IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i21p8276-d442158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How does a (Smart) Age-Friendly Ecosystem Look in a Post-Pandemic Society?

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah Ramsden Marston

    (Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area, School of Health, Wellbeing & Social Care, The Open University, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire MK7 6HH, UK)

  • Linda Shore

    (Mi:Lab, Department of Design Innovation, Maynooth University, W23 F2H6 Co. Kildare, Ireland)

  • P.J. White

    (DesignCORE, Humanities, Institute of Technology Carlow, R93 V960 Carlow, Ireland)

Abstract

COVID-19 has impacted not only the health of citizens, but also the various factors that make up our society, living environments, and ecosystems. This pandemic has shown that future living will need to be agile and flexible to adapt to the various changes in needs of societal populations. Digital technology has played an integral role during COVID-19, assisting various sectors of the community, and demonstrating that smart cities can provide opportunities to respond to many future societal challenges. In the decades ahead, the rise in aging populations will be one of these challenges, and one in which the needs and requirements between demographic cohorts will vary greatly. Although we need to create future smart age-friendly ecosystems to meet these needs, technology still does not feature in the WHO eight domains of an age-friendly city. This paper extends upon Marston and van Hoof’s ‘Smart Age-friendly Ecosystem’ (SAfE) framework, and explores how digital technology, design hacking, and research approaches can be used to understand a smart age-friendly ecosystem in a post-pandemic society. By exploring a series of case studies and using real-life scenarios from the standpoint of COVID-19, we propose the ‘Concept of Age-friendly Smart Ecologies (CASE)’ framework. We provide an insight into a myriad of contemporary multi-disciplinary research, which are capable to initiate discussions and bring various actors together with a positive impact on future planning and development of age-friendly ecosystems. The strengths and limitations of this framework are outlined, with advantages evident in the opportunity for towns, regions/counties, provinces, and states to take an agile approach and work together in adopting and implement improvements for the greater benefits of residents and citizens.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah Ramsden Marston & Linda Shore & P.J. White, 2020. "How does a (Smart) Age-Friendly Ecosystem Look in a Post-Pandemic Society?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-43, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:8276-:d:442158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8276/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8276/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeroen Dikken & Rudy F.M. van den Hoven & Willeke H. van Staalduinen & Loes M.T. Hulsebosch-Janssen & Joost van Hoof, 2020. "How Older People Experience the Age-Friendliness of Their City: Development of the Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Joost Van Hoof & Jan K. Kazak & Jolanta M. Perek-Białas & Sebastiaan T. M. Peek, 2018. "The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Rebecca L. Utz & Kristin L. Swenson & Michael Caserta & Dale Lund & Brian deVries, 2014. "Feeling Lonely Versus Being Alone: Loneliness and Social Support Among Recently Bereaved Persons," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(1), pages 85-94.
    4. Mircea Răducu TRIFU & Mihaela Laura IVAN, 2014. "Big Data: present and future," Database Systems Journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 5(1), pages 32-41, May.
    5. Yuanyuan Cao & Junjun Li & Xinghong Qin & Baoliang Hu, 2020. "Examining the Effect of Overload on the MHealth Application Resistance Behavior of Elderly Users: An SOR Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Teresa De la Hera & Eugène Loos & Monique Simons & Joleen Blom, 2017. "Benefits and Factors Influencing the Design of Intergenerational Digital Games: A Systematic Literature Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Hannah R. Marston, 2019. "Millennials and ICT—Findings from the Technology 4 Young Adults (T4YA) Project: An Exploratory Study," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, November.
    8. Behrendt, Frauke, 2016. "Why cycling matters for Smart Cities. Internet of Bicycles for Intelligent Transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 157-164.
    9. Nicos Komninos & Marc Pallot & Hans Schaffers, 2013. "Special Issue on Smart Cities and the Future Internet in Europe," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 4(2), pages 119-134, June.
    10. Paneth, N. & Vinten-Johansen, P. & Brody, H. & Rip, M., 1998. "A rivalry of foulness: Official and unofficial investigations of the London cholera epidemic of 1854," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 88(10), pages 1545-1553.
    11. Frauke Behrendt, 2019. "Cycling the Smart and Sustainable City: Analyzing EC Policy Documents on Internet of Things, Mobility and Transport, and Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-30, February.
    12. Annalisa Cocchia, 2014. "Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review," Progress in IS, in: Renata Paola Dameri & Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux (ed.), Smart City, edition 127, pages 13-43, Springer.
    13. Leonidas G. Anthopoulos, 2015. "Understanding the Smart City Domain: A Literature Review," Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Manuel Pedro Rodríguez-Bolívar (ed.), Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities, edition 127, pages 9-21, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Joost van Hoof & Hannah R. Marston, 2021. "Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: State of the Art and Future Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Tine Buffel & Sophie Yarker & Chris Phillipson & Luciana Lang & Camilla Lewis & Patty Doran & Mhorag Goff, 2023. "Locked down by inequality: Older people and the COVID-19 pandemic," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(8), pages 1465-1482, June.
    3. Jianbo Han & Edwin H. W. Chan & Esther H. K. Yung & Queena K. Qian & Patrick T. I. Lam, 2022. "A Policy Framework for Producing Age-Friendly Communities from the Perspective of Production of Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Ivis García, 2024. "Understanding the Housing Preferences of Older Adults: Insights from a Study on Micro-Housing in Salt Lake City, U.S," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Marija Jevtic & Vlatka Matkovic & Milica Paut Kusturica & Catherine Bouland, 2022. "Build Healthier: Post-COVID-19 Urban Requirements for Healthy and Sustainable Living," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-21, July.
    6. Hannah R. Marston & Kelly Niles-Yokum & Paula Alexandra Silva, 2021. "A Commentary on Blue Zones ® : A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-33, January.
    7. Galetsi, Panagiota & Katsaliaki, Korina & Kumar, Sameer, 2022. "The medical and societal impact of big data analytics and artificial intelligence applications in combating pandemics: A review focused on Covid-19," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parul Gupta & Sumedha Chauhan & M. P. Jaiswal, 2019. "Classification of Smart City Research - a Descriptive Literature Review and Future Research Agenda," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 661-685, June.
    2. Alper Ozpinar, 2023. "A Hyper-Integrated Mobility as a Service (MaaS) to Gamification and Carbon Market Enterprise Architecture Framework for Sustainable Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Renata Biadacz & Marek Biadacz, 2021. "Implementation of “Smart” Solutions and An Attempt to Measure Them: A Case Study of Czestochowa, Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-28, September.
    4. Koutra, Sesil & Becue, Vincent & Ioakimidis, Christos S., 2019. "Searching for the ‘smart’ definition through its spatial approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 924-936.
    5. Jianjun Sun & Jiaqi Yan & Kem Z. K. Zhang, 2016. "Blockchain-based sharing services: What blockchain technology can contribute to smart cities," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Hannah R. Marston & Kelly Niles-Yokum & Paula Alexandra Silva, 2021. "A Commentary on Blue Zones ® : A Critical Review of Age-Friendly Environments in the 21st Century and Beyond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-33, January.
    7. Schiavone, Francesco & Paolone, Francesco & Mancini, Daniela, 2019. "Business model innovation for urban smartization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 210-219.
    8. Adrian Buttazzoni & Marta Veenhof & Leia Minaker, 2020. "Smart City and High-Tech Urban Interventions Targeting Human Health: An Equity-Focused Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-23, March.
    9. Eugène Loos & Maria Sourbati & Frauke Behrendt, 2020. "The Role of Mobility Digital Ecosystems for Age-Friendly Urban Public Transport: A Narrative Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Mahnoosh Hassankhani & Mehdi Alidadi & Ayyoob Sharifi & Abolghasem Azhdari, 2021. "Smart City and Crisis Management: Lessons for the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Marc Ringel, 2021. "Smart City Design Differences: Insights from Decision-Makers in Germany and the Middle East/North-Africa Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, February.
    12. Chunmei Zhang & Jun Yang, 2023. "Evaluation of the Quality of the Age-Friendly Environment in Liaoning Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-13, November.
    13. Nammi Kim & Seungwoo Yang, 2021. "Characteristics of Conceptually Related Smart Cities (CRSCs) Services from the Perspective of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-48, March.
    14. Kazushige Ide & Seungwon Jeong & Taishi Tsuji & Ryota Watanabe & Yasuhiro Miyaguni & Hirotaka Nakamura & Miyako Kimura & Katsunori Kondo, 2022. "Suggesting Indicators of Age-Friendly City: Social Participation and Happiness, an Ecological Study from the JAGES," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-12, April.
    15. Hannah R. Marston & Joost van Hoof, 2019. "“Who Doesn’t Think about Technology When Designing Urban Environments for Older People?” A Case Study Approach to a Proposed Extension of the WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-35, September.
    16. Olga Bogdanov & Veljko Jeremiæ & Sandra Jednak & Mladen Èudanov, 2019. "Scrutinizing the Smart City Index: a multivariate statistical approach," Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci/Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Economics and Business, vol. 37(2), pages 777-799.
    17. Ahmad Adeel & Bruno Notteboom & Ansar Yasar & Kris Scheerlinck & Jeroen Stevens, 2021. "Insights into the Impacts of Mega Transport Infrastructures on the Transformation of Urban Fabric: Case of BRT Lahore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-32, July.
    18. Anthony Simonofski & Estefanía Serral Asensio & Johannes Smedt & Monique Snoeck, 2019. "Hearing the Voice of Citizens in Smart City Design: The CitiVoice Framework," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 61(6), pages 665-678, December.
    19. Federico Delfino & Paola Laiolo & Federico Delfino, 2019. "Living Labs and Partnerships for Progress-How Universities can Drive the Process towards the Sustainable City," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 18(2), pages 71-73, April.
    20. Peter G van der Velden & Ivan Komproe & Carlo Contino & Marika de Bruijne & Rolf J Kleber & Marcel Das & Henk Schut, 2020. "Which groups affected by Potentially Traumatic Events (PTEs) are most at risk for a lack of social support? A prospective population-based study on the 12-month prevalence of PTEs and risk factors for," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-19, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:8276-:d:442158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.