The Need For Planning In An Aging Society

Practicing planners frequently work with key community stakeholders as they draft community plans-whether developers, home builders, pedestrian and bicycle advocates, or environmentalists. Less commonly involved in the traditional land use and transportation planning process are aging advocates. That will change in the near future. AARP, with over 39 million members, is positioning itself to become a strong ally in the quest for livable communities.

At first blush, planners may ask themselves: Why is AARP, an organization most usually associated with the health and financial security issues of the 50+ population, suddenly interested in our profession? The answer lies in AARP's recognition of the key role that the community landscape plays in enabling older adults to maintain independence and quality of life as they age. A national survey conducted by AARP found that 89 percent of persons age 50 and older want to remain in their communities. This is consistent with actual migration patterns. During the past two decades less than 10 percent of those age 60 and older actually changed their county of residence. But not all communities are built equal when it comes to their design for supporting successful aging. The lack of, or negative perception of, community features such as sidewalks, transportation alternatives, and affordable housing is linked to lower levels of community engagement and lower indicators of successful aging.

Creating Livable Communities

AARP has defined a livable community to be "one that has affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and services, and adequate mobility options, which together facilitate personal independence and the engagement of residents in civic and social life."

The potential for community features to influence positive outcomes for older persons will become increasingly important in the coming decades. Between 2005 and 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the population of persons age 50 to 64 will increase by 21 percent and the population 65 and older by 33 percent. By comparison, the population under age 50 will increase by a mere four percent.

While growth rates will vary by region, the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation ensures that every state will see significant population gains of those age 65 and older. Perhaps as significant as the overall growth in the numbers of older adults is where they are projected to live. The national trend toward population movement to suburban areas, including households on the cusp of retirement, coupled with older adults' preference to stay put in the communities where they retire, foreshadows a "graying" of the suburbs. As such, much of our older population will reside in locations that generally lack the transportation and housing options found in more urban areas.

Given that most persons age 50 and older prefer to remain in place, it is useful to explore how well communities are able to serve the needs of 50+ residents. AARP's Beyond 50 survey asked respondents to grade their communities on a variety of features and opportunities, on a scale of A (excellent) to F (failure). The results were mixed. Although many residents gave high grades to their communities for a variety of features, a substantial number gave Ds or Fs. For instance, more than a quarter of respondents gave their communities poor grades (D or F) for features like dependable public transportation, nearby drugstores or stores, entertainment opportunities, sidewalks going where residents wanted to go, etc. More than one in five gave his or her community a D or F for providing an adequate supply of affordable housing, or a variety of housing options for persons with different physical abilities.

However, such an overview disguises important and substantial disparities among respondents. For instance, suburban residents gave poor grades more frequently than did residents in urban areas for a number of key features. More than a quarter of residents in the suburbs gave their communities a poor grade for "offering dependable public transportation," compared to only 14 percent of urban residents. Residents of suburbs were more likely than urban residents to give a poor grade for "having a drugstore within a half-mile of home" (27% versus 19%), "having a grocery store within a half-mile of home" (28% versus 18%), "having a hospital in the community" (25% versus 8%), and "having convenient places for public events and meetings" (20% versus 11%). Such results help to highlight some of the consequences of suburban land growth patterns. This is of particular interest given the expected tsunami of older adults in suburban America.

The impact of community design and amenities on community engagement is substantial. Respondents with a lower overall grade for their communities were also found to be less engaged in their communities, as measured by participation in social activities, relationships with neighbors, volunteer work, and civic participation such as voting. And those less engaged individuals were also less likely to report having a high quality of life.

Thoughts For Planners

State and local governments can have an enormous impact on a community. As professionals responsible for looking out for the public interest, planners must strive to evaluate and plan for the needs of older adults. As such, AARP offers the following initial thoughts for planners.

1. Understand your community's particular demographic situation. While every community in America will be affected by the aging of the U.S. population, the effects will vary by region and by other conditions such as immigration and economic prosperity. This requires looking beyond macro population growth numbers and rates for those 65 and older to include analysis of demographic and socioeconomic breakdowns for young, working-age adults (those under 50 years), pre-retirement age adults (age 50-64), young seniors (65-74) and mature seniors (75 and older). This analysis will help predict the residents' future needs and the necessary infrastructure, programs, and services to serve those needs.

   For example, there are large differences between growth states and those that may be losing population, in terms of needs, opportunities, and resources. Many "new sunbelt" areas in the West and South have growing economies that have attracted large numbers of relatively educated, well-off mobile boomers-many of whom wish to live near work, as well as cultural and natural amenities as they approach retirement age. Many of these pre-seniors (age 55-64) have settled in the exurbs of cities such as Las Vegas, Austin, Atlanta, and Dallas, along with smaller metro areas like Santa Fe and Boise. It is expected that most of these pre-seniors will age in the suburbs where they relocated to pre-retirement. As these fast-growing communities build out, there is a need to rethink the layout and amenities of these areas so that these residents can age comfortably.

   In contrast, the older population in Midwest heartland states such as North Dakota, Iowa, and Pennsylvania will continue to exhibit some of the nation's highest senior population shares despite low rates of absolute senior growth in the coming decades. This is due to low immigration and past out-migration of their younger residents. Many of those older adults who remain behind are mature seniors (those age 75 and older) who tend to have greater transportation, health and social-support service needs. Squeezing dollars from largely stagnant economies will pose a formidable challenge for communities in this situation.

2. Ensure that comprehensive plans acknowledge changing demographics in your community and lay out a vision and policy framework that addresses the needs of a changing population. Housing and transportation policies should explicitly address the needs of an aging population. Communities can start by identifying their Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities (NORCs)-neighborhoods with a high percentage of older residents-and tailoring a discussion of the particular service needs for these areas.

3. Do you have policy to support visitability and accessible home construction? Do your plans support transit-oriented or other forms of mixed-use development? Is your transportation element overly-focused on meeting the needs of commuters, or does it address the needs of all members of your community? Does your plan include a complete streets policy to encourage road design and operation that enables safe access for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders), regardless of age and ability?

4. Do your zoning ordinances and land subdivision regulations facilitate or discourage transit-oriented or other forms of mixed-use development?

5. Do your zoning ordinances and land subdivision regulations provide direction to implement your complete streets, mixed-use, and accessible housing policies?

6. SAFETEA-LU, our nation's current surface transportation law, requires states and MPO's to prepare Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Plans prior to receiving Section 5310 (Elderly and Disabled), New Freedom, and Job Access Reverse Funds (JARC). These plans should be developed in concert with the community's overall comprehensive planning process. Both comprehensive and transit planners should be involved in the development of a community's coordinated plan.

7. Evaluate your Capital Improvement Program to ascertain whether sufficient resources are directed to meet the needs of older residents. Are public investments disproportionately channeled to greenfields or are they balanced through investments that enhance the livability of well-established neighborhoods, in particular NORCs. In older cities, towns, and suburbs, do you have money directed to repair and retrofit your network of sidewalks and bus stops so that older adults can safely walk or take public transportation to their destinations?

8. Involve aging advocates in the community planning process. They have a perspective that may enrich overall plan quality.

9. Lastly, be sure to inform and advise local elected officials and policymakers on the significant demographic shifts that will impact your community or region. A recently released report by aging and smart growth advocates notes that there are key challenges associated with the aging of America and provides a set of action steps that can be taken to focus community energies on aging in place. As planners know, making decision-makers aware of future community needs is a necessary condition for the appropriation of funding to build infrastructure and deliver programs to make neighborhoods more livable. Fortunately, nearly all of the physical design changes required to accommodate older populations benefit all community residents, so the issue of targeting one segment of the population to the exclusion of others is often not a major stumbling block when the issues are properly framed.

Note: AARP recently launched Community Exchange, an interactive area on its website devoted to the discussion of livable community topics. Communities can be rated on basic quality-of-life measures, mapped to identify neighborhood services, or compared against the demographic and economic statistics of other neighborhoods.

---
Jana Lynott, AICP, is Strategic Policy Advisor for Transportation & Livable Communities at AARP's Public Policy Institute

Andy Kochera is the former Strategic Policy Advisor for Housing at AARP's Public Policy Institute

Robert Hodder is Director of Livable Communities, Member Value, and Affiliate Communications, Message and Content Management, and Integrated Communications at AARP. He also serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of the American Planning Association