NEW HARVARD/AARP REPORT FINDS MOST OLDER ADULTS DO NOT RESIDE IN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES

 From a press release from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University about a newly released report, Which Older Adults Have Access to America’s Most Livable Neighborhoods? An Analysis of A ARP’s Livability Index commissioned by the AARP Public Policy Institute:

“While livability is ultimately subjective, the AARP Livability Index identifies key aspects of the built, economic, and social environments that contribute to community and individual well-being, and measures the degree to which those aspects are present in communities. Using data from the Index and the American Community Survey, the new report finds that renters and Asian older adults are more likely to live in high livability neighborhoods while homeowners, middle-income households, older adults with disabilities, and white older adults are more common in places of low livability. Shares of Black and Hispanic older adults hold steady across neighborhoods of all levels of livability.” ... 

 

Flickr photo, Seattle Department of Transportation.

 “This report illustrates the challenges that many communities face in supporting people as they age,” says Rodney Harrell, VP of Family Home and Community at AARP. “We need to ensure equitable access to the benefits that livable communities can offer, including for those living in higher-scoring neighborhoods. Every neighborhood has tradeoffs and every community can improve. Our findings support policy solutions to address barriers and improve livability for people of all ages and older adults more specifically.”

My reaction:

Probably it's true that most older adults don't reside in livable communities.  Fortunately, I do.  And I am in a situation of two households in one, including two people 83 years old, one with dementia.

In terms of communities using the index to make improvements, or for households using the index as a way to choose a place to live, I still see some problems with the way that the AARP Livability Index measurement is set up.

I can't claim I've drilled down deeply into every element of the Index, of which there are seven:

• housing
• neighborhood
• transportation
• environment
• health
• engagement
• opportunity

but overall, the index is pretty impressive, with many factors captured within each category. It's pretty thorough. 

Although arbitrary at times. E.g., only counting a library if it's within a half mile. The metrics communities use for providing library "levels of service" aren't set up to provide that level of service. It'd need to be weighted to be more accurate and useful. Like a library within a half mile gets a stellar weight, but a library still within a mile still gets a positive, but lower rating. 

(Salt Lake City is 80 square miles and has a main library and seven branches.  Residents also have access to the County Library system, which doesn't have any libraries within the city limits.  DC is 60 square miles and has a main library and 25 branches.  In terms of personal experience, I'd say that both cities are reasonably served.  But DC might have too many libraries, although it'd rate more highly on the AARP Livability Index, arguably the more branch libraries, the less well stocked they are with materials.  For example, Salt Lake City's branch libraries have much better periodical collections than any of DC's branches, even in the wealthiest areas. )

Weighting for mobility and age and physical ability.  To be most useful, the index needs to be weighted mode, age and physical (cap)ability to make it truly applicable for individual households. E.g., I'd say it needs to be in tranches by age, mode, and assistance needs.   

Photo: Capitol Hill, DC.  The man used to bike by himself but eventually realized he was excluding his wife.  So they got a tandem bike.

AARP starts asking people to join at their 50th birthday. There's a big difference between a 50 year old with full faculties and physical capabilities, and an 83 year old with dementia or someone who needs an assistive device and or an "attendant" to get around.

Similarly, I understand the focus on walkability as a a primary metric, but at a certain age, it's not practical in terms of speed and carrying capacity for an 83 year old to walk a half mile to the grocery store and back.  Especially if you are impaired or need assistive devices to move around, etc.

But being able to move around your neighborhood, for exercise, is important. But even in the last year, having experienced a couple illnesses, our familial range in walking on daily exercise walks has been cut in half in terms of capability. 

We were talking with a friend about a park 1.2 miles away. She asked if we walked there. It would take at least an hour just to get there, with two 83 year olds, and then we'd have to get back. 

As much as I push sustainable mobility, it's not practical for many of the aged. Especially with transit. 

Even before the dementia became pronounced, I used to ruminate about the impossibility of wrangling two people then in their late 70s on the subway during rush hour. 

Although outside of the major city transit systems, transit isn't as rushed and crowded so it is probably less of a deal in Salt Lake as it would be in DC or NYC or Chicago or Boston. 

I write about the sustainable mobility platform as being comprised of a network of modes = walking + biking and micromobility + transit + car sharing (including access to one way and two way and a variety of vehicles to meet different needs) + delivery + taxi/ride hailing, 

In DC, with biking complemented by car share and transit and walking we didn't need to own a car. But if Suzanne's parents had joined us in DC, definitely we would have needed to get a car.

Flickr photo by Ed Yourdon, New York City.

Salt Lake's car sharing options are minimal and while the bus service is pretty extensive and we're in a good area for service, it's pretty time consuming to get somewhere.  

The light rail and commuter rail are polycentric systems, not really useful for getting around "within a place," more about traveling long distances.

I was doing an itinerant job this week, fortunately a few blocks away, while some other people working there took more than an hour to get there on transit, from a distance of 5-6 miles. For me it was a five minute bike ride.  (And it'd have been a 30 minute bike ride had I lived in the other place.)

The same goes for mobility and the aged. For our two households in one: me at 60, my partner, 53 and her two parents at 83, one with dementia, when we travel together we mostly drive, except for exercise-based local walking. 

Baltimore.

Even 7 months ago, we could manage a half mile walk with them to the grocery (we'd carry the groceries), but not now, as health conditions have changed. 

 But that doesn't prevent me from cycling on trips on my own, be it to the grocery or work or a library or whatever. (Suzanne doesn't bike.) 

Basing the index on type of mobility (mode).  Were I creating this kind of livability index, I'd make it work with a number of options, not unlike Google Maps, which gives you the option to choose four different modes to get somewhere: driving; walking; transit; and biking.  Exclusively on foot; on bicycle; with a car; need for assistance; etc. 

And the half mile thing just makes no sense in terms of how levels of service are provided. E.g., doctors or hospitals aren't built with a half mile radius. (Not that the index uses a half mile as the measure for access to health facilities). 

With Suzanne's parents, most of our life is captured in a three mile radius in terms of walking + car, albeit mostly car.

That includes access to amazing health and hospital care, a senior-rec center with a library provided by the county, another library provided by the city, an impressive array of retail, parks and walking opportunities. Even a major research university and additional recreation facilities (because of their age, they get free access to the county recreation facilities). 

The area and city is a grid but the road network is punctuated with dendrils and discontinuities in terms of the residential streets, which can break off for a block or two or more in various seemingly random ways--but the streets stay pretty straight and keep the same name.

Maybe even take into consideration topography and e-bike vs. regular bike.  E.g., as I age I may get to the point where I switch to an e-bike, especially because SLC has intense hills.  Even without age as a factor, many people here get e-bikes because of the hills.