Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-22rqw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-26T20:20:17.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Age-friendly cities and communities: a review and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Alex Torku Open the ORCID record for Alex Torku [Opens in a new window] ,
Albert Ping Chuen Chan  and
Esther Hiu Kwan Yung
Alex Torku*
Affiliation:
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Albert Ping Chuen Chan
Affiliation:
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Esther Hiu Kwan Yung
Affiliation:
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
*
*Corresponding author. Email: alex.torku@connect.polyu.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The unprecedented increase in the ageing population, coupled with urbanisation, has led to a vast number of research publications on age-friendly cities and communities (AFCC). However, the existing reviews on AFCC studies are not sufficiently up-to-date for AFCC researchers. This paper presents a thorough analysis of the annual publication trend, the contributions of authors and institutions from different countries, and the trending research themes in the AFCC research corpus through a systematic review of 98 publications. A contribution assessment formula and thematic analysis were used for the review. The results indicated a growing AFCC research interest in recent times. Researchers and institutions from the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom and Hong Kong made the highest contribution to the AFCC research corpus. The thematic analysis classified the AFCC research corpus into four main themes: conceptualisation; implementation and development; assessment; and challenges and opportunities. The themes indicate the current and future research patterns and issues to be considered in the development of AFCC and for interested researchers to make proposals for future research. Future directions are proposed, including suggestions on adopting new assessment methods and instruments, collaboration and cross-nation comparative research, considering older adults as place-makers and conducting a prior participatory analysis to maximise the participation of older adults.

Keywords

age-friendly cities and communitiesreviewresearch trend

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 41 , Issue 10 , October 2021 , pp. 2242 - 2279
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aboderin, I, Kano, M and Owii, HA (2017) Toward ‘age-friendly slums’? Health challenges of older slum dwellers in Nairobi and the applicability of the age-friendly city approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, 1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alidoust, S and Bosman, C (2016) Boomer planning: the production of age-friendly cities. Built Environment 42, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alley, D, Liebig, P, Pynoos, J, Banerjee, T and Choi, IH (2007) Creating elder-friendly communities: preparations for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 49, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrews, B (2008) Lifetime homes, lifetime neighbourhoods – developing a housing strategy for our ageing population. Policy and Politics 36, 605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antwi-Afari, MF, Li, H, Pärn, EA and Edwards, DJ (2018) Critical success factors for implementing building information modelling (BIM): a longitudinal review. Automation in Construction 91, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Au, AM, Chan, SC, Yip, HM, Kwok, JY, Lai, KY, Leung, KM, Lee, ALF, Lai, DWL, Tsien, T and Lai, SM (2017) Age-friendliness and life satisfaction of young-old and old-old in Hong Kong 2017. Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research. Article ID 6215917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Austin, C, McClelland, R, Sieppert, J, Holinda, D, Hartley, D and Flux, D (2001) A Place to Call Home: The Final Report of the Elder Friendly Communities Project. Calgary, Canada: Faculty of Social Work, The University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Austin, CD, Camp, ED, Flux, D, McClelland, RW and Sieppert, J (2005) Community development with older adults in their neighborhoods: the elder friendly communities program. Families in Society 86, 401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, JR and Montawi, B (2015) Age and the environment: the global movement towards age-friendly cities and communities. Journal of Social Work Practice 29, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigonnesse, C, Beaulieu, M and Garon, S (2014) Meaning of home in later life as a concept to understand older adults’ housing needs: results from the 7 age-friendly cities pilot project in Québec. Journal of Housing for the Elderly 28, 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookman, A (2008) Innovative models of aging in place: transforming our communities for an aging population. Community, Work & Family 11, 419–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brasher, K and Winterton, R (2016) Whose responsibility? Challenges to creating an age-friendly Victoria in the wider Australian policy context. In Moulaert, T and Garon, S (eds), Age-friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V and Clarke, V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffel, T and Phillipson, C (2016) Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations. Cities 55, 94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffel, T, Phillipson, C and Scharf, T (2012) Ageing in urban environments: developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Critical Social Policy 32, 597–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffel, T, McGarry, P, Phillipson, C, De Donder, L, Dury, S, De Witte, N, Smetcoren, A and Verté, D (2014) Developing age-friendly cities: case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 26, 52–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadegani, AA, Salehi, H, Yunus, M, Farhadi, H, Fooladi, M, Farhadi, M and Ale Ebrahim, N (2013) A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science 9, 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, AW, Chan, HY, Chan, IK, Cheung, BY and Lee, DT (2016) An age-friendly living environment as seen by Chinese older adults: a ‘photovoice’ study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, 913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chao, TS and Huang, H (2016) The East Asian age-friendly cities promotion – Taiwan's experience and the need for an oriental paradigm. Global Health Promotion 23, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, M and Kim, J (2016) Coupling urban regeneration with age-friendliness: neighborhood regeneration in Jangsu Village, Seoul. Cities 58, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chodzko-Zajko, W and Schwingel, A (2009) Transnational strategies for the promotion of physical activity and active aging: the World Health Organization model of consensus building in international public health. Quest 61, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
City of Cornwall (2017) Senior Friendly Community Implementation Plan. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Senior-Friendly-Community-Implementation-Plan-February-2017.pdf.Google Scholar
City of Greater Sudbury (2018) Age-friendly Community Update. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Age-Friendly-Community-Council-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
City of Reykjavik (2013) The Policy of the City of Reykjavik Regarding the Elderly Until 2017. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ReykjavikSeniorsPolicy_2013-17.pdf.Google Scholar
Cohen, WM, Nelson, RR and Walsh, JP (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, S, Wacker, R and Roberto, K (2013) Considering quality of life for older adults: a view from two countries. Generations 37, 80–86.Google Scholar
Cramm, JM, Van Dijk, HM and Nieboer, AP (2018) The creation of age-friendly environments is especially important to frail older people. Ageing & Society 38, 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CUHK Jockey Club Institute of Ageing (2016) Jockey Club Age-friendly City Project Action Plan for Tai Po District. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Tai-Po-District_Action-Plan.pdf.Google Scholar
Darko, A and Chan, AP (2016) Critical analysis of green building research trend in construction journals. Habitat International 57, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Donder, L, Buffel, T, Dury, S, De Witte, N and Verte, D (2013) Perceptual quality of neighbourhood design and feelings of unsafety. Ageing & Society 33, 917–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLaTorre, A and Neal, MB (2017) Ecological approaches to an age-friendly Portland and Multnomah County. Journal of Housing for the Elderly 31, 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Barrio, E, Marsillas, S, Buffel, T, Smetcoren, AS and Sancho, M (2018) From active aging to active citizenship: the role of (age) friendliness. Social Sciences 7, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellamora, MC, Zecevic, AA, Baxter, D, Cramp, A, Fitzsimmons, D and Kloseck, M (2015) Review of assessment tools for baseline and follow-up measurement of age-friendliness. Ageing International 40, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, P and Xie, L (2015) The use of law to protect and promote age-friendly environment. Journal of Social Work Practice 29, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin of St. Thomas (2017) Age Friendly Community Plan. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Elgin-St-Thomas-Age-Friendly-Final-Report-2017-3.pdf.Google Scholar
Elsawahli, H, Ahmad, F and Ali, AS (2017) A qualitative approach to understanding the neighborhood environmental influences on active aging. Journal of Design and Built Environment 17, 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emlet, CA and Moceri, JT (2012) The importance of social connectedness in building age-friendly communities. Journal of Aging Research 2019, Article ID 173247.Google Scholar
Farrelly, L (2014) Redefining, reinventing and realigning design for demographic change. Architectural Design.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, PH and Oberlink, MR (2003) The AdvantAge initiative: developing community indicators to promote the health and well-being of older people. Family & Community Health 26, 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, NL, Adorno, G, Magruder, K, Parekh, R and Felderhoff, BJ (2016) Age-friendly cities: the role of churches. Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging 28, 264–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, KG and Caro, FG (2014) An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frau, G (2015) Natural perceptual wayfinding for urban accessibility of the elderly with early-stage AD. Techne.Google Scholar
Garon, S, Paris, M, Beaulieu, M, Veil, A and Laliberté, A (2014) Collaborative partnership in age-friendly cities: two case studies from Quebec, Canada. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 26, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, L, Owusu, S, Smith, C, Martens, D and Lynch, M (2016) Age-friendly New York City: a case study. In Moulaert, T and Garon, S (eds), Age-friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G (2013) Age-friendly cities of Europe. Journal of Urban Health 90, 116–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, EA (2012) Using ecological frameworks to advance a field of research, practice, and policy on aging-in-place initiatives. The Gerontologist 52, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenfield, EA and Mauldin, RL (2017) Participation in community activities through Naturally Occurring Retirement Community (NORC) Supportive Service Programs. Ageing & Society 37, 1987–2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, EA, Oberlink, M, Scharlach, AE, Neal, MB and Stafford, PB (2015) Age-friendly community initiatives: conceptual issues and key questions. The Gerontologist 55, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, D and Emlet, CA (2006) Assessing a community's elder friendliness: a case example of The AdvantAge Initiative. Family & Community Health 29, 266–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harding, ED (2007) Towards Lifetime Neighbourhoods: Designing Sustainable Communities for All. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, S, Silverwood, RJ, Armstrong, B, Pliakas, T, Nanchalal, K, Jefferis, BJ, Sartini, C, Amuzu, AA, Wannamethee, SG, Ramsay, SE, Casas, JP, Morris, RW, Whincup, PH and Lock, K (2018) Investigating associations between the built environment and physical activity among older people in 20 UK towns. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 72, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hensen, KT (2009) Writing for publication: a shift in perspective. Phi Delta Kappan 90, 776a–776d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, JA, Kwan, C, Shaw, M and Lai, DW (2018) Developing age-friendly social participation strategies: service providers’ perspectives about organizational and sector readiness for aging baby boomers. Activities, Adaptation & Aging 42, 225–249.Google Scholar
Hong, Y, Chan, DW, Chan, AP and Yeung, JF (2011) Critical analysis of partnering research trend in construction journals. Journal of Management in Engineering 28, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, GS, Cole, DA and Maxwell, SE (1987) Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist 42, 975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howitt, D and Cramer, D (2011) Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology, 3rd Edn. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Isaacson, M, D'Ambrosio, L, Samanta, T and Coughlin, J (2015) Life-stage and mobility: an exploratory GPS study of mobility in multigenerational families, Ahmedabad, India. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 27, 348–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jeste, DV, Blazer II, DG, Buckwalter, KC, Cassidy, KLK, Fishman, L, Gwyther, LP, Levin, SM, Phillipson, C, Rao, RR, Schmeding, E and Vega, WA (2016) Age-friendly communities initiative: public health approach to promoting successful aging. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 24, 1158–1170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, R, Hofacker, J, Boyken, L and Eisenstein, A (2016) Sustaining Chicago's informal caregivers: an age-friendly approach. Journal of Urban Health 93, 639–651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joy, M (2018) Problematizing the age friendly cities and communities program in Toronto. Journal of Aging Studies 47, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadoya, Y (2013) Toward an age-friendly city: the constraints preventing the elderly's participation in community programs in Akita city. Working with Older People 17, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalache, A (2016) Active ageing and age-friendly cities – a personal account. In Moulaert, T and Garon, S (eds), Age-friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendig, H, Elias, AM, Matwijiw, P and Anstey, K (2014) Developing age-friendly cities and communities in Australia. Journal of Aging and Health 26, 1390–1414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerbler, B (2015) Population ageing and urban space. Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies. Series historia et sociologia 25, 33–48.Google Scholar
Kihl, M, Breenan, D, Gabhawala, N, List, J and Mittal, P (2005) Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
Kim, J, Ahn, CR and Nam, Y (2019) The influence of built environment features on crowdsourced physiological responses of pedestrians in neighborhoods. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 75, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M and Kim, K (2017) Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendliness in Busan Metropolitan City. Urban Policy and Research 35, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J and Yoo, SK (2018) Design of user-customized negative emotion classifier based on feature selection using physiological signal sensors. Sensors 18, 4253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehning, A, Scharlach, A and Wolf, JP (2012) An emerging typology of community aging initiatives. Journal of Community Practice 20, 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddle, J, Scharf, T, Bartlam, B, Bernard, M and Sim, J (2014) Exploring the age-friendliness of purpose-built retirement communities: evidence from England. Ageing & Society 34, 1601–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, TJ, Lin, TC, Potvin, P and Tsai, CC (2018) Research trends in science education from 2013 to 2017: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
Liu, LC, Kuo, HW and Lin, CC (2018) Current status and policy planning for promoting age-friendly cities in Taitung County: dialogue between older adults and service providers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 2314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lowe, M, Whitzman, C, Badland, H, Davern, M, Aye, L, Hes, D, Butterworth, I and Giles-Corti, B (2015) Planning healthy, liveable and sustainable cities: how can indicators inform policy? Urban Policy and Research 33, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowen, T, Davern, MT, Mavoa, S and Brasher, K (2015) Age-friendly cities and communities: access to services for older people. Australian Planner 52, 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Y, Wu, Z, Chang, R and Li, Y (2017) Building Information Modeling (BIM) for green buildings: a critical review and future directions. Automation in Construction 83, 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lui, CW, Everingham, JA, Warburton, J, Cuthill, M and Bartlett, H (2009) What makes a community age-friendly: a review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing 28, 116–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maltz, J, Hunter, C, Cohen, E and Wright, S (2014) Designing for a lifetime in New York and other US cities. Architectural Design.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGarry, P and Morris, J (2011) A great place to grow older: a case study of how Manchester is developing an age-friendly city. Working with Older People 15, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menec, VH, Means, R, Keating, N, Parkhurst, G and Eales, J (2011) Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement 30, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menec, VH, Brown, CL, Newall, NE and Nowicki, S (2016) How important is having amenities within walking distance to middle-aged and older adults, and does the perceived importance relate to walking? Journal of Aging and Health 28, 546–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G, Harris, G and Ferguson, I (2007) Bracing for the demographic tsunami: how will seniors fare in an aging society. Plan Canada 47, 20.Google Scholar
Minton, A (2009) Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-first Century City. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Mornington Peninsula Shire (2013) Mornington Peninsula: A Community for All Ages, Positive Ageing Strategy 2013–2018. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Mornington-Peninsula-Shire-Action-Plan.pdf.Google Scholar
Moulaert, T and Garon, S (2015) Researchers behind policy development: comparing ‘age-friendly cities’ models in Quebec and Wallonia. Journal of Social Work Practice 29, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulaert, T and Garon, S (2016) Introduction: Toward a better understanding of AFCC. In Moulaert, T and Garon, S (eds), Age-friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namazi-Rad, MR, Perez, P, Berryman, M and Wickramasuriya, R (2016) A semi-empirical determination of perceived liveability. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 129, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, MB, DeLaTorre, AK and Carder, PC (2014) Age-friendly Portland: a university–city–community partnership. Journal of Aging & Social Policy 26, 88–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neville, S, Napier, S, Adams, J, Wham, C and Jackson, D (2016) An integrative review of the factors related to building age-friendly rural communities. Journal of Clinical Nursing 25, 2402–2412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
New York City (2011) Age-friendly NYC: A Progress Report. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/usa-new-york-city-progress-report-2011/.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Social Development (2007) Positive Ageing Indicators 2007. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.Google Scholar
Novek, S and Menec, VH (2014) Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: a photovoice study. Ageing & Society 34, 1052–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojha, VK, Griego, D, Kuliga, S, Bielik, M, Buš, P, Schaeben, C, Treyer, L, Standfest, M, Schneider, S, König, R and Donath, D (2019) Machine learning approaches to understand the influence of urban environments on human's physiological response. Information Sciences 474, 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orpana, H, Chawla, M, Gallagher, E and Escaravage, E (2016) Developing indicators for evaluation of age-friendly communities in Canada: process and results. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice 36, 214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owusu, EK, Chan, AP and Shan, M (2019) Causal factors of corruption in construction project management: an overview. Science and Engineering Ethics 25, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parekh, R, Maleku, A, Fields, N, Adorno, G, Schuman, D and Felderhoff, B (2018) Pathways to age-friendly communities in diverse urban neighborhoods: do social capital and social cohesion matter? Journal of Gerontological Social Work 61, 492–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, S and Lee, S (2017) Age-friendly environments and life satisfaction among South Korean elders: person–environment fit perspective. Aging & Mental Health 21, 693–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plouffe, L, Kalache, A and Voelcker, I (2016) A critical review of the WHO age-friendly cities methodology and its implementation. In Moulaert, T and Garon, S (eds), Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rémillard-Boilard, S, Buffel, T and Phillipson, C (2017) Involving older residents in age-friendly developments: from information to coproduction mechanisms. Journal of Housing for the Elderly 31, 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sargisson, L (2010) Cohousing: A Utopian Property Alternative?. University of Nottingham: Centre for the Study of Social and Global Justice.Google Scholar
Savio, L, Bosia, D, Thiebat, F and Zhang, Y (2017) Age-friendly cities: spazio pubblico e spazio privato. Techne 14, 319–327.Google Scholar
Scharlach, A (2012) Creating aging-friendly communities in the United States. Ageing International 37, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sodhi, MS and Tang, CS (2018) Corporate social sustainability in supply chains: a thematic analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Research 56, 882–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, S (2015) Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: a review. Cities 47, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Y, Chao, TY, Woo, J and Au, DW (2017) An institutional perspective of ‘Glocalization’ in two Asian tigers: the ‘Structure–Agent–Strategy’ of building an age-friendly city. Habitat International 59, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Y, Phillips, DR and Wong, M (2018) A study of housing typology and perceived age-friendliness in an established Hong Kong new town: a person–environment perspective. Geoforum 88, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taj-Eldin, M, Ryan, C, O'Flynn, B and Galvin, P (2018) A review of wearable solutions for physiological and emotional monitoring for use by people with autism spectrum disorder and their caregivers. Sensors 18, 4271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temelová, J and Slezáková, A (2014) The changing environment and neighbourhood satisfaction in socialist high-rise panel housing estates: the time-comparative perceptions of elderly residents in Prague. Cities 37, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, L (2008) Planning for the seniors surge – one municipality's response. Plan Canada 48, 30–33.Google Scholar
Tsai, CC and Wen, M (2005) Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: a content analysis of publication in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education 27, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, SY, Chen, TY and Ning, CJ (2016) Elderly people's social support and walking space by space-time path. International Review for Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development 4, 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, HM, Cramm, JM, Van Exel, JOB and Nieboer, AP (2015) The ideal neighbourhood for ageing in place as perceived by frail and non-frail community-dwelling older people. Ageing & Society 35, 1771–1795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hoof, J, Kazak, J, Perek-Białas, J and Peek, S (2018) The challenges of urban ageing: making cities age-friendly in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, 2473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, A (2016) Population ageing from a global and theoretical perspective: European lessons on active ageing. In Moulaert, T and Garon, S (eds), Age-friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp. 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y, Gonzales, E and Morrow-Howell, N (2017) Applying WHO's age-friendly communities framework to a national survey in China. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 60, 215–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wild, KV, Mattek, N, Austin, D and Kaye, JA (2016) ‘Are you sure?’ Lapses in self-reported activities among healthy older adults reporting online. Journal of Applied Gerontology 35, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, M, Chau, PH, Cheung, F, Phillips, DR and Woo, J (2015) Comparing the age-friendliness of different neighbourhoods using district surveys: an example from Hong Kong. PLOS ONE 10, e0131526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, M, Yu, R and Woo, J (2017) Effects of perceived neighbourhood environments on self-rated health among community-dwelling older Chinese. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14, 614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (WHO), (1996) The Heidelberg guidelines for promoting physical activity among older persons: Guidelines Series for Healthy Ageing. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) Active Aging: A Policy Framework. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2007) Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2017) Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health. Available at https://www.who.int/ageing/WHO-GSAP-2017.pdf.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2018 a) Membership to the Global Network – Age-friendly World. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/membership/.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2018 b) The Global Network for Age-friendly Cities and Communities: Looking Back Over the Last Decade, Looking Forward to the Next. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) About the Global Network for Age-friendly Cities and Communities – Age-friendly World. Available at https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/who-network/.Google Scholar
Yuan, H and Shen, L (2011) Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Management 31, 670–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Q, Oo, BL and Lim, BTH (2019) Drivers, motivations, and barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility practices by construction enterprises: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 210, 563–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Torku et al. supplementary material

Torku et al. supplementary material

Download Torku et al. supplementary material(File)
File 33.3 KB