2 for the concept of aging in place as it suggests that individuals interact with multiple “levels” of environment in their day- to-day lives. Older people must not only interact with microenvironments such as their home and immediate family, but also with broader systems that can equally inﬂuence their ability to age in place. Another theoretical perspective that informs our discussion is that of person in environment [1]. This perspective, like ecological theory, acknowledges that the environment interacts with individu- als at multiple levels and suggests that the environment is not a static backdrop but rather continually changes. From the person-in-environment perspective, the older person must continually take from the environment what he or she needs, control what can be modiﬁed, and adapt to conditions that cannot be changed [1]. Also of relevance to this discussion is the theory of social inclusion/exclusion. In social gerontology, the theory of social inclusion/exclusion examines the role of older people and highlights the social costs when individuals, families, or communities are excluded from or become disengaged from larger society due to characteristics such as poverty, gender, ethnicity, or neighborhood [7]. Scharf and colleagues [8] conceptualize the inclusion and exclusion of older people as associated with three key themes: participation and integration (beyond the labor market), spatial segregation, and institutional disengagement. Of particular interest in our exploration of aging in place is the thematic area of participation and integration. Scharf et al. [8] posit that participation and integration not only include older people’s involvement in community life, but also are associated with their social capital, including civic participation, and the nature of social networks and mutuality/reciprocity. An elder-friendly community can support these concepts. In addition to several theoretical frameworks, the ﬁeld of environmental gerontology has speciﬁc relevance to the topic of aging in place. Wahl and Weisman [9] suggest that environmental gerontology’s (EG) theories and ﬁndings can and should inﬂuence the development of age-friendly communities. For example, EG is concerned with the role of neighborhoods and the inﬂuence those neighborhoods have on opportunities and constraints of residents [10]. At a more macrolevel, EG recognizes the community as a locus of aging with a sociophysical and policy perspective [11]. With regard to elder-friendly communities, we can draw upon the work of Lawton [12] who posited that the environ- ment has three major functions of maintenance, stimulation, and support [9]. Maintenance is concerned with the consistency and predictability of one’s environment, while stimulation is concerned with the eﬀect of stimuli on behav- ior. Finally, support is concerned with the environment’s potential to compensate for diminished or lost competencies [13]. 3. Elder-Friendly Communities In recent years, the concept of elder-friendly communities has become central to the notion of aging in place. Described in various ways, an elder-friendly community is a place where “people can live their entire lives, if they so desire, rather than Journal of Aging Research having to relocate and lose their social capital” [14, page 6]. An elder-friendly community examines the environment in more macro-level terms as places where older people are actively involved, valued, and supported by an infrastructure that accommodates their needs [15]. In what was perhaps the ﬁrst on-line conference focusing on elder-friendly com- munities, the Sierra Health Foundation suggested that elder- friendly communities are those communities in which age is not considered a barrier to improving lifelong interests and activities, where support and accommodations exist to meet the basic health and social needs of those with age-related disabilities, and where opportunities exist for older adults to develop new sources of fulﬁllment and engagement [16]. While the literature on elder-friendly communities is to a degree embryonic, several models have been developed in recent years. Among these models created in the United States, Canada, and Europe, the interrelatedness of social and structural factors is found to be consistently important. For example, Feldman and Oberlink’s [17] work on the Advan- tAge Initiative demonstrated that elder-friendly communities must address basic needs, optimize well-being, maximize independence, and promote civic engagement. The City of Calgary Elder-Friendly Community Project noted that feeling safe, being valued and respected, staying active, and building community were important elements of an elder- friendly community [18]. The World Health Organization (WHO) has established international guidelines for age- friendly communities that include the encouragement of active aging by optimizing opportunities for health, partic- ipation, and security in order to enhance people’s quality of life as they age [19]. According to the WHO, an age- friendly city adapts its structures and services to be accessible to, and inclusive of, older people with varying needs and capacities. While various models have emerged identifying aspects key to the concept of elder-friendliness, a consistent theme found in the literature is associated with social interaction or social connectedness. Scharlach [14] suggests that an elder- friendly community fosters both connection and contribution. An elder-friendly community will assist older adults to maintain social connectedness while deepening existing rela- tionships. Such a community will recognize the social capital of these relationships that in turn result in contribution. The concept of contribution recognizes the wisdom and experience of older citizens and sees them as more than clients, but rather as active contributors to community well-being [14]. Similarly, The Calgary Project identiﬁed as important the active participation of older people in their communities. This premise is consistent with the work of Rubinstein and colleagues [20] who found that the ability to actively manage one’s environment was a source of well- being for older adults. Similarly, the model of age-friendly communities developed by the WHO clearly recognizes that social participation and social support are strongly associated with overall well-being, allowing elders to exercise their com- petence and enjoy the respect and esteem of their community [19]. Alley and colleagues [15] remind us that a community’s respect for older adults, which includes available opportuni- ties, contributes signiﬁcantly to their quality of life.