Most older Americans don’t reside in “livable” communities that combine safety, security and affordability with appropriate housing and transportation options, and supportive features and services that enhance personal independence, allow residents to remain in their homes as they age, and foster residents’ engagement in civic, economic, and social life.
In a 33-page paper titled “Which Older Adults Have Access to America’s Most Livable Neighborhoods,” the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University and AARP’s Public Policy Institute draw upon information from the 2017 American Communities Survey (ACS)—whose estimates categorize 217,739 Census neighborhood block groups—as a guide to analyze AARP’s 2018 Livability Index, an online interactive source that scores neighborhoods across the U.S. to shed light on the current livability of a given location and to highlight opportunities for improvement.
The Index derives from more than 4,500 questionnaire respondents and 80 in-depth interviews, as well as input from 30 experts in various fields.
The paper also used ACS microdata to examine profiles of older adults residing in neighborhoods with different levels of livability to suggest opportunities for addressing inequality in access to livable communities, and to the specific elements certain populations lack even in the most livable places.
The paper’s goal is to evaluate whether access to livable communities is evenly distributed across the older adult population, to assess how older adults access livability features, and to understand the characteristics of higher performing communities.
DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND WHAT THEY NEED
Some key findings:
•Nearly 146 million Americans of all ages live in neighborhoods at the bottom two quintiles in terms of livability. And older adults are underrepresented in most livable communities; in the least livable quintile, adults age 55 or older made up near one-third of residents.
•Older adults who move tend to relocate to newer places with similar levels of overall livability as their previous neighborhoods. Only 11% move to more livable locations, and 14% actually move to neighborhoods with lower livability scores.
•There is a relationship between different types of livable neighborhoods and income, race/ethnicity characteristics, and homeownership. “At every level of livability, homeownership and income play important roles in accessing features that contribute to high scores in specific livability categories,” the paper’s authors write.
Certain themes also emerged from this research:
•Livability gap. There is a disconnect between what people have and what they need in communities to age in place.
•Housing affordability. Communities that score higher on the Index tend to have higher housing costs. High housing costs can create obstacles to accessing the benefits livable communities can provide.
•Disparities in access to specific livability features. People of color, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes may not have access to amenities and services that support aging. As the analysis shows, even when living in high scoring communities these groups may not have access to amenities and services related to health, engagement, and opportunity.
•Mobility. People tend to move to places with similar livability levels as their previous neighborhood.
•Neighborhood preferences and location choice. Individual preferences, barriers, and available community amenities may impact people’s decisions on where to live.
POLICY SUGGESTIONS INCLUDE PROMOTING HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENTS
Livable communities tend to have diverse housing types that include more single-person households, where older adults are more likely to reside. This factor might explain why, on average, older renters live in more livable places than do older owners.
The likelihood of living in livable communities shifts somewhat with the person’s age. Among older adults, those ages 50 to 64 as well as those ages 80 and older have a slightly better chance of living in a high livability neighborhood than do those ages 65 to 79. Among those ages 80 and older, 18 percent reside in the top quintile neighborhoods but only 16 percent of those ages 65 to 79 do. In contrast, those ages 65 to 79 are more likely than other age groups to live in lower-livability neighborhoods.
The paper offers policy recommendations that focus on housing affordability and access, creating save neighborhoods that have ample food and culture available, environments that promote healthy, clean and natural places to live; and communities that supporting resident well-being and social lives, and enable economic and educational pursuits.
“By analyzing the Index in conjunction with Census block group data from the ACS, we have revealed specific areas that warrant focused attention,” the paper states. “Housing stock, tenure, and affordability have particular influences on the access older adults have to the most livable communities.” While this analysis could not reveal if the most vulnerable older people residing in livable communities have equal access to every feature, service, and amenity, “one expects they do not.”
Related Stories
Market Data | Jun 16, 2021
Construction input prices rise 4.6% in May; softwood lumber prices up 154% from a year ago
Construction input prices are 24.3% higher than a year ago, while nonresidential construction input prices increased 23.9% over that span.
Market Data | Jun 16, 2021
Producer prices for construction materials and services jump 24% over 12 months
The 24.3% increase in prices for materials used in construction from May 2020 to last month was nearly twice as great as in any previous year
Market Data | Jun 15, 2021
ABC’s Construction Backlog inches higher in May
Materials and labor shortages suppress contractor confidence.
Market Data | Jun 11, 2021
The countries with the most green buildings
As the country that set up the LEED initiative, the US is a natural leader in constructing green buildings.
Market Data | Jun 7, 2021
Construction employment slips by 20,000 in May
Seasonally adjusted construction employment in May totaled 7,423,000.
Market Data | Jun 2, 2021
Construction employment in April lags pre-covid February 2020 level in 107 metro areas
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land and Odessa, Texas have worst 14-month construction job losses.
Market Data | Jun 1, 2021
Nonresidential construction spending decreases 0.5% in April
Spending was down on a monthly basis in nine of 16 nonresidential subcategories.
Market Data | Jun 1, 2021
Nonresidential construction outlays drop in April to two-year low
Public and private work declines amid supply-chain woes, soaring costs.
Market Data | May 24, 2021
Construction employment in April remains below pre-pandemic peak in 36 states and D.C.
Texas and Louisiana have worst job losses since February 2020, while Utah and Idaho are the top gainers.
Market Data | May 19, 2021
Design activity strongly increases
Demand signals construction is recovering.