1 June 2026

How the World Is Learning to Age: Four Lessons from a Global Age-Friendly Study

The world is ageing. Rapidly, unevenly, and often unprepared.

In 1950, there were about 205 million people aged 60 and above worldwide. Today, that number is over 1 billion. By 2050, it will double again. Yet while the demographic shift is global, the experience of ageing is anything but uniform. In some countries, longer lives have translated into extended years of health, independence, and participation. In others, longevity has come with isolation, insecurity, and prolonged illness.

The difference, as a growing body of research shows, is not simply wealth or healthcare spending. It is how societies understand, design for, and govern ageing.

A comprehensive global study published in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health brings this distinction into sharp focus. Drawing on age-friendly initiatives across countries and regions, the paper does not ask how long people live, but a more consequential question: how well are societies adapting to the realities of older age?

Rather than treating population ageing as a problem to be managed, the study approaches it as a design challenge, one that cuts across perception, governance, inclusion, and long-term planning. From this comparative lens, four core lessons emerge. Together, they offer a powerful framework for rethinking what ageing well can look like, not just in high-income nations, but everywhere.

A Global Shift with Uneven Outcomes

One of the most striking insights from the study is that ageing is no longer confined to a small group of wealthy nations. While countries like Japan, Italy, and Germany are already deeply aged, large middle-income countries—India, China, Brazil, Mexico—are ageing at a much faster pace, often with far fewer institutional supports in place.

This matters because the pace of ageing leaves little time for trial and error. Societies that fail to adapt early risk locking in patterns of exclusion, inequality, and strain that become much harder to reverse later.

The study situates age-friendly initiatives as a response to this challenge. These initiatives, often led at the city or community level, aim to reshape environments so that older adults can remain healthy, engaged, and autonomous for as long as possible. Importantly, the research shows that their success depends less on any single policy and more on four interrelated priorities.

Four main learnings drawn from this study: (1) changing the perception of older age; (2) involving key actors in age-friendly efforts; (3) responding to the (diverse) needs of older people; and (4) improving the planning and delivery of age-friendly programs.

1. Changing the Perception of Older Age

One of the study’s clearest findings is that ageism remains a foundational barrier to healthy ageing.

Across countries, older age is frequently framed through the lens of decline: declining health, declining productivity, declining relevance. These assumptions quietly shape policy priorities, funding decisions, and even the ambition of age-friendly programs themselves.

Several cities in the study recognised that without first changing how ageing is perceived, structural reforms would have limited impact. Representatives from Akita, Japan, for example, emphasised the need to “create a society where people consider the 100-year life as a positive opportunity.” In Dijon, France, local leaders spoke about reminding residents that “living longer lives is a chance.” Manchester explicitly sought to “change the narrative to one that celebrates the valuable role and contribution of older people.”

Portland, in the United States, made this philosophy explicit through its communications, adopting the slogan “nothing about them, without them” to signal that older adults were central actors in shaping the city’s age-friendly agenda, and not just passive recipients of care.

Importantly, the study shows that perception change is not abstract. Representatives from Loncoche noted that the “perception of older age was changing” locally, while Guadalajara reported that local actors had become “more aware of the issues surrounding ageing.” Ottawa observed that its age-friendly work had “increased awareness of older people’s needs and realities.”

Yet progress remains fragile. Across contexts, respondents described ageism and even a lack of basic interest in ageing issues as a persistent obstacle. Dijon’s representatives went so far as to describe ageism as a “blockage” and “the principal obstacle the city had to face.”

The study’s message is unmistakable: how societies think about ageing determines what they are willing to build for it.

2. Involving Key Actors in Age-Friendly Efforts

The second major lesson is that age-friendly systems cannot be built by governments alone.

Cities that succeeded did so by mobilising a broad coalition of actors: local authorities, civil society, universities, businesses, and older people themselves. Ageing, the study shows, cuts across housing, transport, health, culture, employment, and urban design. No single institution can address it in isolation.

Akita and Melville stand out for their success in engaging the private sector. In Akita, 88 businesses had formally registered as “Age-Friendly Partners,” committing to practices that supported older customers, workers, and residents. This level of business engagement helped embed ageing considerations into everyday economic life rather than confining them to social policy.

Other cities leaned heavily on academic partnerships. Guadalajara, Manchester, Ottawa, and Portland all worked closely with universities and researchers throughout program development. In Portland, Portland State University played a particularly influential role, assuming coordination and leadership responsibilities and helping to anchor age-friendly work in evidence and evaluation.

The study makes clear that age-friendly success depends on shared ownership, and on treating older adults not as a sector, but as a constituency embedded across society.

3. Responding to the (Diverse) Needs of Older People

A third, critical insight is that older people are not a homogeneous group.

Differences in health, income, gender, culture, and life experience widen with age, yet many policies continue to assume a single “older population.” The study shows that such assumptions often result in programs that serve the healthiest and most advantaged, while leaving others behind.

Manchester’s response was to embed diversity into cultural life. Its Age-Friendly Manchester Culture Programme brought together 19 cultural organisations such as museums, theatres, orchestras, with the explicit goal of making arts and culture more accessible to older people. A flagship initiative, the Culture Champions scheme, involved more than 150 older volunteers who acted as cultural ambassadors in their communities, reinforcing participation rather than passive consumption.

Guadalajara focused on health promotion through a program called “Taking Control of Your Health,” designed to encourage healthier eating, physical activity, and cognitive wellbeing among older residents. The initiative set an ambitious target of reaching 2,400 people by the end of 2018, recognising that prevention and empowerment must continue well into later life.

Across cities, improving the built environment also emerged as a priority. Since joining the Global Network for Age-friendly Cities and Communities, many municipalities installed more seating, benches, and lighting in public spaces, upgraded pavements, and improved transport infrastructure to support mobility and safety. These changes, while modest in isolation, significantly affect daily independence.

The study underscores a crucial point: age-friendly design succeeds when it reflects the unequal realities of ageing, not an idealised average older person.

4. Improving the Planning and Delivery of Age-Friendly Programs

The final lesson is about execution.

Many age-friendly initiatives, the study notes, falter not because of poor intent, but because of weak planning, short-term funding, and insufficient evaluation. In response, successful cities prioritised data, consultation, and long-term institutional integration.

Melville, for instance, emphasised the importance of baseline assessments to understand “what communities need and want.” Hong Kong conducted focus groups with 96 participants representing a wide range of stakeholders to guide program development. Brussels participated in the Belgian Ageing Studies to systematically collect data on older residents’ needs and use it to inform decision-making.

Ottawa’s approach to consultation was especially comprehensive. The city held 24 public sessions to inform its first age-friendly action plan. Nine sessions targeted the general older population across urban and rural areas, while 15 focused on groups with specific needs, including Indigenous elders, caregivers, isolated older adults, and LGBTQ+ communities.

Portland offers a powerful example of long-term thinking. Its age-friendly work was deliberately designed to influence future policy, resulting in age-friendly principles being incorporated into the city’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan, which came into effect in 2018. As program representatives explained, the goal was “to create sustainable, long-term change that will benefit both current and future generations.”

The study’s conclusion here is clear: age-friendly policy is not a project, but rather a process.

What This Means for India

Taken together, these four lessons carry particular significance for India.

India is ageing later than many Western countries, but far faster. By 2050, nearly one in five Indians will be over the age of 60. Yet the country enters this transition with a paradoxical mix of strengths and vulnerabilities.

On one hand, India has deep cultural traditions that value older age, intergenerational living, and continuity of purpose. Family networks, community life, and spiritual practices have long played a role in supporting older adults. In many ways, India already embodies some of the social foundations the study identifies as protective.

On the other hand, rapid urbanisation, shrinking families, informal employment, and uneven access to healthcare are eroding these supports. Without deliberate planning, India risks reproducing the very patterns of isolation and insecurity that other countries are now struggling to undo.

The study’s findings suggest that India’s challenge is not to invent a model of ageing from scratch, but to align its cultural assets with modern systems—to rethink how it perceives older age, who it involves in decision-making, how it recognises diversity, and whether it builds durable institutions rather than short-term fixes.

Ageing, as this global research makes clear, is not a future crisis waiting to happen. It is a present reality shaped by choices made decades earlier. Countries that recognise this early have the opportunity not just to add years to life, but life to years.