INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5397 www.rsisinternational.org
Mapping the Components of Age-Friendly Communities for Aging in
Place
Noorlailahusna Mohd Yusof1*, Suziana Mat Yasin2
1Faculty of Administrative Science and Policy Studies, UiTM Cawangan Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani,
Malaysia
2School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000439
Received: 22 October 2025; Accepted: 30 October 2025; Published: 14 November 2025
ABSTRACT
The study examines the multidimensional components that define age-friendly communities and their role in
supporting aging in place. Drawing upon a synthesis of international literature and conceptual frameworks, it
maps out the critical domains that contribute to the creation of environments where older adults can live
independently, safely, and meaningfully. The study identifies four interrelated components that form the
foundation of age-friendly communities: the built environment, community engagement, social support systems,
and housing options. The built environment emphasizes accessibility, safety, and connectivity, enabling mobility
and participation. Community engagement promotes inclusivity, social interaction, and a sense of belonging
through active civic involvement and intergenerational connection. Social support systems provide essential
health, emotional, and care services that enhance the well-being and resilience of older adults. Housing options
highlight the importance of affordability, adaptability, and accessibility to accommodate diverse needs and life
stages. Together, these elements demonstrate that the success of aging in place depends on the integration of
physical infrastructure, social participation, and supportive policy frameworks. The conceptual mapping
highlights the importance of cross-sector collaboration, community co-production, and technological innovation
in strengthening age-friendly initiatives. By presenting a holistic synthesis of these components, this study offers
insights for policymakers, urban planners, and community stakeholders in developing sustainable and inclusive
environments that enable older adults to thrive in familiar settings, thereby fostering independence, dignity, and
social inclusion throughout the ageing process.
Keywords: Aging in place; age-friendly communities; built environment; community engagement; social
support systems
INTRODUCTION
Population aging has become one of the defining global demographic shifts of the 21st century, with profound
implications for societies, economies, and built environments. The World Health Organization (WHO) projects
that by 2050, one in six people in the world will be aged 65 years or older, marking a dramatic transformation
in population structure and social dynamics. This demographic transition emphasizes the urgency of rethinking
how communities are designed, organised, and supported to enable older adults to live independently, safely,
and meaningfully within their familiar environments, a concept widely referred to as aging in place (Alley et al.,
2007; Benefield & Holtzclaw, 2014). Broadly, aging in place represents not merely the physical act of remaining
in one’s home but also encompasses the social, psychological, and environmental conditions that foster
autonomy, belonging, and well-being in later life (Grimmer et al., 2015; Vega & González, 2012).
Despite global advocacy for age-friendly cities and communities, many localities continue to face barriers in
achieving these ideals. The growing heterogeneity of older populations, disparities in access to services, and
limitations in urban infrastructure contribute to inequalities in aging experiences (Jeste et al., 2016; Van Dijk et
al., 2015). Past research has identified critical components of age-friendly environments, including accessible
housing, transportation, healthcare, safety, and social participation, as integral to supporting aging in place (Alley
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5398 www.rsisinternational.org
et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2023; Finlay et al., 2021). Yet, these studies often treat these elements as discrete policy
targets rather than interconnected systems that collectively shape older adults’ lived experiences and capabilities
(Campbell et al., 2021; Lipsitz, 2020).
While extensive literature has examined specific facilitators or barriers to aging in place, fewer studies have
sought to conceptualize what constitutes an ideal community that holistically supports this process. Empirical
investigations often focus on physical infrastructure or healthcare accessibility, overlooking the relational,
psychological, and technological dimensions that sustain independence and participation (LaFave et al., 2021;
Chum et al., 2022). This fragmented understanding limits the development of comprehensive frameworks and
context-sensitive strategies for designing inclusive communities that align with older adults’ aspirations and
functional capacities. Hence, there is a pressing need to integrate multidisciplinary perspectives to identify the
essential characteristics, enabling factors, and emerging innovations that define an ideal aging-in-place
community.
This study aims to analyse the evolving concept of an ideal community for aging in place by synthesising diverse
literature and mapping emerging themes across physical, social, and technological dimensions. Drawing upon
the principles of the age-friendly cities framework and the capability approach, this paper develops a conceptual
map that captures how resources, services, and environmental features interact to promote autonomy and well-
being among older adults. The analysis explores three interrelated domains, (1) built environment and
accessibility, (2) community support and participation, and (3) innovation and adaptive systems, thereby
identifying critical gaps and opportunities for advancing theory and practice.
The contribution of this study lies in its integrative examination of aging-in-place communities through a
systems-oriented lens that bridges infrastructure, service delivery, and psychosocial engagement. By elucidating
the interdependence of environmental, social, and technological factors, this paper provides a conceptual
foundation for policymakers, urban planners, and gerontologists to design inclusive, equitable, and resilient
communities that empower older adults to age in place successfully.
Theoretical Framework
The concept of Age-Friendly Cities (AFCs) has emerged as a significant framework to address the challenges of
population ageing and promote inclusive urban development. The term “age-friendly” refers to environments
that actively support healthy ageing, enhance participation, and foster security among older adults (DeLange
Martinez et al., 2020). It reflects an integrated approach to urban planning and policy that recognizes ageing as
a lifelong process rather than a phase confined to later life. The fundamental goal of AFCs is to ensure that older
adults can live safely, enjoy good health, and continue to participate fully in society. This vision aligns with
global efforts to develop sustainable, inclusive, and equitable cities capable of accommodating the diverse needs
of an ageing population (van Doorne & Meijering, 2025).
The World Health Organization (WHO) formally introduced the Age-Friendly Cities and Communities (AFCC)
framework in 2007 as part of its Global Age-Friendly Cities initiative. The framework serves as a guide for
governments and planners to assess and improve the age-friendliness of urban environments. It seeks to optimize
opportunities for health, participation, and security to enhance quality of life as people age (Davern et al., 2020).
The WHO’s framework emphasizes the role of the built, social, and service environments in supporting older
adults’ independence and social inclusion. It has been widely adopted by cities worldwide, with applications
ranging from large metropolitan areas to smaller municipalities. The model’s strength lies in its holistic structure,
addressing both the physical infrastructure and the social dimensions of ageing in place (Menec et al., 2011;
Atkins, 2020).
At the core of the WHO’s AFCC framework are eight interrelated domains: (1) outdoor spaces and buildings,
(2) transportation, (3) housing, (4) social participation, (5) respect and social inclusion, (6) civic participation
and employment, (7) communication and information, and (8) community support and health services (Davern
et al., 2020). These domains collectively capture the key aspects of the urban environment that influence the
well-being of older adults. For instance, accessible outdoor spaces and transport systems facilitate mobility and
social engagement, while affordable and adaptable housing supports independent living (Urra-Uriarte et al.,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5399 www.rsisinternational.org
2024). Likewise, inclusive social and civic opportunities promote participation and respect for older people’s
contributions. The comprehensive nature of these domains enables policymakers to evaluate and improve urban
settings through measurable indicators of age-friendliness (Siu, 2019).
Fig. 1 WHO’s AFCC Framework
The implementation of the AFCC framework varies significantly across cultural and geographical contexts.
While some high-income countries have made substantial progress, developing nations often face barriers such
as limited funding, insufficient public awareness, and fragmented governance (Thurairaj et al., 2025). For
example, Annear and Hyde (2025) observed that New Zealand has made gradual progress toward AFC adoption,
though sustainability and community engagement remain pressing issues. Furthermore, the framework has been
critiqued for its limited inclusion of technological innovations, despite the growing importance of digital
connectivity for older adults (Marston & Van Hoof, 2019; Reuter et al., 2020). Scholars have therefore
recommended expanding the WHO model to incorporate digital tools that enhance communication, access to
services, and civic participation among older residents.
Overall, the WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities framework provides a comprehensive structure for creating inclusive
environments that promote ageing in place and active participation. Its eight domains form the backbone of
urban policies aimed at supporting older adults’ well-being and independence. However, ongoing challenges,
such as the need for measurable indicators, integration of digital technologies, and adaptation to diverse local
contexts, necessitate continuous refinement of the framework. Effective implementation depends on
collaborative governance, community participation, and evidence-based assessment tools such as the Age-
Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire (AFCCQ) (Ivan et al., 2024). By addressing these challenges,
cities can more effectively align their development agendas with the principles of healthy and sustainable ageing
(Buitendijk et al., 2025).
METHODOLOGY
In this study the literature-mapping and synthesis stage was conducted using Scopus AI (Elsevier) to ensure a
transparent, reproducible, and up-to-date identification and analysis of scholarship addressing what constitutes
an ideal community for aging in place. The search was executed on 18 October 2025 using the following Boolean
string supplied in the project brief:
("aging" OR "elderly" OR "senior") AND ("community" OR "neighborhood" OR "environment" OR "locale")
AND ("characteristics" OR "features" OR "attributes" OR "qualities") AND ("aging in place" OR "independent
living" OR "home care" OR "supportive housing") AND ("accessibility" OR "mobility" OR "transportation" OR
"infrastructure") AND ("social support" OR "community services" OR "engagement" OR "interaction") AND
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5400 www.rsisinternational.org
("healthcare" OR "wellness" OR "services" OR "resources").
The query was run within the Scopus AI interface and configured to return results from Scopus-indexed material
published from 2013 through 2025. Document types were limited to peer-reviewed journal articles and review
papers, and language was limited to English to preserve analytic consistency; conference papers, book chapters
and grey literature were captured only where identified by Scopus AI as ‘foundational documents’ and retained
for contextualization.
Conceptual Framework
Fig. 2 Conceptual Framework
Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual framework of an ideal community for aging in place, emphasizing four key
domains that collectively support the well-being and independence of older adults. The Built
Environment highlights the importance of accessible design, effective communication infrastructure, and
fostering place attachment to ensure safety and connectivity. Community Engagement focuses on promoting
diversity, inclusion, and grassroots participation to strengthen belonging and active involvement. Social Support
Systems encompass social capital formation and the provision of elder care services to enhance emotional,
physical, and social support. Lastly, Housing Options underline the need for accessible and affordable housing
to accommodate varying levels of ability and income. Together, these interconnected components form a holistic
approach to creating communities where older adults can age comfortably, safely, and meaningfully in familiar
surroundings.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Collectively, these findings suggest that an ideal community for aging in place operates as a dynamic ecosystem,
including balancing the built environment, social connections, healthcare infrastructure, and economic inclusion.
The synthesis from Scopus AI (2025) highlights the shift from individual-centered interventions to community-
level strategies that address systemic enablers and barriers. In essence, aging in place transcends the mere ability
to remain in one’s home; it reflects a multidimensional experience supported by a community that values
accessibility, engagement, and human dignity. When these conditions converge, communities not only
accommodate older adults but actively empower them to thrive within familiar environments across the life
course.
A. Ideal community for aging in place and built environment
The built environment constitutes a foundational pillar of an ideal community that enables aging in place by
shaping the opportunities and constraints for everyday mobility, social interaction, and access to services.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5401 www.rsisinternational.org
Empirical syntheses indicate that outdoor spaces and the spatial arrangement of buildings directly influence older
adults’ capacity to remain independent and engaged; features such as safe sidewalks, resting places, shelter, clear
signage, and proximate community facilities encourage routine physical activity and social encounters that
sustain health and well-being (Hallman et al., 2008). In this respect, the built environment is not a neutral
backdrop but an active determinant of whether older people can continue to perform valued activities in familiar
settings; therefore, evaluations of age-friendliness must centre on measurable environmental attributes as well
as their functional effects on older residents’ daily lives (Hallman et al., 2008).
A central and recurring theme is the primacy of walkability and accessibility: uninterrupted pedestrian routes,
curb cuts, level pavements, ramps, tactile surfaces, and accessible public transport options reduce mobility
barriers and extend older adults’ spatial reach. Such design elements lower the physical and cognitive effort
required to move through neighbourhoods, thereby reducing the risk of isolation and dependence on others for
basic needs (Hallman et al., 2008). Moreover, accessible transport links act as a critical mediator between
housing and essential services (healthcare, retail, social venues); when transport is reliable and senior-friendly,
older people retain agency over their schedules and social networks, which in turn supports both physical health
and psychological wellbeing. Where direct evidence is limited in the supplied abstracts, this causal linkage is
reasonably inferred from studies that associate environmental accessibility with sustained community
participation and lower rates of residential displacement (Hallman et al., 2008).
Beyond physical form, the psychosocial and cultural dimensions of place are essential for creating meaningful
environments that older adults identify with and want to remain in. Participatory place-making approaches,
including community mapping and co-design workshops with older residents, generate local knowledge about
how spaces are used, perceived risks, and valued features. As a result, these approaches produce interventions
that better align with lived experiences and cultural preferences (Fang et al., 2016). These methods reveal that
seemingly minor attributes (views, seating orientation, opportunities for informal social exchange) can have
outsized effects on attachment to place and perceived quality of life. Therefore, integrating participatory methods
into built-environment planning not only improves technical accessibility but also nurtures a sense of ownership
and belonging that underpins the desire to age in place (Fang et al., 2016).
Finally, an equitable and inclusive approach to design reframes aging in place as a universal concern rather than
a niche agenda: design for dignity and respect should prevent segregation of older people and instead promote
mixed-age, mixed-ability environments that serve diverse and socially disadvantaged groups as well as seniors
(Rieh, 2023). Similarly, inclusive models, exemplified by proposals such as the 0–100 Care Community,
emphasize a continuum of housing options, embedded care services, and public amenities that accommodate
fluctuating needs without displacing residents or stigmatizing care recipients (Rieh, 2023). Practically, this
means embedding affordability, adaptable housing standards, and integrated service nodes within
neighbourhoods so that environmental interventions benefit the broadest possible constituency. Together, these
physical, social, and equity considerations demonstrate that the built environment is both a vehicle and a
constraint for aging in place: to be effective it must be accessible, co-created, and designed through an inclusive
lens that anticipates changing needs across the life course.
B. Ideal community for aging in place and community engagement
Community engagement is a cornerstone of the ideal community for aging in place, serving as the social
mechanism through which older adults maintain autonomy, connectedness, and purpose within their
neighborhoods. Research highlights that effective engagement is achieved through community-based support
models that integrate social participation and mutual aid, such as the Naturally Occurring Retirement Community
(NORC) Supportive Service Programs and the Village model (Greenfield et al., 2012). These frameworks
promote social cohesion by coordinating volunteerism, peer support, and service delivery at the local level,
enabling older adults to live independently while benefiting from collective resources and shared responsibility.
As LaFave, Szanton, and Gitlin (2021) observe, such innovations reflect a paradigm shift from institutional care
to community empowerment, positioning the neighborhood as both a site of caregiving and a facilitator of social
integration. This alignment between community engagement and environmental support structures transforms
aging in place from a personal goal into a community-wide achievement.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5402 www.rsisinternational.org
Central to these models is the enhancement of social capital, which functions as both an outcome and a driver of
successful community engagement. Eilers, Lucey, and Stein (2007) argue that strong social capital, which is
manifested through trust, reciprocity, and shared norms, correlates positively with older adults’ physical and
psychological well-being. Social networks foster informal exchanges of assistance, information, and emotional
support that compensate for declining personal capacities or limited access to formal services. In this way, social
capital acts as an intangible yet essential infrastructure that complements the physical environment,
strengthening resilience and mitigating social isolation. This interdependency suggests that the ideal community
for aging in place cannot rely solely on physical design or policy frameworks; it must cultivate the relational
qualities that sustain engagement and collective efficacy over time (Eilers et al., 2007).
Despite its benefits, community engagement is not uniformly accessible, as various barriers and
facilitators shape older adults’ participation. Gammonley, Kelly, and Purdie (2019) identify factors such as
predisposing characteristics (e.g., health status, prior volunteering experience), enabling resources (e.g.,
transportation and communication access), and preventive health behaviors as predictors of engagement in
community initiatives like the Village model. Similarly, Balog et al. (2024) highlight that empowerment in
community participation depends on aligning opportunities with individuals’ interests and abilities, while
ensuring accessible information about local activities. Furthermore, these findings indicate that engagement is
contingent upon both structural and psychological readiness, as older adults must perceive themselves as capable
and valued contributors within their communities. Therefore, to foster sustainable participation, ideal
communities must invest in inclusive communication channels, accessible meeting spaces, and programs that
bridge generational and cultural divides, ensuring engagement remains equitable and meaningful across diverse
populations (Balog et al., 2024).
Finally, broader aging-friendly community initiatives (AFCIs) reflect the evolving societal commitment to
reframe aging not as decline, but as a valuable phase of civic participation and intergenerational solidarity.
Lehning (2018) emphasizes that AFCIs aim to cultivate resilience by integrating older adults into local
governance, volunteering, and planning processes, thereby transforming them from service recipients into active
agents of community well-being. Such initiatives generate a dual benefit: they enhance older adults’ sense of
belonging and simultaneously strengthen community capacity to adapt to demographic change. In essence,
community engagement within the ideal aging-in-place framework transcends participation alone, as it embodies
co-production, empowerment, and inclusivity. The synergy between engagement, social capital, and supportive
community models emphasizes that the “ideal” community is not predefined by infrastructure or demographics
but is dynamically co-created through ongoing social interaction and shared purpose.
C. Ideal community for aging in place and social support systems
The findings reveal that an ideal community for aging in place is deeply intertwined with the presence of robust
and accessible social support systems. Community-based programs such as the Naturally Occurring Retirement
Community Supportive Service Programs (NORC) and Village models exemplify how structured social
environments can enhance older adults’ ability to live independently while remaining socially engaged. These
models not only deliver essential services such as transportation and home maintenance but also cultivate social
connectedness through relationship-building activities and shared governance (Greenfield et al., 2012).
Similarly, LaFave et al. (2021) emphasize that innovations in aging in place are most effective when they
integrate health promotion, community participation, and social relationship development, suggesting that the
combination of tangible and emotional support strengthens older adults’ sense of belonging and wellbeing.
Despite the potential of these community support models, challenges persist in ensuring equitable access to
services. Sheppard et al. (2023) highlight significant barriers among older adults residing in social housing,
where fragmented coordination between service providers limits their ability to access needed community
resources. These barriers often stem from inadequate communication channels, limited awareness of available
services, and structural inequities in resource distribution. As a result, even in communities that aspire to be age-
friendly, the absence of cohesive service networks can impede older adults’ capacity to age in place successfully.
This finding underlines that accessibility and service integration are as vital as the existence of support systems
themselves in determining the effectiveness of a community’s age-friendly framework.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5403 www.rsisinternational.org
Furthermore, social support networks play a pivotal role in shaping older adults’ expectations and experiences
of aging in place. Tang and Lee (2011) demonstrate that expansive social networks, which include friends,
neighbours, and community organizations, significantly enhance both psychological resilience and practical
support for independent living. Communities that facilitate social participation and encourage intergenerational
interaction can mitigate feelings of isolation while reinforcing mutual care practices. Strengthening information
networks within communities also allows older adults to make informed decisions regarding health, safety, and
housing, thereby fostering autonomy and empowerment. Consequently, an ideal community for aging in place
must prioritise not only formal support mechanisms but also informal opportunities for sustained social
engagement.
Finally, informal social support systems emerge as indispensable components of the ideal aging-in-place
environment. Parrott et al. (2021) found that informal networks, encompassing family members, neighbours,
faith-based groups, and volunteers, serve as crucial safety nets, particularly for low-income older adults who
may lack access to formal support structures. These informal relationships foster trust, reciprocity, and emotional
stability, compensating for institutional limitations. Collectively the integration of both formal and informal
social support systems defines the essence of an ideal community for aging in place, one that enables older adults
to maintain independence, social connection, and dignity within familiar environments. This synthesis
underscores the need for policy and community design that balance structural service provision with community-
driven social cohesion.
D. Ideal community for aging in place and housing options
The findings indicate that an ideal community for aging in place must offer diverse and adaptable housing options
that align with older adults’ changing needs, preferences, and capacities. Housing design and policy have evolved
in response to demographic trends, legislation, and economic pressures, reshaping how communities
accommodate older populations. Levine and Maisel (2010) highlight that universal design principles, which
emphasise accessibility, safety, and adaptability, are central to developing residential environments that enable
older adults to live independently and participate actively in community life. These design innovations ensure
that housing environments not only accommodate physical limitations but also foster a sense of autonomy and
dignity, which are critical dimensions of successful aging in place. Thus, an ideal aging-in-place community is
one where housing infrastructure and design anticipate functional decline without compromising inclusivity or
comfort.
Community-based housing models also play a significant role in shaping the ideal environment for aging in
place. Chum et al. (2022) identify several innovative models, including Villages, Naturally Occurring Retirement
Communities (NORCs), cohousing, and sheltered housing, which create opportunities for social engagement,
health maintenance, and personal autonomy. These housing models integrate shared spaces and collective
governance, enhancing older adults’ sense of belonging and mutual responsibility. Importantly, such models blur
the boundaries between independent and assisted living by embedding social care within the housing structure,
thereby reducing reliance on institutional facilities. The presence of diverse housing types within one
community, ranging from single-family homes to supported living arrangements, ensures that residents can
remain within familiar environments as their needs evolve. This continuum of care within a shared community
framework exemplifies a fundamental feature of an ideal aging-in-place ecosystem.
Affordability and equity are equally essential in determining how effectively housing options support aging in
place. Golant (2008) discusses the development of affordable clustered housing-care models that combine shelter
and long-term care for economically disadvantaged and frail older adults. These arrangements provide an
integrated support system where residents benefit from cost efficiency, social companionship, and accessibility
to care services. In this sense, affordability is not merely a financial concern but a determinant of social inclusion
and wellbeing. The clustering of affordable housing and care units fosters informal social interaction,
neighbourly support, and a sense of security-elements that are often absent in segregated institutional settings.
Therefore, an ideal community for aging in place ensures that housing diversity extends across income levels,
providing both affordable and quality options that uphold equity and inclusiveness in later life.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5404 www.rsisinternational.org
Moreover, senior co-housing communities demonstrate how collective living arrangements can address the
psychosocial dimensions of aging in place. Jolanki and Vilkko (2015) found that senior co-housing encourages
mutual support, friendship, and a strong sense of community, which in turn mitigate loneliness and promote
emotional well-being. These settings encourage older adults to remain active contributors to communal life while
maintaining privacy and independence. The sense of belonging cultivated in co-housing environments highlights
the importance of social infrastructure in housing design. Ultimately, the synthesis of universal design, diverse
housing models, affordability, and social connectedness defines the ideal community for aging in place. Such
communities must go beyond providing accessible dwellings to cultivating integrated, inclusive, and socially
enriching environments that allow older adults to thrive within the places they call home.
Emerging Themes
The results reveal several emerging themes that collectively illustrate the evolving dynamics of aging in place
within contemporary societies. A consistent theme centers on the technological integration in aging-in-place,
reflecting a sustained scholarly and policy emphasis on digital innovations that enhance independence, safety,
and connectivity among older adults. Smart home systems, telehealth platforms, and wearable health monitoring
devices have become indispensable tools in supporting elderly individuals who prefer to remain in their own
homes. These technologies not only improve safety, for instance through fall detection and medication
reminders, but also facilitate real-time health monitoring and remote consultations. Consequently, they help
reduce hospital visits and promote autonomy among older adults (Peek et al., 2016; Marston et al., 2020). The
integration of such technologies demonstrates a paradigm shift from reactive to proactive care, enabling early
intervention and continuous support. Moreover, digital connectivity mitigates social isolation by facilitating
virtual communication and community participation (Lee & Kim, 2019). Hence, technological integration
represents a cornerstone of the ideal aging-in-place environment, contributing directly to enhanced well-being
and sustained independence in later life.
A rising theme identified in recent scholarship is the increasing emphasis on community design and public
spaces for elderly well-being. This reflects the growing understanding that built environments profoundly
influence physical health, social participation, and psychological well-being among older populations. Urban
planning that prioritizes accessibility, safety, and inclusivity can encourage outdoor physical activity and social
interaction, both of which are vital for maintaining functional ability (Yung et al., 2016). Age-friendly public
spaces, such as parks with accessible pathways, benches, and adequate lighting, support the World Health
Organization’s (WHO) framework for age-friendly cities that promote active aging through engagement with
community environments. In addition, exposure to green and blue spaces, including natural landscapes and water
bodies, has been linked to improved mental health and reduced stress among older adults (de Vries et al., 2013;
Finlay et al., 2015). As such, the development of inclusive and restorative public environments represents a
rising research and policy frontier that situates spatial design as a determinant of holistic elderly well-being.
Another rising theme involves the focus on socially sustainable housing for aging populations, which emphasizes
the growing need for housing solutions that foster community, inclusivity, and intergenerational connection.
Furthermore, research has demonstrated that socially sustainable housing models, such as cohousing, shared-
living arrangements, and intergenerational housing, enhance social capital by promoting mutual assistance and
collective decision-making (Glass, 2020; Labit & Dubost, 2016). These arrangements counteract loneliness and
isolation while offering residents a sense of belonging and security. Importantly, socially sustainable housing
integrates affordability with accessibility, ensuring that older adults from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds
can live comfortably and independently (Buys et al., 2012). This perspective aligns with the principles of social
sustainability, emphasizing the interdependence between housing design, social inclusion, and community
engagement. The emphasis on housing as both a physical and social infrastructure suggests a growing
recognition that an ideal community for aging in place must extend beyond individual dwellings to encompass
the broader social fabric that sustains them.
Finally, a novel theme has emerged concerning inclusive practices for aging in place in underserved
communities, highlighting equity and access as critical challenges within aging research and policy. Studies
indicate that older adults in low-income or marginalized neighborhoods often face barriers to healthcare, safe
housing, and community participation (Smith et al., 2023). Inclusive practices, including community health
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5405 www.rsisinternational.org
worker (CHW) programs, localized service delivery, and environmental modifications, are increasingly being
adopted to bridge these gaps. CHWs provide culturally sensitive, community-based health interventions that
have been shown to improve chronic disease management and health outcomes among older adults in
disadvantaged settings (Ingram et al., 2017). At the same time, targeted environmental interventions, such as
improving walkability, home retrofitting, and transport accessibility, contribute to enhanced safety and comfort
for older residents (Keall et al., 2015). This novel focus highlights the necessity of context-sensitive and
equitable approaches that ensure aging in place is a universal right, not a privilege limited to resource-rich
communities. Collectively, these themes demonstrate an expanding scholarly commitment to designing
inclusive, technologically advanced, and socially cohesive communities that sustain aging in place as a
multidimensional ideal.
CONCLUSION
The analysis affirms that an ideal community for aging in place is a dynamic ecosystem shaped by the interplay
of physical, social, and policy dimensions. It goes beyond providing safe housing or healthcare access, it
encompasses the creation of inclusive environments where older adults can maintain independence, social
connection, and dignity. The built environment must ensure accessibility and safety, while community
engagement fosters belonging and collective participation. Equally, robust social support systems and diverse,
affordable housing options are essential to accommodate changing needs throughout the ageing process. The
study also emphasizes the growing importance of technology and inclusive governance as tools for sustaining
connectedness and equitable service delivery. Overall, this integrative model reinforces the notion that aging in
place thrives not through isolated interventions but through the cohesive interaction of environment, community,
and care systems that promote lifelong well-being.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Kedah State Research Committee, UiTM Kedah
Branch, for the generous funding provided under the Tabung Penyelidikan Am. This support was crucial in
facilitating the research and ensuring the successful publication of this article.
REFERENCES
1. Alley, D., Liebig, P., Pynoos, J., Banerjee, T., & Choi, I. H. (2007). Creating elder-friendly communities:
Preparations for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49(1–2), 1–
18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v49n01_01
2. Annear, M., & Hyde, C. (2025). Taking stock of age-friendly cities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Progress,
pitfalls and pathways towards healthy ageing. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 44(2),
e70058. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.70058
3. Atkins, M. T. (2020). Creating age-friendly cities: Prioritizing interventions with Q-
methodology. International Planning Studies, 25(4), 303–
319. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2019.1608164
4. Balog, E. J., Figueiredo, S., Vause-Earland, T., Ragusa, E., & Van der Wees, P. J. (2024). Nurturing the
seeds of participation: Unveiling the foundational path for understanding aging in place barriers and
facilitators from the perspective of older adults using mixed methods and translational science. Journal
of Applied Gerontology, 43(7), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648231225336
5. Benefield, L. E., & Holtzclaw, B. J. (2014). Aging in place: Merging desire with reality. Nursing Clinics
of North America, 49(2), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2014.02.001
6. Buitendijk, G. D., Dikken, J., Wondergem, R., & van Hoof, J. (2025). Beyond the metrics: Exploring
key factors that influence how older residents experience age-friendliness in everyday life. Urban
Governance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2025.08.002
7. Buys, L., & Miller, E. (2012). Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia:
role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 55(3), 319-338.
8. Campbell, M., Stewart, T., Brunkert, T., Campbell-Enns, H., Gruneir, A., Halas, G., Hoben, M., Scott,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5406 www.rsisinternational.org
E., Wagg, A., & Doupe, M. (2021). Prioritizing supports and services to help older adults age in place:
A Delphi study comparing the perspectives of family/friend care partners and healthcare
stakeholders. PLOS ONE, 16(11), e0259387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259387
9. Chen, M., Bolt, G., Yu, L., & Hooimeijer, P. (2023). The impact of the residential environment on
Chinese older people's aging-in-place intentions: A mediation and moderation analysis. Habitat
International, 140, Article 102908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102908
10. Chum, K., Fitzhenry, G., Robinson, K., Murphy, M., Phan, D., Alvarez, J., Hand, C., Laliberte Rudman,
D., & McGrath, C. (2022). Examining community-based housing models to support aging in place: A
scoping review. The Gerontologist, 62(3), e178–e192. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa142
11. Davern, M., Winterton, R., Brasher, K., & Woolcock, G. (2020). How can the lived environment support
healthy ageing? A spatial indicators framework for the assessment of age-friendly
communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20),
7685. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207685
12. De Vries, S., Van Dillen, S. M., Groenewegen, P. P., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2013). Streetscape greenery
and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social science & medicine, 94, 26-
33.
13. DeLange Martinez, P., Nakayama, C., & Young, H. M. (2020). Age-friendly cities during a global
pandemic. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 46(12), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-
20201106-02
14. Eilers, M. K., Lucey, P. A., & Stein, S. S. (2007). Promoting social capital for the elderly. Nursing
Economics, 25(5), 304–307.
15. Fang, M. L., Woolrych, R., Sixsmith, J., Canham, S., Battersby, L., & Sixsmith, A. (2016). Place-making
with older persons: Establishing sense-of-place through participatory community mapping
workshops. Social Science & Medicine, 168, 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.007
16. Finlay, J. M., McCarron, H. R., Statz, T. L., & Zmora, R. (2021). A critical approach to aging in place:
A case study comparison of personal and professional perspectives from the Minneapolis Metropolitan
Area. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 33(3), 222–
246. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2019.1704133
17. Finlay, J., Franke, T., McKay, H., & Sims-Gould, J. (2015). Therapeutic landscapes and wellbeing in
later life: Impacts of blue and green spaces for older adults. Health & Place, 34, 97-106.
18. Gammonley, D., Kelly, A., & Purdie, R. (2019). Anticipated engagement in a Village organization for
aging in place. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(4), 498–
506. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2018.1481169
19. Glass, A. P. (2020). Sense of community, loneliness, and satisfaction in five elder cohousing
neighborhoods. Journal of Women & Aging, 32(1), 3-27.
20. Golant, S. (2008). Affordable clustered housing-care: A category of long-term care options for the elderly
poor. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 22(1–2), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763890802096906
21. Greenfield, E. A., Scharlach, A., Lehning, A. J., & Davitt, J. K. (2012). A conceptual framework for
examining the promise of the NORC program and Village models to promote aging in place. Journal of
Aging Studies, 26(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2012.01.003
22. Grimmer, K., Kay, D., Foot, J., & Pastakia, K. (2015). Consumer views about aging-in-place. Clinical
Interventions in Aging, 10, 1803–1811. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S90672
23. Hallman, B. C., Menec, V., Keefe, J., & Gallagher, E. (2008). Making small towns age-friendly: What
seniors say needs attention in the built environment. Plan Canada, 48(3), 18–21.
24. Ingram, M., Doubleday, K., Bell, M. L., Lohr, A., Murrieta, L., Velasco, M., ... & Carvajal, S. C. (2017).
Community health worker impact on chronic disease outcomes within primary care examined using
electronic health records. American Journal of Public Health, 107(10), 1668-1674.
25. Ivan, L., Dikken, J., & van Hoof, J. (2024). Unveiling the experienced age-friendliness of older people
in Bucharest: A comprehensive study using the validated Romanian age-friendly cities and communities
questionnaire and cluster analysis. Habitat International,
143, 102973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102973
26. Jeste, D. V., Blazer, D. G. II, Buckwalter, K. C., Cassidy, K.-L. K., Fishman, L., Gwyther, L. P., Levin,
S. M., Phillipson, C., Rao, R. R., Schmeding, E., Vega, W. A., Avanzino, J. A., Glorioso, D. K., &
Feather, J. (2016). Age-friendly communities initiative: Public health approach to promoting successful
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5407 www.rsisinternational.org
aging. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24(12), 1158–
1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.07.021
27. Jolanki, O., & Vilkko, A. (2015). The meaning of a “sense of community” in a Finnish senior co-housing
community. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 29(1-2), 111-125.
28. Keall, M. D., Pierse, N., Howden-Chapman, P., Cunningham, C., Cunningham, M., Guria, J., & Baker,
M. G. (2015). Home modifications to reduce injuries from falls in the home injury prevention
intervention (HIPI) study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. The lancet, 385(9964), 231-238.
29. Labit, A., & Dubost, N. (2016). Housing and ageing in France and Germany: The intergenerational
solution. Housing, Care and Support, 19(2), 45-54.
30. LaFave, S. E., Szanton, S. L., & Gitlin, L. N. (2021). Innovations for aging in place. In Handbook of
Aging and The Social Sciences (pp. 337–354). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
815970-5.00021-8
31. Lee, O. E. K., & Kim, D. H. (2019). Bridging the digital divide for older adults via intergenerational
mentor-up. Research on Social Work Practice, 29(7), 786-795.
32. Lehning, A. J. (2018). Promoting resilience through aging-friendly community initiatives: Opportunities
and challenges. In Resilience in aging: Concepts, research, and outcomes (2nd ed., pp. 297–314).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04555-5_16
33. Levine, D., & Maisel, J. L. (2010). Advancing universal design through evidence-based practice:
Residential environments. In The State of The Science in Universal Design: Emerging Research and
Developments (pp. 71–79). Bentham Science. https://doi.org/10.2174/978160805063511001010071
34. Lipsitz, L. A. (2020). When Iʼm 84: What should life look like in old age? Journal of the American
Geriatrics Society, 68(5), 967–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16408
35. Marston, H. R., & van Hoof, J. (2019). “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban
environments for older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO’s age-
friendly cities model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19),
3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193525
36. Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly
communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30(3), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000237
37. Parrott, K. R., Lee, S.-J., Kim, D., Robinson, S. R., & Giddings, V. L. (2021). The role of informal
support systems in residential environments for low-income older renters: An exploratory study. Housing
and Society, 48(3), 314–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2020.1839841
38. Peek, S. T., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., Van Der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., ... & Wouters,
E. J. (2016). Older adults' reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology, 62(2), 226-
237.
39. Reuter, A., Liddle, J., & Scharf, T. (2020). Digitalising the age-friendly city: Insights from participatory
action research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21),
8281. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218281
40. Rieh, S.-Y. (2023). Inclusive aging in place: Proposal for a 0–100 care community in Sejong, Korea.
In Sustainable Development Goals Series (Part F2787, pp. 511–527).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36302-3_37
41. Sheppard, C. L., Yau, M., Semple, C., Lee, C., Charles, J., Austen, A., & Hitzig, S. L. (2023). Access to
community support services among older adults in social housing in Ontario. Canadian Journal on Aging,
42(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980822000332
42. Siu, B. W. Y. (2019). Assessment of physical environment factors for mobility of older adults: A case
study in Hong Kong. Research in Transportation Business and Management,
30, 100370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100370
43. Smith, H., Medero, G. M., Crane De Narváez, S., & Castro Mera, W. (2023). Exploring the relevance of
‘smart city’ approaches to low-income communities in Medellín, Colombia. GeoJournal, 88(1), 17-38.
44. Tang, F., & Lee, Y. (2011). Social support networks and expectations for aging in place and
moving. Research on Aging, 33(4), 444-464.
45. Thurairaj, D., Rashid, S. M. R. A., & Md Nor, N. N. F. (2025). Challenges in implementing age-friendly
cities: A systematic literature review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(10),
e2025334. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025334
46. Urra-Uriarte, S., Molina-Costa, P., Martin, U., Tram, U. N., & Devis Clavijo, J. (2024). Is your city
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 5408 www.rsisinternational.org
planned for all citizens as they age? Selecting the indicators to measure neighbourhoods’ age-friendliness
in the urban planning field. Cities and Health, 8(4), 771–
783. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2023.2270686
47. Van Dijk, H. M., Cramm, J. M., Van Exel, J., & Nieboer, A. P. (2015). The ideal neighbourhood for
ageing in place as perceived by frail and non-frail community-dwelling older people. Ageing and Society,
35(8), 1771–1795. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14000622
48. van Doorne, M., & Meijering, L. (2025). Moving towards an age-friendly city. In Inclusive Cities and
Global Urban Transformation: Infrastructures, Intersectionalities, And Sustainable Development (pp.
135–143). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-7521-7_12
49. Vega, W. A., & González, H. M. (2012). Latinos “aging in place”: Issues and potential solutions.
In Aging, Health, And Longevity In The Mexican-Origin Population (pp. 193–205).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1867-2_15
50. Yung, E. H., Conejos, S., & Chan, E. H. (2016). Public open spaces planning for the elderly: The case of
dense urban renewal districts in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy, 59, 1-11.