Do Age-Friendly Community Policy Efforts Matter in China? An Analysis Based on Five-Year Developmental Plan for Population Aging
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. The Context of Policy Efforts on Age-Friendly Communities in China
3. Literature Review
3.1. Age-Friendly Communities in China
3.2. Planning as a Coordination Mechanism in China’s Governance System for AFC
3.3. Goal Setting and Public Service Performance
4. Research Methods
4.1. Analytical Strategy
4.2. Data
4.3. Measurement
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4a | Model 4b | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
b (se) | b (se) | b (se) | b (se) | b (se) | |
Female | −0.0286 (0.0512) | −0.0285 (0.0513) | −0.0287 (0.0512) | −0.0293 (0.0513) | |
Age | −0.0089 * (0.0038) | −0.0089 * (0.0038) | −0.0088 * (0.0038) | −0.0090 * (0.0038) | |
Living with partner | 0.0262 (0.0596) | 0.0262 (0.0596) | 0.0282 (0.0596) | 0.0254 (0.0596) | |
Employment | −0.2796 *** (0.0623) | −0.2798 *** (0.0623) | −0.2835 ***(0.0623) | −0.2813 *** (0.0624) | |
Caregiving | −0.0014(0.0017) | −0.0014 (0.0018) | −0.0013 (0.0018) | −0.0015 (0.0018) | |
Pensioner | 0.3456 *** (0.0575) | 0.3455 *** (0.0575) | 0.3429 *** (0.0574) | 0.3460 *** (0.0575) | |
Educational level | 0.0713 *** (0.0141) | 0.0714 *** (0.0141) | 0.0719 *** (0.0141) | 0.0717 *** (0.0141) | |
Household income (log) | 0.0037 (0.0103) | 0.0036 (0.0104) | 0.0040 (0.0104) | 0.0036 (0.0104) | |
Self-report health | −0.1640 *** (0.0305) | −0.1639 *** (0.0305) | −0.1647 ***(0.0305) | −0.1639 *** (0.0305) | |
Mental health | −0.0151 ** (0.0056) | −0.0151 ** (0.0056) | −0.0152 **(0.0056) | −0.0150 ** (0.0056) | |
Activities of Daily Living (ADL) | −0.0364 *** (0.0102) | −0.0364 *** (0.0102) | −0.0362 ***(0.0101) | −0.0364 *** (0.0102) | |
Cognitive function | −0.0133 ** (0.0048) | −0.0133 ** (0.0048) | −0.0136 ** (0.0048) | −0.0132 ** (0.0048) | |
Community physical infrastructure | 0.0096 (0.0189) | 0.0093 (0.0196) | −0.0203 (0.0228) | 0.0101 (0.0196) | |
Community organization | 0.0398 (0.0332) | 0.0401 (0.0333) | 0.0329 (0.0331) | 0.0529 (0.0363) | |
Policy strength (Physical environment) | 0.0001 (0.0101) | −0.0292 (0.0156) | 0.0004 (0.0101) | ||
Policy strength (Social environment) | 0.0022 (0.0202) | −0. 0015 (0.0200) | 0.0291 (0.0368) | ||
Policy strength (Physical environment) × Community physical infrastructure | 0.0098* (0.0040) | ||||
Policy strength (Social environment) × Community organization | −0.0124 (0.3490) | ||||
Random-effects: province | 0.0004(0.0022) | 1.87 × 10−12 (1.46 × 10−11) | 3.85 × 10−12 (3.34 × 10−11) | 1.75 × 10−19 (1.74 × 10−18) | 7.77 × 10−14 (7.62 × 10−13) |
Units: province | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 27 |
Chi-Square | 303.58 | 96.73 | 96.55 | 91.48 | 95.37 |
p-value | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
N | 3226 | 3221 | 3221 | 3221 | 3221 |
References
- Alley, D.; Liebig, P.; Pynoos, J.; Banerjee, T.; Choi, I.H. Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparations for an aging society. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2007, 49, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lehning, A.J.; Smith, R.J.; Dunkle, R.E. Age-friendly environments and self-rated health: An exploration of Detroit elders. Res. Aging 2014, 36, 72–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scharlach, A.E.; Lehning, A.J. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2012, 33, 110–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steels, S. Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities 2015, 47, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fitzgerald, K.; Caro, F. An Overview of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Around the World. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2013, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehning, A.J. City Governments and Aging in Place: Community Design, Transportation and Housing Innovation Adoption. Gerontologist 2012, 52, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nummela, O.; Sulander, T.; Rahkonen, O.; Karisto, A.; Uutela, A. Social participation, trust and self-rated health: A study among ageing people in urban, semi-urban and rural settings. Health Place 2008, 14, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levasseur, M.; Richard, L.; Gauvin, L.; Raymond, É. Inventory and Analysis of Definitions of Social Participation Found in the Aging Literature: Proposed Taxonomy of Social Activities. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71, 2141–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hanson, D.; Emlet, C.A.J.F.; Health, C. Assessing a Community’s Elder Friendliness: A Case Example of The AdvantAge Initiative. Fam. Community Health 2006, 29, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macintyre, S.; Ellaway, A. Ecological approaches: Rediscovering the role of the physical and social environment. In Social Epidemiology; Berkman, L., Kawachi, I., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Heilmann, S.; Melton, O. The Reinvention of Development Planning in China, 1993–2012. Mod. China 2013, 39, 580–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Gonzales, E.; Nancy, M.-H. Applying WHO’s Age-Friendly Communities Framework to a National Survey in China. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2017, 60, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xie, L. Age-Friendly Communities and Life Satisfaction Among the Elderly in Urban China. Res. Aging 2018, 40, 883–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Nancy, M.-H. Neighborhood Effects on the Health of Chinese Older Adults: Beyond the Rural and Urban Dichotomy. Gerontologist 2020, 61, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chu, Y.; Shen, S. Adoption of Major Housing Adaptation Policy Innovation for Older Adults by Provincial Governments in China: The Case of Existing Multifamily Dwelling Elevator Retrofit Projects. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, Y. City government’s adoption of housing adaptation policy innovation for older adults: Evidence from China. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2020, 77, 429–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaron, W. If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 127–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhoest, K.; Bouckaert, G. Machinery of government and policy capacity: The effects of specialization and coordination. In Challenges to State Policy Capacity; Painter, M., Pierre, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2005; pp. 92–111. [Google Scholar]
- Honadle, G.; Cooper, L. Beyond coordination and control: An interorganizational approach to structural adjustment, service delivery, and natural resource management. World Dev. 1989, 17, 1531–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, T.; Danielsen, O.A.; Laegreid, P.; Rykkja, L.H. Comparing Coordination Structures for Crisis Management in Six Countries. Public Adm. 2016, 94, 316–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagreid, P.; Rykkja, L.H. Organizing for “wicked problems”—Analyzing coordination arrangements in two policy areas. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2015, 28, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jann, W.; Wegrich, K. Theories of the Policy Cycle. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis; Frank, F., Gerald, J.M., Mara, S.S., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State Council of China. China’s Twelfth Five-Year Plan for Ageing Affairs. 2011. Available online: www.gov.cn/zwgk/201109/23/content_1954782.htm (accessed on 9 July 2022).
- Kingdon, J.W. Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed.; Harper Collins College Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Héritier, A.; Lehmkuhl, D. Introduction: The Shadow of Hierarchy and New Modes of Governance. J. Public Policy 2008, 28, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhu, X.; Zhang, Y. Political Mobility and Dynamic Diffusion of Innovation: The Spread of Municipal Pro-Business Administrative Reform in China. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2016, 26, 535–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Commission on Ageing. Introduction to National Commission on Ageing. 2013. Available online: http://www.cncaprc.gov.cn/contents/757/155951.html (accessed on 9 July 2022).
- Boyne, G.A.; Chen, A.A. Performance Targets and Public Service Improvement. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2007, 17, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennings, E.T.; Haist, M.P. Putting performance measurement in context. In The Art of Governance Analyzing Management and Administration; Ingraham, P.W., Lynn, L.E., Eds.; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 152–194. [Google Scholar]
- Behn, R.D. Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Adm. Rev. 2003, 63, 586–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyne, G.; Gould-Williams, J. Planning and performance in public organizations an empirical analysis. Public Manag. Rev. 2003, 5, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodgers, R.; Hunter, J.E. A foundation of good management practice in government: Management by objectives. Public Adm. Rev. 1992, 52, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelman, A.; Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hank, K. Societal Determinants of Productive Aging: A Multilevel Analysis across 11 European Countries. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2011, 27, 526–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hank, K.; Stuck, S. Volunteer work, informal help, and care: Further evidence for “linked” productive activities at older ages. Soc. Sci. Res. 2008, 37, 1280–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tang, F. What resources are needed for volunteerism? A life course perspective. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2016, 25, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suriastini, W.; Buffardi, A.L.; Fauzan, J. What Prompts Policy Change? Comparative Analyses of Efforts to Create Age-Friendly Cities in 14 Cities in Indonesia. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2019, 31, 250–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The CPC Central Committee and The State Council. National Strategic Plan for Rural Revitalization (2018–2022). Available online: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-09/26/content_5325534.htm (accessed on 28 July 2022).
Category | Indicator | Label | Range |
---|---|---|---|
policy strength (Social environment) | The rate of older adults who participate cultural and sport activities regularly | D1 | |
The rate of older adults who enrolled in community college for senior citizens | D2 | 0–9 | |
The rate of older adults who register as a volunteer | D3 | ||
policy strength (Physical environment) | The coverage or number of physical spaces for older adults in the community | I1 | |
The coverage or number of educational facilities for older adults in the community | I2 | 0–13 | |
The coverage or number of sport facilities for older adults in the community | I3 | ||
The coverage or number of cultural facilities for older adults in the community | I4 |
Variables | Rural (n = 4849) | Urban (n = 3226) |
---|---|---|
Mean (sd) | Mean (sd) | |
Social participation | 0.29 (0.80) | 0.81 (1.45) |
Female | 0.49 (0.50) | 0.52 (0.50) |
Age | 68.41 (7.10) | 68.70 (7.30) |
Living with partner | 0.73 (0.44) | 0.76 (0.43) |
Employment | 0.64 (0.01) | 0.30 (0.01) |
Caregiving | 3.06 (17.58) | 3.08 (13.82) |
Pensioner | 0.18 (0.39) | 0.52 (0.50) |
Education level | 2.39 (1.58) | 3.52 (2.15) |
Household income per person | 57,860.79 (357,895.20) | 112,277.80 (543,304.30) |
Self-report health | 4.04 (0.83) | 3.90 (0.81) |
Mental health | 19.69 (6.45) | 17.83 (5.81) |
Activities of Daily Living (ADL) | 1.18 (2.30) | 1.11 (2.39) |
Cognitive function | 19.46 (5.93) | 17.35 (5.61) |
Community physical infrastructure | 1.37 (1.74) | 3.72 (2.42) |
Community organization | 0.48 (0.78) | 1.87 (1.39 |
Policy strength (Physical environment) | 3.32 (3.17) | |
Policy strength (Social environment) | 1.25 (2.38) |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4a | Model 4b | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
b (se) | b (se) | b (se) | b (se) | b (se) | |
Female | −0.1086 *** (0.0246) | −0.1087 *** (0.0246) | −0.1084 *** (0.0246) | −0.1086 *** (0.0246) | |
Age | −0.0008 (0.0018) | −0.0008 (0.0018) | −0.0009 (0.0018) | −0.0008 (0.0018) | |
Living with partner | −0.0047 (0.0265) | −0.0051 (0.0265) | −0.0055 (0.0265) | −0.0057 (0.0265) | |
Employment | −0.0674 * (0.0266) | −0.0673 * (0.0266) | −0.0677 * (0.0266) | −0.0661 * (0.0266) | |
Caregiving | 0.0016 * (0.0006) | 0.0016 * (0.0006) | 0.0016 * (0.0006) | 0.0016 * (0.0006) | |
Pensioner | 0.0740 * (0.0323) | 0.0735 * (0.0323) | 0.0731 * (0.0322) | 0.0760 * (0.0323) | |
Educational level | 0.0521 *** (0.0084) | 0.0523 *** (0.0084) | 0.0524 *** (0.0084) | 0.0522 *** (0.0084) | |
Household income (log) | 0.0074 (0.0043) | 0.0070 (0.0043) | 0.0068 (0.0043) | 0.0070 (0.0043) | |
Self-report health | −0.0287 * (0.0141) | −0.0281 * (0.0141) | −0.0281 * (0.0141) | −0.0278 * (0.0141) | |
Mental health | −0.0032(0.0023) | −0.0032 ** (0.0023) | −0.0032 (0.0023) | −0.0031 (0.0023) | |
Activities of Daily Living (ADL) | −0.0143 ** (0.0051) | −0.0144 ** (0.0051) | −0.0144 ** (0.0051) | −0.0142 ** (0.0051) | |
Cognitive function | −0.0052 * (0.0020) | −0.0052 * (0.0020) | −0.0052 * (0.0020) | −0.0052 * (0.0020) | |
Community physical infrastructure | 0.0543 *** (0.0118) | 0.0527 *** (0.0120) | 0.0340 * (0.0150) | 0.0542 *** (0.0119) | |
Community organization | −0.0161 (0.0253) | −0.0193 (0.0253) | −0.0332 (0.0261) | 0.0027 (0.0277) | |
Policy strength (Physical environment) | 0.0083 (0.0069) | 0.0028 (0.0072) | 0.0074 (0.0069) | ||
Policy strength (Social environment) | 0.0137 (0.0149) | 0. 0154 (0.145) | 0.0352 (0.0187) | ||
Policy strength (Physical environment) × Community physical infrastructure | 0.0057* (0.0028) | ||||
Policy strength (Social environment) × Community organization | −0.0205 (0.0109) | ||||
Random-effects: province | 0.0173 (0.0080) | 0.0112 (0.0058) | 0.0100 (0.0051) | 0.0091 (0.0048) | 0.0100 (0.0051) |
Units: province | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 |
Chi-Square | 173.08 | 106.30 | 100.59 | 93.49 | 97.13 |
p-value | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 |
N | 4849 | 4849 | 4849 | 4849 | 4849 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chu, Y.; Zhang, H. Do Age-Friendly Community Policy Efforts Matter in China? An Analysis Based on Five-Year Developmental Plan for Population Aging. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013551
Chu Y, Zhang H. Do Age-Friendly Community Policy Efforts Matter in China? An Analysis Based on Five-Year Developmental Plan for Population Aging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(20):13551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013551
Chicago/Turabian StyleChu, Yongqiang, and Huan Zhang. 2022. "Do Age-Friendly Community Policy Efforts Matter in China? An Analysis Based on Five-Year Developmental Plan for Population Aging" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 20: 13551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013551
APA StyleChu, Y., & Zhang, H. (2022). Do Age-Friendly Community Policy Efforts Matter in China? An Analysis Based on Five-Year Developmental Plan for Population Aging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), 13551. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013551