Mapping the Components of Age-Friendly Communities for Aging in Place

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.

Aging in place; age-friendly communities; built environment; community engagement

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Campbell, M., Stewart, T., Brunkert, T., Campbell-Enns, H., Gruneir, A., Halas, G., Hoben, M., Scott, 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Eilers, M. K., Lucey, P. A., & Stein, S. S. (2007). Promoting social capital for the elderly. Nursing Economics, 25(5), 304–307. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Glass, A. P. (2020). Sense of community, loneliness, and satisfaction in five elder cohousing neighborhoods. Journal of Women & Aging, 32(1), 3-27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 aging. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24(12), 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.07.021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Labit, A., & Dubost, N. (2016). Housing and ageing in France and Germany: The intergenerational solution. Housing, Care and Support, 19(2), 45-54. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Tang, F., & Lee, Y. (2011). Social support networks and expectations for aging in place and moving. Research on Aging, 33(4), 444-464. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Urra-Uriarte, S., Molina-Costa, P., Martin, U., Tram, U. N., & Devis Clavijo, J. (2024). Is your city 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Macroeconomic Variables as Determinants of Agricultural Exports in Nigeria
• Effect of Street Trading Activities on Urban Land Use in Akure, Nigeria
• Smart Contract Adoption in Sarawak’s Construction Industry: A Schematic Review of Drivers, Barriers, and Innovation Attributes
• Socio-Economic Landscape and Housing Aspirations: The Role of Staff Cooperative Societies in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions
• Nature and Characteristics of Housing Condition in Post Covid-19 Era in Dogon-Karfe, Jos South Local Government Area, Plateau State, Nigeria