Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This review provides a comprehensive and critical examination of quantitative evidence on the connection between neighborhood environments and older adults’ social outcomes. A search across four databases identified 32 studies, which revealed six domains of planning and environmental strategies (e.g., neighborhood safety, housing, transportation, and land uses) important for older adults’ social well-being outcomes. Some studies further suggested variations in environmental predictors of older adults’ social outcomes based on age, gender, living arrangement, health, or urbanicity. Further research should explore readily implementable policy and environmental interventions to reduce isolation and adapt these interventions to diverse populations and communities/settings worldwide.

Keywords

neighborhood safety built environments social activities social relationships older adults systematic review

Introduction

Population aging is a global challenge, impacting economic, environmental, health, and socio-cultural sectors (United Nations n.d.). The 2019 world population projection foresaw a rise in older adults (aged 65+) worldwide from one in 11 people in 2019 to one in six by 2050 (United Nations n.d.). Ageism, defined as prejudice or discrimination against people based on their age, is widespread in the US (Allen 2016; Butler 1980), affecting over 80% of older adults in the US (Allen 2016; Palmore 2004). Such discrimination limits their social opportunities (Allen 2016; Courtin and Knapp 2017) and leads to isolation, poor mental health, declined self-esteem, and reduced social engagement (Courtin and Knapp 2017).

Social interactions/relationships across the lifespan are universal human needs (Maslow 1943). However, social isolation, a major threat to human health, is prevalent, especially among vulnerable populations like older adults (Kannan and Veazie 2023; Lim et al. 2023; Rohr et al. 2022). Approximately one in six older adults living alone in the US is socially and geographically isolated from their peers and communities (National Council on Aging 2021). Loneliness and social isolation are significant risk factors for physical and mental health problems, reduced well-being/quality of life/life satisfaction, and premature death (Heikkinen and Kauppinen 2004; Patterson and Veenstra 2010; Steptoe et al. 2004; Wilson et al. 2007). In 2023, the US Surgeon General declared an “epidemic of loneliness and isolation” calling for immediate actions to promote social connection and community engagement (Department of Health and Human Services 2023). Older adults experiencing social isolation, low levels of social support, and poor mental health are likely to experience a decline in health-supporting behaviors, such as physical activity, thus compounding their vulnerability to the aforementioned risk factors (Ory et al. 2016).

Evidence shows that older adults are likely to engage in higher levels of health-supporting behaviors, such as physical and social activities, when they can age in place (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2009; Chippendale and Bear-Lehman 2010; Wang and Shepley 2018). Although most older adults prefer to reside in their own homes for as long as possible, there is a shortage of affordable housing options with supportive environmental features and elements that can accommodate the needs of older adults with limited mobility and decreased social networks/relationships (Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies 2022; Jeste et al. 2016).

Previous studies have shown that personal, socio-cultural, and environmental factors influence or are associated with social relationships or interactions (Stephens and Phillips 2022; Vaughan et al. 2016; Zhong et al. 2025). Neighborhood safety and built environmental factors are gaining increasing attention as feasible targets for interventions, given their modifiable and scalable characteristics. Increasing planning and relevant literature on general adults, not specifically targeting older adults, shows that the neighborhood environment (e.g., walkability, street connectivity, accessibility, and third places like parks and open spaces) is of critical importance for promoting social connection and community engagement (Mazumdar et al. 2017; van den Berg, Sharmeen, and Weijs-Perrée 2017). For example, Moulay, Ujang, and Said (2017) suggested neighborhood park legibility was linked with increased social interactions, and Mouratidis and Poortinga (2020) reported that social cohesion was associated with neighborhood walkability and density.

Research targeting older adults further suggests the significance of the neighborhood environment in supporting social relationships and social interactions. Specifically, empirical evidence has suggested that neighborhood safety, walkability, proximity to neighborhood resources, housing types, urban nature, transportation (e.g., accessibility to public transit and sidewalk length), and land use are significantly correlated with older adults’ social interactions (Chapman and Beaudet 1983; Herbolsheimer et al. 2021; Levasseur et al. 2015; Zhong et al. 2020b). Literature has also indicated that neighborhood safety, walkability, accessibility, and third places, including parks or open spaces, are important for supporting older adults’ social relationships and networks (Chen, Sun, and Seo 2022; Hong et al. 2018; Hua et al. 2022; Lee and Tan 2019; Thompson and Krause 1998).

Despite the growing interest in environmental strategies for promoting social connection and engagement, only a small number of literature reviews synthesize the current knowledge on relevant topics. One systematic review on the environment and healthy and active aging suggested safety, urbanicity, and proximity to services were positive predictors of general activity participation (Annear et al. 2012). Another two systematic reviews indicated environmental facilitators of older adults’ community participation included safety, walkability, accessibility, land use diversity, transportation, and urbanicity (Townsend, Chen, and Wuthrich 2021; Vaughan et al. 2016). Additionally, three scoping reviews demonstrated safety, transportation, land uses, walkability, accessibility, natural or green spaces, and urbanicity were significant predictors of older adults’ social participation (Hand et al. 2012; Levasseur et al. 2015; Nguyen and Levasseur 2023). We also found another literature review that focused on public space and park design and policy supporting intergenerational interactions (Nelischer and Loukaitou-Sideris 2022). None of these reviews comprehensively examined detailed environmental elements and various types of social interactions. Further, to our knowledge, no reviews are available for summarizing studies on neighborhood environments and older adults’ social relationships.

To address the knowledge gaps, this systematic review aims to comprehensively and critically examine existing empirical evidence on the roles of neighborhood environments in older adults’ social relationships and social interactions. We summarize six domains of the neighborhood environment (e.g., neighborhood safety, land use, and transportation) with detailed environmental measures linking each with specific social relationship and social interaction outcomes shown as important for older adults in the literature. Through a comprehensive synthesis of the current state of knowledge on this topic, our study can offer timely and actionable insights on evidence-based recommendations for professionals in various fields (e.g., policymakers, urban planners, and designers) to guide their efforts toward improving the environment for enhanced social connection and community engagement, leading to support healthy aging in place.

Methods

Eligibility Criteria

We selected eligible studies based on the following criteria: (a) older adults aged 65 and over as the study population; (b) neighborhood safety and/or built environments as independent variables, excluding studies on indoor environments; (c) social relationships and/or social interactions as study outcomes; and (d) being a peer-reviewed empirical and quantitative study written in English. We focus exclusively on quantitative studies to ensure the consistency and comparability of the data extracted, and to use statistical significance to define empirical evidence on the relationship between the neighborhood environment and social outcomes among older adults.

Search Strategy

Literature searches were conducted on December 14, 2024. During our initial database search, we consulted a university librarian with expertise in systematic literature reviews who recommended four databases that are most relevant to the topics of interest in this review: Medline Complete (Ebsco), Academic Search Ultimate (Ebsco), SocIndex (Ebsco), and APA Psycinfo (Ebsco). The search string and related keywords were developed by reviewing pertinent literature and with the assistance of the university librarian. The three groups of pre-developed keywords included neighborhood safety and built environments, social relationships and social interactions, and older adults. Table 1 shows detailed search strings for each database.

Table 1.

Database Search String.

Database	Search String for Neighborhood Environments	Search String for Social Relationships and Social Interactions	Search String for Older Adults
Medline (Ebsco)	(MH “Built Environment”) OR AB (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park* or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR TI (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR AB (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise) OR TI (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise*)	(MH “Interpersonal Relations+”) OR AB (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR TI (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR AB (“community participating” or “attending public events”) OR TI (“community participating” or “attending public events”)	((MH “Aged+”) OR (MH “Geriatrics”)) OR AB (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric) OR TI (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric)
Academic Search Ultimate (Ebsco)	AB (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park* or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR TI (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR AB (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise) OR TI (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise*)	AB (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR TI (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR AB (“community participating” or “attending public events”) OR TI (“community participating” or “attending public events”)	AB (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric) OR TI (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric)
SocIndex (Ebsco)	((((DE “BUILT environment”) OR (DE “NEIGHBORHOODS”)) OR (DE “CRIME”)) OR (DE “TRAFFIC accidents”)) OR (DE “PARKS”) or AB (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park* or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR TI (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR AB (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise) OR TI (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise*)	(((DE “SOCIAL interaction” OR DE “AMUSEMENTS – Social aspects” OR DE “COFFEEHOUSES – Social aspects” OR DE “FOCUSED interaction” OR DE “INTERGROUP relations” OR DE “SOCIAL acceptance” OR DE “SOCIAL closure” OR DE “SOCIAL cognition theory (Communication)” OR DE “SOCIAL contact” OR DE “SOCIAL distance” OR DE “SOCIAL exchange” OR DE “SOCIOMETRY” OR DE “VISITING (Social interaction)”) OR (DE “SOCIAL capital”)) OR (DE “SOCIAL support”) OR (DE “COMMUNITY involvement”) OR AB (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR TI (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR AB (“community participating” or “attending public events”) OR TI (“community participating” or “attending public events”)	(DE “OLDER people”) AND (DE “OLDER men” OR DE “OLDER women” OR DE “URBAN elderly” OR DE “AGING” OR DE “GERIATRICS” OR DE “GERONTOLOGY” OR DE “OLD age”) OR AB (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric) OR TI (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric)
APA Psycinfo (Ebsco)	((((DE “Built Environment”) OR (DE “Urban Planning”)) OR (DE “Neighborhoods”)) OR (DE “Communities”)) OR (DE “Crime”) OR AB (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park* or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR TI (((built or physical or neighborhood or communit) n1 environment) or (physical n1 attribute) or “physical characteristics” or (physical n1 feature) or transportation or “land use” or (land n1 cover) or park or (open n1 space) or (green n1 space) or “greenness” or “walkability” or (walking n1 environment) or (walking n1 facilit) or street* or sidewalk* or bench* or access* or (distance n2 (resource* or facilit* or amenit)) or (proximity n2 (resource or facilit* or amenit)) or aesthetics or connect or density* or (commercial n1 (facilit* or amenit)) or (third n1 place) or trail* or natur) OR AB (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise) OR TI (neighborhood n2 (safety or violence or problem or disorder* or stress* or nuisance* or noise* or barrier* or accident)) or (environmental n2 (safety or hazard or stress* or noise)) or (safe n1 neighborhood) or traffic or crash* or crime* or noise*)	((((DE “Social Interaction” OR DE “Social Networks”) OR (DE “Social Capital”)) OR (DE “Social Support”)) OR (DE “Social Inclusion”)) OR (DE “Social Behavior”) OR AB (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR TI (social n1 (cohesion or capital or network* or support* or tie* or interact* or participat* or activit* or behavio* or engagement)) OR AB (“community participating” or “attending public events”) OR TI (“community participating” or “attending public events”)	(DE “Aging”) OR (DE “Geriatrics” OR DE “Gerontology”) OR AB (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric) OR TI (aged or elderly or senior or older people or geriatric)

Selection Process

Covidence, a web-based systematic review software, was used to select eligible studies through the title and abstract screening and full-text reviews (Covidence 2024). First, records from the four database searches were imported into Covidence which detected and removed duplicated entries. Second, two researchers independently performed the title and abstract screening to exclude ineligible records based on the eligibility criteria summarized above. Any disagreements were discussed and resolved by the two researchers. Third, the two researchers independently reviewed the full texts of the selected studies to further assess their eligibility, with inconsistencies addressed through discussion with a third researcher.

Data Extraction

The data from the selected studies were extracted based on a pre-developed template that has been used in multiple prior studies (Park et al. 2022; Zhong et al. 2020a). Appendix 1 displays the main characteristics of the reviewed studies, including first author, publication year and field, study design and year, study location and setting, study participant, measures of neighborhood safety and built environments, confounding/control variables, measures of social relationships, measures of social interactions, and inferential statistical analyses and outcomes. Three researchers participated in the data extraction, and they cross-checked the accuracy and quality of the entire extracted data.

Results

Identification of Studies

Figure 1 summarizes the search and selection process, which followed the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al. 2009). We identified 26,175 studies from the initial database search, with 6,533 duplicated records. Based on the eligibility criteria, we excluded 19,411 studies during the title and abstract screening and an additional 200 studies through the full-text sorting, leading to 31 studies being eligible for inclusion. After checking the citations and references of the 31 eligible studies, we identified one additional eligible study, resulting in a total of 32 studies included for data extraction and synthesis.

Figure 1.

Literature search and selection process.

Characteristics of the Reviewed Studies

Of the 32 eligible studies, most were published after 2010, including 12 (37.5%) published between 2010 and 2019 and 13 (40.6%) published in 2020 or later (Table 2). These studies were published in the health (n = 6; 18.8%), gerontology (n = 12; 37.5%), psychological or social sciences (n = 7; 21.9%), environment and health (n = 5; 15.6%), and planning (n = 2; 6.3%) fields. Most were cross-sectional studies (n = 29; 90.6%), while the remaining were longitudinal. Of the 17 non-US studies (53.1%), 10 were conducted in Asia, followed by four in North America (i.e., Canada) and three in Europe. The majority was carried out either in urban communities only (n = 10; 31.3%) or in both urban and rural/suburban communities (n = 15; 46.9%). No studies were conducted in rural areas, and only one study focused on suburban communities. Sample sizes ranged from 190 to 78,002, with approximately half of the studies (n = 15; 46.9%) having over 1,000 participants.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Reviewed Studies (n = 32).

Study characteristics	No.	%
Publication year
1999 or before	2	6.3
2000–2009	5	15.6
2010–2019	12	37.5
2020 or later	13	40.6
Field of publication
Health	6	18.8
Gerontology	12	37.5
Psychological or social sciences	7	21.9
Environment and health	5	15.6
Planning	2	6.3
Study design
Cross-sectional	29	90.6
Longitudinal	3	9.4
Study location
US	15	46.9
Non-US^a	17	53.1
Setting
Urban	10	31.3
Suburban	1	3.1
Urban and rural/suburban	15	46.9
Not specified	6	18.8
Gender
Both male and female	32	100.0
Sample size
150–399	8	25.0
400–999	9	28.1
1,000–1,999	2	6.3
2,000–2,999	6	18.8
3,000+	7	21.9
Social relationships^b
Social support^c	5	15.6
Social cohesion or connection^d	6	18.8
Social capital or roles^e	2	6.3
Social interactions^b
Intergenerational or peer interactions^f	2	6.3
Overall/general social interactions^g	14	43.8
Organized social activities^h	6	18.8
Interactions with neighbors, friends, or relativesⁱ	5	15.6
Negative interactions^j	1	3.1
Environmental predictors
Neighborhood safety	16	50.0
Overall neighborhood characteristics	19	59.4
Housing	1	3.1
Transportation	9	28.1
Land uses	18	56.3
Urban nature	3	9.4

Note: ^aNon-US study locations include Asia (n = 10), Europe (n = 3), and North America (n = 4).

^bAll subjective measures.

Receiving emotional, instrumental, and/or informational support from others.

A sense of solidarity, connectedness, mutual trust, and the strength of relationships within a group/community.

Social capital: General trust, norms of reciprocity, attachment to place, organization affiliations, and meeting friends. Social role: A set of responsibilities, behaviors, and norms.

Intergenerational interactions: Older adults’ social interactions with younger generations (e.g., children). Peer interactions: Older adults’ social interactions with other older adults.

Multiple types of social activities or any social activities without demonstrating their specific types.

Social events or engagements organized by groups or organizations (e.g., clubs, religious services, volunteer initiatives, or relevant associations).

ⁱ

Any social activities involving neighbors, friends, or relatives.

Excessive demands, criticism, invading personal privacy, taking advantage of others, being thoughtless and inconsiderate, and acting angry and upset.

Two categories of the social outcome measures were social relationships and social interactions. Social relationship measures emphasize enduring connections and bonds, including social support (n = 5; 15.6%), social cohesion or connection (n = 6; 18.8%), and social capital or roles (n = 2; 6.3%). Social support refers to receiving emotional, instrumental, and/or informational support from others; social cohesion or connection denotes a sense of solidarity, connectedness, mutual trust, and the strength of relationships within a group/community; social capital encompasses general trust, norms of reciprocity, attachment to place, organization affiliations, and meeting friends; and social roles pertain to a set of responsibilities, behaviors, and norms. Social interaction measures focus on dynamic communications and interactions, involving intergenerational or peer interactions (n = 2; 6.3%), overall/general social interactions (n = 14; 43.8%), organized social activities (n = 6; 18.8%), interactions with neighbors, friends, or relatives (n = 5; 15.6%), and negative interactions (n = 1; 3.1%). Intergenerational interactions denote older adults’ social interactions with younger generations (e.g., children); peer interactions indicate older adults’ social interactions with other older adults; overall/general social interactions encompass multiple types of social activities or any social activities without demonstrating their specific types; organized social activities involve social events or engagements organized by groups or organizations (e.g., clubs, religious services, volunteer initiatives, or relevant associations); interactions with neighbors, friends, or relatives refer to any social activities involving neighbors, friends, or relatives; and negative interactions include behaviors like excessive demands, criticism, invading personal privacy, taking advantage of others, being thoughtless and inconsiderate, and acting angry and upset.

Six domains of the environmental measures significantly associated with one or more social outcome measures were neighborhood safety (n = 16; 50.0%), overall neighborhood characteristics (n = 19; 59.4%), housing (n = 1; 3.1%), transportation (n = 9; 28.1%), land uses (n = 18; 56.3%), and urban nature (n = 3; 9.4%). Neighborhood safety covered individual measures related to eyes on the street, pedestrian safety (e.g., handrail and slip resistance), traffic safety, crime safety, physical disorder (e.g., graffiti and vandalism), and neighborhood deterioration. Overall neighborhood characteristics included overall or collective attributes and qualities of a neighborhood such as walkability, accessibility, and aesthetics. Housing involved one study measuring housing types (house or apartment). Transportation encompassed measures related to streets, sidewalks, intersections, public transit, and handicap parking. Land uses covered various types like residential, commercial, recreational, and institutional uses. Urban nature contained natural or green elements in urban environments such as street trees, natural sights, trails in parks, and greenbelts.

Table 3 and Figure 2 summarize a complete list of individual environmental factors within each of the six environmental domains found to be important for supporting older adults’ social well-being. Appendix 1 provides detailed information about how these environmental factors and social outcomes were defined and measured in each of the reviewed studies. Insignificant environmental measures covered by reviewed studies are included in Appendix 2. Specific findings from the reviewed studies about each environmental domain are summarized as follows.

Figure 2.

Significant environmental predictors of older adults’ social relationships and social interactions found in the reviewed studies.

Table 3.

Environmental Predictors of Social Relationships and Social Interactions.

	Social Relationships									Social Interactions
	Social support			Social cohesion or connection			Social capital or roles			Intergenerational or peer interactions			Overall/general social interactions			Organized social activities			Interactions with neighbors, friends, or relatives			Negative interactions
	-	+	NS	-	+	NS	-	+	NS	-	+	NS	-	+	NS	-	+	NS	-	+	NS	+
Neighborhood Safety
Eyes on the street	[5, 6]	[5, 6]	[5, 6]
Pedestrian safety (e.g., handrail, slip resistance)					[4]										[26]			[26]		[4]	[26]
Traffic safety						[4]				[1, 16]		[16]			[1, 22]	[15]			[4]
Crime/personal safety		[7]	[7, 14]		[4]										[20, 24]	[15]				[17]	[4, 17, 20]
Physical disorder (e.g., graffiti, vandalism)													[18, 19]			[18]	[15]	[18]	[18]
Neighborhood deterioration			[7, 9]																			[9]
Overall Neighborhood Characteristics
Neighborhood resources (i.e., parks and walking areas, places to sit and rest, public transportation access, and public facilities)														[2]
Walkability			[14]		[10]	[10]	[11]		[11]		[1, 16]	[1, 16]		[1, 21]	[21, 28]
Accessibility		[30]			[10]				[8]					[3]	[4]		[15]
Aesthetics		[30]									[1, 16]	[1, 16]		[22]	[1, 22]		[15]
Newly built neighborhoods										[1, 16]		[1, 16]	[1]
Urbanicity				[12]		[32]	[11]	[11]					[12]		[20, 27]		[15]				[20]
Population density						[32]					[16]	[16]			[25]		[23]	[23, 31]
Neighborhood quality																				[17]
Housing
House types (house or apartment)																				[17]	[17]
Transportation
Street length											[16]	[16]			[24]
Sidewalk length											[16]	[16]
Sidewalk maintenance														[22]
Benches on most of the sidewalks										[1]		[1, 16]			[1]
Intersections											[16]	[16]	[24]		[24]			[31]
Stop signs											[1, 16]	[1, 16]			[1]
Intersections with stop signs											[16]	[16]
High-speed streets										[1, 16]	[16]	[1, 16]			[1]
Public transit or transit stops											[16]	[1, 16]	[25]	[1, 26]	[25, 28]		[26]			[26]
Transit routes											[16]	[16]			[24]
Handicap parking														[26]				[26]		[26]
Land Uses
Mixed land use					[32]													[31]
Residential land use										[1]		[1]			[1]
Locally undesirable land use/destinations										[1]	[16]	[1, 16]			[1]
Offices											[16]	[16]
Food stores											[16]	[16]
Community or service centers														[25]	[25]
Cultural facilities (e.g., civic centers, libraries)													[24]		[24, 25]
Religious destinations											[1, 16]	[1, 16]			[1, 24]
Health care facilities or services													[24]		[24]
Sports and fitness destinations											[16]	[1, 16]			[1, 22, 24, 25]
Places to sit and rest														[27]	[26] [27]			[26]			[26]
Parks or open spaces					[13, 29]	[4, 32]					[16]	[16]			[25–27]		[15, 26, 29]	[31]			[4, 26]
Third places with unspecified place types		[14]
Neighborhood facilities/services														[3, 28]	[27]			[31]			[17]
City center																			[17]
Quality of facilities/destinations														[20]							[20]
Urban Nature
Street view green space					[32]	[32]
Street trees						[4]														[4]
Natural sights					[4]															[4]
Trails in parks											[16]	[16]
Greenbelts										[16]		[16]
Tree canopies											[16]	[16]
Water bodies											[16]	[16]

Note: − = Negative association; + = Positive association; NS = Not significant. The numbers in [ ] refer to study IDs. See Appendix 1 for study IDs and their full citation information.

Neighborhood Safety

Two US studies investigating seven measures of “eyes on the street” reported that front entrances with greater proportions of porches, stoops, and buildings above grade were positively associated with social support, while ground floor parking and window (i.e., window area and low-sill-height) were negatively correlated with social support (Brown et al. 2008, 2009). One US study suggested that pedestrian safety was positively associated with social cohesion (Hong et al. 2018). Crime/personal safety was positively associated with social support (Thompson and Krause 1998) and social cohesion (Hong et al. 2018).

When examining more details about these results for intergenerational interactions, we found two US studies that reported traffic safety as a negative factor (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022). This might be because older adults who actively engage in physical and social activities in the neighborhood are more aware of traffic issues. The role of physical disorder in predicting overall/general social interaction outcomes was negative in two US national studies (Latham-Mintus, Manierre, and Miller 2022; Latham and Clarke 2018). In terms of organized social activities, a national study in Japan showed that traffic and crime/personal safety were negative predictors and neighborhood physical disorder was a positive predictor of participation in sports groups (Yamakita et al. 2015), while a US national study demonstrated that physical disorder was negatively associated with participating in clubs, classes, or other organized activities (Latham and Clarke 2018). Regarding interactions with neighbors, friends, or relatives, pedestrian safety and crime/personal safety were positive predictors (Chapman and Beaudet 1983; Hong et al. 2018), while traffic safety and physical disorder were negative predictors (Hong et al. 2018; Latham and Clarke 2018). Neighborhood deterioration was associated with increased negative interactions (Krause 2006).

Overall Neighborhood Characteristics

As for social relationships, walkability was positively correlated with social cohesion (Hua et al. 2022), while negatively correlated with social capital (Hanibuchi et al. 2012). Accessibility was positively correlated with social support (Mori et al. 2023) and social cohesion (Hua et al. 2022), while insignificantly associated with social roles (Therrien and Desrosiers 2010). Aesthetics was positively associated with social support in one Japanese study (Mori et al. 2023). Regarding urbanicity, one study in Israel suggested its negative correlations with social connectedness (Vitman-Schorr, Ayalon, and Khalaila 2019). Another Japanese study reported that urbanicity was negatively correlated with general trust, attachment to place, and meeting friends while positively correlated with norms of reciprocity and connections with horizontal (e.g., volunteer group and hobby group) and vertical (e.g., political organization or group) organizations (Hanibuchi et al. 2012).

When examining specific social interaction outcomes, we found walkability, aesthetics, and population density to play positive roles, while newly built neighborhoods to play negative roles, for intergenerational or peer interactions (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022). Studies on overall/general social interactions demonstrated that positive predictors included neighborhood resources (Herbolsheimer et al. 2021), walkability (Matsumoto et al. 2022; Zhong et al. 2022), accessibility (Levasseur et al. 2015), and aesthetics (King 2008), while newly built neighborhoods (Zhong et al. 2022) was a negative predictor. One study from Israel suggested negative relationships between urbanicity and overall/general social interactions (Vitman-Schorr, Ayalon, and Khalaila 2019). Positive correlates of organized social activities contained accessibility (Yamakita et al. 2015), aesthetics (Yamakita et al. 2015), urbanicity (Yamakita et al. 2015), and population density (Hand and Howrey 2019). Neighborhood quality was positively associated with interactions with neighbors, relatives, or friends in a US study (Chapman and Beaudet 1983).

Housing

We only found one US study that examined house types and social interactions. This study indicated more interactions with neighbors among older residents living in apartments than those living in houses, likely because these apartments were located close to downtown with diverse commercial and recreational destinations and older adults residing in the apartments were particularly well-off (Chapman and Beaudet 1983).

Transportation

Two studies on transportation and older adults’ intergenerational or peer interactions indicated that positive transportation measures included street length, sidewalk length, intersections with three or more ways, stop signs, intersections with stop signs, the number, density, or availability of transit stops, proximity to transit stops, and transit routes (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022). Benches along the sidewalks and high-speed streets were negatively associated with interactions with children (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022), while high-speed streets were positively correlated with interactions with children, teenagers, or adults (Zhong et al. 2020b). A possible explanation for the counter-intuitive finding is that high-speed streets can capture other environmental characteristics (e.g., length of sidewalks, population density, and presence of food stores) that are supportive of older adults’ intergenerational interactions (Zhong et al. 2020b).

Positive predictors of overall/general social interactions encompassed sidewalk maintenance (King 2008), proximity to public transit or transit stops (White et al. 2010; Zhong et al. 2022), and handicap parking (White et al. 2010), while negative factors were intersection density (Levasseur et al. 2020a) and the number of transit stops (Lu et al. 2021). Proximity to public transit was associated with increased participation in organized social activities, and proximity to public transit and adequate handicap parking were positively correlated with the likelihood of visiting friends and family (White et al. 2010).

Land Uses

Land use measures predicting social relationships included mixed land use and third places such as parks or open spaces. Specifically, mixed land use was positively correlated with social cohesion in a Chinese study (Wang and Yao 2024); third places were positively correlated with social support in a US study (Lee and Tan 2019), and parks or open spaces were positively correlated with social cohesion in a study from Hong Kong (Chen, Sun, and Seo 2022) and another study from Japan (Guo, Yanai, and Xu 2024).

In terms of older adults’ intergenerational or peer interactions, two US studies suggested that positive predictors included offices, food stores, religious destinations, sports and fitness destinations, and parks or open spaces (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022), while reporting residential land use to be a negative predictor (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022). These two studies further suggested that locally undesirable destinations were negatively related to interactions with children while positively associated with overall intergenerational interactions (Zhong et al. 2020b, 2022). Regarding overall/general social interactions, positive predictors included community or service centers (Lu et al. 2021), places to sit and rest (Galenkamp et al. 2016), proximity to neighborhood facilities/services (Levasseur et al. 2015; Richard et al. 2013), and quality of facilities/destinations (Bowling and Stafford 2007), while negative predictors were libraries (Levasseur et al. 2020a) and health care facilities or services (Levasseur et al. 2020a). Three studies (i.e., one from the US and two from Japan) indicated that parks or open spaces were positively associated with organized social activities (Guo, Yanai, and Xu 2024; White et al. 2010; Yamakita et al. 2015), while mixed land use and places to sit and rest were not significant predictors of organized social activities (Fu, Wang, and Guo 2024; White et al. 2010). Proximity to the city center was a negative predictor of interactions with neighbors, friends, or relatives in a US study (Chapman and Beaudet 1983).

Urban Nature

When examining social relationships, one US study indicated that natural sights were positively correlated with social cohesion (Hong et al. 2018). Regarding social interactions, trails in parks, tree canopies, and water bodies were positively associated with intergenerational interactions, while green belts were negatively associated with intergenerational interactions in a US study (Zhong et al. 2020b). Hong et al. (2018) suggested that street trees and natural sights were positively associated with interactions with neighbors among US older adults.

Sociodemographic and Regional Differences

Although all 32 included studies controlled for some sociodemographic variables (e.g., age and gender) in their regression models, only a small portion of the reviewed studies further analyzed sociodemographic and regional differences in the correlations between neighborhood environments and older adults’ social outcomes. We only found one study examining age differences, which demonstrated that the importance of the built environment increases as people age. Specifically, Chen, Sun, and Seo (2022) suggested a stronger positive association between public open spaces and social cohesion in the old-old (aged 76–95) than young-old (aged 65–75) groups living in Hong Kong. Regarding gender differences, a Japanese study suggested that walkability was significantly positively associated with social participation among female older adults only (Matsumoto et al. 2022).

Reviewed studies also suggested living arrangement and health differences. A US national study indicated that crime safety was positively correlated with received emotional support among those living alone, while it was not a predictor for those living with others (Thompson and Krause 1998). Galenkamp et al. (2016) conducted a study with data from six European countries and suggested a significantly positive association between places to sit and rest and participation in social leisure activities among those without multimorbidity while no significant association among those with multimorbidity.

Urbanicity differences were examined in two Canadian studies. Specifically, Levasseur et al. (2015) investigated how neighborhood environments were associated with social participation among older adults living in metropolitan, urban, versus rural areas differently in Québec, Canada, suggesting that proximity to neighborhood resources was a positive predictor among those living in metropolitan and urban areas while accessibility to key resources was a positive predictor among those living in rural areas. Another Canadian national study conducted by Levasseur and her colleagues examined how neighborhood environments were associated with social participation among older adults living in large metropolitan, regular metropolitan, urban, versus rural areas differently (Levasseur et al. 2020a). This study indicated that the density of funded home adaptations was significantly positively correlated with while the presence of medical clinics was negatively correlated with social participation among those living in large metropolitan areas only, road intersection density was a negative predictor in regular metropolitan areas only, and the density of libraries was a negative predictor in rural areas only (Levasseur et al. 2020a).

In terms of regional differences, Hua et al. (2022) compared older adults living in Seattle/King County with those in Baltimore/DC regions, suggesting that walkability, transit access, and recreation access were positively associated with social cohesion among older adults living in both regions. More research in additional countries and regions is needed to further investigate sociodemographic and regional differences in environmental predictors of older adults’ social relationships and interactions.

Discussion

This systematic review synthesizes empirical studies assessing the roles of neighborhood environments in social relationships and interactions among older adults. Evidence shows significant environmental predictors encompass the domains of neighborhood safety, overall neighborhood characteristics, housing, transportation, land uses, and urban nature. These domains are partially aligned with previous planning literature on the environment and behavior among older adults and younger generations (Kreutz 2024; Nelischer and Loukaitou-Sideris 2022). We have developed a conceptual framework (Figure 2) that synthesizes these important environmental domains and individual measures reported in the reviewed studies. This conceptual framework can guide future planning literature on evaluating the roles of the neighborhood environment in older adults’ social relationships and social interactions. Furthermore, it can provide evidence-based guidance for policymakers and planning/design professionals in their efforts to promote the social well-being of older adults through environmental strategies.

Qualitative studies on older adults aged 65 years and older further support the importance of the neighborhood environment (e.g., third places including commercial and recreational destinations) in supporting older adults’ social outcomes, with results being largely consistent with those from the quantitative studies we reviewed. For example, Veitch et al. (2020) conducted walk-along interviews on park-based social activities among Australian older adults and suggested cafés, barbecue/picnic facilities, and aesthetics were important features in parks supporting social interactions. Alidoust, Bosman, and Holden (2018) performed another study among Australian older adults, reporting the significant role of third places and their accessibility in supporting social lives. Jing et al. (2024)'s interview study of Swedish older adults further showed that accessible local third places facilitated their social connections. Levasseur et al. (2020b) recommended the importance of meeting places, resources, and recreational facilities in promoting social participation based on the results from focus groups and individual interviews among Canadian older adults. Campbell and Kim (2016) carried out focus groups among US older adults, demonstrating that important environmental features supporting older adults’ social interactions included commercial and recreational destinations, service facilities (e.g., churches), and quality physical amenities (e.g., walking trails and benches). To continue advancing research on this topic, mixed method studies hold strong potential with their ability to address both the breadth and depth of knowledge needed to elucidate the complex relationships between the neighborhood environment and older adults’ social outcomes. Since our review synthesized quantitative evidence, a review incorporating qualitative studies would have required a different methodological framework.

The recent rise in this research topic could be in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its countermeasures leading to increased social isolation necessitating the need to identify strategies to promote social interactions and relationships. Through a critical and comprehensive synthesis, we also identify major knowledge gaps requiring further work to better understand the roles of neighborhood environment and how their reciprocal relationships with social outcomes impact overall health status and behaviors, particularly for older adults.

Major Knowledge Gaps and Implications for Future Research

Cross-Sectional Versus Longitudinal Studies

These reviewed studies were primarily cross-sectional, demonstrating the need for longitudinal studies that can help draw causal inferences between the environment and social outcomes. There were three longitudinal studies included in this review, reporting significant influences of accessibility, aesthetics, physical disorder, and neighborhood resources (e.g., parks, places to sit, transportation, and public facilities) on older adults’ social outcomes. However, none involved experimental designs to establish the causality of these environmental impacts. Natural experiments investigating the causal impacts of specific environmental interventions (e.g., pedestrian facility renovation and newly built parks or open spaces) on social interactions or relationships can contribute to generating rigorous causal evidence (Sun, Choe, and Webster 2023; Lee et al. 2022). Thus, more longitudinal studies with a natural experiment design are needed to explore the causal impacts of diverse planning and design interventions on social outcomes among older adults residing in diverse communities, which can facilitate long-term policy changes toward building age-friendly communities promoting healthy aging in place.

Multi-National and National Studies

We found mixed findings for some environmental measures, which may be due to the heterogeneity in the study locations with diverse contexts and varying social outcome measures used in different studies. For example, physical disorder (e.g., graffiti and vandalism) was positively associated with sports activities in a Japanese national study (Yamakita et al. 2015), while negatively associated with religious activities, clubs, classes, or other organized activities in a US national study (Latham and Clarke 2018). Aggregated measures like urbanicity, safety, and walkability may be more context-dependent, requiring careful definitions and selections of appropriate measures for the target community and population. Additional clarity is needed when reporting these aggregated measures which can be a combination of multiple context-sensitive social and physical constructs. However, only a small portion of the reviewed studies examined sociodemographic and regional differences, and none investigated cultural and climatic differences. Future multi-national and national studies comparing older adults from different countries, regions, and/or cities are needed to further identify the underlying socio-cultural, economic, climatic, and geographic factors driving these mixed findings from studies in various locations.

Planning for Social Interactions

Despite many environmental predictors, few studies examined the actual location of social interactions. Further efforts are needed to include place-specific social outcomes such as interactions at home versus in third places (e.g., parks and community centers), which can help establish more direct linkages between places and social outcomes. Additionally, while neighborhood environments include both subjective and objective measures, the outcome measures were all gathered using subjective reporting. Recent developments in instruments such as smartphone apps and RGBD cameras make it possible to capture social outcomes more objectively (Boonstra et al. 2017a, 2017b). However, most published studies relied on traditional subjective methods such as surveys and interviews (Coppola et al. 2019). These technology-based methods require significantly more time, effort, and training to implement effectively, especially among older adults with limited access to technology and low digital literacy (Oh et al. 2021). Future research is needed to develop age-friendly technologies like smartphone apps to meet older adults’ unique needs and provide instructions that older populations can easily understand. Similar to Daynamica (2025), a smartphone app developed by a team led by planning scholars, the development of age-friendly technologies can be better achieved if planners work collaboratively with engineers and gerontologists. These technologies can facilitate more accurate measures of social interactions with proper locational and other contextual data, leading to more confirmatory evidence that can guide the development of planning and design strategies to promote the social well-being of older adults. Additionally, municipal governments, professional associations, and community organizations can leverage these technologies to develop tailored programs aimed at promoting older adults’ positive social interactions and reducing their social isolation. Examples of such technologies or programs include Senior Planet from AARP offering live online classes for seniors (Older Adults Technology Services 2025) and ElliQ, an AI-driven social robot (Broadbent et al. 2024).

Implications for Future Practice

This review confirmed the importance of neighborhood environments in promoting older adults’ social relationships and interactions. We also found some contradictory results that often originated from the heterogeneity in study locations with various cultures and contexts, as noted earlier in this paper. Developing cultural competence in urban planning is an essential step for policymakers and planners to understand, communicate with, and address the needs of older adults across cultures and contexts. It can contribute to creating inclusive, vibrant, and socially cohesive cities/communities where older adults feel valued and empowered to participate in shaping their residential environments (Mcintyre 2023). In-depth interviews with local stakeholders during the early phase of development can guide the planning and design decision-making process toward creating socially and culturally inclusive communities supporting healthy aging in place.

Older adults’ perceptions of safety are impacted by a combination of personal and environmental factors such as crime rates, physical disorders like graffiti and vandalism, and the ability to have “eyes on the street.” Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) suggests specific planning principles and strategies for improving safety and perceptions of safety, including territoriality (e.g., spaces defined by fences, plants, paving patterns, and/or elevation changes), surveillance (e.g., entrance porches and windows for “eyes on the street”), image/maintenance (e.g., absence of graffiti, vandalism, garbage, and litter), activity support (e.g., spaces with signages to encourage activities), and access control (e.g., gated communities) (Cozens, Saville, and Hillier 2005; Sohn 2016). These planning principles and strategies are essential for addressing safety barriers among older adults, which can further enhance their social well-being.

Neighborhood walkability, accessibility, aesthetics, and supportive resources play a vital role in supporting older adults’ social relationships and interactions. To build walkable neighborhoods, policymakers and planning/design professionals should consider the specific needs of older adults to ensure the spatial and social appropriateness of planning and design interventions (Stafford and Baldwin 2017). Neighborhood aesthetics can be achieved by incorporating attractive buildings, well-maintained outdoor spaces, and interesting cultural (e.g., landmarks) and natural (e.g., naturalistic planting designs) features (Root, Silbernagel, and Litt 2017; Zhong et al. 2023). Multiple dimensions of the neighborhood environment should be interdependent and complementary to promote place attachment and sociability, which are important for supporting older adults’ social lives.

Third places are also of critical importance for promoting the social well-being of older adults. The third-place theory highlights the importance of well-designed and well-maintained parks and open spaces in fostering community bonds and activities (Oldenburg 2001). Third places including parks and open spaces can be optimal settings that facilitate both structured/formal and unstructured/spontaneous social interactions (Kreutz 2024; Nelischer and Loukaitou-Sideris 2022). Accessible third places are important social places for older adults to interact with their peers and younger generations, which can mitigate their loneliness and isolation.

Given that planning and design interventions entail a multifaceted and enduring process, policymakers and planning/design professionals should consider the short- and long-term plans for the optimal arrangement of diverse housing options, mixed land uses, extensive blue-green infrastructure, multimodal transportation infrastructure, and other supportive public service facilities that support social well-being of older adults while respecting to local cultures and contexts. Additionally, the design and social programming of the built environment need to facilitate both active and passive interactions, where older adults can choose to be active participants or passive viewers of their neighborhood happenings.

Limitations

This systematic review has three major limitations. First, only four databases were used for initial record searches considering feasibility. To reduce the risk of missing important studies, we selected the most relevant databases from multiple disciplines and developed a comprehensive list of keywords and corresponding search strings for each database. References and citations were further screened to find eligible studies. Despite these efforts, it is still possible that this review missed potentially relevant studies from other databases. Second, we excluded grey literature and qualitative studies, which may provide additional insights into specific policy and environmental interventions and older adults’ preferences of neighborhood environments supporting their social activities. However, as our primary objective was to synthesize studies reporting statistically significant environmental predictors of older adults’ social relationships and social interactions, our focus on quantitative studies aligns with the scope of this review. Third, comparing and interpreting results from studies in different cities and regions across countries were challenging due to potential differences in economic, social, cultural, and physical contexts. Contradictory findings on certain environmental measures suggested the importance of considering and respecting various local and regional contexts when implementing policy and/or environmental interventions at different locations.

Conclusions

In this literature review, we synthesized empirical evidence from quantitative studies confirming the significant roles of neighborhood environments in supporting social relationships and social interactions among older adults. Thirty-two reviewed studies identified six environmental domains with 49 factors significantly associated with older adults’ social well-being outcomes. These domains were neighborhood safety, overall neighborhood characteristics, housing, transportation, land uses, and urban nature. Some studies further suggested variations in environmental predictors of older adults’ social outcomes based on age, gender, living arrangement, health, or urbanicity. As older adults are more vulnerable to environmental challenges and spend most of their time at home and in their neighborhood, additional efforts are needed to create an inclusive, walkable, accessible, and livable neighborhood environment. Such efforts can help foster diverse social relationships and interactions, leading to fighting against ageism, loneliness, and social isolation. Furthermore, there is a need to continue exploring readily modifiable, implementable, and scalable interventions that can be adapted for different populations and communities/settings worldwide, to address the growing challenges associated with physical and social isolation among older adults.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jpl-10.1177_08854122251341355 - Supplemental material for The Role of Neighborhood Environments in Older Adults’ Social Relationships and Social Interactions: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpl-10.1177_08854122251341355 for The Role of Neighborhood Environments in Older Adults’ Social Relationships and Social Interactions: A Systematic Review by Sinan Zhong, Jiahe Bian, Xi Chen, Laurel Curran and Chanam Lee in Journal of Planning Literature

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jpl-10.1177_08854122251341355 - Supplemental material for The Role of Neighborhood Environments in Older Adults’ Social Relationships and Social Interactions: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jpl-10.1177_08854122251341355 for The Role of Neighborhood Environments in Older Adults’ Social Relationships and Social Interactions: A Systematic Review by Sinan Zhong, Jiahe Bian, Xi Chen, Laurel Curran and Chanam Lee in Journal of Planning Literature

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Margaret J. Foster from Texas A&M University who provided valuable input to the search strategy of this systematic review.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors 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.

ORCID iDs

Sinan Zhong

Jiahe Bian

Laurel Curran

Chanam Lee

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Sinan Zhong is an Assistant Professor in Landscape Architecture. Her research interests lie at the intersection between healthy aging and community design.

Jiahe Bian is an Assistant Professor in Landscape Architecture. Her area of research is mobility, active living, and emerging technologies.

Xi Chen is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in Urban Planning. Her area of research is healthy community planning and design, focusing on vulnerable populations, especially older adults and people living with dementia.

Laurel Curran is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington. Her current research connects physical activity adherence and environmental stressor experiences to the prevention and management of chronic, progressive illnesses.

Chanam Lee is a Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning. Her expertise is in active living research, a transdisciplinary area that deals with environmental and policy approaches to promote physical activity and healthy living.

References

Alidoust

Bosman

Holden

. 2018. “Planning for Healthy Ageing: How the Use of Third Places Contributes to the Social Health of Older Populations.” Ageing and Society 39 (7): 1459–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686(18000065.

Allen

J. O.

2016. “Ageism as a Risk Factor for Chronic Disease.” The Gerontologist 56 (4): 610–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu158.

Annear

Keeling

Wilkinson

T. I. M.

Cushman

Gidlow

B. O. B.

Hopkins

. 2012. “Environmental Influences on Healthy and Active Ageing: A Systematic Review.” Ageing and Society 34 (4): 590–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686(1200116x.

Boonstra

T. W.

Larsen

M. E.

Townsend

Christensen

. 2017a. “Validation of a Smartphone App to Map Social Networks of Proximity.” PLoS ONE 12 (12): e0189877. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189877.

Boonstra

T. W.

Werner-Seidler

O’Dea

Larsen

M. E.

Christensen

. 2017b. “Smartphone App to Investigate the Relationship Between Social Connectivity and Mental Health.” Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2017: 287–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2017.8036818.

Bowling

Stafford

. 2007. “How do Objective and Subjective Assessments of Neighbourhood Influence Social and Physical Functioning in Older Age? Findings From a British Survey of Ageing.” Social Science & Medicine 64 (12): 2533–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.03.009.

Broadbent

Loveys

Ilan

Chen

Chilukuri

M. M.

Boardman

S. G.

Doraiswamy

P. M.

Skuler

. 2024. “ElliQ, an AI-Driven Social Robot to Alleviate Loneliness: Progress and Lessons Learned.” JAR Life 13: 22–8. https://doi.org/10.14283/jarlife.2024.2.

Brown

S. C.

Mason

C. A.

Lombard

J. L.

Martinez

Plater-Zyberk

Spokane

A. R.

Newman

F. L.

Pantin

Szapocznik

. 2009. “The Relationship of Built Environment to Perceived Social Support and Psychological Distress in Hispanic Elders: The Role of “Eyes on the Street”.” The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 64 (2): 234–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbn011.

Brown

S. C.

Mason

C. A.

Perrino

Lombard

J. L.

Martinez

Plater-Zyberk

Spokane

A. R.

Szapocznik

. 2008. “Built Environment and Physical Functioning in Hispanic Elders: The Role of “Eyes on the Street”.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116 (10): 1300–7. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.11160.

10.

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.

11.

Campbell

Kim

. 2016. “Designing an Ageless Social Community: Adapting a New Urbanist Social Core to Suit Baby Boomers in Later Life.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly 30 (2): 156–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2016.1162253.

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. Healthy Places Terminology. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm.

13.

Chapman

N. J.

Beaudet

. 1983. “Environmental Predictors of Well-Being for At-Risk Older Adults in a Mid-Sized City.” Journal of Gerontology 38 (2): 237–44.

14.

Chen

Sun

Seo

B. K.

. 2022. “The Effects of Public Open Space on Older People’s Well-Being: From Neighborhood Social Cohesion to Place Dependence.” International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 19 (23): 16170. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316170.

15.

Chippendale

T. L.

Bear-Lehman

. 2010. “Enabling “Aging in Place” for Urban Dwelling Seniors: An Adaptive or Remedial Approach?” Physical & Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics 28 (1): 57–62. https://doi.org/10.3109/02703180903381078.

16.

Coppola

Cosar

Faria

D. R.

Bellotto

. 2019. “Social Activity Recognition on Continuous RGB-D Video Sequences.” International Journal of Social Robotics 12 (1): 201–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-019-00541-y.

17.

Courtin

Knapp

. 2017. “Social Isolation, Loneliness and Health in Old Age: A Scoping Review.” Health & Social Care in the Community 25 (3): 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12311.

18.

Covidence. 2024. Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. https://www.covidence.org/ .

19.

Cozens

P. M.

Saville

Hillier

. 2005. “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography.” Property Management 23 (5): 328–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/02637470510631483.

20.

Daynamica. 2025. Daynamica App. Retrieved January 5 from https://daynamica.com/smartphone-app/.

21.

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. http://hdl.handle.net/10713/20582.

22.

Wang

Guo

. 2024. “Built Environment and Loneliness in Later Life: Productive Engagement as the Pathway.” Aging & Mental Health 28 (6): 900–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2024.2329642.

23.

Galenkamp

Gagliardi

Principi

Golinowska

Moreira

Schmidt

A. E.

Winkelmann

Sowa

van der Pas

Deeg

D. J. H.

. 2016. “Predictors of Social Leisure Activities in Older Europeans With and Without Multimorbidity.” European Journal of Ageing 13: 129–43.

24.

Guo

Yanai

. 2024. “Community Gardens and Psychological Well-Being Among Older People in Elderly Housing With Care Services: The Role of the Social Environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 94: 102232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102232.

25.

Hand

C. L.

Howrey

B. T.

. 2019. “Associations Among Neighborhood Characteristics, Mobility Limitation, and Social Participation in Late Life.” The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 74 (3): 546–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw215.

26.

Hand

Law

M. C.

McColl

M. A.

Hanna

Elliott

S. J.

. 2012. “Neighborhood Influences on Participation Among Older Adults With Chronic Health Conditions: A Scoping Review.” OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 32 (3): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20111222-02.

27.

Hanibuchi

Kondo

Nakaya

Shirai

Hirai

Kawachi

. 2012. “Does Walkable Mean Sociable? Neighborhood Determinants of Social Capital among Older Adults in Japan.” Health & Place 18 (2): 229–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.015.

28.

Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2022. Four Challenges to Aging in Place. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/four-challenges-to-aging-in-place.

29.

Heikkinen

R. L.

Kauppinen

. 2004. “Depressive Symptoms in Late Life: A 10-Year Follow-Up.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 38 (3): 239–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2003.10.004.

30.

Herbolsheimer

Ungar

Portegijs

Dallmeier

Schaap

Smith

Stubbs

, D., et al. 2021. “Neighborhood Environment, Social Participation, and Physical Activity in Older Adults With Lower Limb Osteoarthritis: A Mediation Analysis.” Health & Place 68: 102513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102513.

31.

Hong

Sallis

J. F.

King

A. C.

Conway

T. L.

Saelens

Cain

K. L.

Fox

E. H.

Frank

L. D.

. 2018. “Linking Green Space to Neighborhood Social Capital in Older Adults: The Role of Perceived Safety.” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 207: 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.051.

32.

Hua

Mendoza-Vasconez

A. S.

Chrisinger

B. W.

Conway

T. L.

Todd

Adams

M. A.

Sallis

J. F.

, K. L., et al. 2022. “Associations of Social Cohesion and Quality of Life With Objective and Perceived Built Environments: A Latent Profile Analysis Among Seniors.” J Public Health (Oxf) 44 (1): 138–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa217.

33.

Jeste

D. V.

Blazer

D. G.

Buckwalter

K. C.

2nd Cassidy

K. K.

Fishman

Gwyther

L. P.

Levin

S. M.

, C., et al. 2016. “Age-Friendly Communities Initiative: Public Health Approach to Promoting Successful Aging.” The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 24 (12): 1158–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2016.07.021.

34.

Jing

Dahlberg

Canter

Plater-Zyberk

Collins

. 2024. “The Role of Third Place Concerning Loneliness in the Context of Ageing in Place: Three Neighbourhoods in Stockholm.” Health & Social Care in the Community 2024: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/4172682.

35.

Kannan

V. D.

Veazie

P. J.

. 2023. “US Trends in Social Isolation, Social Engagement, and Companionship—Nationally and by Age, Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Family Income, and Work Hours, 2003-2020.” SSM Population Health 21: 101331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101331.

36.

King

2008. “Neighborhood and Individual Factors in Activity in Older Adults: Results From the Neighborhood and Senior Health Study.” Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 16 (2): 144–70.

37.

Krause

2006. “Neighborhood Deterioration, Social Skills, and Social Relationships in Late Life.” The International Journal of Aging & Human Development 62 (3): 185–207. https://doi.org/10.2190/7PVL-3YA2-A3QC-9M0B.

38.

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: 104920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104920.

39.

Latham-Mintus

Manierre

Miller

. 2022. “Staying Connected: Alternative Transportation Use, Neighborhoods, and Social Participation Among Older Americans.” The Gerontologist 62 (1): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab084.

40.

Latham

Clarke

P. J.

. 2018. “Neighborhood Disorder, Perceived Social Cohesion, and Social Participation Among Older Americans: Findings From the National Health & Aging Trends Study.” Journal of Aging and Health 30 (1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264316665933.

41.

Lee

Newman

Jourdan

Zandt

S. V.

. 2022. “Natural Experiments in Planning Research.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 42 (1): 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X211061763.

42.

Lee

J. H.

Tan

T. H.

. 2019. “Neighborhood Walkability or Third Places? Determinants of Social Support and Loneliness Among Older Adults.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 43 (2), 240–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19870295.

43.

Levasseur

Cohen

A. A.

Dubois

M.-F.

Généreux

Richard

Therrien

F.-H.

Payette

. 2015. “Environmental Factors Associated With Social Participation of Older Adults Living in Metropolitan, Urban, and Rural Areas: The NuAge Study.” American Journal of Public Health 105 (8): 1718–25. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302415.

44.

Levasseur

Naud

Bruneau

J. F.

Genereux

. 2020a. “Environmental Characteristics Associated With Older Adults’ Social Participation: The Contribution of Sociodemography and Transportation in Metropolitan, Urban, and Rural Areas.” International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 17 (22): 8399. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228399.

45.

Levasseur

Routhier

Clapperton

Dore

Gallagher

. 2020b. “Social Participation Needs of Older Adults Living in a Rural Regional County Municipality: Toward Reducing Situations of Isolation and Vulnerability.” BMC Geriatrics 20 (1): 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01849-5.

46.

Lim

M. H.

Manera

K. E.

Owen

K. B.

Phongsavan

Smith

B. J.

. 2023. “The Prevalence of Chronic and Episodic Loneliness and Social Isolation From a Longitudinal Survey.” Scientific Reports 13 (1): 12453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39289-x.

47.

Liu

Guo

H. C.

Song

Cheng

Chui

, O. F., et al. 2021. “Neighborhood Built Environment and Late-Life Depression: A Multilevel Path Analysis in a Chinese Society.” The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 76 (10): 2143–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbab037.

48.

Maslow

A. H.

1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50 (4): 370–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346.

49.

Matsumoto

Takatori

Miyata

Yamasaki

Miyazaki

Imanishi

Moon

J. S.

. 2022. “Association Between Neighborhood Walkability and Social Participation in Community-Dwelling Older Adults in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Keeping Active Across Generations Uniting the Youth and the Aged Study.” Geriatrics & Gerontology INternational 22 (4): 350–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.14354.

50.

Mazumdar

Learnihan

Cochrane

Davey

. 2017. “The Built Environment and Social Capital: A Systematic Review.” Environment and Behavior 50 (2): 119–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516687343.

51.

Mcintyre

2023. Future-Proof Your Urban Planning Career With These 6 Important Skills: Critical Thinking, Empathetic Listening, and Cultural Competency Will Help You Upskill in an Ever-Changing World. Planning Magazine. https://www.planning.org/planning/2023/fall/future-proof-your-urban-planning-career-with-these-6-important-skills/.

52.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

Group*

. 2009. “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.” Annals of Internal Medicine 151 (4): 264–9.

53.

Mori

Tsuji

Watanabe

Hanazato

Chen

Y. R.

Kondo

. 2023. “Built Environments and Frailty in Older Adults: The JAGES Longitudinal Study Using Mediation Analysis.” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 24 (11): 1677–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2023.06.023.

54.

Moulay

Ujang

Said

. 2017. “Legibility of Neighborhood Parks as a Predicator for Enhanced Social Interaction Towards Social Sustainability.” Cities 61: 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.11.007.

55.

Mouratidis

Poortinga

. 2020. “Built Environment, Urban Vitality and Social Cohesion: Do Vibrant Neighborhoods Foster Strong Communities?” Landscape and Urban Planning 204: 103951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103951.

56.

National Council on Aging. 2021. Senior Centers Reach the Hard-to-Reach. https://www.ncoa.org/article/senior-centers-reach-the-hard-to-reach.

57.

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.

58.

Nguyen

T. H. T.

Levasseur

. 2023. “How Does Community-Based Housing Foster Social Participation in Older Adults: Importance of Well-Designed Common Space, Proximity to Resources, Flexible Rules and Policies, and Benevolent Communities.” Journal of Gerontological Social Work 66 (1): 103–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2022.2133199.

59.

S. S.

Kim

K. A.

Kim

Chu

S. H.

Choi

. 2021. “Measurement of Digital Literacy Among Older Adults: Systematic Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 23 (2): e26145. https://doi.org/10.2196/26145.

60.

Oldenburg

2001. Celebrating the Third Place: Inspiring Stories About the Great Good Places at the Heart of OurCommunities. New York: Marlowe & Co.

61.

Older Adults Technology Services. 2025. Live Classes and Community. Retrieved January 5 from https://seniorplanet.org/.

62.

Ory

M. G.

Towne

S. D.

Won

Jr. Forjuoh

S. N.

Lee

. 2016. “Social and Environmental Predictors of Walking Among Older Adults.” BMC Geriatrics 16 (1): 155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0327-x.

63.

Palmore

E. B.

2004. “Ageism in Canada and the United States.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 19 (1): 41–6. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jccg.0000015098.62691.ab.

64.

Park

A. H.

Zhong

Yang

Jeong

Lee

. 2022. “Impact of COVID-19 on Physical Activity: A Rapid Review.” Journal of Global Health 12: 05003. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.05003.

65.

Patterson

A. C.

Veenstra

. 2010. “Loneliness and Risk of Mortality: A Longitudinal Investigation in Alameda County, California.” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 71 (1): 181–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.03.024.

66.

Richard

Gauvin

Kestens

Shatenstein

Payette

Daniel

Moore

Levasseur

Mercille

. 2013. “Neighborhood Resources and Social Participation Among Older Adults: Results From the VoisiNuage Study.” Journal of Aging and Health 25 (2): 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264312468487.

67.

Rohr

Wittmann

Engel

Enzenbach

Witte

A. V.

Villringer

Loffler

Riedel-Heller

S. G.

. 2022. “Social Factors and the Prevalence of Social Isolation in a Population-Based Adult Cohort.” Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 57 (10): 1959–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-021-02174-x.

68.

Root

E. D.

Silbernagel

Litt

J. S.

. 2017. “Unpacking Healthy Landscapes: Empirical Assessment of Neighborhood Aesthetic Ratings in an Urban Setting.” Landscape and Urban Planning 168: 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.028.

69.

Sohn

D.-W.

2016. “Residential Crimes and Neighbourhood Built Environment: Assessing the Effectiveness of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).” Cities 52: 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.023.

70.

Stafford

Baldwin

. 2017. “Planning Walkable Neighborhoods: Are We Overlooking Diversity in Abilities and Ages?” Journal of Planning Literature 33 (1): 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412217704649.

71.

Stephens

Phillips

. 2022. “Older People’s Neighborhood Perceptions Are Related to Social and Emotional Loneliness and Mediated by Social Network Type.” The Gerontologist 62 (9): 1336–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac087.

72.

Steptoe

Owen

Kunz-Ebrecht

S. R.

Brydon

. 2004. “Loneliness and Neuroendocrine, Cardiovascular, and Inflammatory Stress Responses in Middle-Aged Men and Women.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 29 (5): 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4530(03)00086-6.

73.

Sun

Choe

E. Y.

Webster

. 2023. “Natural Experiments in Healthy Cities Research: How Can Urban Planning and Design Knowledge Reinforce the Causal Inference?” Town Planning Review 94 (1): 87–108. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2022.14.

74.

Therrien

F.-H.

Desrosiers

. 2010. “Participation of Metropolitan, Urban and Rural Community-Dwelling Older Adults.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 51 (3): e52–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2009.11.017.

75.

Thompson

E. E.

Krause

. 1998. “Living Alone and Neighborhood Characteristics as Predictors of Social Support in Late Life.” The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 53 (6): S354–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/53B.6.S354

76.

Townsend

B. G.

Chen

J. T.

Wuthrich

V. M.

. 2021. “Barriers and Facilitators to Social Participation in Older Adults: A Systematic Literature Review.” Clinical Gerontologist 44 (4): 359–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2020.1863890.

77.

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

78.

van den Berg

Sharmeen

Weijs-Perrée

. 2017. “On the Subjective Quality of Social Interactions: Influence of Neighborhood Walkability, Social Cohesion and Mobility Choices.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 106: 309–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.021.

79.

Vaughan

LaValley

M. P.

AlHeresh

Keysor

J. J.

. 2016. “Which Features of the Environment Impact Community Participation of Older Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Aging and Health 28 (6): 957–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264315614008.

80.

Veitch

Flowers

Ball

Deforche

Timperio

. 2020. “Designing Parks for Older Adults: A Qualitative Study Using Walk-Along Interviews.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 54: 126768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126768.

81.

Vitman-Schorr

Ayalon

Khalaila

. 2019. “Perceived Accessibility to Services and Sites Among Israeli Older Adults.” Journal of Applied Gerontology: The Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society 38 (1): 112–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817721112.

82.

Wang

Shepley

M. M.

. 2018. “Can Aging-in-Place be Promoted by the Built Environment Near Home for Physical Activity: A Case Study of Non-Hispanic White Elderly in Texas.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 33 (4): 749–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-017-9584-z.

83.

Wang

Yao

. 2024. “Exploring the Pathways Linking Visual Green Space to Depression in Older Adults in Shanghai, China: Using Street View Data.” Aging & Mental Health 29 (1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2024.2363370.

84.

White

D. K.

Jette

A. M.

Felson

D. T.

Lavalley

M. P.

Lewis

C. E.

Torner

J. C.

Nevitt

M. C.

Keysor

J. J.

. 2010. “Are Features of the Neighborhood Environment Associated With Disability in Older Adults?” Disability and Rehabilitation 32 (8): 639–45. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280903254547.

85.

Wilson

R. S.

Krueger

K. R.

Arnold

S. E.

Schneider

J. A.

Kelly

J. F.

Barnes

L. L.

Tang

Bennett

D. A.

. 2007. “Loneliness and Risk of Alzheimer Disease.” Archives of General Psychiatry 64 (2): 234–40. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.64.2.234.

86.

Yamakita

Kanamori

Kondo

. 2015. “Correlates of Regular Participation in Sports Groups Among Japanese Older Adults: JAGES Cross-Sectional Study.” PLoS ONE 10 (10): e0141638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141638.

87.

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: 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2025.103296.

88.

Zhong

Lee

Bian

Towne

S. D.

Lee

Song

Ory

M. G.

. 2023. “Environmental and Mobility Strategies During Early COVID-19: Insights From an Empirical Study Focusing on Park Visitations in El Paso, TX.” HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal 16 (3): 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867231166080.

89.

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: 113374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113374.

90.

Zhong

Lee

. 2020b. “Community Environments That Promote Intergenerational Interactions vs. Walking Among Older Adults.” Frontiers in Public Health 8: 587363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.587363.

91.

Zhong

Lee

. 2022. “The Role of Community Environments in Older Adults' Intergenerational and Peer Social Interactions.” Cities 129: 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

0.07 MB

0.03 MB