Assessment of aging-friendly housing commonly separates accessibility, functional support, indoor environmental quality, and safety technology, making it difficult to examine how dwellings accommodate changing occupant and environmental conditions. This framework-development study introduces SAFER (Spatial, Adaptive, Functional, Environmental, Responsive), a five-dimensional resilience-oriented indicator system. A four-stage workflow combined a systematic review that retained 186 publications and yielded 312 candidate indicators, Gemini Pro-assisted first-pass screening, expert content-validity assessment, and a preliminary application to six dwellings. Eighteen resilience-framework indicators were added to the review-derived pool, and 43 multidisciplinary experts assessed indicator importance and content validity under research-team oversight. The resulting expert-reviewed framework contains 47 indicators. All 43 final AHP matrices satisfied the prespecified consistency criterion (CR ≤ 0.10) and were included in the group aggregation; the dimension-level AHP weights were Spatial (0.162), Adaptive (0.231), Functional (0.145), Environmental (0.264), and Responsive (0.198), with Environmental and Adaptive highest. A preliminary application to six purposively selected dwellings (n = 6) produced primary AHP-weighted scores from 42.8 to 80.9. Equal, case-derived entropy, and 0.5 AHP–entropy hybrid weighting were used only as secondary sensitivity analyses; the case ordering was unchanged under these alternatives, although the small, non-independent case set means that this sensitivity result does not establish external validity. SAFER should therefore be understood as an expert-reviewed framework with aggregate content-validity evidence and preliminary feasibility results, not as a fully validated assessment instrument. Larger independent samples, preserved assessor-level records, and cross-model LLM comparisons are required before normative thresholds or broad policy use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: