Applying multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritise age-friendly criteria for policy implications

References

• Abascal J, Civit A. 2000. Mobile communication for people with disabilities and older people: new opportunities for autonomous life. Italy: ERCIM. p. 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Abery B. 2006. Ways to enhance social inclusion. Impact. 19(2):1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal A, Lubet A, Mitgang E, Mohanty S, Bloom DE. 2016a. Population Aging in India: facts, issues, and options. Germany: IZA, Insttute Of Labour Economics. 1–23. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2834212.
   Google Scholar
• Agarwal A, Lubet A, Mitgang E, Mohanty S, Bloom DE. 2016b. Population Aging in India: facts, issues, and options. Germany: IZA. p. 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• American Society for Quality. (2008). AHP matrix template. from http://asq.org/sixsigma/2008/04/ahp-matrix-template.html?shl=087837.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett-II JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. 2001. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Inform Technol, Learn, Perform J. 19(1):43–50. doi: 10.5032/jae.2002.03001
   Google Scholar
• Boulos MNK, Wheelert S. 2007. The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education 1. Health Info Libr J. 24(1):2–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne RH. 1995. On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med. 14(17):1933–1940. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buffel T, Phillipson C, Scharf T. 2012. Ageing in urban environments: developing ‘age-friendly’ cities. Crit Soc Policy. 32(4):597–617. doi: 10.1177/0261018311430457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colangeli JA. 2010. Planning for Age-friendly cities: towards a new model. Doctor of Philosophy. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo.
   Google Scholar
• Cook AM, Polgar JM. 2014. Assistive technologies: principles and practice. Missouri: Elsevier, Mosby.
   Google Scholar
• Crewe NM, Zola IK. 2001. Independent living for physically disabled people. USA: iUniverse, Incorporated.
   Google Scholar
• Davey J, Joux VD, Nana G, Arcus M. 2004. Accommodation Options for Older People in Aotearoa/New Zealand. New Zealand: 1–204.
   Google Scholar
• Delhi Police Delhi Police. 2020. Best practices in Delhi Police. delhipolice.gov.in.
   Google Scholar
• Dickerson AE, Molnar LJ, Eby DW, Adler G, Bedard M, Berg-Weger M, Classen S, Foley D, Horowitz A, Kerschner H, et al. 2007. Transportation and aging: a research agenda for advancing safe mobility. Gerontologist. 47(5):578–590. doi:10.1093/geront/47.5.578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnelly P, Coakley J. 2002. The role of recreation in promoting social inclusion, the Laidlaw Foundation. 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Everingham J-A, Petriwskyj A, Warburton J, Cuthill M, Bartlett H. 2009. Information provision for an Age-friendly community. Ageing Int. 34(1–2):79–98. doi: 10.1007/s12126-009-9036-5
   Google Scholar
• Farsani NT, Ghotbabadi SS, Altafi M. 2019. Agricultural heritage as a creative tourism attraction. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 24(6):541–549. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2019.1593205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fatih T, Bekir C. 2015. Police use of technology to fight against crime. Eur Sci J. 11(10):286–296.
   Google Scholar
• Ferdman A. 2019. Walking and its contribution to objective well-being. J Plan Educ Res. 43(2):294–304. doi: 10.1177/0739456X19875195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzduff M. 2007. Measuring social inclusion and cohesion - the challenges. Paris: United Nations; p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Garon S, Paris M, Beaulieu M, MSW AV, Laliberte A. 2014. Collaborative partnership in Age-friendly cities: two case studies from Quebec, Canada. J Aging Soc Policy. 26(1–2):73–87. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2014.854583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawron G, Rojek-Adamek P. 2015. The idea of age-friendly cities and communities as a response to the challenges of contemporary demographic changes. Athens: Athens Institute for Education and Research. p. 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Green G. 2012. Age-friendly cities of Europe. J Urban Health: Bulletin Of The New York Academy Of Med. 90(1):116–128. doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9765-8
   Google Scholar
• Huxley P. 2015. Introduction to Indicators and measurement of social inclusion. Social Inclusion. 3(4):50–51.
   Google Scholar
• Illario M, Vollenbroek-Hutten MMR, Molloy DW, Menditto E, Iaccarino G, Eklund P. 2016. Active and healthy ageing and independent living 2016. J Ageing Res. 2016:3. doi:10.1155/2016/8062079.
   Google Scholar
• Johner R. 2011. Understanding disability, inclusion and social activity participation. J Human Develop, Disability, And Soc Change. 19(2):81–95. doi: 10.7202/1086902ar
   Google Scholar
• Julious SA. 2005. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. 4(4):287–291. doi: 10.1002/pst.185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalache A, Gatti A. 2003. Active ageing: a policy framework. Adv Gerontol. 11:7–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kieser M, Wassmer G. 1996. On the use of the upper confidence limit for the variance from a pilot sample for sample size determination. Biometrical J. 38(8):941–949. doi: 10.1002/bimj.4710380806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehning AJ. 2010. Local government adoption of Aging-friendly policies and programs: a mixed methods approach. Berkeley: Doctor of Philosophy, University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Lehning AJ, Scharlach AE, Santo TSD. 2009. A web-based approach for helping communities become more Aging friendly. J Appl Gerontol. 20(10):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Lowen T, Davern MT, Mavoa S, Brasher K. 2015. Age-friendly cities and communities: access to services for older people. Aust Planner. 52(4):255–265. doi: 10.1080/07293682.2015.1047874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke R (2021). If you’re around age 45, you have 1 key advantage at work. from https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/if-youre-around-age-45-you-have-1-key-advantage-at-work.
   Google Scholar
• Marston HR, Samuels J. 2019. A review of Age friendly virtual assistive technologies and their effect on daily living for carers and dependent adults. Healthcare. 7(49):1–22. doi: 10.3390/healthcare7010049
   Google Scholar
• Maxey M, Beckert TE. 2017. Adolescents with disabilities. Adolesc Res Rev. 2(2):59–75. doi: 10.1007/s40894-016-0043-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menec VH, Novek S, Veselyuk D, McArthur J. 2014. Lessons learned from a Canadian province-wide age-friendly initiative: the Age-friendly manitoba initiative. J Aging Soc Policy. 26(1–2):33–51. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2014.854606
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2021. Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) - Housing for all mission housing and Urban affairs. New Delhi: mohua.gov.in; p. 1–94.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell A, Shillington R. 2002. Poverty, Inequality and Social Inclusion. Perspective on social inclusion. Canada: The Laidlaw Foundation; p. 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Mouratidis K. 2019. Compact city, urban sprawl, and subjective well-being. Cities. 92:261–272. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouratidis K. 2021. Urban planning and quality of life: a review of pathways linking the built environment to subjective well-being. Cities. 115:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naegele G, Schnabel E, Maat JWVD, Kubicki P, Chiatti C, Rostgaard T. 2010. Measures for social inclusion of the elderly: the case of volunteering. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; p. 1–43.
   Google Scholar
• Novak M. 2015. Issues in Ageing. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315663760.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the registrar general & census commissioner India. 2006. Population projections for india and states 2001-2026 popolation projections. New Delhi: National commission on Population; p. 287.
   Google Scholar
• Ostroff E. 2010. Universal design: an evolving paradigm. Universal design handbook. New York, USA: W. F. E. Preiser, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.; p. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez-Cuevas R, Doubova SV, Bazaldúa-Merino LA, Reyes-Morales H, Martínez D, Karam R, Gamez C, Muñoz-Hernández O. 2015. A social health services model to promote active ageing in Mexico: design and evaluation of a pilot programme. Ageing Soc. 35(7):1457–1480. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X14000361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer D, Cloutier S. 2016. Planning for happy neighborhoods. J Am Plann Assoc. 82(3):267–279. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2016.1166347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plouffe LA, Garon S, Brownoff J, Eve D, Foucault M-L, Lawrence R, Lessard-Beaupre JP, Toews V. 2013. Advancing Age-friendly communities in Canada. Canad Rev Soc. 2(68–69):11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Plouffe LA, Kalache A. 2011a. Making communities age friendly: state and municipal initiatives in Canada and other countries. Gac Sanit. 25(S):131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.11.001
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plouffe LA, Kalache A. 2011b. Making communities age friendly: state and municipal initiatives in Canada and other countries. Gac Sanit. 25:131–137. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.11.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramachandran KM, Tsokos CP. 2020. Mathematical statistics with applications in R. USA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Raut SB, George A. 2018. Screening of Age-friendly criteria by modified fuzzy delphi method. Foren Sci Add Res. 2(3):1–8. doi: 10.31031/FSAR.2018.02.000543
   Google Scholar
• Raut SB, George A. 2020. Age-friendliness assessment model, a Delphi-AHP-Fuzzy logic approach. IIT Kharagpur: Doctor of Philosophy Index development.
   Google Scholar
• Rootman I, Pederson A, Dupere S, O’Neil M. 2012. Health promotion in Canada: critical Perspectives on Practice. Canada: Brown Bear Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roy A. 2018. The middle class in India. Asian Politics. 23(1):32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Saloojee A. 2003. Social inclusion, anti-racism and democratic citizenship.
   Google Scholar
• Scharlach AE, Davitt JK, Lehning AJ, Greenfield EA, Graham CL. 2014. Does the village model help to foster Age-Friendly communities? J Aging Soc Policy. 26(1–2):180–196. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2014.854664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharlach AE, Lehning AJ. 2013. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 33(1):110–136. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X12000578
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh S (2016). Making Delhi age-friendly will secure our own future. from https://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/making-delhi-age-friendly-will-secure-our-own-future/story-vt9dbMMeyW9AOQwf5wjEQK.html.
   Google Scholar
• Smith AE. 2009. Ageing in Urban Neighbourhoods: place Attachment and Social Exclusion. Great Britain, Policy Press. 10.46692/9781847422729.
   Google Scholar
• Spillman BC, Biess J, MacDonald G. 2012. Housing as a platform for improving outcomes for older renters. 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Steels S. 2015. Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: a review. Cities. 47:45–52. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The National Resource Center on Supportive Housing and Home Modification. 2003. Home modification resource guide. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Andrus Gerontology Center; p. 1–91.
   Google Scholar
• The State of Queensland. 2017. Queensland: an age-friendly community-Age-friendly domains. Queensland: Government of Queensland; p. 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• The times of India. (2019). “In need of a mixed land use policy.” from https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIBG%2F2019%2F12%2F06&entity=Ar03904&sk=B0FE1CA3&mode=text#.
   Google Scholar
• Urban company. (2017). The Urban Guide. from https://www.urbancompany.com/blog/homecare/cctv/pros-and-cons-of-cctv-camera-surveillance/.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization, 2007. Global Age-friendly Cities:a Guide. Geneva: WHO; p. 1–76.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2002. Active ageing: a policy framework;. p. 59.
   Google Scholar
• Wu H. 2011. Social impact of volunteerism. Points of light institute. academia.edu; p. 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2015. Measuring the age-friendliness of cities: a guide to using core indicators. Japan: World Health Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Brown DE. 2013. Police patrol districting method and simulation evaluation using agent-based model & GIS. Secur Inform. 2(7):1–13. doi: 10.1186/2190-8532-2-7
   Google Scholar