Association of Age-Friendly Communities With Health and Well-Being Among Older Adults: An Ecological and Multilevel Analysis From the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2026
Association of Age-Friendly Communities With Health and Well-Being Among Older Adults: An Ecological and Multilevel Analysis From the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study
This cross-sectional study examined the association of age-friendly communities (AFC) with health and well-being among older adults, using the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study 2016 data. Ecological and multilevel analyses of 71,824 older adults across 145 communities revealed that the community’s age-friendliness consistently showed associations with health and well-being. Age-friendly physical environments (accessibility to barrier-free outdoor spaces, buildings, and transportation resources) exhibited an inverse association with functional health deficits. Social engagement and communication (participation in community groups, volunteer engagement, and information use) were inversely associated with depressive symptoms. Social inclusion and dementia-friendliness (respect and inclusion for older adults and positive attitudes toward people with dementia) were positively associated with happiness. Community’s age-friendliness is well-linked to the multiple aspects of older adults’ health and well-being, underscoring the AFC promotion for healthy aging.
AuA.LaiD. W. L.YipH. M.ChanS.LaiS.ChaudhuryH.ScharlachA.LeesonG. (2020). Sense of community mediating between age-friendly characteristics and life satisfaction of community-dwelling older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00086
5.
ChoiY. J. (2020). Age-friendly features in home and community and the self-reported health and functional limitation of older adults: The role of supportive environments. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 97(4), 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00462-6
6.
CrammJ. M.NieboerA. P. (2015). Social cohesion and belonging predict the well-being of community-dwelling older people. BMC Geriatrics, 15, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0027-y
7.
CrammJ. M.van DijkH. M.NieboerA. P. (2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. The Gerontologist, 53(1), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gns052
DiazL. G.DurocherE.GardnerP.McAineyC.MokashiV.LettsL. (2022). Assessment tools for measurement of dementia-friendliness of a community: A scoping review. Dementia, 21(5), 1825–1855. https://doi.org/10.1177/14713012221090032
10.
DienerE.ChanM. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x
11.
Diez RouxA. V. (2015). Ecological variables, ecological studies, and multilevel studies in public health research. In DetelsR.GullifordM.KarimQ. A.TanC. C. (Eds.), Oxford textbook of global public health (p. 411). Oxford University Press.
12.
DikkenJ.van den HovenR. F. M.van StaalduinenW. H.Hulsebosch-JanssenL. M. T.van HoofJ. (2020). How older people experience the age-friendliness of their city: Development of the age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6867. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186867
13.
FennisB. M.AndreassenT. W.Lervik-OlsenL. (2015). Behavioral disinhibition can foster intentions to healthy lifestyle change by overcoming commitment to past behavior. PLoS One, 10(11), Article e0142489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142489
14.
FitzgeraldK. G.CaroF. G. (2014). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26(1-2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.860786
15.
FujiharaS.NoguchiT.IdeK.JeongS.KondoK.OjimaT. (2024). Developing an indicator for age-friendly communities: The Japan gerontological evaluation study. BMC Geriatrics, 25(1), 285. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-05919-4
16.
FujiharaS.TsujiT.MiyaguniY.AidaJ.SaitoM.KoyamaS.KondoK. (2019). Does community-level social capital predict decline in instrumental activities of daily living? A JAGES prospective cohort study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), 828. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050828
17.
FujiwaraY.ShinkaiS.KumagaiS.AmanoH.YoshidaY.YoshidaH.KimH.SuzukiT.IshizakiT.HagaH.WatanabeS.ShibataH. (2003). Longitudinal changes in higher-level functional capacity of an older population living in a Japanese urban community. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 36(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-4943(02)00081-x
18.
GarnerI. W.HollandC. A. (2020). Age-friendliness of living environments from the older person's viewpoint: Development of the age-friendly environment assessment tool. Age and Ageing, 49(2), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz146
19.
GibneyS.ZhangM.BrennanC. (2020). Age-friendly environments and psychosocial wellbeing: A study of older urban residents in Ireland. Aging & Mental Health, 24(12), 2022–2033. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1652246
20.
HungL.HudsonA.GregorioM.JacksonL.MannJ.HorneN.BerndtA.WallsworthC.WongL.PhinneyA. (2021). Creating dementia-friendly communities for social inclusion: A scoping review. Gerontology & Geriatric Medicine, 7, 23337214211013596. https://doi.org/10.1177/23337214211013596
21.
IdeK.JeongS.TsujiT.WatanabeR.MiyaguniY.NakamuraH.KimuraM.KondoK. (2022). Suggesting indicators of age-friendly city: Social participation and happiness, an ecological study from the JAGES. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095096
22.
KamiyaY. (2024). United nations database on older persons living in collective living arrangements.
23.
KawachiI.SubramanianS. V.KimD. (2008). Social capital and health. In KawachiI.SubramanianS. V.KimD. (Eds.), Social capital and health (pp. 1–26). Springer New York.
24.
KimK.BuckleyT.BurnetteD.KimS.ChoS. (2022). Measurement indicators of age-friendly communities: Findings from the AARP age-friendly community survey. The Gerontologist, 62(1), e17–e27. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab055
25.
KondoK.RosenbergM.World Health Organization. (2018). Advancing universal health coverage through knowledge translation for healthy ageing: Lessons learnt from the Japan gerontological evaluation study. World Health Organization.
26.
KondoN.KogaC.NagamineY. (2021). Understanding the role of internet access on health and health equity toward healthy ageing in the Western Pacific region. World Health Organization.
27.
KonishiT.InokuchiH.YasunagaH. (2024). Services in public long-term care insurance in Japan. Annals of Clinical Epidemiology, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.37737/ace.24001
28.
KoyanoW.ShibataH.NakazatoK.HagaH.SuyamaY. (1991). Measurement of competence: Reliability and validity of the TMIG index of competence. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 13(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4943(91)90053-s
29.
LehningA. J.SmithR. J.DunkleR. E. (2014). Age-friendly environments and self-rated health: An exploration of Detroit elders. Research on Aging, 36(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027512469214
30.
LehningA. J.SmithR. J.DunkleR. E. (2015). Do age-friendly characteristics influence the expectation to age in place? A comparison of low-income and higher income Detroit elders. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 34(2), 158–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464813483210
31.
LynottJ.HarrellR.GuzmanS.GudzinasB. (2018). The livability index 2018: Transforming communities for all ages. AARP Public Policy Institute.
MullenN.StinchcombeA.SeguinC.MarshallS.NaglieG.RapoportM. J.TuokkoH.BédardM. (2022). Perceived community age-friendliness is associated with quality of life among older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 41(5), 1274–1282. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648211065431
34.
NagataH.MiuraK.TanakaS.KadotaA.HayakawaT.KondoK.FujiyoshiA.TakashimaN.KitaY.OkayamaA.OkamuraT.UeshimaH. (2023). Relationship of higher-level functional capacity with long-term mortality in Japanese older people: NIPPON DATA90. Journal of Epidemiology, 33(3), 136–141. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20210077
35.
ÖzerZ.TuranG. B.TekeN. (2023). Age-friendly cities and communities questionnaire: A research on Turkish validity and reliability. Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 78(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2022.2061397
36.
PanZ.LiuY.LiuY.HuoZ.HanW. (2024). Age-friendly neighbourhood environment, functional abilities and life satisfaction: A longitudinal analysis of older adults in urban China. Social Science & Medicine, 340, 116403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116403
37.
ParkS.LeeS. (2017). Age-friendly environments and life satisfaction among South Korean elders: Person-environment fit perspective. Aging & Mental Health, 21(7), 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2016.1154011
SaitoM.KondoN.AidaJ.KawachiI.KoyamaS.OjimaT.KondoK. (2017). Development of an instrument for community-level health related social capital among Japanese older people: The JAGES Project. Journal of Epidemiology, 27(5), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.je.2016.06.005
40.
SchreinerA. S.HayakawaH.MorimotoT.KakumaT. (2003). Screening for late life depression: Cut-off scores for the geriatric depression scale and the Cornell scale for depression in dementia among Japanese subjects. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(6), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.880
41.
StekhovenD. J.BühlmannP. (2012). MissForest--non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics, 28(1), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597
42.
TangJ. Y. M.ChuiC. H. K.LouV. W. Q.ChiuR. L. H.KwokR.TseM.LeungA. Y. M.ChauP. H.LumT. Y. S. (2021). The contribution of sense of community to the association between age-friendly built environment and health in a high-density city: A cross-sectional study of middle-aged and older adults in Hong Kong. Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 40(12), 1687–1696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464821991298
43.
TsujiT.MiyaguniY.KanamoriS.HanazatoM.KondoK. (2018). Community-level Sports group participation and older individuals’ depressive symptoms. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 50(6), 1199–1205. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001541
44.
TurnerN.CannonS. (2018). Aligning age-friendly and dementia-friendly communities in the UK. Working with Older People, 22(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/wwop-12-2017-0036
45.
TurnerN.MorkenL.AARP International Affairs. (2016). Better together: Age-friendly and dementia friendly communities. AARP International Affairs.
WadaT.IshineM.SakagamiT.OkumiyaK.FujisawaM.MurakamiS.OtsukaK.YanoS.KitaT.MatsubayashiK. (2004). Depression in Japanese community-dwelling elderly--prevalence and association with ADL and QOL. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 39(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2003.12.003
48.
WatanabeD.YoshidaT.YamadaY.WatanabeY.YamagataE.MiyachiM.FujiwaraY.KimuraM. (2023). Association between excess mortality in depressive status and frailty among older adults: A population-based Kyoto-Kameoka prospective cohort study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 110, 104990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2023.104990
World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. World Health Organization.
51.
World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization.
52.
World Health Organization. (2015). Measuring the age-friendliness of cities: A guide to using core indicators. World Health Organization.
53.
World Health Organization. (2020). UN decade of healthy ageing: Plan of action 2021–2030. World Health Organization.
54.
World Health Organization. (2021). Towards a dementia inclusive society WHO toolkit for dementia-friendly initiatives (DFIs). World Health Organization.
55.
World Health Organization. (2023). National programmes for age-friendly cities and communities: A guide. World Health Organization.
56.
WuorelaM.LavoniusS.SalminenM.VahlbergT.ViitanenM.ViikariL. (2020). Self-rated health and objective health status as predictors of all-cause mortality among older people: A prospective study with a 5-10-and 27-year follow-up. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01516-9
57.
XieL. (2018). Age-friendly communities and life satisfaction among the elderly in urban China. Research on Aging, 40(9), 883–905. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027518757760
58.
XuJ.ChenY.WangY.GaoJ.HuangL. (2022). Association between age-friendliness of communities and frailty among older adults: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(12), 7528. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127528
59.
YamaguchiM.InoueY.ShinozakiT.SaitoM.TakagiD.KondoK.KondoN. (2019). Community social capital and depressive symptoms among older people in Japan: A multilevel longitudinal study. Journal of Epidemiology, 29(10), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20180078
60.
YuR.WongM.WooJ. (2019). Perceptions of neighborhood environment, sense of community, and self-rated health: An age-friendly city project in Hong Kong. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 96(2), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-00331-3
