In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched its age-friendly initiative, establishing comprehensive guidelines that encompass eight domains of livability (e.g., built environment, social infrastructure, service systems). The explicit objective was to create a social and physical environment that is more supportive and responsive, inherently embodying fairness and diversity, thus improving health and well-being among older adults (1–3). As the movement expanded, these guidelines were widely disseminated. A growing number of communities worldwide have implemented local changes with the common vision of making great places to grow older in, thereby helping their older residents enhance daily living experiences and achieve healthy aging (4–6). More Age-Friendly Communities (AFCs) are emerging, which are designed to support healthier living, mobility, independence, safety, and inclusion for older adults at the community level by adapting and changing the urban environment (7). By 2023, the WHO’s Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities had accredited 1,445 cities and communities across 51 countries, collectively impacting a population exceeding 300 million people globally (8).

Currently, research on the following issues has been increasingly explored in the literature: what constitutes AFCs (e.g., inclusive housing, transportation); why AFCs matter (e.g., they can improve the mental and physical health of older adult and enable rapid response interventions to assist them in addressing significant risks); how to operationalize AFCs (e.g., through favorable policies, conducive programs and measures); how to evaluate AFCs’ achievement (e.g., construct an indicator system to record AFCs’ progress); and what factors facilitate or hinder AFCs (e.g., external resources, local resources, and engaged local participants) (9–13). Nevertheless, due to regional differences, not only do some monitoring and evaluation systems often fail to capture broader community dynamics, but also some age-friendly policy frameworks and effective initiatives lack cross-community scalability (14). Thus, significant gaps remain in knowledge with respect to questions of how to work toward environmental and systemic change at the community level, to better meet people’s needs as they grow older and to allow for flourishing in later life. As stated by Greenfield and Buffel (12), particularly underdeveloped is systematic, contextually grounded research on AFC initiatives in diverse geopolitical, cultural, and economic settings. Fulmer et al. (15) noted that more local knowledge and evidence are needed on how the physical and social environment can be improved in a coherent manner to affect the health and well-being of older adults and other people in the community.

Existing research has documented the progress, challenges and key priorities of enhancing community age-friendliness in some countries (16), including the United States (17), Canada (18), the United Kingdom (19), Australia (20). Unfortunately, a critical gap emerges: the majority of existing studies on AFC initiatives are predominantly based on projects in developed North American and European countries, as these nations with more economic resources were first in embracing the age-friendly agenda in their urban policies and community practices (21, 22). By contrast, studies on AFCs set in Asian contexts remain remarkably limited. This scarcity stems from three key factors. Firstly, the progression of age-friendly initiatives is much slower in these countries, and researchers started relatively late in this field (23). Secondly, the continuous deepening of aging has triggered the rapid emergence and iteration of diverse, confusing concepts related to age and older adults, which have distracted the accumulation of age-friendliness-focused research in the region. Thirdly, while some researchers have begun to explore age-friendly research grounded in Asia, their studies tend to neglect both the local applicability of the WHO-developed age-friendly framework and the practical complexity of advancing age-friendly initiatives within these contexts. These studies primarily adopted quantitative methods and developed assessment tools grounded in the WHO-developed age-friendly framework for cities and communities to evaluate the age-friendliness of specific regions or communities; subsequently, they seek to translate these evaluation findings into concrete recommendations for improvement and actionable projects (24, 25). However, as Jian et al. (26) have demonstrated, the current age-friendly framework is mainly derived from low-density residential contexts in Europe, and thus exhibits considerable limitations when applied to building AFCs in Asian settings characterized by higher residential density. Differences between Asian economies and Western developed countries in terms of housing and care provision for older adults, priorities for advancing AFC development, and established institutional frameworks deserve greater attention (27). Meanwhile, relying solely on quantitative studies of age-friendliness evaluations remains insufficient to capture the sustained efforts and complex dynamics of AFCs in many Asian countries. In fact, given the differences in ideology, developmental stage, societal norms, and priority goals between many Asian nations and Western countries, the age-friendly theoretical framework has inevitably encountered implementation gaps in its localization (28). This has resulted in the development of diverse models for AFC development in practice settings. These subcategories have yet to be adequately identified and elucidated. This gap masks the complexity of AFCs within Asian contexts and hinders the formulation of more effective and context-specific strategies for advancing age-friendliness at the community level.

Consequently, many scholars such as Tan et al. (29) have advocated for extending the discourse on age-friendly practices of Asian counties and cites. Especially, some Asia regions, developing nations, and resource-scarce areas where older adults encounter significant financial, material, social, and other vulnerabilities, have actively engaged with age-friendly initiatives, yet the evidence of AFC development in these settings is either not well established or even absent (30, 31). This insufficiency undermines the Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities’ capacity to foster inclusive urban aging worldwide. Simultaneously and notably, Asia will become home to the world’s largest aging population, which will cause profound socio-economic changes; most developing countries and resource-constrained areas with high vulnerability for older adults remain ill-prepared to address the systemic transformations necessitated by this demographic shift. This gives these nations and countries a common aspiration to achieve age-friendly goals through low-cost, high-speed and efficient, high-resource-utilization approaches. Against this backdrop, it is vitally necessary to identify evidence-based and context-specific priorities of AFC development for Asian regions, developing countries and resource-scarce areas.

As a key member of the Asian cultural sphere and the developing nation cohort, China confronts an urgent demographic challenge: a rapidly accelerating aging population, which will persist as a structural societal feature for the foreseeable future. By the end of 2023, people aged 60+ constituted 21.1% of the total population (nearly 300 million), with the 65+ cohort accounting for 15.4% (nearly 220 million) (32). Projections from China’s National Health Commission (NHC) indicate that by 2035, people aged 60+ will constitute over 30% of the total population (exceeding 400 million), marking the nation’s entry into a period of hyper-aging. In response to this demographic transformation, China has taken proactive measures. Unique implementation approaches to age-friendly initiatives have been established. A series of policies have been introduced, such as Guiding Opinions on Promoting Livable Environment for Older Adults, Technical Guidelines for Age-Friendly Community Development, and National Demonstration Age-Friendly Community Initiative (33). In China, subnational governments, commercial groups, and social organizations have been activated at the community level to conceive and develop more livable AFCs, just as many areas worked to meet the rapidly increasing needs of older adults during emergencies (34–36).

In contemporary Chinese urban development, a number of communities either self-proclaimed or officially designated as “age-friendly” have emerged, which attempt to become the models of AFC development. These innovative models are broadly categorized into two types based on morphological characteristics and demographic composition: Gated Retirement Communities (GRCs) and Open Multi-Generational Communities (OMGCs). GRCs are physically demarcated by tangible barriers, and implement strict age-segregated strategies (requiring residents to be typically 50+). Their facilities and services are specially designed for the needs of older adults, spanning across the different stages and settings of independent living (IL), assisted living (AL), and nursing care (NL), aiming to create living environments for them (37). In contrast, OMGCs adopt the principles of openness and sharing (both residents and non-residents can use facilities and services), avoiding physical obstacles and access controls. Additionally, these neighborhoods implement age-integrated strategies (encouraging age-diverse residents to live together and providing supporting facilities and services for all age groups), fostering intergenerational interaction. Their facilities and services systems emphasize universal and age-friendly design, intergenerational integration, and harmonious sharing. These two models present distinctive practices of promoting age-friendliness in line with China’s actual situation, contributing to livable and inclusive urban development. However, there are also some challenges that make the realization of “age-friendly” goals more difficult.

This study employed a multi-case study approach to examine the practices of two distinct community types in China and the barriers existing in the realization of “age-friendly” goals. The objectives were to report on the progress of age friendly work in China and propose some insights to bridge the implementation gap of age-friendly initiatives. On the one hand, the evidence provided in this research can help fill the gaps in existing literature and serve as an important window for more regions and organizations to understand the progress of age friendly work in Asian and other developing countries. On the other hand, it can also offer useful experience and practical enlightenment for developing countries, areas with similar aging stages to China and Asian regions with comparable cultural backgrounds in developing AFCs.

The WHO age-friendly city framework comprises eight focal points: 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 (38). However, scholars and institutions from diverse cultural and socioeconomic contexts have interpreted AFC frameworks in varying dimensions and focuses (15, 30, 39–41). For instance, reports from British Department for Communities and Local Government concentrated on highlighting social environmental factors such as resident empowerment, healthcare accessibility, lifelong learning opportunities, social cohesion, and adaptive housing (42). Black and Jester (43) prioritized significant health benefits associated with built community features such as housing, transportation, and outdoor spaces and buildings, as older Americans overwhelmingly reported their desire to age in place and in the communities in which they live. Black and Oh (44) contended that AFCs are characterized by catalyzing multiple sectors of society to improve the places and spaces where people reside and interact across the built (e.g., housing), social (e.g., respect and inclusion), and service (e.g., health care) environment, thereby enacting broad-scale social change in geographically-defined municipal settings. Keyes et al. (45) and Warner and Zhang (46) found that AFCs require action among all sectors of society (i.e., public, private, and civil); governments play pivotal roles in, for example, land use planning, provision of supportive services, and enactment of relevant public policies, to facilitate private sector involvement.

A growing body of research from different perspectives has demonstrated the importance of intergenerational interaction opportunities, harmonious communication exchanges, and friendly intergenerational relationships lately (47). Han et al. (48) highlighted the beneficial impacts of intergenerational infrastructures and multi-generational housing models from the perspective of space production, noting that these can ensure spatial equality between generations and enable older residents to maintain the closest social support relationships with their children and younger generation within communities. Fowler Davis et al. (49) investigated the association between social engagement and cognitive frailty among older adults, aurging that communities actively encouraging intergenerational interaction tend to reduce isolation. Ermer et al. (50) and Kwong and Yan (51) analyzed how intergenerational programs involving collaboration, shared learning experiences, and interactive understanding alleviate ageist attitudes among young people, build empathetic and supportive relationships with older adults, and bridge divides across generations. Tohit and Haque (52) proposed the establishment of a cohesive culture that values contributions from all age groups, with the perspective that younger generation can play a role in addressing the challenges of an aging society. The inclusive approach can support younger and older generations to thrive together, enhancing social cohesion and collective well-being. This is shifting AFCs’ focus away from older adults to one where social and physical facilities mutually beneficial to all persons, regardless of age (30).

Furthermore, sustainability is integral to the development and implementation of age-friendly initiative, serving a distinct purpose in the successful continuation of AFC programs (53). In the absence of sustainability, these age-friendly projects and plans risk stagnation and failure, not only breaching commitments to the target population but also squandering public resources (54). More pressingly, with many countries experiencing economic austerity and numerous priorities competing limited resources, the implementation of AFCs is intertwined with multiple pressures, facing acute challenges in vulnerability and sustainability (16). Policymakers, researchers, and community practitioners have raised important concerns about uncertainties around AFC sustainability. However, research on the problem of implementing sustainable, long-term age-friendly initiatives remains limited (55). Thus, there is an urgent need to explore factors that facilitate or hinder AFC sustainability. While existing literature has defined sustainability and categorized it into economic, environmental, and social dimensions (56), some scholars have further developed this framework by building on the concepts of sustainability and integrating the characteristics of AFCs. Specifically, in AFC research, sustainability is generally defined as the duration of program lasting, the capacity to maintain community viability, service delivery, and plan implementation, and the degree to which initiatives become permanent and institutionalized beyond initial development (36).

To sum up, as reflected in empirical studies and theoretical frameworks, scholarly understandings on AFCs differ. However, by reviewing gerontology, urban planning, and social gerontology literature (15, 39, 40, 57–60), it can be well understood that policies, facilities, services, intergenerational relationships, and sustainability are included as the key elements to enhance age-friendliness of community. Base on this, this study has established an analytical framework incorporating the above elements. Meanwhile, contextualizing these dimensions within the socioeconomic and cultural milieus of Asian societies has further validated the framework’s applicability. First, populations in Asian countries are aging at a faster pace compared to those in European and American countries. Thus, there is an urgent need for policies, facilities and services in age-friendly environments to systematically adapt to emerging demographic and social transformations. Second, the culture of filial duty (respecting and caring for parents and older adults) constitutes a core value in Asian societies (61). With the passage of time and society changes, the expressions of respect for older adults are changing, yet the core ethical principles centered on intergenerational reciprocity and emotional bonds remain stable (62). This cultural gene still profoundly influences societal development in these countries (63). Third, sustainable development is a global priority, particularly critical for Asian nations and those in the extensive phase of socioeconomic development to balance present needs with the well-being of future generations (64). This also equally applies to the development of AFCs in these countries.

According to the above, an analytical framework embedded within the Asian context has been developed to systematically document and identify the age-friendly efforts at the community level in China as well as some other Asian countries (see Table 1).

This study examined how these two types of Chinese communities promote age-friendliness in terms of policies, facilities, services, intergenerational relationships and sustainability, while also analyzing persisting challenges.

A variety of effective and efficient age-friendly policy frameworks, action guidelines, and evaluation tools have been developed to achieve “age-friendly” goals more comprehensively, record and compare the progress of age-friendly initiatives across different regions (44, 48). However, some have criticized these frameworks and guidelines for being too Western-oriented, arguing that they might not align well with social foundations and value ethics in Asia (75). To address this gap, this paper has developed an analytical framework of community age-friendliness within the Asian context, which encompassed multiple dimensions including policies, facilities, services, intergenerational relationships, and sustainability. This framework can accurately document the progress of age-friendly initiatives across more Asian countries and developing nations. To further validate the applicability of this framework and identify effective strategies to enhance age-friendliness at the community level, this paper employed the framework to investigate how Gated Retirement Communities (GRCs) and Open Multi-Generational Communities (OMGCs) in China foster age-friendliness. Among them, some key priorities and the remaining challenges were highlighted. Table 4 summarized the progress of age-friendly works in the two types of communities in China as reported in the study.

Effective and efficient policies are essential to realize communities’ age-friendliness, which can overcome obstacles to the development of AFCs (48). However, the development of AFC policies often encounters various problems (76, 77). Among these challenges, the policy tended to favor wealthy groups who contributed to capital accumulation, while paying limited attention to marginalized groups. This remained a significant obstacle hindering the development of AFC policies (48, 78, 79). As reported in this study, the government misallocated public funds, preferential policies, and other resources to GRCs characterized by dual exclusion mechanisms of spatial segregation and economic filtering, abundant facilities, and high-end quality. This allocation led to the concentration of policy resources among the high-income older adult group, thereby exacerbating social inequality. This has sparked critical inquiries into age-friendly initiatives and associated activities (16), as the flawed orientation of age-friendly policies has failed to substantially address the persistent challenge of many older adults residing in highly vulnerable environments (80). This not only undermines the demonstration of age-friendly benefits but also hinders the scalability of such initiatives across broader community contexts. Against this background, the possibility of AFC policies needs to be innovatively explored. After years of development, age-friendly works in China have undergone a significant shift. The government is now focusing more on the age-friendly development of ordinary, established mixed-age communities, offering financial funds and policy supports to their facilitate their upgrades, renovations, and the addition of age-friendly facilities and services. For instance, the transformative renovations implemented by the O3 within OMGCs. Fundamentally, this approach re-centers fairness and justice as the core principles of AFC policies. Enabling policies to benefit a broader range of older adults and allowing them across various income levels and capabilities to find their appropriate roles and receive supports within the community, aligns more closely with the essential meaning of “age-friendly” (81, 82). These efforts offer valuable insights for implementing age-friendly policy frameworks at the community level in some regions. It is crucial to acknowledge that biases are inherent in public policies, a systemic issue embedded in the policy lifecycle. To unleash the full value of age-friendly initiatives and extend benefits to a broader older adults, public policies must prioritize addressing inequalities in access to services and community resources, particularly for the most vulnerable older adults (31). Implementing urban renewal strategies for ordinary existing established mixed-age communities to achieve broader promotion of age-friendliness is the development direction of age-friendly work.

The AFCs focus on modifying the broader physical environments and service environments of older adults to enhance their capacity to function optimally in their own homes and communities (2, 6). However, this did not mean that all communities have uniformly needed the same facilities and services. This study revealed that despite the extensive range of facilities and services available in GRCs, older adults living in these communities still experienced a low sense of support; while OMGCs offered more robust support to residents of diverse age groups within the community and surrounding populations through differentiated facility configurations and service provisions. The underlying reason was that while numerous facilities and services appeared to be provided, they failed to genuinely address the specific needs of residents. Previous studies have demonstrated that implementing age-friendly initiatives necessitates responsiveness to the heterogeneous needs of diverse older adult subgroups (16). Nevertheless, these studies remained silent on the methodologies employed to identify older adults’ needs. In some communities, needs identification was rooted in theoretical constructs of aging populations, such as GRCs, whereas others, like OMGCs, enhanced needs awareness through rigorous demand-assessment research. These divergent approaches to needs identification are likely to shape distinct trajectories for age-friendly community development. It was crucial to recognize that fostering age-friendly environments hinged on creating spaces that ensured old adults received adequate support. Therefore, the development of AFCs needs to take into account the heterogeneous characteristics of different communities and the diverse needs of their residents. Similar to OMGCs, thorough market research should be conducted, and facility and service plans should be tailored to local conditions and regional demands, thereby strengthening the perceived supportive environment of facilities and services for community residents. Otherwise, it may further exacerbate the sense of deprivation experienced by vulnerable residents in certain communities (83). Meanwhile, this study revealed significant disparities in service capabilities between GRCs and OMGCs, rooted in their divergent approaches to service provision and delivery. AFCs that prioritize service delivery and honor service commitments demonstrate greater operational capability, whereas failure to do so compromises residents’ rights and erodes public trust in AFC initiatives. In conclusion, tailoring facility configurations and service offerings to local needs while emphasizing the fulfillment of service commitments to end-users represents a people-centered and reality-based approach to advancing age-friendly practices at the community level (84).

Whilst some studies have advocated and noted that no design will suit everyone perfectly (85), it was not advisable to focus solely on one group due to the absence of a perfect design. Fang et al. (86) has figured that spaces and places designed to cater for one population group at the expense of another can create schisms across generations. This study has also uncovered intergenerational tensions within GRCs specifically designed for older adults. In these communities, children and young adults were frequently regarded as unwelcome visitors. Children who entered unexpectedly were viewed as potential “sources of danger,” while young adults utilizing community facilities were labeled as “resource appropriators.” Intergenerational exclusion and social isolation driven by age-based discrimination have emerged, which not only undermined the physical and mental well-being of older adults but also contradicts the core principles of AFCs (87, 88). As posited by Rémillard-Boilard et al. (16), tackling ageism and intergenerational exclusion was not only important in improving the quality of life of older people, but also in enabling the delivery of age-friendly programs themselves. When younger and older generations engaged in positive interaction, mutual respect and understanding are fostered, and enhanced intergenerational harmony thereby benefited society in multiple long-term ways (52). Puhakka et al. (89) clarified that closely aligned with the concept of age friendliness is age integration, from which perspective age-friendly living environments can be understood as those in which people of all ages can experience a sense of belonging and supporting. Yin et al et al. (95) urged that this concept of age friendliness represents a critical reflection on the traditional single-group-oriented approach in community planning, marking a shift from “compensatory differentiation” to “systemic inclusion.” Therefore, it should be acknowledged that robust and amicable intergenerational relationships are a crucial component of AFCs and an inclusive, livable society (90). The appeal of being age-friendly lies in its holistic approach, which encompasses not merely being “friendly to older adults,” but also fostering friendliness toward individuals of all ages (91), as exemplified by OMGCs. The core essence of implementing AFCs at the community level resides in ensuring inclusivity and accessibility for all age demographics.

Urgent questions of initiative sustainability have taken hold in the academic literature and among advocates implementing age-friendly changes (54, 78). Internationally, numerous studies have provided multi-dimensional insights into enhancing the sustainable development capacity of urban spaces (92, 94). Some studies have proposed that age-friendly sustainability may be conceptualized as an implementation gap between early development stages and long-term viability (18). This conceptualization provided an analytical anchor point for this study to compare the sustainability of GRCs and OMGCs in China. The findings indicated that OMGCs exhibited a stronger capacity for sustainable development compared with GRCs. This was because the vision embedded in the closed logic of GRCs proved unattainable in long-term operational practice. In contrast, OMGCs adopted an open logic from the outset, demonstrating greater adaptability and the ability to achieve long-term sustainable development. Therefore, this study argued that “openness” was a crucial element for the sustainable development of AFCs. Its core lied in transcending the physical boundaries of the community, welcoming a broader range of urban residents, and giving urban residents the opportunities to enjoy the benefits of the city’s economic growth (81). Simultaneously, adopting a market-oriented approach made communities meet a wider spectrum of needs and accommodate more intricate changes.

This research had certain limitations. First, the age-friendly analysis framework developed in this study, which encompassed dimensions such as policies, facilities, services, intergenerational relationships, and sustainability, served as a valuable tool for understanding age-friendly initiatives in Asian countries. Nevertheless, this framework possessed significant potential for further expansion and refinement. Second, this research primarily examined age-friendly practices within the Chinese context from a top-down perspective, which did not fully capture the comprehensive complexity of age-friendly efforts in China. Lopes et al. (93) emphasized that the inclusion of stakeholders’ comments and suggestions in development of sustainable and inclusive city contributes to improving the quality of decision-making, to gaining greater acceptance of policies, and to widening the understanding of problems. This article did not adequately consider the role of local residents in shaping or developing AFCs, as well as the increasingly pronounced demands and advocacy from local residents in communities, which is a deficiency of the article. Further research is needed to incorporate these perspectives in the future. Third, this research has elucidated the dynamics of these two community types at their current stage of development. Yet, it requires further theoretical elaboration and ongoing monitoring to construct a more systematic knowledge framework. Despite these limitations, the merit of this research was focusing on age-friendly initiatives in developing countries and Asian nations, thereby enhancing the understanding of age-friendly initiatives in diverse contexts. Additionally, it documented Chinese explorations into AFCs and identified effective measures to foster age-friendliness at the community level. As an innovative study, it offers meaningful insights for countries that are either preparing or have recently commenced exploring the development of age-friendly initiatives. Consequently, this remains a valuable contribution to the field.

This research examined the progress of age-friendly initiatives in China, illustrating how Gated Retirement Communities (GRCs) and Open Multi-Generational Communities (OMGCs) contributed to age-friendliness within the Chinese context, while also addressing the remaining challenges. It identified key priorities for fostering age-friendliness at the community level in China. The study revealed that GRCs were susceptible to issues including spatial injustice, resource waste and high facility idleness rates, service commitment breaches, age discrimination and intergenerational exclusion, and unsustainability, which starkly diverged from age-friendly objectives. By contrast, OMGCs exhibited a higher degree of age-friendliness and greater vitality. Through comparative analysis of the two models, several key priorities for advancing age-friendliness at the community level have been identified: implementing renewal strategies for ordinary existing established mixed-age communities to transform them into more inclusive and supportive OMGCs can extend age-friendly benefits to broader populations; tailoring age-friendly facility configurations to local needs while prioritizing service commitment fulfillment represents a key measure to promote age-friendliness; as intergenerational interaction is a vital dimension of age-friendliness, the spaces that are welcoming to all age rather than exclusively targeting older adults should be created; and integrating with broader urban development is essential for sustaining long-term viability of AFCs. These findings can inform other countries in developing age-friendly policies and establishing AFCs. In the context of an increasingly aging global population, this research holds significant implications for enhancing the well-being of older adults, promoting intergenerational harmony, and advancing social cohesion. Future research should focus on reporting and evaluating the progress of age-friendly initiatives in China and other non-Western and developing settings from a more micro-level perspective, such as the resident participation within AFCs, and through a lens of precise statistical data. These contents are crucial for advancing the establishment of Global Age-friendly City and Community networks.