1. Van Hoof, J.; Kazak, J.K. Urban ageing. Indoor Built Environ. 2018, 27, 583–586. [CrossRef]
2. Plouffe, L.; Kalache, A. Towards global age-friendly cities: Determining urban features that promote active aging. J. Urban Heal. 2010, 87, 733–739. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations. Cities 2016, 55, 94–100. [CrossRef].
4. Phillips, D.R.; Feng, Z. Global ageing. In Geographical Gerontology. Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches; Skinner,M.W., Andrews, G.J., Cutchin,M.P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 93–109. ISBN9781138241152.
5. OECD. Ageing in Cities; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015; ISBN 9789264231146.
6. Zaidi, A.; Gasior, K.; Hofmarcher, M.M.; Lelkes, O.; Marin, B.; Rodrigues, R.; Schmidt, A.; Vanhuysse, P.; Zolyomi, E.; Active Ageing Index 2012. Concept, Methodology, and Final Results—Wikiprogress.

Available online: http://wikiprogress.org/articles/initiatives/active-ageing-index-2012-concept-methodologyand- final-results/ (accessed on 19 July 2018).

7. Alley, D.; Liebig, P.; Pynoos, J.; Banerjee, T.; Choi, I.H. Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparations for an aging society. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2007, 49, 1–2. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Lui, C.-W.; Everingham, J.-A.; Warburton, J.; Cuthill, M.; Bartlett, H. What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australas. J. Ageing 2009, 28, 116–121. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Steels, S. Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities 2015, 47, 45–52. [CrossRef]
10. Moulaert, T.; Garon, S. (Eds.) Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 3319240315.
11. Scharlach, A.E. Age-friendly cities: For whom? By whom? For what purpose. In Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues; Moulaert, T., Garon, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 305–329. ISBN 3319240315.
12. Age Platform Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. Available online: http://www.age-platform.eu/ (accessed on 1 October 2018).
13. Hoff, A. (Ed.) Population Ageing in Central and Eastern Europe: Societal and Policy Implications; Ashgate Publishing: Farnham, UK, 2011; ISBN9780754678281.
14. Ruzik-Sierdzi ´ nska, A.; Perek-Białas, J.; Turek, K. Did transition to market economy and the EU membership have an impact on active ageing policy in Poland. In The Making of Aging Policy: Theory and Practice in Europe; Ervik, R., Skogedal Lindén, T., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; ISBN 9781781952481.
15. De Bruin, S.; de Boer, B.; Beerens,H.; Buist, Y.; Verbeek,H. Rethinking dementia care: The value of green care farming. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017, 18, 200–203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Adams, J.; Verbeek, H.; Zwakhalen, S.M.G. The impact of organizational innovations in nursing homes on staff perceptions: A secondary data analysis. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2017, 49, 54–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Beerens, H.C.; de Boer, B.; Zwakhalen, S.M.G.; Tan, F.E.S.; Ruwaard, D.; Hamers, J.P.H.; Verbeek, H.The association between aspects of daily life and quality of life of people with dementia living in long-term care facilities: A momentary assessment study. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2016, 28, 1323–1331. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Kazak, J.; van Hoof, J.; S´wia˛der, M.; Szewran´ ski, S. Real estate for the ageing society—The perspective of a new market. Real Estate Manag. Valuat. 2017, 25, 13–24. [CrossRef]
19. Van Hoof, J.; Boerenfijn, P. Re-inventing existing real estate of social housing for older people: Building a new De Benring in Voorst, The Netherlands. Buildings 2018, 8, 89. [CrossRef]
20. Rosenbers, M.W.;Wilson, K. Population geographies of older people. In Geographical Gerontology. Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches; Skinner, M.W., Andrews, G.J., Cutchin, M.P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018;
21. 56–67. ISBN 9781138241152.
22. Golant, S.M. Aging in the Right Place;HPP—Health Professions Press: Baltimore,MD, USA, 2015; ISBN1938870360.
23. Smedley, T. Are Urban Environments Best for an Ageing Population? Available online: https://www.theguardian. com/sustainable-business/blog/urban-environments-ageing-population-design (accessed on 1 October 2018).
24. Skinner, M.W.; Winterton, R. Rural ageing. In Geographical Gerontology. Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches; Skinner, M.W., Andrews, G.J., Cutchin, M.P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 136–148.

ISBN 9781138241152.

24. Easterlin, R.A.; Angelescu, L.; Zweig, J.S. The impact of modern economic growth on urban–rural differences in subjective well-being. World Dev. 2011, 39, 2187–2198. [CrossRef]
25. Sørensen, J.F.L. Rural-urban differences in life satisfaction: Evidence from the European Union. Reg. Stud. 2014, 48, 1451–1466. [CrossRef]
26. Berry, B.J.L.; Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. An Urban-RuralHappiness Gradient. Urban Geogr. 2011, 32, 871–883. [CrossRef]
27. Kazak, J.; Pilawka, T. Living conditions and migration in suburban area ofWrocław. J. Agribus. Rural Dev.2013, 30, 71–81.
28. Kajdanek, K. Newcomers vs. Old-Timers? Community, cooperation and conflict in the Post-Socialist suburbs ofWrocław, Poland. In Mobilities and Neighbourhood Belonging in Cities and Suburbs;Watt, P., Smets, P., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2014; pp. 182–199. ISBN 9781137003638.
29. Perek-Białas, J.; Zwierzchowski, J.; Antczak, R.; Panek, T. Criteria Specific Analysis of the Active Ageing Index at the National Level in Poland: 2007–2015; UNECE: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
30. Phillips, J.E. Planning and design of ageing communities. In Geographical Gerontology. Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches; Skinner, M.W., Andrews, G.J., Cutchin, M.P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 68–79. ISBN 9781138241152.
31. Walker, A. Population Ageing. In Age-Friendly Cities and Communities in International Comparison: Political Lessons, Scientific Avenues, and Democratic Issues; Moulaert, T., Garon, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 47–64. ISBN 3319240315.
32. Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. Urban ageing: New agendas for geographical gerontology. In Geographical Gerontology: Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches; Skinner, M.W., Andrews, G.J., Cutchin, M.P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 123–135. ISBN 9781138241152.
33. Simpson, D. Young-Old: Urban Utopias of an Aging Society; Lars Müller Publishers: Zürich, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 97830377835043037783508.
34. Caro, F.G.; Fitzgerald, K.G. (Eds.) International Perspectives on Age-Friendly Cities; Routledge: NewYork, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN9780415720717.
35. Mustaquim, M.M. A study of universal design in everyday life of elderly adults. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 67, 57–66. [CrossRef]
36. Lovell, S.A. Ageing communities. In Geographical Gerontology. Perspectives, Concepts, Approaches; Skinner, M.W., Andrews, G.J., Cutchin,M.P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 149–161.
37. Buffel, T.; McGarry, P.; Phillipson, C.; De Donder, L.; Dury, S.; De Witte, N.; Smetcoren, A.-S.; Verté, D. Developing age-friendly cities: Case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2014, 26, 52–72. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Fitzgerald, K.G.; Caro, F.G. An overviewof age-friendly cities and communities around theworld. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2014, 26, 1–18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Kendig, H.; Elias, A.-M.; Matwijiw, P.; Anstey, K. Developing age-friendly cities and communities in Australia. J. Aging Health 2014, 26, 1390–1414. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Menec, V.H.; Means, R.; Keating, N.; Parkhurst, G.; Eales, J. Conceptualizing age-friendly communities. Can. J. Aging/La Rev. Can. du Vieil. 2011, 30, 479–493. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Scharlach, A. Creating aging-friendly communities in the United States. Ageing Int. 2012, 37, 25–38. [CrossRef]
42. Scharlach, A.E.; Lehning, A.J. Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing Soc. 2013, 33, 110–136. [CrossRef]
43. Chief Secretary for Administration’s Office. Active and Healthy Ageing in Hong Kong; Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government: Hong Kong, China, 2017.
44. Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. A manifesto for the age-friendly movement: Developing a new urban agenda. J. Aging Soc. Policy 2018, 30, 173–192. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. WorldHealth Organization. Global Age-Friendly Cities: A Guide;WorldHealth Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; ISBN9789241547307.
46. Lawton, M.P.; Nahemow, L. Ecology and the aging process. In The Psychology of Adult Development and Aging; Eisdorfer, L., Lawton,M.P., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1973; pp. 619–674.
47. Wang, Y.; Gonzales, E.; Morrow-Howell, N. Applying WHO’s age-friendly communities framework to a national survey in China. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2017, 60, 215–231. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Martínez, C.;Weyman, T.; van Dijk, J. (Eds.) Demographic Transition, Labour Markets and Regional Resilience; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; ISBN 9783319631974.
49. Martínez-Fernandez, C.; Audirac, I.; Fol, S.; Cunningham-Sabot, E. Shrinking cities: Urban challenges of globalization. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2012, 36, 213–225. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. OECD. Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators; OECD: Paris, France, 2013; ISBN 9789264200715.
51. Sánchez Gassen, N. Population growth and ageing—Past, present and future trends. In State of the Nordic Region; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018; ISBN 9789289352819. Available online: https://www.nordic-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/state-of-the-nordicregion- 2018_nord2018-001 (accessed on 1 October 2018).
52. Onolemhemhen, D.N. Meeting the challenges of urban aging: Narratives of poor elderly women of Detroit, Michigan. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work 2009, 52, 729–743. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
53. Martin, B.; Zaidi, A. (Eds.)Mainstreaming Ageing: Indicators toMonitor Sustainable Policies; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; ISBN978-0-7546-7361-3.
54. Van Hoof, J.; Verbeek, H.; Janssen, B.M.; Eijkelenboom, A.; Molony, S.L.; Felix, E.; Nieboer, K.A.; Zwerts-Verhelst, E.L.M.; Sijstermans, J.J.W.M.; Wouters, E.J.M. A three perspective study of the sense of home of nursing home residents: the views of residents, care professionals and relatives. BMC Geriatr.2016, 16, 169. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Rijnaard, M.D.; van Hoof, J.; Janssen, B.M.; Verbeek, H.; Pocornie, W.; Eijkelenboom, A.; Beerens, H.C.; Molony, S.L.; Wouters, E.J.M. The factors influencing the sense of home in nursing homes: A systematic review from the perspective of residents. J. Aging Res. 2016, 2016, 6143645. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Buffel, T. Ageing migrants and the creation of home: Mobility and the maintenance of transnational ties. Popul. Space Place 2017, 23, e1994. [CrossRef] 57. Rémillard-Boilard, S.; Buffel, T.; Phillipson, C. Involving older residents in age-friendly developments: from information to coproduction mechanisms. J. Hous. Elderly 2017, 31, 146–159. [CrossRef]
57. S´wia˛der, M.; Szewran´ ski, S.; Kazak, J. Spatial-temporal diversification of poverty in Wroclaw. Procedia Eng. 2016, 161, 1596–1600. [CrossRef]
58. S´wia˛der, M.; Szewran´ ski, S.; Kazak, J. Poverty Risk Index as A New Methodology for Social Inequality Distribution Assessment. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 072021. [CrossRef]
59. Ayalon, L.; Tesch-Römer, C. (Eds.) Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism. International Perspectives on Aging; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; ISBN 9783319738208.
60. Szewran´ ski, S.; S´wia˛der, M.; Kazak, J.K.; Tokarczyk-Dorociak, K.; van Hoof, J. Socio-environmental vulnerability mapping for environmental and flood resilience assessment: The case of ageing and poverty in the city ofWrocław, Poland. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2018, 14, 592–597. [CrossRef]
61. Van Hoof, J.; Kort, H.S.M.; van Waarde, H.; Blom, M.M. Environmental interventions and the design of homes for older adults with dementia: An overview. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other Dement. 2010, 25, 202–232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Hall, C.M.; Ram, Y. Walk score® and its potential contribution to the study of active transport and walkability: A critical and systematic review. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 310–324. [CrossRef]
63. Weiss, R.L.; Maantay, J.A.; Fahs, M. Promoting active urban aging: A measurement approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults. Cities Environ. 2010, 3, 12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Bogen, B.; Moe-Nilssen, R.; Ranhoff, A.H.; Aaslund, M.K. The walk ratio: Investigation of invariance across walking conditions and gender in community-dwelling older people. Gait Posture 2018, 61, 479–482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Zhao, Y.; Chung, P.-K. Neighborhood environment walkability and health-related quality of life among older adults in Hong Kong. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2017, 73, 182–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Calvert, J.F.; Kaye, J.; Leahy, M.; Hexem, K.; Carlson, N. Technology use by rural and urban oldest old. Technol. Health Care 2009, 17, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Righi, V.; Sayago, S.; Blat, J. Urban ageing: Technology, agency and community in smarter cities for older people. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologie, Limerick, Ireland, 27–30 June 2015; pp. 119–128. [CrossRef]
68. Cocchia, A. Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart City: How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in Urban Space; Dameri, R.P., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 13–43.
69. Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; achowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012, 214, 481–518. [CrossRef]
70. Klimczuk, A.; Tomczyk, Ł. Smart, Age-Friendly Cities and Communities: The Emergence of Socio-Technological Solutions in the Central and Eastern Europe. In Active and Assisted Living: Technologies and Applications; Flórez-Revuelta, F., Chaaraoui, A.A., Eds.; The Institution of Engineering and Technology: London, UK, 2016; pp. 225–259. ISBN 9781849199872.
71. Lemlouma, T.; Laborie, S.; Roose, P. Toward a context-aware and automatic evaluation of elderly dependency in smart homes and cities. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 14th International Symposiumon “AWorld ofWireless, Mobile andMultimediaNetworks” (WoWMoM),Madrid, Spain, 4–7 June 2013; pp. 1–18. [CrossRef].
72. Batista, E.; Casino, F.; Solanas, A.Wandering detection methods in smart cities: Current and new approaches. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Guadalajara, Mexico, 25–28 October 2015. [CrossRef]
73. Pierce, P.; Andersson, B. Challenges with smart cities initiatives—A municipal decision makers’ perspective.

In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.: Piscataway, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 2804–2813.

75. Mitzner, T.L.; Boron, J.B.; Fausset, C.B.; Adams, A.E.; Charness, N.; Czaja, S.J.; Dijkstra, K.; Fisk, A.D.; Rogers, W.A.; Sharit, J. Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 1710–1721. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Sixsmith, A.; Sixsmith, J. Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing Int. 2008, 32, 219–235. [CrossRef]
77. Wilson, C.; Hargreaves, T.; Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. Smart homes and their users: A systematic analysis and key challenges. Pers. Ubiq. Comp. 2015, 19, 463–476. [CrossRef]
78. Balta-Ozkan,N.; Davidson, R.; Bicket,M.;Whitmarsh, L. The development of smart homesmarket in the UK. Energy 2013, 60, 361–372. [CrossRef]
79. Peek, S.T.M.; Luijkx, K.G.; Rijnaard, M.D.; Nieboer, M.E.; van der Voort, C.S.; Aarts, S.; van Hoof, J.; Vrijhoef, H.J.M.; Wouters, E.J.M. Older adults’ reasons for using technology while aging in place. Gerontology 2016, 62, 226–237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Gunter, B. Understanding the Older Consumer: The GreyMarket; Routledge: London, UK, 1998; ISBN0415186447.
81. Yoon, C.; Skurnik, I.; Carpenter, M. Aging and consumption. In The Routledge Companion to Identity and Consumption; Belk, R.W., Ruvio, A.A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 187–194. ISBN 9780415783064.
82. Moschis, G.P. Consumer behavior in later life: Current knowledge, issues, and new directions for research. Psychol. Mark. 2012, 29, 57–75. [CrossRef]
83. Peek, S.T.M.; Luijkx, K.G.; Vrijhoef, H.J.M.; Nieboer, M.E.; Aarts, S.; van der Voort, C.S.; Rijnaard, M.D.; Wouters, E.J.M. Origins and consequences of technology acquirement by independent-living seniors: Towards an integrative model. BMC Geriatr. 2017, 17, 189. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Ahn, M.; Beamish, J.O.; Goss, R.C. Understanding older adults’ attitudes and adoption of residential technologies. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2008, 36, 243–260. [CrossRef]
85. Chen, K.; Chan, A.H.-S. Use or non-use of gerontechnology—A qualitative study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 4645–4666. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
86. Lee, C.; Coughlin, J.F. PERSPECTIVE: Older adults’ adoption of technology: An integrated approach to identifying determinants and barriers. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2015, 32, 747–759. [CrossRef]
87. Peek, S.T.M.;Wouters, E.J.M.; van Hoof, J.; Luijkx, K.G.; Boeije, H.R.; Vrijhoef, H.J.M. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: A systematic review. Int. J.Med. Inform. 2014, 83, 235–248. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Greenhalgh, T.; Shaw, S.; Wherton, J.; Hughes, G.; Lynch, J.; A’Court, C.; Hinder, S.; Fahy, N.; Byrne, E.; Finlayson, A.; et al. SCALS: A fourth-generation study of assisted living technologies in their organisational, social, political and policy context. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010208. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
89. Fozard, J.L.; Wahl, H.-W. Role of cohort effects and technology generations in gerontechnology. Gerontechnology 2012, 11, 105–109. [CrossRef]
90. Lim, C.S.C. Designing inclusive ICT products for older users: Taking into account the technology generation effect. J. Eng. Des. 2010, 21, 189–206. [CrossRef]
91. Haufe, M.; Peek, S.T.M.; Luijkx, K.G. Matching assistive technology to independent-living seniors’ individual needs: Challenges and opportunities. Gerontechnology 2018, 17, 142s. [CrossRef]
92. Gemeente Den Haag. Den Haag, Seniorvriendelijke Stad 2015–2018 Actieprogramma Haags Ouderenbeleid; Gemeente Den Haag: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2015.
93. Cracow City Council. Resolution No. VIII/112/15 Cracow City Council of 4 March 2015 Regarding the Adoption of the Social Activity and Integration Program for Older People for the years 2015–2020; Cracow City Council: Cracow, Poland, 2015.
94. Kraków dla seniora. Available online: https://dlaseniora.krakow.pl/ (accessed on 1 October 2018).
95. Van den Bergen, C.; Noyon, L.; Booij, J.; Meerstadt, B.; Bilkes, R.; de Vries, E.; Beeldman, E.; van Doesburg, N.; van Vliet, J.; Duimel, M. Den Haag eniorvriendelijke stad. Toen en nu; Stichting GetOud:The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017.
96. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Welcome to Age-FriendlyWorld-Age-FriendlyWorld; WorldHealthOrganization: Geneva, Switzerland. InWelcome to Age-FriendlyWorld-Age-FriendlyWorld;WorldHealth Organization: Geneva, Switzerland; Available online: https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/ (accessed on 1 October 2018).
97. European Commission. Innovation Union. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/ strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-policy/innovation-union_en (accessed on 1 October 2018).
98. European Commission. Smart Cities. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-andurban- development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en (accessed on 1 October 2018).
99. García Lizana, F. European Innovation Partnership on active and healthy ageing.Med. Clin. (Barc) 2013, 140, 238–239. [CrossRef] [PubMed].