Background: Neighborhood characteristics are important determinants of individual health and well-being. For example, characteristics such as noise and pollution affect health directly, while other characteristics affect health and well-being by either providing resources (e.g. social capital in the neighborhood), which individuals can use to cope with health problems, or limiting the use thereof (e.g. crime). This also suggests that there might be age differentials in the impact of these characteristics, since individuals at different stages of life might need different resources. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence on age differentials in associations between well-being, health, and neighborhood characteristics. Objective: This paper studies associations between a wide range of neighborhood characteristics with the health and well-being of residents of the greater Berlin area. In particular, we focus on differences in the effects between younger (aged 20-35) and older (aged 60+) residents. Methods: We used data from the Berlin Aging Study II (312 younger and 993 older residents of the Berlin metropolitan area in Germany). We used survey data on health and well-being, combined these with subjective perceptions of the neighborhood, and geo-referenced indicators on the neighborhood, e.g. amenities (public transport, physicians, and hospitals). Results: The results show that access to public transportation is associated with better outcomes on all measures of health and well-being, and social support is associated with higher life satisfaction and better mental health. There are considerable differences between both age groups: while the associations between access to public transport and health and well-being are similar for both age groups, neighborhood social capital shows stronger associations for older residents. However, the difference is not always statistically significant. Conclusion: Having access to services is associated with better health and well-being regardless of age. Local policy makers should focus on lowering barriers to mobility in order to improve the health and well-being of the population. Since the social capital of a neighborhood is associated with better health and well-being among older residents, investments that increase social capital (e.g. community centers) might be warranted in neighborhoods with higher shares of older residents.

Keywords:
Health, Well-being, Neighborhood, Neighborhood amenities, Berlin Aging Study II
1.
Browning CR, Cagney KA: Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. J Health Soc Behav 2002;43:383-399.
2.
Browning CR, Cagney KA, Wen M: Explaining variation in health status across space and time: implications for racial and ethnic disparities in self-rated health. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:1221-1235.
3.
Beard JR, Blaney S, Cerda M, Frye V, Lovasi GS, Ompad D, Rundle A, Vlahov D: Neighborhood characteristics and disability in older adults. J Gerontol Soc Sci 2009;64B:252-257.
4.
Wight RG, Cummings JR, Karlamangla AR, Aneshensel CS: Urban neighborhood context and change in depressive symptoms in late life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2009;64B:247-251.
5.
Wight RG, Ko MK, Aneshensel CS: Urban neighborhoods and depressive symptoms in late middle age. Res Aging 2010;33:28-50.
6.
Menec VH, Shooshtari S, Nowicki S, Fournier S: Does the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic status and health outcomes persist into very old age? A population-based study. J Aging Health 2010;22:27-47.
7.
Bak CK, Andersen PT, Bacher I, Bancila DD: The association between socio-demographic characteristics and perceived stress among residents in a deprived neighbourhood in Denmark. Eur J Public Health 2012;22:787-792.
8.
Subramanian SV, Kubzansky L, Berkman L, Fay M, Kawachi I: Neighborhood effects on the self-rated health of elders: uncovering the relative importance of structural and service-related neighborhood environments. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2006;61B:153- 160.
9.
Aneshensel CS, Wight RG, Miller-Martinez D, Botticello AL, Karlamangla AS, Seeman TE: Urban neighborhoods and depressive symptoms among older adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2007;62B:52-59.
10.
Stockdale SE, Wells KB, Tang L, Belin TR, Zhang L, Sherbourne CD: The importance of social context: neighborhood stressors, stress-buffering mechanisms, and alcohol, drug, and mental health disorders. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:1867-1881.
11.
Lee MA: Neighborhood residential segregation and mental health: a multilevel analysis on Hispanic Americans in Chicago. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:1965-1984.
12.
Tampubolon G, Subramanian SV, Kawachi I: Neighbourhood social capital and individual self-rated health in Wales. Health Econ 2011;22:14-21.
13.
Tampubolon G: Neighborhood social capital and individual mental health; in van Ham M, Manley D, Bailey N, Simpson L, MacLennan D (eds): Neighborhood Effects Research. Dordrecht, Springer, 2011, pp 175-193.
14.
Ross CE, Mirowsky J: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder and health. J Health Soc Behav 2001;42:258-276.
15.
Voigtländer S, Berger U, Razum O: The impact of regional and neighbourhood deprivation on physical health in Germany: a multilevel study. BMC Public Health 2010;10:403.
16.
Gale CR, Dennison EM, Cooper C, Sayer AA: Neighbourhood environment and positive mental health in older people: The Hertfordshire Cohort Study. Health Place 2011;17:867-874.
17.
Elliot J, Gale CR, Parsons S, Kuh D; The HALCyon Study Team: Neighbourhood cohesion and mental wellbeing among older adults: a mixed methods approach. Soc Sci Med 2014;107:44-51.
18.
Evans WN, Lien DS: The benefits of prenatal care: evidence from the PAT bus strike. J Econometrics 2005;125:207-239.
19.
Phillipson C: The ‘elected' and the ‘excluded': sociological perspectives on the experience of place and community in old age. Ageing Soc 2007;27:321-342.
20.
Lawton MP, Kleban MH: The aged resident of the inner city. Gerontologist 1971;11:277-283.
21.
Krause N: Neighborhood deterioration and self-rated health in later life. Psychol Aging 1996;11:342-352.
22.
Krause N: Neighborhood deterioration, religious coping, and changes in health during late life. Gerontologist 1998;38:653-664.
23.
Bertram L, Boeckenhoff A, Demuth I, Düzel S, Eckardt R, Li SC, Lindenberger U, Pawelec G, Siedler T, Wagner GG, Steinhagen-Thiessen E: Cohort profile: The Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:703-712.
24.
Boeckenhoff A, Saßenroth D, Kroh M, Siedler T, Eibich P, Wagner GG: The Socio-Economic Module of the Berlin Aging Study II (SOEP-BASE): description, structure, and questionnaire. SOEPpapers 2013;568.
25.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR: A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987;40:373-383.
26.
Andersen HH, Mühlbacher A, Nübling M, Schupp J, Wagner GG: Computation of standard values for physical and mental health scale scores using the SOEP version of SF-12v2. Schmollers Jahrb 2007;127:171-182.
27.
Saßenroth D, Kroh M, Wagner GG: Processes in and weights for the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). SOEPpapers 2013:608.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.