WHO's Age-Friendly Cities Guideline: Its Implication for the Discussion of Social Exclusion among Older Adults

Title: WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities Guideline: Its Implication for the Discussion of Social Exclusion among Older Adults

Background & Purpose: 

Although social exclusion is a critical issue for people of all ages, it is even more important for older adults. Older people experience changes in later lives, such as retirement from work or a loss of their spouse, which make them more vulnerable toward social exclusion. Older adults’ limited mobility in the community, and age discrimination or ageism can intensify their vulnerability. Yet age-friendly communities may serve to reduce such risks by providing physical and/or social environment that can improve the well-being of older adults. In an effort to explore ways to prevent social exclusion of older adults, this study examines if WHO (2007)’s age-friendly cities guideline is helpful in preventing social exclusion.

Methods: 

This study applies the framework of social exclusion used by Burchardt, Le Grand, and Piachaud (2002) to WHO (2007)’s age-friendly cities guideline. The guideline consists of the following eight areas: outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information, and community support and health services. Burchardt et al. (2002)’s four dimensions of social exclusion are consumption, production, political engagement, and social interaction. We explore descriptively if these four dimensions of social exclusion are reflected in eight areas of WHO’s age-friendly cities guideline.

Results:  

The social interaction dimension from Burchard et al. (2002)’s social exclusion concept seems best reflected in the WHO’s guideline. The concept of social interaction is addressed in all topic areas with two exceptions, the civic participation and employment area, and the communication area. The production and consumption dimensions seem to be fairly well reflected in the WHO’s guideline with the least representation of political engagement. The political engagement dimension was addressed only in two topic areas, namely respect and social inclusion area, and civic participation and employment area. The consumption dimension is mostly addressed in the housing area, while the production dimension is mostly addressed in the civic participation and employment area.

Implications:

Based on the above study results, it seems that different dimensions of social exclusion are fairly well reflected in the WHO’s age-friendly cities guideline, although at various degrees. Moreover, the guideline suggests an additional perspective in preventing social exclusion of older adults by stressing the importance of providing services to older adults with showing respect for them and services that are tailored to the needs of older adults. With such a “client-centered” approach, the age-friendly cities, as suggested by WHO through their guideline, seem to be one way to reduce social exclusion of older adults.

References:

Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (2002). Degrees of exclusion: Developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding Social Exclusion (pp. 40-43). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

WHO (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: World Health Organization.