老年人友好的环境量表由 20 个项目组成，用于评估城市和社区为使其结构和服务更好
地适应老年人的需要可以处理的 8 个领域。这些领域包括建筑环境、交通、住房、社会参与、尊重和社会
包容、公民参与和就业、通信、社区支持和卫生服务[3]。每个项目的年龄友好的环境是从 0 到 4 的反应序
数量表(不是一点点，一点点，适度，大部分，极端) ，分数越高表明更高的感知年龄友好的环境。在这项
研究中，为了考察不同国家提供的适龄环境的分布是否不同，我们将感知到的适龄环境从五个层次整合并
分为三个层次: 坏(一点也不/少)、一般(中等)和好(大部分/极端)。本研究样本中年龄友好环境的内部一致性
为 = 0.87，马来西亚、越南、缅甸、泰国和日本分别为 0.80、0.67、0.79、0.88 和 0.84。
2.2.2. Sociodemographic Variables

2.2.2. 社会人口变量
In order to identify high-risk groups of perceived age-friendliness inadequacy, we put age

levels as 1 = 55–64 years, 2 = 65–74 years, 3 = 75 years and higher, and designated gender, and
placed educational levels at 1 = At least primary school, 2 = High school, and 3 = More than high
school as the predictors.
为了确定年龄友好性不足的高危人群，我们将年龄水平定为 1 = 55-64 岁，2 = 65-74 岁，3 = 75
岁及以上，并指定性别，并将教育水平定为 1 = 至少小学，2 = 高中，3 = 高中以上作为预测因素。
4 of
16
16
个中
2020 年，17,4523 个
2.3. Data Analysis

2.3 数据分析
Data were analyzed using the 2012 released IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0,
(Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive analysis was used to describe the sample. In order to survey the
availability of perceived age-friendly environment, the average score of each individual item of the
response ordinal scale (0–4) for age-friendly environments was calculated with the average higher
scores indicating more availability of age-friendly environments. In order to examine di erences in
the proportion of perceived age-friendly environment by country, we recoded the perception into 3
levels as bad (not at all/a little), fair (moderately), and good (mostly/extremely) and did the analysis
using Pearson chi-squared test. Finally, to identify high-risk groups experiencing inadequate age-
friendliness, ordinal logistic regression analysis was applied to investigate the predictors including
age level, gender, educational level, and participant’s country of higher perceived age-friendly
environment. The level of significance for all analyses was set at p < 0.05.
使用 2012 年发布的 IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows，Version 21.0(Armonk，NY，USA)对数
据进行分析。使用描述性分析来描述样本。为了调查感知的年龄友好环境的有效性，计算了反应序数
量表(0-4)中每个项目在年龄友好环境中的平均得分，平均得分越高表示年龄友好环境的有效性越高。
为了考察不同国家的年龄友好型环境感知比例的差异，我们将年龄友好型环境感知分为 3 个等级: 差
(一点也不/一点点)、一般(中等)和好(大部分/极端) ，并用 Pearson 卡方检验进行分析。最后，为了识
别年龄友好度不足的高危人群，采用有序 logit 模型分析了年龄水平、性别、文化程度和参与者所在国
家对年龄友好度较高的预测因子。所有分析的显着性水平设定为 p < 0.05。
3. Results
3. 结果
3.1. Sample Characteristics

3.1 样本特征
The total study sample included 2171 older persons (55 years or more). About three-fifths
(61.6%) of the sample were women. They had completed elementary school (42.1%), high school
(24.3%), and more than high school (33.7%). The older adults are more in the ages between 55–64
years (44.6%), followed by 38.2% for the ages between 65–74 years, and 17.2% for the older
population at 75 years or higher. They live in Malaysia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Thailand, and Japan
with N = 537, 497, 487, 510, and 140 respectively (see Table 1).
总研究样本包括 2171 名老年人(55 岁或以上)。大约五分之三(61.6%)的样本是女性。完成小学
(42.1%) ，高中(24.3%) ，高中以上(33.7%)。年龄在 55-64 岁之间的老年人较多(44.6%) ，其次是
65-74 岁的 38.2% 和 75 岁及以上的老年人 17.2% 。他们分别居住在马来西亚、越南、缅甸、泰国和
日本，n = 537、497、487、510 和 140(见表 1)。
Table 1. Sample characteristics.

表 1. 样本特征。
Country
国家
Variables Malaysia Vietnam Myanmar Thailand Japan Total

变数马来西亚越南缅甸泰国日本总计
(N = 537) (N = 497) (N = 487) (N = 510) (N = 140) (N =
(n = 537) (n = 497) (n = 487) (n = 510) (n = 140) 2171)
(n = 2171)
%n %N %n %N %n
N %n %n %n %n %n %
1. Education
1. 教育
At least Primary
school
1.1 至少就读小学 19 3.5 165 33.2 415 85.2 313 61.4 1 0.7 913 42.1
High school
1.2 高中 90 16.8 247 49.7 68 14.0 110 21.6 12 8.6 527 24.3
More than high
school
1.3 不仅仅是高中 428 79.7 85 17.1 4 0.8 87 17.1 127 90.7 731 33.7
2. Gender
2. 性别
Male
2.1 男性 233 43.4 212 42.7 164 33.7 146 28.6 78 55.7 833 38.4
Female
2.2 女性 304 56.6 285 57.3 323 66.3 364 71.4 62 44.3 1338 61.6
3. Age level
3. 年龄层次
55–64 years
3.1 55-64 岁 376 70.0 185 37.2 201 41.3 200 39.2 6 4.3 968 44.6
65–74 years
3.2 65-74 岁 144 26.8 218 43.9 191 39.2 194 38.0 83 59.3 830 38.2
75 years and higher
3.3 75 年以上 17 3.2 94 18.9 95 19.5 116 22.7 51 36.4 373 17.2
3.2. Availability of Perceived Age-Friendly Environments

3.2 感知到的年龄友好环境的可用性
Availability of perceived age-friendly environments are analyzed from the scores for each one
of the 20 items of an age-friendly environment. Average score of each individual item of the
response ordinal scale (0–4) for age-friendly environments was calculated and compared with
average higher scores indicating more availability of age-friendly environments.
从一个年龄友好环境的 20 个项目中的每一个项目的得分来分析感知的年龄友好环境的可用性。
计算年龄友好型环境的反应序数量表(0-4)各个项目的平均得分，并与表明年龄友好型环境可用性更高
的平均得分进行比较。
Table 2 indicates average score of perceived age-friendly environments. We found that the five
lowest average scores of perceived age-friendly environment in ASEAN Plus Three are as follows:
表 2 表示感知的年龄友好环境的平均得分。我们发现，在东盟自由贸易区加上三个地区，感知到
的年龄友好环境平均得分最低的五个地区如下:
(1) participating in an emergency response training session or drill in the past year which addressed the
needs of older residents (mean score = 0.58); (2) enrolling in any form of education or training, either
formal or non-formal, in any subject in the past year(mean score = 1.04); (3) having opportunities
(2)在过去一年，参加针对长者需要的紧急应变训练课程或演习(平均分 = 0.58) ; (2)报读任何形式的正规或
非正规教育或训练(平均分 = 1.04) ; (3)有机会
5 of
16
16
个中
2020 年，17,4523 个
for paid employment (mean score = 1.06); (4) involving in decision making about important political,
economic and social issues in the community(mean score = 1.07); and (5) having personal care or
assistance needs met in a home setting, e.g., home care nursing/hospice care/non-governmental
organization (NGO)/volunteers (mean score = 1.10).
(4)参与社会上重要的政治、经济及社会事务的决策(平均分 = 1.07) ; 及(5)在家居环境下有个人照顾或
援助需要，例如家居护理/宁养服务/非政府组织/义工(平均分 = 1.10)。
In contrast, the five highest average score of perceived age-friendly environments in ASEAN
Plus Three are as follows: (1) feeling safe in the neighborhood (mean score = 2.61); (2) feeling
respected and socially included in the community (mean score = 2.18); (3) local sources of
information about your health concerns and service needs are available (mean score = 1.91); (4) the
neighborhood is suitable for walking, including for those who use wheelchairs and other mobility
aids (mean score = 1.89); and (5) house has been renovated, or can be renovated to fulfil needs in
order to support the activities of daily living (mean score = 1.86).
相比之下，东盟自由贸易区感知到的年龄友好环境得分最高的五个平均分是: (1)在社区感到安全
(平均分 = 2.61) ; (2)感到受到尊重并融入社区(平均分 = 2.18) ; (3)有关你的健康问题和服务需求的当
地信息来源(平均分 = 1.91) ; (4)社区适合步行，包括那些使用轮椅和其他行动辅助设备的人(平均分 =
1.89) ; (5)房子已经翻新，或者可以翻新以满足需求，以支持日常生活活动(平均分 = 1.86)。
Table 2. Average score of perceived age-friendly environments calculated from the average of a five
rating scale (0–4) with 0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = moderate, 3 = mostly, 4 = extremely.
表 2。感知到的年龄友好的环境的平均得分由五个评分量表(0-4)的平均值计算得出，0 = 一点也不，1
= 一点点，2 = 中等，3 = 大部分，4 = 极端。
Average Score of Perceived Age-Friendly

Environments by Country
按国家划分的感知年龄友好环境的平均得分
Items of Age-Friendly
Environment Malaysia Vietnam Myanmar Thailand Japan
Total
长者友善环境项目马来西亚越南缅甸泰国总计日本
(N =
2171)
(N = 537) (N = 497) (N = 487) (N = 510) (N = 140) (n =
(n = 537) (n = 497) (n = 487) (n = 510) (n = 140) 2171)
1. Your neighborhood is suitable 2.63highe 1.60highe 1.89highe
for walking, st5 st2 st4
1. 你家附近适合步行, 最高 2.63 1.60 最高 1.89 最高
including for those who use 1.67 米 2 1.74 1.71 4
wheelchairs and (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
包括那些使用轮椅和 1.08) 0.93) 0.91) 1.09) 0.98) 1.09)
other mobility aids. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
其他行动辅助设备。 1.08) 0.93) 0.91) 1.09) 0.98) 1.09)
2. The public spaces and buildings
in your
2. 你的公共空间及建筑物
community are accessible for all 1.45 2.48 0.55 1.65 1.49 1.53
people,
所有人都可以进入社区,
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
including those who have 1.10) 0.97) 0.92) 1.12) 0.82) 1.21)
limitations in (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
包括那些在交通方面有限制的人 1.10) 0.97) 0.92) 1.12) 0.82) 1.21)
mobility, vision or hearing.
行动能力、视力或听力。
3. The public transport vehicles
(e.g., train cars,
3. 公共交通工具(例如火车、, 1.19lowes
buses) are physically accessible for t3
all people, 1.19 最低
所有人都可以乘坐公共汽车, 3 2.25 0.75 1.38 1.49 1.40
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
including those who have 1.09) 1.11) 1.10) 1.16) 0.93) 1.22)
limitations in (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
包括那些在交通方面有限制的人 1.09) 1.11) 1.10) 1.16) 0.93) 1.22)
mobility, vision or hearing.
行动能力、视力或听力。
4. The public transportation stops
(such as bus
公共交通站(如公共汽车) 1.49 2.35 0.31 1.48 1.92 1.45
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
stops) are not too far from your 1.04) 1.14) 0.72) 1.13) 1.14) 1.25)
home. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
车站)离你家不太远。 1.04) 1.14) 0.72) 1.13) 1.14) 1.25)
0.02lowes
2.75highe t1 1.86highe
5. Housing in your neighborhood is st4 0.02 st5
a ordable. 2.75 最高 lowwest1 1.86 最高
你家附近的房子是可以住的。 1.49 4 最低 5 1.84 1.56
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.83) 0.86) 0.21) 0.97) 0.88) 1.22)
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.83) 0.86) 0.21) 0.97) 0.88) 1.22)
6. You feel respected and socially 2.21highe 3.08highe 1.38highe 2.22highe 2.18highe
included in st4 st2 st3 st1 st2
2.21 最高 3.08 最高 1.38 最高 2.22 最高 2.18 最高
6. 你感到被尊重，被社会包容 4 2 3 1 1.53 2
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.83) 0.81) 1.29) 0.73) 0.88) 1.11)
your community. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
你的社区。 0.83) 0.81) 1.29) 0.73) 0.88) 1.11)
7. Your neighborhood provide 0.72lowes 1.14lowes
volunteer t3 t3
你的邻居提供志愿者服务最低 0.72 1.14
activity to the older in the last 1.74 分 0.72 1.68 lowest3 1.23
month on at least (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
最近一个月的活跃度至少低于上 1.25) 1.07) 1.13) 1.07) 1.35) 1.25)
一个月 (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
one occasion. 1.25) 1.07) 1.13) 1.07) 1.35) 1.25)
只有一次。
8. You have opportunities for paid 0.12lowes 0.88lowes 1.06lowe
employment t3 t1 st3
你有获得有偿工作的机会
1.53 1.39 0.12 最低 1.20 0.88 最低 1.06 最低
(i.e., there are opportunities for you
to get a paid 点3 1 3
(也就是说，你有机会获得有偿 (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
服务 1.12) 1.36) 0.50) 1.06) 1.33) 1.21)
job if you want for an older (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
person). 1.12) 1.36) 0.50) 1.06) 1.33) 1.21)
如果你想为年长的人找份工作的
话)。
9. Your neighborhood provided 0.93lowes 1.89highe
sociocultural t4 st4
你的邻居提供了社会文化 0.93 最低 1.89 最高
activities to the older at least once 1.64 分4 0.69 4 1.40 1.31
in the last (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
活动至少一次，以年长者 1.13) 1.22) 1.10) 0.98) 1.32) 1.22)
week. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
一周。 1.13) 1.22) 1.10) 0.98) 1.32) 1.22)
10. You are involved in decision 0.74lowes 0.14lowes 1.07lowe
making about t2 t4 st4
你参与了关于... 的决策 0.74 最低 0.14 最低 1.07 最低
important political, economic and 2 1.88 点4 1.40 1.46 4
social issues (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
重要的政治、经济和社会问题 0.93) 1.26) 0.61) 1.11) 1.31) 1.21)
in the community. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
在社区。 0.93) 1.26) 0.61) 1.11) 1.31) 1.21)
11. Local sources of information 2.12highe 1.05highe 2.03highe 2.12highe 1.91highe
about your st5 st5 st3 st3 st3
2.12 最高 1.05 最高 2.03 最高 2.12 最高 1.91 最高
11. 本地资料来源 5 2.35 5 3 3 3
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
health concerns and service needs 1.23) 1.05) 1.08) 1.06) 1.06) 1.21)
are available. (标准差 = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
有健康问题和服务需求。 1.23) 1.05) 1.08) 1.06) 1.06) 1.21)
12. You have your personal care or assistance
needs met in your home setting by 1.31low 0.44lowes 2.05highe 1.10low
government/private care services (i.e., home care
nursing/hospice care/non-governmental est4 t1 st2 est5
organization (NGO)/volunteers). 1.31 0.44 2.05 最高最低点
你的个人照顾或援助需要在家居环境中得到政府/私
lowest4 lowwest1 0.34 2 1.83 1.10
人照顾服务(即家居照顾护理/宁养服务/非政府组织/
义工)的满足。
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
1.14) 0.80) 0.63) 1.18) 0.96) 1.19)
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
1.14) 0.80) 0.63) 1.18) 0.96) 1.19)
13. You have had enough income 2.7highest

to meet your
2
你有足够的收入来支付你的
basic needs over the previous 12 2.7 最高 2 2.32 0.76 1.57 1.51 1.85
months (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
过去 12 个月的基本需要 0.96) 1.36) 0.89) 0.97) 1.15) 1.29)
without public or private (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
assistance. 0.96) 1.36) 0.89) 0.97) 1.15) 1.29)
没有公共或私人援助。
14. Designated priority parking 1.12lowes 2.19highe
spaces are t2 st2
1.12 2.19 最高
十四. 指定优先泊车位包括 1.46 2.46 0.17 lowest2 2 1.37
adequately designed and available. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
充分设计及可供使用。 1.15) 1.04) 0.55) 1.13) 1.01) 1.29)
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
1.15) 1.04) 0.55) 1.13) 1.01) 1.29)
15. Your house has been 2.81highe 1.16highe 1.95highe 1.86highe
renovated, or can be st3 st4 st5 st5
你的房子已经或可能被翻新 2.81 最高 1.16 最高 1.95 最高 1.86 最高
renovated to fulfil your needs in 2.06 3 4 1.37 5 5
order to (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
翻新以满足你的需要 1.09) 0.99) 1.11) 1.13) 1.09) 1.25)
support your activities of daily (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
living. 1.09) 0.99) 1.11) 1.13) 1.09) 1.25)
支持你的日常生活。
6 of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4523 16
2020 年，17,4523 6/16
Table 2. Cont.
表 2. 续。
Average Score of Perceived Age-Friendly

Environments by Country
按国家划分的感知年龄友好环境的平均得分
Items of Age-Friendly
Environment Malaysia Vietnam Myanmar Thailand Japan Total
长者友善环境项目马来西亚越南缅甸泰国日本总计
(N =
2171)
(N = 537) (N = 497) (N = 487) (N = 510) (N = 140) (n =
(n = 537) (n = 497) (n = 487) (n = 510) (n = 140) 2171)
16. Your neighborhood provided
group physical
16、你的邻居提供团体体育活动 1.64 1.52 0.25 1.37 1.69 1.24
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
1.10) 1.44) 0.70) 1.10) 1.30) 1.25)
activities in your leisure time. (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
业余时间的活动。 1.10) 1.44) 0.70) 1.10) 1.30) 1.25)
17. Your neighborhood provided
the older the
17. 你的邻居提供给老年人 1.36lowes 0.16lowes 1.16lowes 0.88lowes 1.04lowe
ability to enroll in any form of t5 t5 t3 t1 st2
education or 1.36 最低 0.16 最低 1.16 最低 0.88 最低 1.04
入读任何形式的教育或 5 1.46 5 3 1 lowest2
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
training, either formal or non- 1.20) 1.47) 0.66) 1.07) 1.17) 1.24)
formal, in any (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
正式或非正式的训练 1.20) 1.47) 0.66) 1.07) 1.17) 1.24)
subject in the past year.
过去一年。
3.19highe 1.30lowes 0.86lowes 1.96highe
18. You have access to internet at st1 t5 t1 st4
home. 3.19 最高最低工资 0.86 最低 1.96 最高
你可以在家上网。 1 1.30 元 0.65 1 4 1.56
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.97) 1.36) 1.12) 1.09) 1.61) 1.54)
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.97) 1.36) 1.12) 1.09) 1.61) 1.54)
19. You feel safe in your 2.51highe 3.10highe 2.96highe 2.03highe 2.21highe 2.61highe
neighborhood. st3 st1 st1 st3 st1 st1
2.51 最高 3.10 最高 2.96 最高 2.03 最高 2.21 最高 2.61 最高
19、你在你的邻居那里感到安 3 1 1 3 1 1
全。 (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.79) 0.85) 1.10) 1.04) 0.85) 1.03)
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
0.79) 0.85) 1.10) 1.04) 0.85) 1.03)
20. Your neighborhood provided 0.40lowes 0.50lowes 0.06lowes 1.05lowes 0.58lowe
the older t1 t2 t2 t2 st1
20. 你的邻居提供了年长的 0.40 最低 0.50 最低 0.06 最低 1.05 最低 0.58 最低
participating in an emergency- 点 2 2 2 1
response training
参加应急反应训练 1.18
(SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
session or drill in the past year 0.89) 0.86) 0.34) 1.14) 1.18) 0.97)
which addressed (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD = (SD =
过去一年的训练课程或演习 0.89) 0.86) 0.34) 1.14) 1.18) 0.97)
the needs of older residents.
老年居民的需要。
xlowest1 xlowest2 xlowest3 xlowest4 xlowest5 = item that have lowest score of perception as lowest 1 = first lowest, lowest 2 =
second lowest, lowest 3 = third lowest, lowest 4 = fourth lowest, and lowest 5 = fifth lowest for each country. Xhighest1
Xhighest2 Xhighest3 Xhighest4 Xhighest5 = item that have highest score of perception as highest 1 = first highest,
Xlowest1 xlowest2 xlowest3 xlowest4 xlowest5 = 感知得分最低的项目 1 = 第一最低，最低 2 = 第二最低，最低 3 = 第三最低，
最低 4 = 第四最低，最低 5 = 每个国家第五最低。Xhighest1 Xhighest2 Xhighest3 Xhighest4 Xhighest5 = 感知得分最高的项目 1
= 第一最高,
highest 2 = second highest, highest 3 = third highest, highest4 = fourth highest, and highest 5 = fifth highest for
each country.
最高 2 = 第二高，最高 3 = 第三高，最高 4 = 第四高，最高 5 = 每个国家的第五高。
3.3. The Level of Perceived Age-Friendly Environments by Country

3.3. 各国对年龄友好环境的认知水平
In order to examine the di erences in the proportion of perceived age-friendly environments by

country, we recoded the perception into 3 levels as bad (not at all/a little), fair (moderately), and good
(mostly/extremely). A Pearson chi-squared test was applied to examine the di erence in the level of
perceived age-friendly environments by country. The results from chi-squared test in Table 3, indicated
the significant di erences at p < 0.05 in the proportion of all perceived age-friendly environments by
country. Among the 20 items of age-friendly environments, the five highest percentage of inadequate
age-friendly environments are (1) participating in an emergency response training session or drill in the
past year which addressed the needs of older residents; (2) enrolling in any form of education or training,
either formal or non-formal; (3) having opportunities for paid employment; (4) involving in decision making
about important political, economic and social issues in the community; and (5) having the personal care
or assistance needs met in home setting by government/private care services. Namely, most ASEAN
older population (more than 80%) perceived their emergency-response training session or drill as bad,
especially more than 90% of the Vietnamese and Myanmarese older populations. Regarding education or
training, almost 70% of the older adults perceived badly, especially most Myanmarese older adults
(95.9%). Similar to education or training, paid employment is also a big problem for the older population
(almost 70%) with inadequate opportunity to get employment, especially Myanmarese older adults
(96.9%). Regarding decision making about important political, economic and social issues in the
community, 65% of the older population perceived it badly, especially 97.1% of Myanmarese and 77.1%
of Malaysian older adults are not satisfied with it. For personal care or assistance needs met in their
home setting, almost 65% of the older population perceived this to be inadequate, especially 96.7% of
Myanmarese and 93.2% of Vietnamese older adults are not satisfied; however the result showed that
only 29% of Thai older adults are dissatisfied.
为了考察不同国家对年龄友好环境的感知比例的差异，我们将这种感知分为 3 个等级: 坏(一点也不/
少)、公平(中等)和好(大部分/极端)。应用皮尔逊卡方检验检验不同国家对年龄友好环境感知水平的差异。
表 3 中的卡方检验结果表明，按国家分列的所有感知的年龄友好环境的比例有显著差异 p < 0.05。在 20 个
对老年人友善的环境项目中，对老年人友善的环境不适当的五个百分比最高的项目是: (1)参加过去一年的
应急培训课程或演习，以满足老年人的需要; (2)参加任何形式的正规或非正规教育或培训; (3)有机会从事有
薪工作; (4)参与社区重大政治、经济和社会问题的决策; 以及(5)政府/私人护理服务在家庭环境中满足个人
护理或援助需要。也就是说，大多数东盟老年人(超过 80%)认为他们的应急培训课程或演习很糟糕，特别
是超过 90% 的越南和缅甸老年人。关于教育或培训，几乎 70% 的老年人感觉糟糕，特别是大多数缅甸老
年人(95.9%)。与教育或培训类似，对于老年人(几乎 70%)来说，有偿就业也是一个大问题，他们没有充分
的就业机会，尤其是缅甸的老年人(96.9%)。关于社区重大政治、经济和社会问题的决策，65% 的老年人
对此感到不满，特别是 97.1% 的缅甸老年人和 77.1% 的马来西亚老年人对此感到不满。对于在家庭环境中
满足的个人护理或援助需求，几乎 65% 的老年人认为这是不够的，特别是 96.7% 的缅甸老年人和 93.2%
的越南老年人不满意; 然而，结果表明，只有 29% 的泰国老年人不满意。
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4523 7 of 16
国际环境公共卫生 2020,17,45237
Table 3. The levels of perceived age-friendly environments by country (applied Pearson chi-squared
test analysis).
表 3. 按国家分列的对年龄友好的环境感知水平(应用皮尔逊卡方检验分析)。
Level of Country
水平国家
Item of Perceived Malay Myanm
Environment Perceptio 马来西 Vietnam ar Thai Japan Total
感知环境项目 n
亚越南缅甸泰国菜日本总计
知觉
(N =
(N = (N = 487) (N = (N = (N =
537) 497) (n = 510) 140) 217)
(n = 537) (n = 497) 487) (n = 510) (n = 140) (n = 217)
1. Bad 245 53 303 190 56 847
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 45.6% 10.7% 62.2% 37.3% 40.0% 39.0%
(n,%) 45.6% 10.7% 62.2% 37.3% 40.0% 39.0%
1. The neighborhood is
suitable for 2. Fair
1. 这个社区适合 2. 公平 176 129 110 216 57 688
walking, including for those
who use
步行，包括那些使用
wheelchairs and other
mobility aids.
轮椅和其他行动辅助设 32.8% 26.0% 22.6% 42.4% 40.7% 31.7%
(n, %)
备。 (n,%) 32.8% 26.0% 22.6% 42.4% 40.7% 31.7%
3. Good 116 315 74 104 27 636
3. 好
(n, %) 21.6% 63.4% 15.2% 20.4% 19.3% 29.3%
(n,%) 21.6% 63.4% 15.2% 20.4% 19.3% 29.3%
1. Bad 273 72 417 214 67 1043
1. 糟糕
2. The public spaces and
buildings in 50.8% 14.5% 85.6% 42.0% 47.9% 48.0%
(n, %)
2. 公共空间和建筑物 (n,%) 50.8% 14.5% 85.6% 42.0% 47.9% 48.0%
the community are accessible
for all 2. Fair
社区对所有人开放 2. 公平 170 164 40 184 61 619
people, including those who
have
人，包括那些
limitations in mobility, vision
or 31.7% 33.0% 8.2% 36.1% 43.6% 28.5%
(n, %)
行动、视力或 (n,%) 31.7% 33.0% 8.2% 36.1% 43.6% 28.5%
hearing. 3. Good
听证会。 94 261 30 112 12 509
3. 好
(n, %) 17.5% 52.5% 6.2% 22.0% 8.6% 23.4%
(n,%) 17.5% 52.5% 6.2% 22.0% 8.6% 23.4%
1. Bad 330 113 372 264 64 1143
1. 糟糕
3. The public transport
vehicles (e.g., 61.5% 22.7% 76.4% 51.8% 45.7% 52.6%
(n, %)
3. 公共交通工具(例如: (n,%) 61.5% 22.7% 76.4% 51.8% 45.7% 52.6%
train cars, buses) are
physically 2. Fair
火车车厢，公共汽车) 2. 公平 133 159 51 152 59 554
accessible for all people,
including
方便所有人使用，包括
those who have limitations in
mobility, 24.8% 32.0% 10.5% 29.8% 42.1% 25.5%
(n, %)
那些行动不便的人, (n,%) 24.8% 32.0% 10.5% 29.8% 42.1% 25.5%
vision or hearing. 3. Good
视力或听力。 74 225 64 94 17 474
3. 好
(n, %) 13.8% 45.3% 13.1% 18.4% 12.1% 21.8%
(n,%) 13.8% 45.3% 13.1% 18.4% 12.1% 21.8%
1. Bad 285 102 461 247 44 1139
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 53.1% 20.5% 94.7% 48.4% 31.4% 52.5%
(n,%) 53.1% 20.5% 94.7% 48.4% 31.4% 52.5%
4. The public transportation
stops
2. Fair
4. 公共交通停止 2. 公平 158 135 8 167 53 521
(such as bus stops) are not
too far from
(例如公共汽车站)离
your home. 29.4% 27.2% 1.6% 32.7% 37.9% 24.0%
(n, %)
你的家。 (n,%) 29.4% 27.2% 1.6% 32.7% 37.9% 24.0%
3. Good 94 260 18 96 43 511
3. 好
(n, %) 17.5% 52.3% 3.7% 18.8% 30.7% 23.5%
(n,%) 17.5% 52.3% 3.7% 18.8% 30.7% 23.5%
1. Bad 233 32 484 120 37 906
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 43.4% 6.4% 99.4% 23.5% 26.4% 41.7%
(n,%) 43.4% 6.4% 99.4% 23.5% 26.4% 41.7%
5. Housing in the 267 139 2 283 82 773
neighborhood is 2. Fair
附近的住房是 2. 公平
a ordable. (n, %) 49.7% 28.0% 0.4% 55.5% 58.6% 35.6%
可接受的。 (n,%) 49.7% 28.0% 0.4% 55.5% 58.6% 35.6%
3. Good 37 326 1 107 21 492
3. 好
(n, %) 6.9% 65.6% 0.2% 21.0% 15.0% 22.7%
(n,%) 6.9% 65.6% 0.2% 21.0% 15.0% 22.7%
1. Bad 109 24 331 53 65 582
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 20.3% 4.8% 68.0% 10.4% 46.4% 26.8%
(n,%) 20.3% 4.8% 68.0% 10.4% 46.4% 26.8%
6. You feel respected and
socially
你觉得自己在社交上受到 2. Fair
尊重 2. 公平 218 65 35 311 62 691
(n, %) 40.6% 13.1% 7.2% 61.0% 44.3% 31.8%

included in your community.
包括在你的社区。 (n,%) 40.6% 13.1% 7.2% 61.0% 44.3% 31.8%
3. Good 210 408 121 146 13 898
3. 好
(n, %) 39.1% 82.1% 24.8% 28.6% 9.3% 41.4%
(n,%) 39.1% 82.1% 24.8% 28.6% 9.3% 41.4%
1. Bad 213 417 413 207 96 1346
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 39.7% 83.9% 84.8% 40.6% 68.6% 62.0%
(n,%) 39.7% 83.9% 84.8% 40.6% 68.6% 62.0%
7. Your neighborhood
provided 2. Fair
你的邻居提供 2. 公平 187 22 17 197 21 444
volunteer activity to the older
in the
年长者的志愿者活动 (n, %) 34.8% 4.4% 3.5% 38.6% 15.0% 20.5%
(n,%) 34.8% 4.4% 3.5% 38.6% 15.0% 20.5%
last month on at least one
occasion.
上个月至少有一次。
3. Good 137 58 57 106 23 381
3. 好
(n, %) 25.5% 11.7% 11.7% 20.8% 16.4% 17.5%
(n,%) 25.5% 11.7% 11.7% 20.8% 16.4% 17.5%
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4523 8 of 16
2020,17,45238
Table 3. Cont.
表 3。
Level of Country
水平国家
知觉
(N =
(N = (N = 487) (N = (N = (N =
537) 497) (n = 510) 140) 217)
(n = 537) (n = 497) 487) (n = 510) (n = 140) (n = 217)
1. Bad 274 302 472 308 104 1460
1. 糟糕
8. You have opportunities for (n, %) 51.0% 60.8% 96.9% 60.4% 74.3% 67.3%
paid (n,%) 51.0% 60.8% 96.9% 60.4% 74.3% 67.3%
你有获得报酬的机会
employment (i.e., there are 2. Fair
就业人数(即 2. 公平 134 59 8 141 14 356
opportunities for you to get a
paid job
你获得一份有偿工作的机 (n, %) 25.0% 11.9% 1.6% 27.6% 10.0% 16.4%
会 (n,%) 25.0% 11.9% 1.6% 27.6% 10.0% 16.4%
if you want for an older
person).
如果你想要一个老年人)。 3. Good
3. 好 129 136 7 61 22 355
(n, %) 24.0% 27.4% 1.4% 12.0% 15.7% 16.4%

(n,%) 24.0% 27.4% 1.4% 12.0% 15.7% 16.4%
1. Bad 240 382 413 143 75 1253
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 44.7% 76.9% 84.8% 28.0% 53.6% 57.7%
(n,%) 44.7% 76.9% 84.8% 28.0% 53.6% 57.7%
provided 2. Fair
你的邻居提供 2. 公平 181 30 25 251 37 524
sociocultural activities to the
older at
老年人的社会文化活动 (n, %) 33.7% 6.0% 5.1% 49.2% 26.4% 24.1%
(n,%) 33.7% 6.0% 5.1% 49.2% 26.4% 24.1%
least once in the last week.
上周至少一次。
3. Good 116 85 49 116 28 394
3. 好
(n, %) 21.6% 17.1% 10.1% 22.7% 20.0% 18.1%
(n,%) 21.6% 17.1% 10.1% 22.7% 20.0% 18.1%
1. Bad 414 193 473 259 73 1412
1. 糟糕
10. You are involved in (n, %) 77.1% 38.8% 97.1% 50.8% 52.1% 65.0%
decision (n,%) 77.1% 38.8% 97.1% 50.8% 52.1% 65.0%
10. 你参与了决策
making about important 2. Fair 96 117 1 176 40 430
political, 2. 公平
关于重要的政治,
economic and social issues in
the (n, %) 17.9% 23.5% 0.2% 34.5% 28.6% 19.8%
经济和社会问题 (n,%) 17.9% 23.5% 0.2% 34.5% 28.6% 19.8%
community.
社区。 3. Good
3. 好 27 187 13 75 27 329
(n, %) 5.0% 37.6% 2.7% 14.7% 19.3% 15.2%

(n,%) 5.0% 37.6% 2.7% 14.7% 19.3% 15.2%
1. Bad 158 95 360 143 40 796
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 29.4% 19.1% 73.9% 28.0% 28.6% 36.7%
(n,%) 29.4% 19.1% 73.9% 28.0% 28.6% 36.7%
11. Local sources of
information about 2. Fair
11、本地信息来源 2. 公平 173 167 61 200 59 660
your health concerns and
service
你的健康问题和服务 (n, %) 32.2% 33.6% 12.5% 39.2% 42.1% 30.4%
(n,%) 32.2% 33.6% 12.5% 39.2% 42.1% 30.4%
needs are available.
可用的需求。
3. Good 206 235 66 167 41 715
3. 好
(n, %) 38.4% 47.3% 13.6% 32.7% 29.3% 32.9%
(n,%) 38.4% 47.3% 13.6% 32.7% 29.3% 32.9%
12. You have your personal 1. Bad 261 463 471 148 45 1388
care or 1. 糟糕
12. 你有你的个人护理或
assistance needs met in your
home 48.6% 93.2% 96.7% 29.0% 32.1% 63.9%
(n, %)
帮助需求在家中得到满足 (n,%) 48.6% 93.2% 96.7% 29.0% 32.1% 63.9%
setting by
government/private care 2. Fair
由政府/私营机构设定 2. 公平 208 15 9 186 68 486
services (i.e., home care
服务(即家居照顾
nursing/hospice 38.7% 3.0% 1.8% 36.5% 48.6% 22.4%
(n, %)
护理/临终关怀 (n,%) 38.7% 3.0% 1.8% 36.5% 48.6% 22.4%
care/non-governmental 3. Good
organization
护理/非政府组织 3. 好 68 19 7 176 27 297
(NGO)/volunteers).
(NGO)/志愿者)。 (n, %) 12.7% 3.8% 1.4% 34.5% 19.3% 13.7%
(n,%) 12.7% 3.8% 1.4% 34.5% 19.3% 13.7%
1. Bad 49 141 402 241 67 900
1. 糟糕
13. You have had enough (n, %) 9.1% 28.4% 82.5% 47.3% 47.9% 41.5%
income to (n,%) 9.1% 28.4% 82.5% 47.3% 47.9% 41.5%
你有足够的收入
meet your basic needs over
the 2. Fair
满足你的基本需要 2. 公平 145 97 63 204 50 559
previous 12 months without
public or (n, %) 27.0% 19.5% 12.9% 40.0% 35.7% 25.7%
过去 12 个月没有公开或 (n,%) 27.0% 19.5% 12.9% 40.0% 35.7% 25.7%
private assistance.
私人协助。 3. Good
3. 好 343 259 22 65 23 712
(n, %) 63.9% 52.1% 4.5% 12.7% 16.4% 32.8%

(n,%) 63.9% 52.1% 4.5% 12.7% 16.4% 32.8%
1. Bad 253 78 469 324 30 1154
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 47.1% 15.7% 96.3% 63.5% 21.4% 53.2%
(n,%) 47.1% 15.7% 96.3% 63.5% 21.4% 53.2%
14. Designated priority
parking spaces 2. Fair
14)指定优先停车位 2. 公平 190 141 10 131 61 533
are adequately designed and 35.4% 28.4% 2.1% 25.7% 43.6% 24.6%
available. (n, %)
是充分设计和可用的。 (n,%) 35.4% 28.4% 2.1% 25.7% 43.6% 24.6%
3. Good 94 278 8 55 49 484
3. 好
(n, %) 17.5% 55.9% 1.6% 10.8% 35.0% 22.3%
(n,%) 17.5% 55.9% 1.6% 10.8% 35.0% 22.3%
9 of
16
16
个中
2020 年，17,4523 个
Table 3. Cont.
表 3。
Level of Country
水平国家
知觉
(N = (N =
(N = (N = 487) (N = 140) (N =
537) 497) (n = 510) (n = 217)
(n = 537) (n = 497) 487) (n = 510) 140) (n = 217)
1. Bad 167 49 314 273 45 848
1. 糟糕
15. Your house has been (n, %) 31.1% 9.9% 64.5% 53.5% 32.1% 39.1%
renovated or (n,%) 31.1% 9.9% 64.5% 53.5% 32.1% 39.1%
你的房子已经翻新或者
can be renovated to fulfil
your needs
可以进行翻新以满足您的 2. Fair
需要 2. 公平 202 107 110 156 56 631
in order to support your
activities of (n, %) 37.6% 21.5% 22.6% 30.6% 40.0% 29.1%
为了支持你的活动 (n,%) 37.6% 21.5% 22.6% 30.6% 40.0% 29.1%
daily living.
日常生活。 3. Good
3. 好 168 341 63 81 39 692
(n, %) 31.3% 68.6% 12.9% 15.9% 27.9% 31.9%

(n,%) 31.3% 68.6% 12.9% 15.9% 27.9% 31.9%
1. Bad 230 300 463 288 61 1342
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 42.8% 60.4% 95.1% 56.5% 43.6% 61.8%
(n,%) 42.8% 60.4% 95.1% 56.5% 43.6% 61.8%
provide group 2. Fair
16. 你的邻居提供小组服务 2. 公平 213 35 11 143 43 445
physical activities in your 39.7% 7.0% 2.3% 28.0% 30.7% 20.5%
leisure time. (n, %)
业余时间的体育活动。 (n,%) 39.7% 7.0% 2.3% 28.0% 30.7% 20.5%
3. Good 94 162 13 79 36 384
3. 好
(n, %) 17.5% 32.6% 2.7% 15.5% 25.7% 17.7%
(n,%) 17.5% 32.6% 2.7% 15.5% 25.7% 17.7%
1. Bad 267 312 467 318 97 1461
1. 糟糕
17. Your neighborhood (n, %) 49.7% 62.8% 95.9% 62.4% 69.3% 67.3%
provided the (n,%) 49.7% 62.8% 95.9% 62.4% 69.3% 67.3%
你的邻居提供了
older the ability to enroll in
any form
年龄较大的人有能力以任
2. Fair
何形式注册 2. 公平 191 30 6 143 28 398
of education or training,
either formal
教育或培训，无论是正式
的
or non-formal, in any subject
in the 35.6% 6.0% 1.2% 28.0% 20.0% 18.3%
(n, %)
或非正式，在任何科目 (n,%) 35.6% 6.0% 1.2% 28.0% 20.0% 18.3%
past year. 3. Good
过去一年。 79 155 14 49 15 312
3. 好
(n, %) 14.7% 31.2% 2.9% 9.6% 10.7% 14.4%
(n,%) 14.7% 31.2% 2.9% 9.6% 10.7% 14.4%
1. Bad 18 320 374 368 58 1138
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 3.4% 64.4% 76.8% 72.2% 41.4% 52.4%
(n,%) 3.4% 64.4% 76.8% 72.2% 41.4% 52.4%
18. You have access to 111 57 55 96 25 344
internet at 2. Fair
18、你可以上网 2. 公平
(n, %) 20.7% 11.5% 11.3% 18.8% 17.9% 15.8%
home.
家。 (n,%) 20.7% 11.5% 11.3% 18.8% 17.9% 15.8%
3. Good 408 120 58 46 57 689
3. 好
(n, %) 76.0% 24.1% 11.9% 9.0% 40.7% 31.7%
(n,%) 76.0% 24.1% 11.9% 9.0% 40.7% 31.7%
1. Bad 26 25 54 138 21 264
1. 糟糕
(n, %) 4.8% 5.0% 11.1% 27.1% 15.0% 12.2%
(n,%) 4.8% 5.0% 11.1% 27.1% 15.0% 12.2%
19. You feel safe in your 2. Fair 262 57 85 203 67 674
neighborhood. 2. 公平
19、你在你的邻居那里感
到安全。 (n, %) 48.8% 11.5% 17.5% 39.8% 47.9% 31.0%
(n,%) 48.8% 11.5% 17.5% 39.8% 47.9% 31.0%
3. Good 249 415 348 169 52 1233
3. 好
(n, %) 46.4% 83.5% 71.5% 33.1% 37.1% 56.8%
(n,%) 46.4% 83.5% 71.5% 33.1% 37.1% 56.8%
1. Bad 470 459 481 316 89 1815
1. 糟糕
provided the 87.5% 92.4% 98.8% 62.0% 63.6% 83.6%
(n, %)
你的邻居提供了 (n,%) 87.5% 92.4% 98.8% 62.0% 63.6% 83.6%
older participating in an 2. Fair
emergency
老年人参与紧急情况 2. 公平 48 7 4 133 34 226
response training session or
drill in the
反应训练课程或演习 (n, %) 8.9% 1.4% 0.8% 26.1% 24.3% 10.4%
(n,%) 8.9% 1.4% 0.8% 26.1% 24.3% 10.4%
past year which addressed
the needs
过去一年解决这方面的需
求
of older residents. 3. Good
年纪较大的居民。 19 31 2 61 17 130
3. 好
(n, %) 3.5% 6.2% 0.4% 12.0% 12.1% 6.0%
(n,%) 3.5% 6.2% 0.4% 12.0% 12.1% 6.0%
Note: The results from Pearson chi-squared test show the significant association between country of participants
and the level of the perceived age-friendly environment for all 20 items at p < 0.05.
注: 皮尔逊卡方检验结果显示，所有 20 个项目的参与者国家与感知的年龄友好环境水平之间存在显著的相关性，p
< 0.05。
3.4. High-Risk Group of Having Inadequate Age-Friendly Environments

3.4. 环境不适合老年人的高危人群
We identify a high-risk group of having inadequate age-friendly environments by analysis of ordinal

logistic regression with p < 0.05. The interested predictors include age level, gender, educational level,
and participant’s country. From Table 4, regarding Model 1*, the high-risk group of perceived low level of
participating in an emergency response training session or drill which addressed the needs of older
residents is the older population with low educational level. Namely, the results indicated that older adults
with more than high school are significantly more likely to rate for a higher scale of
通过有序 logistic 模型分析，我们确定了一个年龄友好环境不足的高危人群，p < 0.05。感兴趣的预测
因素包括年龄水平，性别，教育水平和参与者的国家。从表 4 中可以看出，关于模型 1 * ，参加应急培训
课程或培训以满足老年居民需求的程度低的高危人群是受教育程度低的老年人群。即，结果表明，高中以
上的老年人更有可能获得更高的规模
10 of
2020 年，17,4523 10/16
perceived emergency-response training sessions or drills compared to the older adults with at least
primary school, controlling for other socioeconomic statue (SES) and country of participants.
与至少上过小学的老年人相比，对其他社会经济地位(SES)和参与者国家进行控制的应急训练课程或
演习的感知。
Table 4. Predictors of perceived “bad” age-friendly environments, analyzed by ordinal logistic

regression with five perceived age-friendly environments as a three ordinal outcome scale (bad, fair,
and good) and four predictors (educational level, gender, age level, and country of participants).
表 4。本研究采用有序 logistic 模型，以五个有序的年龄友好环境作为三个有序结果量表(不良、公平
和良好)和四个预测因子(教育水平、性别、年龄水平和参与者国家) ，分析了感知“不良”年龄友好环境
的预测因子。
Perceived Age-Friendly Environments

感知年龄友好的环境
Predictors Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
预测模型 1 模型 2 模型 3 模型 4 模型 5
Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio
优势比优势比优势比优势比优势比
(95% C.I.) (95% C.I.) (95% C.I.) (95% C.I.) (95% C.I.)
(95% ci) (95% ci) (95% ci) (95% ci) (95% ci)
1. Education
1. 教育
At least 0.60 * 0.48 * 0.62 * 0.37 *
至少 0.60 * 0.48 * 0.62 * 0.37 * 0.84
Primary school (0.41–0.88) (0.35–0.65) (0.46–0.83) (0.27–0.50) (0.60–1.17)
小学 (0.41-0.88) (0.35-0.65) (0.46-0.83) (0.27-0.50) (0.60-1.17)
High school 0.68 * 0.70 *
高中 0.87 1.08 0.68 * 0.70 * 1.06
(0.60–1.25) (0.84–1.40) (0.52–0.90) (0.53–0.93) (0.79–1.41)
(0.60-1.25) (0.84-1.40) (0.52-0.90) (0.53-0.93) (0.79-1.41)
More than high
比高还高
1 1 1 1 1
school (Reference)
学校(参考)
2. Country
2. 国家
Malaysia 0.24 * 1.53 * 0.33 * 0.56 *
马来西亚 0.24 * 1.53 * 1.27 0.33 * 0.56 *
(0.15–0.38) (1.00–2.31) (0.81–1.98) (0.22–0.49) (0.38–0.81)
(0.15-0.38) (1.00-2.31) (0.81-1.98) (0.22-0.49) (0.38-0.81)
Vietnam 0.18 * 1.88 * 1.92 * 3.45 * 0.04 *
越南 0.18 * 1.88 * 1.92 * 3.45 * 0.04 *
(0.10–0.31) (1.20–2.93) (1.20–3.08) (2.26–5.25) (0.03–0.70)
(0.10-0.31) (1.20-2.93) (1.20-3.08) (2.26-5.25) (0.03-0.70)
Myanmar 0.03 * 0.15 * 0.08 * 0.08 * 0.02 *
缅甸 0.03 * 0.15 * 0.08 * 0.08 * 0.02 *
(0.01–0.08) (0.08–0.28) (0.04–0.16) (0.04–0.16) (0.01–0.00)
(0.01-0.08) (0.08-0.28) (0.04-0.16) (0.04-0.16) (0.01-0.00)
Thailand 1.61* 1.91 * 1.58 *
泰国 1.35 1.61 * 1.55 1.91 * 1.58 *
(0.84–2.17) (1.03–2.53) (0.96–2.49) (1.25–2.91) (1.04–2.40)
(0.84-2.17) (1.03-2.53) (0.96-2.49) (1.25-2.91) (1.04-2.40)
Japan (Reference)
日本(参考) 1 1 1 1 1
3. Gender
3. 性别
Male 1.34 * 0.78 *
男性 0.94 0.89 1.16 1.34 * 0.78 *
(0.72–1.21) (0.72–1.08) (0.95–1.41) (1.10–1.63) (0.63–0.97)
(0.72-1.21) (0.72-1.08) (0.95-1.41) (1.10-1.63) (0.63-0.97)
Female (Reference)
女性(参考) 1 1 1 1 1
4.Age level
4. 年龄水平
55–64 years 1.63 * 4.97 *
55-64 岁 1.14 1.63 * 4.97 * 0.96 0.92
(0.79–1.64) (1.20–2.21) (3.51–7.02) (0.72–1.28) (0.67–1.26)
(0.79-1.64) (1.20-2.21) (3.51-7.02) (0.72-1.28) (0.67-1.26)
65–74 years 2.38 *
65-74 岁 0.98 1.22 2.38 * 0.85 0.86
(0.69–1.38) (0.91–1.64) (1.70–3.34) (0.65–1.12) (0.63–1.16)
(0.69-1.38) (0.91-1.64) (1.70-3.34) (0.65-1.12) (0.63-1.16)
75yrs up (Reference)
75 岁以上(参考文
献) 1 1 1 1 1
1. * is a significant predictor. 2. Model 1*, the dependent variable(DV) is “participating in an emergency response
training session or drill in the past year which addressed the needs of older residents” Model 2*, DV is “enrolling
in any form of education or training, either formal or non-formal, in any subject in the past year” Model 3*, DV is
“having opportunities for paid employment Model 4*, DV is “involving in decision making about important issues
in the community” Model 5*, DV is “having the personal care or assistance needs met in home setting”.
* 是一个重要的预测因子。2.模型 1 * ，因变量(DV)是”参加过去一年的应急培训课程或演习，以满足老年居民的需
要”模型 2 * ，DV 是”参加过去一年的任何形式的正规或非正规任何科目的教育或培训”模型 3 * ，DV 是”有机会从
事有偿就业模型 4 * ，DV 是”参与关于社区重要问题的决策”模型 5 * ，DV 是”在家庭环境中满足个人护理或援助需
要”。
Regarding Model 2*, high-risk groups of perceived low level of education or training enrollment are
the older population with low educational level and the oldest group. Apparently, the results indicated that
older adults with the lowest educational level are significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of
perceived education or training enrollment compare to the older adults with the highest educational level,
controlling for other SES and country of participants. Additionally, the older adults with 75 years and
higher are significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of perceived education
关于模型 2 * ，被认为教育水平低或培训入学率低的高风险群体是教育水平低的老年人群和年龄最大
的群体。显然，结果表明，受教育程度最低的老年人与受教育程度最高的老年人相比，明显不太可能接受
较高规模的知觉教育或培训入学率，并且控制了其他社会经济地位和参与国。此外，75 岁以上的老年人明
显不太可能接受更高规模的感知教育
11 of
16
16 个
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4523 中的
2020 年，17,4523 11 个
or training enrollment compare to the older adults aged 55–64 years, controlling for other SES and
country of participants.
或培训入学与 55-64 岁的老年人进行比较，控制其他 SES 和参与者国家。
Regarding Model 3*, high-risk groups of perceived low opportunities for paid employment are
the older population with low educational level and the oldest group. Obviously, the results indicated
that older adults with lower educational level are significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of
perceived opportunities for paid employment compared to the older adults with the highest
educational level, controlling for other SES and country of participants. Additionally, the older adults
aged 75 years and higher are significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of perceived
opportunities for paid employment compared to the older adults that are younger, controlling for
other SES and country of participants.
关于模式 3 * ，被认为缺乏有偿就业机会的高风险群体是受教育程度低的老年人和年龄最大的群
体。显然，研究结果表明，受教育程度较低的老年人与受教育程度最高的老年人相比，对有偿就业机
会的认知程度较高的可能性要低得多，这是对其他社会经济地位和参与国的控制。此外，年龄在 75
岁及以上的老年人与年轻的老年人相比，更不可能认为有薪就业机会规模更大，因为老年人控制着其
他社会经济地位和参与国。
Regarding Model 4*, high-risk groups of perceived low involvement in decision making about
important issues in the community are the older adult population with low educational level and the
female older adult population. Especially, the results indicated that older adults with lower
educational level are significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of perceived involvement in
decision making about important political, economic and social issues in the community compared
to the older adults with highest educational level, controlling for other SES and country of
participants. Additionally, female older adults are significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of
perceived involvement in decision making about important political, economic and social issues in
the community compared to male older adults, controlling for other SES and country of participants.
关于模式 4 * ，被认为参与社区重要问题决策程度低的高风险群体是教育水平低的老年人口和女
性老年人口。特别是，研究结果表明，与受教育程度最高的老年人相比，受教育程度较低的老年人对
社区重大政治、经济和社会问题的决策参与程度较高的可能性要低得多，老年人对其他社会经济状况
和参与国的控制程度较高。此外，与男性老年人相比，女性老年人更不可能认为自己参与社区重大政
治、经济和社会问题决策的程度更高，而男性老年人控制着其他社会经济状况和参与国。
Regarding Model 5*, the high-risk group of perceived low level of having personal care or assistance
needs was the male older adult population. Evidently, the results indicated that male older adults are
significantly less likely to rate for a higher scale of perceiving having personal care or assistance needs met
compared to the female older adults, controlling for other SES and country of participants.
关于模式 5 * ，被认为缺乏个人护理或援助需求的高风险群体是男性老年人口。显然，结果表明，与女性
老年人相比，男性老年人更不可能认为自己的个人护理或援助需求得到了满足。
4. Discussion
4. 讨论
The study found significant di erences in the proportion of perceived age-friendly environments by
ASEAN Plus Three older populations. The analysis results from the chi-squared test and ordinal logistic
regression identified that among the 20 items of age-friendly environments, the five highest unsatisfied
age-friendly environments toward ASEAN Plus Three ageing population are: (1) the inadequacy of
participating in an emergency response training session or drill in the past year which addressed the
needs of older residents, especially in the older population with low educational level; (2) the inadequacy
of enrolling in any form of education or training, either formal or non-formal, especially in the older
population with low educational level and the oldest group; (3) the inadequacy of having opportunities for
paid employment, especially in the older population with low educational level and the oldest group; (4)
the inadequacy of involving in decision making about important political, economic and social issues in
the community, especially in the older population with low educational level and female older adults; and
(5) the inadequacy of having the personal care or assistance needs met in home setting by
government/private care services, especially in male older adults.
研究发现，在东盟自由贸易区和三个老年人口中，对老年人友好的环境比例存在显著差异。卡方检验
和有序逻辑回归分析结果表明，在 20 个老年友好型环境项目中，东盟自由贸易区老年友好型环境不满意度
最高的 5 个项目加上 3 个老龄人口: (1)过去一年参加应急培训或演习的不足，未能满足老年居民的需要，
特别是教育水平较低的老年居民的需要;(2)没有充分接受任何形式的正规或非正规教育或培训，特别是在教
育水平低的老年人和年龄最大的群体中; (3)没有充分的有偿就业机会，特别是在教育水平低的老年人和年
龄最大的群体中;(4)没有充分参与社区重大政治、经济和社会问题的决策，特别是在教育水平低的老年人和
女性老年人中; (5)没有充分利用政府/私人护理服务在家庭环境中满足个人护理或援助需求，特别是在男性
老年人中。
There are some similarly satisfied age-friendly environments toward the ageing population in
ASEAN Plus Three. Namely, the older population in Myanmar, Vietnam, and Japan similarly
perceived a score of “they feel safe in their neighborhood” with the highest of all environments,
whereas the Thai and Malaysian older population also perceived this item with the third highest of all.
The most satisfied environments “feeling safe in their neighborhood” and “feeling respected in the
community” was especially liked by Thai, Vietnamese, and Myanmarese older populations.
对于东盟自由贸易区的老龄化人口，也有一些同样令人满意的老年友好环境。也就是说，缅甸、
越南和日本的老年人口同样认为”他们在社区里感到安全”得分最高，而泰国和马来西亚的老年人口也
认为这一项目在所有环境中排名第三。泰国、越南和缅甸的老年人尤其喜欢“在社区中感到安全”和“在
社区中感到受尊重”的最满意的环境。
For the high-risk groups, the statistical analysis of ordinal logistic regression indicated that the
older population with lower level of education is the high-risk group of “bad” perceived environment,
especially for training issues, paid employment, and making decisions about important issues.
Additionally, the study indicated that oldest aged adults was the high-risk group that significantly
perceived a “bad” environment regarding education or training enrollment, and paid employment.
对于高危人群，有序 logit 模型的统计分析表明，文化程度较低的老年人群是感知环境“差”的高危
人群，尤其是在培训问题、有偿就业和重大问题的决策方面。此外，该研究还表明，年龄最大的老年
人是高危人群，他们在教育或培训入学以及有偿就业方面明显感受到“不良”环境。
12 of
16
16 个
2020 年，17,4523 12 个
Finally, we found gender disparity in the perception of decision making about important issues of
males to be superior, and having personal care or assistance needs of females to be superior.
最后，我们发现男性在重要问题上的决策认知存在性别差异，而女性在个人护理或援助需求方面存在
性别差异。
In agreement with previous researchers [26,27], our results indicated that ASEAN Plus Three older
populations feel safe in their neighborhood. Past research also showed very high levels of trust and co-
operation in the neighborhood among residents of Southeast Asia and higher levels of contribution
towards the residents than those in North America and Europe [26]. A previous study [27] claimed that
“increasing physical and cognitive constraints from being old may move them to gain more di culties in
completing some challenging tasks by themselves. Therefore, having more trust toward others
contributes to the older adults more comfortableness to accept and rely on others’ help”. Additionally, it is
noted that most people in ASEAN countries regularly live in the same place for generations and root
deeply in the neighborhood. For these reasons, it is reasonable to identify that the older adults may have
high levels of trust toward their neighbors [27]. In addition to perceived neighborhood safety, the results of
our study also strongly support the respect of older adults of ASEAN generations. In the same line with
our results, previous researchers indicated that respect for older adults is the most stressed expression of
filial piety and it is deeply rooted in traditional Asian cultures [28–30]. The value of respect has retained its
stability in the region for generations, however, evidence of changing respect expressions [30] including
gestures and manners, tokens, customs and rituals, asking for advice, and obedience has occurred. Main
factors associated with changing may include variations in family structure and function, education,
income, and modernization [29]. Thus, it is a big challenge how ASEAN populations will retain deeply
rooted values in a changing world.
与以前的研究人员一致[26,27] ，我们的研究结果表明，东盟自由贸易区加上三个老年人口在他们的社
区感到安全。过去的研究还表明，东南亚居民在邻里关系中的信任和合作程度非常高，对居民的贡献程度
高于北美和欧洲[26]。之前的一项研究[27]声称，“由于年老而增加的身体和认知限制可能会使他们在独自完
成一些具有挑战性的任务时获得更多的困难。因此，对他人有更多的信任有助于老年人更舒适地接受和依
赖他人的帮助”。此外，值得注意的是，东盟国家的大多数人世世代代都生活在同一个地方，并且深深地扎
根于邻里之间。由于这些原因，确定老年人可能对邻居有高度的信任是合理的[27]。除了感知到的邻里安全
之外，我们的研究结果也强烈支持东盟几代老年人的尊重。与我们的研究结果一致的是，以前的研究人员
指出，尊重老年人是孝道最重要的表达方式，它深深植根于传统的亚洲文化[28-30]。尊重的价值在这个地
区保持了几代人的稳定，然而，包括手势和礼仪、纪念品、习俗和仪式、寻求建议和服从在内的尊重表达
方式发生了变化的证据已经出现。与变化相关的主要因素可能包括家庭结构和功能，教育，收入和现代化
的变化[29]。因此，东盟人口如何在不断变化的世界中保持根深蒂固的价值观是一个巨大的挑战。
Interestingly, this is the first study to indicate the inadequacy of emergency-response training toward
older populations in ASEAN Plus Three, especially the older population with low education. In fact, aging
brings many disadvantages to the older adults due to their physical, mental, and cognitive impairment-
related aging process. In recent years [31] assistive technologies, such as the mobile and wearable
sensors, assistive robots, smart homes, and smart fabrics for emergency response were introduced to
maintain the independence of older populations, as well as to monitor and improve their health conditions.
Although emergency assistive technologies are useful for older adults, previous research indicated [32]
that aged populations even in a modern country such as Japan, have a more negative attitude towards
performing basic life support. Therefore, there are still many challenges to help the older adults gain more
confidence and skill with the essential elements of emergency response, especially those with low
educational level. Besides emergency training, our results indicated the inadequacy of enrolling in any
form of education or training, either formal or non-formal, or lifelong learning, especially in the older adults
with low education and the oldest group. There is evidence that lifelong learning could promote older
adults’ health and well-being [33,34]. Therefore, some researchers tried to investigate appropriate
practical courses for older adults and found that languages and health-related topics were the most
popular among the older adults, especially in China [35] and the USA [36]. Interestingly, our study also
showed that Japanese older adults living in modern society perceive an inadequate quantity of education
and training to be supplied. Living in a nation with high literacy and technically advances in science and
technology may be the reason why Japanese older adults are being challenged to constantly acquire new
knowledge and skills [37]. The evidence of this study indicates a challenge for educators to provide
continuing education opportunities with various and appropriate practices towards the older adults in
ASEAN Plus Three countries.
有趣的是，这是第一个表明东盟自由贸易区老年人，特别是受教育程度低的老年人应急培训不足的研
究。事实上，由于身体，精神和认知障碍相关的老龄化过程，老龄化给老年人带来了许多不利因素。近年
来，为了保持老年人口的独立性以及监测和改善他们的健康状况，引入了诸如移动和可穿戴传感器、辅助
机器人、智能家居和应急智能织物等辅助技术。虽然紧急援助技术对老年人是有用的，但以前的研究表明，
即使在日本这样的现代国家，老年人口对于提供基本生命支持的态度也更为消极。因此，帮助老年人，特
别是那些文化程度较低的老年人，在应急反应的基本要素方面获得更多的信心和技能，仍然面临许多挑战。
除了紧急培训外，我们的研究结果表明，在任何形式的教育或培训中，无论是正规的还是非正规的，或终
身学习，特别是在教育程度低的老年人和年龄最大的群体中，注册人数都不足。有证据表明，终身学习可
以促进老年人的健康和幸福[33,34]。因此，一些研究人员试图调查适合老年人的实践课程，发现语言和健
康相关的话题在老年人中最受欢迎，特别是在中国和美国。有趣的是，我们的研究还表明，生活在现代社
会中的日本老年人认为提供的教育和培训数量不足。生活在一个文化水平高、科学技术先进的国家，可能
是日本老年人不断获得新知识和新技能的挑战的原因[37]。这项研究的证据表明，教育工作者在向东盟自由
贸易区加上三个国家的老年人提供持续教育机会方面面临挑战。
Regarding the perceived paid employment, it is evident that almost 70% of older adults are in need
of paid employment support, especially the older populations with less education. Along the same lines
as our results, research showed that older adults in less developed countries are more likely to face
economic necessities, especially the uneducated workers [38]. Our results also found that even the older
populations in Japan are in need of employment. Consistent with the results of our study, a previous
study [38] indicated that Japanese older adults prefer to extend their work after retirement. The
researcher explained that the reasons that Japanese older adults prefer to keep working are: (1) they
want to keep their standard of living as it was in their late 50s; and (2) they
关于所认为的有偿就业，显而易见，几乎 70% 的老年人需要有偿就业支助，特别是受教育程度较低
的老年人。与我们的研究结果一样，研究表明，欠发达国家的老年人更有可能面临经济需求，尤其是未受
过教育的工人[38]。我们的研究结果还发现，即使是日本的老年人口也需要就业。与我们研究的结果一致，
以前的一项研究[38]表明，日本老年人宁愿在退休后延长工作。研究人员解释说，日本老年人喜欢继续工
作的原因是: (1)他们希望保持他们 50 多岁时的生活水平; (2)他们
13 of
16
16 个
2020 年，17,4523 13 个
are concerned about society’s norms that value the older adults staying in the labor force as long as
possible. Some other countries in ASEAN, such as Thailand and Vietnam, attempt to initiate a
national plan to delay the retirement age for maintaining the older adults at work, thus leading to
more active ageing and economic security. Our results indicate the need of work at retirement age
for all regions and, therefore, it is a challenge to policy makers how to allocate appropriate work for
the older populations with long-term experiences but minor di culty in physical conditions.
关注社会规范，重视老年人尽可能长时间地留在劳动力队伍中。东盟其他一些国家，如泰国和越南，
试图启动一项推迟退休年龄的国家计划，以便让老年人继续工作，从而导致更积极的老龄化和经济保
障。我们的研究结果表明，所有地区都需要在退休年龄工作，因此，决策者面临的一个挑战是，如何
为具有长期经验但身体条件较差的老年人分配适当的工作。
Decision-making about important political, economic and social issues in the community is
another inadequate environment item of the older populations, especially the older adults with low
education and being female. Like our research, a previous study found disparity of social
participation including collective, productive, and political participation by socioeconomic status [39].
The researcher addressed that “older men are more likely to be engaged in paid work outside the
home, even after retirement, in political activities and clubs, whereas older women more often take
care of children (or grandchildren) and do more volunteer work and caregiving outside the home”.
Another study also supported that [40] older adult males have an important role in making decisions
on important issues such as economic or political subjects, whereas older adult women tend to
provide non-economic contributions to families, such as women’s health or social services
volunteers in communities. In addition to gender, research [39] also stressed that “persons who
possess more educational and occupational resources may participate in social participation longer
than persons with fewer resources, even after their health declines”.
关于社区中重要的政治、经济和社会问题的决策是老年人口，特别是受教育程度低和身为女性的
老年人的另一个不适当的环境项目。就像我们的研究一样，之前的一项研究发现了社会参与的差异，
包括社会经济地位的集体参与、生产参与和政治参与。研究人员指出,”老年男子更有可能从事家庭以
外的有偿工作，甚至在退休后，参加政治活动和俱乐部，而老年妇女则更经常照顾子女(或孙辈) ，从
事更多的志愿工作和家庭以外的照顾”。另一项研究还支持，[40]年长的成年男性在就经济或政治问题
等重要问题作出决定方面发挥重要作用，而年长的成年妇女往往为家庭提供非经济贡献，例如妇女保
健或社区社会服务志愿者。除了性别之外，研究[39]还强调,”拥有更多教育和职业资源的人参与社会活
动的时间可能比拥有较少资源的人更长，即使在其健康状况下降之后也是如此”。
Lastly, an unsatisfied age-friendly environment is about inadequacy of the personal care or
assistance needs met in a home setting, especially in Vietnam and Myanmar. Compared with the
older adults in other countries, our results confirmed that older adults in Thailand have most
satisfaction with the personal care or assistance needs at home. It is evident that all communities
throughout the country of Thailand are equipped with strong community-based care for the older
adult populations with more than 20 years countrywide ‘elders’ clubs’ o ered for older adult people
[41]. Moreover, the country exists with the village health volunteers (VHVs) handling the older adults
at home that have long been recognized by the World Health Organization as an international
model for community-based public health. These reasons may explain why Thai older adult
populations are more satisfied with personal care or assistance needs met in their home [42].
最后，不满意的年龄友好环境是在家庭环境中满足的个人护理或援助需求不足，特别是在越南和
缅甸。与其他国家的老年人相比，我们的研究结果证实，泰国的老年人对家中的个人护理或援助需求
最为满意。显然，泰国全国各地的所有社区都为老年成年人口提供了强有力的基于社区的照料，20
多年来，全国各地的”老年人俱乐部”一直为老年人服务[41]。此外，该国还有乡村卫生志愿者在家照
料老年人，这些志愿者长期以来被世界卫生组织确认为以社区为基础的公共卫生的国际模式。这些原
因可能解释了为什么泰国老年人更满意他们家中满足的个人护理或援助需求[42]。
The results of this study can assist policy planners in building more appropriate age-friendly
environments towards older adult populations in the ASEAN Plus Three. The priorities of environments
for aging adult populations should be boosted towards active ageing as follows: (1) increasing an
emergency-response training session or drill which addresses the needs of older residents, especially
older adults with lower education; (2) giving any form of education or training, either formal or non-formal
especially to older adults with lower education and the oldest group; (3) maintaining opportunities for paid
employment for older adults in need; (4) supporting social participation and decision making about
important political, economic and social issues in the community, especially for female and low-educated
older adults; and (5) increasing the personal care or assistance needs met in a home setting by
government/private care services (e.g., home care nursing/hospice care/non-governmental organization
(NGO)/volunteers)”, especially in male older adult populations.
这项研究的结果可以帮助政策规划者在东盟自由贸易区为老年人口建立更适当的有利于老年人的环境。
应将老龄化成年人口的环境优先事项推向积极老龄化，具体如下: (1)增加应急培训课程或演习，以满足老
年居民，特别是受教育程度较低的老年人的需要;(2)提供任何形式的正规或非正规教育或培训，特别是针对
受教育程度较低的老年人和年龄最大的群体; (3)为有需要的老年人保持有偿就业机会; (4)支持社会参与和就
社区重大政治、经济和社会问题作出决策，尤其是针对女性和受教育程度较低的老年人;以及(5)增加政府/
私营护理服务(例如家居护理/临终关怀服务/非政府组织/志愿人员)在家中满足的个人护理或援助需要”，特
别是在男性老年人口中。
There are some limitations to this study. First, the nature of the cross-sectional design of the
study cannot confirm the causal relationships between age-friendly environments and the predictors.
Second, data collection is diversified as the trained researchers in each country may have di erent
skills, and thus, the study may have data collection bias. Third, the measurement of age-friendly
environments in this study relied on perceived rather than objective measures of the environments.
However, the present study has its strengths as it is the first study to survey age-friendly
environments in ASEAN Plus Three, therefore, gaining knowledge and evidence for societies being
cooperative in catering for ageing adult populations in these regions.
这项研究有一些局限性。首先，研究的横断面设计的性质不能证实年龄友好型环境和预测因子之
间的因果关系。其次，数据收集是多样化的，因为每个国家训练有素的研究人员可能具有不同的技能，
因此，研究可能具有数据收集偏倚。第三，本研究中对年龄友好环境的测量依赖于对环境的感知而不
是客观的测量。然而，本研究报告有其优势，因为它是第一个调查东盟自由贸易区内老年友好环境的
研究报告，因此，为这些地区的社会在满足老年人口需求方面进行合作提供了知识和证据。
14 of
2020 年，17,4523 14/16
5. Conclusions
5. 结论
The growing trend of worldwide ageing adult populations is the main challenge of creating age-
friendly environments. The present study significantly indicates the perception of the older adult
populations’ concerns about age-friendly environments in the ASEAN Plus Three countries. In order to
help communities to become age-friendly, priorities of environmental improvement need to be considered
including: (1) increasing emergency-response training sessions or drills that addresses the needs of older
adult residents: (2) giving any form of education or training, either formal or non-formal for older adults: (3)
maintaining opportunities for paid employment for the older adults in need;
全球老龄化成年人口的增长趋势是创造有利于老年人的环境的主要挑战。本研究显著反映了老年人对
东盟自由贸易区加上三个国家有利于老年人的环境的关切。为了帮助社区成为对老年人友好的社区，需要
考虑改善环境的优先事项包括: (1)增加应急培训课程或演习，以满足老年居民的需要: (2)为老年人提供任何
形式的正规或非正规教育或培训: (3)为有需要的老年人保持有偿就业机会;
(4) supporting social participation and decision making about important political, economic and
social issues in the communities; and (5) increasing the personal care or assistance needs met in
home settings by government/private care services.
支持社会参与和就社区重要的政治、经济和社会问题作出决策; 以及(5)增加政府/私人护理服务在家庭
环境中满足的个人护理或援助需要。
Author Contributions: S.T. participated in the conception, design, data collection, analyzing data and writing
the manuscript. D.B., M.M., T.H.N., A.H.M., M.Y. and M.N.A., supervised all data collection process, analyzed
data and edited the manuscript for Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Japan, respectively. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
作者贡献: s.t. 参与了概念，设计，数据收集，分析数据和撰写手稿。D.b. 、 m.m. 、 t.h.n. 、 a.h.m. 、 m.y.
和 m.n.a. 分别为泰国、马来西亚、越南、缅甸和日本监督所有数据收集过程，分析数据并编辑稿件。所有作者
都已阅读并同意手稿的出版版本。
Funding: This research project is supported by Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI).
资金: 这个研究项目是由泰国科学研究与创新(TSRI)资助的。
Acknowledgments: The authors thank all participants in this project including sta , fieldworkers, respondents
and local authorities for their kind sharing and e orts.
鸣谢: 作者感谢所有参与该项目的人员，包括 sta，实地工作者，受访者和当地政府，感谢他们的友好分享和电
子运动。
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
利益冲突: 作者声明没有利益冲突。
References
参考文献
1.United Nations. World Population Ageing. 2017. Available online: Https://www.Un.Org/en/development/

desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/wpa2017_highlights.Pdf (accessed on 10 May 2020).
联合国. 世界人口老化. 2017. 可在线查阅: Https://www.Un.
Org/tc/development/desa/population/publications/Pdf/ageing/wpa2017 _ highlights. Pdf (2020 年 5 月 10
日查阅)。
2. United Nations. World Population Ageing. 2019. Available online: https://www.Un.Org/en/development/
desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/worldpopulationageing2019-highlights.Pdf (accessed on 11 May
2020).
联合国 . 世界人口老化 . 2019. 可在线查阅 : https://www.Un.
Org/tc/development/desa/population/publications/Pdf/ageing/worldpopulationageing2019-highlights. Pdf
(2020 年 5 月 11 日查阅)。
3.WHO. Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. 2016. Available online: https://www.Who.Int/ageing/
publications/global_age_friendly_cities_guide_english.Pdf (accessed on 21 June 2020).
世卫组织《全球老龄化友好城市: 指南》2016。可在网上查阅: https://www.WHO. Int/ageing/publications/Global
_ age _ friendly _ Cities _ Guide _ english. Pdf (2020 年 6 月 21 日访问)。
4. Van Hoof, J.; Kazak, J.K.; Perek-Białas, J.M.; Peek, S. The challenges of urban ageing: Making cities
age-friendly in Europe. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2473. [CrossRef]
Van Hoof，j。 ; Kazak，J.k. ; perek-bia，J.m。城市老龄化的挑战: 让欧洲的城市更适合老龄化。内景。环境。
保护区。公共卫生 2018,15,2473。[ CrossRef ]
5. van Hoof, J.; Dikken, J.; Buttigie˙g,˙ S.C.; van den Hoven, R.F.; Kroon, E.; Marston, H.R. Age-friendly
cities in the Netherlands: An explorative study of facilitators and hindrances in the built environment and
ageism in design. Indoor Built Environ. 2020, 29, 417–437. [CrossRef]
Van Hoof，j. ; Dikken，j. Buttigie g，s.c. ; van den Hoven，r.f. ; Kroon，e. ; Marston，h.r. 荷兰年龄友好型城
市: 对建筑环境中的促进者和障碍以及设计中的年龄歧视的探索性研究。室内建筑环境。 2020,29,417-
437.[交叉参考]
6.Marston, H.R.; van Hoof, J. “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban environments for
older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the Who’s age-friendly cities model. Int.
J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3525. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
谁在为老年人设计城市环境时不考虑技术问题呢一个案例研究的方法，提议扩展世界卫生组织的老年友好型城市
模型。内景。环境。保护区。公共卫生 2019,16,3525。[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
7. Kurtyka-Marcak, I.; Hełdak, M.; Przybyła, K. The actual demand for the elimination of architectural barriers
among senior citizens in poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2601. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kurtyka-Marcak，i; he dak，m. ; przyby a，k.波兰老年人消除建筑障碍的实际需求。内景。环境。保护区。公共卫生
2019,16,2601。[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
8. Orpana, H.; Chawla, M.; Gallagher, E.; Escaravage, E. Developing indicators for evaluation of age-
friendly communities in canada: Process and results. Health Promot. Chronic Dis. Prev. Can. Res. Policy
Pract. 2016, 36, 214. [CrossRef]
Orpana，h. ; Chawla，m. ; Gallagher，e. ; Escaravage，e. 制定评价加拿大年龄友好型社区的指标: 过程和结果。
健康促进。长期病患者。前情提要。译注:。Res.政策实务。2016,36,214.[ CrossRef ]
9.Plou e, L.A.; Kalache, A. Making communities age friendly: State and municipal initiatives in Canada and
other countries. Gac. Sanit. 2011, 25, 131–137. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
使社区对老年人友好: 加拿大和其他国家的州和市政倡议。Gac.Sanit 圣。2011,25,131-
137.[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
10. Clark, K.; Glicksman, A. Age-friendly philadelphia: Bringing diverse networks together around aging
issues. J. Hous. Elder. 2012, 26, 121–136. [CrossRef]
年龄友好的费城: 围绕老龄问题将不同的网络结合在一起。霍斯。埃尔德。2012,26,121-136.[ CrossRef ]
11. Clark, K. Genphilly: A strategy for improving the sustainability of aging in community initiatives. J. Aging
Soc. Policy 2014, 26, 197–211. [CrossRef]
在社区倡议中提高老龄化可持续性的策略。老龄化社会。Policy 2014,26,197-211 政策 2014,26,197-211。[交叉
参考]
12. Ring, L.; Glicksman, A.; Kleban, M.; Norstrand, J. The future of age-friendly: Building a more inclusive
model using principles of ecology and social capital. J. Hous. Elder. 2017, 31, 117–129. [CrossRef]
Ring，l. ; Glicksman，a. ; Kleban，m. ; Norstrand，j.年龄友好的未来: 利用生态学和社会资本的原则建立一个
更具包容性的模型。豪斯。埃尔德。2017,31,117-129.[ CrossRef ]
15 of
2020 年，17,4523 15/16
13. Smith, R.J.; Lehning, A.J.; Dunkle, R.E. Conceptualizing age-friendly community characteristics in a sample of
urban elders: An exploratory factor analysis. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2013, 56, 90–111. [CrossRef]
Smith r.j. ; Lehning a.j. Dunkle r.e. 在城市老年人样本中概念化年龄友好型社区特征: 探索性因子分析。杰罗托尔。社会
科学。Work 2013,56,90-111 工作 2013,56,90-111。[ CrossRef ]
14. Oh, P.A. Age-friendly communities developing age-friendly communities: Evidence from multiple case
studies. Innov. Aging 2019, 3, S183. [CrossRef]
哦，p.a. 年龄友好型社区发展年龄友好型社区: 来自多个案例研究的证据
15. Glicksman, A.; Clark, K.; Kleban, M.H.; Ring, L.; Ho man, C. Building an integrated research/policy
planning age-friendly agenda. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2014, 26, 131–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
建立一个综合的研究/政策规划年龄友好的议程。老龄化社会。Policy 2014,26,131-146 政策 2014,26,131-146。
[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
16. Scharlach, A. Creating aging-friendly communities in the United States. Ageing Int. 2012, 37, 25–38.
[CrossRef]
A. 在美国创建老龄化友好型社区。老龄化国际 2012,37,25-38。[ CrossRef ]
17. Kendig, H.; Elias, A.-M.; Matwijiw, P.; Anstey, K. Developing age-friendly cities and communities in
Australia. J. Aging Health 2014, 26, 1390–1414. [CrossRef]
在澳大利亚发展老年友好型城市和社区。J. 老龄健康 2014,26,1390-1414。[ CrossRef ]
18. Atkins, M. Boomers in boomtown: Age-friendly planning in Australia. Plan. Boomtown Beyond 2016, 4,
70–102.
新兴城市中的婴儿潮一代: 澳大利亚对老年人友好的规划。2016 年之后的新兴城市规划，4,70-102。
19. Taylor, A.; Payer, H. Population ageing in northern Australia: Seniors’ voices on ageing in place. J. Popul.
Ageing 2017, 10, 181–196. [CrossRef]
澳大利亚北部的人口老化: 老年人口老化的声音。人口。Aging 2017,10,181-196 老龄化 2017,10,181-196。
[ CrossRef ]
20. Winterton, R. Organizational responsibility for age-friendly social participation: Views of Australian rural
community stakeholders. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2016, 28, 261–276. [CrossRef]
年龄友好型社会参与的组织责任: 澳大利亚农村社区利益相关者的观点。老龄化社会。Policy 2016,28,261-276
政策 2016,28,261-276。[交叉参考]
21. ASEAN. Asean Plus Three Statement on Active Ageing. 2016. Available online: https://asean.Org/asean-
plus-three-statement-on-active-ageing/ (accessed on 11 May 2020).
2016 年东盟自由贸易区关于积极老龄化的三项声明可在线查阅: https://ASEAN. Org/ASEAN-plus-three-
Statement-on-Active-Ageing/(2020 年 5 月 11 日访问)。
22. Chiangmai University. Final Report: The Study of Age-Friendly Environment for Asean+3 Countries,
Proposed to the Department of Older Persons, the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security,
Thailand; Chiangmai University: Chiangmai, Thailand, 2016.
清迈大学。最后报告: 向泰国社会发展和人类安全部老年人司提交的东盟 + 3 国家有利于老年人的环境研究报告;
清迈大学(chiang mai University) : 泰国清迈，2016 年。
23. Department of Older Persons, Thailand and College of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University.
Research Project on Care for Older Persons in Asean+3; BKK; Chulalongkorn University: Bangkok,
Thailand, 2018.
泰国老年人系和朱拉隆功大学人口研究学院。东盟 + 3 老年人护理研究项目; BKK; 朱拉隆功大学: 曼谷，泰国，
2018 年。
24. WHO. Measuring the Age-Friendliness of Cities: A Guide to Using Core Indicators. 2015. Available online:
世卫组织。衡量城市的年龄友好性: 使用核心指标指南。2015 年。可在线获得:
https://www.Who.Int/ageing/publications/measuring-cities-age-friendliness/en/ (accessed on 11 May 2020).
Https://www. Who. Int/ageing/publications/measuring-cities-age-friendly/en/(access on 11 May 2020).
25. Tiraphat, S.; Peltzer, K.; Thamma-Aphiphol, K.; Suthisukon, K. The role of age-friendly environments on
quality of life among Thai elderly. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 282. [CrossRef]
蒂拉法特，s。佩尔策，k。年龄友好的环境对泰国老年人生活质量的作用。内景。环境。保护区。公共卫生
2017,14,282。[ CrossRef ]
26. Carpenter, J.P.; Daniere, A.G.; Takahashi, L.M. Social capital and trust in south-east Asian cities. Urban
Stud. 2004, 41, 853–874. [CrossRef]
东南亚城市的社会资本和信任。Urban Stud 城市种马。2004,41,853-874.[交叉参考]
27. Li, T.; Fung, H.H. Age di erences in trust: An investigation across 38 countries. J. Gerontol. Ser. B
Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2013, 68, 347–355. [CrossRef]
信任年龄差异: 对 38 个国家的调查。杰罗托尔。爵士。B 心理学。科学。社会科学。Sci 科学。2013,68,347-
355.[ CrossRef ]
28. Kim, B.J. Respect for the Elderly: Implications for Human Service Providers; University Press of America:
Lanham, MD, USA, 2009.
对老年人的尊重: 对人类服务提供者的影响; 美国大学出版社: 拉纳姆，医学博士，美国，2009。
29. Ingersoll-Dayton, B.; Saengtienchai, C. Respect for the elderly in Asia: Stability and change. Int. J. Aging
Hum. Dev. 1999, 48, 113–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ingersoll-Dayton，b。 ; Saengtienchai，c。亚洲对老年人的尊重: 稳定与变化。内景。J。衰老。戴夫。
1999,48,113-130.[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
30. Sung, K.-T. Elder respect: Exploration of ideals and forms in East Asia. J. Aging Stud. 2001, 15, 13–26.
[CrossRef]
Sung，k-t.尊敬长者: 探索东亚的理想与形式。J、老年种马。2001,15,13-26.[交叉参考]
31. Rashidi, P.; Mihailidis, A. A survey on ambient-assisted living tools for elderly. IEEE J. Biomed. Health
Inform. 2012, 17, 579–590. [CrossRef]
拉希迪，p. ; 米哈利迪斯，a。老年人环境辅助生活工具的调查。生物医学。Health Inform 健康信息。
2012,17,579-590.[ CrossRef ]
32. Enami, M.; Takei, Y.; Inaba, H.; Yachida, T.; Ohta, K.; Maeda, T.; Goto, Y. Di erential e ects of ageing
and bls training experience on attitude towards basic life support. Resuscitation 2011, 82, 577–583.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Enami，m. ; Takei，y. ; Inaba，h. ; Yachida，t. ; Ohta，k. ; Maeda，t. ; Goto，y. 衰老的不同影响和对基本生
命支持态度的培训经验。复苏 2011,82,577-583。[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
33. Williamson, A. ‘You’re never too old to learn!’: Third-age perspectives on lifelong learning. Int. J. Lifelong
Educ. 1997, 16, 173–184. [CrossRef]
A. 威廉姆森: 活到老学到老！第三代对终身学习的看法。整体而言。终身教育。1997,16,173-184.[ CrossRef ]
34. Escuder-Mollon, P.; Esteller-Curto, R.; Ochoa, L.; Bardus, M. Impact on senior learners’ quality of life
through lifelong learning. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 131, 510–516. [CrossRef]
Escuder-Mollon，p. Esteller-Curto，r. ; Ochoa，l. Bardus，m. 通过终身学习对高中生生活质量的影响。
Procdia-soc.Behav 行为。科学。2014,131,510-516.[ CrossRef ]
35. Leung, A.; Lui, Y.-H.; Chi, I. Later life learning experience among Chinese elderly in Hong Kong. Gerontol.
Geriatr. Educ. 2006, 26, 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
梁美芬、吕永和志一、香港华人长者的晚年生活学习经验。老人。老人。教育。2006,26,1-
15.[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
36. Lamdin, L.S.; Fugate, M. Elderlearning: New Frontier in An Aging Society; Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 1997.
Lamdin，l.s. ; Fugate，m. elder learning: New Frontier in a Aging Society; rowman & littlefield Publishers:
Lanham，M.，USA，1997 老龄化社会的新前沿; 罗曼和赖特菲尔德出版社: 美国马里兰州拉纳姆，1997。
37. Ogden, A.C. A brief overview of lifelong learning in Japan. Lang. Teach. 2010, 34, 5–13.
日本终身学习概述。朗教授，2010,34,5-13。
16 of
2020 年，17,4523 16/16
38. Arifin, E.N.; Ananta, A. Employment of older persons: Diversity across nations and subnations in southeast
老年人的就业: 东南部国家和地区的多样性
Asia. In Older Persons in Southeast Asia. An Emerging Asset; Institute of Southeast Asian Studies:
Singapore, 2009; pp. 167–217.
亚洲。在东南亚老年人中。新兴资产; 东南亚研究所: 新加坡，2009; 第 167-217 页。
39. Bukov, A.; Maas, I.; Lampert, T. Social participation in very old age: Cross-sectional and longitudinal
findings from base. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2002, 57, P510–P517. [CrossRef]
高龄时期的社会参与: 来自基础的横断面和纵向研究结果。J. Gerontol.爵士。B 心理学。科学。社会科学。Sci
科学。2002,57，P510-P517.[ CrossRef ]
40. Teerawichitchainan, B.; Prachuabmoh, V.; Knodel, J. Productive aging in developing southeast Asia:
Comparative analyses between myanmar, vietnam and thailand. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 229, 161–171.
[CrossRef]
Teerawichitchainan，b. ; Prachuabmoh，v. ; Knodel，j. 东南亚发展中国家的生产性老龄化: 缅甸、越南和泰国
的比较分析。社会责任。Sci 科学。医学。2019,229,161-171.[ CrossRef ]
41. Ritchie, M.A. Social capacity, sustainable development, and older people: Lessons from community-
based care in Southeast Asia. Dev. Pract. 2000, 10, 638–649. [CrossRef]
社会能力、可持续发展与老年人: 东南亚社区护理的经验教训。发展。实践。2000,10,638-649.[交叉参考]
42. Kowitt, S.; Emmerling, D.; Fisher, E.; Tanasugarn, C. Community health workers as agents of health
promotion: Analyzing Thailand’s village health volunteer program. J. Community Health 2015, 40, 780–
788. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
作为健康促进代理人的社区卫生工作者: 分析泰国的乡村卫生志愿者计划。J. 社区卫生 2015,40,780-788。
[ CrossRef ][ PubMed ]
' 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open
access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
2020 年作者。持牌人 MDPI，瑞士巴塞尔。本文是根据知识共享署名(CC BY)许可协议
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/)的条款和条件发布的开放访问文章。

Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three - 【彩云小译】

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three - 【彩云小译】

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three:

Received: 21 May 2020; Accepted: 19 June 2020; Published: 23 June 2020

Keywords: age-friendly environments; emergency response; lifelong learning; political; economic;

2.1. Description of Survey and Study Population

2.2.2. Sociodemographic Variables

In order to identify high-risk groups of perceived age-friendliness inadequacy, we put age

2.3. Data Analysis

3.1. Sample Characteristics

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Variables Malaysia Vietnam Myanmar Thailand Japan Total

3.2. Availability of Perceived Age-Friendly Environments

Average Score of Perceived Age-Friendly

13. You have had enough income 2.7highest

Average Score of Perceived Age-Friendly

3.3. The Level of Perceived Age-Friendly Environments by Country

In order to examine the di erences in the proportion of perceived age-friendly environments by

(n, %) 40.6% 13.1% 7.2% 61.0% 44.3% 31.8%

(n, %) 24.0% 27.4% 1.4% 12.0% 15.7% 16.4%

(n, %) 5.0% 37.6% 2.7% 14.7% 19.3% 15.2%

(n, %) 63.9% 52.1% 4.5% 12.7% 16.4% 32.8%

(n, %) 31.3% 68.6% 12.9% 15.9% 27.9% 31.9%

3.4. High-Risk Group of Having Inadequate Age-Friendly Environments

We identify a high-risk group of having inadequate age-friendly environments by analysis of ordinal

Table 4. Predictors of perceived “bad” age-friendly environments, analyzed by ordinal logistic

Perceived Age-Friendly Environments

1.United Nations. World Population Ageing. 2017. Available online: Https://www.Un.Org/en/development/

You might also like