Homes4Life Certification Scheme Technical Reference Framework – version 0

Homes4Life Deliverable D4.1 – Version 0 of the Certification Scheme Technical Reference Framework – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

This document presents the Technical Reference Framework (TRF version 0) for the Homes4Life certification scheme. It lists all the requirements which will form the scheme in the future digital platform. It constitutes a provisional version of the TRF that will be further developed in v1 in M20 and final version in M22.

The main principles of a certification scheme are defined according to Certivéa’s experience and knowledge about certifications schemes. Specifics for Homes4Life certification scheme are described based on the deliverable D3.4: Homes4Life Functional brief.

The document goes through different aspects that must be considered when developing a Certification scheme. It details the main characteristics of a certification scheme, its principles and structure and general recommendations for its requirements.

Afterwards it focuses in the specific characteristics of the Homes4Life certification scheme, according to the Functional Brief (D3.4). Identification of the clients of the certification scheme, explanation of the scope of the certification scheme and description of the certification process where each requirement will be specified with its description and assessment method.

Finally, it describes the quality and validation process proposed for the Homes4Life certification scheme within the project.

This deliverable will be followed by two other versions of the TRF (v1 in deliverable D4.3 due month 20 and v2 in D4.4 due month 22).

April 18, 2020

Homes4Life report on Existing R&I initiatives

Homes4Life Deliverable D3.3 – Report on Existing R&I initiatives – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

This deliverable is focused on identifying and analysing existing research and innovation (R&I) initiatives and on detecting gaps and shortcomings in overcoming barriers for investments for generating age–friendly building stock (renovation and new buildings, including community integration). The analysis has been made between the partners of the projects for identifying the most significant projects in the European scenario. Furthermore, the analysis has been extended also to National and Regional projects to have a point of view focused on concrete and real scenario and a cross-cultural difference between projects from different countries or areas. The analysed projects came from several research and innovation programmes, e.g. H2020, Active and Assistive Living (AAL), More Years Better Lives Joint programming initiatives, etc. A selection of these projects has been made to provide a list of projects that can identify gaps to be covered from Homes4Life. The project has been divided in 3 major classes:

Large Scale IoT pilots
Smart living environments
Independent Living and Ageing well

For each categorises has been analysed several aspects:

A general description
Goals
Strengths and Opportunities
Weaknesses and Threats

The analysed projects have been chosen in different areas of research, e.g. psychological, social, architectural, urban, ICT to embrace all the main aspects that the certification scheme for age-friendly environment should cover.

April 18, 2020

Homes4life Certification Schemes Framework report

Homes4Life Deliverable D3.2 – Certification Schemes Framework report – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

What does already exist around certification of age friendly living environments? To face the development of Homes4Life certification scheme the existing certification, labelling schemes, guidelines and local and regional initiatives and laws must be identified and analysed. This deliverable goes though the existing and emerging certification and labelling schemes as well as guidelines and local experiences and analyses them to identify the gaps and barriers that these existing schemes have found for their implementation.

The purpose of this analysis is to pave the way for the definition of the functional brief in Task 3.4: Summary functional brief and to feed the Task 3.1 Analytical KPI framework.

The gap analysis will also enable partners to identify complementarity and compatibility requirements to be imposed on the new labelling scheme if it is to function in conjunction with and capitalize on the potential of existing national and sub-national schemes.

The main objective of this analysis is to identify not only the existing certification schemes, guidelines and initiatives around all the issues related to age-friendly housing to recognize the common points, but also gaps or uncovered fields that are considered fundamental for the Homes4Life Certification Scheme (CS).

The material analysed encompasses:

Certification Schemes (CS) and labels (LS): method and certificate issued by an independent body attesting the conformity (of a product, a service) to a scheme, a standard, or a regulation in force.
Guidelines: text setting goals to be achieved.
Local experiences: different initiatives at local level related to age-friendly housing.
Some result in guidelines, some in solutions repository.
Laws and regulations: regulations that refers to issues as social housing, housing for older people, housing design, building codes and any of the other technical issues identified.
Good practices: compilation of good practices about age-friendly housing.

On this basis Homes4Life partners have performed a research on existing CS and LS, guides, regulations and good practices from which they had to identify those that were related to some of the fields described below:

Quality of life as a general overall concept which covers all the other themes:

Habitability (indoor): Habitability refers to a dwelling having favourable conditions and being suitable for human habitation (for instance, in a physical domain, possessing working basic amenities and not being in substantial disrepair). Inside habitability other concepts are included, such as accessibility, safety, indoor comfort and energy efficiency.
Independent living, and all those products or services that foster it, such us technologies (e-health, robotics.) or home care services (formal or informal home care, household services …)
Smart readiness, concept that includes ICT user friendliness, IT openness and Security and Data Protection.
Community living: Outdoor spaces and buildings, transportation, and housing. are key features of a city’s physical environment, as they have a strong influence on personal mobility, safety from injury, security from crime, health behaviour and social participation.
After the identification of all these different schemes and guidelines (34 certification/labelling schemes, 8 local initiatives, 10 laws and regulations and one good practice) a second selection process started.

1st approach to select the schemes is related to the type of the identified schemes (certification, labels, guidelines, regulations…etc). According to partners expert criteria, certification scheme was selected because they include a series of requirements to be met, which match better with the Homes4life objectives and requirements structure.

It was also considered the scope, certification schemes covering solely product certifications were discarded for further analysis because Homes4life certification should not be a product certification scheme but should cover the whole living environment.

Regarding the fields to address, the analysis process has identified how different schemes report the already identified fields (Habitability, Independent living, Smart readiness and Community living).

The approach to selected existing certification schemes to be analysed is based on the findings of WP2. It considers who the priority users are (user’s perspective), the functionalities or “home functions” and its connections to age-friendly environments. Task 2.4 Working Taxonomy, which is being developed in parallel to this task has identified different clusters to which the selected schemes should give response. These clusters are:

Physical cluster
Outdoor accessibility cluster
Personal cluster
Social cluster
Economic cluster
After this method 15 certification schemes were selected:

The Design for All approach
High Health Safety Label (HS2)
The Habitat Senior Services label
NF Habitat HQE certification
R2S-Ready2Services Label
VISEHA label
HQE Sustainable Building Certification
BREEAM Certificate
The WELL building standard
TQB assessment scheme
AARP Livability Index – Great Neighbourhoods for all Ages
WoonKeur
Code of openness
Home Performance Index
HQE CS “Services residences”

After all this procedure and the analysis of the 15 selected certification schemes the main results from the technical point of view are the identification of several requirements and indicators that are already being approached in other certification schemes, even if they are not directly related with age-friendly living environments.

All these requirements and indicators can be found in Annex 3. In further tasks, a selection of them will be performed to advance in the KPI definition of Homes4Life.

On the other hand, this analysis has also resulted in the identification of some gaps concerning especially personal, social and economic clusters.

Most of the material found in the analysed CS deals with the physical aspects or outdoor accessibility of an age-friendly environment, although some of them have addressed specific topics such as services adapted to the older tenants or interconnectivity of IT systems, but they don ́t cover other fields in relation with the personal and social issues , or the economic factors.

In conclusion, the resulting challenge for the next steps is to define the requirements that the different users’ profiles have for a Homes4Life home in all the identified clusters: physical, outdoor accessibility, personal, social and economic cluster (defined in Task 2.4).It will also be required to specify new indicators that will cover the personal, social and economic fields that are essential in order to define the Homes4Life certification scheme, to achieve certified smart and integrated living environments for ageing well.

April 18, 2020

Homes4Life Innovation Analysis report | Charting Europe’s Innovation Landscape for Age-friendly Housing

Homes4Life Deliverable D2.5 – Innovation Analysis Report – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

Throughout Europe a variety of innovative pilot projects – or ‘experiments’ – are being implemented to improve the life-course resilience of existing and newly built home environments. These experiments reflect the distinct socio-economic context of their locations and, more importantly, they provide a glance into potential future directions for the development of age-friendly homes. It is important to take stock of this diversity in order to get ideas about the range of home environments into which the Homes4Life certification scheme might be introduced and therefore about the flexibility required by the certification scheme when it is deployed throughout Europe.

This report provides an overview of 67 ongoing experiments in the domain of age-friendly housing. By focusing on four countries – the Netherlands, Poland, Ireland and France – we draw more detailed attention to some of these experiments. Overall, we find that, besides the variation between these countries, there is a more important type variation in terms of differences in the character of these experiments and the directions proposed by these experiments. Most of the associated innovations tested in age-friendly home experiments are not primarily material or technical, but primarily social or conceptual in character (i.e. new organisational or everyday practices that re-arrange social relations or new housing concepts that bridge the divide between ageing in place individually and a nursing home). This variety of innovations tested in the experiments has been categorized into seven distinct innovation pathways: (1) Showcasing Technology, (2) Innovation Ecosystem, (3) Sheltered Elite, (4) Specific Community, (5) Conscious Retrofitting, (6) Home Sharing and (7) Retrovation Challenge.

The array of experiments and future directions identified in this report provides insights into the different kinds of home environments that the Homes4Life certification scheme could encounter when made operational. Specifically, we highlights that in the development and application of the Homes4Life certification scheme, special attention to be paid to the following: (1) making the scheme flexible enough to assess the wide variety of innovative home environments that are part of very different innovation pathways; (2) dealing with potential misalignments between certain radical innovations and the application of a certification scheme; (3) formulating a communication strategy to articulate to added value of the certification scheme to innovators involved in experiments.

April 18, 2020

Homes4Life Working Taxonomy & KPI Framework for Smart age friendly living environments

Homes4Life Deliverable D2.4 & D3.1 – Working Taxonomy & KPI Framework for Smart age friendly living environments – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

The Homes4Life project has posited for itself an ambitious set of targets. It aims to stimulate investment in age-friendly homes and improve opportunities for ageing well in place for the European population, by both defining and offering a holistic, positively framed long- term vision for inclusive housing in Europe, and offering practical tools in the form of certification. To unite those two workstreams into a coherent whole that will support stakeholders to understand one another, work together and find common ground for action, tools are needed to bridge the gap and facilitate the transition between long-term vision and current practice.

The Homes4Life has accordingly set itself the task to develop two instruments for this purpose: a working taxonomy, and a framework of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The working taxonomy of age-friendly homes (D2.4) presents a structured and detailed breakdown of what it means for a home to be age-friendly? Which functions does the home environment have to fulfil? Which elements in its location, setting, design, construction and components contribute to its fitness for purpose? Which stakeholder groups are in some way involved with the age-friendly home environment and what do they need and want from the home in order for it to be fit for their social, practical or economic purpose? The working taxonomy is a first attempt to answer these questions in a structured way. In doing so, it aims to fill an evident gap in current understanding of and discussions around age-friendly homes: the lack of basic shared descriptive language for academic and practical discourse. This lack of a common reference framework hinders efforts to improve the age-friendliness of the European stock of homes: without a usable framework it is very hard to identify which problems to tackle, which intervention strategies are likely to work, and/or how to incentivize improvements appropriately.

The development of the working taxonomy has been shaped by three main objectives. In terms of agenda-setting, work on the taxonomy has sought to redefine the terms “smart” and “integrated” from the narrow ICT-sense in which they are currently applied to the home environment. Work on the taxonomy has sought to demonstrate that “smart” can be more usefully understood in a teleological sense as the extent to which a home contributes to the personal and organisational aspirations of its occupants and other stakeholders and can adapt as these change over time. “Integrated”, likewise, should be construed more broadly as describing how well a home is embedded in its spatial and social context, and the extent to which it helps its occupants to maintain existing social networks and build new connections. Conceptually, the goal of the taxonomy is to address a number of specific current gaps in understanding of and approaches to age- friendly homes. Practically, and most importantly for a working instrument, the taxonomy sets itself the task to develop a reference framework that works to support and tie together the Homes4Life project objectives.

Taking its inspiration from academic research in salutogenesis, place making and gerontechnology, as well as from policy-based and monitoring approaches developed by the World Health Organisation (Age-friendly Cities, and Age-friendly Environments in Europe), UNECE and the European Commission (Active Ageing Index) and the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the EIP AHA), as well as promising work in recent EU-funded projects, the working taxonomy has been shaped as a matrix in which an itinerary of user and other stakeholder perspectives on one axis is matched with a detailed breakdown of the homeenvironment’s main functions on the other. These functions have been broken down into five main clusters: Physical functions of the home, functions concerning Outdoor Access, Personal functions, Social functions, and Economic functions and aspects. After consideration of several other structuring principles, this perspectives and functions driven approach has been considered to fit best with the practical utility required of the taxonomy, which consisted in the following aspects:

Create a common language, focusing on the universalities rather than the context- specific particularities of age-friendly homes
Clarify who are the stakeholders involved in age-friendly homes and help identify their needs and concerns.
Help stakeholders to understand and appreciate each other’s viewpoints and find common ground
Give a full view of the functions the home environment fulfils for its various stakeholders, taking especial care to move beyond the relatively narrow domain
Support the adoption of a positive, value-based approach to ageing in place
Present a comprehensive overview, yet be flexible enough to allow description, analysis and assessment in specific contexts and projects.The report outlines the results of the development process of the working taxonomy. It also showcases a first test that has been done to get an idea of the actual utility of the working taxonomy as a canvas to map meanings, impacts and priorities: the definition of a set of what have been called Needs or Preferences (NoPs), which have been defined using the taxonomy descriptive framework. A total of 150 NoPs have been identified in this initial exercise. Both the working taxonomy and the outcomes of this initial verification exercise are presented in the report.
The report also details the development process and contents of the KPI-framework (D3.1). The decision to combine the two into a single report has been a conscious one. The development of working taxonomy and KPI-framework has constituted one integrated workstream. More importantly, the KPI-framework uses the taxonomy as its structuring principle and could not be easily understood without it. Finally, working taxonomy and KPI- framework are two connected practical tools to support the Homes4Life objectives, so it makes sense to create a single locus where those interested can find information.

What does a home actually have to do in order to be age-friendly? That is the central question that the Homes4Life KPI-framework sets out to answer. The KPI-framework represents the follow-on step in the transition from vision-based, high-level concepts to a comprehensive, “universal” (that is, not implementation context dependent) set of indicators that can form the basis for more specific requirement-setting and verification in the certification pilots in Work Package 4.

While called KPIs, the indicators developed for Homes4Life are better understood as Functional Performance Indicators (FPIs). They describe what a home, its components, its physical characteristics, its lay-out and design, its components, its location and settings, its connections to the outside world, and/or its financial and governance aspects need to be able to do in order to fulfill a Function (as defined in the Homes4Life taxonomy framework) that contributes to the creation or maintenance of an age-friendly environment that is enabling, fit for purpose, flexible and resilient. The KPIs or FPIs in Homes4Life are defined in terms of outcomes achieved and functionality provided for users and other stakeholders. This has been done in accordance with the objective of providing a framework that is relatively context-independent, with it or sections of it being tailored to more specific applications through requirement and verification process and value setting in specific certification application.

In developing the KPI-framework, most effort and ingenuity has been spent on developing indicators for the Functional clusters where current certification schemes, labels, standards and guidelines do not provide adequate answers. For these clusters, the Personal, Social and Economic clusters, an analysis of both academic and policy and advocacy literature has been conducted to identify and collect appropriate KPIs for inclusion. For the Physical and Outdoor Access cluster, full use has been made of the work done earlier in the Homes4Life project on the analysis of existing certification schemes (task 3.2). The material from this analysis has been integrated and condensed with the resulting shorter set of KPIs redefined in terms with the format and purposes of the Homes4Life KPI-framework. In total, 273 KPIs have been described, in a uniform format.

Neither the working taxonomy nor the KPI-framework are to be considered as the final word on the subject. Both represent pragmatic approaches designed to provide a sufficient base for the purposes and continuation of the Homes4Life project. As the project enters its second year, both deliverables will be tested against the demands of certification pilots and subjected to the scrutiny and input of the project’s Community of Interest as well as wider groups of stakeholders. The feedback from practice and from a wide community of interested persons and organizations will serve to further refine, extend and update both instruments, appropriate to their intended status as flexible working tools.

April 18, 2020April 24, 2020

Homes4Life Vision Document

Homes4Life Vision for 2040 Document – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

Imagine a society where your house is truly your home. A supportive, enabling environment that helps you realize your full personal and social potential. Imagine a society where such houses are within reach for Europeans of all ages, regardless of income, gender, race or ethnic background, sexual orientation, health status, or disability. This is the vision Homes4Life supports for 2040.

Our homes are more than just four walls and a roof. They are the places where we spend most of our time – up to 80% of our days and nights – when we reach 80 years of age. They are our familiar surroundings, intimately tied to our personal history and identity; the familiar surroundings where we want to keep living for as long as we possibly can. Our homes help us to be independent and in control of our lives; support us to remain active and healthy; keep us socially connected and engaged with our environment and community; and evolve with us as our lifestyle choices and needs change with the passing of the years.

If our homes do just that across the life course we consider them to be age-friendly. Age- friendly housing is therefore relevant for all citizens and has a tremendous influence on our health and wellbeing, our social interactions and our capacity to participate in community life. Thus, age-friendly housing must become a key public policy based on three elements:

All relevant stakeholders must be aware of the issues,
Appropriate tools and policy frameworks should be in place, and
All stakeholders need incentives appropriate to their needs and concerns.

Only then will it be possible to build new dwellings and retrofit existing ones at the scale required to support safe, healthy and independent living across the community.

April 18, 2020

Homes4Life Stakeholder Workshop – Event report

Homes4Life Deliverable D2.2 – Stakeholder Workshop, Event report – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

Homes4Life (H4L) project aims at addressing the challenge of ageing in place for older people, in a living environment that corresponds to needs and preferences that evolve over time. It will do so by contributing to the development of a new European certification scheme (CS), based on an inspirational and realistic long-term vision of people’s needs and requirements in a holistic life-course approach. It will also help developing better living environments integrating construction and digital solutions where this is beneficial.

As part of Task 2.2, H4L partners have organised a “Stakeholder workshop” which objective was to expose the first results obtained in Tasks 2.1, 2.3 and 2.41, but also to receive all the opinions, comments and inputs from the audience. H4L partners will use this material to fine-tune their research, to understand each stakeholder’s concerns, etc., in order to draw the most coherent, inclusive and functional CS.

The workshop gathered 58 participants in Brussels, among them expert members of the H4L expert board and stakeholders from a wide array of sectors (older people networks, public authorities, research institutes, consulting firms etc.) all across the EU. It was divided in 3 sessions covering the different parts of the preliminary work:

Session 1: Age-friendly housing today and tomorrow
Session 2: Vision 2040 for age-friendly environment in Europe: potential scenarios and the stakeholder roles
Session 3: From taxonomy to certification – priorities and concerns.

The inputs of the participants have been gathered during roundtable sessions by Homes4Life partners and compiled in this report. Partners especially expected feedbacks on the following aspects:

Level of awareness of stakeholders
Propositions of success factors and barriers for the implementation of the CS
Comments about the Vision 2040 already prepared by the consortium
Input on what the role of each stakeholder should be in the definition and
implementation of a CS on age-friendly housing (AFH)
Priority areas and requirement for the development of a taxonomy and CS
Implications for the operational characteristics of the CS.

Even if many diverse inputs have been provided, a few of them seem to particularly stand out. They are briefly commented below2.

An overall positive feedback was received on the idea of a CS, the first works carried out and the vision 2040. To be noted though: the terminology should be clarified in order to avoid confusion between e.g. “vision”, “certification scheme” and “taxonomy”.
The level of awareness around these topics seems to be growing in Europe: ageing population and AFH is a pan European matter. Significant differences in the context and management can be noticed among countries or regions though.
Most initiatives seem to emerge at a local level, apart from a few initiatives from front runners. Many local projects across Europe have been shared by attendees.
The public sector is seen as the principal driver to change practices, to disseminate on the topic of age-friendliness, to implement related-policies, but also to share on the potential benefits of a CS.
However, oppositions were observed on regulations. Most stakeholders consider they are needed to draw standards and encourage housing adaptation. But some were opposed to such CS: they do not welcome an extra regulation, whereas their local requirements/standards/CS are already working. They can see them as potential interferences, and consider design guidelines potentially more efficient.
Though all stakeholders have a role to play in the improvement of the situation, most seem open to exchange and share good practices, for instance through adapted new platforms.
The potential lack of funding is a main concern for stakeholders. A financial system and incentives must be found, in order to launch projects. Tenants and landlords especially might not have enough resources to start renovation works on their properties.
The lack of information/knowledge is also a major barrier to the adaptation of housing. Not only from the tenant or landlords, but also from the construction sector, architects, etc.
Technologies and ICT might bring answers or new possibilities. Therefore, they must be fully integrated into the CS. Provided that the readiness and savviness of end users is taken into account, as well as their affordability.
Concerning the form of the CS, four notions seemed to particularly stand out for most participants:
- holistic approach, covering all parameters and opinions
- simplicity, enabling all stakeholder to implement it with little effort and resource
- adaptability, for all kinds of buildings, owners, uses, etc.
- inclusiveness, so that all stakeholders and inhabitants can participate. Psychological factors concerning older people (e.g. acceptation of ageing) should be considered in this reflexion.

With these feedbacks and discussions, the Homes4Life consortium will move forward to the next steps of the project. The collaboration with the stakeholder group will contribute to the development of the KPIs framework.

April 18, 2020

Homes4Life Desktop Research Report

Homes4Life Deliverable D2.1 – Desktop Research Report – is now available for download.

Executive Summary

Ensuring that our environments remain accessible for all ages is an urgent need as increasing life expectancies are making our societies more age diverse. The oldest members of our societies are an ever increasing group whose potential to contribute to our living together won’t be tapped unless we set in place the condition for independent living and participation for all society members, regardless of their age, and abilities. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2017), housing is one of the three pillars composing age-friendly environments, along with accessible outdoor environments and transport and mobility. Because it is one of the places where we spend most time, especially after people retire, our homes can have a tremendous impact on our health and wellbeing, our social interactions, and our capacity to participate in community life.

At the present time though, a large part of homes and housing options in Europe are not fit for a wide range of users with specific needs and preferences. When living with a disability for instance, or when health declines and support needs arise, many people cannot find adequate solutions either to adapt their place, or to find an alternative option where they could remain autonomous while receiving the support they need. The present desktop research report is the result of this observation that this need to shift towards ageing-in-place does not yet, for many regions in Europe, coincide with adequate and sufficient solutions in the housing sector to meet the growing demand of older Europeans, the majority of whom want to age at home.

The report is based on the analysis of a series of reports depicting the situation in 10 European Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Those countries have been selected to compose a sample as representative as possible of the diverse welfare systems and housing stocks existing in the European Union. They review existing statistics, scientific and grey literature in relation to socio-demographic trends, the situation of the housing stock, laws and policies for ageing-in-place and home adaptation (if any).

The report draws on a comparative analysis that is structured around three main sections, the first one reviewing our preferences in terms of housing as we age (Chapter 2), the second one states the cause of age-friendly housing based on the actual health, social and economic context (Chapter 3), and third section presents the legislative, policy, and housing contexts at national levels, that influence the likelihood of an age-friendly approach to arise in relation to housing (Chapter 4). The report then closes on four different scenarios representing potential routes for the future with 2040 as the horizon and the likeliness these scenarios present to adopt the Homes4Life certification scheme (Chapter 5).

Based on studies carried out in the 10 countries analysed for this desktop research report, a clear preference to remain living in their current home came out for older people. However, this possibility will only be made possible if their home can accompany and support this heterogeneous older population’s changing needs, lifestyles and abilities over time. It will also need to meet the different stages of their life and that of their possible cohabitants (partners, parents, children, house/flatmates, etc.). To enable them to satisfy their preference, there is an urgent need for a home that fosters people’s autonomy, as well as remaining active and healthy as they age, respects lifestyle choices, needs and preferences of people, regardless of their age across the life course, and enables accessibility to all areas of community life, thereby promoting inclusion and engagement. In other words, age-friendly homes.

The evolution of people’s preferences for their housing and home environment as they enter the so-called ‘fourth age’ and are more likely to become frail varies between reports and countries. In Austria (Austrian Interdisciplinary Platform on Ageing, 2015), it was found that the ‘oldest old’ (those aged between 80 and 85 years old) want to preserve their living situation – regardless of whether they are living in their private homes or in care settings. Only 5.6% of respondents in private households claimed they have played with the idea of giving up their own home and moving into a senior residence or a sheltered home. On the contrary in Denmark (Mathiasen N. et al, 2018), the desire to move is the highest among the ‘youngest’ old (those aged between 50 and 59 years of age) with one in three either preferring a smaller home or a more practical home. In this age category, only one in five wants to stay in their current home should they find it difficult to manage. This contrasts with a total of 64% of the 80-89-year olds who want to stay in their current home, even if they find it difficult to manage by themselves. Similarly, research in the Netherlands (Willem Gielen W. et al, 2018) showed that in recent years, a substantial increase was observed in the number of older adult households that are to a certain extent open to the idea of moving homes (i.e. they perhaps might consider it). This number has increased from 6% in 2009 to 16% in 2015.

Moving to another (usually smaller) place was considered as a possible option in several countries studied. These residential moves were considered for various situations: a change in family structures, a change in a financial situation, having an outstanding home loan, work-retirement transition, the death of a spouse, excessive housing costs, decline in health or inadequacy of current place (too far from commodities, too many stairs for people with mobility issues, too many risks of falls, etc.). However, according to Tatsiramos (Tatsiramos, 2006) who investigated residential mobility of older households in Europe, although homeowners are less likely to move compared to those who rent, older owners (above 65 years old) are significantly more likely to move in northern and central European, but not in the South2 and households with higher wealth holdings are more likely to move in all countries. This seems to indicate that ageing-in-place (in one’s current home) will continue to be the predominant norm for older people across Europe. The main difference being that in the North the rate of increase of owners who move and become renters is much higher compared to in the South. It is also important to highlight that regardless of the alternatives available for people when their current home becomes inappropriate, studies report that maintaining the links with the former community where one lived is key. In Ireland (Age-Friendly Ireland, 2016) for instance, 15% of those age 65 and over would be willing to move to a different home in their community. Similarly, in Sweden (Abramsson M., 2015), preferences tend to be “location”-dependent.

As stated in Council Resolutions and Conclusions, it is important to adopt an intersectoral health policies approach. It requires health systems to build up multi-sectorial collaboration

with other policy fields, such as transport, housing, environment in order to shape the social determinants of health (European Union, 2017 [a]). Indeed, according to the EU Ageing Report 2018, almost all Member States will face considerable continuous pressures on public spending from the health care sectors – even under conservative assumptions. Public health expenditure in EU28 was at 6.8 % of GDP in 2016. The projections show that expenditure may grow to 7.9 % of GDP in 2070 only on accounts of demographic ageing. Balancing the health care needs of the European populations with spending resources, as well as continuous efforts to increase the efficiency and quality of health service delivery, will continue to be high on the political and economic reform agenda of Member States (European Union, 2018). To realise this, there has been an ongoing transition of focus from cure to prevention. New models of care such as integrated care which emphasises a strengthened role for primary care are seen to be instrumental in enabling this necessary shift from disease orientation to a more person-centred focus. A supportive, accessible health care environment fostering integrated and more person-centred care will be aconducive environment for “ageing-in-place”, supporting older people to access primary care in the community where they live. It is expected that this transformation of health systems (away from hospital-based care) to more person-centred care will impact on housing and the need for their adaptation to facilitate this care delivery which will to a greater extent emphasise self-management and homecare.

Moreover, as people get older, it is more likely that their need for long-term care (LTC) will increase. LTC expenditure, similar as health care expenditure, represents an important and growing share of GDP and of health spending (public and total – including private). As is the case for health care, future trends are likely to be heavily influenced by population ageing as well as a range of non-demographic determinants. Therefore, public expenditure on LTC is therefore a relevant factor for the long-term sustainability of public finances. Important determinants of public expenditure on LTC largely depends on whether a country relies mainly on formal care or informal care and whether formal care is largely provided in institutions or at home. With more (formal) LTC delivered directly in older people’s own homes (instead of in residential and institutional care), to support informal carers, community and local policies will become increasingly important. Housing, both new and existing stock, will need to increasingly be designed to assist care professionals and informal carers in these care delivery tasks, as informal care forms a cornerstone of all long-term care (LTC) systems in Europe and is often seen as a cost- effective way of preventing institutionalisation and enabling users to remain at home (Zigante V., 2018).

Housing is thus an important social determinant of health and plays an active part in ageing-in-place. However, in order to adopt an intersectoral approach, it is important to understand the housing context and who are the stakeholders that can make a change. The actors involved in the provision of housing differ widely across Europe depending on how housing is planned and organised at regional or local levels, the laws and regulations governing who is responsible for housing supply and responsive planning, applicable building regulations, or other spatial planning laws that impact and influence our communities and living environments and the housing opportunities available to citizens (Andrews, D.,A. Caldera SánchezandÅ. Johansson, 2011). Nearly all governments intervene in housing markets, primarily for social and redistribution reasons (Andrews et al. 2011). Policy interventions include fiscal measures such as taxes and direct provision of social housing, as well as various regulations aimed at influencing housing market outcomes in terms of prices, rents, quantity, quality and allocation of dwellings (Caldera Sánchez A, Andrews D, 2011).

We can observe two different contexts in which policies to implement age-friendly housing have emerged and are being developed across the different countries: one with a strong public rental sector (Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden) and one where home ownership dominates (Belgium, France, Ireland, Poland, Italy and Spain).

Countries with a strong rental sector usually have specific legal provisions in place that identify various housing associations that are responsible to ensure a sustainable supply of good quality and affordable dwellings to meet the different housing needs of their population. Given this housing’s public utility and social mission, one can observe systematic planning, evaluation and organisation of housing that responds to future needs in view of e.g. population ageing, migration, urban young people etc. This results in a public housing market that is more responsive. Moreover, rent regulations and rent controls in countries with a relatively large public rental sector appear to be comparatively strict compared to those favouring homeownership (Caldera Sánchez A, Andrews D, 2011). One can observe in all these countries a broad range of initiatives that can enable the development of age-friendly housing. In such countries, the main actors in age-friendly housing will be those organisations directly involved in the supply of this public rental stock. The actors differ from country to country, but generally some form of housing organisations; foundations; joint-stock companies; municipality housing companies etc – who due to their public utility mission are more strongly regulated and therefore generally a more responsive planning of housing to meet future needs including an ageing population. The following findings can be drawn from the country analysis for these countries:

Specific planning and strategy for the housing supply at local levels based on a regulatory framework, including existing and affordable adapted mainstream housing options targeting older persons;
High level of awareness within government about the need for age-friendly environment and housing, addressed in recent national plans, policies or research agendas in this field;
Legal provisions, financial incentives and subsidies directed at both individuals but also large property owners to retrofit existing housing stock or build new mainstream housing targeting older persons; and
Existing know-how e.g. official guidance at national level (handbooks, knowledge centres, national standards) about home adaptations for increased safety, and improved accessibility in the home.

On the other hand, countries where home ownership dominates, only a negligible part of the housing stock has a “public utility” mission or is subsidised, and the rental sector is on the open with less rent regulation. In these countries, one can see that the responsibility to ensure that housing meets the needs of the resident, therefore lies with the individual homeowners themselves. Municipalities may have various programmes to promote and encourage individuals who desire to adapt their home or property, rendering it more safe, accessible, and thus encouraging independent living. This is often done by providing grants directed at older people for home modifications to adapt existing housing. Given the lack of large-scale and a non-marginalised housing sector in these countries, most initiatives to develop age-friendly housing, can be considered as local and voluntary driven by a group of committed and interested individuals. Initiatives in these countries therefore tend to cater to private persons who can afford to invest in such age-friendly housing concepts. In such countries, private property companies and individuals (private homeowners or landlords) will be the main responsible investors in age-friendly housing. At local level, municipalities can also play a role by supporting and encouraging investment in age-friendly housing and ageing in place by subsidizing housing adaptation, grants to citizens who seek to adapt their homes and ensuring availability of long-term care services such as rehabilitation, homecare services, respite care etc.

Building on the country reports analysis presented in the previous chapters, the Homes4Life partners worked on four different scenarios framing different degrees of likeliness for age- friendly housing to develop. These scenarios are the result of a prospective exercise based on hypothetical combinations of parameters at local or national level. Those parameters form four different stereotypical contexts that influence the readiness and maturity levels for age-friendly housing to expand and ageing-in-place to become a reality. Exploring this question in light of today’s different national situations and trends that are foreseen for thecoming decades, we devised these four scenarios: The ‘frontrunner’; The ‘Happy Many’; The ‘Happy Few’; and the ‘lions’ den’.

Finally, for each of these scenarios, the likeliness of stakeholders to adopt the Homes4Life certification scheme is subject to three influential factors: (i) the existence or absence of binding legislation or incentives to support the development of age-friendly housing – be it through the availability of policy frameworks, technical guidelines, grants or tax credits, (ii) the main owners of the housing stock and ultimately, the stakeholders responsible for retrofitting dwellings or their new construction, (iii) the financial capacity of the owners to fund initiatives to retrofit housing or invest in new constructions supporting age-friendliness.

March 6, 2020

French research on neighbourhood relationships & social housing

The Research Institute of the Caisse des Dépôts hosted a final research seminar on neighborhood relations on January 15, 2020, led by the French Social Housing Organisation USH – Union sociale pour l’Habitat.

The results show in particular the influence of education level and of social status on the propensity to establish neighbourly relationships. The publication of the final report will follow in June and the closing conference in July.

Further info here (in French)

March 2, 2020

Homes4Life has applied to the Dubai International Best Practices Award for Sustainable Development

Homes4Life has candidated to the Dubai International Best Practices Award for Sustainable Development.

In partnership with UN-HABITAT and Dubai Municipality, these awards aim at recognizing excellence and supporting urban best practices to improve the living environment.

The awarding ceremony is currently scheduled for November 2020.

Further details available at https://www.dubaiaward.ae