Co-creating inclusive spaces and places: Towards an intergenerational and age-friendly living ecosystem

Introduction Evolving aging societies, ongoing digitalisation and circumstances of COVID-19 are changing living conditions for growing older. There is an increased urgency to view public health with a focus on integrating people of all ages into the matrix of opportunities afforded in their communities. This study initiates the conceptualization of an intergenerational, age-friendly living ecosystem (AFLE) to enhance public health planning. Methodology A participatory study was conducted using a multi-methods approach. Six virtual co-creation sessions (n = 35–50 participants), alongside a mainly open-ended INTERGEN survey designed specifically for this study (n = 130) were conducted to conceptualize multilevel ideas for building intergenerational age-friendly places using Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model. At the height of COVID-19, virtual applications (Zoom, Moodboard) and case studies, creative methods (drawing, photography, storytelling and spotlight sessions) were applied to engage academic and non-academic participants between ages 5 – 80+ years, across eight countries. Sessions were video-recorded with visual themes captured by a graphic facilitator. The survey covered issues of multigenerational interactions; intergenerational and age-friendly place features; place safety; and necessary stakeholders required for creating intergenerational and age-friendly places. Data were reflexively analyzed using a team approach to thematic analysis. Results Findings present both the thematic analysis of Virtual Co-creation Camps (VCCs) and the INTERGEN survey results. These findings are addressed in three overarching categories that highlight the necessary characteristics of AFLEs as suggested by the VCC participants and survey respondents: (i) Sensory factors: feeling and emotion as starting points for physical design; (ii) Physical and digital factors in designing AFLE spaces and places; and (iii) Socio-cultural factors: tackling ageism and exclusion as part of the solution. Discussion The analysis resulted in a pathway toward enhanced understandings on how multi-generations can better interact with fluctuating organizational domains (industry, voluntary, academic and public sectors) in urban and rural settings to facilitate intergenerational connectivity. Through processes of co-creation, an AFLE proof of concept and roadmap for public health planning was developed to support and provide opportunities for people as they age to reap the socioeconomic benefits of their local and virtual communities and help them become well integrated, valued and contributory members of society.

[1]  A. Sixsmith,et al.  Future of digital health and community care: Exploring intended positive impacts and unintended negative consequences of COVID-19 , 2022, Healthcare management forum.

[2]  David Byrne A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis , 2021, Quality & Quantity.

[3]  M. Brandt Intergenerational Contact Zones. Place-based Strategies for Promoting Social Inclusion and Belonging , 2021, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships.

[4]  H. Legido-Quigley,et al.  Health systems resilience in managing the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from 28 countries , 2021, Nature Medicine.

[5]  Meghan Joy Book Review: Intergenerational Contact Zones: Place-based Strategies for Promoting Social Inclusion and Belonging , 2021 .

[6]  Yingqi Guo,et al.  Objective and perceived built environment, sense of community, and mental wellbeing in older adults in Hong Kong: A multilevel structural equation study , 2021 .

[7]  A. Leung,et al.  The Contribution of Sense of Community to the Association Between Age-Friendly Built Environment and Health in a High-Density City: A Cross-Sectional Study of Middle-Aged and Older Adults in Hong Kong , 2021, Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society.

[8]  J. Bongaarts,et al.  United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division World Family Planning 2020: Highlights, United Nations Publications, 2020. 46 p. , 2020 .

[9]  D. Banerjee,et al.  ‘An invisible human rights crisis’: The marginalization of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic – An advocacy review , 2020, Psychiatry Research.

[10]  D. Vindigni,et al.  Integrated Pathways to Healthy Ageing (PHA): A Conceptual Ecosystem , 2020 .

[11]  M. Kaplan,et al.  Intergenerational Contact Zones , 2020 .

[12]  G. Koh,et al.  Bridging the intergenerational gap: the outcomes of a student-initiated, longitudinal, inter-professional, inter-generational home visit program , 2020, BMC Medical Education.

[13]  J. Sixsmith,et al.  Constructing and negotiating social participation in old age: experiences of older adults living in urban environments in the United Kingdom , 2019, Ageing and Society.

[14]  H. Noble,et al.  Triangulation in research, with examples , 2019, Evidence Based Journals.

[15]  Virginia Braun,et al.  Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis , 2019, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health.

[16]  S. Peek,et al.  The Challenges of Urban Ageing: Making Cities Age-Friendly in Europe , 2018, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[17]  A Grigorovich,et al.  Defining and evaluating transdisciplinary research: implications for aging and technology , 2018, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[18]  N. Hansen,et al.  Lonely Alone or Lonely Together? A Cultural-Psychological Examination of Individualism–Collectivism and Loneliness in Five European Countries , 2018, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[19]  Andrew Sixsmith,et al.  Exploring Privilege in the Digital Divide: Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice , 2018, The Gerontologist.

[20]  Tracey Bucknall,et al.  Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation , 2018, Implementation Science.

[21]  A. Sixsmith,et al.  Contextual Factors for Aging Well: Creating Socially Engaging Spaces Through the Use of Deliberative Dialogues , 2018, The Gerontologist.

[22]  Alex Mihailidis,et al.  Principles for fostering the transdisciplinary development of assistive technologies , 2017, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[23]  A. Sixsmith,et al.  Ageing well in the right place: partnership working with older people , 2017 .

[24]  M. Kaplan,et al.  Intergenerational Pathways to a Sustainable Society , 2016 .

[25]  Thomas R Frieden,et al.  The Future of Public Health , 2015 .

[26]  J. Sixsmith,et al.  Experiencing ‘pathologized presence and normalized absence’; understanding health related experiences and access to health care among Iraqi and Somali asylum seekers, refugees and persons without legal status , 2015, BMC Public Health.

[27]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects , 2015, BMC Public Health.

[28]  Hye-kyung Kang “We’re Who We’ve Been Waiting For”: Intergenerational Community Organizing for a Healthy Community , 2015 .

[29]  C. Phillipson,et al.  Promoting Sustainable Communities through Intergenerational Practice , 2014 .

[30]  John Evans Ideational border crossings: rethinking the politics of knowledge within and across disciplines , 2014 .

[31]  Jordana L. Maisel,et al.  Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments , 2012 .

[32]  T. Bager The camp model for entrepreneurship teaching , 2011, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[33]  Vicky Ward,et al.  Planning for knowledge translation: a researcher's guide , 2010 .

[34]  Kenneth Wells,et al.  Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. , 2007, JAMA.

[35]  Sabine Maasen,et al.  Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science? , 2006 .

[36]  Sylvia T. Brown,et al.  LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT in Geriatric Care Through the Intergeneration Make a Difference Project , 2006, Nursing education perspectives.

[37]  Emily J. Perl From the Margin to the Center , 1996 .

[38]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[39]  Marie Manthey,et al.  A GUIDE FOR , 1967 .

[40]  J. Sixsmith,et al.  Intergenerational and Age-friendly Living Ecosystems (AFLE) , 2022 .

[41]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2021, The Gerontologist.

[42]  Sarah Mae Sincero,et al.  Ecological systems theory , 2020, Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Splitu.

[43]  M. Requier-Desjardins,et al.  The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , 2015, An Insider's Guide to the UN.

[44]  D. Cushing,et al.  Intergenerational Communities as Healthy Places for Meaningful Engagement and Interaction , 2016 .

[45]  M. Polk Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving , 2015 .

[46]  Ryan Woolrych,et al.  Genuine partnership and equitable research: Working "with" older people for the development of a smart activity monitoring system , 2013 .

[47]  K. Shadan,et al.  Available online: , 2012 .