Taking stock of Age‐Friendly Cities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Progress, pitfalls and pathways towards healthy ageing

Abstract

Cities across Aotearoa New Zealand are undergoing rapid demographic transitions towards super‐aged communities. Such changes necessitate innovations to support healthy ageing that incorporate social and environmental developments in addition to health service improvements. The World Health Organization (WHO) Age‐Friendly Cities (AFC) framework and global network provide guidance and pathways to enhance livability and well‐being for ageing societies. New Zealand's engagement with the WHO AFC network has been both recent and inconsistent, with only seven municipalities formally participating since 2018, and limited uptake among larger population centres. Drawing on published action plans and evaluation reports at city and district level, demographic trend data at national and sub‐national scale, and government and WHO policy and procedural documents, this paper critically examines the progress and challenges associated with AFC initiatives in New Zealand since 2018. While there is evidence of gradual increases in AFC commitment at both national and local level in New Zealand, including growth of a local proxy network, significant gaps and limitations remain with engagement and implementation. Five key challenges are identified, including the lack of operationalisation and measurement of indicators of AFC development and success, overreliance on implementation partners, a lack of sustainable funding commitments, limited support for community advocates and volunteers, and challenges engaging cities and districts in the context of competing urban design frameworks. Actionable recommendations are proposed to strengthen AFC development, including improved integration of AFC principles in urban planning, formalised key performance indicators, and enhanced support for community champions.

Policy impact.

Aotearoa New Zealand's implementation of Age‐Friendly City initiatives requires consistent baseline measures, clear performance indicators, integrated local policies, and funding support that is sustainable and transparent from local and national government. It is imperative to move beyond the reframing of business‐as‐usual models to effect enduring community change.

1. NEW ZEALAND'S AGEING TRAJECTORY

With over 850,000 people aged over 65 years, New Zealand's older‐adult cohort is projected to reach 1.5 million by 2050, accounting for 25% of the total population ¹ and reaching the status of a super‐aged society. Super‐aged societies are defined by a demographic paradigm shift where greater than 20% of their population is aged over 65 years, with pervasive impacts across the economy, health care, education, infrastructure and leisure. ² Health New Zealand has estimated that the prevalence of lifestyle and age‐related health conditions will increase markedly with the expansion of older‐adult cohort, with cases of dementia and disability expected to double by mid‐century. ³ These concerns are complicated by increasing ethnic diversity and continuing trends for poorer morbidity and mortality outcomes among Māori and Pacific Islander communities. ³ Ensuring that super‐aged societies provide a boon, and not a burden, for local health systems, economies, and communities is a critical challenge in the 21st century.

2. THE GLOBAL AGE‐FRIENDLY CITIES FRAMEWORK AND NETWORK

The World Health Organization (WHO) has supported transitions to super‐aged societies with the development of an Age‐Friendly Cities (AFCs) framework that aims to foster healthy ageing by guiding policymaking and urban development. Age‐Friendly Cities are defined by the WHO as:

Environments that are free from physical and social barriers and are supported by policies, systems, services, and technologies that, (1) promote health and build physical and mental capacity across the life course; and (2) enable people, even when experiencing capacity loss, to continue to do things they value. ^{4,p. 11}

Eight core areas for AFC action have been identified by the WHO including health care, transportation, housing, social participation, outdoor spaces and buildings, respect and social inclusion, civic participation and employment, and communication and information. ⁵ Detailed guidance (down to street‐and program‐level) has been available since 2007 to support implementation of age‐friendly solutions across these eight interconnected domains to ensure a consistent approach to supporting ageing populations in urban areas. ⁶ Beyond overarching policy and design guidance, the WHO has also fostered a global Age‐Friendly Network, which extends to over 1700 municipalities across 60 countries. ⁷ While the WHO AFC framework and network provide significant guidance, they do not dictate actions at a municipal level as the WHO has no mandate to act within national borders. Consequently, it is up to municipalities and community stakeholders to define their local vision of an AFC, including goals, actions and measures of success (i.e. there is no accreditation pathway for benchmarking against standard international measures). ⁸ This represents both an opportunity and a significant threat to successful implementation and creates the conditions for inconsistencies in scale and efficacy of interventions across cities and regions.

Only a handful of studies undertaken in the United States, Europe and Asia have examined how membership in the WHO AFC network has contributed to measurable health outcomes among ageing urban populations. Consistent with the growing literature on social‐ecological determinants of health, ⁹ most reports have identified that residence in an AFC is associated with better self‐rated health, functional ability, mental health and quality of life. ¹⁰ , ¹¹ , ¹² Attributes of AFCs that have been implicated in these outcomes include safety, accessibility, and walkability of neighbourhood outdoor spaces, buildings, community health services and transportation infrastructure. ¹⁰ , ¹¹ , ¹² Such relationships are complex, however, and some researchers have reported conflicting evidence for physical and mental health impacts or significant moderating influences associated with personal health, socio‐economic status and gender. ¹³ , ¹⁴ Furthermore, the absence of longitudinal and cohort study evidence from AFCs makes it difficult to determine whether healthier older adults self‐select into these settings and if health‐supporting community attributes are a result of age‐friendly planning or historical development initiatives.

3. AGE‐FRIENDLY CITIES NETWORK EXPANSION IN AUSTRALASIA

The global AFC network has grown from 33 members in 2010 to 1705 in 2025, with potential impacts for 330 million ageing urban residents worldwide. ⁷ Within Australasia, there are currently 44 AFC member cities. Australian engagement with the WHO AFC network occurred earlier than it did in New Zealand, with the municipalities of Canberra, Melville, Warrnambool, Boroondara, Unley and Rockingham joining by 2012, and a further 31 members committing to date. ⁷ By contrast, New Zealand cities did not formally engage with the network until 2018. New Zealand has seven member cities, which represent 11% of the territorial authorities across the country and 42% of the total population (Table 1). ¹⁵ The first signatory cities were New Plymouth and Hamilton in the upper North Island, which both entered the initial AFC commitment cycle in 2018, prior to the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic. ⁷ In the following years, five additional signatories joined the international network, including Gore (2020), Auckland (2022), Nelson (2022), Napier (2023) and Wairarapa (2023). ⁷ Five of the seven signatories are based in the North Island, and none of the large South Island cities have joined. Qualitative research undertaken with New Zealand AFC stakeholders before the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic indicated that there were challenges related to low government funding and limited awareness of age‐friendly principles from the earliest stages, ¹⁶ which have hampered engagement in the subsequent years.

TABLE 1.

Overview of New Zealand's WHO AFC Network member cities and districts. ⁷ , ¹⁵

New Zealand AFC members	Population (2023)	% ≥65 years	WHO AFC commitment	Baseline	Action plan	Evaluation	AFC cycle
Hamilton	185,300	12	2018	No	Yes	No	1 (2018−)
New Plymouth	88,900	19	2018	No	Yes	Yes	1 (2018−)
Gore	13,050	22	2020	Yes	Yes	No	1 (2020−)
Auckland	1,739,300	13	2022	Yes	Yes	Yes	2 (2023−)
Nelson	55,600	21	2022	Yes	Yes	No	1 (2022−)
Napier	67,500	21	2023	Yes	Yes	No	1 (2023−)
Wairarapa a	51,250	23	2023	No	Yes	No	1 (2023−)

^a A geographical region comprising the townships of Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa.

4. CO‐ORDINATION AT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL

Nationally, AFC promotion is coordinated by the Office for Seniors, a small branch of the New Zealand government based in Wellington. The Office for Seniors has been an affiliate member of the WHO AFC network since 2018 and provides advice, support and resources for communities that are considering, or committed to, becoming age‐friendly. ¹⁷ The Office engages directly with community organisations, territorial authorities and advocacy groups. It maintains public records of AFC policies and programs as part of WHO AFC network commitments or informally among other municipalities. The Office for Seniors also provides resources to support age‐friendly planning (including urban design guides). This includes the provision of small grants to help communities, local governments, and not‐for‐profits initiate age‐friendly projects that promote inclusion and contribution of older adults. ¹⁸ Since 2021, the Office for Seniors has maintained a national proxy Age‐Friendly Network for communities and organisations that are taking initial steps to improve support for their ageing populations. ¹⁸ This local network currently includes 35 districts (inclusive of the seven WHO AFC signatory cities) and provides a community of practice for information sharing and support. Like the WHO AFC network process, the local proxy requires a formal application process and alignment with standard terms of reference. The local network has facilitated the transition of two municipalities to full membership of the WHO AFC network, including the districts of Napier and Wairarapa. Like the WHO, the Office for Seniors has no powers to dictate policy, service, or infrastructure changes at a municipal level. It relies on the awareness and commitment of local stakeholders, including councils and community boards, iwi and hapu groups (Māori social and political structures), community advocates, and non‐government organisations (NGOs).

Beyond the Office for Seniors, there have been challenges associated with changing political and fiscal circumstances in New Zealand that may impact planning, collaborative action, resource allocation, and delivery of AFC initiatives. A change in government in late 2023 heralded a political shift to the centre‐right with a greater emphasis on public sector cost cutting (≈3000 jobs lost across Health and Social Development ministries), rationalisation of community services and programs, cuts to social research funding (i.e. the Marsden Fund), and pressures on local government to focus on basic services (i.e. removing well‐being directives from the Local Government Act 2002). ¹⁹ , ²⁰ Despite this constrained environment, the Office for Seniors continues to support and fund AFC‐related community initiatives (with 12 projects funded in 2024) and many local governments are upholding commitments to AFC membership and projects. ¹⁸ Longer‐term impacts of these changes are yet to be realised.

5. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION AT THE DISTRICT AND REGIONAL LEVEL

Age‐Friendly Cities policy development and implementation in New Zealand has been inconsistent across districts and cities, which may reflect the limited time since initial commitment, significant disruptions related to the COVID‐19 pandemic, and/or a lack of sustainable resourcing. Only Auckland (New Zealand's largest city) has completed a full WHO AFC commitment cycle encompassing baseline assessments, strategic planning, and evaluation. New Plymouth has also reached the evaluation stage, but initiated no baseline to allow for a robust assessment of implementation success. ²¹ The other five New Zealand signatories remain in their first commitment cycle, having not yet completed a final evaluation of their AFC action strategies (Table 1). Formal reporting on AFC policies and outcomes in New Zealand highlights that local authorities frequently work through NGOs that have been designed as implementation partners (i.e. volunteer ambulance services, emergency health service providers, migrant support organisations, church groups, and older‐adult advocacy organisations) ²¹ , ²² to provide services in support of local AFC objectives. Table 2 (below) highlights reported AFC actions of the Auckland City Council and New Plymouth District Council in the WHO age‐friendly domain of health and community support.

TABLE 2.

AFC action implementation examples within the WHO health and community support domain from the Auckland City Council and New Plymouth City Council. ²¹ , ²²

Local authority	Age‐friendly actions	Measure of success/progress	Report organisation
Auckland City Council	Ageing Well Services: Provide tools, information and skills to older people and whānau to enable independence and participation	Increased number of older people supported. Increased number of volunteers Evaluate benefits of both participation and volunteering	Age Concern Auckland
	Intervention Services: Support older people and their whānau to build resilience and live free from abuse, neglect or vulnerability	Increased number of older people supported. Evaluate benefits of both participation and volunteering	Age Concern Auckland
	Ensure that older people referred from their hospital or district health board receive hot meals through Meals on Wheels to maintain their health	Increased number of volunteers Increased number of recipients	New Zealand Red Cross
	Provide Health Shuttle service to enable attendance at health appointments	Increased number of volunteers Increased number of recipients	St John
	Deliver the Home visitation program (Asiasiga): Pacific staff and trained volunteers visit Pacific older people in the community who are bedridden or unable to leave their homes	Increased number of older people using services	TOA Pacific (Treasuring Older Adults)
New Plymouth District Council	Introduction of tele‐medicine opportunities	Several local general practitioners (GPs) are utilising a telehealth platform	Community health providers
	Expansion of public transport services to hospital and key medical services	Continued subsidised funding for a Total Mobility Scheme door‐to‐door transport service for people with physical impairments	Taranaki Regional Council
	Completion of emergency management plans and programs at a Community Board level	Ongoing work in local communities to update emergency management plans and seek ways to communicate effectively with older residents	New Plymouth District Council
	Improve health literacy among older people	Health Literacy review of Public Health Unit services completed, and actions implemented. The TDHB Health literacy framework is in place	Taranaki District Health Board (TDHB)
	Develop improved referral systems and improve the overall coordination of health services	Community Health Integration Centre (CHIC), centralises referrals, leading to improved processes and better outcomes. Standardisation of the referral system TDHB wide continues	TDHB and Health New Zealand.
	Improve access to physical health services for people with mental health needs and those in residential care services	A new residential service has commenced at Sunhaven for mental health clients with physical health needs	Community health providers
	Explore options for aged care facilities to provide a broader range of services	The New Plymouth Safe Community program has delivered training sessions for rest home staff in fall risk awareness and prevention strategies	Safe Communities Foundation (NZ)

Note: Whānau, (Māori) extended family, family group.

6. CRITICAL EVALUATION OF NEW ZEALAND'S AFCs: PITFALLS AND PATHWAYS TO IMPROVEMENT

There are signs of increased engagement and awareness as well as attempts to address multiple AFC domains across New Zealand, which are evident in the growth of the local network and modest increases in the number of cities joining the WHO initiative. Despite this, progress towards the achievement of AFC objectives and the promotion of healthy ageing has been inconsistent, and is constrained by challenges in the inter‐connected areas of operationalisation, partnerships, resourcing, volunteer support and engagement. These challenges are outlined below, and potential remediation strategies are offered.

6.1. Operationalisation and measurability

Local AFC goals and actions are not readily operationalisable or measurable in a manner that would allow for an objective assessment of success in the promotion of healthy ageing. In Auckland and New Plymouth, for instance, AFC‐related actions are framed without key performance indicators (KPIs). There is limited data from within New Zealand AFCs concerning the numbers of older adults and communities impacted by AFC initiatives, the levels of funding committed to AFC projects, and timeframes relating to project development and completion.

This issue is exacerbated by inconsistencies in the implementation of baseline assessments as part of the AFC process. For example, the municipalities of Hamilton, New Plymouth, and Wairarapa have formally committed to the WHO global AFC network but have undertaken no baseline evaluations to capture the health and social status of their ageing populations. Instead, these municipalities have moved directly into the strategy and action planning phases. Considering the cost and complexity of undertaking valid and reliable baseline assessments across large urban areas, it would be desirable to leverage existing health, hospital, and community data as a proxy measure. For example, the number of hospital transfers from aged postcodes, fall‐related admissions, length of hospital stay, and self‐reported physical activity are routinely collected by local and national agencies, which could be folded into baseline and follow‐up assessments of AFCs. ²³ Moreover, the utilisation of sub‐national census information relating to well‐being indicators (i.e. Statistics New Zealand's life satisfaction and mental health questions based on WHO measures) ²⁴ could also provide helpful baseline information to allow setting and evaluating KPIs. Beyond existing data streams, an increasing number of dedicated tools have also been developed by researchers to quantify progress towards AFC objectives, including the Age‐Friendly Cities and Communities Questionnaire (AFCCQ) ²⁵ and Older People's External Residential Assessment Tool (OPERAT), ²⁶ which provide additional utility for policymakers and researchers.

6.2. Implementation partnerships

The implementation of AFC policies at a sub‐national level requires leadership and substantive contributions from implementation partners. These partners are often charitable and faith‐based organisations with limited human and financial resources. In ceding responsibility for the achievement of AFC objectives to these entities, municipal progress reporting may capture the health and social support system status quo, rather than innovative AFC‐related initiatives. For example, the New Plymouth District Council has reported offering fall prevention programs through Safe Communities New Zealand as evidence of progress towards health‐related AFC objectives. ²¹ However, such programs have been in place since at least the Year 2000 and arguably do not represent substantially new innovations or increased service levels. To better ascertain AFC development and innovation, more detailed reporting is needed from local government to highlight the following: (a) specific financial contributions from city and district councils to implementation partners for the purposes of supporting new AFC‐related projects; (b) formal service and collaboration agreements regarding AFC policies or interventions, outlining key deliverables and KPIs, between local government and implementation agencies; and (c) evidence that reported AFC outcomes are the direct result of new funding and service agreements initiated in support of AFC network developments rather than a continuation of partners' existing work.

6.3. Sustainable resourcing

Identified as a key constraint to AFC development during the early AFC engagement period and prior to COVID‐19 by Neville et al., ¹⁶ a lack of sustainable funding commitments for AFC‐related programs remains an enduring and acknowledged concern within New Zealand municipalities in 2025. ²² None of the action planning or evaluation documents produced by New Zealand AFCs include specific funding commitments or details on expenditure for the fulfilment of AFC‐related projects, interventions, or partnerships. This may have implications for the scale and type of AFC interventions that are endorsed by local decision‐makers. For example, improvements to pedestrian infrastructure and the provision of supportive amenities, such as sheltered walkways and public toilets, may be viewed as cost prohibitive when compared to smaller‐scale and time‐limited initiatives (i.e. one‐off events or scoping studies). To address perceived costs, AFC developments should be viewed as a cross‐cutting and holistic policy, and there should be closer integration across infrastructure, open space, transport, and social planning. ²⁷ Moreover, AFC principles should be included in overarching urban development strategies and contractual agreements between land use regulators and private developers (i.e. development contributions and infrastructure agreements), which have been identified as an area of threat in the international literature. ²⁸ While age‐friendly should be viewed as an overarching design ethos, risks should be acknowledged. For example, within local government reporting on AFC progress, outcomes may be co‐opted from existing policy and public works with no net increase in AFC resources or expenditure. Improved reporting of KPIs, as noted earlier, would support accountability and transparency in this area.

6.4. Support for community stakeholders

The WHO envisions the AFC process as a collaborative engagement between community stakeholders and local decision‐makers and mandates older‐adult participation as part of AFC network applications, ²⁹ although such partnerships must include community capacity building and enduring support. Local volunteers and community advocates play key roles in supporting baseline assessment and evaluation of AFC implementation and making submissions for policy and infrastructure changes on behalf of older community members. For example, a participatory research approach known as community walking audits is often used by volunteer advocates to evaluate walkability, accessibility and safety of neighbourhood environments as part of AFC evaluations. ³⁰ Such community‐led assessments have been critical in many regions for highlighting issues around environmental and social equity, barriers to resource access, and AFC intervention efficacy. ³¹ , ³² Modest funding is available from the Office for Seniors to support AFC projects (in the range of NZD5,000–15,000 per application), including community audits, although these funds are contestable and term‐limited. ¹⁸ Time, financial, and personal challenges may restrict volunteers' commitment to long‐term community change projects. ²² Such pressures are evident in Christchurch (the largest city in the South Island) where a single age‐friendly advocate has been contracted by a local community board in the south‐east of the city to support a dedicated group of age‐friendly volunteers. By mid‐2025, however, funding for this advocate role will end and the ageing volunteer group will face renewed challenges due to declining numbers and health circumstances. The failure to retain AFC champions, both paid and unpaid, at the community level is a risk for the sustainability of neighbourhood‐level programs and advocacy work, which may lead to the stalling or regression of important projects or the loss of valued contextual knowledge and mentoring capabilities. More work is needed by local authorities and the central government to fund AFC advocates and support community volunteers who are, in turn, supporting age‐friendly initiatives at the neighbourhood level. Even in cities with younger demographic profiles, many neighbourhoods have already become super‐aged, with more than 20% of the resident population aged 65 years or older. These neighbourhoods stand to lose the most when volunteers and community advocates are lost.

6.5. Broadening and valuing AFC engagement

Several of New Zealand's larger cities have failed to engage with the local and global AFC networks. Christchurch, Wellington, Lower Hutt and Dunedin represent over 880,000 New Zealanders and have had minimal engagement with the local or international AFC networks. ³³ Christchurch, for example, has the oldest population structure of New Zealand's major cities (16% of the resident population of 415,000 is aged 65 years or older) and is undergoing a long‐term process of rebuilding following a devastating sequence of earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. ³⁰ , ³³ Despite a once‐in‐a‐generation opportunity to embed age‐friendly design throughout city redevelopment, the Christchurch City Council has had minimal engagement with either the local or international AFC networks. As previously outlined, the only engagement to date has included fixed‐term funding for an AFC community facilitator in one local ward. This situation has arguably been affected by competing design standards that have added complexity to the urban rebuild. For example, the promotion of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and its integration in many aspects of the Christchurch rebuild ³⁴ is arguably misaligned with more inclusive urban design approaches, including age‐friendly and barrier‐free initiatives. The focus of CPTED on target hardening, privatisation of liminal spaces, access restriction, and physical barriers to entry contrasts markedly with obstruction‐free design, open access, flexible use, comfort, and aesthetics that are often prioritised in age‐friendly environments and preferred by older community members. ³⁵ Work is needed to promote and integrate age‐friendly principles in the long‐term Christchurch rebuild and to find mechanisms that promote both safety from crime and healthy ageing. For example, fostering community presence rather than hostile architecture and camera surveillance, or the use of well‐lit and accessible pathways instead of restrictive fencing or hard borders between public and private space.

7. CONCLUSIONS

With relatively small populations, modern systems of urban planning, embedded community consultation protocols, and enduring public works and infrastructure budgets, New Zealand's cities are well‐placed to embrace AFC network participation and innovative age‐friendly policies. Despite incremental increases in the number of cities engaging with the local and international networks, challenges remain in translating AFC commitments into measurable and impactful outcomes at a sub‐national level. The limited number of AFC member cities and districts, lack of consistent and quantifiable baseline assessments, and reliance on implementation partners underscores the need for a more structured and sustainable approach to AFC policy and practice in New Zealand. Age‐friendly principles must be transparently and meaningfully integrated within broader urban planning and infrastructure policies, ensuring that support for healthy ageing is embedded across a range of social and environmental domains. Cities and districts should establish dedicated funding streams and clear accountability mechanisms to prevent perceptions of grey washing, where existing public works or implementation partner operations are repackaged as age‐friendly innovations without substantive new investment, innovative policy, or enduring community partnerships.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

No conflicts of interest declared.

Annear M, Hyde C. Taking stock of Age‐Friendly Cities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Progress, pitfalls and pathways towards healthy ageing. Australas J Ageing. 2025;44:e70058. doi: 10.1111/ajag.70058

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Office for Seniors website at https://www.officeforseniors.govt.nz/.