Generational Distinctions on the Importance of Age-Friendly Community Features by Older Age Groups

Abstract

In 2006, the World Health Organization initiated an international movement to enhance active aging and the age-friendliness of communities by focusing efforts on the built, social, and service environment. The global model requires soliciting older adults’ preferences regarding community features although findings are typically aggregated across all aged respondents despite mounting distinctions between the generations. This study aimed to examine the differential salience of community features by older generational age groups including Baby Boomers (n = 639) and Silent and Government or General Issued (GI) Generation (n = 488) in an age-friendly community in which more than half of its residents are age 50 or older. Chi-square results indicate significant differences across the generational age groups in all domains with the greatest distinctions pertaining to preferences in housing, outdoor spaces, employment, and participation in varied social activities. The perceptions expressed by Boomer-aged adults portend implications ahead for multiple sectors and features of community life.

Keywords

active aging aging in place environmental gerontology healthy aging livable communities

Introduction

The United States is experiencing a profound demographic increase among its oldest residents. Although Americans age 65 and older comprise only 13% of the nation’s overall population, the aging population is projected to increase to 20% of all Americans by 2030 (Vincent & Velkoff, 2010). The growth of older adults will be fueled by the nation’s 77 million Baby Boomers who began moving into the ranks of the 65 and older-aged population beginning in 2011, and the trajectory is expected to continue through 2027 (Ortman, Velkoff, & Hogan, 2014). Americans age 65 and above now constitute three distinct generations including Greatest or Government or General Issued (GI) (i.e., persons born prior to 1924), Silent or Traditionalists (i.e., persons born between 1925 and 1945), and Baby Boomers (i.e., persons born between 1946 and 1964). Combined, the three generations represent an age range of more than 50 years. Although all older age groups express a preference to “age in place” (Harrell, Lynott, Guzman, & Lampkin, 2014), there are growing distinctions between the generations that may affect home and community life. For example, compared with their predecessors, Boomers are more educated and ethnically diverse, have higher rates of separation and divorce, have lower rates of marriage, and have fewer children (Frey, 2010). In addition, Boomers have more diverse work histories and both current and future projections portend even greater work involvements in the years ahead (Quinn, 2010). Although Boomers experience chronic conditions at record rates, generationally, the Boomers are also healthier and will have greater life expectancies at age 65 (Manton, 2008). Consequently, the time period between the traditional-aged retirement and old age has been dubbed a “Third Age” to connote relatively healthy extension of life with the possibilities of enhanced personal, social, and physical gains (Bass, 2000). The qualitatively different experiences of Boomers will have implications in all aspects of community life and specifically, in the communities in which people reside.

This article presents the findings from a study that examined differences in perspectives among the older generational age groups (i.e., Boomers and Silent/GI Generation) regarding the importance of community features across three clustered domains including the built environment (i.e., housing, transportation, outdoor spaces), the social environment (i.e., civic participation, employment, social participation), and the service environment (i.e., community supports and health services, communication and information). The article begins with an overview of a joint global and national movement to create age-friendly communities. The clustered domain features of the age-friendly model are presented to frame aging, well-being, and community life. Research findings are presented to illustrate differential ratings of importance regarding community features according to the two older generational age groups. Implications of the findings are discussed within the context of future planning considerations, particularly relevant to government, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and groups that are aligned with the community features.

Age-Friendly Community Movement

There has been steady momentum to create age-friendly communities across America over the past two decades. In addition to numerous small-scale efforts throughout the nation, formal initiatives aiming to enhance the environment in which people age include the Village to Village Network (https://vtvnetwork.clubexpress.com), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Community Partnerships for Older Adults (www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/12/community-partnerships-for-older-adults.html), the Naturally Occurring Retirement Community—Supportive Services Program (Ormond, Black, Tilly, & Thomas, 2004), the Blue Zones Project (www.bluezones.com/), and AARP’s (American Association of Retired Persons) Livable Communities (www.aarp.org/livable-communities). According to AARP (2017),

A livable community is one that is safe and secure, has affordable and appropriate housing and transportation options, and offers supportive community features and services. Once in place, those resources enhance personal independence; allow residents to age in place; and foster residents’ engagement in the community’s civic, economic, and social life.

To further advance efforts that help people live well in their homes and communities, in 2012, AARP became the American affiliate of an international effort to help communities prepare for population aging.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Global Network for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities represents the most broad-scale effort to improve the experience of aging in community. Launched in 2006, more than 800 communities worldwide have since joined the global movement which requires an assessment of older adults’ needs and preferences regarding community features pertaining to eight domains of livability addressing both the built and social environment as well as community-based services and supports (Figure 1). The model is predicated upon the WHO’s (2002) Active Ageing Framework which is defined as “the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age” (p. 13). A decade after its inception, the WHO (2015) identified age-friendly environments as one of four core efforts to promote active and healthy aging via multiple sectors and actors including health, transport, housing, labor, civil society, government, and service providers.

Active Aging, Community Features, and Older Generational Age Groups

There is a growing recognition of the relationship between active aging, well-being, and community (Clarke & Nieuwenhuijsen, 2009; Menec, Means, Keating, Parkhurst, & Eales, 2011). Scharlach and Lehning (2016) identify an integrative model of community age-friendliness that recognizes multidimensional health and well-being within the context of environmental fit and accessibility of the built and social environment. Among the built environmental community features, the home setting is of particular importance to older Americans who overwhelmingly report their desire to age in place and specifically, prefer to age in their own homes for as long as possible (Harrell et al., 2014). As a measure of subjective well-being, aging in place is associated with feelings of affinity toward the home and one’s broader neighborhood (Golant, 2015). However, the ability to live independently at home is affected by functional declines and disabilities which increase with age, with persons age 85 and older reporting nearly twice the rate of disability (42%) compared with 22% of persons age 65 to 75 (Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2016). Research suggests that housing preferences among Boomer-aged adults differ from their predecessors for a variety of reasons including a desire for low maintenance home features and increased home options (Kwon, Lee, & Beamish, 2016; Schriener & Kephart, 2010). Most older Americans have not considered or implemented universal housing design features which enable the ability to age in place (Carr, Weir, Azar, & Azar, 2013). Moreover, the vast majority of the nation’s existing housing stock is not equipped with accessibility features (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2014). Although sharing homes with others is associated with well-being via financial, practical, and social benefits (Backes, 2018), alternative living options such as shared and communal housing models are not yet widely available (Filinson & Maigret, 2017).

Transportation represents a fundamental means of access to meet daily needs which is essential for aging well. Although driving is a predominant mode of travel for older adults in the United States (Satariano et al., 2012), age-related changes that affect driving skills suggest that people outlive their ability to drive safely by 7 to 10 years (Foley, Heimovitz, Guralnik, & Brock, 2002). Research suggests that people do limit their driving by age with 19% of persons age 65 and older reporting that they no longer drive compared with nearly half (47%) of persons age 85 and older (Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2016). As another core measure of mobility, the rate of decline in walking abilities accelerate in the seventh decade of life and shows a steeper decline at older ages (Ferrucci et al., 2016). Although public transportation represents a viable option, research suggests that the majority of older Americans reside in communities with poor transit access, including 55% in communities comprised of 3 or more million people and 62% in locales with a population less than 250,000 (AARP, 2015). Failure to access suitable transportation affects health via missed medical appointments (Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2016) and contributes to increased isolation which is associated with depression (Luo & Waite, 2014) and an increased risk of mortality (AARP Foundation, 2012; Steptoe, Shankar, Demajkokas, & Wardle, 2013).

Outdoor spaces can further affect the ability to age actively in the community. Although research has identified that physical activity is associated with walkable community features (Berke, Koepsell, Moudon, Hoskins, & Larson, 2007; Frank, Schmid, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005), sidewalks are lacking in many communities in which older adults reside (Lehning, 2012). Similarly, research suggests that neighborhood parks are not well-designed for or widely utilized by older adults for physical activities such as walking (Cohen et al., 2016) although parks are associated with a variety of health benefits (Gies, 2006). Furthermore, research suggests that the health and well-being of older adults may be more dependent on the proximity of amenities in a walkable community (Li, Chen, Li, Wang & Wu, 2010; Walker & Hiller, 2007) despite the reality that the majority of older Americans live in rural and suburban settings that have not been designed for access to needed goods and services (Baernholdt, Yan, Hinton, Rose, & Mattos, 2012).

Social and civic participation has been increasingly associated with the health and well-being of older adults, and as an important feature of age-friendly communities (Emlet & Moceri, 2012). Social participation among older adults across a range of community-based activities including clubs and groups have been shown to benefit sleep (Chen, Lauderdale, & Waite, 2016), cognitive function (Bowling, Pikhartova, & Dodgeon, 2016; Kotwal, Kim, Waite, & Dale, 2016), and mental health (Croezen, Avendano, Burdorf, & van Lenthe, 2015). Similarly, civic participation among older adults across a variety of volunteer activities has been associated with health benefits both physical (Anderson et al., 2014) and cognitive (Guiney & Machado, 2018). While there has been a proliferation of organizations and programs, such as Encore (https://encore.org) and Generations United (www.gu.org), that both posit and promote the potential of increased volunteering among older adults, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) identifies that persons aged 55 to 64 are volunteering at decreased rates, down to 25% in 2015 compared with 28% in 2011. Furthermore, research indicates that increasing age is associated with curtailed participation in both social (Black, 2008; Wilkie, Peat, Thomas, & Croft, 2007) and civic activities (Greenfield & Moorman, 2018).

Employment is an increasingly important feature for older adults. Many older adults are opting to remain in the workforce for economic reasons; however, working is also associated with physical, social, and mental health benefits (Berkman, Börsch-Supan, & Avendano, 2015). Labor force participation rates vary by age for both genders and have increased over the past four decades, including in 2015: 75% of men ages 55 to 61 in the workforce, more than half (56%) of men ages 62 to 64, 37% of males age 65 to 69 and, 16% of men age 70 and older (Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2016). Similarly among women, 2015 workforce participation rates included two thirds (64%) of women ages 55 to 61, almost half (45%) of women ages 62 to 64, 28% of women ages 65 to 69, and 10% age 70 and older (Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2016). The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that the fastest growth rates in labor force participation during the 2014-2024 decade will be among older adults with the greatest increases seen among persons age 65 to 74 (4.5%) and an even greater 6.4% among persons age 75 and older (Toossi & Torpey, 2017).

Older adults rely on a range of community-based supports and access to information to meet daily needs. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015), older Americans experience multiple chronic health conditions at increasing rates with age, including 63% of people age 65 to 74, 78% for those aged 75 to 84, and 83% among those aged 85 and older. Chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease and arthritis affect personal and instrumental activities of daily living that can interfere with the ability to care for oneself and live independently at home. Consequently, older adults are increasingly accessing health-promotional information (Chaudhuri, Le, White, Thompson, & Demiris, 2013). However, research suggests there are differences between the older age groups on accessing information with Boomer-aged adults considered as more savvy, assertive, and health-conscious (Kahana & Kahana, 2014), and more e-literate in locating and evaluating health information (Tennant et al., 2015). This study sought to further our understanding about differences between the older generational age groups by comparing perceptions of importance regarding age-friendly community features pertaining to the built, social, and service environment in which people reside.

Method

Design and Measures

The cross-sectional study utilized a survey design with purposive sampling of adults age 50 and older regarding age-friendly community features. Surveys enabled respondents to rate the importance of features across the built, social, and service environment. The survey is a 50-item questionnaire, modified from AARP’s (2014) Community Survey, with additional questioning specific to the local community. Content validity of the survey items by clustered domains are based on the WHO Checklist of Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities which was developed in consultation across 33 cities in 22 countries in 2007 (for further details, see WHO, 2007). The sociodemographic data collected from survey respondents included nominal measurement of gender (including male, female, or transgender status), race/ethnicity, marital and caregiver status, interval measurement of education and income, and the measurement of age as a continuous variable. All of the domain items measured responses regarding the “importance” of the community feature on a nominal response set including yes, no and unsure. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were conducted and all the clustered domains were found to represent high internal consistency with values ranging from .78 to .92, representing acceptable ranges (Cortina, 1993).

Built Environment

The Built Environment cluster includes nine questions on Housing (i.e., “well-maintained and safe low-income housing”), 17 on Transportation (i.e., “affordable public transportation”), and 13 on Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings (i.e., “well-maintained and safe parks that are within walking distance of my home”).

Social Environment

The Social Environment cluster includes five questions on Civic Engagement (i.e., “range of volunteer activities”), five questions on Employment (i.e., “range of flexible job opportunities”), and 10 questions on Social Participation (i.e., “conveniently located venues for entertainment”).

Service Environment

The clustered domain of the Service Environment includes 11 questions on Community Supports and Health Services (i.e., “well-maintained hospitals and health care facilities”) and nine questions on Communication and Information (i.e., “information on resources for older adults”).

Sampling Frame

The study was conducted in a moderately sized, suburban community located in the Southeastern United States in which more than one-half of the residents are aged 55 or older and one-third aged 65 or older. The study’s inclusion criteria included persons age 50 and older as well as resident status in the county. The survey was available in both English and Spanish. Persons younger than age 50 or those holding formal residence outside of the county were excluded from participation and resulted in the elimination of 13 surveys. The distribution plan for the survey entailed attention to obtaining responses commensurate with geographic location across all zip-coded areas of the largely suburban community, and across the variable of age to ensure proportionate representation of community demographics. The survey was conducted from June 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, and available in both print and electronic versions. Respondents completed the survey individually at their own pace which is estimated to be about 20 to 30 min in duration. The survey was anonymous and voluntary.

Process and Procedures

Informed consent was obtained before participation. Prior to commencement, the research obtained Institutional Review Board approval (eIRB # 00020938) from the University. The survey was available both electronically and in print. An electronic link to the survey was widely dispersed via a variety of modalities including listservs, emails, public notices, newspaper, and advertisements throughout the community. Kiosks promoting the survey were held at popular gatherings such as farmers markets and religious festivals. To accommodate persons who may not have access to, or interest in electronic survey participation, print copies of the survey were available at each of nine library locations throughout the community as nearly three fourths of community residents hold library cards. Additional outreach efforts to solicit input from persons with limited mobility via print copies were conducted with a variety of providers across the continuum of care including senior centers, social service agencies, and residential housing sites.

Participants

The study’s respondents (n = 1,127) were dichotomized into two generational age groups, including Boomers (n = 639) and the Silent/GI Generation (n = 488). The sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 1. The respondents ranged in age from 50 to 98 years old and were grouped as follows: Boomers include adults age 50 to 69 (M = 62) and the Silent/GI Generational age group includes persons ages 70 and older (M = 78). Both age groups were primarily female, with women comprising approximately two thirds of respondents (64%-67%). Proportionate to the community’s characteristics, the majority of respondents were Caucasian (>90%), and two out of three Boomer-aged respondents were married or co-habiting (67%) compared with just over half of the Silent/GI Generation (55%). There was diversity by income and educational status across both groups.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Participants by Generational Age Group (n = 1,127).

Characteristic	Boomers^a (n = 639)	Silent/GI Generation^b (n = 488)
Age (M)
Range (50-98)	62	78
Gender (% female)	67	64
Education (%)
GED/high school	03	05
College degree	52	56
Postgraduate	45	39
Income (%)
<$30,000	12	22
$30,001-$74,999	32	37
$75,000+	56	41
Race (% Caucasian)	94	93
Ethnicity (% Hispanic)	02	01
Marital status (%)
Married/cohabitating	72	55
Separated/divorced	17	13
Widowed	06	28
Never married	05	05
Parental status (% with children)	64	80
Functional status (%)
Difficulty with ADLs	02	04
Difficulty with IADLs	02	04

Note. GED = General Education Diploma; ADLs = activities of daily living; IADLs = instrumental activities of daily living.

Boomers: Persons born between 1946 and 1964.

Silent/GI Generation: Persons born 1945 and earlier.

Data Analysis

Survey data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences software, version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Bivariate statistics were conducted on demographic data and 2 × 2 chi-square statistics were performed by age group (i.e., Boomer and Silent/GI Generation) and by proportion of importance of Built Environment (i.e., Housing, Transportation, and Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings), Social Environment (i.e., Civic Participation, Employment, Social Participation) and Service Environment (i.e., Community Supports and Health Services and Communication and Information) features. Because the study was focused on detecting differences between the two groups, only statistically significant findings above the .05 level of probability are reported. In addition, due to the large sample sizes, findings are reported with at least a small effect size, measured by phi (Φ), detected at .1 or greater.

Results

Built Environment

Housing

Chi-square test results indicate there were significant differences in the importance of housing-related items between Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 2). A larger proportion of Boomers, compared with the Silent/GI Generation, placed greater importance of the following housing features: “affordable housing options for older adults,” χ²(2, N = 1038) = 45.95, p < .001; “new housing options,” χ²(2, N = 1007) = 36.56, p < .001; “well-maintained and safe low-income housing,” χ²(2, N = 1024) = 36.01, p < .001; “homes that are equipped with universal design features,” χ²(2, N = 1035) = 34.20, p < .001; “co-housing options to live with others,” χ²(2, N = 1012) = 32.04, p < .001; “well-maintained homes and properties,” χ²(2, N = 1024) = 20.71, p < .001; “seasonal services for low-income and older adults,” χ²(2, N = 1013) = 18.01, p < .001; and “home repair contractors who are trustworthy and affordable,” χ²(2, N = 1046) = 11.44, p < .001.

Table 2.

Differences in Perceptions of Importance of Built Environment Features by Generational Age Groups.

Features by domain	χ²	Φ	% Boomers^a (n = 639)	% Silent/GI Generation^b (n = 488)
Housing
Affordable housing options for older adults	45.95***	.21	80	60
New housing options	36.56***	.19	73	54
Well-maintained, safe, low-income housing	36.01***	.19	69	51
Homes with universal design devices	34.20***	.18	84	68
Co-housing options to live with others	32.04***	.18	52	34
Well-maintained homes and properties	20.71***	.14	96	87
Seasonal services for low-income and older adults	18.01***	.13	82	71
Home repair contractors who are trustworthy and affordable	11.44***	.11	94	88
Transportation
Affordable public transportation	9.37**	.10	77	68
Outdoor spaces and public buildings
Well-maintained accessible public restrooms	12.89***	.11	90	83
Sidewalks that are in good condition	11.77***	.11	97	92
Exercise equipment in parks	11.41***	.11	60	49
Well-maintained and safe parks	9.78**	.10	86	79
Parks with enough benches	8.48**	.10	86	79

Boomers: Persons born between 1946 and 1964.

Silent/GI Generation: Persons born 1945 and earlier.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Transportation

Chi-square test results indicated there was a significant difference on the importance of “affordable public transportation,” χ²(2, N = 1031) = 9.37, p < .01, with a rating of 77% by Boomers compared with 68% by the Silent/ GI Generation (Table 2).

Outdoor spaces and buildings

Chi-square test results indicated there were significant differences on the importance of outdoor space and public building–related features between Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 2). Boomers indicated a greater importance on certain outdoor space features compared with the Silent/GI Generation, such as “well-maintained public restrooms that are accessible,” χ²(2, N = 1035) = 12.89, p < .001; “sidewalks that are in good condition,” χ²(2, N = 1036) = 11.77, p < .001; “exercise equipment in parks,” χ²(2, N = 997) = 11.41, p < .001; “well-maintained and safe parks within walking distance,” and χ²(2, N = 1029) = 9.78, p < .01; and “parks with enough benches,” χ²(2, N = 1028) = 8.48, p < .01.

Social Environment

Employment

Chi-square test results indicated there were significant differences on the importance of employment features according to Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 3). Boomers reported a greater importance compared with the Silent/GI Generation on the following: “range of flexible job opportunities for older adults,” χ²(2, N = 1008) = 92.88, p < .001; “job training opportunities for older adults wanting to learn new skills,” χ²(2, N = 998) = 81.13, p < .001; “entrepreneurial assistance and options,” χ²(2, N = 996) = 50.17, p < .001; “well-paying jobs for people with advanced skills,” χ²(2, N = 999) = 64.81, p < .001; and “jobs that are adapted to meet the needs of people with disabilities,” χ²(2, N = 1001) = 55.38, p < .01.

Table 3.

Differences in Perceptions of Importance of Social Environment Features by Generational Age Groups.

Features by domain	χ²	Φ	% Boomers^a (n = 601)	% Silent/GI Generation^b (n = 440)
Civic participation
Range of volunteer activities to choose	15.88***	.12	86	77
Volunteer training opportunities to perform better in volunteer role	11.80***	.11	79	70
Employment
Range of flexible job opportunities for older adults	92.88***	.30	64	33
Job training opportunities for older adults wanting to learn new skills	81.13***	.29	59	30
Entrepreneurial assistance and options	50.17***	.27	52	30
Well-paying jobs for people with advanced skills	64.81***	.26	62	36
Jobs that are adapted to meet needs of people with disabilities	55.38***	.24	57	30
Social participation
Activities that involve young and old	17.58***	.13	90	81
Continuing education classes	15.50***	.12	85	75
Conveniently located venues for entertainment	13.79***	.12	93	86

Boomers: Persons born between 1946 and 1964.

Silent/GI Generation: Persons born 1945 and earlier.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Civic participation

Chi-square test results indicated there were significant differences on the importance of civic participation features between Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 3). Boomers reported a greater importance on a “range of volunteer activities” (86%) compared with the Silent/GI Generation (77%), χ²(2, N = 1043) = 15.89, p < .001, and on “volunteer training opportunities to perform better in volunteer roles” with a rating of 79% by Boomers compared with 70% among the Silent/GI Generation, χ²(2, N = 1033) = 11.80, p < .01.

Social participation

Chi-square test results indicated there were significant differences on the importance of social participation features between Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 3). Boomers reported a greater importance on “activities that involve younger and older persons” (90%) compared with the Silent/GI Generation (81%), χ²(2, N = 1018) = 17.58, p < .001, and on “continuing education classes” with a rating of 85% by Boomers compared with 75% among the Silent/GI Generation, χ²(2, N = 1013) = 15.50, p < .001, and on “conveniently located venues for entertainment” with a 93% rating of importance among Boomers compared with 86% among the Silent/GI Generation, χ²(2, N = 1021) = 13.79, p < .001.

Service Environment

Community supports and health services

Chi-square test results indicated there were significant differences on the importance of community supports and health service features between Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 4). Boomers reported a greater importance on “health and wellness classes” (67%) compared with the Silent/GI Generation (57%), χ²(2, N = 1040) = 11.57, p < .001, and on “fitness activities geared towards older adults” with a rating of 88% by Boomers compared with 80% among the Silent/GI Generation, χ²(2, N = 1047) = 10.95, p < .01.

Table 4.

Differences in Perceptions of Importance of Service Environment Features by Generational Age Groups.

Features by domain	χ²	Φ	% Boomers^a (n = 596)	% Silent/GI Generation^b (n = 444)
Community supports and health services
Health and wellness classes	11.57***	.11	67	57
Fitness activities geared to older adult	10.95***	.10	88	80
Communication and information
Feeling your voice is heard in the community	11.75**	.11	83	74

Boomers: Persons born between 1946 and 1964.

Silent/GI Generation: Persons born 1945 and earlier.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Communication and information

Chi-square test results indicated there were significant differences on the importance of communication and information features between Boomers and the Silent/GI Generation (Table 4). Boomers reported a greater importance on “feeling your voice is heard in the community” (83%) compared with the Silent/GI Generation (74%), χ²(2, N = 987) = 11.75, p < .001.

Discussion

The study’s findings lend empirical support to a growing body of literature that refutes classifying older adults as a monolithic group and instead, identifies distinctions between the older generational age groups. Compared with the Silent and GI Generation, Boomers in this study reported a greater importance on a range of features across the built, social, and service environment in which they reside. The findings suggest that Boomer-aged older adults recognize their prospective longevity, and place a greater importance ahead, on aspects of community life that will affect their living options and the ways they will get around and places they visit, in their opportunities for work, social activities, and volunteering, and in their access to information and services that will support active living into advanced ages. These findings further suggest that the Boomer-aged older adults are also considering the costs of maintaining their lifestyles as they age. Although this study’s findings are limited due to its cross-sectional design, closed-ended survey response set, and largely homogeneous sample, the community under study itself may portend broader relevance as more than one half of its residents are aged 55 and older. Across the nation, many communities are already facing similar or emergent demographic profiles. Additional research conducted across diverse community types and populations would shed further light on these findings. In addition, alternative methodologies such as interviews or longitudinal inquiry would allow for greater understanding including any maturational effect in how perspectives might differ with age.

The greatest distinctions noted among the generational age groups were found in the area of the built environment. In the area of housing, our findings mirror previous research with a desire to age in place (Harrell et al., 2014) via dual approaches on remaining at home or staying in the community. For example, compared with the older generations, Boomers differed with a greater preference on desiring universal design features that provide for lifelong living at home. Boomers placed a greater importance on affordable home maintenance and repair suggesting an intention to remain at home. However, Boomer-aged adults also indicated an increased preference for affordable, new, and co-housing options which suggests forethought into relocation at later ages. These alternative living options are not yet widely available in the community which is predominated by traditional-style family homes. Although all of the older respondents rated transportation with similar importance, Boomers differed by placing a greater importance on affordable public transportation. This finding may underscore recognition of changing driving abilities with advanced age (Foley et al., 2002) and a desire for accessible, affordable mobility as well. The importance of outdoor spaces was also found to differ by generational age group. Compared with the oldest respondents, Boomers placed a greater importance on the availability of rest rooms, benches, maintenance, and accessibility. In addition, Boomer-aged respondents reported a greater importance on exercise equipment in parks. This finding aligns with a growing body of research that indicates older adults prefer senior-oriented health features in park settings (Cohen et al., 2016).

A variety of social features were also found to differ significantly by age groups. Boomers placed a greater importance on many aspects of employment including flexible work and training opportunities. Boomers also reported increased importance of well-paying jobs and assistance in pursuing entrepreneurial work opportunities. In addition, adapting jobs to meet changing needs was also rated with greater importance by Boomers. Combined, all of the employment items reflect a distinction between older adults at younger compared with older ages. In the 2 years since the study was conducted (2015), the employment rate among adults age 65 and older in the community doubled, which mirrors national trends that report increasing engagement in the work force for current and future aging population (Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2016). Boomers also identified a greater importance on volunteering opportunities. These findings underscore continuous momentum towards remaining active and engaged in what Marc Freedman (2007) has dubbed as “Encore” years. Compared with the Silent and GI Generation–aged respondents, findings revealed that Boomers placed a greater importance on intergenerational activities, continuing education, and access to fun activities. Combined, these findings portend the potential for enhanced intergenerational programming, lifelong learning, the ease of access, and the convenience of offerings for people at all ages. Boomers also reported a greater importance on health and wellness offerings and fitness activities geared toward seniors. This finding lends support to the need for more senior-friendly health programming. The importance of “feeling heard” among Boomers may well portend yet the most important finding from the study; that is, compared with the respondents of the Silent and GI Generation, Boomers value and expect community offerings to reflect their preferences, needs, and input. This finding suggests that community-based providers across a range of sectors and industries might benefit from asking, listening, and incorporating feedback from aging consumers, thereby recognizing the distinctions of importance between the generational age groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The Age-Friendly Sarasota Initiative is a partnership between AARP Florida, the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, the Florida Policy Exchange Center on Aging at the University of South Florida, Sarasota County Department of Health, Sarasota County Government, The Patterson Foundation and the University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee.

Compliance With Ethical Standards

The Age-Friendly Sarasota research received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from the University of South Florida, IRB # 00020938.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Age-Friendly Sarasota Community Study was supported by the University of South Florida, Sarasota-Manatee and The Patterson Foundation. Kathy Black has received funding in the commission of the Age-Friendly Sarasota Initiative. The funding bodies had no role in the design of data collection instruments, analysis, or writing of the manuscript.

ORCID iD

Kathy Black

References

AARP. (2014). AARP Community survey questionairre. Retrieved from https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/info-2014/aarp-community-survey-questionnaire.html

AARP. (2015). Waiting for a ride: Transit access and America’s aging population. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.

AARP. (2017). Livable communities initiative: Focusing on rural livability. Retrieved from www.aarp.org/livable-communities

AARP Foundation. (2012). Framework for isolation in adults over 50. Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson

N. D.

Damianakis

Kröger

Wagner

L. M.

Dawson

D. R.

Binns

M. A.

Cook

S. L.

(2014). The benefits associated with volunteering among seniors: A critical review and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1505-1533.

Backes

(2018, May 15). Home sharing: Living with roommates in later life. Retrieved from https://publichealth.wustl.edu/home-sharing-living-with-roommates-in-later-life/

Baernholdt

Yan

Hinton

Rose

Mattos

(2012). Quality of life in rural and urban adults 65 years and older: Findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The Journal of Rural Health : Official Journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 28, 339-347.

Bass

S. A.

(2000). The emergence of the third age. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 11(2-3), 7-17.

Berke

E. M.

Koepsell

T. D.

Moudon

A. V.

Hoskins

R. E.

Larson

E. B.

(2007). Association of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. American Journal of Public Helath, 97(3), 486-492.

10.

Berkman

L. F.

Börsch-Supan

Avendano

(2015). Labor-force participation, policies & practices in an aging America: Adaptation essential for a healthy & resilient population. Daedalus, 144(2), 41-54.

11.

Black

(2008). Health and aging-in-place: Implications for community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 16, 79-95.

12.

Bowling

Pikhartova

Dodgeon

(2016). Is mid-life social participation associated with cognitive function at age 50? Results from the British National Child Development Study (NCDS). BMC Psychology, 4, 58.

13.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Volunteering in the United States—2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

14.

Carr

Weir

P. L.

Azar

N. R.

(2013). Universal design: A step toward successful aging. Journal of Aging Research, 2013, Article 324624.

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). At a glance 2015 healthy aging. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

16.

Chaudhuri

White

Thompson

Demiris

(2013). Examining health information–seeking behaviors of older adults. Computers, Informatics, Nursing : CIN, 31, 547-553.

17.

Chen

J.-H.

Lauderdale

Waite

(2016). Social participation and older adults’ sleep. Social Science & Medicine, 149, 164-173.

18.

Clarke

Nieuwenhuijsen

E. R.

(2009). Environments for healthy ageing: A critical review. Maturitas, 64, 14-19.

19.

Cohen

D. A.

Han

Nagel

C. J.

Hamik

McKenzie

T. L.

Everson

K. R.

Katta

(2016). The first national study of neighborhood parks: Implications for physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51, 419-426.

20.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

21.

Croezen

Avendano

Burdorf

van Lenthe

F. J.

(2015). Social participation and depression in old age: A fixed-effects analysis in 10 European countries. American Journal of Epidemiology, 182, 168-176.

22.

Emlet

C. A.

Moceri

J. T.

(2012). The importance of social connectedness in building age: Friendly communities. Journal of Aging Research, 2012, Article 173247.

23.

Federal Interagency Statistics Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2016). Older Americans 2016: Key indicators of well-being (Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

24.

Ferrucci

Cooper

Shardell

Simonsick

E. M.

Schrack

J. A.

Kuh

(2016). Age-related change in mobility: Perspectives from life course epidemiology and geroscience. The Journals of Gerontology, Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 71, 1184-1194.

25.

Filinson

Maigret

(2017, September 5). Supporting people as they age in community: Housing. Retrieved from http://www.collaborativeri.org/research/supporting-people-as-they-age-in-community-housing

26.

Foley

D. J.

Heimovitz

H. K.

Guralnik

J. M.

Brock

D. B.

(2002). Driving life expectancy of persons aged 70 years and older in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1284-1289.

27.

Frank

L. D.

Schmid

T. L.

Sallis

J. F.

Chapman

Saelens

B. E.

(2005). Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 117-125.

28.

Freedman

(2007). Encore: Finding work that matters in the second half of life. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group.

29.

Frey

W. H.

(2010). Baby Boomers and the new demographics of America’s seniors. Generations, 34(3), 28-37.

30.

Gies

(2006). The health benefits of parks. San Francisco, CA: The Trust for Public Land.

31.

Golant

S. M.

(2015). Aging in the right place. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press.

32.

Greenfield

E. A.

Moorman

S. M.

(2018). Extracurricular involvement in high school and later-life participation in voluntary associations. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73, 482-491.

33.

Guiney

Machado

(2018). Volunteering in the community: Potential benefits for cognitive aging. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 73, 399-408.

34.

Harrell

Lynott

Guzman

Lampkin

(2014). What is livable? Community preferences of older adults. Washington, DC: American Association of Retired Persons Public Policy Institute.

35.

Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2014). Accessibility needs and the existing stock. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

36.

Kahana

(2014). Baby Boomers’ expectations of health and medicine. The Virtual Mentor, 16, 380-384.

37.

Kotwal

A. A.

Kim

Waite

Dale

(2016). Social function and cognitive status: Results from a U.S. nationally representative survey of older adults. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 31, 854-862.

38.

Kwon

J. H.

Lee

H. J.

Beamish

(2016). U.S. Boomers’ lifestyle and residential preferences for later life. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 15, 255-262.

39.

Lehning

A. M.

(2012). City governments and aging in place: Community design, transportation and housing innovation adoption. The Gerontologist, 52, 345-356.

40.

C. M.

Chen

C. Y.

Wang

W. D.

S. C.

(2010). The effectiveness of a comprehensive geriatric assessment intervention program for frailty in community-dwelling older people: A randomized, controlled trial. Archives of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 50 (1), S39-42.

41.

Luo

Waite

L. J.

(2014). Loneliness and mortality among older adults in China. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 69, 633-645.

42.

Manton

K. G.

(2008). Recent declines in chronic disability in the elderly U.S. population: Risk factors and future dynamics. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 91-113.

43.

Menec

V. H.

Means

Keating

Parkhurst

Eales

(2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30, 479-493.

44.

Ormond

B. A.

Black

K. J.

Tilly

Thomas

(2004). Supportive services programs in naturally occurring retirement communities. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

45.

Ortman

J. M.

Velkoff

V. A.

Hogan

(2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States—Current population reports (Report P25-1140). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf

46.

Quinn

J. F.

(2010). Work, retirement, and the encore career: Elders and the future of the American workforce. Generations, 34, 45-55.

47.

Satariano

W. A.

Guralnik

J. M.

Jackson

R. J.

Marottoli

R. A.

Phelan

E. A.

Prohaska

T. R.

(2012). Mobility and aging: New directions for public health action. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1508-1515.

48.

Scharlach

A. E.

Lehning

A. J.

(2016). Creating aging-friendly communities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

49.

Schriener

Kephart

(2010). Building for Boomers: Guide to design and construction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

50.

Steptoe

Shankar

Demajkokas

Wardle

(2013). Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 5797-5801.

51.

Tennant

Stellefson

Dodd

Chaney

Paige

Alber

(2015). eHealth literacy and web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among Baby Boomers and older adults. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(3), e70.

52.

Toossi

Torpey

(2017). Older workers: Labor force trends and career options. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

53.

Vincent

G. K.

Velkoff

V. A.

(2010). The next four decades: The older population in the United States: 2010 to 2050 (Report # P25-1138). Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

54.

Walker

R. B.

Hiller

J. E.

(2007). Places and health: A qualitative study to explore how older women living alone perceive the social and physical dimensions of their neighbourhoods. Social Science Medicine, 65, 1154-1165.

55.

Wilkie

Peat

Thomas

Croft

(2007). Factors associated with participation restriction in community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1147-1156.

56.

World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/active_ageing/en/

57.

World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf

58.

World Health Organization. (2015). World report on ageing and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.