Perceived Neighborhood Environment, Place Attachment, and Life Satisfaction in Super-Aged Japanese Communities: A Cross-Sectional Study

Perceived Neighborhood Environment, Place Attachment, and Life Satisfaction in Super-Aged Japanese Communities: A Cross-Sectional Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Perceived Neighborhood Environment, Place Attachment, and Life Satisfaction in Super-Aged Japanese Communities: A Cross-Sectional Study Shigekazu Ukawa, Yusuke Kato, Yonggeun Lee, Masaaki Sugiyama, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9173372/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Neighborhood conditions may influence well-being in later life, yet the roles of social participation and place attachment remain unclear, particularly in Japan. Methods This cross-sectional study used 2022 questionnaire data from adults living in two super-aged Japanese communities. Among 1,569 respondents, 1,554 with complete life satisfaction data were analyzed. Perceived neighborhood environment was assessed with 11 items, summarized into a composite score, and classified into low and high groups using the median of the observed data. Missing data were handled with multiple imputation by chained equations, generating 100 datasets. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for life satisfaction. Results After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related factors, the high environment group had higher odds of life satisfaction than the low group (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.07). Further adjustment for social participation changed the estimate little, whereas adjustment for place attachment attenuated the association (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.52). Place attachment was positively associated with life satisfaction (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.13). In supplementary analyses, perceived neighborhood environment was independently associated with place attachment (OR 9.30, 95% CI 5.18 to 16.71) but not with social participation score. Conclusions Favorable neighborhood conditions were associated with higher life satisfaction in super-aged communities. Place attachment may be a more relevant explanatory factor than social participation frequency. neighborhood environment place attachment life satisfaction older adults Japan social participation 1. Introduction Population aging has increased interest in modifiable determinants of well-being in later life. Life satisfaction reflects a person's overall cognitive evaluation of daily life and is a core indicator of subjective well-being [ 1 ]. In older age, this evaluation depends not only on health and socioeconomic circumstances but also on the residential context in which everyday life unfolds. As activity spaces narrow with age, neighborhood conditions may exert a stronger influence on well-being through mobility, access to services, safety, and everyday social experience [ 2 ]. A growing body of research links neighborhood environment to life satisfaction among older adults. In urban China, perceptions of age-friendly community features were positively associated with life satisfaction [ 3 ]. Similar associations have been reported for perceived neighborhood environment in Shanghai and other Chinese settings [ 4 , 6 – 8 ]. Longitudinal evidence further suggests that age-friendly neighborhood features may support life satisfaction partly by helping older adults maintain functional abilities over time [ 5 ]. Together, these findings indicate that neighborhood conditions may play an important role in later-life well-being, especially for people whose daily lives are concentrated close to home. The pathways linking neighborhood environment to life satisfaction, however, remain less clear. Prior studies have pointed to sense of community, social capital, positive affect, and place-based meanings as possible explanatory mechanisms [ 6 – 10 ]. Two pathways may be especially relevant in super-aged communities. Social participation may enhance well-being through social roles, social networks, and active engagement in community life [ 11 , 12 ]. Place attachment may provide a more proximal psychological link because it reflects residents' affective bond with their neighborhood. A previous study in Japanese suburban communities showed that walkability, natural surroundings, convenience, and neighborhood relationships were associated with community attachment [ 13 ]. Few studies have examined social participation and place attachment within the same analytic framework, and evidence from Japan remains limited. This question is particularly relevant to Japan's planned suburban new towns, which were developed for younger households but now face rapid population aging and decline [ 14 ]. In these settings, neighborhood conditions may shape well-being not only through practical livability but also through residents' sense of connection to place. Against this background, we examined the association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction among adults living in two super-aged Japanese communities. We also assessed whether adjustment for social participation and place attachment attenuated this association and examined which neighborhood characteristics were most strongly associated with life satisfaction. We hypothesized that a more favorable perceived neighborhood environment would be associated with higher life satisfaction and that this association would be attenuated after adjustment for social participation and place attachment. Understanding how neighborhood environments contribute to well-being in super-aged communities may inform age-friendly strategies aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal of promoting health and well-being across the lifespan. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Study design and participants This cross-sectional study used data from a community-based questionnaire survey conducted from January to March 2022 in two super-aged Japanese communities: Area A in Aichi Prefecture and Area B in Kanagawa Prefecture. Both areas were planned new towns, a residential form that has experienced marked population aging and population decline in Japan [ 14 ]. As described previously, because no resident roster was available, community association directors distributed questionnaires to all households, and completed questionnaires were collected approximately one week later [ 11 ]. No financial or other incentives were offered. Completion and return of the questionnaire were taken as informed consent to participate [ 11 ]. Among 1,569 returned questionnaires (response rate, 64.0%), 15 respondents with missing data on life satisfaction were excluded. The final analytic sample comprised 1,554 participants. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Human Life and Ecology (approval no. 22–53). 2.2. Perceived neighborhood environment Perceived neighborhood environment was assessed using 11 items covering physical and social characteristics of the residential area: walkability, access to public transportation, availability of shops or services, safety from traffic accidents, safety from crime, street lighting at night, presence of parks or green spaces, pleasant streetscape, opportunities for social interaction, ease of walking or jogging for exercise, and overall neighborhood satisfaction. Each item was rated on a four-point scale. For analysis, all items were recoded so that higher values indicated more favorable perceptions and were then dichotomized by combining the two positive and two negative response categories. For the primary analysis, we calculated a composite perceived neighborhood environment score as the mean of the 11 binary item scores. Participants were classified into low and high perceived neighborhood environment groups using the median of the composite score calculated from the observed data. The same cutoff was applied to all imputed datasets to preserve a common exposure definition across imputations. In secondary analyses, each perceived neighborhood environment item was examined separately. 2.3. Life satisfaction Life satisfaction was assessed with the single question, "Overall, are you satisfied with your daily life?", using the same operationalization as in our previous analysis of this survey [ 11 ]. Responses were dichotomized as satisfied or dissatisfied. Participants who reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied were classified as satisfied, whereas those who reported being somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied were classified as dissatisfied. Single-item assessments of overall life satisfaction have long been used as global indicators of subjective well-being [ 1 ]. 2.4. Covariates and candidate pathway variables Covariates were selected a priori on the basis of substantive knowledge and prior analyses of the same survey [ 11 ]. Age was treated as a continuous variable. The following variables were included in the regression models: sex, area, living arrangement (living alone, couple only, or other), self-rated health (very healthy, fairly healthy, not very healthy, or unhealthy), smoking status (never, former, or current), regular exercise (yes or no), and long-term care certification (none, support level, or care level). Social participation score and place attachment were treated as candidate pathway variables and were added sequentially in the regression models. Social participation was assessed using five activity items: volunteering, participation in sports or exercise groups, membership in hobby clubs, attendance at learning circles or study groups, and activities involving sharing special skills or life experiences [ 11 ]. Following our previous work, responses were converted to approximate weekly frequencies as follows: not at all = 0, several times a year = 3/52, one to two times a month = 1.5/4, once a week = 1, two to three times a week = 2.5, and four or more times a week = 5 [ 11 ]. These values were summed to generate a total social participation score [ 11 ]. Place attachment was assessed using a single item asking whether participants felt attached to their community of residence and was dichotomized as attachment versus no attachment, consistent with our previous work in Japanese suburban settings [ 13 ]. 2.5. Statistical analysis Descriptive characteristics presented in Table 1 were summarized using the 100 multiply imputed datasets. Continuous variables were presented as pooled means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as pooled percentages. After exclusion of participants with missing outcome data, remaining missing values in the exposure items, candidate pathway variables, and covariates were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations under the missing-at-random assumption. We generated 100 imputed datasets in R using the mice package with futuremice() for parallel implementation [ 16 ] and combined parameter estimates across imputations using Rubin's rules [ 15 ]. For descriptive analyses, perceived neighborhood environment groups were defined using the median cutoff of the composite perceived neighborhood environment score derived from observed data, and the same cutoff was applied to each imputed dataset. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and area. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for living arrangement, self-rated health, smoking status, regular exercise, and long-term care certification. Model 3 further adjusted for social participation score. Model 4 additionally adjusted for place attachment. In secondary analyses, each perceived neighborhood environment item was examined in a separate logistic regression model adjusted for the Model 2 covariates. We also tested multiplicative interaction by age and sex by adding interaction terms with perceived neighborhood environment group to Model 4. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.5.3 [ 17 ]. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. 3. Results Table 1 presents participant characteristics according to perceived neighborhood environment group based on the 100 multiply imputed datasets. Participants in the high perceived neighborhood environment group were older than those in the low perceived neighborhood environment group (mean (SD) age, 69.7 (15.0) years vs 68.0 (14.9) years). Sex and living arrangement were similarly distributed across the two groups. Participants in the high environment group had higher proportions reporting very healthy self-rated health and place attachment than those in the low environment group. Social participation scores were also higher in the high environment group (mean (SD), 1.4 (2.4) vs 1.1 (2.1)). The proportion satisfied with life was higher in the high environment group than in the low environment group (90.6% vs 80.8%). Table 1 Characteristics of the analytic sample according to perceived neighborhood environment group Variable Low environment High environment Age (years) 68.0 (14.9) 69.7 (15.0) Sex Men 47.2 44.6 Women 52.8 55.4 Living arrangement Living alone 11.2 11.6 Couple only 43.0 43.9 Others 45.9 44.6 Self-rated health Very healthy 12.0 18.2 Fairly healthy 73.1 71.9 Not very healthy 12.0 7.7 Unhealthy 3.0 2.2 Smoking status Never 77.4 79.4 Former 16.5 15.6 Current 6.1 4.9 Regular exercise Yes 63.2 65.7 No 36.8 34.3 Long-term care certification None 91.3 91.4 Support level 5.0 5.7 Care level 3.7 2.9 Social participation score 1.1 (2.1) 1.4 (2.4) Place attachment No attachment 31.2 13.9 Attachment 68.8 86.1 Life satisfaction Dissatisfied 19.2 9.4 Satisfied 80.8 90.6 Values are presented as pooled means (standard deviations) for continuous variables and pooled percentages for categorical variables based on 100 multiply imputed datasets. The analytic sample comprised 1,554 participants. Perceived neighborhood environment groups were defined using the median cutoff of the composite perceived neighborhood environment score calculated from the observed data and applied to each imputed dataset. Table 2 shows the association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction in logistic regression models based on the multiply imputed data. Compared with the low perceived neighborhood environment group, the high perceived neighborhood environment group had higher odds of being satisfied with life after adjustment for age, sex, and area (Model 1: OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.19). The association remained after additional adjustment for living arrangement, self-rated health, smoking status, regular exercise, and long-term care certification (Model 2: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.07). Further adjustment for social participation score produced little change in the estimate (Model 3: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.04). After additional adjustment for place attachment, the association was attenuated but remained statistically significant (Model 4: OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.52). In Model 4, place attachment was associated with higher odds of being satisfied with life (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.13). Poorer self-rated health was associated with lower odds of being satisfied with life, and regular exercise was associated with higher odds of being satisfied with life in Models 2 through 4. Table 2 Association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction Variable Model 1 OR (95% CI) Model 2 OR (95% CI) Model 3 OR (95% CI) Model 4 OR (95% CI) Perceived neighborhood environment High vs Low 2.33 (1.70, 3.19) 2.18 (1.56, 3.07) 2.17 (1.54, 3.04) 1.78 (1.25, 2.52) Age, years 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) Sex Women vs men 0.95 (0.70, 1.29) 1.06 (0.73, 1.54) 1.02 (0.70, 1.48) 1.12 (0.76, 1.64) Living arrangement Couple only vs living alone 1.10 (0.62, 1.95) 1.15 (0.64, 2.03) 1.19 (0.67, 2.12) Others vs living alone 0.81 (0.45, 1.44) 0.86 (0.48, 1.54) 0.86 (0.48, 1.54) Self-rated health Fairly healthy vs very healthy 0.43 (0.22, 0.82) 0.43 (0.22, 0.83) 0.46 (0.24, 0.89) Not very healthy vs very healthy 0.09 (0.04, 0.20) 0.10 (0.05, 0.21) 0.11 (0.05, 0.24) Unhealthy vs very healthy 0.02 (0.01, 0.05) 0.02 (0.01, 0.06) 0.02 (0.01, 0.07) Smoking status Never vs current 0.63 (0.28, 1.44) 0.62 (0.27, 1.40) 0.56 (0.24, 1.29) Former vs current 0.50 (0.21, 1.20) 0.50 (0.21, 1.20) 0.52 (0.21, 1.27) Regular exercise Yes vs no 1.71 (1.22, 2.40) 1.61 (1.14, 2.26) 1.66 (1.17, 2.35) Long-term care certification Support level vs none 0.63 (0.32, 1.23) 0.66 (0.34, 1.30) 0.66 (0.33, 1.33) Care level vs none 0.64 (0.29, 1.42) 0.70 (0.31, 1.53) 0.67 (0.30, 1.49) Social participation score 1.14 (1.00, 1.29) 1.10 (0.97, 1.25) Place attachment Attachment vs no attachment 2.89 (2.02, 4.13) Values are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and area. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for living arrangement, self-rated health, long-term care certification, smoking status, and regular exercise. Model 3 was additionally adjusted for social participation score. Model 4 was additionally adjusted for place attachment. Area was included as a covariate in all models. The low perceived neighborhood environment group served as the reference category. Table 3 presents the associations between individual perceived neighborhood environment items and life satisfaction. Favorable perceptions of the availability of shops or services (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.15), safety from crime (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.58), street lighting at night (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.57), ease of walking or jogging for exercise (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.43), and overall neighborhood satisfaction (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.22) were associated with higher odds of being satisfied with life. Among these items, overall neighborhood satisfaction showed the strongest association. Favorable perceptions of walkability, access to public transportation, safety from traffic accidents, presence of parks or green spaces, pleasant streetscape, and opportunities for social interaction were not significantly associated with life satisfaction. Table 3 Association between perceived neighborhood environment characteristics and life satisfaction Perceived neighborhood environment items Favorable n (%) OR (95% CI) Walkability 1205 (77.5) 1.29 (0.93, 1.79) Access to public transportation 1188 (76.4) 1.34 (0.96, 1.88) Availability of shops or services 944 (60.7) 1.55 (1.12, 2.15) Safety from traffic accidents 1378 (88.7) 1.09 (0.66, 1.80) Safety from crime 440 (28.3) 1.74 (1.17, 2.58) Street lighting at night 615 (39.6) 1.79 (1.24, 2.57) Presence of parks or green spaces 611 (39.3) 1.28 (0.92, 1.77) Pleasant streetscape 1066 (68.6) 1.22 (0.89, 1.69) Opportunities for social interaction 817 (52.6) 1.35 (0.97, 1.87) Ease of walking or jogging for exercise 1096 (70.5) 1.72 (1.22, 2.43) Overall neighborhood satisfaction 366 (23.6) 2.13 (1.41, 3.22) Favorable n (%) values are based on the observed data before imputation to provide interpretable descriptive frequencies of each item. Percentages were calculated using the analytic sample size (N = 1,554) as the denominator. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from logistic regression models fitted to the 100 multiply imputed datasets. Models were adjusted for age, sex, area, living arrangement, self-rated health, long-term care certification, smoking status, and regular exercise (corresponding to Model 2 in Table 2 ). In supplementary analyses, a higher composite perceived neighborhood environment score was independently associated with place attachment (OR 9.30, 95% CI 5.18 to 16.71), whereas the association with social participation score was not statistically significant (β = 0.38, 95% CI − 0.12 to 0.88). No evidence of interaction was observed by age (p for interaction = 0.203) or sex (p for interaction = 0.751). 4. Discussion A more favorable perceived neighborhood environment was associated with higher life satisfaction among adults living in two super-aged Japanese communities. Adjustment for demographic and health-related factors did not remove the association. Additional adjustment for social participation score changed the estimate little, whereas additional adjustment for place attachment attenuated the association. Perceived neighborhood environment was also independently associated with place attachment but was not significantly associated with social participation score. Item-level analyses highlighted the availability of shops or services, safety from crime, street lighting, ease of walking, and overall neighborhood satisfaction. Taken together, these findings suggest that neighborhood environment may matter for life satisfaction not only through functional or service-related qualities but also through residents' attachment to place. Our findings are consistent with previous studies from Chinese urban settings. Perceived age-friendly community features were positively associated with life satisfaction among older adults in urban China [ 3 ]. In Shanghai, perceived neighborhood environment was also positively related to life satisfaction, partly through community-based social capital [ 4 ]. Longitudinal evidence further showed that age-friendly neighborhood features, particularly housing and transportation, were associated with life satisfaction and with the maintenance of functional abilities over time [ 5 ]. In Hong Kong, neighborhood environment was linked to life satisfaction both directly and indirectly through sense of community [ 7 ]. The present study extends this literature by adding evidence from a Japanese super-aged community setting and by suggesting that place attachment may be more salient than participation frequency as a candidate explanatory factor. Place attachment provides a plausible framework for interpreting this pattern. Environmental psychology has conceptualized place attachment as a multidimensional bond involving person, psychological process, and place, with affective, cognitive, and behavioral components [ 18 ]. Although place attachment was measured with a single item in the present study, this measure was conceptually aligned with the affective component of that framework, capturing respondents' overall sense of attachment to their community of residence. At the same time, this measure did not distinguish cognitive and behavioral processes or other dimensions of attachment in detail. Earlier studies showed that favorable evaluations of residential environment quality predict stronger neighborhood attachment [ 19 ] and that physical characteristics of residential settings can foster both place attachment and supportive social ties [ 20 ]. Older adults living in safe, walkable, and convenient neighborhoods may accumulate repeated experiences of competence, familiarity, and security in everyday life. Such experiences may strengthen attachment to place and, in turn, contribute to more positive global evaluations of life. Oswald et al. reported that perceived neighborhood quality and outdoor place attachment were independently associated with life satisfaction in later life [ 2 ]. Our previous study in Japanese suburban communities similarly found that walkability, natural surroundings, convenience, and neighborhood relationships were associated with community attachment [ 13 ]. A formal mediation analysis was not conducted in the present study; causal mediation cannot be inferred from cross-sectional data and would require longitudinal or experimental evidence. The limited role of social participation score warrants separate consideration. Classic studies of community attachment emphasized the importance of local social ties, residential stability, and environmental perceptions in shaping people's bonds with community [ 21 , 22 ]. Later work also showed that neighborhood ties and social relations contribute to place attachment, although the strength of attachment varies across spatial scales and social contexts [ 23 ]. In contrast, participation frequency captures a narrower behavioral dimension. Social participation can improve well-being, particularly through volunteering and physical activity [ 24 – 26 ], but its benefits likely depend on the meaning, quality, and context of the activity rather than on frequency alone. In the present study, place attachment may therefore have been a more proximal correlate of life satisfaction than participation frequency. The item-specific findings support this interpretation. While "walkability" (representing access to destinations) was not significantly associated with life satisfaction, "ease of walking or jogging for exercise" emerged as a significant factor. This finding suggests that older adults in super-aged communities may value the neighborhood more as a space for recreational physical activity than as a functional transit corridor. This distinction aligns with evidence that physical activity remains a robust determinant of life satisfaction across the lifespan [ 24 ]. Furthermore, high-quality outdoor environments for movement can foster place attachment, which in turn contributes to global well-being [ 2 ]. Along with the availability of shops or services, safety from crime, and street lighting, these qualities describe a neighborhood that supports confident and independent everyday living. These qualities may reduce daily friction and help preserve autonomy and environmental mastery in later life. Earlier work already linked positive environmental appraisal and functional neighborhood qualities to neighborhood attachment and well-being [ 19 , 20 ]. Overall neighborhood satisfaction showed the strongest association, likely because this item captured a cumulative evaluation of multiple neighborhood domains. Some conceptual overlap between overall neighborhood satisfaction and life satisfaction may also have strengthened that association. By contrast, other environmental items may influence life satisfaction more indirectly, through place-based meanings and social evaluations, than through direct associations with global life appraisal. Several policy implications follow. Age-friendly community strategies may need to focus not only on services and participation opportunities but also on residents' bond with place. In practical terms, neighborhood renewal in super-aged communities may need to protect everyday accessibility, pedestrian ease, nighttime safety, and familiar local assets. Resident involvement in local decision-making may also help preserve continuity and belonging as communities change. A neighborhood that functions well but feels unfamiliar may contribute less to well-being than one that is both usable and emotionally meaningful. Several strengths and limitations warrant attention. Community-based data from two super-aged Japanese new towns provide evidence from a setting that has become increasingly important in aging societies [ 14 ]. Sequential adjustment allowed examination of two candidate explanatory factors: social participation and place attachment. The analysis of both a composite environmental measure and individual environmental items clarified the overall association and the most salient neighborhood domains. Multiple imputation with 100 datasets further reduced bias from missing data [ 15 , 16 ]. The cross-sectional design, however, precludes temporal inference and leaves room for reverse causation; residents with higher life satisfaction may perceive their neighborhood more favorably. Self-reported measures may have introduced common method bias. Single-item measures of life satisfaction and place attachment may have reduced precision. In particular, the single-item measure of place attachment likely captured a global affective bond to place, consistent with an important component of the tripartite framework proposed by Scannell and Gifford [ 18 ], but did not assess the full multidimensional structure of place attachment. Dichotomization of neighborhood items and the median split of the composite score may have sacrificed information. No clear interaction by age or sex was detected, although these subgroup findings should be interpreted cautiously given the exploratory nature of the tests. Generalizability beyond these two Japanese communities also remains uncertain. 5. Conclusions A more favorable perceived neighborhood environment was associated with higher life satisfaction in two super-aged Japanese communities. Place attachment, rather than social participation frequency, may be a more relevant candidate explanatory factor. Neighborhoods may matter not only because they provide services, safety, and convenience, but also because they become places to which residents feel attached. Declarations Contributions SU : Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization, Writing: original draft, Writing: review and editing. YK : Data curation, Writing: review and editing. YL : Data curation, Writing: review and editing. MS : Writing: review and editing. HS : Data curation, Writing: review and editing. KO : Data curation, Writing: review and editing. KM : Conceptualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Writing: review and editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI; grant numbers 19H02316, 20K02392 [CoBia], and 24K05554 [CoBia]). Data availability The datasets analyzed in the current study are not publicly available because of privacy and ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to approval by the relevant ethics committee. Ethics declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Human Life and Ecology (approval no. 22-53). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees and with the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The need for written informed consent was waived by this committee because this was a community-based questionnaire survey. Completion and return of the questionnaire were regarded as implied consent to participate. All data were anonymized before access by the authors. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References Shin DC, Johnson DM. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Soc Indic Res. 1978;5(1–4):475–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352944 Oswald F, Jopp D, Rott C, Wahl HW. Is aging in place a resource for or risk to life satisfaction? Gerontologist. 2011;51(2):238–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq096 Xie L. Age-friendly communities and life satisfaction among the elderly in urban China. Res Aging. 2018;40(9):883–905. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027518757760 Lu N, Wu B. Perceived neighborhood environment, social capital and life satisfaction among older adults in Shanghai, China. Sci Rep. 2022;12:6686. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10742-7 Pan Z, Liu Y, Liu Y, Huo Z, Han W. Age-friendly neighbourhood environment, functional abilities and life satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis of older adults in urban China. Soc Sci Med. 2024;340:116403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116403 Chen S, Sun Y, Seo BK. The effects of public open space on older people’s well-being: From neighborhood social cohesion to place dependence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):16170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316170 Zhang F, Loo BPY, Wang B. Aging in place: From the neighborhood environment, sense of community, to life satisfaction. Ann Am Assoc Geogr. 2022;112(5):1484–1499. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.1985954 Zhou K, Tan J, Watanabe K. How does perceived residential environment quality influence life satisfaction? Evidence from urban China. J Community Psychol. 2021;49(7):2454–2471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22545 Au A, Lai DWL, Yip H, Chan S, Lai S, Chaudhury H, Scharlach A, Leeson G. Sense of community mediating between age-friendly characteristics and life satisfaction of community-dwelling older adults. Front Psychol. 2020;11:86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00086 Yu R, Wong M, Woo J. Perceptions of neighborhood environment, sense of community, and self-rated health: An age-friendly city project in Hong Kong. J Urban Health. 2019;96(2):276–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-00331-3 Ukawa S, Kato Y, Lee Y, Sugiyama M, Saito H, Ohara K, Mori K. Association of social participation with life satisfaction among adults in super-aged Japanese communities: A cross-sectional study. Open Med J. 2026;13:e18742203432106. https://doi.org/10.2174/0118742203432106251105070829 Wu M, Yang D, Tian Y. Enjoying the golden years: Social participation and life satisfaction among Chinese older adults. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1377869. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1377869 Ukawa S, Kato Y, Lee Y, Ohara K, Mori K. Factors that influence the sense of attachment to the community in the Japanese suburban population. Proc Int Conf Public Health. 2023;8(2):37–46. https://doi.org/10.17501/24246735.2023.8205 Aoki T, Kadono Y. New towns in the Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe area: Typological analysis of regional characteristics based on population structure and inflow. Urban Reg Plan Rev. 2020;7:43–66. https://doi.org/10.14398/urpr.7.43 Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696 van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2026. Available from: https://www.R-project.org Scannell L, Gifford R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006 Bonaiuto M, Aiello A, Perugini M, Bonnes M, Ercolani AP. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J Environ Psychol. 1999;19(4):331–352. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0138 Sugihara S, Evans GW. Place attachment and social support at continuing care retirement communities. Environ Behav. 2000;32(3):400–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972586 Kasarda JD, Janowitz M. Community attachment in mass society. Am Sociol Rev. 1974;39(3):328–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094293 Mesch GS, Manor O. Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environ Behav. 1998;30(4):504–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405 Lewicka M. What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30(1):35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004 An HY, Chen W, Wang CW, Yang HF, Huang WT, Fan SY. The relationships between physical activity and life satisfaction and happiness among young, middle-aged, and older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4817. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134817 Borgonovi F. Doing well by doing good: The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(11):2321–2334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.011 Matthews K, Nazroo J. The impact of volunteering and its characteristics on well-being after state pension age: Longitudinal evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021;76(3):632–641. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa146 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 17 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 26 Mar, 2026 Editor invited by journal 25 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 23 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9173372","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":614047761,"identity":"73f5a2ad-c9c9-43a1-9066-2e9c2ee245e9","order_by":0,"name":"Shigekazu Ukawa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Human Life and Ecology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shigekazu","middleName":"","lastName":"Ukawa","suffix":""},{"id":614047762,"identity":"9e4875e3-8818-4071-a650-fdb64d9e664c","order_by":1,"name":"Yusuke Kato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kinjo Gakuin University College of Human Life and Environment","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yusuke","middleName":"","lastName":"Kato","suffix":""},{"id":614047763,"identity":"a8cca6f6-f4c3-41bd-8be7-85f2e8d5a063","order_by":2,"name":"Yonggeun Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Engineering","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yonggeun","middleName":"","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""},{"id":614047764,"identity":"6b11800e-d6ff-4a0d-a4d7-a6b726b1346e","order_by":3,"name":"Masaaki Sugiyama","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Osaka Metropolitan University Urban Resilience Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Masaaki","middleName":"","lastName":"Sugiyama","suffix":""},{"id":614047765,"identity":"8d895a69-9271-4f60-ad87-58d27c0a980c","order_by":4,"name":"Hiroko Saito","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yokohama City University Graduate School of Urban Social and Cultural Studies","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hiroko","middleName":"","lastName":"Saito","suffix":""},{"id":614047766,"identity":"0b9feefc-7e64-4d9e-aad8-96bac2cd2c30","order_by":5,"name":"Kazuoki Ohara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yokohama National University Faculty of Urban Innovation","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kazuoki","middleName":"","lastName":"Ohara","suffix":""},{"id":614047767,"identity":"391e8955-eda8-4e8b-a940-ad05542a847b","order_by":6,"name":"Kazuhiko Mori","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Human Life and Ecology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kazuhiko","middleName":"","lastName":"Mori","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-19 23:53:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9173372/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9173372/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106723674,"identity":"70c3bdd1-11fe-4ad8-90b3-2a1e0230f3f9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-12 18:10:49","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":973586,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9173372/v1/6e7a5e68-5bc8-4ca4-b6ea-f1069cd5d8eb.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Perceived Neighborhood Environment, Place Attachment, and Life Satisfaction in Super-Aged Japanese Communities: A Cross-Sectional Study","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePopulation aging has increased interest in modifiable determinants of well-being in later life. Life satisfaction reflects a person's overall cognitive evaluation of daily life and is a core indicator of subjective well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. In older age, this evaluation depends not only on health and socioeconomic circumstances but also on the residential context in which everyday life unfolds. As activity spaces narrow with age, neighborhood conditions may exert a stronger influence on well-being through mobility, access to services, safety, and everyday social experience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA growing body of research links neighborhood environment to life satisfaction among older adults. In urban China, perceptions of age-friendly community features were positively associated with life satisfaction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Similar associations have been reported for perceived neighborhood environment in Shanghai and other Chinese settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Longitudinal evidence further suggests that age-friendly neighborhood features may support life satisfaction partly by helping older adults maintain functional abilities over time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Together, these findings indicate that neighborhood conditions may play an important role in later-life well-being, especially for people whose daily lives are concentrated close to home.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pathways linking neighborhood environment to life satisfaction, however, remain less clear. Prior studies have pointed to sense of community, social capital, positive affect, and place-based meanings as possible explanatory mechanisms [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR7 CR8 CR9\" citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Two pathways may be especially relevant in super-aged communities. Social participation may enhance well-being through social roles, social networks, and active engagement in community life [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Place attachment may provide a more proximal psychological link because it reflects residents' affective bond with their neighborhood. A previous study in Japanese suburban communities showed that walkability, natural surroundings, convenience, and neighborhood relationships were associated with community attachment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Few studies have examined social participation and place attachment within the same analytic framework, and evidence from Japan remains limited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis question is particularly relevant to Japan's planned suburban new towns, which were developed for younger households but now face rapid population aging and decline [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. In these settings, neighborhood conditions may shape well-being not only through practical livability but also through residents' sense of connection to place. Against this background, we examined the association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction among adults living in two super-aged Japanese communities. We also assessed whether adjustment for social participation and place attachment attenuated this association and examined which neighborhood characteristics were most strongly associated with life satisfaction. We hypothesized that a more favorable perceived neighborhood environment would be associated with higher life satisfaction and that this association would be attenuated after adjustment for social participation and place attachment. Understanding how neighborhood environments contribute to well-being in super-aged communities may inform age-friendly strategies aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal of promoting health and well-being across the lifespan.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Study design and participants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional study used data from a community-based questionnaire survey conducted from January to March 2022 in two super-aged Japanese communities: Area A in Aichi Prefecture and Area B in Kanagawa Prefecture. Both areas were planned new towns, a residential form that has experienced marked population aging and population decline in Japan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. As described previously, because no resident roster was available, community association directors distributed questionnaires to all households, and completed questionnaires were collected approximately one week later [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. No financial or other incentives were offered. Completion and return of the questionnaire were taken as informed consent to participate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Among 1,569 returned questionnaires (response rate, 64.0%), 15 respondents with missing data on life satisfaction were excluded. The final analytic sample comprised 1,554 participants. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Human Life and Ecology (approval no. 22\u0026ndash;53).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Perceived neighborhood environment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived neighborhood environment was assessed using 11 items covering physical and social characteristics of the residential area: walkability, access to public transportation, availability of shops or services, safety from traffic accidents, safety from crime, street lighting at night, presence of parks or green spaces, pleasant streetscape, opportunities for social interaction, ease of walking or jogging for exercise, and overall neighborhood satisfaction. Each item was rated on a four-point scale. For analysis, all items were recoded so that higher values indicated more favorable perceptions and were then dichotomized by combining the two positive and two negative response categories. For the primary analysis, we calculated a composite perceived neighborhood environment score as the mean of the 11 binary item scores. Participants were classified into low and high perceived neighborhood environment groups using the median of the composite score calculated from the observed data. The same cutoff was applied to all imputed datasets to preserve a common exposure definition across imputations. In secondary analyses, each perceived neighborhood environment item was examined separately.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Life satisfaction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLife satisfaction was assessed with the single question, \"Overall, are you satisfied with your daily life?\", using the same operationalization as in our previous analysis of this survey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Responses were dichotomized as satisfied or dissatisfied. Participants who reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied were classified as satisfied, whereas those who reported being somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied were classified as dissatisfied. Single-item assessments of overall life satisfaction have long been used as global indicators of subjective well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Covariates and candidate pathway variables\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCovariates were selected a priori on the basis of substantive knowledge and prior analyses of the same survey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Age was treated as a continuous variable. The following variables were included in the regression models: sex, area, living arrangement (living alone, couple only, or other), self-rated health (very healthy, fairly healthy, not very healthy, or unhealthy), smoking status (never, former, or current), regular exercise (yes or no), and long-term care certification (none, support level, or care level). Social participation score and place attachment were treated as candidate pathway variables and were added sequentially in the regression models. Social participation was assessed using five activity items: volunteering, participation in sports or exercise groups, membership in hobby clubs, attendance at learning circles or study groups, and activities involving sharing special skills or life experiences [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Following our previous work, responses were converted to approximate weekly frequencies as follows: not at all =\u0026thinsp;0, several times a year\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3/52, one to two times a month\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.5/4, once a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1, two to three times a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.5, and four or more times a week\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. These values were summed to generate a total social participation score [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Place attachment was assessed using a single item asking whether participants felt attached to their community of residence and was dichotomized as attachment versus no attachment, consistent with our previous work in Japanese suburban settings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescriptive characteristics presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e were summarized using the 100 multiply imputed datasets. Continuous variables were presented as pooled means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as pooled percentages. After exclusion of participants with missing outcome data, remaining missing values in the exposure items, candidate pathway variables, and covariates were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations under the missing-at-random assumption. We generated 100 imputed datasets in R using the mice package with futuremice() for parallel implementation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] and combined parameter estimates across imputations using Rubin's rules [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. For descriptive analyses, perceived neighborhood environment groups were defined using the median cutoff of the composite perceived neighborhood environment score derived from observed data, and the same cutoff was applied to each imputed dataset. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction. Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and area. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for living arrangement, self-rated health, smoking status, regular exercise, and long-term care certification. Model 3 further adjusted for social participation score. Model 4 additionally adjusted for place attachment. In secondary analyses, each perceived neighborhood environment item was examined in a separate logistic regression model adjusted for the Model 2 covariates. We also tested multiplicative interaction by age and sex by adding interaction terms with perceived neighborhood environment group to Model 4. All analyses were conducted using R version 4.5.3 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 was considered statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents participant characteristics according to perceived neighborhood environment group based on the 100 multiply imputed datasets. Participants in the high perceived neighborhood environment group were older than those in the low perceived neighborhood environment group (mean (SD) age, 69.7 (15.0) years vs 68.0 (14.9) years). Sex and living arrangement were similarly distributed across the two groups. Participants in the high environment group had higher proportions reporting very healthy self-rated health and place attachment than those in the low environment group. Social participation scores were also higher in the high environment group (mean (SD), 1.4 (2.4) vs 1.1 (2.1)). The proportion satisfied with life was higher in the high environment group than in the low environment group (90.6% vs 80.8%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of the analytic sample according to perceived neighborhood environment group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge (years)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68.0 (14.9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69.7 (15.0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSex\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLiving arrangement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiving alone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCouple only\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-rated health\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery healthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFairly healthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e73.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot very healthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnhealthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSmoking status\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNever\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e79.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormer\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRegular exercise\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLong-term care certification\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e91.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCare level\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial participation score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePlace attachment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo attachment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e68.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLife satisfaction\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDissatisfied\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSatisfied\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e80.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues are presented as pooled means (standard deviations) for continuous variables and pooled percentages for categorical variables based on 100 multiply imputed datasets. The analytic sample comprised 1,554 participants. Perceived neighborhood environment groups were defined using the median cutoff of the composite perceived neighborhood environment score calculated from the observed data and applied to each imputed dataset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the association between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction in logistic regression models based on the multiply imputed data. Compared with the low perceived neighborhood environment group, the high perceived neighborhood environment group had higher odds of being satisfied with life after adjustment for age, sex, and area (Model 1: OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.19). The association remained after additional adjustment for living arrangement, self-rated health, smoking status, regular exercise, and long-term care certification (Model 2: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.07). Further adjustment for social participation score produced little change in the estimate (Model 3: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.04). After additional adjustment for place attachment, the association was attenuated but remained statistically significant (Model 4: OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.52). In Model 4, place attachment was associated with higher odds of being satisfied with life (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.13). Poorer self-rated health was associated with lower odds of being satisfied with life, and regular exercise was associated with higher odds of being satisfied with life in Models 2 through 4.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssociation between perceived neighborhood environment and life satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 1 OR (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 2 OR (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 3 OR (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 4 OR (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived neighborhood environment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh vs Low\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33 (1.70, 3.19)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18 (1.56, 3.07)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17 (1.54, 3.04)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.78 (1.25, 2.52)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge, years\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00 (0.99, 1.01)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.01 (1.00, 1.02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.01 (1.00, 1.02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.01 (0.99, 1.02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSex\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWomen vs men\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95 (0.70, 1.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.06 (0.73, 1.54)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.02 (0.70, 1.48)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.12 (0.76, 1.64)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLiving arrangement\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCouple only vs living alone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.10 (0.62, 1.95)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.15 (0.64, 2.03)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.19 (0.67, 2.12)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOthers vs living alone\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.81 (0.45, 1.44)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86 (0.48, 1.54)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.86 (0.48, 1.54)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-rated health\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFairly healthy vs very healthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.43 (0.22, 0.82)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.43 (0.22, 0.83)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.46 (0.24, 0.89)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot very healthy vs very healthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.09 (0.04, 0.20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.10 (0.05, 0.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.11 (0.05, 0.24)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnhealthy vs very healthy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 (0.01, 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 (0.01, 0.06)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.02 (0.01, 0.07)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSmoking status\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNever vs current\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63 (0.28, 1.44)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62 (0.27, 1.40)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56 (0.24, 1.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormer vs current\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50 (0.21, 1.20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.50 (0.21, 1.20)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.52 (0.21, 1.27)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRegular exercise\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYes vs no\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.71 (1.22, 2.40)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.61 (1.14, 2.26)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.66 (1.17, 2.35)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLong-term care certification\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSupport level vs none\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63 (0.32, 1.23)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66 (0.34, 1.30)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.66 (0.33, 1.33)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCare level vs none\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64 (0.29, 1.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70 (0.31, 1.53)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67 (0.30, 1.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSocial participation score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.14 (1.00, 1.29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.10 (0.97, 1.25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePlace attachment\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAttachment vs no attachment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.89 (2.02, 4.13)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eValues are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Model 1 was adjusted for age, sex, and area. Model 2 was additionally adjusted for living arrangement, self-rated health, long-term care certification, smoking status, and regular exercise. Model 3 was additionally adjusted for social participation score. Model 4 was additionally adjusted for place attachment. Area was included as a covariate in all models. The low perceived neighborhood environment group served as the reference category.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the associations between individual perceived neighborhood environment items and life satisfaction. Favorable perceptions of the availability of shops or services (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.15), safety from crime (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.58), street lighting at night (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.57), ease of walking or jogging for exercise (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.43), and overall neighborhood satisfaction (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.22) were associated with higher odds of being satisfied with life. Among these items, overall neighborhood satisfaction showed the strongest association. Favorable perceptions of walkability, access to public transportation, safety from traffic accidents, presence of parks or green spaces, pleasant streetscape, and opportunities for social interaction were not significantly associated with life satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssociation between perceived neighborhood environment characteristics and life satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived neighborhood environment items\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFavorable n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOR (95% CI)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWalkability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1205 (77.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.29 (0.93, 1.79)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccess to public transportation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1188 (76.4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.34 (0.96, 1.88)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAvailability of shops or services\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e944 (60.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.55 (1.12, 2.15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSafety from traffic accidents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1378 (88.7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.09 (0.66, 1.80)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSafety from crime\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e440 (28.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.74 (1.17, 2.58)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStreet lighting at night\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e615 (39.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.79 (1.24, 2.57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePresence of parks or green spaces\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e611 (39.3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.28 (0.92, 1.77)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePleasant streetscape\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1066 (68.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.22 (0.89, 1.69)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpportunities for social interaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e817 (52.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.35 (0.97, 1.87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEase of walking or jogging for exercise\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1096 (70.5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.72 (1.22, 2.43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall neighborhood satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e366 (23.6)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.13 (1.41, 3.22)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003eFavorable n (%) values are based on the observed data before imputation to provide interpretable descriptive frequencies of each item. Percentages were calculated using the analytic sample size (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1,554) as the denominator. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from logistic regression models fitted to the 100 multiply imputed datasets. Models were adjusted for age, sex, area, living arrangement, self-rated health, long-term care certification, smoking status, and regular exercise (corresponding to Model 2 in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In supplementary analyses, a higher composite perceived neighborhood environment score was independently associated with place attachment (OR 9.30, 95% CI 5.18 to 16.71), whereas the association with social participation score was not statistically significant (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.38, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.12 to 0.88). No evidence of interaction was observed by age (p for interaction\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.203) or sex (p for interaction\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.751).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eA more favorable perceived neighborhood environment was associated with higher life satisfaction among adults living in two super-aged Japanese communities. Adjustment for demographic and health-related factors did not remove the association. Additional adjustment for social participation score changed the estimate little, whereas additional adjustment for place attachment attenuated the association. Perceived neighborhood environment was also independently associated with place attachment but was not significantly associated with social participation score. Item-level analyses highlighted the availability of shops or services, safety from crime, street lighting, ease of walking, and overall neighborhood satisfaction. Taken together, these findings suggest that neighborhood environment may matter for life satisfaction not only through functional or service-related qualities but also through residents' attachment to place.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings are consistent with previous studies from Chinese urban settings. Perceived age-friendly community features were positively associated with life satisfaction among older adults in urban China [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. In Shanghai, perceived neighborhood environment was also positively related to life satisfaction, partly through community-based social capital [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Longitudinal evidence further showed that age-friendly neighborhood features, particularly housing and transportation, were associated with life satisfaction and with the maintenance of functional abilities over time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. In Hong Kong, neighborhood environment was linked to life satisfaction both directly and indirectly through sense of community [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. The present study extends this literature by adding evidence from a Japanese super-aged community setting and by suggesting that place attachment may be more salient than participation frequency as a candidate explanatory factor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePlace attachment provides a plausible framework for interpreting this pattern. Environmental psychology has conceptualized place attachment as a multidimensional bond involving person, psychological process, and place, with affective, cognitive, and behavioral components [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Although place attachment was measured with a single item in the present study, this measure was conceptually aligned with the affective component of that framework, capturing respondents' overall sense of attachment to their community of residence. At the same time, this measure did not distinguish cognitive and behavioral processes or other dimensions of attachment in detail. Earlier studies showed that favorable evaluations of residential environment quality predict stronger neighborhood attachment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] and that physical characteristics of residential settings can foster both place attachment and supportive social ties [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Older adults living in safe, walkable, and convenient neighborhoods may accumulate repeated experiences of competence, familiarity, and security in everyday life. Such experiences may strengthen attachment to place and, in turn, contribute to more positive global evaluations of life. Oswald et al. reported that perceived neighborhood quality and outdoor place attachment were independently associated with life satisfaction in later life [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Our previous study in Japanese suburban communities similarly found that walkability, natural surroundings, convenience, and neighborhood relationships were associated with community attachment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. A formal mediation analysis was not conducted in the present study; causal mediation cannot be inferred from cross-sectional data and would require longitudinal or experimental evidence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe limited role of social participation score warrants separate consideration. Classic studies of community attachment emphasized the importance of local social ties, residential stability, and environmental perceptions in shaping people's bonds with community [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Later work also showed that neighborhood ties and social relations contribute to place attachment, although the strength of attachment varies across spatial scales and social contexts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, participation frequency captures a narrower behavioral dimension. Social participation can improve well-being, particularly through volunteering and physical activity [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR25\" citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], but its benefits likely depend on the meaning, quality, and context of the activity rather than on frequency alone. In the present study, place attachment may therefore have been a more proximal correlate of life satisfaction than participation frequency.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe item-specific findings support this interpretation. While \"walkability\" (representing access to destinations) was not significantly associated with life satisfaction, \"ease of walking or jogging for exercise\" emerged as a significant factor. This finding suggests that older adults in super-aged communities may value the neighborhood more as a space for recreational physical activity than as a functional transit corridor. This distinction aligns with evidence that physical activity remains a robust determinant of life satisfaction across the lifespan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, high-quality outdoor environments for movement can foster place attachment, which in turn contributes to global well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Along with the availability of shops or services, safety from crime, and street lighting, these qualities describe a neighborhood that supports confident and independent everyday living. These qualities may reduce daily friction and help preserve autonomy and environmental mastery in later life. Earlier work already linked positive environmental appraisal and functional neighborhood qualities to neighborhood attachment and well-being [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall neighborhood satisfaction showed the strongest association, likely because this item captured a cumulative evaluation of multiple neighborhood domains. Some conceptual overlap between overall neighborhood satisfaction and life satisfaction may also have strengthened that association. By contrast, other environmental items may influence life satisfaction more indirectly, through place-based meanings and social evaluations, than through direct associations with global life appraisal.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral policy implications follow. Age-friendly community strategies may need to focus not only on services and participation opportunities but also on residents' bond with place. In practical terms, neighborhood renewal in super-aged communities may need to protect everyday accessibility, pedestrian ease, nighttime safety, and familiar local assets. Resident involvement in local decision-making may also help preserve continuity and belonging as communities change. A neighborhood that functions well but feels unfamiliar may contribute less to well-being than one that is both usable and emotionally meaningful.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral strengths and limitations warrant attention. Community-based data from two super-aged Japanese new towns provide evidence from a setting that has become increasingly important in aging societies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. Sequential adjustment allowed examination of two candidate explanatory factors: social participation and place attachment. The analysis of both a composite environmental measure and individual environmental items clarified the overall association and the most salient neighborhood domains. Multiple imputation with 100 datasets further reduced bias from missing data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. The cross-sectional design, however, precludes temporal inference and leaves room for reverse causation; residents with higher life satisfaction may perceive their neighborhood more favorably. Self-reported measures may have introduced common method bias. Single-item measures of life satisfaction and place attachment may have reduced precision. In particular, the single-item measure of place attachment likely captured a global affective bond to place, consistent with an important component of the tripartite framework proposed by Scannell and Gifford [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e], but did not assess the full multidimensional structure of place attachment. Dichotomization of neighborhood items and the median split of the composite score may have sacrificed information. No clear interaction by age or sex was detected, although these subgroup findings should be interpreted cautiously given the exploratory nature of the tests. Generalizability beyond these two Japanese communities also remains uncertain.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eA more favorable perceived neighborhood environment was associated with higher life satisfaction in two super-aged Japanese communities. Place attachment, rather than social participation frequency, may be a more relevant candidate explanatory factor. Neighborhoods may matter not only because they provide services, safety, and convenience, but also because they become places to which residents feel attached.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eContributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSU\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization, Writing: original draft, Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYK\u003c/strong\u003e: Data curation, Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYL\u003c/strong\u003e: Data curation, Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMS\u003c/strong\u003e: Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHS\u003c/strong\u003e: Data curation, Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKO\u003c/strong\u003e: Data curation, Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKM\u003c/strong\u003e: Conceptualization, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Writing: review and editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI; grant numbers 19H02316, 20K02392 [CoBia], and 24K05554 [CoBia]).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets analyzed in the current study are not publicly available because of privacy and ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to approval by the relevant ethics committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Human Life and Ecology (approval no. 22-53). All procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committees and with the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The need for written informed consent was waived by this committee because this was a community-based questionnaire survey. Completion and return of the questionnaire were regarded as implied consent to participate. All data were anonymized before access by the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShin DC, Johnson DM. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Soc Indic Res. 1978;5(1\u0026ndash;4):475\u0026ndash;492. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352944\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/BF00352944\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOswald F, Jopp D, Rott C, Wahl HW. Is aging in place a resource for or risk to life satisfaction? Gerontologist. 2011;51(2):238\u0026ndash;250. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/geront/gnq096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXie L. Age-friendly communities and life satisfaction among the elderly in urban China. Res Aging. 2018;40(9):883\u0026ndash;905. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0164027518757760\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0164027518757760\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLu N, Wu B. Perceived neighborhood environment, social capital and life satisfaction among older adults in Shanghai, China. Sci Rep. 2022;12:6686. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10742-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-022-10742-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePan Z, Liu Y, Liu Y, Huo Z, Han W. Age-friendly neighbourhood environment, functional abilities and life satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis of older adults in urban China. Soc Sci Med. 2024;340:116403. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116403\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116403\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen S, Sun Y, Seo BK. The effects of public open space on older people\u0026rsquo;s well-being: From neighborhood social cohesion to place dependence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):16170. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316170\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph192316170\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang F, Loo BPY, Wang B. Aging in place: From the neighborhood environment, sense of community, to life satisfaction. Ann Am Assoc Geogr. 2022;112(5):1484\u0026ndash;1499. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2021.1985954\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/24694452.2021.1985954\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou K, Tan J, Watanabe K. How does perceived residential environment quality influence life satisfaction? Evidence from urban China. J Community Psychol. 2021;49(7):2454\u0026ndash;2471. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22545\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/jcop.22545\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAu A, Lai DWL, Yip H, Chan S, Lai S, Chaudhury H, Scharlach A, Leeson G. Sense of community mediating between age-friendly characteristics and life satisfaction of community-dwelling older adults. Front Psychol. 2020;11:86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00086\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00086\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYu R, Wong M, Woo J. Perceptions of neighborhood environment, sense of community, and self-rated health: An age-friendly city project in Hong Kong. J Urban Health. 2019;96(2):276\u0026ndash;288. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-00331-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11524-018-00331-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUkawa S, Kato Y, Lee Y, Sugiyama M, Saito H, Ohara K, Mori K. Association of social participation with life satisfaction among adults in super-aged Japanese communities: A cross-sectional study. Open Med J. 2026;13:e18742203432106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2174/0118742203432106251105070829\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2174/0118742203432106251105070829\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu M, Yang D, Tian Y. Enjoying the golden years: Social participation and life satisfaction among Chinese older adults. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1377869. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1377869\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpubh.2024.1377869\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUkawa S, Kato Y, Lee Y, Ohara K, Mori K. Factors that influence the sense of attachment to the community in the Japanese suburban population. Proc Int Conf Public Health. 2023;8(2):37\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17501/24246735.2023.8205\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17501/24246735.2023.8205\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAoki T, Kadono Y. New towns in the Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe area: Typological analysis of regional characteristics based on population structure and inflow. Urban Reg Plan Rev. 2020;7:43\u0026ndash;66. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.14398/urpr.7.43\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.14398/urpr.7.43\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons; 1987. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/9780470316696\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003evan Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2011;45(3):1\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18637/jss.v045.i03\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eR Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2026. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.R-project.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.R-project.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScannell L, Gifford R. Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30(1):1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBonaiuto M, Aiello A, Perugini M, Bonnes M, Ercolani AP. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J Environ Psychol. 1999;19(4):331\u0026ndash;352. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0138\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jevp.1999.0138\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSugihara S, Evans GW. Place attachment and social support at continuing care retirement communities. Environ Behav. 2000;32(3):400\u0026ndash;409. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972586\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00139160021972586\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKasarda JD, Janowitz M. Community attachment in mass society. Am Sociol Rev. 1974;39(3):328\u0026ndash;339. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/2094293\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2307/2094293\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMesch GS, Manor O. Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environ Behav. 1998;30(4):504\u0026ndash;519. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/001391659803000405\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLewicka M. What makes neighborhood different from home and city? Effects of place scale on place attachment. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30(1):35\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAn HY, Chen W, Wang CW, Yang HF, Huang WT, Fan SY. The relationships between physical activity and life satisfaction and happiness among young, middle-aged, and older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4817. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134817\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph17134817\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBorgonovi F. Doing well by doing good: The relationship between formal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(11):2321\u0026ndash;2334. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatthews K, Nazroo J. The impact of volunteering and its characteristics on well-being after state pension age: Longitudinal evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2021;76(3):632\u0026ndash;641. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa146\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/geronb/gbaa146\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-aging","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Aging](https://link.springer.com/journal/44518)","snPcode":"44518","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44518/3","title":"Discover Aging","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"neighborhood environment, place attachment, life satisfaction, older adults, Japan, social participation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9173372/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9173372/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNeighborhood conditions may influence well-being in later life, yet the roles of social participation and place attachment remain unclear, particularly in Japan.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis cross-sectional study used 2022 questionnaire data from adults living in two super-aged Japanese communities. Among 1,569 respondents, 1,554 with complete life satisfaction data were analyzed. Perceived neighborhood environment was assessed with 11 items, summarized into a composite score, and classified into low and high groups using the median of the observed data. Missing data were handled with multiple imputation by chained equations, generating 100 datasets. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for life satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related factors, the high environment group had higher odds of life satisfaction than the low group (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.07). Further adjustment for social participation changed the estimate little, whereas adjustment for place attachment attenuated the association (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.52). Place attachment was positively associated with life satisfaction (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.02 to 4.13). In supplementary analyses, perceived neighborhood environment was independently associated with place attachment (OR 9.30, 95% CI 5.18 to 16.71) but not with social participation score.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFavorable neighborhood conditions were associated with higher life satisfaction in super-aged communities. Place attachment may be a more relevant explanatory factor than social participation frequency.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Perceived Neighborhood Environment, Place Attachment, and Life Satisfaction in Super-Aged Japanese Communities: A Cross-Sectional Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-30 17:13:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9173372/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"35383892865773859976913785578838666347","date":"2026-05-17T08:44:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"232330144377907942774032255759056204208","date":"2026-05-13T02:31:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-27T02:32:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-27T02:15:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-25T19:31:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-24T02:38:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Aging","date":"2026-03-24T02:33:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-aging","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Aging](https://link.springer.com/journal/44518)","snPcode":"44518","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/44518/3","title":"Discover Aging","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"283d6b69-50df-43de-8ad6-f840523c7405","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 30th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"35383892865773859976913785578838666347","date":"2026-05-17T08:44:05+00:00","index":167,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"232330144377907942774032255759056204208","date":"2026-05-13T02:31:59+00:00","index":136,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-30T17:13:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-30 17:13:53","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9173372","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9173372","identity":"rs-9173372","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}