Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: Research to Strengthen Policy and Practice

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, a global age-friendly movement has emerged with aspirations to make environments and systems within localities more supportive of long and healthy lives. Despite growth in the social movement over the past decade, research on how to work toward community change, especially in systematic and comprehensive ways across diverse geopolitical and sociocultural contexts, has been relatively slower to develop. This special issue of the Journal of Aging & Social Policy aims to accelerate this area. It features articles that advance knowledge on processes and contexts toward enhancing the age-friendliness of cities and communities. In this introductory essay, we provide background on the age-friendly cities and communities movement -including its accomplishments alongside key challenges. We then discuss the importance of research at the intersection of policy and practice to strengthen the movement into the 21st century. Next, we introduce the articles in this special issue, organized under four themes: implementation and sustainability processes; partnerships and multisectoral collaboration; theory-based program design; and policy and practice diffusion. A final article provides an overview of the career contributions of Dr. Frank Caro, an age-friendly champion and gerontologist to whom this special issue is dedicated.

Age segregation and housing unaffordability: Generational divides in housing opportunities and spatial polarisation in England and Wales

“…Some scholars see residential age segregation as beneficial on the basis of efficient service provision to improve older people’s health and wellbeing, and for the pursuit of personal self-actualisation (Golant, 1985; Lloyd et al, 2014). Alternative perspectives express concern that places may become more age uniform, with potentially negative outcomes due to reduced cross-age interactions (Hagestad and Uhlenberg, 2006; Riley and Riley, 2000; Uhlenberg, 2000), which may undermine ‘productive ageing’ and age-friendly communities (Greenfield and Buffel, 2022; Lager et al, 2015; World Health Organization, 2007). In this paper our concern is with the underlying drivers of spatial polarisation; the extent to which housing markets may shape residential patterns, differentially for age groups, such that we see intergenerational residential separation as a by-product of the geographically uneven accessibility of housing, with potential implications for social cohesion.…”

Strategic Policies to Support the Independence and Interaction of Older Adults: A Leadership Model That Is Inclusive of Local Businesses

“…The proposed leadership model encompasses continual attention to the needs of the elderly, policy implementation, review and preparation for iterative enhancements (Canel et al, 2022). This iterative process reinforces the integration of local business sectors into urban planning, recognising that collaboration with local enterprises is integral to a successful, age-friendly city (Greenfield & Buffel, 2022). The integration of local businesses augments the fabric of age-friendly urban development.…”

“…Previous studies have emphasised the urgency of addressing challenges posed by ageing populations in urban contexts. Greenfield and Buffel (2022) underscored the necessity for urban planning that considers the health and social cohesion of older adults, while Szewczenko et al (2023) highlighted the significance of barrier-free infrastructure to empower older adults to utilise urban environments for self-fulfilment. Prior research has examined various aspects, such as accessible public spaces, transportation networks and opportunities for social engagement.…”

Activity-friendly environments for active aging: The physical, social, and technology environments

“…In 2007, WHO proposed a framework for age-friendly cities containing eight interrelated domains covering the physical, socio-cultural, technological, and service environments (7). Despite its popularity as an original and comprehensive framework, it does not fully consider the heterogeneity of older adults and equity issues, and has limited applications/implications in middle-to-low-income countries (8)(9)(10)(11).…”