Evaluates cultural influence on community attributes in aging populations, suggesting resilience factors for urban planners.
As global urban centers transition into “Super-Aged Societies,” the paradigm of urban sustainability has shifted from mere housing provision to the development of Sustainable Care Retirement Communities (SCRCs). This study addresses a critical gap in the urban aging literature: the lack of culturally sensitive frameworks for social resilience in non-Western contexts. By integrating Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, this research investigates how national culture influences the prioritization of community attributes within the “15 min city” framework. Methodologically, a hierarchical evaluation framework comprising 4 dimensions and 26 indicators was established. It employed the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) to achieve expert consensus among stakeholders in Taiwan’s Long-term Care 3.0 ecosystem. Analysis using Double Triangular Fuzzy Numbers identified the “Charging Model,” “Staff-to-Resident Ratio,” and “Zoning with Care Continuity” as the highest-priority factors (Gi ≥ 7.8). These results indicate that in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, institutional financial stability and human-centric staffing are perceived as the structural bedrock of social resilience. Furthermore, the study highlights the emergence of AI-driven “Active Sensing” environments as a pivotal component of technical resilience, mitigating the loneliness epidemic while maintaining institutional efficiency. The findings suggest that social resilience in SCRCs is not merely a product of physical accessibility but is theoretically inferred by experts to be deeply rooted in the synergy of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital, rather than being a directly measured outcome. This research provides urban planners and policy-makers with a robust, evidence-based toolkit to design inclusive, resilient, and culturally aligned aging-in-place environments in the face of unprecedented demographic challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: