Our older Australians are electing in greater numbers than ever before to age in their own homes. Changing levels of health and prosperity, new family structures and indeed philosophies of lifestyle have led to a growth in not only the number of older people in our communities but also the tendency of these people to stay put, living independently of their families. Yet, not all are self-funded retiree couples living in beach suburbs and/or convivial communities, drawing from their share portfolios, driving to their clubs and families on weekends. They often live in isolation and varying degrees of poverty. One has to ask, is it technically or indeed socially possible for them to remain in place?

Apart from the obvious fact that they can, most older Australians prefer to live independently because they don’t want to become a burden to their children (even when those adult children are willing to thus burden themselves). Independence is prized as the power to control events that affect us, since “…many of the pathologies and problems associated with ageing may partially be a result of a lack of control of their environment by the elderly.” (Petterson, 1978)

Moreover, who we think we are – our identity – gives us the confidence to cope with others, and more of our identity than we might care to admit derives from being able to personalize, to mark out, our territory. Likewise, finding a useful role in society confers power, which in the case of a simple, manageable garden requiring attention, takes older people out of themselves, stimulating the spirit and linking them to the needs and rhythms of life. A domestic garden may offer the reassurance of a dependable environment, free of ambiguities of a changing world.

A large body of literature is evolving around the adaptable housing banner, wherein houses (and now their landscapes) are being designed for the occupant’s possible decline into some level of handicap. ‘Housing for Life’, ‘Universal Design’ etc, have spawned books and pamphlets covering building solutions to the problems besetting the older or handicapped person around the home.

Most obvious of all are physical problems such as frailty, reduced mobility, intolerance of extremes (of temperature, noise, sun and wind), dulled senses and spinal problems. Solutions to these are well documented, and involve practices familiar to the landscape architect dealing with the handicapped such as attention to slope, level changes, edging, textures, materials, drainage, foliage, lighting, anti-glare/wind/noise devices, resting stations, low-maintenance vegetation (that permits pet habitats) and raised planter beds. Some unusual solutions might involve replacing lawns with rock-and-gravel Zen gardens, the use of black-pebbled mulch, dwarf plants for reduced maintenance, drip irrigation, hydroponics, vertical gardens and bonsai. The older driver, whose short-term memory and cognitive processes aren’t always what they were, could benefit from a circular driveway or turnaround space, and speed bumps to reinforce the presence of a wall or path.

Ironically, the independence seeker can experience aloneness, though not necessarily loneliness. This usually means a widow at home in an outer suburb with poor community facilities, inadequate public transport and spiraling home maintenance costs, with nobody to help her cope with managing a home. At the planning level, zoning to allow any of the shared housing/dual occupancy/ cooperative housing options could help solve the older person’s problems and dovetail into governments’ promotion of urban infill as an economic, environmental and social necessity.

At the landscape level, measures to open up views to the street provide the older resident with a surveillance position from which to experience their community, if only vicariously, while providing a ready-made neighborhood watch scheme (‘Warning – These Premises are Being Watched by Older People’).

Despite statistics to the contrary, older people feel more vulnerable to home invasions. Taking these fears seriously, landscape solutions could involve removing visual barriers to a building’s entry points, providing visual links to various neighbors, a lockable garden shed/garage, movement-sensitive outside lighting, and parking near the front door.

Older people often have the time to look to landscape and the seasons as a source of meaning. In a society that stresses the new, the young, the now, nature links us to life and our place in it. Change and death become meaningful. Places to view nature from, even inside the house, allow older people to contemplate and enjoy the meaning within their gardens and its links with their past.

Independence is one of the United Nation’s [Five]Principles For Older People and despite the popular press, there is no evidence that keeping people at home, rather than in care, costs society any more (see Jones, 1992; Tinker, 1999).

Consequently, government assistance programs are enabling some fragile Australians to maintain and repair their properties. Ageing at home is technically sustainable for those who:

• have planned for a continued high level of income (having survived today’s 50 percent of chance of divorce and/or redundancy), or
• have retained their health and fitness for gardening, or
• can rely on children willing and able to help, or
• are lucky enough to live on a relatively level terrain.

However, older people usually live in older houses prone to more than the average number of defects (dangerous tree branches, crumbling walls, rampant weeds, fraying paths, etc). The only hope for many is the children, the neighbor or federally funded programs (most of which are means-tested and cash-strapped).

Even so, most attempts to render domestic landscapes safe and useable sacrifice aesthetics for functionality. Engineer-driven solutions or newly built adaptable houses often create flat, relatively bare landscapes. For instance, woodchips themselves might create walking hazards. Trees removed from near paths reveal glary, concrete surfaces. Groundcovers, in replacing expensive and thirsty lawns, may then fill with weeds and leaves. Texture changes can become tripping hazards. Opening sight lines to the neighbours could remove privacy. Such counterproductive solutions challenge the landscape architect to overlay the functional with the aesthetic, to go beyond useful to joy in use. Since older people often spend more time around their homes, their landscapes need to be a rich fusion of pleasure, comfort and meaning.

Solutions are multi-layered. Individuals need to plan while they can to adapt their domestic landscape to possible disabilities in later life. They need to examine the support structures they live with – their relationships and community infrastructure – and decide if these can sustain them emotionally and practically.

They should examine alternative housing options and consider moving closer to major urban centres if they have the money.

Importantly, they should examine how essential is a personal landscape for safety and empowerment. And if the traditional domestic garden is beyond them, they could consider such simple replacements as atriums, balcony/glasshouse gardens and hydroponics. Then we as a community need to decide how much we are willing to pay to support these older people to live with dignity in place.

***