828058

research-article2019
JPEXXX10.1177/0739456X19828058Journal of Planning Education and ResearchWarner and Zhang

Planning Research

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Planning Communities for All Ages

1­–14
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X19828058
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X19828058
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpe

Mildred E. Warner1 and Xue Zhang1

Abstract
Using a 2013 national survey of 1,474 U.S. communities, we differentiate communities that address the needs of children
and seniors in planning and zoning codes, and their impacts on the built environment at the street, neighborhood, and
housing levels. Structural equation modeling results show engagement and professionalism are the most important drivers
of multigenerational planning and zoning codes, and zoning has the greatest impact on built environment outcomes. Denser,
larger communities are more child- and age-friendly. Rural communities and places with more seniors lag in response.
Attitudes and income are not barriers to action, which gives hope for change.

Keywords
multigenerational planning, built environment, public participation, child- and age-friendly communities

Introduction has analyzed how planning responds to the needs of seniors

As America faces the “silver tsunami” of an increasing aging
population, it also faces a challenge to invest in children. A
quarter of the population will be above sixty-five years by
2060 (Mather, Jacobsen, and Pollard 2015). Nearly half of
seniors will be minorities by 2060, while the population
below age twenty will be composed of 53 percent minorities
thirty years earlier (Mather, Jacobsen, and Pollard 2015).
Although metro core areas attract young people, family-aged
adults are attracted by suburbs, and seniors often move to
micropolitan and rural areas (Johnson and Winkler 2015).
Different demands of diverse age groups and ethnic groups
generate the challenge for planners to provide comprehen-
sive services for all ages.
Traditionally comprehensive planning, land use, and
transportation have not given explicit attention to the needs
of seniors and children, but that is changing. The American
Planning Association (APA 2014) published a Policy Guide
to Aging in Communities in 2014, which emphasized the
need to rethink land use, housing, and transportation policy
to address the needs of an aging society. In 2008, the APA
published a Planning Advisory Service Memo on Planners’
Role in Creating Family-Friendly Communities (Israel and
Warner 2008). Similarly, AARP launched its livability index
in 2014 with an explicit focus on aspects of the built environ-
ment which make communities good places to age in place
(AARP 2014; Harrell et al. 2014).
This paper presents an analysis of the results of a national
survey we conducted of city and county planners and manag-
ers on the ways they are responding to the need to plan for
children and seniors. We take a multigenerational approach
because we recognize the similarities in addressing the needs
of seniors and families with children. Although past research
(Lehning 2012, 2014; Warner, Homsy, and Morken 2017) or
children (Boarnet, Greenwald, and McMillan 2008; Passon,
Levi, and Rio 2008; Severcan 2015a; Warner and Rukus
2013), no survey has explored how planners and city manag-
ers plan across generations. This paper addresses that gap.
In the analysis that follows, we discuss the literature on
child- and age-friendly built environments, zoning, multi-
generational planning, and the motivations and barriers to
addressing the needs of children and seniors. We then present
our survey data. With the data, we are able to answer key
questions: what factors drive communities to develop com-
prehensive plans and zoning codes that explicitly address the
needs of children and seniors? What differentiates multigen-
erational planning at the street, neighborhood, and housing
level and across metro status? We discuss results based on
the conceptual framework linking multigenerational plan-
ning, zoning codes, and the built environment.
Literature Review
The United States is growing older and more diverse. A
larger older population and more younger minorities raise
the demand to build age-friendly communities which deliver
supportive services across the life cycle (Warner, Homsy,
1
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Initial submission, June 2018; revised submissions, October and December
2018; final acceptance, January 2019.
Corresponding Author:
Mildred E. Warner, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell
University, 215 W. Sibley Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Email: mwarner@cornell.edu
2 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
and Morken 2017). Seniors need more supportive services
(Thiede et al. 2017; Warner, Xu, and Morken 2017), while
young families with children also need supportive services
as well as access to education and job training (Myers 2007;
Warner and Rukus 2013). APA recognizes that seniors, fam-
ilies with young children, and youth share common needs
(Ghazaleh et al. 2011; Warner 2017). The World Health
Organization’s (WHO) eight domains of age-friendly com-
munities overlap with the requirements of the United
Nations Children’s Fund’s (UNICEF) child-friendly cities in
terms of basic services, especially health services, safe
streets and outdoor spaces, civic participation, and social
inclusion (UNICEF 2004, 2018; WHO 2007). This overlap
makes possible a comprehensive, all ages, planning
approach.
Child and Age-Friendly Built Environment and
Zoning Design
Creating child and age-friendly communities requires
changes in land use and zoning. Zoning historically sepa-
rated the private sphere—home—from the public sphere—
work (Hirt 2013). This history of segregated land use, which
isolated home and family, has its legacy in increased trans-
portation burdens for women and greater isolation for chil-
dren and seniors (Markovich and Hendler 2006; Rapino and
Cooke 2011). Families with children and older adults need
mobility, housing, and services, but their territorial range is
often limited, making mixed use and broader mobility sup-
ports critical for their quality of life (Boarnet, Greenwald,
and McMillan 2008; Pratt and Warner 2018; Rudner 2012).
Today, a host of research recognizes the critical importance
of access—to food, to park space, to medical services, and to
spaces for civic engagement (Frank 2000; Lui et al. 2009;
Woolcock and Steele 2008).
To achieve change in the built environment requires a
shift in planning modalities. As communities age, planners
are beginning to recognize the need to shift paradigms from
a focus on commuting and economic development to a focus
on mobility and quality of life for residents—many of whom
are not primarily workers (Lynott, Fox-Grage, and Guzman
2013). Historically, land use planning was focused on sepa-
ration of spheres—industrial, commercial, and residential.
This post–World War II planning paradigm has its roots in
antiquated notions of gender, and reified Euclidean zoning
which prevented even child care from being colocated in
residential neighborhoods (Micklow and Warner 2014). But
today’s shift to mixed use recognizes the benefits of co-locat-
ing services and residences.
The complete streets movement is one example of this
shift in paradigm—de-privileging the car and recognizing
the diversity of users and uses of public streets (Laplante and
McCann 2008). Transportation planners are beginning to
shift their focus from commuting to mobility—a paradigm
shift that recognizes the multiple trips and purposes of
travel—not just for work but for school, shopping, child
care, and recreation (Crane 2007). Indeed, much recent work
on transportation emphasizes active transportation to encour-
age walking and biking (Riggs and Steiner 2016). Possibilities
brought by new transportation technology may also enhance
mobility of seniors (Shirgaokar 2018).
Housing policy is also shifting (Hirt 2013; Lehning 2012;
Lipman, Lubell, and Salomon 2011). The rise in single per-
son households requires identification of new housing types,
such as accessory flats. These can help to densify existing
neighborhoods, which can make providing services more
economical. This also can address the housing needs of
seniors who wish to remain in their neighborhoods but need
informal supports, which may be provided by a family mem-
ber living nearby (Keenan 2010). The increase in the aging
population also raises the need for accessible housing to help
them age in place (Pynoos et al. 2008; Smith, Rayer, and
Smith 2008; Smith et al. 2012). Universal design guidelines
can ensure that new housing construction will meet the needs
of an aging population. At the same time, there is a shortage
of affordable, family-sized housing. Planning and zoning
rules can be used to encourage development of affordable
housing. If a community promotes an all-generation
approach, it is more likely to sustain demographic and eco-
nomic vitality (Myers 2015).
Design guidelines for building more child- and age-
friendly communities generally adhere to New Urbanist
principles of density, walkability, and mixed use (Duany
and Plater-Zyberk 2009; Howe 2012; Lui et al. 2009;
Woolcock and Steele 2008). AARP and APA recommend
design guidelines that promote neighborhood connectivity,
mixed used, walkability, park access, child care within
residential neighborhoods, and a variety of housing types
to meet different household needs (APA 2014; Kochera,
Straight, and Guterbock 2005). Cities have led the way in
becoming more age-friendly (Lehning 2012, 2014) and
both WHO and AARP have created age-friendly cities net-
works. Although much research focuses on urban areas,
rural and suburban areas face even greater challenges to
building walkable, mixed use environments, due to devel-
opment patterns based on automobile travel. One problem
with these guidelines is they are more difficult for rural
and suburban communities to implement. Indeed, the
research finds rural and suburban communities lag in age-
friendly design and services, despite the fact that suburban
and rural communities have higher concentrations of chil-
dren and seniors (Glasgow and Brown 2012; Warner,
Homsy, and Morken 2017; Warner, Xu, and Morken 2017;
Zhang, Warner, and Firestone 2019). The history of land
use leaves a built environment layer which is difficult to
change in the short term. Coordination of land use with
transportation can help to address these challenges (Frank
2000; Steiner 2012). Planning, zoning, and building codes
can set the standards for future growth and help communi-
ties become more livable (Wagner and Caves 2012).
Warner and Zhang 3
Multigenerational Approach
Class, race, and age composition create challenges for
communities in addressing their shifting demographics
(Johnson and Winkler 2015; Mather, Jacobsen, and Pollard
2015). Younger residents are more likely to be people of
color and of lower economic status, while the older gen-
erations are predominantly white (Ghazaleh et al. 2011), so
longtime residents may seek to use planning and zoning to
limit undesired demographic change. Ethnic and class dif-
ferences between the younger and older populations can
make identification of commonalities in service needs and
public spending priorities difficult (Warner, Homsy, and
Greenhouse 2010). Myers (2015) argues that we need a
new generational compact which recognizes that the
younger generation is the future workforce and residence
base of our communities, and this should create positive
synergies with older adults. A 2008 APA national survey of
planners shows that 90 percent of planners believe that
communities populated with people of every age bracket
are more vibrant (Israel and Warner 2008). A multigenera-
tional approach can improve both the built environment
and service delivery for both children and seniors (Warner
2017; Warner and Homsy 2015). Indeed, we are seeing a
rise in multigenerational households, especially among
families of color (Pew Research Center 2010). Concerns
over safety can be a barrier to change, but where social
cohesion is greater, sense of public safety can promote pro-
grams, such as community policing, which build bridges
across the community (Rukus, Warner, and Zhang 2018).
The challenge at the community level is to help city man-
agers and residents see these connections.
Although the Federal government is primarily respon-
sible for funding programs that benefit seniors (Social
Security, Medicare), state and local governments are pri-
marily responsible for services that benefit children and
families (e.g., public schooling) (Isaacs 2009). With devo-
lution, expenditures are increasingly shifting to the state
and local level—for Medicaid, paratransit, Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and so on (Hahn
et al. 2017; Xu and Warner 2016). Programs for seniors
and children are typically separate, but new approaches
seek to build partnerships across agencies and create
intergenerational programs (Kaplan and Sanchez 2014).
Such a multigenerational approach can reduce conflict
between generations, increase programmatic synergies to
benefit all ages, and produce economies of scale (Warner
and Morken 2013).
Comprehensive planning provides the vision for the
future of a community. Shifting from a primary focus on eco-
nomic development to a focus on quality of life requires
attention to the needs and voices of children and seniors.
Such a multigenerational planning approach affords the pos-
sibility of meeting the needs of both groups without compro-
mising either. Although UNICEF and WHO focus on the
child and senior end of the spectrum, respectively, there are
many commonalities in the needs and planning responses to
both groups.
A key question is how to motivate change at the com-
munity level. Participation is key to planning (Brody
2003; Deyle and Slotterback 2009; Milgrom 2003). Both
UNICEF, with its child-friendly guidelines, and WHO,
with its age-friendly guidelines, emphasize the impor-
tance of participation (UNICEF 2004, 2018; WHO 2002,
2007). Children, parents, and seniors need to be engaged
to help communities recognize and respond to their needs
(Passon et al. 2008; Severcan 2015a; Zhang et al. 2019).
New York City and Atlanta are two well-known U.S. cases
where cities launched major initiatives to elicit the voices
of seniors in their age-friendly designs (Keyes et al. 2014;
Morken 2012). A survey by the National Area Agencies on
Aging found participation was the key variable explaining
differences in level of planning action to support age-
friendly services in U.S. communities (N4A 2011; Warner,
Homsy, and Morken 2017). Engaging the voices of chil-
dren is less common than those of seniors. Work has been
done on various approaches—from UNICEF’s Growing
up in Cities project (Driskell 2002), to youth planning
work (McKoy and Vincent 2007), to the work on safe
spaces and modalities to engage children’s voices in the
planning process (Severcan 2015b). An APA study of fam-
ily-friendly cities found participation of families with
children was more important than community attitudes in
explaining differences in level of planning actions that
create more family-friendly environments (Warner and
Rukus 2013).
This paper explores the potential of a multigenerational
planning approach using national survey data that differen-
tiate community attitudes and motivations regarding
seniors and children, social cohesion and safety, participa-
tion and professional local government leadership on com-
prehensive planning, zoning, and built environment
outcomes at the housing, street, and neighborhood level.
We expect communities that include the needs of seniors
or children in their plans will have more zoning codes that
give attention to their needs. We expect those communities
will have more positive attitudes about seniors and chil-
dren, rank higher on motivations, have greater social cohe-
sion and sense of safety, and have more participation and
professional local government leadership. Where coverage
of zoning codes is higher, we expect more age-friendly
built environment outcomes at the street, neighborhood,
and housing level. We also control for socioeconomic con-
ditions and metro status. We expect age-friendly communi-
ties will be more common in larger, denser, and growing
places, as well as those with more seniors and children,
while places with higher poverty and higher inequality are
less likely to engage in multigenerational planning. We
also expect suburbs and rural communities may lag behind
urban in building age-friendly communities.
4 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)

Figure 1.  Conceptual framework.

Method
Data
We have built a rich, detailed national data set on comprehen-
sive plans, planning and zoning codes, and built environment
features at the community level to test these hypotheses. We
conducted the first national survey on Planning across
Generations in 2013. To design the survey, we held focus
groups with city managers and planners at national confer-
ences of the APA, the International City/County Management
Association (ICMA) and the Transforming Local Government
conference in 2012. Each focus group was composed of twelve
to fifteen city/county managers across the United States. To
get at the special concerns and challenges faced by smaller and
rural communities, we worked with the Small Town and Rural
Division of the APA. In these focus groups, planners and city
managers spoke about the importance of community attitudes,
community engagement of families with children and seniors,
and cross-agency partnerships. Focus group respondents pro-
vided specific examples of services and planning and zoning
codes that should be measured.
The survey was sent to city and county planners and man-
agers across the United States in summer of 2013 by the
ICMA. The sample frame included all counties and all
municipalities over twenty-five thousand population, a one
in three sample of municipalities below twenty-five thou-
sand, and a one-in-2.5 sample of towns and townships over
two thousand five hundred in population for a total of 7,948
local governments. A total of 1,474 places responded for a
response rate of 19 percent.1
The survey measured community planning practices, and
attitudes and motivations for addressing the needs of seniors
and families with young children. The survey also measured
characteristics of the built environment of municipalities,
and their planning and zoning codes. Although 80 percent of
responding communities had comprehensive plans, only 52
percent of communities had plans that specifically addressed
the needs of children or seniors, and only 39 percent
addressed the needs of both groups. On almost every mea-
sure, the survey found that metro core communities have
more child- and age-friendly attitudes, motivations, plan-
ning, zoning, and built environment outcomes, and suburban
and rural communities have fewer.
We build a structural equation model (SEM) to explain
what differentiates communities that adopt comprehensive
plans which address the needs of children and seniors, and
zoning codes responsive to their needs. We assess the role of
plans and zoning codes on built environment outcomes at the
street, neighborhood, and housing level. We control for atti-
tudes, motivators, and socioeconomic characteristics of com-
munities. A conceptual model is provided in Figure 1.
Measures
Comprehensive Planning
The survey asked if a community has a comprehensive plan,
and if the comprehensive plan specifically addresses the
“needs of families with children,” “plans for schools or
school siting,” and “needs of seniors.” We built an index to
reflect the extent to which a community considers the needs
of children and seniors in its comprehensive plan. Twenty
percent of responding communities did not have a compre-
hensive plan and we coded them as 0. If a community had a
comprehensive plan, but did not specifically address the
Warner and Zhang 5
needs of either children or seniors, we coded it as 1. If a com-
munity’s comprehensive plan only addressed the needs of
children or only addressed the needs of seniors, we coded it
as 2. If the comprehensive plan considered both children and
seniors, we coded it as 3. We expect communities that include
the needs of seniors or children in their plans will be more
likely to develop zoning codes that give attention to their
needs.
Zoning Codes
The survey measured zoning codes and subdivision regula-
tions in communities. Respondents assessed the extent to
which the codes covered the entire community (0% = 1,
0%–25% = 2, 25%–50% = 3, 50%–75% = 4, ≥75% = 5).
We aggregated these on a scale of 1 to 5 for a score reflecting
the percent of community covered by the codes. Code ele-
ments were grouped into street-related codes, neighborhood-
related codes and housing-related codes. For a list of survey
questions on planning and zoning codes and built environ-
ment outcomes at the street, neighborhood, and housing
environment level, see Table 1.
The street code index contained mandating sidewalks,
pedestrian-friendly design, and complete streets. The neigh-
borhood code included density bonuses, child care, parks or
recreation facilities, and mixed use. Density bonuses were
least common (median score = 2, indicating more than 50%
of respondents reported less than 25% of their community
was covered by street codes). Neighborhood codes regarding
parks or recreation facilities are the most common (median
score 4, indicating more than 50% of respondents report
these codes cover more than 50% of their community). The
housing code index included affordability, family housing,
and universal design. Universal design and accessory units
were least likely to be reported; more than half of respon-
dents reported these codes cover less than 25 percent of their
community (median score 2). By contrast, more than half of
respondents reported family-sized housing was allowed by
zoning codes in more than 50 percent of their community
(median score 4). We expect communities that cover more of
their community with zoning codes will have better built
environment outcomes.
Built Environment Outcomes
We measured built environment at three levels: the street
environment, the neighborhood environment, and housing
environment in the community (Table 1). As with zoning
codes, respondents reported the percent of the community
(0% = 1, 0%–25% = 2, 25%–50% = 3, 50%–75% = 4,
≥75% = 5) that contains each element.
At the street level, sidewalks were most common, more
than 50 percent of respondents reporting sidewalks in more
than 25 percent of their community (median score 3). Bike
lanes and complete streets were less common; more than 50
percent of respondents reported these elements exist in less
than 25 percent of their community (median score 2). At the
neighborhood level, while neighborhood schools were
reported in more than 50 percent of the community by more
than half of all respondents (median score 4), the other neigh-
borhood measures were reported in less than half of the com-
munity by the majority of respondents (median score 3). An
adequate supply of “affordable, quality child care” was
reported by 56 percent of respondents. Elements in our hous-
ing environment measure were on a 0/1 scale where 1 =
adequate supply. The housing environment outcome index
included affordable housing, family-sized housing, rental
housing, and senior housing.
Attitudes
The survey explored whether city managers saw connections
between the needs of children and seniors. Eleven survey
questions, measured on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), were aggregated into an attitude index.
Elements included attitudes about the needs, contributions,
costs, and values around seniors and children in communities
(see Table 1 for specific attitudes and their levels). Although
attitudes were very positive about serving children and
seniors (median score: 4, agree), city managers recognized
both the tax cost and consumer benefit of these groups
(median score: 3, neutral). We expect communities which
have more positive attitudes about seniors and children will
be more likely to plan for their needs.
Motivations
The survey asked about factors that motivate municipalities
to engage in multigenerational planning for seniors and fam-
ilies with children. We aggregated all six items (measured as
1 = yes) for both children and seniors to compose the moti-
vation index (Table 1). The most common motivations
reported by respondents are the availability of funding (56%
for seniors, 49% for families with children), and the desire to
attract or retain population (43% for seniors, 39% for fami-
lies with children). Rankings for children and seniors are
similar. We expect communities ranking higher on motiva-
tions to exhibit higher levels of planning and action.
Social Cohesion and Safety
We measured social cohesion from the survey items: “My
community is not divided by race, class, or old-timer/new-
comer divisions” and “Ethnic or cultural diversity has led to
new approaches to planning or programming for all ages.”
Safety is measured from the item “Crimes rates are low in
my community” and “Residents feel safe and secure in
streets and parks.” Each of these items was measured on a
5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
We expect communities with greater social cohesion and
6 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)

Table 1.  List of Planning across Generations Survey Elements.

Zoning codes: Does your community have zoning, subdivision regulations, or building codes? If yes, in what percent of your community do those
regulations do the following? Code: 0% = 1, 0%–25% = 2, 25%–50% = 3, 50%–75% = 4, ≥75% = 5. Median values are shown below.
1. Zoning code-street
•• Mandate sidewalk system (3).
•• Contain pedestrian-friendly design guidelines (3).
•• Require street connections between adjacent developments (3).
•• Require “complete streets” (2).
2. Zoning code-neighborhood
•• Provide density bonuses (e.g., for affordable housing, open space, transit) (2).
•• Allow child care centers (3).
•• Allow child care business in residential units by right (3).
•• Promote parks or recreation facilities in all neighborhoods (4).
•• Allow mixed use (e.g., retail and services in residential areas) (3).
3. Zoning code-housing
•• Promote affordable housing (3).
•• Allow family-sized housing (with 2 or more bedrooms) (4).
•• Allow multifamily housing (3).
•• Mandate universal design for new housing construction (physically accessible to people with limited mobility) (2).
•• Allow accessory dwelling units (e.g., “granny flats”) (2)
Built environment outcomes: “What percent of your community contains the following? Code: 0% = 1, 0%–25% = 2, 25%–50% = 3,
50%–75% = 4, ≥75% = 5” Median values are shown below.
1. Street
•• Sidewalk system connecting residences and services (3).
•• Bike lanes (2).
•• “Complete streets” (i.e., designed for all modes of transit—walking, biking, and so on—not only cars) (2)
2. Neighborhood
•• Neighborhood schools (4).
•• Park or playground within half-mile of every resident (3).
•• Public gathering spaces (e.g., coffee shop/cafe, retail hub) (3).
•• A mix of retail, services, and housing (3).
•• Access to fresh food markets (3).
•• Affordable, quality child care (56% yes).
3. Housing
•• Affordable housing (55% yes).
•• Family-sized housing (2+ bedrooms) (82% yes).
•• Rental housing (68% yes).
•• Senior housing (52% yes).
Attitudes: Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements, scale of 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 =
neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. Median values are shown below.
•• When communities provide services for seniors and children, all community members benefit (4).
•• Seniors are a resource for the community (4).
•• Children are a resource for the community (4).
•• The community has a responsibility to care for seniors (4).
•• The community has a responsibility to care for children and youth (4).
•• Communities that keep people for their entire life span are more vibrant (4).
•• The needs of families with young children are similar to the needs of the elderly with regard to the physical environment (e.g.,
walkability, parks, transportation, affordable housing) (4).
•• Families with children generate insufficient tax revenue to cover the cost of services they demand (3).
•• Seniors generate insufficient tax revenue to cover the cost of services they demand (3).
•• Families with children represent a valuable consumer population (4).
•• Seniors represent a valuable consumer population (4).
Motivations: What motivates you to engage in multigenerational planning for seniors and families with children? Percentage of yes for
seniors, or families with children are shown below, respectively.
•• Availability of government funding for services or programs (56% seniors, 49% families with children).
•• Pressure from local elected leaders (28% seniors, 25% families with children).
•• Interest of staff or prioritization by staff (38% seniors, 37% families with children).
•• Pressure from business/nonprofit leaders (18% seniors, 19% families with children).
•• Political engagement of seniors (families with children) (39% seniors, 31% families with children).
•• Desire to attract or retain seniors (children) in the community (43% seniors, 39% families with children).

Source: ICMA Planning across Generation Survey 2013, N = 1,474 U.S. municipalities.
Note: ICMA = International City/County Management Association.
Warner and Zhang 7
sense of safety will be more likely to engage in multigenera-
tional planning.
Participation and Professional Leadership
The survey explored the engagement of youth, families with
young children, and seniors in community planning. The
engagement of each group was measured on a 3-point scale
(0 = not at all engaged, 1 = somewhat engaged, and 2 =
very engaged). We added these three items across the three
age groups to build an engagement index (0–9).
The survey also asked about the nature of the communi-
ty’s governing board/council. Respondents were asked to
check if their governing board was “conservative” (43%),
“evenly mixed” (49%), or “liberal” (7%), and if the govern-
ing board was “representative of elites” (8%), “evenly
mixed” (40%), or “representative of community” (52%). We
expect conservative councils may be less likely to engage in
multigenerational planning, but councils that are representa-
tive of community would be more likely, regardless of politi-
cal orientation.
Cross-agency partnerships can be especially important in
addressing the needs of children and seniors (Firestone,
Keyes, and Greenhouse 2018). The survey asked if the plan-
ning department was engaged in cross-agency partnerships
to serve children or seniors, and 28 percent of respondents
reported that it was. We expect communities whose planning
department engages in such partnerships are more likely to
engage in multigenerational planning.
We also control for communities that have the council
manager form of government (48% of our sample), because
we expect these communities to be more professional
(Hefetz, Warner, and Vigoda-Gadot 2014) and thus more
likely to engage in multigenerational planning.
Socioeconomic Conditions
We controlled for local socioeconomic conditions. These
variables include the following: demographics (popula-
tion, population growth, population density, percentage of
white population, percentage of population above sixty-
five years, percentage of population below eighteen
years), and socioeconomic factors (per capita income,
poverty rate, Gini). These variables are all drawn from the
American Community Survey 2009–2013 estimates. We
expect larger, denser, and growing places, as well as those
with more seniors and more children to be more likely to
engage in multigenerational planning. We expect places
with higher poverty and higher inequality to be less likely
to engage in multigenerational planning. We also control
for median age of housing in the community. We expect
older communities to have better built environments
because of the acceleration of sprawl since 1950
(Barrington-Leigh and Millard-Ball 2015; Goetz 2013).
Older communities are more likely to exhibit some of the
mixed use and transportation features more conducive to
age-friendly planning.
We also control for metro status, distinguishing principal
cities and counties in the metro core from suburban and rural
(nonmetro) areas using 2010 U.S. Census place definitions
and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 2010 stan-
dards (No. 13-01 Bulletin) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013a,
2013b). We expect urban core places to be more likely to
engage in multigenerational planning. Descriptive statistics
are shown in Table 2.
Analytic Approach
We ran a structural equation model (SEM) to explore the
framework of our analysis, as shown in Figure 1. SEM can
be used to assess theoretical models, analyze interactive rela-
tionships in multivariate data, and estimate sub models
simultaneously (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; McDonald
and Ho 2002). Advantages of SEM over multivariate regres-
sion include more straightforward and integrative tests of the
coefficients, and the intuitive path analysis (Bagozzi and Yi
2012). SEM also includes maximum likelihood methods to
estimate the coefficients and address missing values (Allison
2003; Enders and Bandalos 2001). We ran SEM in STATA
14.0 without latent factors. First, we ran an overall model
(combining answers for children and seniors). Next, we com-
pared two separate models based on the child measures and
senior measures.2
Results
We ran SEM to estimate the interaction between comprehen-
sive plans, zoning codes and built environment, controlling
for motivations, attitudinal factors, social cohesion and
safety, participation and professionalism, and socioeconomic
conditions. Model results for direct effects are shown in
Table 3. We report the standardized coefficients, so we can
compare the marginal effect of each independent variable on
the dependent variables.
Our SEM results for the overall models show that profes-
sionalism (0.13 planning department, 0.15 manager) and safety
concerns (0.13) are the main factors driving comprehensive
plans which address the needs of children and seniors.
Engagement (0.08) and motivations (0.08) (such as funding
and community pressure) are also related to comprehensive
planning, but the impacts of both factors on comprehensive
planning are about 75 percent of the impacts of professionalism
and safety on planning (0.08 compared with 0.13). Communities
with a conservative council (−0.06) and higher percentage of
white population (−0.06) are less likely to include the concerns
of children and seniors in their comprehensive plans.
Comprehensive planning is the main factor differentiating
zoning codes at the street (0.15), neighborhood (0.13), and
housing level (0.12). Communities with a planning depart-
ment and more engagement of people from all ages also have
8 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)

Table 2.  Descriptive Statistics.

Variable Mean SD Minimum Maximum

a
Comprehensive planning (number of measurements = 3) 1.70 1.18 0 3
Zoning codes
  Zoning codes—street (number of elements = 4, scale 1 to 5)a 12.24 5.11 4 20
  Zoning codes—neighborhood (number of elements = 5, scale 1 to 5)a 14.42 4.48 5 25
  Zoning codes—housing (number of elements = 5, scale 1 to 5)a 14.59 4.07 5 25
Built environment outcomes
  Street (number of elements = 3, scale 1 to 5)a 7.35 2.70 3 15
  Neighborhood (number of elements = 5, scale 1 to 5, one element, yes = 1)a 16.36 4.95 5 26
  Housing (number of elements = 4, yes = 1)a 2.55 1.33 0 4
Attitude (number of measurements = 11, scale 1 to 5)a 42.00 4.71 14 53
Motivation (number of measurements = 6, children and seniors)a 4.21 3.39 0 12
Social cohesion and safety
  Social cohesion (number of elements = 2, scale 1 to 5)a 6.47 1.53 2 10
  Safety (number of elements = 2, scale 1 to 5)a 7.85 1.65 2 10
Participation
  Engagement (number of measurements = 3, level from 0 to 2)a 2.57 1.32 0 6
  Conservative council/board (yes = 1)a 0.43 0.50 0 1
  Representative of community council/board (yes = 1)a 0.52 0.50 0 1
Professionalism
  Planning department in cross-agency partnership (yes = 1)a 0.28 0.45 0 1
  Council manager (yes = 1)a 0.48 0.50 0 1
Socioeconomic conditions
 Demography
  Population (log)b 9.87 1.34 6.48 14.51
   Population growth (%)b 16.69 51.62 −43.06 770.76
   Population density (log)b 6.07 2.09 −3.25 10.87
   Percentage of population above sixty-five years (%)b 14.98 5.51 1.81 58.77
   Percentage of population below eighteen years (%)b 23.49 4.88 1.10 43.98
   Percentage of white population (%)b 82.84 16.54 3.91 100.00
 Economy
   Per capita income (log)b 10.15 0.32 8.62 11.56
   Poverty rate (%)b 14.55 8.18 0.29 53.16
  Ginib 0.43 0.05 0.26 0.62
Age of housing
  Median age of housing (2013 minus median year structure built)b 38.66 13.54 9 74
Metro status
  Rural (yes = 1)c 0.33 0.47 0 1
  Metro core (yes = 1)c 0.15 0.36 0 1
  Suburban (yes = 1)c 0.51 0.50 0 1

Note: ICMA = International City/County Management Association.

a
ICMA Planning across Generation Survey 2013, N = 1,474 municipalities.
b
American Community Survey 2009–2013.
c
U.S. Census 2010.

more age-friendly zoning codes. The impact of engagement
on zoning codes at the neighborhood (0.17) and housing
(.16) levels is larger than the impact of comprehensive plan-
ning (0.13 neighborhood, 0.12 housing). Although profes-
sionalism matters, its effect on zoning codes is lower than its
effect on comprehensive planning.
The zoning code index has the largest impact on built envi-
ronment outcomes, compared with all other variables. Also
affecting street and neighborhood built outcomes are population
(0.14, 0.14), population density (0.07, 0.24), and the age of
housing (0.12, 0.14), but the relative size of the impacts is
about a quarter the impact of zoning codes on street outcomes
(0.61), and a third of the impact of zoning codes on neighbor-
hood outcomes (0.37). Population density has the largest posi-
tive impact on housing outcomes (0.18), which is two times
more than the impact of zoning code and population on hous-
ing. Both per capita income and poverty rate have a large neg-
ative impact on housing outcomes (−0.22 and −0.19).
Warner and Zhang 9

Table 3.  Planning for All Ages: SEM Results—Standardized Coefficients.

Dependent variables

Zoning codes Built environment outcomes

Comprehensive
Independent variables Planning Street Neighborhood Housing Street Neighborhood Housing
a
Comprehensive planning — 0.151** 0.126** 0.117** −0.008 0.060* 0.029
Motivationa 0.080** 0.044 0.057 0.046 — — —
Attitudea 0.001 −0.021 0.048 0.022 — — —
Safetya 0.127** 0.117** 0.072* −0.001 — — —
Social cohesiona −0.021 — — — — — —
Participation
 Engagementa 0.078** 0.113** 0.174** 0.155** — — —
  Conservative council/boarda −0.056* −0.078** −0.033 −0.078** — — —
  Representative of community council/boarda 0.007 0.009 0.085** 0.075** — — —
Professionalism
  Planning departmenta 0.132** 0.068** 0.060* 0.099** — — —
 Managera 0.146** 0.100** 0.016 0.079** — — —
Zoning codes
  Zoning codes—streeta — — — — 0.607** — —
  Zoning codes—neighborhooda — — — — — 0.369** —
  Zoning codes—housinga — — — — — — 0.094**
Socioeconomic conditions
  Population (log)b 0.062 0.112** 0.082* 0.042 0.135** 0.145** 0.072*
  Population growth (%)b −0.001 0.056* 0.027 0.001 0.030 −0.004 −0.060*
  Population density (log)b — — — — 0.067* 0.240** 0.181**
  Percentage of population above sixty-five — −0.078** −0.044 −0.074* — — —
years (%)b
  Percentage of population below eighteen — 0.088** 0.033 −0.007 — — —
years (%)b
  Percentage of white population (%)b −0.059* — — — — — —
  Per capita income (log)b 0.026 0.038 −0.015 −0.032 — — −0.225**
  Poverty rate (%)b — — — — — — −0.189**
 Ginib −0.032 — — — — — —
  Median age of housingb — — — — 0.116** 0.145** −0.019
  Metro corec −0.013 0.057 0.032 0.063 0.027 −0.047 −0.055
 Ruralc −0.086** −0.106** −0.018 −0.008 0.050 0.051 −0.134**

Note: — = variables are not estimated in this model. Goodness of fit = 0.5638. N = 1,474 U.S. counties and municipalities. SEM = structural equation
model; ICMA = International City/County Management Association.
a
ICMA Planning across Generation Survey 2013.
b
American Community Survey 2009–2013.
c
U.S. Census 2010.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Regarding controls, population has its largest impact
on street codes (0.11) and street and neighborhood out-
comes (0.14). Communities with more seniors (popula-
tion above sixty-five years) and conservative councils
have less age-friendly street and housing codes (both
coefficients are −0.08). By contrast, communities with
more population below eighteen years have more street
codes (0.09), and communities with a representative
board have more neighborhood codes (0.09) and housing
codes (0.08). Rural areas lag in comprehensive planning
(−0.09), street codes (−0.10), and housing outcomes
(−0.13) relative to suburbs.
Our revised conceptual framework shows the main model
results in Figure 2.
Our SEMs allow us to account for indirect effects as well
as direct effects. We found comprehensive planning is indi-
rectly related to higher street outcomes and has a larger total
effect on street outcomes than neighborhood outcomes. Our
indirect effect models also show that rural areas lag in zoning
codes at the street, neighborhood, and housing level, which
results in a more negative effect on street and housing
outcomes.3
We also ran separate models for child- and senior-
friendly, distinguishing the following variables by their
10 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Figure 2.  Summary of main findings.
Note: “+” denotes a positive relation and “–” denotes a negative relation.
focus on children or focus on seniors: engagement, attitudes,
motivations, and comprehensive plan. The basic results
found in the overall model generally hold. Engagement,
professionalism, and safety matter for both the child-focused
and senior-focused models. These models confirm that fac-
tors motivating actions for child- and age-friendly planning
are similar. Multigenerational planning creates the possibil-
ity of building age-friendly communities for children and
seniors at the same time.
Although rural areas were less likely to have child- and
age-friendly comprehensive plans in the overall and child-
focused model, rural areas show no difference in the senior
model. Although attitudes and motivation had no effect on
street codes in the overall or senior model, attitudes had a
negative effect on street codes in the child model and motiva-
tions had a positive effect on planning, street, and neighbor-
hood codes. Places that have negative attitudes about the tax
cost of children are less likely to plan for their needs, but this
may be offset by motivations responding to funding and
community pressure, which were significant in the child-
focused model. Planning had a positive effect on neighbor-
hood outcomes in the overall and child model, but not in the
senior model. Recall the neighborhood outcome measure
included features such as neighborhood schools, parks, and
child care, which would be of special concern to families
with young children, but not seniors.
Discussion
What differentiates communities that have age-friendly com-
prehensive planning and zoning codes? Our models confirm
the primary importance of engagement and professionalism.
Among all the variables, professionalism has the largest
impact on whether a community has a comprehensive plan
which addresses the needs of children and seniors.
Comprehensive planning and engagement of families with
children and seniors are the main factors driving age-friendly
zoning codes at the street, neighborhood, and housing levels.
These results confirm the importance of the WHO and
UNICEF recommendations for child- and age-friendly com-
munities, which emphasize the importance of participation
of children and seniors in planning for their needs (UNICEF
2004, 2018; WHO 2007). Income has no effect on compre-
hensive planning or zoning, which suggests community
wealth may not be a barrier to more age-friendly planning
and zoning.
Attitudes and social cohesion have no effect on planning or
zoning. This result is similar to results found on family-friendly
planning, where actions, not attitudes, matter (Warner and
Rukus 2013). Safety is a motivator for communities to include
child- and age-friendly elements in their comprehensive plans.
The links between child-friendly planning and broader com-
munity safety have been confirmed in other studies (Rukus and
Warner 2013; Severcan 2015b; Rukus et al. 2018).
Zoning codes need to be more responsive to the needs of
children and seniors. Places with more older population actu-
ally show less age-friendly street and housing codes. These
could be communities with outdated street and housing
codes, which need assistance in learning how to address their
needs. Increased community awareness is part of what
AARP’s age-friendly cities initiative is trying to achieve.
The story is a little better for children. Communities with
a higher percentage of children have more responsive street
codes, but we find no effect on neighborhood or housing
codes. Transportation funding has highlighted the needs of
children through programs such as walk-to-school and com-
plete streets. Indeed, the APA’s family-friendly survey, in
2008, found complete streets were one of the most common
planning actions reported, and walk to school programs were
the most common example given in the open-ended part of
the survey (Israel and Warner 2008).
Density and historical development patterns have an
important impact on neighborhood character. Places with
higher population density and older housing show more
child- and age-friendly built environment outcomes at the
street and neighborhood levels. These include mixed use and
walkability, which are key age-friendly features. Design
guidelines for building age-friendly communities focus on
Warner and Zhang 11
density, walkability, and mixed use (Duany and Plater-
Zyberk 2009; Howe 2012), which is led by cities (Lehning
2012, 2014). Our models confirm this urban bias. Larger
communities have more street and neighborhood codes and
more built environment outcomes, while rural areas lag
behind in comprehensive planning. Rural roads are less ame-
nable to complete street modalities or walkability, and rural
areas lack density for housing choices. Although suburbs
have been challenged to meet changing population needs
(Micklow and Warner 2013; Nelson 2009), we find they per-
form similar to urban core places.
The history of the built form is easier to change in the
short term for street and neighborhood scale elements (e.g.,
transportation and mixed use), but harder to change for hous-
ing. Although places with growing population have more
age-friendly street codes, they have less age-friendly housing
outcomes. Older neighborhoods show more street and neigh-
borhood outcomes, but not more age-friendly housing out-
comes. Housing outcomes are primarily determined by
market forces. Our models find comprehensive planning has
no effect on housing, while income and poverty have the
largest negative impact of all of the housing model variables.
Despite the increasing need for accessible housing (Pynoos
et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2012), our models show that meeting
housing demand for children and older adults is least likely
where need is greatest. Future research needs to explore how
planning can have more of an impact on a market-dominated
sector like housing.
Our study has some limitations. First, most survey ques-
tions were asked as a scale from 1 to 5. We add up the ordinal
measures to create our indicators. We assume equal distance
between each scale, which may cause estimation bias
(Bound, Brown, and Mathiowetz 2001). Second, we exam-
ine the interaction between comprehensive planning, zoning
code index, and built environment outcomes, but local gov-
ernment service delivery is not measured. Where the built
environment impedes aging in place, service delivery could
help make up the gap. Future research could examine the role
of services in age-friendly communities.
Conclusion
This study analyzes the first ever national survey of planning
across generations. Although the majority of communities
have comprehensive plans, only half of them address the
needs of either children or seniors, and only a third address
the needs of both groups. Communities that incorporate the
needs of children and seniors in their comprehensive plans
have more child- and age-friendly elements in their planning
and zoning codes, and such codes, in turn, have a positive
impact on built environment outcomes at the street, neigh-
borhood, and housing level. Professionalism leads to more
age-friendly planning and zoning, but participation of fami-
lies with children and seniors has an even greater impact.
History also matters, with older communities having more
age-friendly street and neighborhood design. Density also
helps create more child- and age-friendly neighborhood and
housing outcomes.
What do these results suggest for planners who would like
to enhance the child and age friendliness of their communi-
ties? First, WHO and UNICEF are correct—participation of
families with children and seniors is key to crafting the zon-
ing and building codes that will help meet their needs.
Second, professional leadership by planners helps, which
confirms the value of initiatives like APA’s Aging in
Community Policy Guide and AARP’s Age-Friendly cities.
Third, attitudes, whether positive or negative, are not the pri-
mary motivators or barriers. However, safety concerns do
motivate planning, as do funding and community pressure.
Although some fear that an aging society will create
competition between children and seniors, many of the
needs are the same, and most factors motivating action are
similar. Our models show that we can create child- and age-
friendly communities at the same time. A multigenerational
planning approach can ensure that the needs of residents
across the life cycle are met. Planning and zoning have a
critical impact, especially when community engagement
addresses age-friendly communities.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Chad Nabity and Dave Gattis of the Small
Town and Rural Division of the American Planning Association
(APA), Evelina Moulder and Tad McGalliard of ICMA, Ramona
Mullahey of the Private Practice Division of the APA, Rodney
Harrell and Jana Lynott of AARP, George Homsy of Binghamton
University, and Esther Greenhouse and Lynn Ross for their help with
focus groups, survey design, and early critiques of our analysis.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was supported in part by U.S. Department of Agriculture,
National Institute for Food and Agriculture Grant no. 2011-68006-
30793 and 2019, forthcoming.
Notes
1. A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for the distribution
of population between the universe and sample data found no
difference. A t test for metro status found the sample had more
rural areas.
2. Structural equation model (SEM) results for the children and
seniors sub models (using unique measures for comprehensive
planning, attitudes, motivations, and engagement) are avail-
able in Online Appendices A1 to A3 and B1 to B3.
3. SEM results for indirect effect and total effect in the overall
model are available in Online Appendix C1 and C2. The results
12 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
from the total effect model show that comprehensive planning
is positively related to street outcomes (0.08). The results from
indirect model show that rural areas lag in street codes (−0.01),
neighborhood codes (−0.01), and housing codes (−0.01).
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
ORCID iD
Mildred E. Warner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0109-338X
References
AARP. 2014. Livability Index. Washington, DC: AARP. https://
livabilityindex.aarp.org/.
Allison, Paul D. 2003. “Missing Data Techniques for Structural
Equation Modeling.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112 (4):
545–57. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.112.4.545.
APA (American Planning Association). 2014. Aging in Community
Policy Guide. Chicago: American Planning Association.
https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/agingincom-
munity.htm.
Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice—A Review and Recommended
2-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–23.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 2012. “Specification,
Evaluation, and Interpretation of Structural Equation Models.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (1): 8–34.
doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x.
Barrington-Leigh, Christopher, and Adam Millard-Ball. 2015.
“A Century of Sprawl in the United States.” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 112 (27): 8244–9.
Boarnet, Marlon G., Michael Greenwald, and Tracy E. McMillan.
2008. “Walking, Urban Design, and Health—Toward a
Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 27 (3): 341–58. doi:10.1177/073
9456x07311073.
Bound, John, Charles Brown, and Nancy Mathiowetz. 2001.
“Measurement Error in Survey Data.” Handbook of
Econometrics (5):3705-843.
Brody, Samuel D. 2003. “Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder
Participation on the Quality of Local Plans Based on the
Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management.” Journal
of Planning Education and Research 22 (4): 407–19. doi:10.11
77/0739456x03022004007.
Crane, Randall. 2007. “Is There a Quiet Revolution in Women’s
Travel? Revisiting the Gender Gap in Commuting.” Journal of
the American Planning Association 73 (3): 298–316.
Deyle, Robert, and Carissa Schively Slotterback. 2009. “Group
Learning in Participatory Planning Processes: An Exploratory
Quasi-experimental Analysis of Local Mitigation Planning in
Florida.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 29 (1):
23–38. doi:10.1177/0739456x09333116.
Driskell, David. 2002. Creating Better Cities with Children and
Youth: A Manual for Participation. Paris: UNESCO.
Duany, Andres, and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. 2009. Lifelong
Communities: A Regional Guide to Growth and Longevity.
Atlanta: Atlanta Regional Commission.
Enders, Craig K., and Deborah L. Bandalos. 2001. “The Relative
Performance of Full Information Maximum Likelihood
Estimation for Missing Data in Structural Equation Models.”
Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal 8
(3): 430–57. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0803_5.
Firestone, Stephanie, Laura Keyes, and Esther Greenhouse. 2018.
“Planners and Aging Professionals Collaborate for Livable
Communities.” Working with Older People 22 (1): 20–29.
Frank, Lawrence D. 2000. “Land Use and Transportation
Interaction—Implications on Public Health and Quality of
Life.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (1):
6–22. doi:10.1177/073945600773583670.
Ghazaleh, Rana Abu, Esther Greenhouse, George C. Homsy,
and Mildred E. Warner. 2011. “Using Smart Growth and
Universal Design to Link the Needs of Children and the
Aging Population.” https://www.planning.org/publications
/document/9148235/ Accessed October 9, 2018.
Glasgow, Nina, and David L. Brown. 2012. “Rural Ageing in the
United States: Trends and Contexts.” Journal of Rural Studies
28 (4): 422–31.
Goetz, Andrew. 2013. “Suburban Sprawl or Urban Centres:
Tensions and Contradictions of Smart Growth Approaches in
Denver, Colorado.” Urban Studies 50 (11): 2178–95.
Hahn, Heather, Laudan Y. Aron, Cary Lou, Eleanor Pratt, and
Adaeze Okoli. 2017. Why Does Cash Welfare Depend on
Where You Live? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Harrell, Rodney, Jana Lynott, Shannon Guzman, and Cheryl
Lampkin. 2014. “What is Livable? Community Preferences
of Older Adults.” Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy
Institute. http://www.aarp.org/research/ppi/liv-com2/policy
/Other/articles/what-is-livable-AARP-ppi-liv-com/ Accessed
May 8, 2014.
Hefetz, Amir., Mildred Warner, and Eran Vigoda-Gadot. 2014.
“Professional Management and Local Government Service
Delivery: Strategic Decisions across Alternative Markets.”
Public Performance & Management Review 38 (2): 261–83.
doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.983829.
Hirt, Sonia. 2013. “Home, Sweet Home: American Residential
Zoning in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 33 (3): 292–309. doi:10.1177/07394
56x13494242.
Howe, Deborah. 2012. “Aging as the Foundation for Livable
Communities.” In Community Livability: Issues and
Approaches to Sustaining the Well-being of People and
Communities, edited by Fritz Wagner and Roger Caves, 81–98.
New York: Routledge.
Isaacs, Julia B. 2009. How Much Do We Spend on Children and the
Elderly? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Israel, Evelyn, and Mildred. E. Warner. 2008. “Planning for Family
Friendly Communities.” PAS Memo. Chicago: American
Planning Association.
Johnson, Kenneth M., and Richelle L. Winkler. 2015. “Migration
Signatures across the Decades: Net Migration by Age in U.S.
Counties, 1950-2010.” Demographic Research 32:1065–80.
Kaplan, Matthew, and Mariano Sánchez. 2014. “Intergenerational
Programs and Policies in Ageing Societies.” In International
Handbook on Ageing and Public Policy, edited by Sarah
Harper and Kate Hamblin, 367–83. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar.
Warner and Zhang 13
Keenan, Teresa A. 2010. Home and Community Preferences of
the 45+ Population. Washington, DC: AARP Research &
Strategic Analysis.
Keyes, Laura, Deborah R. Phillips, Evelina Sterling, Tyrone
Manegdeg, Maureen Kelly, Grace Trimble, and Cheryl
Mayerik. 2014. “Transforming the Way We Live Together—A
Model to Move Communities from Policy to Implementation.”
Journal of Aging & Social Policy 26 (1/2): 117–30.
Kochera, Andrew, Audrey Straight, and Thomas Guterbock. 2005.
Beyond 50.05: A Report to the Nation on Livable Communities-
creating Environments for Successful Aging. Washington, DC:
AARP.
LaPlante, John, and Barbara Mccann. 2008. “Complete Streets:
We Can Get There from Here.” Institute of Transportation
Engineers 78 (5): 24–28.
Lehning, Amanda J. 2012. “City Governments and Aging in Place:
Community Design, Transportation and Housing Innovation
Adoption.” The Gerontologist 52 (3): 345–56.
Lehning, Amanda J. 2014. “Local and Regional Governments and
Age Friendly Communities: A Case Study of the San Francisco
Bay Area.” Journal of Aging & Social Policy 26 (1–2): 102–16.
Lipman, Barbara, Jeffrey Lubell, and Emily Salomon. 2011.
Housing an Aging Population: Are We Prepared? Washington,
DC: Center for Housing Policy. https://www.aarp.org/content/
dam/aarp/livable-communities/old-learn/housing/housing-an-
aging-population-are-we-prepared-2012-aarp.pdf.
Lui, Chi Wai., Jo-Anne Everingham, Jeni Warburton, Michael
Cuthill, and Helen Bartlett. 2009. “What Makes a Community
Age Friendly: A Review of International Literature.”
Australasian Journal on Ageing 28 (3): 116–21.
Lynott, Jana, Wendy Fox-Grage, and Shannon Guzman. 2013.
Weaving It Together: A Tapestry of Transportation Funding for
Older Adults. Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute.
Markovich, Julia, and Sue Hendler. 2006. “Beyond ‘Soccer Moms’
Feminist and New Urbanist Critical Approaches to Suburbs.”
Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (4): 410–27.
Mather, Mark, Linda A. Jacobsen, and Kelvin M. Pollard. 2015.
Aging in the United States. Washington, DC: Population
Reference Bureau.
McDonald, Roderick P., and Moon-Ho Ringo Ho. 2002. “Principles
and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation Analyses.”
Psychological Methods 7 (1): 64–82.
McKoy, Deborah L., and Jeffrey M. Vincent. 2007. “Engaging
Schools in Urban Revitalization: The Y-PLAN (Youth—
Plan, Learn, Act, Now!).” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 26 (4): 389–403.
Micklow, Amanda C., and Mildred E. Warner. 2014. “Not Your
Mother’s Suburb: Remaking Communities for a More Diverse
Population.” The Urban Lawyer 46 (4): 729–51.
Milgrom, Richard. 2003. Sustaining Diversity: Participatory
Design and the Production of Urban Space. Toronto: York
University.
Morken, Lydia. 2012. New York City and Atlanta: Cities Plan for
the Aging Population. Ithaca: Department of City and Regional
Planning, Cornell University. https://www.giaging.org/docu
ments/New_York_City_and_Atlanta_Cities_Plan_for_the
_Aging_Populatioon.pdf Accessed January 21, 2019.
Myers, Dowell. 2007. Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New
Social Contract for the Future of America. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Myers, Dowell. 2015. “Mutual Benefits and Equity Amid Racial
Diversity: A Generational Strategy for Growing a Broader Base
of Support for Social Equity.” Journal of Planning Education
and Research 35 (3): 369–75.
N4A (National Association of Area Agencies on Aging). 2011. The
Maturing of America: Communities Moving Forward for an
Aging Population. Washington, DC: National Association of
Area Agencies on Aging.
Nelson, Arthur C. 2009. “Catching the Next Wave: Older Adults
and the ‘New Urbanism.’” Generations 33 (4): 37–42.
Passon, Camille, Daniel Levi, and Vicente del Rio. 2008.
“Implications of Adolescents’ Perceptions and Values for
Planning and Design.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 28 (1): 73–85. doi:10.1177/0739456x08319236.
Pew Research Center. 2010. The Return of the Multi-Generational
Family Household. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/18/the-return-of-the-
multi-generational-family-household/.
Pratt, Eleanor E., and Mildred E. Warner. 2018. “Imagining the
‘Good Place’: Public Services and Family Strategies in Rural
Ecuador.” Rural Sociology. Published electronically August
20. doi:10.1111/ruso.12231.
Pynoos, Jon, Christy Nishita, Caroline Cicero, and Rachel
Caraviello. 2008. “Aging in Place, Housing, and the Law.”
Elder Law Journal 16:77–107.
Rapino, Melanie A., and Thomas J. Cooke. 2011. “Commuting,
Gender Roles, and Entrapment: A National Study Utilizing
Spatial Fixed Effects and Control Groups.” The Professional
Geographer 63 (2): 277–94.
Riggs, William, and Ruth L. Steiner. 2016. “The Built Environment
and Walking.” In Walking: Connecting Sustainable Transport
with Health, edited by Corinne Mulley, Klaus Gebel, and Ding
Ding, 139–65. Bingley: Emerald.
Rudner, Julie. 2012. “Public Knowing of Risk and Children’s
Independent Mobility.” Progress in Planning 78 (1): 1–53.
Rukus, Joseph, and Mildred E. Warner. 2013. “Crime Rates and
Collective Efficacy: The Role of Family Friendly Planning.”
Cities 31:37–46.
Rukus, Joseph, Mildred E. Warner, and Xue Zhang. 2018.
“Community Policing: Least Effective where Need is
Greatest.” Crime & Delinquency 64 (14): 1858–81.
doi:10.1177/0011128716686339.
Severcan, Yucel Can. 2015a. “Planning for the Unexpected: Barriers
to Young People’s Participation in Planning in Disadvantaged
Communities.” International Planning Studies 20 (3): 251–69.
Severcan, Yucel Can. 2015b. “The Effects of Children’s
Participation in Planning and Design Activities on Their Place
Attachment.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research
32 (4): 271–93.
Shirgaokar, Manish. 2018. “Expanding Seniors’ Mobility Through
Phone Apps: Potential Responses from the Private and Public
Sectors.” Journal of Planning Education and Research.
Published electronically April 16. doi:10.1177/07394
56X18769133.
Smith, Stanley K., Stefan Rayer, and Eleanor A. Smith. 2008.
“Aging and Disability: Implications for the Housing Industry
and Housing Policy in the United States.” Journal of the
American Planning Association 74 (3): 289–306.
Smith, Stanley K., Stefan Rayer, Eleanor A. Smith, Zhenglian
Wang, and Yi Zeng. 2012. “Population Aging, Disability and
14 Journal of Planning Education and Research 00(0)
Housing Accessibility: Implications for Sub-national Areas in
the United States.” Housing Studies 27 (2): 252–66.
Steiner, Ruth L. 2012. “Does Land Use and Transportation
Coordination Really Make A Difference in Creating
Livable Communities?” In Community Livability: Issues
and Approaches to Sustaining the Well-Being of People
and Communities, edited by Fritz Wagner and Roger Caves,
223–48. New York: Routledge.
Thiede, Brian C., David L. Brown, Scott R. Sanders, Nina Glasgow,
and László J. Kulcsár. 2017. “A Demographic Deficit? Local
Population Aging and Access to Services in Rural America,
1990–2010.” Rural Sociology 82 (1): 44–74.
UNICEF. 2004. Building Child Friendly Cities: A Framework for
Action. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,
International Secretariat for Child Friendly Cities. http://www.
unicef-irc.org/publications/416.
UNICEF. 2018. Shaping Urbanization for Children: A Handbook
on Child-Responsive Urban Planning. New York: UNICEF.
https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_103349.html.
US Census Bureau. 2013a. Principal Cities of Metropolitan and
Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Washington, DC: Office of
Management and Budget. https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/metro-micro/geographies/reference-files/2013/delinea-
tion-files/list2.xls.
US Census Bureau. 2013b. Core Based Statistical Areas and Combined
Statistical Areas. Washington, DC: Office of Management and
Budget. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/metro-
micro/geographies/reference-files/2013/delineation-files/list1.xls.
Wagner, Fritz, and Roger Caves, eds. 2012. Community Livability:
Issues and Approaches to Sustaining the Well-being of People
and Communities. New York: Routledge.
Warner, Mildred E. 2017. Multigenerational Planning: Theory
and Practice. iQuaderni di Urbanistica Tre, 14. http://www.
urbanisticatre.uniroma3.it/dipsu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/
u3_quaderni_14_warner.pdf.
Warner, Mildred E., and George C. Homsy. 2015. “Multi-
Generational Planning: Integrating the Needs of Elders and
Children.” In International Perspectives on Age Friendly
Cities, edited by Frank Caro and Kelly Fitzgerald, 227–40.
New York: Routledge.
Warner, Mildred E., George C. Homsy, and Esther Greenhouse.
2010. “Multigenerational Community Planning: Linking the
Needs of Children and Elders.” Planning for Family Friendly
Communities Briefing Paper. Ithaca: Cornell University.
http://economicdevelopmentandchildcare.org/documents/
technical_assistance/planning_family_friendly/issue_multi-
generational.pdf Accessed January 21, 2019.
Warner, Mildred E., George C. Homsy, and Lydia J. Morken.
2017. “Planning for Aging in Place: Stimulating a Market and
Government Response.” Journal of Planning Education and
Research 37 (1): 29–42.
Warner, Mildred E., and Lydia Morken. 2013. “Building Child
and Age Friendly Communities in Tight Fiscal Times.” In
The Municipal Year Book 2013, 47–56. Washington, DC:
International City County Management Association.
Warner, Mildred E., and Joseph Rukus. 2013. “Planners’ Role in
Creating Family-Friendly Communities: Action, Participation
and Resistance.” Journal of Urban Affairs 35 (5): 627–44.
Warner, Mildred E., Yuanshuo Xu, and Lydia J. Morken. 2017.
“What Explains Differences in Availability of Community
Health-Related Services for Seniors in the United States?”
Journal of Aging and Health 29 (7): 1160–81. doi:10.1177/
0898264316654675.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. Active Ageing: A Policy
Framework. Madrid: WHO https://extranet.who.int/agefriend-
lyworld/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WHO-Active-Ageing-
Framework.pdf.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2007. Global Age-Friendly
Cities: A Guide. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. http://www.who.
int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_
English.pdf.
Woolcock, Geoff, and Wendy Steele. 2008. Child-friendly
Community Indicators– A Literature Review. Queensland, AU:
Griffith University.
Xu, Yuanshuo, and Mildred E. Warner. 2016. “Does Devolution
Crowd Out Development? A Spatial Analysis of US Local
Government Fiscal Effort.” Environment and Planning A 48
(5): 871–90. doi:10.1177/0308518X15622448.
Zhang, Xue., Mildred E. Warner, and Stephanie Firestone. 2019.
“Overcoming Barriers to Livability for All Ages: Inclusivity is
the Key.” Urban Planning. doi:10.17645/up.vXiX.1892
Author Biographies
Mildred E. Warner is a professor of city and regional planning at
Cornell University, where her work focuses on local government
service delivery, finance, and economic development policy and
planning. Her research covers privatization, fiscal stress, planning
across generations (children and elders), economic development,
and environmental sustainability.
Xue Zhang is a PhD candidate in regional science at Cornell
University. She is interested in age-friendly community develop-
ment from an international perspective, sustainable development,
equity, and community development policy.