UBS/
Articles/
2511002333
  • Open Access
  • Review

Age-Friendly Space Design in Continuing Care Retirement Communities: A Scoping Review

  • Zeqin Wu 1,*,†,   
  • Jiaqi Liu 2,*,†,   
  • Weijie Zhong 3,   
  • Jiaqi Yu 4,   
  • Chuan Ma 5

Received: 12 Sep 2025 | Revised: 18 Nov 2025 | Accepted: 19 Nov 2025 | Published: 25 Nov 2025

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 21st century, improvements in medical care and the popularization of healthy lifestyles have significantly extended life expectancy, accelerating the global aging trend. Consequently, the rapid growth of the older population has led to a substantial increase in demand for age-friendly products and services, making it essential for residential space design better to address the living and activity needs of older adults. In China, home-based care remains the preferred choice for most older adults, while traditional institutional care is often met with psychological resistance due to its closed environment. Positioned between these two models, the Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) model provides a sustainable approach to aging by meeting the multi-stage and life-cycle needs of older adults, ranging from independent living to assisted care. Using a scoping review approach, this study identifies the research hotspots in the field of elderly care and spatial design, and integrates these findings with the design principles of elderly-oriented architecture to establish the key focal points in the design of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs). These key points provide theoretical guidance for optimizing age-friendly residential space design and enhancing the overall quality of life for older adults in CCRC settings.

References 

  • 1.
    Lam, T.Y.M.; Yan, J. Continuing Care Retirement Community Senior Housing in Shanghai: An Analysis of the Development Barriers. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2021, 15, 780–799. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhma-04-2021-0038.
  • 2.
    Chaulagain, S.; Li, J.; Pizam, A. What Matters, and What Matters Most? Exploring Resident Satisfaction in Continuing Care Retirement Communities. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 2472–2495. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-09-2021-1105.
  • 3.
    Miller, K.; Zhao, J.; Laine, L.T.; et al. Growth of Private Pay Senior Housing Communities in Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States: 2015–2019. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2022, 80, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587221106121.
  • 4.
    Shinan Altman, S.; Gum, A.M.; Ayalon, L. Moving to a Continuing Care Retirement Community or Staying in the Community? A Comparison Between American and Israeli Older Adults. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2019, 39, 1221–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464819879015.
  • 5.
    Ayalon, L. Transition and Adaptation to the Continuing Care Retirement Community From a Life Course Perspective: Something Old, Something New, and Something Borrowed. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2016, 37, 267–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464816637851.
  • 6.
    Humble, R.; Ryan, D. Continuing Care Retirement Communities—Attractive to Members, But What About Sponsors? Br. Actuar. J. 1998, 4, 547–614.
  • 7.
    Lin, B.; Nasu, S. CCRC common facility spatial structure: A study by space syntax. Asian J. Environ.-Behav. Stud. 2017, 2, 1–13.
  • 8.
    Harper, S. The opportunity for “Design” to influence the ageing process itself. J. Popul. Ageing 2013, 6, 157–159.
  • 9.
    Ilunga, J.; Bansal, B.; Almazán, J. The evolution of Tokyo’s commercial amenities: A multi-layered spatial analysis of three mixed-use neighborhoods. Cities 2025, 163, 106033.
  • 10.
    Gao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Qin, T.; et al. Improving Service Quality of Home-Based Health Care Services for the Elderly: A Qualitative Study of Facilitators and Barriers Reported by Community Health Workers in Beijing. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2025, 18, 2293–2304.
  • 11.
    Zhao, S.H.; He, B.; Tang, X.T.; et al. Effect of Disability Severity on Home-based Care Quality Among Families With Uygur and Kazakh Disabled Older Adults in Far Western Rural China: A Cross-sectional Study. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2022, 28, e13082. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijn.13082.
  • 12.
    Chen, Y.; Cui, X.; Li, H. A Study on the Spatial Distribution and Optimization Strategies of Day Care Centers for the Elderly. Int. Healthc. Rev. 2024. https://doi.org/10.56226/69.
  • 13.
    Li, M.; Peng, P.; Ao, Y.; et al. Equity in Public Decision-Making: A Dynamic Comparative Study of Urban–rural Elderly Care Institution Resource Allocation in China. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2024, 11, 1526. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04041-x.
  • 14.
    Jiang, H.; Liu, Z. Community Home Elderly Care Services, Multidimensional Health and Social Participation of Chronically Ill Elderly—Empirical Analysis Based on Propensity Score Matching and Multiple Mediation Analysis. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1121909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1121909.
  • 15.
    Li, S.; Huang, J.; Chen, L.; et al. Investigating the Influencing Factors of the Purchase Intention of the Continuing Care Retirement Community: A Case Study of Shenzhen. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2201. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052201.
  • 16.
    Wang, X.; Xia, B.; Chen, Q.; et al. Exploring Public Attitudes of Continuing Care Retirement Communities in China: A Sentiment Analysis of China’s Social Media Weibo. Front. Public Health 2025, 12, 1454287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1454287.
  • 17.
    Wu, Z.; Sulaiman, R.; Ahmad, Y. Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analyses on Trends and Design of Adult Daycare Centers. Inq.-J. Health Care Organ. Provis. Financ. 2025, 62, 00469580251333308. https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580251333308.
  • 18.
    Lin, Y.; Fu, H.; Zhong, Q.; et al. The Influencing Mechanism of the Communities’ Built Environment on Residents’ Subjective Well-Being: A Case Study of Beijing. Land 2024, 13, 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13060793.
  • 19.
    Huang, B.; Suneta, V. Research Status and Trends in Retirement Communities: A Bibliometric Analysis. Asia Soc. Issues 2023, 17, e265005. https://doi.org/10.48048/asi.2024.265005.
  • 20.
    Okubo, Y.; Osuka, Y.; Jung, S.; et al. Effects of walking on physical and psychological fall-related factors in community-dwelling older adults: Walking versus balance program. J. Phys. Fit. Sports Med. 2014, 3, 515–524.
  • 21.
    Cadore, E.L.; Rodríguez-Mañas, L.; Sinclair, A.; et al. Effects of different exercise interventions on risk of falls, gait ability, and balance in physically frail older adults: A systematic review. Rejuvenation Res. 2013, 16, 105–114.
  • 22.
    Zhang, M.; Ho, E.; Nowinski, C.J.; et al. The paradox in positive and negative aspects of emotional functioning among older adults with early stages of cognitive impairment. J. Aging Health 2024, 36, 471–483.
  • 23.
    Keramat, S.A.; Lee, V.; Patel, R.; et al. Cognitive impairment and health-related quality of life amongst older Australians: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Qual. Life Res. 2023, 32, 2911–2924.
  • 24.
    Dipietro, L.; Campbell, W.W.; Buchner, D.M.; et al. Physical activity, injurious falls, and physical function in aging: An umbrella review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2019, 51, 1303.
  • 25.
    Suwal, R.P.; Upadhyay, B.; Chalise, H.N. Factors Associated with Anxiety and Depression among Elderly Living in Old Age Homes. KMC J. 2024, 6, 280–299.
  • 26.
    Sari, N.P.W.P.; Manungkalit, M. The best predictor of anxiety, stress, and depression among institutionalized elderly. Best Predict. Anxiety Stress Depress. Institutionalized Elder. 2019, 8, 419–426.
  • 27.
    Manungkalit, M.; Sari, N.P.W.P. The influence of anxiety and stress toward depression in institutionalized elderly. Influ. Anxiety Stress Towar. Depress. Institutionalized Elder. 2020, 9, 65–76.
  • 28.
    Kwan, I.; Rutter, D.; Anderson, B.; et al. Personal care and practical support at home: A systematic review of older people’s views and experiences. Work. Older People 2019, 23, 87–106.
  • 29.
    Calderón-Larrañaga, A.; Dekhtyar, S.; Vetrano, D.L.; et al. COVID-19: Risk accumulation among biologically and socially vulnerable older populations. Ageing Res. Rev. 2020, 63, 101149.
  • 30.
    Yaw, X.E.; Teh, P.L.; Lim, W.M.; et al. Indoor Mobility Challenges Among Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Limitations. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0325064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325064.
  • 31.
    Nygaard, K.M.; Aspelund, H. What is Universal Design: Theories, terms and trends. In Disabilities and the Library: Fostering Equity for Patrons and Staff with Differing Abilities; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2017; pp. 38–52.
  • 32.
    Kamali, M.E.; Angelini, L.; Caon, M.; et al. Inclusion Design and Functionalities of a Personalized Virtual Coach for Wellbeing to Facilitate a Universal Access for Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2021), Online, 13–18 June 2021; pp. 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74605-6_30.
  • 33.
    Carr, K.; Weir, P.L.; Azar, D.; et al. Universal Design: A Step Toward Successful Aging. J. Aging Res. 2013, 2013, 324624. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/324624.
  • 34.
    Dong, H. Shifting paradigms in universal design. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–14 July 2017; pp. 66–74.
  • 35.
    Baek, S.-Y.; Jeong, B.Y. Universal Safety Design (USD) and Sustainability: Comparison of Guidelines Between Universal Design (UD) and USD. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4413. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104413.
  • 36.
    Hoof, J.V.; Marston, H.R.; Brittain, K.; et al. Creating Age-Friendly Communities: Housing and Technology. Healthcare 2019, 7, 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040130.
  • 37.
    Haanes, G.G.; Kirkevold, M.; Hofoss, D.; et al. An Intervention Designed to Improve Sensory Impairments in the Elderly and Indoor Lighting in Their Homes: An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2015, 11, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s71718.
  • 38.
    Chun-Xia, W. The Application of Big Data Analysis in Elderly Oriented Renovation Space Design. E3s Web Conf. 2024, 512, 01007. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202451201007.
  • 39.
    Fabisiak, B.; Jankowska-Mąkosa, A.; Kłos, R.; et al. Preferences of Seniors Living in Selected Baltic Sea Region Countries Towards the Use of Indoor Public Space Furniture. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258676.
  • 40.
    Annear, M.; Hyde, C. Taking Stock of Age-Friendly Cities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Progress, Pitfalls and Pathways Towards Healthy Ageing. Australas. J. Ageing 2025, 44, e70058. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.70058.
  • 41.
    Bortolini, R.; Forcada, N. Association Between Building Characteristics and Indoor Environmental Quality Through Post-Occupancy Evaluation. Energies 2021, 14, 1659. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14061659.
Share this article:
Download PDF
DOI
10.53941/ubs.2025.100011
Issue
Volume 1, Issue 1
How to Cite
Wu, Z.; Liu, J.; Zhong, W.; Yu, J.; Ma, C. Age-Friendly Space Design in Continuing Care Retirement Communities: A Scoping Review. Urban and Building Science 2025, 1 (1), 11. https://doi.org/10.53941/ubs.2025.100011.
RIS
BibTex
Copyright & License
article copyright Image
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.