Research on Optimization Strategies for the Construction and Utilization of Urban Sports Facilities for the Elderly Enabled by Digital Technology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4108/eetpht.11.14226Keywords:
older adults, urban sports facilities, digital inclusion, smart operation and maintenance, universal design, feasibilityAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Against the background that urban sports facilities for older adults are mostly planned as isolated construction projects, with access, operation‑maintenance and digital inclusion handled as fragmented separate tasks, this paper constructs a lightweight digital optimization framework connecting multiple functional links for age‑friendly sports facilities.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a lightweight digital optimization framework that links needs assessment, asset information, condition monitoring, service scheduling, and inclusive user feedback for urban sports facilities for older adults.
METHODS: Comparative analysis of age‑friendly initiatives in Beijing and Singapore, six‑week pilot site experiment, counterbalanced‑order within‑subject test were adopted. The technical tools included tablet dashboard, QR‑free large‑button interface, infrared entry counter and weekly maintenance log, without cloud model training or specialized medical sensing equipment.
RESULTS: A lightweight digital optimization framework covering needs assessment, asset information, condition monitoring, service scheduling and inclusive user feedback was formed, which provides explicit data fields, operating thresholds, and human fallback procedures for age‑friendly facility planning and utilization. The pilot test with 36 participants aged 60‑79 showed that, compared with routine service, the digital‑support condition yielded higher site‑use rate (63.5% vs 41.0%), longer observed activity sessions (32.8 min vs 24.6 min), higher task‑completion scores (79.4 vs 62.8), higher facility usability index (78.2 vs 61.3), and the mean maintenance response time decreased from 3.6 days to 1.9 days.
CONCLUSION: The proposed lightweight digital framework can effectively improve site utilization, user task‑completion performance, facility usability and maintenance efficiency of urban sports facilities for older adults, offering operable reference for age‑friendly facility planning and daily operation.
Downloads
References
[1] World Health Organization, Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2007.
[2] World Health Organization, Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2018.
[3] Imrie R, Hall P. Inclusive design: Designing and developing accessible environments. Taylor & Francis; 2003 Sep 2.
[4] Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA, Sharit J. Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and aging. 2006 Jun;21(2):333. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
[5] Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view1. MIS quarterly. 2003 Sep 1;27(3):425-78. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
[6] Norman Donald A. The design of everyday things. MIT Press; 2013.
[7] Governance OS. Challenges and the Way Forward. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France. 2023.
[8] Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M. Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government information quarterly. 2014 Jan 1;31(1):17-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.04.003
[9] Brooke J. Sus: a “quick and dirty’usability. Usability evaluation in industry. 1996 Jun 11;189(3):189-94.
[10] Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten JW, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne PE, Bouwman J. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific data. 2016 Mar 15;3(1):160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18
[11] Buffel T, Handler S, Phillipson C. Age-Friendly cities and communities. Oxford University Press; 2018.
[12] Broekhuizen K, Scholten AM, de Vries SI. The value of (pre) school playgrounds for children’s physical activity level: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2014 May 3;11(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-11-59
[13] Sanders EB, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design. 2008 Mar 1;4(1):5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
[14] Ashby MF. Materials and sustainable development. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2022 Jun 26.
[15] Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SS. Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Canadian medical association journal. 2006 Mar 14;174(6):801-9. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351
[16] Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika. 1951 Sep;16(3):297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
[17] International Organization for Standardization, ISO 21542:2021, Building Construction—Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2021.
[18] International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 25010:2023, Systems and Software Engineering—Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2023.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ruyao Gong, Nan Ge, Yu Ding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which permits copying, redistributing, remixing, transformation, and building upon the material in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.
