The Ascent of the Ageing Society: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Age-Friendly Concept

Öz

Population ageing has become a defining global demographic trend, increasing the visibility of concepts such as age-friendly environments across social policy, public health, and urban studies. Age-friendly approaches aim to promote participation, inclusion, accessibility, and well-being by addressing environmental and institutional barriers that limit older adults’ engagement in society. This study examines the scholarly landscape on “age-friendly” research through a bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database. The analysis covers the period 1996–2024 and investigates publication trends, subject categories, authors, institutions, countries, citations, and keyword networks. Standard bibliometric indicators and visualisation techniques were applied to map the structure and development of the field. The findings reveal a substantial increase in academic interest, particularly after 2010, with research concentrated in geriatrics, public health, the social sciences, and urban studies. Keyword clustering reveals a shift from conceptual discussions (e.g., active aging, healthy aging) toward more applied and policy-driven themes (e.g., age-friendly cities, aging in place). Influential authors and institutions are predominantly located in countries with advanced ageing populations. Overall, the study demonstrates the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of age-friendly research, while emphasizing the need to interpret WoS-based results cautiously due to its limited coverage of books, book chapters, and certain social science journals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ageing
• Ageing population
• Age-friendly
• Age-friendly city
• Bibliometric analysis

Yaşlanan Toplumun Yükselişi: Yaş Dostu Kavramının Bibliyometrik Analizi

Öz

Dünya genelinde yaşlı nüfusun artması, özellikle sosyal politika, halk sağlığı ve kentsel çalışmalar alanlarında yaş dostu kavramının giderek daha fazla önem kazanmasına yol açmaktadır. Yaş dostu yaklaşımlar, yaşlı bireylerin katılımını, kapsayıcılığını, erişilebilirliğini ve iyi oluşunu desteklemek amacıyla çevresel ve kurumsal engelleri azaltmayı hedeflemektedir. Bu çalışma, Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında “yaş dostu” kavramına ilişkin yayımlanan çalışmaları 1996–2024 dönemi için bibliyometrik yöntemlerle incelemektedir. Yayın eğilimleri, konu kategorileri, yazarlar, kurumlar, ülkeler, atıf örüntüleri ve anahtar kelime ağları analiz edilmiştir. Alanın yapısını ve gelişim yönelimlerini belirlemek için standart bibliyometrik göstergeler ve görselleştirme teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, özellikle 2010 sonrasında konuya yönelik akademik ilginin belirgin şekilde arttığını göstermektedir. Anahtar kelime kümeleri, kavramsal tartışmalardan (aktif yaşlanma, sağlıklı yaşlanma) uygulamalı ve politika odaklı temalara (yaş dostu şehirler, yerinde yaşlanma) geçiş olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Etki yaratan çalışmaların büyük bölümü yaşlı nüfus oranı yüksek ülkelerden gelmektedir. Çalışma, yaş dostu literatürünün disiplinlerarası niteliğini vurgulamakla birlikte, WoS kapsamının sınırlılıkları nedeniyle bulguların dikkatle yorumlanması gerektiğini belirtmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yaşlanma
• Yaşlanan nüfus
• Yaş dostu
• Yaş dostu şehir
• Bibliyometrik analiz

Kaynakça

1. REFERENCES Aboderin, I., Kano, M., & Owii, H. A. (2017). Toward “Age-Friendly Slums”? Health Challenges of Older Slum Dwellers in Nairobi and the Applicability of the Age-Friendly City Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101259
2. Acemoglu, D., Mühlbach, N. S., & Scott, A. J. (2022). The rise of age-friendly jobs. The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 23, 100416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeoa.2022.100416
3. Aung, M. N., Koyanagi, Y., Ueno, S., Tiraphat, S., & Yuasa, M. (2022). Age-Friendly Environment and Community-Based Social Innovation in Japan: A Mixed-Method Study. Gerontologist, 62(1, SI), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab121
4. Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018
5. Black, K., & Oh, P. (2022). Assessing Age-Friendly Community Progress: What Have We Learned? Gerontologist, 62(1, SI), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab051
6. Black, K., & Oh, P. (2023). Exploring Sectoral Reach in Age-Friendly Communities. Gerontologist, 63(5), 920–932. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac149
7. Bruechert, T., Hasselder, P., Quentin, P., & Bolte, G. (2020). Walking for Transport among Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of the Built Environment in Less Densely Populated Areas in Northern Germany. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249479
8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2018.1430414

9. Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2012). Ageing in urban environments: Developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. CRITICAL SOCIAL POLICY, 32(4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311430457
10. Butt, N. S., Malik, A. A., & Shahbaz, M. Q. (2021). Bibliometric Analysis of Statistics Journals Indexed in Web of Science Under Emerging Source Citation Index. SAGE Open, 11(1), 2158244020988870. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020988870
11. Cao, Y., Heng, C. K., & Fung, J. C. (2019). Using Walk-Along Interviews to Identify Environmental Factors Influencing Older Adults’ Out-of-Home Behaviors in a High-Rise, High-Density Neighborhood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214251
12. Chesser, S. A., Porter, M. M., Barclay, R., King, A. C., Menec, V. H., Ripat, J., … Webber, S. C. (2020). Exploring University Age-Friendliness Using Collaborative Citizen Science. Gerontologist, 60(8), 1527–1537. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa026
13. Chiang, Y.-C., Gao, D.-R., Lee, C.-Y., Li, X., Sun, X.-Y., & Chen, C.-T. (2023). Influence of promoting an “age-friendly cities” strategy on psychological capital and social engagement based on the scenario method. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 35(4), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2022.2110805
14. Davern, M., Winterton, R., Brasher, K., & Woolcock, G. (2020). How Can They 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). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207685
15. del Barrio, E., Pinzon, S., Marsillas, S., & Garrido, F. (2021). Physical Environment vs. Social Environment: What Factors of Age-Friendliness Predict Subjective Well-Being in Men and Women? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020798
16. Dugan, E., Porell, F., Silverstein, N. M., & Lee, C. M. (2022). Healthy Aging Data Reports: Measures of Community Health to Identify Disparities and Spur Age-Friendly Progress. Gerontologist, 62(1, SI), E28–E38. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab111
17. Flores, R., Caballer, A., & Alarcon, A. (2019). Evaluation of an Age-Friendly City and Its Effect on Life Satisfaction: A Two-Stage Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245073
18. Greenfield, E. A., & Buffel, T. (2022). Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: Research to Strengthen Policy and Practice. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 34(2, SI), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2022.2049573
19. Guo, M., Liu, B., Tian, Y., & Xu, D. (2020). Equity to Urban Parks for Elderly Residents: Perspectives of Balance between Supply and Demand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228506
20. Hino, K., Usui, H., & Hanazato, M. (2020). Three-Year Longitudinal Association Between Built Environmental Factors and Decline in Older Adults’ Step Count: Gaining insights for Age-Friendly Urban Planning and Design. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124247
21. Ho, Y.-S. (2020). Some comments on using of Web of Science for bibliometric studies [Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Vol. 25]. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(6), 6711–6713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06515-x
22. Hsu, H.-C. (2020). Typologies of Loneliness, Isolation and Living Alone Are Associated with Psychological Well-Being among Older Adults in Taipei: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249181
23. Isaacson, M., D’Ambrosio, L., Samanta, T., & Coughlin, J. (2015). Life-Stage and Mobility: An Exploratory GPS Study of Mobility in Multigenerational Families, Ahmedabad, India. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 27(4), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2015.1058123
24. Ivan, L., Beu, D., & van Hoof, J. (2020). Smart and Age-Friendly Cities in Romania: An Overview of Public Policy and Practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145202
25. Kaya, A., & Hatunoğlu, Z. (2023). Publications on Accounting Standards in Web of Science Database: A Bibliometric Analysis. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 25(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.31460/mbdd.1033598
26. Keating, N., Eales, J., & Phillips, J. E. (2013). Age-Friendly Rural Communities: Conceptualizing ‘Best-Fit’. Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 32(4), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980813000408
27. Keyes, L., Collins, B., Tao, J., & Tiwari, C. (2022). Aligning Policy, Place and Public Value: Planning Age Friendly Cities in Municipal Organizations. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 34(2, SI), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2022.2049570
28. Kim, K., Buckley, T., Burnette, D., Kim, S., & Cho, S. (2022). Measurement Indicators of Age-Friendly Communities: Findings from the AARP Age-Friendly Community Survey. Gerontologist, 62(1, SI), E17–E27. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab055
29. Klicnik, I., & Dogra, S. (2019). Perspectives on Active Transportation in a Mid-Sized Age-Friendly City: “You Stay Home”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16244916
30. Koohsari, M. J., Nakaya, T., & Oka, K. (2018). Activity-Friendly Built Environments in a Super-Aged Society, Japan: Current Challenges and toward a Research Agenda. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15092054
31. Lee, S., Lee, C., & Rodiek, S. (2017). Neighborhood Factors and Fall-Related Injuries among Older Adults Seen by Emergency Medical Service Providers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14020163
32. Lipinski, E., Stinchcombe, A., & Wilson, K. (2023). Are Age-Friendly Communities “Friendly” for All? Perspectives from LGBTQ2S+Communities. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2023.2226343
33. Liu, S., Wang, Y., Zhou, D., & Kang, Y. (2020). Two-Step Floating Catchment Area Model-Based Evaluation of Community Care Facilities’ Spatial Accessibility in Xi’an, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145086
34. López Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., & Parra-González, M. E. (2020). Machine Learning and Big Data in the Impact Literature. A Bibliometric Review with Scientific Mapping in Web of Science. Symmetry, 12(4), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12040495
35. Marston, H. R., Shore, L., & White, P. J. (2020). How does a (Smart) Age-Friendly Ecosystem Look in a Post-Pandemic Society? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218276
36. Meeks, S. (2022). Age-Friendly Communities: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Gerontologist, 62(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab163
37. Menec, V., Bell, S., Novek, S., Minnigaleeva, G. A., Morales, E., Ouma, T., … Winterton, R. (2015). Making Rural and Remote Communities More Age-Friendly: Experts’ Perspectives on Issues, Challenges, and Priorities. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 27(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.995044
38. Menec, V. H., Novek, S., Veselyuk, D., & McArthur, J. (2014). Lessons Learned From a Canadian Province-Wide Age-Friendly Initiative: The Age-Friendly Manitoba Initiative. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1–2, SI), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.854606
39. Naah, F. L., Njong, A. M., & Kimengsi, J. N. (2020). Determinants of Active and Healthy Ageing in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Cameroon. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093038
40. Neal, M. B., DeLaTorre, A. K., & Carder, P. C. (2014). Age-Friendly Portland: A University-City-Community Partnership. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1–2, SI), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.854651
41. Pestine-Stevens, A., & Greenfield, E. A. (2022). Giving, Receiving, and Doing Together: Interorganizational Interactions in Age-Friendly Community Initiatives. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 34(2, SI), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2021.2024412
42. Puspitasari, M. D., Rahardja, M. B., Herartri, R., & Surbakti, I. M. (2023). Managing Age-Related Disability in Indonesia: An Issue That Extends Beyond the Concept of Active Aging. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 35(6), 842–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2023.2226313
43. Quinn, C., Hart, N., Henderson, C., Litherland, R., Pickett, J., & Clare, L. (2022). Developing supportive local communities: Perspectives from people with dementia and caregivers participating in the IDEAL programme. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 34(6), 839–859. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2021.1973341
44. Ronzi, S., Orton, L., Buckner, S., Bruce, N., & Pope, D. (2020). How is Respect and Social Inclusion Conceptualised by Older Adults in an Aspiring Age-Friendly City? A Photovoice Study in the North-West of England. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249246
45. Rudnicka, E., Napierała, P., Podfigurna, A., Męczekalski, B., Smolarczyk, R., & Grymowicz, M. (2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas, 139, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.018
46. Russell, E., Skinner, M. W., & Fowler, K. (2022). Emergent Challenges and Opportunities to Sustaining Age-friendly Initiatives: Qualitative Findings from a Canadian Age-friendly Funding Program. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 34(2, SI), 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2019.1636595
47. Scharlach, A. E., Davitt, J. K., Lehning, A. J., Greenfield, E. A., & Graham, C. L. (2014). Does the Village Model Help to Foster Age-Friendly Communities? Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1–2, SI), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.854664
48. Sousa-Ribeiro, M., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Sverke, M., & Westerlund, H. (2021). Health- and Age-Related Workplace Factors as Predictors of Preferred, Expected, and Actual Retirement Timing: Findings from a Swedish Cohort Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052746
49. Suriastini, W., Buffardi, A. L., & Fauzan, J. (2019). What Prompts Policy Change? Comparative Analyses of Efforts to Create Age-Friendly Cities in 14 Cities in Indonesia. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 31(3), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2019.1589889
50. Tan, Z., Lau, K. K.-L., Roberts, A. C., Chao, S. T.-Y., & Ng, E. (2019). Designing Urban Green Spaces for Older Adults in Asian Cities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224423
51. Tiraphat, S., Buntup, D., Munisamy, M., Nguyen, T. H., Yuasa, M., Nyein Aung, M., & Hpone Myint, A. (2020). Age-Friendly Environments in ASEAN Plus Three: Case Studies from Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124523
52. van Hoof, J., Kazak, J. K., Perek-Bialas, J. M., & Peek, S. T. M. (2018). The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112473
53. Versey, H. S., Murad, S., Willems, P., & Sanni, M. (2019). Beyond Housing: Perceptions of Indirect Displacement, Displacement Risk, and Aging Precarity as Challenges to Aging in Place in Gentrifying Cities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234633 Wetle, T. T. (2020). Age-Friendly Ecosystems: An Aspirational Goal. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 68(9), 1929–1930. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16676
54. Winterton, R. (2016). Organizational Responsibility for Age-Friendly Social Participation: Views of Australian Rural Community Stakeholders. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 28(4), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1145504
55. Wong, M., Yu, R., & Woo, J. (2017). Effects of Perceived Neighbourhood Environments on Self-Rated Health among Community-Dwelling Older Chinese. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060614
56. Woo, J.-M., & Choi, M. (2022). Why and How Have Korean Cities Embraced the World Health Organization’s Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Model? Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 34(2, SI), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2019.1707057
57. Woolrych, R., Sixsmith, J., Duvvuru, J., Portella, A., Fang, M. L., Menezes, D., … Lawthom, R. (2022). Cross-National Perspectives on Aging and Place: Implications for Age-Friendly Cities and Communities. Gerontologist, 62(1, SI), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab170
58. Wu, K.-K., Lee, C.-C., Liang, C.-M., Yeh, W.-C., & Yu, Z. (2020). Exploring the Factors Influencing Kaohsiung Residents’ Intentions to Choose Age-Friendly Housing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217793
59. Xiang, L., Shen, G. Q. P., Li, D., Tan, Y., & Jin, X. (2021). A Multi-Agent Platform to Explore Strategies for Age-Friendly Community Projects in Urban China. Gerontologist, 62(4), 530–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab150 Yeh, J. (2022). Age-Friendly for Whom? An Aperture to the Lived Experiences of Older San Franciscans. Gerontologist, 62(1, SI), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab119
60. Zhang, X., & Warner, M. E. (2023). Cross-Agency Collaboration to Address Rural Aging: The Role of County Government. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2023.2230088
61. Zhang, X., Warner, M. E., & Wethington, E. (2020). Can Age-Friendly Planning Promote Equity in Community Health Across the Rural-Urban Divide in the US? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041275
62. Zheng, Z., Chen, H., & Yang, L. (2019). Transfer of Promotion Effects on Elderly Health with Age: From Physical Environment to Interpersonal Environment and Social Participation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152794