Promoting active and healthy aging in urban spaces requires environments with diverse, age-friendly characteristics. This scoping review investigated the associations between urban characteristics and active and healthy aging as identified by citizen science (CS) and other participatory approaches. Using a systematic scoping review procedure, 23 articles employing a CS or participatory approach (participant age range: 54–98 years) were reviewed. An inductive and deductive thematic analysis was completed to (a) identify local urban barriers and facilitators and (b) map them against the World Health Organization (WHO) Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities. A new Citizen Science Appraisal Tool (CSAT) was developed to evaluate the quality of CS and other participatory approaches included in the reviewed articles. A range of interconnected urban barriers and facilitators was generated by residents across the personal (e.g. perceived safety), environmental (e.g. unmaintained infrastructure), socio-cultural (e.g. cross-cultural activities), economic (e.g. affordable housing) and political (e.g. governmental support to migrant communities) domains. Mapping the barriers and facilitators to the WHO age-friendly checklist underscored the checklist’s relevance and elucidated the need to explore barriers for migrant and cross-cultural communities and neighborhood development and alterations. The CSAT demonstrated strengths related to active engagement of residents and study outcomes leading to real-world implications. To advance the potential of CS to enrich our understanding of age-friendly environments, employing co-production to enhance relevance and sustainability of outcomes is an important strategy. Overall, employing CS highlighted the value of systematically capturing the experiences of older adults within studies aimed at promoting active and healthy aging.
The combination of increasing levels of urbanisation and an aging population worldwide has highlighted the importance of city-level public health initiatives targeting older adults [1, 2]. Urban environments and their physical and socio-ecological characteristics can significantly impact a resident’s ability to age healthily [3, 4]. To operationalize this knowledge globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched guidance in 2007 for developing age-friendly environments based on the concept of active aging , targeting eight urban domains: outdoor spaces and buildings, housing, transportation, respect and social inclusion, social participation, communication and information, community support and health services, and civic participation and employment. The WHO guidelines have been influential in directing the global urban planning agenda towards developing age-friendly environments. However, successful implementation of this agenda requires a comprehensive understanding of the uniqueness and complexity of urban environments and their competing social, economic and political forces [6,7,8].
There is a large public health literature and policy drive towards ‘age-friendliness’ and ‘aging in place’, which refers to aging at home rather than in institutional care . Despite this, the concept of active aging still lacks sufficient attention to the diverse range of contextual urban socio-ecological elements required to support older adults’ health and well-being . Person-specific influences, inaccessible physical environments, migration behaviors, multiple forms of deprivation and local community cohesion are just a few urban socio-ecological elements that influence a healthy and active lifestyle [11,12,13,14]. As these factors vary across communities and populations, identifying and prioritising urban characteristics that contribute to developing age-friendly environments thus remains a challenge for research and policy , particularly in relation to characteristics that are influential at the local level . In turn, the unique pathways between urban features and healthy aging and the intersections between older people and their communities need to be more fully articulated. Understanding these at a local contextual level is important to effectively shape the opportunities to live and age in health-enhancing ways.
To address local-level variations and deliver more meaningfully on the age-friendly agenda, an increasing number of age-friendly strategies have focused on the need to foster effective engagement of older adults [17, 18]. There are multiple participatory practices for engaging members of the public in research, which overlap in their processes but differ in the level of ‘power’ given to residents [19, 20]. Across a variety of applications, citizen science (CS) can effectively engage laypeople in all stages of the research to co-produce its processes and outcomes [21, 22]. Through its systematic application in the health and urban domains, the local expertise of residents has been successfully incorporated into multi-level outcomes for altering local urban communities to promote health and well-being [23,24,25], which has effectively advanced the development of age-friendly environments .
Notwithstanding these promising studies on the potential for CS, a rigorous assessment and evaluation of CS approaches is required to understand its potential for effectively engaging individuals in shaping outcomes for their local spaces [26,27,28]. Previous studies advancing CS have produced tools evaluating elements of CS methods, public participation and outputs [28,29,30,31]. However, greater attention to evaluation processes needs to be paid to the diversity of approaches within such research methodologies, including the degree to which they are contributory (for the people), collaborative (with the people) or co-productive (by the people) [21, 32], as well as how sustainable and significant the outcomes are from the perspective of older adult community members themselves [33, 34].
Emphasising collective forms of CS to enhance age-friendly urban initiatives is especially pertinent, given what is already known about the mutually beneficial importance of social connection, walkability and physical activity in older age groups [35, 36]. This systematic scoping review aimed to investigate the urban barriers and facilitators identified through CS and other participatory approaches to be associated with active and healthy aging. The objectives of this review were to:
systematically review the outcomes of CS studies in which community members identify the characteristics influencing active and healthy aging in urban environments;
map the outcomes of the scoping review against the WHO Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities  and explore similarities and differences; and
develop and apply a new Citizen Science Appraisal Tool to evaluate the quality of the CS methods included in the scoping review.
A systematic scoping review was chosen as a suitable approach to identify and map the key urban characteristics presented by CS studies and highlight knowledge gaps . The protocol was guided by the PRISMA systematic review guidance  and scoping review extension checklists  and reviewed by academic experts in the fields of CS, healthy aging and political geography.
Study Eligibility, Information Sources and Search Strategy
Studies were eligible if they met the criteria in Table 1. CS can take various forms and employ varying degrees of public participation and is an evolving approach with continuously changing terminology [41, 42]. This review aimed to be inclusive of any studies that have directly engaged older adults in one or more stages of the research process using CS or other participatory approaches [19, 43].
An iterative approach [10, 46] allowed the search strategy and keywords to be reviewed and revised based on the relevant literature identified throughout the review process. A preliminary trial search of databases was completed (GW) and discussed with 2 reviewers (AS, JP) to produce a refined set of keywords. The keywords combined all possible combinations, English and American spelling, Boolean operators and truncation (see Supplementary Material 1). Searches were completed on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library between 01/03/2020 and 01/06/2020, with an updated search completed between 01/06/2020 and 19/06/2021. Articles were recorded using EndNote (X9, 2019) reference management software, and duplicates, non-English language and grey literature were excluded.
Screening and Data Extraction
Titles and abstracts were screened by the lead reviewer (GW), with a randomly selected 20% of articles independently screened by two reviewers (PD, SA). Articles that did not meet inclusion criteria were excluded. The same process was completed for full-text screening, with a fourth reviewer (AS) present to discuss discrepancies (Fig. 1). Data were extracted from the final set of included studies (GW) and independently checked (PD). The data extracted included (1) study aims, setting, design and method; (2) focus of the study (e.g. active aging focus, urban focus); (3) participant characteristics; (4) details of CS or other participatory approaches; (4) urban environment characteristics or methodology outcomes; and (5) conclusions and recommendations.
Citizen Science Appraisal Tool
The Citizen Science Appraisal Tool (CSAT) (Table 3) was developed to evaluate the quality of CS and other participatory approaches. Quality is defined here in relation to the levels of active engagement and partnerships utilised by CS studies . These two factors of engagement and partnerships are evaluated through a lifecycle approach  starting with the aims of a study through to its outcomes and future impacts and consider the scientific standards, participation, data quality and dissemination, which are elements of good quality CS [22, 49]. The tool development was guided by the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) 10 principles  and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools [50, 51] and encompassed three levels of engagement: contributory (for the people), collaborative (with the people) and co-productive (by the people)  (see Supplementary Material 1).
The tool gives equal weight to all questions to encompass both CS engagement and scientific standards. Active engagement and developing real-world outcomes are crucial elements of CS [47, 52] alongside demonstrating validity, transparency and appropriateness of methods and data [53,54,55]. Providing equal weight enables the tool to assess the quality of CS engagement and scientific standards, which are elements of good quality CS [22, 49]. All included studies were evaluated using the CSAT (GW), with 20% of evaluations independently checked (AS, JP).
Data Charting and Analysis
A descriptive summary of the 23 included studies was completed, followed by a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. This was deemed suitable to systematically identify, map and synthesise the qualitative nature of the methods and outcomes. An inductive thematic analysis [56, 57] was completed to generate community-identified local urban barriers and facilitators of active and healthy aging. The lead author (GW) completed initial coding, with codes, subthemes and main themes discussed with two reviewers (PD, SA). A second stage of coding was completed (GW) and discussed with three reviewers (PD, AS, JP). The final themes were confirmed by all reviewers. Following this process, two articles [58, 59] were excluded from this analysis as their outcomes focused on an overview of their methodology rather than urban characteristics.
A deductive thematic analysis [56, 57] was completed to map the barrier and facilitator themes against the WHO Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities . This checklist presents 8 age-friendly features that encompass 84 relevant urban descriptors (https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Age_friendly_cities_checklist.pdf). The lead author (GW) completed initial coding which was discussed with two reviewers (PD, SA). A second stage of coding was completed (GW) and discussed with three reviewers (PD, AS, JP) in which themes mapped against the WHO descriptors were finalised. Lastly, a narrative synthesis [60, 61] was completed to provide a summary of evidence on the CS methods and their quality and potential capacity to strengthen age-friendly urban initiatives.
Twenty-three studies were reviewed (Table 2), with the quality of CS approaches evaluated using the CSAT (Table 3). Most studies were published between 2015 and 2020 (n = 19) and took place in the UK (n = 6), Canada (n = 6) and/or USA (n = 4), Australia (n = 2), Hong Kong (n = 2), Netherlands (n = 1), Sweden (n = 1), New Zealand (n = 1) and Finland (n = 1). Data collection duration ranged from 2 weeks (n = 2), 1 to 12 months (n = 12), 3 years (n = 1) and during spring or fall (n = 2). Duration was not reported by 7 studies. The studies included observational (n = 20) and cross-sectional (n = 3) research designs. Residents were aged between 54 and 98, with one study not reporting the age of participants . Ethnicity, sex and other demographic variables are presented in Table 2.
Quality of Citizen Science and Other Participatory Approaches
The development and use of the CSAT (Table 3) highlighted the capacity for CS to further the age-friendly agenda by effectively engaging older adults to identify local urban barriers and facilitators. The CSAT also demonstrated elements of CS approaches employed in the studies that could be further strengthened to advance the level of active engagement and long-term sustainability of a study and its outcomes.
Overview of Critical Appraisal Outcomes
The evaluative outcomes were categorised according to each study’s score from the 4 sections of the CSAT. Fourteen studies were categorised as medium–high (presented below in detail), 8 studies were categorised as medium and 1 study was categorised as low-medium for quality (Table 4) (see Supplementary Material 2 for CSAT outcomes and medium- and low-medium-quality studies).
Medium–High Quality Studies
Studies in this category (n = 14) scored highly in the first 3 sections of the tool (Fig. 2), suggesting key aspects to inform best practice. These studies provided a clear overview of their CS or participatory approach, the degree of active engagement of residents in all or parts of the study, clarity about the roles or types of partnership between CS and researchers, and the active engagement of CS in data collection and some analysis and/or interpretation. Thirteen of the 14 studies also acknowledged residents in their publication [58, 62,63,64,65,66,67,68, 70,71,72,73, 82], 12 reported outcomes that showed ‘real world’ implications or pathways (e.g. pathways towards cultural and policy implications) [62,63,64,65, 67,68,69,70,71,72,73, 82], and 9 demonstrated outcomes that were generated directly by residents [58, 64, 65, 67,68,69,70,71, 73].
Amongst studies rated as ‘medium–high’, the levels of resident engagement included partnering in all stages of the research (n = 7), guiding the research design (n = 7), actively collecting data (n = 14) and analyzing (n = 7) or member checking data (n = 10). Two studies demonstrated a ‘by the people’ engagement [64, 65], 1 demonstrated ‘by the people’ and ‘for the people’  and 11 demonstrated a combination of ‘by the people’ and ‘with the people’ [58, 62, 63, 66,67,68,69, 71,72,73, 82]. Studies presented strong elements of engagement by actively involving residents to partner in all stages of the research process  or to co-design , direct , co-create  or co-conduct [58, 67] the research methods. Some studies also had member checking of data [58, 63, 65,66,67, 70,71,72,73, 82] or guidance from resident advisory groups [64, 69, 70].
Community-Identified Urban Environment Characteristics Influencing Active Aging
The urban environment characteristics were identified across Canada (n = 6) and/or the USA (n = 4), the UK (n = 5), Australia (n = 2), Hong Kong (n = 1), Netherlands (n = 1), Sweden (n = 1) and Finland (n = 1) and encompassed a range of cities (n = 9), urban or suburban neighborhoods and residential areas (n = 8), urban districts or centres (n = 2), towns (n = 1) and public green spaces (n = 1).
Urban Environment Barriers to Active Aging
Eight themes relating to urban environment barriers to active and healthy aging (Fig. 3) were identified (see Appendix 1). These included accessibility (n = 14), physical environment (n = 13), transportation (n = 10), affordability (n = 8), social isolation and exclusion (n = 6), community support (n = 5), barriers for migrants and cross-cultural communities (n = 5) and safety and security (n = 4).
Accessibility was the most commonly identified barrier (n = 14), highlighting the lack of physical and disability–friendly access to local buildings, services and facilities as a key impediment to active aging. Accessible information about services, accessible housing and the advancement of modern technology making devices difficult to use were also included in this theme. Physical environment was another common barrier (n = 13), where residents documented a lack of well-maintained outdoor environments, the presence of physical obstacles and the absence of street crossing elements as barriers. Such barriers were particularly prominent during winter and for people with visual and physical impairments. Lack of available toilets and other facilities, negative aesthetics in outdoor spaces and unsuitable routes also negatively impacted active aging according to residents.
Urban Environment Facilitators to Active Aging
Five themes relating to urban environment facilitators (Fig. 3) were identified by residents to be positively associated with active and healthy aging (see Appendix 1). These included community support (n = 14), physical environment (n = 11), social activities and participation (n = 10), transportation (n = 7) and housing (n = 4).
Community support was the most community-citied facilitator (n = 14), stressing the importance of local communities and neighborhoods, particularly intergenerational ones, providing support and encouraging social activities. The availability of shops, cafes and public places such as libraries was a facilitator and useful for developing social links during winter. The presence of network associations, senior-specific programmes and religious institutions were all identified as sources of support that promote health, well-being and independence. Physical environment was also a commonly cited facilitator (n = 11), underscoring the importance of seating, positive aesthetics such as cleanliness and well-maintained infrastructure in both summer and winter to facilitate active aging.
Mapping of Community-Identified Urban Barriers and Facilitators against the WHO Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities
Aligning and Interconnecting Themes and Features
The 13 themes ( Fig. 3) significantly aligned with the WHO’s 8 features and descriptors presented on the essential features of age-friendly cities checklist  (Fig. 4) (see Appendix 2). Physical environment barriers and facilitators, transportation barriers, safety and security, and accessibility were themes from this review that aligned with 9 out of the 10 WHO descriptors of the outdoor spaces and building features. Similarly, the themes of accessibility, social isolation and exclusion, social activities and participation, and community support aligned with 8 out of 11 WHO descriptors of the social participation feature. Both barrier and facilitator themes also aligned with 9 out of 12 WHO descriptors of the communication and information feature and with 10 out of 15 WHO descriptors of the transportation feature. The alignment of themes to the WHO features and descriptors indicates the ongoing relevance of bringing together local community–identified features with those presented on authoritative checklists to determine key features for developing age-friendly environments.
Unaligned Themes and Features
Despite the close alignment of WHO features and community-generated urban characteristics, the CS process did elucidate additional themes regarding age-friendliness of urban environments. Most significant amongst these were barriers for migrant and cross-cultural communities. This theme highlighted how ethnicity and cultural differences can negatively impact engagement in activities outside of the home due to differences in cultural norms and social exclusion. Members of culturally, ethnically and linguistically diverse minorities themselves highlighted poor access to transportation, lack of social platforms for civic engagement, lack of suitable care facilities and lack of support from the government.
Similarly, developments and alterations to neighborhoods, which was a subtheme of social isolation and exclusion, did not align with the features or descriptors of the checklist. Exploration of this subtheme indicated that physical alterations to neighborhoods, the presence of new builds and frequent relocation of neighbors negatively impacted social connections, community cohesion and the feeling of ‘locality’ for older adults. Considering the needs of migrant and cross-cultural communities and the impacts that new built environment developments can have on the risk of social isolation and exclusion are new dimensions that need to be further encompassed into the age-friendly agenda in order to strengthen this approach.
Having systematically reviewed the literature on urban environments and active aging, we highlight three areas for consideration: (1) the importance of a socio-ecological perspective on the local urban characteristics associated with active and healthy aging, (2) expanding the WHO age-friendly cities agenda in light of local urban characteristics and (3) strengthening the field of CS to further its potential in capacity building the age-friendly agenda.
Socio-ecological Perspective of Urban Environment Characteristics
Accessibility, physical environment features and the presence of community support were key urban characteristics associated with active and healthy aging and require further consideration when developing age-friendly environments. Using a socio-ecological approach, which incorporates personal, environmental, social, cultural, economic and political domains [4, 85,86,87,88,89], can provide a comprehensive indication of the features that influence health and active living [85, 90]. This approach also has been built into a systems perspective [3, 91], which strengthens the understanding that ecosystems are multi-levelled and interacting systems governed by change and adaptations [92, 93]. This review employed a socio-ecological perspective to conceptualise the urban environment characteristics. These are presented by the themes as part of an interconnected system in which there are multiple domains and complex interrelationships between individuals and their environments . Rather than considering these urban characteristics in relative isolation, we provide two examples of interconnected systems relating to affordable housing and social activities.
Affordable and Accessible Housing
The review highlighted interconnected barriers and facilitators for suitable, accessible and affordable housing close to community services, which have previously been linked through a socio-ecological perspective [92, 95,96,97]. The interpersonal relationships with neighbors, physical location or material quality of a house, and social interactions between who is being housed and the suitability of the house, as well as how these interactions change over time, all interconnect and influence the individual [92, 95, 98]. The economic and material resources and the development and implementation of suitable housing policy are also identified by the literature as connected and impact the presence of suitable and affordable housing [92, 97, 98]. To promote affordable and accessible housing in an age-friendly context, the outcomes of this review indicate a need to consider the interconnection between an individual’s needs and required services, the affordability and accessibility of housing and the geographic proximity to the wanted services and facilities. This can shift the development of housing away from considering these domains and barriers in isolation  and instead addressing the multiple interconnected housing influences present in order to develop suitable age-friendly housing.
Social Activities and Participation, and Social Isolation
Social activities and participation, and social isolation were themes that interconnected amongst the personal, environmental and social domains of urban environments. Across a number of studies, engagement in social activities is influenced by personal factors such as mobility , motivation and social values [100, 101], as well as various aspects of the environmental and policy domains, which influence the presence of suitable environments , resources and places to participate socially [101, 103]. For older adults, engaging in activities is also shown to be influenced by social factors including the presence of a social network, neighbors and/or a sense of community [104, 105]. Individual characteristics and influential factors across social and environmental domains need to be considered in order to provide spaces that facilitate age-friendly social participation and accessible activities. In particular, the CS processes enabled residents to identify intergenerational and cross-cultural activities and spaces where neighbors and local communities can build community cohesion and support social participation as key facilitators.
Strengthening the Age-Friendly Cities Initiative
Whilst the WHO Checklist of Essential Features of Age-Friendly Cities provides a useful and universal guide to assessing and implementing features, such work can be supported by more attention to local urban characteristics. CS has made clear that the subtheme ‘neighborhood developments and alterations’ and the theme ‘barriers faced by migrant and cross-cultural communities’ require further exploration. Recognising contextual importance by considering the impact of neighborhood changes on social isolation and identifying the multiple barriers faced by ethnically, culturally or linguistically diverse minorities are important for strengthening the age-friendly agenda. Whilst these two themes are considered below, it is important to recognise that strengthening this agenda requires extension to populations experiencing social exclusion such as minority ethnic groups, refugees and individuals from LGBTQ communities to inform the design of future initiatives aiming to develop inclusive age-friendly environments [106, 107].
Neighborhood Developments and Alterations
Physical alterations to neighborhoods, new builds and rotation of neighbors were identified as negatively impacting social connections and community cohesion. Changing and gentrifying neighborhoods can cause experiences of social isolation, insecurity and vulnerability, challenge a sense of belonging, and negatively impact mental health [67, 108, 109]. Although neighborhood changes are experienced differently based on the contexts and types of residences in which individuals live, they have been found to negatively impact social and community cohesion, making it important to address the impacts these changes may have on older adults [66, 110, 111]. As the immediate neighborhood environment is also vital for older adults and their social support, particularly those who are vulnerable or have limited mobility , the developments and alterations to neighborhoods need to be further assessed in the planning and implementation of age-friendly initiatives.
It is important to consider the impacts of changing neighborhoods on older adults, especially for those who wish to remain at home or in their local neighborhoods , and evaluate the effect age-friendly features which in some cases have not had a real and meaningful impact . Modifying the WHO guidelines to address alterations to neighborhoods that may impact older adults could enhance the social structures and community cohesion present within urban communities  and could lessen the physical, social and cultural consequences resulting from these changes .
Barriers Faced by Migrant and Cross-Cultural Communities
Ethnicity, cultural differences and language barriers faced by migrant and cross-cultural communities were identified to be associated with social isolation, access to resources and support from governing bodies. Aging in cities can be challenging for older adults who migrate ; inequalities place these individuals at an increased risk of social exclusion . Age-friendly city initiatives therefore need to be tailored to local situations and serve diverse communities in order to address the context-specific factors that contribute to social isolation. For example, migration pressure, language issues, access to and lack of knowledge about existing resources and community programmes are all barriers that have been previously identified [116, 117] and should be taken into consideration.
It is currently unclear if age-friendly programmes effectively address the needs of older individuals from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds . Better understanding of urban experiences of older adults from diverse ethnic communities is needed in order to identify the inequalities and influence of racism faced by individual ethnic groups [106, 119]. To address these challenges, the use of CS approaches requires further strengthening, which is discussed in the following section.
Strengthening Citizen Science Approaches
To further the potential of CS in strengthening age-friendly initiatives, the CSAT identified that greater attention needs to be paid to (1) the diversity of approaches within such research methodologies; (2) the degree to which they are contributory (for the people), collaborative (with the people) and/or co-produced (by the people); (3) their potential unintended consequences; and (4) the sustainability of outcomes.
An absence of resident engagement in the scientific processes, particularly as they relate to informing study design or hypotheses, is a current gap in CS projects [19, 120]. This finding was reflected in the reviewed studies, stressing the need for further engagement of older adults in the planning and research design [68, 69, 71,72,73, 82] and data analysis [63, 66, 68, 69, 71, 72]. A recent analysis of interviews exploring participant engagement in CS projects reported an absence of engagement in informing project design or hypotheses . However, increasing opportunities for engagement in multiple processes is an ideal  achieved through co-creation [121, 122] or a ‘by the people’ approach . This more comprehensive form of engagement provides the greatest potential for developing and implementing relevant environment and social changes [19, 123], attributed to residents embedding their knowledge into design and dissemination, and enabling a project to develop in the cultural context of a local community [123, 124].
Studies have found that predominantly well-educated people from White ethnic groups rather than from minority ethnic groups engage with CS [44, 125, 126]. This has been linked to a lack of sense of belonging in areas where White ethnic backgrounds are a majority , differing volunteering motivations  and financial or educational barriers to participation [44, 126]. The studies included in this review engaged residents across a range of populations, enabling the identification of diverse urban barriers pertaining to aging. Without representative engagement in CS, the beneficial impacts and translatability of outcomes can be reduced , requiring consideration of effective strategies to foster opportunities for engaging migrant and diverse ethnic communities. This includes recognising barriers to engagement and presenting new pathways to engaging the views, beliefs and practices of underrepresented groups [125, 126]. For example, ensuring that CS and public engagement tools are in multiple languages can reduce such barriers to inclusion [44, 130].
For future studies to strengthen their levels of co-production, the following characteristics by Hidalgo et al.  should be considered: (1) co-defining and focusing on real-world issues, (2) using shared language and visual materials, (3) building an equal and collaborative research community, (4) including participatory meetings led by suitable individuals who can facilitate co-creation, and (5) providing participatory tools and accessible means of communication for disseminating outcomes.
Capturing effective dissemination of results and long-term sustainability are also current challenges amongst CS projects . This was identified in the reviewed studies, with a lack of accessible dissemination plans and tracking of long-term changes or ripple effects emanating from the CS activities. Tracking long-term outcomes is a key for identifying sustainability and momentum of a project once it has finished, particularly in the physical and social environments [17, 33, 84]. Long-term observation can showcase a commitment to maintain longitudinal outcomes , such as ‘ripple effects’ where citizen scientists continue to advocate for neighborhood improvements after a project has ended . One systematic method for capturing the multi-level impacts of CS is called ripple effects mapping . This qualitative method, used originally in the US Cooperative Extension field, involves citizen scientists and other stakeholders visually mapping the cumulative trajectory of intervention-related activities and outcomes—both expected and unexpected—over time .
To the best of our knowledge, the CSAT is a novel appraisal tool that can effectively encompass and evaluate the quality of CS research processes, the level of engagement employed, data and long-term sustainability. The CSAT can contribute to the field of CS by guiding and strengthening the development, implementation and evaluation of future CS studies. Although the tool was designed for CS approaches in the urban and aging research field, it shows universality and can evaluate other participatory approaches across multiple disciplines. Further, the CSAT can guide researchers to foster and support citizen-driven strategies and outcomes that encompass community insights and have sustainable and real-world relevance. Whilst not within the tool’s remit, it is important for CS projects employing the tool to consider the impact of their societal and scientific outcomes if diversity or representativeness of engagement across a community is missing . This includes recognising barriers to engagement faced by different ethnic groups and biases from underrepresenting or overrepresenting different groups . Previous literature has identified CS approaches for greater equality in engagement [84, 135] and should be considered in detail.
Strengths and Limitations
Due to the broad nature of CS , the limited capacity of the keywords to identify all relevant studies was a potential liability. The chosen keywords may not have captured all CS or other participatory studies, for example the work by Buman et al.  and Winter et al. , and especially those with creative naming or novel approaches. Secondly, although the CSAT was employed to identify good quality studies, selection bias may be present. For example, requiring the mean age of citizen scientists to be at least 60 years would have led to the omission of articles involving intergenerational groups of citizen scientists (e.g. older adults and youth ) that did not separate outcomes based on age or described CS work targeting older adults .
Despite these limitations, this review followed a systematic protocol guided by the PRISMA checklist to systematically review a large volume of literature (11,311 articles), which embodies a diverse array of articles. The chosen databases also provided a diversity of health, environmental, social science and gerontology research. Furthermore, the protocol, keywords and systematic processes were informed by a multidisciplinary team of consultants in relevant fields, who also contributed to the development and implementation of the CSAT.
This systematic scoping review identified a range of urban barriers and facilitators identified by older adults engaged in CS or other participatory approaches. The interconnectedness of the barriers and facilitators was presented using a socio-ecological perspective, reflecting the need to consider the multi-level influences and associations present when developing local age-friendly environments locally. The findings also identified a need for nuanced and culturally specific approaches to increasing feelings of social inclusion and accessibility of resources for migrant communities to strengthen the age-friendly agenda. Future studies can use the CSAT to guide their CS approach and incorporate best practices into their design and methods so that processes, strategies and outcomes are co-produced with residents to shape the future of their local urban environments.
The data that support the findings of this study are available in the appendices and supplementary material and from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Michel JP. Urbanization and ageing health outcomes. J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(5):463–5.
United Nations. World Population Ageing 2020 Highlights. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2020. (ST/ESA/SET.A/451)
Cleland C, Reis RS, Hino AAF, Hunter R, Fermino RC, de Paiva HK, Czestschuk B, Ellis G. Built environment correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior in older adults: a comparative review between high and low-middle income countries. Health Place. 2019;57:277–304.
Frank B, Delano D, Caniglia BS. Urban systems: a socio-ecological system perspective. Sociol Int J. 2017;1(1):1–8.
World Health Organization. Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2007. https://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_English.pdf
Scharlach AE. Age-friendly cities: for whom? By whom? For what purpose? In: Moulaert T, Garon S, editors. Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison: political lessons, scientific avenues, and democratic issues. Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 305–29.
Phillipson C. Developing age-friendly urban communities: critical issues for public policy. Public Policy ; Aging Rep. 2014;25(1):4–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppar/pru052.
Murtagh B, Cleland C, Ferguson S, et al. Age-friendly cities, knowledge and urban restructuring. Int Plan Stud. 2021;1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2021.1920374
Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES. The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. Gerontologist. 2011;52(3):357–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnr098.
Lak A, Rashidghalam P, Myint PK, Baradaran HR. Comprehensive 5P framework for active aging using the ecological approach: an iterative systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-8136-8
Kim S. Intra-regional residential movement of the elderly: testing a suburban-to-urban migration hypothesis. Ann Reg Sci. 2011;46(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-009-0325-4
Jakubec SL, Olfert M, Choi LLS, Dawe N, Sheehan D. Understanding belonging and community connection for seniors living in the suburbs. Urban Plan. 2019;4(2):43–52.
Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. Experiences of neighborhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Aging Soc. 2013;33(1):89–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X12000542.
Hand C, Rudman DL, Huot S, Pack R, Gilliland J. Enacting agency: exploring how older adults shape their neighborhoods. Empirical study; interview; qualitative study. Aging Soc. 2020;40(3):565–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X18001150.
Marston HR, van Hoof J. “Who doesn’t think about technology when designing urban environments for older people?” A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO’s age-friendly cities model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(19):3525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193525.
van Hoof J, Marston HR, Kazak JK, Buffel T. Ten questions concerning age-friendly cities and communities and the built environment. Build Environ. 2021;199:107922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107922.
King AC, King D K, Banchoff A, Solomonov S, Ben Natan O, Hua J, Gardiner P, Rosas L G, Espinosa P R, Winter S J, Sheats J, Salvo D, Aguilar-Farias N, Stathi A, Akira Hino A, Porter M M, and Our Voice Global Citizen Science Research Network. Employing participatory citizen science methods to promote age-friendly environments worldwide. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051541
World Health Organization. Global Strategy and Action Plan on Aging and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2017.
Hidalgo ES, Perelló J, Becker F, Bonhoure I, Legris M, and CIgarini A. Participation and co-creation in citizen science. In: Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, Lemmens R, Perelló J, Ponti M, Samson R, and Wagenknecht K., ed. The science of citizen science. Springer; 2021.
Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 2019;85(1):24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1559388
King AC, Winter SJ, Chrisinger BW, Hua J, Banchoff AW. Maximizing the promise of citizen science to advance health and prevent disease. Prev Med. 2019;119:44–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.016.
European Citizen Science Association. Ten principles of citizen science. London: European Citizen Science Association 2015. https://osf.io/ugy4t/. Accessed March 31, 2022
Rosas LG, Salvo D, Winter SJ, et al. Harnessing technology and citizen science to support neighborhoods that promote active living in Mexico. J Urban Health. 2016;93(6):953–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-016-0081-6.
Woolley JP, McGowan ML, Teare HJA, et al. Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Medical Ethics. 2016;17(1):33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0117-1
Walker DW, Smigaj M, Tani M. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. WIREs Water. 2021;8(1):e1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1488
Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Froehlich HE, et al. The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol Conserv. 2017;208:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014
Freitag A, Meyer R, and Whiteman L. Strategies employed by citizen science programs to increase the credibility of their data. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2016;1(1)
Kieslinger B, Schäfer T, Heigl F, Dörler D, Richter A, Bonn A. Evaluating citizen science - towards an open framework. In: HeklerSaH M, Bowser A, Vogel J, Bonn A, editors. Citizen science - innovation in open science, society and policy. UCL Press. 2018;81–95.
Wiggins A, Bonney R, LeBuhn G, Parrish JK, Weltzin JF. A science products inventory for citizen-science planning and evaluation. Bioscience. 2018;68(6):436–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy028.
Haywood BK, Besley JC. Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public Underst Sci. 2014;23(1):92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513494560.
Phillips T FM, Minarchek M, Porticella N, and Bonney R. User’s guide for evaluating learning outcomes from citizen science. 2014. https://www.citizenscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/USERS-GUIDE_linked.pdf. Accessed March 13, 2022
Rowbotham S, McKinnon M, Leach J, Lamberts R, Hawe P. Does citizen science have the capacity to transform population health science. J Urban Health: bull N Y Acad of Med. 2017;93(6):953–73.
Albert A, Balázs B, Butkevičiene E, Mayer K, and Perelló J. Citizen social science: new and established approaches to participation in social research. In: Vohland K L-ZA, Ceccaroni L, Lemmens R, Perelló J, Ponti M, Samson R, and Wagenknecht K., ed. The Science of Citizen Science. Springer; 2021.
Crain R, Cooper C, Dickinson JL. Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2014;39(1):641–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609.
Stathi A, Withall J, Agyapong-Badu S, et al. Mobilising people as assets for active aging promotion: a multi-stakeholder perspective on peer volunteering initiatives. BMC Publ Health. 2021;21(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10136-2
Stathi A, Withall J, Thompson JL, et al. Feasibility trial evaluation of a peer volunteering active aging intervention: aCE (Active, Connected, Engaged). Gerontologist. 2019;60(3):571–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz003.
World Health Organization. Checklist of Essential Features of Age-friendly Cities. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2007.
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.
Eitzel MV, Cappadonna J L, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West S E, Kyba C C M, Bowser A, Cooper C B, Sforzi A, Metcalfe A N, Harris E S, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano L, Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling F M, Dörler D, Heigl F, Kiessling T, Davis B Y, and Jiang Q. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2017;2(1)
Heigl F, Kieslinger B, Paul KT, Uhlik J, Dörler D. Opinion: toward an international definition of citizen science. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(17):8089. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903393116.
Kelty C, Panofsky A. Disentangling public participation in science and biomedicine. Genome Med. 2014;6(8):1–14.
Pateman R, Dyke A, West SE. The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2021;6(1):1–16.
World Health Organization. Active Aging: A Policy Framework. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2002.
Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: a priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1254.
Haklay M, Motion A, Balázs B, Kieslinger B, Greshake B T, Nold C, Dörler D, Fraisl D, Riemenschneider D, Florian H, Brounéus F, Hager G, Heuer K, Wagenknecht K, Vohland K, Shanley L, Deveaux L, Ceccaroni L, Weißpflug M, Gold M, Mazzonetto M, Mačiulienė M, Woods S, Luna S, Hecker S, Schaefer T, Woods T, and When T. ECSA’s characteristics of citizen science. European Citizen Science Association. Zenodo. 2020.
Downs RR, Ramapriyan HK, Peng G, Wei Y. Perspectives on citizen science data quality. Perspective. Frontiers in Climate. 2021;3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.615032
Heigl F, Bieslinger, B., Paul, K. T., Uhlik, J., Frigerio, D. and Dörler, D. Co-creating and implementing quality criteria for citizen science. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2020;5(1)
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP qualitative checklist. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2020
Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP cohort study checklist. https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Cohort-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf. Accessed October 9, 2020
Parrish JK, Burgess H, Weltzin JF, Fortson L, Wiggins A, Simmons B. Exposing the science in citizen science: fitness to purpose and intentional design. Integr Comp Biol. 2018;58(1):150–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icy032.
Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14(10):551–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436.
Leung L. Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care Jul-Sep. 2015;4(3):324–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306.
Williams J, Chapman, C., Leibovici, D. G., Loïs, G., Matheus, A., Oggioni, A., Schade, S., See, L. and van Genuchten, P. P. L. Maximising the impact and reuse of citizen science data. In: Hecker S, Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J. and Bonn, A., ed. Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy. UCL Press; 2018:321–336.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE Publication Ltd; 2016.
Buffel T. Social research and co-production with older people: developing age-friendly communities. J Aging Stud. 2018;01(44):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2018.01.012.
Chui CH, Chan OF, Tang JYM, Lum TYS. Fostering civic awareness and participation among older adults in Hong Kong: an empowerment-based participatory photo-voice training model. J Appl Gerontol. 2019;733464819838448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464819838448
Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(12):1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Pettirew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N, Roen K, and Duffy S. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme. 2006. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf. Accessed October 13, 2020
Brookfield K, Scott I, Tinker A, Thompson CW. Perspectives on “novel” techniques for designing age-friendly homes and neighborhoods with older adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5)1800. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051800
Gustafsson S, Falk C, Tillman S, Holtz L, Lindahl L. Life filming as a means of participatory approach together with older community-dwelling persons regarding their local environment. Scand J Occup Ther. 2018;25(5):347–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1502345.
von Faber M, Tavy Z, van der Pas S. Engaging older people in age-friendly cities through participatory video design. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238977
Tuckett AG, Freeman, A., Hetherington, S., Gardiner, P. A., King, A. C. and On behalf of Burnie Brae Citizen Scientists. Older adults using our voice citizen science to create change in their neighborhood environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2685.
Ronzi S, Pope D, Orton L, Bruce N. Using photovoice methods to explore older people’s perceptions of respect and social inclusion in cities: opportunities, challenges and solutions. SSM - Population Health. 2016;01(2):732–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.09.004.
Buffel T, Phillipson C. Aging in a gentrifying neighborhood: experiences of community change in later life. Article Sociol. 2019;53(6):987–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038519836848.
Ronzi S, Orton L, Buckner S, Bruce N, Pope D. How is respect and social inclusion conceptualised by older adults in an aspiring age-friendly city? A photovoice study in the North-West of England. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(24):9246.
Black K, Dobbs D, Young TL. Aging in community: mobilizing a new paradigm of older adults as a core social resource. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(2):219–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464812463984.
Annear M, Keeling S, Wilkinson T. Participatory and evidence-based recommendations for urban redevelopment following natural disasters: older adults as policy advisers. Australas J Aging. 2014;33(1):43–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12053.
Mahmood A, Chaudhury H, Michael YL, Campo M, Hay K, Sarte A. A photovoice documentation of the role of neighborhood physical and social environments in older adults’ physical activity in two metropolitan areas in North America. Empirical study; qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(8):1180–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.039
Glover L, Dyson J, Cowdell F, Kinsey D. Healthy aging in a deprived northern UK city: a co-creation study. Health Soc Care Community. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13036
Fang ML, Woolrych R, Sixsmith J, Canham S, Battersby L, Sixsmith A. Place-making with older persons: establishing sense-of-place through participatory community mapping workshops. Soc Sci Med. 2016;168:223–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.07.007.
Aw S, Koh G, Oh YJ, et al. Explaining the continuum of social participation among older adults in Singapore: from ‘closed doors’ to active aging in multi-ethnic community settings. Empirical study; interview; focus group; qualitative study. J Aging Stud. 2017;42:46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2017.07.002
Salma J, Salami B. “We are like any other people, but we don’t cry much because nobody listens”: the need to strengthen aging policies and service provision for minorities in Canada. Gerontologist. 2020;60(2):279–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz184.
Novek S, Menec VH. Older adults’ perceptions of age-friendly communities in Canada: a photovoice study. Aging Soc. 2014;34(6):1052–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X1200150X.
Adorno G, Fields N, Cronley C, Parekh R, Magruder K. Aging in a low-density urban city: transportation mobility as a social equity issue. Aging Soc. 2018;38(2):296–320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X16000994.
Garvin T, Nykiforuk CIJ, Johnson S. Can we get old here? Seniors’ perceptions of seasonal constraints of neighborhood built environments in a northern, winter city. Article. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography. 2012;94(4):369–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/geob.12004
Parekh R, Maleku A, Fields N, Adorno G, Schuman D, Felderhoff B. Pathways to age-friendly communities in diverse urban neighborhoods: do social capital and social cohesion matter? J Gerontol Soc Work. 2018;61(5):492–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2018.1454564
Hand CL, Rudman DL, Huot S, Gilliland JA, Pack RL. Toward understanding person–place transactions in neighborhoods: a qualitative-participatory geospatial approach. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx064.
Verma I, Huttunen H. Elderly-friendly neighborhoods. J Hous Elder. 2015;29:1–2.
Barrie H, Soebarto V, Lange J, Mc Corry-Breen F, Walker L. Using citizen science to explore neighborhood influences on aging well: pilot project. Healthcare (Basel). 2019;7(4) https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040126
Wijewardhana UA, Meyer D, and Jayawardana M. Statistical models for the persistence of threatened birds using citizen science data: a systematic review. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020;21
Hinckson E, Schneider M, Winter SJ, et al. Citizen science applied to building healthier community environments: advancing the field through shared construct and measurement development. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0588-6
Best A, Stokols D, Green LW, Leischow S, Holmes B, Buchholz K. An integrative framework for community partnering to translate theory into effective health promotion strategy. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(2):168–176. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-18.2.168
Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. In: Vasta R, ed. Annals of child development: vol 6. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1989.
Robinson T. Applying the socio-ecological model to improving fruit and vegetable intake among low-income African Americans. J Community Health. 2008;33:395–406.
Mcleroy K, Bibeau DL, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Quarterley. 1988;15(4):351–77.
Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(4):282–98. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282.
Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297–322.
Andersson E, Haase D, Anderson P, et al. What are the traits of a social-ecological system: towards a framework in support of urban sustainability. npj Urban Sustainability. 2021;1(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-020-00008-4
Crabtree-Hayes L. Housing as a social-ecological system: resilience, adaptive capacity and governance considerations. Presented at the 4th Australasian Housing Researchers Conference. 5th-7th August, Sydney. 2009.
Durie R, Wyatt K. Connecting communities and complexity: a case study in creating the conditions for transformational change. Crit Public Health. 2013;23(2):174–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2013.781266
Menec VH, Means R, Keating N, Parkhurst G, Eales J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can J Aging / La Rev can du vieillissement. 2011;30(3):479–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000237.
Kloos B, Shah S. A social ecological approach to investigating relationships between housing and adaptive functioning for persons with serious mental illness. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;44(3–4):316–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9277-1.
Ornelas J, Martins P, Zilhão MT, Duarte T. Housing first: an ecological approach to promoting community integration. Eur J Homelessness. 2014;8(1):29–56.
Shaw M. Housing and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25(1):397–418. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.101802.123036
Libman K, Fields D, Saegert S. Housing and health: a social ecological perspective on the US foreclosure crisis. Hous Theory Soc. 2012;29(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2012.624881
Yeom HA, Fleury J, Keller C. Risk factors for mobility limitation in community-dwelling older adults: a social ecological perspective. Geriatr Nurs. 2008;29(2):133–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2007.07.002.
Dunn J, Chambers SK, Hyde MK. Systematic review of motives for episodic volunteering. VOLUNTAS: Int J Volunt Nonprofit Org. 2016;27(1):425–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9548-4
Naud D, Généreux M, Bruneau J-F, Alauzet A, Levasseur M. Social participation in older women and men: differences in community activities and barriers according to region and population size in Canada. BMC Publ Health. 2019;19(1):1124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7462-1
Smith M, Hosking J, Woodward A, Witten K, MacMillan A, Field A, Baas P, and Mackie H. Systematic literature review of built environment effects of physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14
Vogelsang EM. Older adult social participation and its relationship with health: rural-urban differences. Health Place. 2016;42:111–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.09.010.
Liu Z, Kemperman A, Timmermans H. Social-ecological correlates of older adults’ outdoor activity patterns. J Transp Health. 2020;16:100840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100840
Lu P, Xu C, Shelley M. A state-of-the-art review of the socio-ecological correlates of volunteerism among older adults. Aging Soc. 2020;1–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000082
Buffel T, Phillipson C. A Manifesto for the age-friendly movement: developing a new urban agenda. J Aging Soc Policy. 2018;30(2):173–92.
Buffel T, Rémillard-Boilard S, Walsh K, McDonald B, Smetcoren A, De Donder L. Age-friendly approaches and old-age exclusion: a cross-city analysis. Int J Aging Later Life. 2020;14(2):89–117.
Lager D, Van Hoven B, Huigen PPP. Dealing with change in old age: negotiating working-class belonging in a neighborhood in the process of urban renewal in the Netherlands. Geoforum. 2013;50:54–61.
Smith RJ, Lehning AJ, Kim K. Aging in place in gentrifying neighborhoods: implications for physical and mental health. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):26–35.
Burns FV, Lavoie J-P, Rose D. Revisiting the role of neighborhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. J Aging Res. 2012;148287:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/148287
Buffel T, Phillipson C. Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and aging populations. Cities. 2016;55:94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.016
Thomése F, Buffel T, Phillipson C. Neighborhood change, social inequalities and age-friendly communities. In (eds) Buffel T, Handler S, Phillipson, C. Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: A Global Perspective. 2018;3:33–49.
Lehning AJ, Smith RJ, Dunkle RE. Do age-friendly characteristics influence the expectation to age in place? A comparison of low-income and higher income Detroit elders. J Appl Gerontol. 2013;32(2):158–80.
Park H-J, Morgan T, Wiles J, Gott M. Lonely aging in a foreign land: social isolation and loneliness among older Asian migrants in New Zealand. Health Soc Care Community. 2018;27 https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12690
Rémillard-Boilard S, Buffel T, Phillipson C. Involving older residents in age-friendly developments: from information to coproduction mechanisms. Journal of Housing For the Elderly. 2017;31(2):146–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763893.2017.1309932
Burholt V, Dobbs C, Victor C. Transnational relationships and cultural identify of older migrants. J Gerontopsychology Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;29(2):57–69.
Syed MA, McDonald L, Smirle C, Lau K, Mirza RM, Hitzig SL. Social isolationg in Chinese older adults: scoping review for age-friendly community planning. Can J Aging / La Rev can du vieillissement. 2017;36(2):223–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980817000101.
Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. Aging in urban environments: developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Crit Soc Policy. 2012;32(4):597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018311430457
Gonyea JG, Hudson R B. Emerging models of age-friendly communities: a framework for understanding inclusion. Public Policy & Aging Report. 2015;25(1)
Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Lewenstein BV, Bonney R. Engagement in science through citizen science: moving beyond data collection. Sci Educ. 2019;103(3):665–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21501.
Bonney R, Ballard, H, Jordan, R, McCallie, E, Phillips, T, Shirk, J. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Washington, D.C. 2009.
Withall J, Thompson JL, Fox KR, et al. Participant and public involvement in refining a peer-volunteering active aging intervention: project ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged). Gerontologist. 2016;58(2):362–75. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw148.
Davis LF, Ramírez-Andreotta M D, and Buxner S.R. Engaging diverse citizen scientists for environmental health: recommendations from participants and promotoras. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2020;5(1):7.
Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst Sci. 2015;25(1):2–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406
The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine. Learning through citizen science: enhancing opportunities by design. The National Academies Press; 2018.
West S, Dyke A, and Pateman, R. Variations in the motivations of environmental citizen scientists. Citizen Sci: theory Pract. 2021;6(1)
Ward Thompson C, Bell S, Satsangi M, Netto G, Morris N, Travlou P, Chapman M, Raemaekers J, and Griffiths A. Diversity review: options for implementation - final report. OPENspace. 2003.
Wright DR, Underhill LG, Keene M, Knight AT. Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Soc Nat Resour. 2015;28(9):1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976
Pandya RE. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Front Ecol Environ. 2012;10(6):314–7.
King AC, Odunitan-Wayas FA, Chaudhury M, et al. Community-based approaches to reducing health inequities and fostering environmental justice through global youth-engaged citizen science. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):892.
Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Publ Health. 2015;15(1):725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1
Winter SJ, Goldman Rosas L, Padilla Romero P, et al. Using citizen scientists to gather, analyze, and disseminate information about neighborhood features that affect active living. J Immigr Minor Health. 2016;18(5):1126–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0241-x
Welborn R, Downey L, Dyk PH, Monroe PA, Tayler-Mackey C, Worthy SL. Turning the tide on poverty: documenting impacts through ripple effect mapping. Community Dev. 2016;47(3):385–402.
King AC, Campero M I, Garcia D, Blanco-Velazquez I, Banchoff A, Fierros F, Escobar M, Cortes A L, Sheats J L, Hua J, Chazaro A, Done M, Rodriguez Espinosa P, Vuong D, Ahn D K. Testing the effectiveness of community-engaged citizen science to promote physical activity, foster healthier neighborhood environments, and advance health equity in vulnerable communities: the steps for change randomized controlled trial design and methods. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2021;Online Ahead of Print https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106526
Paleco C, García Peter S, Salas Seoane N, Kaufmann J, Argyri P, et al. Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. In: Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, et al., editors. The science of citizen science. Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 261–81.
Haklay M, Dörler D, Heigl F, Manzoni M, Hecker S, Vohland K, et al. What is citizen science? The challenges of definition. In: Vohland K, Land-Zandstra A, Ceccaroni L, et al., editors. The science of citizen science. Springer International Publishing; 2021. p. 13–33.
Buman MP, Winter SJ, Baker C, Hekler EB, Otten JJ, King AC. Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Teams (NEAAT): engaging older adults in policy activities to improve food and physical environments. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2(2):249–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-011-0100-9.
Winter SJ, Buman MP, Sheats JL, et al. Harnessing the potential of older adults to measure and modify their environments: long-term successes of the Neighborhood Eating and Activity Advocacy Team (NEAAT) Study. Transl Behav Med. 2014;4(2):226–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0264-1.
Tuckett. Older adults using our voice citizen science to create change in their neighborhood environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2685.
ECSA. What is citizen science? https://ecsa.citizen-science.net. Accessed October 9, 2020
King AC, Winter SJ, Sheats JL, et al. Leveraging citizen science and information technology for population physical activity promotion. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2016;1(4):30–44. https://doi.org/10.1249/tjx.0000000000000003.
Moran M, Werner P, Doron I, HaGani N, Benvenisti Y, King A C, Winter S J, Sheats J L, Garber R, Motro H, et al. Detecting inequalities in healthy and age-friendly environments: examining the Stanford Healthy Neighborhood Discovery Tool in Israel. International Research Workshop on Inequalities in Health Promoting Environments: Physical Activity and Diet. Israel: University of Haifa; 2015.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Benjamin Chrisinger for his support and guidance in developing the Citizen Science Appraisal Tool. This study is funded by the University of Birmingham as part of a PhD studentship.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wood, G.E.R., Pykett, J., Daw, P. et al. The Role of Urban Environments in Promoting Active and Healthy Aging: A Systematic Scoping Review of Citizen Science Approaches. J Urban Health 99, 427–456 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-022-00622-w