Psychological heterogeneity and residential demands in early-stage aging: evidence from a human-environment systems framework.

Background: Research on home-based eldercare has increasingly moved beyond physical safety and accessibility to consider psychological wellbeing and everyday activity. However, older adults are still often treated as a homogeneous group. Less is known about how different psychological profiles are associated with residential preferences, activity patterns, and perceived environmental support among early-stage aging adults. Methods: This study focused on early-stage older adults and applied a human-environment systems framework to examine the relationships among psychological characteristics, residential conditions, and home-based activities. A total of 509 valid household questionnaires were collected in northern China between July and September 2025. Psychological profiles were identified using K-means clustering, and differences in residential preferences, activity patterns, and facility provision across psychological types were analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential tests. Results: Three psychological types were identified. Overall, 45.2% of respondents preferred living adjacent to their children, while lower-income participants showed a stronger tendency toward co-residence. Shared family meals and household chores were the most frequent activities, whereas participation in fitness, hobbies, and shared entertainment was limited. The psychologically vulnerable group exhibited poorer physical functioning, higher long-term medication use (49.5%), stronger preferences for low-brightness interior color schemes (χ Conclusion: This study provides cross-sectional and context-specific evidence that psychological profiles are associated with differences in residential preferences, activity participation, perceived environmental support, and facility demand among early-stage aging adults in northern China. The inclusive spatial design model should be understood as an evidence-informed design translation tool, rather than as a validated theory, causal model, or intervention protocol. Its implications are limited to preliminary guidance for aging-friendly housing assessment and housing-related public health intervention planning. Further validation through covariate-adjusted analysis, cluster-stability testing, independent samples, and longitudinal or intervention studies is required before broader theoretical, policy, or practice-level generalization.