Introduction
According to the National Housing Strategy Act passed in 2019, Canada recognizes that having access to safe and secure housing to meet one’s physiological needs is a fundamental human right (A Place to Call Home 2019). However, given the ongoing affordability and housing crisis, not everyone has access to safe and secure housing. In Canada, it has been estimated that over 200,000 people will experience homelessness in a year and as many as 35,000 on a given night (Gaetz et al. Reference Gaetz, Dej, Richter and Redman2016). With the growing ageing population and a reduction in subsidized housing, social assistance benefits, social programming, social supports and an increase in mental health and substance use rates, the proportion of older homeless adults in North America is steadily increasing (Reynolds et al. Reference Reynolds, Isaak, DeBoer, Medved, Distasio, Katz and Sareen2016). Older people experiencing homelessness have unique care needs compared to the general population and younger homeless counterparts (Brown et al. Reference Brown, Thomas, Cutler and Hinderlie2013). This population also experiences accelerated ageing and other poor health and wellbeing outcomes. Additionally, when faced with homelessness, individuals die an average of 10–20 years earlier than people who are housed (Om et al. Reference Om, Whitehead, Vafeas and Towell-Barnard2022). Homelessness also exacerbates the challenges of older age, including physical decline and disabilities such as frailty or impaired mobility (Om et al. Reference Om, Whitehead, Vafeas and Towell-Barnard2022).
In Vancouver, British Columbia, 5,232 people were found to be unhoused in the 2025 Point-in-Time (PiT) count which captures the minimum number of people who are unhoused in a 24-hour period; a 9 percent increase from 2023 (Homelessness Services Association of BC 2025). Older adults were found to make up 22 percent of this population, an estimate that has been steadily increasing since 2020 (Homelessness Services Association of BC 2023). Compared to older people in stable housing, unhoused older adults in Vancouver have higher rates of premature death (Jones et al. Reference Jones, Vila-Rodrigez, Leonova, Langheimer, Lang, Barr, Procyshyn, Smith, Schultz, Buchanan, Krausz, Montaner, MacEwan, Rauscher, Panenka, Thornton and Honer2015), cancer (Biedrzycki Reference Biedrzycki2018) and chronic illnesses (Sumalinog et al. Reference Sumalinog, Harrington, Dosani and Hwang2017).
Within the literature, increased attention has been given to the concept of “aging in the right” place (AIRP) with respect to supporting the needs of older adults living in varied housing types and situations. The AIRP concept emerged as a response to the challenges posed by ageing in place, which refers to the preference or ability of older adults to remain in their own homes or neighbourhoods (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022; Golant Reference Golant2015; Hoh et al. Reference Hoh, Feng, Gu, Gu and Dupre2021). Although ageing in place is prioritized in public policy, programme development and service delivery, scholars have argued that ageing in place is not always an optimal, attainable or accessible goal for everyone (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022; Mahmood et al. Reference Mahmood, Patille, Lam, Mora, Gurung, Bookmyer, Weldrick, Chaudhury and Canham2022). For example, Canham et al. (Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022) argue that ageing in place can inadvertently place certain groups or sub-populations of older adults at risk by confining them to environments that may deteriorate their health and lead to other adverse outcomes. As such, ageing in place, while beneficial for some, often fails to address the complex and diverse needs of older adults, especially those without stable housing.
Given the criticisms of ageing in place, scholars have emphasized the concept of AIRP for older people experiencing homelessness. They see AIRP as a more inclusive and individualized approach that considers personal factors, vulnerabilities and lifestyles (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022; Golant Reference Golant2015). For instance, AIRP acknowledges the unique challenges that homeless older adults face in accessing financial, social and health resources, which can lead to adverse health outcomes (Mahmood et al. Reference Mahmood, Patille, Lam, Mora, Gurung, Bookmyer, Weldrick, Chaudhury and Canham2022). The concept of AIRP acknowledges that what constitutes the ‘right’ place for an older adult to age in will vary from person to person (Golant Reference Golant2015). Thus, this approach represents a shift away from the traditional ageing in place model as it underscores the heterogeneity and diversity among older adults, advocating for tailored solutions that meet each individual’s varied needs.
Canham et al. (Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022) devised an AIRP conceptual framework drawing on insights from experts in ageing, homelessness and housing services as well as older adults with lived experience of homelessness. This conceptual framework identifies six indicators that are essential for AIRP: ‘(a) built environment of the housing unit and surrounding neighbourhood, (b) offsite and onsite health and social services and resources, (c) social integration, (d) stability and affordability of place, (e) emotional place attachment, and (f) broader political and economic contexts’ (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022, p. 1252). This article focuses on the concept of social integration which Canham et al. (Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022) describe as the ways in which one’s housing unit and surrounding community can promote social inclusion and connection. Social integration within this conceptual framework recognizes the need for older people experiencing homelessness to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, feel listened to and valued and have opportunities for meaningful social engagement (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022).
Social integration is widely recognized as a complex multi-dimensional construct encompassing various aspects of social and community life such as engagement and participation in social activities and relationships, sense of communality and identification with one’s social roles (Brissette et al. Reference Brissette, Cohen, Seeman, Cohen, Underwood and Gottlieb2000; Holt-Lunstad and Uchino Reference Holt-Lunstad, Uchino, Glanz, Rimer and Viswanath2015; Quilgars and Pleace Reference Quilgars and Pleace2016). Despite its widespread recognition, the definition of social integration remains a topic of debate, which is evident in the diverse ways social integration is conceptualized across studies (Gaboardi et al. Reference Gaboardi, Santinello and Shinn2021). For instance, Tsai et al. (Reference Tsai, Mares and Rosenheck2012) approached social integration through six distinct dimensions: housing, employment, social support, involvement in community activities, civic engagement and religious beliefs. Wong and Solomon (Reference Wong and Solomon2002) examined social integration through three key dimensions: physical, social and psychological. Despite the variation in definitions and models, each dimension, whether physical, social, psychological or otherwise, contributes uniquely to an individual’s overall integration into society. Moreover, the significance of social integration extends beyond mere participation in community and social life; it has profound implications for the health and wellbeing of individuals. Numerous studies have established a link between social integration and positive health and mental health outcomes, particularly among older adults (Kang and Michael Reference Kang and Michael2013; Mose et al. Reference Mose, Chen, Tan, Ren and Ren2024; Oduro Reference Oduro2024; Seeman Reference Seeman1996). The Communicate Bond Belong (CBB) theory posits social integration as a core human need where individuals selectively invest energy in relationships which will align with their own needs (Hall and Davis Reference Hall and Davis2016). This theory highlights the importance of autonomy and control for older adults with experiences of homelessness where their ability and choice regarding how and when they engage with people is more important than the number of social interactions they have. This lays the groundwork to understand how social integration is on a continuum where everyone has a varied need to be socially integrated.
In the realm of housing and homelessness, social integration is a prominent goal that includes re-establishing and revitalizing formal and informal social networks and helping individuals actively participate in the broader community (Gaboardi et al. Reference Gaboardi, Lenzi, Disperati, Santinello, Vieno, Tinland, Vargas- Moniz, Spinnewijin, O’Shaughnessy, Wolf, Bokszczanin, Bernad, Beijer, Ornelas, Shinn and Consortium Study Group2019). When social integration is promoted through such housing services and approaches, positive effects are seen. For example, Kirst et al. (Reference Kirst, Friesdorf, Ta, Amiri, Hwang, Stergiopoulos and O’Campo2020) found that a Housing First approach promoted social integration among homeless and precariously housed adults by enhancing social connections, fostering a sense of belonging and improving physical access to resources. These factors contributed to increased housing stability and offered participants a solid basis for progressing towards recovery (Kirst et al. Reference Kirst, Friesdorf, Ta, Amiri, Hwang, Stergiopoulos and O’Campo2020). Additionally, it has been said that the experience of ageing in place is often influenced or shaped by various elements of social integration (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022). For example, Weil (Reference Weil2020) found that some of the prominent components of social integration such as social support, social participation and social inclusion affected one’s ability to age in place. When these elements are lacking, individuals may experience what Weil (Reference Weil2020) describes as ‘ageing out of place’, where they no longer feel that they belong or fit within their environment. These findings underscore the importance of social integration and inclusion and the need for tailored interventions that ensure that older adults do not age out of place. This is especially true for older adults experiencing homelessness who are already in such a vulnerable position.
‘Ageing out of place’ can be understood through the Person–Environment Fit theory where older adults’ wellbeing is dependent upon the congruence of their own personal characteristics and their surrounding environment (Lawton and Nahemow Reference Lawton, Nahemow, Eisdorfer and Lawton1973). The disconnection between environment and personal characteristics can be more pronounced for older adults with experiences of homelessness as loneliness and social isolation are exacerbated for this demographic. They often have ruptured social networks and infrequent social contacts, which is a marker for social isolation, leading them to no longer fit within their environment. Social isolation and loneliness among older adults are associated with significantly poorer health outcomes. In one study it was found that 20 per cent of older adults report feeling lonely in Canada, highlighting the lack of social integration (Happy Cities 2024). Although Vancouver is considered to be one of the most liveable cities in the world, the lack of social integration and feelings of loneliness highlight the social disconnection that is widespread among older adults.
Attempting to socially integrate older adults needs to start from the design phase as social integration and wellbeing are often not considered when building muti-unit buildings in Vancouver (Happy Cities 2024). There is limited research that examines how older people experiencing homelessness navigate social integration and what their needs are. Additionally, given the debate present in the literature regarding the definition and understanding of social integration, it can be difficult to work towards supporting older adults who might be socially disconnected. To address these gaps, the present study explores the following questions: (1) How do older adults who have experienced homelessness and housing precarity perceive and experience social integration in an independent housing setting with on-site support? (2) What promotes social integration among formerly homeless older people living in an independent housing setting with on-site support?
Methods
We conducted semi-structured in-person interviews with 20 older adults aged 55+ residing in one of five independent living apartment buildings that offer on-site supports in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Different buildings are managed by different non-profit organizations, but the on-site supports are provided by a single non-profit organization. This exploration is part of a larger study which aims to evaluate housing and service programmes for older people experiencing homelessness through interviews and photovoice (blinded for review). The ethics approval for this study was obtained by a University Research Ethics Board.
Research context
The non-profit organization that provides on-site programmes is a family-based charity organization based in Vancouver. With the goal of reducing the risk of homelessness and helping older adults feel a sense of belongingness and social connection within rental housing units, residents are provided with on-site community-building programmes and services, including community meals, grocery shopping, monthly birthday parties and one-on-one tenant support. The landlords of these supportive housing sites cater to low-income older adults who have been homeless or are housing precarious.
Participants
Participants were recruited through programme staff who posted recruitment materials (flyers and brochures) with details about the study and how to contact the research team. Potential participants were encouraged to email the research coordinator and/or research assistant. Participants were eligible to participate if they were over the age of 55, fluent in English and a resident of the supportive housing buildings. Prior to participation, all individuals received detailed information about the study’s aims, procedures and their rights as participants. Written informed consent was obtained via email or in person by the research coordinator, and participants were given opportunities to ask questions and clarify any concerns before agreeing to take part.
Participants’ age ranged from 56 to 90 years (Mean = 70); 10 participants identified as female and 10 as male. Fifteen participants self-identified as Caucasian, two as Middle Eastern, one as South American, one as mixed ethnicity and one as West Indian. Participants’ length of involvement with the non-profit organization providing on-site support ranged from six months to six years.
All participants self-identified as having experienced homelessness or housing precarity. Homelessness can be defined as a living condition in which individuals lack adequate, stable or permanent housing and do not have the means to secure such housing (Duchesne et al. Reference Duchesne, Cooper and Baker2021). Homelessness encompasses a spectrum of living situations, including unsheltered homelessness, emergency sheltered homelessness, provisionally accommodated individuals and those at risk of homelessness (Gaetz et al. Reference Gaetz, Barr, Friesen, Harris, Hill, Kovacs-Burns, Pauly, Pearce, Turner and Marsolais2012). Out of the 20 participants in the current study, 5 self-identified as experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Housing precarity, on the other hand, extends beyond the physical state of the dwelling to encompass broader systemic challenges. As identified by Gaetz et al. (Reference Gaetz, Barr, Friesen, Harris, Hill, Kovacs-Burns, Pauly, Pearce, Turner and Marsolais2012), critical contributors to housing precarious conditions include limited access to employment opportunities, health care, clean water, sanitation, education, childcare and social support systems. Without intervention, individuals who are precariously housed face heightened risks of falling into homelessness in both the short and the long term (Gaetz et al. Reference Gaetz, Barr, Friesen, Harris, Hill, Kovacs-Burns, Pauly, Pearce, Turner and Marsolais2012). In the current study, out of all participants, 15 identified as being in a housing precarious situation. See Table 1 for all participant characteristics.
Participant characteristics
* Note: Participant 6 was uncomfortable providing their exact age and instead provided a range.
Data collection
Trained research assistants conducted semi-structured interviews using interview guides containing open-ended questions and probes designed by the primary investigators. Each participant completed two interviews. Participants received a $25 honorarium for each interview (total $50). In the first interview, participants were asked about the supports and barriers they had experienced in their building and community, pathways into the programmes, experiences with homelessness and their physical and mental health. Additional questions asked participants about social integration, including their social connections, activities they engaged in and where and when they engaged in these activities. For the second interview, participants were given cameras and asked to take pictures of what was important for them to age in the right place. Participants and researchers discussed the photos and the meaning participants attributed to them. Photovoice methods are useful in that they allow for knowledge co-creation with participants and provide agency to the participants to share their story (Mahmood and Labbe Reference Mahmood, Labbe, Hartt, Biglieri, Rosenberg and Nelson2021).
Although no significant ethical issues arose during the data collection, we anticipated that some discussions could involve sensitive or emotionally charged topics. To address this, the interviewers were trained to conduct conversations with empathy and care, and to recognize signs of distress. Participants were explicitly informed that they could skip any questions they did not wish to answer or withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. On average, interviews lasted one hour and were audio recorded and transcribed using an ethics approved transcription service called Otter.ai. This service generated verbatim transcripts from the audio recordings; it was not used to summarize, code or analyse the data. The transcripts were also manually checked by research assistants for accuracy and anonymized to provide confidentiality. Personal identifiers were removed from transcripts and the data were stored securely so that only the research team had access to them.
Data analysis
In Step 1, NVivo 14 was used to analyse and code all transcripts using Braun and Clarke’s (Reference Braun and Clarke2006) reflexive thematic analysis. Four research members began by reading a subset of the transcripts to familiarize themselves with the material and to better understand the experiences of the participants. In Step 2, the same four research members individually created initial codes based on the entire data that were important to the experiences of participants and salient to their experiences of AIRP. Using the AIRP conceptual framework offered by Canham et al. (Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022) as the initial coding structure, we generated codes that aligned with this structure, while also developing codes that fit with our data. For Step 3, collaboratively all four members grouped codes into themes based on the patterns that we identified within and across cases. The AIRP conceptual framework also helped us identify overarching themes after we had grouped all the codes together. In Step 4, we reviewed all the codes within each theme to make sure that there was a coherent pattern. We also made sure that our themes made sense in relation to the entire dataset. Through this process, we created a thematic map that helped us visualize and critique our evolving coding structure. Regular team meetings were held to discuss emerging themes, resolve discrepancies and reflect on interpretations. These processes helped promote consistency and credibility in the analysis. Lastly, we named and defined each of our themes, which helped us understand the story that our data created.
Findings
We identified four themes in participants’ narratives and photographs: (1) From isolation to inclusion: narratives on social integration; (2) Space, place and social integration: (3) Unlocking pathways to deep and meaningful social interactions; and (4) Navigating social integration: the vital role of choice and control.
From isolation to inclusion: narratives on social integration
When describing their preference to be socially integrated and instances of social connection, participants exhibited a wide range of responses. At one end, some participants expressed a lack of desire for social integration and social connections. They preferred solitude and independence, valuing their privacy and personal space. For example, when discussing their engagement in activities facilitated by the non-profit service provider, participant 2 (female, 78) with past experiences of homelessness said: ‘I don’t attend very many of their functions anymore … ever since, I have not been … sociable with my neighbours in the building, deliberately. I guess I’m more of a loner, and more of a private person’. This narrative suggests that for some individuals with experiences of homelessness, choosing solitude can be both a coping strategy and a meaningful expression of autonomy.
Another participant echoed a similar sentiment: ‘I’ve always been a bit of a loner. Every building I’ve ever lived in … as long as I got my dogs, that’s all I needed’ (Participant 6, male, 70–75). Additionally, when asked about their preference for more interactions with others in the building, these participants reported being content without any such interactions. Suggesting acceptance with their lack of social connection, one participant said, ‘Yeah, I’m fine. I’ve been here for a very long time, so I haven’t made any friends. So obviously, there’s reasons’ (Participant 14, female, 70). Other participants reiterated their lack of desire for social connection; one stated, ‘As I told you, I don’t need, I don’t want to be socialized’ (Participant 9, male, 70), while another stated, ‘No, no. That’s enough. Too much is no good for me … I’m very happy. Nobody’s bugging me’ (Participant 4, female, 90).
In comparison to those participants who reported contentment with their relative solitude, several participants expressed a strong desire for social connection with others. These individuals actively sought out close relationships, community involvement and a sense of belonging. One participant shared, ‘I’m friendly too, and I’m always saying hi to everybody. I don’t isolate myself. I figure I’m here for a reason … And I love people’ (Participant 7, female, 63). Another participant said, ‘I try to engage with people, get along with people. Because I think that’s how we grow old gracefully. That’s part of what I’m trying to do. Openness, friendliness, putting a smile on somebody’s face. I love to tell jokes’ (Participant 16, male, 76). One participant with previous experiences of homelessness described how they would check in with other residents: ‘I have a few other guys on my floor that … are lonely people. And I’ve gone out of my way, in a sort of a way, to knock on the doors and make sure that they get everything they need and join us’ (Participant 18, male, 61). Social connection was seen not only as beneficial to themselves but also as a shared responsibility to support others who might be struggling. This is especially significant for individuals who have experienced homelessness where isolation, disconnection and mistrust are often part of daily life; rebuilding a sense of community could be both healing and empowering.
Participants who prioritized social integration and connection also demonstrated how they built and maintained relationships, cherishing opportunities to engage with others. For example, when describing a photo taken of a participant’s church group, this individual said, ‘That group is so wonderful. We love being together, always talking, and happy and lifting each other up. It’s just awesome’ (Participant 7, female, 63). Another participant had taken a photo of a piano and discussed another resident who often came to play on it:
He comes many times and doing his music here. You can see people around him, the neighbours, they come and listening and make them happy to hear this kind of music … It makes me really happy to see this guy … Yeah, it’s nice, it’s happiness, it’s not a sadness, everything is good. [laughs] (Participant 3, female, 62)
For these participants, social integration and connection were not just activities but vital elements of these individuals’ lives, contributing positively to their overall wellbeing and happiness. It also demonstrates a more proactive approach to social integration, where individuals preferred, actively sought out and valued the benefits of connecting and interacting with others.
A third group of participants occupied a middle ground, exhibiting varying degrees of interest in social connection with others. These individuals neither actively sought out nor completely avoided opportunities for social interactions. Instead, participants reported casual interactions and spontaneous social encounters in shared and communal spaces. One participant with experiences of homelessness said, ‘We sit down there, we talk to our friends [who] com[e]: “Oh, what’s going on, man? How was your night? How is your day?” The staff ask us too, you know, “What are you going to do after you drink this coffee?”’ (Participant 17, male, 65). Another participant discussed how they often engaged in casual conversations regardless of whether they knew the person or not: ‘And whoever I meet, I always say hi … I go in the elevator, “Hi,” whether I know them or not … Sometimes they’re visitors visiting other people and sometimes it’s your longtime people …’ (Participant 7, female, 63). Participants also discussed other opportunities for casual social interactions. For example, one participant discussed how they would meet residents while shopping, in the hallway, or even the laundry room (Participant 10, male, 67).
These individuals in the middle of the continuum might even attend certain events or activities sporadically, which allows them to maintain a balance between solitude and social engagement, adapting their participation based on their mood, interests and circumstances. For example, another participant with experiences of homelessness said, ‘Well, for me, one thing is I’m a fairly closed person. I don’t talk too much. And I’m actually talking, like, usually when I’m watching TV in here, with the guys, I’ll just sit there … but I won’t say much. I’ll just be myself’ (Participant 20, male, 56). In another example, a participant indicated that their interactions with others depends on how they are feeling, ‘Yeah, I come down once in a while, depending how I feel, but I do come down … Sometimes if I don’t feel that good, I come down and say hi. But that depends on the day’ (Participant 11, female, 72). For individuals with experiences of homelessness and/or housing precarity, these casual, low-pressure interactions may offer a comfortable way to maintain social contact while also preserving personal boundaries, which is especially important for those who may carry lingering effects of trauma or mistrust from previous housing situations.
Overall, the variation in responses highlights the diverse needs and preferences among participants. While a small number of participants preferred minimal to no social interaction, many sought some level of social integration and opportunities for social interactions with others.
Space, place and social integration
Participants described how their level of social integration was influenced by the built and natural environment, such as having designated physical spaces within their housing complex where social events could be organized. These communal areas were seen as vital for fostering feelings of connection, belonging and overall social integration. For individuals with previous experiences of homelessness, having consistent and welcoming spaces for social engagement held particular significance. After periods of social exclusion and instability, these physical settings became key environments for building relationships and forming new community ties. For example, one participant appreciated having access to a conference room where they could have social gatherings: ‘It is a social lounge … That’s all it is, a gathering … They have card games, music, exercise, movies … It’s a good feeling, like, relax more … It’s just like you’re not alone’ (Participant 11, female, 72). This room was not just a meeting place but a social hub where relationships could flourish, which can help to navigate isolation. Another participant who previously lived in a precarious housing situation noted how the amenity room in their current building is used for birthday celebrations and organized activities, which contribute to their social life: ‘And this is the tea party, uh, programme every Tuesday … they knew this is my birthday … and then they surprise me … It’s good because it makes people happy, we talk and laugh, and sometimes dance’ (Participant 9, male, 70). These physical spaces not only encouraged interactions but also created opportunities for meaningful engagement and the strengthening of social ties among residents.
Beyond the building, the presence of nature in the surrounding neighbourhood was reported to play a key role in encouraging social engagement and connections with others. Participants expressed that access to natural environments, such as parks and green spaces, positively influenced their willingness to interact with others and participate in activities. Participants described how access to natural environments and green spaces provided opportunities for relaxation, social interaction and a connection with nature. For those with a history of homelessness and housing precarity, being able to enjoy and access these natural settings without restriction held a restorative and affirming quality. For example, one participant who had experienced homelessness described their enjoyment of a local garden and its impact on their life: ‘Walking along the waterfront, the garden is constantly changing through the seasons … As [I’m] an artist, it’s wonderful food for my soul. I stop and thank the gardeners because I love this garden. And I also stop and thank the gardeners’ (Participant 2, female, 78). Another participant highlighted the significance of nearby natural spaces for personal reflection and connection: ‘There’s a tiny little forest near my street … I think it’s a message that we can as humans embrace each other and work together. I love it so much’ (Participant 14, female, 70). In another example, a participant discussed a social relationship formed at a nearby park:
Well, it’s called [park’s name] where I ran into a lady; I see a lady that is going to sit, right? I have seen her a few times and finally one day I said to her, ‘Hi, how you doing?’ And then now when I see her, we talk about our things, universal politics, religion …. (Participant 12, male, 77)
Overall, this theme underscores the impact that immediate surroundings, both built and natural, have on social integration and wellbeing. The availability of physical communal spaces within the housing complex and access to natural environments further enhanced and fostered opportunities for social interactions and connections.
Unlocking pathways to deep and meaningful social interactions
A crucial element that contributed to social integration for participants was their ability to engage in a variety of meaningful and deep social interactions with others, as it improved their wellbeing. This theme describes participants emphasizing the importance of having high-quality interactions, which was represented by the amount of support they received and gave back to each other and the community. Due to to people’s diverse needs and desires, this support looked different for every person: some were highly self-motivated, others were interdependent, and some depended on facilitated activities. One participant described going out with friends and doing different activities which helped them feel connected with others: ‘I have friends in the building … Sometimes I go out with coffee … Sometimes I take him to the doctor … I’ve been out shopping with them … we play cribbage’ (Participant 1, female, 73). For this participant, the activities are self-guided and self-motivated, which works for them the best. Through these activities, such as running errands or going to the doctors with friends, they helped provide instrumental support for one another. Many participants expressed that it was important for them to have friends and acquaintances so that they could interact with others. These people are self-motivated to be around others, which is why they engage in different activities. One participant with experience of homelessness described how he plays bingo with some people. It might not necessarily be the same people every week; however, he enjoys it because ‘I’m a shy person. At least I can sit there and talk with somebody instead of sitting in my room and watching TV all day, which is not very beneficial’ (Participant 20, male, 56). For people with experiences of homelessness who may have been separated from their social network, having these small interactions can be very meaningful as they may have spent a lot of their time being isolated.
Other participants highlighted the benefits of having community-based activities where they can depend on each other through volunteering to give back to the community. For example, several participants volunteered in the community garden present in their buildings:
I have a plot with a memorial there for, like, missing and murdered Indigenous women. My friends and I are taking care of the garden, and we tried to clean it and make it beautiful … We planted, like, flowers and whatever we can afford to make it more beautiful. We have some volunteers come and help us out with boxes, like garden plots and flower beds, a bench. We have a bench there, but we clean it and varnished it … make a sign a sign to say what the garden was about. (Participant 14, female, 70)
Having access to community-based activities allowed this participant to create something of their own which other people can access and admire. They also felt that it was important for them to spread awareness about missing and murdered Indigenous women; it allowed them to be part of a cause that is bigger than them. Being part of a community garden was a significant theme that came across from various participants living in various parts of the city, as many of them sought out these opportunities to integrate themselves in their respective communities. Another participant reflected on the significance of living in a vibrant community with access to essential services, recognizing how fortunate they were compared to those in less resourced areas, where living independently might be more difficult, especially for those with health challenges. This highlights the importance of interdependency and connectedness for health and wellbeing. ‘How important it is to be in a community that offers many things. I’m lucky that I’m in a vibrant place and think of people in small towns without services. It must be very difficult for unwell individuals to cope in and live independently’ (Participant 13, female, 65).
Some participants also depended upon activities organized by service providers in their building. One participant described contentment with being isolated: ‘I don’t mind being as isolated as I am … It’s been a lifesaver getting into this building’. However, this participant felt that activities organized by staff made them feel socially connected: ‘I have actually connected with others in my building more because of [names service provider] by attending the luncheons, and dinners’ (Participant 2, female, 78). Participants described the various kinds of activity that were organized by service providers: ‘They have adventures where you go out, and we went over to [names local market] … They took us on a picnic up in [names local park] … They also take pictures when it’s your birthday’ (Participant 1, female, 73). This same participant also highlighted how accessibility is taken into consideration when these activities are planned. They explained how ‘they call the taxi for the ones that are in wheelchairs. And then the ones that can walk they had a van’. These instances illustrate the importance of service providers in facilitating meaningful experiences for participants so that they can be socially integrated.
Overall, this theme highlights that people need to engage with other people to be socially integrated. It does not happen in solitary behaviours. This theme also shows that there are multiple pathways to have deep and meaningful social interactions, where some people need more support while others can create their own connections. Thus, a variety of activities with different support levels is required to facilitate social integration. This is especially the case for people who have experiences of homelessness, where each individual can have a different comfort level with activities, based on their past experiences.
Navigating social integration: the vital role of autonomy and choice
Another element that contributed to social integration for participants was the role of autonomy and choice. Participants revealed that the concept of choice includes the right to choose solitude, the right to engage in collective activities and the right to make decisions regarding daily and personal matters. For individuals with experiences of homelessness or housing precarity, the ability to exercise autonomy and make personal choices was especially meaningful. These choices reflected a reclaiming of control often lost during periods of housing instability and homelessness. For example, Participant 2 (female, 78), who had experienced homelessness, described valuing her independence and preference for solitude: ‘I thought the [names non-profit service provider] was more for the people in the building who were really needy, whereas I’m a very independent person … that’s partly my own choice. I don’t have to be as isolated as I am. I think I’d rather just keep to myself’. This individual highlighted her preference for maintaining personal independence and a sense of solitude. Despite living in a community setting, she chose not to engage much with her neighbours, valuing her privacy and self-reliance. She described herself as more of a private person, deliberately avoiding extensive social interactions with others.
Another participant appreciated the autonomy and sense of freedom that came with having their own living space: ‘Here you have a separate place, you’re free, you have your own. You don’t have to sleep next to a person. You have your own privacy’ (Participant 17, male, 64). This participant valued the ability to maintain privacy and personal boundaries, enjoying the independence of not having to share their immediate living area with others. This separation allowed them to feel a greater sense of control over their environment and daily life, reinforcing their sense of individuality and self-sufficiency. For those who have experienced homelessness or housing precarity, where privacy is often limited and personal boundaries are difficult to maintain, having one’s own unit marks a powerful step towards renewed sense of control, autonomy and dignity.
Participants also appreciated the freedom to choose whether they would engage in the activities and programmes offered in their community and building, which made them feel respected and empowered. They valued that participation was voluntary, allowing them to join in on their own terms without feeling pressured. For example, one participant said: ‘It was nice that they included people. Like they just didn’t say you are gonna play bingo on Monday … they let us have a choice’ (Participant 1, female, 73). This same participant also said: ‘So, everybody’s going down to decorate those. Now, you don’t have to. They don’t hold a gun over you, it’s your choice and I like that’. This flexibility contributed to a sense of autonomy and personal agency. Many found that the variety of activities, such as games and social gatherings, had become an integral part of their daily routine, offering opportunities for socialization and support. While some chose to participate regularly, others appreciated the encouragement without feeling obligated, recognizing the positive impact these activities had on their wellbeing and sense of community.
Overall, autonomy and choice were critical elements in the narratives of participants who had experiences of homelessness as well as those who lived in unstable and housing precarious situations. The extent to which participants felt integrated into their communities and housing environments was influenced by their ability to exercise agency and make choices that align with their personal preferences and needs.
Discussion
Older adults who have experienced or are at risk of homelessness represent an often-overlooked population, historically rendered ‘invisible’ and largely neglected within housing scholarship (Cohen Reference Cohen1999). Research that specifically explores the unique needs of older adults experiencing homelessness remains scarce, thus representing a significant gap in the literature (Om et al. Reference Om, Whitehead, Vafeas and Towell-Barnard2022). As such, this study contributes to a growing, yet still limited body of research focused on their lived experiences, with particular attention to social integration which is a key component of AIRP (Canham et al. Reference Canham, Weldrick, Sussman, Walsh and Mahmood2022; Gaboardi et al. Reference Gaboardi, Lenzi, Disperati, Santinello, Vieno, Tinland, Vargas- Moniz, Spinnewijin, O’Shaughnessy, Wolf, Bokszczanin, Bernad, Beijer, Ornelas, Shinn and Consortium Study Group2019; Wong and Solomon Reference Wong and Solomon2002). Despite the importance of social integration, little research has explored how older adults with lived experience of homelessness and housing precarity navigate social interactions, or what factors and mechanisms support meaningful social integration within independent housing settings. Based on participants’ narratives and photos, we found that social integration is not a uniform experience; rather, individual preferences and needs shape each person’s desire for connection. Social integration cannot be neatly defined or achieved through a single factor; rather, it is a combination of different elements and mechanisms including the built and natural environment, opportunities for deep and meaningful social interactions, and individual autonomy and choice.
Participants described varied preferences and needs for social integration. Some valued and actively sought out deep and meaningful social interactions, while others preferred limited engagement, choosing autonomy and privacy. These differences align with prior research on older people experiencing homelessness, including that of Yuan et al. (Reference Yuan, Knight, Weeks, King, Olsen and Kushel2024), who found that some participants expressed a strong desire for social connections while others chose to remain alone and socially isolated. McDonald et al. (Reference McDonald, Donahue, Janes, Cleghorn, Hulchanski, Campsie, Chau, Hwang and Paradis2009) found that while some formerly homeless older adults were able to connect or reconnect with family and friends, others remained disconnected from their housing and neighbourhood communities. This diversity in the experiences and preferences of older people experiencing homelessness suggests that social interaction is neither universally sought nor avoided but is influenced by personal histories, social circumstances and individual values. Some people may long for the bonds of community, while others prioritize their independence and solitude. Future research should seek to identify the factors and mechanisms that shape whether older people experiencing homelessness seek or avoid social connections. Understanding the underlying motivations, such as past traumas, mental health or previous experiences with social networks, could provide insight into how best to support individuals’ varying needs. Additionally, exploring how housing environments can be designed or adapted to respect these differences, offering opportunities for social engagement while also maintaining spaces for privacy and autonomy, will be crucial to improving the wellbeing of older people experiencing homelessness across different housing settings.
In terms of the different elements and mechanisms of social integration, one of the key findings that fostered social integration was the significance of the immediate surroundings. This included having access to designated physical spaces within the housing complex as well as spaces in the natural environment. Clarke and Gallagher (Reference Clarke and Gallagher2013) have emphasized that accessible and well-designed amenities within the built environment encourage social participation among older adults. Similarly, Weil (Reference Weil2020) has underscored the importance of considering both indoor and outdoor spaces, which can impact spontaneous interactions among residents. Our findings align with and expand upon this body of research. Participants pointed to the importance of having designated communal spaces within the building where they could gather to attend events or interact with others. These physical spaces became important environments that were conducive to residents feeling integrated and connected with others and fostered an atmosphere where residents could build relationships and develop a sense of belonging. Powell et al. (Reference Powell, Willis, Cameron, Vickery, Johnson, Beach and Smith2024) had similar findings where older adults in care homes emphasized the importance of communal spaces as places to foster social connection. Powell et al. (Reference Powell, Willis, Cameron, Vickery, Johnson, Beach and Smith2024) likened communal spaces to the ‘third spaces’ conceptualized by Oldenburg and Bisset (Reference Oldenburg and Brissett1982). The findings of our participants also reflect the idea of ‘third spaces’ where communal areas provide accessible social spaces in which to make social connections that are outside the domain of their ‘first place’, which is their home. This is especially important for older adults who have experienced homelessness who may have experienced discrimination or stigma while accessing third spaces previously; it can make having third spaces within their built environment even more significant.
Similarly, outdoor elements like green spaces, parks and benches were important as they provided opportunities for social encounters with neighbours and friends. Weldrick et al. (Reference Weldrick, Canham, Mahmood, Patille and Gurung2025) found that outdoor accessible environments, such as an on-site gazebo and local parks, promoted social connection and participation among older people experiencing homelessness. In addition, participants discussed the concept of biophilia, which is humans’ tendency to connect with nature (Gaekwad et al. Reference Gaekwad, Sal Moslehian, Roös and Walker2022), as it fostered a sense of self-reflection which enhanced social and emotional wellbeing. Our participants’ reflection through community gardening and natural spaces is supported by literature on how biophilia fosters social connection (Gaekwad et al. Reference Gaekwad, Sal Moslehian, Roös and Walker2022). Access to nature allows older people experiencing homelessness to connect with others in a deep and meaningful way where they can feel themselves being part of something bigger than themselves. These results align with wider discourse around ‘green wellbeing’, which refers to the positive effects of green spaces on psychological, emotional and social wellbeing in the form of peace, escape and agency (Smith and Turner Reference Smith and Turner2023). As such, a holistic approach to housing design and urban planning, informed by research on the built and natural environment as interconnected elements, can create supportive spaces that enhance social integration for older adults.
Another important finding was the importance of having deep and meaningful interactions with others. Research suggests that engaging in varied and rich experiences can enhance the wellbeing of older adults (Quoidbach et al. Reference Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, Gruber, Kotsou, Kogan and Norton2018). Meeting other people through community-based activities, such as community gardening, group field trips or accessing services provided by the non-profit organization, allowed participants to create meaningful experiences. This in turn was beneficial for participants’ wellbeing as it combated loneliness and isolation. Combating these negative feelings is important among this population given that 40 per cent of older people experiencing homelessness have been found to report feelings of loneliness (Patanwala et al. Reference Patanwala, Tieu, Ponath, Guzman, Ritchie and Kushel2018). Along with more structured interactions, some participants shared examples of casual social interactions, such as sitting with acquaintances to play bingo, drinking coffee with one another or casually meeting people in hallways. These interactions were important in providing participants with a sense of connection, even if the relationships were not effortful or deep. This finding is supported by Evans (Reference Evans2009) where the results showed that everyday fleeting interactions were equally important to friendships. Sandstorm and Gunn (Reference Sandstrom and Dunn2014) highlight that having casual interactions with acquaintances or community members – referred to as ‘weak ties’ – is correlated with greater happiness than having no social interactions. As such, both weak ties and deep connections were valuable for participants.
Lastly, choice and autonomy were found to contribute to participants’ feelings and being socially integrated. The concept of autonomy is intricately linked to the dynamic interplay between agency and belonging. Wahl et al. (Reference Wahl, Iwarsson and Oswald2012) emphasize that autonomy and identity are crucial developmental outcomes in later life. Autonomy is not just about independently performing daily tasks but involves making decisions about one’s life and environment. This decision-making process is crucial for maintaining a sense of control and personal identity, which in turn fosters social integration. Participants expressed the importance of being able to choose when and how much they wanted to interact with others. People do not always take direct action to deepen all relationships so that they can conserve their energy for specific relationships that are meaningful to them. The CBB theory (Hall and Davis Reference Hall and Davis2016) explains the participants who were self-motivated and put effort into engaging in social interactions.
Participants described ways in which they maintained their privacy and solitude, which contributed positively to their wellbeing. Lay et al. (Reference Lay, Pauly, Graf, Mahmood and Hoppmann2020) highlight that the desire for solitude is correlated with positive affects among older adults owing to their emotional stability. For our participants, having choice over the options for social activities gave them a sense of ownership over their social lives, allowing them to engage in ways that felt authentic and aligned with their individual needs. When individuals feel that they have the freedom to choose how they navigate their social environment, they are more likely to feel connected, engaged and integrated into their communities. According to Om et al. (Reference Om, Whitehead, Vafeas and Towell-Barnard2022), fostering autonomy, flexibility and privacy contributes to a sense of belonging among older people experiencing homelessness. Future research should investigate how housing environments can be designed to offer flexibility and autonomy, ensuring that residents have the power to make choices based on their own needs and comfort levels. By prioritizing autonomy in both the physical and social design of housing environments, we can create more inclusive spaces that support the wellbeing and social integration of older people experiencing homelessness.
Given the complex and multifaceted nature of social integration, we propose that social integration should be viewed as existing on a continuum, rather than being a fixed or universal experience. Our findings highlight the different elements and mechanisms of social integration, as well as the different experiences and preferences individuals have. As such, conceptualizing social integration as a continuum acknowledges that not everyone will experience or desire social integration in the same way. This way of thinking allows for a more nuanced way of understanding social integration for vulnerable populations that emphasizes the subjective and individual experiences regarding how they wish to be integrated. This continuum concept acknowledges that social integration is not binary (either fully integrated or isolated), but rather exists along a flexible range of possibilities, accommodating unique needs, preferences and capacities for social involvement. For example, an individual’s position on the continuum may evolve over time as circumstances change. Different housing models and environments should be able to accommodate and cater across the social integration continuum, ensuring that everyone can find their place within the community and engage in a way that feels comfortable and fulfilling for them. Future research should look at how building design and layout can foster social integration across different housing models – from temporary housing or emergency shelters to permanent supportive housing and end-of-life settings such as hospices. Further research should also explore the role that social integration plays in AIRP for other types of housing.
We acknowledge several limitations of the present study. First, while efforts were made to ensure a diverse sample during recruitment, most participants identified as Caucasian. This lack of diversity is particularly important to consider given that Indigenous, Black and People of Colour (BIPOC) communities represent a considerable proportion of people experiencing homelessness (Fowle Reference Fowle2022). As a result, our findings are constrained in their ability to reflect the full range of heterogeneity and diversity among older people experiencing homelessness and housing precarity. It is important to recognize that this population is not homogenous and experiences of homelessness and housing precarity are shaped by the intersections of race, ethnicity, gender, Indigeneity, socio-economic status and other social and structural determinants. To address this, future research should prioritize purposive sampling from a more diverse sample of older people experiencing homelessness, including racially, ethnically and gender diverse individuals. Similarly, people with different abilities and health conditions such as those with cognitive impairments should be purposively recruited for future research. These groups may have unique challenges, experiences and perspectives that differ from those studied in our research. Such future research must attend more explicitly to the diversity within this population as it will allow us to better understand, support and empower these populations through more targeted and well-fitted supports and interventions.
Another limitation stems from the recruitment process, which took place at a single non-profit service provider, with assistance from programme staff. The involvement of staff in the recruitment process introduces the possibility of unintentional bias, as staff may have been inclined to recruit individuals who had positive or successful experiences with the programme and staff members. This bias, while not intentional, could skew the results by presenting an overly favourable view of the programme’s impact. To mitigate this potential bias, researchers took steps to build rapport and trust with participants by conducting interviews over two sessions, allowing for a deeper exploration of participants’ experiences, including both positive and negative aspects of the non-profit service provider. Finally, the findings are limited to the perspectives of participants who are supported by a single non-profit service provider. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to other programmes or settings that support older people experiencing homelessness. Future studies should consider incorporating multiple sites or practices to broaden the applicability of the findings and better represent the diversity of experiences.
In terms of strengths, one of the key assets of this study lies in its methodological approach. The use of both semi-structured interviews and the photovoice technique proved to be particularly effective, yielding a rich and multi-dimensional set of data. The inclusion of photovoice added an additional layer of depth to the data collection process, helping to capture details that might have been missed or overlooked by the interviews. The use of photovoice also helped enable co-creation in the research process, whereby participants were actively involved as collaborators rather than passive subjects. This participatory method empowers individuals to capture and share their lived experiences through photography, giving them agency in shaping how their stories are represented and interpreted. Through this process, photovoice transforms participants from mere subjects into co-creators of knowledge, ensuring that the outcomes of the study reflect the participants’ realities as they understand and experience them.
Conclusion
For older people experiencing homelessness, independent housing with on-site support offers opportunities to foster social integration. Older people experiencing homelessness require a variety of aspects and elements that contribute to them feeling socially integrated, such as the built and natural environment, opportunities for meaningful social interactions and choice and autonomy regarding when, how and where to interact with others. Study findings highlight that social integration is on a continuum and that people have unique needs and desires for social integration. Social integration cannot be forced or mandated; it must be flexible and allow for personal preferences, enabling individuals to control their social interactions in ways that feel natural and fulfilling. Recognizing these differences in preference and elements that contribute to social integration is key to supporting older adults as they age in the right place, ensuring that their unique preferences are honoured rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
Acknowledgements
We respectfully acknowledge that Simon Fraser University is located on unceded and traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil‐Waututh Nations and that the University of Utah is located on the traditional and ancestral homelands of the Shoshone, Paiute, Goshute and Ute Tribes. We would also like to acknowledge each participant’s time, interest and insights.
Financial support
This research was made possible by the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) jointly funded Partnership Grant (File number: 1004-2019-0006). The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of CMHC or SSHRC.
Competing interests
None.
Ethical standards
The data are not available to other researchers for replication due to ethical restrictions and the studies reported in the manuscript were not pre-registered. The protocol for this study has been previously published and is available here: http://journals.ed.ac.uk/social-science-protocols/article/view/6952
Open access
