Understanding Intergenerational Interactions Between Older Adults and Children: Expert Opinions About the Roles of Community Environments

Abstract

The US Surgeon General declared loneliness and isolation a new public health epidemic. Intergenerational interactions can alleviate loneliness and isolation. To explore factors affecting and being affected by intergenerational interactions, we conducted interviews with 41 academic and professional experts in the US. The “4Ps” framework of social marketing (Product, Price, Place, and Promotion) was used to guide the data analysis. Experts reported benefits or positive outcomes (Product), including improved connectivity/cohesion and intergenerational learning, and risks or concerns (Price) like noise exposure and criminal danger. Experts also highlighted the importance of environmental factors (Place), such as shared public spaces, diverse housing options, and safe, walkable, and accessible environments. They mentioned that personal, social, programmatic, and policy factors (Promotion) are important for intergenerational interactions. Further research is needed to engage other stakeholder groups and investigate the causal impacts of readily modifiable environmental features and how such impacts may vary across diverse population groups.

Keywords

intergenerational communities aging in place ageism evidence-based practice

What this paper adds

• Intergenerational communities result from a combination of individual thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and actions; interpersonal interactions; organizational policies and programming; community norms and culture; and environmental design such as aesthetics, accessibility, proximity, and walkability.

• Both socio-cultural supports (e.g., social programs and volunteer opportunities) and physical environments (e.g., mixed-use development, shaded seating outdoors) are important for supporting intergenerational interactions.

• Intergenerational communities can bring mutual benefits to older adults and children through improving knowledge exchange, cognitive engagement, mutual support, opportunities to share interests, social connections, and a sense of value to society.

Applications of study findings

• It is essential to ensure easy access to intergenerational spaces and community resources/services (e.g., health care, educational, and recreational) that can support the diverse needs of people of all ages and abilities.

• Providing safe, pleasant, and welcoming places with various facilities and amenities can help promote diverse casual and formal social interactions across different generations.

• Diverse and affordable housing options (e.g., co-housing, accessory dwelling units, multigenerational homes, and senior apartments) are important for accommodating intergenerational living.

Introduction

Population aging is a global issue that has challenged nearly all sectors of society (United Nations, n.d). The US is also being confronted with challenges associated with a growing aging population, with a higher proportion of older adults (aged 65+) than the world average (United Nations Population Fund, 2024). The 2023 US Census data indicated a foreseeable growth of older adults from 57,795,000 in 2022 to 78,294,000 in 2040, representing a 35.47% increase (United States Census Bureau, 2023). Ageism, or discrimination toward older individuals, is prevalent, affecting more than 80% of the older population in the US, resulting in decreased engagement and increased social isolation (Allen, 2016; Butler, 1980; Palmore, 2004). Social isolation is associated with many serious health problems, such as dementia, depression, suicide, and premature death (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2018). In 2023, the US Surgeon General declared loneliness and isolation a new public health epidemic (Department of Health and Human Services, 2023).

Existing empirical evidence suggests the importance of intergenerational interactions in reducing ageism, loneliness, and isolation (Lagace et al., 2023; Zhong et al., 2020a) and promoting aging in place (Lee & Zhong, 2019; Zhong & Lee, 2022). Several leading aging- or health-related associations/organizations have called for actions toward promoting intergenerational interactions to benefit both older and younger generations (AARP, 2023; Generations United, 2016; World Health Organization, 2021). Intergeneration refers to relationships, exchanges, and interactions across different generations. Current efforts on intergenerational interactions focused primarily on older adults’ social interactions with younger generations, which can differ in terms of age groups (e.g., children and young adults), quality (e.g., program-based or naturally occurring), locations (e.g., workplace or third place), duration, and frequency (Zhong et al., 2020a, 2020b). Main barriers to intergenerational interactions include ageism, cultural differences, physical limitations, and a lack of places and opportunities (Flamion et al., 2020; Zhong et al., 2022).

There is a limited body of research exploring the roles of the built environment in intergenerational interactions. A small number of US-based studies highlight the inherently beneficial place-based nature of these interactions. Two cross-sectional quantitative studies in Austin, Texas, US, indicated significant associations between community environments (e.g., land use and transportation) and older adults’ intergenerational interactions (Zhong et al., 2020b, 2022). Furthermore, public spaces can be designed with the understanding that they provide the necessary (and often unavoidable) context for cross-generational interactions (Nelischer & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2022). Globally, other studies have contributed to actionable advice to support active aging, focusing on an inclusive approach to public space design that promotes intergenerational interactions and social cohesion (Abdulmunem et al., 2024; Lau, 2023).

To address the knowledge gaps mentioned above, this study aims to explore personal and environmental factors impacting in-person social interactions between older adults (aged 65+ years) and children (younger than 18) in the community. We focus on older adults’ social interactions with children because social isolation is more prominent and detrimental among vulnerable populations like older adults and children (Almeida et al., 2021). Most intergenerational studies center on social interactions between older adults and children to measure their physical, mental, and social benefits (Webster et al., 2023; Zhong et al., 2020a). Additionally, given the significant burden of this type of interview, we keep the interview length and complexity reasonable by focusing on children under 18 only. This is the first US-based nationwide expert interview study, which contributes to expanding existing knowledge about tangible and easily implementable social and physical environmental characteristics that can help promote intergenerational interactions. Our study offers valuable insights to policymakers, developers, and professional planners/designers who are seeking policy, program, and environmental strategies for creating intergenerational communities or spaces.

Conceptual Framework

We use the social marketing approach to conceptualize and implement this qualitative study. The social marketing approach encompasses a comprehensive strategy for the dissemination and promotion of socially beneficial behaviors or ideas within communities (Buchanan et al., 1994; Grier & Bryant, 2005). Its four components—Product, Price, Place, and Promotion (4Ps)—represent fundamental components that guide the design and implementation of effective social marketing campaigns (Gordon, 2012; Singh, 2012).

The social marketing approach has been widely used in various fields, including health promotion. Truong and Dang (2017) conducted a systematic review and found 166 published studies utilizing social marketing health interventions, which included topics related to physical activity, nutrition, and alcohol prevention. More systematic reviews on physical activity suggested the effectiveness of social marketing in promoting physical activity (Fujihira et al., 2015; Xia et al., 2016). These reviews further emphasized the importance of support from upstream stakeholders and making desired behavior more tangible and persuasive when developing relevant social marketing interventions. As for qualitative research, social marketing has been popularly used as the theoretical foundation to identify social and physical environmental determinants of physical activity, including walking (Kaveh et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2013). However, to our knowledge, evidence is limited in social marketing interventions to promote older adults’ social activity.

It is selected for our study because it incorporates multi-faceted theories (e.g., social cognitive theory, behavioral reinforcement theory, persuasion theory, and exposure theory) to target health behavior changes through modifiable behavior determinants (Luck et al., 2009; Schunk, 2012). In addition to behavior changes in target populations (e.g., older adults and children in this study), social marketing considers upstream stakeholders such as policymakers and land developers who make decisions on public policies and/or environmental interventions (Chichirez & Purcărea, 2018). This makes it ideal for our study, which addresses multi-level environmental determinants of intergenerational interactions involving diverse stakeholder groups.

Methods

Study Design and Recruitment

We developed the interview protocols and questions covering the 4Ps of social marketing for promoting older adults’ in-person social interactions with children (Table 1 and Appendix 1). Standardized interview protocols were developed after multiple rounds of pre-testing. Expert interviewees included in this study were faculty members and professionals with expertise in intergenerational communities and interactions from the field(s) of built environments, public health and aging services, and/or health care.

Table 1.

Definition of Product, Price, Place, and Promotion (4Ps) and Corresponding Interview Questions.

Theme	Official definition	Operational definition	Main interview question(s)
Product	The behavior, idea, or offering being promoted, emphasizing the need for it to align with the target audience’s needs, desires, and values (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971)	The benefits or positive outcomes from engaging in intergenerational interactions	If you had to define intergenerational communities, how would you phrase that?
			Based on your knowledge, what are the potential benefits for older adults interacting in person with children?
			What are the potential benefits for children interacting in person with older adults?
Price	The perceived costs associated with adopting the desired behavior or idea, encompassing not only monetary expenses but also psychological, social, or time-related considerations (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971)	The salient risks or concerns associated with intergenerational interactions	What would you say are the potential risks or concerns, if any, for older adults interacting with children?
			What would you say are the potential risks or concerns, if any, for children interacting with older adults?
			[Probe] In your opinion, what, if anything, about the social factors may make it more difficult for older adults to interact with children in the community?
			[Probe] In your opinion, which physical factors may make it more difficult for older adults to interact with children in the community?
Place	The channels and environments through which the target audience can access information or resources related to the promoted concept, emphasizing the importance of strategic distribution and accessibility (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971)	The design characteristics of the built and natural environments that promote intergenerational interactions	Can you tell me specifically about how the physical environmental factors may influence older adults’ interactions with children in the community?
Place			[Probe] In your opinion, which of these physical factors may help promote older adults’ social interactions with children in the community?
Promotion	The communication strategies and tactics employed to raise awareness, generate interest, and encourage engagement with the intended behavior or idea, utilizing various marketing channels and messaging techniques tailored to the characteristics of the target audience (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971)	The personal, social, programmatic, and policy strategies that promote intergenerational interactions	Can you tell me specifically about how social factors may influence older adults’ interactions with children in the community?
Promotion			[Probe] In your opinion, what, if anything, about the social factors may help promote older adults’ social interactions with children in the community?

From January 25, 2023 to July 13, 2023, we invited 76 experts who agreed to be contacted for a 40-minute one-on-one virtual interview from those who participated in an expert survey previously conducted by our research team (Zhong et al., 2025). We interviewed 44 experts until saturation was reached, including 41 from the US, one from Canada, one from Italy, and one from the United Arab Emirates. Given the significant variabilities across different countries and limited representations of other countries, we included only the 41 experts from the US in this study.

Interview Process

To ensure methodological rigor and consistency across the interview process, a single experienced researcher conducted all interviews. Before commencing data collection, the interviewer received rigorous training to master the subject matter and improve/tailor the interview skills. Throughout the interview process, the interviewer adhered to established interview techniques and protocols, maintaining consistency in questioning style, probe techniques, and demeanor across all 44 interviews. This stringent approach aimed to minimize potential interviewer bias and ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected from the diverse pool of subject matter experts.

Data Analysis

Coding was completed using the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) ATLAS.ti (v7.6.1-2024-04-11) (ATLAS.ti, 2024). Three trained graduate researchers analyzed the interview data. Two researchers reviewed each interview, and the third researcher helped resolve disagreements.

Guided by the 4Ps framework, deductive coding was used to analyze the data. Emerging codes were grouped using inductive content analysis and subsequently organized within each theme (each of the 4Ps). These themes were the larger concepts related to intergenerational interactions, while codes distilled meanings from the detailed interview data, shedding light on the nuances.

Results

Expert Participant Characteristics

The age of expert participants ranged from 34 to 81, with a mean age of 59 and approximately 39% being 65 years and older (Table 2). The subject pool was well-educated, with 34% having a master’s degree and 32% having a doctoral degree. Most reported being male (66%), non-Hispanic white (71%), working in academia (63%), and identifying their primary area of expertise in the built environment field (90%). Some built environmental experts also had expertise in public health, aging, and/or health care. Geographically, 34% were from the southern US, followed by the northwestern (29%), western (20%), and midwestern (17%) regions.

Table 2.

Expert Participant Characteristics.

Category	Description	Frequency	%
Age (n = 38)	Younger adults	23	60.53
Age (n = 38)	Older adults (65+)	15	39.47
Sex (n = 41)	Male	27	65.85
Sex (n = 41)	Female	14	34.15
Education (n = 41)	Bachelor’s degree	7	17.07
	Master’s degree	14	34.15
	Professional degree	7	17.07
	Doctorate degree	13	31.71
Race and ethnicity (n = 41)	Non-Hispanic white	29	70.73
Race and ethnicity (n = 41)	Others	12	29.27
Employer classification (n = 41)	Academic/university	26	63.41
Employer classification (n = 41)	Professional	15	36.59
Primary area of expertise (n = 40)	Built environments	36	90.00
Primary area of expertise (n = 40)	Public health and aging services, or health care	4	10.00
US regions (n = 41)	West	8	19.51
	Midwest	7	17.07
	Northeast	12	29.27
	South	14	34.15

PRODUCT—Benefits or Positive Outcomes From Engaging in Intergenerational Interactions

A multitude of benefits to older adults were emphasized by expert interviewees (Table 3 and Appendix 2). Socially, intergenerational interactions led to improved connectivity and cohesion (17 mentions), opportunities to learn from younger generations (11 mentions), staying updated on cultural trends (5 mentions), and diversified expressions and thinking (1 mention). One participant noted, “They’re connected to a younger generation. They have a sense that they have value to the broader community and that they have something to offer.” Additionally, experts reported great value in sharing older adults’ knowledge and legacy with children (4 mentions) and in providing older adults with various activity choices (2 mentions). One expert stated, “The knowledge base people who have a continuity of their legacy can be seen when they transfer knowledge to the younger generation.” Another highlighted the benefits of diverse activities in a multigenerational community: “more diversity and interest that comes with living in a community or just having a lot of different activities taking place and options.”

Table 3.

Qualitative Themes and Codes.

Theme	Major code	Frequency
Product (benefits or positive outcomes)	Older Adult–Specific
	Improved connectivity/cohesion	17
	Reduced loneliness	13
	Society engagement	12
	Enjoyment	12
	Learning from youth	11
	Prevention of cognitive decline	9
	Sense of value	9
	Increased energy	8
	Child-Specific
	Learning from adults (wisdom, knowledge, experience, history, etc.)	36
	Exposure to different life stages	16
	Development of emotional and social skills	10
	Receiving care/support	10
	Receiving patient interest and affection	9
Price (risks or concerns)	Older Adult–Specific
	Exposure to loud noise	19
	Injury (from falling)	12
	Threat from youth	9
	Child-Specific
	Criminal danger from older adults (strangers)	9
Place (design characteristics of the built and natural environments)	Place for Interaction
	Public place/shared open space	34
	Resting place (with shade, bench, table, etc.)	26
	Proximity between spaces used by older adults and children	10
	Semi-private space	10
	Walkable and Accessible Environment
	Accessibility to open/shared space	22
	Proximity/walkable distance	19
	Barrier free	14
	Connected amenity/neighborhood	13
	Ample sidewalks and pedestrian pathways	11
	Walkable distance between generation-specific developments	9
	Diverse and Inclusive Community Design
	Universal design accommodating all generations and abilities	15
	Diverse transportation options	12
	Mixed land use	12
	Inclusive spaces	9
	Housing
	Diverse housing options	13
	Ambient Environment
	Weather condition	11
	Aesthetically Pleasing Place
	Aesthetic qualities of places	9
	Safety and Security
	Good visibility for navigation and safety	8
	Safe public space	8
Promotion (personal, social, programmatic, and policy strategies)	Interpersonal Factor
	Stigma/cultural norms	20
	Diverse programming options	16
	Institutional connections to the community	15
	Organized/facilitated interaction	14
	Volunteering/work opportunities	11
	Organizational support	8
	Intrapersonal Factor
	Differences in culture/interest	12
	Specific interaction preferences	8

Note. This table is abbreviated, including only the frequently appearing codes (mentioned by 8 or more experts) in each theme. The full list of all codes is available in Appendix 2.

For mental health, experts believed that such interactions helped diminish loneliness (13 mentions), foster a sense of societal engagement and enjoyment (12 mentions each), prevent cognitive decline (9 mentions), instill a sense of value (9 mentions), and imbue older adults with energy (8 mentions). They also served as a distraction from health ailments (2 mentions), reduced depression (2 mentions), fostered lovingkindness (2 mentions), and redirected attention (1 mention). As for physical health, interviewed experts believed that intergenerational interactions helped maintain physical activity (5 mentions). Older adults benefited from receiving assistance with personal care (4 mentions) and grocery shopping (2 mentions), as well as learning new technologies (2 mentions). By providing assistance such as educating children (3 mentions) and offering childcare (2 mentions), older adults reinforced a sense of purpose and reciprocity in these relationships.

Experts also highlighted the benefits of intergenerational interactions for children. Specifically, these interactions allowed children to learn wisdom, knowledge, experience, and history from older adults (36 mentions). One expert noted, “There’s also the experience of history, of what the past was like, of what life was like in a different era.” Another stated, “Knowing the history of a culture, neighborhood, and race can be more vivid and sometimes more trusting if you hear it from a person.” They helped children develop emotional and social skills (10 mentions) and boosted their self-esteem and confidence (3 mentions). Additionally, children received valuable suggestions on life decisions (1 mention). Intergenerational interactions exposed children to people of different ages (16 mentions) and different life experiences (6 mentions). This exposure helped foster a sense of community (5 mentions) and fill their natural curiosity (2 mentions). Children benefited from support and caring (10 mentions), patient interest and affection (9 mentions), and a sense of security (2 mentions).

PRICE—Salient Risks or Concerns Associated With Intergenerational Interactions

Despite numerous benefits associated with intergenerational interactions, they can pose challenges for both older adults and children. Primary concerns for older adults were related to health and safety (Table 3 and Appendix 2). When engaging in intergenerational interactions, older adults were more prone to noise exposure (19 mentions), injury from falling (12 mentions), exhaustion (6 mentions), and disease transmission (4 mentions). Regarding safety concerns, intergenerational interactions exposed older adults to threats from chaos and insecurity (9 mentions) and crime (5 mentions). One expert mentioned, “There may be too much chaos, too much noise. Maybe they don’t have the energy to be involved.”

Children might face challenges primarily in the realms of mental, physical, and behavioral development. Mental development concerns included passing sadness and upset (4 mentions), decreased independence in decision-making (2 mentions), and a lack of respect from older adults (2 mentions). One expert noted, “Sometimes older adults can be not very pleasant; they might be kind of grouchy, particularly if they don’t feel good, and they can point that towards kids. And the kids are more vulnerable emotionally.” Nine experts mentioned physical development concerns, such as physical threats or harms from older adults. Behaviorally, children were prone to older adults’ culture or philosophy enforcement (2 mentions), spoiled behavior development (2 mentions), and bad behavior modeling (1 mention).

PLACE—Design Characteristics of the Built and Natural Environments That Promote Intergenerational Interactions

Expert interviewees suggested seven domains of environmental factors important for intergenerational interactions, including regional variations in specific environmental factors (Table 4, Figure 1, and Appendix 2). Below are the main results for each domain.

Table 4.

Top 5 Frequently Mentioned Environmental Factors by US Regions.

Region	Top 5 frequently mentioned environmental factors	Frequency (%)
South (n = 14)	Public place/shared open space	13 (93%)
	Resting place	8 (57%)
	Accessibility to open/shared space	8 (57%)
	Diverse housing options	6 (43%)
	Proximity/walkable distance	5 (36%)
	Connected amenity/neighborhood	5 (36%)
	Diverse transportation options	5 (36%)
Northeast (n = 12)	Resting place	9 (75%)
	Public place/shared open space	8 (67%)
	Proximity/walkable distance	8 (67%)
	Accessibility to open/shared space	5 (42%)
	Barrier free	4 (33%)
	Connected amenities/neighborhood	4 (33%)
	Ample sidewalks and pedestrian pathways	4 (33%)
Midwest (n = 7)	Public place/shared open space	6 (86%)
	Accessibility to open/shared space	5 (71%)
	Mixed land use	5 (71%)
	Resting place	4 (57%)
	Proximity/walkable distance	4 (57%)
	Integrated eatery and activity area	4 (57%)
West (n = 8)	Public place/shared open space	7 (88%)
	Universal design that accommodates all generations	6 (75%)
	Resting place	5 (63%)
	Accessibility to open/shared space	4 (50%)
	Inclusive spaces	4 (50%)

Note. Tied factors within the top five were all included.

Figure 1.

Environmental factors promoting intergenerational interactions by US regions. Note. This figure is abbreviated, including only the frequently appearing codes (mentioned by 8 or more experts) in each theme. The full list of all codes is available in Appendix 2. The percentages represent the percentage of experts within each region who mentioned the respective code out of the total experts in the region.

Place for Interactions

Thirty-four experts mentioned public places and shared open spaces, including 13 (93%) experts in the South, 8 (67%) in the Northeast, 7 (88%) in the West, and 6 (86%) in the Midwest. Twenty-six experts highlighted the importance of resting places with shade and/or supportive amenities like benches and tables. These were especially prevalent in the Northeast (9 mentions, 75%) and the South (8 mentions, 57%), followed by the West (5 mentions, 63%) and the Midwest (4 mentions, 57%). The proximity between spaces used by older adults and children and semi-private spaces each garnered 10 mentions, highlighted evenly across regions, except for the South, with fewer mentions. An inviting environment (3 mentions) and sufficient space to avoid conflict (1 mention) were also beneficial for encouraging intergenerational interactions.

Walkable and Accessible Environment

Twenty-two experts emphasized accessibility to open and shared spaces, including 8 (57%) experts in the South, 5 (71%) in the Midwest, 5 (42%) in the Northeast, and 4 (50%) in the West. Proximity and walkable distances were highlighted by 19 experts, with more than half of the experts in the Northeast (8 mentions, 67%) and the Midwest (4 mentions, 57%). One expert emphasized, “Environments must be designed so that people of all stripes, ages, and with any vehicles they might need for mobility can access them.” Fourteen experts mentioned barrier-free environments, such as barrier-free sidewalks, bathroom facilities, and trails, with 3 or 4 mentions from each region. Connected amenities or neighborhoods were mentioned by 13 experts, predominantly from the South (5 mentions, 36%) and the Northeast (4 mentions, 33%). One expert stated, “As an amenity, if we can connect it to other neighborhoods or a trail system, then we start to weave a fabric instead of just having your isolated one little project.” Ample sidewalks and pedestrian pathways (11 mentions) were essential, especially in the Midwest (3 mentions, 43%), the Northeast (4 mentions, 33%), and the South (4 mentions, 29%). Walkable distance between generation-specific developments (e.g., religious institutions and preschools, senior housing/nursing homes, and childcare) received 9 mentions, primarily noted by experts from the Northeast (3 mentions, 25%) and the West (3 mentions, 38%). Access to quality education (5 mentions) and transportation (3 mentions) were noted mainly in the Northeast. Predictable and navigable street grids (2 mentions) and access by health services (1 mention) were less frequently mentioned but considered important in certain regions.

Diverse and Inclusive Community Design

Universal design accommodating all generations and abilities received 15 mentions, highlighted by 6 (75%) experts in the West, 4 (29%) in the South, 3 (25%) in the Northeast, and 2 (29%) in the Midwest. Diverse transportation options (12 mentions) were also critical, especially in the South (5 mentions, 36%), the West (3 mentions, 38%), and the Northeast (3 mentions, 25%). Twelve experts believed in the importance of mixed land uses, primarily from the Midwest (5 mentions, 71%) and the South (4 mentions, 29%). Of the 9 experts highlighting the importance of inclusive spaces, four (50%) were from the Western region. One expert noted, “We might need some more equal spaces where children and older adults can interact easily together.” Eateries with integrated leisure activities (6 mentions) were especially valued in the Midwest (4 mentions, 57%). Community plan concepts like complete neighborhoods (3 mentions) and high density (2 mentions) were less frequently mentioned but still considered important factors.

Housing

Thirteen experts highlighted the importance of diverse housing options, with 6 (43%) experts from the South, 3 (38%) from the West, 2 (29%) from the Midwest, and 2 (17%) from the Northeast. Affordable living costs received 3 mentions, distributed across three of the four US regions. One expert mentioned, “A mix of housing types, so every house that’s built doesn’t need to be a three-bedroom, two-bathroom. Affordable housing is a significant challenge, providing the ability for older adults to be able to continue to live independently as they are still able.” Two Southern experts believed interactive housing layouts, such as front porches and intergenerational co-housing, played an important role in promoting intergenerational interactions. Intergenerational living with supportive housing and public spaces can enhance physical, social, and mental well-being, thereby promoting aging in place (Jiaxuan et al., 2024).

Ambient Environment

Weather conditions (11 mentions) were emphasized by 4 (29%) experts from the South, 3 (25%) from the Northeast, 2 (29%) from the Midwest, and 2 (25%) from the West. One expert noted, “We, architects and planners, love these beautiful plazas. Sun is biting you up. You cannot walk for a few feet. You get really exhausted by humidity and heat.” Five experts, including 3 (25%) from the Northeast and 2 (14%) from the South, highlighted the importance of good acoustic environments, considering that older adults might have hearing problems and require no-noisy places. Two experts (i.e., one from the Midwest and another from the West) believed that thermal comfort was of critical importance.

Aesthetically Pleasing Place

Aesthetic qualities of places such as pretty vegetation, water features, and artwork were mentioned by 9 experts, primarily from the South (3 mentions, 21%) and the West (3 mentions, 38%). Two experts (i.e., one from the Midwest and another from the South) highlighted the importance of well-maintained places in providing a conducive environment for interactions. One expert mentioned a public pool as an example: “It’s a clean place. Everybody feels they own that place, and they keep it maintained. You don’t see graffiti there. They don’t break the locker. It’s the place that is maintained.”

Safety and Security

Expert interviewees believed that good visibility for navigation and safety (8 mentions), safe public spaces (8 mentions), well-lit areas (7 mentions), safety from vehicles (6 mentions), and a sense of security (5 mentions) were important for promoting intergenerational interactions, with a notable emphasis in the Northeastern and the Southern regions. Additionally, one expert from the West and another from the South emphasized the importance of privacy and secure building, respectively. As stated by an expert, “There should also be spaces that are not just open and big for observation but also allow for privacy. Even for kids, it’s important to have places to hide and play away from parents’ eyes.”

PROMOTION—Personal, Social, Programmatic, and Policy Strategies That Promote Intergenerational Interactions

Various personal, social, programmatic, and policy factors impacting intergenerational interactions were categorized under interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions (Table 3 and Appendix 2). Interpersonally, experts highlighted the importance of diverse programming options (16 mentions), institutional connections to the community (15 mentions), organized or facilitated interactions (14 mentions), and support mechanisms (8 mentions). Social programming that specifically targeted intergenerational activities, such as mentorship programs, intergenerational learning initiatives, and community service projects, provided structured opportunities for different age groups to come together, share experiences, and learn from one another (Anderson et al., 2017; Giraudeau & Bailly, 2019). Programs impeding intergenerational interactions included strict or setting programming (4 mentions) and unwelcoming institutions (3 mentions). Important socio-cultural features included stigma or cultural norms (20 mentions), volunteering and work opportunities (11 mentions), ageism (6 mentions), and local culture (2 mentions). Additionally, social connections (i.e., family or friend network) were mentioned 5 times, suggesting the role of existing relationships in facilitating or impeding interactions.

In the intrapersonal category, socio-cultural differences, mentioned as gaps in culture or interests by 12 experts, led to various levels of intergenerational interactions. Personal attitudes, including preferences for interaction types (8 mentions), social trust (5 mentions), fear or anxiety toward interactions (4 mentions), shyness or stiffness (4 mentions), and inability to prevent harm from children (3 mentions), further complicated these interactions. Additionally, personal abilities such as economic constraints (6 mentions), physical limitations (5 mentions), privacy personality variations (4 mentions), and imbalances in activities (2 mentions) depicted the personal barriers individuals face.

Discussion

Utilizing the 4Ps framework of social marketing, this study synthesizes interview data from knowledgeable professional and academic experts in the US to identify their perspectives on personal and environmental factors affecting and being affected by intergenerational interactions. Experts indicated that intergenerational interactions could bring potential benefits or positive outcomes (Product) and risks or concerns (Price) to older adults and children. Experts also suggested seven domains of physical environmental factors (Place) contributing to intergenerational interactions and highlighted the importance of personal, social, programmatic, and policy factors (Promotion).

Product : Our study supports previous literature by demonstrating experts’ opinions about the roles of intergenerational communities that bring together people of different ages, fostering diverse perspectives and experiences, mutual support, knowledge exchange, and a sense of belonging. Such communities contribute to reducing loneliness, social isolation, cognitive decline, and mental problems, and creating opportunities for mentorship and learning across generations (Kenning et al., 2021; Peters et al., 2021). Intergenerational interactions are essential for promoting healthy aging in place by offering numerous social, mental, and physical health benefits and promoting mutual empathy, understanding, support, and respect across age groups.

Price: While intergenerational interactions offer many benefits, there are also some risks and concerns to consider. These may include potential misunderstandings and communication barriers due to generational differences in communication styles, values, and expectations. There can also be challenges related to unequal power dynamics, particularly in mentorship or caregiving relationships, potentially leading to exploitation or dependency issues. Additionally, issues such as ageism or stereotypes may arise, leading to discrimination or marginalization of certain age groups (Flamion et al., 2020; Weinberger, 1979). Intergroup contact theory provides a framework to mitigate these risks by structuring interactions around five key conditions: (1) fostering equal status through equitable participation and valuing all voices, (2) establishing common goals such as collaborative intergenerational projects, (3) promoting intergroup cooperation via shared tasks that require mutual reliance, (4) securing support from authorities (e.g., organizational policies or community leaders endorsing inclusive practices), and (5) reinforcing positive contact norms by modeling respect and empathy (Allport et al., 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Implementing these conditions can reduce age-based biases and enhance relationship quality across generations.

Place: This research suggests seven domains of environmental features (e.g., places for interactions and walkable and accessible environments) supporting intergenerational interactions. This is consistent with the limited body of prior studies reporting the significant roles of public spaces, especially recreational spaces such as parks, sports and fitness destinations, and water bodies in supporting intergenerational activities (Kreutz, 2024; Nelischer & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2022; Zhong et al., 2020b, 2022). Specifically, places for interactions, such as community centers, parks, and public plazas, serve as neutral, shared spaces where generations can engage organically. These settings reduce social segregation by encouraging spontaneous dialogue and collaborative activities among the users (Nelischer & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2022). Walkable and accessible environments are critical for inclusivity, ensuring older and younger generations can safely navigate and participate in community life (Zhong et al., 2020b), thus fostering natural opportunities for intergenerational interactions.

Study results further indicate regional differences in individual environmental measures (Figure 1). For example, resting places with shade and/or supportive amenities like benches and tables are valued more by experts from the Northeastern region; universal designs accommodating all generations and abilities are valued more by experts from the West; and mixed land uses are valued more by experts from the Midwest. However, the factors and underlying mechanisms leading to these regional differences remain unclear because of limited empirical evidence. A possible explanation is the various political, socio-cultural, and environmental contexts across different regions. For example, mixed land uses may be more common in urbanized areas such as New York State and California than in the Midwestern region. Consequently, experts from the Midwestern region, which lacks mixed-use development, may perceive mixed land uses as more important for promoting intergenerational interactions. Future national or multi-site studies on target populations (e.g., older adults and children) can help better identify and explain regional differences in environmental facilitators and barriers.

Promotion: Investing in social programming and norm-challenging/changing is crucial for facilitating intergenerational interactions and fostering inclusive communities. By challenging and changing societal norms that perpetuate ageism and generational stereotypes, communities can create environments that value the contributions of individuals across the lifespan (Giraudeau & Bailly, 2019; Gualano et al., 2018). This involves promoting positive attitudes toward aging, celebrating intergenerational diversity, and recognizing the unique strengths and perspectives that each generation brings to the table.

Main Qualities of Intergenerational Communities: Intergenerational communities are walkable, accessible, and opportunity-rich places that promote physical, mental, and social well-being for people of all ages and abilities. They result from a combination of individual thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and actions; interpersonal interactions; organizational policies and programming; community norms and culture; and environmental design, such as aesthetics, accessibility, proximity, and walkability. Successful intergenerational communities should include (1) diverse intergenerational spaces and community resources supporting the needs of all generations; (2) inclusive culture and mutual respect ensuring that every member feels accepted and valued; (3) effective engagement and communication encouraging understanding, empathy, and connection; (4) shared purpose uniting members of all ages and strengthening community bonds; and (5) effective leadership and governance structures promoting inclusivity, transparency, and accountability.

Implications for Research and Practice

This study has the potential to catalyze positive changes in both research and practice, contributing to the creation of more inclusive, vibrant, and sustainable intergenerational communities. Given the limited research that connects environmental features with intergenerational interactions and associated health-related outcomes, further work is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms among community environments, intergenerational interactions, and health-related outcomes in diverse communities and settings (e.g., urban vs. rural, intergenerational vs. age-targeted communities, and various climate zones). Such additional work can stimulate and guide evidence-based planning or design processes, driving successful intergenerational communities. Additionally, future investigations should focus on exploring novel approaches, evaluating intervention strategies, and assessing the long-term impacts of intergenerational initiatives or spaces on individual well-being and community resilience (e.g., coping with and recovering from crises through strengthened community connections). These investigations can help highlight best practices, identify modifiable barriers, and generate innovative solutions for building intergenerational communities.

By uncovering key themes and insights regarding intergenerational dynamics, this research can inform the development of more inclusive and supportive community environments that cater to the diverse needs and preferences of individuals across different age groups. Findings from this study can guide professional designers/planners and policymakers in providing physical spaces, amenities, and services that promote intergenerational environments, social cohesion, and mutual support within communities.

Limitations

While the research team took steps to mitigate avoidable limitations, research studies that rely solely on interviews with subject matter experts often encounter inherent limitations. Firstly, subject matter experts may provide perspectives that are biased or limited by their own experiences, professional backgrounds, or institutional affiliations, potentially overlooking alternative viewpoints or marginalized voices within the topic under investigation. Additionally, subject matter experts may not always represent the full spectrum of stakeholders or perspectives relevant to the research question, leading to incomplete or skewed understandings of the issue. Furthermore, the depth of insight provided by subject matter experts may vary depending on their level of expertise, availability, or willingness to participate in the study, potentially impacting the richness and comprehensiveness of the data collected. Finally, interviews with subject matter experts may lack the diversity and complexity inherent in more inclusive research methodologies that incorporate multiple data sources, such as participant observation, document analysis, or focus groups. As such, further work is needed to address these limitations and employ complementary methods that ensure a more holistic and rigorous investigation of this research topic.

Conclusions

Experts agree on the need to create intergenerational communities where people of all ages live, work, play, learn, and rest together. Intergenerational communities can bring mutual benefits to older adults and children through improving knowledge exchange, cognitive engagement, mutual support, opportunities to share interests, social connections, and a sense of value to society. Both socio-cultural supports (e.g., social programs and volunteer opportunities) and physical environments (e.g., mixed-use development, diverse recreational destinations, and shaded seating near playgrounds) are important for supporting intergenerational interactions. Further research is needed to engage other stakeholder groups and investigate the causal impacts of readily modifiable environmental features and how such impacts may vary across diverse population groups.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Understanding Intergenerational Interactions Between Older Adults and Children: Expert Opinions About the Roles of Community Environments

Supplemental Material for Understanding Intergenerational Interactions Between Older Adults and Children: Expert Opinions About the Roles of Community Environments by Sinan Zhong, Laurel Curran, Haoyue Yang, Yeankyoung Hahm, and Chanam Lee in Journal of Applied Gerontology

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Landscape Architecture Foundation (Deb Mitchell Research Grant to S.Z. and C.L.).

Ethical Statement

ORCID iD

Sinan Zhong

Data Availability Statement

Data and materials are available on request from the authors.*

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

AARP . (2023). AARP policy book 2023-2024. https://policybook.aarp.org/

Abdulmunem

S. A.

Shok

M. E.

Al-Hussaini

Z. I. H.

Alkinani

A. S.

(2024). Multigenerational urban design: Creating urban spaces that support active aging and intergenerational interaction. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 19(10), 3737–3747. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.191004

Allen

J. O.

(2016). Ageism as a risk factor for chronic disease. The Gerontologist, 56(4), 610–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu158

Allport

G. W.

Clark

Pettigrew

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Almeida

I. L. L.

Rego

J. F.

Teixeira

A. C. G.

Moreira

M. R.

(2021). Social isolation and its impact on child and adolescent development: A systematic review. Revista Paulista de Pediatria: Orgao Oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo, 40, Article e2020385. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2022/40/2020385

Anderson

Fast

Keating

Eales

Chivers

Barnet

(2017). Translating knowledge: Promoting health through intergenerational community arts programming. Health Promotion Practice, 18(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839915625037

ATLAS.ti . (2024). About ATLAS.ti. https://atlasti.com/about-atlas-ti

Buchanan

D. R.

Reddy

Hossain

(1994). Social marketing: A critical appraisal. Health Promotion International, 9(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/9.1.49

Butler

R. N.

(1980). Ageism: A foreword. Journal of Social Issues, 36(2), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1980.tb02018.x

10.

Chichirez

C. M.

Purcărea

V. L.

(2018). Health marketing and behavioral change: A review of the literature. Journal of Medicine and Life, 11(1), 15–19.

11.

Department of Health and Human Services . (2023). Our epidemic of loneliness and isolation: The U.S. Surgeon general’s advisory on the healing effects of social connection and community. https://hdl.handle.net/10713/20582

12.

Flamion

Missotten

Jennotte

Hody

Adam

(2020). Old age-related stereotypes of preschool children. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 807. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00807

13.

Fujihira

Kubacki

Ronto

Pang

Rundle-Thiele

(2015). Social marketing physical activity interventions among adults 60 years and older: A systematic review. Social Marketing Quarterly, 21(4), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500415606671

14.

Generations United . (2016). Creating an age-advanced community: A toolkit for building intergenerational communities that recognize, engage, and support all ages. https://www.gu.org/app/uploads/2018/06/Intergenerational-Toolkit-CreatingAgeAdvantagedCommunities.pdf

15.

Giraudeau

Bailly

(2019). Intergenerational programs: What can school-age children and older people expect from them? A systematic review. European Journal of Ageing, 16(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-018-00497-4

16.

Gordon

(2012). Re-thinking and Re-tooling the social marketing mix. Australasian Marketing Journal, 20(2), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.10.005

17.

Grier

Bryant

C. A.

(2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144610

18.

Gualano

M. R.

Voglino

Bert

Thomas

Camussi

Siliquini

(2018). The impact of intergenerational programs on children and older adults: A review. International Psychogeriatrics, 30(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021700182X

19.

Holt-Lunstad

Smith

T. B.

Baker

Harris

Stephenson

(2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352

20.

Jiaxuan

Xia

Chen

Buys

Susilawati

Drogemuller

(2024). Impact of the built environment on ageing in place: A systematic overview of reviews. Buildings, 14(8), Article 2355. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082355

21.

Kaveh

M. H.

Layeghiasl

Nazari

Ghahremani

Karimi

(2020). What are the determinants of a workplace health promotion? Application of a social marketing model in identifying determinants of physical activity in the workplace (a qualitative study). Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article 614631. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.614631

22.

Kenning

Luu

Ward

Goldwater

Lewis

Radford

Anstey

Lautenschlager

Fitzgerald

Rockwood

Peters

(2021). Intergenerational practice in the community—what does the community think? Social Sciences, 10(10), Article 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10100374

23.

Kotler

Zaltman

(1971). Social marketing: An approach to planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297103500302

24.

Kreutz

(2024). Student and senior views on sustainable park design and intergenerational connection: A case study of an urban nature park. Landscape and Urban Planning, 241, Article 104920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104920

25.

Lagace

Van De Beeck

Bergeron

C. D.

Rodrigues-Rouleau

(2023). Fostering positive views about older workers and reducing age discrimination: A retest of the workplace intergenerational contact and knowledge sharing model. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 42(6), 1223–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648231163840

26.

Lau

M. H. M.

(2023). Fostering intergenerational interactions in high-rise residential neighbourhoods: Towards culturally-informed interventions? Housing Studies, 39(10), 2606–2625. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2023.2211940

27.

Lee

Zhong

(2019). Age-friendly communities: Community environments to promote active ageing in place. In Lee

Zhong

(Eds.), Urban environments for healthy ageing (pp. 147–172). Routledge.

28.

Luck

Hagigi

Parker

L. E.

Yano

E. M.

Rubenstein

L. V.

Kirchner

J. E.

(2009). A social marketing approach to implementing evidence-based practice in VHA QUERI: The TIDES depression collaborative care model. Implementation Science, 4, Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-64

29.

Nelischer

Loukaitou-Sideris

(2022). Intergenerational public space design and policy: A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 38(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122221092175

30.

Palmore

E. B.

(2004). Ageism in Canada and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 19(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jccg.0000015098.62691.ab

31.

Peters

Ward

S. A.

Kenning

Radford

Goldwater

Dodge

H. H.

Lewis

Kudrna

Hamilton

Peters

Anstey

K. J.

Lautenschlager

N. T.

Fitzgerald

Rockwood

(2021). Intergenerational programmes bringing together community dwelling non-familial older adults and children: A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 94, Article 104356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2021.104356

32.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

33.

Schunk

D. H.

(2012). Social cognitive theory. In Harris

K. R.

Graham

Urdan

McCormick

C. B.

Sinatra

G. M.

Sweller

(Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 101–123). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-005

34.

Singh

(2012). Marketing mix of 4P’s for competitive advantage. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 3(6), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.9790/487x-0364045

35.

Taylor

H. O.

Taylor

R. J.

Nguyen

A. W.

Chatters

(2018). Social isolation, depression, and psychological distress among older adults. Journal of Aging and Health, 30(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264316673511

36.

Truong

V. D.

Dang

N. V.

(2017). Reviewing research evidence for social marketing: Systematic literature reviews. In Kubacki

Rundle-Thiele

(Eds.), Formative research in social marketing: Innovative methods to gain consumer insights (pp. 183–250). Springer.

37.

United Nations . (n.d.). Ageing. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/ageing

38.

United Nations Population Fund . (2024). World population dashboard. https://www.unfpa.org/data/world-population-dashboard

39.

United States Census Bureau . (2023). 2023 national population projections tables: Main series. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2023/demo/popproj/2023-summary-tables.html

40.

Webster

Norwood

Waterworth

Leavey

(2023). Effectiveness of intergenerational exchange programs between adolescents and older adults: A systematic review. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 22(4), 603–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2023.2267532

41.

Weinberger

(1979). Stereotyping of the elderly: Elementary school children’s responses. Research on Aging, 1(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/016402757911007

42.

Wilson

D. K.

St George

S. M.

Trumpeter

N. N.

Coulon

S. M.

Griffin

S. F.

Wandersman

Forthofer

Gadson

Brown

P. V.

(2013). Qualitative developmental research among low income African American adults to inform a social marketing campaign for walking. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-33

43.

World Health Organization . (2021). Global report on ageism: Executive summary. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240020504

44.

Xia

Deshpande

Bonates

(2016). Effectiveness of social marketing interventions to promote physical activity among adults: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 13(11), 1263–1274. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2015-0189

45.

Zhong

Hahm

Chen

Wang

Lee

(2025). Environmental factors influencing intergenerational interactions in residential communities: A US nationwide survey of built environment experts. Habitat International, 156, Article 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103296

46.

Zhong

Lee

(2022). Developing the Intergenerational Community Survey for older adults: Assessing neighborhood environments, social and physical activities, and health. Health & Place, 77, Article 102901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102901

47.

Zhong

Lee

Foster

M. J.

Bian

(2020a). Intergenerational communities: A systematic literature review of intergenerational interactions and older adults’ health-related outcomes. Social Science & Medicine, 264, Article 113374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113374

48.

Zhong

Lee

(2020b). Community environments that promote intergenerational interactions vs. Walking among older adults. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article 587363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.587363

49.

Zhong

Lee

(2022). The role of community environments in older adults’ intergenerational and peer social interactions. CITIES, 129, Article 103785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103785

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB