Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intergenerational Strategies for Sustaining Strong Communities

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intergenerational Pathways to a Sustainable Society

Part of the book series: Perspectives on Sustainable Growth ((POSG))

Abstract

This chapter explores intergenerational pathways for strengthening and sustaining communities. Distinctions are made between “mono-generational,” “multi-generational” and intergenerational conceptions of community and community development.

References to a mono-generational community, community setting, or community building process generally allude to local development practices focused on a single generation. A multi-generational community or site is where multiple generations reside. Community members, despite age or generational grouping, have access to community settings and opportunity for involvement in community activity. Intergenerational approaches to community development tend to begin with a process of identifying respective (multi-generational) priorities for community change and then drawing upon common interests to frame, plan and create opportunities for joint learning and action.

Various examples are presented of communities that have taken an intergenerational strategic approach to promoting civic engagement and responsive community development. Some considerations with regard to intergenerational environmental design are also introduced. This includes looking at how intergenerational contact zones, i.e., the spatial focal points of intergenerational encounters, can serve as a conceptual tool for studying complex, multi-generational community settings and as a design tool for creating innovative, responsive intergenerational meeting spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are some different uses of the term “age integration.” For example, Uhlenberg (2000), in a much cited sociological paper stated: “An age-integrated structure may be defined as one that does not use chronological age as a criterion for entrance, exit, or participation (p. 261). As used in this chapter, “age integration” implies intentionality in achieving generational diversity and multi-generational inclusion in the community development process.

  2. 2.

    The concept of aging in place calls for vibrant, engaging communities that recognize the needs of seniors and their contributions, and provide ways for them to continue living in their communities, if desired.

  3. 3.

    The Child Friendly Cities Initiative (CFCI) was launched in 1996 to act on the resolution passed during the second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). A declaration that emerged from this UN Conference is as follows: The well-being of children is the ultimate indicator of a healthy habitat, a democratic society and of good governance. In 2000, the International Secretariat of CFCI was established at the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) in Florence, Italy.

  4. 4.

    As noted in Chap. 3, Hope Meadows was created in 1994 for the primary goal of creating a pathway for moving more children out of the foster care system in Illinois. Parents willing to care for 3–4 children in the foster care system received rent-free housing and older adults who volunteered for at least six hours each week received rent-reduced housing.

  5. 5.

    A comprehensive directory of time banks is available online at http://community.timebanks.org

References

  • Adekunle, A. (2015). How do you end racism in a generation? The Runnymede Trust and project Generation 3.- - a multimedia arts project in Birmingham. In R. Vanderbeck & N. Worth (Eds.), Intergenerational spaces (pp. 169–182). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • AGE Platform Europe (2011). Manifesto for an Age-Friendly European Union by 2020. Stakeholders’ Coalition for the European Year 2012 for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations. Retrieved from http://www.age-platform.eu/images/stories/EN/ey2012%20manifesto_final%20with%20logos.pdf

  • Platform Europe, A. G. E. (2009). A plea for greater intergenerational solidarity. Brussels, Belgium: Author. Retrieved from http://www.age-platform.eu/images/stories/EN/AGE-Solidarity-BROCHURE-EN.pdf.

  • Alcock, C. L., Camic, P. M., Barker, C., Haridi, C., & Raven, R. (2011). Intergenerational practice in the community: A focused ethnographic evaluation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 419–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, M. (2006). Keynote 1. Research, policy, practice and theory. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 4(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant, K. C. (2014). An interactional approach to emergent interorganizational fields. Community Development, 45(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodiford, K. (2013). Intergenerational community building. In J. Blanchard & A. Bolton (Eds.), Aging in community (pp. 123–138). Chapel Hill, NC: Second Journey Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridger, J. C., & Alter, T. R. (2008). An interactional approach to place-based rural development. Community Development, 39(1), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffel, T., De Backer, F., Peeters, J., Phillipson, C., Reina, V. R., Kindekens, A., et al. (2014). Promoting sustainable communities through intergenerational practice. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1785–1791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buffel, T., & Phillipson, C. (2015). Negotiating urban space: Older people and the contestation of generational and ethnic boundaries. In R. Vanderbeck & N. Worth (Eds.), Intergenerational spaces (pp. 314–328). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. (2013). Designing sustainable community action for communities of all ages. Handbook. Lisbon, Portugal: Author. Retrieved from http://gulbenkian.org.uk/files/30-01-13-IntergenerationAll_Handbook_15112012_Web_LowRes.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., & Erbstein, N. (2012). Engaging youth in community change: Three key implementation principles. Community Development, 43(1), 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., & Stone, A. (1992). Public space. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, L. R. (1965). The sense of wonder. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • CFAA. (n.d.). Community for all ages—Education and lifelong learning. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, P., & O’Brian, M. (Eds.). (2003). Children in the city: Home, neighborhood and community. London: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. New York: Colombia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, D., & Chawla, L. (2006). The Growing Up in Cities Project: A global perspective on children and youth as catalysts for community change”. Journal of Community Practice, 14(1–2), 223–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eheart, B. K., Hopping, D., Power, M. B., Mitchell, E. T., & Racine, D. (2009). Generations of hope communities: An intergenerational neighborhood model of support and service. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, J. (2013). “Why we need age-friendly communities.” Huffington Post. Blog. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feather-phd/why-we-need-agefriendly-c_b_3141398.html

  • Fitzgerald, K. G., & Caro, F. G. (2014). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B. M. (1999). Connecting generations: Integrating aging education and intergenerational programs with elementary and middle grades curricula. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, M. (1999). PrimeTime: How Baby Boomers will revolutionize retirement and transform America. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • García, S., & Martí, P. (2014). Arquitectura intergeneracional y espacio público [Intergenerational Architecture and Public Space]. ARQ (Santiago), 86, 62–69. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0717-69962014000100009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en

  • Generations United. (2015). Creating an age-advantaged community: A toolkit for building intergenerational communities that recognize, engage and support all ages. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=oJ4OjZn-2MI%3d&tabid=157&mid=606.

  • Generations United. (2012). America’s Best Intergenerational Communities: Building livable communities for children, youth, families, and older adults. Georgetown, TX: Author. Retrieved from http://www.gu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0stCaa_L0B4%3d&tabid=157&mid=606.

  • Ghazaleh, R. A., Greenhouse, E., Homsy, G., & Warner, M. (2011). Multigenerational planning: Using smart growth and universal design to link the needs of children and the aging population. [Family-friendly communities briefing paper #2]. Chicago: American Planning Association. Retrieved from http://www.planning.org/research/family/briefingpapers/multigenerational.htm

  • GHDC. (2015). Physical design facilitates relationships—Core component #4 (of the GHDC “Intentional Neighboring” model). Champaign, IL: Generations of hope development. Retrieved from http://ghdc.generationsofhope.org/principle/physical-design-facilitates-relationships/.

  • GIA. (2015). Guiding principles for the sustainability of age-friendly community efforts. Arlington, VA: Grantmakers in Aging. Retrieved from http://www.giaging.org/documents/160107__Sustainability_Principles.pdf.

  • Granville, G. (2002). A Review of Intergenerational Practice in the UK. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Centre for Intergenerational Practice, Beth Johnson Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handler, S. (2014). A research & evaluation framework for age-friendly cities. Manchester, England: UK Urban Ageing Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. (1997). The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatton-Yeo, A., & Melville, J. (2016). Community centres and intergenerational contact zones. In M. Kaplan, L. L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), Intergenerational contact zones—A compendium of applications. University Park, PA: Penn State Extension. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/youth/intergenerational/articles/intergenerational-contact-zones.

  • Hawaii Executive Office on Aging. (2014). Timebanking feasibility Study: Final Report. Honolulu, HI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.lifespanrespite.memberlodge.org/resources/Documents/State%20Tools/Hawaii/LRP_2014.pdf.

  • Hendry, J. (1995). Understanding Japanese society (Revth ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin, N., & Brown, C. (2014). Building communities for all ages: Lessons learned from an intergenerational community-building initiative. Journal of Community & Applied Psychology, 24, 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henkin, N., & Butts, D. (2002). Advancing an intergenerational agenda in the United States. In M. Kaplan, N. Henkin, & A. Kusano (Eds.), Linking lifetimes: A global view of intergenerational exchange (pp. 65–82). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingman, S., Benjamin, T., & Lusky, R. (1998). The environment: The quintessential intergenerational challenge. Generations, 22(4), 68–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innovation Center for Community & Youth Development. (2003). Building community: A tool kit for youth and adults in charting assets and creating change (2nd ed.). Tacoma Park, MD: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarrott, S. E., Morris, M. M., Burnett, A. J., Stauffer, D., Stremmel, A. S., & Gigliotti, C. M. (2011). Creating community capacity at a shared site intergenerational program: “Like a barefoot climb up a mountain.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9, 418–434. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.619925.

  • Jones, A. (2014, Sept. 24). “The age-old old age problem.” Newsweek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. (2001). The Futures Festival: An intergenerational approach to community participation. University Park, PA: Penn State University. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/youth/intergenerational/curricula-and-activities/futures-festival/facilitators-guide/download.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. (1997). Intergenerational community service projects: Implications for promoting intergenerational unity, community activism, and cultural continuity. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 28(2), 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M., Haider, J., Cohen, U., & Turner, D. (2007). Environmental design perspectives on intergenerational programs and practices: An emergent conceptual framework. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Research, 5(2), 81–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. & Hatton-Yeo, A. (2008). Intergenerational Forums: A collaborative community approach for developing an intergenerational agenda. Stoke-on-Trent, England: Beth Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/youth/intergenerational/program-areas/community-planning-visioning/intergenerational-unity-forums/intergenerational-forums

  • Kaplan, M., Higdon, F., Crago, N., & Robbins, L. (2004). Futures Festival: An intergenerational strategy for promoting community participation. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Research, 2(3/4), 119–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M., Liu, S.-T., & Hannon, P. (2006). Intergenerational engagement in retirement communities: A case study of a community capacity-building model. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25(5), 406–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M., & Sánchez, M. (2014). Intergenerational programs and policies in ageing societies. In S. Harper & K. Hamblin (Eds.), International handbook on ageing and public policy (pp. 367–383). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M., Thang, L.L., Sánchez, & Hoffman, J. (2016). An introduction to intergenerational contact zones. University Park, PA: Penn State Extension. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/youth/intergenerational/articles/intergenerational-contact-zones/introduction

  • Kinoshita, I. (2009). Charting generational differences in conceptions and opportunities for play in a Japanese neighborhood. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 7(1), 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehne, V.S., & Melville, J. (2014). The state of our art: A review of theories used in intergenerational program research (2003–2014) and ways forward. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(3), 317–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kweon, B., Sullivan, W., & Wiley, A. (1998). Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30(6), 832–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, L., Cooper, L., Sánchez, M., & Vander Ven, K. (2011). Rethinking and revitalizing intergenerational connections: An agenda for global well-being across the life course. Washington, DC: Generations United. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/PJMKIK

  • LGNI. (2012). A review of intergenerational approaches to community safety in Northern Ireland. Newtownards, Northern Ireland: Linking Generations Northern Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, J. A., Bowen, G. L., & Martin, J. A. (2005). Community social organization: A conceptual linchpin in examining families in the context of communities. Family Relations, 54, 570–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNulty, R., & Koff, R. (2014). Cultural heritage tourism. Washington, DC: Partners for Livable Communities. Retrieved from http://livable.org/storage/documents/reports/CBC/culturalheritagetourism.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercken, C. (2003). Neighborhood-Reminiscence: Integrating generations and cultures in the Netherlands. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Research, 1(1), 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moody, H., & Disch, R. (1989). Intergenerational programming in public policy. In S. Newman & S. Brummel (Eds.), Intergenerational programs: Imperatives, strategies, impacts, trends (pp. 101–110). New York: Haworth Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, T., & Garon, S. (Eds.). (2016). Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison: Political lessons, scientific avenues, and democratic issues. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, S. (1971). How NOT to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 62(1), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, J. L., & Strobel, K. A. (2007). Directivity and freedom: Adult support of activism among urban youth. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ohsako, T. (2002). German pupils and Jewish seniors: Intergenerational dialogue as a framework for healing history. In M. Kaplan, N. Henkin, & A. Kusano (Eds.), Linking lifetimes: A global view of intergenerational exchange (pp. 209–219). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pain, R. (2005). Intergenerational Relations and Practice in the Development of Sustainable Communities. Background paper for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. ICRRDS, Durham University. Durham, England. Retrieved from https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/cscr/odpm/Intergeneration.pdf

  • Parker, R. (2012). The Shifnal Living History Reminiscence Project. Evaluation Report. January. Shropshire Council, UK. Retrieved from http://www.walsallartsintohealth.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Shifnal-Living-History-Evaluation-Report-FINAL-Jan-20121.pdf

  • Penninx, K. (2002). Intergenerational community building in the Netherlands. In M. Kaplan, N. Henkin, & A. Kusano (Eds.), Linking lifetimes: A global view of intergenerational exchange (pp. 173–192). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlstein, S., & Bliss, J. (1994). Generating community: Intergenerational partnerships through the expressive arts. New York: Elders Share The Arts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, T. (2015). Castles as intergenerational contact zones: Embracing the challenge of restoration and the adaptive reuse of abandoned castles. In M. Kaplan, L. L. Thang, M. Sánchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), Intergenerational contact zones: A compendium of applications. University Park, PA: Penn State Extension, The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/youth/intergenerational/articles/intergenerational-contact-zones/culture-castles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. (2015). Dutch nursing home offers rent-free housing to students. PBS Newshour: The Rundown. April 5. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/dutch-retirement-home-offers-rent-free-housing-students-one-condition/

  • Sinclair, D. & Watson, J. (2014). Making our communities ready for ageing: A call to action. London: ILC-UK. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/msk15/Downloads/Making_our_communities_ready_for_ageing_V3_(2)%20(2).pd

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, M., García, J. M., Díaz, P., & Duaigües, M. (2011). Much more than accommodation in exchange for company: Dimensions of solidarity in an intergenerational home share program in Spain. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships: Programs, Policy, and Research, 9(4), 374–388. doi:10.1080/15350770.2011.619410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swisher, M.E., Rezola, S., & Sterns, J. (2009). Sustainable community development Step 3: Create a Community vision and develop a roadmap. University of Florida IFAS Extension. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CD027

  • Thang, L. L. (2015). Creating an intergenerational contact zone: Encounters in public spaces within Singapore’s public housing neighborhoods. In R. Vanderbeck & N. Worth (Eds.), Intergenerational spaces (pp. 17–32). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonucci, F., & Rissoto, A. (2001). Why do we need children’s participation? The importance of children’s participation in changing the city. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11(6), 407–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlenberg, P. (2000). Introduction: Why study age integration? The Gerontologist, 40(3), 261–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF. (n.d.). What is a Child Friendly City? Retrieved from http://childfriendlycities.org/overview/what-is-a-child-friendly-city/

  • Vanderbeck, R., & Worth, N. (Eds.). (2015). Intergenerational spaces. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Vliet, W. (2011). Intergenerational cities: A framework for policies and programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 9(4), 348–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vliet, W. (2009). Creating livable cities for all ages: Intergenerational strategies and initiatives. Working Paper CYE-WP1-2009. Children, Youth and Environments Center, University of Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, C., & Fyson, T. (1973). Streetworks. London: Routledge, Kegan-Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, M., Homsy, G., & Greenhouse, E. (2010). Multi-generational community planning: Linking the needs of children and older adults. Issue brief, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, April.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: WHO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlwill, J., & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environment and the development of the child. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environment psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaidi, A., Gasior, K., & Manchin, R. (2012). Population aging and intergenerational solidarity: International policy frameworks and European public opinion. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 10(3), 214–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeldin, S., & MacNeil, C. (2006). Lessons from the field: Engaging youth and adults as partners in organizational governance. National Civic Review, 95(1), 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeldin, S., Camino, L., & Mook, C. (2005). The adoption of innovation in youth organizations: Creating the conditions for youth-adult partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology, 33(1), 121–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, L. (2016). Beyond contact – Intergenerational living in cohousing communities. In M. Kaplan, L. L. Thang, M. Sánchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), Intergenerational contact zones: A compendium of applications. University Park, PA: Penn State Extension. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/youth/intergenerational/articles/intergenerational-contact-zones/residential-cohousing-communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zukin, S. (2010). The naked city: The death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Matthew Kaplan

  2. Faculty of Political Science and Sociology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Mariano Sanchez

  3. Optentia Research Focus Area, Ageing and Generational Dynamics in Africa (AGenDA), North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa

    Jaco Hoffman

  4. Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Jaco Hoffman

Authors
  1. Matthew Kaplan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mariano Sanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaco Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaplan, M., Sanchez, M., Hoffman, J. (2017). Intergenerational Strategies for Sustaining Strong Communities. In: Intergenerational Pathways to a Sustainable Society. Perspectives on Sustainable Growth. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47019-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation