SMART GROWTH AND AGE-FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES:
EVALUATING EPA’S ACTIVE AGING AWARD-WINNING PROGRAMS
By
Qiao Xu

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Urban and Regional Planning
2011

ABSTRACT
SMART GROWTH AND AGE-FRIENDLY COMMUNITIES:
EVALUATING EPA’S ACTIVE AGING AWARD-WINNING PROGRAMS
By
Qiao Xu
This study investigates the relationship between “active aging” and “smart growth”,
through comprehensively analyzing and evaluating the US Census data, 40 attributes
within 8 indicators of “active aging”, and 40 attributes within 10 indicators of “smart
growth”, as well as an online survey with senior citizens from the three US EPA’s Active
Aging Award-winning communities: City of Kirkland, Washington, City of Casper,
Wyoming, and Iowa City, Iowa.
The study examines how these communities achieve the goals of both “smart
growth” and “active aging”, and shows how the principles of “smart growth” are related
with the elements of “active aging”, through comparing the achievements and identifying
these weaknesses in realizing both “active aging” and “smart growth” in the targeted
three American communities, as well as investigating the satisfaction degrees of the
local senior residents in terms of their community environment, respectively.
The study discovers that the realization degree of “active aging” rises along with
the increase in the realization degree of “smart growth” in all the three communities. The
realization degrees of “smart growth” of the three communities demonstrated higher than
their “active aging” counterparts at distinct levels. The findings indicate that “active
aging” and “smart growth” can be positively associated, while the consistency degree
between their realization levels can be distinct in different communities. Additionally,
diverse theoretical and practical implications are discussed for future research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to
complete this thesis. This work would not be finished without the support and guidance
of my professors, the communities I investigated, my friends, and my families.
In the first instance, I am deeply indebted to the members of my thesis committee:
Eric J. Strauss, Dr. Suk-Kyung Kim, and Dr. Sue C. Grady. Your insightful and
enlightening guidance, suggestions and encouragement helped me in all the time of
research and in writing this thesis.
I am bound to thank Carrie S. Hite (Ex-Deputy Director, Parks & Community
Services), David Godfrey (Transportation Engineering Manager, Public Works
Department), and Betsy Maxwell (Recreation Coordinator, Peter Kirk Community Center)
from City of Kirkland, WA; Linda L. Witko (Assistant City Manager) and Wayne Clements
(Senior Center Director) from City of Casper, WY; and Robert Miklo (Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development) and Linda Kopping (Senior
Center Coordinator) from Iowa City, IA. I want to thank them for their interest in and
suggestions to my research, and their warm-hearted assistance in facilitating my
research data collection.
I also want to thank my friend family, Mr. Larry B. Karnes and Mrs. Susan Karnes
who cared and helped me during my studying and living in the US.
Especially, I would like to give my thanks to my parents, whose unselfish and
patient love, unconditional encouragement, and support enabled me to complete this
work.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................... 6
1.2 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 7
1.3 Outline of this Thesis........................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Active Aging ........................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Origins and Related Conceptions .............................................................. 9
2.1.2 Definitions and Core Dimensions............................................................. 11
2.2 Smart Growth .................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Historical Context ..................................................................................... 15
2.2.2 Definitions and Core Principles ................................................................ 20
2.3 Active Aging Relevant to Smart Growth ............................................................ 22
2.4 Previous Studies on Active Aging and Smart Growth ........................................ 23
2.4.1 Literature on Active Aging ........................................................................ 23
2.4.2 Literature on Smart Growth...................................................................... 26
2.4.3 Literature on Active Aging and Smart Growth .......................................... 29
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................. 33
3.1 Research Subjects ............................................................................................ 33
3.2 Hypotheses and Methods ................................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................. 55
4.1 Analysis Results for the Three Cities................................................................. 55
4.1.1 City of Kirkland, Washington .................................................................... 55
4.1.2 City of Casper, Wyoming ......................................................................... 74
4.1.3 Iowa City, Iowa ......................................................................................... 92
4.2 Discussions ..................................................................................................... 110
4.3 Comprehensive Comparative Analyses and Evaluations ................................ 125
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................ 135
5.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................... 135
5.2 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 139
5.3 Implications for Future Study........................................................................... 141
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 144
APPENDIX A Online Survey Flyer ........................................................................ 145
APPENDIX B Online Survey Questionnaire .......................................................... 146
APPENDIX C Online Survey Responses .............................................................. 152
APPENDIX D The Liner Regression Model for Active Aging and Smart Growth ... 173

iv

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 174

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Relevance between the Active Aging Dimensions and Smart Growth
Principles..........................................................................................................................23
Table 3.1 EPA’s Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging Awards.......................33
Table 3.2 Criteria for the Selected Communities.............................................................34
Table 3.3 US Census Data Analysis Contents................................................................42
Table 3.4 Active Aging Rating System............................................................................44
Table 3.5 Smart Growth Rating System..........................................................................49
Table 3.6 Survey Questionnaire Design.........................................................................54
Table 4.1 Kirkland Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Active Aging Realization
Degree............................................................................................................................64
Table 4.2 Kirkland Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Smart Growth Realization
Degree............................................................................................................................68
Table 4.3 Casper Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Active Aging Realization
Degree............................................................................................................................82
Table 4.4 Casper Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Smart Growth Realization
Degree............................................................................................................................86
Table 4.5 Iowa Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Active Aging Realization
Degree..........................................................................................................................100
Table 4.6 Iowa Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Smart Growth Realization
Degree..........................................................................................................................104
Table 4.7 Findings about Active Aging Realization Degree, City of Kirkland,
Washington...................................................................................................................112
Table 4.8 Findings about Smart Growth Realization Degree, City of Kirkland,
Washington...................................................................................................................113
Table 4.9 Findings about Active Aging Realization Degree, City of Casper,
Wyoming.......................................................................................................................117

vi

Table 4.10 Findings about Smart Growth Realization Degree, City of Casper,
Wyoming.......................................................................................................................118
Table 4.11 Findings about Active Aging Realization Degree, City of Iowa, Iowa..........122
Table 4.12 Findings about Smart Growth Realization Degree, City of Iowa, Iowa........123
Table 4.13 Total Realization Degree Credits of Active Aging and Smart Growth..........125
Table 4.14 Comparison on the Credits of Smart Growth Indicators..............................127
Table 4.15 Comparison on the Credits of Active Aging Indicators................................129
Table 4.16 Comparison on US Census Data characteristics........................................130
Table 4.17 Comparison on Online Survey Data Features.............................................132
Table A1 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.1...............................................152
Table A2 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.2...............................................152
Table A3 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.3...............................................152
Table A4 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.4...............................................153
Table A5 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.5...............................................153
Table A6 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.6...............................................153
Table A7 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.7...............................................153
Table A8 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.1..............................................153
Table A9 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.2..............................................154
Table A10 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.3............................................154
Table A11 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.4a..........................................154
Table A12 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.4b..........................................154
Table A13 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.1...........................................155
Table A14 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.2...........................................155
Table A15 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.3...........................................155

vii

Table A16 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.4...........................................155
Table A17 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.5...........................................156
Table A18 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.6...........................................156
Table A19 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.7...........................................156
Table A20 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.8a.........................................156
Table A21 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.8b.........................................156
Table A22 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.9a.........................................157
Table A23 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.9b.........................................157
Table A24 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.1...........................................157
Table A25 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.2...........................................157
Table A26 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.3...........................................158
Table A27 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.4...........................................158
Table B1 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.1...............................................159
Table B2 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.2...............................................159
Table B3 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.3...............................................159
Table B4 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.4...............................................159
Table B5 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.5...............................................160
Table B6 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.6...............................................160
Table B7 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.7...............................................160
Table B8 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.1..............................................160
Table B9 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.2..............................................160
Table B10 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.3............................................161
Table B11 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.4a..........................................161

viii

Table B12 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.4b..........................................161
Table B13 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.1...........................................161
Table B14 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.2...........................................162
Table B15 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.3...........................................162
Table B16 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.4...........................................162
Table B17 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.5...........................................162
Table B18 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.6...........................................163
Table B19 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.7...........................................163
Table B20 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.8a.........................................163
Table B21 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.8b.........................................163
Table B22 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.9a.........................................163
Table B23 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.9b.........................................164
Table B24 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.1...........................................164
Table B25 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.2...........................................164
Table B26 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.3...........................................165
Table B27 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.4...........................................165
Table C1 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.1...............................................166
Table C2 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.2...............................................166
Table C3 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.3...............................................166
Table C4 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.4...............................................166
Table C5 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.5...............................................167
Table C6 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.6...............................................167
Table C7 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.7...............................................167

ix

Table C8 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.1..............................................167
Table C9 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.2..............................................167
Table C10 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.3............................................168
Table C11 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.4a..........................................168
Table C12 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.4b..........................................168
Table C13 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.1...........................................168
Table C14 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.2...........................................169
Table C15 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.3...........................................169
Table C16 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.4...........................................169
Table C17 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.5...........................................169
Table C18 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.6...........................................170
Table C19 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.7...........................................170
Table C20 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.8a.........................................170
Table C21 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.8b.........................................170
Table C22 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.9a.........................................170
Table C23 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.9b.........................................171
Table C24 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.1...........................................171
Table C25 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.2...........................................171
Table C26 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.3...........................................172
Table C27 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.4...........................................172
Table D1 Regression Statistics1...................................................................................173
Table D2 Regression Statistics2...................................................................................173
Table D3 Regression Statistics3...................................................................................173

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 The Hybrid Map of Kirkland city, Washington................................................35
Figure 3.2 The Hybrid Map of Casper city, Wyoming......................................................38
Figure 3.3 The Hybrid Map of Iowa City, Iowa................................................................40
Figure 4.1 The Gender Distribution in Kirkland city, Washington....................................55
Figure 4.2 The Gender Distribution of 65 Years and Older, Kirkland city,
Washington.....................................................................................................................56
Figure 4.3 The Age Distribution of People in Kirkland city, Washington..........................56
Figure 4.4 The Old Age Distribution of Kirkland city, Washington...................................57
Figure 4.5 The Race Distribution of Kirkland city, Washington.......................................57
Figure 4.6 The Types of Households in Kirkland city, Washington.................................58
Figure 4.7 Occupants with a Housing Cost Burden in Kirkland city, Washington............59
Figure 4.8 Employment Status in Kirkland city, Washington...........................................60
Figure 4.9 Poverty Rates in Kirkland city, Washington....................................................60
Figure 4.10 Geographic Mobility of Residents, Kirkland city, Washington......................61
Figure 4.11 The Educational Attainment of People in Kirkland city, Washington............62
Figure 4.12 Marital Status in Kirkland city, Washington..................................................62
Figure 4.13 The Gender Distribution in Casper city, Wyoming.......................................74
Figure 4.14 The Gender Distribution of 65 Years and Older, Casper city,
Wyoming.........................................................................................................................74
Figure 4.15 The Age Distribution of People in Casper city, Wyoming.............................75
Figure 4.16 The Old Age Distribution of Casper city, Wyoming......................................75

xi

Figure 4.17 The Race Distribution of Casper city, Wyoming...........................................76
Figure 4.18 The Types of Households in Casper city, Wyoming.....................................77
Figure 4.19 Occupants with a Housing Cost Burden in Casper city, Wyoming...............77
Figure 4.20 Employment Status in Casper city, Wyoming..............................................78
Figure 4.21 Poverty Rates in Casper city, Wyoming.......................................................79
Figure 4.22 Geographic Mobility of Residents, Casper city, Wyoming............................79
Figure 4.23 The Educational Attainment of People in Casper city, Wyoming.................80
Figure 4.24 Marital Status in Casper city, Wyoming........................................................81
Figure 4.25 The Gender Distribution in Iowa City, Iowa..................................................92
Figure 4.26 The Gender Distribution of 65 Years and Older, Iowa City, Iowa.................92
Figure 4.27 The Age Distribution of People in Iowa City, Iowa........................................93
Figure 4.28 The Old Age Distribution of Iowa City, Iowa.................................................93
Figure 4.29 The Race Distribution of Iowa City, Iowa.....................................................94
Figure 4.30 The Types of Households in Iowa City, Iowa...............................................95
Figure 4.31 Occupants with a Housing Cost Burden in Iowa City, Iowa..........................95
Figure 4.32 Employment Status in Iowa City, Iowa.........................................................96
Figure 4.33 Poverty Rates in Iowa City, Iowa.................................................................97
Figure 4.34 Geographic Mobility of Residents, Iowa City, Iowa......................................97
Figure 4.35 The Educational Attainment of People in Iowa City, Iowa............................98
Figure 4.36 Marital Status in Iowa City, Iowa..................................................................99
Figure 4.37 The Scatter Plot of Active Aging and Smart Growth Credits......................126
Figure A Online Survey Flyer........................................................................................145

xii

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
With the rapid social and economic development, the world today has entered the
era of globalization. As the baby boomer generation reaches retirement age, many
countries are facing the challenges of both population aging and urbanization. These two
worldwide trends are highly related mutually. In developed countries, 80% of older adults
already live in urban areas. In less developed countries, it is expected that a quarter of
urban population will be over the age of 60 years by 2050 (Beard and Petitot 2010).
On the one hand, the accelerated process of urbanization generates significant
socio-economic implications. Especially, a great concern emphasizes the side effects of
urbanization on people’s way of living (Rentería and Umaña 2003: 2-3). In 2008, it was
the first time that more than half of the world’s population lives in towns and cities. By
2030, urban growth will concentrate in Africa and Asia, and the number of the world
urban population will climb up to almost 5 billion (UNFPA 2007). The speed and size of
urban growth are not fixed, and a large number of people leave the countryside to seek
brighter opportunities, higher incomes, and more fulfilling lives in cities, whereas they
often “have no choice but to settle in shantytowns and slums” (UNFPA 2007). Lacking
access to “decent housing and sanitation, health care and education” results in urban
poverty, and lower fertility rates in urban neighborhoods than in rural areas throughout
the world. Thus, these social and economic conditions are skewed to a rapidly aging
population in urban areas.
On the other hand, worldwide process of aging has become remarkable. The
research of World Health Organization (WHO) suggested that currently “there are about

1

600 million people in the world aged 60 and over. By 2025 this total is expected to double
and by 2050 it is projected to reach two billion or 21% of the total global population”
(2004). Between 2005 and 2050, half of the global population growth will be the result of
an increase in the 60 plus age group. In contrast, the population of younger group under
15 years old will decline slightly (Reilly 2007).
In the United States, it was revealed from Population Resource Center (2011) that
between 2000 and 2030, the number of people age 65 plus will almost double, and many
communities are projected to have one in five residents over the age of 65 by 2030. In
2031, the number of oldest old (85 plus) will begin rising rapidly since the baby boomers
begin reaching 85. This age group will grow to an estimated 21 million by 2050, whereas
the ratio of the working population to the number of retirees will continue to drop.
Since aging is “a dynamic process, rather than a static condition” (Montagu 1960:
339), the aging population will continue to encounter the multiplying growth of social and
environmental issues and challenges. It was indicated from the World Economic Forum’s
report (Sikken, Davis, Hayashi and Olkkonen 2009) that “these demographic shifts will
place a major burden on health and social systems”. Most attention has been paid to the
influence of socioeconomic disadvantage in the neighborhood level. Since this is
associated with “depression, physical activity, chronic pain, dental service use, cognitive
function, subclinical cardiovascular disease, anger, self-rated health, quality of life, and
disability” (Beard and Petitot 2010), the elderly is among the most vulnerable age group,
calling for more well-developed healthcare system.
In the United States, issues attached to aging have become more urgent. By 2025,
the senior population in America will double to 78 million, while there is no shift of social

2

support to match this trend. According to the research of Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention and National Association of Chronic Disease Directors (2008), compared
with adults aged 50–64, adults from the age group of 65 or older were more likely to
report that they “rarely” or “never” received the social and emotional support they needed,
with 12.2% compared to eight percent, respectively. The whole country will face a
serious shortage of family caregivers, nurses and geriatricians. Also, further issues were
discussed during the Strategy Forum on Aging (2010). There would be a strain on an
already overburdened Medicare system. In addition, lack of affordable housing and lack
of appropriate transportation systems and other community supports disable seniors to
live comfortably in their communities.
It seems that aging population can only bring a negative influence to the world
since it is impossible to separate the needs, and wants of seniors from their lifestyle and
environment, and they inevitably become a dependent and a burden on society. However,
if older people are able to live in an environment that allows them to continue their
ongoing productive engagement in society, and also if they can maintain their health until
the end of their lives, aging populations “might instead be considered an overlooked
societal resource” (Beard and Petitot 2010).
From this positive perspective, a number of researches projects have been
developed in America to create urban environments which are beneficial for aging
people to remain healthy and engaged in their communities. In 1977, “Partners for
Livable Communities” was established to improve the livability of communities by
promoting quality of life, economic development, and social equity. This program has
promoted the concept of “ageing in place”, published “Aging in Place Technical

3

Assistance Guide” (2007) and “A Blueprint for Action: Developing a Livable Community
for All Ages” (2010). To enhance older adults to age in place, seven key issues are
identified: housing; planning and zoning; transportation; health and supportive services;
cultures and lifelong learning; public safety; and civic engagement and volunteer
opportunities.
AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), as a nonprofit organization in
the United States that helps people 50 and over to improve the quality of their lives, has a
similar Livable Communities program, emphasizing community engagement. This
program defines a livable community as one that “has affordable and appropriate
housing, supportive community features and services, and adequate mobility options,
which together facilitate personal independence and the engagement of residents in civic
and social life” (Kochera, Straight and Guterbok 2010). Consistently with these efforts, in
2004, the United States National Council on Disability (NCD) released a report on
“Livable Communities for Adults with Disabilities”. These efforts provide possibilities for
older people with disabilities to live independently and actively.
Also, the AdvantAge Initiative (2010) led by the Centre for Home Care Policy and
Research, makes a community-building effort focused on creating vibrant and
elder-friendly communities that are prepared to meet the needs and fulfill the aspirations
of older adults. 10 communities across the country were selected as pilot sites. The core
of the AdvantAge Initiative is a comprehensive survey of community-residing older adults
designed to complement the “topdown” perspectives of institutions and professionals,
and challenge organizational and individual assumptions. The survey contains four key
areas: “basic needs for housing and security, maintenance of physical and mental health,

4

independence for the frail, disabled, and homebound, and opportunities for social and
civic engagement”. This engages older people in a dialogue about ageing issues, and
builds support for plans of action.
Since land use form widely associates with people’s behaviors, psychology, as well
as health, two representative international programs have been established to help cities
prepare for the convergence of two trends: urbanization and population aging. In the
Phase IV (2003–2007) of WHO’s Healthy Cities Network in Europe, healthy aging was
identified as one of the core themes, with the goal of generating strong local political
commitment and of introducing policies and planning processes that will ensure a holistic
and well-balanced approach to older people's needs for health development and care.
In June 2005, the age-friendly cities project was launched by WHO at the IAGG
XVIII World Congress of Gerontology and Geriatrics in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (WHO Age Friendly Cities 2010). About 1500 older people were asked to describe the
advantages and barriers they experience in eight domains of city life that might influence
the health and quality of life of older people: outdoor spaces and buildings; transportation;
housing; social participation; respect and social inclusion; civic participation and
employment; communication and information; and community support and health
services. Their concerns and ideas were combined with 750 people who act as their
caregivers or service providers to identify the key features of an age-friendly city.
Accordingly, WHO Global Age-friendly Cities project was developed from 2006.
In late 2009, the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities was established to link
participating municipalities, foster evaluation of age-friendly initiatives and to provide
technical support. Unlike the academic focus of the original project, the Network focus is

5

on implementation, and a requirement for participation in the Network is that the
municipality formally commits to a process of continual improvement. Therefore, an
Age-friendly City was defined (WHO Age-Friendly Environments Programme 2011) as
“an inclusive and accessible urban environment that promotes active ageing”.
Also, some case studies on integrating human health into environmental impact
assessment are conducted in New Zealand (Pointon 2009), Canada (Noble and Bronson
2005), as well as in some European countries (Wismar, Blau, Ernst and Figueras 2007).
Nevertheless, to date in America, there has been limited research or practice in
assessing the specific influences of the diverse initiatives mentioned above (Beard and
Petitot 2010). Especially, when smart growth has been employed as an approach to
address the issues related with urbanization and aging population, the relationship
between smart growth and active aging still remains to be investigated and clarified.

1.1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify the relationship between smart growth and
active aging, through evaluating three communities in the United States based on their
EPA’s Active Aging Award-winning Programs, and examining how the comprehensive
plans of these communities achieve the goals of both smart growth and active aging.
This study illustrates the preferences of the senior residents in terms of their community
environment. The study also shows how the principles of smart growth are related with
the elements of active aging, through comparing the achievements and identifying the
weaknesses of the plans in the targeted communities: whether the key elements of smart
growth and active aging were paid similar level of attention to; whether a positive

6

relationship exists between smart growth and active aging; and whether it is possible to
combine smart growth and active aging together.
Having a clear understanding of the relationship between smart growth and active
aging will allow future planners and decision makers to focus on the overlapping and
highly related areas of smart growth and active aging to maximize the benefits of
age-friendly communities.

1.2 Significance of the Study
Among age-friendly programs in America, only EPA’s Active Aging Award-winning
Programs have a defined emphasis on exploring the possibility of integrating smart
growth and active aging concepts to enhance age-friendly community development. The
purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between indicators of "Active
Aging" and "Smart Growth" in three communities currently enrolled in EPA's Active Aging
Program. It is hypothesized that communities, as EPA's Active Aging Award winners,
develop initiatives that also compliment Smart Growth policy. The degree to which
indicators of Smart Growth are similar and or different to indicators of the Active Aging
programs will be evaluated to learn more about the individual and combined benefit(s) of
these policies and programs for the aging populations of these communities. Three
important sources of data will be used in this study to conduct this evaluation: (1) census
data to obtain baseline information on the residents of these communities; (2) attributes
summarized into indicators of 'active aging' and 'smart growth' in these communities; and
(3) on-line survey information obtained from elderly residents of these communities to
learn more about their views and understanding of the development activities.

7

1.3 Outline of this Thesis
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on active aging with its origins and related
conceptions and how active aging is defined in this thesis. At the same time, this Chapter
reviews the historical context, and introduces the common definition of smart growth
which includes 10 principles. Also, previous studies on active aging and smart growth
are introduced and reviewed based on tracing the evidences of relevance between
active aging promotion and smart growth.
Chapter 3 introduces the methodology used in this thesis to identify and investigate
the relationship between smart growth and active aging. This Chapter introduces the
criteria for case selection and gives an overview of the selected cases. Also, this Chapter
introduces the hypotheses, and the methods for data collection and analysis, which
include US Census data analysis, comprehensive plans evaluation, and online survey
with local senior citizens.
Chapter 4 is a section of comparative evaluations. Based on the data analysis of
the previous chapter, this chapter compares the active aging programs from the three
communities, and clarifies the similarities and differences of the active aging programs
and their current influences in these communities.
Chapter 5 concludes with a summary of the data collected and the findings from
the analysis and evaluation. This Chapter discusses the implication of these current
programs for future practice in planning and design age-friendly communities, as well as
the limitations of the present study with recommendations for future studies.

8

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This chapter reviews the literature on both active aging and smart growth to define
the research scope of “active aging” and “smart growth” in this thesis. Firstly, the origins
and related conceptions, definitions and core dimensions of “active aging” are introduced.
Then, the historical context of “smart growth” and its definitions, as well as its 10 core
principles are reviewed. Subsequently, the relevance between “active aging” and “smart
growth” was reviewed. Also, previous studies on “active aging” and “smart growth” are
reviewed and summarized, to identify the gap in the existing researches.

2.1 Active Aging
2.1.1 Origins and Related Conceptions
The origin of the concept of active aging can be traced to the early 1960s in the
United States when there was an argument focusing on a related concept, “successful
aging” (Pfeiffer, 1974; Rowe and Kahn, 1987), the key of which was regarded as the
issue of maintaining the typical values of the middle-aged as well as the activity patterns
of the old-aged (Havighurst, 1954, 1963; Havighurst and Albrecht, 1953). Also, Cumming
and Henry (1961) asserted that “successful aging” was to be achieved through “denying
the onset of old age and by replacing those relationships, activities and roles of middle
age that are lost with new ones in order to maintain activities and life satisfaction”, partly
as a response to the influential theory of “disengagement”, which considered that it was
inevitable for the old-aged to withdraw from social roles and relationships.
However, activity theorists recognized that the theory about “successful aging” was

9

a miserable picture of old age and empirically incorrect. Although the school of activity
theory also became as the object of criticism for generalizing about the aging process
and homogenizing older people, they set up the empirical link between activity and
well-being in old age, which remains to be true today.
In the 1980s, the discussion in this field was rekindled in the United States in the
name of “productive aging”. The focus of aging research had begun to be shifted from
older citizens to the whole life course of human development (Walker 2006), which was
based on the realization that performance can not be well predicted or weighed through
chronological age. According to Bass, Caro and Chen’s research (1993), it was making
clear that “productive aging” had become a bugle for older people advocates. A
significant number of older American citizens were seeking for something else besides
family obligations and leisure after traditional retirement, and others were expecting a
more positive approach to aging. Nevertheless, most of the programs of “productive
aging” focused narrowly on the production of goods and services and, thereby, inclined
to be “instrumental and economistic” (Walker 2006).
Since there were growing concerns among policymakers about the pension and
healthcare costs of an aging population, as well as the extension of the productivity, the
increasing desire and ability of many older people to continue work or other socially
productive activities during their later years resonated very closely with policymakers’
concerns. Thus, “active aging” as a useful strategy to “advance structural reforms in the
areas of health and social welfare” (G8 Information Center 2010), was proposed at the
Denver Summit of the Eight in June 1997, where delegates discussed ways of
encouraging labor force participation and lowering barriers to part-time employment.

10

Therefore, “active aging” has been recognized to focus on a broader range of activities
than those normally connected with production and the labor market, and to emphasize
the inclusion and participation of older adults as full citizens.
2.1.2 Definitions and Core Dimensions
Under the influence of the WHO, a modern concept of “active aging” began to
emerge in the 1990s. It had a strong emphasis on quality of life, mental and physical
well-being, and also combined with the core element of “productive aging” (European
Commission 1999；Cabinet Office 2000). This perspective of the concept emphasizes
the essential association between activity and health (Butler, Oberlink, Schechter, and
Shinkōkai 1990), and the significance of “healthy aging” (WHO 1993；2001a).
In April 2002, Government representatives from 159 countries attended the
Second UN World Assembly on Ageing in Madrid, Spain, where the Madrid International
Plan of Action on Ageing was adopted. In the Plan, population aging was regarded as an
enormous potential “universal force” yet to be realized by societies around the world.
Correspondingly, its call to action focuses on three priority aspects: “older persons and
development; advancing health and well-being into old age; and ensuring enabling and
supportive environments” (United Nations 2002), and outlined course of actions to
improve the environment of policies and practices on aging at all different levels to
enable the aged people to remain active, healthy, and productive.
As one of the three critical priority areas highlighted in the Plan, “advancing health
and well-being into old age” is acknowledged that older people should have access to
resources and services to promote health and prevent disease, and thus, health services
should focus on preventive and rehabilitative health care throughout life, including later

11

years.
So far, “active aging” has not achieved a series of united and universally applicable
principles that can be developed into a coherent strategy to respond effectively to the
challenges of population aging throughout the world. However, it is useful to have a look
at some interpretations from Walker’s research (2002: 124-125), which contended that
“active aging” should embody seven key principles.
The first principle defines the scope of the activity, to restate that it means more
than only paid work. The “activity” should include “all meaningful pursuits” which
contribute to the well-being of the individual or their family, or the whole society. It should
not be regarded as only with productivity and paid employment.
The second principle defines the scope of older people. “Active aging” must
embrace all older people at different ages and health conditions, including those who are
“frail and dependent”. Since it has been recognized that exercise and non-exercise
activities are beneficial for physical and mental health of every stage of the old age
(Mishra 1992; Bogers, Tijhuis, Gelder, and Kromhout 2005; WHO 2011), not only the
“young-old” (65-74) and “old” (75-84) should be included, but also the “old-old” (85 plus)
should be encompassed.
The third principle determines the nature of “active aging”. It should be “a
preventive concept”, which means that it involves all the process of aging actively across
the entire life course. Still, it includes the later years, so a remedial action is necessary,
whereas the main attention should be paid to the prevention of unhealthy life style,
disability, dependency, and skill loss and so on.
The fourth principle highlights the significance of maintaining intergenerational

12

solidarity since it is considered as a vital feature of “a modern approach to active aging”.
The opportunity to develop activities should be given fairly to all generations. Thus,
people of intergeneration are all the stakeholders in “active aging”, not just the older
people.
The fifth principle considers both rights and obligations related with “active aging”.
It should emphasize the obligations that rights entail. The rights to such as “social
protection, lifelong education and training” may be accompanied by obligations such as
capitalizing “education and training opportunities”, as well as keeping active in other
ways. Nevertheless, Walker also pointed out that it is often not very easy for
policymakers to keep the balance between rights and obligations.
The sixth principle defines that “strategy on active aging should be participative and
empowering”. The top-down governmental policies and the bottom-up citizens’ actions
should be combined together to enable and motivate activities from both sides.
The seventh principle emphasizes that “active aging” should “respect national and
cultural diversity”. Due to cultural diversity, value judgments about the best activities
should be avoided among different nations or regions which have distinct and diverse
forms of participation.
These seven principles suggest that a partnership between citizens and society will
become a prerequisite for a modern effective strategy on “active aging”. The role of the
State within this partnership, is to “enable, facilitate and motivate citizens” and to provide
long-lasting “high-quality social protection”.
Walker’s principles provides some good directions to promote and develop “active
aging” into a more practical way, while US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s

13

definition of “active aging” (2010) has a more specific focus, which highlights the
opportunities to provide “structured and unstructured physical activities” that increase
“endurance, strength, flexibility, and balance, while adhering to the principles of injury
prevention”.
Nevertheless, the most comprehensive definition is from WHO’s Active Aging: A
Policy Framework (2002), where “active aging” was defined as “the process of optimizing
opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as
people age”. Building on the life course perspective, it attaches importance to how earlier
life experiences, gender and culture influence individuals’ aging. The behavioral,
biological, psychological, environmental, social, and economic processes all through the
life course are considered as the determinants of the condition of health and well being in
later life. Thus, WHO’s definition of “active aging” comprehensively consists of the health,
independence and productivity of older people.
WHO also provides a guide for global age-friendly cities, as well as a Checklist of
Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities, to describe detailed features of age-friendly
cities from the perspective of “active aging”. These considerations mainly generated
eight dimensions of “active aging” (WHO 2007):
Outdoor spaces and buildings
Transportation
Housing
Social participation
Respect and social inclusion
Civic participation and employment

14

Communication and information
Community and health services
Based these dimensions, a rating system of “active aging” will be produced in the
next chapter to specifically examine three cases.

2.2 Smart Growth
2.2.1 Historical Context
The origin of “smart growth” is difficult to determine in the United States, although
its precursors can be traced to encompass the “growth controls” in the 1960s and the
“growth management revolution” during the 1970s and 1980s. From this point of view,
“smart growth” merely acts as “a label for a repackaged assemblage of previous growth
management techniques” (Burchell, Listokina, and Galley 2000) and is a developed
stage of “growth management approaches”. In contrast, it is also regarded as combining
existing strategies in an innovative way. It has become more welcomed than a variety of
growth management strategies ever before since it “redefines earlier efforts, combines a
variety of land-based interests not previously aligned with each other, and provides a
unifying theoretical and political framework for the entire package” (Goetz 2005).
Before “smart growth” became a term in the planning field in the late 1980’s, State
actions started to generate policies and programs in the related aspects (Hicks 2005). In
1969 efforts in state funding for land protection was made in the land transfer tax that
funded Program Open Space. In 1984 the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Protection
Program was enacted by the Maryland General Assembly, to affect land within 1000 feet
of the tidal influence of the Bay. In the 1990’s, “Smart Growth” programs which won

15

national acclaim ultimately were initiated in the State of Maryland. One of the most
remarkable features of these programs was the designation of Priority Funding Areas,
enabling defined growth areas to occur in the future. Subsequently, counties on the
Eastern Shore worked to initiate efforts in growth management and land conservation
through implementing cluster zoning and protections for sensitive areas in various ways.
In addition, the purpose of “smart growth” (Smart Growth Online 2011) have
overlapping areas with some contemporaneous movements characterized by the terms
such as “sustainable development” (Harris 2000) and “new urbanism” (Knaap and Talen
2005). To reach theses goals, from 1996, a network of organizations was established
and funded by EPA to study the principles of “smart growth”. After 15 years research and
development, “smart growth” has now become an indispensable field for planners, policy
makers, and anyone who are interested in urban issues.
The rapid rising of “smart growth” was identified by several critical projects
(Burchell, Listokin, and Galley 2000). In the mid 1990s, a project called Growing Smart
was launched by the American Planning Association, and in 1997, the first edition of the
Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the
Management of Change was published. At the same time, the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Surface Transportation Policy Project was produced. The Tool
Kit for Smart Growth also came out, promoting compact growth, mixed land uses, and
transit oriented development. In the same year, the State of Maryland passed the Smart
Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Act. This Act encouraged Brownfield
Redevelopment, a Live Near Your Work housing assistance program, focusing on
state-funded infrastructure in Priority Funding Areas, preserving Rural Legacy lands, and

16

spatially concentrating Job Creation Tax Credits. Since then, programs in the name of
smart growth have been promoted by various groups such as the Sierra Club and the
National Association of Homebuilders (Knaap, 2005), which mainly spotlighted three
regions or cities: Chicago, Maryland, and Washington DC.
Maryland’s smart growth programs embody the land use issues of geographic,
historical, and political features in the state just like the growth management projects of
all other states. Dated from 1933, when Maryland established the nation’s first State
Planning Commission, smart growth programs began to burgeon. By 1959, the
Commission became the State Planning Department and was further promoted to
cabinet status as the Department of State Planning by 1969, subsequently followed by a
stable stream of planning legislations. Especially, the Economic Growth, Resource
Protection and Planning Act of 1992 required local governments to involve six visions
and a sensitive-areas element in their comprehensive land use plans which are to be
reviewed every six years, to encourage economic growth and regulatory streamlining
(Knaap, 2005).
After an extensive listening campaign, frequent meetings and forums, in 1996, the
Governor’s office developed five initiatives: Priority Funding Areas, Rural Legacy
Program, Voluntary Cleanups/Brownfields Program, Live Near Your Work Program, and
Job Creation Tax Credits. These programs met the original requirements of benefiting
incentives over regulations, preserving local autonomy, implementing steadily, avoiding a
new bureaucracy, and having modest budgetary impacts (Cohen 2002). Consequently,
Maryland has undoubtedly become a model and leader of smart growth policy reforms
for other states (Glendening 2002).

17

In Chicago, the local research department of the American Planning Association
began to work on the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook from 1994. According to its
principal author Meck (2003), initial funding for the project came from Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and the Henry Jackson Foundation and subsequently from several
other federal agencies. The project was guided largely by “directorate” including
representatives of many national interest groups and organizations. This project
originated from two issues. In 1991, a HUD advisory committee on affordable housing
recommended that consensus-based model codes and statutes for use by State and
local governments should be created through a joint work of HUD and government and
private industry groups (US HUD 1991). In the same year, the American Planning
Association (APA) created a task force to work on a new model planning and zoning
enabling legislation (Lewyn 2003: 658- 659).
The goal of this Guidebook was to replace the outdated Standard City Planning
and Zoning Enabling Acts (SZEA) of the 1920s and the American Law Institute’s Model
Land Development Code of 1976. Instead of a single model for all states in the SZEA,
the Guidebook offers alternative strategies and statutes for state legislators to select,
such as the models for “regional planning agencies, urban growth boundaries, adequate
public facilities ordinances, impact fees”. The Guidebook does not specifically employ
the phrase of “smart growth”, while it includes many tools from smart growth advocates
and extracted one possible alternative from Maryland’s Smart Growth Act. When its final
edition was published in 2002, most directorate members agreed to it and 15 states have
passed or considered regulations that incorporate directly from it despite a considerable
debate long before its publication (Meck 2003).

18

Though the Legislative Guidebook was created in Chicago, the APA has an office
in Washington, the project was funded by HUD, and most members of the directorate
have offices in Washington DC, where the smart growth advocates worked closely with
the smart growth advocates in Annapolis. The genesis of smart growth in Washington
DC was from the establishment of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP),
which was created in 1990 as a “diverse, nationwide coalition working to ensure safer
communities and smarter transportation choices that enhance the economy, improve
public health, promote social equity, and protect the environment” (STPP 1996-2011).
STPP was instrumental for the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA),
which “challenges officials to reduce vehicle emissions, to reduce the number of single
occupant vehicles, and to make alternatives such as transit and bicycles a more viable
part of the transportation network” (Jenson 2003).
The ISTEA led to the creation of the Urban Economic Development Division
(UEDD, now the division of Development, Community, and Environment) within the U.S.
EPA Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Subsequently, Smart Growth Network,
administered by the International City/County Management Association, was created by
the UEDD, to provide funding for assorted smart growth activities. This network consists
of dozens of organizations, encompassing mostly not-for-profit interest groups, as well
as two federal agencies (Environmental Protection Agency, and National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration), one state (Maryland), and some trade organizations.
The federal government also played a vital role in the promotion of smart growth. In
the 1990s, the federal government took on a role in land use policymaking to combine
the federal interest in transportation and air quality with local land use planning. In 2000,

19

the Interstate Highway Act and the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program
were rated by a panel of experts as the two most influential determinants of post-war
metropolitan growth patterns (Fishman 2000).
2.2.2 Definitions and Core Principles
According to the New York State Smart Growth Initiative (2004), the phrase “smart
growth” was created by the former Governor of Maryland, Parris Glendenning, who was
the first to use this term to denote “a smarter, more sustainable alternative to the
sprawling development taking place in his state” during his first gubernatorial campaign
during 1995 to1999. However, researchers and related institutes also provided various
definitions to “smart growth”.
Some researchers such as Oliver (2002) still considered a broad definition of
“smart growth”, regarding it as “managed growth that attempts to fulfill the need to
provide for growth (both economic and in population) while at the same time limiting the
undesirable impacts of that growth.”
According to O’Neill’s study (1999), which represents the perspective of Urban
Land Institute that “smart growth” is considered as “growth that is economically sound,
environmentally friendly, and supportive of community livability – growth that enhances
our quality of life”, which emphasizes the distinction of “smart growth” from the
conventional growth that depend on the automobile and historic commitment to
single-use zoning.
EPA recognizes the connections between development and quality of life, and
defines “smart growth” as “development that serves the economy, the community, and
the environment” (Smart Growth Network 2001). This definition changes debate on the

20

terms of the development away from the issue of “traditional growth” or “no growth” to the
topic of realizing new development. Also, EPA’s definition concentrates more on the
quality of life than other types.
A more explicit definition was offered from EPA’s Building Healthy Communities for
Active Aging National Recognition Program (2010), that “smart growth” is featured by
development patterns that “create attractive, distinctive, walkable communities that give
people of varying age, wealth, and physical ability a range of safe, affordable, convenient
choices in where they live and how they get around”, which also ensures the efficiency of
using existing resources and that lands and the preservation of buildings that shape
communities. This detailed definition may provide more possibility to connect “smart
growth” with “active aging”.
Additionally, based on EPA’s interpretation, “smart growth” includes ten core
principles:
Take advantage of compact building design
Create range of housing opportunities and choices
Create walkable neighborhoods
Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration
Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place
Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective
Mix land uses
Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty and critical environmental areas
Provide a variety of transportation choices
Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities

21

Based these principles, a rating system of “smart growth” will be produced in the
next chapter to specifically examine three cases.

2.3 Active Aging Relevant to Smart Growth
As mentioned above, based on EPA’s definitions and Building Healthy
Communities for Active Aging National Recognition Program, its related programs target
enhancing “active aging” among older adults of 60-plus, and largely focus on creating
more activities-oriented opportunities, whereas, “smart growth” has more comprehensive
connotation, not only covers opportunities for physical activities, but also emphasizes
safety, affordable housing, compact development, and open space preservation.
Accordingly, the overlapping areas between “active aging” and “smart growth” are mainly
confined to walkable neighborhoods, mixed land use, and transportation alternatives.
However, the maximum relevance degree between “active aging” and “smart
growth” may not be impossible if considering “active aging” based on a wider definition.
Thus, it might be more meaningful to employ WHO’s definition of “active aging” (Active
Aging: A Policy Framework 2002), which comprehensively envisions the quality of life all
through the life course, and behavioral, biological, psychological, environmental, social,
and economic processes are all considered as the determinants for the health and well
being in later life.
From this perspective, “active aging” and “smart growth” can become relevant with
each other to a larger degree theoretically (Table 2.1). When comparing the ten key
principles of “smart growth” and the eight core dimensions “active aging”, it is obvious
that at least five groups of aspects may be interrelated: “Transportation” to “Provide a

22

variety of transportation”; “Housing” to “Create range of housing opportunities and
choices”; “Social participation” and “Respect and social inclusion” to “Sense of
community”; “Outdoor spaces and buildings” to “Open space preservation”.
Table 2.1 Relevance between the Active Aging Dimensions
and Smart Growth Principles
Groups

Active Aging Dimensions

1
2
3

Transportation
Housing
Outdoor spaces and buildings

Provide a variety of transportation choices
Create range of housing opportunities and
Preserve open space, farmland, natural
beauty and critical environmental areas

4

Social participation
Respect and social inclusion
Civic participation and
employment

Foster distinctive, attractive communities
with a strong sense of place
Encourage community and stakeholder
collaboration

5

Smart Growth Principles

2.4 Previous Studies on Active Aging and Smart Growth
2.4.1 Literature on Active Aging
Studies on “active aging” or “smart growth” have specific focuses, respectively. So
far, there has been little research available in America on “active aging”. In 2007, WHO
released multiple factors which determine active aging or how well individuals age in
Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide, and physical environment, health and social services,
personal determinants, behavioral determinants, economic determinants, and social
determinants, were identified as six determinants for active aging given the same gender
type or cultural environment. In spite of these “active aging” determinants indentified by
WHO, in recent decade of the United States, a number of studies addressed some highly
related topics with “active aging” such as “aging in place”, “healthy aging”, and “active
living” exclusively or extensively according to various aspects that impact “active aging”.
A variety of state-based studies pay special attention to promoting health care and

23

services to enhance mental and physical health of aging people. Since 2006, a joint
research by the United Hospital Fund and New York City’s Department for the Aging was
undertaken in 34 naturally occurring retirement community (NORC) programs to identify
and reduce risks to healthy aging. A tool for identifying health risk was designed to help
community-based programs with limited resources to discover key health risks among
older adults in their communities, and to develop effective targeted responses and
related measurements.
In 2007, a report from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and The
Merck Institute of Aging and Health, as the fifth volume of a series that uncovered “the
health and aging landscape in the United States and other regions of the world”, made
recommendations to address health disparities among older adults, to improve the
mental and physical health of all Americans based on the most current assessment of
older Americans’ health status.
In 2009, another report from CDC outlines their future directions in addressing
emerging public health issues to improve older adults’ health and quality of life. Six
critical factors are involved in efforts of protecting and promoting the health of older
adults: promoting an up-to-date measure for the use of clinical preventive services;
addressing depression; promoting caregiving interventions; addressing end-of-life issues;
enhancing the ability of states and communities to identify and implement effective
strategies, policies, and programs to promote and protect the health of older adults;
expanding efforts to integrate public health and aging services and enhance outreach for
health promotion and disease prevention for older adults.
Moreover, there is some research addressing physical environment issues related

24

to senior health or the health of the whole community, which mainly focus on enhancing
walkability and safety, and addressing housing issues for aging people. As for walkability
and safety, Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz, Schlossberg, and Stockard (2006) discover that
community walkability, crime prevention, and safety are some of the key factors to
promote activity and health. Based on the data from the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, individuals who live in counties that are found to be more walkable
and have lower crime rates tended to walk more and to have lower body mass indices
than people in less walkable and more crime-prone areas. Especially, Kristen (2006)
argue that planning for active living must address low-income, Black, and Latino
communities, where obesity and related health risks are greatest and resources least
available based the examination of physical environment and other factors that shape
opportunities for promoting physical activity in those disadvantaged urban settings areas.
Also, a study from Weiss, Maantay, and Fahs (2010) suggests that residence in some
communities (clustered low walkability census blocks) may increase the risk of inactivity
among older adults.
Some studies concentrate on housing issues for aging population. Safran-Norton’s
(2010) investigates the relationship between physical housing features and home
modifications, and explores the housing transition trends among elderly households: for
a couple household, living in a multi-family home without an elevator was a predictor for
housing transition; while for a single household, residing in a home with small interior
modifications was a predictor for remaining in place. In addition, Fausseta, Kellya,
Rogersa, and Fiska’s research (2011) attaches importance to senior home redesign
efforts and interventions. Through structured interviews with 44 independently living

25

older adults, the study identifies that the majority of those older adults faced challenges
in maintaining their homes.
Furthermore, quite a few research highlight social, economic, and cultural
influences on “healthy aging” or “aging in place”. Mensah’s report (2006) on behalf of
CDC, seeks to support community coalitions in designing, implementing, and evaluating
community driven strategies to eliminate health disparities. Tang and Pickard’s study
(2008) claim that public awareness of community-based services should be raised to
address the needs (long-term care and supportive services) of community-dwelling
elders for aging in place and relocation, based on the research findings that older people
varied substantially in their knowledge about services and anticipation for aging in place
and relocation.
Besides, researchers (Bedney, Goldberg, and Josephson 2010) also introduce a
Naturally Occurring Retirement Community Supportive Services Program (NORC-SSP)
model on cultural perceptions of aging, the potential impacts of which is under
examination to influence public policy and the aging services arena. As a
community-level intervention, NORC-SSP model created a network of services and
volunteer opportunities among “older adults, building owners and managers, service
providers, funders, and other community partners” to promote aging in place among
older adults who live in ‘naturally occurring retirement communities,’ where housing
developments and residential areas are not planned for older adults but large numbers of
older adults live.
2.4.2 Literature on Smart Growth
Compared with the literature related with “active aging”, there is much more

26

research in the United States conducted in the name of “smart growth” during the past
decade. These studies almost cover all the ten principles while individual researches
have diversified focuses. In some areas such as enhancing public participation, and
sense of community, there have been more than 500 studies listed just by searching in
one journal, the Journal of Planning Education and Research. Therefore, it is difficult to
cover and categorize all the related studies into certain groups within rather limited space,
and only a partial of significant studies are reviewed in this study, to show some
characteristics of the existing researches on “smart growth”, such as “smart growth”
related policies and strategies, compact development, transit-oriented and walkable
communities, and affordable housing.
First, some researchers introduce policies or strategies to facilitate the
understanding and utilization of smart growth principles. Bohl’s study (2002) defines the
elements of design and development strategies for place-making. Smart Growth Network
published two policy guides in 2002 and 2005, respectively, and each of them provided
100 policies for different communities to implement smart growth principles. Some
research specifically focuses on strategies in promoting public facilities through smart
growth principles, such as the research (Council of Educational Facility Planners
International and EPA 2004; and National Association of Realtors 2005) on utilizing
“smart growth” to create better schools.
Second, various research programs focus on multiple benefits of and ways to
promote compact development. A research of Local Government Commission (2003)
emphasizes how to create more housing and transportation options, greater economic
development, and a chance to preserve land for recreation and open space through

27

well-designed compact development. Haughey (2005) conducted a study to investigate
the truth about higher- density development, as well as to dismiss the myths about
higher- density development through providing typical examples in this area. In addition,
a group of experts (Burchell, Downs, McCann, and Mukherji 2005) undertook a
multi-year study designed to analyze the degree of sprawl, define more compact form of
growth as an alternative, compare the possible total costs of those two forms of growth if
each was applied throughout the nation, as well as consider policy options if the effects
of sprawl continue. EPA also conducts research (2006) in this aspect to examine how
communities balance parking and other goals with creating compact places.
Third, numerous researchers highlight transit-oriented development and walkable
community. Dittmar and Ohland’s research (2004) identifies the localities throughout the
U.S. that are leading the way in transit-oriented development. Transportation Research
Board (TRB) also conducts a comprehensive assessment (2004) of the practices and the
benefits and challenges of Transit-Oriented Development throughout the United States.
Besides, in 2006 and 2010, respectively, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
with its partners published two study findings to provide engineers and planners
guidance on how to design and build more streets in neighborhood scale that supports
walkability and livability.
Fourth, a variety of studies pay attention to providing affordable housing through
smart growth practices. In 2001, Smart Growth Network and its related partnership
conducted a study on how to connect affordable housing with smart growth. Some study
(Parzen 2004) provides examples about how foundations have made strategic
investments to boost more smart growth real estate investment. Also, in 2005, U.S.

28

Department of Housing and Urban Development reviewed the community efforts to
reduce barriers to providing affordable housing.
There are additional aspects to the question that have been examined. In terms of
farmland preservation, studies (American Farmland Trust 2001, 2002; and Trust for
Public Land 2002) were conducted to guide communities to create and manage a
conservation program consistent with the goals of smart growth. Research on
redevelopment has also become widespread. Some, as Living Neighborhoods’ research
(2002), specifically investigate how to turn failing malls into vibrant, new neighborhoods,
and others like Booth, Leonard, and Pawlukiewicz’s study (2002), examine the
approaches to revitalize suburban business districts to create more compact, mixed-use,
walkable areas. Another type of studies delves into the benefits by comprehensively
employing smart growth principles. For instance, Fox’s research (2005) investigates how
innovative transportation, neighborhood revitalization, and housing policies can bring
about economic and social revitalization.
2.4.3 Literature on Active Aging and Smart Growth
Currently, there is little research available on both “active aging” and “smart growth”.
However, several latest studies about “active aging” involve certain principles or some
key elements of “smart growth”, and vice versa. This research is conductive to
understanding the relationship between “active aging” and “smart growth”, and thus, can
be considered as the literature on both “active aging” and “smart growth”.
In 2001, Howe conducted a research which examines the relationship between the
consistency of some key principles from Smart Growth initiatives, and the fundamental
characteristics of aging-sensitive and elder-friendly communities. This research clearly

29

identifies the common areas between smart growth initiatives and elder-friendly
communities: housing alternatives, a transportation system, walkable cities, and a strong
sense of community, a high quality, accessibility, and natural environment. It is evident
that most of the relevant aspects of “active aging” and “smart growth” recognized in the
previous section are congruent with Howe’s findings, and thus, can be developed to
further probe into the relationship between “active aging” and “smart growth”.
Currently, an increasing number of studies pays special attention to aging
population and transport issues. Bailey’s study report (2004) on behalf of the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, makes some recommendations on the improvement of
public transportation, and road and street system to provide transportation alternatives to
support the aging Americans for their mobility needs, which is based on the findings from
the National Household Transportation Survey of 2001 and other research on mobility in
American aging population. Other studies in this field focus on specific planning factors.
Kochtitzky, Freeland, and Yen (2011) examined the how community design can take
advantages of “traditional and nontraditional actors” such as “architects, urban planners,
transportation engineers, occupational therapists, and housing authorities”, to facilitate
individual mobility of seniors and persons with disabilities.
There are also some research efforts on enhancing the sense of community
among aging population through “smart growth” approaches. Stafford’s study (2009)
addressed the development priorities and strategies for designing new neighborhoods
and redeveloping existing neighborhoods to create elder-friendly communities. In spite of
its perspectives of cultural anthropology and social gerontology, the research
emphasizes the importance of “third place” (one or more gathering places) to enhance

30

sense of community among elderly population. This suggests that planners should
consider creating an engaging community environment through designing places such
as restaurant clusters, neighborhood squares, and pocket parks with benches and tables,
to motivate elderly- friendly sociability. Some researchers such as Ghazaleh underline
promoting social participation and inclusion for aging population to increase their sense
of community. Ghazaleh’s research in 2011 on behalf of APA identifies four key points to
enhance the link of needs between children and the aging population through smart
growth and universal design, and verified the importance of expanding comprehensive
planning to encompass multiple generations, which can benefit strengthening a sense of
community.
In addition, there is a certain amount of literature addressing healthy community
issues through smart growth perspective.
Rodríguez, Khattak, and Evenson (2006) compared various measures of physical
activity for residents in a new urbanist neighborhood to those in conventional suburban
neighborhoods in central North Carolina, and discover that residents in the new urbanist
neighborhood were more likely to be physically active than conventional suburban
counterparts. Another research (Frank, Sallis, Conway, Chapman, Saelens, and
Bachman 2006) examined the relationship between land use patterns and factors
affecting several prevalent chronic diseases. The results shows that single-use,
low-density land development and disconnected street networks are positively
associated with auto dependence and negatively affect health by influencing physical
activity, obesity, and emissions of air pollutants.
Additionally, Abbot (2009) conducted a comprehensive study emphasizing greater

31

multidisciplinary collaboration on creating an age-friendly neighborhood through
reviewing a collection of current researches on a variety of topics related to
neighborhoods and aging. It especially explored the issues of environmental design and
senior health from the perspectives of history, public health, technology, and interaction
with nature, and examined specific senior housing solutions, many of which comply with
“smart growth” principles.
In brief, despite of various types of research and practical programs paying
attention to enhancing “active aging” or healthy community through implementing some
of the “smart growth” principles or from “smart growth” perspective, little efforts have
been made to exclusively analyze and evaluate the outcomes of these programs, and to
examine the extent to which “active aging” and “smart growth” can be combined
together.

32

CHAPTER 3
Methodology
3.1 Research Subjects
Since 2007, EPA has developed A Guide to Smart growth and Active Aging. The
related program awards, Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging Awards (Table
3.1), have started to show that the US communities can achieve great results by
combining “smart growth” with the concepts of “active aging”. This becomes the main
reason why some of their award winners were selected as the subjects of my research.
Table 3.1
Year
2007

2008

EPA’s Building Healthy Communities
for Active Aging Awards (2007-2010)

Achievement Award Winners
Atlanta Regional Commission,
Georgia
City of Kirkland, Washington

Commitment Award Winners
Brazos Valley Council of Governments,
Texas
Carver County Public Health Division
and Carver County Health Partnership,
Minnesota
City of Rogers, Arkansas
Queen Anne's County Housing
Authority, Maryland
Town of Scarborough, Maine
City of Casper, Wyoming
City of Iowa City, Iowa
City of Satellite Beach, Florida
City of Gaithersburg, Upcounty Senior
Center, Maryland
County of San Mateo, Half Moon Bay
Senior Campus Plan, California

Bureaus of Portland Parks &
Recreation and Transportation,
Oregon
2009
Public Entity Winner: Town of
Cary, North Carolina
Neighborhood Winner:
Martinsville-Henry County,
Virginia Coalition for Health and
Wellness
2010
City of Charlotte, North Carolina
Fairfax County Department of
Brazos Valley Council of
Neighborhood & Community Services,
Governments, Texas
Virginia
Philadelphia Corporation for Aging,
Pennsylvania
(Source: http://www.epa.gov/aging/bhc/awards/index.htm)

The case studies focus on three communities: City of Kirkland, Washington, City of

33

Casper, Wyoming, and Iowa City, Iowa, the selection of which was based on the
concerns from three aspects (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2
Selected
Communities

Criteria for the Selected Communities

EPA’s Building Healthy
Communities for Active
Aging Awards

Geographical Population Size
Location
(Less than
(West/Mid West)
100,000)

City of Kirkland, WA Achievement Award (2007)

West

48,499

City of Casper, WY

Commitment Award (2008)

West

54,874

Iowa City, IA

Commitment Award (2008)

Mid West

69,086

The first concern is as mentioned above, focusing on the influence power of the
communities with EPA’s award-winning programs. All of these communities have created
a plan, while only some of them have completely implemented the plan. From a more
comprehensive perspective, my research will look at the communities of both types. City
of Casper, WY and Iowa City, IA were EPA’s 2008 Commitment Award Winners. They are
part of the communities which have a plan, but have not yet finished implementing it. City
of Kirkland, WA was EPA’s 2007 Achievement Award Winner, which not only has a plan,
but also has completely implemented the plan.
The second is from geographical concern. The research targets on communities
which are located in West (City of Kirkland, WA, and City of Casper, WY) and Mid West
(Iowa City, IA) of the States.
The third concern is from the size of the communities. To make the comparative
analysis possible, the research centers on small communities which have similar size,
specifically whose population are less than 100,000. According to US Census (July 1,
2009 estimates), the population of City of Kirkland, WA, City of Casper, WY, and Iowa
City, IA are 48,499; 54,874; and 69,086 respectively.

34

Before discussing the research methods, it is necessary to introduce the
background information about the Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging
Awards programs in the three selected communities.

⑴ City of Kirkland, Washington
According to U.S. Census Bureau, the 2009 population estimates for City of
Kirkland, Washington is 48,499. Also, it is shown from the State and County QuickFacts
that in 2000, the land area of this city is 10 square miles, and the population density is
4,218.5 persons per square mile.

Kirkland

Figure 3.1: The Hybrid Map of Kirkland city, Washington
(Source: http://www.city-data.com/city/Kirkland-Washington.html. For interpretation of
the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic
version of this thesis.)

The City of Kirkland, Washington, builds on its accomplishments by improving its
programs and infrastructure to support active aging (EPA 2006-2011a). It is the first city

35

in U.S. to implement pedestrian flag program since 1995, the first city outside of
California to install in-pavement light crosswalks, and the first city in Washington to adopt
a “Complete Streets” ordinance since 2006. The efforts in five aspects are highlighted in
the city to reflect its commitment to building an active and healthy community.
Active Living Task Force. It was created in 2007, which consist of residents,
community agencies, local businesses, and city representatives to work with the city’s
policy makers on promoting “community-enriched physical activity as an integral part of
everyone’s (including the disabled) daily life” (EPA 2006-2011b).
Recreation programs. The city adopted National Recreation and Parks
Association’s Step Up to Health campaign. It offers more than 50 physical activity
programs specifically designed for older adults. The Kirkland Steppers Walk Program
organizes adults 50 plus to meet regularly for a walking exercise in downtown Kirkland.
Neighborhood Walking are also encouraged by providing printable neighborhood walking
maps on the city’s website. The city preserved its public pathways along Lake
Washington Boulevard, a walker’s paradise, and revised its non-motorized transportation
plan to include 28 new sidewalk projects and 25 new bike lane projects to encourage
walking and biking.
Pedestrian improvement. Pedestrian safety and walkability are recognized as key
components in the quality of people’s life. The city revised its comprehensive plan to
supports walking and other non-single occupancy vehicle forms of transportation, and
modified its land use regulations to promote walking within commercial and multi-family
projects and adjoining streets. Complete streets are designed to enable safe access for
all users. To publicize the pedestrian flag program, the Kirkland Senior Council and the

36

Kirkland Steppers, produced a pedestrian safety video to emphasize the importance of
using the flags for road crossing safety. Flags are used by pedestrians at over 63
crosswalks, and flashing light units are installed into the pavement of 30 crosswalks to
provide early warning of pedestrians.
Transit-oriented development. The city named affordable housing as a top priority
in the city’s transit-oriented developments, creating more opportunities for seniors to live
in and around these developments.
Mixed land use. Kirkland is exploring options to revise its comprehensive land use
plan and rezoning to allow the underutilized South Kirkland Park & Ride lot to be
transformed into a transit-oriented hub that incorporates affordable housing, shops, and
offices.

⑵ City of Casper, Wyoming
According to U.S. Census Bureau, the 2009 population estimates for City of
Casper, Wyoming is 54,874. Also, it is shown from the State and County QuickFacts that
in 2000, the land area of this city is 23 square miles, and the population density is
2,072.8 persons per square mile.

37

Casper

Figure 3.2: The Hybrid Map of Casper city, Wyoming
(Source: http://www.city-data.com/city/Casper-Wyoming.html).
The City of Casper, Wyoming, has been developing a plan to encourage active
aging since 2005 (Aging Initiative 2010). The city is taking steps to meet the needs of
older adults and the wave of aging baby boomers with the actions mainly in five aspects.
The Senior Study Committee. It was established in 2005 to conduct an inventory of
the needs and services for its aging population. The Committee analyzed local data,
reviewed survey and focus group findings and identified gaps in services. This study
（Casper Area “Boomer” Study）
was completed in 2008 and resulted in a comprehensive
plan to improve services for older adults in the city. Additionally, the city is expanding its
senior center to accommodate a growing older population.
Recreation programs. Recreation Division is completing a strategic plan on how to
expand its programming to offer more elder exercise courses as well as more active

38

living courses, such as health and wellness for the entire community.
Pedestrian improvement. The city is developing a Trails Master Plan to determine
how to best extend the trail system to more communities. A study was conducted of the
walking environment. As a result, sidewalks with curb ramps are being installed along
major streets. Active aging considerations will also dive future investments in sidewalk
improvement.
Development of diverse housing types. The city is considering amending zoning
and development codes to expand the development of a variety of housing options
including assisted living facilities, board and care homes, shared housing, and accessory
dwelling units. This may better satisfy the older adults’ needs.
Mixed land use. The city redevelops the Old Yellowstone District by encouraging
development of diverse housing types combined with shops and services within walking
distance.

⑶ Iowa City, Iowa
According to U.S. Census Bureau, the 2009 population estimates for Iowa City,
Iowa is 69,086. Also, it is shown from the State and County QuickFacts that in 2000, the
land area of this city is 24 square miles, and the population density is 2,575.3 persons
per square mile.

39

Iowa City

Figure 3.3: The Hybrid Map of Iowa City, Iowa
(Source: http://www.city-data.com/city/Iowa-City-Iowa.html).
Iowa City, Iowa, has been working with the Johnson County Livable Community for
Successful Aging Policy Board. They analyzed the community's needs for active aging
and responded with a variety of policies and programs to encourage physical activity
among older adults (Aging Initiative 2010). These efforts are primarily focusing on four
aspects.
Inventory research. The study found that walking was the primary activity for 90%
of those who regularly exercised. At the same time, older adults’ needs in living within
walking distance of stores, services were identified.
Recreation programs. The Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center provides a
variety of dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes to complement seniors’ walking
routines. There is also a drill team marching in the University of Iowa homecoming

40

parade.
Travel condition improvement. The city has adopted a variety of policies to improve
the walking environment. A new complete streets policy requires all streets to be
designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as cars. New subdivision
codes require streets to connect, reducing dead ends and shortening distances residents
need to travel.
Mixed land use. A revised zoning code encourages commercial zones throughout
the city to combine housing, shops, parkland, and services to make walking a viable
choice for daily errands.
3.2 Hypotheses and Methods
Since increasing number of communities have become regarded by EPA’s Building
Healthy Communities for Active Aging Awards as successful in promoting active aging
through adopting smart growth practices, two hypotheses were formed in this study: ⑴
“active aging” and “smart growth” are positively related; ⑵ In individual communities, the
consistency degree between the realization levels of “active aging” and “smart growth”
can be distinct. These hypotheses were tested through synthetically evaluating the plan,
the survey data, and the characteristics of the selected communities, to identify the
relationship between active aging and smart growth.
The research is mainly based on three methods: ⑴ US Census Data Analysis, ⑵
Comprehensive Plans Evaluation, ⑶ Online Survey. The information and data in the
research came from a number of channels. Some data was cited or summarized from
US Census data, and others are from the evaluation of the comprehensive plans of these
communities. Also, an online survey with the local senior citizens was conducted as a

41

follow-up method to examine the effectiveness of these programs.

⑴ US Census Data Analysis
The US Census data (2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates),
the evaluation of the comprehensive plans, and the online survey were analyzed to
comprehensively assess the achievements of the active aging programs in these
communities, and identify the relationship between smart growth and active aging. The
process of data collection and analysis, as well as the results of all the analyses are
described subsequently.
According to 2005-2009 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau,
census data analysis was conduct on the three communities, to gain information about
four sections (Table 3.3) of the three selected communities. These sections include
indicators representing the most readily and uniformly available descriptive data related
with living standards and conditions in these communities.
Table 3.3
Sections
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV

US Census Data Analysis Contents

Contents
Demographic
information
Housing
Economic
characteristics
Social attributes

Subcontents
Population, sex, age, and race distributions and
characteristics
Housing characteristics, households and families,
and housing costs
Income, employment, poverty, and geographic
mobility
Education, and marital status

⑵ Comprehensive Plans Evaluation
Since all of these award-winning programs well meet the requirements of EPA’s
Self-Management Assessment and Resource Tool, EPA’s assessment tool will not be
employed again as the evaluation tool in this study. Instead, the three communities were

42

rated according to Smart Growth Principles and Checklist of Essential Features of
Age-friendly Cities respectively. The results of the two rating system will be used to make
comparisons to investigate the correlation degree of “active aging” and “smart growth” in
each community, as well as to identify the varying degrees among these communities in
achieving both goals of smart growth and active aging. The comparisons of the three
communities on the summary of their Comprehensive Plans Evaluation are described in
Chapter 4.
① Active Aging Rating System
According to WHO’s Checklist of Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities, which
identified 8 vital aspects to promote age-friendly cities, an Active Aging Rating System
(Table 3.4) was created to provide a standard to evaluate the three communities. 8
indicators representing the main characteristics of age-friendly cities were identified to
compare Outdoor Spaces and Buildings, Transportation, Housing, Social Participation,
Respect and Social Inclusion, Civic Participation and Employment, Communication and
Information, and Community and Health Services. Also, the subcontents of the Checklist
were modified into 40 attributes.
Each indicator includes 5 attributes to describe the related indicator in detail. Each
attribute was rated according to three levels: Low, Medium, and High, with the credits of
1, 2, and 3 respectively. If the information about an attribute does not appear in the plan,
this attribute will not be given any credits. The total credits of all the attributes were
added together to define the community’s realization degree of “Active Aging”: Low (060 credits), Medium (61- 90 credits), and High (91- 120 credits).

43

Table 3.4 Active Aging Rating System
Indicators
1 Outdoor
Spaces and
Buildings

2 Transportation

Attributes
Green spaces and outdoor seating are
sufficient in number, well-maintained and safe.
Pedestrian safety is well-protected, and
pavements are non-slip and well-maintained,
free of obstructions and reserved for pedestrians.
Outdoor safety is promoted by good street
lighting, police patrols and community education.
Buildings are well-signed outside and inside,
with sufficient seating and toilets, accessible
elevators, ramps, railings and stairs, and non-slip
floors.
Public toilets outdoors and indoors are
sufficient in number, clean, well-maintained and
accessible.
Public transportation is reliable and frequent to
get access to all city areas and services, and the
related costs are consistent, clearly displayed
and affordable.
Transit facilities are clean, well-maintained, and
accessible, and have priority seating that is
respected.
Transport stops and stations are conveniently
located, accessible, safe, clean, well-lit and
well-marked, with adequate seating and shelter.
Roads are well-maintained, with covered
drains and good lighting.
Traffic signs and intersections are visible and
well-placed.

44

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
1
2
3
1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High
0- 60
61- 90
91-120
credits credits
credits

Table 3.4 (cont’d)
Indicators
3 Housing

4 Social
Participation

Attributes
Sufficient, affordable housing is available in
areas that are safe and close to services and the
rest of the community.
Housing is well-constructed and provides safe
and comfortable shelter from the weather.
Home maintenance, modification options and
supplies are available and affordable, and
providers understand the needs of older people.
Public and commercial rental housing is clean,
well-maintained and safe.
Sufficient and affordable housing for frail and
disabled older people, with appropriate services,
is provided locally.
Venues for events and activities are conveniently located, accessible, well-lit and easily
reached by public transport.
Events are held at times convenient for older
people, and a wide variety of activities and
gatherings are offered to appeal to a diverse
population of older people.
Activities and attractions are affordable, with no
hidden or additional participation costs.
Good information about activities and events is
provided, including details about accessibility of
facilities and transportation options for older
people.
Activities and events can be attended alone or
with a companion, with consistent outreach to
include people at risk of social isolation.

45

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
1
2
3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High

Table 3.4 (cont’d)
Indicators
5 Respect and
Social
Inclusion

6 Civic
Participation
and
Employment

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High

Older people are recognized by the community
for their past and present contributions, and are
regularly consulted by public, voluntary and
commercial services on how to serve them better.
Services and products to suit varying needs
and preferences are provided by public and
commercial services.
Community-wide settings, activities and events
attract all generations by accommodating
age-specific needs and preferences.
Schools provide opportunities to learn about
ageing and older people, and involve older
people in school activities.
Older people who are less well-off have good
access to public, voluntary and private services.
A range of flexible options for older volunteers
is available, with training, recognition, guidance
and compensation for personal costs.
A range of flexible and appropriately paid
opportunities for older people to work is
promoted.
Discrimination on the basis of age alone is
forbidden in the hiring, retention, promotion and
training of employees.
Workplaces are adapted to meet the needs of
disabled people.
Decision-making bodies in public, private and
voluntary sectors encourage and facilitate
membership of older people.

46

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High

Table 3.4 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

7 Communication
A basic, effective communication system
and
reaches community residents of all ages, which
Information
assures regular and widespread distribution of
information.
Regular information and broadcasts of interest
to older people are offered.
Printed information has large lettering and the
main ideas are shown by clear headings and
bold-face type.
Electronic equipment, such as mobile
telephones, radios, televisions, and bank and
ticket machines, has large buttons and big
lettering.
There is wide public access to computers and
the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in public
places such as government offices, community
centers and libraries.
8 Community
An adequate range of health and community
and Health
support services is offered for promoting,
Services
maintaining and restoring health.
Home care services include health and
personal care and housekeeping.
Residential care facilities and designated older
people’s housing are located close to services
and the rest of the community.
Health and community service facilities are
safely constructed and fully accessible.
Economic barriers impeding access to health
and community support services are minimized.

47

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
1
2
3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High

② Smart Growth Rating System
The Smart Growth Principles cover 10 aspects (Smart Growth Online, 1996- 2011),
which were employed to evaluate whether a comprehensive plan of a community
contributes to the achievement of “Smart Growth”. It provides an easy way to evaluate
the level of “Smart Growth” a comprehensive plan has brought (if the plan has been
implemented) or may bring to the community. A Smart Growth Rating System (Table 3.5)
was created based on the 10 principles of Smart Growth. Also, the Smart Growth
Network’s interpretation of “smart growth” was divided into 40 attributes.
Corresponding with each Smart Growth Principle, 10 indicators representing the
main characteristics were identified to compare Compact Building Design, Housing
Opportunities and Choices, Neighborhoods Walkability, Community and Stakeholder
Collaboration, Sense of Community, Effectiveness of Development Decisions, Mixed
Land Uses, Open Space Preservation, Transportation Choices, and Development of
Existing Communities. Each indicator includes 2 to 5 attributes to describe the related
indicator in detail. Each attributes was rated according to three levels: Low, Medium, and
High, with the credits of 1, 2, and 3 respectively. If the information about an attribute does
not appear in the plan, this attribute will not be given any credits. The total credits of all
the attributes were added together to define the community’s realization degree of
“Smart Growth”: Low (0- 60 credits), Medium (61- 90 credits), and High (91- 120 credits).

48

Table 3.5 Smart Growth Rating System
Indicators

Attributes

1 Compact
Building Design

Compact building design as an alternative to
conventional, land consumptive development is
incorporated in the community.
Minimum levels of density are required.
Buildings are constructed through more
efficient ways of land and resources uses, such
as encouraging buildings to grow vertically
rather than horizontally, and incorporating
structured rather than surface parking.
Open and undeveloped land is preserved
through integrating compact design into
community building efforts.

2 Housing
Opportunities
and Choices

The balance between housing and jobs are
ensured.
A range of housing prices and options are
available for people of all income levels in the
community, and affordable housing is provided.
A mix of housing types and sizes are offered
for a range of ages and likely situations
(apartments, condos, single-family homes,
studios, 1/2/3/ bedrooms).
Land use patterns are modified to increase
housing choice on newly-developed land.
Housing supply is increased in existing
neighborhoods and on land served by existing
infrastructure.

49

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
1
2
3

1
1

2
2

3
3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High
0- 60
61- 90
91-120
credits credits
credits

Table 3.5 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

3 Neighborhoods
Walkability

The number, density and location of housing
units are sufficient to promote walking and
transit.
The size and location of commercial or retail
uses are sufficient to promote walking and
transit.
At least three different land uses are within
walking distance, such as housing, schools,
offices or retail businesses.
Parking allows easy and safe access by
pedestrians to buildings and is not visually
dominating.
Pedestrian environments are encouraged and
ensured safe.
The needs of the community and the programs
to address them are defined by the people who
live and work there.
Citizen participation is encouraged in the
planning process to achieve community and
stakeholder collaboration to fit the unique needs
of the community.

4 Community and
Stakeholder
Collaboration

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

50

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High

Table 3.5 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

A vision is formed or standards are set up for
development and construction which respond to
community values of architectural beauty and
distinctiveness.
Buildings conform to the desired scale and
architectural styles of the community.
Historic structures or other structures of
significance in the community are reused or rehabilitated.
Public streetscape (including
pedestrian-friendly amenities) such as
landscaping, benches and lighting is supported.
Community spaces, such as plazas, squares
and parks, are created and enhanced.
6 Effectiveness of
Development decisions about smart growth
Development
are made timely, cost-effective, and predictable.
Decisions
Infrastructure and regulatory decisions are
made fairly, predictably and cost effectively.
7 Mixed Land Uses
Mixed-use projects combine at least three of
the following: homes, retail, commercial,
recreational, educational, and public facilities.
New or compatible types of land use are
added to an existing neighborhood or district.
New or compatible products or services are
added to an established business district.
Alternatives to driving, such as walking or
biking, become viable by putting uses in close
proximity to one another.
Viable public transit is supported through a
diverse and sizable population and commercial base.
5 Sense of
Community

51

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
1
2
3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High

Table 3.5 (cont’d)
Indicators
8 Open Space
Preservation

9 Transportation
Choices

10 Development
of Existing
Communities

Attributes
Critical environmental areas, such as aquifers,
and unbroken forest, are protected.
Prime farm and ranch lands are preserved,
and the use of operating farms is not changed.
Animal and plant habitat, places of natural
beauty, and working lands are protected.
Properties with identified environmental
problems, such as brownfields, are cleaned up
and reused.
Sensitive environmental viewsheds (views of
scenic, historic and cultural areas) are preserved.
Public transit is provided within walking distance.
Multiple modes of transportation are
accessible, including bus, rail, pedestrians,
bicyclists and autos.
All the areas in the community are fully
connected with each other through diverse routes.
Connectivity between pedestrians, bikes,
transit, and road facilities is ensured through
coordinating land use and transportation.
New projects are located near existing
infrastructure (roads, public sewer, and water services).
New projects are located in an area targeted
for priority development, such as an empire zone,
industrial park or urban redevelopment zone.
Existing public services, such as police, fire,
schools and health, are utilized to serve the infill
development.

52

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
1
2
3
1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1
1

2
2

3
3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3

Total Realization Degree
Low
Medium High

⑶ Online Survey
From the end of April to the beginning of June 2011, an online survey (details about
the poster and questionnaire see Appendix A, and B, respectively) was conducted with
the senior citizens in City of Kirkland, WA; City of Casper, WY; and Iowa City, IA. The
survey instrument was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of
Michigan State University prior to data collection. After testing the survey questionnaire
on SurveyMonkey, the online survey poster and links were sent to the senior citizens in
the above-mentioned three communities with the help of local active aging program
manager or the chair of their senior center.
This survey aims to study whether the senior residents of the communities in
question are satisfied with the active aging programs in their own communities. The
survey asks them about their perceptions and opinions of their community environment,
as well as some demographic information, to provide primary data for comparing senior
citizens’ feelings about the active aging programs with the goals and objectives these
programs were planned to achieve.
The survey questionnaire is designed based on both Smart Growth Principles and
Checklist of Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities. All the 24 questions are multiple
choices, covering four sections (Table 3.6): Demographic Information (7 questions),
Awareness and Involvement (4 questions), Evaluation or Satisfaction (9 questions), and
General Perception and Future Vision (4 questions). There were 15, 16, and 12
responses obtained for City of Kirkland, Washington, City of Casper, Wyoming, and Iowa
City, Iowa, respectively. These data (Appendix C) were employed to compare the
satisfaction degree of senior residents with the goals and objectives of related Active

53

Aging programs in their community, to examine the effectiveness of these programs in
reality.
Table 3.6
Questionnaire
Contents
Sections
Section I
Demographic
Information
Section II

Section III

Section IV

Awareness
and
Involvement
Evaluation or
Satisfaction

General
Perception
and Future
Vision

Survey Questionnaire Design
Subcontents
Gender, age, education, housing type, period of
residence in the current community and current home,
and health condition
Knowledge about and participation in local active aging
activities and programs
Travel options to services (grocery stores, restaurants,
and health centers), availability and accessibility to
public facilities (public toilets, computers and the
Internet, and affordable housing), amenities of street
space
Elements for a defined sense of neighborhoods,
suggested public facilities in future, general satisfaction
level of local community

54

CHAPTER 4
Findings and Discussions
4.1 Analysis Results for the Three Cities
In this section, the three communities were analyzed respectively through the
above-mentioned three methods, and subsequently, the outcomes of these analyses
were summarized to provide the prerequisite for comprehensive comparative analyses
and evaluations.
4.1.1 City of Kirkland, Washington
⑴ US Census Data Analysis
① Demographic information- Population, Gender, Age, and Race
Population and gender
In 2005-2009, Kirkland city had a total population of 47,000: roughly 24,000 (51%)
females and 23,000 (49%) males. The population of 65 years and over was 5,068,
including 2,897 (57%) females and 2,171 (43%) males. It is indicated from Figure 4.1 and
Figure 4.2 that the longer people lived, the more females than males in the city.

49%
51%
M ale
Fem ale

Figure 4.1: The Gender Distribution in Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)

55

43%
57%
M ale
Female
Figure 4.2: The Gender Distribution of 65 Years and Older,
Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)
Age distribution and characteristics
The median age was 37.3 years. Those of 25 to 64 became the largest age group
in the city with 63% of the total population. Approximately 11% of the population was 65
years and older and roughly 17%was under 18 years (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: The Age Distribution of People in Kirkland city, Washington
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
Among those of 65 years and older, the population of 65 to 74 years was 2,476,
accounting for five percent of the total population. The group of 75 to 84 years accounted
for four percent, with the population of 2,081. The smallest group was 85 years and over,
which only accounted for one percent, with the population of 511 (Figure 4.4).

56

4%
89%

11%

1%
5%

Under 65 years

65 t o 74 years

75 to 84 years

85 years and over

Figure 4.4: The Old Age Distribution of Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)
Race (Figure 4.5)
For people reporting one race alone, roughly 82% was “White”; about two percent
was “Black or African American”; less than a half percent was “American Indian and
Alaska Native”; approximately 10% was “Asian”; less than a half percent was “Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander”, and three percent was “Some other race”. Roughly
three percent reported “Two or more races”.

0%
0%

3% 3%
Whit e

10%

Black or African Am erican

2%

Am erican Indian and Alaska Nat ive
Asian
82%

Nat ive Hawaiian and Ot her Pacific Islander
Som e other race
Two or more races

Figure 4.5: The Race Distribution of Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)

② Housing- Housing characteristics, Households and families, and Housing costs
57

Housing characteristics
In 2005-2009, the total housing units of Kirkland city were 24,000, with six percent
vacancy. Roughly 31% of the housing units were built since 1990. Of the total housing
units, approximately 50% was in single-unit structures, roughly 50% was in multi-unit
structures, and less than a half percent was mobile homes.
Households and families (Figure 4.6)
In 2005-2009 there were 23,000 households in Kirkland city. The average
household size was 2.1 people. Families made up 51% of the households in the city,
including both married-couple families (41%) and other families (10%). Nonfamily
households made up 49% of all households. Most of the nonfamily households were
people living alone.
2364, 10%

M arried- couple families

9,217, 41%

Other f am ilies
8,827, 39%

Householder living alone
Other nonfamily households

2234, 10%
Figure 4.6: The Types of Households in Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)

Housing costs (Figure 4.7)
The median monthly housing costs in Kirkland city for mortgaged owners,
nonmortgaged owners, and renters was $2,272, $598, $1,217 respectively. Roughly 41%
of owners were with mortgages, approximately 22% of owners without mortgages, and
37% of renters spent 30% or more of household income on housing.

58

Figure 4.7: Occupants with a Housing Cost Burden in Kirkland city, Washington
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
③Economic characteristics- Income, Employment, Poverty, and Geographic Mobility
Income
The median income of households in Kirkland city was $78,328. The average
income from Social Security was $15,819.Approximately 17% of the households
received Social Security. Roughly 86% of the households received earnings and
approximately 10% received retirement income other than Social Security. Some
households received income from more than one source.
Employment (Figure 4.8)
In 2005-2009, for the employed population 16 years and older, 28,993 (73%)
people were in labor force, with 27,689 (69.7%) employed and 1,293 (three percent)
unemployed in civilian labor force. The leading industries in Kirkland city were
Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management
services (19%), and Educational services, and health care, and social assistance (14%).

59

27,689,
70%

10,719,
27%
28,982,
73%

Not in labor f orce

1,293, 3%

Em ployed

Unem ployed

Figure 4.8: Employment Status in Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)
Poverty (Figure 4.9)
In 2005-2009, five percent of people were in poverty. Roughly five percent of
people 65 years old and over were below the poverty level, compared with four percent
of related children under 18 years. About three percent of all families and roughly 16% of
families with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the
poverty level.

Figure 4.9: Poverty Rates in Kirkland city, Washington
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
Geographic Mobility (Figure 4.10)
In 2005-2009, roughly 78% of the people at least one year old living in Kirkland city
lived in the same residence one year earlier; approximately 14% had moved in during the

60

past year from another residence in the same county, three percent from another county
in the same state, four percent from another state, and one percent from abroad.

Figure 4.10: Geographic Mobility of Residents, Kirkland city, Washington
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
④ Social attributes- Education, and Marital Status
Education (Figure 4.11)
In 2005-2009, roughly 96% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated
from high school and approximately 53% had a bachelor's degree or higher. The total
school enrollment in Kirkland city was 9,600. Nursery school and kindergarten enrollment
was 1,400 and elementary or high school enrollment was 5,000 children. College or
graduate school enrollment was 3,200.
1582, 4%

4,990,
14%
7,044,
20%

6,326, 18%

Graduate or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree

12,198, 35%

Some college, no degree
High school diploma or equivalency
Less than high school diploma

3,008, 9%

61

Figure 4.11: The Educational Attainment of People in
Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)
Marital Status (Figure 4.12)
Among 19,396 males and 20,665 females of 15 years and older, roughly 6,882
(35.5%) males and 6,385 (30.9%) females never married. About 9,725 (50.1%) males
and 9,571 (46.3%) females belonged to the group of “now married, except separated”.
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

M ales 15 years and over
Fem ales 15 years and over

Figure 4.12: Marital Status in Kirkland city, Washington (2005-2009)
⑵ Comprehensive Plan Evaluation
The Kirkland Comprehensive Plan, including 13 Neighborhood Plans, was adopted
in 1995, and was amended in 2009. This plan was evaluated separately according to the
Active Aging Rating System and Smart Growth Rating System.
The total credits from Active Aging Rating (Table 3.7) are 94, indicating that the City
of Kirkland’s realization degree of “Active Aging” belongs to High Level (91- 120 credits).
Also, the total credits from Smart Growth Rating (Table 3.8) are 113, showing that its

62

realization degree of “Smart Growth” belongs to High Level (91- 120 credits). Therefore,
its realization degree of both “Active Aging” and “Smart Growth” are High Level.

63

Table 4.1
Indicators

Kirkland Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Active Aging Realization Degree
Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
1 Outdoor Spaces Green spaces and outdoor seating are sufficient
3 Framework Goal 13,
and Buildings
in number, well-maintained and safe.
Natural Environment Goal
NE-2
Pedestrian safety is well-protected, and
3 Transportation Policy T-2.3,
pavements are non-slip and well-maintained, free
Nonmotorized
of obstructions and reserved for pedestrians.
Transportation Plan
Outdoor safety is promoted by good street
3 Framework Goal 12, Public
lighting, police patrols and community education.
Services Goal PS-1
Buildings are well-signed outside and inside,
2
Housing Policy H-3.2:
with sufficient seating and toilets, accessible
elevators, ramps, railings and stairs, and non-slip
floors.
Public toilets outdoors and indoors are sufficient
in number, clean, well-maintained and accessible.
2 Transportation
Public transportation is reliable and frequent to
2
Framework Goal 9, Land
get access to all city areas and services, and the
Use Goal LU-5,
related costs are consistent, clearly displayed and
Transportation Goal T-3
affordable
Transit facilities are clean, well-maintained, and
3 Transportation Policy T-3.1
accessible, and have priority seating that is
respected.
Transport stops and stations are conveniently
3 Community Character
located, accessible, safe, clean, well-lit and
Policy CC-4.12
well-marked, with adequate seating and shelter.
Roads are well-maintained, with covered drains
3 Transportation Policy T-4.4,
and good lighting.
Nonmotorized
Improvements
Traffic signs and intersections are visible and
3 Intersection Improvements
well-placed.
64

Table 4.1 (cont’d)
Indicators
3 Housing

4 Social
Participation

Attributes
Sufficient, affordable housing is available in
areas that are safe and close to services and the
rest of the community.
Housing is well-constructed and provides safe
and comfortable shelter from the weather.
Home maintenance, modification options and
supplies are available and affordable, and
providers understand the needs of older people.
Public and commercial rental housing is clean,
well-maintained and safe.
Sufficient and affordable housing for frail and
disabled older people, with appropriate services,
is provided locally.
Venues for events and activities are
conveniently located, accessible, and easily
reached by public transport.
Events are held at times convenient for older
people, and a wide variety of activities and
gatherings are offered to appeal to a diverse
population of older people.
Activities and attractions are affordable, with no
hidden or additional participation costs.
Good information about activities and events is
provided, including details about accessibility of
facilities and transportation options for older
people.
Activities and events can be attended alone or
with a companion, with consistent outreach to
include people at risk of social isolation.
65

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
3
Human Services Goal HS-3

2

Special Needs Housing
3

Housing Capacity, Human
Services Policy HS-3.3

3

Transportation Policy T-3.1

3

Senior Services Strategic
Plan, Human Services Goal
HS-2:
Community Character
Policy CC-4.5，
Transportation Policy T-3.1
Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Policy PR-2.6

3

3

3
3

3

Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Policy PR-2.5
Human Services Policy
HS-2.2, Policy HS-2.3

Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Goal PR-1,
Policy PR-2.3

Table 4.1 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

5 Respect and
Older people are recognized by the community
Social Inclusion for their past and present contributions, and are
regularly consulted by public, voluntary and
commercial services on how to serve them better.
Services and products to suit varying needs and
preferences are provided by public and
commercial services.
Community-wide settings, activities and events
attract all generations by accommodating
age-specific needs and preferences.
Schools provide opportunities to learn about
ageing and older people, and involve older
people in school activities.
Older people who are less well-off have good
access to public, voluntary and private services.
6 Civic
A range of flexible options for older volunteers is
Participation
available, with training, recognition, guidance and
and
compensation for personal costs.
Employment
A range of flexible and appropriately paid
opportunities for older people to work is
promoted.
Discrimination on the basis of age alone is
forbidden in the hiring, retention, promotion and
training of employees.
Workplaces are adapted to meet the needs of
disabled people.
Decision-making bodies in public, private and
voluntary sectors encourage and facilitate
membership of older people.
66

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
Human Services Policy
HS-2.1, Policy HS-2.3
3
3

3

3

Human Services (Youth
Services, and Senior
Services)
A vision for Kirkland,
Framework Goal 8, 11

Human Services Policy
HS-2.3, Policy HS-3.6

2

Human
HS-2.2

Services

Policy

2

Human Services Policy
HS-2.2

Table 4.1 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

7 Communication A basic, effective communication system
and Information reaches community residents of all ages, which
assures regular and widespread distribution of
information.
Regular information and broadcasts of interest
to older people are offered.
Printed information has large lettering and the
main ideas are shown by clear headings and
bold-face type.
Electronic equipment, such as mobile
telephones, radios, televisions, and bank and
ticket machines, has large buttons and big
lettering.
There is wide public access to computers and
the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in public
places such as government offices, community
centers and libraries.
8 Community and An adequate range of health and community
Health Services support services is offered for promoting,
maintaining and restoring health
Home care services include health and
personal care and housekeeping.
Residential care facilities and designated older
people’s housing are located close to services
and the rest of the community.
Health and community service facilities are
safely constructed and fully accessible.
Economic barriers impeding access to health
and community support services are minimized.
67

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
3
Utilities Goal U-5

3
3

2

Human
HS-2.2
Human
HS-2.2

Services

Policy

Services

Policy

Utilities (City
Telecommunications)

3

Introduction (Evergreen
Health Care), Utilities Goal
U-3
Introduction (Evergreen
Health Care)
Land Use Concept, Land
Use Policy LU-4.2

3

Human Services Policy
HS-2.4, Policy HS-3.6
Public Services Goal PS-3

2
2

3

Table 4.2 Kirkland Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Smart Growth Realization Degree
Indicators

Attributes

1 Compact
Building Design

Compact building design as an alternative to
conventional, land consumptive development is
incorporated in the community.
Minimum levels of density are required.

2 Housing
Opportunities
and Choices

Buildings are constructed through more
efficient ways of land and resources uses, such
as encouraging buildings to grow vertically
rather than horizontally, and incorporating
structured rather than surface parking.
Open and undeveloped land is preserved
through integrating compact design into
community building efforts.
The balance between housing and jobs are
ensured.
A range of housing prices and options are
available for people of all income levels in the
community, and affordable housing is provided.
A mix of housing types and sizes are offered
for a range of ages and likely situations
(apartments, condos, single-family homes,
studios, 1/2/3/ bedrooms).
Land use patterns are modified to increase
housing choice on newly-developed land.
Housing supply is increased in existing
neighborhoods and on land served by existing
infrastructure.

68

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
3

Evidences
Housing Policy H-3.2

3

Framework Goal 14,
Housing capacity
Land Use Concept, Land
Use Goal LU-2

3

Land Use Policy LU-2.2

3

3

Housing Existing
Conditions, Land Use
Policy LU-2.3
Housing Policy H-2.1,
Human Services Goal
HS-3
Housing Goal H-2

3

Housing Future Needs

3

Housing Future Needs

2

3

Table 4.2 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

3 Neighborhoods
Walkability

The number, density and location of housing
units are sufficient to promote walking and
transit.
The size and location of commercial or retail
uses are sufficient to promote walking and
transit.
At least three different land uses are within
walking distance, such as housing, schools,
offices or retail businesses.
Parking allows easy and safe access by
pedestrians to buildings and is not visually
dominating.
Pedestrian environments are encouraged and
ensured safe.

4 Community and
Stakeholder
Collaboration

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High

The needs of the community and the programs
to address them are defined by the people who
live and work there.

Land Use Policy LU-3.2
2
3

Land Use Policy LU-5.1,
Policy LU-5.5

3

Land Use/ Transportation
Linkages, Land Use Policy
LU-3.3, Policy LU-3.5
Land Use Policy LU-5.1,
Policy LU-5.5

3

3

3

Citizen participation is encouraged in the
planning process to achieve community and
stakeholder collaboration to fit the unique needs
of the community.
3

69

Evidences

Land Use Policy LU-3.6,
Transportation Policy
T-2.1, Policy T-5.5,
About the Comprehensive
Plan (Introduction),
General Element Goal
GP-2
Framework Goal 16, General
Element Policy GP-2.4,
Citizen Involvement and
Education (Implementation
Strategies)

Table 4.2 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

5 Sense of
Community

A vision is formed or standards are set up for
development and construction which respond to community
values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness.
Buildings conform to the desired scale and
architectural styles of the community.
Historic structures or other structures of
significance in the community are reused or
rehabilitated.
Public streetscape (including pedestrian-friendly
amenities) such as landscaping, benches and
lighting is supported.
Community spaces, such as plazas, squares
and parks, are created and enhanced.
6 Effectiveness of Development decisions about smart growth are
Development
made timely, cost-effective, and predictable.
Decisions
Infrastructure and regulatory decisions are
made fairly, predictably and cost effectively.
7 Mix Land Uses
Mixed-use projects combine at least three of the
following: homes, retail, commercial, recreational,
educational, and public facilities.
New or compatible types of land use are added
to an existing neighborhood or district.
New or compatible products or services are
added to an established business district.
Alternatives to driving, such as walking or
biking, become viable by putting uses in close
proximity to one another.
Viable public transit is supported through a
diverse and sizable population and commercial base.
70

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
3

Evidences
Framework Goal 1, 2

3

Land Use Policy LU-5.9

3

Framework Goal 1,
Community Character
Policy CC-2.3
Framework Goal 1,
Community Character Policy
CC-2.1, Policy CC-4.10
Community Character
Policy CC-4.5, Policy CC-4.10
Framework Goal 16,

3

3
3
3
3

3
2

Framework Goal 14, 17
Framework Goal 3, Land
Use Policy LU-3.3, Policy
LU-3.5
Land Use Policy LU-1.2.
LU-1.3
Land Use Policy LU-8.2

3

Land Use Policy LU-3.6

3

Land Use Policy LU-3.3

Table 4.2 (cont’d)
Indicators
8 Open Space
Preservation

9 Transportation
Choices

10 Development
of Existing
Communities

Attributes
Critical environmental areas, such as aquifers,
and unbroken forest, are protected.
Prime farm and ranch lands are preserved,
and the use of operating farms is not changed.
Animal and plant habitat, places of natural
beauty, and working lands are protected.
Properties with identified environmental problems,
such as brownfields, are cleaned up and reused.
Sensitive environmental viewsheds (views of
scenic, historic and cultural areas) are preserved.
Public transit is provided within walking distance.
Multiple modes of transportation are
accessible, including bus, rail, pedestrians,
bicyclists and autos.
All the areas in the community are fully
connected with each other through diverse routes.
Connectivity between pedestrians, bikes,
transit, and road facilities is ensured through
coordinating land use and transportation.
New projects are located near existing
infrastructure (roads, public sewer, and water
services).
New projects are located in an area targeted
for priority development, such as an empire zone,
industrial park or urban redevelopment zone.
Existing public services, such as police, fire,
schools and health, are utilized to serve the infill
development.

71

Scale (credits)
Low Medium High
3

3
3
3
3
3

2

Evidences
Natural Environment Goal
NE-2

Natural Environment Goal
NE-2
Natural Environment Goal
NE-4:
Framework Goal 6, Natural
Environment Policy NE-3.3
Transportation Policy T-3.1
Transportation Policy
T-1.1, T-3.1
Transportation Policy T-4

3

Policy T-1.1, T-2, T-3.4:

3

Land Use Policy LU-4.3

3

Land Use Goal LU-1,
Policy LU-5.2, Policy
LU-6.1
Land Use Policy LU-2.2,
Policy LU-5.2

3

⑶ Online Survey
The detailed information about the responses to each question of this survey is
presented in Appendix C.
Demographic Information
There were 15 respondents participated in the online survey, including 7 males and
8 females. The majority of the respondents were 65 to 74 years (47%), and 75 to 84 years
(40%). All the respondents had at least graduated from higher than high school, and most
of them (60%) graduated from “Some College”. The housing of the respondents belonged
to two types, “Detached single-family home” (87%) and “Condominium” (13%). The large
number of the respondents (80%) had lived in their current community for more than 5 years,
and 57% of the participants had lived in the current home for more than 5 years. In terms
of their health condition, the majority of the participants (80%) did not have any diseases.
Awareness and Involvement
All of the 15 respondents had heard about the active aging programs and they
were all familiar with the “senior walking group” program and the “elder exercise
courses” in their community. These programs were also the programs that most of them
were participating in. Roughly 87% of the respondents also knew about the “bike lane
projects” and the “active living courses”, while their participation rates were only 27%
and 30% respectively. In addition, roughly 93% of the respondents answered that they
had the opportunity to participate in the planning process of the active aging programs in
their community, and about 86% of them felt the final decision had satisfied their needs.
Evaluation or Satisfaction
In terms of local travel options, more than a half of the respondents disagreed that

72

the public transportation in their community was reliable and frequent, whereas roughly
46% agreed that “it is very convenient to go health centers by public transport”. The
majority of the respondents (80%) agreed that “it is very convenient to walk to grocery
stores”, and about 67% agreed that “it is very convenient to walk to restaurants”.
However, when asked whether “it is very convenient to use a bicycle to public facilities”,
most of the respondents selected “Disagreement” (47%), and “Neutral” (40%).
As for local availability and accessibility to public facilities, approximately 67% of
the respondents felt that there were an insufficient number of public toilets in their
community, while all of the respondents said that public computers and the Internet were
accessible to them. Nevertheless, the large majority (93%) of the respondents did not
think that there were enough affordable housing provided locally, especially lacking
those for the low-income level. When asked about the amenities in street space, most
respondents thought that sufficient lighting, landscaping, benches, as well as non-slip
pavements were provided in their community.
General Perception and Future Vision
In terms of the sense of the neighborhoods, about 93% of the respondents
believed that they had a moderate sense of neighborhoods, and most of the
respondents selected “pedestrian-friendly streets”, “public activity centers”, “street parks”,
“neighborhood gardens”, and “community parks” as the important elements for a defined
sense of neighborhoods. The large majority of the respondents (93%) were satisfied with
their current community, while they expected to have more “street parks” (73%), “public
activity centers” (67%), and “neighborhood gardens” (60%) in future.

73

4.1.2 City of Casper, Wyoming
⑴ Findings from US Census Data Analysis
① Demographic information- Population, Gender, Age, and Race
Population and gender
In 2005-2009, Casper city had a total population of 53,000: roughly 27,000 (51%)
females and 26,000 (49%) males. The population of 65 years and over was 7,237,
including 4,323 (60%) females and 2,914 (40%) males. It is indicated from Figure 4.13
and Figure 4.14 that the longer people lived, the more females than males in the city.

26,225,
49%
26,760,
51%

M ale
Female

Figure 4.13: The Gender Distribution in Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)

2,914,
40%
4,323,
60%

M ale
Female

Figure 4.14: The Gender Distribution of 65 Years and Older,
Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)
Age distribution and characteristics
The median age was 35.2 years. Those of 25 to 64 became the largest age group

74

in the city with more than a half of the population. Approximately 14% was 65 years and
older and roughly 25% of the population was under 18 years (Figure 4.15).

Figure 4.15: The Age Distribution of People in Casper city, Wyoming
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
Among those of 65 years and older, the population of 65 to 74 years was 3,234,
accounting for six percent of the total population. The group of 75 to 84 years accounted
for six percent, with the population of 2,926. The smallest group was 85 years and over,
which only accounted for two percent, with the population of 1,077 (Figure 4.16).

6%
86%

2%

14%
6%

Under 65 years

65 to 74 years

75 t o 84 years
85 years and over
Figure 4.16: The Old Age Distribution of Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)

Race (Figure 3.17)
For people reporting one race alone, approximately 93% was “White”; about one
percent was “Black or African American”; roughly one percent was “American Indian and

75

Alaska Native”; about one percent was “Asian”; less than a half percent was “Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander”, and two percent was “Some other race”.
Approximately two percent reported “Two or more races”.

1%
1%

1%

0%
2% 2%
White
Black or Af rican American
Am erican Indian and Alaska Nat ive
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
93%

Som e other race
Two or m ore races

Figure 4.17: The Race Distribution of Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)
② Housing- Housing characteristics, Households and families, and Housing costs
Housing characteristics
In 2005-2009, the total housing units of Casper city were 23,000, with nine percent
vacancy. Approximately 11% of the housing units were built since 1990. Of the total
housing units, roughly 75% was in single-unit structures, approximately 21% was in
multi-unit structures, and three percent was mobile homes.
Households and families (Figure 4.18)
In 2005-2009 there were 21,000 households in Casper city. The average
household size was 2.5 people. Families made up 63% of the households in the city,
including both married-couple families (48%) and other families (15%). Nonfamily
households made up 36% of all households. Most of the nonfamily households were
people living alone.

76

1,390, 7%

6,211,
30%

M arried- couple families
10,140,
48%

Other f am ilies
Householder living alone
Other nonfamily households

3,229, 15%
Figure 4.18: The Types of Households in Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)

Housing costs (Figure 4.19)
The median monthly housing costs in Casper city for mortgaged owners,
nonmortgaged owners, and renters was $1,116, $332, $613 respectively. Approximately
21% of owners were with mortgages, seven percent of owners without mortgages, and
roughly 42% of renters spent 30% or more of household income on housing.

Figure 4.19: Occupants with a Housing Cost Burden in Casper city, Wyoming
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
③Economic characteristics- Income, Employment, Poverty, and Geographic Mobility
Income
The median income of households in Casper city was $48,607. The average
income from Social Security was $14,770. 28% of the households received Social
Security. Approximately 82% of the households received earnings and roughly 15%

77

received retirement income other than Social Security. Some households received
income from more than one source.
Employment (Figure 4.20)
In 2005-2009, for the employed population 16 years and older, 28,530 (69%)
people were in labor force, with 27,178 (65.7%) employed and 1,330 (3.2%)
unemployed in civilian labor force. The leading industries in Casper city were
Educational services, and health care, and social assistance (23%), and Retail trade
(13%).

27,178, 66%

12,810,
31%
28,508, 69%

1,330, 3%

Not in labor f orce
Em ployed
Unem ployed
Figure 4.20: Employment Status in Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)

Poverty (Figure 4.21)
In 2005-2009, roughly 10% of people were in poverty. About eight percent of
people 65 years old and over were below the poverty level, compared with 12% of
related children under 18 years. About six percent of all families and roughly 24% of
families with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the
poverty level.

78

Figure 4.21: Poverty Rates in Casper city, Wyoming
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
Geographic Mobility (Figure 4.22)
In 2005-2009, approximately 80% of the people at least one year old living in
Casper city were living in the same residence one year earlier; roughly 11% had moved
in during the past year from another residence in the same county, about three percent
from another county in the same state, roughly five percent from another state, and less
than a half percent from abroad.

Figure 4.22: Geographic Mobility of Residents, Casper city, Wyoming
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)

79

④ Social attributes- Education, and Marital Status
Education (Figure 4.23)
In 2005-2009, roughly 92% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated
from high school and approximately 24% had a bachelor's degree or higher. The total
school enrollment in Casper city was 14,000. Nursery school and kindergarten
enrollment was 1,800 and elementary or high school enrollment was 8,200 children.
College or graduate school enrollment was 3,900.
2,578, 8%

2,693, 8%

5,386,
16%

10,332,
30%

4,257, 12%

Graduate or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree
Some college, no degree

9,072,
26%

High school diplom a or equivalency
Less than high school diplom a

Figure 4.23: The Educational Attainment of People in Casper city,
Wyoming (2005-2009)
Marital Status (Figure 4.24)
Among 20,385 males and 21,574 females of 15 years and older, 6,265 (30.7%)
males and 4,939 (22.9%) females never married. 10,772 (52.8%) males belonged to the
group of “now married, except separated”, compared with 10,732 (49.7%) females.

80

12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

M ales 15 years and over
Females 15 years and over

Figure 4.24: Marital Status in Casper city, Wyoming (2005-2009)
⑵ Comprehensive Plans Evaluation
“Casper Area” includes all the areas (Casper, Mills, Bar Nunn, and Evansville)
within the MPO (Casper Area Metropolitan Planning Organization) boundary. The
updated Casper 2020 Vision Comprehensive Plan is under way, while only Our Home,
Our Future Report Summary and Public Survey Results are available. Thus, the 2000
Casper Area Comprehensive Plan, which was considered for a 20-year period, was
utilized for the evaluation together with three important updates: Action Plan of Casper
Area “Boomer Study” (2008), Casper Walkability Study Plan Recommendations (2008),
and 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (2006).
According to the Active Aging Rating System and Smart Growth Rating System,
the total credits from Active Aging Rating (Table 3.9) are 86, and the total credits from
Smart Growth Rating (Table 3.10) are 110. This indicated that the City of Casper’s
realization degree of “Active Aging” belongs to Medium Level (61- 90 credits), and its
realization degree of “Smart Growth” belongs to High Level (91- 120 credits).

81

Table 4.3 Casper Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Active Aging Realization Degree
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
1 Outdoor Spaces Green spaces and outdoor seating are sufficient
2
Vision 5 (Goal 36)
and Buildings
in number, well-maintained and safe.
Pedestrian safety is well-protected, and
3 2030 Long Range
pavements are non-slip and well-maintained, free
Transportation Plan (Traffic
of obstructions and reserved for pedestrians.
Safety), Walkability Study
Plan Recommendations
(Maintenance)
Outdoor safety is promoted by good street
3 Walkability Study Plan
lighting, police patrols and community education.
Recommendations
(Education, Safety)
Buildings are well-signed outside and inside, with
sufficient seating and toilets, accessible elevators,
ramps, railings and stairs, and non-slip floors.
Public toilets outdoors and indoors are sufficient
in number, clean, well-maintained and accessible.
2 Transportation
Public transportation is reliable and frequent to
3 2030 Long Range
get access to all city areas and services, and the
Transportation Plan (Transit
related costs are consistent, clearly displayed and affordable
Plan)
Transit facilities are clean, well-maintained, and
3 Transit, 2030 Long Range
accessible, and have priority seating that is
Transportation Plan (Transit
respected.
Funding Sources)
Transport stops and stations are conveniently
3 Vision 11 (Goal 68), 2030
located, accessible, safe, clean, well-lit and
Long Range Transportation
well-marked, with adequate seating and shelter.
Plan (Safety and Security)
Roads are well-maintained, with covered drains
3 Walkability Study Plan
Recommendations (Drainage
and good lighting.
ways)
Traffic signs and intersections are visible and
3 2030 Long Range
well-placed.
Transportation Plan
(Projected Revenues)
82

Table 4.3 (cont’d)
Indicators
3 Housing

4 Social
Participation

Attributes
Sufficient, affordable housing is available in
areas that are safe and close to services and the
rest of the community.
Housing is well-constructed and provides safe
and comfortable shelter from the weather.
Home maintenance, modification options and
supplies are available and affordable, and
providers understand the needs of older people.
Public and commercial rental housing is clean,
well-maintained and safe.
Sufficient and affordable housing for frail and
disabled older people, with appropriate services, is
provided locally.
Venues for events and activities are conveniently
located, accessible, well-lit and easily reached by
public transport.
Events are held at times convenient for older
people, and a wide variety of activities and
gatherings are offered to appeal to a diverse
population of older people.
Activities and attractions are affordable, with no
hidden or additional participation costs.
Good information about activities and events is
provided, including details about accessibility of
facilities and transportation options for older
people.
Activities and events can be attended alone or
with a companion, with consistent outreach to
include people at risk of social isolation.
83

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
2
Vision 9 (Goal 51)

3

Vision 9 (Goal 48)

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Vision 12 (Goal 72)

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

2

Circulation System

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

Table 4.3 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High

5 Respect and
Older people are recognized by the community
Social Inclusion for their past and present contributions, and are
regularly consulted by public, voluntary and
commercial services on how to serve them better.
Services and products to suit varying needs and
preferences are provided by public and
commercial services.
Community-wide settings, activities and events
attract all generations by accommodating
age-specific needs and preferences.
Schools provide opportunities to learn about
ageing and older people, and involve older people
in school activities.
Older people who are less well-off have good
access to public, voluntary and private services.
A range of flexible options for older volunteers is
6 Civic
Participation and available, with training, recognition, guidance and
compensation for personal costs.
Employment
A range of flexible and appropriately paid
opportunities for older people to work is promoted.
Discrimination on the basis of age alone is
forbidden in the hiring, retention, promotion and
training of employees.
Workplaces are adapted to meet the needs of
disabled people.
Decision-making bodies in public, private and
voluntary sectors encourage and facilitate
membership of older people.
84

3

2

Description of Proposed
Land Uses
Recreation and Leisure
Facilities

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

Table 4.3 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

7 Communication
A basic, effective communication system
and Information reaches community residents of all ages, which
assures regular and widespread distribution of
information.
Regular information and broadcasts of interest to
older people are offered.
Printed information has large lettering and the
main ideas are shown by clear headings and
bold-face type.
Electronic equipment, such as mobile
telephones, radios, televisions, and bank and
ticket machines, has large buttons and big
lettering.
There is wide public access to computers and
the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in public
places such as government offices, community
centers and libraries.
8 Community and
An adequate range of health and community
Health Services support services is offered for promoting,
maintaining and restoring health
Home care services include health and personal
care and housekeeping.
Residential care facilities and designated older
people’s housing are located close to services and
the rest of the community.
Health and community service facilities are
safely constructed and fully accessible.
Economic barriers impeding access to health
and community support services are minimized.
85

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
3 Telecommunications

3
2

2

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”
Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”(street signs)

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”
3

2
3

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”
Action Plan of Casper Area
“Boomer Study”

Table 4.4 Casper Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Smart Growth Realization Degree
Indicators

Attributes

1 Compact Building Compact building design as an alternative to
Design
conventional, land consumptive development is
incorporated in the community.
Minimum levels of density are required.
Buildings are constructed through more efficient
ways of land and resources uses, such as
encouraging buildings to grow vertically rather
than horizontally, and incorporating structured
rather than surface parking.
Open and undeveloped land is preserved
through integrating compact design into
community building efforts.
2 Housing
The balance between housing and jobs are
Opportunities
ensured.
and Choices
A range of housing prices and options are
available for people of all income levels in the
community, and affordable housing is provided.
A mix of housing types and sizes are offered for
a range of ages and likely situations (apartments,
condos, single-family homes, studios, 1/2/3/
bedrooms).
Land use patterns are modified to increase
housing choice on newly-developed land.
Housing supply is increased in existing
neighborhoods and on land served by existing
infrastructure.

86

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
Vision 3 (Goal 20, 22)
2

3

Residential Use Guideline 9,
Vision 3 (Goal 20)

3

Vision 3 (Goal 20), Land Use
Descriptions (Open Space,
Parks, and Trails)
Vision 1 (Principle E), Vision
9
Vision 9 (Goal 51)

2

3
2

3

Central Business Land Uses

3

Land Use Concept (Table 2)

3

Vision 2 (Goal 8)

Table 4.4 (cont’d)
Indicators
3 Neighborhoods
Walkability

4 Community and
Stakeholder
Collaboration

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
The number, density and location of housing
Plan Themes 5 (Improve
units are sufficient to promote walking and transit.
Connectivity),
2
Walkability Study Plan
Recommendations (Improve
pedestrian crossings)
The size and location of commercial or retail
3 Walkability Study Plan
Recommendations (Land
uses are sufficient to promote walking and transit.
Use/ Development
Strategies)
At least three different land uses are within
3 Vision 11 (Goal 66)
walking distance, such as housing, schools,
offices or retail businesses.
Parking allows easy and safe access by
2
Walkability Study Plan
pedestrians to buildings and is not visually
Recommendations (Safety)
dominating.
Pedestrian environments are encouraged and
3 Walkability Study Plan
ensured safe.
Recommendations (Safety)
The needs of the community and the programs
to address them are defined by the people who
live and work there.
Citizen participation is encouraged in the
planning process to achieve community and
stakeholder collaboration to fit the unique needs
of the community.

87

3

3

Casper Area
Comprehensive Planning
Process
Casper Area
Comprehensive Planning
Process

Table 4.4 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
5 Sense of
A vision is formed or standards are set up for
3 Vision 2 (Goal 14, 15), Vision
Community
development and construction which respond to community
10 (Principle B)
values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness.
Buildings conform to the desired scale and
2
Retail, Service and
architectural styles of the community.
Employment Area Guideline 12
Historic structures or other structures of
3 Vision 1 (Goal 2), Vision 2
significance in the community are reused or rehabilitated.
(Goal 15), Vision 7
Public streetscape (including pedestrian-friendly
3 Plan Themes 3
amenities) such as landscaping, benches and
lighting is supported.
Community spaces, such as plazas, squares
3 Retail, Service and
and parks, are created and enhanced.
Employment Area Guidelines 2,
11, Neighborhood Commercial
6 Effectiveness of
Development decisions about smart growth are
Vision 11, Transportation
3
Development
made timely, cost-effective, and predictable.
System Guidelines
Decisions
Infrastructure and regulatory decisions are
Vision 11, Transportation
3
made fairly, predictably and cost effectively.
System Guidelines
7 Mixed Land Uses Mixed-use projects combine at least three of the
3 Central Business Land Uses
following: homes, retail, commercial, recreational,
educational, and public facilities.
New or compatible types of land use are added
3 Framework Concepts 2
to an existing neighborhood or district.
New or compatible products or services are
3 Vision 4 (Goal 30, Principle
added to an established business district.
P)
Alternatives to driving, such as walking or
2
Retail, Service and
biking, become viable by putting uses in close
Employment Area Guideline
proximity to one another.
16
Viable public transit is supported through a
2
Transit
diverse and sizable population and commercial base.
88

Table 4.4 (cont’d)
Indicators
8 Open Space
Preservation

Attributes
Critical environmental areas, such as aquifers,
and unbroken forest, are protected.
Prime farm and ranch lands are preserved, and
the use of operating farms is not changed.
Animal and plant habitat, places of natural
beauty, and working lands are protected.

Properties with identified environmental
problems, such as brownfields, are cleaned up
and reused.
Sensitive environmental viewsheds (views of
scenic, historic and cultural areas) are preserved.
9 Transportation
Public transit is provided within walking
Choices
distance.
Multiple modes of transportation are accessible,
including bus, rail, pedestrians, bicyclists and autos.
All the areas in the community are fully
connected with each other through diverse routes.
Connectivity between pedestrians, bikes,
transit, and road facilities is ensured through
coordinating land use and transportation.
10 Development of New projects are located near existing
Existing
infrastructure (roads, public sewer, and water services).
Communities
New projects are located in an area targeted for
priority development, such as an empire zone,
industrial park or urban redevelopment zone.
Existing public services, such as police, fire,
schools and health, are utilized to serve the infill
development.
89

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
3 Vision 1 (Goal 4)
3
2

3

Agricultural Land Uses
River and Drainages in the
Community’s Design, Open
Space Guideline 8
Land Use Descriptions
(Future Development Area)

3

Vision 2 (Goal 14, 15)

3

2030 Long Range Transportation
Plan (Transit Plan)
Vision 11 (Goal 68)

3
2

Framework Concepts 3
3

Framework Concepts 3

3
3

Residential Use Guideline 5,
Single Family- High Density
VISION 1(Principle B)

3

Vision 3 (Goal 24, 25)

⑶ Online Survey
The detailed information about the responses to each question of this survey is
presented in Appendix C.
Demographic Information
There were16 respondents participated in the online survey, including 6 males and
10 females. The majority of the respondents were 65 to 74 years (56%), and 75 to 84
years (38%). All the respondents had at least graduated from high school or higher, and
most of them (56%) graduated from “Some College”. The housing of the respondents
belonged to two types, “Detached single-family home” (88%) and “Condominium” (12%).
The large number of the respondents (94%) had lived in their current community for
more than 5 years. Most of the respondents had lived in the current home for more than
5 years, and 1 to 5 years, with the percentage of 50% and 38% respectively. In terms of
their health condition, the majority of the participants (81%) did not have any diseases.
Awareness and Involvement
All the 16 respondents had heard about the active aging programs and they were
all familiar with the “elder exercise courses” and “active living courses” in their community.
These programs were the programs that most of them were participating in. Roughly
63% of them also knew about “dance yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes”, while none of
them were taking in these classes. In addition, approximately 63% of the respondents
answered that they did not have the opportunity to participate in the planning process of
the active aging programs in their community.
Evaluation or Satisfaction
In terms of local travel options, the majority of the respondents disagreed (44%) or

90

remained neutral (44%) that the public transportation in their community was reliable and
frequent, whereas roughly 81% remained neutral and approximately 19% agreed that “it
is very convenient to go health centers by public transport”. Roughly 56% of the
respondents agreed that “it is very convenient to walk to grocery stores”. Approximately
56% remained neutral and roughly 38% agreed that “it is very convenient to walk to
restaurants”. However, when asked whether “it is very convenient to use a bicycle to
public facilities”, the respondents selected “Disagreement” (63%), and “Neutral” (37%).
As for local availability and accessibility to public facilities, roughly 94% of the
respondents felt that there were an insufficient number of public toilets in their
community, while the majority of the respondents (80%) said that public computers and
the Internet were accessible to them. Nevertheless, none of the respondents think that
there were enough affordable housing provided locally, and approximately 63% of them
thought that more affordable housing were needed for various income levels. When
asked about the amenities in street space, all the respondents felt that sufficient benches
while insufficient non-slip pavements were provided. Roughly 31% thought there were
also sufficient lighting and landscaping in their community.
General Perception and Future Vision
In terms of the sense of the neighborhoods, roughly 81% of the respondents
believed that they had a moderate sense of neighborhoods. All the respondents selected
“community parks” as the important elements for a defined sense of neighborhoods, and
most of them selected “pedestrian-friendly streets”, “public activity centers”, “street parks”,
and “neighborhood gardens”. Approximately 69% of the respondents were satisfied with
their current community, while roughly 94% expected to have more “public activity

91

centers” and “street parks”, approximately 69% wished to have more “neighborhood
gardens”, and roughly 63% expected to have more “pedestrian-friendly streets” in future.
4.1.3 Iowa City, Iowa
⑴ Findings from US Census Data Analysis
① Demographic information- Population, Gender, Age, and Race
Population and gender
In 2005-2009, Iowa City had a total population of 67,000: roughly 34,000 (51%)
females and 33,000 (49%) males. The population of 65 years and over was 5100,
including 2,998 (59%) females and 2,102 (41%) males. It is indicated from Figure 4.25
and Figure 4.26 that the longer people lived, the more females than males in the city.

33,124,
49%
33,943,
51%

M ale
Fem ale

Figure 4.25: The Gender Distribution in Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)

2,102,
41%
2,998,
59%

M ale
Female

Figure 4.26: The Gender Distribution of 65 Years and Older,
Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)
Age distribution and characteristics
92

The median age was 23.9 years. Those of 18 to 44 became the largest age group
in the city with 61% of the total population. About eight percent of the population was 65
years and older and roughly 14% was under 18 years (Figure 4.27).

Figure 4.27: The Age Distribution of People in Iowa City, Iowa
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
Among those of 65 years and older, the population of 65 to 74 years was 2,586,
accounting for four percent of the total population. The group of 75 to 84 years accounted
for three percent, with the population of 1,750. The smallest group was 85 years and
over, which only accounted for one percent, with the population of 764 (Figure 4.28).

3%
92%

1%

8%
4%

Under 65 years

65 to 74 years

75 t o 84 years
85 years and over
Figure 4.28: The Old Age Distribution of Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)

Race (Figure 4.29)
For people reporting one race alone, roughly 87% was “White”; about four percent

93

was “Black or African American”; less than a half percent was “American Indian and
Alaska Native”; about six percent was “Asian”; less than a half percent was “Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander”, and about one percent was “Some other race”.
Roughly two percent reported “Two or more races”.

0%

6% 0%

1%
2%
Whit e

4%

Black or African Am erican
American Indian and Alaska Nat ive
Asian
Nat ive Hawaiian and Ot her Pacific Islander
87%

Some ot her race
Two or m ore races

Figure 4.29: The Race Distribution of Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)
② Housing- Housing characteristics, Households and families, and Housing costs
Housing characteristics
In 2005-2009, the total housing units of Iowa City were 29,000, with seven percent
vacancy. Roughly 28% of the housing units were built since 1990. Of the total housing
units, approximately 49% was in single-unit structures, roughly 49% was in multi-unit
structures, and three percent was mobile homes.
Households and families (Figure 4.30)
In 2005-2009 there were 27,000 households in Iowa City. The average household
size was 2.2 people. Families made up 43% of the households in the city, including both
married-couple families (34%) and other families (nine percent). Nonfamily households
made up 57% of all households. Most of the nonfamily households were people living
alone.

94

5,992,
22%

9,236,
35%

M arried- couple fam ilies
Ot her families

9,230,
34%

Householder living alone
Ot her nonf am ily households

2,372, 9%
Figure 4.30: The Types of Households in Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)

Housing costs (Figure 4.31)
The median monthly housing costs in Iowa City for mortgaged owners,
nonmortgaged owners, and renters was $1,410, $453, $734 respectively. Roughly 30%
of owners were with mortgages, approximately 13% of owners without mortgages, and
roughly 66% of renters spent 30% or more of household income on housing.

Figure 4.31: Occupants with a Housing Cost Burden in Iowa City, Iowa
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
③Economic characteristics- Income, Employment, Poverty, and Geographic Mobility
Income
The median income of households in Iowa City was $38,361. The average income
from Social Security was $15,702. Roughly 16% of the households received Social
Security. Approximately 88% of the households received earnings and roughly 10%
received retirement income other than Social Security. Some households received

95

income from more than one source.
Employment (Figure 4.32)
In 2005-2009, for the employed population 16 years and older, roughly 40,536
(69%) people were in labor force, with 38,202 (65.2%) employed and 2,280 (3.9%)
unemployed in civilian labor force. The leading industries in Iowa City were Educational
services, and health care, and social assistance (44%), and Arts, entertainment, and
recreation, and accommodation and food services (15%).

38,202, 65%
18,015,
31%
40,482, 69%

2,280, 4%

Not in labor force
Em ployed
Unem ployed
Figure 4.32: Employment Status in Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)

Poverty (Figure 4.33)
In 2005-2009, roughly 30% of people were in poverty. About six percent of people
65 years old and over were below the poverty level, compared with 14% of related
children under 18 years. Approximately 10% of all families and roughly 38% of families
with a female householder and no husband present had incomes below the poverty
level.

96

Figure 4.33: Poverty Rates in Iowa City, Iowa
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
Geographic Mobility (Figure 4.34)
In 2005-2009, roughly 62% of the people at least one year old living in Iowa City
were living in the same residence one year earlier; approximately 21% had moved in
during the past year from another residence in the same county, roughly nine percent
from another county in the same state, about seven percent from another state, and one
percent from abroad.

Figure 4.34: Geographic Mobility of Residents, Iowa City, Iowa
(Source: American Community Survey, 2005-2009)
④ Social attributes- Education, and Marital Status
Education (Figure 4.35)
In 2005-2009, roughly 96% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated

97

from high school and approximately 60% had a bachelor's degree or higher. The total
school enrollment in Iowa City was 34,000. Nursery school and kindergarten enrollment
was 1,200 and elementary or high school enrollment was 6,000 children. College or
graduate school enrollment was 26,000.
1,345, 4%
4,206, 14%
9,466,
31%
4,845,
16%

Graduate or professional degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree
Some college, no degree

9,015,
29%
2,039, 6%

High school diplom a or equivalency
Less than high school diplom a

Figure 4.35: The Educational Attainment of People in Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)
Marital Status (Figure 4.36)
Among 28,824 males and 30,299 females of 15 years and older, roughly 17,211
(59.7%) males and 17,048 (56.3%) females never married. Approximately 9,544 (33.1%)
males belonged to the group of “now married, except separated”, compared with 9,827
(32.4%) females.

98

20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

M ales 15 years and over
Fem ales 15 years and over

Figure 4.36: Marital Status in Iowa City, Iowa (2005-2009)
⑵ Comprehensive Plan Evaluation
The City of Iowa City Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1997. The plan divides
the community into 10 planning districts. Detailed plans have been conducted for each
planning district to address the unique issues, features and goals of the different parts of
the city. So far, three districts, Southeast District, Central District, and Southwest District,
have updated their plans in 2011, 2008, and 2002 respectively. All these available
updated plans and the original Comprehensive Plan were evaluated.
This comprehensive plan was evaluated separately according to the Active Aging
Rating System and Smart Growth Rating System. The total credits from Active Aging
Rating (Table 3.11) are 64, indicating that the City of Iowa’s realization degree of “Active
Aging” belongs to Medium Level (61- 90 credits). Also, the total credits from Smart
Growth Rating (Table 3.12) are 101, showing that the City of Iowa’s realization degree of
“Smart Growth” belongs to High Level (91- 120 credits).

99

Table 4.5 Iowa Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Active Aging Realization Degree
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
1 Outdoor Spaces Green spaces and outdoor seating are sufficient
3 A Community of
and Buildings
in number, well-maintained and safe.
Neighborhoods (Parks, Trails
and Open Space)
Pedestrian safety is well-protected, and
3 A Community of
pavements are non-slip and well-maintained, free
Neighborhoods (Introduction)
of obstructions and reserved for pedestrians.
Outdoor safety is promoted by good street
3 A Community of
lighting, police patrols and community education.
Neighborhoods (Safety,
Arterial streets)
Buildings are well-signed outside and inside, with
sufficient seating and toilets, accessible elevators,
ramps, railings and stairs, and non-slip floors.
Public toilets outdoors and indoors are sufficient
in number, clean, well-maintained and accessible.
2 Transportation
Public transportation is reliable and frequent to
1
Northeast Planning District,
get access to all city areas and services, and the
Southwest District Plan
related costs are consistent, clearly displayed and
(2002), Central District
affordable
plan(2008)
Transit facilities are clean, well-maintained, and
2
Northeast Planning District
accessible, and have priority seating that is respected.
Transport stops and stations are conveniently
2
A Community of
located, accessible, safe, clean, well-lit and
Neighborhoods (Parks, Trails
and Open Space)
well-marked, with adequate seating and shelter.
Roads are well-maintained, with covered drains
3 A Community of
and good lighting.
Neighborhoods (Arterial
streets)
Traffic signs and intersections are visible and
2
A Community of Neighborhoods
well-placed.
(Arterial streets)

100

Table 4.5 (cont’d)
Indicators
3 Housing

4 Social
Participation

Attributes
Sufficient, affordable housing is available in
areas that are safe and close to services and the
rest of the community.
Housing is well-constructed and provides safe
and comfortable shelter from the weather.
Home maintenance, modification options and
supplies are available and affordable, and
providers understand the needs of older people.
Public and commercial rental housing is clean,
well-maintained and safe.
Sufficient and affordable housing for frail and
disabled older people, with appropriate services, is
provided locally.
Venues for events and activities are conveniently
located, accessible, well-lit and easily reached by
public transport.
Events are held at times convenient for older
people, and a wide variety of activities and
gatherings are offered to appeal to a diverse
population of older people.
Activities and attractions are affordable, with no
hidden or additional participation costs.
Good information about activities and events is
provided, including details about accessibility of
facilities and transportation options for older people.
Activities and events can be attended alone or
with a companion, with consistent outreach to
include people at risk of social isolation.
101

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
2
A Community of
Neighborhoods (Diverse
housing types)
3 A Community of
Neighborhoods (Diverse
housing types)
2
A Community of
Neighborhoods (existing
Neighborhood)

2

City Vision Statement

2

A Community of
Neighborhoods
(Neighborhood Commercial)
A Community of
Neighborhoods
(Neighborhood Commercial),
Social Fabric (Arts and Culture)

3

3

2

Iowa City: The Community
(Neighborhoods), Social
Fabric (Human Development)
Social Fabric (Arts and
Culture)

Table 4.5 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High

5 Respect and
Older people are recognized by the community
Social Inclusion for their past and present contributions, and are
regularly consulted by public, voluntary and
commercial services on how to serve them better.
Services and products to suit varying needs and
preferences are provided by public and
commercial services.
Community-wide settings, activities and events
attract all generations by accommodating
age-specific needs and preferences.
Schools provide opportunities to learn about
ageing and older people, and involve older people
in school activities.
Older people who are less well-off have good
access to public, voluntary and private services.
A range of flexible options for older volunteers is
6 Civic
Participation and available, with training, recognition, guidance and
Employment
compensation for personal costs.
A range of flexible and appropriately paid
opportunities for older people to work is promoted.
Discrimination on the basis of age alone is
forbidden in the hiring, retention, promotion and
training of employees.
Workplaces are adapted to meet the needs of
disabled people.
Decision-making bodies in public, private and
voluntary sectors encourage and facilitate
membership of older people.
102

3

3

2

Social Fabric (Human
Development)
Iowa City: The Community
(Neighborhoods), Social
Fabric (Human Development)
Social Fabric (Human
Development)

2

Social Fabric (Human
Development)

2

A Community of
Neighborhoods (Introduction)

Table 4.5 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

7 Communication
A basic, effective communication system
and Information reaches community residents of all ages, which
assures regular and widespread distribution of
information.
Regular information and broadcasts of interest to
older people are offered.
Printed information has large lettering and the
main ideas are shown by clear headings and
bold-face type.
Electronic equipment, such as mobile
telephones, radios, televisions, and bank and
ticket machines, has large buttons and big
lettering.
There is wide public access to computers and
the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in public
places such as government offices, community
centers and libraries.
8 Community and
An adequate range of health and community
Health Services support services is offered for promoting,
maintaining and restoring health
Home care services include health and personal
care and housekeeping.
Residential care facilities and designated older
people’s housing are located close to services and
the rest of the community.
Health and community service facilities are
safely constructed and fully accessible.
Economic barriers impeding access to health
and community support services are minimized.
103

Scale (credits)
Evidences
Low Medium High
3 Economic Well-Being
(Information Technology)

2

Economic Well-Being
(Information Technology)

3

2

Social Fabric (Human
Development)
Social Fabric (Human
Development)
Southwest District
Plan(2002)

1

3

Social Fabric (Human
Development)

Table 4.6 Iowa Comprehensive Plan Evaluation on Smart Growth Realization Degree
Indicators

Attributes

1 Compact Building Compact building design as an alternative to
Design
conventional, land consumptive development is
incorporated in the community.
Minimum levels of density are required.
Buildings are constructed through more efficient
ways of land and resources uses, such as
encouraging buildings to grow vertically rather
than horizontally, and incorporating structured
rather than surface parking.
Open and undeveloped land is preserved
through integrating compact design into
community building efforts.
2 Housing
The balance between housing and jobs are
Opportunities
ensured.
and Choices
A range of housing prices and options are
available for people of all income levels in the
community, and affordable housing is provided.
A mix of housing types and sizes are offered for
a range of ages and likely situations (apartments,
condos, single-family homes, studios, 1/2/3/
bedrooms).
Land use patterns are modified to increase
housing choice on newly-developed land.
Housing supply is increased in existing
neighborhoods and on land served by existing
infrastructure.

104

Scale (credits) Evidences
Low Medium High
3 Iowa City Growth Policy, A
Community of Neighborhoods
2
3

2

A Community of Neighborhoods
A Community of Neighborhoods

Iowa City Growth Policy

3

Iowa City Economic
Development Policies (Strategy
D)
A Community of Neighborhoods
(Diverse housing types)

3

A Community of Neighborhoods

2

2

A Community of Neighborhoods
3

A Community of Neighborhoods

Table 4.6 (cont’d)
Indicators
3 Neighborhoods
Walkability

4 Community and
Stakeholder
Collaboration

Attributes
The number, density and location of housing
units are sufficient to promote walking and transit.
The size and location of commercial or retail
uses are sufficient to promote walking and transit.
At least three different land uses are within
walking distance, such as housing, schools,
offices or retail businesses.
Parking allows easy and safe access by
pedestrians to buildings and is not visually
dominating.
Pedestrian environments are encouraged and
ensured safe.
The needs of the community and the programs
to address them are defined by the people who
live and work there.

Scale (credits) Evidences
Low Medium High
A Community of Neighborhoods
2
3

A Community of Neighborhoods

3

A Community of Neighborhoods
(Neighborhood Commercial)

3

A Community of Neighborhoods
(Use of rear lanes or alleys)

3

A Community of Neighborhoods
(Collector streets)

3

Citizen participation is encouraged in the
planning process to achieve community and
stakeholder collaboration to fit the unique needs
of the community.
3

105

Introduction to the
Comprehensive Plan (The
Process), A Community of
Neighborhoods (Safety)
Introduction to the
Comprehensive Plan (The
Process)

Table 4.6 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits) Evidences
Low Medium High
5 Sense of
A vision is formed or standards are set up for
3 Introduction to the
Community
development and construction which respond to community
Comprehensive Plan (Why
values of architectural beauty and distinctiveness.
have a Comprehensive Plan?)
Buildings conform to the desired scale and
3 Iowa City Growth Policy (Growth and
architectural styles of the community.
the Environment)
Historic structures or other structures of
3 Iowa City Historic Preservation
significance in the community are reused or rehabilitated.
Plan
Public streetscape (including
3 A Community of Neighborhoods
pedestrian-friendly amenities) such as
(Arterial streets)
landscaping, benches and lighting is supported.
Community spaces, such as plazas, squares
3 A Community of Neighborhoods
and parks, are created and enhanced.
(Parks, Trails and Open Space)
6 Effectiveness of
Development decisions about smart growth are
2
North Planning District
Development
made timely, cost-effective, and predictable.
Decisions
Infrastructure and regulatory decisions are
2
South Planning District
made fairly, predictably and cost effectively.
3 A Community of Neighborhoods
7 Mix Land Uses
Mixed-use projects combine at least three of the
following: homes, retail, commercial, recreational,
(Existing Neighborhoods)
educational, and public facilities.
New or compatible types of land use are added 1
Economic Well-Being
to an existing neighborhood or district.
New or compatible products or services are
1
Economic Well-Being
added to an established business district.
Alternatives to driving, such as walking or
3 A Community of Neighborhoods
(Parks, Trails and Open Space;
biking, become viable by putting uses in close
Narrower local streets)
proximity to one another.
Viable public transit is supported through a
2
Northeast Planning District,
diverse and sizable population and commercial
Southwest District Plan (2002),
base.
Central District plan(2008)
106

Table 4.6 (cont’d)
Indicators

Attributes

Scale (credits) Evidences
Low Medium High
8 Open Space
Critical environmental areas, such as aquifers,
3 Iowa City Growth Policy
Preservation
and unbroken forest, are protected.
(Growth and the Environment)
Prime farm and ranch lands are preserved, and
North Corridor Planning District,
2
the use of operating farms is not changed.
Southwest District Plan (2002)
Animal and plant habitat, places of natural
3 A Community of Neighborhoods
beauty, and working lands are protected.
(Parks, Trails and Open Space)
Properties with identified environmental
3 Economic Well-Being
problems, such as brownfields, are cleaned up
and reused.
Sensitive environmental viewsheds (views of
3 Iowa City Growth Policy
scenic, historic and cultural areas) are preserved.
(Growth and the Environment)
9 Transportation
Public transit is provided within walking
2
Northeast Planning District
Choices
distance.
2
Multiple modes of transportation are accessible,
A Community of Neighborhoods
including bus, rail, pedestrians, bicyclists and
(Arterial streets)
autos.
All the areas in the community are fully
2
A Community of Neighborhoods
(Interconnected street systems)
connected with each other through diverse routes.
Connectivity between pedestrians, bikes,
2
A Community of Neighborhoods
(Parks, Trails and Open Space)
transit, and road facilities is ensured through
coordinating land use and transportation.
10 Development of New projects are located near existing
2
Economic Well-Being
Existing
infrastructure (roads, public sewer, and water services).
Communities
3 Economic Well-Being
New projects are located in an area targeted for
priority development, such as an empire zone,
industrial park or urban redevelopment zone.
Existing public services, such as police, fire,
2
Southwest District Plan (2002),
schools and health, are utilized to serve the infill
Central District plan(2008)
development.
107

⑶ Online Survey
The detailed information about the responses to each question of this survey is
presented in Appendix C.
Demographic Information
There were 12 respondents participated in the online survey, including 4 males and
8 females. The respondents belonged to the groups of 65 to 74 years (50%), and 75 to
84 years (50%). All the respondents had at least graduated from higher than high school,
and 40% of them had a bachelor’s degree. The majority of the respondents (92%) lived
in “Detached single-family home” and only eight percent lived in “Condominium”. The
majority of the respondents (92%) had lived in their current community for more than 5
years, and roughly 75% had lived in the current home for more than 5 years. Roughly
three fourths of the respondents had lived in the current home for more than 8 years. In
terms of health condition, the majority of the respondents (83%) did not have diseases.
Awareness and Involvement
Among the 12 respondents, roughly 75% had heard about the active aging
programs. All the respondents were all familiar with the “dance yoga, tai chi, and fitness
classes” in their community, and approximately 83% and 58% of them knew about the
“elder exercise courses” and “active living courses” respectively. These programs were
also the programs that most of them were participating in. In addition, roughly 75% of the
respondents answered that they did not have the opportunity to participate in the
planning process of the active aging programs in their community.
Evaluation or Satisfaction
In terms of local travel options, roughly 75% remained neutral and about 17% agreed

108

that their local public transportation was reliable and frequent. Roughly 67% remained neutral
and about 25% agreed that “it is very convenient to go health centers by public transport”.
Half of the respondents agreed that “it is very convenient to walk to grocery stores”, while
roughly 42% remained neural and about 33% disagreed that “it is very convenient to walk
to restaurants”. In addition, when asked whether “it is very convenient to use a bicycle to public
facilities”, half of the respondents selected “Disagreement”, and about 42% selected “Neutral”.
As for local availability and accessibility to public facilities, 92% of the respondents
felt that there were insufficient public toilets, while about 92% of the respondents said that
public computers and the Internet were accessible to them. Nevertheless, the large majority
(92%) of the respondents did not think that there were enough affordable housing locally,
and about 64% of them thought that more affordable housing were needed for various
income levels. When asked about the amenities in street space, all the respondents felt
that sufficient benches while insufficient non-slip pavements were provided. Roughly
55% thought there were sufficient lighting and landscaping in their community.
General Perception and Future Vision
In terms of the sense of the neighborhoods, roughly 83% of the respondents
believed that they had a moderate sense of neighborhoods. All the respondents selected
“street parks” as the important elements for a defined sense of neighborhoods. Most of
them also selected “pedestrian-friendly streets”, “public activity centers”, “neighborhood
gardens”, and “community parks”. Roughly three fourths of the respondents were satisfied
with their current community, while all the respondents expected to have more “street
parks”, about 92% wished to have more “pedestrian-friendly streets” and “public activity
centers”, and about 83% expected to have more “neighborhood gardens” in future.

109

4.2 Discussions
Based the data collection and analysis introduced in the previous chapter, the
outcomes from US Census Data Analysis, Comprehensive Plans Evaluation, and the
Online Survey Data Analysis were summarized for each community.
For the City of Kirkland, Washington, the general findings are revealed as follows:
⑴ Findings from US Census Data Analysis
As people age, the gender distribution of the city took on the trend that the older
citizens become, the more females live longer than males.
Approximately 11% of the population in the city was 65 years and older, half of
which was 65 to 74 years. Those of 85 years and over became the smallest group, only
accounting for one percent of the total population.
“Asian” ranked as the second largest racial group after “White”.
Nonfamily households made up almost half of all households, and most of the
nonfamily households were people living alone. Half of males and nearly half females
married, while over a third of males and almost a third of females never married. 78% of
the people were living in the same residence one year earlier.
The largest group of housing occupants was owners with mortgage, and renters
ranked second. Approximately 37% of renters spent 30% or more of household income
on housing. About 17% of the households received Social Security, the average of which
was 20% of local median households’ income.
Approximately five percent of people were in poverty and five percent of people
65 years old and over were below the poverty level.
The leading industries were professional, scientific, management and

110

administrative services, educational services, health care, and social assistance.
Approximately 96% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from
high school and roughly 53% had a bachelor's degree or higher.
⑵ Findings from Kirkland Comprehensive Plan Evaluation (Table 4.7, 4.8)
Both of the realization degrees on “active aging” and “smart growth” belonged to
High Levels with the total credits of 94 and 113 respectively.
All of the ten indicators of “smart growth” were in High Level of realization
degrees, while the realization degree of the “active aging” indicators varied: five
(“Transportation”, “Housing”, “Social Participation”, “Respect and Social Inclusion”, and
“Community and Health Services”) were in High Level; two (“Outdoor Spaces and
Buildings”, and “Communication and Information”) were in Medium Level; and only one
(“Civic Participation and Employment”) was in Low Level.
The great majority of the similar indicators from “active aging” and “smart growth”
achieved same levels of realization degrees: “Transportation” (High Level) to
“Transportation Choices” (High Level); “Housing” (High Level) to “Housing Opportunities
and Choices” (High Level); “Social Participation” (High Level), and “Respect and Social
Inclusion” (High Level) to “Sense of Community” (High Level).
Only one pair of similar indicators from “active aging” and “smart growth”
achieved different levels of realization degrees: “Outdoor Spaces and Buildings”
(Medium Level) to “Open Space Preservation” (High Level).

111

Table 4.7 Findings about Active Aging Realization Degree, City of Kirkland, Washington
Indicators of Active Aging

Number of
Attributes

Credits Obtained for Each Indicator
Low
Medium
High
0-6
7-11
12-15
11

1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings

5

2 Transportation

5

14

3 Housing

5

14

4 Social Participation

5

15

5 Respect and Social Inclusion

5

6 Civic Participation and Employment

5

7 Communication and Information

5

8 Community and Health Services

5

112

12
4
11
13

Total
Credits
94

Table 4.8 Findings about Smart Growth Realization Degree, City of Kirkland, Washington
Indicators of Smart Growth

Number of
Attributes

Credits Obtained for Each Indicator
Low
0-6
0-5
0-3
0-2

Medium
7-11
6-9
4-6
3-4

High
12-15
10-12
7- 9
5- 6
15

2 Housing Opportunities and Choices

5
4
3
2
5

3 Neighborhoods Walkability

5

14

5 Sense of Community

5

15

7 Mix Land Uses

5

14

8 Open Space Preservation

5

1 Compact Building Design

4

9 Transportation Choices

4

11

10 Development of Existing Communities

3

9

4 Community and Stakeholder Collaboration

2

6

6 Effectiveness of Development Decisions

2

6

12
11

113

Total
Credits

113

⑶ Findings from Online Survey Data Analysis
The majority of the respondents were 65 to 74 years, and roughly 80% of the
participants were in good health condition.
Most of the respondents (60%) graduated from “Some College”.
Approximately 57% and 80% of the respondents had lived in current home and
city for more than 5 years. Roughly 87% lived in detached single-family home.
All the respondents were familiar with some local active aging programs (“senior
walking group” and “elder exercise courses”), while some other known programs like
“bike lane projects” and “active living courses” had low participation rates.
Roughly 93% of the respondents had opportunity to join in planning process of
the active aging programs, and approximately 86% were satisfied with the final decision.
More than a half of the respondents thought public transportation not reliable or
frequent, whereas roughly 46% regarded it as a convenient way to go health centers.
Most of the respondents were satisfied with the walkability level, whereas,
approximately 47% dissatisfied with the convenience level of bicycling to public facilities.
Most respondents were satisfied with the amenities in street space, and they
also expected to have more “street parks”, “public activity centers”, and “neighborhood
gardens” in future.
Roughly 67% of the respondents felt that local public toilets were insufficient,
while they were contented with the accessibility of public computers and the Internet.
Roughly 93% of the respondents had a moderate sense of neighborhoods, and
were satisfied with the community, while they thought that local affordable housing
(especially low-income housing) was inadequate.

114

For the City of Casper, Wyoming, the general findings are revealed as follows:
⑴ Findings from US Census Data Analysis
As people age, the gender distribution of the city took on the trend that the older
citizens become, the more females live longer than males.
Approximately 14% of the population in the city was 65 years and older, and both
65 to 74 years, and 75 to 84 years accounts for 43%. Those of 85 years and over
became the smallest group, which was only two percent of the total population.
“White” ranked as the largest racial group with 93% of the total population.
Families made up 63% of the households in the city. Roughly 52% of males and
almost half of females married, while over a third of males and nearly a quarter of
females never married. Approximately 80% of the people were living in the same
residence one year earlier.
The largest group of housing occupants was renters, and owners with mortgage
ranked second. Approximately 42% of renters spent 30% or more of household income
on housing. Roughly 28% of the households received Social Security, the average of
which was 30% of local median households’ income.
Approximately 10% of people were in poverty and eight percent of people 65
years old and over were below the poverty level.
The leading industries were educational services, health care, social assistance,
and retail trade.
Approximately 92% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from
high school and roughly 24% had a bachelor's degree or higher.

115

⑵ Findings from Casper Comprehensive Plan Evaluation (Table 4.9, 4.10)
The realization degree on “smart growth” belonged to High Level (110 Credits),
while the degree “active aging” was at Medium Level (86 Credits).
All of the ten indicators of “smart growth” were in High Level of realization
degrees, while the realization degree of the “active aging” indicators varied: six (“Outdoor
Spaces and Buildings”, “Social Participation”, “Respect and Social Inclusion”, “Civic
Participation and Employment”, “Communication and Information” and “Community and
Health Services”) were in Medium Level; two (“Transportation”, and “Housing”) were in
High Level.
Some of the similar indicators from “active aging” and “smart growth” achieved
same levels of realization degrees: “Transportation” (High Level) to “Transportation
Choices” (High Level); “Housing” (High Level) to “Housing Opportunities and Choices”
(High Level).
Some of the similar indicators from “active aging” and “smart growth” achieved
different levels of realization degrees: “Outdoor Spaces and Buildings” (Medium Level) to
“Open Space Preservation” (High Level); “Social Participation” (Medium Level), and
“Respect and Social Inclusion” (Medium Level) to “Sense of Community” (High Level).

116

Table 4.9 Findings about Active Aging Realization Degree, City of Casper, Wyoming
Indicators of Active Aging

Number of
Attributes

Credits Obtained for Each Indicator
Low
Medium
High
0-6
7-11
12-15
8

1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings

5

2 Transportation

5

15

3 Housing

5

14

4 Social Participation

5

5 Respect and Social Inclusion

5

6 Civic Participation and Employment

5

9

7 Communication and Information

5

8

8 Community and Health Services

5

10

117

11
11

Total
Credits
86

Table 4.10 Findings about Smart Growth Realization Degree, City of Casper, Wyoming
Indicators of Smart Growth

Number of
Attributes

Credits Obtained for Each Indicator
Low
0-6
0-5
0-3
0-2

Medium
7-11
6-9
4-6
3-4

High
12-15
10-12
7- 9
5- 6
14

2 Housing Opportunities and Choices

5
4
3
2
5

3 Neighborhoods Walkability

5

13

5 Sense of Community

5

14

7 Mix Land Uses

5

13

8 Open Space Preservation

5

1 Compact Building Design

4

9 Transportation Choices

4

11

10 Development of Existing Communities

3

9

4 Community and Stakeholder Collaboration

2

6

6 Effectiveness of Development Decisions

2

6

14
10

118

Total
Credits

110

⑶ Findings from Online Survey Data Analysis
The majority of the respondents were 65 to 74 years, and roughly 81% of the
participants were in good health condition.
Most of the respondents (56%) graduated from “Some College”.
Roughly 50% and 94% of the respondents had lived in the current home and city
for more than 5 years, respectively. About 88% lived in detached single-family home.
All the respondents were familiar with some local active aging programs (“elder
exercise courses” and “active living courses”), while some other known programs like
“dance yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes” were not taken by the respondents.
Approximately 63% of the respondents had no opportunity to participate in
planning process of the active aging programs.
Approximately 44% of the respondents thought public transportation not reliable
or frequent, whereas roughly 81% remained neutral on whether public transit was a
convenient way to go health centers.
Most of the respondents were satisfied with the walkability level, whereas,
roughly 63% dissatisfied with the convenience level of bicycling to public facilities.
Most respondents were satisfied with the street amenities, while thought non-slip
pavements insufficient, and expected more “pedestrian-friendly streets” in future.
Roughly 94% of the respondents felt that local public toilets were insufficient,
while they were contented with the accessibility of public computers and the Internet.
Approximately 81% of the respondents had a moderate sense of neighborhoods,
and roughly 69% were satisfied with the community, while thought local affordable
housing was inadequate.

119

For the City of Iowa, Iowa, the general findings are revealed as follows:
⑴ Findings from US Census Data Analysis
As people age, the gender distribution of the city took on the trend that the older
citizens become, the more females live longer than males.
Approximately eight percent of the population in the city was 65 years and older,
half of which was 65 to 74 years. Those of 85 years and over became the smallest group,
only accounting for one percent of the total population.
“Asian” ranked as the second largest racial group after “White”.
Nonfamily households made up 57% of all households, and most of the
nonfamily households were people living alone. A third of males and nearly a third of
females married, while almost 60% of males and 56% of females never married. 62% of
the people were living in the same residence one year earlier.
The largest group of housing occupants was renters, and owners with mortgage
ranked second. Approximately 66% of renters spent 30% or more of household income
on housing. About 16% of the households received Social Security, the average of which
was 41% of local median households’ income.
Approximately 30% of people were in poverty and six percent of people 65 years
old and over were below the poverty level.
The leading industries were educational services, health care, and social
assistance, arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services.
Approximately 96% of people 25 years and over had at least graduated from
high school and roughly 60% had a bachelor's degree or higher.

120

⑵ Findings from Iowa Comprehensive Plan Evaluation (Table 4.11, 4.12)
The realization degree on “smart growth” belonged to High Level (101 Credits),
while the degree “active aging” was at Medium Level (64 Credits).
The realization degree of the “smart growth” indicators was different: 3 (“Mix
Land Uses”, “Transportation Choices”, and “Effectiveness of Development Decisions”)
were in Medium Level, while the others were in High Level.
The realization degree of the “active aging” indicators also varied: six (“Outdoor
Spaces and Buildings”, “Transportation”, “Housing”, “Social Participation”, “Respect and
Social Inclusion”, and “Community and Health Services”) were in Medium Level; and two
(“Civic Participation and Employment”, and “Communication and Information”) were in
Low Level.
Most of the similar indicators from “active aging” and “smart growth” achieved
different levels of realization degrees: “Housing” (Medium Level) to “Housing
Opportunities and Choices” (High Level); “Outdoor Spaces and Building” (Medium Level)
to “Open Space Preservation” (High Level); “Social Participation” (Medium Level), and
“Respect and Social Inclusion” (Medium Level) to “Sense of Community” (High Level).
Only one pair of similar indicators from “active aging” and “smart growth”
achieved same levels of realization degrees: “Transportation” (Medium Level) to
“Transportation Choices” (Medium Level).

121

Table 4.11 Findings about Active Aging Realization Degree, City of Iowa, Iowa
Indicators of Active Aging

Number of
Attributes

1 Outdoor Spaces and Buildings

5

Credits Obtained for Each Indicator
Low
Medium
High
0-6
7-11
12-15
9

2 Transportation

5

10

3 Housing

5

9

4 Social Participation

5

10

5 Respect and Social Inclusion

5

6 Civic Participation and Employment

5

2

7 Communication and Information

5

5

8 Community and Health Services

5

122

10

9

Total
Credits
64

Table 4.12 Findings about Smart Growth Realization Degree, City of Iowa, Iowa
Indicators of Smart Growth

Number of
Attributes

Credits Obtained for Each Indicator
Low
0-6
0-5
0-3
0-2

Medium
7-11
6-9
4-6
3-4

High
12-15
10-12
7- 9
5- 6
13

2 Housing Opportunities and Choices

5
4
3
2
5

3 Neighborhoods Walkability

5

14

5 Sense of Community

5

15

7 Mix Land Uses

5

8 Open Space Preservation

5

1 Compact Building Design

4

9 Transportation Choices

4

10 Development of Existing Communities

3

7

4 Community and Stakeholder Collaboration

2

6

6 Effectiveness of Development Decisions

2

10
14
10
8

4

123

Total
Credits

101

⑶ Findings from Online Survey Data Analysis
Approximately half of the respondents were 65 to 74 years, and half were 75 to
84 years. Approximately 83% of the participants were in good health condition.
Most of the respondents (40%) had a bachelor’s degree.
Approximately 75% and 92% of the respondents had lived in the current home
and city for more than 5 years, respectively. Roughly 92% lived in detached single-family
home.
Roughly three fourths of the respondents were familiar with some local active
aging programs (“senior walking group” and “elder exercise courses”), and most of them
were participating in the “elder exercise courses” and “active living courses”.
Approximately 75% of the respondents had no opportunity to participate in
planning process of the active aging programs.
More than a half of the respondents thought that public transportation was
reliable and frequent in the city, whereas roughly 67% remained neutral on whether
public transit was as a convenient way to go to health centers.
Half of the respondents were satisfied with the walkability to grocery stores,
whereas, roughly 33% discontented with the walkability to restaurants. Half of the
respondents dissatisfied with the convenience level of bicycling to public facilities.
Most respondents were satisfied with the amenities in street space, while they
needed more non-slip pavements. They also expected to have more “pedestrian-friendly
streets”, “public activity centers”, and “neighborhood gardens” in future.
Approximately 92% of the respondents felt that local public toilets were
insufficient, while they were contented with the accessibility of public computers and the

124

Internet.
Approximately 83% of the respondents had a moderate sense of neighborhoods,
and roughly 75% were satisfied with the community, while they thought that local
affordable housing was inadequate.

4.3 Comprehensive Comparative Analyses and Evaluations
According to the general findings, the three communities were comprehensively
analyzed and evaluated to investigate the relationship between “active aging” and “smart
growth”, as well as to test the hypotheses formed in Chapter 3: ⑴ “active aging” and
“smart growth” are positively related; ⑵ In individual communities, the consistency
degree between the realization levels of “active aging” and “smart growth” can be
distinct.
Based on the three communities’ total realization degree credits (Table 4.13) of
both “smart growth” and “active aging”, a scatter plot was created (Figure 4.37), and the
Correlation Coefficient is 0.999840616, which is very much closer to 1. Thus, the first
hypothesis that “active aging” and “smart growth” are positively related is verified.
Table 4.13 Total Realization Degree Credits of Active Aging and Smart Growth
1 Kirkland
2 Casper
3 Iowa

Active Aging
94 (High Level)
86 (Medium Level)
64 (Medium Level)

125

Smart Growth
113 (High Level)
110 (High Level)
101 (High Level)

Kirkland

Act ive Aging

100
80

Casper
Iowa

60
40
20
0
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114
Sm art Growth

Figure 4.37: The Scatter Plot of Active Aging and Smart Growth Credits
Although this sample is very small, a linear regression model was shown in
Appendix D to complement to investigate the relationship between “active aging” and
“smart growth”.
At the same time, it is manifest that except for Kirkland, both Casper and Iowa City
had high realization level of “smart growth”, whereas, they only achieved medium
realization level of “active aging”. Especially, Iowa City’s realization credits of “active
aging” were 64, compared with the realization credits of “smart growth” (101 Credits),
which were almost 1.6 times those of “active aging”. Consequently, there was a clear gap
between Iowa City’s realization degrees of “active aging” and “smart growth”, which
might due to its outdated comprehensive plan. Also, perhaps it is due to the large
number of college students living there. Thereby, the second hypothesis that in individual
communities, the consistency degree between the realization levels of “active aging” and
“smart growth” can be distinct is verified from the cases in Casper and Iowa.
Besides, the individual indicators’ credits were compared with each other for “smart
growth” and “active aging”, respectively, to identify the characteristics of indicators’
realization degrees in both rating systems.

126

In terms of the indicators for “smart growth”, it is displayed from the average credits
(Table 4.14) of each one type of indicators for the three communities that every type of
indicator achieved high level. Hence, the differences of the indicators of “smart growth”
are considered significant. This reveals that each indicator’s influence on the total
realization degree of “smart growth” is distinct. This is also in line with the findings about
“smart growth” in individual community.
Table 4.14 Comparison on the Credits of Smart Growth Indicators
Kirkland
1 Compact Building Design
2 Housing Opportunities and
Choices
3 Neighborhoods Walkability
4 Community and Stakeholder
Collaboration
5 Sense of Community
6 Effectiveness of Development
Decisions
7 Mix Land Uses
8 Open Space Preservation
9 Transportation Choices
10 Development of Existing
Communities

Casper

Iowa

Mean

11
15

10
14

10
13

10.33
14.00

Standard
Deviation
0.33
1.00

14
6

13
6

14
6

13.67
6.00

0.33
0.00

15
6

14
6

15
4

14.67
5.33

0.33
1.33

14
12
11
9

13
14
11
9

10
14
8
7

12.33
13.33
10.00
8.33

4.33
1.33
3.00
1.33

A good case in point is that some indicators, such as “Mix Land Uses”, and
“Transportation Choices”, had high standard deviations, and take on distinct realization
levels in different communities. Nevertheless, some other indicators showed very low
standard deviations, such as “Compact Building Design”, “Neighborhoods Walkability”,
as well as “Sense of Community”, exhibited very similar realization levels in the three
communities. Therefore, some indicators of “smart growth”, “Compact Building Design”,

127

“Neighborhoods Walkability”, and “Sense of Community”, have been paid more attention
to in the comprehensive plans than others.
Also, the realization levels of the indicators within one community were not always
same although all the three communities had achieved high realization degrees on
“smart growth”. Both Kirkland and Casper had high levels of all their “smart growth”
indicators. In contrast, three indicators (“Mix Land Use”, “Transportation Choices”, and
“Effectiveness of Development Decisions”) of Iowa City were only in medium level,
compared with its seven other high-realization-level “smart growth” indicators.
With regard to the indicators for “active aging”, only one indicator, “Respect and
Social Inclusion”, showed relatively stable realization levels in different communities,
while the others took on very high standard deviations, and thus, diverged in realization
levels.
Thus, the realization levels of most “active aging” indicators showed much higher
standard deviations (Table 4.15), compared with the realization levels of the “smart
growth” indicators. This indicates that the findings about the three communities’ “smart
growth” indicators might be more applicable to represent the common features for
realizing “smart growth”.

128

Table 4.15 Comparison on the Credits of Active Aging Indicators
Kirkland

Casper

Iowa

Mean

1 Outdoor Spaces and
Buildings

11

8

9

9.33

Standard
Deviation
2.33

2 Transportation

14

15

10

13.00

7.00

3 Housing

14

14

9

12.33

8.33

4 Social Participation

15

11

10

12.00

7.00

5 Respect and Social
Inclusion
6 Civic Participation and
Employment
7 Communication and
Information
8 Community and Health
Services

12

11

10

11.00

1.00

4

9

2

5.00

13.00

11

8

5

8.00

9.00

13

10

9

10.67

4.33

Another point needs noticing is that a higher realization degree of “active aging” in
one community does not necessarily mean that all its indicators are higher than other
communities. In terms of “Civic Participation and Employment”, Kirkland achieved much
lower credits than Casper, while Kirkland had the highest realization degree of “active
aging”. Similarly, both of Casper and Iowa City had medium level realization degrees of
“active aging”, and Casper had much more realization credits of “active aging” than Iowa.
However, Iowa City had more realization credits of “Outdoor Spaces and Buildings” than
those of Casper.
Comparing the findings of US Census Data analysis for the three communities
(Table 4.16), the similarities and dissimilarities of their characteristics were identified.
Also, data from US Census 2000 Summary (U.S. Census Bureau) were employed to
compare each community’s features with US national average.

129

Table 4.16 Comparison on US Census Data Characteristics
US Census Data
Characteristics
Density (persons/ sq. mi.)
The older citizens become,
the more females than males
in the senior years
65 years and older
85 years and over was the
smallest group
“Asian” ranked as the second
largest racial group after “White”
The largest group of households
The largest group of housing
occupants
Percentage of people in poverty
Percentage of people 65 years
old and over in poverty
Most of people 25 years and
over had at least graduated
from high school

Kirkland

Casper

Iowa City

4,218.5
Yes

2,072.8
Yes

2,575.3
Yes

U.S.
Average
79.6
Yes

11%
Yes

14%
Yes

8%
Yes

12.9%
Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Nonfamily
owners with
mortgage
5%
5%

Family
Renters

Nonfamily
Renters

Family
Owners

10%
8%

30%
6%

13.2%
9.8%

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Moreover, the online survey options which were agreed to by the most of the
respondents were also compared among the three communities (Table 4.17). The
similarities among most of the respondents form these communities mainly focus on the
following aspects:
Belonging to the age group of 65 to 74 years
In good health condition
Living in detached single-family home
Satisfied with the walkability to grocery stores, whereas, dissatisfied with the
convenience level of bicycling to public facilities.
Satisfied with the street amenities, while needed more non-slip pavements
Regarded that local public toilets were insufficient

130

Had a moderate sense of neighborhoods, and satisfied with the community
Regarded that local affordable housing were inadequate
The differences among the responses for the three communities were also
identified as follows:
For Kirkland and Casper, most of the respondents graduated from “Some
College”; For Iowa City, most of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree.
For Kirkland and Casper, Public transportation was not reliable or frequent,
which are opposite to the responses from Iowa City.
For Casper and Iowa City, most of the respondents had no opportunity to
participate in planning process of the active aging programs, to the contrary of
the responses from Kirkland.
The respondents from Kirkland and Iowa City were familiar with “senior walking
group” and “elder exercise courses”, while the ones from Casper were familiar
with “elder exercise courses” and “active living courses”.
The respondents from Kirkland and Iowa City expected to have more “public
activity centers”, and “neighborhood gardens” in future. The respondents from
Casper and Iowa City expected to have “pedestrian-friendly streets” instead.

131

Table 4.17 Comparison on Online Survey Data Features
Online Survey Data Features
65 to 74 years.
In good health condition
Education Level
Detached single-family home
Familiar Active Aging programs

Opportunities to participate in
planning process
Public transportation is reliable
and frequent.
Walkability to grocery stores
Bicycling to public facilities
Amenities in street space
Non-slip pavements
Expectations for future

Local public toilets
Public computers and the
Internet are accessible.
Level of sense of
neighborhoods
Satisfactions with the
community
Local affordable housing

Kirkland
Yes
Yes
Some College
Yes
“Senior walking
group” and
“elder exercise
courses”
Yes

Casper
Yes
Yes
Some College
Yes
“elder exercise
courses” and
“active living
courses”
No

Iowa City
Yes
Yes
Bachelor’s
degree
Yes
“senior walking
group” and
“elder exercise
courses”
No

No

No

Yes

Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Insufficient
More “street
parks”, “public
activity centers”,
and “neighborhood gardens”

Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Insufficient
more “pedestrianfriendly streets”,
“public activity
centers”, and
“neighborhood
gardens”

Insufficient
Yes

Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Insufficient
More “community
parks”, “pedestrianfriendly streets”,
“public activity
centers”, “street
parks”, &“neighborhood gardens”
Insufficient
Yes

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Satisfied

Satisfied

Satisfied

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient

Insufficient
Yes

More points are likely to be identified or explained when comprehensively
considering the information from the US Census Data Analysis, the Comprehensive
Plans Evaluation, and the Online Survey Data Analysis.
Comprehensively considering the strengths and shortcomings in realization levels

132

of the indicators and relayed attributes for both “active aging” and “smart growth”,
“Compact Building Design”, “Neighborhoods Walkability”, and “Sense of Community”
were highlighted in the comprehensive plans. In contrast, less emphasis was placed on
some specific attributes, like the distinctiveness of building signage, size of the electronic
equipment buttons and lettering of printed information, and opportunities for school
children and older people’s interactions. As a supplement to these findings, it is revealed
from the online survey responses that communities need to do more to enhance public
transit, affordable housing, public facilities like public toilets, and non-slip pavement.
Kirkland performed better than the other two communities in achieving both “smart
growth” and “active aging”, which may be interpreted by the reasons that Kirkland had
the highest proportion of 65 years and older, and the best status of economic level
(income, poverty, housing cost burden) among the three communities. Accordingly,
Kirkland attached more importance to the aging issue and enabled it to afford more
active aging programs to improve the quality of life of older people. Additionally, it was
shown from the comparison on the three communities’ census data that other factors like
racial distribution, mobility feature, and marital status may also generate certain
influence. Thus, age distribution and economic status are some of the most significant
factors that influence the promotion of “active aging” through “smart growth”
development in a community.
In terms of individual communities, different community characteristics determine
the special plan contents and emphasis, which might be distinct from each other. This
could explain why none of the communities obtained good credits for all the indicator
attributes. For instance, the comprehensive plan of Kirkland focused on urban area, and

133

the major land use of Kirkland was residential, without farmland or ranch. Thereby,
Kirkland did not obtain credits for the attribute about farmland or ranch preservation.
Comprehensive plans are not very likely to cover very detailed information about
the quality or quantity of services or facilities. The number of public facilities like public
toilets, the price level of activities and events, as well as the size of signage, buttons on
electronic equipment and lettering of printed information were not included in the
comprehensive plans, and thus, zero credit was given to the related attributes. Also,
some information of the plan was clearly written as not being regulatory, like the
framework and some statistical tables from Casper Area Comprehensive Plan, gained no
credits. However, these do not necessarily mean that in reality, the communities did not
considering these aspects. Also, indicators like “Civic Participation and Employment”
covered detailed information about social care for older people, which were not stated in
such a detailed way in Kirkland Comprehensive Plan. Nevertheless, in reality Kirkland
did well in the attributes of this indicator. It had involved senior citizens in decision
making process according to the related positive feedback from online survey.
Furthermore, the difference between planning stage and implementation stage
should not be overlooked. Although all the three comprehensive plans achieved similar
good credits for some attributes like pedestrian-safe pavements, Casper and Iowa City
obtained negative responses in this aspect from the online survey. This, to a large extent,
owes to the reason that Kirkland has implemented the major parts of the plan, while
Casper is just in the process of implementing its plan, and thus, some visions or goals of
the plan may not be seen completely by its senior citizens at this time.

134

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions & Discussions
5.1 Conclusions
This study attempted to investigate the relationship between “active aging” and
“smart growth” through three case studies and multiple comparisons. The research
comprehensively examined and compared the US Census data, 40 attributes within 8
indicators of “active aging”, and 40 attributes within 10 indicators of “smart growth”, as
well as an online survey with senior citizens from the three US EPA’s Active Aging
Award-winning communities: City of Kirkland, Washington, City of Casper, Wyoming, and
Iowa City, Iowa.
The findings from the data analysis and comprehensive evaluation in the previous
chapters support the hypotheses that “active aging” and “smart growth” can be positively
associated with each other, while the consistency degree between their realization levels
can be distinct in different communities.
From the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation conducted for each of the three
communities, the realization degree of “active aging” rises along with the increase in the
realization degree of “smart growth”, whereas in Iowa City, the gap between the
realization credits for “active aging” and “smart growth” is evident, which was not quite
similar as the apparent positive relationship between “active aging” and “smart growth” in
Kirkland and Casper although each of the three community’s “active aging” realization
degree was lower than their “smart growth” counterpart. It is shown from the comparative
analysis among three communities that Kirkland outperformed Casper and Iowa in both
realization degrees of “active aging” and “smart growth”. However, this does not

135

necessarily mean that all its indicators are higher than other communities. Kirkland had
lower realization level than Casper for the indicator, “Civic Participation and
Employment”.
Of the comparisons generated for the realization degree of individual indicator
within “smart growth”, the mean of each indicator’s credits for the three communities
achieved high level, similar as the situation for individual community. In contrast, the
mean of one “active aging” indicator varied significantly from another except for one
indicator (“Respect and Social Inclusion”). It is also revealed that each indicator’s
influence on the total realization degree of “smart growth” and “active aging” is distinct.
Nevertheless, the findings about the three communities’ “smart growth” indicators might
be more applicable to represent the common features for realizing “smart growth”.
For all the three communities, some indicators of “smart growth”, “Compact
Building Design”, “Neighborhoods Walkability”, and “Sense of Community”, have been
paid more attention to in the comprehensive plans, to the contrary, less care was taken
over the attributes, like the distinctiveness of building signage, size of the electronic
equipment buttons and lettering of printed information, and opportunities for school
children and older people’s interactions. For individual community, all the indicators of
“smart growth” for Kirkland and Casper had high realization levels, whereas, Iowa City
had seven indicators in high level, compared with three (“Mix Land Use”, “Transportation
Choices”, and “Effectiveness of Development Decisions”) in medium level.
The findings further indicate that some attributes such as “Neighborhoods
Walkability”, and “Sense of Community” received high credits during the Comprehensive
Plans Evaluation, also obtained high and moderate satisfaction degrees respectively in

136

the online survey. Nevertheless, the survey respondents required more good quality and
reliable public transit, affordable housing, and public facilities like public toilets, and
non-slip pavement. This finding would help to ensure a direction that the community can
commit to.
Additionally, the comprehensive analysis and evaluation also produced explanation
on the findings. Some factors were identified to be possible influential for the promotion
of “active aging” through “smart growth” development in a community such as age
distribution and economic status. This may answer why Kirkland outperformed other two
cities. Some possible reasons were considered for why none the communities obtained
good credits for all the attributes. Different community characteristics require
corresponsive plan contents and emphasis; comprehensive plans are not very likely to
cover very detailed information about the quality or quantity of services or facilities; and
the difference between planning stage and implementation stage is unavoidable. These
factors might determine the reason why none of the communities in question obtained
good credits for all the indicator attributes.
In summary, the analysis and evaluation identified general findings or revelations
about the relationship between “active aging” and “smart growth” as follows:
The realization degree of “active aging” rises along with the increase in the
realization degree of “smart growth” in all the three communities.
The realization degrees of “smart growth” of the three communities
demonstrated higher than their “active aging” counterparts.
Kirkland outperformed Casper and Iowa in both realization degrees of “active
aging” and “smart growth”, while it had lower realization level than Casper for the

137

indicator, “Civic Participation and Employment”.
The realization levels of “active aging” and “smart growth” can be distinct in
different communities: between the two, Kirkland had the least gap, and Casper ranks
second, while Iowa had the most significant gap.
Each indicator’s influence on the total realization degree of “smart growth” and
“active aging” is distinct, while the variances of “active aging” indicators tend to be more
significant.
Indicators like “Compact Building Design”, “Neighborhoods Walkability”, and
“Sense of Community”, have been paid more attention to in the comprehensive plans.
Less emphasis was placed on the attributes, like the distinctiveness of building
signage, size of the electronic equipment buttons and lettering of printed information,
and opportunities for school children and older people’s interactions.
All the indicators of “smart growth” for Kirkland and Casper had high realization
levels, whereas, Iowa City had seven indicators in high level.
Some attributes such as “Neighborhoods Walkability”, and “Sense of
Community” received high credits during the Comprehensive Plans Evaluation, also
obtained high and moderate satisfaction degrees respectively in the online survey.
The survey respondents required more good quality and reliable public transit,
affordable housing, public facilities like public toilets, and non-slip pavement.
Some factors may be influential for the promotion of “active aging” through
“smart growth” development in a community such as age distribution and economic
status.
None of the communities obtained good credits for all the attributes, which may

138

result from different community characteristics and corresponsive distinct plan emphasis,
no detailed information on services or facilities quality or quantity in comprehensive plans,
and unavoidable difference between planning stage and implementation stage.

5.2 Limitations
In order to identify the relationship between “smart growth” and “active aging”, the
study mainly investigated comprehensive plans from the perspective of Urban Planning.
Since some programs only focused on several specific projects for senior citizens, not
every city obtained the award has a comprehensive plan, and the communities’
population and geographic characteristics vary from one to another, it would be not
feasible for studying all these programs at this time.
To minimize the probability of biased analysis and evaluation based only on the
data from the comprehensive plans of the cities, US Census data analysis based on
2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and an online survey for
senior citizens in these communities were also conducted to help to examine the data
from comprehensive plans evaluation. Nonetheless, some weaknesses or limitations still
exist in this research.
With regard to the size of the sample, the number of the selected communities was
very limited. However, as mentioned above, selecting only three communities might be a
feasible choice for current research. Since the scatter plot were created based on only
three cases, there were insufficient data to draw a completely convictive conclusion that
there would be a positive linear correlation between the realization degrees of “active
aging” and “smart growth”.

139

Similarly, the online survey respondents also constitute a small sample. There
were only 15, 16, and 12 responses obtained for City of Kirkland, Washington, City of
Casper, Wyoming, and Iowa City, Iowa, respectively. This may not completely reflect the
opinions of all senior citizens in these communities. In addition, it is also indicated from
the received responses that instead of covering people of diversified demographic
information, most of the respondents belonged to those of 65 to 74, having higher
education level, and having relatively good economic conditions. Thus, the feedback still
lacked of the opinions from other demographic groups, which may be different from the
obtained responses.
One reason for this situation may due to that according to the policies of the
communities in question, the online survey can not be sent directly to the senior citizens,
instead, the survey links and the related posters were sent to the coordinators or the
chairs of local senior center, who subsequently put up the poster at their center and
informed their senior members of the survey. Thereby, the respondents were centered
on those of similar demographic information. Another reason for the concentration on
those of 65 to 74 might be that they were the youngest group among older people, and
they generally had better health conditions and were able to be involved in more
activities at the senior center. Consequently, the online survey data analysis was only
used as a reference for the comprehensive plans evaluation without having any
independent conclusion.
Another limitation of this research lies in that the US Census data for the analysis
were 5-year estimates of American Community Survey from 2005 to 2009. This only
allows synchronic contrasts among the communities, while the diachronic comparisons

140

were not available due to that this census data before 2005 was not created for a 5-year
period and based on different criteria. Therefore, it was difficult to conduct the diachronic
comparisons currently for these communities.

5.3 Implications for Future Study
The current study offers diverse implications theoretically and practically. The
limitations of this study have been discussed in the previous section. Based on these
limitations, several suggestions for further research in future were provided.
First, in terms of the study size, there has not been enough convictive research
findings about what should become a proper size for the study on the relationship or
combination of “active aging” and “smart growth”. Nevertheless, “peer reviewers
determined that 17 case studies and multiple comparisons was an appropriate study
size” (Sobel, Anderson, and Shipman 2011) for the related research on “smart growth”.
In future, as more “active aging” programs are completed and more related plans move
towards the stage of effective implementations, larger study groups will be possible.
More follow-up studies should be conducted to replicate the comprehensive plans
evaluation and the online survey on more EPA’s Active Aging Award-winning
communities and more of their senior citizens. This will further test the hypotheses of this
study and may provide more solid evidence through identifying the correlation of the
realization degrees of “active aging” and “smart growth” from more diversified US
communities, as well as from the older age groups of various features: not only the 65 to
74, but also the 75 to 84, and the 85 years and over; not only those of higher education
level, but also those of lower education level; not only the affluent, but also the poor.

141

Second, since it has been noticed in the current study that some characteristics
found in US Census data like racial distribution, mobility feature, and marital status may
have certain influence on the realization level of “active aging” and “smart growth” in a
community, further research can also be conducted specifically in these aspects to
investigate the extent to which these factors influence the development of a community’s
“active aging” and “smart growth”, and thus, to explore the possible ways to deal with the
possible negative impacts of these factors.
Third, currently many of the EPA’s Active Aging Award-winning programs just like
the targeted communities in this study, have focused more on enhancing compact
development, neighborhood walkability, as well as sense of community. However, other
indicators for both “active aging” and “smart growth”, especially public services and
age-friendly facilities, have not been paid enough attention to. In future, more research
projects need to be conducted on boosting the accessibility and frequency of public
transit, the quantity and quality of affordable housing, and age-friendly facilities, to
enhance the entire realization degree of active aging.
Additionally, for the three communities in this study, some vital attributes of social
inclusion and civic participation also need to be enhanced, thus, in future, it will be
necessary to carry out more research programs in these cities on providing more
opportunities for the interactions between school children, college students and older
people through more learning activities or volunteer jobs for both students and older
people. This will increase the mutual understanding between the young and the old, as
well as to take full advantage of volunteer jobs to facilitate both of them.
Fourth, there are differences between a comprehensive plan and the

142

implementation results in reality. The current study only examined the communities
during their planning stage given the limitations of the available data. This can only
indirectly reflect the possible realization degrees of “active aging” and “smart growth” in
the next 5 to 20 years. Nevertheless, if more future research can be well positioned to
focus on the implementation stage, more significant outcomes are likely to be generated
on the realization degrees and the relationship between “active aging” and “smart
growth”. However, local people or senior citizens are the best indicators of true
realization degrees in different communities, hence, the online survey should also be
adjusted and utilized to figure out the satisfaction degrees of people on these “active
aging” and “smart growth” programs.
Finally, it is noticeable that in a broad sense, “active aging” is a whole life course of
human development (Walker 2006), which encompasses the whole population of all age
groups. Accordingly, more research would also be necessary to investigate the
characteristics of “active aging” among younger age groups than 65 years and over. This
would be beneficial to identify more possible ways to extend the promotion of combining
“active aging” and “smart growth” among broader population in future.

143

APPENDICES

144

APPENDIX A

Figure A Online Survey Flyer

145

APPENDIX B

Online Survey Questionnaire
April 2011
Dear senior residents:
You are invited to participate in this survey that will help to better understand the
relationship between smart growth and active aging programs in your community.
This survey is for my research study entitled “Smart Growth and Age-Friendly
Communities: Evaluating EPA Active Aging Programs”. The purpose of this survey is to
investigate your satisfaction degree with the active aging programs in your communities.
The survey will ask you about your perceptions and opinions of your living environments,
and demographic information. Participants should be senior residents older than 65
years old. This survey will take approximately 15 minutes. There will be no risk associated.
All gathered information will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed by law. The
records of this study will be kept private. No identifiers linking you to the study will be
included in any sort of report that might be published. Research records will be stored
securely and only the investigator, Qiao Xu (a graduate student in Urban and Regional
Planning at Michigan State University), will have access to the records. The completed
online survey questionnaires will be kept in encrypted files during the study and then
destroyed after the study. All these research records will be retained on the campus of
MSU for three years after the close of the research.
Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary. If you decide to participate, you
may refuse to answer any of the questions without penalty or loss of benefits. You may
discontinue your participation at any time.
If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Qiao Xu at
xuqiao@msu.edu or 517-898-7906, with any questions about this study. If you have
questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to
obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study,
you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University's Human
Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail
irb@msu.edu or by regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. Please
keep this letter for your record. Thank you so much for your cooperation.
The survey can be linked at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ActiveAgingSurvey
Sincerely,
Qiao Xu
Candidate for Master of Urban and Regional Planning at MSU

146

Survey of Senior Residents’ Satisfaction Degree with
the Active Aging Programs in Their Communities
I. Demographic Information: The following questions are asking general information
about you. Please mark (×) on the box applied.
1. Gender
□ male
□ female
2. Age
□ 65～74
□ 75～84
□ 85 & Over
3. Education
□ Not a high school graduate
□ High school graduate
□ Some College
□ Bachelors Degree
□ Graduate Degree
4. Housing Type
□ Detached single-family home
□ Condominium
□ Apartment
□ Duplex
□ Nursing home
□ Other
5. Period of residence in the current community
□ Less than 1 year
□ 1 to 5 years
□ More than 5 years
6. Period of residence in the current home
□ Less than 1 year
□ 1 to 5 years
□ More than 5 years

147

7. Health condition
□ Having chronical disease or other type of diseases
□ Disabled
□ Healthy, not having any diseases
II. Awareness and Involvement: The follwing questions are asking your awareness and
involvement in your local active aging programs.
1. Have you ever heard about the active aging programs in your community?
□ Yes
□ No
2. Please check the activities or programs for older adults which you know are in
your community.
□ Senior walking group
□ Bike lane projects
□ Elder exercise courses
□ Active living courses
□ Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
3. Please check the activities or programs in which you participate.
□ Senior walking group
□ Bike lane projects
□ Elder exercise courses
□ Active living courses
□ Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
4. Have you ever had the opportunity to participate in the planning process of the
active aging programs in your community?
□ Yes
□ No
If yes, do their final decisions meet your needs?
□ Yes
□ No
III. Evaluation / Satisfaction: The following questions are asking your evaluation or
satisfaction level of your community environment.
1. What is your level of agreement with the statement that the public
transportation in your community is reliable and frequent, including at night
and on weekends and holidays?

148

□ Strong disagreement
□ Disagreement
□ Neutral
□ Agreement
□ Strong agreement
2. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to grocery stores?
□ Strong disagreement
□ Disagreement
□ Neutral
□ Agreement
□ Strong agreement
3. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to restaurants?
□ Strong disagreement
□ Disagreement
□ Neutral
□ Agreement
□ Strong agreement
4. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
use a bicycle to public facilities (e.g. health centers)?
□ Strong disagreement
□ Disagreement
□ Neutral
□ Agreement
□ Strong agreement
5. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
go to health centers by public transport?
□ Strong disagreement
□ Disagreement
□ Neutral
□ Agreement
□ Strong agreement
6. Which of the following amenities are sufficiently provided in the street space
within your community? Please select one or more options.
□ Lighting
□ Benches

149

□ Landscaping
□ Non-slip pavements
7. Do you get access to computers and the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in
public places of your community, such as government offices, community
centers and libraries?
□ Yes
□ No
8. Do you think whether your community has provided enough affordable
housing for everybody?
□ Yes
□ No
If No, which type of affordable housing you think your community needs to have?
□ Need more affordable housing for low-income level
□ Need more affordable housing for middle-income level
□ Need more affordable housing for various income levels
9. Are there a sufficient number of public toilets in your community?
□ Yes
□ No
If yes, in which level are they clean and well-maintained?
□ Low level
□ Medium level
□ High level
IV. General Perception and Future Vision: The following questions are asking about
your general perception or impression of your community environment, and your
opinions for the future direction of your community environment.
1. Do you think to what extent your community gives you a sense of defined
neighborhoods?
□ Weak
□ Moderate
□ Strong
2. Which of the following elements are important for a sense of defined
neighborhoods? Please select all that apply.

150

□ Gyms
□ Neighborhood gardens
□ Pedestrian-friendly streets
□ Sports grounds
□ Public activity centers
□ Community parks
□ Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
□ Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
□ Other
3. Please select which places you would like to have in your community in the
future.
□ Gyms
□ Neighborhood gardens
□ Pedestrian-friendly streets
□ Sports grounds
□ Public activity centers
□ Community parks
□ Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
□ Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
□ Other
4. What is your general satisfaction level toward your current community
environment?
□ Not at all satisfied
□ Satisfied
□ Very much satisfied
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete the survey. Your responses are
greatly appreciated.

151

APPENDIX C

Online Surveys Responses
Online Survey (A) Responses from City of Kirkland, Washington
I. Demographic Information
1. Gender
Table A1 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Male
46.7%
7
Female
53.3%
8
2. Age
Table A2 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
65～74
46.7%
7
75～84
40.0%
6
85 & Over
13.3%
2
3. Education
Table A3 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Not a high school graduate
0.0%
0
High school graduate
0.0%
0
Some College
60.0%
9
Bachelors Degree
33.3%
5
Graduate Degree
6.7%
1
4. Housing Type

152

Table A4 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Detached single-family home
86.7%
13
Condominium
13.3%
2
Apartment
0.0%
0
Duplex
0.0%
0
Nursing home
0.0%
0
Other (please specify)
0.0%
0
5. Period of residence in the current community
Table A5 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.5
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 1 year
6.7%
1
1 to 5 years
13.3%
2
More than 5 years
80.0%
12
6. Period of residence in the current home
Table A6 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.6
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 1 year
21.4%
3
1 to 5 years
21.4%
3
More than 5 years
57.1%
8
7. Health condition
Table A7 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question I.7
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Having chronical disease or other type of diseases
20.0%
3
Disabled
0.0%
0
Healthy, not having any diseases
80.0%
12
II. Awareness and Involvement
1. Have you ever heard about the active aging programs in your community?
Table A8 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
15
No
0.0%
0

153

2. Please check the activities or programs for older adults which you know are in
your community.
Table A9 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Senior walking group
100.0%
15
Bike lane projects
86.7%
13
Elder exercise courses
100.0%
15
Active living courses
86.7%
13
Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
60.0%
9
3. Please check the activities or programs in which you participate.
Table A10 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Senior walking group
93.3%
14
Bike lane projects
26.7%
4
Elder exercise courses
86.7%
13
Active living courses
20.0%
3
Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
0.0%
0
4. Have you ever had the opportunity to participate in the planning process of the
active aging programs in your community?
Table A11 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.4a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
93.3%
14
No
6.7%
1
If yes, do their final decisions meet your needs?
Table A12 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question II.4b
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
85.7%
12
No
14.3%
2
III. Evaluation / Satisfaction
1. What is your level of agreement with the statement that the public
transportation in your community is reliable and frequent, including at night
and on weekends and holidays?

154

Table A13 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
53.3%
8
Neutral
40.0%
6
Agreement
6.7%
1
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
2. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to grocery stores?
Table A14 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
0.0%
0
Neutral
20.0%
3
Agreement
80.0%
12
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
3. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to restaurants?
Table A15 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
0.0%
0
Neutral
33.3%
5
Agreement
66.7%
10
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
4. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
use a bicycle to public facilities (e.g. health centers)?
Table A16 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
46.7%
7
Neutral
40.0%
6
Agreement
13.3%
2
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
5. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
go to health centers by public transport?

155

Table A17 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.5
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
7.7%
1
Neutral
46.2%
6
Agreement
46.2%
6
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
6. Which of the following amenities are sufficiently provided in the street space
within your community? Please select one or more options.
Table A18 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.6
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Lighting
93.3%
14
Benches
73.3%
11
Landscaping
80.0%
12
Non-slip pavements
80.0%
12
7. Do you get access to computers and the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in
public places of your community, such as government offices, community
centers and libraries?
Table A19 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.7
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
15
No
0.0%
0
8. Do you think whether your community has provided enough affordable
housing for everybody?
Table A20 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.8a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
6.7%
1
No
93.3%
14
If No, which type of affordable housing you think your community needs to have?
Table A21 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.8b
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Need more affordable housing for low-income level
100.0%
1
Need more affordable housing for middle-income level
0.0%
0
Need more affordable housing for various income levels
0.0%
0

156

9. Are there a sufficient number of public toilets in your community?
Table A22 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.9a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
33.3%
5
No
66.7%
10
If yes, in which level are they clean and well-maintained?
Table A23 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question III.9b
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Low level
0.0%
0
Medium level
100.0%
5
High level
0.0%
0
IV. General Perception and Future Vision
1. Do you think to what extent your community gives you a sense of defined
neighborhoods?
Table A24 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Weak
0.0%
0
Moderate
93.3%
14
Strong
6.7%
1
2. Which of the following elements are important for a sense of defined
neighborhoods? Please select all that apply.
Table A25 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.2
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Gyms
0.0%
0
Pedestrian-friendly streets
86.7%
13
Public activity centers
80.0%
12
Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
86.7%
13
Neighborhood gardens
86.7%
13
Sports grounds
13.3%
2
Community parks
86.7%
13
Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
40.0%
6
Other (please specify)
0
0
3. Please select which places you would like to have in your community in the
future.

157

Table A26 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.3
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Gyms
0.0%
0
Pedestrian-friendly streets
13.3%
2
Public activity centers
66.7%
10
Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
73.3%
11
Neighborhood gardens
60.0%
9
Sports grounds
0.0%
0
Community parks
13.3%
2
Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
0.0%
0
Other (please specify)
0
0
4. What is your general satisfaction level toward your current community
environment?
Table A27 Responses to Online Survey (A) Question IV.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Not at all satisfied
0.0%
0
Satisfied
93.3%
14
Very much satisfied
6.7%
1

158

Online Survey (B) Responses from City of Casper, Wyoming
I. Demographic Information
1. Gender
Table B1 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Male
37.5%
6
Female
62.5%
10
2. Age
Table B2 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
65～74
56.3%
9
75～84
37.5%
6
85 & Over
6.3%
1
3. Education
Table B3 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Not a high school graduate
0.0%
0
High school graduate
25.0%
4
Some College
56.3%
9
Bachelors Degree
12.5%
2
Graduate Degree
6.3%
1
4. Housing Type
Table B4 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Detached single-family home
87.5%
14
Condominium
12.5%
2
Apartment
0.0%
0
Duplex
0.0%
0
Nursing home
0.0%
0
Other (please specify)
0.0%
0
5. Period of residence in the current community

159

Table B5 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.5
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 1 year
0.0%
0
1 to 5 years
6.3%
1
More than 5 years
93.8%
15
6. Period of residence in the current home
Table B6 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.6
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 1 year
12.5%
2
1 to 5 years
37.5%
6
More than 5 years
50.0%
8
7. Health condition
Table B7 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question I.7
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Having chronical disease or other type of diseases
12.5%
2
Disabled
6.3%
1
Healthy, not having any diseases
81.3%
13
II. Awareness and Involvement
1. Have you ever heard about the active aging programs in your community?
Table B8 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
100.0%
16
No
0.0%
0
2. Please check the activities or programs for older adults which you know are in
your community.
Table B9 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Senior walking group
0.0%
0
Bike lane projects
0.0%
0
Elder exercise courses
100.0%
16
Active living courses
100.0%
16
Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
62.5%
10
3. Please check the activities or programs in which you participate.

160

Table B10 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Senior walking group
0.0%
0
Bike lane projects
0.0%
0
Elder exercise courses
100.0%
16
Active living courses
81.3%
13
Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
0.0%
0
4. Have you ever had the opportunity to participate in the planning process of the
active aging programs in your community?
Table B11 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.4a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
37.5%
6
No
62.5%
10
If yes, do their final decisions meet your needs?
Table B12 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question II.4b
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
50.0%
3
No
50.0%
3
III. Evaluation / Satisfaction
1. What is your level of agreement with the statement that the public
transportation in your community is reliable and frequent, including at night
and on weekends and holidays?
Table B13 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
43.8%
7
Neutral
43.8%
7
Agreement
12.5%
2
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
2. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to grocery stores?

161

Table B14 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
0.0%
0
Neutral
43.8%
7
Agreement
56.3%
9
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
3. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to restaurants?
Table B15 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
6.3%
1
Neutral
56.3%
9
Agreement
37.5%
6
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
4. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
use a bicycle to public facilities (e.g. health centers)?
Table B16 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
62.5%
10
Neutral
37.5%
6
Agreement
0.0%
0
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
5. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
go to health centers by public transport?
Table B17 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.5
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
0.0%
0
Neutral
81.3%
13
Agreement
18.8%
3
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
6. Which of the following amenities are sufficiently provided in the street space
within your community? Please select one or more options.

162

Table B18 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.6
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Lighting
30.8%
4
Benches
100.0%
13
Landscaping
30.8%
4
Non-slip pavements
0.0%
0
7. Do you get access to computers and the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in
public places of your community, such as government offices, community
centers and libraries?
Table B19 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.7
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
80.0%
12
No
20.0%
3
8. Do you think whether your community has provided enough affordable
housing for everybody?
Table B20 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.8a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
0.0%
0
No
100.0%
16
If No, which type of affordable housing you think your community needs to have?
Table B21 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.8b
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Need more affordable housing for low-income level
37.5%
6
Need more affordable housing for middle-income level
0.0%
0
Need more affordable housing for various income levels
62.5%
10
9. Are there a sufficient number of public toilets in your community?
Table B22 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.9a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
6.3%
1
No
93.8%
15
If yes, in which level are they clean and well-maintained?

163

Table B23 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question III.9b
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Low level
0.0%
0
Medium level
100.0%
1
High level
0.0%
0
IV. General Perception and Future Vision
1. Do you think to what extent your community gives you a sense of defined
neighborhoods?
Table B24 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Weak
18.8%
3
Moderate
81.3%
13
Strong
0.0%
0
2. Which of the following elements are important for a sense of defined
neighborhoods? Please select all that apply.
Table B25 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.2
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Gyms
6.3%
1
Pedestrian-friendly streets
87.5%
14
Public activity centers
93.8%
15
Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
87.5%
14
Neighborhood gardens
81.3%
13
Sports grounds
25.0%
4
Community parks
100.0%
16
Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
43.8%
7
Other (please specify)
0
0
3. Please select which places you would like to have in your community in the
future.

164

Table B26 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.3
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Gyms
0.0%
0
Pedestrian-friendly streets
62.5%
10
Public activity centers
93.8%
15
Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
93.8%
15
Neighborhood gardens
68.8%
11
Sports grounds
12.5%
2
Community parks
50.0%
8
Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
0.0%
0
Other (please specify)
0
0
4. What is your general satisfaction level toward your current community
environment?
Table B27 Responses to Online Survey (B) Question IV.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Not at all satisfied
31.3%
5
Satisfied
68.8%
11
Very much satisfied
0.0%
0

165

Online Survey (C) Responses from Iowa City, Iowa
I. Demographic Information
1. Gender
Table C1 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Male
33.3%
4
Female
66.7%
8
2. Age
Table C2 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
65～74
50.0%
6
75～84
50.0%
6
85 & Over
0.0%
0
3. Education
Table C3 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Not a high school graduate
0.0%
0
High school graduate
0.0%
0
Some College
25.0%
3
Bachelors Degree
41.7%
5
Graduate Degree
33.3%
4
4. Housing Type
Table C4 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Detached single-family home
91.7%
11
Condominium
8.3%
1
Apartment
0.0%
0
Duplex
0.0%
0
Nursing home
0.0%
0
Other (please specify)
0.0%
0
5. Period of residence in the current community

166

Table C5 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.5
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 1 year
0.0%
0
1 to 5 years
8.3%
1
More than 5 years
91.7%
11
6. Period of residence in the current home
Table C6 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.6
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Less than 1 year
0.0%
0
1 to 5 years
25.0%
3
More than 5 years
75.0%
9
7. Health condition
Table C7 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question I.7
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Having chronical disease or other type of diseases
8.3%
1
Disabled
8.3%
1
Healthy, not having any diseases
83.3%
10
II. Awareness and Involvement
1. Have you ever heard about the active aging programs in your community?
Table C8 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
75.0%
9
No
25.0%
3
2. Please check the activities or programs for older adults which you know are in
your community.
Table C9 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Senior walking group
0.0%
0
Bike lane projects
0.0%
0
Elder exercise courses
83.3%
10
Active living courses
58.3%
7
Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
100.0%
12

167

3. Please check the activities or programs in which you participate.
Table C10 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Senior walking group
0.0%
0
Bike lane projects
0.0%
0
Elder exercise courses
83.3%
10
Active living courses
50.0%
6
Dance, yoga, tai chi, and fitness classes
66.7%
8
4. Have you ever had the opportunity to participate in the planning process of the
active aging programs in your community?
Table C11 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.4a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
25.0%
3
No
75.0%
9
If yes, do their final decisions meet your needs?
Table C12 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question II.4b
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
33.3%
1
No
66.7%
2
III. Evaluation / Satisfaction
1. What is your level of agreement with the statement that the public
transportation in your community is reliable and frequent, including at night
and on weekends and holidays?
Table C13 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
8.3%
1
Neutral
75.0%
9
Agreement
16.7%
2
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
2. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to grocery stores?

168

Table C14 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.2
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
33.3%
4
Neutral
16.7%
2
Agreement
50.0%
6
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
3. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
walk to restaurants?
Table C15 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.3
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
33.3%
4
Neutral
41.7%
5
Agreement
25.0%
3
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
4. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
use a bicycle to public facilities (e.g. health centers)?
Table C16 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
50.0%
6
Neutral
41.7%
5
Agreement
8.3%
1
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
5. What is your level of agreement with the statement that it is very convenient to
go to health centers by public transport?
Table C17 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.5
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Strong disagreement
0.0%
0
Disagreement
8.3%
1
Neutral
66.7%
8
Agreement
25.0%
3
Strong agreement
0.0%
0
6. Which of the following amenities are sufficiently provided in the street space
within your community? Please select one or more options.

169

Table C18 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.6
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Lighting
54.5%
6
Benches
100.0%
11
Landscaping
54.5%
6
Non-slip pavements
0.0%
0
7. Do you get access to computers and the Internet, at no or minimal charge, in
public places of your community, such as government offices, community
centers and libraries?
Table C19 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.7
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
91.7%
11
No
8.3%
1
8. Do you think whether your community has provided enough affordable
housing for everybody?
Table C20 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.8a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
8.3%
1
No
91.7%
11
If No, which type of affordable housing you think your community needs to have?
Table C21 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.8b
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Need more affordable housing for low-income level
36.4%
4
Need more affordable housing for middle-income level
0.0%
0
Need more affordable housing for various income levels
63.6%
7
9. Are there a sufficient number of public toilets in your community?
Table C22 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.9a
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Yes
8.3%
1
No
91.7%
11
If yes, in which level are they clean and well-maintained?

170

Table C23 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question III.9b
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Low level
0.0%
0
Medium level
100.0%
1
High level
0.0%
0
IV. General Perception and Future Vision
1. Do you think to what extent your community gives you a sense of defined
neighborhoods?
Table C24 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.1
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Weak
16.7%
2
Moderate
83.3%
10
Strong
0.0%
0
2. Which of the following elements are important for a sense of defined
neighborhoods? Please select all that apply.
Table C25 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.2
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Gyms
8.3%
1
Pedestrian-friendly streets
91.7%
11
Public activity centers
91.7%
11
Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
100.0%
12
Neighborhood gardens
91.7%
11
Sports grounds
25.0%
3
Community parks
83.3%
10
Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
33.3%
4
Other (please specify)
0
0
3. Please select which places you would like to have in your community in the
future.

171

Table C26 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.3
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Gyms
0.0%
0
Pedestrian-friendly streets
91.7%
11
Public activity centers
91.7%
11
Street parks (e.g. Pocket parks)
100.0%
12
Neighborhood gardens
83.3%
10
Sports grounds
8.3%
1
Community parks
33.3%
4
Natural spots (e.g. Preserved areas)
0.0%
0
Other (please specify)
0
0
4. What is your general satisfaction level toward your current community
environment?
Table C27 Responses to Online Survey (C) Question IV.4
Response Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
Not at all satisfied
25.0%
3
Satisfied
75.0%
9
Very much satisfied
0.0%
0

172

APPENDIX D

The Liner Regression Model for Active Aging and Smart Growth
Table D1 Regression Statistics1
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.999840616
R Square
0.999681258
Adjusted R
0.999362516
Square
Standard Error
0.39223227
Observations
3

Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
Smart
Growth

df
1
1
2

Table D2 Regression Statistics2
SS
MS
F
482.5128205
482.5128205
3136.333333
0.153846154
0.153846154
482.6666667

Significance F
0.011366398

Table D3 Regression Statistics3
Coefficients Standard
t Stat
P-value
Lower
Upper
Lower
Upper
Error
95%
95%
95.0%
95.0%
-187.2821
4.8018 -39.0025 0.0163 -248.2946 -126.2695 -248.2946 -126.2695
2.4871795
0.0444
56.00298 0.0114 1.9228771 3.0514819 1.9228771 3.0514819

173

BIBLIOGRAPHY

174

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Pauline S., Nancy Carman, Jack Carman, and Bob Scarfo, eds. 2009.
Re-Creating Neighborhoods for Successful Aging. Baltimore, MD: Health Professions
Press.
The AdvantAge Initiative. 2010. “What is the AdvantAge Initiative?” New York, NY:
Centre for Home Care Policy and Research. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.vnsny.org/advantage/whatis.html).
Aging Initiative. 2010. “Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging Awards 2008.” US
Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.epa.gov/aging/bhc/awards/2008/index.html#casper).
“The Aging of America.” 2011. Princeton, NJ: Population Resource Center. Retrieved
June 20, 2011 (http://www.prcdc.org/300million/The_Aging_of_America/).
American Farmland Trust and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2002. “Town Meets
Country: Farm-City Forums on Land and Community.” Washington, D.C. Retrieved
June 20, 2011 (http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/Town%20Meets%
20Country.pdf).
Bailey, Linda. 2004. “Aging Americans: Stranded Without Options.” Surface
Transportation Policy Project. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/aging_stranded.
pdf).
Bass, Scott A., Francis G. Caro, and Yung-Ping Chen, eds. 1993. Achieving a Productive
Aging Society. Westport, Conn.: Auburn House.
Beard, John R. and Charles Petitot. 2010. “Ageing and Urbanization: Can Cities be
Designed to Foster Active Ageing?” Public Health Reviews 32(2): 1. Retrieved June
20, 2011
(http://www.publichealthreviews.eu/upload/pdf_files/8/Beard_forwebsite.pdf).
Bedney, Barbara J., Robert Bruce Goldberg, and Kate Josephson. 2010. “Aging in Place
in Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities: Transforming Aging through
Supportive Service Programs.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly (Special Issue:
Contemporary NORCs) 24(3-4): 304- 321. doi: 10.1080/02763893.2010.522455.
Bogers, RP, MAR Tijhuis, BM van Gelder, and D Kromhout, eds. 2005. “Final report of
the HALE (Healthy Ageing: a Longitudinal study in Europe) Project.” European Union
and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/260853003.pdf).

175

Bohl, Charles. 2002. “Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban
Villages.” Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Booth, Geoffrey, Bruce Leonard, and Michael Pawlukiewicz. 2002. “Ten Principles for
Reinventing Suburban Business Districts.” Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Retrieved June 20, 2011 (http://www.uli.org/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/~/
media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/TenPrinciples/TP_BusinessDis
tricts.ashx).
Building Healthy Communities for Active Aging National Recognition Program. 2010.
“What is Active Aging?” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved
June 20, 2011
(http://www.epa.gov/aging/resources/factsheets/build_healthy-factsheet.htm)
Burchell, Robert W., David Listokina, and Catherine C. Galley. 2000. “Smart Growth:
More than A Ghost of Urban Policy Past, Less than A Bold New Horizon.” Housing
Policy Debate. 11(4): 821- 879.
Burchell, Robert, Anthoy Downs, Barbara McCann, and Sahan Mukherji. 2005. “Sprawl
Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development.” Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Butler, Robert N., Mia R. Oberlink, Mal Schechter, and Nihon Senpaku Shinkōkai, eds.
1990. The Promise of Productive Aging: from Biology to Social Policy. New York:
Springer.
Cabinet Office. 2000. Winning the Generation Game. London: The Stationery Office.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The Merck Company Foundation. 2007.
“The State of Aging and Health in America.” Whitehouse Station, NJ: The Merck
Company Foundation. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.cdc.gov/aging/pdf/saha_2007.pdf)
Center for Land and People. 2002. “Local Greenprinting for Growth.” Trust for Public
Land. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.oakgov.com/peds/assets/docs/es_docs/gi_greenprintforgrowth_v1.pdf)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Association of Chronic
Disease Directors. 2008. “The State of Mental Health and Aging in America. Issue
Brief 1: What do the Data Tell Us?” Atlanta, GA: National Association of Chronic
Disease Directors. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.cdc.gov/aging/pdf/mental_health.pdf).
Cohen, James R. 2002, “Maryland Smart Growth: Using Incentives to Combat Sprawl.”
Pp. 293- 324 in Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, edited
by Gregory D. Squires. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

176

“Confronting the Aging Crisis in America.” 2010. Leaders 33(4): 116. Retrieved June 20,
2011(http://www.leadersmag.com/issues/2010.4_Oct/Shaping%20the%20Future/LE
ADERS-Lou-Dobbs-CNN-Frank-Corvino-Greenwich-Hospital-Jim-Beck-Home-Stead
-Aging-Crisis.html).
Congress for the New Urbanism. 2002. “Greyfields into Goldenfields: Greyfield Mall
Characteristics Revitalization Success Stories.” San Francisco: Congress for the New
Urbanism. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/Greyfield_Goldfields_vol2.pdf).
Council of Educational Facility Planners International and EPA. 2004. “Schools for
Successful Communities: An Element of Smart Growth.” Council of Educational
Facility Planners International, and United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/SmartGrowth_schools_Pub.pdf)
Cumming, Elaine and William E. Henry. 1961. Growing Old, the Process of
Disengagement. New York: Basic Books.
Day, Kristen. 2006. “Active Living and Social Justice: Planning for Physical Activity in
Low-income, Black, and Latino Communities.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 72(1): 88-99. doi: 10.1080/01944360608976726.
Dittmar, Hank and Gloria Ohland. 2004. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in
Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Doyle, Scott, Alexia Kelly-Schwartz, Marc Schlossberg, and Jean Stockard. 2006.
“Active Community Environments and Health: The Relationship of Walkable and Safe
Communities to Individual Health.” Journal of the American Planning Association
72(1): 19-31. doi: 10.1080/01944360608976721.
EPA. 2006. “Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart
Growth Solutions.” Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/EPAParkingSpaces06.pdf).
EPA. 2006-2011a. “Building a Healthy Kirkland Community.” City of Kirkland, Washington.
Retrieved June 20, 2011 (http://www.kirklandwa.gov/Community/healthy.htm).
EPA. 2006-2011b. “Active Living.” City of Kirkland, Washington. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.kirklandwa.gov/Community/healthy/Active.htm).
European Commission. 1999. Towards a Europe of All Ages. Brussels: European
Commission.
Farmland Information Center. 2001. “Fact Sheet: Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR).” American Farmland Trust. Retrieved June 20, 2011
177

(http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27746/FS_TDR_1-01.pdf).
Fausseta, Cara B., Andrew J. Kellya, Wendy A. Rogersa, and Arthur D. Fiska. 2011.
“Challenges to Aging in Place: Understanding Home Maintenance Difficulties.”
Journal of Housing for the Elderly 25(2): 125-141.
doi: 10.1080/02763893.2011.571105.
Fishman, Robert. 2000. “The American Metropolis at Century’s End: Past and Future
Influences.” Housing Policy Debate 11(1): 199-213. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text_document_summary/scholarly_article/relfiles/
hpd_1101_fishman.pdf).
Fox, Radhika. 2005. “Shared Prosperity, Stronger Regions: An Agenda for Rebuilding
America’s Older Core Cities.” PolicyLink. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97c6d565-bb43-406d-a6d5-eca3bbf35af0%7D/S
HAREDPROSPERITY-CORECITES-FINAL.PDF)
Frank, Lawrence D., James F. Sallis, Terry L. Conway, James E. Chapman, Brian E.
Saelens, and William Bachman. 2006. “Many Pathways from Land Use to Health:
Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body
Mass Index, and Air Quality.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1):
75-87. doi: 10.1080/01944360608976725.
Gillham, Oliver. 2002. The Limitless City: A Primer on the Urban Sprawl Debate.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ghazaleh, Rana A., Esther Greenhouse, George Homsy, and Mildred Warner. 2011.
“Multigenerational Planning: Using Smart Growth and Universal Design to Link the
Needs of Children and the Aging Population.” American Planning Association.
Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.planning.org/research/family/briefingpapers/pdf/multigenerational.pdf)
Glendening, Parris N. 2002. “Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative: The Next Steps.”
Fordham Urban Law Journal 29(4):1493-1508.
Goetz, Edward G. 2005. “The Big Tent of Growth Management: Smart Growth as A
Movement.” Policies for managing urban growth and landscape change: a key to
conservation in the 21st Century (Proceedings of a Symposium at the Society for
Conservation Biology 2004 Annual Meeting). St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. Retrieved June 20,
2011(http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc265/gtr_nc265_045.pdf).
G8 Information Center. 2010. Denver Summit of the Eight Communiqué, 1997.
University of Toronto: G8 Research Group. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/summit/1997denver/g8final.htm#top).

178

Harris, Jonathan M. 2000. Basic Principles of Sustainable Development. Tufts University:
Global Development and Environment Institute. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/working_papers/Sustainable%20Development
.PDF).
Haughey, Richard M. 2005. “Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact.” Washington,
DC: ULI- the Urban Land Institute. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.uli.org/sitecore/content/ULI2Home/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/Aff
ordable%20Housing/Content/~/media/Documents/ResearchAndPublications/Reports
/Affordable%20Housing/HigherDensity_MythFact.ashx)
Havighurst, Robert J. 1954. “Flexibility and the Social Roles of the Retired,” American
Journal of Sociology 59(4): 309-311.
Havighurst, Robert J. 1963. “Successful ageing” Pp. 299- 320 in Process of Ageing:
Social and Psychological Perspectives (vol.1), edited by Williams, Richard H, Clark
Tibbitts, and Wilma Donahue. New York: Atherton Press.
Havighurst, Robert J. and Albrecht, R. 1953. Older People. London: Longmans.
Hicks, Jennifer. 2005. “Eastern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision Attaining the Growth
Center Goal: Current Data.” Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. Retrieved June 20,
2011 (http://www.eslc.org/pdf/GrowthWhitePaper.pdf)
Howe, Deborah. 2001. “Aging and Smart Growth: Building Aging-Sensitive
Communities.” Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities and
Grantmakers in Aging. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.publichealthgrandrounds.unc.edu/urban/agingpaper.pdf).
ITE. 2006. “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for
Walkable Communities.” Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Retrieved June 20, 2011 (http://www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf)
ITE. 2010. Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines: An ITE Recommended Practice.
Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Jensen, Gary. 2003. “Air Quality and Transportation.” Public Roads 67(1) (The Archived
Publication of Federal Highway Administration). Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/03jul/10.cfm).
Knaap, Gerrit-Jan. 2005. “A Requiem for Smart Growth?” Pp.103-128 in Planning
Reform in the New Century, edited by Daniel R. Mandelker. Chicago: Planners Press,
American Planning Association.
Knaap, Gerrit and Emily Talen. 2005. “New Urbanism and Smart Growth: A Few Words
from the Academy”. International Regional Science Review 28(2): 107-118. Retrieved

179

June 20, 2011 (http://irx.sagepub.com/content/28/2/107.full.pdf+html).
Kochera, Andrew, Audrey Straight, and Thomas Guterbock. 2010. “Beyond 50.05: A
Report to the Nation on Livable Communities Creating Environments for Successful
Aging.” Washington, DC: AARP. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/beyond_50_communities.pdf).
Kochtitzky, Chris S., Amy L. Freeland, and Irene H. Yen. 2011. “Ensuring
Mobility-Supporting Environments for an Aging Population: Critical Actors and
Collaborations.” Journal of Aging Research 2011 (2011): 1-10.
doi:10.4061/2011/138931
Lewyn, Michael. 2003. “Twenty-First Century Planning and the Constitutions.” University
of Colorado Law Review 74(2): 651- 714. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ucollr74&id=661&collection=j
ournals&index=)
Local Government Commission. 2003. “Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your
Community.” CA: Sacramento. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.lgc.org/freepub/docs/community_design/reports/density_manual.pdf).
Meck, Stuart. 2003. “Growing Smart: Drafting the Next Generation of Model Planning
and Zoning Enabling Legislation for the United States (and Responding to Its
Critics).” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Symposium. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/events/pdf/Meck.pdf).
Mensah, George A. 2006. “Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH)
2010.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/109D9989-0FE9-401C-92E7-1A6F0689F7
55/0/CDCDisparities.pdf)
Mishra, Saraswati. 1992. “Leisure Activities and Life Satisfaction in Old Age.” Activities,
Adaptation & Aging 16(4): 7-26. doi:10.1300/J016v16n04_02
Montagu, M. F. Ashley. 1960. “Social Problems of an Aging Population.” Journal of the
National Medical Association 52(5): 338-242. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2641774/pdf/jnma00699-0028.pdf).
National Association of Realtors. Winter 2005. “Schools and Smart Growth.” On
Common Ground. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://archive.realtor.org/sites/default/files/winter05.pdf)
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2009. “Healthy
Aging Improving and Extending Quality of Life among Older Americans.” Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/pdf/healthy_aging.pdf).

180

National Council on Disability. 2004. “Livable Communities for Adults with Disabilities.”
Washington, DC: National Council on Disability. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/5/33/610395300livablecom
munities.pdf).
New York State Smart Growth Initiative. 2004. “Smart Growth History.” The New York
State Department of State. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://smartgrowthny.org/history.shtml).
Noble, Bramf and Jacjie E. Bronson. 2005. “Integrating Human Health into
Environmental Impact Assessment: Case Studies of Canada’s Northern Mining
Resource Sector.” Arctic 58(4): 395- 405. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.akhealthcaucus.org/Socio%20Eceo/Integrating%20Human%20Health%
20into%20Environmental%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf).
O’Neill, David. 1999. “Smart Growth: Myth and Fact.” Washington, DC: ULI–the Urban
Land Institute. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.uli.org/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/~/media/Documents/Research
AndPublications/Reports/SmartGrowth/SmartGrowth_MythFact.ashx).
Partners for Livable Communities. 2007. “Aging in Place Technical Assistance Guide.”
Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Communities. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.nwc.cog.co.us/docs/rrr/seniors2009/Aging%20in%20Place%20TA%20as
sessment%20guide-PartnrsLivblComm.pdf).
Partners for Livable Communities and the National Association of Area Agencies on
Aging. 2010. “A Blueprint for Action: Developing Livable Communities for All Ages.”
Washington, DC: Aging in Place Initiative. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.n4a.org/pdf/07-116-n4a-blueprint4actionwcovers.pdf).
Parzen, Julia. 2004. “Foundations and Real Estate: A Guide for Funders Interested in
Building Better Communities.” The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth. Retrieved
June 20, 2011 (http://www.fundersnetwork.org/files/learn/Foundations_and_Real_
Estate-FINAL.pdf).
Pfeiffer, Eric, ed. 1974. Successful Aging: A Conference Report. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Pointon, Brian. 2009. “Health Impact Assessment Case Study: Waihi Beach Age-friendly
HIA.” New Zealand: Bay of Plenty District Health Board. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/9402/$File/hia-case-study-waihi-beach.p
df).
Reilly, William M. 2007. “The Global Aging Problem.” United Press International, March
15. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Global_Aging_Problem_999.html).

181

Rentería, Patricia and Pilar Umaña. 2003. “Planning Scenarios for the Building up of City
Region: The Bogotá-Cundinamarca Study Case.” University of Illinois at Chicago:
City Futures Conference Program. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/papers/webpapers/cityfuturespapers/session5_
3/5_3planningscenarios.pdf).
Rodríguez, Daniel A., Asad J. Khattak, and Kelly R. Evenson. 2006. “Can New Urbanism
Encourage Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with
Conventional Suburbs.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1): 43-54.
doi: 10.1080/01944360608976723.
Rowe, John W. and Robert Kahn. 1987. “Human Aging: Usual and Successful,” Science
237(4811): 143-149. Retrieved June 20 (http://www.neiu.edu/~circill/F2121A.pdf)
Safran-Norton, Clare E. 2010. “Physical Home Environment as a Determinant of Aging in
Place for Different Types of Elderly Households.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly
24(2): 208-231. doi: 10.1080/02763891003757494.
Sikken, Bernd J., Nicholas Davis, Chiemi Hayashi, and Heli Olkkonen. 2009. “The Future
of Pensions and Healthcare in a Rapidly Ageing World: Scenarios to 2030.” Geneva:
World Economic Forum. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(https://members.weforum.org/pdf/scenarios/Pensions.pdf).
Smart Growth Online. 2011. “Smart Growth Principles.” Butte, MT: NCAT- Smart Growth.
Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.smartgrowth.org/engine/index.php/principles/).
Smart Growth Network. 2001. “What is Smart Growth?” United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/bbodas/What%20is%20Smart%20Growth%20Fact
%20Sheet.pdf)
Smart Growth Network. 2002. Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation.
Retrieved June 20, 2011 (http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf).
Smart Growth Network. 2005. Getting to Smart Growth Volume II: 100 More Policies for
Implementation. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg2.pdf).
Smart Growth Network and the National Neighborhood Coalition. 2001. “Affordable
Housing and Smart Growth: Making the Connection.” Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/epa_ah-sg.pdf).
Sobel, Lee S, William Anderson, and Jade Shipman. 2011. “Market Acceptance of Smart
Growth.” United States Environmental Protection. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/market_acceptance.pdf)

182

Stafford, Philip B. 2009. Elderburbia: Aging With a Sense of Place in America. Santa
Barbara, CA: Praeger.
STPP. 1996- 2011. “Who We Are.” Surface Transportation Policy Project. Retrieved June
20, 2011 (http://www.transact.org/who.asp)
Tang, Fengyan, and Joseph G. Pickard. 2008. “Aging in Place or Relocation: Perceived
Awareness of Community-Based Long-Term Care and Services.” Journal of Housing
for the Elderly 22(4): 404- 422. doi: 10.1080/02763890802458429.
TRB. 2004. “Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in the United States: Experiences,
Challenges, and Prospects.” Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Retrieved June 20, 2011 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_102.pdf)
UNFPA. 2007. “State of the World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban
Growth.” New York, NY: United Nations Population Fund. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2007/english/introduction.html).
United Nations. 2002. Report of the Second World Assembly on Ageing, Madrid, 8-12
April 2002. New York: United Nations Publications. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.c-fam.org/docLib/20080625_Madrid_Ageing_Conference.pdf).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2005. “Why Not in Our
Community? Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing.” Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/wnioc.pdf).
US HUD. 1991. “‘Not in My Back Yard’: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing.”
Washington, DC: Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved June
20, 2011 (http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/NotInMyBackyard.pdf).
Vladeck, Fredda, and Rebecca Segel. 2010. “Identifying Risks to Healthy Aging in New
York City's Varied NORCs.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly (Special Issue:
Contemporary NORCs) 24(3-4): 356-372. doi: 10.1080/02763893.2010.522450
Walker, Alan. 2002. “A Strategy for Active Ageing”. International Social Security Review
55(1): 121-139. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-246X.00118/pdf).
Walker, Alan. 2006. “Active Ageing in Employment: Its Meaning and Potential.”
Asia-Pacific Review 13(1): 78- 93.
Weiss, Rachael L., Juliana A. Maantay, and Marianne Fahs. 2010. “Promoting Active
Urban Aging: A Measurement Approach to Neighborhood Walkability for Older
Adults.” Cities and the Environment 3(1): 1-17.
WHO.1993. Health for All Targets: The Health Policy for Europe. Copenhagen: World

183

Health Organization. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/euro/hfas/EURO_HFAS_4_(chp1-chp4).pdf)
WHO.2001a. Health and Ageing: A Discussion Paper. Geneva: World Health
Organization. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_NMH_HPS_01.1.pdf)
WHO. 2002. Active Aging: A Policy Framework. World Health Organization (Ageing and
Life Course Program). Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf).
WHO. 2004. “Active Aging: Towards Age-friendly Primary Health Care.” WHO Library
Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241592184.pdf).
WHO. 2007a.Checklist of Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities. World Health
Organization. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Age_friendly_cities_checklist.pdf).
WHO. 2007b. “Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide”. World Health Organization.
Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_
Guide_English.pdf).
WHO. 2011. Physical Activity and Older Adults. World Health Organization. Retrieved
June 20, 2011
(http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_olderadults/en/index.html)
“WHO - Age Friendly Cities.” 2010. Ireland: Netwell Centre. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.netwellcentre.org/projects/100-who-age-friendly-cities.html).
WHO Age-Friendly Environments Programme. 2011. “Ageing and Life Course.” World
Health Organization. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.who.int/ageing/age_friendly_cities/en/index.html).
WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities. 2009. “Info Brochures - AFC Network.”
World Health Organization. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.who.int/ageing/Brochure-EnglishAFC9.pdf)
WHO Healthy Cities Network. 2003. “Phase IV (2003–2007) of the WHO Healthy Cities
Network in Europe: Goals and Requirements”. Copenhagen: Health Documentation
Services, WHO Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/101110/E81924.pdf).
Wismar, Matthias, Julia Blau, Kelly Ernst, and Josep Figueras, ed. 2007. “The
Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment: Scope and Limitations of Supporting

184

Decision-making in Europe.” World Health Organization, and the European
Observatory on Health Systems and Polices. Retrieved June 20, 2011
(http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/98283/E90794.pdf).

185