Livability For All: The AARP Age-Friendly Community Surveys

Binette, Joanne

doi:10.26419/res.00055.000

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, resources exist and interact in different ways in different communities. For example, transit-rich neighborhoods may not score high on housing because housing prices may rise [ 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using the methodology of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the team reported three response rates: average participation (49.1%), refusals (11.3%), and non-responses (4.4%). AARP [ 36 ] provides detailed information on its survey methodologies by area.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, they conceptualized a livability score of 50 as the average community. A score of 51 and over refers to above-average communities, while a score of 50 and below indicates average or below-average communities [ 36 ]. Following AARP guidelines, we allocated the sample into two groups: AFC (livability score of 51+, n = 2364) and non-AFC (score ≤ 50, n = 663).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Age-Friendly Communities and Older Adults’ Health in the United States

Kim

Buckley

Burnette

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As age-friendly community (AFC) initiatives grow, it will be essential to determine whether older adults who live in an AFC have better health than those who live in other environments. This study uses data from the 2017 AARP AFC Surveys and the AARP Livability Index to assess whether AFCs promote the health of older adults. We analyze data for 3027 adults aged 65 and older who reside in 262 zip code areas. Following AARP guidelines, we allocated the sample into two groups: an AFC group (livability score of 51+; n = 2364) and a non-AFC (score ≤ 50, n = 663). The outcome variable was self-rated health (M = 3.5; SD = 1.1; range: 1–5). We used an inverse probability weighting approach to evaluate whether older adults who live in an AFC reported better self-rated health than those who live in a non-AFC. Findings showed that older adults who lived in an AFC had better self-rated health than those in a non-AFC (b = 0.08, p = 0.027). Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Black and Hispanic older adults reported worse self-rated health. Inasmuch as living in an AFC can promote the well-being of older adults, policymakers and practitioners should continue to develop and sustain high-quality, accessible built and social environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Age-Friendly Communities and Older Adults’ Health in the United States

Kim

Buckley

Burnette

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The WHO defines an age-friendly city as a place that “encourages active aging by optimizing opportunities for health, participation, and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age” (World Health Organization 2007, 1). Similarly, drawing from an ecological perspective, Alley et al (2007, 4) define an “elder-friendly community” as “a place where older people are actively involved, valued, and supported with infrastructure and services that effectively accommodate their needs.” More recently, AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, has focused on livable communities with intergenerational links to “allow residents to age in place…[where] people of all ages can … make their city, town, or neighborhood a lifelong home” (Binette 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Communities Age-Friendly: Lessons From Implemented Programs

Forsyth

Lyu

2023

Journal of Planning Literature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of programs promoted by planners and others have aimed to foster communities that support older people. Do such programs make a substantial difference? Through a scoping review of research evaluating WHO-style age-friendly community initiatives (AFCIs), we investigate what kind of outcomes such initiatives have achieved and factors facilitating or hindering them. Elements affecting implementation varied by geographies. They included external resources (e.g., government support, funding, consultants), local resources (e.g., community size, demographics, staff, infrastructure), engaged local participants (e.g., partnerships, champions, older people), and effective strategies to build support (e.g., quick wins, awareness building, cultural sensitivity).

show abstract

“…As a first step in determining areas in which to improve livability for its residents, the nonprofit organization, The city Partnership for Families (NPFF), administered the 2019 AARP Community Survey ( Binnette, 2017 ). The online and print survey, offered in English and Spanish, asked respondents to assess the World Health Organization’s eight areas that influence health and quality of life: housing, outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, community support and health services, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, and communication and information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Follow Up to the AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey Through a Focus Group Study

Glasser

Smith²

2023

Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: In an effort to help communities plan for their burgeoning aging population, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has facilitated community surveys to enable older adults to rate the current state of their own community for “aging in place.” This Focus Group Study extended the findings of the AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey in a small-sized New England City, adding to our knowledge of an older adult population. Aim: In order to elicit the points of view of older adults in one small New England city, six focus groups were conducted via Zoom during the height of the pandemic, from the spring and fall of 2020 on the topic of aging in place. Method: The six focus groups had a total of 32 participants, all of whom were 65 years and older and living in the same New England city. Results: The challenges to aging in place small New England city that the focus group participants described included: knowing where to get complete and reliable information about vital services, the barriers to walkability, and the challenge of transportation when one can no longer safely drive. Conclusion: The Focus Group Study extended the findings of the AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey in a small-sized New England City through the voices of the older adults which led to a more nuanced understanding of what it takes to age in place. The results of the study were utilized by the city in order to write an action plan as a guide to becoming more age-friendly.

show abstract

Livability For All: The AARP Age-Friendly Community Surveys

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Age-Friendly Communities and Older Adults’ Health in the United States

Age-Friendly Communities and Older Adults’ Health in the United States

Making Communities Age-Friendly: Lessons From Implemented Programs

A Follow Up to the AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey Through a Focus Group Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About