A Review of Theoretical Frameworks on Age-friendly Cities and Communities

Öz

Population ageing and urbanization are two global demographic mega-trends which together shape the 21st century. In this context, within the framework of urban ageing, the initiative called Age-Friendly Cities and Communities (AFFC) is increasingly becoming an important field of interest steering policies aiming to enhance quality of life in old age. This article aims to contribute to national ageing literature by introducing new conceptualization efforts developed rapidly in recent years in the related area and added to the World Health Organization initiative. Through this, drawing more attention of local governments and related stakeholders in charge of planning cities and providing urban services to their residents and providing a conceptual support to the local empirical research of social scientists studying on ageing are thought to be possible. With this understanding, the models developed so far to conceptualize AFFC initiative are revised in this article.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Urban ageing
• Age-friendly cities and communities
• The smart age-friendly ecosystem
• The concept of age-friendly smart ecologies
• The ageing well urban planning model

Yaşlı Dostu Kentler ve Topluluklara İlişkin Kuramsal Çerçevelerin Gözden Geçirilmesi

Öz

Nüfus yaşlanması ve kentleşme, birlikte 21. yüzyılı şekillendiren iki önemli küresel demografik eğilimdir. Bu bağlamda kentsel yaşlanma çerçevesi içinde Age-Friendly Cities and Communities(AFCC) olarak adlandırılan girişim gittikçe yaşlılıkta yaşam kalitesini iyileştirmeyi amaçlayan politikaları yönlendiren önemli bir ilgi alanı haline gelmiştir. Bu makale, ilgili alanda son yıllarda hızla geliştirilerek Dünya Sağlık Örgütü girişimine eklenen yeni kavramsallaştırma çabalarını tanıtmak suretiyle ulusal yaşlanma literatürüne katkı sağlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu yolla kentleri planlamak ve kent sakinlerine kentsel hizmet sunmakla görevli yerel yönetimlerin ve ilgili paydaşların daha fazla dikkatini çekmenin ve yaşlanma konusunda çalışan sosyal bilimcilerin yerel ampirik araştırmalarına kavramsal bir altlık sağlanmanın mümkün olabileceği düşünülmektedir. Bu anlayışla makalede, AFCC girişimini kavramsallaştırmak için şimdiye kadar geliştirilmiş modeller gözden geçirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kentsel Yaşlanma
• Yaşlı Dostu Kentler ve Topluluklar
• Akıllı Yaşlı Dostu Ekosistem
• Yaşlı-dostu Akıllı Ekolojiler Konsepti
• İyi Yaşlanma Kentsel Planlama Modeli

Kaynakça

1. American Association of Retired Persons-AARP Public Policy Institute (June 2018). AARP Livability Index—Great Neighborhoods for All Ages. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/livability-de fined adresinden alındı.
2. American Association of Retired Persons-AARP (March 2019). AARP Livable Communities: Our Work. 18.02.2022 tarihinde https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/about/info-2014/what-we-do.html adresinden alındı.
3. Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanlığı-ASPB (2015). Yaşlı Dostu Kentler Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı. Ankara: ASPB, Engelli ve Yaşlı Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. 05.03.2022 tarihinde https://www.aile.gov.tr/uploads/eyhgm/uploads/pages/yasli-dostu-kentler-sempozyumu-bildiri-kitabi/yasli-dostu-kentler-sempozyumu-bildiri-kitabi-ni-indirmek-icin-tiklayiniz.pdf adresinden alındı.
4. Akoğlan Kozak, M., Acar, D., Zencir, E. (2019). Üçüncü yaş turizminin geliştirilmesinde yaşlı dostu şehir (YDŞ) konsepti. Turizm Akademik Dergisi, 6 (2), 99-114. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/touraj/ issue/50389/577894.
5. 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. doi: 10.1300/j083v49n01_01.
6. Arun, Ö. (2020). Yaş dostu kentlere doğru: Hızla yaşlanan bir toplumda yaş dostu çevreler ve hizmetler yaratmak. İstanbul: Research Worldwide İstanbul. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://rwi.lu.se/app/uploads/2020/09/yas-dostu-kentlere-dogru-towards-age-friendly-cities.pdf adersinden alındı.
7. Aslan, D. (2015). Yaşlı Dostu Kentler. Yaşlı Dostu Kentler Sempozyumu Bildiri Kitabı, (25-28), http://www.yasliliksurasi.gov.tr/assets/catalogs/yasli-dostu-kentler-sempozyumu-bildiri-kitab.pdf
8. Avşar Arık, I. (2021). Kentte yaşlanma ve yaş dostu kentler: Eleştirel bir değerlendirme. Senex: Yaşlılık Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5 (1), 47-63. doi: 10.24876/senex.2021.38.

9. Buffel T., Phillipson, C. (2016). Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations. Cities, 55, 94-100. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.016
10. Buffel T., Phillipson, C. (2017). Urban ageing: New Agendas for Geographical Gerontology. Mark W. Skinner, Gavin J., Andrews, & Malcolm P. Cutchin (Eds.), In Geographical Gerontology: Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches, (123-135). New York: Routledge.
11. Buffel, T., Phillipson, C. (2018). A. manifesto for the age-friendly movement: Developing a new urban agenda. Journal of Aging Social Policy, 30 (2), 173-192. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2018.1430414.
12. Buffel, T. Phillipson C., Rémillard-Boilard, S. (2019). Age-friendly Cities and Communities: New Directions for Research and Policy. Danan Gu, Matthew E. Dupre (Eds.), In Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging, Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, 1-10. 05.02.2022 tarihinde https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335564260_AgeFriendly_Cities_and_Communities_New_Directions for_Research_and_Policy adresinden alındı.
13. Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., Scharf, T.(2012). Ageing in urban environments: Developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Critical Social Policy, 32 (4), 597-617. doi: 10.1177/0261018311430457.
14. Caner, Ö. C, Gözün, G., Hilwah, A., Gökçe M. (2013). Yaşlı Dostu Şehirler: Kavramsal Çerçeve ve Örneklerle Değerlendirmeler. 22.01.2022 tarihinde http://www.geriatri.org.tr/pdf/ Yasli_Dostu_ Sehirler_ Baski11_11_2013.pdf. adresinden alındı.
15. Chao, T.-YS (2018). Planning for Greying Cities: Age-friendly City Planning and Design Research and Practice. New York: Routledge.
16. Çetiner, N., Uygur, A. (2020). Yaşlı dostu kentler ve rekreasyon işbirliği: İrlanda, Longford örneği. International Social Sciences Studies Journal, 6 (68), 3544-3556. doi: 10.26449/sssj.2536.
17. Edwards, P., Tsouros, A. (2006). Promoting Physical Activity and Active Living in Urban Environments: The Role of Local Governments. Madrid: World Health Organization. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/98424/E89498.pdf adresinden alındı.
18. European Union (1999). Active Ageing: Pivot of Policies for Older People in the New Millennium. 31.03.2021 tarihinde europa.eu.int/comm./dgs/employment-social/speeches/ 91116ad, doc. adresinden alındı.
19. Evans, R. G., Stoddart, G. L. (1990). Producing health, consuming health care. Social Science & Medicine, 31, 1347-1363. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90074-3.
20. Farah, K., Montepare, J. M., Silverstein, N. M. (2017). Co-host AGHE: being an agefriendly institution of higher education: Perspectives from global partners. Innovation in Aging,1 (suppl 1): 273. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igx004.1000
21. Fitzgerald, K. G., Caro, F. G. (2014). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2014.860786.
22. Fulmer, T., Patel, P., Levy N., Mate K., Berman A., Peloton L., Beard J., Kalache, A., Auerbach, J. (2020). Moving toward a global age-friendly ecosystem. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68 (9), 1936-1940. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16675.
23. Lawton, M. P., Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the Aging Process. C. Eisdorfer, M.P. Lawton (Eds.), In, The Psychology of Aging and Adult Development, (619-674). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24. Lehning, A., Chun, Y., Scharlach, A. (2007). Structural barriers to developing ‘aging-friendly’ communities. Public Policy & Aging Report, 17, 15–20. 06.02.2022 tarihinde https://sci-hub.se/10.1093/ppar/17.3.15 adresinden alındı.
25. Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28 (3), 116–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00355.x.
26. 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. doi:10.3390/ijerph16193525.
27. Marston, H. R, Shore, L., White, P. (2020). How does a (smart) age-friendly ecosystem look in a post-pandemic society? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (21), 8276, doi:10.3390/ijerph17218276.
28. Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue Canadienne du Veillissement, 30 (3), 479-493. doi:10.1017/S0714980811000237.
29. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development-OECD (2015). Ageing in Cities. Paris: OECD. 03.02.2022 https://www.oecd.org/regional/ageing-in-cities-9789264231160-en.htm adresinden alındı.
30. Özgür, E. M. (2019). Yaşlanmanın coğrafyaları: Coğrafi gerontolojide ilerleme, tartışmalar ve araştırma gündemi. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 17 (1), 78-109, doi: 10.33688/ aucbd.512325.
31. Özgür, E. M., Yakar, M. (2021). Coğrafya önemlidir!: Nüfus yaşlanmasına mekânsal bir perspektiften bakmak. Senex: Yaşlılık Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5 (2), 3-29. doi:10.24876/senex.2022.42.
32. Plouffe, L., Kalache, A., Voelcker, I. (2016). A critical review of the WHO age-friendly cities methodology and its implementation. Thibauld Moulaert, & Suzanne Garon (Eds.), In, Age-friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison, (19-36). New York: Springer International Publishing.
33. Sarkar, C., Webster, C., Gallacher, J. (2014). Healthy Cities: Public Health Through Urban Planning. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
34. Scharlach, A. (2012). Creating aging-friendly communities in the United States. Ageing International, 37 (1), 25-38. doi: 10.1007/s12126-011-9140-1.
35. Sidorenko A., Walker A. (2004). The Madrid international plan of action on ageing: From conception to implementation. Ageing and Society, 24 (2), 147-165. doi:10.1017/S0144686X03001661.
36. Stefanov, D. H., Bien, Z., Bang, W. C. (2004). The smart house for older persons and persons with physical disabilities: Structure, technology arrangements, and perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 12 (2), 228–250. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2004.828423.
37. Tamkoç, B., Bilgin, Ö. F. (2020). Aktif yaşlanma bağlamında yaş dostu kent kavramı. Sosyal Politika Çalışmaları Dergisi, Erişilebilirlik Özel Sayısı 2, 211-226 . doi: 10.21560/spcd.vi.816372.
38. Tsouros, A. D. (‎1992)‎. World Health Organization Healthy Cities Project: A Project Becomes a Movement: Review of Progress 1987 to 1990. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
39. Tutal, O., Üstün, B. (2009). Yaşlılık ve yaş dostu kentler: Eskişehir. Yaşlı Sorunları Araştırma Dergisi, 1, 1-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yasad/issue/21797/234255 adresinden alındı.
40. United Nations (2019a). World Population Prospects 2019, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables. New York: United Nations.
41. United Nations (2019b). World Urbanization Prospects 2018: Highlights. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, ST/ESA/SER.A/421.
42. van Hoof, J., Marston, H. R., Kazak, J. K., Buffel, T. (2021). Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Building and Environment, 199, 107922. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922.
43. World Health Organization-WHO (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67215/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y adresinden alındı.
44. World Health Organization-WHO (2007a). Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43755/9789241547307_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y adresinden alındı.
45. World Health Organization-WHO (2007b). The Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Age-Friendly-Checklist-WHOedit.pdf adresinden alındı.
46. World Health Organization-WHO (2015). Measuring the Age-Friendliness of Cities: A Guide to Using Core Indicators. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/203830/9789241509695_eng.pdf adresinden alındı.
47. World Health Organisation-WHO (2017). Age-friendly Environments in Europe: A Handbook of Domains for Policy Action. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334251/9789289052887-eng.pdf adresinden alındı.
48. World Health Organization-WHO (2018). The Global Network for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: Looking Back over the Last Decade, Looking Forward to the Next. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 03.02.2022 tarihinde https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/278979/WHO-FWC-ALC-18.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y adresinden alındı.
49. World Health Organization-WHO (20.01.2022). Age-friendly World: About the Global Network for Age-friendly Cities and Communities. 05.02.2022 tarihinde https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/who-network. adresinden alındı.