URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa145630 DOI: 10.11143/fennia.145630 Living close to nature: how older adults in Sweden navigate relocation in later life EMMA LANDBY & KRISTIN GODTMAN KLING Landby, E. & Kling, K. G. (2025) Living close to nature: how older adults in Sweden navigate relocation in later life. Fennia 164–181. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.145630 Spending time in nature has many benefits for older individuals’ health and well-being and is often closely tied to personal identity. As individuals age, their activity spaces typically become more geographically limited to areas near their homes. Therefore, having access to nearby nature environments is crucial for maintaining their habits of engaging with nature. This study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining survey data and interviews with older adults in two Swedish municipalities, to explore what proximity to nature means to them and how it influences their relocation decisions. The findings highlight that the relationship between individuals and nature environments can be lifelong and deeply embedded in their identity; something they wish to preserve in later life. However, various individual and societal constraints can complicate the ability to prioritise proximity to nature when moving. We argue that access to nature for older adults should be more prominently considered in policy planning, as it is currently underrepresented. It is essential to provide housing options with nature nearby, whether individuals choose to age in place or relocate to improve access to other amenities. Keywords: moving decisions, proximity to nature, meaning of place, geographical gerontology, time geography, constraints Emma Landby (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4642-2711), Kristin Godtman Kling (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8243-9046), Department of Economics, Law, Geography and Tourism, Mid Sweden University, Sweden. E-mail: emma. landby@miun.se, kristin.godtmankling@miun.se Introduction People are living longer and often remain healthy well into later life, especially in the Global North, prompting growing research interest in their everyday experiences (Gagliardi & Piccinini 2019). One emerging research strand explores outdoor leisure among older adults (Vilhelmson et al. 2022; Vilhelmson & Thulin 2022). Walking plays a key role, not only as transport and recreation, but also as a health-promoting activity (Sugiyama & Ward Thompson 2008). Green spaces and appealing nature environments support such activities and contribute positively to well-being. However, as mobility becomes more localised and individuals’ activity space decreases, often due to health or accessibility concerns, the need for nearby nature grows (Kemperman & Timmermans 2014). Recent studies have focused on residential relocation in later life, examining housing preferences and motives for moving © 2025 by the author. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.145630 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4642-2711 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8243-9046 mailto:emma.landby@miun.se mailto:emma.landby@miun.se mailto:kristin.godtmankling@miun.se FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 165Emma Landby & Kristin Godtman Kling (Pettersson & Malmberg 2009; Abramsson & Andersson 2015; Granbom et al. 2016). While many do relocate, a growing number prefer to remain in familiar environments (Wiles et al. 2012; de Jong et al. 2022). Despite increased attention to relocation and the recognised value of nature for well-being, these areas of research remain largely disconnected. Studies on older individuals’ internal relocation and residential choices rarely consider nature as a factor influencing decisions to move or stay in the Nordic context. Understanding how nature influences relocation decisions is vital for aligning housing options with residential preferences and supporting active, healthy ageing (Freeman et al. 2019). This study addresses that gap by using a mixed-methods design, combining a survey and interviews with older adults living in Sweden. We explore how proximity to nature shapes residential choices, focusing on two key questions: first, what living close to nature means to individuals in later life, and second, how socio-demographic factors, current routines, and opportunities for engaging with nature influence the value placed on proximity to nature when considering relocation. We address the first question through interview data and open-ended survey responses, while the second draws primarily on survey data, with interviews adding depth and nuance. We apply a time-geographical framework to examine how various constraints shape relocation decisions and access to nature, recognising that these constraints and opportunities evolve over time (Hägerstrand 1970). Drawing on a relational perspective, we highlight the interplay between personal and environmental factors in shaping individuals’ ability to engage with nature and choose where to live (Iwarsson & Ståhl 2003). We also incorporate insights from geographical and rural gerontology, acknowledging that people living in nature rich areas often maintain strong emotional and identity- based ties to nature. Land and landscape frequently influence daily routines, place attachment, and decisions about ageing in place (Scharf et al. 2016; Skinner et al. 2021). Together, these perspectives frame our investigation into how access to nature informs residential choices and experiences of ageing. We use the term  ‘move’  to refer to both local relocation and internal migration across longer distances, reflecting the range of mobility captured in our data. While migration and nature have been increasingly acknowledged in literature on forced migration due to climate change, this paper is delimited to focus on moving within Sweden with nature being a pull rather than push factor. The term ‘older individuals’ refers to individuals typically considered ‘old’ based on chronological age (from retirement age onwards), while recognising that self-perceptions of ageing vary. In Sweden, retirement often begins around age 65, though this differs across individuals. Finally, we approach ‘nature’ as a multifaceted concept shaped by personal interpretations. In this study, participants could hold their own understandings of what nature means to them. Rather than relying on a strict urban–rural divide, we treat nature as present across contexts, shaped by relationships and lived experiences. In this sense, nature may refer to expansive reserves, but equally to urban parks or even a private garden. Following this introduction, we review existing research on nature engagement and mobility in later life. We then outline our analytical framework, integrating concepts from time geography and rural/geographical gerontology. The next section describes the study’s geographical context and summarises housing policies relevant to older adults in the selected areas. We then detail our mixed- methods approach, including survey and interview procedures, followed by the results and a concluding discussion that reflects on key findings, contributions, limitations, and suggestions for future research. Use of nature and the moving patterns of older individuals Studies from a Swedish context show that many individuals spend more time outdoors during the transition to retirement and into later life (Vilhelmson & Thulin 2022; Vilhelmson et al. 2022). Outdoor activity offers a range of health benefits and can also enhance social life and access to nature has been linked to reduced social isolation and improved well-being (Kemperman & Timmermans 2014). Nature environments also offer greater health benefits for walking compared to urban street settings (Kabisch et al. 2021). Beyond social interaction, nature can foster place attachment and a positive sense of place, contributing to emotional well-being and continuity in everyday life (Yung Esther et al. 2017). 166 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper Different types of nature, such as urban green spaces and rural natural landscapes, offer distinct characteristics and support varied activities. These environments often complement one another (Grahn et al. 2023), but for those with limited mobility or transport options, having  some  nature nearby is preferable to none (Kemperman & Timmermans 2014; Yung Esther et al. 2017). Although public discourse often prioritises large rural nature areas, Wallin (2023) offers a more nuanced view, showing that urban residents in apartment buildings can have good access to nature (and not only parks) nearby. These nearby environments play a central role in shaping person–place relationships and identity. Moreover, individuals’ relationships with nature, and the types of nature they value, can shift over time. As personal circumstances change, such as health-related constraints, preferences and possibilities for nature engagement may also evolve. For some, private or community gardens become increasingly significant as more expansive nature areas become less accessible (Freeman et al. 2019). These shifts in nature engagement often coincide with broader life changes, including residential relocation. Contrary to common assumptions, relocation in later life is relatively frequent, for instance in Sweden (Abramsson & Andersson 2015). According to Litwak and Longino’s (1987) life-course migration model, motivations for moving after retirement vary. Some individuals relocate based on lifestyle preferences, while others move to improve accessibility due to health-related constraints. These differences highlight the distinction between preference-driven and constraint-driven relocation (Coulter & Scott 2015). Geographical patterns also vary. Newly retired individuals often move from central to more peripheral areas (Abramsson & Andersson 2015), while older individuals relocate from rural to urban settings and shift from single-family homes to apartments (Abramsson & Andersson 2012). Most moves among older adults in Sweden occur within the same neighbourhood or municipality, with the oldest individuals typically relocating the shortest distances (Granbom et al. 2016). Although a significant proportion of people relocate in later life, most remain in the same home, often into very old age (Abramsson & Andersson 2012). This trend reflects a growing preference to age in place, often driven by place attachment and established social networks (Wiles et al. 2012; Davey et al. 2014). According to Abramson and Andersson (2012), having a large garden connected to one’s home decreases the probability that a person will move, which might be related to an interest in actively engaging with nature (Freeman et al. 2019). Importantly, many older individuals, just like the general contemporary population in the Global North, live in urban areas due to long-lasting urbanisation trends (Pettersson 2001), and ageing in place often means remaining in urban settings. However, accessing larger nature environments often requires transport when living in an urban setting. While car access remains common well into later life in Sweden, overall mobility tends to decline with age (Elldér et al. 2023). This makes proximity to nature increasingly important for supporting continued outdoor activity, even when mobility becomes limited (Kemperman & Timmermans 2014). To support nature engagement despite mobility constraints, urban green spaces must be within walking distance (Yung Esther et al. 2017). Also in rural areas, while nature may be physically closer, mobility constraints can negatively impact their possibilities to actually engage with nature. As Louma-Halkola (2025) argues, there is a distinction between ageing in place and ageing well in place, where the latter requires opportunities for outdoor mobility and social connection, not just remaining at home. Here, sufficient transport options are key to enable rural ageing. A relational framework integrating place, individuals, and constraints This study integrates concepts from geographical gerontology, particularly rural gerontology, and time geography to explore how place, specifically nature, influences relocation decisions in later life. The framework considers both personal attachment to nature and the structural and individual constraints that shape opportunities to engage with natural environments. Geographical gerontology examines how place, space, and environment affect experiences and well-being in later life (Andrews et al. 2018). It explores how individuals interact with their surroundings and how these interactions inform decisions about ageing in place or relocating (Wiles et al. 2012; Golant 2018). The field also emphasises spatial belonging and the role of place in shaping identity FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 167Emma Landby & Kristin Godtman Kling across the life course (Rowles 2018). These relationships often evolve, especially in later life, as new constraints, such as health or mobility limitations, affect engagement with place (Louma-Halkola 2025). However, as Phillips (2018) notes, geographical gerontology has largely focused on urban contexts, often overlooking the distinct experiences of those living in rural or peripheral areas (see also Skinner & Winterton 2018). Given this study’s focus on nature, rural gerontology offers a valuable lens for understanding how rurality intersects with the social, economic, and personal dimensions of later life (Scharf et al. 2016). A core principle in this field is that ageing is place-bound, shaped by the geographic and socio-spatial characteristics of rural areas, such as distance from services, financial constraints, and reliance on informal networks (Kafková & Vidovičová 2025). Importantly, ‘rural’ is not solely a geographic category (Skinner & Winterton 2018). Deeply embedded meanings of place, routine, and identity influence how individuals experience rural ageing (Kafková & Vidovičová 2025). Understanding rural ageing therefore requires attention to micro-level experiences, including values and identities tied to place (Golant 2018; Skinner & Winterton 2018). Moreover, rural gerontology challenges the binary view of urban versus rural ageing, questioning the assumption that urban ageing represents a normative model to which rural ageing should aspire. Instead, the field emphasises the diversity of rural settings and older populations, spatial inequalities, and the need to integrate lived experiences with structural and policy perspectives. As ageing populations grow across Europe, rural gerontology offers valuable tools for analysing the intersection of age and place and for guiding age-inclusive planning across varied geographic contexts (Phillipson & Scharf 2005). While gerontological research increasingly acknowledges the role of space in shaping later-life experiences, the temporal dimension has received less attention (Phillips 2018). To understand how engagement with space, and particularly nature, evolves over time, a time-geographical perspective is useful. Time geography emphasises the inseparability of time and space, offering tools to analyse how constraints shape everyday mobility and access (Hägerstrand 1970). Research applying a time– space lens to older adults’ activities shows that although retirement often brings more discretionary time, spatial engagement may be restricted by various constraints (Elldér et al. 2023). These limitations can affect opportunities to age in place or complicate how that experience unfolds (Golant 2018). Time geography identifies three types of constraints that shape individuals’ spatial opportunities.  ‘Capability constraints’  refer to limitations related to physical, biological, or mental conditions, which often intensify with health issues or disabilities (Ellegård 2019). From a relational perspective, these constraints may shift in response to  ‘authority constraints’, which are external factors such as laws, regulations, and power structures that influence access and mobility (Hägerstrand 1970). Here, geographical gerontology acknowledges that places vary in accessibility and availability for people in later life (Phillips 2018). The third category, ‘coupling constraints’, arises when individuals must be physically present with others or with specific tools to carry out activities. These constraints are common within households and may also involve interactions with transport systems or assistive devices (Landby 2023). A relational perspective on place, space, and constraints recognises that barriers to engaging with nature rarely operate in isolation. Instead, they emerge through the interaction of personal and environmental factors. For example, health-related challenges may introduce new constraints, but their impact depends on whether the surrounding environment supports or limits access (Iwarsson & Ståhl 2003). As circumstances shift, individuals may re-evaluate how they perceive and engage with places like nature (Andrews et al. 2018). Geographical context and planning for the ageing population Places and spaces, such as housing, neighbourhoods, and broader societal structures, play a central role in shaping individuals’ opportunities (Phillips 2018). Planning efforts increasingly aim to provide accessible housing that supports ageing in place (Rowles 2018) and promotes age-friendly communities (Golant 2018). This study is situated in Sweden, a country with a long-standing trend of population ageing, high longevity, and strong norms around active ageing (Davey et al. 2014). 168 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper A proposition from the Swedish Government (2018) states that housing for older adults should be attractive, accessible, and available. What constitutes attractive housing is inherently personal and contextual. A Swedish Government Official Report (SOU 2015) notes that individuals in rural areas often prioritise proximity to nature, while those in urban settings value access to services and cultural amenities. These differing preferences present challenges for municipalities, which are responsible for providing suitable housing that reflects local socio-demographic conditions. However, many municipalities face shortages of accessible housing and lack strategies to meet the evolving needs of an ageing population (National Board of Health and Welfare 2021). Although national reports highlight the importance of housing for older adults, there is no official planning guidance on how to incorporate nature in close proximity to dwellings, despite its recognised value for well-being and mobility. This study focuses on two municipalities in mid-Sweden: Östersund and Härnösand. Both feature medium-sized urban centres surrounded by smaller villages, with large rural areas characterised by forested landscapes and protected nature environments. Östersund lies near a mountain region, while Härnösand is situated on the east coast (see Figure 1). Each municipality offers access to urban green spaces and larger nature reserves. Östersund has approximately 65,000 residents, and Härnösand around 25,000. In recent decades, both have experienced out-migration to other parts of Sweden, and their overall populations are expected to decline. At the same time, the proportion of residents aged 65 and over is projected to increase (Statistics Sweden 2021). The two municipalities thus constitute interesting cases regarding how the demographic challenges of an ageing population can be met, in the context of nature experiences and outdoor activities as a means to healthy ageing. FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 169Emma Landby & Kristin Godtman Kling Fig. 1. Map of Sweden with the locations of Östersund and Härnösand being squared. Map from iStockphoto. 170 FENNIA 203(2) (2025)Research paper Härnösand’s municipal vision promotes inclusivity and accessibility for all residents. However, official planning documents primarily focus on service provision and access to the city centre, with limited attention to disparities in nature access across socio-demographic groups (Härnösand Municipality 2019). The comprehensive plan acknowledges that many older adults prefer to remain in familiar neighbourhoods, and this preference informs housing development strategies. Urban densification is prioritised in the city centre, alongside a stated commitment to preserving green spaces. The plan sets a goal of ensuring green areas within 300 metres of homes and workplaces and emphasises the importance of maintaining larger protected nature areas, positioning nature conservation as equally important to infrastructure development. While the plan mentions access to nature via cycling and public transport for the general population, it does not address the specific needs of older adults. More broadly, it lacks a nuanced understanding of how socio-demographic factors influence nature access (Härnösand Municipality 2022). Östersund’s comprehensive plan also identifies accessibility as a key component of a socially sustainable society. The municipality acknowledges the need to better accommodate older adults, particularly in relation to housing and the physical environment (Östersund Municipality 2022). It states that all residents should be able to access, live in, and transition to appropriate housing as their needs evolve. Like Härnösand, Östersund prioritises urban densification in its city centre, while emphasising the importance of maintaining green spaces near residential areas to support physical activity. However, unlike Härnösand, the plan does not specify a target distance, such as 300 metres, for proximity to green areas (Östersund Municipality 2022). While the plan promotes general access to nature, it lacks specific strategies addressing the needs of older adults and does not consider socio- demographic variation in nature access. A mixed-methods research design Data collection This mixed-methods study draws on a quantitative survey and twelve semi-structured interviews with individuals in later life. The survey was conducted in both Östersund and Härnösand, while the interviews focused on residents in Östersund. To preserve anonymity, specific neighbourhoods and streets are referred to using fictitious names. Researchers from the project conducted individual semi-structured interviews in 2020. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling (Tashakkori et al. 2021), in collaboration with two senior citizens’ organisations and municipal centres for older adults. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, all interviews were conducted by phone. Two researchers participated in each interview; one leading the conversation and the other taking notes. Interviews lasted approximately one hour, were conducted in Swedish, recorded with consent, and later transcribed for analysis. In total, twelve interviews were conducted with participants aged 75–89, including four men and eight women. At the time of the interviews, eight participants lived alone, and four lived together with a partner. Six of the respondents had their own cars and drove themselves, and one had a car they used only during the summer. Five respondents currently resided in a house, four lived in a flat, and three respondents resided in a retirement home. Survey data were collected in 2023 using purposive, self-selection sampling (Tashakkori et al. 2021), targeting individuals aged 65 and older in Östersund and Härnösand. The survey, distributed by post, explored accessibility, outdoor activity frequency and experiences, perceived health, and factors that enable or hinder participation in outdoor activities. It included both single- and multiple-choice questions, along with open-ended items allowing respondents to elaborate. Recruitment was supported by senior citizens’ organisations, which invited individuals to register their interest by providing their name and postal address. Additionally, a Facebook campaign ran for three months, targeting residents aged 65+ in the two municipalities. Registered participants received the survey by regular mail. The final sample consists of 250 respondents. FENNIA 203(2) (2025) 171Emma Landby & Kristin Godtman Kling Survey data The dependent variable in the survey analysis is the question: ‘How important is closeness to nature in your moving decisions?’.  Respondents rated their answers on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 5 = very important). An open-ended response option accompanied this question, yielding 96 qualitative answers, which were analysed separately (see below). Independent variables were selected to reflect respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics and their current opportunities and routines related to spending time in nature. These variables are presented in Table 1. Tab. 1. Variables included in the analyses Variable Categories (%) Sex Woman (74), Man (26) Age <75 yrs. (50.8), ≥75 yrs. (49.2) Marital status Married/cohabitating (58.3), Widow/-er, living alone (41.7) Level of education No university education (35.9), University education (64.1) Disability/chronic illness Yes (44.7), No (55.3) Frequency of visits in nature