Age-friendly city at the neighborhood scale: A comparative assessment of age-friendly dimensions and residential satisfaction among older adults in Bushehr, Iran

Amiri, Sayyed Nouroddin; Panahi, Niloofar

doi:10.22034/uep.2026.590313.1949

Age-friendly city at the neighborhood scale: A comparative assessment of age-friendly dimensions and residential satisfaction among older adults in Bushehr, Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Sayyed Nouroddin Amiri

Niloofar Panahi

Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran

10.22034/uep.2026.590313.1949

Abstract

The rapid growth of the older adult population has challenged urban planning to provide equitable and efficient services, infrastructure, and urban environments that meet this population’s needs. In this context, identifying intra-urban differences in the realization of age-friendly city dimensions can provide evidence for neighborhood-based planning and prioritizing urban interventions. This study aimed to compare three neighborhoods – Sangi, Neidi, and Davas – in Bushehr, Iran, in terms of the eight dimensions of an age-friendly city and to examine their role in predicting older adults’ residential satisfaction. This quantitative comparative study collected data from 300 adults aged 60 years and older using the World Health Organization’s standardized Age-Friendly City questionnaire. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey’s post hoc test, and multiple regression analysis in SPSS. The results revealed significant differences among the three neighborhoods in six dimensions: outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social inclusion, and community support and health services. Older adults in the Sangi neighborhood rated their neighborhood less favorably than those in the other two neighborhoods across most of these dimensions. Furthermore, among the eight dimensions of an age-friendly city, only community support and health services significantly and positively predicted residential satisfaction, although the model explained only a limited proportion of the variance. The findings indicate that the realization of age-friendly city dimensions is not uniform across Bushehr’s neighborhoods and considering neighborhood-level differences can support urban planning and more targeted allocation of urban resources.

Keywords

Age friendly city

Bushehr

neighborhood

older adults

residential satisfaction

Subjects

Urban planning

Barbabella, F., Cela, E., Socci, M., Lucantoni, D., Zannella, M., & Principi, A. (2022). Active ageing in Italy: A systematic review of national and regional policies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010600
Buffel, T., Rémillard-Boilard, S., Walsh, K., McDonald, B., Smetcoren, A.-S., & De Donder, L. (2020). Age-friendly approaches and old-age exclusion: A cross-city analysis. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life, 14(2), 89–117. https://doi.org/10.3384/ijal.1652-8670.1470
Chippendale, T. L., & Bear-Lehman, J. (2010). Enabling aging in place for urban dwelling seniors: An adaptive or remedial approach? Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 28(4), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.3109/02703180903381078
Ebrahimipour S., Alizadeh K., & Ahmadian M. (2025). Objective and subjective assessment of spatial justice in providing urban services in an age-friendly city (Case study: Mashhad city). Journal of Urban Studies on Space and Place, 3: 131–154. https://doi.org/10.22034/jspr.2026.2074416.1188 [In Persian]
Fields, N. L., & Dabelko-Schoeny, H. (2015). Aging in place. In S. K. Whitbourne (Ed.), The encyclopedia of adulthood and aging. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118521373.wbeaa106
Forsyth, A., & Molinsky, J. (2021). What is aging in place? Confusions and contradictions. Housing Policy Debate, 31(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2020.1793795
Ghanbari A., Oskouei Ars A., & Badamchizadeh P. (2025). Investigating the perception gap between managers and older adults regarding age-friendly cities in formal and informal settlements of Tabriz metropolis. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Architecture, Civil Engineering, Urban Development, Environment, and Horizons of Islamic Art in the Second Step Statement of the Revolution. https://civilica.com/doc/2429363 [In Persian]
Hijas-Gómez, A. I., Ayala, A., Rodríguez-García, M. P., Rodríguez-Blázquez, C., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, V., Rojo-Pérez, F., Fernández-Mayoralas, G., Rodríguez-Laso, A., Calderón-Larrañaga, A., & Forjaz, M. J. (2020). The WHO active ageing pillars and their association with survival: Findings from a population-based study in Spain. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 90, 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2020.104114
Khare, A., & Bedarkar, M. (2026). Enabling age-friendly urban environments: A comprehensive integration of smart city technologies for older adults – An empirical study of Pune city. Working with Older People. https://doi.org/10.1108/WWOP-10-2024-0066
Komasi, H., Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2023). Emphasizing access to health and treatment services in order to identify the key factors influencing an age-friendly city. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 27(3), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2023.19865
Lawton, M. P., & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging (pp. 619–674). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10044-020
Lu, J., Li, L., & Wang, W. (2025). Assessing accessibility and environmental equity in the context of sustained aging: Pathways for age-friendly urban park planning. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 108, 128768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.128768
Mahmoudzadeh H., Aghayari Hir T., & Hatami D. (2024). Assessing the elderly-friendly city status in Region Four of Tabriz Metropolis. Journal of Geography and Planning, 88: 329–355. https://doi.org/10.22034/GP.2023.54153.3060 [In Persian]
Mohamadpour S., Hamidi A., Yekta Lashkariani A., & Mortezapour Hendekhaleh N. (2024). Feasibility of realizing the elderly-friendly neighborhood approach (Case study: Bāgherābād Neighborhood of Rasht). Geographical Studies of Coastal Areas Journal, 4: 41–56. https://doi.org/10.22124/gscaj.2025.26209.1279 [In Persian]
Mousavi M. N., Bayramzadeh N., & Shahsavar A. (2025). Evaluating age-friendly city criteria from residents’ perspective (Case study: Miandoab, Iran). Journal of Urban Social Geography, 12(1): 19–40. https://doi.org/10.22103/jusg.2025.2143 [In Persian]
OECD. (2025). Cities for all ages. OECD Urban Studies. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/f0c8fefa-en
Onose, D. A., Iojă, I. C., Niţă, M. R., Vânău, G. O., & Popa, A. M. (2020). Too old for recreation? How friendly are urban parks for elderly people? Sustainability, 12(3), 790. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030790
Rahmati M., Raeisi L., & Zadouli F. (2024). Identifying the challenges of citizenship for the elderly. Geography and Human Relationships, 4: 955–975. https://doi.org/10.22034/gahr.2024.423540.1977 [In Persian]
Rao, A., & Nandineni, R. D. (2026). How walkable are our cities for older adults? Mediation of comfort, convenience, and aesthetics. F1000Research, 14, 242. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161627.3
Rehal, P., Chani, P. S., Atreya, S., & Sehgal, V. (2021). Ageing-friendly neighborhoods: A study of mobility and out-of-home activity. In Lecture notes in civil engineering (Vol. 113, pp. 267–280). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9554-7_24
Ren, Y., Lai, Y., Shen, L., & Liu, Y. (2025). Towards an elderly-friendly society: How much has the elderly’s well-being been taken into account in the provision of urban public services? Journal of Urban Management, 14(3), 896–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jum.2025.04.005
Ruza, J., Kim, J. I., Leung, I., Kam, C., & Ng, S. Y. M. (2015). Sustainable, age-friendly cities: An evaluation framework and case study application on Palo Alto, California. Sustainable Cities and Society, 14, 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.05.013
Safarnia S., Ghasemi Z., Najafi S., & Sadegh Moghaddam L. (2025). Evaluation of age-friendly city indicators in Gonabad from the perspectives of older adults and urban managers. Gerontology, 4: 73–82. https://doi.org/10.22034/JOGE.10.4.73 [In Persian]
Steels, S. (2015). Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities, 47, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.02.004
Struckmeyer, L. R., & Getz-Rice, C. (2025). Lawton and Nahemow’s environmental press–competence model. In B. A. Schell & G. Gillen (Eds.), Routledge companion to occupational therapy: Theories, concepts and models. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003526766-42
Wang, L., Zhou, S., Kwan, M.-P., Liu, D., Zhang, L., & Song, J. (2026). Space-based planning implications for age-friendly cities: Insights from spatial non-stationarity in multiple environment-health relationships. Cities, 169, 106495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.106495
Wiles, J. L., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., & Allen, R. E. S. (2012). The meaning of aging in place to older people. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098
World Health Organization. (2002). Active ageing: A policy framework. World Health Organization. https://iris.who.int/items/46476232-b305-47b4-ab28-e3931607c70c
World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43755
World Health Organization. (2021). Decade of healthy ageing: Baseline report. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017900
Yoon, Y., & Park, J. (2022). Equitable city in an aging society: Public transportation-based primary care accessibility in Seoul, Korea. Sustainability, 14(16), 9902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14169902