A Commentary on Blue Zones®: A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond

Abstract

This paper explores the intersection of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) concepts of age-friendly communities and The Blue Zones® checklists and how the potential of integrating the two frameworks for the development of a contemporary framework can address the current gaps in the literature as well as consider the inclusion of technology and environmental press. The commentary presented here sets out initial thoughts and explorations that have the potential to impact societies on a global scale and provides recommendations for a roadmap to consider new ways to think about the impact of health and wellbeing of older adults and their families. Additionally, this paper highlights both the strengths and the weaknesses of the aforementioned checklists and frameworks by examining the literature including the WHO age-friendly framework, the smart age-friendly ecosystem (SAfE) framework and the Blue Zones® checklists. We argue that gaps exist in the current literature and take a critical approach as a way to be inclusive of technology and the environments in which older adults live. This commentary contributes to the fields of gerontology, gerontechnology, anthropology, and geography, because we are proposing a roadmap which sets out the need for future work which requires multi- and interdisciplinary research to be conducted for the respective checklists to evolve.

A Policy Framework for Producing Age-Friendly Communities from the Perspective of Production of Space

“…The new papers can still reflect the theoretical trend found in the analysis of this study. It validated that scholars still use the six groups of theories to study age-friendly community: (1) ecological theory [ 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 ], (2) the production of space [ 156 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 ], (3) social-related theories [ 98 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 ], (4) place-related theories [ 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 ], (5) governing-related theory [ 177 , 178 , 179 , 180 , 181 ], and (6) individual-centred theories [ 182 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 ]. In addition, more researchers find the importance of studying the social dynamic and individual experience in age-friendly community development.…”

Developing Indicators of Age-Friendliness in Taiwanese Communities through a Modified Delphi Method

“…A systematic literature review of age-friendly city indicator research or application cases in cities worldwide was conducted first [ 2 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 23 ]. The existing literature and government documents in Taiwan about existing age-friendly city indicators were also reviewed [ 6 , 22 , 24 , 25 ].…”

“…Some studies developed age-friendly city indicators that correspond to the eight domains of the WHO’s age-friendly city framework [ 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. In recent studies, the inclusion of technology and information and communication technology (ICT) is also considered as a part of age-friendly city [ 16 ]. The indicators were all individual perceived measures, such as “there are enough opportunities to meet people in my neighborhoods”, and “when I am ill, I receive enough care that I need”.…”

Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives

“…A commentary by Marston et al [27] described and presented the existing Blue Zones ® checklists and set out initial thoughts and explorations relating to the checklists. Additionally, Marston and colleagues discussed the two age-friendly frameworks by the WHO [1] as well as by Marston and van Hoof [19], and discussed the current gaps associated to the current Blue Zones ® checklists.…”

“…For this Feature Paper Special Issue entitled "Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives", a total of 29 papers were recently published on different topics related to this subject matter. Of the published papers, seven papers [22][23][24][25][26][27][28] related to age-friendly neighbourhoods, cities, communities and societies, three papers [29][30][31] explored innovative approaches to housing, two papers [32,33] concentrated on age-friendly transportation, four papers [34][35][36][37] focused on innovative practices in the domain of cure and/or care for older citizens, four papers [38][39][40][41] related to respect and social inclusion, and nine papers [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] dealt with the consideration of technology in an age-friendly city or community.…”