Special Issue on Ageing in Place: Introduction

What the paper says

Ageing in place has been loosely defined as ageing in one’s familiar home and community (Boyle et al. 2015; Pani-Harreman et al. 2021). Ageing in place is both an approach and policy developed in response to population ageing as well as a theme subject to academic debate (Lewis & Buffel 2020). Ageing in place has been a prevalent policy in many countries, especially in Global North countries like the UK (Peace 2022). As a policy, ageing in place stems from both the wishes of older adults as well as neoliberalist austerity, cutting back on residential care provision (Means 2007; Joy 2020). With neoliberalist policies becoming dominant, emphasis for the ability to ‘age well in place’ is increasingly placed on older individuals, rather than the societal context of which they are part. This has resulted in concerns around a divide between those older adults who can afford to age well in place and those who cannot (Rubinstein & de Medeiros 2015). In the context of the development of ageing in place policy and its effects on the lives of older adults, ageing in place has been a topic of scholarship. Golant (2015) has made the important contribution that ageing in place should rather focus on ageing in the right place. This aligns with research that has shown that to simply be in an environment that allows you to age in place does not mean it is the best place to age (Lager et al. 2015; Phillips & McGee 2018). This has resulted in more attention for the spatial settings in which people grow older, and the extent to which these align with the needs of older adults (Lewis & Buffel 2020; Tournier & Vidovićová 2021). Furthermore, Hillcoat-Nallétamby and Ogg (2014) identified that older adults themselves can determine whether they feel they are suitable to age in place, especially if they have long-term illness and disability; thus they may wish to relocate themselves to a more liveable environment – where they can age in place. Others have argued that meaningful social relations form an integral and essential part of ageing in place, thus foregrounding the social dimension of ageing in place. These studies have also underlined the importance of potential changes in needs and wishes throughout the (later) life course with regard to ageing in place (Boyle et al. 2015; Webber et al. 2023). Ultimately, then, socio-cultural context plays a pivotal role in not only whether ageing in place takes place but how ageing in place happens. In their recent book on ageing in place in urban environments, Buffel and Phillipson (2024) advocate a critical approach to ageing in place, which should reflect the following elements: (1) life-course inequality and (dis)advantage over time in different contexts; (2) the unequal capability of places to support ageing in place; (3) the structural and socio-political forces that shape the places in which we age; (4) the agency and collective action that older adults use to shape their ageing in place; (5) the ‘right’ place, which reflects older adults’ preferences, circumstances, and care needs. One of the implications of such a critical approach is that there should be more attention for how the socio-cultural context impacts ageing in place. Therefore, with this critical approach by Buffel and Phillipson in mind and based on the need for more exploration of ageing in place in different realities, the aim of this special issue is to develop a critical understanding of the role hitherto underexplored socio-cultural contexts play in ageing in place. To achieve this aim, the special issue articles focus on unique older adult populations, underexplored contexts and aspects of older adult lived experience that have not been focused on in prior ageing in place literature. Ageing in place continues to be a fervently discussed topic in academia, with academics critiquing not only its key themes, but also its applicability to different contexts and study populations. Pani-Harreman et al.’s (2021) scoping review identified several foci that are critical to understanding ageing in place. These included place, social networks, support, technology, and personal characteristics. This scoping review provides a constructive starting point to explore how ageing in place has been explored but also where it has been underexplored. The following sections outline some key areas where critical gaps remain that if addressed would help deepen our understanding of ageing in place in general and ageing in the right place in particular. Different theoretical frameworks have been used to open up new perspectives on ageing in the right place. A first important contribution has been to include the role of time in ageing in place, with a focus on how experiences of ageing in place change over time (Lewis & Buffel 2020; Webber et al. 2023). A second theoretical contribution to the literature on ageing in place has occurred through the application of the capability approach. Summarising it crudely, the capability approach is concerned with the real opportunities – capabilities – that people have, and the choices they make to achieve certain opportunities, to achieve well-being. The capability approach integrates the barriers and opportunities that exist at both the individual level as well as those in the physical and social environment (Sen 1999; Robeyns & Byskov 2025). Recently, the capability approach has been applied through a geographical perspective to consider how older adults value the place to age well in (Grove 2021). The capability approach has also been used to develop a conceptual framework of ageing in place, to emphasise how ageing in place is a dynamic process shaped by different components which highlight the beneficial use of an ecological perspective to ageing in place that uses multiple spatial scales. Clearly, studies that apply the capability approach demonstrate that ageing in place should contribute to well-being at the individual level, and that it should include different spatial scales. Overall, utilising different theoretical perspectives allows us to explore the dynamics of ageing in place in unique ways that teases out and critiques how ageing in place is experienced and enacted. The papers of this SI continue this endeavour by applying different lenses and perspectives to ageing in – the right – place. Different contexts produce different ageing in place phenomena, signalling the critical role context plays in how ageing in place is enacted and experienced (Lee & Hong-Kin 2005; North & Fiske 2015). A large proportion of literature on ageing in place focuses on Global North contexts (Gutiérrez Posada et al. 2018). While there are some studies that focus on contexts outside of the Global North (Cadmus et al. 2023; Jacobs et al. 2025), the Global South remains underexplored in terms of ageing in place. More diverse offerings to the ageing in place discourse will not only redefine the discourse to take into account the multiplicity of ageing in place, but will also offer unique insights that can inform how different places implement ageing in place practices, fostering a sense of collaboration across contexts, both Global North and South. Older adults are not a homogenous group and within the category of older adults are a plethora of different older adult populations with different needs and concerns around how they will age in place the way they want. One focus has been on different age groups of older adults, often referred to as the young-old and the old-old (Oswald et al. 2010). This area of research is particularly important because populations are becoming older throughout the world, which means that understanding the different needs of differently aged older people will inform how ageing in place will work across the later life course. Context-specific study populations have also received attention in past research, such as homeless older adults and indigenous populations (Canham et al. 2022; Gallardo-Peralta et al. 2023). Prior research focused on context-specific study populations critiques the notion of ageing in place and foregrounds the importance of having ageing in place practice underpinned by the specific needs of particular older adult populations. Another critical area of research has focused on groups of older adults living with a variety of impairments, such as Parkinson’s disease and dementia (Habermann & Shin 2017; Sturge et al. 2021; Iwarsson et al. 2022). Focusing on these unique groups foregrounds the need to go beyond a homogenous understanding of ageing in place and to make sure no older adult is discounted, left behind in ageing in place implementation or forced to age in a place not of their choosing. While these various populations have received prolonged attention in research on ageing in place, the issue remains that research on these groups is Global North focused. Such is the case with all the studies cited above and therefore it is critical to consider other socio-cultural contexts, where interpretation of the different study populations and the challenges facing them to age in place are socio-culturally unique. Likewise, they may offer unique insights that can contribute not only to the original socio-cultural context but also contexts throughout the world as to the right places to age in. An important dimension of ageing in place is related to meaningful social connections. This is exemplified by the work of Boyle et al. (2015) who have shown how the nexus between people and place is central to ageing in place. There is a wealth of research that has found how social relations are essential for ageing well in place (Wiles et al. 2012, 2017; Gardner 2014; Hillcoat-Nallétamby & Ogg 2014; Lager et al. 2015; Van Hees et al. 2017). Similarly, social networks and support have been identified as key themes in a recent scoping review (Pani-Harreman et al., 2021). These studies have shown the importance of social relations, but also the negative effects on ageing in place when opportunities for social interactions are not available. This leads to the question when ageing in place is not a viable option (anymore), which has been explored in terms of declining satisfaction with home environments and choices made to relocate in light of deterioration in health (Tofle 2012; Hillcoat-Nallétamby & Ogg 2014; Fang et al. 2023). Therefore, the social experience of ageing in place is foregrounded in each of the cited studies, which is of continued importance throughout this SI. Ultimately, social experience is boundless and focuses on different study populations, socio-cultural contexts and through different methods and theoretical frameworks; the papers of the SI continue this discourse in novel and exciting ways. Ultimately, different theoretical perspectives and contexts have been applied and explored respectively in relation to ageing in place. Furthermore, the social dimension of ageing in place has particularly been foregrounded in prior research. However, there are gaps in terms of socio-cultural ageing in place and ageing in place that may not be entirely on the terms of older adults themselves. These gaps emphasise a need to explore how not all older adults have equal opportunities to age in place the way and where they want, which is a key focus of the papers constituting this special issue. This SI begins with two papers that contribute to the theoretical development of Ageing in place. First, Grove (2025) deepens the theoretical connection between the Capability Approach, Ageing in place and Health Geography. In so doing, she argues that ageing well in place is about older adults having the health, well-being and mobility that enable them to move around and leave the home, and engage in the broader neighbourhood and community. In the end, ageing well in place then has both a physical and an emotional component. Connected with these theoretical insights, she argues that policy responses that enable older adults to age well in their communities should have three characteristics: (1) person-centred; (2) place-based; and (3) equitable. Second, Winship et al. (2025) contribute to an enhanced understanding of ageing in place and the wider neighbourhood and community by discussing ageing in place in relation to urban regeneration. In their paper Theorising Ageing in Place during urban regeneration: A spatial approach, they argue that a multiscalar perspective, incorporating the micro, meso, and macro level, has the potential to open up ways of exploring ageing in place as a situated and relational process. These theoretically focused papers contribute to a shifting focus on ageing in place as largely home-based to neighbourhood- and community-based, foregrounding the contextualised nature of ageing in place processes. The SI continues by foregrounding different unique, underexplored socio-cultural contexts. First, Bailey et al.’s (2025) paper, titled ‘No place for us on footpaths’: Exploring walkability challenges of older men in India and Bangladesh, focuses on the walking experiences of older men in Bengaluru and Dhaka from an intersectional perspective. They find that walkability is compromised for older men and there are significant issues faced for them. The authors call for a recognition of the needs, barriers and coping mechanisms imperative for older men to live in age-friendly cities well. Second, Pang et al. (2025) examine how older adults from rural Yulin, China navigate their transition to urban life after policy-driven resettlement. They show that resettled older adults’ experiences go beyond the binaries of past versus present and rural versus urban; ultimately challenging the portrayal of older adults as passive actors in their own displacement. Lastly, the role of public spaces and places is foregrounded by the following two papers. van Melik and van der Lee’s (2025) paper, titled Feeling lonely while ageing in place in the Netherlands: Questioning the importance of shopping spaces for older people, focuses on shopping spaces and illustrates the complex relations between ageing, loneliness and shopping spaces, with an emphasis not only on ageing in place but ageing well in place, which requires more than accessible and well-designed spaces of encounter but also must incorporate reductions of loneliness in the older adults’ home. Ward’s (2025) contribution, titled Spaces of liminality, places of creative assemblage: A multi-arts setting for people living with dementia in Northwest England, goes beyond the home and local neighbourhood to focus on community-based creative arts for older adults living with dementia. Adopting an ‘in the moment’ theoretical lens, Ward explores the creative opportunity afforded by liminal settings and person-centred meaning-making that creative arts encourage. These papers demonstrate how different spaces can engage older adults with varying physical and mental health conditions. Beyond the papers that are part of the Special Issue on Ageing in Place, this issue of TESG consists of two other original articles on ageing and older populations more generally. Firstly, Sattari et al. (2025) discuss proximity to everyday amenities for older adults in the Northern Netherlands, in relation to their self-rated health. Secondly, Li et al. (2025) conribute with a study on ageing and urban redevelopment in China. Finally, the issue contains a book review of the Econommic Geographies of Tourism, by Gert-Jan Hospers. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.