Integrating Eudaimonic Well-Being into Urban Design for Thailand’s Aging Society
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The transition toward an aging society has emerged as a structural issue shaping urban development, particularly in developing countries such as Thailand, where significant challenges remain in ensuring the quality of life of older adults. Consequently, the study of well-being has become increasingly important. However, well-being is a complex and multidimensional concept, especially in dimensions that extend beyond temporary happiness or life satisfaction. This deeper dimension is referred to as Eudaimonic Well-Being (EWB).
This article aims to review and synthesize existing research on the factors influencing the eudaimonic well-being of older adults in both international and Thai contexts in order to identify critical research gaps in Thailand. International studies have increasingly moved beyond measuring satisfaction and emotional happiness, commonly defined as hedonic well-being toward examining meaning in life, personal growth, and psychological factors such as autonomy and purpose. In contrast, research in Thailand has largely focused on the physical aspects of the built environment, spatial usage, and safety, or has primarily measured general satisfaction. Such approaches remain insufficient for fully capturing quality of life in the context of meaningful aging.
This article therefore highlights a significant gap in Thai research regarding the integration of eudaimonic well-being into studies of older adults. It further proposes directions for knowledge development to support policies and urban planning strategies that foster meaningful living and enhance the intrinsic value of later life. This integration is essential for advancing age-friendly urban development in rapidly aging societies.
Article Details
References
กระทรวงดิจิทัลเพื่อเศรษฐกิจและสังคม. สำนักงานสถิติแห่งชาติ. (2567). การสำรวจประชากรสูงอายุในประเทศไทย พ.ศ. 2567. กลุ่มสถิติสุขภาพและภาวะทางสังคม กองสถิติสังคม สํานัก.
จิรภัทร วิทยาสมบูรณ์ และรสิตา ดาศรี. (2566). การวิเคราะห์พื้นที่สีเขียวเพื่อรองรับสังคมสูงวัย แขวงบางยี่ขัน เขตบางพลัด กรุงเทพมหานคร. Journal of Spatial Development and Policy, 1(6), 15–30. https://so16.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSDP/article/view/372
ไตรรัตน์ จารุทัศน์. (2558). คู่มือการออกแบบเพื่อทุกคน (Universal Design guide book) (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 2). หน่วยปฏิบัติการวิจัยสภาพแวดล้อมที่เหมาะสมกับผู้สูงอายุและคนพิการ คณะสถาปัตยกรรมศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
นลินดา สุวรรณประสพ และนิจ ตันติศิรินทร์. (2563). การประเมินความเหมาะสมและแนวทางการพัฒนาพื้นที่เมืองให้เป็นมิตรต่อผู้สูงอายุทางด้านกายภาพ : กรณีศึกษาเทศบาลนครรังสิต. Journal of Architectural/Planning Research and Studies (JARS), 17, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.56261/jars.v17i1.175203
นิธิวดี ทองป้อง. (2546). พฤติกรรมการใช้สวนสาธารณะที่เป็นผลจากสภาพแวดล้อมทางภูมิทัศน์ของสวนในเขตเทศบาลนครขอนแก่น [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต, จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย]. Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD). https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/chulaetd/13857
พัณณิตา ศรีกุมาร. (2566). แนวทางการพัฒนาสภาพแวดล้อมภายนอกสำหรับผู้สูงอายุกรณีศึกษาชุมชนคลองพลับพลา ชุมชนทรัพย์สินใหม่ชุมชนเลิศสุขสมและชุมชนบึงยี่โถ [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต, จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย]. Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD). https://digital.car.chula.ac.th/chulaetd/12649
พิสิทธิ์ ตันติพิสิฐกุล และสัญญา ฉิมพิมล. (2565). ทบทวนหลักฐานงานศึกษาความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างพื้นที่สีเขียวในเมืองกับสุขภาวะ. Suranaree Journal of Social Science, 17, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.55766/ZLGA8912
ไพศาล เทพวงศ์ศิริรัตน์. (2554). รายงานวิจัยฉบับสมบูรณ์ สวนสาธารณะในเมืองกรุงเทพมหานครกับความเป็นมิตรต่อผู้สูงอายุ : การศึกษาประเด็นของประสิทธิภาพ ความคาดหวัง และความพร้อมรับมือกับสังคมผู้สูงอายุในอนาคต. คณะสถาปัตยกรรมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์.
อุไรวรรณ รุ่งไหรัญ. (2559). ทัศนคติของผู้สูงอายุที่มีต่อสิทธิผู้สูงอายุตามพระราชบัญญัติผู้สูงอายุ พ.ศ. 2546 ในการร่วมกิจกรรม ณ สวนสาธารณะของกรุงเทพมหานคร. วารสารปัญญาภิวัฒน์, 8(1), 122–136. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/pimjournal/article/view/55734
Arifwidodo, S. D., Chandrasiri, O., & Rueangsom, P. (2025). Is proximity to parks associated with physical activity and well-being? Insights from 15-minute parks policy initiative in Bangkok, Thailand. Sustainability, 17(16), 7457. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167457
Ballas, D., & Tranmer, M. (2012). Happy people or happy places? A multilevel modeling approach to the analysis of happiness and well-being. International Regional Science Review, 35(1), 70–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017611403737
Bornioli, A., Parkhurst, G., & Morgan, P. L. (2018). The psychological wellbeing benefits of place engagement during walking in urban environments: A qualitative photo-elicitation study. Health & Place, 53, 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.08.018
Buffel, T., & Phillipson, C. (2016). Can global cities be “age-friendly cities”? Urban development and ageing populations. Cities, 55, 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.016
Cai, X., Huang, Y., & Zhang, B. (2023). Singing together in the park: Older peoples’ wellbeing and the singingscape in Guangzhou, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 343, 100947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.100947
Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and lingering: Everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations. Health & Place, 14(3), 544-561.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: Using public space (J. Koch, Trans.). Island Press. (Original work published 1971)
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge.
Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H. A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
Huta, V., & Ryan, R. (2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735-762.
Joshanloo, M., & Blasco-Belled, A. (2023). Reciprocal associations between depressive symptoms, life satisfaction, and eudaimonic well-being in older adults over a 16-year period. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2374.
Kabisch, N., Qureshi, S., & Haase, D. (2015). Human–environment interactions in urban green spaces—A systematic review of contemporary issues and prospects for future research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.08.007
Kent, J. L., & Thompson, S. (2014). The three domains of urban planning for health and wellbeing. Journal of Planning Literature, 29(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412214520712
Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197
Knodel, J., Kespichayawattana, J., Wivatvanit, S., & Saengtienchai, C. (2016). The future of family support for Thai elderly: Views of the populace. Journal of Population and Social Studies, 21(2), 110-132. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jpss/article/view/71987
Kojima, G., Taniguchi, Y., Kitamura, A., & Fujiwara, Y. (2020). Is living alone a risk factor of frailty? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 59, 101048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2020.101048
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 832–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000605
Lee, C., Moudon, A. V., & Courbois, J. Y. (2007). Attributes of environments supporting walking. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21, 448-459. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-21.5.448
Lopez, J., Perez-Rojo, G., Noriega, C., Sánchez-Cabaco, A., Sitges, E., & Bonete, B. (2024). Quality-of-life in older adults: Its association with emotional distress and psychological wellbeing. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1), 815. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05401-7
Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M. E., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586-595.
Marmot, M., & Bell, R. (2012). Fair society, healthy lives. Public Health, 126(Suppl 1), S4–S10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014
Michael, Y. L., Green, M. K., & Farquhar, S. A. (2006). Measuring the influence of built neighborhood environments on walking in older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 14(3), 302-312.
Moran, M. R., Werner, P., Doron, I., HaGani, N., Benvenisti, Y., King, A. C., Winter, S. J., Sheats, J. L., Garber, R., Motro, H., Ergon, S. (2018). Exploring the objective and perceived environmental attributes of older adults’ neighborhood walking routes: A mixed methods analysis. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 25(3), 420-431.
Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., & Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the “15-minute city”: Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities, 4(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006
Mouratidis, K. (2018). Built environment and social well-being: How does urban form affect social life and personal relationships? Cities, 74, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.10.020
Mouratidis, K. (2021). Urban planning and quality of life: A review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities, 115, 103229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103229
Phillips, L., Larsen, A., & Mengel, L. (2022). What “coproduction” in participatory research means from participants’ perspectives: A collaborative autoethnographic inquiry. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.37638
Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21, 1145-1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0
Saint-Onge, K., Coulombe, S., Philibert, M., Wiesztort, L., & Houle, J. (2022). How urban parks nurture eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing: An explorative large scale qualitative study in Québec, Canada. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 3, 100095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2022.100095
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Free Press.
Shigematsu, R., Sallis, J. F., Conway, T. L., Saelens, B. E., Frank, L. D., Cain, K. L., Chapman, J. E., & King, A. C. (2009). Age differences in the relation of perceived neighborhood environment to walking. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 41(2), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318185496c
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. (2014). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. The Lancet, 385(9968), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61489-0
Sugiyama, T., & Thompson, C. W. (2007). Older people’s health, outdoor activity and supportiveness of neighbourhood environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83(2–3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.002
Thanakwang, K., Isaramalai, S. A., & Hattakit, U. (2014). Thai cultural understandings of active ageing from the perspectives of older adults: A qualitative study. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 18(2), 152-165. https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/PRIJNR/article/view/10466
Thompson, C. W. (2013). Activity, exercise and the planning and design of outdoor spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.003
Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-8785-9
Uchida, Y., & Ogihara, Y. (2012). Personal or interpersonal construal of happiness: A cultural psychological perspective. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(4), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v2.i4.5
van den Berg, M. M., van Poppel, M., van Kamp, I., Ruijsbroek, A., Triguero-Mas, M., Gidlow, C., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Gražulevičiene, R., van Mechelen, W., Kruize, H., & Maas, J. (2019). Do physical activity, social cohesion, and loneliness mediate the association between time spent visiting green space and mental health? Environment and Behavior, 51(2), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517738563
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678
Wiles, J., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., & Allen, R. (2011). The meaning of "aging in place" to older people. The Gerontologist, 52, 357-366. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241547307
World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565042
Yung, E., Conejos, S., & Chan, E. (2016). Social needs of the elderly and active aging in public open spaces in urban renewal. Cities, 52, 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.022
